Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?
                                                       Calendar No. 154
105th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE

 1st Session                                                     105-73
_______________________________________________________________________


 
   AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, EXTENSION, AND EDUCATION REFORM ACT OF 1997

                                _______
                                

               September 5, 1997.--Ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


Mr. Lugar, from the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 1150]

    The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, 
having considered the bill to ensure that federally funded 
agricultural research, extension, and education address high-
priority concerns with national or multistate significance, to 
reform, extend, and eliminate certain agricultural research 
programs, and for other purposes, reports favorably thereon and 
recommends that the bill do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
  I. Purpose and summary..............................................1
 II. Background and need for the legislation..........................3
III. Legislative history and votes in committee.......................4
 IV. Explanation of the legislation and committee views...............7
  V. Cost estimate and regulatory impact statement...................24
 VI. Section-by-section analysis.....................................40
VII. Changes in existing law.........................................50
Appendix.........................................................    87

                         I. Purpose and Summary

    Specific agricultural research, extension and education 
programs were only authorized through September 30, 1997 in the 
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996.
    This legislation, the Agricultural Research, Extension and 
Education Reform Act of 1997, reauthorizes and reforms these 
programs. Among the major provisions:

                            1. new resources

    New mandatory funding of $780 million is provided over 5 
years ($100 million in 1998 and $170 million thereafter through 
2002) for research funding through the Initiative for Future 
Agriculture and Food Systems. This competitively awarded 
research funding would address critical emerging issues related 
to future food production, environmental protection, and farm 
income. Primary mission areas to be addressed with funding in 
the first year are food genome; food safety, food technology 
and human nutrition research; new and alternative uses and 
production of agricultural commodities and products; 
agricultural biotechnology; and natural resource management 
including precision agriculture. For subsequent years, the 
Advisory Board may recommend new or different priority mission 
areas. Priority would be given to grants that are multistate, 
multi-institutional, or multidisciplinary and grants that 
integrate agricultural research, extension and education.
    In addition, the current $100 million Fund for Rural 
America is extended through 2002 with $50 million for rural 
development, $33 million for research and $17 million for 
either at the discretion of the Secretary each year.

                2. collaboration and efficiency reforms

    At least 25% of federal research formula funding to land 
grant institutions would be devoted to multi institutional 
research that is multidisciplinary and addresses problems that 
concern more than one state. Increased collaboration between 
states for funding of Extension Service activities would be 
achieved by calling on states to double their current level or 
to spend 25% of federal Extension formula funds on multistate 
Extension activities that address problems that concern more 
than one state, whichever is less. Increased integration of 
research and extension at land grant institutions would be 
achieved by calling on the institution to double its current 
level or to spend 25% of the land grant institution's federal 
formula funds for research and extension on projects that 
integrate research and extension, whichever is less.
    New authority is provided for competitive grants for 
collaboration between scientists at ARS, land grant 
institutions or other colleges and universities and scientists 
at international agricultural research centers focusing on 
increasing production of food and fiber while safeguarding the 
environment.

                       3. accountability reforms

    Stakeholder input would be required when setting priorities 
for research, extension and education funding at the Department 
of Agriculture and at land grant institutions. All federal 
research, extension and education funding would be subject to 
scientific peer review or merit review. Cooperative State 
Research, Education and Extension Service competitively awarded 
funds for research, extension and education activities and 
Agricultural Research Service research activities must address 
priority concerns and be of national or multistate 
significance. All land grant colleges and universities are 
eligible for Extension Service Funding. Where Extension Service 
funding is competitive, all colleges and universities could 
compete. The National Academy of Sciences would review the role 
and mission of ARS and the broader role of federal funding for 
agricultural research.

                               4. offsets

    Offsets are obtained through reductions in the 
administrative costs associated with the Food Stamp program, 
reductions in information technology spending within the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, and reforms to rules for haying and 
grazing on Conservation Reserve Program lands. Some minor 
changes are made to augment nutrition programs.

              II. Background and Need for the Legislation

                               Background

    Agricultural research, extension and education is the 
foundation for the future success and viability of our nation's 
agricultural sector. Agricultural research has enhanced the 
productivity of our nation's farmers, improved their standard 
of living, and enhanced their competitiveness in world markets. 
Advances in biotechnology are being harnessed to boost the 
efficiency of producers, food processors, and manufacturers 
still further.
    Federal spending on agricultural research, extension and 
education has been flat the past several decades. Federally 
funded research, totaling approximately $1.8 billion annually, 
is allocated among intramural (or ARS) funds, formula funds to 
universities, competitive grants, and special grants. However, 
it is also important to note that the largest share of total 
agricultural research spending now comes from the private 
sector. The private sector accounts for about 45% of the total 
annual expenditures of approximately $7.3 billion for 
agricultural research.
    Our basic agricultural research structure has been centered 
in the land-grant college and university system since it was 
established through the First Morrill Act of 1862. Subsequent 
legislation authorized land grant status for other schools in 
1890 and 1994. The land grant system is unique with its 
tripartite mission of research, education and extension. Some 
colleges and universities that are not part of the land grant 
system also provide agricultural education and conduct research 
or make discoveries that lead to further applications for 
agriculture.
    With a major reform of federal farm programs in the Federal 
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 and vast 
advances in communications and technology, our agricultural 
sector is radically different from that of the last century. 
While the number of farms has decreased since that time, the 
efficiency and productivity of our farmers has soared. 
Agriculture's contributions to GDP make it a basic and 
important segment of the economy.

                                  Need

    Agricultural research, extension and higher education are 
important national investments. Taxpayers receive a rate of 
return on agricultural research of thirty to fifty percent per 
year. This investment reduces risk, improves public health, 
enhances the competitiveness of agricultural producers and 
businesses, and improves the quality of life for every citizen.
    Many challenges face the agricultural sector. First is the 
need to maintain our lead in productivity and efficiency so 
that U.S. producers can continue to serve a global marketplace 
and meet the demands of a growing world population.
    With world population projected to double, U.S. producers 
may well need to triple their production in the next few 
decades to meet growing demand for food and spare the world's 
rain forests from being uprooted in a desperate effort to 
expand production.
    To increase future food production, our nation must devote 
additional resources to agricultural research. This bill 
provides $780 million in new funding for agricultural research 
to address critical emerging issues related to future food 
production, environmental protection and farm income. Food 
genome science, food safety, agricultural biotechnology and 
precision agriculture are key areas that need additional 
resources to meet the challenges that face U.S. farmers.
    This bill also makes significant reforms to the current 
agricultural research system. This system has served us well. 
To use our available resources most effectively, however, it is 
important to ensure more collaboration and efficiency as well 
as achieve greater accountability. We cannot overlook the 
relevance or merit of the research, extension and education 
programs. It is appropriate to ask what the American public is 
receiving for its $1.8 billion annual investment in 
agricultural research, extension and education.

            III. Legislative History and Votes in Committee

    The Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry 
held four hearings in March 1997 to review the U.S. 
agricultural research system in preparation for legislation to 
reauthorize agricultural research, extension and education 
programs. All four hearings focused on a list of 42 fundamental 
questions (printed in the appendix) posed by Chairman Lugar 
earlier in the year.
    At the March 11, 1997 hearing, Mr. Dennis T. Avery, 
Director of Global Issues for the Hudson Institute, described 
the many challenges facing the agricultural sector including 
the need to maintain our lead in productivity and efficiency so 
that U.S. producers can continue to serve a global marketplace 
and meet the demands of a growing world population.
    Dr. Bruce Alberts, President of the National Academy of 
Sciences, and Chairman of the National Research Council, and 
Dr. Terry B. Kinney, Jr., past Administrator of the 
Agricultural Research Service, provided their respective views 
on how the current research structure can be strengthened and 
improved to meet the needs of the changed agriculture sector in 
the next century.
    The basic agricultural research structure has been centered 
in the land-grant college and university system since it was 
established through the First Morrill Act of 1862. The 
landgrant system is unique with its tripartite mission of research, 
education and extension. Dr. R. Rodney Foil, Vice President for 
Agriculture, Forestry and Veterinary Medicine for Mississippi State 
University, testified on behalf of the National Association of State 
Universities and Land Grant Colleges Board on Agriculture. Dr. Richard 
Ross, Dean of the College of Veterinary Medicine at Iowa State 
University, provided views of his institution.
    Land grant status was authorized for other schools through 
legislation in 1890 and 1994. Dr. Samuel L. Donald, Regional 
Research Director for the University of Maryland--Eastern 
Shore, testified on behalf of the 1890 universities. Mr. Ron 
McNeil, President of Sitting Bull College, testified on behalf 
of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium and provided 
the views of the 1994 institutions.
    Some colleges and universities that are not part of the 
land grant system provide agricultural education and conduct 
research or make discoveries that lead to further applications 
for agriculture. Dr. Margaret N. Perry, Chancellor for the 
University of Tennessee at Martin, testified on behalf of the 
American Association of State Colleges and Universities.
    Finally, Dr. Victor L. Lechtenberg, Dean of Agriculture for 
Purdue University, provided testimony as Chairperson of the 
National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education and 
Economics Advisory Board.
    The March 13, 1997 hearing began with testimony from Dr. 
Catherine E. Woteki, Acting Under Secretary for Research, 
Education and Economics at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 
Dr. Woteki spoke about the mission of USDA for research, 
education and economics and about how federally funded 
agricultural research is currently allocated among intramural 
funds, formula funds to universities, competitive grants, and 
special grants.
    Dr. Mary E. Clutter, Assistant Director for the Biological 
Sciences for the National Science Foundation; Dr. Wendy 
Baldwin, Deputy Director for Extramural Research for the 
National Institutes of Health; and Dr. James F. Decker, Deputy 
Director, Office of Energy Research for the U.S. Department of 
Energy testified about how their respective agencies fund 
research and set priorities.
    Mr. Robert A. Robinson, Director for Food and Agriculture 
Issues for the General Accounting Office, testified regarding 
accountability and efficiency issues related to agricultural 
research.
    Representatives from several scientific societies provided 
their opinions on the structure of the U.S. agricultural 
research, education and extension system and how it should meet 
the research and scientific challenges of the next century. 
Testimony was provided by Dr. David Lineback, Dean of the 
College of Agriculture for the University of Idaho on behalf of 
the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology; Dr. Martin 
Apple, Executive Director for the Council of Scientific Society 
Presidents; Dr. Louis Sherman, Professor and Head of the 
Department of Biological Sciences for Purdue University, on 
behalf of the American Society of Plant Physiologists; and Dr. 
Suzanne Nielson, Professor for the Department of Food Science 
at Purdue University, on behalf of the Institute of Food 
Technologists.
    The March 18, 1997 hearing continued discussion of funding 
mechanisms for agricultural research. Mr. Robert Horsch, 
Director of Technology and General Manager for the Agracetus 
Division of the Monsanto Company testified about the private 
sector's growing role in conducting agricultural research.
    Dr. David E. Ervin, Director for Policy Studies for the 
Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture 
testified about the need for improved accountability and the 
importance of environmental research.
    Representatives of two scientific societies provided their 
opinions about the structure of the U.S. agricultural research, 
education and extension system and how it will meet the 
research and scientific challenges of the next century. 
Testimony was given by Dr. Robert G. Cassens, Professor 
Emeritus of the Department of Animal Sciences for the 
University of Wisconsin, on behalf of the Federation of 
American Societies of Food Animal Sciences and Dr. William W. 
McFee, Professor and Head of the Agronomy Department for Purdue 
University on behalf of the American Society of Agronomy, the 
Crop Science Society of America and the Soil Science Society of 
America.
    Agricultural producers were represented by a panel of 
witnesses. These representatives spoke about the role of 
producers in determining research priorities and provided 
recommendations for how to set priorities for agricultural 
research, extension and education at the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture. Providing testimony were Mr. Ron Warfield, 
President of the Illinois Farm Bureau, on behalf of the 
American Farm Bureau Federation; Mr. Phil McLain, President of 
the National Association of Wheat Growers, on behalf of the 
American Soybean Association, the National Association of Wheat 
Growers, the National Barley Growers Association, the National 
Corn Growers Association, the National Cotton Council, the 
National Grain Sorghum Producers Association, and the USA Rice 
Federation; Mr. Mike Wehler, Chairman of the Animal Agriculture 
Coalition, on behalf of the American Sheep Industry 
Association, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the 
National Milk Producers Federation, and the National Pork 
Producers Council; Mr. Dennis Wiese, President of the South 
Dakota Farmers Union, on behalf of the National Farmers Union; 
and Mr. Ron Rosmann, a member of the Practical Farmers ofIowa 
and a participant in the Integrated Farming Systems Project of the 
Kellogg Foundation.
    The March 20, 1997 hearing continued the discussion about 
funding mechanisms for agricultural research. Senator Conrad 
Burns provided testimony about the importance of agricultural 
research. Dr. Robert L. Thompson, President and CEO of Winrock 
International Institute for Agricultural Development, testified 
regarding the appropriate U.S. role in international 
agricultural research and changes necessary to strengthen or 
improve the U.S. linkage with the international agriculture 
research network.
    Dr. Joseph D. Coffey, Chairman of the Council for 
Agricultural Research, Extension and Teaching, provided 
testimony on behalf of those who benefit from and utilize 
agricultural research, education and extension.
    The National Association of State Departments of 
Agriculture was represented by Mr. Charles C. Brosius, 
Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, who 
made suggestions for how best to set research priorities as 
well as how best to deliver federal agricultural research 
funding.
    Dr. Gregory N. Brown, Dean of the College of Forestry and 
Wildlife Resources for Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State 
University, testified on behalf of the National Association of 
Professional Forestry Schools and Colleges and provided 
opinions on the structure of the U.S. agricultural research, 
education and extension system and how it should meet the 
research and scientific challenges of the next century.
    Mr. William Guyton, Vice President and General Manager for 
Applied Engineering and Development for the Idaho National 
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, testified about the 
need for the Department of Energy and the Department of 
Agriculture to work cooperatively and to collaborate rather 
than duplicate each other's efforts and resources, while 
addressing agricultural research issues of concern to both 
agencies.
    Finally, Mr. W. Bruce Cain, Executive Director of the 
Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization 
Corporation, testified about efforts to commercialize products 
derived from agricultural commodities.

                             ROLLCALL VOTES

    The Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and 
Forestry, in open business session on July 30, 1997 by a 
rollcall vote recommended that the Senate pass this original 
legislation, the Agricultural Research, Extension, and 
Education Reform Act of 1997.
    The rollcall vote on reporting the measure was 18 yeas, 0 
nays as follows:
        YEAS                          NAYS
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Conrad *
Mr. Daschle *
Mr. Baucus
Mr. Kerrey
Ms. Landrieu *
Mr. Johnson
Mr. Harkin
Mr. Helms *
Mr. Cochran
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Coverdell *
Mr. Santorum *
Mr. Roberts
Mr. Grassley *
Mr. Gramm
Mr. Craig
Mr. Lugar

    * Indicates proxy vote.

         IV. Explanation of the Legislation and Committee Views

     Section 2 defines stakeholder as a person who conducts or 
uses agricultural research, extension or education. While it is 
conceivable that USDA employees could be considered 
stakeholders, it is the Committee's intent that the definition 
of stakeholder be interpreted more broadly so that USDA must 
consult with individuals other than its own scientists. 
Researchers and scientists at colleges and universities 
including land grant institutions as well as agricultural 
producers who make use of the research conducted or funded by 
USDA should be consulted as stakeholders. Other federal 
agencies could also be stakeholders for USDA research.

   TITLE I--PRIORITIES, SCOPE, AND REVIEW OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, 
                        EXTENSION AND EDUCATION

    Section 101 establishes a standard for research conducted 
by the Agricultural Research Service and funding awarded 
competitively by the Cooperative State Research, Education and 
Extension Service. The Committee expects that the Department 
would require applicants for grant funding to demonstrate that 
the project is of multistate or national relevance and to 
demonstrate the gap in knowledge they are trying to fill.
    Section 102 requires the Secretary to establish priorities 
foragricultural research, extension or education activities 
conducted or funded by the Department. In establishing these 
priorities, the Secretary must solicit and consider input and 
recommendations from stakeholders. Researchers and scientists at 
colleges and universities including land grant institutions as well as 
agricultural producers who make use of the research conducted or funded 
by USDA should be consulted as stakeholders. The Committee expects that 
the Department will utilize the Advisory Board for stakeholder input 
when setting priorities. Furthermore, the Committee encourages the 
utilization of FAIR95, CROPS99 or the Cotton Beltwide Conference as a 
way for the Advisory Board to gather input for the priority setting 
process. These are important and successful processes for agricultural 
producers, with input from other stakeholders, to communicate their 
needs, priorities and objectives to the research community. These 
processes also allow feedback and communications between producers and 
those who conduct the research. The Committee would encourage the 
organization or creation of other groups following these models. While 
input of the private sector is vital, it is also important that 
scientists participate to provide scientific and technical guidance.
    Also under Section 102, land grant institutions are 
required to establish and implement a process for obtaining 
stakeholder input concerning the use of federal formula funds. 
While many land grant institutions may already seek stakeholder 
input, this is the first time it is a statutory requirement. 
The Committee recognizes that many, if not all, land grant 
colleges and universities include stakeholder advisory groups 
in their priority setting processes. The Committee believes it 
is important that land grant institutions seek stakeholder 
input about the use of federal formula funds. It is the intent 
of the Committee that USDA establish broad parameters and 
guidelines that priority setting processes should meet or 
exceed to qualify. Each state and region has unique 
characteristics, problems, and interests that may require their 
priority setting activities to be different than other programs 
throughout the nation. Thus, flexibility for these differences 
must be reflected in the rules that the Secretary promulgates. 
This requirement for stakeholder input for federal formula 
funds is effective beginning October 1, 1998.
    Section 103 requires the Advisory Board to review, on an 
annual basis, the relevance to the Secretary's priorities 
established under Section 102 and the adequacy, of funding of 
all agricultural research, extension or education activities of 
the Department. This is intended to be a review, by the 
Advisory Board, of the total research, extension and education 
portfolio. The Advisory Board should evaluate whether input 
from stakeholders has been incorporated into the priorities and 
should examine whether funding is provided to the priority 
issues and review the adequacy of funding for those priority 
issues. This input should also be helpful to the Department in 
the budget setting process. Input from the relevancy review by 
the Advisory Board is to be taken into account by USDA when 
formulating requests for proposals for agricultural research, 
extension or education funding and should be utilized as soon 
as the results from the review are available.
    The Committee believes that the Advisory Board has 
authority to form ad hoc committees comprised of members of the 
Advisory Board and other individuals to assess issues that 
concern the Board in performing its duties. This would provide 
the Board maximum flexibility in carrying out its duties. The 
Committee would encourage the Board to seek input of 
individuals not serving on the Board or organizations not 
represented on the Board through the use of ad hoc committees.
    Section 103 also requires that, when formulating requests 
for proposals, the Secretary must solicit and consider input 
from stakeholders on the prior year's request for proposals. 
The Committee believes that stakeholder input is important for 
formulation of requests for proposals. Researchers and 
scientists at colleges and universities including land grant 
institutions as well as agricultural producers who make use of 
the research conducted or funded by USDA should be consulted as 
stakeholders. In particular, stakeholders from colleges and 
universities and private research organizations should be 
consulted regarding potential limits on the size of grants. The 
Committee is aware of concerns about the size of grants and has 
received testimony that grants should be larger.
    Section 103(d) requires scientific peer review of ARS 
research. The Committee believes that the quality and 
credibility of the Agricultural Research Service will be 
improved through scientific peer review of research activities. 
To maximize the benefit of these reviews the Committee expects 
the Secretary to establish review panels comprised of members 
with scientific expertise, a majority of whom are not ARS 
employees. The Committee expects the scientific activities of 
ARS scientists to be reviewed at a minimum of once every five 
years. The Committee intends that these reviews and subsequent 
reports to Congress will address the quality and relevance of 
the science conducted by ARS scientists to research priorities, 
and not confidential personnel information.
    Under Section 103, land grant institutions must establish a 
process for merit review of federal formula funds. The 
Committee understands that many land grant colleges and 
universities may already have processes in place to merit 
review their formula fund activities. While many institutions 
may already conduct this merit review, this is the first time 
it will be a statutory requirement. The requirement for merit 
review of federal formula funds is effective October 1, 1998.
    Section 104 requires that at least 25% of a state's 
research formula funds be used for multidisciplinary research 
in which the state agricultural experiment station works with 
another state agricultural experiment station, ARS, or a 
college or university,to solve problems that concern more than 
one state. The Committee intends that state agricultural experiment 
stations seek partners across state lines and/or across disciplines to 
cooperate to solve multistate or national problems. The Committee 
encourages state agricultural experiment stations to seek new 
relationships and to collaborate with institutions it has not 
collaborated with in the past.
    Section 105 fosters greater collaboration between states 
for Extension activities by requiring states, by fiscal year 
2000, to double the percentage of Extension federal formula 
funds devoted to multistate activities or to spend 25% of their 
Extension federal formula funds on multistate activities, 
whichever is less. The Secretary can reduce the minimum 
percentage in case of hardship, infeasibility, or similar 
circumstance beyond the control of the state, as determined by 
the Secretary. This should result in less duplication of 
efforts by individual states and provide more incentive for 
states to collaborate on issues of national or multistate 
significance. States must indicate in their plan of work how 
they will achieve these requirements. The Committee intends 
that the Secretary should consult with representatives of the 
land grant institutions when establishing appropriate 
definitions and management procedures to be used when 
implementing this section.
    Section 106 requires the Secretary to continue to review 
periodically the agricultural facilities constructed with 
federal funds and planned agricultural facilities proposed to 
be constructed with federal funds. The Committee recognizes 
that the strategic planning task force must submit its 10-year 
strategic plan by 1999, but wants to ensure that following the 
submission of the plan, data regarding facilities continue to 
be collected on a periodic basis.

    TITLE II--OTHER REFORM OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, EXTENSION AND 
                               EDUCATION

 Subtitle A--Amendments to National Agricultural Research, Extension, 
                    and Teaching Policy Act of 1977

    Section 201 calls on the Secretary, when appointing members 
to serve on the Advisory Board, to ensure, to the maximum 
extent practicable, equal representation of public and private 
sector members. It is important to have representation by 
individuals from both the public and private sectors, and the 
Committee believes that it is important that there be equal 
representation.
    Section 203 amends current authority for policy research 
centers to include grants for studies that concern the effect 
of trade agreements on: the farm and agricultural sectors; the 
environment; rural families, households and economies; and 
consumers, food and nutrition. The Committee is aware that 
trade agreements may affect the Northern Plains states 
differently than the U.S. as a whole due to a unique set of 
factors, including climate, crop mix, and marketing of 
agricultural commodities and products. For that reason, a 
policy research center could: evaluate the impact of 
multinational trade policy issues and North American cross-
border policies on Northern Plains agriculture; identify 
strategies to improve export opportunities for this region of 
the country; and evaluate the impacts of national and 
international policies on the region's agricultural 
competitiveness, farm income, farm structure, and rural 
economy.
    Section 204 provides authority for competitive grants for 
collaborative projects among federal scientists, faculty and 
staff from land grant colleges and universities and other 
colleges and universities and scientists from international 
agricultural research centers in other nations. International 
research centers in other nations would include the 
international agricultural research centers of the Consultative 
Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). These 
collaborative projects should: focus on creating, 
disseminating, and teaching the use of new technologies for 
increasing the production of food and fiber, developing rural 
communities, and strengthening markets while safeguarding the 
environment worldwide and enhancing global competitiveness of 
U.S. agriculture; be mutually beneficial to the U.S. and other 
countries; and encourage private sector involvement and the 
leveraging of private sector funds. The collaborative projects 
could strengthen U.S. economic competitiveness by globalizing 
agricultural research, extension and teaching programs at land 
grant universities and colleges. This section also requires a 
biennial report from USDA about efforts to coordinate 
international agricultural research within the federal 
government and more effectively link the activities of domestic 
and international agricultural researchers. The Committee 
believes it is important that there be a more effective link 
between domestic and international agriculture research. In 
particular, there is research conducted abroad that may have 
useful application here.

 Subtitle B--Amendments to Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade 
                              Act of 1990

    Section 211 authorizes a National Agricultural Weather 
Information System. The Committee intends that the Secretary 
will delegate to the Chief Meteorologist the authority to 
manage the activities of NAWIS and the Chief Meteorologist will 
advise the Secretary on issues regarding the NAWIS. The 
Committee also intends that the Secretary will obtain advice 
regarding the operation of NAWIS from a committee within the 
Department of Agriculture representing the agencies that 
generate, process, or use agriculture weather and climate 
information. The Committee intends that the competitive grant 
program authorized in this section be administered through the 
Cooperative State Research Extension and Education Service.
    Section 212 establishes a National Food Genome Strategy. 
The Committee believes that identifying, mapping and 
understandingthe function and control of genes responsible for 
economically important traits in the major agriculturally important 
species of plants and animals and microbes will permit the U.S. to 
develop new genetic technologies for improvements in yield, 
composition, and quality of domestic agricultural production. Taking 
advantage of the universality of the genetic code, molecular biology 
permits the understanding and transfer of genes among different 
organisms. This section makes clear that indirect costs for food genome 
research would be allowed at the same rate allowed by NSF for food 
genome research in an effort to ensure a level playing field for 
institutions seeking funding for this research. The Committee expects 
that the Department would carry out research on the ecological, social 
and legal aspects of agricultural genome research under this authority. 
The Committee intends that the Secretary will use the provisions of 
this section as guidance in funding any food genome activities, 
including activities funded through the Initiative for Future 
Agriculture and Food Systems in Section 301. The Committee is aware of 
efforts to obtain funding for a plant genome initiative through the 
National Science Foundation and is pleased that $40 million in funding 
was provided in the VA, HUD and independent agencies appropriations 
bill for fiscal year 1998 passed by the Senate. The Committee would 
expect USDA to provide a level of funding (including funds currently 
devoted to genome research) commensurate to that provided by another 
agency in order for USDA to become the lead agency for a food genome 
initiative.
    Section 213 authorizes an imported fire ant control, 
management and eradication program. The imported fire ant, over 
the last 76 years, has infested more than 275 million acres in 
at least thirteen states. The fire ant affects urban and rural 
areas and causes damage which is estimated to amount to 
billions of dollars annually. In Texas, fire ant damage is 
estimated at $300 million a year. It is estimated that the 
State of Georgia loses $46 million annually, with Louisiana, 
Alabama, Tennessee, and Mississippi incurring annual damage 
estimates of $23.83 million, $16 million, $1.33 million, and 
$12.33 million respectively. Homeowners in the state of 
Arkansas spend approximately $106 million each year to combat 
fire ant infestation. The Committee is aware of the devastation 
that the red imported fire ant has caused in the states 
currently infested and encourages the Secretary to take 
advantage of the authority being granted to fund research 
projects in the states where demonstration of fire ant control 
methodology may produce the data needed to develop an effective 
method of combating this pest. Further, the Committee 
encourages the Secretary to consult with the Board before the 
grant decisions are made.
    Section 214 authorizes the Secretary to award a grant to 
A*DEC to enable it to administer the agricultural 
telecommunications program. It is the Committee's intent that a 
cohesive, affordable, interoperable, and sustainable 
agricultural telecommunications network be utilized that is 
national in scope and that will make optimal use of the 
available resources for agriculture and rural America. The 
network must disseminate and share academic instruction, 
extension programming, agricultural research and domestic and 
international marketing information. The Committee believes 
that the A*DEC consortium is the only agricultural 
telecommunications network in the U.S. fitting this description 
and is in the best position to assure that all activities 
facilitate and strengthen agricultural extension, resident 
education, research and domestic and international marketing.
    A*DEC is a consortium whose members include the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, 46 state universities and land grant 
institutions, and a growing number of international associate 
members. A*DEC was included in the 1996 report of the National 
Research Council's Board on Agriculture as an example of the 
type of program that should be supported as federal programs 
and policies are restructured to be more efficient and to use 
the growing power of telecommunications networking. The 
Committee intends that the Secretary of Agriculture, acting 
through A*DEC, administer a competitive grant program that uses 
the power and efficiency of the Internet (electronic mail and 
WorldWideWeb), audio and video conferencing, and printed 
materials. The Committee expects A*DEC to design an open 
process for disseminating guidelines, to encourage electronic 
submission of grant proposals and peer review, and to utilize 
an on-line report and evaluation process. These steps will 
assure that all aspects of the grant program are open, 
transparent, and will allow for reasonable time for project 
submission and partnership development and rapid feedback from 
the review process.
    The Committee believes that in the past, the administration 
of the agricultural telecommunications program has not been as 
effective as it could have been in supporting a comprehensive 
strategy for the development of a sustainable, national and 
international agricultural telecommunications program. The 
Committee continues to support the competitive nature of this 
program, but intends that the funding mechanism should be 
altered to assure fulfillment of the statutory objectives.
    Section 215 changes the AgrAbility authorization to reflect 
the current distribution of funds. The Committee is 
recommending minor technical changes to the AgrAbility Program 
including elimination of a separate spending authority for the 
national grant program in favor of a combined authorization of 
$6 million, with instruction that 15 percent of total 
appropriations be designated for nationally-coordinated 
training, technical assistance, information dissemination and 
related activities.

