[Senate Report 109-92]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 141
109th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 109-92
======================================================================
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2006
_______
June 27, 2005.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Bennett, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 2744]
The Committee on Appropriations, to which was referred the
bill (H.R. 2744) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for
other purposes, reports the same to the Senate with an
amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do
pass.
The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. ------
--) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other
purposes, reports favorably thereon and recommends that the
bill do pass. deg.
Total obligational authority, fiscal year 2006
Total of bill as reported to the Senate.................$100,717,949,000
Amount of 2005 appropriations \1\....................... 85,590,376,000
Amount of 2006 budget estimate.......................... 100,132,911,000
Amount of House allowance............................... 100,321,593,000
Bill as recommended to Senate compared to--
2005 appropriations................................. +11,278,573,000
2006 budget estimate................................ +585,038,000
House allowance..................................... +396,356,000
\1\Excluding emergency appropriations of $3,849,000,000.
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Summary of the Bill:
Overview and Summary of the Bill............................. 5
Government Performance and Results Act........................... 5
Display of Fiscal Year 2005 Spending Levels...................... 6
User Fee Legislative Proposals................................... 6
Title I--Agricultural Programs:
Production, Processing, and Marketing:
Office of the Secretary.................................. 7
Executive Operations..................................... 12
Office of the Chief Information Officer.................. 14
Common Computing Environment............................. 14
Office of the Chief Financial Officer.................... 15
Working Capital Fund..................................... 16
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights....... 16
Office of Civil Rights................................... 17
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration..... 17
Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments. 18
Hazardous Materials Management........................... 19
Departmental Administration.............................. 19
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional
Relations.............................................. 20
Office of Communications................................. 20
Office of Inspector General.............................. 21
Office of the General Counsel............................ 21
Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education,
and Economics.......................................... 22
Economic Research Service................................ 22
National Agricultural Statistics Service................. 23
Agricultural Research Service............................ 23
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service................................................ 48
Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and
Regulatory Programs.................................... 63
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service............... 63
Agricultural Marketing Service........................... 74
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.. 79
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety............ 80
Food Safety and Inspection Service....................... 80
Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign
Agricultural Services.................................. 82
Farm Service Agency...................................... 83
Risk Management Agency................................... 87
Corporations:
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund.................. 88
Commodity Credit Corporation Fund........................ 88
Title II--Conservation Programs:
Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment................................................ 92
Natural Resources Conservation Service....................... 93
Title III--Rural Development Programs:
Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development.......... 104
Rural Community Advancement Program.......................... 105
Rural Housing Service........................................ 112
Rural Business--Cooperative Service.......................... 119
Renewable Energy Program..................................... 122
Rural Utilities Service...................................... 122
Title IV--Domestic Food Programs:
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and
Consumer Services.......................................... 127
Food and Nutrition Service................................... 128
Title V--Foreign Assistance and Related Programs: Foreign
Agricultural Service........................................... 137
Title VI--Related Agencies and Food and Drug Administration:
Food and Drug Administration................................. 145
Independent Agencies:
Commodity Futures Trading Commission..................... 157
Farm Credit Administration............................... 158
Title VII--General Provisions:
General Provisions........................................... 159
Program, Project, and Activity............................... 160
Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI of the Standing Rules of
the Sen-
ate............................................................ 161
Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules
of the Senate.................................................. 161
Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of
the
Senate......................................................... 162
Budgetary Impact of Bill......................................... 165
BREAKDOWN BY TITLE
The amounts of obligational authority for each of the six
titles are shown in the following table. A detailed tabulation,
showing comparisons, appears at the end of this report.
Recommendations for individual appropriation items, projects
and activities are carried in this report under the appropriate
item headings.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006 Committee
2005 recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I: Agricultural programs.... $27,041,494,000 $35,461,185,000
Title II: Conservation programs... 991,901,000 963,987,000
Title III: Rural economic and 2,413,768,000 2,534,453,000
community development programs...
Title IV: Domestic food programs.. 52,488,361,000 58,701,717,000
Title V: Foreign assistance and 1,520,935,000 1,483,512,000
related programs.................
Title VI: Related agencies........ 1,543,670,000 1,590,395,000
Title VII: General provisions..... -409,753,000 -17,300,000
-------------------------------------
Total, new budget 85,590,376,000 100,717,949,000
(obligational) authority...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY OF THE BILL
The Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies appropriations bill
provides funding for a wide array of Federal programs, mostly
in the U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA]. These programs
include agricultural research, education, and extension
activities; natural resources conservation programs; farm
income and support programs; marketing and inspection
activities; domestic food assistance programs; rural economic
and community development activities, and telecommunications
and electrification assistance; and various export and
international activities of the USDA.
The bill also provides funding for the Food and Drug
Administration [FDA] and the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission [CFTC], and allows the use of collected fees for
administrative expenses of the Farm Credit Administration
[FCA].
Given the budgetary constraints that the Committee faces,
the bill as reported provides the proper amount of emphasis on
agricultural and rural development programs and on other
programs and activities funded by the bill. It is within the
subcommittee's allocation for fiscal year 2006.
All accounts in the bill have been closely examined to
ensure that an appropriate level of funding is provided to
carry out the programs of USDA, FDA, CFTC, and FCA. Details on
each of the accounts, the funding level, and the Committee's
justifications for the funding levels are included in the
report.
The Committee has encouraged the consideration of grant and
loan applications from various entities. The Committee expects
the Department only to approve those applications judged
meritorious when subjected to the established review process.
Government Performance and Results Act
Public Law 103-62, the Government Performance and Results
Act [GPRA] of 1993, requires Federal agencies to develop
succinct and precise strategic plans and annual performance
plans that focus on results of funding decisions made by the
Congress. Rather than simply providing details of activity
levels, agencies will set outcome goals based on program
activities and establish performance measures for use in
management and budgeting. In an era of restricted and declining
resources, it is paramount that agencies focus on the
difference they make in citizens' lives.
The Committee supports the concepts of this law and intends
to use the agencies' plans for funding purposes. The Committee
considers GPRA to be a viable way to reduce Federal spending
while achieving a more efficient and effective Government and
will closely monitor compliance with this law. The Committee is
fully committed to the success and outcome of GPRA requirements
as envisioned by the Congress, the administration, and this
Committee.
Display of Fiscal Year 2005 Spending Levels
Section 122 of Division J of Public Law 108-447, the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 imposed, with few
exceptions, a rescission of 0.80 percent of the budget
authority provided for all discretionary accounts in Division A
through J of that Act. Division A of Public Law 108-447
provided Appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005.
The 0.80 percent rescission applied to all discretionary
accounts of Division A with the exception of levels of budget
authority provided through the collection of user fees.
Accordingly, all fiscal year 2005 spending levels displayed in
this report for which the 0.80 percent rescission did apply
reflect the 0.80 rescission.
User Fee Legislative Proposals
The fiscal year 2006 budget request includes legislative
proposals to authorize the collection and expenditure of user
fees for a number of agencies under the jurisdiction of this
subcommittee. These agencies include: the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service; the Grain Inspection, Packers and
Stockyards Administration; the Agricultural Marketing Service;
and the Food Safety and Inspection Service. The fiscal year
2006 budget assumes the collection and expenditure of these
fees, and therefore reduces the fiscal year 2006 spending for
this subcommittee by an additional $177,000,000 from current
levels.
Jurisdiction for the authorization of these fees in the
Senate lies with the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry, not the Committee on Appropriations. Further, the
U.S. Constitution requires that all revenue measures originate
in the House of Representatives and to the extent that these
proposals are held to be revenue measures (for which similar
proposals in the past have), unilateral action by the Senate in
this matter risks violation of Constitutional principles.
This Committee again admonishes the administration for
including in an annual budget request to the Committee on
Appropriations legislative proposals for which this Committee
has no jurisdiction, proposals which have budgetary
implications, and which raise possible Constitutional points of
order. The Committee notes that similar proposals by this and
past administrations have not met approval by the authorizing
committees and there is no evidence to indicate that these
proposals will meet with any greater success. In fact, the
Committee notes that the President's budget, with user fee and
other legislative proposals, was transmitted to Congress on
February 2, 2005 but more than 4 months after that date, the
administration had not provided those legislative proposals to
the Committee of jurisdiction.
The Committee included a General Provision (Section 721) in
the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005
(Division A of Public Law 108-447) which requires the President
to identify reductions from his fiscal year 2006 budget
submission in the event the authorization of the proposed fees
has not been enacted prior to the convening of a committee on
conference for the fiscal year 2006 appropriations act.
Notwithstanding the delayed enactment of Public Law 108-447,
the Committee expects compliance with Section 721, and urges
the administration to identify these reductions as soon as
possible.
TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS
Production, Processing, and Marketing
Office of the Secretary
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $5,083,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 5,127,000
House allowance......................................... 5,127,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,127,000
The Secretary of Agriculture, assisted by the Deputy
Secretary, Under Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries, Chief
Information Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and members of
their immediate staffs, directs and coordinates the work of the
Department. This includes developing policy, maintaining
relationships with agricultural organizations and others in the
development of farm programs, and maintaining liaison with the
Executive Office of the President and Members of Congress on
all matters pertaining to agricultural policy.
The general authority of the Secretary to supervise and
control the work of the Department is contained in the Organic
Act (7 U.S.C. 2201-2202). The delegation of regulatory
functions to Department employees and authorization of
appropriations to carry out these functions is contained in 7
U.S.C. 450c-450g.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the Secretary, the Committee recommends
an appropriation of $5,127,000. This amount is $44,000 more
than the fiscal year 2005 appropriation.
Drought Mitigation.--The Committee is concerned by the lack
of a coherent national policy to combat drought. When drought
strikes, it is a very serious disaster bringing economic and
personal hardships to large sections of the Nation. Long term
drought conditions in the Intermountain West, as one example,
have resulted in water supplies for agriculture falling below
50 percent of normal supply. The report of the National Drought
Commission, ``Preparing for Drought in the 21st Century'',
recommends that Congress pass a National Drought Preparedness
Act. Such an act would establish a Federal/non-Federal
partnership through a National Drought Council responsible for
implementing a national drought policy. The Committee expects
the Secretary to carry out the recommendations of the National
Drought Commission and coordinate USDA mission areas to provide
a response to drought-stricken areas in as prompt and
meaningful a way as possible.
Administrative Convergence.--The Secretary is expected to
seek the Committee's approval before implementing a merger or
reduction of any administrative or information technology
functions relating to the Farm Service Agency, Natural
Resources Conservation Service, USDA Rural Development, or any
other agency of the Department.
Alternative Fuels.--The continuing development of bio-based
energy products, such as E-85 capable vehicle technologies,
provides economic and environmental opportunities for producers
of agricultural products and consumers. The Secretary should
use resources of the Department toward educational and
infrastructure promotion to expand the availability of these
products in Minnesota and other States.
Aquaculture Research and Development.--The Committee
recognizes the success and importance of the Kentucky State
University aquaculture research and development facility. As
the University develops the production practices for different
aquatic species that will help domestic farmers capture market
share in the international seafood industry, the Committee
encourages the Secretary to consider these activities and the
opportunities for growth at this facility when developing
aquaculture funding priorities.
Washington Semester American Indian Program.--The Committee
continues its strong support for USDA participation in the
Washington Internships for Native Students [WINS] program, a
summer American Indian/Alaska Native [AI/AN] internship program
conducted in cooperation with American University. The
Department's active participation in this program upholds the
intent and provisions of Executive Order 13270, directing
Federal agencies to provide improved opportunities and resource
access to tribal college and other AI/AN post-secondary
education students. The Committee urges USDA to maintain the
annual average number of positions placed in past summers, and
expects that the Department will place no less than 25 WINS AI/
AN students each summer. The Committee also strongly encourages
the Department to assign responsibility for the coordination of
the Washington Internships for Native Students [WINS] program
to a central USDA office that ensures student intern
sponsorship and placement with agencies managing natural
resource or community development programs benefiting American
Indian/Alaska Native [AI/AN] or rural disadvantaged
communities.
Support of Local Agriculture in Massachusetts.--The
Committee encourages the Secretary to provide technical and
financial assistance to the Community in Support of Local
Agriculture in Massachusetts to promote sustainable activities.
Remote Telemedicine Services.--The Committee is aware of
and encourages the Secretary to support the utilization of
remote telemedicine services capable of transmitting medical
information in both real-time and stored scenarios for
diagnosis, medical monitoring, and emergency purposes.
Furthermore, the Committee recognizes the need for integration
and interoperability of real-time remote mobile medical
technology with other devices, systems, and services which
together offer increased capabilities, functionality, and
levels of care.
Soybean Rust.--The Committee is concerned about the
introduction of soybean rust into the continental United States
late last year which could have an adverse impact on soybean
farmers across the country. The Committee urges the Secretary
to increase funding for surveillance, reporting and diagnosis
of soybean rust in cooperation with soybean-producing States.
In addition, the Committee urges the Secretary to allocate more
funds to soybean rust research, especially work intended to
locate and determine the function of genes involved in rust
resistance.
Food Aid Quality.--The Committee encourages the Secretary
to work with a nonprofit organization to implement section 3013
of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Public
Law 107-171) for the Food Aid Quality Enhancement Project, to
improve the quality of food commodities purchased by the
Department of Agriculture for the government's domestic and
foreign food assistance programs.
Biomass Research and Development.--The Committee encourages
the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of
Energy under authorities granted by the Biomass Research and
Development Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-224; 7 U.S.C. 7624) to
consider funding innovative research to develop carbon neutral
and carbon negative energy production systems that produce and
utilize high carbon soil amendments, such as is currently being
conducted at the University of Georgia.
Federal Procurement of Biobased Products.--The Committee is
dissatisfied with the long delay in implementing the Federal
biobased purchasing preference requirement in section 9002 of
the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. Three years
after the requirement became law not a single product has been
designated although over eighty products are currently being
considered for designation. The Secretary is directed to
promptly expedite and conclude the rulemaking process. The
Committee expects issuance of the ``USDA Policy to Establish a
Preference for Biobased Products in USDA Contracting'' within
30 days of enactment of this Act and directs the Secretary to
report to the Committee within 30 days of enactment of this Act
on detailed steps taken to implement all aspects of the
program, including promulgation of product designation rules,
establishment of a model procurement program, and execution of
the USDA certified biobased product labeling initiative.
Renewable Energy Direct Loan.--Section 9006 of the Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 provides grants,
loans and loan guarantees to farmers and rural businesses for
the development of renewable energy and for energy efficiency
improvements. The Committee strongly encourages the Department
to fulfill its statutory obligations by establishing a direct
loan component in the 9006 program within 90 days of enactment
of this Act.
National Aerial Imagery Photography [NAIP] Program.--The
Committee recommends that funds be allocated to purchase high
resolution satellite imagery data or products to meet
programmatic requirements. The acquisition of high resolution
satellite imagery will also encourage the development of second
generation imagery satellites, which is key to preparing our
Nation's agricultural economy to keep pace with 21st century
technological innovation.
Renewable Bio-based Products.--The Committee recognizes
that renewable bio-based lubricants and coolants meet the USDA
goals of developing environmentally-friendly, non-food products
from traditionally food crop materials. As the USDA NCAUR
Laboratories, teamed with the private sector, have established
the leading research facility in the area of bio-based
lubricants and coolants, the Committee encourages the Secretary
to consider this partnership when developing funding
priorities.
Chesapeake Bay Watershed.--The Committee notes the need to
develop partnerships to address vital resource needs in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed. Section 2003 of the Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002 provides for innovative uses of
conservation funding to aid regions, such as the Chesapeake
Bay, in implementing conservation practices important to
protecting natural resources. The Committee expects the
Department to implement a program specifically under the
authorities of section 2003 and issue a request for proposals
under this program in fiscal year 2006.
CCC Inventories.--The Committee is aware certain CCC
surplus commodities have been used to supplement various
programs, including support for domestic nutrition assistance.
In those instances where surplus non-fat dry milk stocks have
been used, information relating to the amount available and the
quality of those stocks is important for program planning. In
order to ensure the availability of this information, the
Secretary is directed to provide the Committee monthly reports
on the amount of surplus non-fat dry milk held in CCC inventory
and the age of those stocks as older inventories are disposed
and replaced with those of quality more likely to satisfy human
nutrition requirements.
Food Animal Health.--The Committee is aware that herd
managers provide primary health care on a growing majority of
animal production systems because traditional veterinary
services are too expensive relative to animal value.
Concurrently, the reduced surveillance of food animal
operations by trained animal health specialists has created a
vulnerability to animal production systems from exposure to
bio-security threats. The Committee recommends that ARS
initiate a pilot program with the University of Pennsylvania
School of Veterinary Medicine to educate and train Food Animal
Health Technicians to serve as the first tier of the animal
health care delivery system at animal production facilities and
food animal veterinary practices and report back to the
Committee with a plan on how best to initiate such a pilot
effort by January 15, 2006.
Foreign Markets.--The Committee instructs the Department,
specifically APHIS and FAS, to allocate the resources necessary
to reopen export markets for domestic breeding cattle and to
effectively coordinate with other agencies to regain these
markets. Increasing export opportunities for U.S. producers
should be a top priority for USDA.
News Distribution.--The Committee remains concerned by
reports that the Department has engaged in the distribution of
prepackaged news stories intended for broadcast or distribution
which were communicated to the public without an explanation of
the Government's role in the production of the item. The
Committee reminds the Department of congressional interest in
this matter and directs that a clear notification shall be
affixed or included within the text or audio of any prepackaged
news story designed for public distribution.
World Food Prize.--The Committee is aware of the need to
give proper recognition to individuals who have made
outstanding contributions to help fight the problem of hunger
throughout the world. The World Food Prize was established to
recognize contributions in any field involved in the world food
supply, including food and agriculture science and technology,
manufacturing, marketing, nutrition, economics, poverty
alleviation, political leadership and the social sciences. A
general provision is included in this bill to provide
administrative support for this organization, as determined
proper by the Secretary. The Committee directs that none of the
funds be disbursed until the Secretary determines that the
recipient organization has provided a budget and plan for
proper use of the funds.
Rural Security.--The Committee is aware of the need to
improve security infrastructure in rural America, especially
regarding food safety and the accidental or intentional release
of pathogens. The Committee expects the Secretary to work with
the National Center for Rural Biosecurity in Nebraska to
coordinate an appropriate role for USDA in improving the
emergency response capacity by sharing information, expertise
and resources within Nebraska and the region.
Executive Operations
Executive operations were established as a result of the
reorganization of the Department to provide a support team for
USDA policy officials and selected Departmentwide services.
Activities under the executive operations include the Office of
the Chief Economist, the National Appeals Division, the Office
of Budget and Program Analysis, and the Homeland Security
Staff.
CHIEF ECONOMIST
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $10,234,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 10,539,000
House allowance......................................... 10,539,000
Committee recommendation................................ 10,539,000
The Office of the Chief Economist advises the Secretary of
Agriculture on the economic implications of Department policies
and programs. The Office serves as the single focal point for
the Nation's economic intelligence and analysis, risk
assessment, energy and new uses, and cost-benefit analysis
related to domestic and international food and agriculture
issues, and is responsible for coordination and review of all
commodity and aggregate agricultural and food-related data used
to develop outlook and situation material within the
Department.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the Chief Economist, the Committee
recommends $10,539,000. This amount is $305,000 more than the
fiscal year 2005 appropriation. The Committee provides
$1,500,000 for preferred procurement and labeling for biobased
products.
NATIONAL APPEALS DIVISION
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $14,216,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 14,524,000
House allowance......................................... 14,524,000
Committee recommendation................................ 14,524,000
The National Appeals Division conducts administrative
hearings and reviews of adverse program decisions made by the
Rural Development mission area, the Farm Service Agency, the
Risk Management Agency, and the Natural Resources Conservation
Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the National Appeals Division, the Committee recommends
$14,524,000. This amount is $308,000 more than the fiscal year
2005 appropriation.
OFFICE OF BUDGET AND PROGRAM ANALYSIS
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $8,162,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 8,298,000
House allowance......................................... 8,298,000
Committee recommendation................................ 8,298,000
The Office of Budget and Program Analysis provides
direction and administration of the Department's budgetary
functions including development, presentation, and execution of
the budget; reviews program and legislative proposals for
program, budget, and related implications; analyzes program and
resource issues and alternatives, and prepares summaries of
pertinent data to aid the Secretary and departmental policy
officials and agency program managers in the decisionmaking
process; and provides departmentwide coordination for and
participation in the presentation of budget-related matters to
the committees of the Congress, the media, and interested
public. The Office also provides departmentwide coordination of
the preparation and processing of regulations and legislative
programs and reports.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of Budget and Program Analysis, the
Committee recommends $8,298,000. This amount is $136,000 more
than the fiscal year 2005 appropriation.
HOMELAND SECURITY STAFF
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $769,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 1,466,000
House allowance......................................... 934,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,166,000
The Homeland Security Staff formulates emergency
preparedness policies and objectives for the Department of
Agriculture [USDA]. The Staff directs and coordinates all of
the Department's program activities that support USDA emergency
programs and liaison functions with the Congress, the
Department of Homeland Security, and other Federal departments
and agencies involving homeland security, natural disasters,
other emergencies, and agriculture-related international civil
emergency planning and related activities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Homeland Security Staff, the Committee recommends
$1,166,000. This amount is $397,000 more than the fiscal year
2005 appropriation.
Office of the Chief Information Officer
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $16,462,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 16,726,000
House allowance......................................... 16,462,000
Committee recommendation................................ 16,726,000
The Office of the Chief Information Officer was established
in August 1996 (40 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), pursuant to the
Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, which required the establishment of
a Chief Information Officer for major Federal agencies. This
office provides policy guidance, leadership, coordination, and
direction to the Department's information management and
information technology investment activities in support of USDA
program delivery, and is the lead office in USDA e-gov efforts.
The Office provides long-range planning guidance, implements
measures to ensure that technology investments are economical
and effective, coordinates interagency information resources
management projects, and implements standards to promote
information exchange and technical interoperability. In
addition, the Office of the Chief Information Officer is
responsible for certain activities financed under the
Department's Working Capital Fund (7 U.S.C. 2235). The Office
also provides telecommunication and automated data processing
[ADP] services to USDA agencies through the National
Information Technology Center with locations in Fort Collins,
CO, and Kansas City, MO. Direct ADP operational services are
also provided to the Office of the General Counsel, Office of
Communications, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, and
Executive Operations.
On November 28, 2004, the information technology staffs of
the Service Center Agencies [SCA] were converged into one IT
organization within the office of the Chief Information
Officer; this converged organization is named Information
Technology Services and replaces a network of cross-agency
teams used to coordinate IT infrastructure investment within
the SCA and allows for unified management of the IT
infrastructure.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends $16,726,000 for the Office of the
Chief Information Officer. This amount is $264,000 more than
the fiscal year 2005 appropriation.
Common Computing Environment
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $124,580,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 142,465,000
House allowance......................................... 60,725,000
Committee recommendation................................ 128,072,000
The Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7
U.S.C. 6901 et seq.) requires the Secretary of Agriculture to
procure and use computer systems in a manner that enhances
efficiency, productivity, and client services, and that
promotes computer information sharing among agencies of the
Department. The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 requires USDA to
maximize the value of information technology acquisitions to
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of USDA programs.
Since its beginning in 1996, the USDA Service Center
Modernization initiative has been working to restructure county
field offices, modernize and integrate business approaches and
replace the current, aging information systems with a modern
Common Computing Environment that optimizes information
sharing, customer service, and staff efficiencies.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends $128,072,000 for the Common
Computing Environment. This amount is $3,492,000 more than the
fiscal year 2005 appropriation.
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $5,696,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 5,874,000
House allowance......................................... 5,874,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,874,000
The Office of the Chief Financial Officer is responsible
for the dual roles of chief financial management policy officer
and chief financial management advisor to the Secretary and
mission area heads. The Office provides leadership for all
financial management, accounting, travel, Federal assistance,
and performance measurement activities within the Department.
The Office is also responsible for the management and operation
of the National Finance Center and the Departmental Working
Capital Fund. In addition, the Office provides budget,
accounting, and fiscal services to the Office of the Secretary,
Departmental staff offices, Office of the Chief Information
Officer, Office of Communications, and executive operations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the
Committee recommends $5,874,000. This amount is $178,000 more
than the fiscal year 2005 appropriation.
National Finance Center.--The Committee has been informed
that the Department of Agriculture's National Finance Center
[NFC] proposal for e-Payroll consolidation was rated the
highest in the internal competition held by the Office of
Management and Budget [OMB] and the Office of Personnel
Management [OPM]. The Committee believes that NFC's
demonstrated ability to provide a high level of service while
operating on a fee-for-service basis similar to commercial
industry provides a significant opportunity to utilize a
public/private partnership to provide private sector investment
and shared risk in the modernization of systems and
infrastructure creation for e-Payroll at the NFC. The Committee
is encouraged by NFC's work in advancing partnership with the
Department of Interior by agreeing to payroll Millennium
Challenge Corporation's Personal Service Contractors.
The Committee directs the Department of Agriculture to
continue its work with OMB and OPM to investigate the
feasibility of creating a public/private partnership to help
leverage scarce Federal resources to expand upon the existing
e-payroll program to include such functions as automated data
processing, cross-servicing capabilities, and other beneficial
services to Federal agencies. Several components of the
Department of Homeland Security were implemented in October
2004, and the Federal Protective Service and the Armed Forces
Retirement Homes migrated in August 2004. The Department of
Labor and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission migrations
were migrated in March 2005. The Transportation Security
Administration and the U.S. Coast Guard are testing for a
September 2005 migration. The Committee encourages the
Secretary to continue these expansions and to give close
consideration to the establishment of an alternate work site
for continuity of operations for the NFC in the State of
Louisiana.
In Senate Report 108-340, the Committee directed the
Secretary to provide a feasibility report on this proposal to
the Committee by March 1, 2005. As of June 15, 2005 the report
had not been provided; the Committee directs the Secretary to
provide the report no later than 30 days after the enactment of
this Act.
The Committee has included bill language recommended in the
budget request to directly market cross-servicing activated at
the NFC. The Committee directs USDA to continue the cost-
effective cross-servicing activities currently conducted by the
NFC including data center operations, financial management,
change of duty station travel, and temporary duty station
travel, etc. The Committee also directs the USDA through the
NFC to actively pursue public-private partnerships, where
feasible, to operate and service existing PCS technology and
services.
Working Capital Fund
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $12,747,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................................
The Working Capital Fund was established in the 1944
Appropriations Act (7 U.S.C. 2235). It was created for certain
central services in the Department of Agriculture, including
duplicating and other visual information services, art and
graphics, video services, supply, centralized accounting
system, centralized automated data processing system for
payroll, personnel, and related services, voucher payments
services, and ADP systems. The National Finance Center's
expenses are also funded through this fund.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The budget request does not include funding for the Working
Capital Fund and the Committee provides no funding for this
account. The bill includes a general provision which allows the
Secretary to transfer unobligated balances of the Department of
Agriculture to the Working Capital Fund.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $811,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 821,000
House allowance......................................... 811,000
Committee recommendation................................ 821,000
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights,
established by Section 10704 of the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002, provides oversight of civil rights and
related functions. This includes coordination of the
administration of civil rights laws and regulations for
employees of the Department of Agriculture and participants in
programs of the Department, and ensuring compliance with civil
rights laws.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights,
the Committee recommends an appropriation of $821,000. This
amount is $10,000 more than the fiscal year 2005 appropriation.
Office of Civil Rights
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $19,730,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 20,109,000
House allowance......................................... 20,109,000
Committee recommendation................................ 20,109,000
The Office of Civil Rights provides overall leadership
responsibility for all Department-wide civil rights activities.
These activities include employment opportunity as well as
program non-discrimination policy development, analysis,
coordination, and compliance. The Office is responsible for
providing leadership in facilitating the fair and equitable
treatment of Department of Agriculture [USDA] employees, and
for monitoring program activities to ensure that all USDA
programs are delivered in a non-discriminatory manner. The
Office's outreach functions provide leadership, coordination,
facilitation, and expertise to internal and external partners
to ensure equal and timely access to USDA programs for all
constituents, with emphasis on the underserved, through
information sharing, technical assistance, and training.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
For the Office of Civil Rights, the Committee recommends an
appropriation of $20,109,000. This amount is $379,000 more than
the fiscal year 2005 appropriation.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $664,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 676,000
House allowance......................................... 676,000
Committee recommendation................................ 676,000
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration
directs and coordinates the work of the departmental staff in
carrying out the laws enacted by the Congress relating to real
and personal property management, personnel management, ethics,
and other general administrative functions. In addition, the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration is
responsible for certain activities financed under the
Department's Working Capital Fund (7 U.S.C. 2235).
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Administration, the Committee recommends $676,000. This amount
is $12,000 more than the fiscal year 2005 appropriation.
Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $162,559,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 221,924,000
House allowance......................................... 183,133,000
Committee recommendation................................ 187,734,000
Rental Payments.--Annual appropriations are made to finance
the appropriated portion of the payments to the General
Services Administration [GSA] for rental of space and for
related services to all USDA agencies, except the Forest
Service, which is funded by another appropriations bill.
The requirement that GSA charge commercial rent rates to
agencies occupying GSA-controlled space was established by the
Public Buildings Amendments of 1972. The methods used to
establish commercial rent rates in GSA space follow commercial
real estate appraisal practices. Appeal and rate review
procedures are in place to assure that agencies have an
opportunity to contest rates they feel are incorrect.
Building Operations and Maintenance.--On October 1, 1984,
the General Services Administration [GSA] delegated the
operations and maintenance function for the buildings in the
D.C. complex to the Department. This activity provides
departmental staff and support services to operate, maintain,
and repair the buildings in the D.C. complex. GSA expanded the
delegation to include two additional buildings on October 1,
1986. One building is the Government-owned warehouse for forms
in Lanham, MD, and the other is a leased warehouse for the
excess property operation located at 49 L Street SW,
Washington, DC. GSA retains responsibility for major
nonrecurring repairs. In fiscal year 1999, USDA began
operations and maintenance of the Beltsville office facility.
Strategic Space Plan.--The Department's headquarters staff
is presently housed in a four-building Government-owned complex
in downtown Washington, DC, and in leased buildings in the
Metropolitan Washington, DC, area. In 1995, USDA initiated a
plan to improve the delivery of USDA programs to the American
people, including streamlining the USDA organization. A high-
priority goal in the Secretary's plan is to improve the
operation and effectiveness of the USDA headquarters in
Washington, DC. To implement this goal, a strategy for
efficient reallocation of space to house the restructured
headquarters agencies in modern and safe facilities has been
proposed. This USDA strategic space plan will correct serious
problems USDA has faced in its facility program, including the
inefficiencies of operating out of scattered leased facilities
and serious safety hazards which exist in the Agriculture South
Building.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For U.S. Department of Agriculture buildings and facilities
and payments for the rental of space and related services, the
Committee recommends $187,734,000. This amount is $25,175,000
more than the fiscal year 2005 appropriation.
The following table reflects the Committee's specific
recommendations for this account as compared to the fiscal year
2005 and budget request levels:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006 budget Committee
2005 enacted request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rental Payments................................................. 127,292 147,734 147,734
Building Operations............................................. 35,267 74,190 40,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total......................................................... 162,559 221,924 187,734
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous Materials Management
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $15,408,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 15,644,000
House allowance......................................... 15,644,000
Committee recommendation................................ 12,000,000
Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act and the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, the Department has the responsibility to meet
the same standards regarding the storage and disposition of
hazardous materials as private businesses. The Department is
required to contain, clean up, monitor, and inspect for
hazardous materials in areas under the Department's
jurisdiction.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends $12,000,000 for hazardous
materials management. This amount is $3,408,000 less than the
fiscal year 2005 appropriation.
Departmental Administration
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $22,445,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 23,103,000
House allowance......................................... 23,103,000
Committee recommendation................................ 23,103,000
Departmental administration is comprised of activities that
provide staff support to top policy officials and overall
direction and coordination of administrative functions of the
Department. These activities include departmentwide programs
for human resource management, ethics, occupational safety and
health management, real and personal property management,
procurement, contracting, motor vehicle and aircraft
management, supply management, emergency preparedness, small
and disadvantaged business utilization, and the regulatory
hearing and administrative proceedings conducted by the
Administrative Law Judges and Judicial Officer. Departmental
administration also provides administrative support to the
Board of Contract Appeals. Established as an independent entity
within the Department, the Board adjudicates contract claims by
and against the Department, and is funded as a reimbursable
activity.
Departmental administration is also responsible for
representing USDA in the development of Governmentwide policies
and initiatives; and analyzing the impact of Governmentwide
trends and developing appropriate USDA principles, policies,
and standards. In addition, departmental administration engages
in strategic planning and evaluates programs to ensure USDA-
wide compliance with applicable laws, rules, and regulations
pertaining to administrative matters for the Secretary and
general officers of the Department.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For Departmental Administration, the Committee recommends
an appropriation of $23,103,000. This amount is $658,000 more
than the fiscal year 2005 appropriation.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $3,821,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 3,846,000
House allowance......................................... 3,821,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,846,000
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional
Relations maintains a liaison with the Congress and White House
on legislative matters. It also provides for overall direction
and coordination in the development and implementation of
policies and procedures applicable to the Department's intra-
and inter-governmental relations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional
Relations, the Committee recommends an appropriation of
$3,846,000. This amount is $25,000 more than the fiscal year
2005 appropriation.
The Committee allows these funds to be transferred to
support congressional relations' activities at the agency
level. Within 30 days from the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary shall notify the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations on the allocation of these funds by USDA agency,
along with an explanation for the agency-by-agency distribution
of the funds as well as the staff years funded by these
transfers.
Office of Communications
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $9,290,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 9,509,000
House allowance......................................... 9,509,000
Committee recommendation................................ 9,509,000
The Office of Communications provides direction,
leadership, and coordination in the development and delivery of
useful information through all media to the public on USDA
programs. The Office serves as the liaison between the
Department and the many associations and organizations with an
interest in USDA's mission areas.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of Communications, the Committee recommends
an appropriation of $9,509,000. This amount is $219,000 more
than the fiscal year 2005 appropriation.
Office of the Inspector General
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $77,663,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 81,045,000
House allowance......................................... 79,626,000
Committee recommendation................................ 81,045,000
The Office of the Inspector General was established October
12, 1978 (Public Law 95-452), by the Inspector General Act of
1978. This Act expanded and provided specific authorities for
the activities of the Office of the Inspector General which had
previously been carried out under the general authorities of
the Secretary of Agriculture.
The Office is administered by an inspector general who
reports directly to the Secretary of Agriculture. Functions and
responsibilities of this Office include direction and control
of audit and investigative activities within the Department,
formulation of audit and investigative policies and procedures
regarding Department programs and operations, and analysis and
coordination of program-related audit and investigation
activities performed by other Department agencies.
The activities of this Office are designed to assure
compliance with existing laws, policies, regulations, and
programs of the Department's agencies, and to provide
appropriate officials with the means for prompt corrective
action where deviations have occurred. The scope of audit and
investigative activities is large and includes administrative,
program, and criminal matters. These activities are
coordinated, when appropriate, with various audit and
investigative agencies of the executive and legislative
branches of the Government.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of Inspector General, the Committee
recommends an appropriation of $81,045,000. This amount is
$3,382,000 more than the fiscal year 2005 appropriation. The
Committee provides the fiscal year 2005 level for OIG to
continue to address violations of section 26 of the Animal
Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2156) and to coordinate with State and
local law enforcement personnel in this effort.
Office of the General Counsel
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $35,574,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 40,263,000
House allowance......................................... 38,439,000
Committee recommendation................................ 40,263,000
The Office of the General Counsel provides all legal
advice, counsel, and services to the Secretary and to all
agencies, offices, and corporations of the Department. The
Office represents the Department in administrative proceedings;
non-litigation debt collection proceedings; State water rights
adjudications; proceedings before the Environmental Protection
Agency, Interstate Commerce Commission, Federal Maritime
Administration, and International Trade Commission; and, in
conjunction with the Department of Justice, in judicial
proceedings and litigation.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the General Counsel, the Committee
recommends an appropriation of $40,263,000. This amount is
$4,689,000 more than the fiscal year 2005 appropriation. The
Committee provides full funding for requested increases for
additional legal services and information technology
requirements.
Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $587,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 598,000
House allowance......................................... 598,000
Committee recommendation................................ 598,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education,
and Economics provides direction and coordination in carrying
out the laws enacted by the Congress for food and agricultural
research, education, extension, and economic and statistical
information. The Office has oversight and management
responsibilities for the Agricultural Research Service;
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service;
Economic Research Service; and National Agricultural Statistics
Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the Under Secretary for Research,
Education, and Economics, the Committee recommends an
appropriation of $598,000. This amount is $11,000 more than the
fiscal year 2005 appropriation.
Economic Research Service
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $74,170,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 80,749,000
House allowance......................................... 75,931,000
Committee recommendation................................ 78,549,000
The Economic Research Service [ERS] provides economic and
other social science information and analysis for public and
private decisions on agriculture, natural resources, food, and
rural America. The information ERS produces is for use by the
general public and to help the executive and legislative
branches develop, administer, and evaluate agricultural and
rural policies and programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Economic Research Service, the Committee recommends
an appropriation of $78,549,000. This amount is $4,379,000 more
than the fiscal year 2005 appropriation. The Committee directs
that no less than $500,000, the same as the fiscal year 2005
level, be used to implement the ``Organic Production and Market
Data Initiative'' included in section 7407 of Public Law 107-
171.
The Committee requests that the Secretary conduct a
national study regarding the economic impact of cooperative
models on the vitality of rural communities and residents. The
study should measure changes in household income,
entrepreneurial opportunities, employment benefits, local and
regional impacts, and other direct and indirect benefits
related to cooperative models including patronage dividends and
local investments. The Agency should coordinate research
activities with high performing university cooperative research
centers and representatives of the cooperative community.
National Agricultural Statistics Service
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $128,444,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 145,159,000
House allowance......................................... 136,241,000
Committee recommendation................................ 145,159,000
The National Agricultural Statistics Service [NASS]
administers the Department's program of collecting and
publishing current national, State, and county agricultural
statistics. These statistics provide accurate and timely
projections of current agricultural production and measures of
the economic and environmental welfare of the agricultural
sector which are essential for making effective policy,
production, and marketing decisions. NASS also furnishes
statistical services to other USDA and Federal agencies in
support of their missions, and provides consulting, technical
assistance, and training to developing countries.
The Service is also responsible for administration of the
Census of Agriculture, which was transferred from the
Department of Commerce to the Department of Agriculture in
fiscal year 1997 to consolidate agricultural statistics
programs. The Census of Agriculture is taken every 5 years and
provides comprehensive data on the agricultural economy
including: data on the number of farms, land use, production
expenses, farm product values, value of land and buildings,
farm size and characteristics of farm operators, market value
of agricultural production sold, acreage of major crops,
inventory of livestock and poultry, and farm irrigation
practices.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the
Committee recommends an appropriation of $145,159,000. This
amount is $16,715,000 more than the fiscal year 2005
appropriation. Included in this amount is $29,115,000 for the
Census of Agriculture.
The Committee encourages NASS to conduct Monthly Hogs and
Pigs Inventory reporting, and Barrow and Gilt Slaughter
reporting. The Committee also expects that the potato objective
yield survey will be continued. The Committee encourages USDA
to expand organic data collection in the 2007 Census of
Agriculture and NASS to use any available funding to ensure
that timely, accurate, and useful statistics are provided for
the organic industry.
Agricultural Research Service
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $1,102,000,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 996,107,000
House allowance......................................... 1,035,475,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,109,981,000
The Agricultural Research Service [ARS] is responsible for
conducting basic, applied, and developmental research on: soil,
water, and air sciences; plant and animal productivity;
commodity conversion and delivery; human nutrition; and the
integration of agricultural systems. The research applies to a
wide range of goals; commodities; natural resources; fields of
science; and geographic, climatic, and environmental
conditions.
ARS is also responsible for the Abraham Lincoln National
Agricultural Library which provides agricultural information
and library services through traditional library functions and
modern electronic dissemination to agencies of the USDA, public
and private organizations, and individuals.
As the U.S. Department of Agriculture's in-house
agricultural research unit, ARS has major responsibilities for
conducting and leading the national agricultural research
effort. It provides initiative and leadership in five areas:
research on broad regional and national problems, research to
support Federal action and regulatory agencies, expertise to
meet national emergencies, research support for international
programs, and scientific resources to the executive branch and
Congress.
The mission of ARS research is to develop new knowledge and
technology which will ensure an abundance of high-quality
agricultural commodities and products at reasonable prices to
meet the increasing needs of an expanding economy and to
provide for the continued improvement in the standard of living
of all Americans. This mission focuses on the development of
technical information and technical products which bear
directly on the need to: (1) manage and use the Nation's soil,
water, air, and climate resources, and improve the Nation's
environment; (2) provide an adequate supply of agricultural
products by observing practices that will maintain a
sustainable and effective agriculture sector; (3) improve the
nutrition and well-being of the American people; (4) improve
living in rural America; and (5) strengthen the Nation's
balance of payments.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For salaries and expenses of the Agricultural Research
Service, the Committee recommends $1,109,981,000. This amount
is $7,981,000 more than the fiscal year 2005 appropriation.
The Committee provides bill language permitting the
purchase of land by an ARS research laboratory in Florence,
South Carolina.
For fiscal year 2006, the Committee recommends funding
increases, as specified below, for ongoing research activities.
The remaining increase in appropriations from the fiscal year
2005 level is to be applied to pay and related cost increases
to prevent the further erosion of the agency's capacity to
maintain a viable research program at all research locations.
The Committee expects the agency to give attention to the
prompt implementation and allocation of funds provided for the
purposes identified by Congress.
In complying with the Committee's directives, ARS is
expected not to redirect support for programs from one State to
another without prior notification to and approval by the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations in accordance with the
reprogramming procedures specified in this Act. Unless
otherwise directed, the Agricultural Research Service shall
implement appropriations by programs, projects, commodities,
and activities as specified by the Appropriations Committees.
Unspecified reductions necessary to carry out the provisions of
this Act are to be implemented in accordance with the
definitions contained in the ``Program, project, and activity''
section of this report.
The Committee's recommendations with respect to specific
areas of research are as follows:
Agricultural Law, Drake University.--The Committee
continues the fiscal year 2005 funding level for support of a
national center focusing on State and local food and
agricultural law and policy. Drake University in Des Moines,
Iowa, is highly qualified to serve as the location of the
center.
Agroforestry Research.--Agroforestry is an agricultural
system that integrates crops and trees or crops, animals, and
trees on a landscape. It can minimize costs and increase
producer profits, thus stabilizing family farms while reducing
soil erosion and improving water quality and wildlife habitat.
The Committee provides an increase of $250,000 above the fiscal
year 2005 funding levels for increased ARS Agroforestry
research at Booneville, Arkansas, with $50,000 in support of
expanded shiitake mushroom research.
Air Quality Research.--Agricultural operations produce a
variety of particulates and gases that influence air quality.
Agriculture, through wind erosion, tillage and harvest
operations, burning, diesel-powered machinery and animal
operations, is a source of particulate matter that can cause
pulmonary problems to humans. The Committee recognizes that
expanded research is needed to quantify these emissions,
determine emission factors, and to develop management practices
for producers to address this problem.
The Committee provides an increase of $300,000 above the
fiscal year 2005 funding level for collaborative research with
Utah State University's Space Dynamics Laboratory [SDL] to
develop and evaluate sensors, protocols, and statistical
procedures that accurately measure particulates and gaseous
emissions from agriculture operations.
Animal Genomics.--The Committee provides an increase of
$700,000 over fiscal year 2005 for research to identify and
characterize genes that affect feed efficiency. Those
additional resources are directed to the U.S. Meat Animal
Research Center, Clay Center, Nebraska.
Animal Vaccines.--There is a critical need to develop new
technologies to mitigate the adverse impacts of diseases on
cattle, poultry, and swine. The annual monetary loss resulting
from diarrheal diseases in cattle and swine is estimated at
$500,000,000 in the United States alone. Foodborne pathogens
cause between 6.5 million and 33 million cases of human
diseases and 9,000 deaths annually. The Committee provides an
increase of $150,000 above the fiscal year 2005 funding levels
for expanded research on advanced animal vaccines and
diagnostic applications currently carried out jointly by ARS,
the University of Connecticut, and the University of Missouri.
Appalachian Fruit Research Station.--The Committee
recognizes the importance of fruit research carried out at the
Appalachian Fruit Research Station in Kearneysville, WV, and
continues the fiscal year 2005 funding level for essential
staffing support at the station's ongoing research to identify
new alternatives for chemical control of insects, and to
develop disease-resistant trees.
Appalachian Horticulture Research.--The Committee is aware
that ornamental horticulture, floriculture and nursery crops,
collectively constitute the third most important crop in the
United States, surpassed only by corn and soybeans, with an
average estimated value of more than $11,000,000,000 a year.
Tennessee has a vibrant nursery industry and a growing
floriculture industry. The Committee provides an increase of
$250,000 above the fiscal year 2005 funding level for
collaborative research with the University of Tennessee and
Tennessee State University, including efforts to develop
resistant genes in dogwoods and other woody ornamentals, new
tissue culture techniques, and techniques to enable rapid
deployment of new cultivars for the marketplace. This program
is managed through the ARS Poplarville, Mississippi research
station.
Appalachian Pasture-Based Beef Systems.--The Committee is
aware of the benefits to be derived from the pasture-based beef
research program currently underway at the ARS Appalachian
Farming Systems Research Center located in Beaver, WV. The
research partnership, which includes West Virginia University,
Virginia Tech, and ARS, is targeted to Appalachian cattle
farmers. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2005 funding
level for this research, which will ensure the economic
viability of these farmers and conserve and protect the
region's environment.
Aquaculture Research.--The Committee acknowledges the
importance of avoiding duplication in the research administered
by the U.S. Department of Agriculture at various locations
throughout the country. In order to ensure that duplication
does not occur in the field of warmwater aquaculture research,
the Stuttgart research facility should not engage in channel
catfish research related to production systems, nutrition,
water quality, genetics, disease diagnosis, or food processing
which is ongoing at the National Warmwater Aquaculture Research
Center at Stoneville, MS.
Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi.--The Committee understands
that the Agency conducts research on Arbuscular mycorrhizal
fungi [AMF] which are beneficial microorganisms that infect the
roots of most crop plants. AMF benefits crops through increased
nutrient update, increased resistance to disease and drought,
and improved soil water holding capacity. The fungi are
dependent on their plant host for sugars and other substances.
Understanding the physiological relationships between AMF and
their plant hosts will help scientists develop ways to mass-
produce the best fungi and apply them in the field to stimulate
crop growth and yield. The Committee continues this program at
the fiscal year 2005 funding level to the Rodale Institute's
Farming Systems Trial for fungi research.
Arid Lands Research.--The challenges for agricultural
production and natural resource management in the desert
Southwest and adjoining border regions are immense.
Technologies for arid land agriculture are needed for the
remediation of arid and semiarid rangelands, sustainable
agriculture production for growers of irrigated cotton and
selected crops, and the restoration of disturbed lands. The
Committee provides an increase of $300,000 above the fiscal
year 2005 funding level for research in rangeland resource
management, irrigated farming technology, and environmental
horticulture at Jornada Experimental Range Station at Las
Cruces, NM.