                  Subtitle C--Amendments to Other Laws

    Section 223 makes changes in eligibility for Extension 
Service funding under Section 3(d) of the Smith Lever Act. All 
colleges and universities would be eligible to compete for 
competitively awarded Extension Service funding. 1862 
universities, 1890universities and 1994 institutions would be 
eligible for noncompetitive Extension Service funding. This section 
also encourages USDA to enter into memoranda of understanding, 
cooperative agreements or reimbursable agreements with other federal 
agencies related to Extension activities. The Committee believes it may 
be more appropriate for other federal agencies to provide funding for 
certain Extension activities that do not clearly fall within the 
jurisdiction of the USDA and that these memoranda and agreements may 
provide additional opportunities for federal funding from other sources 
for the Extension Service. It is the intent of the Committee that funds 
provided for competitively awarded Extension Service funding not be 
subject to indirect cost allocation.
    Section 224 fosters greater integration between extension 
and research at 1862 land grant institutions by requiring each 
institution, by fiscal year 2000, to double the percentage of 
extension and research federal formula funds devoted to 
activities that integrate research and extension or to spend 
25% of their extension and research federal formula funds on 
activities that integrate research and extension, whichever is 
less. The Secretary can reduce the minimum percentage in case 
of hardship, infeasibility or similar circumstance beyond the 
control of the state, as determined by the Secretary. This 
should result in greater collaboration and integration among 
the research and extension components within land grant 
institutions. The Committee encourages greater integration of 
research and extension both at the project and program level 
and in general within the institution. States must provide a 
description to the Secretary about how they intend to meet this 
integration requirement. The Committee intends that the 
Secretary should consult with representatives of land grant 
institutions when establishing appropriate definitions and 
management procedures to be used when implementing this 
section.
    Section 225 makes significant changes to special grant 
authority. Special grants can be provided to colleges, 
universities, other research institutions and organizations, 
federal agencies, private organizations or corporations or 
individuals. The research would be more targeted so that it 
would either be focused on agricultural needs of immediate 
importance or on new or emerging areas of agricultural 
research. These terms would be defined by USDA. These research 
grants could also include extension and/or education 
components. The grantee must arrange for a scientific peer 
review in the case of research or a merit review in the case of 
extension or education. USDA will promulgate regulations 
setting forth criteria for the review. The Committee intends 
that the USDA regulations make clear that the scientific peer 
or merit review of the proposed grant must be independent and 
credible and that it not be a review conducted solely by USDA 
employees as is the current practice for merit review of 
special grants. The Committee intends that a scientific peer 
review or a merit review that occurs for the first year of 
funding would satisfy the scientific peer review or merit 
review requirement in the second and third year of funding 
provided that the proposal does not change and that the needs 
for the research have not changed and that other scientific 
discoveries have not occurred that would affect the proposal. 
In any case, after three consecutive years of funding, a new 
scientific peer review or new merit review should be conducted. 
The grantee must also provide to USDA a proposed plan for 
graduation from federal funding under the special grant 
authority. The Committee intends that special grants be funded 
for a limited time and that, at the outset, grantees must have 
a plan for addressing the problem to be solved with an 
expectation that funding would be available for a limited time. 
There should be thought given to how the research would be 
sustainable without federal funding under special grant 
authority. However, the Committee would not want to limit the 
ability of the grantee to seek competitive federal funding in 
the future under the NRI, the Fund for Rural America or the 
Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems. For special 
grants for agricultural research needs of immediate importance, 
a partnership is required. In this case, the Committee intends 
that a partnership could be a college or university and a 
producer organization. For special grants for new or emerging 
areas of agricultural research, a partnership with two or more 
entities is required after a recipient has received funding for 
three consecutive years. In this case, the Committee intends 
that a partnership could include two colleges or universities 
and a producer organization. Competitively awarded special 
grants would not be subject to the partnership requirements or 
requirements to provide a proposed graduation plan. At the end 
of the year, recipients of all special grants would be required 
to provide USDA with a report describing the results of the 
research and the merit of the results. This report would be 
available to the public. The Committee intends that for 
purposes of special grants, the term agricultural research 
would include but not be limited to natural resource issues 
affecting production agriculture, the production of food and 
fiber, and forestry.
    The Committee does not intend to restrict the authority of 
the Appropriations Committee to make special grants. Under this 
section, the Appropriations Committee would determine what 
special grants to fund. The grantee would arrange for a 
scientific peer or merit review of the project. This review 
would be used to improve the quality of the science or project. 
USDA would provide funding to grant recipients provided they 
met the requirements set forth in this section. At the end of 
the year the grantee would provide a report regarding the 
results of the research to USDA which would be made available 
to the public. The Appropriations Committee can review the 
report as well as the scientific peer or merit review to help 
it determine whether to provide additional funding in 
subsequent years.
    These new requirements do not apply to special grant 
funding in fiscal year 1998. The Committee recognizes that the 
process for funding special grants for the current fiscal year 
is wellunderway and that special grants should be grandfathered 
for fiscal year 1998. The Committee encourages USDA to work quickly to 
promulgate needed regulations for this section since it will become 
effective on October 1, 1998.
    Section 226 provides $100 million in mandatory spending for 
the Fund for Rural America for each of fiscal years 1998 
through 2002. Funding for fiscal years 1999 and 2000 had been 
provided in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act 
of 1996. Under this section, each year $50 million would be 
available for rural development and $33 million for research 
with the remainder available for either rural development or 
research at the discretion of the Secretary.
    Section 227 addresses honey research, promotion, and 
consumer information. The Committee strongly supports a viable 
beekeeping industry that provides pollination services vital to 
the overall agricultural economy while also providing a wide 
range of high quality honey products to American consumers. The 
Committee has included language amending the Honey Research, 
Promotion, and Consumer Information Act to bolster the National 
Honey Board's research efforts. Recent problems with parasitic 
mites have highlighted the need for greater research aimed at 
the beekeeper level. It is the intent of the Committee that 
interested Senators, honey industry leaders and USDA work 
together to develop a complete package of consensus changes to 
the Honey Promotion Act.
    Section 228 establishes an Office of Energy Policy and New 
Uses within the Office of the Secretary. It is the intention of 
the committee that the Office of Energy and New Uses currently 
located within the Economic Research Service be moved to the 
Office of the Secretary. The committee commends the work of the 
Office of Energy and New Uses/ERS. This work, both economic and 
policy, has been helpful to the development of biofuels and new 
uses and representing rural America on energy policy issues. 
However, the committee believes that policy direction for 
biofuels and new uses must come from the Secretary. Therefore, 
in order to give added emphasis to these key areas of 
agriculture, it is best to establish a more direct link between 
the Secretary and the Office of Energy and New Uses.

                        Subtitle D--New Programs

    Section 231 contains several provisions related to biobased 
products. The Committee believes that biobased products made 
from renewable plant and animal resources, including biofuels 
and value-added food and non-food products, can play a key role 
in developing new markets for agricultural products and 
economic opportunities in rural America. The Committee 
recognizes the considerable efforts that the Department 
currently devotes to biobased products but feels that the 
Department should significantly increase its efforts to promote 
the development of marketable biobased products. The Committee 
believes that to further advance the development of biobased 
products the Department must coordinate efforts among the 
research, marketing and rural development agencies of the 
Department. Further, the Committee expects the Department to 
establish a central contact for individuals and companies 
seeking information on research, development and marketing of 
biobased products. This contact should function as an 
information resource regarding research, commercialization, 
marketing and rural development opportunities for biobased 
products in the Department. The Committee expects that the 
Department would capitalize on existing efforts to implement 
these recommendations.
    The Committee recognizes the important need to expand 
research efforts in support of the development and transfer of 
biobased product technology. The Committee especially 
recognizes the need to conduct laboratory or product market 
research in support of moving new biobased technologies from 
the laboratory to the marketplace. The Committee expects the 
Department to work with companies to accomplish these tasks, 
using the resources of the Department in its own facilities and 
at actual manufacturing sites. The Agricultural Research 
Service and other entities within the Department have 
significant scientific expertise and research infrastructure 
which can be utilized and focused more effectively on the 
development of new biobased technologies developed by ARS, 
AARCC or the private sector. The Committee expects the 
Agricultural Research Service to form cooperative agreements 
with Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) 
partners, and companies receiving funding through the 
Alternative Agriculture Research and Commercialization 
Corporation, the Small Business Innovation and Research program 
and the Biotechnology Research and Development Corporation, to 
conduct research on environmental impacts and lowering the 
production costs of new biobased products. ARS facilities may 
also be used to produce limited quantities of new ARS or 
privately developed biobased products for sale as a part of 
demand market analysis. The Committee encourages the Department 
to also look at development of innovative uses of byproducts 
from biobased products that are posing environmental problems 
that hamper the expansion of existing production facilities.
    The Committee believes the scientific quality and 
credibility of the Agricultural Research Service can be 
improved by awarding research funds on a competitive basis. The 
Committee has provided an authorization for a pilot project for 
competitive research grants to ARS scientists. The Committee 
expects that ARS would use these funds to reward exceptionally 
creative scientists doing research on selected topics of 
importance. For the first three years of the pilot project the 
Committee directs ARS to award these competitive funds to 
scientists working on alternative agricultural products with 
promising commercial potential. While the Committee understands 
that ARS has limited flexibility within its current budget to 
award competitive funds, the Committee encourages ARS to 
develop a plan to implement this section which includes the 
development of future budget requests for these competitive 
funds.
    Section 232 authorizes a new competitive grant program for 
research, education, and information dissemination projects for 
the development and promotion of precision agriculture. The 
Committee believes future advancements in productivity of the 
food and fiber chain will be determined by the development of 
systems approaches and information technologies. These 
management tools will make ever-growing quantities of data 
available to the user by enabling the almost instantaneous 
collection and utilization of increasingly detailed information 
at every point along the production and marketing chain. This 
systems-based, information-intensive management of the food and 
fiber chain is referred to as precision agriculture.
    Precision agriculture holds the promise of enabling the 
agriculture sector to increase its productivity and 
competitiveness in the global market place, while minimizing 
the degradation of the environment and enhancing the safety and 
nutritious quality of our nation's food supply.
    The Committee recognizes that precision agriculture tools 
and technologies, like so many other commercial electronic 
technologies, are rapidly being developed and used in farm 
fields across the nation. The Committee believes it is critical 
that the federal agricultural research community keep pace with 
agricultural producers and the private sector regarding these 
innovative and advancing electronic farm tools. It is important 
that the USDA research system strive to remain at the forefront 
of the agronomic technologies, systems and practices.
    The Committee is aware that farmers and livestock producers 
are continually looking for ways to increase farm efficiency, 
productivity, profitability and environmental stewardship by 
using new technologies coupled with the latest conservation and 
environmental protection practices. It is critical that the 
Department of Agriculture renew its commitment to further 
increasing and maximizing the amount of food and fiber which 
can safely be produced per acre of farmland, not as an end in 
itself but as a means of minimizing the world's economic and 
environmental costs of meeting domestic and global food needs. 
The Committee encourages federal research and education grants 
that promote the adoption and the use of precision agriculture 
technologies that can enhance human health, improve 
environmental stewardship and increase production agriculture 
efficiency, productivity and profitability.
    The Committee calls upon USDA and the Department of Energy 
to collaborate in the funding of precision agriculture-related 
research and development under the auspices of the memorandum 
of understanding signed by the two departments in November 
1995. The Committee also encourages the Environmental 
Protection Agency, the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration and the National Academy of Sciences to enter 
into memoranda of understanding with USDA regarding 
collaborations on behalf of precision agriculture.
    Also under Section 232, the Committee intends that state 
agricultural experiment stations and state extension services 
would be eligible for this funding.
    Section 233 authorizes a Formosan termite eradication 
program. The Committee recognizes the growing threat of the 
Formosan termite, Coptotermes formosanus, to forests, crops, 
homes, buildings and historic structures throughout Hawaii and 
the southern United States, especially along the Gulf coast. 
Populations of this imported pest are growing exponentially 
because traditional protectants are ineffective. Prevention, 
control and damage repair costs are already estimated to be $1 
billion. To control this exotic pest, this section authorizes 
funds for research for the control, management, and possible 
eradication of the Formosan termite. Funding priority will be 
given to those areas with the highest historical rates of 
infestation.
    Section 234 requires the Secretary to periodically update 
nutrient composition data. The Secretary must report to the 
Agriculture Committees the method to be used to update the data 
including the quality assurance criteria that will be used, the 
method for generating the data, and the timing for updating the 
data. The Committee believes that the nutrient composition 
database needs to reflect changes in the food supply in a 
timely manner. A 1993 General Accounting Office report 
recommended that the Secretary of Agriculture develop specific 
quality assurance criteria for use in evaluating food 
composition data obtained from others and procedures to better 
direct the generation of food composition data under contract. 
Ensuring the reliability of food consumption data is a vital 
part of nutrition monitoring. The Committee believes it is 
important that the Secretary of Agriculture implement the 
recommendations made by the General Accounting Office.
    In addition, the Committee notes that monitoring the 
nation's nutrition status and food consumption is vital. The 
data collected are utilized for public health programs, dietary 
guidance, nutrition education, dietary pesticide exposure, the 
advancement of new food products, plants or animal breeds, and 
for directing federal food assistance expenditures.
    Section 235 provides authority for the Secretary to 
contract for construction of a consolidated APHIS laboratory 
facility in Ames, Iowa. The Committee is concerned about the 
condition of the APHIS facilities in Ames, Iowa. In all, APHIS 
has five separate locations in Ames. The USDA Inspector General 
has issued a report on the inadequacy of these facilities, 
citing concern for the safety and health protection for both 
employees and the general public. This section authorizes the 
funds necessary to consolidate the five facilities in Ames into 
one new facility that meets modern biocontainment standards and 
the concerns of the USDA Inspector General. The bulk of the 
veterinary biologics industry is located within 300 miles of 
Ames. This consolidationwould help to meet the needs of this 
important agricultural industry.

                 Subtitle E--Studies and Miscellaneous

    Section 241 requires the Secretary to contract with an 
expert in research assessment and performance evaluation to 
develop and propose practical guidelines for measuring 
performance of federally funded agricultural research, 
extension and education programs. The Committee is concerned 
that despite the Government Performance and Results Act, no 
clear consensus exists about the most effective approaches to 
evaluate agricultural research and education. There is no 
clearly defined set of guidelines that can be used to evaluate 
performance. The result of this effort should be a consensus-
based measurement framework for research, extension and 
education programs that would be simple to implement, easy to 
communicate, consistent with established goals, reliable and 
flexible for a range of applications, and versatile for both 
pre- and post-performance measurement. This work should produce 
a guidebook of practical guidelines and illustrations for 
performance measurements. Individuals with experience in 
assessment or performance measurement techniques should be part 
of this effort. Land grant university scientists as well as 
USDA officials implementing GPRA should have input into the 
development of the guidelines. Individuals representing the 
land grant system, USDA, private industry, non-profit food, 
environmental and consumer groups, and other stakeholders as 
deemed appropriate should also be consulted in this effort.
    Section 242 calls for a National Academy of Sciences review 
of the Agricultural Research Service as well as the broader 
role of federal funding for agricultural research, extension 
and education. Important factors for consideration as part of 
the ARS review include: ARS research prioritization; ARS 
promotional criteria, including how they compare to academia, 
other federal agencies and the private sector; the ratio of 
bench scientists to support staff; how to prevent duplication 
of research conducted by ARS, colleges and universities, and 
other federal agencies; the appropriate mix of basic and 
applied research conducted by ARS; ARS overhead expense and how 
it compares to colleges and universities and private research 
institutions; and how effectively and equitably ARS has 
implemented the CRADA program as well as the benefits that have 
accrued to the government through the CRADA program. The ARS 
germplasm program is of particular concern to the Committee 
since an adequate and diverse collection of germplasm that is 
well maintained is important as a base for continuing research 
to address the future needs of the agricultural sector. It is 
the intent of the Committee that the National Academy of 
Sciences solicit the input of stakeholders in the development 
of this study. The Committee encourages the NAS to consult with 
experts representing the perspective and priorities of lesser 
populated states with smaller land grant institutions. Any 
study of formula funding should examine the impact that changes 
in the funding formula would have specifically on the smaller 
land-grant institutions and the states they serve.

     TITLE III--INITIATIVE FOR FUTURE AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SYSTEMS

    Section 301 provides $100 million in fiscal year 1998 and 
$170 million for each of fiscal years 1999 through 2002 in 
mandatory spending for the Initiative for Future Agriculture 
and Food Systems. This funding will be used for research, 
extension or education grants to address critical emerging 
agricultural issues related to future food production, 
environmental protection or farm income or for activities 
carried out under the Alternative Agricultural Research and 
Commercialization Act of 1990. For fiscal year 1998, the 
Secretary shall address priority mission areas related to food 
genome; food safety, food technology, and human nutrition; new 
and alternative uses and production of agricultural commodities 
and products; agricultural biotechnology; and natural resource 
management, including precision agriculture. For subsequent 
fiscal years the Advisory Board may recommend new or different 
priority mission areas. (Under Section 102 of this bill, the 
Secretary is required to provide to the House and Senate 
Agriculture Committees a copy of the Secretary's response to an 
Advisory Board recommendation regarding priority mission 
areas.) Funds shall be awarded competitively. Federal research 
agencies, national laboratories, colleges or universities or 
private research organizations with an established and 
demonstrated capacity to perform research or technology 
transfer are eligible to compete for the funding. The Committee 
intends that state agricultural experiment stations and state 
extension services are eligible for this funding. The Committee 
intends that international agricultural research centers 
located in other nations, such as the international 
agricultural research centers of the Consultative Group on 
International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), could compete for 
the funding. Priority is given to projects that are multistate, 
multi institutional, or multidisciplinary or to projects that 
integrate agricultural research, extension and education. 
Scientific peer or merit review is required in accordance with 
Section 103 and stakeholder input is required in accordance 
with Section 102(b)(1). Matching funds from a non-federal 
source are required if the grant is for applied research that 
is commodity specific and not of national scope. The Secretary 
is authorized to establish one or more institutes, based on the 
National Institutes of Health model, to carry out all or part 
of the activities authorized under this section. The Committee 
would expect the Secretary to consult with all interested 
parties if the Secretary decides to pursue an institute 
approach. Finally, this section contains a provision targeted 
to smaller institutions. The Secretary is authorized to award 
grants under this section to ensure that the faculty of small 
and mid-sized institutions that have not previously been 
successful in obtaining competitive grants awarded under the 
NRI receive aportion of the grants. The Committee intends that 
USDA follow the EPSCOR model in carrying out this small school 
provision as has been done with the NRI.
    The Committee clarifies that funds made available under 
this section are not intended as a replacement or offset for 
funds appropriated for competitive grants awarded through the 
National Research Initiative or other authorities.
    The Committee considers many critical emerging issues 
related to international agricultural trade important to U.S. 
agricultural competitiveness and farm income. The Committee 
considers research on non-tariff barriers, including sanitary 
and phytosanitary trade barriers as critical for increasing 
exports and farm income.
    Proposals which improve food testing processes and provide 
training for safer and more accurate testing and quality 
control would be eligible to compete for funding targeted to 
food safety, food technology, and human nutrition.
    Section 301(c)(1)(B) allows funds from the Initiative for 
Future Agriculture and Food Systems to be used for the 
Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization 
Corporation. The Corporation provides assistance to companies 
with products being commercialized, often requiring 
considerable additional research to develop the means by which 
a new product can be efficiently produced at a competitive cost 
and at a quality that allows it to be competitive in the 
marketplace. Broadening the use of agricultural commodities to 
non-food uses and to new uses of fiber can greatly increase the 
demand for the farmer's production and can provide significant 
manufacturing activity and jobs to rural areas.
    The Committee recognizes the need to develop new and 
alternative uses for agricultural and forest products, 
including biofuels and value-added food and non-food products. 
The Committee believes that the development of alternative uses 
for agricultural commodities can lead to improved economic 
prospects in rural America and develop new markets for plant 
and animal products. The Committee also recognizes the need to 
develop new crops and new systems of agricultural production, 
to increase the profitability, diversity and productivity, and 
reduce the adverse environmental impacts of the American food 
and fiber production system.
    The Committee is aware that the organic foods sector has 
grown at an average rate of 20 percent for the last seven years 
and more than 10,000 U.S. farms are engaged in some form of 
organic production. The Committee is aware of a recent study by 
the Organic Farming Research Foundation that found that less 
than one tenth of one percent of USDA research is pertinent to 
organic production. The Committee intends that organic 
production research be eligible to compete for this funding.
    The Committee is concerned about the lag between the time 
USDA receives funds and the time grants are awarded. The 
Committee expects USDA to act expeditiously to award grants for 
this Initiative and for other competitive grant programs, 
including the Fund for Rural America.

    TITLE IV--EXTENSION OR REPEAL OF CERTAIN AUTHORITIES; TECHNICAL 
                               AMENDMENTS

    Section 402 repeals authority for certain agricultural 
research programs. The Committee emphasizes that, in repealing 
Subtitle G of the title XIV of the Food, Agriculture, 
Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, which provides 
authorization for funding for research on water quality issues, 
the Committee does not intend to signal its view that federal 
funding for research on water quality issues should be reduced. 
The Committee recognizes that water quality issues are an area 
of great importance to the agriculture sector and to the nation 
as a whole and such research should continue to receive high 
priority in allocating federal research funds. The Committee 
recognizes that excellent research has been carried out on 
issues relating to water quality, and fully intends for this 
research to continue. The Committee also recognizes that 
research on water quality has been and will continue to be 
funded under other authorities. The Committee intends that 
repeal of this authority have no impact on this critical 
research area.

                              Other Issues

Competitive grants through ARS

    The Committee strongly encourages USDA to make use of 
current authority to allow ARS to make competitive grants. The 
Committee believes a competitive grant approach would be 
appropriate for research for which ARS lacks adequate or 
appropriate facilities or expertise. While concerns have been 
expressed about the cost of establishing a program within ARS 
to award funding competitively, the Committee suggests that 
CSREES could competitively award the funds for ARS and likely 
at less cost than normal ARS overhead expense.

Extension Service and agricultural producers

    While several changes were made in the bill to address 
Extension Service activities, the Committee remains concerned 
about the ability of the Extension Service to effectively serve 
agricultural producers. The Committee urges the Department to 
require that each state's plan of work describe how the 
Extension Service is serving agricultural producers.

Research related to non-tariff trade barriers

    The Committee recognizes the increasingly important role 
that international agricultural trade plays in ensuring the 
viability of United States agriculture. In order to thrive and 
be competitive in the future, farmers must increasingly rely on 
the development, maintenance, and expansion of new 
internationalmarkets for U.S. agricultural products, especially 
in light of recent legislative changes which require the phasing out of 
agricultural support programs. These changes were made to allow U.S. 
farmers the flexibility to compete in a global marketplace that has 
seen the reduction or elimination of many tariff barriers through the 
establishment of various international trade agreements. At the same 
time, the Committee is aware that many of these historical tariff 
barriers have been replaced with various non-tariff trade barriers to 
agricultural trade, such as the various sanitary and phytosanitary 
restrictions. The Secretary should delegate an appropriate person in 
the Department to receive input from representatives of agriculture, 
agribusiness, the Advisory Board, federal agencies concerned with 
agricultural trade, and other stakeholders in order to help ensure that 
research activities in food and agricultural sciences are prioritized 
in a way that responds to the current and future needs of agricultural 
exporters, including the development of methods to identify, remove, or 
reduce potential and existing barriers to agricultural trade.

Forestry research

    The Committee is aware that enhanced forestry research and 
extension activities at the nation's land-grant universities 
are critical to increasing productivity and improving forest 
management of our nation's privately held forests. Forestry 
research and extension are currently an integral part of the 
efforts of the Cooperative State Research, Education and 
Extension Service through programs including the McIntire-
Stennis Cooperative Forestry Research program, the Renewable 
Resource Extension Act program, the National Research 
Initiative and the Fund for Rural America.
    The Committee encourages the Department to expand future 
forestry programs and activities within CSREES to help address 
the increasing challenges facing our non-industrial private 
forests. The Committee also believes that the Forest Service 
should allocate a greater share of its future research budget 
for collaborative research conducted by the land-grant 
universities on issues of importance to non-industrial private 
forests. The Committee encourages the Department to develop new 
cooperative programs between CSREES, the Forest Service and the 
land-grant universities for forestry research and extension to 
address the needs of non-industrial private landowners. The 
Committee directs the Department to submit a report to the 
Committee by April 1, 1998 on its efforts and future plans for 
expanding forestry research and extension activities critical 
to our nation's non-industrial private forest resources.