Barley Yellow Dwarf Virus [BYDV].--Barley Yellow Dwarf
Virus [BYDV] is considered to be the most potent virus disease
of small grain cereals, affecting barley, oats, triticale, and
wheat. The virus is spread by many aphid species and the
disease occurs extensively in the United States and around the
world. The Committee recognizes ARS' leading research in
identifying the insect vector, the biochemistry of the virus,
the epidemiology of the disease, and in developing cultures of
oats and wheat with tolerance to the virus. The Committee
provides an increase of $100,000 above the fiscal year 2005
funding levels for expanded BYDV research at West Lafayette,
Indiana.
Biodesign and Processing Research.--Innovative approaches
are needed to enhance producer profitability and minimize waste
discharge to the environment while maintaining the agriculture
that sustains rural communities. Adding value to commodity
crops, designing new crops, and developing new products from
agricultural processing wastes will stimulate practical
capabilities and the economic vitality of producers and
communities. The Committee believes this integrated approach
will result in minimal discharge of process waste into the
environment through the development of a zero-discharge
bioprocessing technology and provides $200,000 for this effort
to Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University at
Blacksburg, Virginia.
Bioinformatics Institute for Model Plant Species.--The
Committee provides an increase of $250,000 above the fiscal
year 2005 funding levels to expand current agricultural genome
bioinformatics research carried out by the Bioinformatics
Institute for Model Plant Species, National Center for Genome
Resources at Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Biological Weed Control.--The biological control of weeds,
insects, and pathogens offers an ecologically sound and cost
effective long term management strategy for controlling
invasive species. It is estimated that invasive species cost
American taxpayers at least $137,000,000,000 per year and are
predicted to rise over the next 10 years as more invasive
species enter the country. The Committee provides an increase
of $300,000 above fiscal year 2005 levels for expanded
biological weed control at Sidney, Montana.
Biomass Crop Production.--The Committee continues the
fiscal year 2005 level for cooperative research between ARS and
South Dakota State University to further investigate the
applicability of using a method of fiber extrusion to dry and
process wet distiller grains from ethanol production into high
value feed for cattle, as well as conversion to increased
ethanol production.
Biomedical Materials in Plants.--Increased research is
needed to carry out studies on tobacco and other plants as a
medium to produce vaccines and other biomedical products for
the prevention of many human and animal diseases. The Committee
continues the fiscal year 2005 funding level for cooperative
research with the Biotechnology Foundation.
Bioremediation Research.--The Committee provides an
increase of $300,000 in fiscal year 2006 for ARS research on
the bioremediation of vacated areas previously used for storage
of munitions for conversion into commercial and agricultural
uses. This biotechnology-based research will examine the
potential of combining existing phytoremediation technologies
in terrestrial plants with animal microbial remediation
technology of the rumen to rehabilitate affected areas.
Biotechnology Research and Development Corporation.--The
Committee directs the agency to continue its support of the
Biotechnology Research and Development Corporation's research
on both plants and animals at the fiscal year 2005 level.
Biotechnology Research to Improve Crops and Livestock.--
Biotechnology research has opened the path for sequencing and
mapping the genes of crops and livestock, marking genes for
adding precision to breeding of improved plants and animals,
and identifying gene products through proteomics technology.
Other technological advancements can be achieved in the
livestock industry through the development of imaging at the
molecular level using light, heat, and/or fluorescing
signatures. These biotechnology efforts generate huge volumes
of data, which must be managed, transmitted electronically, and
analyzed. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2005 funding
level at Stoneville, MS, to support cooperative research in
genomics and bioinformatics and in the use of biophotonics for
the imaging of animal physiological processes at the cellular
level.
Bovine Genetics.--The Committee provides an increase of
$150,000 above the fiscal year 2005 levels for expanded
research on biotechnology and genetics in cattle jointly
carried out by ARS, the University of Connecticut, and the
University of Illinois to improve efficiencies of clones and
establish cell lines from elite cows and bulls for cloning.
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy [BSE].--The Committee is
aware of the serious health and economic consequences
associated with BSE and supports expanded research in the areas
of pathogenesis, diagnostics, and intervention. The Committee
provides an increase of $4,000,000 in fiscal year 2006 which
includes risk assessment research at Ames, Iowa, $1,500,000;
pathophysiology of BSE at the Albany research center, $900,000;
research on TSE strains, Pullman, Washington, $600,000; pre-
clinical live animal tests at Ames, Iowa, $500,000; and prion
research at Albany, California, $500,000.
Broiler Production in the Mid South.--Reduced broiler
production costs are essential for the industry to increase net
profit and remain competitive internationally. The Committee
recognizes the importance of the cooperation between the ARS
Poultry Research Unit and the Mississippi Agricultural and
Forestry Experiment Station at Mississippi State. This
cooperation has resulted in improved bird nutrition, control of
mycoplasma disease with vaccines, and overall health, vigor,
and growth of the birds through improved housing environmental
controls. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2005 funding
level for cooperative research on reducing ammonia levels in
poultry litter, improving environmental controls, and reducing
mortality in broiler flocks.
Broomweed Biological Control.--The Committee is concerned
about increased infestations of exotic brooms and gorse weeds
in the Western United States which are causing serious economic
and environmental damage to agriculture and rangelands. The
Committee provides an increase of $250,000 above the fiscal
year 2005 funding levels for increased broomweed biological
research at Albany, California.
Canada Thistle.--The Committee recognizes the importance of
controlling and eradicating the Canada thistle, a noxious,
invasive weed that has surpassed leafy spurge in infested
acreage in North Dakota. The Committee continues the fiscal
year 2005 funding level to carry out research experiments to
examine the population genetics and biology of Canada thistle
and to combat this weed in North Dakota and surrounding States.
The research is to be conducted at the ARS research facility at
Fargo, ND.
Catfish Genome.--The Committee provides an increase of
$150,000 above the fiscal year 2005 funding levels for
increased research at the ARS Aquatic Animal Health Research
Laboratory at Auburn, Alabama to identify important genes that
convey virulent traits, to identify pathogens, and to identify
factors that influence expression of traits.
Catfish Health.--Disease-causing bacteria, viruses, and
parasites threaten the economic viability of the Nation's
billion dollar catfish industry. Rapid expansion of the U.S.
channel catfish industry increases the vulnerability of the
industry to outbreaks of diseases and parasites. Research is
urgently needed to identify disease vectors, modes of
transmission, life cycles and methods for controlling catfish
diseases caused by parasites, fungi, bacteria, and viruses. A
thorough understanding of the impact of environmental factors
on the disease will lead to improved management practices for
conventional catfish culture in earthen ponds. The Committee
continues the fiscal year 2005 funding level for the
comprehensive catfish health research program based at the
National Warmwater Aquaculture Center, Stoneville, MS. This
Center is strategically located in the mid-delta, proximal to
the vast majority of the U.S. commercial catfish farming
acreage and already has a critical mass of scientists,
facilities, and instrumentation addressing the disease issue.
Ongoing research in genomics and breeding can be expanded for
fish selection, with disease and parasite resistance.
Center for Food Safety and Postharvest Technology.--The
Committee is aware of the significance of the research
currently underway relating to catfish and other food products
at the Mississippi Center for Food Safety and Postharvest
Technology and provides an increase of $300,000 above the
fiscal year 2005 funding level for research on the detection of
food-borne pathogens.
Cereal Crops.--The Committee provides an increase of
$200,000 for expanded research at the Cereal Crops Laboratory
at Madison, WI.
Chloroplast Genetic Engineering.--The Committee supports
the Chloroplast Genetic Engineering program at the University
of Central Florida and provides an increase of $200,000 above
the fiscal year 2005 funding level for expanded research on the
efficient and effective means of genetically engineering
chloroplast to increase efficiency of photosynthesis as a key
component of agricultural production, as well as in reducing
spread of transgenes via pollen flow.
Coffee and Cocoa.--The disease resistance and alternative
crop research program for coffee and cocoa has important
economic benefits and implications for U.S. foreign policy
goals in South Central America and West Africa. As a globally
marketable cash crop, cocoa can provide an alternative,
environmentally beneficial choice for small farmers to abandon
illegal crops. Cocoa is produced primarily by small farmers in
the tropics of South Central America and West Africa that is
also under severe disease pressure which threatens the
stability of world supply of cocoa and the economies of other
cocoa-producing nations. The Committee provides an increase of
$300,000 above the fiscal year 2005 funding level to expand
research on coffee and cocoa.
Corn Resistant to Aflatoxin.--Contamination of corn by
aflatoxin limits corn production in the southern United States.
Understanding the corn genome and where the genes for
resistance are located on the genome will accelerate the plant
breeding process leading to resistant corn lines. The Committee
recognizes the progress already made in the discovery and
transfer of aflatoxin resistant corn germplasm to commercial
seed companies as a result of the cooperation between the
Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station and
the ARS Corn Host Plant Resistance Research Laboratory at
Mississippi State. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2005
funding level at Mississippi State to continue this cooperative
research on the development of corn plants resistant to
aflatoxin.
Cotton Genomics, Breeding, and Variety Development.--The
Committee recognizes the progress that has been made through
the cooperative efforts of the ARS and the Mississippi
Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station at Stoneville, MS,
in the research, development, and transfer of improved cotton
germplasm to the cotton industry. This cooperative research
must incorporate new genetic material into agronomically-
acceptable varieties and to transfer reniform nematode and
other pest resistance into improved cotton lines. The Committee
continues the fiscal year 2005 funding level for the cotton
breeding program conducted by ARS at Stoneville, MS.
Cotton Ginning Laboratory.--The Committee provides an
increase of $50,000 for fiscal year 2006 for ARS cotton ginning
research at Stoneville, Mississippi.
Cropping Systems Research.--Crop management practices to
limit erosion on the highly erodible soils of Tennessee and
other southern States impacts soybean diseases, both favorably
and adversely. Research is needed to optimize disease control
while maintaining the best crop management practices to protect
soil and water quality. The Committee provides an increase of
$250,000 above the fiscal year 2005 funding level for cropping
systems research at the University of Tennessee and the West
Tennessee Agriculture Experiment Station.
Dairy Forage Research.--The Committee recognizes the
important research on dairy forage carried out by ARS at the
U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center in Madison, WI. The Committee
provides an increase of $600,000 above the fiscal year 2005
funding level for expanded dairy forage research at the center.
Delta Human Nutrition Research.--The Committee recognizes
the significant benefits to the health of rural populations
from nutrition and dietary research at the Delta Human
Nutrition Research laboratory at Stoneville, Mississippi Center
and provides $500,000 for that critical effort. In addition,
the Committee provides an increase of $250,000 for the Delta
Human Nutrition Initiative to enhance an ongoing cooperative
agreement with the Southern University Center for Food
Nutrition and Health Promotion in Louisiana.
Ecology of Tamarix.--Tarmarix (salt cedar) are woody
invasive plants which threaten aquatic systems by consuming
large amounts of water, out competing native vegetation like
willow and cottonwood trees for water. It is a serious problem
in Nevada, California, Colorado, Texas, and other Western
States. The Committee is aware of the ARS biocontrol field
trials on China beetles to eradicate tarmarix and provides an
additional $400,000 above the fiscal year 2005 funding level to
expand research on tamarix control using China beetles and
other biocontrols, and to continue research on cheat grass at
the ARS research station in Reno, NV.
Emerging Diseases of Livestock and Crops.--The Committee
recognizes the need for expanded agricultural research on
emerging and exotic diseases of animals and plants as well as
the need to protect Americans and the agricultural industry
from the intentional introduction of biological agents through
terrorist activities. The Committee provides an increase of
$1,600,000 in support of the budget request to protect the
Nation's livestock as follows: Develop systems for rapid
response to bioterror agents at Laramie, Wyoming, $500,000 and
Athens, Georgia, $200,000; vaccinology research at Plum Island,
New York, $300,000; and intervention strategies at Ames, Iowa,
$600,000. The Committee provides an increase of $2,500,000 for
research on crop diseases and pests including rust diseases,
late blight, canker, Pierce's Disease, etc. The research will
be carried out as follows: Rapid diagnostic research at
Parlier, California, $300,000; develop the taxonomy and biology
plant pathogens at Ft. Pierce, Florida, $600,000;
Identification of pathogens and genetics $1,000,000 for Wheat
Stripe Initiative at those ARS research laboratories who have
the expertise to eradicate this disease including those at St.
Paul, Minnesota and Pullman, Washington. Research on integrated
disease management strategies will be undertaken at Stoneville,
Mississippi, $400,000; Charleston, South Carolina, $100,000;
and Tifton, Georgia, $100,000.
Floriculture and Nursery Research.--Nursery and greenhouse
products rank third in production in the Nation. As the public
demands more plants and trees to help clean the air, prevent
water runoff and soil erosion, and improve water conservation
and quality, the nursery industry is playing an expanding and
significant role in enhancing environmental quality. The
Committee continues the fiscal year 2005 funding level for
floriculture and nursery research aimed at reducing chemical
use, improved post-harvest life of flowers and plants, disease
and pest resistant flowers and plants, control of root
diseases, robotics research, and control of run-off from
greenhouse and nursery operations.
Food and Nutrition Research.--The Committee concurs with
the department's request to provide additional resources for
human nutrition studies and food surveys that will lead to
improved health for all Americans. The Committee provides an
increase of $500,000 to Beltsville, Maryland, to carry out
surveys that will help understand dietary patterns that
contribute to obesity. In addition the Committee provides an
increase in appropriations of $540,000 for ARS human nutrition
research carried out at Grand Forks, North Dakota, of which
$140,000 is for expanded healthy beef initiative; Little Rock,
Arkansas, $300,000; Davis, California, $200,000; Houston,
Texas, $400,000; Boston, Massachusetts, $300,000, and Baton
Rouge, Louisiana, $400,000.
Food Safety and Engineering.--The Committee continues the
fiscal year 2005 funding level for increased collaborative
research with Purdue University in the area of food safety and
engineering.
Food Safety Research.--The Committee supports the
department's request to expand research on pre- and post-
harvest food safety research. Additional appropriations are
provided in fiscal year 2006 to develop food animal
surveillance and epidemiology programs for swine and poultry,
Athens, Georgia, $200,000 and dairy animals at Beltsville,
Maryland, $300,000. An increase of $100,000 each is provided
for research on pathogens in the preharvest stage at College
Station, Texas, and Clay Center, NE. An increase of $300,000 is
provided for expanded aflatoxin research at the ARS Southern
Regional Research Center. The Committee supports research to
develop new food systems to detect intentional biological
contamination. Additional appropriations are provided to
Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania, $100,000 for this work. An increase of
$100,000 is provided to Albany, California for research for
rapid pathogen detection from foods.
Forage and Range Research.--The Committee supports the
important research being carried out by ARS at the Forage and
Range Research Laboratory, Logan, UT. The research program
seeks to develop and improve range and pasture plants,
reinvigorate disturbed and over-used rangelands, effect
revegetation following wild fires, combat invasive weeds, and
provide improved forages for livestock. The Committee provides
an increase of $350,000 above the fiscal year 2005 funding
level for this research.
Formosan Subterranean Termite.--Management of this termite
is essential to Louisiana's economic well-being. This termite
has infested 32 parishes in Louisiana, with the most severe
infestations occurring in the New Orleans and Lake Charles
areas. It has caused millions of dollars worth of damage with
an astonishing $300,000,000 impact in New Orleans alone. The
Committee adds $300,000 for fiscal year 2006 to the Southern
Regional Research Center at New Orleans, LA, for research
efforts focusing on improved termite detection systems,
evaluation of wood products for protecting building materials,
and enhancement of bait technology.
Genetic Resources.--The Committee supports the request for
additional appropriations to preserve germplasm for traits of
economics importance of livestock and poultry and to acquire,
enhance, and characterize genetic resources of plants. The
Committee provides an increase of $200,000 for this research to
be carried out at Aberdeen, Idaho.
Grapefruit Juice/Drug Interaction.--The Committee
recognizes the need to determine the precise effect of
grapefruit juice on the consumption certain medications for
safety and efficacy. The Committee provides an increase of
$200,000 for research at Winterhaven, Florida to identify and
characterize the components of grapefruit juice responsible for
enzyme suppression and its effect on dosage for certain
medications.
Great Lakes Aquaculture Research.--The Committee recognizes
the important research studies that ARS carries out nationwide
that benefit the aquaculture industry and the American
consumer. Expanded research is essential if we are to improve
production technology of Great Lakes species such as whitefish,
lake trout, yellow perch walleye, and northern pike. The
Committee provides an increase of $300,000 over fiscal year
2005 funding level for a cooperative program with the Great
Lakes Aquaculture Center to support this research.
Harry Dupree National Aquaculture Research Center.--
Arkansas leads the Nation in raising hybrid striped bass, as
well as in producing 80 percent of the Nation's baitfish and
other food fishes. The Committee understands that this Center
plays a significant role in meeting the needs of the U.S.
aquaculture industry by conducting research aimed at improving
yields, food quality, disease control, and stress tolerance.
The Committee continues the fiscal year 2005 funding level for
research on the genetic improvement of hybrid striped bass.
Hawaii Agriculture Research Center.--The Committee
continues the fiscal year 2005 funding level for the Hawaii
Agriculture Research Center to enhance the competitiveness of
U.S. sugarcane producers and to continue to support the
expansion of new crops and products, including those from
agroforestry, to complement sugarcane production in Hawaii.
Hides and Leather Research.--The USDA's only hides and
leather research is carried out at the Eastern Regional
Research Center in Wyndmoor, PA. The research provides the
hides and leather industry with cost-effective and
environmentally safe tanning processes which will enhance U.S.
producers' competitiveness in world markets. The Committee
provides an increase of $325,000 above the fiscal year 2005
funding level for this research.
Improved Forage-Livestock Production.--The Committee is
aware of the joint research project with the University of
Kentucky which focuses on enhancing the sustainability of
forage-based farming systems. The research ranges from the
molecular level to whole organism levels, and seeks to apply
the best plant and animal technologies to promote animal health
and profitability while preserving the environment. The
Committee provides an increase of $300,000 to expand this
research.
Invasive Ludwigia Research.--The invasive water prim rose
(Ludwigia), is a fast growing and fast spreading aquatic weed
native to South America which chokes water ways and provides a
breeding ground for mosquitoes, which increases the likelihood
of West Nile Virus. Mosquitoes reach levels 100 times greater
than normal and cannot be adequately controlled where Ludwigia
has invaded. This plant is an emerging regional threat
throughout the Western United States. The Committee provides an
increase of $250,000 in fiscal year 2006 to the ARS Research
Laboratory at Davis, California for research in the development
and implementation of biological controls and other
ecologically-based methods for long-term vegetation management
to combat this threat to our water ways.
Invasive Species Research.--The Committee is concerned with
the introduction of insects and pests which are destructive to
American vegetation and cause severe economic losses. The
Committee supports the department's request to initiate or
expand research to control and eradicate these pests and
provides an increase of $400,000 for this research in fiscal
year 2006. Those resources are directed to such diseases as
sudden oak death, tamarisk, emerald ash borer, Asian longhorned
beetle and lobate scale which are conducted at ARS research
laboratories located in Corvallis, Oregon, $200,000. The
additional appropriations for IPM systems research are to be
carried out at Peoria, Illinois, $200,000 for emerald ash
borer.
Irrigated Cropping Systems in the Mid-South.--Irrigation in
the Mid-South United States is essential for economically
sustainable crop production systems. Growers cannot tolerate
the risk associated with sporadic rainfall. The Committee
continues the fiscal year 2005 funding level for cooperative
research by ARS and the Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry
Experiment Station at Stoneville, focusing on reducing plant
stress, ameliorating the field environment, and managing water
resources.
Karnal Bunt.--The Committee is aware of the significant
threat karnal bunt poses to the U.S. wheat industry and U.S.
wheat exports. To aid in development of karnal bunt resistance
and control methods, the Committee provides an increase of
$200,000 over the fiscal year 2005 funding level for research
in this area. This research will be carried out at the ARS
laboratory in Manhattan, Kansas in cooperation with Kansas
State University.
Malignant Catarrhal Fever [MCF] Virus.--The Committee
acknowledges the importance of research for the sheep-
associated virus, Malignant Catarrhal Fever [MCF], infecting,
small ruminants. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2005
funding level for research on the development of vaccines
critical to the systematic eradication of MCF virus in small
ruminants at the ARS laboratory at Pullman, WA, in cooperation
with the ARS sheep, station at Dubois, ID, and Washington State
University.
Medicinal and Bioactive Crops.--Increased research is
needed to carry out studies on medicinal and bioactive crops as
a medium to produce vaccines and other biomedical products for
the prevention of many human and animal diseases. The Committee
provides $300,000 for cooperative research with the Stephen F.
Austin State University. In addition, the Committee provides an
increase of $300,000 for Medicinal Botanical Production and
Processing for a cooperative agreement with the University of
Maryland.
Michael Fields Agricultural Institute.--The Committee
continues the fiscal year 2005 funding level for ARS
collaborative research with the Michael Fields Agricultural
Institute. This research provides for development of high-
quality corn in Wisconsin and other Mid-Western States for
increased nutritional value and adaptation to sustainable
farming systems. Collaborative research is directed at corn
breeding, analysis, corn quality, on-farm research and
information dissemination.
Microbial Genomics.--The Committee recognizes the
importance and significance of the joint microbial genomics
initiative between the ARS Animal Disease Research Unit at
Pullman, WA, and the ARS Tick Research Unit at Kerrville, TX,
and continues the fiscal year 2005 funding level.
Mosquito Biological Control.--Mosquitoes have reemerged as
disease transmitters with the occurrence of West Nile Virus.
Their populations are at unacceptable levels throughout the
lower Mississippi River Floodplain. The Committee provides an
increase of $350,000 in fiscal year 2006 for research on the
biological control of mosquitoes at the recently constructed
ARS Biological Control Laboratory at Stoneville, Mississippi.
This ARS laboratory is strategically located to conduct
research for biologically controlling mosquitoes.
National Agricultural Library.--The Committee recognizes
the critical importance of the National Agricultural Library in
supporting ARS' core mission areas and provides an increase of
$400,000 above the fiscal year 2005 funding level.
National Cold Water Marine Aquaculture Center.--The
Committee notes the importance of aquaculture research to the
State of Maine, which leads the Nation in Atlantic salmon
cultivation. Other important aquaculture species in Maine
include shellfish and trout. Research on marine finfish is
vitally important to Maine's aquaculture program. Finfish,
including haddock, halibut, and cod, are primary candidates for
future diversity of Maine's aquaculture industry. The Committee
provides an increase of $300,000 over the fiscal year 2005
funding level for this research, which will be undertaken at
the Franklin, Maine, research location.
National Nutrition Monitoring System.--Health and dietary
information gathered from a combined U.S. Department of
Agriculture/Department of Health and Human Services is critical
to the Nation and plays a key role in shaping national food
policies and programs including food safety, food labeling,
child nutrition, food assistance and dietary guidance. The
Committee continues the fiscal year 2005 funding level for the
combined national nutrition monitoring program.
National Sclerotinia Initiative.--The Committee is aware of
the economic importance of controlling this disease which
affects sunflowers, soybeans, canola, edible beans, peas and
lentils. The Committee provides an increase of $750,000 over
fiscal year 2005 for this research initiative which is centered
at the ARS research station at Fargo, ND.
National Sedimentation Laboratory.--The National Center for
Computational Hydroscience and Engineering, in cooperation with
the Agriculture Research Service at Oxford, MS, has developed a
series of mathematical models to assess and mitigate upland
soil erosion, stream bank failure, and the transport and impact
of sediment on stream morphology and ecology. These models have
been recognized nationally and internationally as being at the
forefront of research on understanding sediment transport
processes. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2005 funding
level at Oxford for expanding cooperative research with the
Center and accelerating the transfer of the modeling technology
to Federal and State agencies responsible for mitigating soil
erosion and sediment transport in streams.
National Soil Dynamics Laboratory.--The extent of soil
degradation in the South not only impairs soil and water
quality but also reduces profitability and economic
sustainability of farms in the region. The Soil Dynamic
Laboratory at Auburn, Alabama carries out research to develop
technologies and strategies for managing soils and to preserve
the soil resource for future generations. Poultry litter poses
a serious problem to the region's water quality. The Committee
provides an increase of $300,000 over fiscal year 2005 for the
laboratory to pursue research on cropping systems practices
that will raise water quality to Federal standards,
particularly in the Sand Mountain region of Alabama. The
Committee directs that the funding level for improved crop
production practices be continued at the fiscal year 2005
level.
Natural Products.--The Committee supports cooperative
research with the National Center for Natural Products Research
to discover and develop natural product chemicals for use in
agriculture and provides an increase of $300,000 for this
research at Oxford, Mississippi.
New England Plant, Soil, and Water Laboratory.--The USDA-
ARS New England Plant, Soil, and Water Laboratory, Orono, ME,
performs a critical function that benefits not only the Maine
economy, but the agriculture industry as a whole. The research
performed at this laboratory--including cropping systems and
management practices, efficient use of nutrients and water, and
control of pathogens, insects and weeds--benefits numerous
agricultural interests, most notably the potato and livestock
industries.
It is especially vital to New England potato growers that
this lab continues and even increases its important research.
The laboratory conducts experiments to address unique
challenges that face potato growers both in the region and
across the Nation. Research at the Orono facility, for example,
has included tracking late blight disease, a devastating
epidemic that costs potato growers approximately $3,000,000,000
annually worldwide. Of the nation-wide locations of USDA-ARS
laboratories, this is the only laboratory located in New
England and it should be noted that 95 percent of the potato
acreage in the six New England States are in Maine where the
laboratory has the benefit of being in close proximity to the
grower's fields.
The Committee provides an increase of $200,000 for the
fiscal year 2006 to enhance the New England Plant, Soil, and
Water Laboratory and research programs.
Northern Grains Insect Research Laboratory.--Diverse
economic and environmental pressures have impacted agriculture
in the Northern Plains. The Northern Grains Insect Research
Laboratory in Brookings, South Dakota focuses on production
agriculture problems for the Northern Plains. This laboratory
is working on research that directly benefits farmers, such as
new cropping systems and innovative crop rotations that
minimize use of chemicals and tillage. The Committee continues
the fiscal year 2005 level to address the diverse economic and
environmental problems in the Northern Plains.
Noxious Weeds in the Desert Southwest.--Invasive and
noxious weeds are expected to infest 140 million acres in the
United States by the year 2010. Rangeland and pastures will be
the primary land types invaded by these species. The Committee
supports the biocontrol research on invasive non-native and
tree species carried out by ARS at the Jornada Experimental
Range in Las Cruces and continues the fiscal year 2005 funding
level for this research.
NutriCore.--The Committee believes there is great potential
benefit in the area of human nutrition from work proposed by
the National Center for Excellence in Foods and Nutrition
Research (NutriCore) headquartered in Indiana with regional
hubs in Pennsylvania, California, Texas, Mississippi, and Iowa
and provides $42,000 for this program.
NW Small Fruits Research.--The Committee is aware of the
ongoing research conducted by the Small Fruit Genetics and
Pathology Research unit at Corvallis, OR. The demand for fresh
and processed berries and grapes in both domestic and
international markets continues to grow at a rapid rate. The
Committee continues the fiscal year 2005 funding level for this
research which involves cooperation between industry, State,
and Federal research.
Ogallala Aquifer.--Surface water in the Central High Plains
region is severely limited and the Ogallala Aquifer, which
underlies this area, has provided water for the development of
a highly significant agricultural economy. However, the
Ogallala Aquifer is a finite resource. The Committee provides
an increase of $750,000 above the fiscal year 2005 funding
level for research into the complex nature of water
availability, potential uses, and costs which will help
determine future water policy in this region. This research is
to be based in Texas but coordinated with other affected
States, including Kansas.
Papaya Ringspot Virus.--The Committee provides the fiscal
year 2005 funding level to the University of Hawaii College of
Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources to monitor and refine
control of the papaya ringspot virus; to induce nematode
resistance, flowering control, and mealy bug wilt disease
resistance in commercial pineapple varieties; and, to expand
the techniques and knowledge obtained from this program to
create disease and pest resistance in other tropical crops such
as banana and flowers where there is strong industry support
and interest in these transgenic approaches. The Committee
views the development of pest and disease resistant plants as
supportive of a national agricultural research agenda to
minimize the application of chemical pesticides.
Peanut Production.--The competitiveness and quality of U.S.
peanuts production is the primary responsibility of the ARS
National Peanut Research Laboratory at Dawson, Georgia. The
Committee provides an increase of $150,000 above the fiscal
year 2005 funding level for increased research on the factors
affecting the production, harvesting, storage, and quality of
peanuts at Dawson, Georgia.
Peanut Variety.--The Committee provides an increase of
$450,000 above the fiscal year 2005 funding levels for research
focusing on developing new and improved peanut varieties at the
ARS Wheat, Peanut, and Other Field Crops Research Laboratory at
Stillwater, Oklahoma, in conjunction with the Oklahoma Peanut
Commission. Emphasis will be placed on improving disease
resistance and product quality traits of the peanut crop to
lower costs of production, as well as protection of the
environment through reduced use of chemical pesticides.
Pear Thrips.--The Committee recognizes the importance of
the collaborative research program on pear thrips between ARS
and the University of Vermont to the ornamental and
horticultural industries throughout New England. The Committee
provides an increase of $50,000 above the fiscal year 2005
funding level for expanded collaborative research program on
pear thrips.
Phytoestrogens Research.--The Committee is aware of the
increased consumption of soy products and controversies
surrounding the health claims from those products.
Phytoestrogens, plant-derived products that can mimic or block
estrogen remain a priority issue for USDA researchers. Research
studies have suggested that phytoestrogens have a range of
human health benefits that can prevent certain diseases.
However, extensive studies on their long term benefits and side
effects are lacking. The Committee continues the fiscal year
2005 funding level for this research. Current research is
carried out at the Southern Regional Research Center in New
Orleans in collaboration with other universities.
Plant Genetic Diversity and Gene Discovery Center.--The
Committee recognizes the challenges of water availability,
invasive weeds, fire cycles, and conservation in the Western
United States. To meet these needs, the Committee continues to
support the plant genetic diversity and gene discovery center
at the ARS Forage and Range Research Laboratory in
collaboration with the Utah Agricultural Experiment Station.
The center will continue to access plant genetic relationships
and identify native plant species through DNA technologies to
help conservation efforts in genetic diversity and support wild
lands rehabilitation efforts after fire, mining, and invasive
weed control activities. The Committee provides an increase of
$300,000 over the fiscal year 2005 funding level for this
program.
Plant Genomics.--The Committee supports the need to enhance
the level of genomics research that focuses on discovering and
characterizing genes that express economically important traits
and genes that influence plant productivity and product quality
in plants. The Committee provides an increase of $400,000 over
fiscal year 2005 for soybean genomics research at St. Paul,
Minnesota and $300,000 for wheat-related genomics research at
Manhattan, Kansas. The Committee also provides an increase for
fiscal year 2006 for honey bee genome studies at Baton Rouge,
Louisiana; Tucson, Arizona; and Beltsville, Maryland, $500,000.
Plant Protein Grazing Livestock.--The efficient use of
plant protein by grazing livestock is important to the
profitability and sustainability of livestock production. The
Committee provides an increase of $250,000 above the fiscal
year 2005 funding levels for increased agronomic research in
the efficient use of plant protein by grazing livestock at the
Grazingland Research Laboratory at El Reno, Oklahoma.
Poisonous Plant Research.--The USDA Poisonous Plant
Research Laboratory at Logan, Utah conducts vital research on
the effects of poisonous plants on livestock in support of the
Nation's livestock industry. The Committee is aware of the
important investigations carried out by this laboratory and the
significant contributions it has made in agricultural plant and
animal sciences. The Committee continues funding at the fiscal
year 2005 level.
Potato Breeding Research.--The Committee is concerned that
funding levels and lack of personnel resources limit ARS'
ability to address some aspects of potato variety research. The
Committee continues the fiscal year 2005 funding level to meet
research staffing needs at the Aberdeen, ID, research
laboratory.
Potato Late Blight.--Potato producers continue to sustain
substantial losses due to dramatic increases in foliar and
tuber diseases, particularly those caused by the
``Phytophthora'' pathogens or late blight. Effective disease
control relies on understanding how an organism causes diseases
and how plants resist infection. The Committee provides an
increase of $200,000 above the fiscal year 2005 funding levels
for expanded research at the New England Plant, Soil, and Water
Research Laboratory at Orono, Maine on the development of
effective control measures for potato late blight diseases.
Potato Storage.--The Committee recognizes the need for
expanded investigations on potato storage and continues the
fiscal year 2005 funding level for this work. Research will be
conducted at the ARS Madison, WI, laboratory on plant
physiology, fumigation, and cultural practices to help growers
reduce pesticide inputs.
Poultry Production and Product Safety Research.--The
Committee is aware of the poultry production and product safety
research being conducted by the ARS Poultry Laboratory at
Fayetteville, Arkansas, in conjunction with the Center of
Excellence for Poultry Science on the University of Arkansas
campus in Fayetteville. The Committee continues the fiscal year
2005 funding level in support of this poultry research to
improve the quality of poultry production and reduce production
problems for the poultry industry.
Program Continuations.--The Committee directs the
Agricultural Research Service to continue to fund the following
areas of research in fiscal year 2006 at the same funding level
provided in fiscal year 2005: Advanced Animal Vaccines (U CT/U
MO), Greenport, NY; HQ; Agricultural Genome Bioinformatics,
(Bioinformatics Institute for Model Plant Species) Ames, IA;
Agricultural Law, Drake University, NAL; Agroforestry (U of MO/
Shirley Community Development Corporation), Booneville, AR; Air
Quality (Utah State), Ames, IA;HQ; Air Quality (PM-10),
Pullman, WA; Alternative Crops and Value-Added Products (Kenaf)
(MAFES), Stoneville, MS; Animal Health Consortium, Peoria, IL;
Animal Welfare Information Center, NAL; Appalachian Fruit
Research Station, Kearneysville, WV; Appalachian Horticulture
Research (U of TN/TN State), Poplarville, MS; Appalachian
Pasture Based Beef Systems, (VA Tech/WV Univ/U of GA) Beaver,
WV; Aquaculture Fisheries Center, Pine Bluff, AR; Aquaculture
Initiative for Mid-Atlantic Highlands (Canaan Valley), Leetown,
WV; Aquaculture Research, Aberdeen, ID; Arbuscular Mycorrhizal
Fungi (Rodale Institute), Wyndmoor, PA; Arctic Germplasm,
Palmer, AK; Arid Lands Research, Las Cruces, NM; Arkansas
Children's Nutrition Center, Little Rock, AR; Asian Bird
Influenza, Athens, GA; Avian Pneumovirus, Athens, GA; Barley
Food Health Benefits, Beltsville, MD; Bee Research, Weslaco,
TX; Bee Research (Chalkbrood) (Various), Logan, UT; Biomass
Crop Production (SD State Univ/Michigan Biotech Institute),
Brookings, SD; Biomedical Materials in Plants (Biotech
Foundation), Beltsville, MD; Biomineral Soil Amendments for
Control of Nematodes (N-VIRO Intl), Beltsville, MD;
Biotechnology Research and Development Corp, Peoria, IL;
Biotechnology Research to Improve Crops and Livestock,
Stoneville, MS; Bovine Genetics (U of CT/U. of IL), Beltsville,
MD; Broiler Production in the Mid-South (MS State), Mississippi
State, MS; Broomweed Biological Controls (Yellow Starthistle)
(U of ID), Albany, CA; Canada Thistle, Fargo, ND; Catfish
Genome (Auburn Univ), Auburn, AL; Catfish Health (MAFES/U of
MS), Stoneville, MS; Center for Food Safety and Post-Harvest
Technology, HQ; Central Great Plains Research Station, Akron,
CO; Cereal Crops, Fargo, ND; Cereal Crops Research, Madison,
WI; Cereal Disease, St. Paul, MN; Chloroplast Genetic
Engineering Research (U of Central Florida), Urbana, IL;
Chronic Diseases of Children (Baylor University Peanut
Institute), Houston, TX; Coffee & Cocoa Research (Milwaukee
Museum), Beltsville, MD; Miami, FL; HQ; Corn Germplasm, Ames,
IA; Corn Germplasm, Mississippi State, MS; Corn Resistant to
Aflatoxin, Mississippi State, MS; Corn Rootworm, Ames, IA;
Cotton Genomics, Breeding and Variety Development (MAFAS),
Stoneville, MS; Cotton Ginning (Long Staple Cotton) (NM State),
Las Cruces, NM; Cropping Systems Research (TN Agriculture Expt.
Station/U of TN), Stoneville, MS; Dairy Forage (U of WI),
Madison, WI; Dairy Genetics, Beltsville, MD; Delta Nutrition
Intervention Initiative, Little Rock, AR; Diet and Immune
Function, Little Rock, AR; Diet, Nutrition, and Obesity
(Pennington), New Orleans, LA; Dryland Production, Akron, CO;
Ecology of Tamarix, Reno, NV; Endophyte Research (OSU/U of MO/U
of AR), Booneville, AR; Feed Efficiency in Cattle, Clay Center,
NE; Flood/Control Acoustic Technology, Oxford, MS; Floriculture
and Nursery Crops, HQ; Food Fermentation Research, Raleigh, NC;
Food Safety and Engineering (Purdue), Wyndmoor, PA; Food Safety
for Listeria and E. Coli, Beltsville, MD; Wyndmoor, PA;
Formosan Subterranean Termites, New Orleans, LA; Formosan
Subterranean Termites (U of HI), Gainesville, FL; Forage and
Range Research, Logan, UT; Foundry Sand By-Products (Penn
State/Ohio State/FIRST), Beltsville, MD; Geisinger Rural Aging
Study (Geisinger), Boston, MA; Genomics of Pest Resistance in
Wheat (Purdue), West Lafayette, IN; Golden Nematode (Cornell
Univ), Ithaca, NY; Grain Legume Plant Pathologist Position,
Pullman, WA; Grain Research, Manhattan, KA; Grand Forks Human
Nutrition Laboratory (ND State), Grand Forks, ND; Grape
Genetics, Geneva, NY; Grape Rootstock, Geneva, NY; Grassland
Soil and Water Research, Temple, TX; Great Basins Rangeland,
Reno, NV; Boise, ID; Great Lakes Aquaculture (U of WI),
Madison, WI; Greenhouse and Hydroponics (U of Toledo), Wooster,
OH; Harry Dupree National Aquaculture Research Center,
Stuttgart, AR; Hides and Leather Research, Wyndmoor, PA; Honey
Bee Research, Baton Rouge, LA; Hops Research (WSU), Corvallis,
OR; Human Nutrition Center on Aging (Obesity), Boston, MA;
Human Nutrition Center on Aging (Equipment), Boston, MA;
Improved Forage Livestock Production (U of KY), Lexington, KY;
Integrated Farming, Ames, IA; Integrated Farming Systems,
Madison, WI; Invasive Aphid Research, Stillwater, OK; IPM for
Northern Climate Crops, Fairbanks, AK; Irrigated Cropping
Systems in the Mid-South, Stoneville, MS; Johne's Disease
Research, Beltsville, MD; Ames, IA; Jornada Experimental Range
Research Station, Las Cruces, NM; Karnal Bunt (Various
Cooperators), Manhattan, KS; Late Blight Fungus, Orono, ME;
Livestock and Range Research/Ft. Keogh, Miles City, MT;
Livestock Genome Mapping (U of IL), Clay Center, NE; Malignant
Catarrhal Fever [MCF] Virus, Pullman, WA; Manure Management
Research, Ames, IA; Medicinal Botanical Production and
Processing (Mountain State Univ), Beaver, WV; Michael Fields
Agricultural Institute, Ames, IA; Microbial Genomics (WSU/
Institute for Genomic Research), Kerrville, TX; Pullman, WA;
Mid-West/Mid-South Irrigation (MO Agriculture Expt Station),
Columbia, MO; Minor Use Pesticide (IR-4), Urbana, IL; Wooster,
OH; Prosser, WA; Charleston, SC; Tifton, GA; Beltsville, MD;
Wapato, WA; Weslaco, TX; Corvallis, OR; Salinas, CA; HQ;
National Center for Cool & Cold Water Aquaculture--(Freshwater
Institute) Aquaculture Systems, Leetown, WV; National Center
for Cool & Cold Water Aquaculture, Leetown, WV; National Cold
Water Marine Aquaculture, Orono, ME; National Corn to Ethanol
Research Pilot Plant (So. IL Univ), HQ; National Germplasm
Resources Program, Davis, CA; Riverside, CA; Ft. Collins, CO;
Miami, FL; Griffin, GA; Aberdeen, ID; Urbana, IL; Ames, IA;
Beltsville, MD; Geneva, NY; Corvallis, OR; College Station, TX,
Pullman, WS; Madison, WI; HW; National Nutrition Monitoring
System, Beltsville, MD; National Sclerotinia Initiative, Fargo,
ND; National Sedimentation Laboratory Acoustics (National
Center for Physical Acoustics), Oxford, MS; National
Sedimentation Laboratory Acoustics, Yazoo Basin, Oxford, MS;
National Sedimentation Laboratory Acoustics, Yazoo Basin/TMDLs,
Oxford, MS; National Soil Dynamics Laboratory (Auburn Univ, AL
A&M, Tuskegee), Auburn, AL; National Warmwater Aquaculture
Center, Stoneville, MS; Natural Products (U of MS), Oxford, MS;
Nematology Research, Tifton, GA; New England Plant, Soil and
Water Research Laboratory, Orono, ME; Northern Grain Insects
Laboratory, Brookings, SD; Northern Great Plains Ecosystem,
Sidney, MT; Northern Great Plains Research Laboratory (ND
State), Mandan, ND; Northern Plains Agricultural Research
Laboratory, Sidney, MT; Noxious Weeds in the Desert Southwest,
Las Cruces, NM; Nutrition Interventions, Beltsville, MD;
Nutritional Requirements, Houston, TX; NW Small Fruits (Eastern
Filbert Blight), Corvallis, OR; NW Small Fruits (Various), HQ;
Oat Virus (U of IL), West Lafayette, IN; Obesity Research,
Houston, TX; Ogallala Aquifer, Bushland, TX; Ornamental and
Horticulture Research (Pear Thrips, U of Vermont), Ithaca, NY;
Pasture Systems and Watershed Management, University Park, PA;
Peanut Research, Dawson, GA; Pecan Scab (NM State), Byron, GA;
Phytoestrogen Research (Tulane/U of Toledo), New Orleans, LA;
Pierce's Disease, Parlier, CA: Pineapple Nematode (U of HI),
Hilo, HI; Plant Genetic Diversity and Gene Discovery Center (UT
State), Logan, UT; Plum Pox (Clemson/Penn State), Ft. Detrick,
MD; Poisonous Plant Research (Locoweed) (NM State), Logan, UT;
Potato Breeding (WSU/U of Idaho/OSU), Aberdeen, ID; Potato
Disease (Penn State), Beltsville, MD; Potato Disease Management
(OSU), Beltsville, MD; Potato Research, (Various) HQ; Potato
Research Enhancement, Prosser, WA; Potato Storage, Madison, WI;
Poult Enterititis-Mortality Syndrome [PEMS], Athens, GA;
Poultry Disease, Athens, GA; Poultry Disease, Beltsville, MD;
Poultry Disease, East Lansing, MI; Precision Agriculture
Research, Mandan, ND; Pre-Harvest Control of Aflatoxin,
(Various) HQ; Rainbow Trout (U of ID), Aberdeen, ID; Rainbow
Trout (U of CT), Leetown, WV; Rangeland Resource Management,
Las Cruces, NM; Cheyenne, WY; Red Imported Fire Ants (U of MS/
Mississippi State/Alabama A&M), Stoneville, MS; Regional
Molecular Genotyping (Club Wheat) (OSU), Manhattan, KS; Fargo,
ND; Pullman, WA; Residue Management in Sugarcane, Houma, LA;
Resist. Management and Risk Assessment in BT Cotton and Other
Plant Inc, Stoneville, MS; Rice Research, Stuttgart, AR; Root
Diseases in Wheat and Barley, Pullman, WA; Salmonella,
Listeria, E. coli and Other Food Pathogens (Penn State),
Wyndmoor, PA; Seafood Waste (U of AK/U of IL), Fairbanks, AK;
Shellfish Genetics, Newport, OR; Small Fruits/Horticulture
Research (So. MS Branch Expt Station), Poplarville, MS; Soil
Erosion Laboratory, West Lafayette, IN; Soil Plant Nutrient
Research, Ft. Collins, CO; Soil Tilth Research, Ames, IA;
Sorghum Ergot (Texas A&M), College Station, TX; Sorghum
Research, Manhattan, KS; Little Rock, AR; South Central
Agricultural Research Laboratory, Lane, OK; Southeastern Fruit
and Tree Nut Research, Byron, GA; Soybean and Nitrogen
Fixation, Raleigh, NC; Soybean Cyst Nematode, Stoneville, MS;
Soybean Genetics, Columbia, MO; Soybean Research in the South,
Stoneville, MS; Sudden Oak Disease, Davis, CA; Ft. Detrick, MD;
Sugarbeet Research, Kimberly, ID; Sustainable Olive Production,
Weslaco, TX; Sweet Potato Research (Alcorn State), Stoneville,
MS; Swine Lagoon Alternatives Research, Florence, SC; Swine
Production Research (Meat-type Pigs) (Alcorn State) Clay
Center, NE; Temperate Fruit Flies, Wapato, WA; Transmissible
Spongiform Encephalopathies, Ames, IA; Tropical Aquaculture
Feeds (Oceanic Institute), Hilo, HI; Trout Genome Mapping (WV
Univ), Leetown, WV; Turfgrass Research, Beaver, WV; U.S.
Pacific Basin Agriculture Research Center (U of HI, Manoa/Hilo,
HARC), Hilo, HI; U.S. Vegetable Laboratory, Charleston, SC;
Vaccines and Microbe Control for Fish Health/Fish Diseases,
Auburn, AL; Vegetable Crops Research, Madison, WI; Virus-Free
Fruit Tree Cultivars (WSU), Wapato, WA; Virus-Free Potato
Germplasm (U of AK), Fairbanks, AK; Viticulture (U ID/WSU/OSU),
Corvallis, OR; HQ; Waste Management Research (Western KY Univ),
Bowling Green, KY; Water Use Management Technology, Tifton, GA;
Water Use Reduction (Albany State Univ), Dawson, GA; Watershed
Research, Columbia, MO; Weed Management (Rodale Institute/Penn
State), Beltsville, MD; Western Grazinglands, Reno, NV; Wheat
and Barley Scab Init., Manhattan, KS; Raleigh, NC; Fargo, ND;
HQ; Wheat Quality Research, Wooster, OH; Manhattan, KS; Fargo,
ND; Pullman, WA; Wild Rice (No. Central Agriculture Expt
Station), St. Paul, MN; Woody Genomics and Breeding for the
Southeast/Ornamental Crops (U of TN/TN State), Poplarville, MS.