Human Nutrition Research Center

    The Committee directs the Secretary of Agriculture to 
perform a feasibility study to establish a Human Nutrition 
Research Center in Preventive Nutrition, Diet and Obesity at an 
institution that meets the following criteria: have an 
established clinical research program devoted to preventive 
nutrition, diet, and obesity, have a research center endowment 
by a private donation in excess of $100 million, and which has 
the ability to donate a facility of at least 10,000 square feet 
to the Agriculture Research Service of the United States 
Department of Agriculture and is conducive for conducting 
research. The Secretary should consult with the Strategic 
Planning Task Force prior to conducting the feasibility study.

            V. Cost Estimate and Regulatory Impact Statement

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                 Washington, DC, September 4, 1997.
Hon. Richard Lugar,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, U.S. 
        Senate, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed federal cost estimate and 
intergovernmental mandates statement for a bill to reauthorize, 
reform, and eliminate certain agricultural research programs, 
as ordered reported by the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
and Forestry on July 30, 1997.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts for federal 
costs are David Hull, Jim Langley, and Lisa Daley, and Dorothy 
Rosenbaum. The CBO staff contacts for intergovernmental 
mandates are Marge Miller and Marc Nicole. The CBO staff 
contact for private sector mandates is Roger Hitchner.
            Sincerely,
                                              James L. Blum
                                   (For June E. O'Neill, Director).
    Enclosures.

               CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

S. 1150--Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 
        1997

    Summary: This legislation would reauthorize, reform, or 
eliminate certain agricultural research, extension, and 
education programs, and would authorize appropriations for 
several new research programs over fiscal years 1998 through 
2002. Assuming appropriation of the authorized or estimated 
amounts, implementing the bill would require about $14 billion 
in discretionary spending authority over the 1998-2002 period.
    The bill also would increase direct spending for the Fund 
for Rural America by $300 million over fiscal years 1998 
through 2002, and would appropriate funds for a new Initiative 
for Future Agriculture and Food Systems. Direct spending 
authority for this initiative would total $780 million from 
1998 through 2002. The increases in direct spending would be 
more than offset by reductions in administrative costs for the 
Food Stamp program, in expenditures for data processing by the 
Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), and in rents paid on 
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) contracts in exchange for 
permitting landowners to cut hay or graze livestock on their 
CRP land. Because the bill would affect direct spending, pay-
as-you-go procedures would apply.
    Section 227 of this bill would impose a private-sector 
mandate, although the effects would not exceed the threshold 
for such a mandate as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act of 1995 (UMRA). Section 501 contains an intergovernmental 
mandate that would impose significant costs on state 
governments.
    Description of the Bill's Major Provisions: The bill 
consists of five titles. Title I would establish priorities, 
scope, and review procedures for agricultural research, 
extension, and education activities conducted by and for the 
Department of Agriculture.
    Title II would establish several new research initiatives 
regarding, among other things, weather information systems, a 
food genome research strategy, precision agriculture, and 
eradication of fire ants and Formosan termites. Additionally, 
this title would provide appropriations totaling $300 million 
for the Fund for Rural America for fiscal years 1998, 2001, and 
2002.
    Title III would establish a new Initiative for Future 
Agriculture and Food Systems, and would appropriate $780 
million over fiscal years 1998 through 2002 for research 
grants. The Secretary of Agriculture would award funding to 
research projects that address critical emerging issues related 
to future food production, environmental protection, farm 
income, or alternative uses of agricultural products.
    Title IV would extend most of the expiring authorizations 
for appropriations for agricultural research, extension, and 
education programs through fiscal year 2002, and repeal certain 
agricultural research programs.
    Title V would provide offsetting savings by:
         limiting the amount the Secretary could pay each state 
        for administering the Food Stamp program;
          reducting a cap on CCC spending for automated data 
        processing equipment, telecommunications equipment, and 
        other information technology from $275 million to $193 
        million over fiscal years 1997 through 2002; and
          authorizing the Secretary to allow haying and grazing 
        of the land enrolled in the CRP each year, under 
        certain conditions, in exchange for a reduction in 
        rental payments.
    This title also would create a grant program to encourage 
schools and other institutions to initiate or expand their 
school breakfast or summer food programs; allow four meals a 
day to be served in the child and adult care food program and 
summer food program under some circumstances; and extend 
funding for a clearinghouse that provides information on food 
assistance for low-income individuals.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: For the purposes 
of this estimate, CBO assumes that all amounts authorized or 
estimated to be authorized will be appropriated by the start of 
each fiscal year. The estimated budgetary impact of the bill is 
shown in Table 1.

                                 TABLE 1.--ESTIMATED IMPACT ON FEDERAL SPENDING                                 
                                    [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        1997      1998      1999      2000      2001      2002  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION                                       
                                                                                                                
Spending Under Current Law: \1\                                                                                 
    Budget authority................................     1,698         0         0         0         0         0
    Estimated outlays...............................     1,656       641       187        43        14         0
Proposed Changes:                                                                                               
    Estimated authorization level...................         0     2,854     2,789     2,789     2,796     2,796
    Estimated outlays...............................         0     1,457     2,206     2,511     2,684     2,796
Spending Under The Bill: \1\                                                                                    
    Estimated authorization level...................     1,698     2,854     2,789     2,789     2,796     2,796
    Estimated outlays...............................     1,656     2,098     2,393     2,554     2,698     2,796
                                                                                                                
                                           CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING                                           
                                                                                                                
Estimated budget authority..........................         0       -16       -72       -60        68        78
Estimated outlays...................................         0      -106      -105       -53        10        47
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 1997 budget authority is the amount appropriated for that year. It includes spending for the            
  Agricultural Research Service, the Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service, and associated 
  buildings and facilities accounts.                                                                            

    The costs of this legislation fall within budget functions 
300 (natural resources and environment), 350 (agriculture), 370 
(commerce and housing credit), 450 (community and regional 
development), 550 (health), and 600 (income security).

Basis of estimate

            Spending subject to appropriation
    The bill would reauthorize appropriations for most expiring 
agricultural research, extension, and education activities and 
would authorize appropriations for several new activities over 
fiscal years 1998 through 2002. Assuming appropriation of the 
necessary amounts for all programs, enacting the bill would 
result in about $14 billion in additional discretionary 
spending authority and $11.7 billion in discretionary outlays 
over the 1998-2002 period.
    Programs with Specific Authorized Appropriations. The bill 
would authorize the appropriation of specific amounts for each 
fiscal year from 1998 through 2002 for a number of programs and 
research areas. Table 2 shows the specified amounts.
    Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts for each 
of the above programs, enacting the bill would result in about 
$11.9 billion in additional appropriations over the 1998-2002 
period.
    The bill also would either authorize the appropriation, or 
would imply an authorization, of such sums as necessary to 
carry out certain programs. We estimate that implementing these 
programs would require funding of $2.1 billion over the 1998-
2002 period. CBO's basis for estimating that sum is provided 
below.
    National Food Genome Strategy. Section 1671 of the Food, 
Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 directs the 
Secretary to conduct a research program through competitive 
grants to support basic and applied research and technology 
development in the area of plant genome structure and function. 
The 1990 act authorized the appropriation of such sums as 
necessary for fiscal years 1996 and 1997. This bill would amend 
the 1990 act to require the Secretary to carry out a National 
Food Genome Strategy to study and map agriculturally 
significant genes to achieve sustainable and secure 
agricultural production, and for other purposes. It would 
authorize the Secretary to enter into or make contracts, 
grants, or cooperative agreements for this purpose. Based on 
information from the Department of Agriculture (USDA), CBO 
estimates that carrying out the strategy would cost about $150 
million in total for fiscal years 1998 through 2002.

  TABLE 2.--SPECIFIED ANNUAL AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1998  
                              THROUGH 2002                              
                        [In millions of dollars]                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Authorized
                                                                annual  
                                                                amount  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Agricultural Weather Information System............          15
Assistive technology for farmers with disabilities..........           6
Biobased products \1\.......................................          10
Eradication of Formosan termites............................          10
Grants and fellowships for food and agriculture education...          60
Grants for production and marketing of alcohol fuels and                
 industrial hydrocarbons....................................          20
Expanded food and nutrition education.......................          83
Grants to upgrade agricultural research facilities at 1890              
 schools, including Tuskegee University.....................          15
National research and training centennial centers...........           2
Education grants for Hispanic-serving institutions..........          20
Existing and certain new agricultural research programs.....         850
Agriculture experiment stations.............................         310
Extension education.........................................         460
Aquaculture assistance program..............................           8
National Rural Information Clearing House...................           1
Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act.....         500
1994 schools \2\............................................           5
1994 schools for institution building grants \2\............           2
National Aquaculture Act of 1980............................           3
Agricultural telecommunications program.....................          12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For 1999 through 2002 only.                                         
\2\ For 2001 and 2002 only.                                             

    Imported Fire Ant Control, Management, and Eradication. The 
bill would establish a multistage program to control, manage, 
and eradicate imported fire ants. The bill would authorize the 
Secretary to award grants totaling $6 million annually to 
specified entities for the purpose of research and 
demonstration projects related to controlling fire ants. The 
bill would authorize the Secretary to award subsequent grants 
of up to $4 million per year for two years to each of the most 
promising projects funded by the initial grants. After an 
evaluation of these projects, the bill would authorize the 
Secretary to award a $5 million grant to the sponsor or 
sponsors of the best project to develop a national strategy for 
the control of fire ants. The bill would authorize such sums as 
necessary to carry out this program. CBO estimates that 
implementing this section would require appropriations of $24 
million over the 1998-2002 period, with another $41 million 
required through 2006.
    Office of Energy Policy and New Uses. The bill would amend 
the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 to 
require the Secretary to establish an Office of Energy Policy 
and New Uses in the Office of the Secretary. Based on 
information from USDA regarding expenditures for other similar 
offices, CBO estimates that this new office would require the 
appropriation of about $3 million over the period 1998-2002.
    Precision Agriculture. The bill would authorize the 
Secretary to make competitive grants to eligible entities to 
carry out research, education, and information dissemination 
projects for the development and promotion of precision 
agriculture. The legislation would authorize such sums as 
necessary for each fiscal year from 1998 through 2002. Based on 
information from USDA and assuming appropriation of the 
necessary amounts, CBO estimates that implementing this 
provision would cost $5 million a year.
    Nutrient Composition Data. The bill would require the 
Secretary to update, on a periodic basis, nutrient composition 
data, and to report to the Congress within 180 days a to the 
intended methodology, quality assurance criteria, and timing 
for making the updates. CBO estimates that additional 
appropriations of $2 million annually would be required for 
this project.
    Consolidated Administrative and Laboratory Facility. The 
bill would authorize the Secretary, in consultation with the 
Administrator of General Services, to enter into contracts for 
the design, construction and operation of a consolidated 
administrative and laboratory facility of the Animal and Plant 
Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to be located in Ames, Iowa. 
The bill would authorize the appropriation of such sums as 
necessary, to remain available until expended. Based on 
information from USDA officials, CBO estimates that this 
project would cost $80 million over four fiscal years.
    National Swine Research Center. The bill would authorize 
the Secretary, subject to the availability of appropriated 
funds or through a reprogramming of funds provided for swine 
research, to accept as a gift and administer the National Swine 
Research Center located in Ames, Iowa. Based on information 
provided by USDA, CBO estimates operation of the research 
center would require an appropriation of $10 million annually 
beginning in 1998.
    Evaluation and Assessment of Agricultural Research, 
Extension, and Education Programs. The legislation would 
require the Secretary to enter into a contract with an expert 
in research assessment to evaluate federally funded 
agricultural research, extension, and education programs and to 
determine whether they result in public goods that have 
national or multistate significance. The contractor would 
develop and proposes practical guidelines consistent with the 
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 for measuring 
performance of federally funded agricultural research, 
extension, and educationactivites. Based on information 
regarding similar contracts, CBO estimates that such an evaluation 
would require total expenditures of less than $500,000.
    Study of Federally Funded Agricultural Research, Extension, 
and Education. The bill would require the Secretary to request 
that the National Academy of Sciences study the role and 
mission of federally funded agricultural research, extension, 
and education, and report the results to the Congress within a 
specified time frame. CBO estimates that completing this study 
would cost about $1 million, assuming appropriation of 
necessary funds.
    Other Programs. The bill would continue several existing 
program and authorize such sums as necessary for the 1998-2002 
period. For the purposes of this estimate, CBO assumes that the 
necessary appropriations for research on animal health and 
rangeland, policy research centers, human nutrition 
intervention, health promotion research, the national genetic 
research program, the study of changes in global climate, 
activities under the Critical Agricultural Materials Act, the 
Research Facilities Act, and the Renewable Resources Extension 
Act, and the planning, construction, acquisition, and repair of 
buildings would be equivalent to the 1997 appropriation for 
these programs and activities. Estimated funding totals $1.8 
billion for the 1998-2002 period.
            Direct spending
    The bill would provide an additional $300 million in 
spending authority over the 1998-2002 period for the Fund for 
Rural America. It also would provide $780 million over the 
1998-2002 period for a new Initiative for Future Agriculture 
and Food Systems. In addition, the bill would increase Child 
Nutrition spending by $142 million over the same period.
    To offset these increases in direct spending, the bill 
would limit administrative costs of the Food Stamp program, 
resulting in savings of $1.1 billion over the 1998-2002 period. 
The bill also would limit CCC spending for information 
technology ($82 million in savings over the period), and 
authorize the Secretary, under certain conditions, to allow 
haying and grazing of the land enrolled in the CRP in exchange 
for a reduction in rental payments ($20 million in savings over 
the period).
    Fund for Rural America. The Federal Agriculture Improvement 
and Reform Act of 1996 established the Fund for Rural America 
to provide funds for agricultural research and rural 
development. That act appropriated $100 million for each of 
fiscal years 1997, 1999, and 2000 (although $20 million was 
later rescinded in 1997). This bill would appropriate $100 
million for each of fiscal years 1998, 2001, and 2002, for an 
increase in direct spending authority of $300 million through 
2002. Assuming the Secretary allocates funds across research 
and rural development programs in proportions similar to the 
1997 allocation, CBO estimates that spending for these purposes 
would increase by $200 million through 2002, as shown in Table 
3.

                           TABLE 3.--ESTIMATED SPENDING FOR THE FUND FOR RURAL AMERICA                          
                                    [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        1997      1998      1999      2000      2001      2002  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fund for Rural America Spending Under Current Law:                                                              
    Budget authority................................        80         0       100       100         0         0
    Estimated outlays...............................        21        32        51        74        57        32
Proposed Changes:                                                                                               
    Budget authority................................         0       100         0         0       100       100
    Estimated outlays...............................         0        34        33        22        42        69
Fund for Rural America Spending Under the Bill:                                                                 
    Budget authority................................        80       100       100       100       100       100
    Estimaed outlays................................        21        66        84        96        99       101
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems. Title 
III of the bill would create the Initiative for Future 
Agriculture and Food Systems to provide funds for agricultural 
research. The bill would appropriate to the fund $100 million 
for fiscal year 1998 and $170 million for each of fiscal years 
1999 through 2002, for an increase in direct spending authority 
of $780 million through 2002. Assuming the Secretary awards 
these funds for research grants as authorized, CBO estimates 
that spending for this purpose would be $663 million through 
2002 (see Table 4).
    Child Nutrition Programs. The bill would restore several 
features of the Child Nutrition programs that were changed by 
last years' welfare bill, the Personal Responsibility and Work 
Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). The changes would 
result in increased outlays of $9 million in 1998 and $142 
million over the 1998-2002 period. Table 5 shows the federal 
budgetary effects of the bill on Child Nutrition programs.

             TABLE 4.--ESTIMATED SPENDING ON THE INITIATIVE FOR FUTURE AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SYSTEMS             
                                    [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        1997      1998      1999      2000      2001      2002  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spending Under Current Law for the Initiative for                                                               
 Future Agriculture and Food Systems:                                                                           
    Budget authority................................         0         0         0         0         0         0
    Estimated outlays...............................         0         0         0         0         0         0
Proposed Changes:                                                                                               
    Budget authority................................         0       100       170       170       170       170
    Estimated outlays...............................         0        51       116       156       170       170
Spending Under the Bill for the Initiative for                                                                  
 Future Agriculture and Food Systems:                                                                           
    Budget authority................................         0       100       170       170       170       170
    Estimated outlays...............................         0        51       116       156       170       170
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                            TABLE 5.--ESTIMATED SPENDING ON CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS                            
                                [Outlays, by fiscal year, in millions of dollars]                               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        1997      1998      1999      2000      2001      2002  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spending Under Current Law for the Child Nutrition                                                              
 Programs...........................................     8,221     8,474     8,895     9,353     9,829    10,314
Proposed Changes....................................         0         9        31        36        33        33
Spending Under the Bill for Child Nutrition Programs     8,221     8,483     8,926     9,389     9,862    10,347
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The bill would restore funding for grants to pay for 
nonrecurring expenses that schools and other institutions face 
in initiating or expanding their school breakfast or summer 
food programs. The bill would provide $5 million each year for 
such grants. (CBO estimates that outlays for these grants would 
be $3 million in fiscal year 1998 and $5 million in each 
succeeding year.) CBO estimates that more meals would be served 
in the breakfast and summer programs because of the start-up 
grants, resulting in an additional increase in outlays of $6 
million in 1998, rising to $14 million in 2000, then declining 
to $11 million in 2002.
    The bill also would return to the pre-PRWORA policy that 
allowed four meals a day (instead of three) to be served in 
child care centers under the child and adult care food program 
and the summer food program under some circumstances. Effective 
September 1, 1998, a child care center could serve four meals 
to children that are in child care for eight or more hours a 
day. Similarly, a summer program that is a camp or that serves 
meals primarily to migrant children would also be allowed to 
serve four meals a day. CBO estimates that the extra meals, 
predominantly snacks, would result in increased outlays of less 
than $500,000 in fiscal year 1998, $16 million in fiscal year 
1999, and $17 million in later years.
    Finally, the bill would increase funding for information 
clearinghouses under the National School Lunch Act, resulting 
in increased outlays of $1 million over the 1998-2002 period.
    Administartive Costs of the Food Stamp Program. The bill 
would cap the amounts that states could obtain from the federal 
government for administering the Food Stamp program. The 
aggregated level of all states' caps would be below the amount 
CBO estimates states would otherwise seek for administering the 
program, lowering federal Food Stamp outlays by between $310 
million and $420 million a year over the 1998-2002 period. As 
discussed below, CBO estimates that over $100 million of this 
amount each year would be offset by increased Medicaid outlays, 
resulting in net savings of $200 million in 1998, rising to 
$280 million in 1999, and then declining to $190 million in 
2002. Table 6 shows the estimated federal budgetary effects of 
this provision.
    Background. Under current law, the states administer the 
Food Stamp program and the federal government reimburses them 
for half of all administrative costs. The largest component of 
administrative costs is the cost of certifying eligible 
households. Other components include cost of issuing food 
stamps, computer operations, and fraud control. States also 
administer many other public benefit programs, such as 
Medicaid, cash assistance for families with children 
(previously Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), now 
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)), Child Support 
Enforcement, Foster Care, and in some states, general 
assistance. The federal government matches the states' 
administrative expenses for all of these programs except state-
funded general assistance.

   TABLE 6.--ESTIMATED FEDERAL BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF CHANGES IN ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS OF THE FOOD STAMP PROGRAM   
                                [Outlays by fiscal year, in millions of dollars]                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        1997      1998      1999      2000      2001      2002  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Spending Under Current Law:                                                                           
    Food stamp administration \1\...................     2,045     2,408     2,556     2,640     2,706     2,719
    Medicaid administration.........................     4,419     5,052     5,548     6,113     6,625     7,192
Proposed Changes:                                                                                               
    Food stamp administration.......................         0      -310      -420      -370      -320      -310
    Medicaid administration.........................         0       110       140       130       120       120
Estimated Spending Under the Bill:                                                                              
    Food stamp administration.......................     2,045     2,098     2,136     2,270     2,386     2,409
    Medicaid administration.........................     4,419     5,162     5,688     6,243     6,745     7,312
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes the effects of Public Law 105-33, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, on the Food Stamp Employment and
  Training program.                                                                                             

    Because of the overlap in eligible populations, states 
often undertake administrative activities that benefit more 
than one program. For example, when a household applies for 
TANF, Medicaid, and food stamps, collecting information on the 
household's income is necessary for all programs and is usually 
done during a combined eligibility interview. The process of 
allocating shared administrative costs among various state and 
federal programs is known as cost allocation. The general rules 
for allocating costs are prescribed by regulation in OMB 
Circular A-87. These rules require that costs that are incurred 
for more than one program be allocated based on the extent to 
which the various programs benefit from the activity. Under 
this logic, a cost that is equally necessary for more than one 
program should be shared equally by the programs.
    The history of the public welfare programs led to an 
exception to this general cost allocation rule. All costs that 
were identified as shared costs were allocated to AFDC because 
AFDC existed first. When Congress later created Medicaid and 
Food Stamps, it assumed that large portions of the 
administrative work for households that received AFDC was 
already done for AFDC and that these newer programs could 
piggy-back on that work. For cases that received AFDC, food 
stamps, and Medicaid, the Food Stamp and Medicaid programs paid 
only the cost of the work that was over and above what was 
required for AFDC. Because the federal match rate was generally 
50 percent in all three programs, the amount that the federal 
government paid was the same, regardless of whether it was 
considered a joint cost (and thus claimed under the AFDC 
program) or a cost allocated to one of the individual programs.
    Effect of PRWORA. Last summer's welfare law, the Personal 
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act 
(PRWORA), replaced the AFDC program with the TANF block grant 
program. Under AFDC, the federal government and the states had 
shared the entitlement costs of cash benefits, administrative 
costs, emergency assistance, and the Job Opportunities and 
Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program. PRWORA repealed these 
programs and replaced them with a federal block grant that 
states can use as they choose, within wide boundaries, for 
serving needy families. The amount for the block grant was 
based on recent historical federal spending for the repealed 
components of AFDC. Therefore, although the amount states will 
spend on administrative expenses is not dictated by federal law 
(except that it cannot exceed 15 percent of the block grant 
amount), the amount that was implicitly included in the TANF 
block grant based on pre-1996 spending was pedicated on the 
cost allocation method discussed above, where AFDC paid for the 
administrative costs that benefitted all the various programs.
    The repeal of AFDC and institution of TANF affected the 
allocation of administrative costs in two ways. First, states 
now have the incentive to maximize the administrative costs 
attributed to Medicaid or Food Stamps, where they can still 
receive a 50 percent match, and minimize TANF expenses so that 
those funds can be used for other purposes. Second, with AFDC 
abolished, the legislative history that gave AFDC special 
treatment for cost allocation purposes may be obsolete, and the 
Congress did not specify how shared costs should be treated 
under TANF.
    CBO's March 1997 baseline. In estimating spending under 
current law for CBO's March 1997 baseline, CBO assumed that 
states will begin to draw down more Food Stamp and Medicaid 
administrative funds than they have in the past for the two 
reasons outlined above: they will maximize the amount of 
administrative costs that they attribute to Medicaid or Food 
Stamps, and they will seek to revise their cost allocation 
plans so that all programs that benefit from joint activities 
share in the costs, instead of TANF paying all of the shared 
costs. The March 1997 estimates of Food Stamp and Medicaid 
spending are each about $250 million higher in fiscal year 1997 
and about $500 million higher in later years than they would 
have been without these assumptions.
    In fiscal year 1996 states received over $1.8 billion in 
federal matching funds for administering the Food Stamp 
program. CBO currently estimates that this amount will increase 
to $2.0 billion fiscal year 1997, $2.4 billion in fiscal year 
1998, and $2.7 billion in fiscal year 2002.
    Effect of this bill. The bill would cap each state's 
allowable Food Stamp administrative costs at a level that, when 
aggregated, is lower than CBO's March 1997 estimates of current 
law spending. States would still draw down federal money at the 
50-percent-match rate up to the cap, and then would recieve no 
additional match for costs above the cap. In 1998 the cap level 
would be 110 percent of the amount the state received in fiscal 
year 1996. In later years the cap would be 115 percent of the 
fiscal year 1996 amount, adjusted for inflation and for changes 
in the number of households participating in the Food Stamp 
program. CBO estimates that the sum of cap levels across all 
the states would be between $350 million and $440 million lower 
than what states would otherwise have received if the federal 
administrative funds remained open-ended. The cap amounts would 
be larger, however, by between $70 million and $200 million a 
year, than the amounts states likely would have received if 
AFDC had not been replaced with TANF.
    CBO further assumes that under the bill states would change 
some practices and reallocate their adminstrative costs to draw 
down more money under Medicaid, which would be the largest 
remaining program that serves low-income families and retains 
an open-ended match for adminsitrative costs. CBO assumes the 
states would receive a federal match under Medicaid for one-
third of the amount that would no longer be reimbursable under 
Food Stamps, resulting in increased Medicaid outlays of betwen 
$110 million and $140 million a year.
    Three components of federal payments to states would be 
exempt from the cap--employment and training costs of 
initiating new computer systems, and enhanced funding for 
states with low error rates. In two of these areas, employment 
and training and computer systems, CBO expects that spending 
would grow faster under the bill than under current law because 
states would have an incentive to modify their behavior and 
proceudres to draw down the opend-ended funds. CBO estimates 
that federal spending for these two components of 
administrative costs would increase by $10 million in 1998 and 
$50 million in 2002. The third area, enhanced funding, would 
not necessarily increase under the bill because only a few 
states rceived these funds each year based on their low error 
rates. The bill would not change those rules.
    CBO does not expect that the limitation on federal 
administrative funds would cause increases in Food Stamp 
benefits because of administrative errors. CBO assumes that 
states would use their own funds or TANF funds to make up the 
loss in federal funds, so that the total resources devoted to 
the administration of welfare programs would not be 
significantly different under the bill.
    Information Technology Funding. The bill would amend the 
CCC Charter Act to reduce the total amount that the CCC can 
spend for information technology from $275 million to $193 
million over the 1997-2002 period. CBO estimates that this 
provision would reduce CCC outlays by $82 million from 1998 
through 2002. We estimate the lower limit would mean that funds 
available for information technology would be exhausted by 
2000, leaving no funds available for 2001 and 2002.