Range and Forage Management.--The Committee provides an
increase of $300,000 in fiscal year 2006 for research on sage
grouse at the ARS Range and Meadow Forage Management Research
Laboratory at Burns, Oregon. Results from this research will
serve as a model for similar range and forage management
efforts in other parts of the United States, using science-
based management of sage grouse habitat.
Regional Grains Genotyping Research.--Grain producers in
the Southeast need superior genetic resources with enhanced
grain quality and pest resistance. The development of new
varieties of wheat, oats, corn, and other cereals requires that
breeders have access to new molecular technology. Cooperative
genotyping of core germplasm and breeders/advanced lines is
needed to deploy new molecular discoveries and genetic advances
into all U.S. breeding program for small grain improvement. The
Committee provides an increase of $250,000 for expanded
research at Raleigh, North Carolina.
Resistance Management and Risk Assessment in Bt Cotton and
Other Plant Incorporated Protectants.--Transgenic Bt cottons
have provided outstanding control of insecticide-resistant
tobacco budworms and suppressed other cotton caterpillar pests.
However, potential evolution of resistance in caterpillar pests
to the Bt proteins in transgenic cotton threatens the viability
of the Bt plant protectant technology. The Environmental
Protection Agency has imposed strategies for managing the
evolution of resistance to preserve the Bt technology, but it
is important to develop data to validate these strategies. The
Committee continues the fiscal year 2005 funding level to ARS
at Stoneville, MS, to coordinate a national program for
devising the most effective and economically sustainable
production systems for ensuring the long-term integrity of Bt
crop protection and resistance management.
Seafood Waste.--The Committee continues to support ARS/
University of Alaska collaborative research on feedstuff that
can be generated from materials usually wasted during
processing of seafood and provides an increase of $150,000
above the fiscal year 2005 funding level.
Seasonal Grazing Research.--The Committee provides an
increase of $400,000 in fiscal year 2006 to the ARS North
Appalachian Experimental Watershed Laboratory at Coshocton,
Ohio for research on seasonal grazing dairy project, in
conjunction with Ohio State University.
Shellfish Genetics.--ARS has established a shellfish
genetics research program that focuses on genetics, ecology and
food quality. The Committee recognizes the importance of this
multi-State research program and continues the fiscal year 2005
funding level for shellfish genetics research at the Oregon
State University Hatfield Marine Science Center in Newport, OR.
Small Fruits Research.--The Committee recognizes the
importance of the cooperation between the ARS Small Fruits
Research Unit and the Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry
Experiment Station at Poplarville, MS. This cooperation
catalyzed and now under grids the Gulf Coast blueberry and
other small fruit industries. This cooperation has expanded
into the development of vegetable, melon, and ornamental
industries and can revitalize small farms in the south. The
Committee continues the fiscal year 2005 funding level for the
cooperative research and development efforts on ornamentals,
vegetables, and melons at Poplarville, MS.
Soil, Plant, Nutrient Research.--The Committee understands
the important contributions made by the ARS Fort Collins Soil,
Plant, Nutrient Laboratory and continues the fiscal year 2005
funding level to support the cropping systems and nitrogen
management research program carried out at this laboratory.
Sorghum Research.--Sorghum is fourth on the list of
economically important grains, behind corn, soybeans, and
wheat. However, very little is known about the alternative uses
of this major U.S. cash crop with an estimated value of over
$2,100,000,000. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2005
funding level for research at the ARS Grain Sorghum Research
Laboratory, Manhattan, KS, and Little Rock, AR, on the
measurement of sorghum quality and the development of
alternative uses of this important crop.
Soybean Research in the South.--The Committee supports the
important research on soybeans in the South and provides an
increase of $400,000 over the fiscal year 2005 funding level
for the soybean research program located at the Delta States
Experiment Station in Stoneville, Mississippi with the USDA/ARS
focusing on soybean genetics and breeding, and Mississippi
Agriculture and Forestry Experiment Station devoting efforts to
production systems research.
Subterranean Termite.--The Committee continues the fiscal
year 2005 funding level for termite research in Hawaii to
devise and test control methods that are consistent with public
health and environmental safety in Hawaii and other warm
weather States.
Sugarcane Breeding and Harvesting.--The Committee provides
an increase of $250,000 above the fiscal year 2005 funding
levels for expanded research at the ARS Sugarcane Research
Laboratory at Houma, Louisiana on the development of improved
cultivars for the production of sugar and other value-added
products through conventional and molecular breeding and
harvesting techniques.
Sustainable Aquaculture Feeds Research.--The Committee
provides an increase of $250,000 above the fiscal year 2005
funding level to continue development of grain-based products
for use in fish feeds, human food, and industrial products from
novel cultivars of barley and oats in cooperation with the
University of Idaho Hagerman Fish Culture Experiment Station in
Hagerman, ID.
Sweet Potato Research.--Sweet potato is a high value,
nutritious, alternative crop for the Mid South. Improved
production practices, including timing of planting, agronomic
practices, and pest control, have the potential for doubling
the level of production per acre, further increasing the
profitability of this small farm crop. The Committee continues
the fiscal year 2005 funding level for ARS, Stoneville, MS, to
conduct research on sweet potato production in cooperation with
the Alcorn State University Demonstration Farm at Mound Bayou,
MS.
Swine Lagoon Alternatives Research.--The Committee is aware
of the research carried out at the ARS Florence, SC, laboratory
to treat the waste on small swine farms at a reasonable cost
while meeting stringent environmental regulations. The
Committee provides an increase of $250,000 above the fiscal
year 2005 funding level for this research.
Trout Genome Mapping.--The Committee recognizes the
important tools of molecular genetics and biotechnology, and
their application to solve problems facing the cool and cold
water aquaculture industry, which has had a flat growth profile
nationally, but is an emerging industry in the Appalachian
region. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2005 funding
level for research on cool and cold water species at the
National Center for Cool and Cold Water Aquaculture, in
collaboration with West Virginia University.
Turfgrass Research.--The Committee provides an increase of
$300,000 for turfgrass research at Beaver, WV.
Vaccines and Microbe Control for Fish Health.--The
development of safe and effective vaccines for prevention of
disease in catfish is essential to the growth of the catfish
industry. There are currently only a number of approved
therapeutic compounds available for farmers to heal diseases of
fish. Vaccinations, successful in other animals, appear to be
the best means of preventing diseases. The Committee adds
$200,000 above the fiscal year 2005 funding level at the ARS
Fish Disease and Parasitic Research Laboratory at Auburn, AL,
for increased research on the development of commercially
approved vaccines for catfish.
Virus Free Fruit Tree Cultivars.--The Committee recognizes
the need for rapid foreign and domestic exchange of varieties
to sustain economic vitality of the U.S. tree fruit and nursery
industries. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2005
funding level to implement new technologies for more rapid and
dependable methods of pathogen detection and to provide secure
production and maintenance of virus-free fruit tree cultivars.
The collaborative research is to be carried out at the Prosser,
WA research station with the Irrigated Agriculture Research and
Extension Center.
Viticulture Research.--The Committee continues the fiscal
year 2005 funding level for viticulture research at the
University of Idaho Parma Research and Extension Center, and
for cooperative research agreements with University of Idaho
researchers.
Waste Management Research.--The Committee provides an
increase of $300,000 above the fiscal year 2005 funding level
for the joint research project with Western Kentucky
University. The cooperative program is located and carried out
at Bowling Green, KY, and is directed toward management of
poultry waste as a fertilizer source for pasture, food crops,
as a nutrient source for cattle, and other agricultural
applications.
Watershed Research, Columbia, MO.--The Committee continues
the fiscal year 2005 funding level for laboratory analysis of
water samples collected during implementation of, and in
accordance with, the Missouri Watershed Research, Assessment,
and Stewardship Project.
Weed Management Program.--The Committee is aware of the
need for biologically-based weed management, using biocontrols
and revegetation to provide economical and environmentally
sound technologies to control weeds. The Committee continues
the fiscal year 2005 funding level to develop non-chemical
alternatives for weed control.
Wheat and Barley Scab Initiative.--The Committee recognizes
the importance of the research carried out through the ARS
National Wheat and Barley Scab Initiative. Fusarium head blight
is a major threat to agriculture, inflicting heavy losses to
yield and quality on farms in 18 States. The Committee
continues the fiscal year 2005 funding level for this research.
Winter Grain Legume.--Winter varieties of dry peas,
lentils, and chick peas are important to the rotational crops
of farmers in the Pacific Northwest and the Midwest. Winter
legumes also have yield potential exceeding spring-planted
varieties by as much as 30 percent and helps U.S. farmers
compete with Canadian farmers. The Committee provides an
increase of $300,000 above the fiscal year 2005 funding levels
for expanded research on the breeding of winter grain legume
varieties at the ARS Grain Legume Genetics Physiology Research
Laboratory at Pullman, Washington.
BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $186,335,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 64,800,000
House allowance......................................... 87,300,000
Committee recommendation................................ 160,645,000
The ARS ``Buildings and Facilities'' account was
established for the acquisition of land, construction, repair,
improvement, extension, alteration, and purchase of fixed
equipment or facilities of, or used by, the Agricultural
Research Service. Routine construction or replacement items
continue to be funded under the limitations contained in the
regular account.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For Agricultural Research Service, Buildings and
Facilities, the Committee recommends an appropriation of
$160,645,000. This is $25,690,000 less than the 2005
appropriation.
Due to budgetary constraints, the Committee is unable to
provide full funding to complete the construction of ongoing
projects. The Committee provides funds for the following
projects in fiscal year 2006:
National Centers for Animal Health, Ames, Iowa.--The
Committee recommends $58,800,000 for National Centers for
Animal Health, Ames, Iowa. This amount is the same as the level
identified for project completion in the budget request.
Jamie Whitten Delta States Research Center, Stoneville,
Mississippi.--The Committee provides $6,000,000 to fund full
construction of phase 2 of the center's modernization program.
Nutrient Management Laboratory, Marshfield, Wisconsin.--The
Committee provides $8,000,000 toward full completion of the new
facility.
U.S. Pacific Basin, Agricultural Research Center.--The
Committee provides $10,000,000 toward the completion of phases
two and three of the Center.
Animal Waste Management Research Laboratory, Bowling Green,
Kentucky.--The Committee provides an increase of $6,000,000
toward construction of this new facility.
Forage-Animal Production Research Facility, Lexington,
Kentucky.--The Committee provides an increase of $8,000,000
toward construction of this new facility.
Sugarcane Research Laboratory, Houma, Louisiana.--The
Committee provides $4,000,000 toward construction of this
replacement facility.
Natural Cold Water Marine Agricultural Research Center,
Orono, Maine.--The Committee provides $3,000,000 toward the
design and construction of this new facility.
Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, Beltsville,
Maryland.--The Committee provides $4,000,000 for continuing
modernization of this center. The Committee directs that these
funds be provided for the Center's Human Nutrition facility.
Poultry Science Research Facility, Starkville,
Mississippi.--The Committee provides $13,500,000 toward
construction of this replacement facility.
National Plant and Genetics Security Center, Columbia,
Missouri.--The Committee provides $7,500,000 toward
construction of this new facility.
Animal Bioscience Facility, Bozeman, Montana.--The
Committee provides $12,000,000 toward construction of this new
facility.
University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio.--The Committee provides
$2,000,000 toward construction of this facility.
U.S. Vegetable Laboratory, Charleston, South Carolina.--The
Committee provides $3,000,000 toward construction of phase 2 of
modernization of the replacement facility.
Appalachian Fruit Research Laboratory, Kearneysville, West
Virginia.--The Committee provides $2,045,000 toward full
completion of construction of phase 2 of the greenhouse
renovations.
National Center for Cool and Cold Water Aquaculture,
Leetown, WV.--The Committee provides $900,000 to complete a
broodstock unit at this location.
Center for Grape Genomics, Geneva, NY.--The Committee
provides $1,500,000 toward completion of this facility.
Center for Crop-Based Health Genomics, Ithaca, NY.--The
Committee provides $1,500,000 toward completion of this
facility.
Dairy Forage Laboratory, Prairie du Sac, WI.--The Committee
provides $1,900,000 for planning and design of needed
improvements at this location.
Alcorn State University Biotechnology Laboratory, Alcorn
State, Mississippi.--The Committee provides $2,000,000 toward
construction of this new facility.
Hagerman Fish Culture Experiment Station, Hagerman,
Idaho.--The Committee provides $1,000,000 for construction at
the Experiment Station.
ARS Research Laboratory, Pullman, Washington.--The
Committee provides $4,000,000 toward construction of the
research lab.
Feasibility Studies.--The Committee directs that the
following feasibility studies be conducted by the Agricultural
Research Service for submission to the Committee by March 1,
2006:
--Relocation of the ARS National Soil Dynamics Laboratory,
Auburn, Alabama.--The Committee directs the
Agricultural Research Service to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of relocating the National
Soil Dynamics Laboratory located on the campus of
Auburn University in Auburn, Alabama, into a new
facility located on the periphery of the University's
campus. Auburn University research partners would be
co-located in the facility to cement and analyze the
already highly productive cooperative research. This
study should include the feasibility requirements and
scope of the proposed project; details on building
size, cost, associated facilities; scientific capacity,
and other requirements; and details on existing and
planned program and resource requirements.
--Kansas Polymer Research Center.--The Committee directs the
Agricultural Research Service to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of constructing and equipping
a new center at Pittsburg State University to conduct
research on products, methods, and materials related to
bio-based polymers for high grade plastics. This study
should include the feasibility requirements and scope
of the proposed project; details on building size,
cost, associated facilities; scientific capacity, and
other requirements; and details on existing and planned
progress and resource requirements.
--West Virginia State University.--The Committee has been
made aware of the need for enhanced biotechnology
research to benefit the agricultural sector and rural
economy of Appalachia and the mid-Atlantic region. The
Committee directs the ARS to provide a feasibility
report for establishing a laboratory at West Virginia
State University. This study should include the
feasibility requirements and scope of the proposed
project; details on building size, cost, associated
facilities; scientific capacity, and other
requirements; and details on existing and planned
progress and resource requirements.
--Utah Valley State College.--The Committee directs the
Agricultural Research Service to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of constructing greenhouse
and herbarium facilities at Utah Valley State College.
This study should include the feasibility requirements
and scope of the proposed project; details on building
size, cost, associated facilities; scientific capacity,
and other requirements; and details on existing and
planned progress and resource requirements.
--University of Nebraska-Lincoln.--The Committee directs the
Agricultural Research Service to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of constructing a biology
systems research facility at the University of
Nebraska-Lincoln. This study should include the
feasibility requirements and scope of the proposed
project; details on building size, cost, associated
facilities; scientific capacity, and other
requirements; and details on existing and planned
progress and resource requirements.
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service was established by the Secretary of Agriculture on
October 1, 1994, under the authority of the Department of
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6912). The
Service was created by the merger of the Cooperative State
Research Service and the Extension Service. The mission is to
work with university partners and customers to advance
research, extension, and higher education in the food and
agricultural sciences and related environmental and human
sciences to benefit people, communities, and the Nation.
RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $655,495,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 545,500,000
House allowance......................................... 662,546,000
Committee recommendation................................ 652,231,000
The research and education programs administered by the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
[CSREES] are the U.S. Department of Agriculture's principal
entree to the university system of the United States to support
higher education in food and agricultural sciences and to
conduct agricultural research as authorized by the Hatch Act of
1887 (7 U.S.C. 361a-361i); the Cooperative Forestry Research
Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 582a-7); Public Law 89-106, section (2)
(7 U.S.C. 450i); the National Agricultural Research, Extension,
and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.); the
Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C.
301); the Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Reform
Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7601 et seq.); and the Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-171). Through
these authorities, the U.S. Department of Agriculture
participates with State and other cooperators to encourage and
assist the State institutions to conduct agricultural research
and education through the State agricultural experiment
stations of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the
territories; by approved schools of forestry; by the 1890 land-
grant institutions, Tuskegee University, and West Virginia
State University; by colleges of veterinary medicine; and by
other eligible institutions.
The research and education programs participate in a
nationwide system of agricultural research program planning and
coordination among the State institutions, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, and the agricultural industry of America.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For research and education activities of the Cooperative
State Research, Education, and Extension Service, the Committee
recommends $652,231,000. This amount is $3,264,000 less than
the fiscal year 2005 appropriation.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendations for research and education activities of the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service,
as compared to the fiscal year 2005 and budget request levels:
COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICES [CSREES]--RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Committee
2005 enacted 2006 budget recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Payments under Hatch Act..................................... 178,707 89,354 178,707
Cooperative forestry research (McIntire-Stennis)............. 22,205 11,103 22,205
Payments to 1890 colleges, Tuskegee University, and West 36,704 38,250 37,477
Virginia State University...................................
Special research grants (Public Law 89-106):
Advanced genetic technologies (KY)....................... 645 ............... 645
Advanced spatial technologies (MS)....................... 936 ............... 936
Aegilops cylindrica (WA, ID)............................. 355 ............... 355
Agricultural diversification (HI)........................ 112 ............... 221
Agricultural diversity--Red River trade corridor (MN, ND) 592 ............... 622
Agricultural science (OH)................................ 543 ............... 570
Agriculture water usage (GA)............................. 258 ............... ...............
Agroecology (MD)......................................... 387 ............... 406
Air quality (TX, KS)..................................... 1,066 ............... 1,119
Alliance for food protection (GA, NE).................... 313 ............... 329
Alternative nutrient management (VT)..................... 173 ............... 182
Alternative salmon products (AK)......................... 1,099 ............... 1,099
Alternative uses for tobacco (MD)........................ 332 ............... 332
Animal disease research (WY)............................. 333 ............... 350
Animal science food safety consortium (AR, IA, KS)....... 1,432 ............... 1,432
Apple fire blight (MI, NY)............................... 479 ............... 483
Aquaculture (AR)......................................... 205 ............... 205
Aquaculture (ID, WA)..................................... 764 ............... 764
Aquaculture (LA)......................................... 329 ............... 329
Aquaculture (MS)......................................... 517 ............... 517
Aquaculture (NC)......................................... 278 ............... 292
Aquaculture (VA)......................................... 188 ............... 188
Aquaculture product and marketing development (WV)....... 705 ............... 750
Armillaria root rot (MI)................................. 150 ............... 151
Asparagus technology and production (WA)................. 248 ............... 248
Avian bioscience (DE).................................... ............... ............... 100
Babcock Institute (WI)................................... 564 ............... 580
Barley for Rural Development (MT, ID).................... ............... ............... 735
Beef technology transfer (MO)............................ 259 ............... 259
Berry research (AK)...................................... 1,776 ............... 1,300
Biobased nanocomposite research (ND)..................... 177 ............... 177
Biomass-based energy research (OK, MS)................... 1,015 ............... 1,200
Biotechnology research (IL).............................. ............... ............... 100
Biotechnology (NC)....................................... 287 ............... 287
Biotechnology test production (IA)....................... 465 ............... 450
Bovine tuberculosis (MI)................................. 352 ............... 356
Brucellosis vaccine (MT)................................. 440 ............... 400
Center for Public Lands and Rural Economies (UT)......... 223 ............... 350
Center for Rural Studies (VT)............................ 348 ............... 365
Chesapeake Bay agroecology (MD).......................... 314 ............... 314
Childhood obesity and nutrition (VT)..................... 191 ............... 201
Citrus canker (FL)....................................... 470 ............... 494
Citrus tristeza (CA)..................................... 691 ............... 691
Competitiveness of agriculture products (WA)............. 647 ............... 679
Computational agriculture (NY)........................... 239 ............... ...............
Cool season legume research (ID, WA, ND)................. 564 ............... 564
Cotton fiber quality (GA)................................ 470 ............... ...............
Cotton insect management (GA)............................ ............... ............... 494
Cranberry/blueberry (MA)................................. 152 ............... 160
Cranberry/blueberry disease and breeding (NJ)............ 352 ............... 370
Crop diversification (MO)................................ 375 ............... 375
Crop integration and production (SD)..................... 295 ............... 300
Crop pathogens (NC)...................................... 251 ............... 264
Dairy and meat goat research (TX)........................ 99 ............... 99
Dairy farm profitability (PA)............................ 468 ............... 491
Delta rural revitalization (MS).......................... 244 ............... 250
Designing foods for health (TX).......................... 1,611 ............... 1,692
Diaprepes/root weevil (FL)............................... 446 ............... 446
Drought management (UT).................................. 780 ............... 1,000
Drought mitigation (NE).................................. 211 ............... 222
Efficient irrigation (NM, TX)............................ 1,488 ............... 1,562
Environmental biotechnology (RI)......................... 612 ............... 643
Environmental research (NY).............................. 373 ............... ...............
Environmental risk factors/cancer (NY)................... 217 ............... ...............
Environmentally-safe products (VT)....................... 740 ............... 750
Ethnobotany research (AK)................................ 282 ............... 250
Exotic pest diseases (CA)................................ 1,929 ............... 1,929
Expanded wheat pasture (OK).............................. 273 ............... 273
Farm injuries and illnesses (NC)......................... 297 ............... ...............
Feed barley for rangeland cattle (MT).................... 735 ............... ...............
Feed efficiency in cattle (FL)........................... 295 ............... ...............
Feedstock conversion (SD)................................ 668 ............... 675
Fish and shellfish technologies (VA)..................... 453 ............... 476
Floriculture (HI)........................................ 352 ............... 352
Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute (IA, MO).. 1,537 ............... 1,537
Food chain economic analysis (IA)........................ 416 ............... 416
Food Marketing Policy Center (CT)........................ 579 ............... 579
Food quality (AK)........................................ 341 ............... 275
Food safety (AL)......................................... 1,091 ............... 1,146
Food safety (OK, ME)..................................... 552 ............... 552
Food safety (TX)......................................... 188 ............... 188
Food safety research consortium (NY)..................... 893 ............... ...............
Food safety risk assessment (ND)......................... 1,366 ............... 1,500
Food security (WA)....................................... 398 ............... 398
Food Systems Research Group (WI)......................... 517 ............... 525
Forages for advancing livestock production (KY).......... 390 ............... 390
Forestry (AR)............................................ 461 ............... 461
Fruit and berry crop trials for rural villages (AK)...... ............... ............... 500
Fruit and vegetable market analysis (AZ, MO)............. 323 ............... ...............
Functional genomics (UT)................................. 1,472 ............... 1,500
Future foods (IL)........................................ 545 ............... 666
Generic commodity promotions, research, and evaluation 191 ............... ...............
(NY)....................................................
Genetically enhanced plants for micro-nutrients and bio- ............... ............... 740
renewable oils (MO).....................................
Genomics (MS)............................................ 883 ............... 1,140
Geographic information system............................ 1,702 ............... 1,702
Global change/ultraviolet radiation...................... 1,984 2,500 1,984
Grain sorghum (KS)....................................... 136 ............... 143
Grapefruit juice/drug interaction (FL)................... 344 ............... ...............
Grass seed cropping systems for sustainable agriculture 450 ............... 450
(ID, OR, WA)............................................
Grazing research (WI).................................... 260 ............... 260
Greenhouse crop production (AK).......................... 446 ............... 300
Hardwood scanning (IN)................................... ............... ............... 300
Horn fly research (AL)................................... 166 ............... 166
Human nutrition (IA)..................................... 650 ............... 650
Human nutrition (LA)..................................... 706 ............... 706
Human nutrition (NY)..................................... 580 ............... ...............
Hydroponic tomato production (OH)........................ 179 ............... ...............
Illinois-Missouri Alliance for Biotechnology............. 1,170 ............... 1,170
Improved dairy management practices (PA)................. 352 ............... 270
Improved fruit practices (MI)............................ 210 ............... 212
Increasing shelf life of agricultural commodities (ID)... 822 ............... 863
Infectious disease research (CO)......................... 778 ............... 817
Institute for Biobased Products and Food Science (MT).... 563 ............... 563
Institute for Food Science and Engineering (AR).......... 1,110 ............... 1,119
Integrated production systems (OK)....................... 205 ............... 205
International arid lands consortium...................... 579 ............... 579
Iowa biotechnology consortium............................ 1,775 ............... 1,775
Leopold Center hypoxia project (IA)...................... 222 ............... 222
Livestock and dairy policy (NY, TX)...................... 893 ............... 893
Livestock genome sequencing (IL)......................... 815 ............... ...............
Livestock waste (IA)..................................... 266 ............... 266
Lowbush blueberry research (ME).......................... 234 ............... 246
Maple research (VT)...................................... 132 ............... 139
Meadowfoam (OR).......................................... 260 ............... 260
Michigan biotechnology consortium........................ 555 ............... ...............
Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance (NE)........ 524 ............... 500
Midwest agricultural products (IA)....................... 612 ............... 500
Midwest poultry consortium (IA).......................... 682 ............... 682
Milk safety (PA)......................................... 703 ............... 788
Minor use animal drugs................................... 583 588 583
Molluscan shellfish (OR)................................. 348 ............... 365
Montana Sheep Institute (MT)............................. 569 ............... 597
Multi-commodity research (OR)............................ 353 ............... 353
Multi-cropping strategies for aquaculture (HI)........... 109 ............... ...............
National beef cattle genetic evaluation consortium (NY, 780 ............... 780
CO, GA).................................................
National biological impact assessment.................... 251 253 264
National Center for Soybean Technology (MO).............. 940 ............... 987
Nematode resistance genetic engineering (NM)............. 139 ............... 139
Nevada arid rangelands initiative........................ 480 ............... 504
New crop opportunities (AK).............................. 443 ............... 443
New crop opportunities (KY).............................. 724 ............... 760
Nursery, greenhouse, and turf specialties (AL)........... 273 ............... ...............
Oil resources from desert plants (NM).................... 211 ............... 211
Organic cropping (WA).................................... 359 ............... 359
Organic waste utilization (NM)........................... 93 ............... 93
Oyster post harvest treatment (FL)....................... 446 ............... ...............
Ozone air quality (CA)................................... 401 ............... 401
Pasture and forage research (UT)......................... 223 ............... 225
Peach tree short life (SC)............................... 265 ............... 278
Perennial wheat (WA)..................................... 141 ............... 141
Pest control alternatives (SC)........................... 269 ............... 282
Phytophthora research (GA)............................... ............... ............... 258
Phytophthora research (MI)............................... ............... ............... 500
Phytophthora root rot (NM)............................... 182 ............... 182
Pierce's disease (CA).................................... 2,071 ............... 2,175
Plant, drought, and disease resistance gene cataloging 233 ............... 233
(NM)....................................................
Potato research.......................................... 1,497 ............... 1,497
Precision agriculture (KY)............................... 675 ............... 675
Preharvest food safety (KS).............................. 192 ............... 202
Preservation and processing research (OK)................ 198 ............... 198
Protein utilization (IA)................................. 805 ............... 845
Rangeland ecosystems (NM)................................ 282 ............... 282
Regional barley gene mapping project..................... 682 ............... 682
Regionalized implications of farm programs (MO, TX)...... 760 ............... 760
Rice agronomy (MO)....................................... 212 ............... 223
Ruminant nutrition consortium (MT, ND, SD, WY)........... 470 ............... 494
Rural development centers (ND, LA)....................... 230 ............... 230
Rural obesity (NY)....................................... 187 ............... ...............
Rural Policies Research Institute (NE, IA, MO)........... 1,205 ............... 1,205
Russian wheat aphid (CO)................................. 291 ............... 306
Seafood and aquaculture harvesting, processing, and 267 ............... 269
marketing (MS)..........................................
Seafood harvesting, processing, and marketing (AK)....... 1,058 ............... ...............
Seafood safety (MA)...................................... 436 ............... 458
Seed research (AK)....................................... 355 ............... ...............
Seed technology (SD)..................................... 354 ............... 360
Small fruit research (OR, WA, ID)........................ 422 ............... 443
Soil and environmental quality (DE)...................... 281 ............... 295
Southwest consortium for plant genetics and water re- 373 ............... 392
sources.................................................
Soybean cyst nematode (MO)............................... 702 ............... 737
Soybean research (IL).................................... 955 ............... 1,076
STEEP III--water quality in Pacific Northwest............ 640 ............... 640
Sudden oak death (CA).................................... 93 ............... 98
Sustainable agriculture (CA)............................. 515 ............... ...............
Sustainable agriculture (MI)............................. 384 ............... 384
Sustainable agriculture and natural resources (PA)....... 190 ............... 140
Sustainable beef supply (MT)............................. 937 ............... 984
Sustainable engineered materials from renewable resources 603 ............... 633
(VA)....................................................
Swine and other animal waste management (NC)............. 466 ............... 489
Tick borne disease prevention (RI)....................... 143 ............... 150
Tillage, silviculture, and waste management (LA)......... 425 ............... 425
Tri-State joint peanut research (AL)..................... 563 ............... 591
Tropical and subtropical research/T STAR................. 9,398 ............... 4,699
Tropical aquaculture (FL)................................ 211 ............... 211
Uniform farm management program (MN)..................... 281 ............... 298
Value-added product development from agricultural 405 ............... 405
resources (MT)..........................................
Virtual plant database enhancement project (MO).......... 705 ............... ...............
Viticulture consortium (NY, CA, PA)...................... 1,835 ............... 1,835
Water conservation (KS).................................. 74 ............... 74
Water use efficiency and water quality enhancement (GA).. 470 ............... 494
Weed control (ND)........................................ 384 ............... 384
West Nile virus (IL)..................................... 496 ............... ...............
Wetland plants (LA)...................................... 563 ............... 563
Wheat genetic research (KS).............................. 244 ............... 256
Wheat sawfly research (MT)............................... 521 ............... 521
Wine grape foundation block (WA)......................... 322 ............... 289
Wood utilization (AK, OR, MS, MN, NC, ME, MI, ID, TN, WV) 6,235 ............... 6,235
Wool research (TX, MT, WY)............................... 298 ............... 298
--------------------------------------------------
Total, special research grants......................... 120,313 3,341 110,281
==================================================
Improved pest control:
Expert IPM decision support system....................... 157 177 157
Integrated pest management............................... 2,420 2,725 2,420
IR-4 minor crop pest management.......................... 11,145 10,485 11,145
Pest management alternatives............................. 1,436 1,619 1,436
--------------------------------------------------
Total, Improved pest control........................... 15,158 15,006 15,158
==================================================
1994 institutions research program........................... 1,078 998 1,078
Alaska Native-serving and Native Hawaiian-serving 3,472 2,997 3,472
institutions education grants...............................
Alternative crops............................................ 1,187 ............... 833
Animal health and disease (sec. 1433)........................ 5,057 ............... 5,057
Aquaculture centers (sec. 1475).............................. 3,968 3,996 3,968
Capacity building grants (1890 institutions)................. 12,312 12,500 12,312
Critical Agricultural Materials Act.......................... 1,102 ............... 1,102
Graduate fellowships grants.................................. 2,976 4,500 2,976
Higher education agrosecurity program........................ ............... 5,000 750
Hispanic education partnership grants........................ 5,600 5,645 5,600
Institution challenge grants................................. 5,456 5,500 5,456
Joe Skeen Institute for Rangeland Management (NM, TX, MT).... 992 ............... 992
Multicultural scholars program............................... 990 998 990
National Research Initiative................................. 179,552 250,000 190,000
Payments to the 1994 institutions............................ 2,232 2,250 2,232
Regional State and Local Grants.............................. ............... 75,000 ...............
Resident Instruction Grants-Insular areas.................... 496 ............... ...............
Secondary agriculture education.............................. 992 1,000 992
Sustainable agriculture research and education............... 12,400 9,230 12,400
Federal administration:
Agriculture based industrial lubricants (IA)............. 523 ............... 549
Agriculture development in the American Pacific.......... 486 ............... 486
Agriculture waste utilization (WV)....................... 649 ............... 690
Agriculture water policy (GA)............................ 891 ............... 891
Alternative fuels characterization laboratory (ND)....... 282 ............... 282
Animal waste management (OK)............................. 296 ............... 296
Aquaculture (OH)......................................... 846 ............... 800
Aquaculture (PA)......................................... 220 ............... 220
Biotechnology research (MS).............................. 662 ............... 687
Botanical research (UT).................................. 889 ............... 1,000
Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (IA)....... 595 ............... 595
Center for Food Industry Excellence (TX)................. 867 ............... 910
Center for Innovative Food Technology (OH)............... 1,145 ............... ...............
Center for North American Studies (TX)................... 992 ............... 992
Climate forecasting (FL)................................. 3,602 ............... 3,602
Cotton research (TX)..................................... 2,480 ............... 2,480
Council for Agriculture Science and Technology........... 149 ............... 149
Data information system (REEIS).......................... 2,424 2,750 2,424
Dietary intervention (OH)................................ 1,139 ............... ...............
Electronic grants administration system.................. 1,928 2,173 1,928
Feed efficiency (WV)..................................... 151 ............... 160
Global environmental management (WI)..................... 992 ............... ...............
Greenhouse nurseries (OH)................................ 726 ............... ...............
High value horticultural crops (VA)...................... 567 ............... 595
Hispanic leadership in agriculture (TX).................. 546 ............... 533
Income enhancement demonstration project (OH)............ 725 ............... ...............
Information technology (GA).............................. 369 ............... 369
Livestock marketing information center (CO).............. 174 ............... 174
Mariculture (NC)......................................... 317 ............... 317
Mississippi Valley State University, curriculum 926 ............... 1,433
development.............................................
Monitoring agricultural sewage sludge application (OH)... 1,277 ............... 1,277
Office of Extramural Programs............................ 398 448 398
Pasteurization of shell eggs (MI)........................ 1,237 ............... ...............
Pay costs................................................ 2,644 3,112 3,112
Peer panels.............................................. 310 349 310
Phytoremediation plant research (OH)..................... 779 ............... 779
PM-10 air quality study (WA)............................. 387 ............... 387
Precision agriculture, Tennessee Valley Research Center 599 ............... 250
(AL)....................................................
Produce pricing (AZ)..................................... 75 ............... ...............
Rural systems (MS)....................................... 308 ............... 308
Salmon quality standards (AK)............................ 166 ............... 166
Shrimp aquaculture (AZ, HI, MA, MS, SC, TX).............. 3,941 ............... 3,941
Sustainable agricultural freshwater conservation (TX).... 1,805 ............... ...............
University of Hawaii..................................... ............... ............... 3,000
Urban silviculture (NY).................................. 268 ............... ...............
Vitis gene discovery..................................... 603 ............... 603
Water pollutants (WV).................................... 564 ............... 600
Water quality (ND)....................................... 439 ............... 500
Wetland plants (WV)...................................... 188 ............... ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal administration.......................... 42,546 8,832 38,193
==================================================
Total, CSREES R&E...................................... 655,495 545,500 652,231
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hatch Act.--The Committee acknowledges the beneficial
impact Hatch Act funding has on land-grant universities. Hatch
Act provides the base funds necessary for higher education and
research involving agriculture. The Committee recommends a
funding level of $178,707,000 for payments made under the Hatch
Act.
Special Research Grants Under Public Law 89-106.--The
Committee recommends a total of $110,281,000. Specifics of
individual grant allowances are included in the table above.
Special items are discussed below.
The Committee is aware of the need for special research
grants in order to conduct research to facilitate or expand
promising breakthroughs in areas of food and agricultural
sciences that are awarded on a discretionary basis. In addition
to these grants, the Committee believes research should be
supplemented by additional funding that is obtained on a
competitive basis.
The Committee expects these grants to be used to meet
specific research objectives rather than primarily to
supplement other funding sources on an indefinite basis. The
Committee expects that prior to the receipt of an award under
this heading, the grantee must provide a report to the
Committee that describes the specific research objectives for
which these funds will be used, methodologies to measure
performance and determine when the research objectives will be
met, and the expected date of completion. The Committee notes
that this grant program is designed to meet specific research
objectives and to address specific issues that require
immediate attention. If the purpose of the grant is more long-
term in nature, the Committee expects the grantee to pursue
funds through other authorities.
Agricultural Diversification.--The Committee provides
$221,000 for agricultural diversification research in Hawaii
and directs that these funds be used to meet the research need
for the expanding tropical fruit industry in that State.
Alliance for Food Protection.--The Committee provides
$329,000 for the Alliance for Food Protection. Of this amount,
$172,000 is to continue integrated fruit and vegetable research
at the University of Georgia.
Alternative Milk Policies.--The Committee directs that of
the funds made available to the Food and Agriculture Policy
Research Institute, the amount available in fiscal year 2005
shall be provided for collaborative work between the University
of Missouri and the University of Wisconsin/Madison, for an
analysis of dairy policy changes, including trade related
matters, and assist Congress in making policy decisions.
Alternative Salmon Products.--The Committee provides
$1,099,000 for alternative salmon products research. Of this
amount, $450,000 shall be used to continue research into and
development of baby food containing salmon.
Aquaculture Centers.--The Committee recommends $3,968,000,
the same as the fiscal year 2005 level. The Committee is aware
and supports efforts of the Department to move the Northeastern
Regional Aquaculture Center from the University of
Massachusetts at Dartmouth to the University of Maryland.
The Committee is aware of and supports aquaculture research
efforts at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Great Lakes
Wisconsin Aquatic Technology and Environmental Research
Institute that is carried out in collaboration with the North
Central Regional Aquaculture Center.
Berry Research.--The Committee provides $1,300,000 for
berry research. Of this amount, $1,000,000 shall be used for
neutraceutical research at the University of Fairbanks.
Red River Valley Research Corridor Office.--Within the
amount provided for Agricultural Diversity, the Committee
continues the level provided in fiscal year 2005 for activities
of the Red River Valley Research Corridor Office.
Technology Transfer.--The Committee directs CSREES to
continue to support at the fiscal year 2005 level the cotton
technology transfer coordinator at Stoneville, MS.
Aquaculture (MS).--Of the $517,000 provided for this grant,
the Committee recommends the fiscal year 2005 level for
continued studies of the use of acoustics in aquaculture
research to be conducted by the National Center for Physical
Acoustics in cooperation with the Mississippi Agricultural and
Forestry Experiment Station and the Delta Research and
Extension Center in Stoneville.
Midwest Agricultural Products [MATRIC].--The Committee
directs the Department to allocate the designated funds for
MATRIC equally between Iowa State University and the Greater
Des Moines Partnership.
Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute.--The
Committee provides $1,537,000 for the Food and Agriculture
Policy Research Institute. Of this amount, the Committee
continues the fiscal year 2005 level to fund the Center for
Agricultural and Trade Policies for the Northern Plains Region
at North Dakota State University.
Milk Safety.--The Committee provides $788,000 for milk
safety research. Of this amount $100,000 shall be used for a
cooperative agreement with the Pennsylvania Department of
Agriculture's Center for Dairy Excellence.
Potato Research.--The Committee expects the Department to
ensure that funds provided to CSREES for potato research are
utilized for varietal development testing. Further, these funds
are to be awarded competitively after review by the potato
industry working group.
Tropical and Subtropical Research.--The Committee provides
$4,699,000 for Tropical and Subtropical research and directs
that these activities be carried out in the State of Hawaii.
Wood Utilization Research.--The Committee recommends
$6,235,000 for wood utilization research and directs that all
member institutions receive no less than the amount provided in
fiscal year 2005. The Committee directs that funding continue
at the fiscal year 2005 level for forest inventory work
conducted by the Mississippi Forest and Wildlife Research
Center.
Competitive Research Grants.--The Committee supports the
National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program [NRI]
and provides funding of $190,000,000 for the program, an
increase of $10,448,000 from the fiscal year 2005 level. The
Committee includes a general provision to make 20 percent of
these funds available for a program under the same terms and
conditions as those provided in Section 401 of the Agricultural
Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998.
The Committee remains determined to see that quality
research and enhanced human resources development in the
agricultural and related sciences be a nationwide commitment.
Therefore, the Committee continues its direction that not less
than 10 percent of the competitive research grant funds be used
for USDA's agricultural research enhancement awards program
(including USDA-EPSCoR), in accordance with 7 U.S.C. 450i.
Forestry and Related Natural Resource Research.--The
Committee recognizes that forestry and related natural resource
research were an integral part of NRI at its inception. As NRI
funding has grown, however, the allocation of NRI funds by
CSREES for research on forestry and related natural resource
topics has fallen behind. In the future, the Committee directs
the NRI program administrator to put a greater emphasis on NRI
funding for forestry and natural resources topics with a goal
of eventually providing at least 10 percent of the total funds
provided for NRI for forestry and natural resources related
research on topics including: woody plant systems, including
large scale efforts to sequence the genome for several
economically important tree species, technologies for enhanced
pest and disease resistance, and increased tree growth rates;
management of complex forest ecosystems, including issues of
forest health, productivity, economic sustainability, and
restoration; assessing alternative management strategies, with
emphasis on risk analysis, geospatial analysis including
landscape implications, consideration of ecological services,
providing decision support systems; and development of
nanotechnology and biorefining technologies for the forest
products sector as critical to enhancing global competitiveness
and energy security.
Classical Research.--The Committee notes the substantial
increase in public and private sector research related to
genomics, genetics, and other breakthrough biotechnology
developments. However, this shift in emphasis has resulted in a
decline in classical research in the animal and plant sciences.
The Committee encourages the Department, especially in the
establishment of priorities within the National Research
Initiative, to give consideration to research needs related to
classical plant and animal breeding.
The Committee expects the Department to expand the funding
available within the NRI for the application of genomic
technology in legume crops and strongly urges the Department to
collaborate in funding the translation of information from the
model species to the legume crops and between legume species.
Enhancing the Prosperity of Small Farms and Rural
Agricultural Communities.--The Committee is pleased to see that
the Department issued a Request For Proposals in the areas of
small and mid-sized farm profitability and rural economic
development pursuant to Section 401 of the Agricultural
Research, Extension and Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C.
7621). The Committee encourages the Department to request
proposals specific to critical emerging issues related to farm
income, rural economic and business and community development
and farm efficiency and profitability, including the viability
and competitiveness of small and medium-sized dairy, livestock,
crop and other commodity operations.
The Committee notes that the RFP under this authority for
fiscal year 2005 did not include medium-sized farms. The
Committee expects proposals offered for research activities in
fiscal year 2006 to include research related to this class of
operations.
Alternative Crops.--The Committee recommends $833,000 for
alternative crop research to continue and strengthen research
efforts on canola, $47,000 more than the fiscal year 2005
level.
Sustainable Agriculture.--The Committee recommends
$12,400,000 for sustainable agriculture, the same as the fiscal
year 2005 level.
Higher Education.--The Committee recommends $34,780,000 for
higher education. The Committee provides $2,976,000 for
graduate fellowships; $5,456,000 for challenge grants; $990,000
for multicultural scholarships; and $5,600,000 for Hispanic
education partnership grants.
Higher Education Agrosecurity.--The Committee recommends
$750,000 for Agrosecurity Education and expects these funds to
be used for implementation of the National Veterinary Medical
Services Act.
Alaska Native-Serving and Native Hawaiian-Serving
Institutions Education Grants.--The Committee provides
$3,472,000 for noncompetitive grants to individual eligible
institutions or consortia of eligible institutions in Alaska
and in Hawaii, with grant funds to be awarded equally between
Alaska and Hawaii to carry out the programs authorized in 7
U.S.C. 3242 (Section 759 of Public Law 106-78). The Committee
directs the agency to fully comply with the use of grant funds
as authorized.
Federal Administration.--The Committee provides $38,193,000
for Federal administration. The Committee's specific
recommendations are reflected in the table above.
University of Hawaii.--The Committee recommends $3,000,000
for the College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources at
the University of Hawaii for replacement of research and
educational materials lost and recovery of interrupted research
resulting from the October 30, 2004 floods.
NATIVE AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS ENDOWMENT FUND
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $12,000,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 12,000,000
House allowance......................................... 12,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 12,000,000
The Native American Institutions Endowment Fund authorized
by Public Law 103-382 provides an endowment for the 1994 land-
grant institutions (33 tribally controlled colleges). This
program will enhance educational opportunity for Native
Americans by building educational capacity at these
institutions in the areas of student recruitment and retention,
curricula development, faculty preparation, instruction
delivery systems, and scientific instrumentation for teaching.
Income funds are also available for facility renovation,
repair, construction, and maintenance. On the termination of
each fiscal year, the Secretary shall withdraw the income from
the endowment fund for the fiscal year, and after making
adjustments for the cost of administering the endowment fund,
distribute the adjusted income as follows: 60 percent of the
adjusted income from these funds shall be distributed among the
1994 land-grant institutions on a pro rata basis, the
proportionate share being based on the Indian student count;
and 40 percent of the adjusted income shall be distributed in
equal shares to the 1994 land-grant institutions.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund, the
Committee recommends $12,000,000. This amount is the same as
the fiscal year 2005 appropriation.
EXTENSION ACTIVITIES
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $445,631,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 431,743,000
House allowance......................................... 444,871,000
Committee recommendation................................ 453,438,000
Cooperative extension work was established by the Smith-
Lever Act of May 8, 1914. The Department of Agriculture is
authorized to provide, through the land-grant colleges,
cooperative extension work that consists of the development of
practical applications of research knowledge and the giving of
instruction and practical demonstrations of existing or
improved practices or technologies in agriculture, uses of
solar energy with respect to agriculture, home economics,
related subjects, and to encourage the application of such
information by demonstrations, publications, through 4-H clubs,
and other means to persons not in attendance or resident at the
colleges.
To fulfill the requirements of the Smith-Lever Act, State
and county extension offices in each State, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American
Samoa, the Northern Marianas, and Micronesia conduct
educational programs to improve American agriculture and
strengthen the Nation's families and communities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For extension activities of the Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service, the Committee recommends an
appropriation of $453,438,000. This amount is $7,807,000 more
than the fiscal year 2005 appropriation.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendations for extension activities, as compared to the
fiscal year 2005 and budget request levels:
COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE [CSREES]--EXTENSION ACTIVITIES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Committee
2005 enacted 2006 budget recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smith-Lever sections 3(b) and 3(c)........................... 275,520 275,940 275,520
Smith-Lever section 3(d):
Farm safety.............................................. 4,563 ............... 4,563
Food and nutrition education (EFNEP)..................... 58,438 62,909 62,909
Indian reservation agents................................ 1,760 1,996 1,760
New technologies for extension........................... ............... 3,000 2,000
Pest management.......................................... 9,920 10,759 9,920
Sustainable agriculture.................................. 4,067 3,792 4,067
Youth at risk............................................ 7,478 8,481 7,478
Youth farm safety education and certification............ 440 499 440
1890 colleges, Tuskegee University, and West Virginia State 32,868 34,417 33,643
University..................................................
1890 facilities grants....................................... 16,777 14,912 16,777
Extension services at the 1994 institutions.................. 3,247 3,273 3,247
Grants to youth organizations................................ 2,646 ............... 2,646
Renewable Resources Extension Act (RREA)..................... 4,060 4,093 4,060
Rural health and safety education............................ 1,965 ............... 1,965
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................... 423,749 424,071 430,995
==================================================
Federal administration:
Ag in the classroom...................................... 730 750 865
Agricultural and entrepreneurship education (WI)......... 239 ............... 250
Alabama beef connection.................................. 390 ............... 850
Beef producers improvement (AR).......................... 180 ............... 180
Conservation technology transfer (WI).................... 463 ............... 486
Dairy education (IA)..................................... 229 ............... 229
Dairy industry revitalization (WI)....................... 298 ............... 298
Diabetes detection and prevention (WA)................... 1,084 ............... 1,084
E-commerce (MS).......................................... 331 ............... 331
Efficient irrigation (NM, TX)............................ 2,162 ............... 2,162
Entrepreneurial alternatives (PA)........................ 333 ............... 333
Extension specialist (MS)................................ 132 ............... 132
Food Animal Residue Avoidance Databank................... 806 ............... 806
Food preparation and marketing (AK)...................... 331 ............... 331
Food product development (AK)............................ 472 ............... 350
General administration................................... 5,795 6,922 6,922
Health education leadership (KY)......................... 843 ............... 843
Iowa vitality center..................................... 248 ............... 248
National Center for Agriculture Safety (IA).............. 241 ............... 241
National Wild Turkey Federation.......................... 223 ............... 234
Nursery production (RI).................................. 295 ............... ...............