           TABLE 7.--ESTIMATED SPENDING BY THE COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION ON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY           
                                [Outlays, by fiscal year, in millions of dollars]                               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        1997      1998      1999      2000      2001      2002  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCC Information Technology Spending Under Current                                                               
 Law................................................        55        66        39        55        30        30
Proposed Changes....................................         0         0         0       -22       -30       -30
CCC Information Technology Spending Under the Bill..        55        66        39        33         0         0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Haying and Grazing on Conservation Reserve Land. The CRP is 
a long-term land retirment program of the CCC, whereby USDA 
pays landowners an annual rent in return for planting 
beneficial cover crops and retiring the land from farming. 
These cover crops may have a value as livestock feed if they 
were to be cut for hay, or if livestock were to be allowed to 
graze in the covered fields. Indeed, current law provides that 
under emergency conditions the Secretary may allow haying and 
grazing of the CRP. This bill would amend the Food Security Act 
of 1985 to permit holders of CRP contracts to hay and graze up 
to a third of their land enrolled in the CRP. Annual rental 
payments on such land would be reduced commensurately with the 
value of the hay or forage removed. The legislation would 
elimiate current authority for haying and grazing of CRP land 
under certain emergency situations. CBO estimates the CRP 
provisions would reduce federal outlays by $5 million per year, 
beginning in 1999.
    The ability to hay and graze up to a third of CRP land each 
year would encourage some producers to establish a rotational 
haying and grazing management plan. This is not currently 
possible because the CRP can be hayed or grazed only when the 
Secretary declares a county an emergency area. However, the 
bill also would give the Secretary authroity to ensure that the 
haying and grazing remains consistent with the pruposes of the 
CRP program, for example, by limiting the time of year haying 
or grazing could take place so as not tointerfere with wildlife 
nesting and by imposing other restrictions. Such restrictions have 
accompanied emergency haying and grazing declarations in the past. 
Also, it is not clear what method USDA would use to determine the value 
of forage removed from CRP land. Based on available historical 
information and information from USDA, CBO estimates that around 1.3 
million acres of CRP land would be hayed and grazed each year under 
this provision, with a reduction in rental payments on those acres of 
about 25 percent.

            TABLE 8.--ESTIMATED EFFECTS OF THE BILL ON SPENDING FOR THE CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM            
                                [Outlays by fiscal year, in millions of dollars]                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        1997      1998      1999      2000      2001      2002  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spending for the Conservation Reserve Program Under                                                             
 Current Law........................................     1,675     1,783     1,751     1,794     1,766     1,752
Proposed Changes....................................         0         0        -5        -5        -5        -5
Spending for the Conservation Reserve Program Under                                                             
 the Bill...........................................     1,675     1,783     1,746     1,789     1,761     1,747
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pay-as-you-go considerations: The Balanced Budget and 
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 specified pay-as-you-go 
procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or 
receipts. The projected changes in direct spending are shown in 
Table 9 for fiscal years 1998-2007. For purposes of enforcing 
pay-as-you-go procedures, however, only the effects in the 
budget year and the succeeding four years are counted.
    CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1596 would decrease direct 
spending by about $106 million in fiscal year 1998 and by $532 
million over the 1998-2007 period. This net savings occurs 
because the projected decline in spending from changes in 
nutrition programs, on CCC information technology, and on the 
CRP offsets the estimated increase in spending from 
appropriations for the Fund for Rural America and the 
Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems.

                                                       TABLE 9.--SUMMARY OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS                                                       
                                                        [By fiscal years, in millions of dollars]                                                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    1998     1999     2000     2001     2002     2003     2004     2005    2006    2007 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in outlays:                                                                                                                                     
    Fund for Rural America......................................       34       33       22       42       69       56       30       10       3       1
    Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems..........       51      116      156      170      170       83       34        0       0       0
    Nutrition Programs and Medicaid.............................     -191     -249     -204     -167     -157     -143     -125     -106     -96     -72
    Commodity Credit Corporation................................        0       -5      -27      -35      -35        0        0        0       0       0
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................     -106     -105      -53       10       47       -4      -61      -96     -93     -71
Changes in receipts. \1\........................................                                                                                        
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Not applicable.                                                                                                                                     

    Estimated impact on State, local, and tribal governments: 
CBO has determined that the section affecting reimbursements to 
states for administrative costs of the Food Stamp program 
imposes intergovernmental mandates as defined in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) and would impose additional 
costs on state governments. CBO's analysis of this mandate is 
contained in a separate statement.
    Estimated impact on the private sector: This bill would 
impose a private-sector mandate by specifying the use of 
assessments collected by the National Honey Board from 
producers and importers of honey. Section 227 would require 
that at least 8 percent of the assessments collected be used 
for research to ``advance the cost-effectiveness, 
competitiveness, efficiency, pest and disease control, and 
other management aspects of beekeeping and honey production.''
    The Secretary of Agriculture formed the National Honey 
Board to administer the Honey Research, Promotion, and Consumer 
Information Order. Honey producers and importers approved that 
order by referendum in 1986. The Honey Board conducts research, 
advertising, and promotions to promote the use of U.S. honey. 
An assessment of one-cent per pound on domestic production and 
imports of honey is the Board's primary source of funds. 
Assessments total about $3.1 million per year.
    The bill would require that nearly $250,000 of the 
assessments be reserved annually for the specified research, 
which the board does not now fund. Thus, the cost would not 
exceed the statutory threshold for private-sector mandates 
($100 million, adjusted annually for inflation) in any year.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Nutrition Programs: 
Dorothy Rosenbaum; Rural Development: Lisa Daley; and 
Agriculture: Dave Hull and Jim Langley.
    Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Marge 
Miller and Marc Nicole.
    Impact on the Private Sector: Roger E. Hitchner.
    Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

    congressional budget office intergovernmental mandates statement

S. 1150--Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 
        1997

    Summary: This legislation would reauthorize, reform, or 
eliminate certain agricultural research, extension, and 
education programs, and would authorize appropriations for 
several new ones. These programs operate largely through grants 
to colleges and universities. The bill also includes provisions 
that would authorized federal spending for grants to state and 
tribal institutions, and others that would impose new 
conditions for the receipt of these grants.
    The bill includes a provision (section 501) that would 
limit the amount the Secretary of Agriculture would pay each 
state for administering the Food Stamp program. Section 501 
would impose an intergovernmental mandate, as defined in the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), because it would 
reduce the federal share of a major entitlement program. CBO 
estimates that the net direct costs to states of this mandate 
would be $200 million in 1998 and $1.1 billion for the 1998-
2002 period. These amounts exceed the threshold for 
intergovernmental mandates specified in UMRA.
    Intergovernmental mandates contained in bill: Section 501 
would limit the federal government's responsibility to provide 
funding to states for administrative costs of the Food Stamp 
program. Section 421(5)(B)(ii) of UMRA provides that imposing a 
cap on federal funding for certain entitlement programs, 
including the Food Stamp program, is a mandate if the state, 
local, or tribal governments that participate in the program 
lack the authority to amend their financial or programmatic 
responsibilities to continue providing required services that 
are affected by the legislation. Because states have limited 
authority to amend their programmatic responsibilities under 
the Food Stamp program. CBO has determined that the cap imposed 
by section 501 would constitute a mandate.
    Estimated direct costs of mandates to State, local, and 
tribal governments: The statutory threshold ($50 million in 
1996, adjusted annually for inflation) is exceeded.
    Total direct costs of mandates: CBO estimates that the 
direct costs of the intergovernmental mandate on state, local, 
and tribal governments are as follows:

                                    [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  1998      1999      2000      2001      2002  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net direct costs..............................................       200       280       240       200       190
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Basis of estimate: Background. Under current law, the state 
administer the Food Stamp program and the federal government 
reimburses them for half of all administrative costs. The 
largest component of administrative costs is the cost of 
certifying eligible households. Other components include costs 
of issuing food stamps, computer operations, and fraud control. 
States also administer many other public benefit programs, such 
as Medicaid, cash assistance for families with children 
(previously Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), now 
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)), Child Support 
Enforcement, Foster Care, and in some states, general 
assistance. The federal government matches states' 
administrative expenses for all of these programs except state-
funded general assistance.
    Because of the overlap in eligible populations, states 
often undertake administrative activities that benefit more 
than one program. For example, when a household applies for 
TANF, Medicaid, and food stamps, collecting information on the 
household's income is necessary for all programs and is usually 
done during a combined eligibility interview. The process of 
allocating shared administrative costs among various state and 
federal programs is known as cost allocation. The general rules 
for allocating costs are prescribed by regulation in OMB 
Circular A-87. These rules require that costs that are incurred 
for more than one program be allocated based on the extent to 
which the various programs benefit from the activity. Under 
this logic, a cost that is equally necessary for more than one 
program should be shared equally by the programs.
    The history of the public welfare programs led to an 
exception to this general cost allocation rule. All costs that 
were identified as shared cost were allocated to AFDC because 
AFDC existed first. When Congress later created Medicaid and 
Food Stamps it assumed that large portions of the 
administrative work for households that received AFDC was 
already done for AFDC and that these newer programs could 
piggy-back on that work. For cases that received AFDC, food 
stamps, and Medicaid, the Food Stamp and Medicaid programs paid 
only the cost of the work that was over and above what was 
required for AFDC. Because the federal match rate was generally 
50 percent in all three programs, the amount that the federal 
government paid was the same, regardless of whether it was 
considered a joint cost (and thus claimed under the AFDC 
program) or a cost allocated to one of the individual programs.
    Effect of PRWORA. Last summer's welfare law, the Personal 
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act 
(PRWORA), replaced the AFDC program with the TANF block grant 
program. Under AFDC, the federal government and the states had 
shared the entitlement costs of cash benefits, administrative 
costs, emergency assistance, and the Job Opportunities and 
Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program. PRWORA repealed these 
programs and replaced them with a federal block grant that 
states can use as they choose, within wide boundaries, for 
serving needy families. The amount for the block grant was 
based on recent historical federal spending for the repealed 
components of AFDC. Therefore, although the amount states will 
spend on administrative expenses is not dictated by federal law 
(except that it cannot exceed 15 percent of the block grant 
amount), the amount that was implicitly included in the TANF 
block grant based on pre-1996 spending was predicated on the 
cost allocation method discussed above, where AFDC paid for the 
administrative costs that benefitted all the various programs.
    The repeal of AFDC and institution of TANF affected the 
allocation of administrative costs in two ways. First, states 
now have the incentive to maximize the administrative costs 
attributed to Medicaid or Food Stamps, where they can still 
receive a 50 percent match, and minimize TANF expenses so that 
those funds can be used for other purposes. Second, with AFDC 
abolished, the legislative history that gave AFDC special 
treatment for cost allocation purposes may be obsolete, and the 
Congress did not specify how shared costs should be treated 
under TANF.
    CBO's March 1997 Baseline. In estimating spending under 
current law for CBO's March 1997 baseline, CBO assumed that 
states will begin to draw down more Food Stamp and Medicaid 
administrative funds than they have in the past for the two 
reasons outlined above: they will maximize the amount of 
administrative costs that they attribute to Medicaid or Food 
Stamps, and they will seek to revise their cost allocation 
plans so that all programs that benefit from joint activities 
share in the costs, instead of TANF paying all the shared 
costs.
    Effect of this bill. The bill would cap each state's 
allowable Food Stamp administrative costs at a level that, when 
aggregated, is lower than CBO's March 1997 estimates of current 
law spending. States would still draw down federal money at the 
50-percent-match rate up to the cap, and then would receive no 
additional match for costs above the cap. In 1998 the cap level 
would be 110 percent of the amount the state received in fiscal 
year 1996. In later years the cap would be 115 percent of the 
fiscal year 1996 amount, adjusted for inflation and for changes 
in the number of households participating in the Food Stamp 
program. As a result, states would receive less administrative 
funding under the Food Stamp program than they would otherwise 
receive if the federal contribution remained open-ended. 
However, CBO anticipates that spending on certain other 
expenses exempt from the cap on Food Stamp administrative costs 
(such as employment and training and initiation of new computer 
systems) would increase under the bill. CBO estimates that 
states on balance would lose Food Stamp funding totaling $310 
million in fiscal year 1998 and $1.7 billion over the 1998-2002 
period.
    CBO expects that states would minimize their losses under 
the bill by changing some practices and reallocating their 
administrative costs to draw down more money under Medicaid, 
which retains an open-ended match for administrative costs. CBO 
estimates that states would collect an additional $110 million 
in fiscal year 1998 and $600 million over the 1998-2002 period. 
Thus, the net cost of the mandate would be $200 million in 
fiscal year 1998 and $1.1 billion for the five-year period 
beginning in 1998.
    Appropriation or other Federal financial assistance 
provided in bill to cover mandate costs: None.
    Other impacts on State, local, and tribal governments: 
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Programs. This 
bill would extend the authorization of appropriations for 
federal agricultural research, extension, and education 
programs through fiscal year 2002. It would also create several 
new programs and repeal certain existing ones. A large part of 
the funds authorized by this bill would be spent on grants to 
state and tribal institutions, mostly colleges and 
universities. The bill imposes new conditions on the use of 
this assistance, however.
    The primary result of these new conditions would be to 
redirect the uses of federal funds by grantees. Section 205 of 
this bill would limit indirect costs charged to certain 
competitive research, extension, or education grants to no more 
than 25 percent total federal funds. Section 105 would require 
land-grant colleges and universities to use a minimum 
percentage of funds provided under other programs for 
activities that integrate cooperative research and extension. 
Finally, section 224 would require that states use a minimum 
percentage of their cooperative extension funds for multistate 
activities. The extent to which the latter two provisions lead 
to a significant change in funded activities would depend on 
how the USDA would define the terms and what types of 
activities it would accept as counting towards these goals. The 
cost of these provisions would also depend on what specific 
requirements USDA would impose on grant recipients to document 
their compliance.
    Other provisions would require scientific peer review or 
merit review of activities funded by this bill. Institutions 
that receive agricultural research or extension funds would be 
required to establish a process for merit review of funded 
activities. Based on information provided by state officials, 
CBO estimates that these requirements would not impose 
significant new costs on grant recipients. These institutions 
generally follow procedures that would comply with these 
provisions. They could face additional burdens if the specific 
requirements imposed by USDA's implementing regulations were to 
differ significantly from current practice.
    Child Nutrition. The bill would authorize funding totaling 
$5 million annually for startup and expansion costs associated 
with the school breakfast and summer food service programs. 
Because it would increase funding for Child Nutrition programs, 
the bill would also add to the amount that states receive from 
the federal government for administering such programs by less 
than $0.5 million annually beginning in fiscal year 2000.
    Estimate prepared by: Marc Nicole and Marjorie Miller.
    Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                    VI. Section-by-Section Analysis

    Sec. 1. Short Title; Table of Contents. The Act's title is 
the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act 
of 1997.
    Sec. 2. Definitions. This section contains definitions for 
terms used throughout the bill, including ``1862'', ``1890'' 
and ``1994'' Institutions, ``Advisory Board,'' ``Department,'' 
``Hatch Act of 1887,'' ``Secretary,'' ``Smith-Lever Act,'' and 
``Stakeholder.''

   TITLE I--PRIORITIES, SCOPE, AND REVIEW OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, 
                        EXTENSION, AND EDUCATION

    Sec. 101. Standards for Federal Funding of Agricultural 
Research, Extension, and Education. This section requires the 
Secretary to ensure that agricultural research, extension or 
education activities conducted by ARS or on a competitive basis 
by CSREES address concerns that are high priority and have 
national or multi-state significance.
    Sec. 102. Priority Setting Process. This section requires 
the Secretary to establish priorities for agricultural 
research, extension and education activities conducted by or 
for the Department. In establishing these priorities, the 
Secretary must solicit and consider input and recommendations 
from stakeholders. The Secretary must notify the Advisory Board 
in writing regarding the implementation of its recommendations 
and must send copies of the letter to the Senate and House 
Agriculture Committees regarding the recommendations of the 
Advisory Board if the recommendations are regarding the 
priority mission areas under the Initiative for Future 
Agriculture and Food Systems.
     This section also requires the 1862, 1890 and 1994 
institutions to establish and implement a process for obtaining 
stakeholder input concerning the uses of Federal formula funds 
and the Secretary is directed to establish regulations on the 
requirements for complying with the stakeholder input 
requirement and the consequences of not complying. The section 
also adds a list of management principles for research, 
extension and education funded by the Department.
    Sec. 103. Relevance and Merit of Federally Funded 
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education. This section 
requires the Secretary to establish procedures that ensure 
scientific peer review of each agricultural research grant 
funded, on a competitive basis, by CSREES. This section also 
requires the Secretary to establish procedures that ensure 
merit review of each agricultural extension or education grant 
funded, on a competitive basis, by CSREES.
     This section requires the Advisory Board to perform an 
annual review of the relevancy of the Department's agricultural 
research, extension and education funding portfolio in relation 
to the Secretary's priorities established under section 102. 
The results of this review are to be considered when 
formulating requests for proposals for the next fiscal year, if 
the results are available then. The Secretary is also required 
to solicit and consider input from stakeholders on the prior 
year's request for proposals when formulating a request for 
proposals for a new year.
     The section requires the Secretary to establish procedures 
to ensure scientific peer review of ARS research activities and 
the research of each scientist employed by ARS at least once 
every 5 years by a review panel to verify that the activities 
have scientific merit and relevance to the Secretary's 
priorities as well as national or multistate significance. The 
review panel under this section is to be comprised of 
individuals with scientific expertise, a majority of whom are 
not employees of ARS. The results of these reviews are to be 
transmitted to Congress and the Advisory Board.
     The 1862 and 1890 Institutions are required to establish 
and implement a process for merit review in order to obtain 
agricultural research or extension funds and 1994 Institutions 
are required to establish and implement a merit review process 
in order to receive extension funds from the Secretary. (This 
section also repeals outdated authority of the Secretary to 
withhold formula funds.)
    Sec. 104. Research Formula Funds for 1862 Institutions. 
This section amends the Hatch Act to require that not less than 
25 percent of a State's Hatch Act funds will be used for 
projects in which a state agricultural experiment station, 
working with another agricultural experiment station, ARS, or a 
college or university, cooperates to solve multistate problems 
utilizing multidisciplinary approaches. This research will be 
subject to scientific peer review. A project reviewed under 
this section will also be deemed to have satisfied the merit 
review requirements of section 103.
    Sec. 105. Extension Formula Funds for 1862 Institutions. 
This section amends the Smith-Lever Act by requiring that a 
certain percentage of Smith-Lever (b) and (c) funds going to a 
State be used for cooperative extension activities in which 2 
or more states cooperate to solve problems that concern more 
than one State. In order to determine the applicable 
percentage, the Secretary shall determine the percentage of 
Federal formula funds that a State spent for fiscal year 1997 
for multistate activities. Then starting in fiscal year 2000, 
the applicable percentage will be 25 percent or twice the 
percentage determined to be spent on multistate activities in 
1997, whichever is less. The Secretary is given the authority 
to reduce the minimum percentage required in a case of 
hardship, infeasibility or other similar circumstance beyond 
the control of the State.
     The States are to include in their plans of work the 
mannerin which they will meet the applicable percentage 
requirement. State and local matching funds are not subject to the 
percentage requirement. This section also imposes a merit review 
requirement for these funds. The merit review in this section will 
satisfy the merit review requirement of section 103 as well.
    Sec. 106. Research Facilities. This section amends the 
Research Facilities Act by replacing the word ``regional'' 
everywhere it appears with ``multistate.'' This section 
requires the Secretary to ensure that ARS research facilities 
serve national or multistate needs. The section requires the 
Secretary to periodically review each operating agricultural 
research facility constructed in whole or in part with Federal 
funds and each planned agricultural research facility. The 
Competitive, Special and Facilities Research Grant Act is also 
amended by replacing the word ``regional'' everywhere it 
appears with ``national or multistate.''

    TITLE II--OTHER REFORM OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, EXTENSION AND 
                               EDUCATION

 Subtitle A--Amendments to National Agricultural Research, Extension, 
                    and Teaching Policy Act of 1977

    Sec. 201. Advisory Board. This section requires the 
Secretary to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, equal 
representation of public and private sector members on the 
Advisory Board.
    Sec. 202. Grants and Fellowships for Food and Agricultural 
Sciences Education. This section requires the Secretary to give 
priority in this grant program to teaching enhancement projects 
that demonstrate enhanced cooperation among all types of 
institutions and priority to teaching enhancement projects that 
focus on innovative, multidisciplinary education programs, 
materials and curricula. This section also authorizes the 
Secretary to maintain a national food and agricultural 
education information system containing information on 
enrollment, degrees awarded, faculty and employment placement 
in the food and agricultural sciences.
    Sec. 203 Policy Research Centers. This section amends 
current grant making authority to include grants for studies 
that concern the effect of trade agreements on farm and 
agricultural sector; the environment; rural families, 
households and economies; and consumer, food, and nutrition.
    Sec. 204. International Agricultural Research, Extension, 
and Teaching. This section adds the word ``teaching'' to the 
purposes of several grant programs and authorizes competitive 
grants for collaborative projects between U.S. scientists, land 
grant scientists, or scientists from other colleges and 
universities and scientists from international agricultural 
research centers in other nations, including the international 
agricultural research centres of the Consultative Group on 
International Agriculture Research. This section also requires 
the Secretary to submit a biennial report to the House and 
Senate Agriculture Committees about efforts to coordinate 
international agricultural research and better link domestic 
and international agricultural research.
    Sec. 205. General Administrative Costs. Subsection (a) 
amends subtitle K of the National Agricultural Research, 
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 by inserting section 
1461 which sets an indirect cost cap of 25 percent of total 
Federal funds provided under a grant for competitive research, 
extension, or education awarded under the National Research 
Initiative, the Fund for Rural America, or the Initiative for 
Future Agriculture and Food Systems.
     Subsection (b) amends section 1469 of the National 
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 
1977 to allow the Secretary of Agriculture to retain up to 4 
percent of amounts appropriated for an agricultural research, 
extension, or teaching assistance program for the 
administration of such program, except where the act 
authorizing such program specifically authorizes the Secretary 
to withhold a percentage of funds for the administration of 
that specific program. This subsection would also amend section 
1469 to provide for the retention for administrative costs of 4 
percent of funds made available under section 25 of the Food 
Stamp Act of 1977 for community food projects.
    Sec. 206. Expansion of Authority to Enter Into Cost-
Reimbursable Agreements. Section 206 would amend section 1473A 
of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching 
Policy Act of 1977 to expand current authority of the Secretary 
of Agriculture to enter into cost-reimbursable agreements with 
State cooperative institutions (i.e., land-grant colleges and 
universities) for the acquisition of goods or services, 
including personal services, to carry out agricultural 
research, extension, or teaching activities of mutual interest, 
by additionally allowing the Secretary to enter into such 
agreements with any college or university.

 Subtitle B--Amendments to Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade 
                              Act of 1990

    Sec. 211. National Agricultural Weather Information System. 
Section 211 would rewrite subtitle D of title XVI of the Food, 
Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990. This section 
would provide that section 1637 of the Act establish the short 
title for the subtitle as the ``National Agricultural Weather 
Information System Act of 1997'' and would establish the 
purposes of this subtitle to coordinate national agricultural 
weather and climate station network, ensure timely and accurate 
agriculture related weather information is disseminated and aid 
research and education projects which require agricultural 
weather and climate data.
     This section would provide that section 1638 of the Food, 
Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 would 
authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to establish the 
National Agricultural Weather Information System (NAWIS). This 
section would also authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to 
enter into cooperative projects with, and award grants to other 
Federal, regional, and State agencies to support development 
and dissemination of agricultural weather and climate 
information; to collect weather data through regional and State 
agricultural weather information systems; coordinate the 
weather activities of the Department of Agriculture with other 
Federal agencies and the private sector; make grants regarding 
State and regional agricultural weather information systems; 
and to encourage private sector participation in NAWIS 
activities. This section would also specifically authorize a 
competitive grants program to support projects to improve the 
manner in which agricultural weather and climate information is 
collected, retained, and distributed.
     This section would provide that section 1639 of the Food, 
Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 require that 
no more than two-thirds of the funds appropriated for the 
subtitle shall be used for work with the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration. This revised section would also 
prohibit the Secretary of Agriculture from awarding any grant 
funds for the construction of facilities and would limit the 
purchase of equipment with grants funds to no more than the 
lesser of one-third of the award or $15,000.
     This section would provide that section 1640 of the Food, 
Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 authorize to 
be appropriated $15 million for each of the 1998 through 2002 
fiscal years to carry out the purposes of the revised subtitle.
    Sec. 212. National Food Genome Strategy. This section would 
rewrite section 1671 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and 
Trade Act of 1990 to authorize the Secretary to establish a 
National Food Genome Strategy for agriculturally important 
plants, animals, and microbes. Subsection (a) of 1671 would 
establish the purposes of the section. Subsection (b) would 
require the Secretary of Agriculture develop and carry out a 
National Food Genome Strategy on the development and 
dissemination of information regarding the genetics of 
agriculturally important plants, animals, and microbes. 
Subsection (c) would authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to 
enter into contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements with 
individuals and organizations in accordance with section 1472 
of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching 
Policy Act of 1977 to carryout the purposes of this section. 
This subsection would also require that grants made under this 
subsection be awarded on a competitive basis. Subsection (d) 
would require the Secretary of Agriculture to issue necessary 
regulations. This subsection would also authorize the Secretary 
to consult with the National Academy of Sciences regarding the 
National Food Genome Strategy. This subsection would also 
authorize the Secretary to include in contracts, grants, and 
cooperative agreements an allowance for indirect costs in the 
same manner such costs are allowed under contracts, grants and 
cooperative agreements by the National Science Foundation.
    Sec. 213. Imported Fire Ant Control, Management, and 
Eradication. This section creates a three tiered grant program 
and authorizes the Secretary to establish a National Advisory 
Board on fire ant control, management, and eradication. 
Eligible grant recipients include colleges, universities, 
research institutes, Federal labs, or private entities selected 
by the Secretary on a competitive basis.
    Sec. 214. Agricultural Telecommunications Program. This 
section contains amendments that authorize the Secretary to 
award a grant to A*DEC to enable it to administer the 
Agricultural Telecommunications Program.
    Sec. 215. Assistive Technology Program for Farmers with 
Disabilities. This section changes the AgrAbility authorization 
to reflect the current distribution of funds. It eliminates the 
separate spending authority for the national grant program in 
favor of a combined authorization of $6 million, with 
instructions that 15 percent of total program appropriations be 
designated for nationally coordinated AgrAbility activities.

                  Subtitle C--Amendments to Other Laws

    Sec. 221. 1994 Institutions. This section amends the Equity 
In Education Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 by adding Little 
Priest Tribal College of Nebraska to the list of 1994 
Institutions and adds a requirement that 1994 Institutions 
either be accredited or working towards accreditation in order 
to receive funding under the Act.
    Sec. 222. Cooperative Agricultural Extension Work by 1862, 
1890, and 1994 Institutions. This section amends the Smith-
Lever Act to provide funding and authority for 1994 
Institutions for extension activities which may be carried out 
through cooperative agreements with land grant colleges in any 
State.
    Sec. 223. Eligibility of Certain Colleges and Universities 
for Extension Funding. This section amends section 3(d) of the 
Smith-Lever Act by expanding the list of institutions eligible 
to receive competitive funding under the Act to include all 
colleges and universities. It further amends section 3(d) of 
the Act by making 1890 and 1994 Institutions eligible for non-
competitive extension funding, as well as the 1862 
Institutions. The Secretary is authorized to enter into 
memoranda of understanding, cooperative agreements and 
reimbursable agreements with other Federal agencies to assist 
in carrying out extensionprograms. The section also contains a 
conforming amendment.
    Sec. 224. Integration of Research and Extension. This 
section amends the Smith-Lever and Hatch Acts by requiring that 
a certain percentage of Smith-Lever (b) and (c) and Hatch Act 
funds going to a State be used for integrated cooperative 
extension and research activities. In order to determine the 
applicable percentage, the Secretary shall determine the 
percentage of Federal formula funds that a State spent for 
fiscal year 1997 for integrated research and cooperative 
extension activities. Then starting in fiscal year 2000, the 
applicable percentage will be 25 percent or twice the 
percentage determined to be spent on integrated activities in 
1997, whichever is less. The Secretary is given the authority 
to reduce the minimum percentage required in a case of 
hardship, infeasibility or other similar circumstance beyond 
the control of the State.
     The States are to inform the Secretary of the manner in 
which they will meet the applicable percentage requirement. The 
section also provides that funds used towards meeting the 
integration requirement may also be used to satisfy the 
percentage requirements contained in sections 104 and 105 of 
the Bill. The section contains language exempting any State and 
local matching funds from the integration requirement.
    Sec. 225. Competitive, Special and Facilities Research 
Grants. This section amends the Competitive, Special, and 
Facilities Research Grants Act by adding national laboratories 
to the list of eligible grantees under the NRI. The section 
amends the time period for special grants from 5 years to 3 
years and requires that the grants be for the purpose of 
conducting research to address agricultural research needs of 
immediate importance, by themselves or in conjunction with 
extension or education; or new or emerging areas of 
agricultural research, by themselves or in conjunction with 
extension or education. This section retains the prohibition on 
providing special grants for facilities. Scientific peer review 
is required for research projects funded under this section and 
merit review is required for extension or education projects 
funded by a special grant. Eligible grantees include colleges, 
universities, other research institutions and organizations, 
Federal agencies, private organizations or corporations, and 
individuals.
     A partnership requirement is imposed for projects that 
address immediate needs. For projects that address new or 
emerging research issues, a partnership is required after three 
years in order to receive funding for additional years and the 
partnership must be comprised of at least 2 other entities, in 
addition to the grantee. Each grantee must also provide to the 
Secretary a proposed plan for graduation from Federal funding 
under this section. Graduation plans and partnership 
requirements do not apply to non-competitive special grants. 
Grant recipients are required to file annual reports describing 
the results of their research, extension or education 
activities and the merit of those results. To the extent 
allowable by law, these reports are to be made available to the 
public. The section also contains a 4 percent set aside for 
administrative costs. The effective date for the section is 
October 1, 1998.
     Subsection (a)(2) would allow for grant awards under the 
NRI to a new investigator who is still within 5 years of the 
individual's initial career track position rather than 
investigators who have less than 5 years of post-graduate 
research experience.
    Sec. 226. Fund for Rural America. This section provides 
funding for the Fund through October 1, 2001, including FY 1998 
which had not been funded. The percentage of the Fund to be 
allocated among Rural Development programs is increased to 50 
percent and the Research portion is established at 33 percent 
with the remaining 17 percent to be allocated among either the 
Research or Rural Development Accounts at the discretion of the 
Secretary.
    Sec. 227. Honey Research. This section contains an 
amendment to the Honey Research, Promotion, and Consumer 
Information Improvement Act of 1997 and requires the Honey 
Board to reserve at least 8 percent of all assessments 
collected for expenditure on approved research projects to 
advance the competitiveness of the honey industry.
    Sec. 228. Office of Energy Policy and New Uses. This 
section amends the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act 
of 1994 by establishing, within the Office of the Secretary, an 
Office of Energy Policy and New Uses.

                        Subtitle D--New Programs

    Sec. 231. Biobased Products. The Secretary is directed to 
coordinate research, economic information, market information 
and other activities to develop and promote biobased products. 
The Secretary shall consult with private sector biobased 
product producers and provide a centralized contact point to 
provide advice and technical assistance to individuals 
interested in developing biobased products. The Secretary will 
make an annual report to Congress on biobased activities.
     The Secretary is given the authority to use scientific 
expertise and facilities to conduct research leading to the 
further development and market testing of biobased products. 
This authority is open to CRADA partners, and individuals who 
have received funding through AARC, BRDC and SBIR.
     The Secretary is given the authority to award ARS funds 
competitively to encourage scientific excellence and 
creativity. The first three years of this authority direct the 
Secretary to focus such grants toward the development of 
biobased products with promising commercial potential. The 
section provides an authorization of appropriations of $10 
million per year.
    Sec. 232. Precision Agriculture. This section authorizes a 
new competitive grant program for research, education and 
information dissemination projects for the development and 
promotion of precision agriculture.
    Sec. 233. Formosan Termite Eradication Program. This 
section authorizes a new competitive grant program for the 
purposes of conducting research for the control, management and 
possible eradication of Formosan termites in the United States. 
It also provides that the Secretary may enter into cooperative 
agreements for conducting projects for Formosan termite control 
and management and data collection.
    Sec. 234. Nutrient Composition Data. This section requires 
the Secretary to update periodically nutrient composition data 
and to report to Congress the method that will be used to 
update the data and the timing of the update.
    Sec. 235. Consolidated Administrative and Laboratory 
Facility. This section provides authority for the Secretary to 
contract for construction of a consolidated APHIS laboratory 
facility in Ames, Iowa.
    Sec. 236. National Swine Research Center. This section 
authorizes the Secretary, subject to the availability of 
appropriations and prior to December 31, 1998, to accept as a 
gift and administer the National Swine Research Center located 
in Ames, Iowa.

                 Subtitle E--Studies and Miscellaneous

    Sec. 241. Evaluation of Agricultural Research, Extension 
and Education Program. This section directs the Secretary to 
conduct a performance evaluation to determine whether federally 
funded agricultural research, extension, and education programs 
result in public goods that have national or multistate 
significance. This section also requires the Secretary to 
contract with an expert in research assessment and performance 
to provide to the Secretary practical guidelines for measuring 
performance of federally funded agricultural research, 
extension or education programs. This input should be 
consistent with the Government Performance and Results Act of 
1993.
    Sec. 242. Study of Federally Funded Agricultural Research, 
Extension, and Education. This section directs the Secretary to 
request the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study of 
the role and mission of federally funded agricultural research, 
extension, and education. The study will include an evaluation 
of the strength of science conducted by the ARS and the 
relevance of that science to national priorities; and 
examination of the formulas for agricultural research and 
extension funding and examination of the competitive grant 
system. A report of the study is to be submitted to Congress in 
two stages beginning eighteen months after the commencement of 
the Study and concluding within 3 years of the commencement.
    Sec. 243. Sense of Congress on State Match for 1890 
Institutions. This section states that it is the Sense of 
Congress that states should provide matching funds for Federal 
formula funds provided to the 1890 Institutions.

     TITLE III--INITIATIVE FOR FUTURE AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SYSTEMS

    Sec. 301. Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food 
Systems. This section creates a new mandatory spending account 
that provides $780 million over 5 years for research funding. 
In FY 1998, the amount is $100 million and in FY 1999-2002, the 
amount is $170 million per year.
     This competitively awarded research funding must address 
critical emerging agricultural issues related to future food 
production, environmental protection, or farm income or be for 
activities carried out under the Alternative Agricultural 
Research and Commercialization Act of 1990. Priority mission 
areas to be addressed with funding in the first year are food 
genome; food safety, food technology and human nutrition; new 
and alternative uses and production of agricultural commodities 
and products; agricultural biotechnology; and natural resource 
management including precision agriculture. In fiscal years 
1999 through 2001, the Secretary, after consultation with the 
Advisory Board, may change or add to the list of priority 
mission areas.
     Eligible grantees include Federal research agencies, 
national laboratories, colleges or universities, and private 
research organizations with established research capacity. The 
Secretary may award grants to ensure that the faculty of small 
and mid-sized institutions who have not previously obtained 
competitive grants from the Secretary receive a portion of the 
grants.
     The Secretary is to give priority to grants that are multi 
state, multi-institutional, or multi disciplinary and to grants 
that integrate agricultural research, extension and education. 
The Secretary is also directed to solicit and consider input 
from stakeholders as required in section 102 of the bill in 
formulating the requests for grant proposals. Scientific peer 
review or merit review are required as stated in section 103 of 
the Bill.
     The section requires that matching funds be provided from 
a non-Federal source if the grant is for research that is 
commodity-specific and not of national scope. The Secretary is 
authorized to establish one or more institutes to carry out all 
or part of the section.

    TITLE IV--EXTENSION OR REPEAL OF CERTAIN AUTHORITIES, TECHNICAL 
                               AMENDMENTS

    Sec. 401. Extensions of Authorities. This section 
reauthorizesexisting research programs until the year 2002.
    Sec. 402. Repeal of Authorities. This section repeals 
authority for certain agricultural research programs.
    Sec. 403. Short Titles for Smith-Lever Act and Hatch Act of 
1887. This section amends the Smith-Lever and Hatch Acts to 
include short titles of each Act.
    Sec. 404. Technical Corrections to Research Provisions of 
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996. This 
section contains technical corrections to the Research title of 
the 1996 Farm Bill.

                 TITLE V--AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM SAVINGS

    Sec. 501. Nutrition Programs. This section continues to 
allow the Secretary to pay 50 percent of State administrative 
costs for food stamps, but limits the amount that the Secretary 
will pay each State for administering the Food Stamp Program. 
For FY 1998, each State will be reimbursed an amount not to 
exceed 110 percent of the amount the Secretary paid the State 
for administrative expenses in fiscal year 1996, except that 
amounts the Secretary paid for developing automated data 
processing and information retrieval systems (i.e., computer 
systems) and employment and training administrative expenses 
are not included in the formula. Enhanced funding for States 
with very low erroneous benefit payments would not be covered 
by the limit. For FY 1999 and thereafter, each State will be 
reimbursed in an amount not to exceed 115 percent of the amount 
the Secretary paid a State in FY 1996: (1) annually adjusted to 
reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index, and (2) adjusted, 
as States submit their claims for Federal reimbursement, for 
changes in the number of food stamp households served in the 
State. This section also requires the General Accounting Office 
to submit a study on the effect of this administrative expense 
reimbursement limitation on the ability of State agencies to 
administer the food stamp program.
     This section requires the Secretary to establish a 
competitive low-income area grant program to provide funding to 
initiate or expand school breakfast and summer food service 
programs in low-income areas. The grant program will be funded 
at $5,000,000 annually and the Secretary shall use the funds to 
the extent that a sufficient number of schools and service 
institutions meet eligibility guidelines established by the 
Secretary, but the Secretary is not required to use all of the 
money provided. The grant program gives priority to school food 
authorities (typically school districts) serving primarily low-
income children which do not already operate school breakfast 
or summer food service programs.
     This section requires the Secretary to reimburse child 
care centers for serving a fourth meal or supplement to 
children who are in centers longer than eight hours per day in 
order to accommodate working parents. This section also 
requires the Secretary to reimburse service institutions 
running summer food service programs at camps for low-income 
children or that serve primarily migrant children for up to 
four meals or supplements during each day of operation. This 
requirement takes effect on September 1, 1998.
     The section provides $185,000 for each of fiscal years 
1998 through 2002 for the Information Clearinghouse. The 
clearinghouse provides information to groups that assist low-
income individuals in becoming self-reliant and less dependent 
on Federal, State or local governmental agencies for food and 
other assistance.
    Sec. 502. Information Technology Funding. CCC funding that 
can be used to purchase automated data processing equipment, 
telecommunications equipment, and other information technology 
was capped in the FAIR Act. In this section, as of the 1998 
fiscal year, the funding cap is further lowered to achieve a 
savings of $82 million through 2002.
    Sec. 503. Haying and Grazing on Conservation Reserve Land. 
This section authorizes the Secretary, as of the 1998 fiscal 
year, to allow haying and grazing on agricultural lands 
enrolled in the CRP if--
          not more than \1/3\ of the land is harvested or 
        grazed in any calendar year;
          that portion of the land is not hayed or grazed more 
        than once in a 3-year period;
          the owner or operator of the land agrees to a 
        reduction in CRP rental payments that is commensurate 
        with the value of the cover crop that is harvested or 
        grazed;
          in the case of grazing of CRP land, (1) the grazing 
        is incidental to the gleaning of crop residues, and (2) 
        the owner or operator of the land agrees to a reduction 
        in CRP rental payments that is commensurate with the 
        value of the crop residue that is subject to the 
        incidental grazing.

                      VII. Changes in Existing Law

     In compliance with rule XXVI, paragraph 12 of the Standing 
Rules of the Senate, the following provides a print of the 
statute or the part or section thereof to be amended or 
replaced (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):

         FEDERAL AGRICULTURE IMPROVEMENT AND REFORM ACT OF 1996

                   TITLE VII--RURAL DEVELOPMENT . . .

          * * * * * * *

      Subtitle D--Miscellaneous Rural Development Provisions . . .

          * * * * * * *

SEC. 793. FUND FOR RURAL AMERICA.

    (a) In General.--There is established in the Treasury of 
the United States an account to be known as the Fund for Rural 
America (referred to in this section as the ``Account'') to 
provide funds for activities described in subsection (c).
    (b) Funding.--
          (1) In general.--On [January 1, 1997, October 1, 
        1998, and October 1, 1999] ``October 1, 1997, and each 
        October 1 thereafter through October 1, 2001'', . . .
          [(3) Purposes.--Subject to subsection (d), of the 
        amounts transferred to the Account for a fiscal year, 
        the Secretary shall make available--
                  [(A) for activities described in subsection 
                (c)(1), not less than \1/3\ and not more than 
                \2/3\ of the funds in the Account; and
                  [(B) for activities described in subsection 
                (c)(2), all funds in the Account not made 
                available by the Secretary for activities 
                described in subsection (c)(1)]
          ``(3) Purposes.--Subject to subsection (d), of the 
        amounts transferred to the Account for a fiscal year, 
        the Secretary shall make available--
                  ``(A) for activities described in subsection 
                (c)(1), not less than 50 percent, and not more 
                than 67 percent, of the funds in the Account; 
                and
                  ``(B) for activities described in subsection 
                (c)(2), all funds in the Account not made 
                available under subparagraph (A).'' . . .

SEC. 819. SUPPLEMENTAL AND ALTERNATIVE CROP RESEARCH . . .

    (b) Elimination of Pilot Nature of Program. . .
    (5) [in paragraph (3)] ``subsection (c)(3)'', by striking 
``and pilot''. . .
    Sec. 873. Grants to Upgrade 1890 Land-Grant College 
Extension Facilities.--
    Section 1416 of the National Agricultural Research, 
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act Amendments of [1981] 
``1985'' is repealed. . . .
    Sec. 2412. Authorization of appropriations.--
    There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
necessary for each of the fiscal years 1991 through [1997] 
``2002'', to carry out this chapter.
          * * * * * * *

       Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 . . .

    ``Sec. 220. Office of Energy Policy and New Uses.
    ``An Office of Energy Policy and New Uses of the Department 
shall be established in the Office of the Secretary.''
          * * * * * * *

    Renewable Resources Extension Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 1675) . . .

    Section 6 Authorization of Appropriations. . . .
    There are authorized to be appropriated to implement this 
subchapter $15,000,000 for [the fiscal year ending September 
30, 1988, and $15,000,000 for each of the next twelve fiscal 
years.] ``each of fiscal years 1987 through 2002.'' . . .
          * * * * * * *

                    Food Security Act of 1985 . . .

    Sec. 1232. Duties of Owners and Operators . . .
    (b) Terms of Contract . . .
          [(7) not to conduct any harvesting or grazing, nor 
        otherwise make commercial use of the forage, on land 
        that is subject to contract, nor adopt any similar 
        practice specified in the contract by the Secretary as 
        a practice that would tend to defeat the purposes of 
        the contract, except that the Secretary may permit 
        harvesting or grazing or other commercial use of the 
        forage on the land that is subject to the contract in 
        response to a drought or other similar emergency, and 
        the Secretary may permit limited grazing on such land 
        where such grazing is incidental to the gleaning of 
        crop residues on the fields in which such land is 
        located and occurs during the 7 month period in which 
        grazing of conserving use acreage is allowed in the 
        State under the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1421 
        et seq.) or after the producer harvests the grain crop 
        of the surrounding field for the reduction rental 
        payment commensurate with the limited economic value of 
        such incidental grazing;]
          ``(7) not to conduct any harvesting or grazing, nor 
        otherwise make commercial use of the forage, on land 
        that is subject to the contract, nor adopt any similar 
        practice specified in the contract by the Secretary as 
        a practice that would tend todefeat the purposes of the 
contract, except that--
                  ``(A) on application by an owner or operator 
                who has entered into the contract with the 
                Secretary, the Secretary shall permit 
                harvesting and grazing on land that the 
                Secretary determines has a sufficiently 
                established cover to permit harvesting or 
                grazing without undue harm to the purposes of 
                the contract if--
                          ``(i) not more than \1/3\ of the land 
                        under the contract is harvested or 
                        grazed in any calendar year;
                          ``(ii) no land under the contract 
                        will be harvested or grazed more than 
                        once in a 3-year period;
                          ``(iii) the owner or operator agrees 
                        to a payment reduction under this 
                        subchapter in an amount that the 
                        Secretary determines is commensurate 
                        with the value of the cover crop that 
                        is harvested or grazed; and
                          ``(iv) the owner or operator agrees 
                        to such other terms and conditions as 
                        the Secretary may establish to ensure 
                        that the harvesting or grazing is 
                        consistent with the purposes of the 
                        program established under this 
                        subchapter; and
                  ``(B) the Secretary may permit grazing on 
                land under the contract if--
                          ``(i) the grazing is incidental to 
                        the gleaning of crop residues;
                          ``(ii) the owner or operator agrees 
                        to a payment reduction in annual rental 
                        payments that would otherwise be 
                        payable under this subchapter in an 
                        amount that the Secretary determines is 
                        commensurate with the economic value of 
                        the forage that is subject to the 
                        incidental grazing; and
                          ``(iii) the owner or operator agrees 
                        to such other terms and conditions as 
                        the secretary may establish to ensure 
                        that he grazing is consistent with the 
                        purposes of the program established 
                        under this subchapter;'' . . .
          * * * * * * *

                      Child Nutrition Act of 1966

    Section 4 . . .
    ``(f) Low-Income Area Grant Program.--
          ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
                  ``(A) Eligible school.--The term `eligible 
                school' means a school--
                          ``(i) attended by children, a 
                        significant percentage of whom are 
                        members of low-income families, as 
                        determined by the Secretary; and
                          ``(ii)(I) as used with respect to a 
                        school breakfast program, that agrees 
                        to operate the school breakfast program 
                        established or expanded with the 
                        assistance provided under this 
                        subsection for a period of not less 
                        than 3 years; and
                          ``(II) as used with respect to a 
                        summer food service program for 
                        children, that agrees to operate the 
                        summer food service program for 
                        children established or expanded with 
                        the assistance provided under this 
                        subsection for a period of not less 
                        than 3 years.
                  ``(B) Service institution.--The term `service 
                institution' means an institution or 
                organization described in paragraph (1)(B) or 
                (7) of section 13(a) of the National School 
                Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1761(a)).
                  ``(C) Summer food service program for 
                children.--The term `summer food service 
                program for children' means a program 
                authorized by section 13 of the National School 
                Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1761).
          ``(2) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a 
        program under this subsection to be known as the `low-
        Income area Grant Program' (referred to in this 
        subsection as the `Program') to assist eligible schools 
        and service institutions through grants to initiate or 
        expand programs under the school breakfast program and 
        the summer food service program for children.
          ``(3) Payments.--
                  ``(A) Appropriation.--Out of any moneys in 
                the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the 
                Secretary of the Treasury shall provide to the 
                Secretary $5,000,000 for fiscal year 1998 and 
                each fiscal year thereafter.
                  ``(B) Entitlement to funds.--The Secretary 
                shall be entitled to receive the funds made 
                available under subparagraph (A) and shall 
                accept the funds.
                  ``(C) Use of funds.--The Secretary shall use 
                the funds made available under subparagraph (A) 
                to make payments under the Program--
                          ``(i) in the case of the school 
                        breakfast program, to school food 
                        authorities for eligible schools; and
                          ``(ii) in the case of the summer food 
                        service program for children, to 
                        service institutions.
                  ``(D) Insufficient number of applicants.--The 
                Secretary may expend less than the amount 
                described in subparagraph (A) for a fiscal year 
                to the extent that there is an insufficient 
                number of suitable applicants to initiate or 
                expand programs under this subsection for the 
                fiscal year.
          ``(4) Priority.--The Secretary shall make payments 
        under the Program on a competitive basis and in the 
        following order of priority (subject to the other 
        provisions of this subsection) to:
                  ``(A) School food authorities for eligible 
                schools to assist the schools with nonrecurring 
                expenses incurred in--
                          ``(i) initiating a school breakfast 
                        program under this section; or
                          ``(ii) expanding a school breakfast 
                        program.
                  ``(B) Service institutions to assist the 
                institutions with nonrecurring expenses 
                incurred in--
                          ``(i) initiating a summer food 
                        service program for children; or
                          ``(ii) expanding a summer food 
                        service program for children.
                  ``(5) Payments additional.--Payments under 
                the Program shall be in addition to payments 
                under subsection (b) of this section and 
                section 13 of the National School Lunch Act (42 
                U.S.C. 1761).
                  ``(6) Preferences.--Consistent with paragraph 
                (4), in making payments under the Program for 
                any fiscal year to initiate or expand school 
                breakfast programs or summer food service 
                programs for children, the Secretary shall 
                provide a preference to a school food authority 
                for an eligible school or service institution 
                that--
                          ``(A) in the case of a summer food 
                        service program for children, is a 
                        public or private nonprofit school food 
                        authority;
                          ``(B) has significant public or 
                        private resources that will be used to 
                        carry out the initiation or expansion 
                        of the programs during the year;
                          ``(C) serves an unmet need among low-
                        income children, as determined by the 
                        Secretary; or
                          ``(D) is not operating a school 
                        breakfast program or summer food 
                        service program for children, as 
                        appropriate.
                  ``(7) Recovery and reallocation.--The 
                Secretary shall act in a timely manner to 
                recover and reallocate to other school food 
                authorities for eligible schools or service 
                institutions any amounts under the Program that 
                are not expended within a reasonable period (as 
                determined by the Secretary).
                  ``(8) Maintenance of effort.--Expenditures of 
                funds from State, local, and private sources 
                for the maintenance of the school breakfast 
                program and the summer food service program for 
                children shall not be diminished as a result of 
                payments received under the Program.'' . . .
          * * * * * * *

                       National School Lunch Act

    Section 13(b)(2)
          [(2) Any service] ``Meals and supplements._
                  ``(A) In general._Any Service'' institution 
                may only serve lunch and either breakfast or a 
                meal . . . may serve up to [3 meals, or 2 meals 
                and 1 supplement] ``4 meals'', during each day 
                of operation, if [A] ``(i)'' and the service 
                institution . . . [B] ``(ii)'' the service . . 
                .
                  ``(B) Camps and migrant programs.--A camp or 
                migrant program may serve a breakfast, a lunch, 
                a supper, and meal supplements.''
    Section 17
    (f) State disbursement of institutions . . .
          (2) [(B) No reimbursement may be made to any 
        institution under this paragraph, or to family or group 
        day care home sponsoring organizations under paragraph 
        (3) of this subsection, for more than two meals and one 
        supplemental per day per child, or in the case of an 
        institution (but not in the case of a family or group 
        day care home sponsoring organization), 2 meals and 1 
        supplemental per day per child, for children that are 
        maintained in a child care setting for eight or more 
        hours per day.]
          ``(B) Number of meals and supplements.--
                  ``(i) In general.--Except as provided in 
                clause (ii), no reimbursement may be made to 
                any institution under this paragraph, or to a 
                family or group day care home sponsoring 
                organization under paragraph (3), for more than 
                2 meals and 1 supplement per day per child.
                  ``(ii) Child care.--A reimbursement may be 
                made to an institution under this paragraph 
                (but not a family or group day care home 
                sponsoring organization) for 2 meals and 2 
                supplements, or 3 meals and 1 supplement, per 
                day per child for children that are maintained 
                in a child care setting for 8 or more hours per 
                day.'' . . .
    Section 26 (42 U.S.C. 1769g(d))
    1769g. Information Clearinghouse . . .
    (d) Funding--
    Out of the moneys in the Treasury not otherwise 
appropriated, the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay to the 
Secretary to provide to the organization selected under this 
section, to establish and maintain the information 
clearinghouse, $200,000 for each of the fiscal years 1995 and 
1996, [$150,000 for fiscal year 1997, and $100,000 for fiscal 
year 1998] ``150,000 for fiscal year 1997, and $185,000 for 
each of fiscal years 1998 through 2002''. . . .
          * * * * * * *

      Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714b(g))

    714b General powers of Corporation
    The Corporation--
    (g) May enter into and carry out such contracts or 
agreements as are necessary in the contracts or agreements as . 
. . and not more than [$275,000,000] ``193,000,000'' in the 6-
fiscal year period . . .
          * * * * * * *

         Critical Agricultural Materials Act (7 U.S.C. 178n(a))

    Sec. 16 Administration and Funding
    (a) Authorization of appropriations to the Secretary of 
Agriculture
    There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 
Agriculture such sums as are necessary to carry out this 
subchapter in each of the fiscal year 1991 through [1997] 
``2002''.
          * * * * * * *

      Competitive, Special and Facilities Research Grant Act . . .

SEC. 2. COMPETITIVE, SPECIAL, AND FACILITIES RESEARCH GRANTS.