Nutrition enhancement (WI)............................... 965 ............... 1,100
Ohio-Israel agriculture initiative....................... 565 ............... 593
Oquirrh Institute........................................ 282 ............... 300
Pilot technology transfer (OK, MS)....................... 298 ............... 298
Pilot technology transfer (WI)........................... 231 ............... ...............
Potato pest management (WI).............................. 376 ............... 380
Range improvement (NM)................................... 232 ............... 244
Resilient communities (NY)............................... 130 ............... ...............
Rural business enhancement (WI).......................... 188 ............... 190
Rural development (AK)................................... 683 ............... 683
Rural development (NM)................................... 348 ............... 348
Rural technologies (HI, WI).............................. 310 ............... 315
Urban horticulture (WI).................................. 810 ............... 817
Urban market development (NY)............................ 273 ............... ...............
Web-based agriculture classes (MO)....................... 178 ............... ...............
Wood biomass as an alternative farm product (NY)......... 188 ............... ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal administration.......................... 21,882 7,672 22,443
==================================================
Total, CSREES Extension Activities..................... 445,631 431,743 453,438
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ag in the Classroom.--The Committee recommends $865,000 for
Ag in the Classroom and expects that no less than $250,000 be
used to expand efforts in Illinois to promote consumption of
healthy foods and proper school nutrition.
Conservation Technology Transfer.--Of the funds provided
for Conservation Technology Transfer, the Committee provides no
less than the fiscal year 2005 level for a nutrient management
and conservation education program to meet the needs of the
Wisconsin comprehensive nutrient management program in
cooperation with Professional Dairy Producers of Wisconsin,
Dairy Business Association, and others. In addition, the
Committee provides the fiscal year 2005 funding level for the
Dairy Discovery Farm Program.
Farm Safety.--Of the funds recommended for farm safety, the
Committee recommends a funding level of $4,563,000 for the
AgrAbility project being carried out in cooperation with the
National Easter Seal Society.
Nutrition Enhancement.--Of the funds provided for nutrition
enhancement, the Committee provides $100,000 for the Research
Institute for Family Health and Wellness at Marywood University
in Scranton, Pennsylvania.
Potato Pest Management.--Of the funds provided for Potato
Pest Management, the Committee provides the fiscal year 2005
funding level for the ongoing effort between the University of
Wisconsin, World Wildlife Fund, and Wisconsin Potato and
Vegetable Growers Association. The Committee also directs the
fiscal year 2005 funding level for an ongoing project with the
University of Wisconsin for pesticide use reduction efforts for
other commodities.
Rural Business Enhancement.--The Committee provides the
fiscal year 2005 funding level to the University of Wisconsin
at Platteville for collaborative work with the University of
Wisconsin Extension.
Rural Development.--The Committee provides $683,000 for
rural development in Alaska. Of this amount $200,000 shall be
used to educate rural villages on gardening techniques and how
to maximize food production using the soil in villages.
Urban Horticulture.--The Committee provides the fiscal year
2005 funding level for Urban Horticulture. In addition to funds
directed for University of Wisconsin Extension activities, the
Committee provides the fiscal year 2005 funding level for
Growing Power of Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $54,712,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 35,013,000
House allowance......................................... 15,513,000
Committee recommendation................................ 55,784,000
Section 406 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Reform Act of 1998 authorizes an integrated research,
education, and extension competitive grants program. Water
Quality, Food Safety, and Regional Pest Management Centers
programs previously funded under Research and Education and/or
Extension Activities are included under this account, as well
as new programs that support integrated or multifunctional
projects.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For integrated activities of the Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service, the Committee
recommends $55,784,000. This amount is $1,072,000 more than the
fiscal year 2005 appropriation.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendations for integrated activities:
COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE [CSREES]--INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Committee
2005 enacted 2006 budget recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical issues................................................. 744 2,500 744
Crops at risk from FQPA implementation.......................... 1,389 .............. 1,389
Food safety..................................................... 14,847 .............. 14,847
FQPA risk mitigation program for major food crop systems........ 4,464 .............. 4,464
Homeland security............................................... 8,928 30,000 10,000
International science and education grants...................... 992 1,000 992
Methyl bromide transition....................................... 3,106 .............. 3,106
Organic transition.............................................. 1,874 .............. 1,874
Regional pest management centers................................ 4,167 .............. 4,167
Regional rural development centers.............................. 1,334 1,513 1,334
Water quality................................................... 12,867 .............. 12,867
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 54,712 35,013 55,784
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OUTREACH FOR SOCIALLY DISADVANTAGED FARMERS
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $5,888,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 5,935,000
House allowance......................................... 7,810,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,888,000
This program is authorized under section 2501 of title XXV
of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990
(7 U.S.C. 2279). Grants are made to eligible community-based
organizations with demonstrated experience in providing
education on other agriculturally-related services to socially
disadvantaged farmers and ranchers in their area of influence.
Also eligible are the 1890 land-grant colleges, Tuskegee
University, West Virginia State University, Indian tribal
community colleges, and Hispanic-serving postsecondary
education facilities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For outreach for socially disadvantaged farmers, the
Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,888,000. This
amount is the same as the fiscal year 2005 appropriation.
The Committee requests the Department provide a report
related to the performance of activities funded through the
2501 program that would outline the correlation between these
funds and benefits to minority farmers. Benefits measured
should include, but not be limited to: increased participation
in USDA programs; changes in household income; local and
regional impacts; coordination with USDA research and other
activities; and reductions in delinquencies and/or foreclosure
rates within the Farm Service Agency. The Committee requests
that the Department provide this report to the Committees on
Appropriations no later than 90 days after enactment of this
Act.
Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $715,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 724,000
House allowance......................................... 724,000
Committee recommendation................................ 724,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and
Regulatory Programs provides direction and coordination in
carrying out laws enacted by the Congress with respect to the
Department's marketing, grading, and standardization activities
related to grain; competitive marketing practices of livestock,
marketing orders, and various programs; veterinary services;
and plant protection and quarantine. The Office has oversight
and management responsibilities for the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service; Agricultural Marketing Service; and Grain
Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and
Regulatory Programs, the Committee recommends an appropriation
of $724,000. This amount is $9,000 more than the fiscal year
2005 appropriation.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $808,106,000
Budget estimate, 2006 \1\............................... 855,162,000
House allowance......................................... 823,635,000
Committee recommendation................................ 807,768,000
\1\ The budget estimate does not include proposed user fees in the
amount of $10,857,000.
The Secretary of Agriculture established the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service [APHIS] on April 2, 1972, under
the authority of reorganization plan No. 2 of 1953, and other
authorities. The major objectives of APHIS are to protect the
animal and plant resources of the Nation from diseases and
pests. These objectives are carried out under the major areas
of activity, as follows:
Pest and Disease Exclusion.--The Agency conducts inspection
and quarantine activities at U.S. ports of entry to prevent the
introduction of exotic animal and plant diseases and pests. The
Agency also participates in inspection, survey, and control
activities in foreign countries to reinforce its domestic
activities.
Agricultural Quarantine Inspection [AQI].--The agency
collects user fees to cover the cost of inspection and
quarantine activities at U.S. ports of entry to prevent the
introduction of exotic animal and plant diseases and pests.
Plant and Animal Health Monitoring.--The Agency conducts
programs to assess animal and plant health and to detect
endemic and exotic diseases and pests.
Pest and Disease Management Programs.--The Agency carries
out programs to control and eradicate pest infestations and
animal diseases that threaten the United States; reduce
agricultural losses caused by predatory animals, birds, and
rodents; provide technical assistance to other cooperators such
as States, counties, farmer or rancher groups, and foundations;
and ensure compliance with interstate movement and other
disease control regulations within the jurisdiction of the
Agency.
Animal Care.--The Agency conducts regulatory activities
that ensure the humane care and treatment of animals and horses
as the Animal Welfare and Horse Protection Acts require. These
activities include inspection of certain establishments that
handle animals intended for research, exhibition, and as pets,
and monitoring certain horse shows.
Scientific and Technical Services.--The Agency performs
other regulatory activities, including the development of
standards for the licensing and testing of veterinary
biologicals to ensure their safety and effectiveness;
diagnostic activities to support the control and eradication
programs in other functional components; applied research to
reduce economic damage from vertebrate animals; development of
new pest and animal damage control methods and tools; and
regulatory oversight of genetically engineered products.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For salaries and expenses of the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, the Committee recommends total funding of
$807,768,000. This is $338,000 less than the fiscal year 2005
appropriation. The Committee encourages the Secretary to
utilize authorities and resources of the Commodity Credit
Corporation [CCC] to provide assistance in response to animal
and plant health threats, and to allow compensation to certain
producers for losses sustained in connection with these threats
in instances when the additional assistance is deemed
necessary.
The following table reflects the Committee's specific
recommendations for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service:
ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Fiscal year 2006 budget Committee
2005 enacted request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pest and disease exclusion:
Agricultural quarantine inspection....................... 25,090 25,472 26,998
Cattle ticks............................................. 6,666 6,877 6,877
Foot-and-mouth disease/emerging foreign animal diseases.. 8,670 15,167 8,743
Import/export............................................ 12,771 11,989 12,993
Trade issues resolution and management................... 12,477 18,325 12,583
Fruit fly exclusion and detection........................ 57,876 59,976 58,410
Screwworm................................................ 27,155 30,876 27,206
Tropical bunt tick....................................... 422 426 426
--------------------------------------------------
Total, pest and disease exclusion...................... 151,127 169,108 154,236
==================================================
Plant and animal health monitoring:
Animal health monitoring and surveillance................ 143,921 151,692 145,660
Animal and plant health regulatory enforcement........... 9,307 10,399 10,399
Biosurveillance.......................................... 1,984 2,523 2,007
Emergency Management System.............................. 12,864 22,671 13,000
Pest detection........................................... 26,915 44,048 26,767
Select Agents............................................ ............... 5,289 3,519
Wildlife disease monitoring and surveillance............. ............... 1,950 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Total, plant and animal health monitoring.............. 194,991 238,572 201,352
==================================================
Pest and disease management programs:
Aquaculture.............................................. 1,245 1,262 1,262
Biocontrol............................................... 9,354 9,579 9,579
Boll weevil \1\.......................................... 45,620 15,834 39,900
Brucellosis eradication.................................. 10,273 8,941 10,553
Chronic wasting disease.................................. 18,688 16,880 18,760
Emerging plant pests..................................... 100,754 126,700 101,952
Golden nematode.......................................... 795 808 808
Grasshopper.............................................. 5,484 4,405 5,555
Gypsy moth............................................... 4,730 4,818 4,818
Imported fire ant........................................ 2,131 4,818 2,154
Johne's disease.......................................... 18,590 3,191 18,626
Low pathogen avian influenza............................. 22,816 22,837 11,837
Noxious weeds............................................ 1,975 1,149 1,920
Pink bollworm \1\........................................ 3,633 3,280 4,162
Plum pox................................................. 3,443 2,216 2,216
Pseudorabies............................................. 4,315 4,391 4,391
Scrapie eradication...................................... 17,626 19,302 19,000
Tuberculosis............................................. 14,818 16,738 15,038
Wildlife services operations............................. 73,166 76,129 72,965
Witchweed................................................ 1,511 1,527 1,527
--------------------------------------------------
Total, pest and disease management..................... 360,967 342,141 347,023
==================================================
Animal care:
Animal welfare........................................... 16,485 17,478 17,478
Horse protection......................................... 493 497 497
--------------------------------------------------
Total, animal care..................................... 16,978 17,975 17,975
==================================================
Scientific and technical services:
Biosecurity.............................................. 1,972 1,972 1,972
Biotechnology regulatory services........................ 9,428 13,894 9,574
Environmental compliance................................. 2,603 2,653 2,653
Plant methods development laboratories................... 8,314 8,535 8,535
Veterinary biologics..................................... 15,389 18,311 15,647
Veterinary diagnostics................................... 20,410 26,605 21,588
Wildlife services methods development.................... 17,289 14,032 17,521
--------------------------------------------------
Total, scientific and technical services............... 75,405 86,002 77,490
==================================================
Contingency fund............................................. 4,086 4,140 4,140
APHIS information technology infrastructure.................. 4,552 5,080 4,552
Physical security............................................ ............... 3,001 1,000
==================================================
Total, salaries and expenses........................... 808,106 \2\ 866,019 807,768
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflected in fiscal year 2005 totals is a reprogramming of $1,500,000 from the boll weevil to pink bollworm
program.
\2\ Fiscal year 2006 budget request total does include proposed user fees in the amount of $10,857,000.
The Committee is unable to provide the full increases
requested in the President's budget for the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Services. However, the Committee does provide
increases for a number of specific animal and plant health
programs. The Committee encourages the Secretary to continue
use of contingency funding from Commodity Credit Corporation
monies, as in past fiscal years, to cover needs as identified
in the President's budget and any additional emergencies as the
Secretary determines necessary.
Pest and Disease Exclusion
AQI.--For fiscal year 2006, the Committee provides an
appropriation of $26,998,000 for the AQI appropriated account
to conduct preclearance quarantine inspections of persons,
baggage, cargo, and other articles destined for movement from
the State of Hawaii to the continental United States, Guam,
Puerto Rico, or the United States Virgin Islands. The Committee
provides an increase of $152,000 for interline activities in
Hawaii.
The Committee urges the Department to establish protocols
that allow shipment of untreated fruits and vegetables grown in
Hawaii to cold-weather States during winter months while
maintaining reasonable assurances that potential transshipment
of such produce will not jeopardize the phytosanitary standards
of warm weather States.
The Committee continues its interest in more efficient and
less disruptive inspection of passengers and cargo at Hawaii
airports and, from within available funds, directs APHIS to
provide not less than the number of inspectors and inspection
equipment required in the APHIS-Hawaii staffing plan for fiscal
year 2005. The Committee also encourages the agency to
aggressively identify and evaluate flexible hiring and staff
deployment arrangements, such as the Senior Environmental
Employment Program, to minimize overtime rates charged to
agricultural shippers. The Committee further encourages APHIS
to acquire and deploy commercially available, state-of-the art
inspection technology and equipment for key ports of entry,
such as Hawaii, to screen passenger luggage for banned
agricultural products to reduce the introduction of dangerous
agricultural pests and diseases in the United States.
National Germplasm and Biotechnology Laboratory.--The
Committee provides $1,864,000 for ongoing activities at the
National Germplasm and Biotechnology Laboratory.
Fruit Fly Exclusion and Detection.--The Committee provides
$58,410,000 for the fruit fly exclusion and detection program,
of which no less than the fiscal year 2005 level shall be used
to enhance activities to prevent Medflies from moving into the
United States as well as activities at U.S. borders. The
Committee provides an increase of $100,000 above the fiscal
year 2005 funding level for fruit fly activities in the State
of Texas.
The Committee is aware that APHIS and State cooperators
participate in sterile fruit fly programs to control damage to
fruit production caused primarily by the Mediterranean Fruit
Fly. However, agricultural production in the State of Hawaii is
also threatened by three other fruit fly species for which
there is currently no sterile fly program. The Committee
directs APHIS to consult with appropriate agricultural
representatives in the State of Hawaii regarding this problem
and report to the Committee on recommendations to control these
additional pests, including the possibility of initiating
sterile fly programs.
Import Inspection.--The Committee provides $12,993,000 for
import inspection, which includes $1,500,000 to enhance
inspection and surveillance activities related to products
entering the State of California.
Plant and Animal Health Monitoring
Animal Health Monitoring and Surveillance.--The Committee
provides $145,660,000 for the Animal Health Monitoring and
Surveillance account. The Committee provides $32,932,000 for a
national animal identification program. The Committee expects
the Department to consult with private industry throughout the
development of an animal identification program. The Committee
also expects the Department to include private industry
components in any national animal identification program.
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy [BSE].--The Committee
provides $17,184,000 to continue the ongoing BSE surveillance
program. The Committee also includes $1,000,000 for the
Comprehensive Surveillance System which will further enhance
animal surveillance.
National Animal Health Laboratory Network.--The Committee
provides $1,885,000 for National Animal Health Laboratory
Network cooperative agreements.
The Committee provides an increase of $16,000 above the
fiscal year 2005 funding level for a cooperative agreement with
the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer
Protection to continue work carried out by the Wisconsin
Livestock Identification Consortium.
The Committee provides $595,000 for the National Farm
Animal Identification and Records Project and $100,000 for
animal tracking in the State of Washington.
The Committee provides $547,000 for the New Mexico Rapid
Syndrome Validation Program to develop an early detection and
reporting system for infectious animal diseases.
The Committee recognizes the efforts and the financial
commitment of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the Southeastern
Livestock Network in the development of a cooperative, regional
approach to animal identification. The Committee further
encourages the Secretary to consider these activities and the
substantial financial investments already undertaken in this
region when developing and finalizing a nationwide animal
identification program.
The Committee is aware of radio frequency identification
technology that is available through Digital Angel. This
technology has been proven on fish and has been in use for 15
years. The Committee urges the Department to consider this
technology when developing an animal identification program.
The Committee provides $350,000 to address bio-safety
issues relating to antibiotic resistant strains of bacterial
pathogens in the State of Vermont.
The Committee provides $400,000 for a national institute at
Iowa State University devoted to risk assessment, mitigation,
and communication for genetically modified agricultural
products.
The Committee provides $100,000 for the Population
Management Center, a collaboration between the Lincoln Park Zoo
and the Davee Center for Epidemiology in Chicago, Illinois. The
intent of this funding is to improve techniques, processes, and
systems to prevent disease transfer and ensure sustainability
and maintenance of health in zoo populations nationwide.
Animal and Plant Health Regulatory Enforcement.--The
Committee provides $10,399,000 for the animal and plant health
regulatory enforcement account to support Animal Welfare Act (7
U.S.C. 2131 et seq.) compliance inspections.
The Committee is very concerned about reports of illegal
animal fighting activities and directs the Secretary to work
with relevant agencies on the most effective and proper means
for investigating and enforcing laws and regulations regarding
these activities.
Emergency Management Systems.--The Committee provides
$13,000,000 for the emergency management systems program.
Within this total, the Committee provides $2,993,000 for the
National Veterinary Stockpile.
Pest Detection.--The Committee provides $26,767,000 for
pest detection activities. The Committee is concerned about
continuing threats posed by the accidental or intentional
introduction of pests, disease, or species into this country
which could be devastating to our agricultural resources.
The Committee provides an increase of $100,000 to continue
the California County Pest Detection Augmentation Program.
Pest and Disease Management
Aquaculture.--The Committee provides $1,262,000 for the
aquaculture program. The Committee provides funding at the
fiscal year 2005 level to continue telemetry and population
dynamics studies to develop environmentally and economically
sustainable methods to help catfish farmers manage cormorant
and pelican populations.
Boll Weevil.--The Committee provides $39,900,000 to
continue the Boll Weevil Eradication Program. This funding will
provide the active eradication zone areas with a 30 percent
cost share and possible exceptions to address special funding
requirements arising from extraordinary circumstances in some
States.
Brucellosis Eradication.--The Committee provides
$10,553,000 for the bruccellosis program. Within this total,
the Committee provides an increase of $100,000 for the State of
Montana to protect the State's brucellosis-free status and
operation of the bison quarantine facility and the testing of
bison that surround Yellowstone National Park.
The Committee provides an increase of $100,000 for the
Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee, and
encourages the coordination of Federal, State, and private
actions to eliminate brucellosis from wildlife in the Greater
Yellowstone area. This amount shall be equally divided between
the States of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.
Chronic Wasting Disease [CWD].--The Committee is concerned
about the number of deer and elk in different regions of the
United States testing positive for chronic wasting disease and
provides $18,760,000 for the chronic wasting disease
certification and control program to include additional
surveillance and disease control activities with free-ranging
cervids, and to increase State testing capacity for the timely
identification of the presence of this disease. Within this
total, the Committee provides $1,750,000 for the State of
Wisconsin, $246,000 for the State of Utah, and $247,000 for the
Conservation Medicine Center of Chicago which is a
collaboration between the University of Illinois College of
Veterinary Medicine, Loyola University Chicago Stritch School
of Medicine, and the Brookfield Zoo. The total also includes
$100,000 for the State of Colorado and $150,000 for the State
of Alaska to monitor chronic wasting disease.
The Committee is aware of confirmed reports that CWD has
spread into Northeastern States and provides $100,000 for
control of this disease in the State of Vermont.
Emerging Plant Pests.--The Committee provides $101,952,000
for emerging plant pests. Within this total, the Committee
provides $24,503,000 for glassy-winged sharpshooter/Pierce's
disease; $40,000,000 for citrus canker; $23,933,000 for the
Asian long-horned beetle program in Illinois and New York; no
less than the fiscal year 2005 level shall be for activities in
the area of Chicago, IL; $3,076,000 for sudden oak death; and
$5,961,000 for activities related to the emerald ash borer
which includes a $500,000 increase for activities in the State
of Michigan. The Committee expects the Secretary to make funds
available from the CCC for activities related to these and
other plant pests in fiscal year 2006, as necessary.
The Committee recognizes the serious impact of Citrus
Canker in Florida, particularly given the emergency situation
due to the spread of the disease caused by recent hurricanes,
and encourages and applauds efforts to address this devastating
disease.
The Committee is aware that APHIS has a compensation
program in place for wheat producers, grain handlers, and
facilities that karnal bunt impacts. However, the compensation
provided for handlers and facilities does not adequately
represent the costs these facilities incur when they receive
deliveries of karnal bunt-infected wheat. This inadequate
compensation has led to many facilities refusing to participate
in activities to prevent the spread of karnal bunt in the
United States. Due to the serious threat that karnal bunt poses
to U.S. wheat production and exports, the Committee expects
APHIS to work with the grain handling industry to develop an
adequate compensation plan.
The Committee notes that APHIS signed a cooperative
agreement with the Washington State Department of Agriculture
to survey and eradicate the citrus longhorned beetle. The
Committee recognizes that the citrus longhorned beetle presents
a severe threat to hardwood trees and tree fruit crops, and
urges APHIS to direct the resources necessary to eradicate the
citrus longhorned beetle.
Grasshopper.--The Committee provides $5,555,000 for the
current grasshopper program. Within this total, no less than
$1,000,000 shall be for grasshopper and Mormon cricket
activities in the State of Utah to prepare necessary
environmental documents and continue control measures. The
total also includes $150,000 for grasshopper and Mormon cricket
activities in the State of Nevada, including survey, control,
and eradication of crickets. The Committee notes that there is
a grasshopper outbreak in southeastern New Mexico and urges
APHIS to assist the State of New Mexico with survey, control,
and eradication efforts.
Imported Fire Ant.--The Committee provides $2,154,000 for
the imported fire ant account to continue sharing
responsibility with the States to conduct detection and nursery
surveys; compliance monitoring; enforcement for quarantine of
nursery stock; and production, field release, and evaluation of
promising control agents. Within this total, the Committee also
provides the fiscal year 2005 level for control activities in
the State of Tennessee and the State of New Mexico.
Johne's Disease.--The Committee provides $18,626,000 for
Johne's disease to expand the Agency's efforts to coordinate
State certification programs for herd-testing, and to provide
assistance to States to develop herd management plans that
comply with APHIS's national standards for certification. The
Committee expects APHIS to work with the Agricultural Research
Service to coordinate activities to research and develop an
effective diagnostic test for Johne's disease with appropriate
field validation and methods development.
Low Pathogenic Avian Influenza.--The Committee provides
$11,837,000 for detection, control and eradication of Low
Pathogenic Avian Influenza [LPAI]. This level of funding
provides an increase of $1,000,000 over the fiscal year 2005
level for detection, control and eradication. The Committee
notes that in fiscal year 2005, $12,000,000 in financial
assistance was provided to indemnify poultry producers that
experienced losses due to avian influenza. The Committee also
notes that this funding has not been obligated and will be
available for fiscal year 2006.
The Committee notes that APHIS has combated Low Pathogenic
Avian Influenza through both depopulation and vaccination,
depending on individual circumstances. An emergency vaccination
protocol was used most successfully after an outbreak on a farm
in Connecticut. The Committee urges APHIS to utilize available
funds to indemnify producers for costs and losses previously
incurred in a successful pilot eradication program.
The Committee is aware of an outbreak in California of Low
Pathogenic Avian Influenza in poultry during 2002. The
California strain of LPAI (H5N2) was identical to the LPAI
strain in the 2002 outbreaks that occurred in Virginia, West
Virginia, North Carolina, and Texas. After depopulating their
flocks to prevent the spread of the virus, producers in each of
those States were indemnified by APHIS, yet California
producers were not. Language was included in the fiscal year
2004 committee report urging the Department to compensate
California producers for their losses. However, the Department
has not acted on the Committee's direction. Therefore, the
Committee again urges APHIS to provide indemnification to
turkey producers in California who depopulated their flocks as
a result of the 2002 LPAI outbreak and to report to the
Committee within 90 days of enactment of this Act on the
Service's actions regarding this matter.
Noxious Weeds.--The Committee provides $1,920,000 for the
noxious weeds account. Within this total, the Committee
includes $253,000 for the Nez Perce Bio-Control Center to
increase the availability and distribution of biological
control organisms used in an integrated weed management system.
The total also includes $300,000 for an invasive species
program to prevent the spread of cogongrass in Mississippi, and
requests that the Agency take necessary steps to address this
invasive weed as a regional infestation problem.
The Committee continues its concern for the serious threat
to pastures and watersheds resulting from the introduction of
alien weed pests, such as gorse and miconia, into Hawaii, and
directs APHIS to work with the Hawaii Department of Agriculture
and the Natural Resources Conservation Service to develop an
integrated approach, including environmentally safe biological
controls, for eradicating these pests, and to provide funds as
necessary.
The Committee directs that within funds available for State
cooperative agreements, $100,000 shall be for a weed management
program with the State of Nevada.
Tuberculosis.--The Committee provides $15,038,000 for the
tuberculosis program. Within this total, an increase of
$150,000 shall be for activities in Michigan. The Committee is
concerned about the potential threats that wildlife poses for
transmitting tuberculosis to domestic livestock and directs the
Agency to increase technical and operational assistance to
Michigan producers to prevent or reduce the transmission of
tuberculosis between wildlife and cattle. The Committee also
encourages the Agency to continue its research for developing
methods to minimize the interaction between wildlife and
livestock.
Wildlife Services Operations.--The Committee provides
$72,965,000 for Wildlife Service Operations activities. The
Committee does not concur with the budget request to reduce
funding in the wildlife services operations account to allow
cooperators to assume a larger share of the costs associated
with preventing and reducing wildlife damage. The Committee
provides funding to continue cooperating with States to conduct
wildlife management programs such as livestock protection,
migratory bird damage to crops, invasive species damage,
property damage, human health and safety, and threatened and
endangered species protection.
The Committee's recommendations with respect to specific
areas funded within the total for wildlife services activities
are as follows:
The Committee notes the success of the oral rabies
vaccination program and provides $21,580,000 for rabies control
activities. Within this total, the Committee provides $50,000
for rabies activities in Broward County, Florida.
The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year
2005 level to fully implement the recommendations of the
Aviation Safety Review Committee.
The Committee provides an increase of $100,000 for remote
diagnostic and wildlife disease surveillance activities with
North Dakota State University and Dickinson State University.
The Committee provides $1,191,000 for integrated predation
management activities in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan,
Arizona, and New Mexico, no less than $1,044,000 shall be
available for activities in the Western Great Lakes States
which includes $54,000 for gray wolf monitoring through a
cooperative agreement with the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources. A portion of the funding shall be made available to
assist livestock producers who are interested in the proper use
of non-lethal alternatives and best management practices in
order to fully ensure that all such methods are exhausted
before any lethal control occurs.
The Committee provides $10,000,000 to continue wildlife
control activities in Western States.
The Committee provides $1,374,000 for the Tri-state
predator control program for livestock operators in Montana,
Idaho, and Wyoming. Due to the increase in federally listed
endangered species, the States' operations accounts for
wildlife services have suffered financially.
The Committee provides $625,000 for a cooperative agreement
with the University of Georgia, Auburn University, and the
Wildlife Services Operations in the State of Georgia to address
the fluctuations in game bird and predator species resulting
from recent changes in land use throughout the southeastern
United States.
The Committee provides $404,000 for the operation of the
State Wildlife Services office in Hawaii to provide on-site
coordination of prevention and control activities in Hawaii and
the American Pacific. The Committee directs that this increase
be for enhanced coqui frog control activities. The Committee
also provides an increase of $100,000 for activities in Hawaii
and Guam related to the brown tree snake.
The Committee provides $750,000 for wildlife service
operations with the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and
Parks to meet the growing demands of controlling predatory,
nuisance, and diseased animals.
The Committee provides funding at the fiscal year 2005
level for the management of beavers in Mississippi. The
Committee commends the Agency's assistance in cooperative
relationships with local and Federal partners to reduce beaver
damage to cropland and forests. The Committee also provides
$248,000 for the State of Wisconsin and $295,000 for the State
of North Carolina for beaver control activities.
The Committee has provided increases in recent years for
the control of blackbird damage to sunflowers in North and
South Dakota. For fiscal year 2006, the Committee provides
$400,000 to continue these efforts and expects the Agency to
allocate no less than $305,000 for lure conservation plots,
$15,000 for scare techniques and $75,000 for NWRC methods
development. The Committee also provides $118,000 for blackbird
management efforts in Louisiana. The Committee also provides
$172,000 for blackbird management efforts in the State of
Kansas.
The Committee provides the fiscal year 2005 level for goose
control in the State of New York.
The Committee also provides an increase of $100,000 above
the fiscal year 2005 funding level for the Jack Berryman
Institute in the State of Utah.
The Committee provides $250,000 for the State of New
Hampshire; $297,000 for the Commonwealth of Kentucky; $100,000
for the State of Alaska; $100,000 for the State of Tennessee;
and $100,000 for the State of Pennsylvania to address nuisance
animals and wildlife damage.
The Committee provides an increase of $100,000 to assist in
the management of cormorants in the Lake Champlain Basin. The
Committee also provides an increase of $100,000 for cormorant
control in the State of Michigan. The Committee also provides
the fiscal year 2005 level for Delta States operations to
control cormorants.
Animal Care
Animal Welfare.--The Committee provides $17,478,000 for the
Animal Care Unit for enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act. The
Committee does not assume collections from unauthorized animal
welfare inspection user fees, as proposed in the President's
budget.
Scientific and Technical Services
Veterinary Diagnostics.--The Committee provides $21,538,000
for the veterinary diagnostics account for fiscal year 2006.
The Committee includes $100,000 for continued activities in the
State of Louisiana. The Committee also provides $750,000 for
the National Agriculture Biosecurity Center in the State of
Kansas.
Wildlife Services Methods Development.--The Committee
provides $17,521,000 for wildlife services methods development.
Within this total, the Committee provides the fiscal year 2005
level to continue existing research efforts at the National
Wildlife Research Center field station located in the State of
Mississippi.
The Committee also provides an increase of $175,000 above
the fiscal year 2005 funding level to continue the existing
program at the Jack Berryman Institute for addressing wildlife
damage management issues, including wildlife disease threats
and wildlife economics, and facilitating a cooperative
relationship with the Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry
Experiment Station. The Committee emphasizes the importance of
close collaboration between the Jack Berryman Institute and the
National Wildlife Research Center.
The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year
2005 level for the cooperative agreement with the Hawaii
Agriculture Research Center for rodent control only in active
agricultural areas.
The Committee provides $450,000 for the National Wildlife
Research Station located in the State of Texas for activities
related to emerging infectious diseases associated with
wildlife populations and human health.
The Committee provides an increase of $218,000 for ongoing
activities at the Utah Predator Research Station.
In complying with the Committee's directives, the Committee
expects APHIS not to redirect support for programs and
activities without prior notification to and approval by the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in accordance
with the reprogramming procedures specified in the Act. Unless
otherwise directed, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service shall implement appropriations by programs, projects,
and activities as specified by the Appropriations Committees.
Unspecified reductions necessary to carry out the provisions of
this Act are to be implemented in accordance with the
definitions contained in the Program, project, and activity
section of this report.
BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $4,927,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 4,996,000
House allowance......................................... 4,996,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,996,000
The APHIS appropriation for ``Buildings and Facilities''
funds major nonrecurring construction projects in support of
specific program activities and recurring construction,
alterations, preventive maintenance, and repairs of existing
APHIS facilities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For buildings and facilities of the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, the Committee recommends an appropriation
of $4,996,000.
Agricultural Marketing Service
MARKETING SERVICES
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $75,092,000
Budget estimate, 2006 \1\............................... 84,114,000
House allowance......................................... 78,032,000
Committee recommendation................................ 76,643,000
\1\ The budget estimate does not include proposed user fees in the
amount of $2,918,000.
The Agricultural Marketing Service [AMS] was established by
the Secretary of Agriculture on April 2, 1972. AMS carries out
programs authorized by some 31 different statutory authorities,
the primary ones being the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946
(7 U.S.C. 1621-1627); the U.S. Cotton Standards Act (7 U.S.C.
51-65); the Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act (7 U.S.C. 471-
476); the Tobacco Inspection Act (7 U.S.C. 511-511q); the
Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (7 U.S.C. 499a-499s);
the Egg Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 1031-1056); and
section 32 (15 U.S.C. 713c).
Programs administered by this Agency include the market
news services, payments to States for marketing activities, the
Plant Variety Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 2321 et seq.), the
Federal administration of marketing agreements and orders,
standardization, grading, classing, and shell egg surveillance
services, transportation services, and market protection and
promotion.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For marketing services of the Agricultural Marketing
Service, the Committee recommends an appropriation of
$76,643,000. This amount is $1,551,000 more than the fiscal
year 2005 appropriation, and includes increases of $1,443,000
for pay costs; $545,000 more for the Livestock Mandatory
Reporting Program; and $3,111,000 for Country of Origin
Labeling. The Committee also provides $2,026,000 for the
National Organic Program.
The Committee is aware that USDA has stated its intention
to post a position announcement for an Executive Director of
the National Organic Standards Board, and encourages swift
publication and action on this announcement. Further, the
Committee is aware that an audit of the National Organic
Program was recently undertaken by the American National
Standards Institute [ANSI], and encourages AMS to address
issues raised in this audit, while continuing to work to create
a separate, ongoing Peer Review Panel. Finally, the Committee
urges AMS to promptly make available their list of certified
organic entities.
The Committee provides $14,928,000 for the Pesticide Data
Program. The Committee recognizes the importance of the
Pesticide Data Program [PDP] to collect reliable, scientific-
based pesticide residue data that benefits consumers, food
processors, crop protection, pesticide producers, and farmers.
The PDP is of particular importance since the passage of the
Food Quality Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.), which
requires thorough re-evaluation of agricultural pesticides and
tolerances for uses on individual crops. The PDP is an
effective tool to maintain the availability of critical
products which allow the production of safe and affordable
foods. The Committee also provides $2,872,000 for the Pesticide
Recordkeeping Program.
The Committee encourages the Department to make grants to
local communities in Alaska and Alaska regional marketing
organizations to promote wild salmon.
The State of Alaska has developed the Alaska Grown Program
to promote the sale of Alaskan products in both military and
civilian markets. The Committee fully supports this program and
expects the Department to give full consideration to funding
applications submitted for the Alaska Grown Program, which
includes Alaska agricultural products and seafood harvested in
the State. The Alaska Grown Program should coordinate with
other regional marketing entities such as the Alaska Fisheries
Development Foundation and the Lower Kuskokwim Economic
Development Council.
The amount provided also includes $6,293,000 for the
microbiological data program so that baselines may be
established for the incidence, number and types of food-borne
microorganisms. The Committee expects AMS to coordinate with
other agencies of USDA, other public health agencies of the
government, and industry to avoid duplication of effort and to
ensure that the data collected can be used by all interested
parties.
The Committee is aware of the ``Report on Geographically
Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers'' published by Agricultural
Marketing Service [AMS] in November 2003. The Committee
encourages AMS to work with State agencies, university research
and outreach faculty, and private stakeholders in the
noncontiguous States to implement actions recommended in its
report and to provide matching funds as needed.
The Committee encourages AMS to work with ERS, NASS and RMA
on the collection of segregated data on the production and
marketing of organic agricultural products. This data should be
included in the ongoing baseline of data collection regarding
agricultural production and marketing, as directed in the 2002
Farm bill. Specifically, data should be collected on prices,
yields, acreage and production costs in the organic sector.
The Committee is aware that $5,000,000 was provided for an
organic certification cost-share program in the 2002 Farm bill,
and that this funding is expected to be depleted during 2006.
The funding for this program will be exhausted as a result of
one-time funding provided through the Commodity Credit
Corporation. Therefore, the Committee urges AMS to identify
additional funding to maintain this program until its
reauthorization.
The Committee encourages AMS to work with Hmong immigrant,
Native American, and regional groups of farmers in Wisconsin
and California to identify available funding sources to develop
community agriculture and farmers' market systems.
LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
Limitation, 2005........................................ $64,459,000
Budget limitation, 2006................................. 65,667,000
House allowance......................................... 65,667,000
Committee recommendation................................ 65,667,000
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Public Law
97-35) initiated a system of user fees for the cost of grading
and classing cotton, tobacco, naval stores, and for warehouse
examination. These activities, authorized under the U.S. Cotton
Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 51 et seq.), the Tobacco Inspection Act
(7 U.S.C. 511 et seq.), the Naval Stores Act (7 U.S.C. 91 et
seq.), the U.S. Warehouse Act (7 U.S.C. 241 et seq.), and other
provisions of law are designed to facilitate commerce and to
protect participants in the industry.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a limitation on administrative
expenses of the Agricultural Marketing Service of $65,667,000.
This amount is $1,208,000 more than the fiscal year 2005 level.
FUNDS FOR STRENGTHENING MARKETS, INCOME, AND SUPPLY
(SECTION 32)
MARKETING AGREEMENTS AND ORDERS
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $15,800,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 16,055,000
House allowance......................................... 16,055,000
Committee recommendation................................ 16,055,000
Under section 32 of the act of August 24, 1935, (7 U.S.C.
612c), an amount equal to 30 percent of customs receipts
collected during each preceding calendar year and unused
balances are available for encouraging the domestic consumption
and exportation of agricultural commodities. An amount equal to
30 percent of receipts collected on fishery products is
transferred to the Department of Commerce. Additional transfers
to the child nutrition programs of the Food and Nutrition
Service have been provided in recent appropriations Acts.
The following table reflects the status of this fund for
fiscal years 2004-2006:
ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD--FISCAL YEARS 2004-2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised fiscal
Fiscal year 2004 Fiscal year 2005 year 2006
actual estimate estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation (30 percent of Customs Receipts)............ $5,927,395,463 $6,052,035,538 $6,481,777,400
Rescission............................................ ................ -163,000,000 ................
Supplemental Appropriation............................ ................ 90,000,000 ................
Less Transfers:
Food and Nutrition Service............................ -4,699,661,000 -5,152,962,000 -5,187,621,000
Commerce Department................................... -79,724,463 -77,538,934 -79,284,400
-----------------------------------------------------
Total, Transfers.................................... -4,779,385,463 -5,230,500,934 -5,266,905,400
=====================================================
Budget Authority.......................................... 1,148,010,000 748,534,604 1,214,872,000
Unobligated Balance Available, Start of Year.............. 134,321,602 408,050,706 ................
Recoveries of Prior Year Obligations...................... 5,517,862 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------
Available for Obligation............................ 1,287,849,464 1,156,585,310 1,214,872,000
=====================================================
Less Obligations:
Commodity Procurement:
Child Nutrition Programs (Entitlement Commodit- 400,000,000 400,000,000 465,000,000
ies).............................................
State Option Contract............................. 2,525 5,000,000 5,000,000
Removal of Defective Commodities.................. 67,171 1,000,000 1,000,000
Emergency Surplus Removal......................... 226,474,661 112,265,287 ................
Direct Payments................................... 218,750,000 422,202,000 ................
Lamb Grading and Certification Support............ 100,000 ................ ................
Disaster Relief................................... 9,200,000 ................ ................
Estimated Future Needs............................ ................ 189,086,023 416,325,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Total, Commodity Procurement.................... 854,594,357 1,129,553,310 887,325,000
=====================================================
Administrative Funds:
Commodity Purchase Support........................ 10,266,096 11,232,000 11,492,000
Marketing Agreements and Orders................... 14,938,305 15,800,000 16,055,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Total, Administrative Funds..................... 25,204,401 27,032,000 27,547,000
=====================================================
Total Obligations............................... 879,798,758 1,156,585,310 914,872,000
=====================================================
Unobligated Balance Available, End of Year................ 408,050,706 ................ 300,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a transfer from section 32 funds
of $16,055,000 for the formulation and administration of
marketing agreements and orders. This amount is $255,000 more
than the fiscal year 2005 level.
The Committee encourages USDA to use all existing
authorities under the section 32 program through emergency
surplus removal and other commodity purchases, including fruit
and vegetable purchases, as mandated in the 2002 Farm bill.
The Committee is aware that section 10603 of Public Law
107-171, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002,
mandates that the Secretary must use a minimum of $200,000,000
each fiscal year to purchase fruits, vegetables and other
specialty food crops. The Committee reminds USDA of the
language included in section 53 of the conference report
accompanying this law and expects that these purchases will be
made according to Congressional intent.
The Committee is aware that farmed salmon imports from
Chile, Norway, and other countries have undercut the market for
wild Alaska salmon and have created a domestic surplus of wild
pink salmon. The Committee encourages the Department to use all
existing authorities under the section 32 program to purchase
surplus domestic salmon and stabilize the domestic salmon
industry.
The Committee is aware that fresh asparagus imports from
countries benefiting from the Andean Trade Preference Act
(Public Law 107-210) have displaced domestic asparagus
producers, particularly in Washington State, and created a
domestic surplus. The Committee is also aware that domestic
asparagus producers have been unable to access Trade Adjustment
Assistance. The Committee encourages the Department to use all
existing authorities under the section 32 program to purchase
surplus domestic asparagus.
In the utilization of section 32 funds for the USDA
commodity purchase programs, USDA shall not exclude or
discriminate against farmer-owned cooperatives, or any other
agricultural organization which is more than 50 percent owned
or controlled by farmers and ranchers based on preference or
set asides.
PAYMENTS TO STATES AND POSSESSIONS
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $3,816,224
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 1,347,000
House allowance......................................... 1,347,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,847,000
The Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program [FSMIP] is
authorized by section 204(b) of the Agricultural Marketing Act
of 1946 and is also funded from appropriations. Payments are
made to State marketing agencies to: identify and test market
alternative farm commodities; determine methods of providing
more reliable market information, and develop better commodity
grading standards. This program has made possible many types of
projects, such as electronic marketing and agricultural product
diversification. Current projects are focused on the
improvement of marketing efficiency and effectiveness, and
seeking new outlets for existing farm produced commodities. The
legislation grants the U.S. Department of Agriculture authority
to establish cooperative agreements with State departments of
agriculture or similar State agencies to improve the efficiency
of the agricultural marketing chain. The States perform the
work or contract it to others, and must contribute at least
one-half of the cost of the projects.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For payments to States and possessions for Federal-State
marketing projects and activities, the Committee provides
$3,847,000. This amount is $30,776 more than the fiscal year
2005 appropriation. The Committee directs that $2,500,000 be
provided to the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and
Consumer Protection for the development of specialty markets.
The Committee is aware of and encourages the Department to
give consideration to a grant application from the California
Department of Food and Agriculture, if appropriate, for the
California Association of Food Banks and the State's fruit and
vegetable growers to design a statewide initiative to expand
fresh produce distribution to low-income people in community
based groups.
The Committee encourages the Department to work with the
Pride of New York Program and the New York Farm Viability
Institute to support cooperative marketing partnerships between
growers, processors and retailers that will increase consumer
awareness of food products grown and made in New York and
address barriers to profitability confronting farm businesses
in the State.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $37,001,000
Budget estimate, 2006 \1\............................... 15,717,000
House allowance......................................... 38,400,000
Committee recommendation................................ 38,443,000
\1\ The budget estimate does not include proposed user fees in the
amount of $24,701,000.
The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
[GIPSA] was established pursuant to the Secretary's 1994
reorganization. Grain inspection and weighing programs are
carried out under the U.S. Grain Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 71 et
seq.) and other programs under the authority of the
Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, including the inspection
and grading of rice and grain-related products; conducting
official weighing and grain inspection activities; and grading
dry beans and peas, and processed grain products. Under the
Packers and Stockyards Act (7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.), assurance of
the financial integrity of the livestock, meat, and poultry
markets is provided. The administration monitors competition in
order to protect producers, consumers, and industry from
deceptive and fraudulent practices which affect meat and
poultry prices.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For salaries and expenses of the Grain Inspection, Packers
and Stockyards Administration, the Committee recommends an
appropriation of $38,443,000. This amount is $1,442,000 more
than the fiscal year 2005 appropriation, and includes full
funding for pay costs. The Committee also provides an increase
of $1,000,000 for information technology initiatives.
The Committee understands that GIPSA is assessing how to
facilitate the efficient marketing of grain by augmenting, not
supplanting, existing market mechanisms. The Committee
encourages the Department to continue the cooperative
relationship with the Iowa Corn Growers Association and the
Illinois Corn Growers Association, and provides $500,000 for an
ongoing study of process verification systems and protocols.
LIMITATION ON INSPECTION AND WEIGHING SERVICES EXPENSES
Limitation, 2005........................................ $42,463,000
Budget limitation, 2006................................. 42,463,000
House allowance......................................... 42,463,000
Committee recommendation................................ 42,463,000
The Agency provides an official grain inspection and
weighing system under the U.S. Grain Standards Act [USGSA], and
official inspection of rice and grain-related products under
the Agricultural Marketing Act [AMA] of 1946. The USGSA was
amended in 1981 to require the collection of user fees to fund
the costs associated with the operation, supervision, and
administration of Federal grain inspection and weighing
activities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a $42,463,000 limitation on
inspection and weighing services expenses. This amount is the
same as the fiscal year 2005 level.
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $590,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 602,000
House allowance......................................... 590,000
Committee recommendation................................ 602,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety provides
direction and coordination in carrying out the laws enacted by
the Congress with respect to the Department's inspection of
meat, poultry, and egg products. The Office has oversight and
management responsibilities for the Food Safety and Inspection
Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, the
Committee recommends an appropriation of $602,000. This amount
is $12,000 more than the fiscal year 2005 appropriation.
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $817,170,000
Budget estimate, 2006 \1\............................... 710,717,000
House allowance......................................... 837,264,000
Committee recommendation................................ 836,818,000
\1\ The budget estimate does not include proposed user fees in the
amount of $139,000,000.