    Sec. 2 . . .
    (b) Competitive Grants.--
          (1) The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to 
        make competitive grants, for periods not to exceed five 
        years, to State agricultural experiment stations, all 
        colleges and universities, other research institutions 
        and organizations, Federal agencies, ``national 
        laboratories,'' . . .
          (2) High priority research.--For purposes of this 
        subsection, the term ``high priority research'' means 
        basic and applied research that focuses on both 
        national and [regional] ``multistate'' . . .
          (3) Types of grants.--. . .
                  (E) Grants may be awarded to single 
                investigators or coinvestigators who are 
                beginning their research careers and do not 
                have an extensive research publication record. 
                To be eligible for a grant under this 
                subparagraph, [an individual shall have less 
                than 5 years of post-graduate research 
                experience] ``an individual shall be within 5 
                years of the individual's initial career track 
                position''. . . .
          (10) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
        authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
        subsection $150,000,000 for fiscal year 1991, 
        $275,000,000 for fiscal year 1992, $350,000,000 for 
        fiscal year 1993, $400,000,000 for fiscal year 1994, 
        and $500,000,000 for each fiscal years 1995 through 
        [1997] ``2002'' . . .
    [(c) Special Grants.--(1) The Secretary of Agriculture may 
make grants, for periods not to exceed 5 years--
          [(A) to State agricultural experiment stations, all 
        colleges and universities, other research institutions 
        and organizations, Federal agencies, private 
        organizations or corporations, and individuals for the 
        purpose of conducting research to facilitate or expand 
        promising breakthroughs in areas of the food and 
        agricultural sciences of importance to the United 
        States; and
          [(B) to State agricultural experiment stations, land 
        grant colleges and universities, research foundations 
        established by land grant colleges and universities, 
        colleges and universities receiving funds under the Act 
        of October 10, 1962 (16 U.S.C. 582a et seq.), and 
        accredited schools or colleges of veterinary medicine 
        for the purpose of facilitating or expanding ongoing 
        State Federal food and agricultural research programs 
        that--
                  [(i) promote excellence in research on a 
                regional and national level;
                  [(ii) promote the development of regional 
                research centers;
                  [(iii) promote the research partnership 
                between the Department of Agriculture, colleges 
                and universities, research foundations, and 
                State agricultural experiment stations for 
                regonal research eforts; and
                  [(iv) facilitate coordination and cooperation 
                of research among States through regional 
                research grants.
    [(2) Limitations.--The Secretary may not make a grant under 
this subsection--
          [(A) for any purpose for which a grant may be made 
        under subsection (d); or
          [(B) for the planning, repair, rehabilitation, 
        acquisition, or construction of a building or facility.
    [(3) Matching Funds.--Grants made under this subsection 
shall be made without regard to matching funds.
    [(4) Set Asides.--Of amounts appropriated for a fiscal year 
to carry out this subsection--
          [(A) ninety percent of such amounts shall be used for 
        grants for regional research projects; and
          [(B) four percent of such amounts may be retained by 
        the Secretary to pay administrative costs incurred by 
        the Secretary to carry out this subsection.]
    ``(c) Special Grants.--
          ``(1) In general.--The Secretary of Agriculture may 
        make grants, for periods not to exceed 3 years, to 
        colleges, universities, other research institutions and 
        organizations, Federal agencies, private organizations 
        or corporations, and individuals for the purpose of 
        conducting research to address--
                  ``(A) agricultural research needs of 
                immediate importance, by themselves or in 
                conjunction with extension or education; or
                  ``(B) new or emerging areas of agricultural 
                research, by themselves or in conjunction with 
                extension or education.
          ``(2) Limitations.--The Secretary may not make a 
        grant under this subsection--
                  ``(A) for any purpose for which a grant may 
                be made under subsection (d); or
                  (B) for the planning, repair, rehabilitation, 
                acquisition, or construction of a building or 
                facility.
          ``(3) Review requirements.--
                  ``(A) Research activities.--The Secretary 
                shall make a grant under this subsection for a 
                research activity only if--
                          ``(i) the activity has undergone 
                        scientific peer review arranged by the 
                        grantee in accordance with regulations 
                        promulgated by the Secretary; and
                          ``(ii) except in the case of a grant 
                        awarded competitively under this 
                        subsection, the grantee provides to the 
                        Secretary aproposed plan for graduation 
from noncompetitive Federal funding for grants under this subsection.
                  ``(B) Extension and education activities.--
                The Secretary shall make a grant under this 
                subsection for an extension or education 
                activity only if--
                          ``(i) the activity has undergone 
                        merit review arranged by the grantee in 
                        accordance with regulations promulgated 
                        by the Secretary; and
                          ``(ii) except in the case of a grant 
                        awarded competitively under this 
                        subsection, the grantee provides to the 
                        Secretary a proposed plan for 
                        graduation from Federal funding under 
                        this section.
          ``(4) Partnerships.--
                  ``(A) Immediate needs.--Except in the case of 
                a grant awarded competively under this 
                subsection, to receive a grant under paragraph 
                (1)(A), a recipient of a grant shall enter into 
                a partnership to carry out the grant with 
                another entity referred to in paragraph (1).
                  ``(B) New and emerging areas.--Except in the 
                case of a grant awarded competively under this 
                subsection, after a recipient has received a 
                grant under paragraph (1)(B) for 3 consecutive 
                years, to receive such a grant for an 
                additional year, the recipient shall enter into 
                a partnership to carry out the grant with 2 or 
                more entities referred to in paragraph (1).
          ``(5) Reports.--
                  ``(A) In general.--A recipient of a grant 
                under this subsection shall--
                          ``(i) prepare on an annual basis a 
                        report describing the results of the 
                        research, extension, or education 
                        activity and the merit of the results; 
                        and
                          ``(ii) submit the report to the 
                        Secretary.
                  ``(B) Public availability.--
                          ``(i) In general.--Except as provided 
                        in clause (ii), on request, the 
                        Secretary shall make the report 
                        available to the public.
                          ``(ii) Exceptions.--Clause (i) shall 
                        not apply to the extent that making the 
                        report, or a part of the report, 
                        available to the public is not 
                        authorized or permitted by section 552 
                        of title 5, United States Code, or 
                        section 1905 of title 18, United States 
                        Code.
          ``(6) Set aside for administrative costs.--Of the 
        amounts made available for a fiscal year to carry out 
        this subsection, not more than 4 percent of the amounts 
        may be retained by the Secretary to pay administrative 
        costs incurred by the Secretary to carry out this 
        subsection.'' . . .

                     RESEARCH FACILITIES ACT . . .

    Sec. 3 . . .
    (c) Criteria for Approval.--. . .
    (C) National research priorities.--. . .
    (ii) [regional needs] ``national or multistate needs''. . . 
    ``(e) National or Multistate Needs Served by ARS 
Facilities.--The Secretary shall ensure that each research 
activity conducted by a facility of the Agricultural Research 
Service serves a national or multistate need.''. . .
    Sec. 4 . . .
    (d) 10-Year Strategic Plan.--Not later than 2 years after 
the task force is established, the task force shall prepare and 
submit to the Secretary and the congressional agriculture 
committees a 10-year strategic plan, reflecting both national 
and [regional] ``multistate'' perspectives . . .
    ``(g) Comprehensive Research Capacity.--After submission of 
the 10-year strategic plan required under subsection (d), the 
Secretary shall continue to review periodically each operating 
agricultural research facility constructed in whole or in part 
with Federal funds, and each planned agricultural research 
facility proposed to be constructed in whole or in part with 
Federal funds, pursuant to criteria established by the 
Secretary, to ensure that a comprehensive research capacity is 
maintained.'' . . .
    Sec. 6 . . . (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), 
there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
necessary [for fiscal years 1996 and 1997] ``each of fiscal 
years 1996 through 2002'' for the study . . .

       EQUITY IN EDUCATIONAL LAND-GRANT STATUS ACT OF 1994 . . .

    Sec. 532
    (29) College of the Menominee Nation.
    ``(30) Little Priest Tribal College.''
    Sec. 533
    (a) In General.--. . .
          ``(3) Accreditation.--To receive funding under 
        sections 534 and 535, a 1994 Institution shall certify 
        to the Secretary that the Institution is--
                  ``(A) accredited by a nationally recognized 
                accrediting agency or association determined by 
                the Secretary, in consultation with the 
                Secretary of Education, to be a reliable 
                authority as to the quality of training 
                offered; or
                  ``(B) as determined by the agency or 
                association, making progress toward the 
                accreditation.''
    (b) Authorization of Appropriation.--There are authorized 
to be appropriated $4,600,000 for each of fiscal years 1996 
through [2000] ``2002''. . . .

  NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, EXTENSION, AND TEACHING POLICY ACT 
                           AMENDMENTS OF 1981

    Sec. 1432.
    (b) . . .
          (5) There is authorized to be appropriated to the 
        Secretary to carry out this subsection, for each of the 
        fiscal years 1991 through [1997] ``2002'' . . .

                 NATIONAL AQUACULTURE ACT OF 1980 . . .

    Sec. 10. For purposes of carrying out the provisions of 
this Act, there are authorized to be appropriated--
          (1) to the Department of Agriculture, $1,000,000 for 
        each of the [fiscal years 1991, 1992, and 1993] 
        ``fiscal years 1991 through 2002'' . . .

                         SMITH-LEVER ACT . . .

    Sec. 3. . . .
    Sec. 3. (a) there are hereby authorized to be appropriated 
for the purposes of this Act such sums as Congress may from 
time to time determine to be necessary.
    (b)(1) Out of such sums, each State and the [Federal 
Extension Service] ``Secretary of Agriculture'' . . .
    (3) . . . Such sums shall be distributed on the basis of a 
competitive application process to be developed and implemented 
by the Secretary and paid by the Secretary to [State 
institutions established in accordance with the provisions of 
the Act of July 2, 1862 (12 Stat. 503, chapter 103; 7 U.S.C. 
301 et seq.) (commonly known as the First Morrill Act) (other 
than 1994 Institutions) and administered by such institutions 
through cooperative agreements with 1994 Institutions in the 
States of the 1994 Institutions in accordance with regulations 
that the Secretary shall adopt.] ``1994 Institutions (in 
accordance with regulations that the Secretary may promulgate) 
and may be administered by the Institutions through cooperative 
agreements with colleges and universities eligible to receive 
funds under the Act of July 2, 1862 (12 Stat. 503, chapter 130; 
7 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), or the Act of August 30, 1890 (26 Stat. 
419, chapter 841; 7 U.S.C. 321 et seq.), including Tuskegee 
University, located in any state.''
    (c) . . .
    1. Four per centum of the sum so appropriated for each 
fiscal year shall be allotted to the [Federal Extension 
Service] ``Secretary of Agriculture'' . . .
    [(d) The Federal Extension Service shall receive such 
amounts as Congress shall determine for administration, 
technical, and other services and for coordinating the 
extension work of the Department and the several States, 
Territories, and possessions. A college or university eligible 
to receive funds under the Act of August 30, 1890 (7 U.S.C. 321 
et seq.), including Tuskegee University, may apply for and 
receive directly from the Secretary of Agriculture--
          [(1) amounts made available under this subsection 
        after September 30, 1995, to carry out programs or 
        initiatives for which no funds were made available 
        under this subsection for fiscal year 1995, or any 
        previous fiscal year, as determined by the Secretary; 
        and
          [(2) amounts made available after September 30, 1995, 
        to carry out programs or initiatives funded under this 
        subsection prior to that date that are in excess of the 
        highest amount madeavailable for the programs or 
initiatives under this subsection for fiscal year 1995, or any previous 
fiscal year, as determined by the Secretary.]
    ``(d) Funding of Extension Activities.--
          ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall receive such 
        amounts as Congress shall determine for administrative, 
        technical, and other services and for coordinating the 
        extension work of the Department and the several 
        States, territories, and possessions of the United 
        States.
          ``(2) Eligibility of certain colleges and 
        universities for extension funding.--
                  ``(A) Competitive awards.--Colleges and 
                universities (as defined in section 1404 of the 
                National Agricultural Research, Extension, and 
                Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3103)), 
                including a foundation established by the 
                colleges or universities, shall be eligible for 
                extension funding awarded under paragraph (1) 
                on a competitive basis.
                  ``(B) Noncompetitive awards.--
                          ``(i) In general.--An entity 
                        described in clause (ii) shall be 
                        eligible for extension funding awarded 
                        under paragraph (1) on a noncompetitive 
                        basis.
                          ``(ii) Applicability.--Clause (i) 
                        shall apply to--
                                  ``(I) a college or university 
                                eligible to receive funds under 
                                the Act of July 2, 1862 (12 
                                Stat. 503, chapter 130; 7 
                                U.S.C. 301 et seq.);
                                  ``(II) a college or 
                                university eligible to receive 
                                funds under the Act of August 
                                30, 1890 (26 Stat. 419, chapter 
                                841; 7 U.S.C. 321 et seq.), 
                                including Tuskegee University;
                                  ``(III) a 1994 Institution 
                                (as defined in section 532 of 
                                the Equity in Educational Land-
                                Grant Status Act of 1994 
                                (Public Law 103-382; 7 U.S.C. 
                                301 note)); and
                                  ``(IV) a foundation 
                                established by a college, 
                                university, or Institution 
                                described in this clause.
          ``(3) Memoranda of understanding, cooperative 
        agreements, and reimbursable agreements.--To maximize 
        the use of Federal resources, the Secretary of 
        Agriculture shall, to the maximum extent practicable, 
        enter into memoranda of understanding, cooperative 
        agreements, or reimbursable agreements with other 
        Federal agencies under which the agencies provide 
        funds, facilities, and other resources of the agencies 
        to the Department of Agriculture to assist the 
        Department in carrying out extension work.''. . .
    (g)(1) The Secretary of Agriculture may conduct 
educational, instructional, demonstration, and publication 
distribution programs [through the Federal Extension Service] . 
. .
    ``(h) Multistate Cooperative Extension Activities.--
          ``(1) In general.--Not less than the applicable 
        percentage specified under paragraph (2) of the amounts 
        that are made available to carry out subsections (b) 
        and (c) during a fiscal year shall be allotted to 
        States for cooperative extension activities in which 2 
        or more States cooperate to solve problems that concern 
        more than 1 State (referred to in this subsection as 
        `multistate activities').
          ``(2) Applicable percentages.--
                  ``(A) Current expenditures on multistate 
                activities.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall 
                determine the percentage of Federal formula 
                funds described in paragraph (1) that each 
                State expended for fiscal year 1997 for 
                multistate activities.
                  ``(B) Planned expenditures on multistate 
                activities.--For fiscal year 2000 and each 
                subsequent fiscal year, a State shall expend 
                for multistate activities a percentage of the 
                Federal formula funds described in paragraph 
                (1) for a fiscal year that is at least equal to 
                the lesser of--
                          ``(i) 25 percent; or
                          ``(ii) twice the percentage for the 
                        State determined under subparagraph 
                        (A).
                  ``(C) Reduction by secretary.--The Secretary 
                may reduce the minimum percentage required to 
                be allotted for multistate activities under 
                subparagraph (B) in a case of hardship, 
                infeasibility or other similar circumstance 
                beyond the control of the State, as determined 
                by the Secretary.
                  ``(D) Plan of work.--The State shall include 
                in the plan of work of the State a description 
                of the manner in which the State will meet the 
                requirements of this paragraph.
          ``(3) Applicability.--This subsection does not apply 
        to funds provided--
                  ``(A) by a State or local government pursuant 
                to a matching requirement;
                  ``(B) to a 1994 Institution (as defined in 
                section 532 of the Equity in Educational Land-
                Grant Status Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-382; 7 
                U.S.C. 301 note)); or
                  ``(C) to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the 
                Virgin Islands, or Guam.
    ``(i) Merit Review.--
          ``(1) In general.--Beginning on October 1, 1998, 
        extension activity carried out under subsection (h) 
        shall be subject to merit review.
          ``(2) Other requirements.--An extension activity that 
        is merit reviewed under paragraph (1) shall be 
        considered to have been reviewed under section 103(e) 
        of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education 
        Reform Act of 1997.''. . .
    Sec. 6
    [Sec. 6. [7 U.S.C. 346] If the Secretary of Agriculture 
finds that a State is not entitled to receive its share of the 
annual appropriation, the facts and reasons therefor shall be 
reported to the President, and the amount involved shall be 
kept separate in the Treasury until the expiration of the 
Congress next succeeding a session of the legislature of the 
State from which funds have been withhold in order that the 
State may, if it should so desire, appeal to Congress from the 
determination of the Secretary of Agriculture. If the next 
Congress shall not direct such sum to be paid, it shall be 
covered into the Treasury.] . . .

``SEC. 11. SHORT TITLE.

    ``This act may be cited as the `Smith-Lever Act'.''

                        HATCH ACT OF 1887 . . .

    Sec. 3. . . .
    (c) Any sums made available by the Congress in addition to 
those provided for in subsection (b) hereof for State 
agricultural experiment station work shall be distributed as 
follows:
    [3. Not more than 25 per centum shall be allotted to the 
States for cooperative research in which two or more State 
agricultural experiment stations are cooperating to solve 
problems that concern the agriculture of more than one State. 
The funds available for such purposes, together with funds 
available pursuant to subsection (b) hereof for like purpose 
shall be designated as the ``Regional research fund, State 
agricultural experiment stations''.]
    ``(3) Not less than 25 percent shall be allotted to the 
States for cooperative research employing multidisciplinary 
approaches in which a State agricultural experiment station, 
working with another State agricultural experiment station, the 
Agricultural Research Service, a college, or a university, 
cooperates to solve problems that concern more than 1 State. 
The funds available under this paragraph, together with the 
funds available under subsection (b) for a similar purpose, 
shall be designated as the `Multistate Research Fund, State 
Agricultural Experiment Stations'.
    ``(4) Research carried out under paragraph (3) shall be 
subject to scientific peer review. A project review under this 
paragraph shall be considered to satisfy the merit review 
requirements of section 103(e) of the Agricultural Research, 
Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1997.''
    Sec. 4 . . .
    (d) Of any amount in excess of $90,000 available under this 
Act for allotment to any State, exclusive of the [regional 
research fund, State agricultural experiment stations,] 
``Multistate Research Fund, State Agricultural Experiment 
Stations'' . . .
    ``(h) Integration of Research and Extension.--
          ``(1) In general.--Not less than the applicable 
        percentage specified under paragraph (2) of the Federal 
        formula funds that are made available to carry out this 
        Act and subsections (b) and (c) of section 3 of the 
        Smith-Lever Act (7 U.S.C. 343), to colleges and 
        universities eligible to receive funds under the Act of 
        July 2, 1862 (12 Stat. 503, chapter 130; 7 U.S.C. 301 
        et seq.), during a fiscal year shall be allotted to 
        activities that integrate cooperative research and 
        extension (referred to in this subsection as 
        `integrated activities').
          ``(2) Applicable percentages.--
                  ``(A) Current expenditures on integrated 
                activities.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall 
                determine the percentage of the Federal formula 
                funds described in paragraph (1) that each 
                State expended for fiscal year 1997 for 
                integrated activities.
                  ``(B) Planned expenditures on integrated 
                activities.--For fiscal year 2000 and each 
                subsequent fiscal year, a State shall expend 
                for integrated activities a percentage of the 
                Federal formula funds described in paragraph 
                (1) for a fiscal year that is at least equal to 
                the lesser of--
                          ``(i) 25 percent; or
                          ``(ii) twice the percentage for the 
                        State determined under subparagraph 
                        (A).
                  ``(C) Reduction by secretary.--The Secretary 
                may reduce the minimum percentage required to 
                be allotted for integrated activities under 
                subparagraph (B) in a case of hardship, 
                infeasibility, or other similar circumstance 
                beyond the control of the State, as determined 
                by the Secretary.
                  ``(D) Compliance.--The State shall provide to 
                the Secretary a description of the manner in 
                which the State will meet the requirements of 
                this paragraph.
          ``(3) Applicability.--This subsection does not apply 
        to funds provided--
                  ``(A) by a State or local government pursuant 
                to a matching requirement;
                  ``(B) to a 1994 Institution (as defined in 
                section 532 of the Equity in Educational Land-
                Grant Status Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-382; 7 
                U.S.C. 301 note)); or
                  ``(C) to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the 
                Virgin Islands, or Guam.
          ``(4) Other requirements.--Funds that are used in 
        accordance with paragraph (2)(B) may also be used to 
        satisfy the requirements of subsection (c)(3) and the 
        requirements of section 3(h) of the Smith-Lever Act (7 
        U.S.C. 343(h)).'' . . .
    Sec. 7. . . .
    Whenever it shall appear to the Secretary of Agriculture 
from the annual statement of receipts and expenditures of funds 
by any State agricultural experiment station that any portion 
of the preceding annual appropriation allotted to that station 
under this Act remains unexpended, such amount shall be 
deducted from the next succeeding annual allotment to the State 
concerned.
    [If the Secretary of Agriculture shall withhold from any 
State any portion of the appropriations available for 
allotment, the facts and reasons therefor shall be reported to 
the President and the amount involved shall be kept separate in 
the Treasury until the close of the next Congress. If the next 
Congress shall not direct such sum to be paid, it shall be 
carried to surplus]. . . .
    Sec. 9
    Sec. 9. The Congress may at any time, amend, suspend, or 
repeal any or all of the provisions of this Act.

``SEC. 10 SHORT TITLE''

    ``This Act may be cited as the `Hatch Act of 1887'.''

       THE FOOD, AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION, AND TRADE ACT OF 1990

SEC. 1629. NATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM.

    (g) Information Availability.--The Cooperative Extension 
Service within each State shall transfer information developed 
under this subtitle, subtitle G of title XIV, [section 1650], . 
. .

SEC. 1635. DEFINITIONS AND AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
to be appropriated such funds as may be necessary to carry out 
this subtitle for each of the fiscal years 1991 through [1997] 
``2002''. . . .

     [Subtitle D--National Agricultural Weather Information System

[SEC. 1637. SHORT TITLE AND PURPOSES.

    [(a) Short Title.--This subtitle may be cited as the 
``National Agricultural Weather Information System Act of 
1990''.
    [Sec. 1637
    [(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this subtitle are--
          [(1) to provide a nationally coordinated agricultural 
        weather information system, based on the participation 
        of universities, State programs, Federal agencies, and 
        the private weather consulting sector, and aimed at 
        meeting the weather and climate information needs of 
        agricultural producers;
          [(2) to facilitate the collection, organization, and 
        dissemination of advisory weather and climate 
        information relevant to agricultural producers, through 
        the participation of the private sector and otherwise;
          [(3) to provide for research and education on 
        agricultural weather and climate information, aimed at 
        improving the quality and quantity of weather and 
        climate information available to agricultural 
        producers, including research on short-term forecasts 
        of thunderstorms and on extended weather forecasting 
        techniques and models;
          [(4) to encourage, where feasible, greater private 
        sector participation in providing agricultural weather 
        and climate information, to encourage private sector 
        participation in educating and training farmers and 
        others in the proper utilization of agricultural 
        weather and climate information, and to strengthen 
        their ability to provide site-specific weather 
        forecasting for farmers and the agricultural sector in 
        general; and
          [(5) to ensure that the weather and climate data 
        bases needed by the agricultural sector are of the 
        highest scientific accuracy and thoroughly documented, 
        and that such data bases are easily accessible for 
        remote computer access.
    [Sec. 1638

[SEC. 1638. AGRICULTURAL WEATHER OFFICE.

    [(a) Establishment of the Office and Administration of the 
System.--
          [(1) Establishment required.--The Secretary of 
        Agriculture shall establish in the Department of 
        Agriculture an Agricultural Weather Office to plan and 
        administer the National Agricultural Weather 
        Information System. The system shall be comprised of 
        the office established under this section and the 
        activities of the State agricultural weather 
        information systems described in section 1640.
          [(2) Director.--The Secretary shall appoint a 
        Director to manage the activities of the Agricultural 
        Weather Office and to advise the Secretary on 
        scientific and programmatic coordination for climate, 
        weather, and remote sensing.
    [(b) Authority.--The Secretary, acting through the Office, 
may undertake the following activities to carry out this 
subtitle:
          [(1) Enter into cooperative projects with the 
        National Weather Service to--
                  [(A) support operational weather forecasting 
                and observation useful in agriculture;
                  [(B) sponsor joint workshops to train 
                agriculturalists about the optimum utilization 
                of agricultural weather and climate data;
                  [(C) jointly develop improved computer models 
                and computing capacity; and
                  [(D) enhance the quality and availability of 
                weather and climate information needed by 
                agriculturalists.
          [(2) Obtain standardized weather observation data 
        collected in near real time through State agricultural 
        weather information systems.
          [(3) Make, through the Cooperative State Research 
        Service, competitive grants under subsection (c) for 
        research in atmospheric sciences and climatology.
          [(4) Make grants to eligible States under section 
        1640 to plan and administer State agricultural weather 
        information systems.
          [(5) Coordinate the activities of the Office with the 
        weather and climate research activities of the 
        Cooperative State Research Service, the National 
        Academy of Sciences, the National Science Foundation 
        Atmospheric Services Program, and the National Climate 
        Program.
          [(6) Encourage private sector participation in the 
        National Agricultural Weather Information System 
        through mutually beneficial cooperation with the 
        private sector, particularly in generating weather and 
        climatic data useful for site-specific agricultural 
        weather forecasting.
    [(c) Competitive Grants Program.--
          [(1) Grants authorized.--With funds allocated to 
        carry out this subsection, the Secretary of Agriculture 
        may make grants to State agricultural experiment 
        stations, all colleges and universities, other research 
        institutions and organizations, Federal agencies, 
        private organizations and corporations, and individuals 
        to carry out research in all aspects of atmospheric 
        sciences and climatology that can be shown to be 
        important in both a basic and developmental way to 
        understanding, forecasting, and delivering agricultural 
        weather information.
          [(2) Competitive basis.--Grants made under this 
        subsection shall be made on a competitive basis.
    [(d) Priority.--In selecting among applications for grants 
under subsection (c), the Secretary shall give priority to 
proposals which emphasize--
          [(1) techniques and processes that relate to weather-
        induced agricultural losses, and to improving the 
        advisory information on weather extremes such as 
        drought, floods, freezes, and storms well in advance of 
        their actual occurrence;
          [(2) the improvement of site-specific weather data 
        collection and forecasting; or
          [(3) the impact of weather on economic and 
        environmental costs in agricultural production.]
[(7 U.S.C. 5852)]
    [Sec. 1639

[SEC.  1639.  NATIONAL  ADVISORY  BOARD  ON  AGRICULTURAL WEATHER.

    [(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall 
establish the Advisory Board on Agricultural Weather 
(hereinafter referred to in this section as the ``Board'') to 
advise the Director of the Agricultural Weather Office with 
respect to carrying out this subtitle.
    [(b) Composition.--The Board shall be composed of nine 
members, appointed by the Secretary in consultation with the 
Director of the National Weather Service. Two of the members 
shall be from each of the four regions of the cooperative 
extension service. Of the two members from each region, one 
shall be an agricultural producer and one shall be an 
agricultural or atmospheric scientist. At least two members of 
the Board shall be appointed from among individuals who are 
engaged in providing private meteorology services or consulting 
with a private meteorology firm.
    [(c) Chairperson.--The Board shall elect a chairperson from 
among its members.
    [(d) Term.--Each Board member shall be appointed for a 
three-year term, except that to ensure that members of the 
Board serve staggered terms, the Secretary shall appoint three 
of the original members of the Board to appointments for one 
year, and three of the original members to appointments for two 
years.
    [(e) Meetings.--The Board shall meet not less than twice 
annually.
    [(f) Compensation.--Members of the Board shall serve 
without compensation, but while away from their homes or 
regular places of business in the performance of services for 
the Board, members of the Board shall be allowed travel 
expenses, including a per diem allowance in lieu of 
subsistence, in the same manner as individuals employed in 
Government service are allowed travel expenses under section 
5703 of title 5, United States Code.
    [(g) Federal Advisory Committee Act.--Section 14(a)(2) of 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not 
apply with respect to the Board.]
[(7 U.S.C. 5853)]
    [Sec. 1640

[SEC. 1640. STATE AGRICULTURAL WEATHER INFORMATION SYSTEMS.