The major objectives of the Food Safety and Inspection
Service are to assure that meat and poultry products are
wholesome, unadulterated, and properly labeled and packaged, as
required by the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et
seq.); and to provide continuous in-plant inspection to egg
processing plants under the Egg Products Inspection Act.
The Food Safety and Inspection Service was established on
June 17, 1981, by Secretary's Memorandum No. 1000-1, issued
pursuant to Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953.
The inspection program of the Food Safety and Inspection
Service provides continuous in-plant inspection of all domestic
plants preparing meat, poultry or egg products for sale or
distribution; reviews foreign inspection systems and
establishments that prepare meat or poultry products for export
to the United States; and provides technical and financial
assistance to States which maintain meat and poultry inspection
programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Food Safety and Inspection Service, the Committee
recommends an appropriation of $836,818,000. This amount is
$19,648,000 more than the fiscal year 2005 appropriation. This
increase includes $2,236,000 for front line inspection costs,
providing for a total number of 7,690 FSIS slaughter
inspectors.
The Committee recommendation includes the following
increases for current activities under the Food and Agriculture
Defense Initiative: $209,000 for biosurveillance; $1,250,000 to
enhance laboratory capabilities; and $504,000 for biosecurity
training.
The Committee has provided an increase of $298,000 from the
fiscal year 2005 funding level for activities related to the
Codex Alimentarius.
Humane Slaughter.--The Committee is pleased that FSIS is
continuing to work to develop innovative means to improve
enforcement of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (7 U.S.C.
1901). The Committee expects that FSIS will continue its
dialogue within USDA, with the Committee and with other
interested parties to look for ways to ensure that HMSA
enforcement remains a high priority for FSIS, and weaknesses in
enforcement are quickly identified and addressed.
The Committee provides $5,000,000 for FSIS to complete the
incorporation of the Humane Activities Tracking [HAT] system
into the Field Automation and Information Management [FAIM]
system at all slaughter plants nationwide. Specifically, this
funding will be used to continue establishing high-speed
connections in slaughter plants and connecting the HAT system
to other FSIS databases through a Web-based reporting tool. The
Committee notes USDA's statement that the integration of HAT
data into FSIS' broader food safety and food security
communications infrastructure is a critical aspect of the
Agency's enforcement of HMSA, and will provide a clearer, real-
time picture of humane handling and slaughter verification
activities nationwide. The Committee directs FSIS to provide
notification to the Committees on Appropriations prior to
obligating these funds, including details on specific costs
associated with this action and a schedule for completion of
this incorporation.
The Committee provides the amount requested in the budget
to maintain the 63 full time equivalent positions which have
been increased for this purpose above the fiscal year 2002
level. The Committee strongly feels that a portion of that FTE
increase should be used to allow additional FSIS personnel to
continue to work cooperatively with the existing District
Veterinary Medical Specialists [DVMS], whose duties are
specifically tied to HMSA enforcement, in order to increase the
number of facility visits by FSIS personnel with special
expertise in HMSA enforcement, and to allow each DVMS better
opportunities to visit facilities in other FSIS districts to
enhance communication and problem solving among all districts.
Baseline Studies.--The Committee directs that no less than
$2,000,000 be used for baseline studies. The Committee is aware
that FSIS intends to update microbiology data through new
nationwide baseline studies of raw beef, pork, chicken, turkey,
and ground products, targeting the prevalence and levels of
select foodborne pathogens and microorganism as indicators of
process control.
The following table represents the Committee's specific
recommendations for the Food Safety and Inspection Service as
compared to the fiscal year 2005 and budget request levels:
FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Fiscal year 2006 budget Committee
2005 enacted request \1\ recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food safety inspection:
Federal..................................................... 736,367 767,984 751,457
State....................................................... 51,758 54,956 53,657
International............................................... 19,180 19,869 19,517
Codex Alimentarius.............................................. 2,704 2,747 3,002
FAIM............................................................ 7,161 4,161 9,185
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 817,170 849,717 836,818
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This amount includes proposed user fees in the amount of $139,000,000.
Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural
Services
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $626,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 635,000
House allowance......................................... 635,000
Committee recommendation................................ 635,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign
Agricultural Services provides direction and coordination in
carrying out the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to
the Department's international affairs (except for foreign
economics development) and commodity programs. The Office has
oversight and management responsibilities for the Farm Service
Agency, including the Commodity Credit Corporation, Risk
Management Agency, and the Foreign Agricultural Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign
Agricultural Services, the Committee recommends an
appropriation of $635,000. This amount is $9,000 more than the
fiscal year 2005 appropriation.
The Committee continues to urge the Secretary to work with
representatives of the dairy industry and appropriate non-
governmental organizations to increase the amount of fortified
dry milk exported under humanitarian assistance programs.
The Committee urges the U.S. Agency for International
Development and USDA to manage the Food Security Commodity
Reserve effectively to meet international food aid commitments
of the United States, including supplementing Public Law 480
title II funds to meet emergency food needs.
The Committee directs the Under Secretary to provide
monthly reports to the Committee regarding ending monthly
stocks of non-fat dry milk. This report should include the
amount of non-fat dry milk in stock at the end of each month;
the quality of those stocks, including the quantity suitable
for human consumption; detailed information on how the non-fat
dry milk was distributed during the month; and the plans for
distribution during the next month.
Farm Service Agency
The Farm Service Agency [FSA] was established October 3,
1994, pursuant to the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and
Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, Public
Law 103-354. The FSA administers a variety of activities, such
as the commodity price support and production adjustment
programs financed by the Commodity Credit Corporation; the
Conservation Reserve Program [CRP]; the Emergency Conservation
Program; the Commodity Operation Programs including the
warehouse examination function; farm ownership, farm operating,
emergency disaster, and other loan programs; and the Noninsured
Crop Disaster Assistance Program [NAP], which provides crop
loss protection for growers of many crops for which crop
insurance is not available. In addition, FSA currently provides
certain administrative support services to the Foreign
Agricultural Service [FAS] and to the Risk Management Agency
[RMA].
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfers from Total, FSA,
Appropriations program salaries and
accounts expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2005......................................... 999,536 295,322 1,294,858
Budget estimate, 2006........................................ 1,050,875 314,193 1,365,068
House allowance.............................................. 1,023,738 302,183 1,325,921
Committee recommendation..................................... 1,043,555 314,193 1,357,748
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The account ``Salaries and expenses, Farm Service Agency,''
funds the administrative expenses of program administration and
other functions assigned to FSA. The funds consist of
appropriations and transfers from the CCC export credit
guarantees, Public Law 480 loans, and agricultural credit
insurance fund program accounts, and miscellaneous advances
from other sources. All administrative funds used by FSA are
consolidated into one account. The consolidation provides
clarity and better management and control of funds, and
facilitates accounting, fiscal, and budgetary work by
eliminating the necessity for making individual allocations and
allotments and maintaining and recording obligations and
expenditures under numerous separate accounts.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For salaries and expenses of the Farm Service Agency [FSA],
including funds transferred from other program accounts, the
Committee recommends $1,357,748,000. This amount is $62,890,000
more than the fiscal year 2005 appropriation. Of the funds
provided, the Committee directs that $3,300,000 shall be used
for the hiring and training of additional farm loan officers
and managers.
National Agriculture Imagery Program.--The Committee
provides $2,000,000 for the enhancement and management of the
agriculture imagery catalog repositories and data warehouses at
the USDA Aerial Photography Field Office for mirrored data
storage hardware and software, including content addressable
storage, and integrated software which guarantees authenticity
over time and provides scalability to meet future requirements.
The Committee has included a general provision to acquire
digital ortho-imagery of the entire State of Utah. The
Committee expects FSA to work in cooperation with the Utah
Automated Geographic Reference Center in completing this
project.
STATE MEDIATION GRANTS
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $3,968,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 4,500,000
House allowance......................................... 4,250,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,250,000
This program is authorized under title V of the
Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 (7 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.).
Originally designed to address agricultural credit disputes,
the program was expanded by the Federal Crop Insurance Reform
and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994
(Public Law 103-354) to include other agricultural issues such
as wetland determinations, conservation compliance, rural water
loan programs, grazing on National Forest System lands, and
pesticides. Grants are made to States whose mediation programs
have been certified by the Farm Service Agency [FSA]. Grants
will be solely for operation and administration of the State's
agricultural mediation program.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends $4,250,000 for State mediation
grants. This amount is $282,000 more than the fiscal year 2005
appropriation.
GRASSROOTS SOURCE WATER PROTECTION PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2005 \1\................................ $3,224,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 4,250,000
\1\ In fiscal year 2005, funding was provided through the Natural
Resources Conservation Service.
This program is authorized under section 2502 of Public Law
107-171. It is intended to assist in the protection of
groundwater through State rural water associations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For grassroots source water protection, the Committee
provides $4,250,000. This amount is $1,026,000 more than the
fiscal year 2005 appropriation.
DAIRY INDEMNITY PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $100,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 100,000
House allowance......................................... 100,000
Committee recommendation................................ 100,000
Under the program, the Department makes indemnification
payments to dairy farmers and manufacturers of dairy products
who, through no fault of their own, suffer losses because they
are directed to remove their milk from commercial markets due
to contamination of their products by registered pesticides.
The program also authorizes indemnity payments to dairy farmers
for losses resulting from the removal of cows or dairy products
from the market due to nuclear radiation or fallout.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the dairy indemnity program, the Committee recommends
$100,000. This amount is the same as the fiscal year 2005
appropriation.
AGRICULTURAL CREDIT INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
The Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account is
used to insure or guarantee farm ownership, farm operating, and
emergency loans to individuals, as well as the following types
of loans to associations: irrigation and drainage, grazing,
Indian tribe land acquisition, and boll weevil eradication. The
insurance endorsement on each insured loan may include an
agreement by the Government to purchase the loan after a
specified initial period.
FSA is also authorized to provide financial assistance to
borrowers by guaranteeing loans made by private lenders having
a contract of guarantee from FSA as approved by the Secretary
of Agriculture.
The following programs are financed through this fund:
Farm Ownership Loans.--Made to borrowers who cannot obtain
credit elsewhere to restructure their debts, improve or
purchase farms, refinance nonfarm enterprises which supplement
but do not supplant farm income, or make additions to farms.
Loans are made for 40 years or less.
Farm Operating Loans.--Provide short-to-intermediate term
production or chattel credit to farmers who cannot obtain
credit elsewhere, to improve their farm and home operations,
and to develop or maintain a reasonable standard of living. The
term of the loan varies from 1 to 7 years.
Credit Sales of Acquired Property.--Property is sold out of
inventory and is made to an eligible buyer by providing FSA
loans.
Indian Tribe Land Acquisition Loans.--Made to any Indian
tribe recognized by the Secretary of the Interior or tribal
corporation established pursuant to the Indian Reorganization
Act (Public Law 93-638) which does not have adequate
uncommitted funds to acquire lands or interest in lands within
the tribe's reservation or Alaskan Indian community, as
determined by the Secretary of the Interior, for use of the
tribe or the corporation or the members thereof.
Boll Weevil Eradication Loans.--Made to assist foundations
in financing the operations of the boll weevil eradication
programs provided to farmers.
Emergency Loans.--Made to producers to aid recovery from
production and physical losses due to drought, flooding, other
natural disasters, or quarantine. The loans may be used to:
restore or replace essential property; pay all or part of
production costs associated with the disaster year; pay
essential family living expenses; reorganize the farming
operation; and refinance certain debts.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a total level for farm loans of
$3,743,000,000. This amount is $25,160,000 more than the fiscal
year 2005 level.
The Committee provides no new budget authority for the
emergency loan program. Currently, this loan program has over
$158,900,000 available for eligible producers. Based on
historical loan activity, this amount should meet all needs for
emergency loans in this fiscal year.
The following table reflects the program levels for farm
credit programs administered by the Farm Service Agency
recommended by the Committee, as compared to the fiscal year
2005 and the budget request levels:
AGRICULTURAL CREDIT PROGRAMS--LOAN LEVELS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2005 Fiscal year 2006 Committee
enacted budget recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farm ownership:
Direct................................................ 208,320 200,000 208,000
Guaranteed............................................ 1,388,800 1,400,000 1,400,000
Farm operating:
Direct................................................ 644,800 650,000 650,000
Guaranteed unsubsidized............................... 1,091,200 1,200,000 1,100,000
Guaranteed subsidized................................. 282,720 266,253 283,000
Indian tribe land acquisition............................. 2,000 2,000 2,000
Boll weevil eradication................................... 100,000 60,000 100,000
Emergency disaster........................................ ................ 25,000 ................
-----------------------------------------------------
Total, farm loans................................... 3,717,840 3,803,253 3,743,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOAN SUBSIDIES AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidies Administrative expenses
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Insured Guaranteed Transfer to Total ACIF
loan loan Total Appropriations FSA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2005........... 76,310 80,328 156,548 7,936 291,414 455,898
Budget estimate, 2006.......... 77,730 76,362 154,092 8,000 309,137 471,229
House allowance................ 74,996 76,362 151,358 8,000 297,127 456,485
Committee recommendation....... 75,405 75,425 150,830 8,000 309,137 467,967
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the
program account. Appropriations to this account are used to
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct
loans obligated and loan guarantees committed, as well as for
administrative expenses.
The following table reflects the cost of loan programs
under credit reform:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
2005 enacted 2006 budget recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:
Farm ownership:
Direct............................................... 11,145 10,240 10,650
Guaranteed........................................... 7,361 6,720 6,720
Farm operating:
Direct............................................... 65,060 64,675 64,675
Guaranteed unsubsidized.............................. 35,246 36,360 33,330
Guaranteed subsidized................................ 37,631 33,282 35,375
Indian tribe land acquisition............................ 105 80 80
Boll weevil eradication \1\.............................. ............... ............... ...............
Emergency disaster....................................... ............... 2,735 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Total, loan subsidies................................ 156,548 154,092 150,830
ACIF expenses................................................ 299,350 317,137 317,137
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Negative subsidy rate for fiscal years 2005 and 2006 is calculated for this program.
Risk Management Agency
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $71,468,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 87,806,000
House allowance......................................... 77,806,000
Committee recommendation................................ 73,448,000
The Risk Management Agency performs administrative
functions relative to the Federal crop insurance program that
is authorized by the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C.
1508), as amended by the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of
2000 [ARPA], Public Law 106-224, and the Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002 (2002 Act), Public Law 107-171.
ARPA authorized significant changes in the crop insurance
program. This Act provides higher government subsidies for
producer premiums to make coverage more affordable; expands
research and development for new insurance products and under-
served areas through contracts with the private sector; and
tightens compliance. Functional areas of risk management are:
research and development; insurance services; and compliance,
whose functions include policy formulation and procedures and
regulations development.
The 2002 Act maintains the basic crop insurance program
largely without change. This Act also requires the continuation
of the Adjusted Gross Revenue [AGR] pilot program, which
provides insurance coverage for crops for which traditional
crop insurance is not available. However, the 2002 Act
eliminates the ARPA provision that allowed selection of
continuous coverage levels, rather than coverage levels at
fixed intervals.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For administrative and operating expenses for the Risk
Management Agency, the Committee recommends an appropriation of
$73,448,000. This amount is $1,980,000 more than the fiscal
year 2005 appropriation. The Committee provides $980,000 for
pay costs and $1,000,000 for information technology.
The Committee encourages RMA to work with North Dakota
State University on an actuarial study regarding a proposed
pilot project that would develop an optional insurance program
in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota on wheat, barley,
soybeans, and corn.
CORPORATIONS
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund
Appropriations, 2005 \1\................................ $4,095,128,000
Budget estimate, 2006 \1\............................... 3,159,379,000
House allowance \1\..................................... 3,159,379,000
Committee recommendation \1\............................ 3,159,379,000
\1\ Current estimate. Such sums as may be necessary, to remain available
until expended, are provided.
The Federal Crop Insurance Reform Act of 1994 was designed
to replace the combination of crop insurance and ad hoc
disaster payment programs with a strengthened crop insurance
program.
The Federal Crop Insurance Act, as amended by the Federal
Crop Insurance Reform Act of 1994, authorizes the payment of
expenses which may include indemnity payments, loss adjustment,
delivery expenses, program-related research and development,
startup costs for implementing this legislation such as
studies, pilot projects, data processing improvements, public
outreach, and related tasks and functions.
All program costs, except for Federal salaries and
expenses, are mandatory expenditures subject to appropriation.
Producers of insurable crops are eligible to receive a
basic level of protection against catastrophic losses, which
cover 50 percent of the normal yield at 55 percent of the
expected price. The only cost to the producer is an
administrative fee of $100 per crop per policy.
The Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 [ARPA] amended
the Federal Crop Insurance Act to strengthen the safety net for
agricultural producers by providing greater access to more
affordable risk management tools and improved protection from
production and income loss, and to improve the efficiency and
integrity of the Federal crop insurance program. ARPA allows
for the improvement of basic crop insurance products by
implementing higher premium subsidies to make buy-up coverage
more affordable for producers; make adjustments in actual
production history guarantees; and revise the administrative
fees for catastrophic [CAT] coverage. More crops and
commodities have become insurable through pilot programs
effective with the 2001 crop year. ARPA provides for an
investment for over $8,200,000,000 in 5 years to further
improve Federal crop insurance.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund, the
Committee recommends an appropriation of such sums as may be
necessary, estimated to be $3,159,379,000. This amount is
$935,749,000 less than the current fiscal year 2005 estimate.
Commodity Credit Corporation Fund
The Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC] is a wholly owned
Government corporation created in 1933 to stabilize, support,
and protect farm income and prices; to help maintain balanced
and adequate supplies of agricultural commodities, including
products, foods, feeds, and fibers; and to help in the orderly
distribution of these commodities. CCC was originally
incorporated under a Delaware charter and was reincorporated
June 30, 1948, as a Federal corporation within the Department
of Agriculture by the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act,
approved June 29, 1948 (15 U.S.C. 714).
The Commodity Credit Corporation engages in buying,
selling, lending, and other activities with respect to
agricultural commodities, their products, food, feed, and
fibers. Its purposes include stabilizing, supporting, and
protecting farm income and prices; maintaining the balance and
adequate supplies of selected commodities; and facilitating the
orderly distribution of such commodities. In addition, the
Corporation makes available materials and facilities required
in connection with the storage and distribution of such
commodities. The Corporation also disburses funds for sharing
of costs with producers for the establishment of approved
conservation practices on environmentally sensitive land and
subsequent rental payments for such land for the duration of
Conservation Reserve Program contracts.
Corporation activities are primarily governed by the
following statutes: the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter
Act (Public Law 80-806), as amended; the Agricultural Act of
1949 (Public Law 81-439), as amended (1949 Act); the
Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (Public Law 75-430), as
amended (the 1938 Act); the Food Security Act of 1985 (Public
Law 99-198), as amended (1985 Act); and the Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-171) (2002 Act),
enacted May 13, 2002.
Under the 2002 Act, the Secretary is required to offer a
program of direct and counter-cyclical payments and extend
nonrecourse marketing assistance loans and loan deficiency
payments for contract commodities (soybeans, wheat, corn, grain
sorghum, barley, oats, upland cotton, rice, other oilseeds, and
peanuts). The 2002 Act also provides for marketing loans for
wool, mohair, honey, small chickpeas, lentils and dry peas. A
national Milk Income Loss Contract [MILC] program was
established by the 2002 Act, providing that producers enter
into contracts extending through September 30, 2005. A milk
price support program is also provided to support the price of
milk via purchases of butter, cheese, and nonfat dry milk. The
rate of support is $9.90 per hundredweight.
The 2002 Act directs the Secretary to operate the sugar
program at no cost to the U.S. Treasury by avoiding sugar loan
forfeitures in the nonrecourse loan program. The nonrecourse
loan program is reauthorized through fiscal year 2007 at 18
cents per pound for raw cane sugar and 22.9 cents per pound for
refined beet sugar.
In the conservation area, the 2002 Act extends and expands
the conservation reserve program [CRP], the wetlands reserve
program [WRP], the environmental quality incentives program
[EQIP], the farmland protection program [FPP], and the wildlife
habitat incentives program [WHIP]. Each of these programs is
funded through the CCC.
The 2002 Act also authorizes and provides CCC funding for
other conservation programs, including the conservation
security program and the grassland reserve program.
Management of the Corporation is vested in a board of
directors, subject to the general supervision and direction of
the Secretary of Agriculture, who is an ex-officio director and
chairman of the board. The board consists of seven members, in
addition to the Secretary, who are appointed by the President
of the United States with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Officers of the Corporation are designated according to their
positions in the Department of Agriculture.
The activities of the Corporation are carried out mainly by
the personnel and through the facilities of the Farm Service
Agency [FSA] and the Farm Service Agency State and county
committees. The Foreign Agricultural Service, the General Sales
Manager, other agencies and offices of the Department, and
commercial agents are also used to carry out certain aspects of
the Corporation's activities.
The Corporation's capital stock of $100,000,000 is held by
the United States. Under present law, up to $30,000,000,000 may
be borrowed from the U.S. Treasury, from private lending
agencies, and from others at any one time. The Corporation
reserves a sufficient amount of its borrowing authority to
purchase at any time all notes and other obligations evidencing
loans made by such agencies and others. All bonds, notes,
debentures, and similar obligations issued by the Corporation
are subject to approval by the Secretary of the Treasury.
Under Public Law 87-155 (15 U.S.C. 713a-11, 713a-12),
annual appropriations are authorized for each fiscal year,
commencing with fiscal year 1961. These appropriations are to
reimburse the Corporation for net realized losses.
REIMBURSEMENT FOR NET REALIZED LOSSES
Appropriations, 2005 \1\................................ $16,452,377,000
Budget estimate, 2006 \1\............................... 25,690,000,000
House allowance \1\..................................... 25,690,000,000
Committee recommendation \1\............................ 25,690,000,000
\1\ Current estimate. Such sums as may be necessary are provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the payment to reimburse the Commodity Credit
Corporation [CCC] for net realized losses, the Committee
recommends an appropriation of such sums as may be necessary,
estimated in fiscal year 2006 to be $25,690,000,000. This
amount is $9,237,623,000 more than the current estimated
limitation.
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
Limitation, 2005........................................ $5,000,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 5,000,000
House allowance......................................... 5,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,000,000
The Commodity Credit Corporation's [CCC] hazardous waste
management program is intended to ensure compliance with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). The CCC
funds operations and maintenance costs as well as site
investigation and cleanup expenses. Investigative and cleanup
costs associated with the management of CCC hazardous waste are
also paid from USDA's hazardous waste management appropriation.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For Commodity Credit Corporation hazardous waste
management, the Committee provides a limitation of $5,000,000.
This amount is the same as the fiscal year 2005 limitation.
TITLE II--CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $735,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 744,000
House allowance......................................... 744,000
Committee recommendation................................ 744,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment provides direction and coordination in carrying out
the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to natural
resources and the environment. The Office has oversight and
management responsibilities for the Natural Resources
Conservation Service and the Forest Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources
and Environment, the Committee recommends an appropriation of
$744,000. This amount is $9,000 more than the fiscal year 2005
appropriation.
The Committee is aware that Devils Lake in the State of
North Dakota is now more than 25 feet higher than it was in
1993. The Committee encourages the NRCS, with the cooperation
of the FSA, to assist locally-coordinated flood response and
water management activities. NRCS and FSA should continue to
utilize conservation programs in providing water holding,
storage, and other innovative solutions as necessary measures
in watershed management.
Wetlands Reserve Program.--The Committee supports the
Natural Resources Conservation Service's [NRCS] efforts to
enroll in the Wetlands Reserve Program [WRP] acreage formerly
used for catfish production. The Committee encourages the NRCS
to continue this practice and make enrollment of former catfish
production acreage a high priority.
Klamath Basin.--The Committee recognizes that funds
provided under this Act to Klamath Basin farmers and ranchers
will go primarily to meet site-specific conservation goals.
However, the Committee intends that on-farm conservation
activities will be consistent with the broader goals for
environmental restoration and the recovery of Endangered
Species Act--listed species in the Klamath Basin, and enhance
the stability of operations for the Federal reclamation
project.
Protection of Natural Resources.--The Committee is
concerned by the rapid loss of agricultural lands and natural
resources resulting from urban development and encourages the
Secretary to utilize appropriate authorities to protect areas
of high value, such as Babcock Ranch in Florida, from continued
encroachment.
Colorado Salinity.--The Committee is aware of continuing
problems of water resource management in Western States,
especially those States experiencing rapid growth in water
demand, and urges the Secretary to dedicate adequate resources
in financial and technical assistance for on-farm measures to
control Colorado River salinity.
Natural Resources Conservation Service
The Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] was
established pursuant to Public Law 103-354, the Department of
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6962). NRCS
combines the authorities of the former Soil Conservation
Service as well as five natural resource conservation cost-
share programs previously administered by the Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service. Through the years, this
Service, together with the agricultural conservation programs
and over 2 million conservation district cooperatives, has been
a major factor in reducing pollution. The Natural Resources
Conservation Service works with conservation districts,
watershed groups, and the Federal and State agencies having
related responsibilities to bring about physical adjustments in
land use that will conserve soil and water resources, provide
for agricultural production on a sustained basis, and reduce
damage by flood and sedimentation. The Service, with its dams,
debris basins, and planned watersheds, provides technical
advice to the agricultural conservation programs, where the
Federal Government pays about one-third of the cost, and,
through these programs, has done perhaps more to minimize
pollution than any other activity. These programs and water
sewage systems in rural areas tend to minimize pollution in the
areas of greatest damage, the rivers and harbors near our
cities.
The conservation activities of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service are guided by the priorities and
objectives as set forth in the National Conservation Program
[NCP] which was prepared in response to the provisions of the
Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977 [RCA] (Public
Law 95-192). The long-term objectives of the program are
designed to maintain and improve the soil, water, and related
resources of the Nation's nonpublic lands by: reducing
excessive soil erosion, improving irrigation efficiencies,
improving water management, reducing upstream flood damages,
improving range condition, and improving water quality.
CONSERVATION OPERATIONS
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $830,661,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 767,783,000
House allowance......................................... 773,640,000
Committee recommendation................................ 819,561,000
Conservation operations are authorized by Public Law 74-46
(16 U.S.C. 590a-590f). Activities include:
Conservation Technical Assistance.--Provides assistance to
district cooperators and other land users in the planning and
application of conservation treatments to control erosion and
improve the quantity and quality of soil resources, improve and
conserve water, enhance fish and wildlife habitat, conserve
energy, improve woodland, pasture and range conditions, and
reduce upstream flooding; all to protect and enhance the
natural resource base.
Inventory and monitoring provides soil, water, and related
resource data for land conservation, use, and development;
guidance of community development; identification of prime
agricultural producing areas that should be protected;
environmental quality protection; and for the issuance of
periodic inventory reports of resource conditions.
Resource appraisal and program development ensures that
programs administered by the Secretary of Agriculture for the
conservation of soil, water, and related resources shall
respond to the Nation's long-term needs.
Soil Surveys.--Inventories the Nation's basic soil
resources and determines land capabilities and conservation
treatment needs. Soil survey publications include
interpretations useful to cooperators, other Federal agencies,
State, and local organizations.
Snow Survey and Water Forecasting.--Provides estimates of
annual water availability from high mountain snow packs and
relates to summer stream flow in the Western States and Alaska.
Information is used by agriculture, industry, and cities in
estimating future water supplies.
Plant Materials Centers.--Assembles, tests, and encourages
increased use of plant species which show promise for use in
the treatment of conservation problem areas.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For conservation operations, the Committee recommends an
appropriation of $819,561,000. This amount is $11,100,000 less
than the 2005 level.
For fiscal year 2006, the Committee recommends funding, as
specified below, for new and ongoing conservation activities.
Amounts provided by the Committee for specific conservation
measures shall be in addition to levels otherwise made
available to States.
Projects identified in Conference Report 108-792, making
appropriations for Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and
Related Programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005,
and for other purposes, that were directed to be funded by the
Committee for fiscal year 2005 are not funded for fiscal year
2006, unless specifically mentioned herein.
The Committee supports continuing activities of the
Chesapeake Bay Program and urges the Agency to provide on-going
support to provide technical assistance to farmers and local
governments throughout the Bay Watershed.
The Committee encourages the Secretary to utilize no less
than $5,000,000 from all appropriate funding sources to support
sage-grouse habitat conservation in States within the current
range of the greater sage-grouse.
The Committee recognizes that the High Plains Aquifer, with
the Ogallala Aquifer as its most important component, lies
beneath eight States and is the primary source of water for all
reported uses in western Kansas. The Committee is aware that
the aquifer is depleting at alarming rates and absent
conservation efforts could be dry within two decades. The
Committee urges the agency to give consideration to the use of
ground and surface water funding for projects in Kansas that
will conserve this aquifer.
The Committee supports the preservation of the last
tallgrass prairie in North America, most of which is located in
the Flint Hills region of Kansas. The Committee recognizes that
the tallgrass prairie provides rich ranching lands, open
spaces, and habitat for a diverse assemblage of plants and
animals. The Committee urges the agency to give consideration
to the use of all appropriate funding sources for projects in
Kansas that will preserve and protect this unique area.
The Committee provides $11,000,000 for Snow Survey and
Water Supply Forecasting.
The Committee provides $28,156,000 for the Grazing Lands
Conservation Initiative. This is $4,844,000 more than the
fiscal year 2005 level. The Committee expects that the
additional funds will be used to enhance efforts to manage and
prevent the spread of invasive species. The Committee
encourages the agency to make western range lands a priority
when allocating funding.
The Committee provides $3,000,000 to maintain a partnership
between USDA and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
The Committee directs the agency to maintain a national
priority area pilot program under the guidelines of the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program [EQIP] in the alluvial
floodplain of the Mississippi River.
The Committee provides $1,190,000 for a study to
characterize the on-site consequences, estimate off-site
impacts, and develop strategies to facilitate land use change
while preserving critical natural resources. The agency is
directed to work in cooperation with Clemson University.
The Committee provides $300,000 to continue the expansion
of the Potomac and Ohio River Basins Soil Nutrient Project to
include Jefferson, Berkeley, and Greenbrier Counties. This
funding will enable the NRCS, in cooperation with West Virginia
University, Appalachian Small Farming Research Center, and the
Natural Soil Survey Laboratory in Lincoln, NE, to identify and
characterize phosphorous movement in soils, to determine
appropriate transportation, the holding capacity, and the
management of phosphorous. This information is critical in
helping Appalachian farmers deal with nutrient loading issues
and in protecting the Chesapeake Bay from eutrophication and
the Ohio River, Mississippi River, and Gulf of Mexico from
depletion of life-sustaining oxygen.
The Committee provides $950,000 for grazing land
conservation activities in the State of Wisconsin.
The Committee provides $300,000 to obtain and evaluate
materials and seeds of plants indigenous to regions north of 52
degrees North Latitude and equivalent vegetated regions in the
Southern Hemisphere (south of 52 degrees South Latitude). The
Committee directs the agency to continue working in conjunction
with the Alaska Division of Agriculture in this effort.
The Committee provides $396,000 for a cooperative agreement
with Western Kentucky University to monitor water quality and
biological diversity of the Green River and surrounding
watersheds.
The Committee provides $800,000 to expand to the entire
State of Hawaii the agricultural development and resource
conservation program currently serving the Island of Molokai.
The Committee provides $860,000 to continue the Appalachian
Small Farmer Outreach Program in the State of West Virginia.
The Committee directs the agency to work with soil
scientists at regional land-grant universities to continue the
pilot project in Washington, Sharkey and Yazoo Counties,
Mississippi, to determine the proper classification and
taxonomic characteristics of Sharkey soils.
The Committee provides $1,200,000 to address erosion in the
Loess Hills/Hungry Canyon area in the State of Iowa.
The Committee provides $1,389,000 for the Delta
Conservation Demonstration Center in Washington County,
Mississippi.
The Committee provides $198,000 to continue the Idaho One-
Plan in Canyon County, Idaho.
The Committee provides $300,000 for commercialization of
native plant materials in the State of Alaska.
The Committee provides $160,000 to conduct nitrogen soil
tests and plant-available nitrogen tests, and to demonstrate
poultry litter and wood composting in an effort to improve
farmers' economic returns and minimize potential water quality
conditions resulting from excess application of nutrients from
manure and fertilizers on West Virginia's cropland.
The Committee provides $3,000,000 to provide technical
assistance for the Kentucky Soil Erosion Control/Soil Survey
Program.
The Committee provides $893,000 for cattle and nutrient
management in stream crossings in cooperation with Mississippi
Conservation Districts.
The Committee provides $400,000 to continue the Certified
Environmental Management Systems for Agriculture in cooperation
with the Iowa Soybean Association.
The Committee provides $4,500,000 for the Geographic
Information System Center of Excellence at West Virginia
University.
The Committee provides $548,000 for watershed management
and demonstration projects in cooperation with the National
Pork Producers Council and Iowa Soybean Association.
The Committee provides $192,000 for a cooperative agreement
between NRCS and Alcorn State University for the analysis of
soil erosion and water quality.
The Committee provides $5,766,000 for the Wildlife Habitat
Management Institute [WHMI]. The Committee recognizes the
unique attributes and contributions made by the WHMI toward
wildlife conservation goals of the Nation. As such, the
Committee directs the NRCS to explore opportunities to engage
the WHMI in administering a competitive grants process with a
goal of leveraging innovative habitat conservation efforts on
private lands. The Committee also directs NRCS to evaluate the
staffing and resource needs of the WHMI.
The Committee provides $950,000 for the New Jersey State
Conservation Cost Share Program.
The Committee provides $600,000 to continue assistance for
conservation programs related to cranberry production in the
States of Massachusetts and Wisconsin.
The Committee provides $350,000 to provide expedited
conservation planning of the Lake Okeechobee Watershed project
in the State of Florida. The Committee expects the agency to
work in cooperation with the Florida Department of Agriculture
and Consumer Services.
The Committee provides $300,000 for the Utah CAFO/AFO pilot
project.
The Committee provides $600,000 for conservation programs
in the Great Lakes Watershed.
The Committee expects the NRCS to work in conjunction with
the ARS Dairy Forage Laboratory in Madison, Wisconsin,
regarding dairy waste management and in the development of a
working arrangement regarding planned expansion of the Dairy
Forage Laboratory activities at Marshfield, Wisconsin, and the
establishment of a NRCS Waste Management Institute at that
location.
The Committee provides $300,000 to assist in the Wyoming
soil survey mapping project.
The Committee provides $500,000 to continue Natural
Resource Inventory pilot activity development in Alaska. The
agency shall provide the Committee with a report detailing its
progress on these activities no later than December 23, 2005.
The Committee provides $120,000 for the Conservation Land
Internship Program in the State of Wisconsin.
The Committee provides $446,000 to address concerns with
the application of phosphorous on agricultural lands in the
State of North Carolina.
The Committee provides $932,000 for additional conservation
technical assistance funding to Kentucky Soil Conservation
Districts.
The Committee provides $800,000 for a study to examine the
effect of vegetation manipulation on water yields and other
watershed functions. The agency is directed to work in
cooperation with Utah State University.
The Committee provides $3,571,000 for a cooperative
agreement with the Georgia Soil and Water Conservation
Commission.
The Committee provides $298,000 for the West Cary Watershed
Project in the State of North Carolina.
The Committee provides $496,000 for range revegetation at
Fort Hood in the State of Texas.
The Committee provides $446,000 for a cooperative agreement
with the University of Northern Iowa.
The Committee provides $1,488,000 for a cooperative
agreement with the Alaska Soil and Water Conservation District.
The Committee provides $300,000 for the testing of emerging
alternative technology in the State of Vermont to reduce
phosphorus loading in Lake Champlain.
The Committee provides $300,000 for a cooperative agreement
with the Wisconsin Tribal Conservation Advisory Committee for
conservation and sustainable agricultural activities.
The Committee provides $1,200,000 for a cooperative
agreement with the Sand County Foundation in the State of
Wisconsin to carry out an expanded nitrogen removal test
project.
The Committee provides $300,000 for a cooperative agreement
with the University of Wisconsin-Platteville for the Pioneer
Farm project.
The Committee provides $537,000 to carry out riparian
restoration activities along the Rio Grande and Pecos Rivers in
the State of New Mexico.
The Committee provides $500,000 for a cooperative agreement
with Tufts University to conduct pilot programs in the State of
Connecticut to improve conservation practices and enhance the
diversification of agricultural production in the area.
The Committee provides $350,000 to the North Central
Planning Council to continue a Devils Lake water utilization
test project in the State of North Dakota to determine to what
extent excess water from Devils Lake can be used to irrigate
land for beneficial use.
The Committee provides $242,000 for the Illinois River
Agricultural Water Conservation Project in the State of
Illinois, in conjunction with Ducks Unlimited.
The Committee provides $242,000 for a wildlife habitat
education program in the State of Illinois, in conjunction with
the National Wild Turkey Federation.
The Committee provides $300,000 to continue a Pilot Farm
Viability Program Project in the State of Vermont.
The Committee provides $250,000 for assistance for an On
Farm Management Systems Evaluation Network.
The Committee provides $694,000 to continue the Delta Water
Resources Study in the State of Mississippi.
The Committee provides $3,000,000 for the Washington Fields
project in the State of Utah.
The Committee provides $300,000 for a cooperative agreement
with the University of Wisconsin for the Conservation
Technology Transfer project.
The Committee provides $446,000 for a cooperative agreement
between the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources and the Alabama Wildlife Federation for conservation
education in Millbrook, Alabama.
The Committee provides $300,000 for the Ozark nutrient
management project in the State of Arkansas.
The Committee provides $10,000,000 for the Mississippi
Conservation Initiative.
The Committee provides $347,000 for a cooperative agreement
with the National Wild Turkey Federation for hardwood forest
restoration through the Operation Oak program.
The Committee provides $200,000 for a cooperative agreement
with the Municipal Water District of Orange County, California.
The Committee provides $5,000,000 for the Utah Conservation
Initiative.
The Committee provides $1,000,000 for alluvial floodplain
conservation in the State of Mississippi.
The Committee provides $200,000 for a cooperative agreement
with the Alabama Association of Conservation Districts.
The Committee provides $200,000 for a cooperative agreement
with Georgia Southern University for the Altamaha River Basin
water quality project.
The Committee provides $250,000 for a cooperative agreement
with the College of Southern Idaho.
The Committee provides $400,000 for a study on the
effectiveness of agriculture and forestry best management
practices on water quality. The Committee directs the agency to
work in cooperation with Louisiana State University.
The Committee provides $250,000 for the Union-Lincoln
Parish Regional Water Conservation Project in the State of
Louisiana.
The Committee provides $295,000 to continue dairy waste
remediation in the Lake Pontchartrain Basin of Louisiana.
The Committee provides $300,000 for a soil monitoring pilot
project in the State of Montana.
The Committee provides $750,000 for the Carson City erosion
control project in the State of Nevada.
The Committee provides $250,000 for rangeland conservation
in the State of Nevada.
The Committee provides $198,000 for a cooperative agreement
with the Pace University Land Use Law Center.
The Committee provides $198,000 for the Long Island Sound
watershed initiative in the State of New York.
The Committee provides $250,000 for the Lake Erie wetlands
conservation corridors project in the State of Ohio.
The Committee provides $350,000 for conservation in Klamath
and Lake Counties, Oregon.
The Committee provides $200,000 for soil survey work in the
State of Rhode Island.
The Committee provides $350,000 for conservation in the
Driftless area in the States of Wisconsin and Minnesota.
The Committee provides $1,000,000 for multiflora rose
control in the State of West Virginia.
The Committee provides $2,480,000 for the Great Lakes Basin
program for soil and erosion control.
The Committee provides $1,000,000 for conservation
activities in the West Branch DuPage River watershed in the
State of Illinois.
The Committee provides $350,000 to assist in planning and
operations in the Illinois River watershed.
The Committee provides $250,000 for the Small Farm Wetlands
Management Center in the State of Arkansas. The agency is
directed to work in cooperation with the University of
Arkansas-Pine Bluff.
The Committee believes the introduction of alien weed
pests, such as gorse and miconia, is a serious threat to the
pastures and forest watersheds of Hawaii. The Committee
strongly encourages the Natural Resources Conservation Service
to work with the Hawaii Department of Agriculture and the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, to develop holistic
approaches for the control and eradication of these invasive
alien pests and to provide matching funds as necessary.
Plant Materials Centers.--The Committee provides no less
than $11,847,000 for NRCS plant material centers.
The Committee provides $1,300,000 to complete the Alaska
Plant Materials Center.
The Committee provides the fiscal year 2005 level for the
Hawaii Plant Materials Center.
WATERSHED SURVEYS AND PLANNING
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $7,026,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 5,141,000
House allowance......................................... 7,026,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,141,000
The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, Public
Law 83-566, August 4, 1954, provided for the establishment of
the Small Watershed Program (16 U.S.C. 1001-1008), and section
6 of the act provided for the establishment of the River Basin
Surveys and Investigation Program (16 U.S.C. 1006-1009). A
separate appropriation funded the two programs until fiscal
year 1996 when they were combined into a single appropriation,
watershed surveys and planning.
River basin activities provide for cooperation with other
Federal, State, and local agencies in making investigations and
surveys of the watersheds of rivers and other waterways as a
basis for the development of coordinated programs. Reports of
the investigations and surveys are prepared to serve as a guide
for the development of agricultural, rural, and upstream
watershed aspects of water and related land resources, and as a
basis for coordination of this development with downstream and
other phases of water development.
Watershed planning activities provide for cooperation
between the Federal Government and the States and their
political subdivisions in a program of watershed planning.
Watershed plans form the basis for installing works of
improvement for floodwater retardation, erosion control, and
reduction of sedimentation in the watersheds of rivers and
streams and to further the conservation, development,
utilization, and disposal of water. The work of the Department
in watershed planning consists of assisting local organizations
to develop their watershed work plan by making investigations
and surveys in response to requests made by sponsoring local
organizations. These plans describe the soil erosion, water
management, and sedimentation problems in a watershed and works
of improvement proposed to alleviate these problems. Plans also
include estimated benefits and costs, cost-sharing and
operating and maintenance arrangements, and other appropriate
information necessary to justify Federal assistance for
carrying out the plan.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For watershed surveys and planning, the Committee
recommends an appropriation of $5,141,000. This amount is
$1,885,000 less than the fiscal year 2005 appropriation.
The Committee is concerned that additional watershed
surveys and planning work is being initiated at a time when
ongoing planning is not being completed in a timely manner, and
the backlog for watershed project implementation and
construction continues to mount. As such, the Committee does
not provide funding for any new planning starts. The Committee
directs the Chief of NRCS to evaluate and rank existing
planning efforts currently underway in order to fund and
complete the most promising projects, based upon merit, and
notify the Committee of the selected watershed projects.
watershed and flood prevention operations
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $74,971,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................................
House allowance......................................... 60,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 60,000,000
The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public
Law 566, 83d Cong.) (16 U.S.C. 1001-1005, 1007-1009) provides
for cooperation between the Federal Government and the States
and their political subdivisions in a program to prevent
erosion, floodwater, and sediment damages in the watersheds or
rivers and streams and to further the conservation,
development, utilization, and disposal of water.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service has general
responsibility for administration of activities, which include
cooperation with local sponsors, State, and other public
agencies in the installation of planned works of improvement to
reduce erosion, floodwater, and sediment damage; conserve,
develop, utilize, and dispose of water; plan and install works
of improvement for flood prevention, including the development
of recreational facilities and the improvement of fish and
wildlife habitat; and loans to local organizations to help
finance the local share of the cost of carrying out planned
watershed and flood prevention works of improvement.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For watershed and flood prevention operations, the
Committee recommends an appropriation of $60,000,000. This
amount is $14,971,000 less than the fiscal year 2005
appropriation.
The Committee provides funds for the agency to complete the
next phase of the Potomac Headwaters Land Treatment Project in
the State of West Virginia.
The Committee provides funds for the agency to continue the
next phase of the Upper Deckers Creek watershed project in the
State of West Virginia.
The Committee provides funds for the agency to complete the
Little Whitestick watershed project in the State of West
Virginia.
The Committee provides funds for the agency to complete the
next phase of the Little Red River project in the State of
Arkansas.
The Committee provides funds for the agency to continue the
next phase of the Lost River Watershed Project in the State of
West Virginia.
The Committee provides funds for the agency to complete the
next phase of Big Creek-Hurricane Creek, West Fork of Big
Creek, Upper Locust Creek, Grassy Creek, East Locust Creek,
Moniteau Creek, Troublesome Creek, East Yellow Creek, Little
Otter Creek, East Fork Grand River, Hickory Creek, and McKenzie
Creek projects in the State of Missouri.
The Committee provides funds for the agency to complete the
next phase of Lower Hamakua Ditch Watershed, Upcountry Maui
Watershed, Lahaina Watershed, Manoa Watershed, and the Wailuku-
Alenaio Watershed projects in the State of Hawaii.
The Committee provides funds for the agency to complete the
next phase of the Turkey Creek, Troublesome Creek, 12-Mile
Creek, East Fork of Grand River, West Fork of Big Creek, A&T
Longbranch, Mill Creek, Hacklebarney, Bear Creek, Mosquito of
Harrison, Mill-Pacauyne, Soap Creek, Little Sioux River, Little
River, and West Tarkio Creek projects in the State of Iowa.
The Committee provides funds for the agency to complete the
next phase of the Coal Creek, Ferron, Muddy Creek-Orderville,
and Tri-Valley projects in the State of Utah.
The Committee provides funds for the agency to complete the
next phase of the Matanuska River Erosion Control Project in
the State of Alaska.
The Committee provides funds for the agency to complete the
next phase of the Town Creek Watershed project, Lee County,
Mississippi.
The Committee provides funds for the agency to make channel
improvements in the Long Beach Watershed, Canal 2-3, Harrison
County, Mississippi.
The Committee provides funds to the agency for channel
grade control in the Upper Tallahatchie Watershed, Union and
Tippah Counties, Mississippi.
The Committee provides funding to the agency for bank
stabilization in the Arkabutla Watershed in the State of
Mississippi.
The Committee provides funding to the agency to complete
the next phase of the Lower Birch Creek project in the State of
Montana.
The Committee provides funding to the agency to complete
the next phase of the South Fork of the Licking River project
in the State of Ohio.
The Committee provides funding to the agency to complete
the next phase of the Williamsburg Arroyos Watershed project in
the State of New Mexico.
The Committee provides funding to the agency to complete
the next phase of the Pine Barren Watershed project in the
State of Alabama.
The Committee expects the Department to give consideration
for financial and technical assistance to the Attoyac Bayou
project in the State of Texas.
WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $27,280,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 15,125,000
House allowance......................................... 47,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 27,313,000
The watershed rehabilitation program account provides for
technical and financial assistance to carry out rehabilitation
of structural measures, in accordance with Section 14 of the
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, approved August
4, 1954 (16 U.S.C. 1012, U.S.C. 1001, et seq.), as amended by
Section 313 of Public Law 106-472, November 9, 2000, and by
section 2505 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of
2002 (Public Law 107-171).
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the watershed rehabilitation program, the Committee
recommends $27,313,000. This amount is $33,000 more than the
fiscal year 2005 level.