    [(a) Advisory Program Grants.--
          [(1) Grants required.--With funds allocated to carry 
        out this section, the Secretary of Agriculture shall 
        make grants to not fewer than 10 eligible States to 
        plan and administer, in cooperation with persons 
        described in paragraph (2), advisory programs for State 
        agricultural weather information systems.
          [(2) Persons described.--The persons referred to in 
        paragraph (1) are the Director of the Agricultural 
        Weather Office, the Administrator of the Extension 
        Service, the Administrator of the Cooperative State 
        Research Service, and other persons as appropriate 
        (such as the directors of the appropriate State 
        agricultural experiment stations and State extension 
        programs).
    [(b) Consultation.--For purposes of selecting among 
applications submitted by States for grants under this section, 
the Secretary shall take into consideration the recommendation 
of the Advisory Board on Agricultural Weather and consult with 
the Director.
    [(c) Eligibility Requirements.--To be eligible to receive a 
grant under this section, the chief executive officer of a 
State shall submit to the Secretary an application that 
contains--
          [(1) assurances that the State will expend such grant 
        to plan and administer a State agricultural weather 
        system that will--
                  [(A) collect observational weather data 
                throughout the State and provide such data to 
                the National Weather Service and the 
                Agricultural Weather Office;
                  [(B) develop methods for packaging 
                information received from the national system 
                for use by agricultural producers (with State 
                Cooperative Extension Services and the private 
                sector to serve as the primary conduit of 
                agricultural weather forecasts and climatic 
                information to producers); and
                  [(C) develop programs to educate agricultural 
                producers on how tobest use weather and climate 
information to improve management decisions; and
          [(2) such other assurances and information as the 
        Secretary may require by rule.]
[(7 U.S.C. 5854)]
    [Sec. 1641]

[SEC. 1641. FUNDING.

    [(a) Allocation of Funds.--
          [(1) Cooperative work.--Not less than 15 percent and 
        not more than 25 percent of the funds appropriated for 
        a fiscal year to carry out this subtitle shall be used 
        for cooperative work with the National Weather Service 
        entered into under section 1638(b)(1).
          [(2) Competitive grants program.--Not less than 15 
        percent and not more than 25 percent of such funds 
        shall be used by the Cooperative State Research Service 
        for a competitive grants program under section 1638(c).
          [(3) Weather information systems.--Not less than 25 
        percent and not more than 35 percent of such funds 
        shall be divided equally between the participating 
        States selected for that fiscal year under section 
        1640.
          [(4) Other purposes.--The remaining funds shall be 
        allocated for use by the Agricultural Weather Office 
        and the Extension Service in carrying out generally the 
        provisions of this subtitle.
    [(b) Limitations on Use of Funds.--Funds provided under the 
authority of this subtitle shall not be used for the 
construction of facilities. Each State or agency receiving 
funds shall not use more than 30 percent of such funds for 
equipment purchases. Any use of the funds in facilitating the 
distribution of agricultural and climate information to 
producers shall be done with consideration for the role that 
the private meteorological sector can play in such information 
delivery.
    [(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
to be appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this subtitle for 
each of the fiscal years 1991 through 1997.]
[(7 U.S.C. 5855)]

     ``Subtitle D--National Agricultural Weather Information System

``SEC. 1637. SHORT TITLE; PURPOSES.

    ``(a) Short Title.--This subtitle may be cited as the 
`National Agricultural Weather Information System Act of 1997'.
    ``(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this subtitle are--
          ``(1) to facilitate the management and coordination 
        of a national agricultural weather and climate station 
        network for Federal and State agencies, colleges and 
        universities, and the private sector;
          ``(2) to ensure that timely and accurate information 
        is obtained and disseminated; and
          ``(3) to aid research and education that requires a 
        comprehensive agricultural weather and climate 
        database.

``SEC. 1638. AGRICULTURAL WEATHER SYSTEM.

    ``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Agriculture may 
establish the National Agricultural Weather Information System 
(referred to in this subtitle as the `System'). The System 
shall be comprised of the operational and research activities 
of the Federal, State, and regional agricultural weather 
information systems.
    ``(b) Authority.--Notwithstanding chapter 63 of title 31, 
United States Code, to carry out this subtitle, the Secretary 
may--
          ``(1) enter into contracts, grants, cooperative 
        agreements and interagency agreements without regard to 
        competitive requirements, except as otherwise provided 
        in this subtitle, with other Federal and State agencies 
        to--
                  ``(A) support operational weather and climate 
                data observations, analysis, and derived 
                products;
                  ``(B) preserve historical data records for 
                research studies useful in agriculture;
                  ``(C) jointly develop improved computer 
                models and computing capacity for storage, 
                retrieval, dissemination and analysis of 
                agricultural weather and climate information;
                  ``(D) enhance the quality and availability of 
                weather and climate information needed by the 
                private sector for value-added products and 
                agriculturalists for decisionmaking; and
                  ``(E) sponsor joint programs to train private 
                sector meteorologists and agriculturalists 
                about the optimum use of agricultural weather 
                and climate data;
          ``(2) obtain standardized weather observation data 
        collected in near real time through regional and State 
        agricultural weather information systems;
          ``(3) coordinate the activities of the Chief 
        Meteorologist of the Department of Agriculture and 
        weather and climate research activities of the 
        Department of Agriculture with other Federal agencies 
        and the private sector;
          ``(4) make grants to plan and administer State and 
        regional agricultural weather information systems, 
        including research in atmospheric sciences and 
        climatology;
          ``(5) encourage private sector participation in the 
        System through cooperation with the private sector, 
        including cooperation in the generation of weather and 
        climate data useful for site-specific agricultural 
        weather forecasting; and
          ``(6) make competitive grants to carry out research 
        in all aspects of atmospheric sciences and climatology 
        regarding the collection, retention, and dissemination 
        of agricultural weather and climate observations and 
        information with priority given to proposals that 
        emphasize--
                  ``(A) techniques and processes that relate 
                to--
                          ``(i) weather- or climate-induced 
                        agricultural losses; and
                          ``(ii) improvement of information on 
                        weather and climate extremes(such as 
drought, floods, freeze, and storms) well in advance of their 
occurrence;
                  ``(B) the improvement of site-specific 
                weather data collection and forecasting;
                  ``(C) the impact of weather on economic and 
                environmental costs in agricultural production; 
                or
                  ``(D) the preservation and management of the 
                ecosystem.

``SEC. 1639. FUNDING AND ADMINISTRATION.

    ``(a) Use of Funds.--
          ``(1) National oceanic and atmospheric administration 
        work.--Not more than \2/3\ of the funds made available 
        for a fiscal year to carry out this subtitle shall be 
        used for work with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
        Administration.
          ``(2) Administrative costs.--The Secretary of 
        Agriculture may retain for administration of the System 
        up to 4 percent of the amounts made available to carry 
        out this subtitle, notwithstanding the availability of 
        any appropriation for administrative expenses to carry 
        out this subtitle.
          ``(3) Limitations.--
                  ``(A) Buildings or facilities.--Funds made 
                available to carry out this subtitle shall not 
                be used for the planning, repair, 
                rehabilitation, acquisition, or construction of 
                a building or facility.
                  ``(B) Equipment purchases.--Of funds made 
                available under a grant award under this 
                subtitle, a grantee may use for equipment 
                purchases not more than the lesser of--
                          ``(i) $15,000; or
                          ``(ii) \1/3\ of the amount of the 
                        grant award.
    ``(b) Applicability of Other Laws.--The Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) and title XVIII of the Food and 
Agriculture Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2281 et seq.) shall not apply 
to a panel or board created for the purpose of reviewing 
applications or proposals submitted for grants under section 
1638.

``SEC. 1640. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    ``There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
subtitle $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1998 through 
2002.''. . .
    ``Sec. 1670 repealed''

[SEC. 1671. PLANT GENOME MAPPING PROGRAM.

    [Sec. 1671
    [(a) Program Required.--The Secretary of Agriculture 
(hereinafter in this section referred to as the ``Secretary'') 
shall conduct a research program for the purpose of--
          [(1) supporting basic and applied research and 
        technology development in the area of plant genome 
        structure and function;
          [(2) providing United States leadership in 
        biotechnology; and
          [(3) providing crop varieties that may be cultivated 
        profitably without negatively impacting the 
        environment.
    [(b) Competitive Grants.--The Secretary may make 
competitive grants, for periods not to exceed five years, to 
State agricultural experiment stations, all colleges and 
universities, other research institutions and organizations, 
Federal agencies, private organizations or corporations, and 
individuals for research projects in the research areas 
identified in subsection (c).
    [(c) Research Areas.--Grants available under subsection (b) 
shall be awarded in the following research areas:
          [(1) Construction of plant genome maps.
          [(2) Identification, characterization, transfer, and 
        expression of genes of agricultural importance.
          [(3) Technology development in the areas of plant 
        genome mapping, sequencing, gene transfer, and data 
        management.
          [(4) Research on microorganisms associated with 
        plants, such as plant pathogens and plant symbionts.
    [(d) Plan for Making Grants.--Not later than 90 days after 
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
submit to the Congress a detailed plan for awarding grants 
under this section.
    [(e) Coordination of Efforts.--The Secretary shall 
coordinate activities under this section with related 
activities sponsored by the National Science Foundation, the 
National Institutes of Health, the Department of Energy, and 
the Department of Commerce.
    [(f) Proprietary Interests.--The Secretary shall require 
(when the Secretary considers it to be appropriate) licensing 
and patent agreements, copyright fees, royalties, or other fee 
arrangements on the sales of products and new uses, 
applications, technologies, or processes developed through 
assistance provided under this section.
    [(g) Authorizations of Appropriations.--There are 
authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years 1996 and 1997 
such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.]
[(7 U.S.C. 5924)]

``SEC. 1671. NATIONAL FOOD GENOME STRATEGY.

    ``(a) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are--
          ``(1) to expand the knowledge of public and private 
        sector entities and persons concerning genomes for 
        species of importance to the food and agriculture 
        sectors in order to maximize the return on the 
        investment in plant, animal, and microbial genomics;
          ``(2) to focus on the species that will yield early, 
        scientifically important results that will enhance the 
        usefulness of many plant, animal, and microbial 
        species;
          ``(3) to build on genomic research, such as the Human 
        Genome Initiative and the Arabidopsis Genome Project, 
        to understand gene structure and function that is 
        expected to have considerable payoffs in crop species 
        ranging from corn to soybean to cotton and animal 
        species ranging from cattle to swine to poultry;
          ``(4) to develop improved bioinformatics to enhance 
        both sequenceor structure determination and analysis of 
the biological function of genes and gene products;
          ``(5) to develop, within the National Food Genome 
        Strategy required under subsection (b) for 
        agriculturally important plants, animals, and microbes, 
        a Plant Genome Initiative under which--
                  ``(A) the Plant Genome Initiative will be an 
                interagency activity conducted with--
                          ``(i) the Department of Agriculture 
                        as the lead Federal agency; and
                          ``(ii) the National Science 
                        Foundation and the Department of Energy 
                        as participants; and
                  ``(B) the National Institutes of Health will 
                continue to invest in the underlying critical 
                technologies through its Human Genome Project 
                and other genetics research;
          ``(6) to establish, within the National Food Genome 
        Strategy, an Animal Genome Initiative--
                  ``(A) to address the obstacles limiting the 
                development and implementation of gene-based 
                approaches for animal improvement, such as 
                high-resolution genomic maps; and
                  ``(B) to take advantage of complementary work 
                of the Human Genome Initiative, the 
                Agricultural Research Service, and State 
                agricultural experiment stations;
          ``(7) to encourage Federal Government participants to 
        maximize the utility of public and private partnerships 
        for food genome research;
          ``(8) to allow resources developed under this 
        section, including data, software, germplasm, and other 
        biological materials, to be openly accessible to all 
        persons, subject to any confidentiality requirements 
        imposed by law; and
          ``(9) to encourage international partnerships with 
        each partner country responsible for financing its own 
        strategy for food genome research.
    ``(b) Duties of Secretary.--The Secretary of Agriculture 
(referred to in this section as the `Secretary') shall develop 
and carry out a National Food Genome Strategy to--
          ``(1) study and map agriculturally significant genes 
        to achieve sustainable and secure agricultural 
        production;
          ``(2) ensure that current gaps in existing 
        agricultural genetics knowledge are filled;
          ``(3) identify and develop a functional understanding 
        of genes responsible for economically important traits 
        in plants, animals, and microbes of importance to 
        agriculture;
          ``(4) ensure future genetic improvement of 
        agriculturally important species;
          ``(5) support preservation of diverse germplasm;
          ``(6) ensure preservation of biodiversity to maintain 
        access to genes that may be of importance in the 
        future; and
          ``(7) otherwise carry out the purposes of this 
        section.
    ``(c) Contracts, Grants, and Cooperative Agreements.--
          ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may enter into or 
        make contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements with 
        individuals and organizations in accordance with 
        section 1472 of the National Agricultural Research, 
        Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 
        3318).
          ``(2) Competitive basis.--A grant under this 
        subsection shall be made on a competitive basis.
    ``(d) Administration.--
          ``(1) Regulations.--The Secretary shall promulgate 
        such regulations as are necessary to carry out this 
        section.
          ``(2) Consultation with the national academy of 
        sciences.--The Secretary may use funds made available 
        under this section to consult with the National Academy 
        of Sciences regarding the administration of the 
        National Food Genome Strategy without regard to the 
        requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 
        U.S.C. App.) or title XVIII of the Food and Agriculture 
        Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2281 et seq.).
          ``(3) Indirect costs.--Indirect costs under this 
        section shall be allowable at the rate indirect costs 
        are allowable for contracts, grants, or cooperative 
        agreements entered into or made by the National Science 
        Foundation for genomic research.''

SEC. 1672. SPECIALIZED RESEARCH PROGRAMS.

    [(a) Brown Citrus Aphid and Citrus Tristeza Virus.--
          [(1) Research grants authorized.--The Secretary of 
        Agriculture may make competitive grants available to 
        support research for the purpose of--
                  [(A) developing methods to eradicate the 
                brown citrus aphid and the citrus tristeza 
                virus from citrus crops grown in the United 
                States; or
                  [(B) adapting citrus crops grown in the 
                United States to the brown citrus aphid and the 
                citrus tristeza virus.
          [(2) Method of providing grants.--Grants authorized 
        under this subsection shall be made in the same manner, 
        and shall be subject to the same conditions, as 
        provided for competitive grants under the Competitive, 
        Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act (7 U.S.C. 
        450i).
          [(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
        authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
        subsection $3,000,000 for fiscal year 1997.]
    [(b)] (a) Ethanol Research.--. . .
    [(c)] (b) Aflatoxin Research.--. . .
    [(d) Mesquite Research.--
          [(1) Research required.--The Secretary of Agriculture 
        shall conduct a research program for the purpose of 
        developing enhanced production methods and commercial 
        uses of mesquite.
          [(2) Competitive grants.--The Secretary shall make 
        competitivegrants, for periods not to exceed 5 years, 
to a State agricultural experiment station, a college or university, or 
a consortium of such entities, for a research project in the research 
areas identified in paragraph (3).
          [(3) Research areas.--A grant available under 
        paragraph (2) shall be awarded to an applicant to 
        conduct research in--
                  [(A) the development of techniques to 
                produce, from small-diameter, short-length, or 
                otherwise irregular mesquite logs, solid-wood 
                products useful as flooring, furniture parts, 
                turning blanks, and such other uses as may have 
                potential economic value;
                  [(B) the development of management techniques 
                designed to improve stands for quality lumber 
                production from mesquite; and
                  [(C) such other methods of production, 
                harvesting, processing, and marketing that are 
                designed to provide viable markets for mesquite 
                and lead to the commercialization of mesquite 
                as a cash crop.
          [(4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
        authorized to be appropriated $100,000 for each of the 
        fiscal years 1991 through 1997 to carry out this 
        subsection.
    [(e) Prickly Pear Research.--
          [(1) Research required.--The Secretary of Agriculture 
        shall conduct a research program for the purpose of 
        investigating enhanced genetic selection and processing 
        techniques of prickly pears.
          [(2) Competitive grants.--The Secretary shall make 
        competitive grants, for periods not to exceed 5 years, 
        to a State agricultural experiment station, a college 
        or university, or a consortium of such entities, for 
        research projects in the research areas identified in 
        paragraph (3).
          [(3) Research areas.--A grant available under 
        paragraph (2) shall be awarded to an applicant to 
        conduct research--
                  [(A) to investigate, through genetic 
                selection, the development of varieties of 
                prickly pear with improved growth, freeze 
                tolerance, and harvest characteristics;
                  [(B) to develop techniques to produce and 
                process prickly pear as a food source; and
                  [(C) to continue to investigate the 
                nutritional value and health benefits of 
                prickly pears.
          [(4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
        authorized to be appropriated $100,000 for each of the 
        fiscal years 1991 through 1997 to carry out this 
        subsection.
    [(f) Deer Tick Ecology and Related Research.--There are 
authorized to be appropriated $250,000 for each of the fiscal 
years 1991 through 1997 to be used by the Secretary of 
Agriculture, acting through the Cooperative State Research 
Service, to make competitive grants to assist research in the 
field of population ecology of deer ticks and other insects and 
pests which transmit Lyme disease.]
    [(g)] (c) Administrative Provisions.--. . .
    ``(d) Imported Fire Ant Control, Management, and 
Eradication.--
          ``(1) National advisory and implementation board on 
        imported fire ant control, management, and 
        eradication.--
                  ``(A) Establishment.--The Secretary of 
                Agriculture may establish a National Advisory 
                and Implementation Board on Imported Fire Ant 
                Control, Management, and Eradication (referred 
                to in this subsection as the `Board').
                  ``(B) Membership.--The Board shall consist of 
                12 members who are experts in entomology, ant 
                ecology, wildlife biology, electrical 
                engineering, economics, or agribusiness and who 
                are appointed by the Secretary from academia, 
                research institutes, and the private sector.
                  ``(C) Compensation.--
                          ``(i) In general.--A member of the 
                        Board shall not receive any 
                        compensation by reason of service on 
                        the Board.
                          ``(ii) Expenses.--A member of the 
                        Board shall be reimbursed for travel, 
                        subsistence, and other necessary 
                        expenses incurred by the member in the 
                        performance of a duty of the member.
                  ``(D) Termination.--The Board shall terminate 
                60 days after the date on which the national 
                plan is submitted to the Board under paragraph 
                (4)(B).
          ``(2) Initial grants.--
                  ``(A) Request for proposals.--
                          ``(i) In general.--The Secretary 
                        shall publish a request for proposals 
                        for grants for research or 
                        demonstration projects related to the 
                        control, management, and possible 
                        eradication of imported fire ants.
                          ``(ii) Input from board.--In 
                        developing a request for proposals 
                        under clause (i), the Secretary shall 
                        solicit and consider input from the 
                        Board.
                  ``(B) Selection.--Not later than 1 year after 
                the date of publication of the request for 
                proposals, the Secretary shall evaluate and 
                select meritorious research or demonstration 
                projects related to the control, management, 
                and possible eradication of imported fire ants.
                  ``(C) Grants.--The Secretary may award a 
                total of $6,000,000 for each fiscal year in 
                grants to colleges, universities, research 
                institutes, Federal laboratories, or private 
                entities selected under subparagraph (B), for a 
                term of not to exceed 5 years, for the purpose 
                of conducting research or demonstration 
                projects related to the control, management, 
                and possible eradication of imported fire ants. 
                Each project shall be completed not later than 
                the end of the term of the grant.
          ``(3) Subsequent grants.--
                  ``(A) Evaluation; selection.--If the 
                Secretary awards grants under paragraph (2)(C), 
                the Secretary shall--
                          ``(i) evaluate all of the research or 
                        demonstration projectsconducted under 
paragraph (2)(C) for their use as the basis of a national plan for the 
control, management, and possible eradication of imported fire ants by 
the Federal Government, State and local governments, and owners and 
operators of land; and
                          ``(ii) on the basis of the 
                        evaluation, select the projects the 
                        Secretary considers most promising for 
                        additional research or demonstration 
                        related to the control, management, and 
                        possible eradication of imported fire 
                        ants and notify the Board of the 
                        selection.
                  ``(B) Grants.--The Secretary may award a 
                grant of up to $4,000,000 for each fiscal year 
                to each of the colleges, universities, research 
                institutes, Federal laboratories, or private 
                entities selected under subparagraph (A)(ii) 
                for the purpose of conducting research or 
                demonstration projects for the preparation of a 
                national plan for the control, management, and 
                possible eradication of imported fire ants. 
                Each project shall be completed not later than 
                2 years after the grant is made.
          ``(4) National plan.--
                  ``(A) Evaluation; selection.--If the 
                Secretary awards grants under paragraph (3)(B), 
                the Secretary shall--
                          ``(i) evaluate all of the research or 
                        demonstration projects conducted under 
                        paragraph (3)(B) for their use as the 
                        basis of a national plan for the 
                        control, management, and possible 
                        eradication of imported fire ants by 
                        the Federal Government, State and local 
                        governments, and owners and operators 
                        of land; and
                          ``(ii) on the basis of the 
                        evaluation, select 1 project funded 
                        under paragraph (3)(B), or a 
                        combination of grant projects, as the 
                        basis for the plan and notify the Board 
                        of the selection.
                  ``(B) Grant.--The Secretary may award a grant 
                of up to $5,000,000 to the sponsor or sponsors 
                of the grant project selected under 
                subparagraph (A)(ii) for the purpose of the 
                final preparation of the national plan for the 
                control, management, and possible eradication 
                of imported fire ants that is based on the 
                project. If the Secretary awards a grant under 
                this subparagraph, the national plan shall be 
                completed, and submitted to the Board, not 
                later than 1 year after the grant is made.
                  ``(C) Report to congress.--Not later than 60 
                days after the plan is submitted to the Board 
                under subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall 
                submit to Congress the national plan for the 
                control, management, and possible eradication 
                of imported fire ants.
          ``(5) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
        authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
        necessary to carry out this subsection for each of 
        fiscal years 1998 through 2002.''. . .
    ``(1) A*DEC.--The term `A*DEC' means the distance education 
consortium known as A*DEC.''
    [(1)] (2) The term ``eligible institution''. . .
    [(2)] (3) The term ``communications network'' . . .
    [(3)] (4) The term ``delivery''. . .
    [(4)] (5) The term ``facilities''. . .
    [(5)] (6) The term ``satellite ground station complex''. . .
    ``(7) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary 
of Agriculture, acting through A*DEC.''
    (d) Authorization of Assistance to Eligible Institutions.--
(1) [The Secretary shall establish a program, to be 
administered by the Assistant Secretary for Science and 
Education] ``The Secretary of Agriculture shall establish a 
program, to be administered through a grant provided to A*DEC 
under terms and conditions established by the Secretary of 
Agriculture,'', . . .
    (2) Eligible institutions shall request assistance by 
submitting applications to the [Assistant Secretary for Science 
and Education] ``A*DEC''. Applications shall include--. . .
    (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purposes of 
implementing the program established under this section, there 
are hereby authorized to be appropriated not more than 
$12,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1991 through [1997] 
``2002''. . . .
    ``Sec.1675 repealed''
    ``Sec.1676 repealed''

SEC. 1680. ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM FOR FARMERS WITH DISABILITIES.

    (a) Special Demonstration Grants.--. . .
          (5) Minimum amount.--A grant awarded under this 
        subsection may not be less than $150,000.
          [(6) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
        authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
        subsection--
                  [(A) not less than $3,000,000 for each of the 
                fiscal years 1991 and 1992; and
                  [(B) not less than $5,000,000 for each of the 
                fiscal years 1993 through 1997.]
    (b) National Grant for Technical Assistance, Training and 
[Dissemination.--]
                  [(1) In general.--The] ``Dissemination._The'' 
                . . .
                [(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There 
                are authorized to be appropriated $1,000,000 to 
                carry out this subsection for each of the 
                fiscal years 1991 through 1997.]
    ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
          ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), there is 
        authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
        $6,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2002.
          ``(2) National grant.--Not more than 15 percent of 
        the amounts made available under paragraph (1) for a 
        fiscal year shall be used to carry out subsection 
        (b).''

SEC. 2381. NATIONAL RURAL INFORMATION CENTER CLEARINGHOUSE. . . .

    (e) Limitation on Authorization of Appropriations.--To 
carry out this section, there are authorized to be appropriated 
$500,000 for each of the fiscal years 1991 through [1995] 
``2002''.

 NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, EXTENSION, AND TEACHING POLICY ACT OF 
                               1977. . .

SEC. 1402. [7 U.S.C. 3101] PURPOSES ``AND MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES'' OF 
                    AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, EXTENSION, AND EDUCATION.

    Sec. 1402
    (a) ``Purposes.--''
    The purposes of federally supported agricultural research, 
extension, and education are to--
          (8) maintain an adequate, nutritious, and safe supply 
        of food to meet human nutritional needs and 
        requirements.
    ``(b) Management Principles.--To the maximum extent 
practicable, the Secretary shall ensure that federally 
supported and conducted agricultural research, education, and 
extension activities are accomplished in a manner that--
          ``(1) integrates agricultural research, education, 
        and extension functions to better link research to 
        technology transfer and information dissemination 
        activities;
          ``(2) encourages regional and multistate programs to 
        address relevant issues of common concern and to better 
        leverage scarce resources;
          ``(3) achieves agricultural research, education, and 
        extension objectives through multi-institutional and 
        multifunctional approaches and by conducting research 
        at facilities and institutions best equipped to achieve 
        those objectives; and
          ``(4) requires accountability to be measured against 
        shared national goals of the research, education, and 
        economics mission area agencies of the Department and 
        their partners that receive Federal research, 
        extension, and higher education funds, consistent with 
        the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 
        (Public Law 103-62) and amendments made by that Act.''.

SEC. 1408. NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, EXTENSION, EDUCATION, AND 
                    ECONOMICS ADVISORY BOARD. . . .

    (b) Membership.--. . .
          ``(7) Equal representation of public and private 
        sector members.--In appointing members to serve on the 
        Advisory Board, the Secretary shall ensure, to the 
        maximum extent practicable, equal representation of 
        public and private sector members.''. . .
    ``(d) Notification of Advisory Board and Congress.--
          ``(1) Advisory board.--The Secretary shall provide a 
        written response to the Advisory Board regarding the 
        implementation of any written recommendations made by 
        the Advisory Board to the Secretary under subsection 
        (c).
          ``(2) Congress.--The Secretary shall provide to the 
        Committee on Agriculture of the House of 
        Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, 
        Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate a copy of the 
        response of the Secretary to an Advisory Board 
        recommendation concerning the priority mission areas of 
        the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems 
        established under section 301(c)(2)(B) of the 
        Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform 
        Act of 1997.'' . . .
    [(d)] ``(e)'' Consultation.--In carrying out this section, 
the Advisory Board shall solicit opinions and recommendations 
from persons who will benefit from and use federally funded 
agricultural research, extension, education, and economics.
    [(e)] ``(f)'' Appointment.--A member of the Advisory Board 
shall be appointed by the Secretary for a term of up to 3 
years. The members of the Advisory Board shall be appointed to 
serve staggered terms.
    [(f)] ``(g)'' Federal Advisory Committee Act.--The Advisory 
Board shall be deemed to have filed a charter for the purpose 
of section 9(c) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. 
App.).
    [(g)] ``(h)'' Termination.--The Advisory Board shall remain 
in existence until September 30, 2002. . . .

SEC. 1412. SUPPORT FOR ADVISORY BOARD.