The Committee directs that funding under this program be
provided for rehabilitation of structures determined to be of
high priority need in order to protect property and ensure
public safety.
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $51,228,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 25,600,000
House allowance......................................... 51,360,000
Committee recommendation................................ 51,228,000
The Natural Resources Conservation Service has general
responsibility under provisions of section 102, title I of the
Food and Agriculture Act of 1962 (7 U.S.C. 1010 et seq.), for
developing overall work plans for resource conservation and
development projects in cooperation with local sponsors; to
help develop local programs of land conservation and
utilization; to assist local groups and individuals in carrying
out such plans and programs; to conduct surveys and
investigations relating to the conditions and factors affecting
such work on private lands; and to make loans to project
sponsors for conservation and development purposes and to
individual operators for establishing soil and water
conservation practices.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For resource conservation and development, the Committee
recommends an appropriation of $51,228,000. This amount is the
same as the fiscal year 2005 level.
TITLE III--RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
The Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-354)
abolished the Farmers Home Administration, Rural Development
Administration, and Rural Electrification Administration and
replaced those agencies with the Rural Housing and Community
Development Service, (currently, the Rural Housing Service),
Rural Business and Cooperative Development Service (currently,
the Rural Business-Cooperative Service), and Rural Utilities
Service and placed them under the oversight of the Under
Secretary for Rural Economic and Community Development,
(currently, Rural Development). These agencies deliver a
variety of programs through a network of State, district, and
county offices.
Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $627,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 635,000
House allowance......................................... 627,000
Committee recommendation................................ 635,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development
provides direction and coordination in carrying out the laws
enacted by the Congress with respect to the Department's rural
economic and community development activities. The Office has
oversight and management responsibilities for the Rural Housing
Service, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, and the Rural
Utilities Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the Under Secretary for Rural
Development, the Committee recommends an appropriation of
$635,000. This amount is $8,000 more than the fiscal year 2005
appropriation.
The Committee is aware the Department has previously
provided funding for the National Rural Development Partnership
[NRDP]. The NRDP, and its associated State Rural Development
Councils, provide technical support and guidance for rural
development at the State and local level. The Committee
encourages the Department to continue support for this
important organization from within available funds.
The Committee recognizes that Eastern Oregon University
[EOCRES] and the communities of Tchula, Mississippi and Libby,
Montana have requested technical and programmatic assistance
for housing, business, telecommunication, and other essential
community needs. The Committee expects the Secretary to provide
additional resources, and encourages the use of available
national reserve funds.
The Committee recommends continued staffing and operations
of the Rural Business Cooperative Service Office in Hilo,
Hawaii, to address the continuing and increasing demands for
marketing and purchasing cooperatives.
The Committee is concerned that the Department is
restricting not-for-profit developer-owners of essential
community facilities from entering into contracts to provide
services with a third party not-for-profit entity for childcare
and other related services. The Committee strongly encourages
the Secretary to address this policy prohibition to allow such
activities and ensure the government's interests are protected
with third party contracts. The developer-owner should be
responsible for securing Departmental approval for any changes
in existing contracts addressing issues that include services
provided, liability, maintenance and administrative fees.
The Committee is aware of the distance learning and medical
link opportunities in the island State of Hawaii, and urges the
Department to fund a demonstration project to build upon
existing resources, and to further the use of advanced
telecommunications by Molokai, Maui, Lanai, Kauai, the Big
Island, rural Oahu communities, American Samoa, Guam, the
Freely Associated States of Micronesia, and the Northern
Mariana Islands not having the direct access to services and
information that are currently available in Honolulu.
The Committee is concerned that significant portions of
rural America remain without broadband service, thus limiting
economic opportunity in those areas. The Committee directs that
RUS revise its rules and procedures to reduce the burdensome
application process and make the program requirements more
reasonable, particularly in regard to cash-on-hand
requirements.
The Committee is aware of recent advances in materials
handling of biomass sources that greatly enhance the economic
feasibility of producing ethanol from sugarcane bagasse and
other unwieldy biomass sources and encourages the Department to
give consideration to applications by the Kauai Bagasse to
Ethanol commercial scale demonstration project for loans and
grants from the renewable energy program.
The Committee encourages the Secretary to consider an
application for assistance to Women in Technology in Wisconsin
and Hawaii for consideration of a rural business enterprise
grant for the purpose of establishing revolving loan programs.
The Committee has included a general provision which
provides $1,500,000 for the Denali Commission to address
deficiencies in solid waste management in the State of Alaska.
The Committee directs the Commission to work with the State of
Alaska to develop a legal framework for a solid waste
management authority that can become self-sustaining and is
authorized to establish a revolving loan fund to support solid
waste projects.
The Committee provides $140,000 through the University of
Nevada Reno to conduct a feasibility study for a cooperative
sheep slaughter facility.
Rural Community Advancement Program
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $710,321,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 521,689,000
House allowance......................................... 657,389,000
Committee recommendation................................ 705,106,000
The Rural Community Advancement Program [RCAP], authorized
by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996
(Public Law 104-127), consolidates funding for the following
programs: direct and guaranteed water and waste disposal loans,
water and waste disposal grants, emergency community water
assistance grants, solid waste management grants, direct and
guaranteed community facility loans, community facility grants,
direct and guaranteed business and industry loans, rural
business enterprise grants, and rural business opportunity
grants. This proposal is in accordance with the provisions set
forth in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of
1996, Public Law 104-127. Consolidating funding for these 12
rural development loan and grant programs under RCAP provides
greater flexibility to tailor financial assistance to applicant
needs.
With the exception of the 10 percent in the ``National
office reserve'' account, funding is allocated to rural
development State directors for their priority setting on a
State-by-State basis. State directors are authorized to
transfer not more than 25 percent of the amount in the account
that is allocated for the State for the fiscal year to any
other account in which amounts are allocated for the State for
the fiscal year, with up to 10 percent of funds allowed to be
reallocated nationwide.
Community facility loans were created by the Rural
Development Act of 1972 (7 U.S.C. 1926 et seq.) to finance a
variety of rural community facilities. Loans are made to
organizations, including certain Indian tribes and corporations
not operated for profit and public and quasipublic agencies, to
construct, enlarge, extend, or otherwise improve community
facilities providing essential services to rural residents.
Such facilities include those providing or supporting overall
community development, such as fire and rescue services, health
care, transportation, traffic control, and community, social,
cultural, and recreational benefits. Loans are made for
facilities which primarily serve rural residents of open
country and rural towns and villages of not more than 20,000
people. Health care and fire and rescue facilities are the
priorities of the program and receive the majority of available
funds.
The Community Facility Grant Program authorized in the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public
Law 104-127), is used in conjunction with the existing direct
and guaranteed loan programs for the development of community
facilities, such as hospitals, fire stations, and community
centers. Grants are targeted to the lowest income communities.
Communities that have lower population and income levels
receive a higher cost-share contribution through these grants,
to a maximum contribution of 75 percent of the cost of
developing the facility.
The Rural Business and Industry Loans Program was created
by the Rural Development Act of 1972, and finances a variety of
rural industrial development loans. Loans are made for rural
industrialization and rural community facilities under Rural
Development Act amendments to the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932 et seq.) authorities. Business
and industrial loans are made to public, private, or
cooperative organizations organized for profit, to certain
Indian tribes, or to individuals for the purpose of improving,
developing or financing business, industry, and employment or
improving the economic and environmental climate in rural
areas. Such purposes include financing business and industrial
acquisition, construction, enlargement, repair or
modernization, financing the purchase and development of land,
easements, rights-of-way, buildings, payment of startup costs,
and supplying working capital. Industrial development loans may
be made in any area that is not within the outer boundary of
any city having a population of 50,000 or more and its
immediately adjacent urbanized and urbanizing areas with a
population density of more than 100 persons per square mile.
Special consideration for such loans is given to rural areas
and cities having a population of less than 25,000.
Rural business enterprise grants were authorized by the
Rural Development Act of 1972. Grants are made to public bodies
and nonprofit organizations to facilitate development of small
and emerging business enterprises in rural areas, including the
acquisition and development of land; the construction of
buildings, plants, equipment, access streets and roads, parking
areas, and utility extensions; refinancing fees; technical
assistance; and startup operating costs and working capital.
Rural business opportunity grants are authorized under
section 306(a)(11) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act, as amended. Grants may be made to public
bodies and private nonprofit community development corporations
or entities. Grants are made to identify and analyze business
opportunities that will use local rural economic and human
resources; to identify, train, and provide technical assistance
to rural entrepreneurs and managers; to establish business
support centers; to conduct economic development planning and
coordination, and leadership development; and to establish
centers for training, technology, and trade that will provide
training to rural businesses in the utilization of interactive
communications technologies.
The water and waste disposal program is authorized by
sections 306, 306A, 309A, 306C, 306D, and 310B of the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1921 et
seq., as amended). This program makes loans for water and waste
development costs. Development loans are made to associations,
including corporations operating on a nonprofit basis,
municipalities and similar organizations, generally designated
as public or quasipublic agencies, that propose projects for
the development, storage, treatment, purification, and
distribution of domestic water or the collection, treatment, or
disposal of waste in rural areas. Such grants may not exceed 75
percent of the development cost of the projects and can
supplement other funds borrowed or furnished by applicants to
pay development costs.
The solid waste grant program is authorized under section
310B(b) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act.
Grants are made to public bodies and private nonprofit
organizations to provide technical assistance to local and
regional governments for the purpose of reducing or eliminating
pollution of water resources and for improving the planning and
management of solid waste disposal facilities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Rural Community Advancement Program [RCAP], the
Committee recommends $705,106,000. This amount is $5,215,000
less than the fiscal year 2005 appropriation.
The Committee notes that the subsidy costs for many
programs in the Rural Community Advancement Program have
increased substantially. However, even with budgetary
constraints, the Committee has provided adequate funding for
these national and regional programs.
The following table provides the Committee's
recommendations, as compared to the fiscal year 2005 and budget
request levels:
RURAL COMMUNITY ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM
[Budget authority in thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------------ Committee
2005 2006 budget recommendation
appropriation request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Community:
Community facility loan subsidies..................... 12,339 10,806 10,806
Community facility grants............................. 19,678 17,000 17,000
Economic impact initiative grants..................... 17,911 ................ 20,000
High energy costs grants.............................. 27,776 ................ 28,000
Rural community development initiative................ 6,299 ................ 6,500
Tribal college grants................................. 4,464 ................ 4,464
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, community................................. 88,467 27,806 86,770
=====================================================
Business:
Business and industry guaranteed loan subsidies....... 29,939 44,221 44,221
Rural business enterprise grants...................... 39,680 ................ 40,000
Rural business opportunity grants..................... 2,976 ................ 3,000
Delta Regional Authority.............................. 992 ................ 3,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, business.................................. 73,587 44,221 90,221
=====================================================
Utilities:
Water and waste disposal direct loan subsidies........ 89,280 69,100 69,100
Water and waste disposal grants....................... 431,078 377,062 454,027
Solid waste management grants......................... 3,472 3,500 3,500
Emergency community water assistance grants........... 22,949 ................ ................
Well system grants.................................... 992 ................ 992
Water and wastewater revolving funds.................. 496 ................ 496
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, utilities................................. 548,267 449,662 528,115
=====================================================
Total, loan subsidies and grants.................... 710,321 521,689 705,106
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Community Advancement Program.--The Committee
provides $500,000 for transportation technical assistance.
The Committee directs the Department to continue the Rural
Economic Area Partnership [REAP] initiative.
The Committee directs that of the $26,000,000 provided for
loans and grants to benefit Federally Recognized Native
American Tribes, $250,000 be used to implement an American
Indian and Alaska Native passenger transportation development
and assistance initiative.
Community Facilities Loans and Grants.--The Committee is
aware of and encourages the Department to give consideration to
applications relating to community facilities for the
following: Staunton-Augusta Farmer's Market (VA); Sandoval
County Health Commons (NM); Community Concepts Family Service
Center (ME); City of Lindsey-Lindsey Wellness Center (CA);
Lafourche Parish Emergency Evacuation Shelter (LA); Grande Isle
Multiplex Center (LA); Lafourche Regional Agricultural Center
(LA); City of Grambling Town Hall (LA); Jefferson Street
Drainage Project (LA); Town of Golden Meadow Hurricane
Evacuation Center (LA); Gogebic County NOAA Radio Warning
System (MI); Chautauqua County Fair Equestrian Center, Dunkirk
(NY); Technology Transfer Center, Ardmore (OK); Darlington
Agriculture Education and Applied Research Center (OK); and New
Mackinac Straits Virtual Hospital Project (MI).
Economic Impact Initiative Grants.--The Committee includes
statutory language to provide $20,000,000 for the Rural
Community Facilities Grant Program for areas of extreme
unemployment or severe economic depression.
High Energy Cost Grants.--The Committee includes statutory
language to provide $28,000,000 for the Rural Community
Advancement Program for communities with extremely high energy
costs which is to be administered by the Rural Utilities
Service. The Committee directs that these funds shall be
transferred within 30 days of enactment of this Act.
Rural Business Opportunity Grants.--The Committee
encourages the Department to give consideration to applications
for rural business opportunity grants [RBOG] for the following:
Ardmore Technology Transfer Center (OK); Rural Enterprises
Institute of Oklahoma Rural Woman's Business Incubator; ``Made
by American Indian'' Marketing Outreach and Economic
Development Program (MT); Montana Agricultural Innovation
Centers; Rhode Island Farmways Agri-tourism Program; New Mexico
Rural Development Response Council; Maine Rural Economic
Development Center; and Southeast Crescent Authority (NC).
Rural Business Enterprise Grants.--The Committee is also
aware of and encourages the Department to give consideration to
applications for rural business enterprise grants [RBEG] for
the following: Staunton-Augusta Farmer's Market (VA);
Punxsutawney Regional Development Council-Multi-Tenant
Industrial Complex (PA); Armstrong County Planning &
Development-Kittanning Campus Reuse (PA); Fractionation
Development Center (ME); Mission Montain-Business Incubator
(MT); Business Connection for Rural Montana at the University
of Montana (MT); Blue Ribbon Omega Egg Facility (MN);
Southeastern Massachusetts Agricultural Partnership (SEMAP)
(MA); Maryland Agricultural and the Resource-Based Industry
Development Corporation [MARBIDCO]; Vincennes University Center
for Applied Technology (IN); and the Rhode Island Farmways
Agritourism Program (RI).
The Committee expects the Department to ensure that the
system by which applications for rural business enterprise
grants are considered does not discriminate against
applications which may benefit multiple States.
Business and Industry Guaranteed Loans.--The Committee
encourages the Department to give consideration to applications
for business and industry [B&I] loans for the following:
Staunton-Augusta Farmer's Market (VA); Ardmore Technology
Transfer Center (OK); Rural Enterprises Institute of Oklahoma
Rural Woman's Business Incubator; ``Made by American Indian''
Marketing Outreach and Economic Development Program (MT); and
the Punxsutawney Regional Development Council--Multi-Tenant
Industrial Complex (PA).
Water and Waste Disposal Loans and Grants.--The Committee
is aware of and encourages the Department to consider
applications for water and waste disposal loans and grants for
the following projects: Swains Creek Area Culinary Water System
Improvements (UT); Red Rock Rural Water, wastewater facility
(MN); City of Nelson, MN, wastewater facility; City of Askov,
MN, wastewater facility; City of Walters, MN, wastewater
facility; City of Mentor, MN, wastewater facility; Jal, New
Mexico, water and sewer upgrades; Eunice, New Mexico, water and
sewer upgrades; Lovington, New Mexico, utility improvements;
Tatum, New Mexico, water system upgrades; Hobbs, New Mexico,
wastewater treatment plant; Columbus, (NM); Lordsburg, (NM);
San Ildefonso Pueblo, (NM); Mesquite (NM); Oklahoma water and
sewer system upgrades; City of Krebs, Oklahoma, water treatment
plant; City of Idabel, Oklahoma, sewer rehabilitation; City of
Chandler, Oklahoma, sewer line replacement; Huston Township
Sewer Authority, Mountain Run Road sewer extension (PA); Union-
Lincoln Regional Water Supply Initiative (LA); Jonesville
waterline (NC); Cass County Regional water and wastewater
improvements (NE); Coburg wastewater system (OR); Lake County,
Full Circle Project, rural wastewater and water treatment
upgrade (CA); Squaxin Island Tribe Wastewater Project (WA);
City of Stanley, water and wastewater emerging needs (WI);
Springhill, water utility improvements and upgrades (LA);
Village of Downsville, water utility improvements and upgrades
(LA); Southeast Washington County Water Project (AR); City of
Greenville Department of Public Safety, aerial platform, (MI);
Rio Blanco Offstream Reservoir project (PR); and Indian River
Community Wastewater Project (MI).
The Committee includes statutory language to make up to
$26,000,000 in water and waste disposal loans and grants
available for village safe water for the development of water
systems for rural communities and native villages in Alaska. In
addition, the Committee is aware of and encourages the
Department to consider applications to the national program
from small, regional hub villages in Alaska with a populations
less than 5,000 which are not able to compete for village safe
water funding; $25,000,000 for water and waste systems for the
Colonias along the United States-Mexico border; and $26,000,000
for water and waste disposal systems for Federally Recognized
Native American Tribes. In addition, the Committee makes up to
$13,500,000 available for the circuit rider program.
The Committee directs the Department to use a portion of
the funds provided to the Alaska Village Safe Water Program for
the preparation or completion of comprehensive community plans
by rural communities in Alaska. No more than 5 percent of the
total amount of the grant may be made available for this
purpose and the amount allocated shall not exceed $35,000 per
eligible Alaska community.
The Committee encourages the RUS to increase its efforts
towards the use of innovative and alternative methods of
collecting and treating waste water in very small communities.
Many technologies exist that lower both construction and
operating costs, allowing the RUS to further benefit
communities which in many cases have no central waste
treatment. The RUS should consider supporting State and
regional efforts to promote such alternative efforts as well as
individual projects.
Individually Owned Household Water Well Program.--The
Committee provides $992,000 to continue the Individually Owned
Household Water Well Program as authorized in section 6012 of
Public Law 107-171.
Water and Waste Technical Assistance Training Grants.--The
Committee provides a significant increase in the technical
assistance account for water and waste systems and expects the
Secretary to provide an increase in grant funding to the
National Drinking Water Clearinghouse. The Committee is aware
of and encourages the Department to consider applications from
the Alaska Village Safe Water Program to provide statewide
training in water and waste systems operation and maintenance.
The Committee encourages the Department to provide
technical assistance to the Alachua County Critical Rural
Services Initiative (FL).
Solid Waste Management Grants.--The Committee provides
$3,500,000 for grants for solid waste management. The Committee
encourages the Department to give consideration to the Navajo
Nation open dump cleanup project in the State of Utah.
The Committee expects the Department to consider only those
applications judged meritorious when subjected to the
established review process.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------------ Committee
2005 2006 budget recommendation
appropriation request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation............................................. 147,264 167,849 164,773
Transfer from:
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Loan Program Account..... 444,755 465,886 465,886
Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans 37,971 39,933 39,933
Program Account......................................
Rural Telephone Bank Program Account.................. 3,127 2,500 2,500
Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account........... 4,281 6,656 6,656
-----------------------------------------------------
Total, RD salaries and expenses..................... 637,398 682,824 679,748
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These funds are used to administer the loan and grant
programs of the Rural Utilities Service, the Rural Housing
Service, and the Rural Business-Cooperative Service, including
reviewing applications, making and collecting loans and
providing technical assistance and guidance to borrowers; and
to assist in extending other Federal programs to people in
rural areas.
Under credit reform, administrative costs associated with
loan programs are appropriated to the program accounts.
Appropriations to the salaries and expenses account will be for
costs associated with grant programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends $679,748,000 for salaries and
expenses for the Rural Economic and Community Development
Programs. This amount is $42,350,000 more than the fiscal year
2005 appropriation.
The Committee expects that none of the funds provided for
Rural Development, Salaries and Expenses should be used to
enter into or renew a contract for any activity that is best
suited as an inherent function of Government, without prior
approval from the Committees on Appropriations of the House and
Senate. Such activities may include, but are not limited to,
any function that affects eligibility determination,
disbursement, collection or accounting for Government subsidies
provided under any of the direct or guaranteed loan programs of
the Rural Development mission area or the Farm Service Agency.
The Committee is concerned about the delayed application
processing time related to broadband loans and encourages the
Secretary to provide additional resources, including new full
time Federal employees within the Rural Utilities Service, to
address this issue.
Rural Housing Service
The Rural Housing Service [RHS] was established under
Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Act of 1994, dated October 13, 1994.
The mission of the Service is to improve the quality of
life in rural America by assisting rural residents and
communities in obtaining adequate and affordable housing and
access to needed community facilities. The goals and objectives
of the Service are: (1) facilitate the economic revitalization
of rural areas by providing direct and indirect economic
benefits to individual borrowers, families, and rural
communities; (2) assure that benefits are communicated to all
program eligible customers with special outreach efforts to
target resources to underserved, impoverished, or economically
declining rural areas; (3) lower the cost of programs while
retaining the benefits by redesigning more effective programs
that work in partnership with State and local governments and
the private sector; and (4) leverage the economic benefits
through the use of low-cost credit programs, especially
guaranteed loans.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends total appropriations of
$1,471,554,000 for the Rural Housing Service. This amount is
$101,892,000 more than the fiscal year 2005 appropriation.
The Committee provides $16,500,000 to carry out a
demonstration program for projects financed under the section
515 program. It is the Committee's intent that the Department
assists section 515 owners in revitalizing and preserving the
section 515 housing portfolio through financial options
provided in this demonstration and consistent with
recommendations provided in the Comprehensive Property
Assessment report released by the Department in 2004. The
Committee expects that owners assisted under this demonstration
program shall be required to maintain the housing assisted
under this demonstration as affordable, as determined by the
Secretary, for the remaining term of the original loan or the
term of a restructured loan, whichever is longer.
The Committee provides $90,000,000 for the section 515
program and encourages the Secretary to give priority in
awarding new construction 515 financing to eligible communities
that have projects that have been accepted for prepayment and
where the housing market reflects a continued need for
affordable low-income rental housing.
The Committee encourages the Department to continue to set-
aside funds within rural housing programs to support self-help
housing, home ownership partnerships, housing preservation and
State rental assistance, and other related activities that
facilitate the development of housing in rural areas.
The following table presents loan and grant program levels
recommended by the Committee, as compared to the fiscal year
2005 levels and the 2006 budget request:
LOAN AND GRANT LEVELS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------------- Committee
2005 2006 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account loan levels:
Single family housing (sec. 502):
Direct.................................................. 1,140,800 1,000,000 1,000,000
Unsubsidized guaranteed, purchase....................... 3,059,439 3,474,137 3,474,137
Unsubsidized guaranteed, refinance...................... 223,384 206,896 206,896
Housing repair (sec. 504)................................... 34,720 35,969 35,000
Multifamily housing guarantees (sec. 538)................... 99,200 200,000 100,000
Rental housing (sec. 515)................................... 99,200 27,027 90,000
Site loans (sec. 524)....................................... 5,045 5,000 5,000
Credit sales of acquired property........................... 11,489 11,500 11,500
Self-help housing land development fund..................... 10,000 5,048 5,048
-----------------------------------------------
Total, RHIF............................................... 4,683,277 4,965,577 4,927,581
===============================================
Farm Labor Program:
Farm labor housing loan level............................... 38,192 42,000 35,000
Farm labor housing grants................................... 15,872 14,000 14,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Farm Labor Program................................. 54,064 56,000 49,000
===============================================
Grants and payments:
Rural housing voucher program............................... .............. 214,000 16,000
Multifamily housing preservation............................ .............. .............. 16,500
Mutual and self-help housing................................ 33,728 34,000 34,000
Rental assistance........................................... 587,264 650,026 653,102
Rural housing assistance grants [RHAG]...................... 43,640 41,000 43,976
-----------------------------------------------
Total, rural housing grants and payments.................. 664,632 939,026 763,578
===============================================
Total, RHS loans and grants............................... 5,401,973 5,960,603 5,691,159
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
This fund was established in 1965 (Public Law 89-117)
pursuant to section 517 of title V of the Housing Act of 1949
(42 U.S.C. 517(d)), as amended. This fund may be used to insure
or guarantee rural housing loans for single-family homes,
rental and cooperative housing, and rural housing sites. Rural
housing loans are made to construct, improve, alter, repair, or
replace dwellings and essential farm service buildings that are
modest in size, design, and cost. Rental housing insured loans
are made to individuals, corporations, associations, trusts, or
partnerships to provide moderate-cost rental housing and
related facilities for elderly persons in rural areas. These
loans are repayable in not to exceed 30 years. Loan programs
are limited to rural areas, which include towns, villages, and
other places of not more than 10,000 population, which are not
part of an urban area. Loans may also be made in areas with a
population in excess of 10,000, but less than 20,000, if the
area is not included in a standard metropolitan statistical
area and has a serious lack of mortgage credit for low- and
moderate-income borrowers.
An increased priority should be placed on long term
rehabilitation needs within the existing multi-family housing
portfolio including increased equity loan activity and
financial and technical assistance support for acquisition of
existing projects.
LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-508)
established the program account. Appropriations to this account
will be used to cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated
with the direct loans obligated and loan guarantees committed
in 2005, as well as for administrative expenses. The following
table presents the loan subsidy levels as compared to the 2005
levels and the 2006 budget request:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2005 level 2006 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:
Single family (sec. 502):
Direct............................................... 132,105 113,900 113,900
Unsubsidized guaranteed, purchase.................... 32,736 40,300 40,300
Unsubsidized guaranteed, refinance................... 603 600 600
Housing repair (sec. 504)................................ 10,090 10,521 10,238
Multifamily housing guarantees (sec. 538)................ 3,462 10,840 5,420
Rental housing (sec. 515)................................ 46,713 12,400 41,292
Site loans (sec. 524) \1\................................ ............... ............... ...............
Credit sales of acquired property........................ 721 681 681
Self-help housing land development fund \2\.............. ............... 52 52
--------------------------------------------------
Total, loan subsidies.................................. 226,430 189,294 212,483
==================================================
Administrative expenses...................................... 444,755 465,886 465,886
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Negative subsidy rates for fiscal years 2005 and 2006 are calculated for this program.
\2\ Negative subsidy rate for fiscal year 2005 is calculated for this program.
RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $587,264,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 650,026,000
House allowance......................................... 650,026,000
Committee recommendation................................ 653,102,000
The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42
U.S.C. 1490a) established a rural rental assistance program to
be administered through the rural housing loans program. The
objective of the program is to reduce rents paid by low-income
families living in Rural Housing Service financed rental
projects and farm labor housing projects. Under this program,
low-income tenants will contribute the higher of: (1) 30
percent of monthly adjusted income; (2) 10 percent of monthly
income; or (3) designated housing payments from a welfare
agency.
Payments from the fund are made to the project owner for
the difference between the tenant's payment and the approved
rental rate established for the unit.
The program is administered in tandem with Rural Housing
Service section 515 rural rental and cooperative housing
programs and the farm labor loan and grant programs. Priority
is given to existing projects for units occupied by rent over
burdened low-income families and projects experiencing
financial difficulties beyond the control of the owner; any
remaining authority will be used for projects receiving new
construction commitments under sections 514, 515, or 516 for
very low-income families with certain limitations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For rural rental assistance payments, the Committee
recommends an appropriation of $653,102,000. This amount is
$65,838,000 more than the fiscal year 2005 appropriation.
The Committee provides additional funding above the budget
request for debt forgiveness and payments to enhance
preservations efforts. The Committee has also included a
provision that will deobligate the cost of rental assistance in
section 515 projects that are subject to prepayment and
reallocate these funds through a separate funding stream for
the cost of the vouchers and debt forgiveness consistent with
the requirements of this Act. These funds are in addition to
funds otherwise provided for such activities in this Act.
RURAL HOUSING VOUCHER PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2005....................................................
Budget estimate, 2006................................... $214,000,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 16,000,000
This program is authorized by section 542 of the Housing
Act of 1949. This program is intended to protect tenants living
in properties in the existing Rural Housing Service multifamily
housing portfolio whose properties leave the portfolio due to
prepayment. Housing vouchers will assist tenants who face
substantial rent increases or loss of rental housing as a
result of loan prepayments.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee provides $16,000,000 for the rural housing
voucher program. The Committee is concerned with the
Department's inability to transmit and communicate clearly the
administration's proposed voucher and revitalization
legislation required to address the pending preservation issue
for low-income multi-family rural housing. The Committee has
provided adequate funding for vouchers as a safety net
preventing the displacement of low-income rural tenants that
currently reside in section 515 projects that are subject to
prepayment or foreclosure of their existing loans. The
Committee does not alter prepayment restrictions or intend for
vouchers to be used in a property that would not be eligible or
able to prepay without the use of the voucher. The Secretary
shall ensure standards for determining whether any prepayment
of a section 515 loan will have a material impact on minority
housing opportunities consistent with current law.
MUTUAL AND SELF-HELP HOUSING GRANTS
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $33,728,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 34,000,000
House allowance......................................... 34,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 34,000,000
This grant program is authorized by title V of the Housing
Act of 1949. Grants are made to local organizations to promote
the development of mutual or self-help programs under which
groups of usually 6 to 10 families build their own homes by
mutually exchanging labor. Funds may be used to pay the cost of
construction supervisors who will work with families in the
construction of their homes and for administrative expenses of
the organizations providing the self-help assistance.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends $34,000,000 for mutual and self-
help housing grants. This amount is $272,000 more than the
fiscal year 2005 appropriation.
The Committee encourages the Department to give
consideration to a grant application from the Livingston Self
Help Housing Program in Montana.
rural housing assistance grants
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $43,640,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 41,000,000
House allowance......................................... 41,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 43,976,000
This program consolidates funding for rural housing grant
programs. This consolidation of housing grant funding provides
greater flexibility to tailor financial assistance to applicant
needs.
Very Low-income Housing Repair Grants.--The Very Low-Income
Housing Repair Grants Program is authorized under section 504
of title V of the Housing Act of 1949. The rural housing repair
grant program is carried out by making grants to very low-
income families to make necessary repairs to their homes in
order to make such dwellings safe and sanitary, and remove
hazards to the health of the occupants, their families, or the
community.
These grants may be made to cover the cost of improvements
or additions, such as repairing roofs, providing toilet
facilities, providing a convenient and sanitary water supply,
supplying screens, repairing or providing structural supports
or making similar repairs, additions, or improvements,
including all preliminary and installation costs in obtaining
central water and sewer service. A grant can be made in
combination with a section 504 very low-income housing repair
loan.
No assistance can be extended to any one individual in the
form of a loan, grant, or combined loans and grants in excess
of $27,500, and grant assistance is limited to persons, or
families headed by persons who are 62 years of age or older.
Supervisory and Technical Assistance Grants.--Supervisory
and technical assistance grants are made to public and private
nonprofit organizations for packaging loan applications for
housing assistance under sections 502, 504, 514/516, 515, and
533 of the Housing Act of 1949. The assistance is directed to
very low-income families in underserved areas where at least 20
percent of the population is below the poverty level and at
least 10 percent or more of the population resides in
substandard housing. In fiscal year 1994 a Homebuyer Education
Program was implemented under this authority. This program
provides low-income individuals and families education and
counseling on obtaining and/or maintaining occupancy of
adequate housing and supervised credit assistance to become
successful homeowners.
Compensation for Construction Defects.--Compensation for
construction defects provides funds for grants to eligible
section 502 borrowers to correct structural defects, or to pay
claims of owners arising from such defects on a newly
constructed dwelling purchased with RHS financial assistance.
Claims are not paid until provisions under the builder's
warranty have been fully pursued. Requests for compensation for
construction defects must be made by the owner of the property
within 18 months after the date financial assistance was
granted.
Rural Housing Preservation Grants.--Rural housing
preservation grants (section 522) of the Housing and Urban-
Rural Recovery Act of 1983 (42 U.S.C. 1490m) authorizes the
Rural Housing Service to administer a program of home repair
directed at low- and very low-income people.
The purpose of the preservation program is to improve the
delivery of rehabilitation assistance by employing the
expertise of housing organizations at the local level. Eligible
applicants will compete on a State-by-State basis for grants
funds. These funds may be administered as loans, loan write-
downs, or grants to finance home repair. The program will be
administered by local grantees.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Rural Housing Assistance Grants Program the
Committee recommends $43,976,000. This amount is $336,000 more
than the fiscal year 2005 appropriation.
The Committee provides $2,976,000 for the preservation of
the section 515 multi-family housing portfolio. The Committee
encourages the Secretary to issue a Notice of Funding
Availability within 90 days of enactment of this Act. The
Secretary should give funding priority to entities with equal
or greater matching funds, including housing tax credits for
rural housing assistance. Additional priority should be
provided to entities with experience in the administration of
revolving loan funds and the preservation of multi-family
housing.
The following table compares the grant program levels
recommended by the Committee to the fiscal year 2005 levels and
the budget request:
RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GRANTS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2005 level 2006 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very low-income housing repair grants........................ 30,861 30,000 30,000
Supervisory and technical assistance......................... 992 1,000 1,000
Rural housing preservation grants............................ 8,811 10,000 10,000
Multi-family housing preservation............................ 2,976 ............... 2,976
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 43,640 41,000 43,976
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FARM LABOR PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidy
Loan level level Grants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2005.................. 38,192 17,973 15,872
Budget estimate, 2006................. 42,000 18,728 14,000
Committee recommendation.............. 35,000 15,607 14,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The direct farm labor housing loan program is authorized
under section 514 and the rural housing for domestic farm labor
housing grant program is authorized under section 516 of the
Housing Act of 1949, as amended. The loans, grants, and
contracts are made to public and private nonprofit
organizations for low-rent housing and related facilities for
domestic farm labor. Grant assistance may not exceed 90 percent
of the cost of a project. Loans and grants may be used for
construction of new structures, site acquisition and
development, rehabilitation of existing structures, and
purchase of furnishings and equipment for dwellings, dining
halls, community rooms, and infirmaries.
Under credit reform, administrative costs associated with
loan programs are appropriated to the program accounts.
Appropriations to the salaries and expenses account will be for
costs associated with grant programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the cost of direct farm labor housing loans and grants,
the Committee recommends $29,607,000. This amount is $4,238,000
less than the fiscal year 2005 appropriation.
Rural Business--Cooperative Service
The Rural Business--Cooperative Service [RBS] was
established by Public Law 103-354, Federal Crop Insurance
Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of
1994, dated October 13, 1994. Its programs were previously
administered by the Rural Development Administration, the Rural
Electrification Administration, and the Agricultural
Cooperative Service.
The mission of the Rural Business-Cooperative Service is to
enhance the quality of life for all rural residents by
assisting new and existing cooperatives and other businesses
through partnership with rural communities. The goals and
objectives are to: (1) promote a stable business environment in
rural America through financial assistance, sound business
planning, technical assistance, appropriate research,
education, and information; (2) support environmentally
sensitive economic growth that meets the needs of the entire
community; and (3) assure that the Service benefits are
available to all segments of the rural community, with emphasis
on those most in need.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2005 level 2006 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated loan level......................................... 33,939 34,212 34,212
Direct loan subsidy.......................................... 15,741 14,718 14,718
Administrative expenses...................................... 4,281 6,656 6,656
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rural development (intermediary relending) loan program
was originally authorized by the Economic Opportunity Act of
1964 (Public Law 88-452). The making of rural development loans
by the Department of Agriculture was reauthorized by Public Law
99-425, the Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1986.
Loans are made to intermediary borrowers (this is, small
investment groups) who in turn will reloan the funds to rural
businesses, community development corporations, private
nonprofit organizations, public agencies, et cetera, for the
purpose of improving business, industry, community facilities,
and employment opportunities and diversification of the economy
in rural areas.
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the
program account. Appropriations to this account will be used to
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct
loans obligated in 2004, as well as for administrative
expenses.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For rural development (intermediary relending) loans, the
Committee recommends a total loan level of $34,212,000. This
amount is $273,000 more than the 2005 loan level.
RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2005 level 2006 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated loan level......................................... 24,803 25,003 25,003
Direct loan subsidy \1\...................................... 4,660 4,993 4,993
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Offset by a rescission from interest on the cushion of credit payments as authorized by section 313 of the
Rural Electrification Act of 1936.
The rural economic development loans program was
established by the Reconciliation Act of December 1987 (Public
Law 100-203), which amended the Rural Electrification Act of
1936 (Act of May 20, 1936), by establishing a new section 313.
This section of the Rural Electrification Act (7 U.S.C. 901)
established a cushion of credits payment program and created
the rural economic development subaccount. The Administrator of
RUS is authorized under the act to utilize funds in this
program to provide zero interest loans to electric and
telecommunications borrowers for the purpose of promoting rural
economic development and job creation projects, including
funding for feasibility studies, startup costs, and other
reasonable expenses for the purpose of fostering rural economic
development.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a direct loan subsidy
appropriation for rural economic development loans of
$4,933,000. This amount is $333,000 more than the fiscal year
2005 appropriation. As proposed in the budget, the $4,993,000
provided is derived by transfer from interest on the cushion of
credit payments.
RURAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $23,808,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 21,000,000
House allowance......................................... 64,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 24,988,000
Rural cooperative development grants are authorized under
section 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act, as amended. Grants are made to fund the establishment and
operation centers for rural cooperative development with their
primary purpose being the improvement of economic conditions in
rural areas. Grants may be made to nonprofit institutions or
institutions of higher education. Grants may be used to pay up
to 75 percent of the cost of the project and associated
administrative costs. The applicant must contribute at least 25
percent from non-Federal sources, except 1994 institutions,
which only need to provide 5 percent. Grants are competitive
and are awarded based on specific selection criteria.
Cooperative research agreements are authorized by 7 U.S.C.
2204b. The funds are used for cooperative research agreements,
primarily with colleges and universities, on critical
operational, organizational, and structural issues facing
cooperatives.
Cooperative agreements are authorized under 7 U.S.C. 2201
to any qualified State departments of agriculture, university,
and other State entity to conduct research that will strengthen
and enhance the operations of agricultural marketing
cooperatives in rural areas.
The Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas [ATTRA]
program was first authorized by the Food Security Act of 1985.
The program provides information and technical assistance to
agricultural producers to adopt sustainable agricultural
practices that are environmentally friendly and lower
production costs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends $24,988,000 for rural cooperative
development grants. This amount is $1,180,000 more than the
fiscal year 2005 appropriation.
Of the funds provided, $2,500,000 is provided for the
Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas program through
a cooperative agreement with the National Center for
Appropriate Technology.
The Committee provides $500,000 for a research agreement on
the economic impact of cooperatives to be conducted by a
qualified academic institution.
The Committee has included language in the bill that not
more than $1,488,000 shall be made available to cooperatives or
associations of cooperatives whose primary focus is to provide
assistance to small, minority producers.
The Committee provides $15,500,000 for value-added
agricultural product market development grants and encourages
the Department to give consideration to applications for the
following: ``Made by American Indian'' Marketing Outreach and
Economic Development Program (MT); Montana Agricultural
Innovation Centers; Rhode Island Farmways Agritourism Program;
Allegheny County Hydroponic and Agricultural Greenhouse (PA);
Redlands Community College Darlington Agriculture Education and
Applied Research Center (OK); Renewable Bio-Based Lubricants
and Coolants (KY); Rhode Island Grown Agricultural Product
Development project; and the Agriculture Utilization Research
Institute (MN).
RURAL EMPOWERMENT ZONES AND ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES GRANTS
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $12,400,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................................
House allowance......................................... 10,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 12,400,000
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends $12,400,000 for Rural Empowerment
Zones and Enterprise Communities Grants. This amount is the
same as the fiscal year 2005 appropriation.
The Committee is concerned that rural empowerment zones,
particularly zones selected because of outmigration, are having
a difficult time successfully competing for USDA Rural
Development programs due primarily to the fact that many
programs are tied to household income levels. Often, household
income levels have very little to do with the reasons for
outmigration. Economic development efforts in these zones
cannot advance without additional funding from competitive
grant programs to supplement the funding that the Committee has
earmarked for the zones for the last several years. USDA is
directed to provide a report to the Committee with suggestions
on how to revise competitive grant-making criteria to take into
consideration outmigration when making awards to rural
empowerment zones.
Renewable Energy Program
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $22,816,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 10,000,000
House allowance......................................... 23,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 23,000,000
Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements
is authorized under 7 U.S.C. 8106. This program may provide
direct loans, loan guarantees, and grants to farmers, ranchers,
and small rural businesses for the purchase of renewable energy
systems and for energy efficiency improvements.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends $23,000,000 for the renewable
energy program. This amount is $13,000,000 more than the budget
request.
The Committee encourages the Department to give
consideration to applications for loans and grants for the
renewable energy program for the following: Ethanol Feedlot
Project, (NE); Grant Parish Biofuels Facility (LA); and the
Fractionation Development Center (ME).
Rural Utilities Service
The Rural Utilities Service [RUS] was established under the
Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-354), October 13,
1994. RUS administers the electric and telephone programs of
the former Rural Electrification Administration and the water
and waste programs of the former Rural Development
Administration.
The mission of the RUS is to serve a leading role in
improving the quality of life in rural America by administering
its electric, telecommunications, and water and waste programs
in a service oriented, forward looking, and financially
responsible manner. All three programs have the common goal of
modernizing and revitalizing rural communities. RUS provides
funding and support service for utilities serving rural areas.
The public-private partnerships established by RUS and local
utilities assist rural communities in modernizing local
infrastructure. RUS programs are also characterized by the
substantial amount of private investment which is leveraged by
the public funds invested into infrastructure and technology,
resulting in the creation of new sources of employment.
RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
The Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901 et
seq.) provides the statutory authority for the electric and
telecommunications programs.
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-508)
established the program account. An appropriation to this
account will be used to cover the lifetime subsidy costs
associated with the direct loans obligated and loan guarantees
committed in 2004, as well as for administrative expenses.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The following table reflects the Committee's recommendation
for the rural electrification and telecommunications loans
program account, the loan subsidy and administrative expenses,
as compared to the fiscal year 2005 and budget request levels:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2005 level 2006 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan authorizations:
Electric:
Direct, 5 percent.................................... 119,040 100,000 100,000
Direct, Muni......................................... 99,200 100,000 100,000
Direct, FFB.......................................... 2,000,000 1,620,000 2,700,000
Direct, Treasury rate................................ 1,000,000 700,000 1,000,000
Guaranteed........................................... 99,200 ............... 100,000
Guaranteed, Underwriting............................. 1,000,000 ............... 1,500,000
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................... 4,317,440 2,520,000 5,500,000
==================================================
Telecommunications:
Direct, 5 percent.................................... 145,000 145,000 145,000
Direct, Treasury rate................................ 248,000 425,000 425,000
Direct, FFB.......................................... 125,000 100,000 125,000
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................... 518,000 670,000 695,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total, loan authorizations......................... 4,835,400 3,190,000 6,195,000
==================================================
Loan Subsidies:
Electric:
Direct, 5 percent.................................... 3,619 920 920
Direct, Muni......................................... 1,339 5,050 5,050
Direct, FFB \1\...................................... ............... ............... ...............
Direct, Treasury rate \2\............................ ............... 70 100
Guaranteed........................................... 60 ............... 90
Guaranteed, Underwriting \1\......................... ............... ............... ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................... 5,018 6,040 6,160
==================================================
Telecommunications:
Direct, 5 percent \1\................................ ............... ............... ...............
Direct, Treasury rate................................ 99 212 212
Direct, FFB \2\...................................... ............... ............... ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................... 99 212 212
--------------------------------------------------
Total, loan subsidies.............................. 5,117 6,252 6,372
==================================================
Administrative expenses...................................... 37,971 39,933 39,933
--------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural Electrification and Telecommunications 43,088 46,185 46,305
Loans Programs Account................................
==================================================
(Loan authorization)............................... 4,835,400 3,190,000 6,195,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Negative subsidy rates for fiscal years 2005 and 2006 are calculated for these programs.
\2\ Negative subsidy rate for fiscal year 2005 is calculated for this program.
The Committee strongly encourages the Rural Utilities
Service to evaluate and give priority consideration to any
proposal submitted which would connect a community in the State
of Alaska to the Black Bear Hydropower Grid.
RURAL TELEPHONE BANK PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct loan Administrative
Loan level subsidy expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2005 \1\..... 175,000 ........... 3,127
Budget estimate, 2006 \1\.... ............ ........... 2,500
House allowance.............. ............ ........... 2,500
Committee recommendation \1\. ............ ........... 2,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Negative subsidy rates for fiscal years 2005 and 2006 are calculated
for this program.
The Rural Telephone Bank [RTB] is required by law to begin
privatization (repurchase of federally owned stock) in fiscal
year 1996. RTB borrowers are able to borrow at private market
rates and no longer require Federal assistance.
The Rural Telephone Bank is managed by a 13-member board of
directors. The Administrator of RUS serves as Governor of the
Bank until conversion to private ownership, control, and
operation. This will take place when 51 percent of the class A
stock issued to the United States and outstanding at any time
after September 30, 1996, has been fully redeemed and retired.
Activities of the Bank are carried out by RUS employees and the
Office of the General Counsel of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee provides $2,500,000 for administrative
expenses to continue to service existing loans. This amount is
$627,000 less than the fiscal year 2005 appropriation.
DISTANCE LEARNING, TELEMEDICINE, AND BROADBAND PROGRAM
LOANS AND GRANT LEVELS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2005 level 2006 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan and Grant Levels:
Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program:
Direct loans......................................... 50,000 ............... ...............
Grants............................................... 34,720 25,000 35,000
Broadband Program:
Direct loans......................................... ............... 30,189 ...............
Treasury rate loans.................................. 545,600 298,372 550,000
Guaranteed loans..................................... ............... 30,314 ...............
Grants............................................... 8,928 ............... 10,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total, DLTB grants and loan authorizations......... 639,248 383,875 595,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISTANCE LEARNING, TELEMEDICINE, AND BROADBAND PROGRAM
LOANS AND GRANTS
[Budget authority In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2005 level 2006 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program:
Direct loan subsidies.................................... 704 ............... ...............
Grants................................................... 34,720 25,000 35,000
Broadband Program:
Direct loan subsidies.................................... ............... 2,400 ...............
Treasury subsidies....................................... 11,621 6,415 11,825
Guaranteed subsidies..................................... ............... 1,158 ...............
Grants................................................... 8,928 ............... 10,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total, grants and loan subsidies....................... 55,973 34,973 56,825
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program
is authorized by the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade
Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 950aaa et seq.), as amended by the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public
Law 104-127). This program provides incentives to improve the
quality of phone services, to provide access to advanced
telecommunications services and computer networks, and to
improve rural opportunities.
This program provides the facilities and equipment to link
rural education and medical facilities with more urban centers
and other facilities providing rural residents access to better
health care through technology and increasing educational
opportunities for rural students. These funds are available for
loans and grants.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband
Program, the Committee recommends $56,825,000. This amount is
$852,000 more than the fiscal year 2005 appropriation. Of this
amount, the Committee has provided $10,000,000 for public
broadcasting systems grants to allow noncommercial educational
television broadcast stations that serve rural areas to convert
from analog to digital operations.