    (a) To assist the Advisory Board in the performance of 
[their duties] ``its duties'',. . .
    (b) The Secretary shall provide such additional clerical 
assistance and staff personnel as may be required to assist the 
Advisory Board in carrying out [their duties] ``its duties''.
    (c) In formulating [their recommendations] ``its 
recommendations'' to the Secretary,. . .
    Sec. 1413. (a) Any vacancy in the Advisory Board shall not 
affect [their powers] ``its duties'' under this title and shall 
be filled in the same manner as the original position.
    (b) Members of the [Joint Council, the Advisory Board] 
``Advisory Board'' shall serve without compensation . . .

SEC. 1417. GRANTS AND FELLOWSHIPS FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES 
                    EDUCATION. . . .

    (b) Grants.--. . .
          (6) to conduct graduate and postdoctoral fellowship 
        programs to attract highly promising individuals to 
        research or teaching careers in the food and 
        agricultural sciences.
    ``(c) Priorities.--In awarding grants under subsection (b), 
the Secretary shall give priority to--
          ``(1) applications for teaching enhancement projects 
        that demonstrate enhanced coordination among all types 
        of institutions eligible for funding under this 
        section; and
          ``(2) applications for teaching enhancement projects 
        that focus on innovative, multidisciplinary education 
        programs, material, and curricula.''
    [(c)] (d) Eligibility for Grants.--. . .
          (3) Research foundations.--An eligible college or 
        university under subsection (b) includes a research 
        foundation maintained by the college or university.
    ``(e) Food and Agricultural Education Information System.--
From amounts made available for grants authorized under this 
section, the Secretary may maintain a national food and 
agricultural education information system that contains 
information on enrollment, degrees awarded, faculty, and 
employment placement in the food and agricultural sciences and 
such other information as the Secretary considers 
appropriate.''
    [(d)] (f) Evaluation of Teaching Programs.--. . .
    [(e)] (g) Continuing Education.--. . .
    [(f)] (h) Transfers of Funds and Functions.--. . .
    [(g)] (i) National Food and Agricultural Sciences Teaching 
Awards--. . .
    [(h)] (j) Secondary Education and 2-Year Postsecondary 
Education Teaching Programs.--. . .
    [(i)] (k) Administration.--. . .
    [(j)] (l) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
authorized to be appropriated for carrying out this section 
$60,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1990 through [1997] 
``2002''. . .
    Sec. 1419 . . .
    (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
to be appropriated for the purposes of carrying out this 
section $20,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1991 through 
[1997] ``2002''. . .

SEC. 1419A. POLICY RESEARCH CENTERS.

    (a) In General.--Consistent with this section, the 
Secretary may make grants, competitive grants, and special 
research grants to, and enter into cooperative agreements and 
other contracting instruments with, policy research centers 
described in subsection (b) to conduct research and education 
programs that are objective, operationally independent, and 
external to the Federal Government and that concern the effect 
of public policies ``and trade agreements''. . .
    (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out this 
section for [fiscal years 1996 and 1997] ``each of fiscal years 
1996 through 2002''. . .
    [Sec. 1424A

[SEC. 1424A. [7 U.S.C. 3174A] PILOT RESEARCH PROGRAM TO COMBINE MEDICAL 
                    AND AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH.

    [(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
          [(1) Although medical researchers in recent years 
        have demonstrated that there are several naturally 
        occurring compounds in many vegetables and fruits that 
        can aid in the prevention of certain forms of cancer, 
        coronary heart disease, stroke, and atherosclerosis, 
        there has been almost no research conducted to enhance 
        these compounds in food plants by modern breeding and 
        molecular genetic methods.
          [(2) By linking the appropriate medical and 
        agricultural research scientists in a highly-focused, 
        targeted research program, it should be possible to 
        develop new varieties of vegetables and fruits that 
        would provide greater prevention of diet-related 
        diseases that are a major cause of death in the United 
        States.
    [(b) Pilot Research Program.--The Secretary shall conduct, 
through the Cooperative State Research, Education, and 
Extension Service, a pilot research program to link major 
cancer and heart and other circulatory disease research efforts 
with agricultural research efforts to identify compounds in 
vegetables and fruits that prevent these diseases. Using 
information derived from such combined research efforts, the 
Secretary shall assist in the development of new varieties of 
vegetables and fruits having enhanced therapeutic properties 
for disease prevention.
    [(c) Agreements.--The Secretary shall carry out the pilot 
program through agreements entered into with land-grant 
colleges or universities, other universities, State 
agricultural experiment stations, the State cooperative 
extension services, nonprofit organizations with demonstrable 
expertise, or Federal or State governmental entities. The 
Secretary shall enter into the agreements on a competitive 
basis.
    [(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
to be appropriated $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1997 to carry 
out the pilot program.]

SEC. 1425. NUTRITION EDUCATION PROGRAM. . . .

    (c) Beginning with the fiscal year ending September 30, 
1982--. . .
          (3) There is authorized to be appropriated to carry 
        out the expanded food and nutrition education program 
        established under section 3(d) of the Act of May 8, 
        1914 (38 Stat. 373, chapter 79; 7 U.S.C. 343(d) and 
        this section, $83,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1996 
        [and 1997] ``through 2002'' . . .

SEC. 1433. APPROPRIATIONS FOR CONTINUING ANIMAL HEALTH AND DISEASE 
                    RESEARCH PROGRAMS.

    Sec. 1433. (a) There are authorized to be appropriated such 
funds as Congress may determine necessary to support continuing 
animal health and disease research programs at eligible 
institutions, but not to exceed $25,000,000 for each of the 
fiscal years 1991 through [1997] ``2002'', . . .

SEC. 1434. APPROPRIATIONS FOR RESEARCH ON NATIONAL OR REGIONAL 
                    PROBLEMS. . . .

    (a) There are authorized to be appropriated such funds as 
Congress may determine necessary to support research on 
specific national or regional animal health or disease 
problems, or national or regional problems relating to pre-
harvest, on-farm food safety, or animal well-being, but not to 
exceed $35,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1991 through 
[1997] ``2002''. . .

SEC. 1447. GRANTS TO UPGRADE AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD SCIENCES FACILITIES 
                    AT 1890 LAND-GRANT COLLEGES, INCLUDING TUSKEGEE 
                    UNIVERSITY. . . .

    (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
to be appropriated to the Secretary of Agriculture for the 
purposes of carrying out the provisions of this section, 
$15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1996 [and 1997] ``through 
2002'', and such sums shall remain available until expended. . 
. .
    (c) Use of Grant Funds.--Four percent of the sums 
appropriated pursuant to this section shall be available to the 
Secretary for administration of this grants program. The 
remaining funds shall be available for grants to eligible 
institutions for the purpose of assisting them in the purchase 
of equipment and land, the planning, construction, alteration, 
or renovation of buildings to strengthen their capacity in the 
production of human capital in the food and agricultural 
sciences and can be used at the discretion of the eligible 
institutions in the areas of research, extension, and resident 
instruction or any combination thereof.
    (d) Method of Awarding Grants.--Grants awarded pursuant to 
this section shall be made in such amounts and under such terms 
and conditions as the Secretary shall determine necessary for 
carrying out the purposes of this section.
    (e) Prohibition of Certain Uses.--Federal funds provided 
under this section may not be utilized for the payment of any 
overhead costs of the eligible institutions.
    (f) Regulations.--The Secretary may promulgate such rules 
and regulations as the Secretary may consider necessary to 
carry out the provisions of this section.

SEC. 1448. NATIONAL RESEARCH AND TRAINING CENTENNIAL CENTERS. . . .

          (1) have been designated by the Secretary for the 
        fiscal years 1991 through 1995, or fiscal years 1996 
        [and 1997] ``through 2002'', . . .
    (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
to be appropriated $2,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1991 
through [1997] ``2002'' for grants under this section . . .

SEC. 1455. EDUCATION GRANTS PROGRAMS FOR HISPANIC-SERVING INSTITUTIONS. 
                    . . .

    (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
to be appropriated to make grants under this section 
$20,000,000 for [fiscal year 1997] ``each of fiscal years 1997 
through 2002''.

     Subtitle I--International Agricultural Research and Extension

SEC. 1458. INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL [RESEARCH AND EXTENSION] 
                    ``RESEARCH, EXTENSION, AND TEACHING''. . . .

    Sec. 1458.
          (1) expand the operational coordination of the 
        Department of Agriculture with institutions and other 
        persons throughout the world performing agricultural 
        and [related research and extension] ``related 
        research, extension, and teaching'' activities by--. . 
        .
                  (B) conducting with the institutions or 
                persons joint or coordinated [research and 
                extension on] ``research, extension,and 
teaching initiatives addressing''. . .
          (2) enter into cooperative arrangements with 
        Departments and Ministries of Agriculture in other 
        nations to conduct research, extension, and [education] 
        ``teaching''. . .
          (4) further develop within the Department highly 
        qualified and experienced [scientists and experts] 
        ``scientists and education experts''. . .
          (5) work with transitional and more advanced 
        countries in food, agricultural, and related research, 
        development, ``teaching,'' and extension (including 
        providing technical assistance, training, and advice to 
        persons from the countries engaged in the activities 
        and the stationing of scientists and other specialists 
        at national and international institutions in the 
        countries);
          (6) expand collaboration and coordination with the 
        Agency for International Development regarding food and 
        agricultural research, extension, and [education] 
        ``teaching'' programs in developing countries;
          (7) assist colleges and universities in strengthening 
        their capabilities for food, agricultural, and related 
        [research and extension] ``research, extension, and 
        teaching''. . .
                  (C) the provision of support for the 
                internationalization of resident instruction 
                programs of the universities and colleges 
                described in subparagraph (A); [and]
          (8) continue, in cooperation with the Secretary of 
        State, a program, coordinated through the International 
        Arid Land Consortium, to enhance collaboration and 
        cooperation between institutions possessing [research 
        capabilities] ``research, extension, and teaching 
        capabilities'' applied to the development, management, 
        and reclamation of arid lands[.] ``; and''
          ``(9) make competitive grants for collaborative 
        projects that--
                  ``(A) involve Federal scientists or 
                scientists from land-grant colleges and 
                universities or other colleges and universities 
                with scientists at international agricultural 
                research centers in other nations, including 
                the international agricultural research centers 
                of the Consultative Group on International 
                Agriculture Research;
                  ``(B) focus on developing and using new 
                technologies and programs for--
                          ``(i) increasing the production of 
                        food and fiber, while safeguarding the 
                        environment worldwide and enhancing the 
                        global competitiveness of United States 
                        agriculture; or
                          ``(ii) training scientists;
                  ``(C) are mutually beneficial to the United 
                States and other countries; and
                  ``(D) encourage private sector involvement 
                and the leveraging of private sector funds.''
    (b) Enhancing Linkages.--The Secretary shall draw upon and 
enhance the resources of the land-grant colleges and 
universities, and other colleges and universities, for 
developing linkages among these institutions, the Federal 
Government, international research centers, and [counterpart 
agencies] ``counterpart research, extension, and teaching 
agencies''. . .
    ``(d) Reports.--The Secretary shall provide biennial 
reports to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of 
Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
and Forestry of the Senate on efforts of the Federal Government 
to--
          ``(1) coordinate international agricultural research 
        within the Federal Government; and
          ``(2) more effectively link the activities of 
        domestic and international agricultural researchers, 
        particularly researchers of the Agricultural Research 
        Service.'' . . .

            Subtitle K--Funding and Miscellaneous Provisions

``SEC. 1461. GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.

    ``(a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in law, 
indirect costs charged against a grant described in subsection 
(b) shall not exceed 25 percent of the total Federal funds 
provided under the grant award, as determined by the Secretary.
    ``(b) Applicability.--Subsection (a) shall apply to--
          ``(1) a competitive research grant made under 
        subsection (b) of the Competitive, Special, and 
        Facilities Research Grant Act (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)); and
          ``(2) except as otherwise provided in law, a 
        competitive research, extension, or education grant 
        made under--
                  ``(A) section 793 of the Federal Agriculture 
                Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 
                2204f); or
                  ``(B) section 301 of the Agricultural 
                Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act 
                of 1997.''

SEC. 1463. AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR EXISTING AND CERTAIN 
                    NEW AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH PROGRAMS. . . .

    (a) Notwithstanding any authorization for appropriations 
for a agricultural research in any Act enacted prior to the 
date of enactment of this title, there are hereby authorized to 
be appropriated for the purposes of carrying out the provisions 
of this title, except sections 1417,1419, 1420, and the 
competitive grants program provided for in section 1414, and except 
that the authorization for moneys provided under the Act of March 2, 
1887 (24 Stat. 440-442, as amended; 7 U.S.C. 361a-361i), is excluded 
and is provided for in subsection (b) of this section, $850,000,000 for 
each of the fiscal years 1991 through [1997] ``2002''.
    (b) Notwithstanding any authorization for appropriations 
for agricultural research at State agricultural experiment 
stations in any Act enacted prior to the date of enactment of 
this title, there are hereby authorized to be appropriated for 
the purpose of conducting agricultural research at State 
agricultural experiment stations pursuant to the Act of March 
2, 1887 (24 Stat. 440-442, as amended; 7 U.S.C. 361a-361i), 
$310,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1991 through [1997] 
``2002''. . . .
    Sec. 1464. Notwithstanding any authorization for 
appropriations for the Cooperative Extension Service in any Act 
enacted prior to the date of enactment of this title, there are 
hereby authorized to be appropriated for the purposes of 
carrying out the extension programs of the Department of 
Agriculture $420,000,000 for fiscal year 1991, $430,000,000 for 
fiscal year 1992, $440,000,000 for fiscal year 1993, 
$450,000,000 for fiscal year 1994, and $460,000,000 for each of 
fiscal years 1995 through [1997]``2002''. . . .

SEC. 1468. WITHHOLDING OF FUNDS.

    [Sec. 1468. [7 U.S.C. 3314] Except as provided elsewhere in 
this Act or any other Act of Congress, if the Secretary 
determines that an institution or State is not entitled to 
receive its allotment of an annual appropriation under any 
provision of this title because of a failure to satisfy 
requirements of this title or regulations issued under it, the 
Secretary shall withhold such amounts, the facts and reasons 
concerning the determination and withholding shall be reported 
to the President, and the amount involved shall be deposited in 
the miscellaneous receipts of the Treasury.

[SEC. 1469. AUDITING, REPORTING, BOOKKEEPING, AND ADMINISTRATIVE 
                    REQUIREMENTS

    [Except as provided elsewhere in this Act or any other Act 
of Congress--]

``SEC. 1469. AUDITING, REPORTING, BOOKKEEPING, AND ADMINISTRATIVE 
                    REQUIREMENTS.

    ``(a) In General.--Except as''. . .
          [(3) three per centum of the appropriations shall be 
        retained by the Secretary for the administration of the 
        programs authorized under this title; and]
          ``(3) the Secretary may retain up to 4 percent of 
        amounts appropriated for agricultural research, 
        extension, and teaching assistance programs for the 
        administration of those programs authorized under this 
        or any other Act; and''. . .
    ``(b) Community Food Projects.--The Secretary may retain, 
for the administration of community food projects under section 
25 of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2034), 4 percent of 
amounts available for the projects, notwithstanding the 
availability of any appropriation for administrative expenses 
of the projects.''. . .

SEC. 1473A. COST-REIMBURSABLE AGREEMENTS.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary 
of Agriculture may enter into cost-reimbursable agreements with 
State cooperative institutions ``or other colleges and 
universities''. . .
    Sec. 1473D. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
during the period beginning October 1, 1986, and ending 
September 30, [1997] ``2002''. . .
    [Sec. 1476.

[SEC. 1476. [7 U.S.C. 3323] AQUACULTURE RESEARCH FACILITIES.

    [(a) Grant Authorized.--In order to gain further knowledge 
of intensive water recirculating aquaculture systems, the 
Secretary may make grants for the purpose of further developing 
and expanding aquaculture research facilities at Illinois State 
University in Normal, Illinois, and Virginia Polytechnic 
Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia, and to 
conduct such programs as are necessary to do basic and applied 
research for intensive water recirculating aquaculture systems.
    [(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
authorized, in the event the Secretary decides to take action 
under subsection (a), to be appropriated $500,000 for each of 
the two facilities for fiscal years 1991 through 1997 to carry 
out this section.]

SEC. 1477. AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS.

    There is authorized to be appropriated $7,500,000 for each 
of the fiscal years 1991 through [1997] ``2002''. Funds 
appropriated under this section or section 1476 may not be used 
to acquire or construct a building. . . .

SEC. 1483. APPROPRIATIONS.

    (a) There are authorized to be appropriated, to implement 
the provisions of this subtitle, such sums not to exceed 
$10,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1991 through [1997] 
``2002''. . . .
                            A P P E N D I X

                              ----------                              


      Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Questions for 
                 Consideration for 1997 Reauthorization

                       RESEARCH SYSTEM STRUCTURE

    If the U.S. agricultural research, education, and extension 
system was created today, how would it be structured to 
maximize the social rate of return on federal funds committed 
to the system? How would such a system compare to the current 
system, which traces its roots back to the Morrill Act of 1862?
    USDA's research budget for in-house research is more than 
twice the average for all government agencies. What type of 
research should be conducted in-house by ARS and what research 
can be done as well and more cost effectively by nonfederal 
institutions?
    Is there a need for a college of agriculture in every state 
or should there be a greater effort to regionalize agricultural 
research (such as develop regional centers of excellence that 
link researchers from various states to work on research of 
regional importance)? What would be the impact of such a change 
on states with smaller colleges of agriculture that may end up 
closing or losing resources?
    How should the more than 100 ARS laboratories be 
consolidated to increase efficiencies, reduce duplication with 
land grant research, and maintain the ``critical mass'' of 
scientists and equipment needed to ensure quality science?
    Should limited federal funds be spent to construct research 
facilities at and for land grant and other universities?
    How should our research system structure and delivery be 
changed to be prepared to meet the challenges of the 
agriculture sector in the next century?

                      FUNDING MECHANISMS AND ISSUES

    In federal funding of agricultural research, what would be 
the ideal allocation of funds for basic and applied research? 
What has historically been the allocation and what is it today?
    Federally funded agricultural research is allocated among 
intramural funds, formula funds, competitive grants, and 
special grants. Are these the most effective methods of 
allocating funds? If not, what is a more effective method? If 
they are, what is the proper balance between intramural funds, 
formula funds, competitive grants, and special grants?
    Should receipt by land grant universities of federally-
funded agricultural research and extension funds be contingent 
on their ability to demonstrate that a wide variety of 
stakeholders have effective input into a systematic 
prioritization of research and extension issues?
    Should federal programs and policies enhance the land grant 
system's efforts to realize organization efficiencies and 
synergies that broaden and expand access and relevancy? In 
particular, should federal agricultural research funds provide 
incentives for regional centers, consortia, programs and 
projects that integrate and mobilize multi-state and multi-
institutional (including 1862, 1890 and 1994 colleges) 
resources?
    It is well recognized that the linkages among teaching, 
research and extension need strengthening. Should federal 
formula funding for research and extension be combined into a 
single allocation to land grant universities requiring that the 
use of these combined funds reflect a coordinated effort to 
link university research and extension in the national 
interest? Should a portion (for example, up to one half) of the 
formula funds for research and extension at each institution be 
directed to fund programs, projects, and activities that 
integrate teaching, research and extension?
    Should federal funds be expanded for competitive challenge 
grants to creative teachers and teaching teams to develop 
innovative multi-disciplinary and systems-based course 
materials and curricula?
    Should the National Research Initiative competitive funding 
of food and agricultural research authorized at $500 million by 
Congress be funded at that level? How can this be accomplished?
    Are special grants or research earmarked by the 
appropriations committees worthy investments? Do they serve 
national interests? Would greater reliance on competitive funds 
rather than earmarks provide an increase in the social or 
public return from these research funds?
    Should federal funding for research only be awarded for 
research of national priority? Should competitive grant funding 
only be awarded for research of national priority?
    What is the current mix of applied versus basic research in 
ARS? What would be the impact of directing that ARS's research 
portfolio maintain a certain percentage of basic research on 
the theory that basic research holds less promise of immediate 
commercial application and the private sector can be relied 
upon to conduct much of the needed applied research?
    To what degree is publicly funded research, particularly 
ARS research, focused on public goods, such as natural 
resources and the environment, food safety, nutrition, and 
rural economicdevelopment, and on other research subjects where 
the benefits accrue to more than one state? What would be the costs and 
benefits of directing that a majority of public research funds be 
dedicated to public goods in which the private sector is unlikely to 
invest?
    What percentage of ag research funding is attributable to 
non- competitive funding sources, including special grants? 
What is the corresponding percentage for other major federal 
research entities including NIH, NSF, NASA, etc.? If there are 
significant differences, why do they exist?
    The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) differs from 
other federal agencies that support science in that the 
majority of agricultural research--more than 60%--is done in-
house, by the Agriculture Research Service (ARS). (Other major 
federal research agencies, such as the National Institutes of 
Health and National Science Foundation, award more than 80% of 
their research funds competitively to scientists at a wide 
range of extramural laboratories.) What would be the costs and 
benefits of initiating a transition to a more NIH-like approach 
(with competitive grants as the main delivery system of federal 
funding) to federal agricultural research? Would this approach 
provide greater public return on the investment?
    There is widespread support for increasing the percentage 
of federal agricultural research funding that is awarded 
competitively, as well as increasing the amount of dollars 
available for such grants. Assuming continued fiscal 
constraints, the options for meeting this demand are: (1) to 
use savings stemming from changes in mandatory spending 
programs; (2) to redirect a portion of formula funds and 
special research grants to the current competitive grants 
program; or (3) to redirect a portion of ARS funding to this 
purpose. What would be the costs and benefits of implementing 
any one or a combination of these approaches?
    Should the formulas by which food and agricultural research 
and extension funds are allocated within the land grant system 
be revised to better reflect changing state demographics and 
the increasingly diverse food and agricultural research 
community? Are these formulas appropriate for the research and 
extension needs of the 1990's and beyond? Would a regionally 
based (rather than state) formula approach better serve or 
provide a greater return to agriculture? What impact would 
changes in these formulas have on land grant universities?
    How do smaller universities fare in the competitive grant 
process? Is it appropriate for the federal government to ``set 
aside'' a portion of the grant for these smaller universities?

                        EXTENSION SERVICE ISSUES

    In the absence of federal funds for the Extension Service, 
would states and localities continue to provide the service? 
Could the federal funding role be replaced with a memorandum of 
agreement to guarantee information sharing, i.e., a flow of 
knowledge from federal and other research agencies into the 
hands of the extension personnel?
    Should the Extension Service's research base be broadened 
to include the entire university (not just the colleges of 
agriculture) as well as non-land-grant research sources and 
focus public extension on problems that lack the incentive for 
private investment and whose resolution produces public goods?
    The National Research Council reports an imbalance between 
the amount of Extension programming on human, community and 
economic development needs, and the level of support for 
applied research capacity in economics, public health and 
related disciplines. Observers also express concern that 
Extension focuses too much on social needs issues, to the 
detriment of the more traditional agricultural areas. What 
would be the costs and benefits of integrating Extension's 
social needs program more closely with similar programs of the 
Departments of Health and Human Services, Commerce and others?
    Who are the primary users and beneficiaries of the 
Extension Service? Should consideration be given for user fees 
to be charged for these services?
    In view of a declining level of federal funding for 
Extension, how can federal funds be targeted to have a greater 
impact on the system such as funding innovative means of 
electronic information dissemination or funding to facilitate 
regional extension efforts?

                         PRIVATE SECTOR ISSUES

    What is the extent of private sector funding of 
agricultural research at land grant universities and the nature 
of the relationship between the universities and the private 
sector? Has this relationship affected the types of research 
being conducted at these universities? How should federal 
funding for land grant university research be altered (types of 
research funded, purpose of funding) in view of increased 
private sector funding for this research?
    What are the costs and benefits to the federal government 
of ARS Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs) 
with the private sector? Does ARS manage CRADAs to ensure they 
are being implemented equitably, attracting high-quality 
private sector participation and producing results that benefit 
the U.S. public?
    Should the federal delivery system for agricultural 
research be designed to place greater emphasis on matching 
federal funds withthose provided by state, local or private 
sources?
    What mechanisms, if any, should the Federal Government use 
to elicit increased state or private funding for agricultural 
research?

                COORDINATION AND PRIORITY SETTING PROCESS

    Are there overlapping missions and duplication of effort 
between federally conducted research and research conducted by 
universities and the private sector? Is there duplication with 
research funded through research and promotion programs (check-
offs)? How can the mission and focus of USDA's and land grant 
universities' agricultural research program be more clearly 
defined to better complement one another and avoid unnecessary 
duplication?
    Since the private sector accounts for the preponderance of 
total agricultural research spending, what processes exist to 
ensure that public research does not unnecessarily duplicate 
efforts already underway among private researchers? If no or 
few processes exist, is it desirable to develop them? If so, 
how could they be reconciled with the need to protect 
confidential business information?
    What is the best process to use to set priorities for 
research, extension and education? Should additional guidance 
be given to the newly authorized National Agricultural 
Research, Extension, Education and Economics Board regarding 
how it is to function? What priority setting process should be 
used to ensure that recommendations reflect the needs of those 
who benefit from and utilize agricultural research conducted by 
or funded by the Federal Government? Is it important to 
evaluate whether priorities have been followed when research 
funds have been awarded?

                             ACCOUNTABILITY

    What is the American public getting for its $1.8 billion 
annual investment in agricultural research? (For example, how 
much funding goes to scientists versus administration and 
facilities, how many USDA and land grant universities are doing 
research in similar areas, and how many prestigious scientific 
awards for agricultural research go to USDA, university and 
private sector scientists respectively.) What is the best 
criteria to judge whether the Federal Government is getting the 
most for its agricultural research dollars?
    With growing accountability in Government (for example, 
GPRA), how should federally-funded agricultural research 
results be measured and their impacts evaluated? Is there a 
body of science that can be used to measure research results 
and impacts? If so, is it currently being used?
    Agricultural economists have generally estimated high rates 
of return for federal funding of agricultural research. 
However, the methodology employed in some of these studies has 
received substantial criticism. Is such criticism justified, 
and if so, what are the implications for federal funding of 
agricultural research?

                              OTHER ISSUES

    Does the President's new line item veto authority enable 
him to veto special research grants? What about those that are 
listed in legislative history but not in statutory language? 
What implications might the line item veto have for the 
promotion of competitive grants rather than earmarked funds?
    Offering federal matching funds for commodity check-off 
funds allocated to regional or commodity research is one option 
for increasing private industry support for public agricultural 
research and increasing the total funding for such research in 
real terms. Other options exist in the areas of tax incentives 
and intellectual property right benefits. How are public-
private research collaborations progressing under current 
policies? What changes could be made to increase the 
efficiencies and benefits of these collaborations while 
protecting the public interest?
    How does America stack up against the world in agricultural 
research investments?
    Where scientific research allows a consensus statement to 
be made (for example, on the benefits of biodiversity) what 
mechanisms exist or should exist to translate this consensus 
into information that can be considered and used by policy 
makers in both Congress and the Executive branch?
    How does the U.S. connect with the international 
agriculture research network? Are changes needed to strengthen 
or improve this linkage?