The Committee supports awarding grants to public television
stations that provide a broadcast service to rural populations
through one or more transmitters or associated translators,
regardless of the location of their main transmitters. A public
station's main transmitter may be physically located in a city;
however, the signal may reach many rural communities throughout
their entire digital coverage area. Therefore, consideration
should be given to the overall population served by the
television broadcast signal when establishing criteria for
rurality and per capita income. The Committee notes that the
purpose of this funding is to equip public television stations
serving rural communities with the capacity to provide rich
educational services through the use of their digital broadcast
spectrum.
In addition, of the funds provided, $10,000,000 in grants
shall be made available to support broadband transmission and
local dial-up Internet services for rural areas. The Department
should continue to provide financial support in addition to the
Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband grant and loan
accounts.
The Committee is concerned that the Rural Utilities Service
[RUS] is making broadband loans to applicants that duplicate
existing broadband facilities. Furthermore, the Committee
believes making such loans is contrary to section 201 of the
Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (Act of May 20, 1936). The
Agency shall provide a report to the Committees on
Appropriations no later than January 2, 2006 detailing approved
loans for both the Infrastructure and Broadband programs that
provide in detail the broadband capabilities of each loan and
the areas or communities of potential conflict or overlap of
existing broadband facilities. The report shall also detail
whether loans were issued to expand broadband in an unserved
territory outside of the applicant's original service territory
or update existing facilities in order to provide broadband to
the existing territory of the applicant.
The Committee is aware of and encourages the Department to
give consideration to the following applications for grants and
loans: Sandoval County, New Mexico, Health Commons; Mobile
Infirmary Telemedicine Plan (AL); Pilot program to expand
computer-based triage consulting system to rural emergency
rooms or walk-in clinics (GA); County of Amador-Virtual
Learning Community-Classroom Project (CA); Where East Meets
West-Improving I-90 Corridor EMS (WA); and the Community of
Garden, East Delta County Connectivity, (MI).
TITLE IV--DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $590,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 599,000
House allowance......................................... 599,000
Committee recommendation................................ 599,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and
Consumer Services provides direction and coordination in
carrying out the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to
the Department's food and consumer activities. The Office has
oversight and management responsibilities for the Food and
Nutrition Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition
and Consumer Services, the Committee recommends an
appropriation of $599,000. This amount is $9,000 more than the
fiscal year 2005 appropriation.
The Committee is aware of the efforts of several non-profit
groups throughout the country, such as Farm Share in Florida,
whose mission is to recover and distribute surplus fresh and
nutritious fruits and vegetables. These organizations recover
fresh produce in bulk or by gleaning fields with the help of
volunteers. The produce is washed, sorted, packed, and
distributed locally, statewide and throughout the United States
to a network of participating social service agencies serving
the homeless and low-income households. The Committee believes
the activities carried out by these organizations are extremely
worthwhile, and strongly encourages USDA to support their
efforts in any way possible.
The Committee is aware and supportive of continued efforts
by the State of Vermont to provide milk vending machines in
schools. The Committee understands that providing students with
healthy alternatives in a school setting is believed to
increase child health and nutrition. Therefore, the Committee
directs the Under Secretary to work with the Vermont Department
of Education and Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets to
identify any available programs through which this funding
could be provided.
The Committee encourages the Under Secretary to support
public and private efforts to address the issue of obesity,
specifically childhood obesity, in a variety of formats as
appropriate, including public television. The Committee is
aware of the work of groups including Operation Frontline, the
Self Reliance Foundation, and the Hispanic Radio Network to
conduct national multilingual nutrition education campaigns
aimed at reducing obesity and promoting the new food pyramid.
The Committee believes USDA should work with groups that are
providing information in both print and electronic media which
is geared toward both adults and children, through a contract,
grant, cooperative agreement or other method that is
appropriate and suitable.
The Committee encourages the Food and Nutrition Service to
develop an outreach plan with respect to the revised dietary
guidelines on how the Agency will reach out to communities with
limited access to the internet or communities with limited
English. MyPyramid is a commendable effort and the Committee
believes that an outreach plan is necessary to ensure that this
information is also available to communities that may suffer
from a digital divide or limited English.
The Committee encourages the Department to consult with the
Center for Obesity Research, Policy, and Action at Texas A&M
University and work to establish a whole grain food school
pilot program. This pilot program would enable school children
to comply with the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
Food and Nutrition Service
The Food and Nutrition Service represents an organizational
effort to eliminate hunger and malnutrition in this country.
Nutrition assistance programs provide access to a nutritionally
adequate diet for families and persons with low incomes and
encourage better eating patterns among the Nation's children.
These programs include:
Child Nutrition Programs.--The National School Lunch and
School Breakfast, Summer Food Service, and Child and Adult Care
Food programs provide funding to the States, Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Guam for use in serving
nutritious lunches and breakfasts to children attending schools
of high school grades and under, to children of preschool age
in child care centers, and to children in other institutions in
order to improve the health and well-being of the Nation's
children, and broaden the markets for agricultural food
commodities. Through the Special Milk Program, assistance is
provided to the States for making reimbursement payments to
eligible schools and child care institutions which institute or
expand milk service in order to increase the consumption of
fluid milk by children. Funds for this program are provided by
direct appropriation and transfer from section 32.
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants,
and Children [WIC].--This program safeguards the health of
pregnant, post partum, and breast-feeding women, infants, and
children up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk because of
inadequate nutrition and income by providing supplemental
foods. The delivery of supplemental foods may be done through
health clinics, vouchers redeemable at retail food stores, or
other approved methods which a cooperating State health agency
may select. Funds for this program are provided by direct
appropriation.
Food Stamp Program.--This program seeks to improve
nutritional standards of needy persons and families. Assistance
is provided to eligible households to enable them to obtain a
better diet by increasing their food purchasing capability,
usually by furnishing benefits in the form of electronic access
to funds. The program also includes Nutrition Assistance to
Puerto Rico. The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002
(Public Law 107-171) authorizes block grants for Nutrition
Assistance to Puerto Rico and American Samoa, which provide
broad flexibility in establishing nutrition assistance programs
specifically tailored to the needs of their low-income
households.
The program also includes the Food Distribution Program on
Indian Reservations, which provides nutritious agricultural
commodities to low-income persons living on or near Indian
reservations who choose not to participate in the Food Stamp
Program.
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, Public
Law 107-171, enacted May 13, 2002, provides that $140,000,000
from funds appropriated in the Food Stamp account be used to
purchase commodities for The Emergency Food Assistance Program.
Commodity Assistance Program [CAP].--This program provides
funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program [CSFP], the
Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, Disaster Assistance, Pacific
Island Assistance, and administrative expenses for The
Emergency Food Assistance Program [TEFAP].
CSFP provides supplemental foods to infants and children up
to age 6, and to pregnant, post partum, and breast-feeding
women with low incomes, and who reside in approved project
areas. In addition, this program operates commodity
distribution projects directed at low-income elderly persons.
TEFAP provides commodities and grant funds to State
agencies to assist in the cost of storage and distribution of
donated commodities. The Soup Kitchen/Food Bank Program was
absorbed into TEFAP under the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-193), by
an amendment to section 201A of the Emergency Food Assistance
Act.
Nutritious agricultural commodities are provided to
residents of the Federated States of Micronesia and the
Marshall Islands. Cash assistance is provided to distributing
agencies to assist them in meeting administrative expenses
incurred. It also provides funding for use in non-
Presidentially declared disasters, and for FNS' administrative
costs in connection with relief for all disasters. Funds for
this program are provided by direct appropriation.
Nutrition Programs Administration.--Most salaries and
Federal operating expenses of the Food and Nutrition Service
are funded from this account. Also included is the Center for
Nutrition Policy and Promotion [CNPP] which oversees
improvements in and revisions to the food guidance systems, and
serves as the focal point for advancing and coordinating
nutrition promotion and education policy to improve the health
of all Americans.
CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 32
Appropriation transfers Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2005......... 6,629,038 5,152,962 11,782,000
Budget estimate, 2006........ 7,304,207 5,111,820 12,416,027
House allowance.............. 7,224,406 5,187,621 12,412,027
Committee recommendation..... 7,224,406 5,187,621 12,412,027
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Child Nutrition Programs, authorized by the Richard B.
Russell National School Lunch Act (Public Law 79-396) and the
Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-642), provide
Federal assistance to State agencies in the form of cash and
commodities for use in preparing and serving nutritious meals
to children while they are attending school, residing in
service institutions, or participating in other organized
activities away from home. The purpose of these programs is to
help maintain the health and proper physical development of
America's children. Milk is provided to children either free or
at a low cost, depending on their family income level. FNS
provides cash subsidies to States for administering the
programs and directly administers the program in the States
which choose not to do so. Grants are also made for nutritional
training and surveys and for State administrative expenses.
Under current law, most of these payments are made on the basis
of reimbursement rates established by law and applied to
lunches and breakfasts actually served by the States. The
reimbursement rates are adjusted annually to reflect changes in
the Consumer Price Index for food away from home.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the child nutrition programs, the Committee recommends
an appropriation of $7,224,406,000, plus transfers from section
32 of $5,187,621,000, for a total program of $12,412,027,000.
This amount is $630,027,000 more than the fiscal year 2005
level.
The Committee's recommendation provides for the following
annual rates for the child nutrition programs.
TOTAL OBLIGATIONAL AUTHORITY
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Child nutrition programs 2005 estimate 2006 budget recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
School Lunch Program......................................... 6,801,286 7,194,237 7,194,237
School Breakfast Program..................................... 1,910,882 2,030,357 2,030,357
State administrative expenses................................ 145,710 156,061 156,061
Summer Food Service Program.................................. 283,226 298,364 298,364
Child and Adult Care Food Program............................ 2,066,197 2,174,293 2,174,293
Special Milk Program......................................... 16,868 14,819 14,819
Commodity procurement, processing, and computer support...... 541,532 527,579 527,579
Coordinated review system.................................... 5,232 5,235 5,235
Team nutrition............................................... 10,015 10,025 10,025
Food safety education........................................ 998 1,000 1,000
Child nutrition program pay costs............................ 57 57 57
Child nutrition program integrity funds...................... ............... 4,000 ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee provides $10,025,000 for TEAM nutrition.
Included in this amount is $4,000,000 for food service training
grants to States; $1,600,000 for technical assistance
materials; $800,000 for National Food Service Management
Institute cooperative agreements; $400,000 for print and
electronic food service resource systems; and $3,225,000 for
other activities.
The Committee expects FNS to utilize the National Food
Service Management Institute to carry out the food safety
education program.
The Committee also encourages States to conduct outreach to
recruit new providers into the CACFP program through the 25
percent free or reduced price meal eligibility criteria option.
The Committee recognizes the value that pooling has played in
increasing participation in the CACFP program.
SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS, AND CHILDREN
[WIC]
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $5,235,032,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 5,510,000,000
House allowance......................................... 5,257,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,257,000,000
The special supplemental nutrition program for women,
infants, and children [WIC] is authorized by section 17 of the
Child Nutrition Act of 1966. Its purpose is to safeguard the
health of pregnant, breast-feeding and post partum women and
infants, and children up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk
because of inadequate nutrition and inadequate income. The
budget estimate assumes an average monthly participation of 8.5
million participants at an average food cost of $39.23 per
person per month in fiscal year 2006.
The WIC program food packages are designed to provide foods
which studies have demonstrated are lacking in the diets of the
WIC program target population. The authorized supplemental
foods are iron-fortified breakfast cereal, fruit or vegetable
juice which contains vitamin C, dry beans, peas, and peanut
butter.
There are three general types of delivery systems for WIC
foods: (1) retail purchase in which participants obtain
supplemental foods through retail stores; (2) home delivery
systems in which food is delivered to the participant's home;
and (3) direct distribution systems in which participants pick
up food from a distribution outlet. The food is free of charge
to all participants.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women,
Infants, and Children [WIC], the Committee recommends an
appropriation of $5,257,000,000. This amount is $21,968,000
more than the fiscal year 2005 appropriation. The Committee
recommendation is a decrease from the budget request due to
downward revisions of both the participation rate and the
estimated increases for food costs. Specifically, the
President's budget request projected participation rates of 8.5
million participants per month, which were updated to 8.2
million participants per month, and costs for the food package,
originally projected to be $39.23 per person per month, were
revised to $38.92 per month. The funding level provided, while
below the budget request, will fully fund the WIC Program in
fiscal year 2006.
The Committee provides no less than $15,000,000 for
breastfeeding support initiatives, and $20,000,000 for State
management information systems.
While the Committee continues to support and encourage
State and local agency efforts to utilize WIC as an important
means of participation referral to other health care services,
it also continues to recognize the constraints that WIC
programs are experiencing as a result of expanding health care
priorities and continuing demand for core WIC program
activities. The Committee wishes to clarify that while WIC
plays an important role in screening and referral to other
health care services, it was never the Committee's intention
that WIC should perform aggressive screening, referral and
assessment functions in such a manner that supplants the
responsibilities of other programs, nor was it the Committee's
intention that WIC State and local agencies should assume the
burden of entering into and negotiating appropriate cost
sharing agreements. The Committee again includes language in
the bill to preserve WIC funding for WIC services authorized by
law to ensure that WIC funds are not used to pay the expenses
or to coordinate operations or activities other than those
allowable pursuant to section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act of
1996, unless fully reimbursed by the appropriate Federal
agency.
FOOD STAMP PROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Puerto Rico TEFAP
Expenses Amount in and American commodity Total
reserve Samoa purchases
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2005...................... 30,499,527 3,000,000 1,515,027 140,000 35,154,554
Budget estimate, 2006..................... 36,049,026 3,000,000 1,522,369 140,000 40,711,395
House allowance........................... 36,034,599 3,000,000 1,535,796 140,000 40,711,395
Committee recommendation.................. 36,049,026 3,000,000 1,522,369 140,000 40,711,395
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Food Stamp Program, authorized by the Food Stamp Act of
1977 (Public Law 88-525), attempts to alleviate hunger and
malnutrition among low-income persons by increasing their food
purchasing power. Eligible households receive food stamp
benefits with which they can purchase food through regular
retail stores. They are thus enabled to obtain a more
nutritious diet than would be possible without food stamp
assistance. The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002,
Public Law 107-171, enacted May 13, 2002, reauthorizes the Food
Stamp Program through fiscal year 2007.
The Food Stamp Program is currently in operation in all 50
States, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.
Participating households receive food benefits, the value of
which is determined by household size and income. The cost of
the benefits is paid by the Federal Government. As required by
law, the Food and Nutrition Service annually revises household
stamp allotments to reflect changes in the cost of the thrifty
food plan.
At the authorized retail store, the recipient presents his/
her card and enters a unique personal identification number
into a terminal that debits the household's account for the
amount of purchases. Federal funds are shifted from the Federal
Reserve to the EBT processor's financial institution so that it
may reimburse the grocer's account for the amount of purchases.
The grocer's account at a designated bank is credited for the
amount of purchases. The associated benefit cost is accounted
for in the same manner as those benefit costs that result from
issuance of coupons.
Nutrition Assistance to Puerto Rico.--The Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002, Public Law 107-171, authorized
block grants for Nutrition Assistance to Puerto Rico and
American Samoa which gives the Commonwealth broad flexibility
to establish a nutrition assistance program that is
specifically tailored to the needs of its low-income
households. However, the Commonwealth must submit its annual
plan of operation to the Secretary for approval. The Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, Public Law 107-171,
enacted May 13, 2002, reauthorizes appropriations through
fiscal year 2007. In addition to the provision of direct
benefits to the needy, a portion of the grant may be used to
fund up to 50 percent of the cost of administering the program.
The grant may also be used to fund projects to improve
agriculture and food distribution in Puerto Rico.
The program also includes the Food Distribution Program on
Indian Reservations which provides nutritious agricultural
commodities to low-income persons living on or near Indian
reservations who choose not to participate in the Food Stamp
Program.
Administrative Costs.--All direct and indirect
administrative costs incurred for certification of households,
issuance of benefits, quality control, outreach, and fair
hearing efforts are shared by the Federal Government and the
States on a 50-50 basis. The Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act of 2002, (Public Law 107-171), substantially revised the
performance requirements for States under the Quality Control
[QC] System. States with poor performance over 2 years face
sanctions. States that demonstrate a high degree of accuracy or
substantial improvement in their degree of accuracy under the
QC system are eligible to share in a $48,000,000 ``bonus fund''
established by Congress to reward States for good performance.
State Administration also Includes State Antifraud
Activities.--Under the provisions of the Food Stamp Act of
1977, as amended by the Mickey Leland Childhood Hunger Relief
Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-66), States are eligible to be
reimbursed for 50 percent of the costs of their food stamp
fraud investigations and prosecutions.
States are required to implement an employment and training
program for the purpose of assisting members of households
participating in the Food Stamp Program in gaining skills,
training, or experience that will increase their ability to
obtain regular employment. The Department of Agriculture has
implemented a grant program to States to assist them in
providing employment and training services.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Food Stamp Program, the Committee recommends
$40,711,395,000. This amount is $5,556,841,000 more than the
fiscal year 2005 appropriation. Of the amount provided,
$3,000,000,000 is made available as a contingency reserve. This
is the same as the 2005 contingency reserve level and the
budget request.
Included in this amount is up to $4,000,000 to purchase
bison for the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations
from Native American producers and Cooperative Organizations
without competition.
The Committee is aware that there continues to be a
pressing need for infrastructure development in the Food
Distribution Program on Indian Reservations [FDPIR].
Warehousing facilities on some reservations do not allow for
the proper and efficient storage and distribution of
commodities, and Indian Tribal Organization must be able to
replace and upgrade equipment such as tractor trailers and fork
lifts. Facilities have not always been able to keep pace with
improvements in the food package, including the addition of
fresh produce and more frozen foods as program options, which
generates the need for cooler and freezer equipment.
Military Pay Exclusion.--The Committee includes statutory
language to exclude special pay for military personnel deployed
to designated combat areas when determining food stamp
eligibility. This provision will ensure that food stamp
participants will not be eliminated from the program due to
special or supplemental military pay.
COMMODITY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $177,366,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 177,935,000
House allowance......................................... 178,797,000
Committee recommendation................................ 179,935,000
The Commodity Assistance Program includes funding for the
Commodity Supplemental Food Program and funding to pay expenses
associated with the storage and distribution of commodities
through The Emergency Food Assistance Program.
The Commodity Supplemental Food Program [CSFP].--Authorized
by section 4(a) of the Agricultural and Consumer Protection Act
of 1973 (7 U.S.C. 612c note), as amended in 1981 by Public Law
97-98, this program provides supplemental food to infants and
children up to age 6, and to pregnant, post partum, and breast-
feeding women who have low incomes, and reside in approved
project areas. In addition, the program operates commodity
distribution projects directed at low-income elderly persons 60
years of age or older.
The foods for CSFP are provided by the Department of
Agriculture for distribution through State agencies. The
authorized commodities include: iron-fortified infant formula,
rice cereal, cheese, canned juice, evaporated milk and/or
nonfat dry milk, canned vegetables or fruits, canned meat or
poultry, egg mix, dehydrated potatoes, farina, and peanut
butter and dry beans. Elderly participants may receive all
commodities except iron-fortified infant formula and rice
cereal.
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (2002
Farm Bill), reauthorizes the program through fiscal year 2007
and establishes a specific administrative funding level for
each caseload slot assigned, adjusted each year for inflation.
The Emergency Food Assistance Program [TEFAP].--Authorized
by the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 7501 et
seq.), as amended, the program provides nutrition assistance to
low-income people through prepared meals served on site and
through the distribution of commodities to low-income
households for home consumption. The commodities are provided
by USDA to State agencies for distribution through State-
established networks. State agencies make the commodities
available to local organizations, such as soup kitchens, food
pantries, food banks, and community action agencies, for their
use in providing nutrition assistance to those in need.
Funds are administered by FNS through grants to State
agencies which operate commodity distribution programs.
Allocation of the funds to States is based on a formula which
considers the States' unemployment rate and the number of
persons with income below the poverty level.
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 permits
State and local agencies to pay costs associated with the
storage and distribution of USDA commodities and commodities
secured from other sources. At the request of the State, these
funds can be used by USDA to purchase additional commodities.
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 increases
funding available for the purchase of TEFAP commodities from
$100,000,000 to $140,000,000. In addition to the commodities
purchased specifically for TEFAP, commodities obtained under
agriculture support and surplus removal programs are donated to
States for distribution through TEFAP.
Pacific Island Assistance.--This program provides funding
for assistance to the nuclear-affected islands in the form of
commodities and administrative funds. It also provides funding
for use in non-Presidentially declared disasters and for FNS'
administrative costs in connection with relief for all
disasters.
Farmers' Market Nutrition Program.--The Farmers' Market
Nutrition Program [FMNP] provides WIC or WIC-eligible
participants with coupons to purchase fresh, nutritious,
unprepared foods, such as fruits and vegetables, from farmers'
markets. This benefits both participants and local farmers by
increasing the awareness and use of farmers' markets by low-
income households.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Commodity Assistance Program, the Committee
recommends an appropriation of $179,935,000. This amount is
$2,569,000 more than the fiscal year 2005 appropriation.
The Committee is aware that the Farmers' Market Nutrition
Program provides fresh fruits and vegetables to low-income
mothers and children, benefiting not only WIC participants, but
local farmers as well. Therefore, the Committee provides
$20,000,000 for the Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, the same
as the budget request, and directs the Secretary to obligate
these funds within 45 days.
The Committee continues to encourage the Department to
distribute Commodity Assistance Program funds equitably among
the States, based on an assessment of the needs and priorities
of each State and the State's preference to receive commodity
allocations through each of the programs funded under this
account.
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 provides
$140,000,000 for TEFAP commodities to be purchased with food
stamp funds. The Committee provides $50,000,000 for TEFAP
administrative funding. In addition, the Committee provides the
Secretary authority to transfer up to an additional $10,000,000
from TEFAP commodities for this purpose.
The Committee is aware that a significant quantity of food
products are made available by hunters and other game
harvesting operations which are approved through USDA or State
inspected facilities, and present an additional source of
donated commodities. The Department should give consideration
to this opportunity as a means to supplement and provide
variety to food assistance programs, and allow the use of TEFAP
administrative funds for this purpose.
The Committee provides $108,854,000 for the Commodity
Supplemental Food Program. This amount is $2,000,000 more than
the fiscal year 2005 appropriation.
The Committee recognizes the success of the Seniors
Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, which is expected to provide
fresh fruits and vegetables to more than 491,000 low-income
senior citizens and benefit more than 8,500 farmers in fiscal
year 2006. The Committee notes that $15,000,000 in funding is
available for the program in fiscal year 2006 through the Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002.
NUTRITION PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $138,818,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 140,761,000
House allowance......................................... 140,761,000
Committee recommendation................................ 140,761,000
The Nutrition Programs Administration appropriation
provides for most of the Federal operating expenses of the Food
and Nutrition Service, which includes the Child Nutrition
Programs; Special Milk Program; Special Supplemental Nutrition
Program for Women, Infants, and Children [WIC]; Food Stamp
Program; Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico; the Commodity
Assistance Program, including the Commodity Supplemental Food
Program and the Emergency Food Assistance Program; and Farmers'
Market Nutrition Program and Pacific Island Assistance.
The major objective of Nutrition Programs Administration is
to efficiently and effectively carry out the nutrition
assistance programs mandated by law. This is to be accomplished
by the following: (1) giving clear and consistent guidance and
supervision to State agencies and other cooperators; (2)
assisting the States and other cooperators by providing
program, managerial, financial, and other advice and expertise;
(3) measuring, reviewing, and analyzing the progress being made
toward achieving program objectives; and (4) carrying out
regular staff support functions.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For Nutrition Programs Administration, the Committee
recommends an appropriation of $140,761,000. This amount is
$1,943,000 more than the fiscal year 2005 appropriation.
TITLE V--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS
Foreign Agricultural Service
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfers
Appropriations from loan Total
accounts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2005.......... 136,719 4,482 141,201
Budget estimate, 2006......... 148,792 3,608 152,400
House allowance............... 148,224 3,608 151,832
Committee recommendation...... 147,868 3,608 151,476
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Foreign Agricultural Service [FAS] was established
March 10, 1953, by Secretary's Memorandum No. 1320, supplement
1. Public Law 83-690, approved August 28, 1954, transferred the
agricultural attaches from the Department of State to the
Foreign Agricultural Service.
The Agency maintains a worldwide agricultural intelligence
and reporting service to provide U.S. farmers and traders with
information on world agricultural production and trade that
they can use to adjust to changes in world demand for U.S.
agricultural products. This is accomplished through a
continuous program of reporting by 62 posts located throughout
the world covering some 130 countries.
The Foreign Agricultural Service analyzes agricultural
information essential to the assessment of foreign supply and
demand conditions in order to provide estimates of the current
situation and to forecast the export potential for specific
U.S. agricultural commodities. Published economic data about
commodities are combined with attache reports and subjected to
analysis through advanced econometric techniques to generate
these estimates.
In addition, the Service is now using advanced techniques
for identifying, delineating, and assessing the impact of
events which may affect the condition and expected production
of foreign crops of economic importance to the United States.
The crop condition activity relies heavily on computer-aided
analysis of satellite, meteorological, agricultural, and
related data.
The mission of FAS overseas is to represent U.S.
agricultural interests, to promote export of domestic farm
products, improve world trade conditions, and report on
agricultural production and trade in foreign countries. FAS
staff are stationed at 78 offices around the world where they
provide expertise in agricultural economics and marketing, as
well as provide attache services.
The Foreign Agricultural Service works in conjunction with
market development cooperators, trade associations, State
departments of agriculture and their affiliates, and U.S. sales
teams to develop foreign markets for U.S. farm products. FAS
sponsors overseas trade exhibits to promote U.S. agricultural
products, provides information about foreign importers, and
performs a wide range of market development activities.
FAS carries out several export assistance programs to
counter the adverse effects of unfair trade practices by
competitors on U.S. agricultural trade. The Export Enhancement
Program uses CCC-owned commodities as export bonuses to provide
export enhancements to U.S. producers. The Market Access
Program [MAP] conducts both generic and brand-identified
promotional programs in conjunction with nonprofit agricultural
associations and private firms financed through reimbursable
CCC payments.
These programs are supplemented by the Cooperator Program,
a joint FAS-nonprofit private trade and producer association
partnership program developing strategies for U.S. agriculture
export expansion. In addition, GSM credit guarantee programs
play an integral role in the recent progress of American
agriculture in the world marketplace.
The Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.)
includes authority to establish up to 25 agricultural trade
offices. Currently, 16 such offices are in operation at key
foreign trading centers to assist U.S. exporters, trade groups,
and State export marketing officials in trade promotion.
The Service initiates, directs, and coordinates the
Department's formulation of trade policies and programs with
the goal of maintaining and expanding world markets for U.S.
agricultural products. It monitors international compliance
with bilateral and multilateral trade agreements. It identifies
restrictive tariff and trade practices which act as barriers to
the import of U.S. agricultural commodities, then supports
negotiations to remove them. It acts to counter and eliminate
unfair trade practices by other countries that hinder U.S.
agricultural exports to third markets.
FAS also carries out the mission of the former Office of
International Cooperation and Development [OICD] to promote
U.S. agriculture and to advance the agriculture of developing
countries as parts of a complementary global agricultural
system capable of providing ample food and fiber for all
people. To accomplish this mission, FAS applies USDA policies
and U.S. agricultural perspectives in its programs of
international agricultural cooperation and development, and in
its work with foreign countries, international organizations,
U.S. universities and other institutions, agencies of the U.S.
Government, and the U.S. private sector.
The General Sales Manager was established pursuant to
section 5(f) of the charter of the Commodity Credit Corporation
and 15 U.S.C. 714-714p. The funds allocated to the General
Sales Manager are used for conducting the following programs:
(1) CCC Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-102), including
supplier credit guarantees and facilities financing guarantees,
(2) Intermediate Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-103), (3) Public
Law 480, (4) section 416 Overseas Donations Program, (5) Export
Enhancement Program, (6) Market Access Program, and (7)
programs authorized by the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter
Act including barter, export sales of most CCC-owned
commodities, export payments, and other programs as assigned to
encourage and enhance the export of U.S. agricultural
commodities.
A provision in the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriation Act,
2003, Division A of Public Law 108-7, made permanent a
prohibition on the use of agency funds to promote the sale or
export of tobacco or tobacco products.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Foreign Agricultural Service, the Committee
recommends an appropriation of $147,868,000. This amount is
$11,149,000 more than the fiscal year 2005 appropriation.
The Committee expects the FAS to fund the Foreign Market
Development Cooperator Program at no less than the fiscal year
2005 level.
The Committee provides the fiscal year 2005 funding level
of $5,000,000 for the Cochran Fellowship Program. The Committee
encourages the Secretary to continue to provide additional
support for the program through the Commodity Credit
Corporation Emerging Markets Program.
The Committee continues to include language in a general
provision in the bill, as requested in the budget, to allow up
to $2,000,000 of the amount appropriated to the FAS to remain
available until expended solely for the purpose of offsetting
fluctuations in international currency exchange rates, subject
to documentation.
The Committee expects the Secretary to use the fully-
authorized levels of the Dairy Export Incentive Program [DEIP],
consistent with GATT Uruguay commitments, in order to ensure
U.S. producers have fair access to foreign markets.
The Committee encourages the Foreign Agricultural Service
to assist the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute in marketing
Alaska salmon and other seafood to overseas markets.
To promote the export of domestic farm products and improve
world agriculture trade conditions, the Foreign Agricultural
Service must increase its efforts to improve the understanding
among trading partners of the safety of biotechnology and the
thoroughness of the U.S. regulatory oversight of biotechnology.
As trading partners construct regulatory systems for
biotechnology and commodity trade, FAS is frequently requested
to provide experts for the purpose of educating foreign
government officials on the U.S. regulatory system. If the
United States fails to participate in such discussions, those
attempting to limit the access to foreign markets by U.S.
producers will be presented an opportunity to undermine
confidence in the benefits and safety of the technology while
reducing trade opportunities for American producers. The
Committee directs FAS to allocate adequate funding to meet the
needs of our trading partners so that officials from the
Department of Agriculture may, when requested, educate foreign
regulators on the safety of the technology and the thoroughness
of the U.S. regulatory process.
The Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers Act [TAAF] (19
U.S.C. 2401 et seq.) requires that technical assistance be
provided to farmers negatively impacted by imports. This
technical assistance is an education program that helps farmers
develop marketing opportunities, increase production efficiency
and seek alternatives to offset losses created by imports. The
Committee directs that from the funds made available by the
Trade Adjustment Act that $3,000,000 be available to the
Digital Center for Risk Management Education to coordinate an
intensive technical assistance program for farmers using
available funds consistent with that Act.
The Committee is aware of FAS activities to provide
technical assistance for the promotion of specialty crop
exports, consistent with section 3205 of the Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002. The Committee provides $1,000,000
to support these activities.
The Committee recommends $2,743,000 for Capital Security
Cost Sharing [CSCS], as proposed in the budget. The Committee
funds the fiscal year 2006 CSCS assessment at the level
requested by FAS with the understanding that space assignments
made by the Department of State in newly constructed embassies
will meet current and projected FAS space requirements.
The Committee provides $500,000 to Utah State University
for a pilot demonstration and management training project in
conjunction with Sweetwater International.
The Committee notes the role that the crop assessment
division plays in worldwide commodity forecasting and the value
of this information in maintaining and improving the U.S.
market share in key agricultural commodities. The Committee
recognizes that substantial investments will be needed to
further develop and deploy advanced forecasting technologies
and to maintain the USDA position as the global commodities
forecasting standard.
PUBLIC LAW 480 TITLE I PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative
Credit level Loan subsidy expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2005......................................... 109,000 93,444 4,002
Budget estimate, 2006........................................ 74,032 65,040 3,385
House allowance.............................................. 74,032 65,040 3,385
Committee recommendation..................................... 74,032 65,040 3,385
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the
program account. Appropriations to this account will be used to
cover the lifetime subsidy cost associated with direct loans
obligated in 2004 and beyond, as well as for administrative
expenses.
Financing sales of agricultural commodities to developing
countries and private entities for dollars on credit terms, or
for local currencies (including for local currencies on credit
terms) for use under section 104; and for furnishing
commodities to carry out the Food for Progress Act of 1985, as
amended (title I).--Title I of the act authorizes financing of
sales to developing countries for local currencies and for
dollars on credit terms. Sales for dollars or local currency
may be made to foreign governments. The legislation provides
for repayment terms either in local currencies or U.S. dollars
on credit terms of up to 30 years, with a grace period of up to
5 years.
Local currencies under title I sales agreements may be used
in carrying out activities under section 104 of the
Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (7
U.S.C. 1704), as amended. Activities in the recipient country
for which these local currencies may be used include developing
new markets for U.S. agricultural commodities, paying U.S.
obligations, and supporting agricultural development and
research.
Title I appropriated funds may also be used under the Food
for Progress Act of 1985 to furnish commodities on credit terms
or on a grant basis to assist developing countries and
countries that are emerging democracies that have a commitment
to introduce and expand free enterprise elements in their
agricultural economies.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For Public Law 480, title I, the Committee recommends total
appropriations of $68,425,000. This amount is $29,021,000 less
than the fiscal year 2005 appropriation. This appropriation
will support a Public Law 480, title I, credit level of
$74,032,000 for fiscal year 2006, $34,968,000 less than the
fiscal year 2005 level. The corresponding loan levels, loan
subsidy amounts, and administrative expenses are reflected in
the table above, as compared to the fiscal year 2005 and budget
request levels.
PUBLIC LAW 480 TITLE I OCEAN FREIGHT DIFFERENTIAL GRANTS
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $22,541,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 11,940,000
House allowance......................................... 11,940,000
Committee recommendation................................ 11,940,000
Ocean freight differential costs in connection with
commodity sales financed for local currencies or U.S. dollars
(title I).--The Commodity Credit Corporation pays ocean freight
differential costs on shipments under this title. These costs
are the difference between foreign flag and U.S. flag shipping
costs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For Public Law 480 ocean freight differential costs, the
Committee recommends $11,940,000. This amount is $10,601,000
less than the fiscal year 2005 appropriation.
PUBLIC LAW 480 TITLE II GRANTS
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $1,173,041,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 885,000,000
House allowance......................................... 1,107,094,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,150,000,000
The Committee recognizes the important mission of the
Public Law 480 Program to combat hunger and malnutrition;
promote broad-based equitable and sustainable development;
expand international trade; develop and expand export markets
for U.S. agricultural commodities; and to foster and encourage
the development of private enterprise and democratic
participation in developing countries. The Committee strongly
supports the continued efficient operation of this important
program.
Commodities Supplied in Connection With Dispositions Abroad
(Title II) (7 U.S.C. 1721-1726).--Commodities are supplied
without cost through foreign governments to combat malnutrition
and to meet famine and other emergency requirements.
Commodities are also supplied for nonemergencies through public
and private agencies, including intergovernmental
organizations. The Commodity Credit Corporation pays ocean
freight on shipments under this title, and may also pay
overland transportation costs to a landlocked country, as well
as internal distribution costs in emergency situations. The
funds appropriated for title II are made available to private
voluntary organizations and cooperatives to assist these
organizations in meeting administrative and related costs.
Commodities Supplied in Connection With Dispositions Abroad
(Title III).--Commodities are supplied without cost to least
developed countries through foreign governments for direct
feeding, development of emergency food reserves, or may be sold
with the proceeds of such sale used by the recipient country
for specific economic development purposes. The Commodity
Credit Corporation may pay ocean freight on shipments under
this title, and may also pay overland transportation costs to a
landlocked country, as well as internal distribution costs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For Title II, the Committee recommends a program level of
$1,150,000,000. This amount is $23,041,000 less than the fiscal
year 2005 appropriation. The Committee does not agree with the
administration's proposal to shift $300,000,000 of the Public
Law 480 title II program level to USAID to be used for direct
cash purchases of commodities and other purposes as well as the
proposal to lift the requirement that Public Law 480 funds be
used to meet sub-minimum tonnage requirements designed to meet
the challenge of chronic world hunger. The Committee is
committed to meeting needs related to emergency food shortages,
long-term food security, and special conditions such as
mitigating the effects of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus and
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome on individuals, households,
and communities.
The Committee directs the administration not to place
arbitrary limits on monetization under the Public Law 480 title
II program. In food-deficit, import-reliant countries,
monetization stimulates the economy and allows needed
commodities to be provided in the marketplace. Food aid
proposals should be approved based on the merits of the program
plan to promote food security and improve people's lives, not
on the level of monetization.
The Committee supports the use of title II funds in fiscal
year 2006 to continue the fiscal year 2005 level of funding for
the orphan feeding program in Haiti.
The Committee notes the extraordinary effort made by the
people of Alaska through Rotary International, the Interfaith
Council, the Municipality of Anchorage, and other groups to
collect and distribute food and other assistance to people
living in the Russian Far East. The Committee urges the
Administration to work with these entities to take advantage of
their volunteer efforts in feeding people in the Russian Far
East, particularly abandoned children living in orphanages and
hospitals.
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002
increased the level of Public Law 480 Title II non-emergency
assistance to 1,875,000 metric tons. Congress provided this
level to help address the underlying causes of hunger in the
world, which leads to weakened immune systems, higher rates of
chronic disease and poverty, and the inability of entire
populations to achieve economic and social independence. The
Committee expects that funding for Public Law 480 Title II will
be used for its intended purpose and not for ad hoc emergency
assistance. In the event of additional emergency needs, the
Committee reminds the Department of the availability of the
Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust.
As proposed in the budget, the Committee provides no new
funding for title III grants. Authority is provided by law (7
U.S.C. 1736f) to transfer up to 15 percent of the funds
available for any fiscal year for carrying out any title of
Public Law 480 to any other title of the program. This
authority may be used to transfer funds to title III should a
transfer be deemed appropriate.
MC GOVERN-DOLE INTERNATIONAL FOOD FOR EDUCATION AND CHILD NUTRITION
PROGRAM GRANTS
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $86,800,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 100,000,000
House allowance......................................... 100,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 100,000,000
Authorized in the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of
2002, Public Law 107-171, the McGovern-Dole International Food
for Education and Child Nutrition Program helps support
education, child development, and food security for some of the
world's poorest children. The program provides for donations of
U.S. agricultural products, as well as financial and technical
assistance, for school feeding and maternal and child nutrition
projects in low-income, food-deficit countries that are
committed to universal education. Commodities made available
for donation through agreements with private voluntary
organizations, cooperatives, intergovernmental organizations,
and foreign governments may be donated for direct feeding or
for local sale to generate proceeds to support school feeding
and nutrition projects.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee provides $100,000,000 for the McGovern-Dole
International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program.
This amount is $13,200,000 more than the fiscal year 2005
appropriation.
The Committee notes that this program was initiated with
funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation and supplemented
with 1-year mandatory spending in the 2002 Farm Bill. This
Committee first provided discretionary funding for this program
in fiscal year 2005 and, in spite of extremely limited funds,
has provided a significant increase for fiscal year 2006. The
Committee believes the McGovern-Dole program will serve as a
effective tool in promoting higher standards of living in
developing nations, and in providing the United States an
opportunity to demonstrate to the world its goals of promoting
individual well being as an important element in world peace.
COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION EXPORT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
(EXPORT CREDIT PROGRAMS, GSM-102 AND GSM-103)
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guaranteed loan Guaranteed loan Administrative
levels \1\ subsidy \1\ expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2005......................................... 4,528,000 309,042 4,388
Budget estimate, 2006........................................ 4,396,000 391,823 5,279
House allowance.............................................. 4,396,000 391,823 5,279
Committee recommendation..................................... 4,396,000 391,823 5,279
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No appropriation required since export credit authorizations are permanent authority.
In 1980, the Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC] instituted
the Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-102) under its charter
authority. With this program, CCC guarantees, for a fee,
payments due U.S. exporters under deferred payment sales
contracts (up to 36 months) for defaults due to commercial as
well as noncommercial risks. The risk to CCC extends from the
date of export to the end of the deferred payment period
covered in the export sales contract and covers only that
portion of the payments agreed to in the assurance agreement.
Operation of this program is based on criteria which will
assure that it is used only where it is determined that it will
develop new market opportunities and maintain and expand
existing world markets for U.S. agricultural commodities. The
program encourages U.S. financial institutions to provide
financing to those areas where the institutions would be
unwilling to provide financing in the absence of the CCC
guarantees. Other credit activities may also be financed under
the Export Credit Guarantee programs including supplier credit
guarantee, under which CCC guarantees payments due to importers
under short term financing (up to 180 days) that exporters
extend directly to importers for the purchase of U.S.
agricultural products. CCC also provides facilities financing
guarantees.
In 1986, the Intermediate Export Credit Guarantee Program
(GSM-103) was implemented by CCC under its charter authority as
required by the Food Security Act of 1985. The program is
similar to the Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-102), but
provides for CCC guarantees to exporters for commodities sold
on credit terms in excess of 3 years, but not more than 10
years. The program also provides for adjusting the maximum
amount of interest which CCC guarantees to pay under the
payment guarantee and permits freight costs to be covered for
breeding animals financed under the GSM-102 and GSM-103
programs.
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 establishes the
program account. The subsidy costs of the CCC export guarantee
programs are exempt from the requirement of advance
appropriations of budget authority according to section
504(c)(2) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, Public Law
101-508. Appropriations to this account will be used for
administrative expenses.
TITLE VI--RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
The Food and Drug Administration [FDA] is a scientific
regulatory agency whose mission is to promote and protect the
public health and safety of Americans. FDA's work is a blending
of science and law. The Food and Drug Administration
Modernization Act of 1997 [FDAMA] (Public Law 105-115)
reaffirmed the responsibilities of the FDA: to ensure safe and
effective products reach the market to a timely way, and to
monitor products for continued safety after they are in use. In
addition, FDA is entrusted with two critical functions in the
Nation's war on terrorism: preventing willful contamination of
all regulated products, including food, and improving the
availability of medications to prevent or treat injuries caused
by biological, chemical or nuclear agents.
The FDA Foods program has the primary responsibility for
assuring that the food supply, quality of foods, food
ingredients and dietary supplements are safe, sanitary,
nutritious, wholesome, and honestly labeled, and that cosmetic
products are safe and properly labeled. The variety and
complexity of the food supply has grown dramatically while new
and more complex safety issues, such as emerging microbial
pathogens, natural toxins, and technological innovations in
production and processing, have developed. This program plays a
major role in keeping the United States food supply among the
safest in the world.
The FDA Drugs programs are comprised of three separate
areas, Human Drugs, Animal Drugs and Biologics. FDA is
responsible for the life cycle of the product, including
premarket review and postmarket surveillance of human, animal
and biological products to ensure their safety and efficacy.
For Human Drugs this includes assuring that all drug products
used for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of disease are
safe and effective. Additional procedures include the review of
investigational new drug applications; evaluation of market
applications for new and generic drugs, labeling and
composition of prescription and over-the-counter drugs;
monitoring the quality and safety of products manufactured in,
or imported into, the United States; and, regulating the
advertising and promotion of prescription drugs. The Animal
Drugs and Feeds Program ensures only safe and beneficial
veterinary drugs, intended for the treatment and/or prevention
of diseases in animals and the improved production of food-
producing animals, are approved for marketing.
The FDA Biologics program assures that blood and blood
products, blood test kits, vaccines, and therapeutics are pure,
potent, safe, effective, and properly labeled. The program
inspects blood banks and blood processors, licenses and
inspects firms collecting human source plasma, evaluates and
licenses biologics manufacturing firms and products; lot
releases licensed products; and monitors adverse events
associated with vaccine immunization.
The FDA Devices and Radiological program ensures the safety
and effectiveness of medical devices and eliminates unnecessary
human exposure to manmade radiation from medical, occupational,
and consumer products. In addition, the program enforces
quality standards under the Mammography Quality Standards Act
(Public Law 108-365). Medical devices include thousands of
products from thermometers and contact lenses to heart
pacemakers, hearing aids, MRIs, microwave ovens, and video
display terminals.
FDA's National Center for Toxicological Research in
Jefferson, Arkansas, serves as a specialized resource,
conducting peer-review scientific research that provides the
basis for FDA to make sound science-based regulatory decisions
through its premarket review and postmarket surveillance. The
research is designed to define and understand the biological
mechanisms of action underlying the toxicity of products and
developing methods to improve assessment of human exposure,
susceptibility and risk of those products regulated by FDA.
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammography
Prescription Medical Animal clinics Export and
Appropriation drug user device drug user inspection certification Total
fees user fees fees fees fees
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2005......................................... 1,450,098 284,394 33,938 8,354 16,919 6,838 1,800,541
Budget estimate, 2006........................................ 1,492,726 305,332 40,300 11,318 17,173 7,640 1,874,489
House allowance.............................................. 1,480,978 305,332 40,300 11,318 17,173 7,640 1,862,741
Committee recommendation..................................... 1,485,009 305,332 40,300 11,318 17,173 7,640 1,866,772
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For salaries and expenses, the Committee recommends an
appropriation of $1,485,009,000. This amount is $34,911,000
more than the fiscal year 2005 appropriation. The Committee
also recommends $305,332,000 in Prescription Drug User Fee Act
user fee collections, $40,300,000 in Medical Device User Fee
and Modernization Act user fee collections, $11,318,000 in
Animal Drug User Fee Act user fee collections, $17,173,000 in
Mammography Quality Standards Act fee collections, and
$7,640,000 in export and certification fees, as assumed in the
President's budget. These amounts are $20,938,000, $6,362,000,
$2,964,000, $254,000, and $802,000 more than the 2005 levels,
respectively. The Committee includes bill language which
prohibits FDA from developing, establishing, or operating any
program of user fees authorized by 31 U.S.C. 9701.
The following table reflects the Committee's
recommendations, as compared to the fiscal year 2005 and budget
request levels:
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------- Committee
2005 2006 recommendation
enacted request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Centers and related field
activities:
Foods..................... 435,526 461,227 450,179
-----------------------------------------
Center for Food Safety 152,002 155,819 157,519
and Applied Nutrition
[CFSAN]..............
Field activities...... 283,524 305,408 292,660
=========================================
Human drugs............... 291,488 294,089 295,589
-----------------------------------------
Center for Drug 210,529 213,363 214,863
Evaluation and
Research [CDER]......
Field activities...... 80,959 80,726 80,726
=========================================
Biologics................. 123,112 122,238 122,238
-----------------------------------------
Center for Biologics 96,890 96,093 96,093
Evaluation and
Research [CBER]......
Field activities...... 26,222 26,145 26,145
=========================================
Animal drugs.............. 90,486 90,486 90,486
-----------------------------------------
Center for Veterinary 55,292 55,292 55,292
Medicine [CVM].......
Field activities...... 35,194 35,194 35,194
=========================================
Medical and radiological 214,965 220,961 222,792
devices..................
-----------------------------------------
Center for Devices and 163,246 165,042 166,873
Radiological Health
[CDRH]...............
Field activities...... 51,719 55,919 55,919
=========================================
National Center for 40,206 41,152 41,152
Toxicological Research
[NCTR]...................
=========================================
Other activities.............. 87,232 87,262 87,262
-----------------------------------------
Office of the Commissioner 29,846 31,203 31,203
Office of Management...... 38,515 37,242 37,242
Office of External 6,873 6,842 6,842
Relations................
Office of Policy and 5,175 5,152 5,152
Planning.................
Central services.......... 6,823 6,823 6,823
=========================================
Rent and related activities... 53,604 57,732 57,732
=========================================
Rental payments to GSA........ 113,479 117,579 117,579
=========================================
Total, FDA salaries and 1,450,098 1,492,726 1,485,009
expenses, new budget
author- ity............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends the following increases in budget
authority for FDA salaries and expenses activities: $16,576,000
for counterterrorism activities related to food safety;
$7,827,000 for increased medical device review; $5,000,000 for
drug safety; $4,100,000 for rental payments to the General
Services Administration; and $4,128,000 for FDA's consolidation
at the White Oak campus. The Committee notes that FDA did not
request an increase for cost of living pay, which, according to
the budget justification, will cost the agency $36,509,000 in
fiscal year 2006. Therefore, the Committee directs the FDA to
use the funds provided to support current activities and staff
levels in these initiative areas before engaging in new
activities. The Committee also recommends a decrease in budget
authority requested in the budget of $6,670,000 associated with
management and information technology savings.
The Committee does not approve the proposed restructuring
of FDA's budget for the field activities, rent activities, and
other activities accounts. The Committee directs the Agency to
submit the fiscal year 2007 budget request in a format that
follows the same account structure as the fiscal year 2005
budget request unless otherwise approved by the Committee.
Within the total funding available, at least $2,500,000 is
for FDA activities in support of Codex Alimentarius.
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy.--The Committee provides
$29,556,000 for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy [BSE]. The
Committee understands that this funding will be used to conduct
yearly inspections of all renderers and feed mills processing
products containing prohibited materials; extend BSE
inspections into targeted segments of industries subject to the
BSE Feed regulation but previously minimally inspected;
validate test methods for the detection of bovine-derived
proteins in animal feed; and continue to conduct research on
Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies in FDA's product
centers.
Unified Financial Management System.--The Committee
understands that FDA and the Department of Health and Human
Services [DHHS] have successfully implemented the DHHS Unified
Financial Management System [UFMS]. The Committee also
understands that spending for UFMS in fiscal year 2005 has
increased beyond what the Committee has expressly provided for
this project. Therefore, the Committee directs HHS and FDA to
provide a detailed report, within 60 days of enactment, on the
cost of the UFMS project for fiscal years 2004, 2005, and 2006,
including a thorough description of cost increases and the
programs or initiatives that will be impacted by any funding
reallocation. Additionally, the Committee provides funding for
this project at no more than the fiscal year 2004 level of
$9,389,000.
Agricultural Products Food Safety Laboratory.--The
Committee provides an increase of $250,000 above the fiscal
year 2005 funding level for the FDA to expand its contract with
New Mexico State University's Physical Sciences Laboratory to
operate the Food Technology Evaluation Laboratory, which
conducts evaluation and development of rapid screening
methodologies, technologies, and instrumentation; and to
provide technology deployment, modeling, and data analysis for
food safety and product safety, including advanced risk-based
systems for screening and inspection, to facilitate FDA's
regulations and responsibilities in food safety, product
safety, homeland security, bioterrorism, and other initiatives.
The Committee expects the FDA to continue its support for
the Waste Management Education and Research Consortium [WERC]
and its work in food safety technology verification and
education at no less than the fiscal year 2005 level.
National Center for Food Safety and Technology.--With the
growing threat of foodborne illness to the public health, the
Committee believes that collaborative research in food safety
should continue among Government, academia, and private
industry. The national model for that collaboration has been
the National Center for Food Safety and Technology [NCFST] in
Summit-Argo, Illinois. The Committee includes $3,000,000 for
the National Center to continue the important work done there.
Seafood Safety.--The Committee urges FDA to promote the
development of new food safety technologies such as
irradiation, flash freezing, high-pressure processing, or
others that can cost-effectively reduce the incidence of
pathogens, and technologies that can ensure constant safe
temperatures of seafood throughout the food chain.
The Committee supports the ongoing work of the Interstate
Shellfish Sanitation Conference and its joint efforts with the
FDA and the shellfish industry to formulate shellfish safety
regulations through the National Shellfish Sanitation Program.
The Committee recommends no less than $200,000 be directed
through the Office of Seafood Inspection to continue these
activities, and directs that $250,000 be directed to the
Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference for the Vibrio
Vulnificus Education Program.
The Committee is concerned that FDA has not taken effective
action to address foodborne illness risks from the consumption
of raw shellfish. In particular, the Committee is concerned
that Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference's [ISSC]
proposed steps to reduce the rates of death and illness due to
consumption of Vibrio vulnificus-contaminated raw shellfish may
not effectively address public health concerns.
The Committee also continues its concern with the agency's
failure to bring FDA-regulated seafood into compliance with
Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point [HACCP] standards.
However, the Committee is aware that special or unique
circumstances may exist for particular seafood processors.
While ultimate HAACP compliance is not in question, the
Committee is specifically aware of Hawaii's lengthy and
culturally important history of hook-and-line fisheries,
auction markets, and the high consumption of raw tuna and other
pelagic fish in Hawaii, and strongly encourages the Agency to
take into account both the history and the industry's practical
experience in approving a plan that is consistent with healthy
seafood products and national standards for seafood safety.
The Committee has been advised that farmed salmon imported
from overseas is fed feed with chemical additives to change the
color of its flesh or the flesh is artificially dyed. A lawsuit
was filed against national grocery chains alleging they do not
adequately label the fish which are dyed. The Committee directs
the Food and Drug Administration to continue to monitor
information concerning the safety of the use of such additives
and dyes in seafood and to more aggressively enforce the clear
and conspicuous disclosure of such additives and dyes to
consumers on consumer packaging.
In addition, the funding provided for food safety will
ensure the continuation of food contract inspections in the
State of Alaska. Specifically, it will allow the FDA to renew
its contract with the State of Alaska for inspections of food
and seafood processors operating in Alaska. A new contract
became effective on July 1, 2005. It funds at least 292
inspections, approximately 272 seafood/HACCP inspections and 20
other food inspections. The establishments to be inspected will
be mutually agreed upon by FDA and the State of Alaska.
Chloramphenicol.--The Committee continues to have serious
concerns regarding seafood safety issues posed by banned
antibiotic contamination in farm-raised shrimp imports. In
addition, the Committee is concerned that the FDA inspects less
than 2 percent of shrimp being imported into the United States.
Therefore, the Committee provides an increase of $500,000 for
the FDA to develop, in cooperation with State testing programs,
a program for increasing the inspection of imported shrimp,
possibly including cold-storage inventories, for banned
antibiotics, including chloramphenicol.
National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System.--The
Committee supports the work of the National Antimicrobial
Resistance Monitoring System [NARMS] and its collaborative
relationship between FDA, USDA, and the Centers for Disease
Control. The Committee expects the coordination of activities
among these three areas of government to result in the most
unbiased presentation of timely, accurate data in the best
interest of public health, and encourages FDA to equally divide
research funding among the three branches of the program. The
Committee directs FDA to provide a detailed financial report as
well as an executive summary of 2004 NARMS data and a
preliminary report on 2005 data to the Committee by March 1,
2006 in a format that is accessible to users of the data.
Further, the Committee directs FDA to perform a review of all
components of the NARMS program to ensure that the program
remains scientifically sound and relevant to public health.
Orphan Products Grants.--Included in the Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research is $14,392,000 for the Orphan Products
Grants Program.
Dietary Supplements.--The Committee includes total funding
of approximately $5,560,000 for the CFSAN Adverse Events
Reporting System [CAERS], of which approximately $1,700,000 is
for dietary supplements. This is $1,060,000 more than the
amount in the budget request. The Committee is aware that
efforts are underway to authorize a mandatory adverse event
reporting system for dietary supplements. The Committee
requests, within 90 days of the enactment of this Act, a report
on the cost of such a system.
The Committee is encouraged by the FDA's recent activities
to enforce provisions contained within the Dietary Supplement
Health and Education Act of 1994 [DSHEA] (Public Law 103-417).
The Committee has included funding to continue enforcement of
the provisions contained in DSHEA. It is the Committee's intent
that these funds be prioritized by the agency to step up
activities against products that are clearly in violation of
DSHEA. In addition, the Committee is concerned that Current
Good Manufacturing Practice [CGMP] regulations, which have been
under development for some time, have not been issued.
Accordingly, the Committee requests that FDA issue the dietary
supplement CGMP regulations.
FDA has indicated that the ability to identify and analyze
specific components in ingredients, including botanical
ingredients, is an essential component of research and
regulatory programs directed at ensuring the safety and
effectiveness of dietary supplements. The Committee provides an
increase of $500,000 for review of botanicals in dietary
supplements. This work is being carried out by FDA in
collaboration with the National Center for Natural Products
Research, Oxford, MS.
Standards of Identity.--The Committee is aware of the
ongoing debate surrounding increased importation and use of
milk protein concentrate. A General Accounting Office
investigation highlighted a dramatic increase in milk protein
concentrate imports. The Committee remains concerned with FDA's
current lack of enforcement of standards of identity as it
relates to the potential illegal use of milk protein
concentrate in standardized cheese.
Office of Women's Health.--The Committee believes that it
is imperative for FDA to pay sufficient attention to gender-
based research, ensuring that products approved by the FDA are
safe and effective for women as well as men. The Committee
notes that in the budget request, the Office of Women's Health
at FDA is funded at not less than $4,000,000 for program
operation and oversight. The Committee encourages FDA to ensure
that the Office of Women's Health is sufficiently funded to
carry out its activities, and to enhance its funding if
necessary.
Medical Device Application Review.--The Committee continues
to support the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act
[MDUFMA] (Public Law 107-250) program, and acknowledges the
efforts by the FDA to address the significant funding
shortfall. The Committee includes $7,827,000 for the Devices
and Radiological Health Program, $1,831,000 above the request.
However, the Committee remains concerned that necessary
modifications to the Act in order to continue this program into
fiscal year 2006 have not been enacted and directs the FDA to
make coming to a resolution on MDUFMA a priority. The Committee
requests bi-weekly updates on the progress of the MDUFMA
legislative change. Additionally, the Committee is concerned
that device review performance is not increasing with the
increases in user fee and appropriated dollars. Specifically,
the Committee has been informed that FDA is putting device
applications on hold and neglecting modular reviews to meet
user fee goals. Therefore, the Committee requests a
comprehensive report, within 90 days of enactment, on device
review performance for fiscal years 2001-2005. This report
should also detail how MDUFMA user fee and appropriated funds
have been spent for fiscal years 2003-2005.
Rare Diseases Clinical Trials and Drug Evaluation.--The
Committee supports rapid access to therapeutics for children
and adults with rare diseases. It is the view of the Committee
that improvements can be made with respect to clinical trial
design and FDA Advisory Committees. The Committee encourages
the FDA to make the best possible use of FDA's Advisory
Committee members in FDA's considerations of clinical trial
design and allow the same panel to participate in final review
meetings, when feasible. The Committee supports utilization of
qualified independent consultants as reflected in the draft
guidance document ``Independent Consultants for Biotechnology
Clinical Protocols'' issued by CBER/CDER on May 12, 2003. The
Committee encourages enhanced exploration of potential
surrogate endpoints and use of FDAMA's fast-track provision,
where appropriate, to make drugs available as early as possible
for serious and life-threatening orphan diseases that have no
treatment. The Committee believes these policy enhancements
will lead to more efficient and timely evaluation of rare
disease therapeutics and further stimulate private sector
investment in rare disease research.
Drug Counterfeiting.--In February 2004 the Food and Drug
Administration issued a report on drug counterfeiting and found
growing evidence of well-organized and technologically
sophisticated criminal activities. FDA noted that a combination
of technologies in a layered system is needed to provide
greater levels of security in the years ahead. The Committee is
pleased that the FDA has continued to see the important and
vital role anti-counterfeiting technologies play in protecting
patients. In November 2004, the FDA issued guidance for FDA
staff and the pharmaceutical industry on certain track and
trace technologies. The Committee notes that FDA stated, in the
February 2004 report, that there was near unanimity in the
comments it received that similar guidance was needed for
authentication technologies and announced its intention to
issue such guidance.
The Committee believes that there are important
authentication technologies, including color-shifting pigments,
available now that if used more widely would make it more
difficult for would-be counterfeiters and give consumers more
confidence that their drugs are safe. In its Annual Update
report issued May 18, 2005, the FDA stated that rather than
issue guidance on authentication technologies it had decided
that it wanted to ``gain additional experience working with
companies in their application and use of'' these technologies.
The Committee directs that the FDA report back to the Committee
within 90 days of the enactment of this Act on the experience
it has gained by working with these companies. In addition, the
Committee encourages the FDA to issue draft guidance on the
Agency's application and notification policies and procedures
for use of authentication technologies.
Human Drug Compounding.--The Committee provides $750,000
for the Food and Drug Administration to undertake a pilot
program with the United States Pharmacopeia [USP], a national
drug standard-setting organization recognized by Congress, to
accelerate the development of monographs for compounded
preparations of medications. This initiative will promote
public health and safety while assisting and supporting
compounding pharmacy practitioners in delivering the best care
possible to patients who need these preparations.
The Committee acknowledges the important role that
compounding pharmacists play in ensuring the health and well-
being of consumers and the important role the USP plays in
promoting public health and safety. Under this public health
initiative, the USP will work in consultation with compounding
pharmacists to identify commonly prescribed or critically
needed compounded preparations for monograph development.
In approving the funds to carry out this pilot program, the
Committee makes clear that the development of monographs will
not limit or infringe upon the current practice of compounding
pharmacists in preparing and dispensing prescriptions, or alter
the existing State and Federal regulatory roles regarding
compounding. Further, the Committee directs the United States
Pharmacopeia to provide a report, not later than 8 months after
the commencement of the initiative describing the activities
and accomplishments of this program.
Food Labeling.--Given the important nature of the
information provided on the food label and in light of the New
Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005, the Committee is
interested in ensuring that food labels can be easily
understood and reflect information that is factual. The
Committee is concerned that consumers may be faced with
misleading information on caloric and nutrient content and
health-related claims, and believes it is vital that consumers
are able to trust the accuracy of food labels. Therefore, the
Committee directs the FDA to continue to apply resources to
efforts that ensure the accuracy of the Nutrition Facts panel
and address potentially misleading health and nutrition
statements on the food label and to report to the Committee by
February 1, 2006 on the types of labeling violations discovered
and actions taken in response to such violations.
Center of Excellence.--The Committee provides $1,000,000 to
create a Western Region FDA Center of Excellence at the
University of California at Davis. This Center will focus on
research relating to food defense and the critical issues
dealing with imports of food products, especially from the
Americas and Pacific Rim. The goals of this new Center include
addressing increasing incidence and complexity of food-borne
disease outbreaks, increased risk at the border of new food-
borne pathogens entering our food systems, and the risk of
attacks on our food supply.
Perchlorate.--The Committee directs the FDA to continue
conducting perchlorate surveys of food and bottled water and to
report back to Congress the findings of these surveys. The
surveys should include a variety of produce and fluid milk
samples and should identify level of contamination in order to
determine the need for risk management strategies. The
Committee believes it is important to assess produce, milk, and
bottled water produced in areas with known perchlorate
contamination, with naturally occurring perchlorate, or grown
near sites where perchlorate was or is used.
Glucose Monitoring.--The Committee encourages the FDA to
support a workshop to provide a forum for the developers of
continuous glucose monitoring technologies to discuss ways in
which promising continuous glucose monitoring technologies can
be expeditiously reviewed.
Diabetes Product Characteristics.--The Committee urges FDA
to develop guidance, initiate collaborations, and promote
consensus development activities to evaluate the utility and
need for additional biomarkers and surrogate endpoints that
will assist manufacturers' efforts to demonstrate efficacy of
diabetes product characteristics with clinical outcomes, and
where need exists, to aid in their development and validation.
Where there is a demonstrated need, the Committee urges FDA to
work with diabetes stakeholders to refine therapeutic
endpoints.
HIV/AIDS Vaccines.--The Committee recognizes the importance
of ensuring that promising HIV/AIDS vaccines are tested in
infants and youth as early as is medically and ethically
appropriate. The Committee requests that the Commissioner of
the Food and Drug Administration, in consultation with
appropriate public and private entities, consider the
logistical, regulatory, medical and ethical issues presented by
pediatric testing of these vaccines so that children can share
in the benefit of any advances in vaccine research. The
Committee urges FDA to issue guidance not later than 6 months
after the enactment of this Act on the minimum requirements for
obtaining FDA approval to test an HIV vaccine in pediatric
populations and the minimum requirements for obtaining FDA
approval of a pediatric indication of an HIV vaccine.
Foodborne Illness.--The Committee is pleased that the FDA,
USDA, and CDC recently reported declines in foodborne
infections due to common bacterial pathogens, including E. coli
0157, campylobacter, and salmonella infections. The Committee
is aware of the effective work of the Partnership for Food
Safety Education, in collaboration with these agencies, to
provide information to the general public about simple,
commonsense suggestions regarding safe food preparation and
handling. Currently, the Partnership for Food Safety Education
is working to develop a public education campaign aimed at
populations vulnerable to listeria, including pregnant women
and adults with weakened immune systems. The Committee believes
this is a worthwhile effort, and encourages FDA to continue
working with the Partnership for Food Safety Education in
executing this education campaign. In addition, the Committee
encourages the FDA to provide funding, as appropriate, to
support this collaborative effort.
Citizen Petitions.--The Committee is aware that FDA is
working to study the effect that the citizen petition process
is having on the process for approving Abbreviated New Drug
Applications [ANDA]. Some have expressed concern that approval
of ANDAs are being unnecessarily delayed due to certain citizen
petitions. Considering the significant savings that generic
drugs offer the American consumer, the Committee directs FDA to
provide a written report, within 45 days of enactment,
explaining its citizen petition process improvement efforts,
particularly as they relate to the ANDA approval process,
including a timeline for implementation of any reforms deemed
necessary.
Global Evaluation Scale.--The Committee notes that there
has been public criticism about the Global Evaluation Scale
used in studies submitted to FDA to determine efficacy of acne
products. The Committee has been assured that, to date, FDA has
not adopted this scale, the matter has been presented to the
Advisory Committee, and will be addressed in guidance developed
with the benefit of public comment. The Committee urges FDA to
complete this guidance development process prior to adopting
this scale as a preferred method of evaluating acne products.
Collaborative Drug Safety Research.--The Committee commends
FDA for its work in developing the Critical Path Initiative to
foster collaboration with outside researchers and develop new
tools to both promote drug safety and accelerate the
development of innovative new therapies. The Committee further
commends the C-Path Institute, founded by the University of
Arizona, for its innovative research efforts to develop more
efficient tools for medical product development and drug
safety. For this important effort, the Committee provides
$750,000, to support collaborative research with the C-Path
Institute and the University of Utah on cardiovascular
biomarkers predictive of safety and clinical outcomes. This
research would help address the critical public health threat
of heart failure which affects over 5 million Americans, with
over 250,000 dying annually from this condition. The Committee
understands the research would involve identifying candidate
genes and proteins in University of Utah databases, designing
and conducting genomic and proteomic biomarker validation
experiments by the C-Path Institute, the University of Utah,
FDA and manufacturers, determining which biomarkers identify
heart failure patients who are most likely to respond favorably
to drug therapy and those at highest risk of adverse events.
The Committee expects that this research will enhance patient
safety, reduce the number of patients necessary for clinical
testing, and enable manufacturers to accelerate drug
development and bring safer, innovative life-saving drugs to
market more quickly.
Prescription Drug Monographs.--The Committee is interested
in ensuring that FDA adopts a uniform and transparent system
for regulating pharmaceuticals that have been marketed for a
material extent and for a material amount of time without
documented safety problems and outside of the current new drug
approval process. Last year, at the request of this Committee,
the FDA provided a report on the feasibility of developing a
monograph system for these older prescription drugs. In this
report, the FDA stated that developing a monograph system would
be scientifically infeasible and cost prohibitive. Therefore,
the Committee directs the FDA to devise an alternative approach
that provides for the uniform and transparent regulation of
these drugs and report back to the Committee within 90 days of
the enactment of this Act. Furthermore, the Committee
encourages the agency to ensure that enforcement resources are
prioritized to address safety and effectiveness concerns.
Ocular Health.--The Committee has included a general
provision to promote the ocular health of contact lens wearers
by barring the use of funds to facilitate a practice 32 State
Attorneys General alleged to be illegal and detrimental to
patient health.
The FDA has recognized the importance of timely replacement
of contact lenses, advising consumers to comply with the
wearing schedules established by their eye care providers.
Federal and State regulators have reported that as contact
lenses become less expensive and more convenient to replace,
consumers will replace them more frequently, leading to
increased patient safety, including decreases in eye infections
and inflammation.
In the 1990s, 32 State Attorneys General, citing these
health benefits, sued to stop major contact lens manufacturers
from engaging in the practice of limiting distribution of their
lenses to eye care providers. Since contact lens prescriptions
are branded, with no substitutions allowed, this practice was
designed to increase prices and limit consumers' options for
obtaining replacement lenses. A consent decree was reached
between the parties involved The provision effectively codifies
the consent decrees reached with the Attorneys General.
Authorized Generics.--The Committee is aware that
amendments to the Hatch-Waxman Act (Public Law 98-417) provided
180 day marketing exclusivity to a generic drug that
successfully challenges the patent of a name brand
pharmaceutical company, and that the purpose of this
exclusivity was to provide incentives to bring lower cost
generic drugs to the market as quickly as possible. Recently,
the Committee has been informed that ``authorized'' generics
are entering the market at the same time as generic drugs, and
is concerned that this practice may have the ultimate effect of
decreasing the number of generic drugs that enter the market,
keeping prices ultimately higher for the consumer. Therefore,
the Committee strongly encourages FDA to work to ensure that
incentives for generic drugs, which are currently written into
law, are protected, and that consumers continue to have access
to safe, effective generic drugs at the earliest possible time.
Influenza.-- Most experts estimate that there will be a lag
time of 6 to 9 months before a vaccine can be produced in
sufficient quantities to protect individuals against a pandemic
strain of influenza to which most people will have no natural
immunity. While issues around vaccine manufacturing,
distribution, safety and access are complex; the United States
and other nations are putting protocols in place now with
respect to creating a rapid-response approval process for a
pandemic flu vaccine. The Committee understands that FDA's
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research is engaging
potential manufacturers of influenza vaccines and that FDA is
writing a guidance document for the clinical development of new
influenza vaccines, including pandemic influenza vaccines. The
Committee encourages the Food and Drug Administration's Center
for Biologics Evaluation and Research to continue its efforts
in working with potential influenza vaccine manufacturers to
facilitate the development of influenza vaccines for a
pandemic.
Drug Safety.--The Committee provides an increase of
$5,000,000 for drug safety. The Committee is concerned about
this issue and the efforts underway at FDA to enhance the
Office of Drug Safety. The Committee requests a report, within
90 days of the enactment of this Act, on the efforts FDA is
engaging in to increase drug safety oversight, including any
efforts related to Orphan Products.
Follow-on Biologics.--The Committee is interested in the
feasibility of developing an approval and post-approval
monitoring system for follow-on, off-patent biologics and
requests that the FDA report to Congress, within 90 days of the
enactment of this Act, on the status of its activities with
respect to this issue.
BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
Appropriations, 2005....................................................
Budget estimate, 2006................................... $7,000,000
House allowance......................................... 5,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 7,000,000
FDA maintains offices and staff in 49 States and in the
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, including field
laboratories and specialized facilities, as well as the
National Center for Toxicological Research complex. Repairs,
modifications, improvements, and construction to FDA
headquarters and field facilities must be made to preserve the
properties, ensure employee safety, meet changing program
requirements, and permit the Agency to keep its laboratory
methods up to date.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee provides $7,000,000 for buildings and
facilities. Within the funds provided, the Committee directs
$4,000,000 for the final phase of construction of the Arkansas
Regional Laboratory.
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Appropriations, 2005.................................... $93,572,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 99,386,000
House allowance......................................... 98,386,000
Committee recommendation................................ 98,386,000
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission [CFTC] was
established as an independent agency by the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 1389; 7 U.S.C. 4a).
The Commission administers the Commodity Exchange Act, 7
U.S.C. section 1, et seq. The 1974 Act brought under Federal
regulation futures trading in all goods, articles, services,
rights, and interests; commodity options trading; and leverage
trading in gold and silver bullion and coins; and otherwise
strengthened the regulation of the commodity futures trading
industry. It established a comprehensive regulatory structure
to oversee the volatile futures trading complex.
The purpose of the Commission is to protect and further the
economic utility of futures and commodity options markets by
encouraging their efficiency, assuring their integrity, and
protecting participants against manipulation, abusive trade
practices, fraud, and deceit. The objective is to enable the
markets to better serve their designated functions of providing
a price discovery mechanism and providing price risk insurance.
In properly serving these functions, the futures and commodity
options markets contribute toward better production and
financial planning, more efficient distribution and
consumption, and more economical marketing.
Programs in support of the overall mission include market
surveillance analysis and research; registration, audits, and
contract markets; enforcement; reparations; proceedings; legal
counsel; agency direction; and administrative support services.
CFTC activities are carried out in Washington, DC; two regional
offices located in Chicago and New York; and smaller offices in
Kansas City, Los Angeles, and Minneapolis.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Committee
recommends $98,386,000. This amount is $4,814,000 more than the
fiscal year 2005 appropriation.
Farm Credit Administration
limitation on administrative expenses
Limitation, 2005........................................ $42,350,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................................
House allowance......................................... 44,250,000
Committee recommendation................................ 44,250,000
The Farm Credit Administration [FCA] is the independent
agency in the executive branch of the Government responsible
for the examination and regulation of the banks, associations,
and other institutions of the Farm Credit System.
Activities of the Farm Credit Administration include the
planning and execution of examinations of Farm Credit System
institutions and the preparation of examination reports. FCA
also establishes standards, enforces rules and regulations, and
approves certain actions of the institutions.
The administration and the institutions under its
jurisdiction now operate under authorities contained in the
Farm Credit Act of 1971, Public Law 92-181, effective December
10, 1971. Public Law 99-205, effective December 23, 1985,
restructured FCA and gave the agency regulatory authorities and
enforcement powers.
The act provides for the farmer-owned cooperative system to
make sound, adequate, and constructive credit available to
farmers and ranchers and their cooperatives, rural residences,
and associations and other entities upon which farming
operations are dependent, and to modernize existing farm credit
law to meet current and future rural credit needs.
The Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 authorized the
formation of the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation
[FAMC] to operate a secondary market for agricultural and rural
housing mortgages. The Farm Credit Administration, under
section 8.11 of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended, is
assigned the responsibility of regulating this entity and
assuring its safe and sound operation.
Expenses of the Farm Credit Administration are paid by
assessments collected from the Farm Credit System institutions
and by assessments to the Federal Agricultural Mortgage
Corporation.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a limitation of $44,250,000 on
administrative expenses of the Farm Credit Administration
[FCA]. The Committee provides that the limitation does not
apply to expenses associated with receiverships. Based on
recent events, the Committee understands the Farm Credit
Administration may receive unforeseen applications from large
financial institutions seeking to terminate participation in
the Farm Credit System. Because due diligence efforts required
to process such applications may necessitate exceeding the FCA
fiscal year administrative expense budget, the Committee allows
some additional expenditures exceeding the limitation amount
upon a finding of extraordinary circumstances by the FCA Board.
TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
The majority of the general provisions are essentially the
same as those included in the fiscal year 2005 and previous
years' appropriations acts. In addition, the Committee
recommends the following provisions:
Section 704--to include wildlife services methods
development and aviation safety in the APHIS appropriation
items which shall remain available until expended.
Section 705--to allow unobligated balances to be
transferred to the Working Capital Fund.
Section 709--to limit indirect costs for grants awarded by
the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service to 20 percent.
Section 712--language providing for expenses related to
advisory committees.
Section 716--language regarding the transfer of funds to
the Office of the Chief Information Officer and information
technology funding obligations.
Section 717--language in regard to the reprogramming of
funds.
Section 718--language regarding the Initiative for Future
Agriculture and Food Systems.
Section 720--language in regard to closing or relocating
State Rural Development offices.
Section 721--to provide funding for the Bill Emerson and
Mickey Leland Hunger Fellowship.
Section 723--to provide funding for the National Sheep
Industry Improvement Center.
Section 724--to make certain locations eligible for rural
development programs.
Section 725--to provide financial and technical assistance
to certain Natural Resource Conservation Service projects in
Alaska, Illinois, and Utah.
Section 729--to prohibit funds from being used to close or
relocate the Food and Drug Administration Division of
Pharmaceutical Analysis.
Section 730--language in regard to the Rural Strategic
Investment Program.
Section 731--language to allow the reimbursement of funds
to the Office of the General Counsel.
Section 732--language in regard to the Rural Firefighters
program.
Section 734--language in regard to the Wetlands Reserve
Program.
Section 735--language in regard to the Environmental
Quality Incentives Program.
Section 736--language in regard to the renewable energy
program.
Section 737--language in regard to the broadband loan
program.
Section 739--language in regard to the value-added grants
program.
Section 741--language in regard to the Wildlife Habitat
Incentives Program.
Section 742--language in regard to the Special Supplemental
Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children [WIC].
Section 743--language in regard to the Rural Business
Investment Program.
Section 744--language in regard to the ground and surface
water conservation program.
Section 748--language in regard to the Bioenergy program.
Section 751--providing funding for the Denali Commission.
Section 752--language in regard to the Alaska Department of
Community and Economic Development.
Section 754--language in regard to the Emergency Watershed
Program.
Section 756--language in regard to the Special Supplemental
Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children [WIC].
Section 762--language in regard to the City of Elkhart,
Kansas.
Section 763--to provide funding for the Healthy Forests
Reserve Program.
Section 764--language in regard to recertification of rural
status for the Rural Electrification and Telecommunication
Loans program.
Section 765--language in regard to the Biomass Research and
Development Program.
Section 766--language in regard to the Federal Financing
Bank.
Section 767--language in regard to consistent regulation of
contact lenses.
Section 768--language in regard to law enforcement at the
National Center for Toxicological Research and the Arkansas
Regional Laboratory.
Section 769--language in regard to the Child and Adult Care
Food Program.
Section 770--language in regard to the Summer Food Service
Program.
Section 771--to provide funding for the National
Agricultural Imagery Program.
Section 772--language in regard to Environmental Quality
Incentives Program eligibility.
Section 773--language in regard to the Rural Telephone
Bank.
Section 774--language in regard to the Fruit and Vegetable
Pilot Program.
Section 775--language in regard to the World Food Prize.
Program, Project, and Activity
During fiscal year 2005, for purposes of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law
99-177) or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Reaffirmation Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-119), the following
information provides the definition of the term ``program,
project, and activity'' for departments and agencies under the
jurisdiction of the Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related
Agencies Subcommittee. The term ``program, project, and
activity'' shall include the most specific level of budget
items identified in the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2005, the House and Senate Committee reports, and the
conference report and accompanying joint explanatory statement
of the managers of the committee of conference.
If a sequestration order is necessary, in implementing the
Presidential order, departments and agencies shall apply any
percentage reduction required for fiscal year 2005 pursuant to
the provisions of Public Law 99-177 or Public Law 100-119 to
all items specified in the explanatory notes submitted to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate in support
of the fiscal year 2005 budget estimates, as amended, for such
departments and agencies, as modified by congressional action,
and in addition:
For the Agricultural Research Service the definition shall
include specific research locations as identified in the
explanatory notes and lines of research specifically identified
in the reports of the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees.
For the Natural Resources Conservation Service the
definition shall include individual flood prevention projects
as identified in the explanatory notes and individual
operational watershed projects as summarized in the notes.
For the Farm Service Agency the definition shall include
individual, regional, State, district, and county offices.
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports
accompanying general appropriations bills identify each
recommended amendment which proposes an item of appropriation
which is not made to carry out the provisions of an existing
law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously
passed by the Senate during that session.
The Committee recommends funding for the following program
which currently lacks authorization for fiscal year 2005:
Compact of Free Association Act of 1985.
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(C), RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on June 23, 2005,
the Committee ordered reported, en bloc, H.R. 2744, making
appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, with an
amendment in the nature of a substitute, H.R. 2862, making
appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice,
Science, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, with an amendment
in the nature of a substitute and an amendment to the title;
and H.R. 2985, making appropriations for the Legislative Branch
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other
purposes, with amendments, each subject to further amendment
and subject to the budget allocations, by a recorded vote of
28-0, a quorum being present. The vote was as follows:
Yeas Nays
Chairman Cochran
Mr. Stevens
Mr. Specter
Mr. Domenici
Mr. Bond
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Burns
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Gregg
Mr. Bennett
Mr. Craig
Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. DeWine
Mr. Brownback
Mr. Allard
Mr. Byrd
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Reid
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray
Mr. Dorgan
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Durbin
Mr. Johnson
Ms. Landrieu
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports
on a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute
or part of any statute include ``(a) the text of the statute or
part thereof which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a
comparative print of that part of the bill or joint resolution
making the amendment and of the statute or part thereof
proposed to be amended, showing by stricken-through type and
italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical
devices the omissions and insertions which would be made by the
bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form recommended by
the committee.''
In compliance with this rule, the following changes in
existing law proposed to be made by the bill are shown as
follows: existing law to be omitted is enclosed in black
brackets; new matter is printed in italics; and existing law in
which no change is proposed is shown in roman.
TITLE 7--AGRICULTURE
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 50--AGRICULTURAL CREDIT
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER IV--ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2008j. National Sheep Industry Improvement Center
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) Revolving Fund
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(6) Funding
(A) Deposit of funds
All Federal and non-Federal amounts received
by the Center to carry out this section shall
be deposited in the Fund.
(B) Mandatory funds
Out of any moneys in the Treasury not
otherwise appropriated, the Secretary of the
Treasury shall provide to the Center not to
exceed [$27,998,000] $29,998,000 to carry out
this section.
* * * * * * *
CHILD NUTRITION AND WIC REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2004, PUBLIC LAW 108-265
* * * * * * *
SECTION 1. * * *
* * * * * * *
TITLE I--AMENDMENTS TO RICHARD B. RUSSELL NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH ACT
* * * * * * *
SEC. 116. SUMMER FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM FOR CHILDREN.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) Simplified Summer Food Programs.--
(1) Definition of eligible state.--Section 18(f) of
the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42
U.S.C. 1769(f)) is amended by striking paragraph (1)
and inserting the following:
``(1) Definition of eligible state.--In this
subsection, the term `eligible State' means--
``(A) a State participating in the program
under this subsection as of May 1, 2004; and
``(B) a State in which (based on data
available in [April 2004] June 2005)--
``(i) the percentage obtained by
dividing--
``(I) the sum of--
``(aa) the average
daily number of
children attending the
summer food service
program in the State in
July 2003; and
``(bb) the average
daily number of
children receiving free
or reduced price meals
under the school lunch
program in the State in
July 2003; by
``(II) the average daily
number of children receiving
free or reduced price meals
under the school lunch program
in the State in March 2003; is
less than
``(ii) [66.67] 75 percent of the
percentage obtained by dividing--
``(I) the sum of--
``(aa) the average
daily number of
children attending the
summer food service
program in all States
in July 2003; and
``(bb) the average
daily number of
children receiving free
or reduced price meals
under the school lunch
program in all States
in July 2003; by
``(II) the average daily
number of children receiving
free or reduced price meals
under the school lunch program
in all States in March 2003.''.
* * * * * * *
TITLE II--AMENDMENTS TO CHILD NUTRITION ACT OF 1966
SEC. 201. * * *
* * * * * * *
SEC. 204. LOCAL WELLNESS POLICY.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) Technical Assistance and Best Practices.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Funding.--
(A) In general.--On [July 1, 2006] October
1, 2005, out of any funds in the Treasury not
otherwise appropriated, the Secretary of the
Treasury shall transfer to the Secretary of
Agriculture to carry out this subsection
$4,000,000, to remain available until September
30, 2009.
* * * * * * *
BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL
PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS
AMENDED
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget authority Outlays
---------------------------------------------------------
Committee Amount of Committee Amount of
allocation \1\ bill allocation \1\ bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee
allocations to its subcommittees of amounts in the
Budget Resolution for 2006: Subcommittee on
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies:
Mandatory......................................... 69,535 82,818 50,456 \1\ 49,629
Discretionary..................................... 17,348 17,348 19,113 \1\ 18,792
Projections of outlays associated with the
recommendation:
2006.............................................. .............. ........... .............. \2\ 57,720
2007.............................................. .............. ........... .............. 8,897
2008.............................................. .............. ........... .............. 1,007
2009.............................................. .............. ........... .............. 136
2010 and future years............................. .............. ........... .............. 51
Financial assistance to State and local governments NA 24,331 NA 20,422
for 2006............................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\2\ Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
NA: Not applicable.
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Committee recommendation compared with (+ or
)
Item 2005 Budget estimate House allowance Committee -----------------------------------------------------
appropriation recommendation 2005
appropriation Budget estimate House allowance
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS
Production, Processing, and Marketing
Office of the Secretary........................................... 5,083 5,127 5,127 5,127 +44 ................ ................
Executive Operations:
Chief Economist............................................... 10,234 10,539 10,539 10,539 +305 ................ ................
National Appeals Division..................................... 14,216 14,524 14,524 14,524 +308 ................ ................
Office of Budget and Program Analysis......................... 8,162 8,298 8,298 8,298 +136 ................ ................
Homeland Security staff....................................... 769 1,466 934 1,166 +397 -300 +232
Office of the Chief Information Officer....................... 16,462 16,726 16,462 16,726 +264 ................ +264
Common computing environment.............................. 124,580 142,465 60,725 128,072 +3,492 -14,393 +67,347
Office of the Chief Financial Officer......................... 5,696 5,874 5,874 5,874 +178 ................ ................
Working capital fund.......................................... 12,747 ................ ................ ................ -12,747 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Executive Operations................................. 192,866 199,892 117,356 185,199 -7,667 -14,693 +67,843
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights................ 811 821 811 821 +10 ................ +10
Office of Civil Rights............................................ 19,730 20,109 20,109 20,109 +379 ................ ................
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration.............. 664 676 676 676 +12 ................ ................
Agriculture buildings and facilities and rental payments.......... (162,559) (221,924) (183,133) (187,734) (+25,175) (-34,190) (+4,601)
Payments to GSA............................................... 127,292 147,734 147,734 147,734 +20,442 ................ ................
Building operations and maintenance........................... 35,267 74,190 35,399 40,000 +4,733 -34,190 +4,601
Hazardous materials management.................................... 15,408 15,644 15,644 12,000 -3,408 -3,644 -3,644
Departmental administration....................................... 22,445 23,103 23,103 23,103 +658 ................ ................
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations..... 3,821 3,846 3,821 3,846 +25 ................ +25
Office of Communications.......................................... 9,290 9,509 9,509 9,509 +219 ................ ................
Office of the Inspector General................................... 77,663 81,045 79,626 81,045 +3,382 ................ +1,419
Office of the General Counsel..................................... 35,574 40,263 38,439 40,263 +4,689 ................ +1,824
Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Econom- 587 598 598 598 +11 ................ ................
ics.............................................................
Economic Research Service......................................... 74,170 80,749 75,931 78,549 +4,379 -2,200 +2,618
National Agricultural Statistics Service.......................... 128,444 145,159 136,241 145,159 +16,715 ................ +8,918
Census of Agriculture......................................... (22,226) (29,115) (29,115) (29,115) (+6,889) ................ ................
Agricultural Research Service:
Salaries and expenses......................................... 1,102,000 996,107 1,035,475 1,109,981 +7,981 +113,874 +74,506
Buildings and facilities...................................... 186,335 64,800 87,300 160,645 -25,690 +95,845 +73,345
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Agricultural Research Service........................ 1,288,335 1,060,907 1,122,775 1,270,626 -17,709 +209,719 +147,851
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service:
Research and education activities............................. 655,495 545,500 662,546 652,231 -3,264 +106,731 -10,315
Native American Institutions Endowment Fund................... (12,000) (12,000) (12,000) (12,000) ................ ................ ................
Extension activities.......................................... 445,631 431,743 444,871 453,438 +7,807 +21,695 +8,567
Integrated activities......................................... 54,712 35,013 15,513 55,784 +1,072 +20,771 +40,271
Outreach for socially disadvantaged farmers................... 5,888 5,935 7,810 5,888 ................ -47 -1,922
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 1,161,726 1,018,191 1,130,740 1,167,341 +5,615 +149,150 +36,601
Service....................................................
Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Pro- 715 724 724 724 +9 ................ ................
grams............................................................
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service:
Salaries and expenses......................................... 808,106 855,162 842,520 807,768 -338 -47,394 -34,752
Animal welfare (user fees) (leg. proposal) NA............. ................ (10,858) ................ (10,858) (+10,858) ................ (+10,858)
Buildings and facilities...................................... 4,927 4,996 4,996 4,996 +69 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service........... 813,033 860,158 847,516 812,764 -269 -47,394 -34,752
Agricultural Marketing Service:
Marketing Services............................................ 75,092 84,114 78,032 76,643 +1,551 -7,471 -1,389
Agriculture marketing service standardization (user fees) ................ (2,918) ................ (2,918) (+2,918) ................ (+2,918)
(leg. proposal) NA.......................................
Standardization user fees................................. (5,000) ................ ................ ................ (-5,000) ................ ................
(Limitation on administrative expenses, from fees collected).. (64,459) (65,667) (65,667) (65,667) (+1,208) ................ ................
Funds for strengthening markets, income, and supply (transfer 15,800 16,055 16,055 16,055 +255 ................ ................
from section 32).............................................
Payments to states and possessions............................ 3,816 1,347 1,347 3,847 +31 +2,500 +2,500
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Agricultural Marketing Service....................... 94,708 101,516 95,434 96,545 +1,837 -4,971 +1,111
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration:
Salaries and expenses......................................... 37,001 15,717 38,400 38,443 +1,442 +22,726 +43
Grain inspection, packers and stockyards administration ................ (24,701) ................ (24,701) (+24,701) ................ (+24,701)
(user fees) (leg. proposal) NA...........................
Limitation on inspection and weighing services................ (42,463) (42,463) (42,463) (42,463) ................ ................ ................
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety..................... 590 602 590 602 +12 ................ +12
Food Safety and Inspection Service................................ 817,170 710,717 837,264 836,818 +19,648 +126,101 -446
Food safety inspection (user fees) (leg. prop) NA............. ................ (139,000) ................ (139,000) (+139,000) ................ (+139,000)
Lab accreditation fees........................................ (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) ................ ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Production, Processing, and Marketing................ 4,962,393 4,616,997 4,783,567 5,017,601 +55,208 +400,604 +234,034
=============================================================================================================================
Farm Assistance Programs
Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural 626 635 635 635 +9 ................ ................
Services.........................................................
Farm Service Agency:
Salaries and expenses......................................... 999,536 1,050,875 1,023,738 1,043,555 +44,019 -7,320 +19,817
(Transfer from export loans).................................. (994) (1,839) (1,839) (1,839) (+845) ................ ................
(Transfer from Public Law 480)................................ (2,914) (3,217) (3,217) (3,217) (+303) ................ ................
(Transfer from ACIF).......................................... (291,414) (309,137) (297,127) (309,137) (+17,723) ................ (+12,010)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, transfers from program accounts................... (295,322) (314,193) (302,183) (314,193) (+18,871) ................ (+12,010)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Salaries and expenses................................ (1,294,858) (1,365,068) (1,325,921) (1,357,748) (+62,890) (-7,320) (+31,827)
State mediation grants........................................ 3,968 4,500 4,250 4,250 +282 -250 ................
Grassroot source water protection program..................... ................ ................ ................ 4,250 +4,250 +4,250 +4,250
Dairy indemnity program....................................... 100 100 100 100 ................ ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Farm Service Agency............................... 1,003,604 1,055,475 1,028,088 1,052,155 +48,551 -3,320 +24,067
Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account:
Loan authorizations:
Farm ownership loans:
Direct............................................ (208,320) (200,000) (200,000) (208,000) (-320) (+8,000) (+8,000)
Guaranteed........................................ (1,388,800) (1,400,000) (1,400,000) (1,400,000) (+11,200) ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................ (1,597,120) (1,600,000) (1,600,000) (1,608,000) (+10,880) (+8,000) (+8,000)
Farm operating loans:
Direct............................................ (644,800) (650,000) (650,000) (650,000) (+5,200) ................ ................
Unsubsidized guaranteed........................... (1,091,200) (1,200,000) (1,200,000) (1,100,000) (+8,800) (-100,000) (-100,000)
Subsidized guaranteed............................. (282,720) (266,253) (266,256) (283,000) (+280) (+16,747) (+16,744)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................ (2,018,720) (2,116,253) (2,116,256) (2,033,000) (+14,280) (-83,253) (-83,256)
Indian tribe land acquisition loans................... (2,000) (2,000) (2,020) (2,000) ................ ................ (-20)
Natural disasters emergency insured loans............. ................ (25,000) ................ ................ ................ (-25,000) ................
Boll weevil eradication loans......................... (100,000) (60,000) (100,000) (100,000) ................ (+40,000) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan authorizations.......................... (3,717,840) (3,803,253) (3,818,276) (3,743,000) (+25,160) (-60,253) (-75,276)
Loan subsidies:
Farm ownership loans:
Direct............................................ 11,145 10,240 10,240 10,650 -495 +410 +410
Guaranteed........................................ 7,361 6,720 6,720 6,720 -641 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................ 18,506 16,960 16,960 17,370 -1,136 +410 +410
Farm operating loans:
Direct............................................ 65,060 64,675 64,675 64,675 -385 ................ ................
Unsubsidized guaranteed........................... 35,246 36,360 36,360 33,330 -1,916 -3,030 -3,030
Subsidized guaranteed............................. 37,631 33,282 33,282 35,375 -2,256 +2,093 +2,093
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................ 137,937 134,317 134,317 133,380 -4,557 -937 -937
Indian tribe land acquisition......................... 105 80 81 80 -25 ................ -1
Natural disasters emergency insured loans............. ................ 2,735 ................ ................ ................ -2,735 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan subsidies............................... 156,548 154,092 151,358 150,830 -5,718 -3,262 -528
ACIF expenses:
Salaries and expense (transfer to FSA)................ 291,414 309,137 297,127 309,137 +17,723 ................ +12,010
Administrative expenses............................... 7,936 8,000 8,000 8,000 +64 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, ACIF expenses................................ 299,350 317,137 305,127 317,137 +17,787 ................ +12,010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund........... 455,898 471,229 456,485 467,967 +12,069 -3,262 +11,482
(Loan authorization)............................ (3,717,840) (3,803,253) (3,818,276) (3,743,000) (+25,160) (-60,253) (-75,276)
=============================================================================================================================
Total, Farm Service Agency.................... 1,459,502 1,526,704 1,484,573 1,520,122 +60,620 -6,582 +35,549
=============================================================================================================================
Risk Management Agency............................................ 71,468 87,806 77,806 73,448 +1,980 -14,358 -4,358
=============================================================================================================================
Total, Farm Assistance Programs............................. 1,531,596 1,615,145 1,563,014 1,594,205 +62,609 -20,940 +31,191
=============================================================================================================================
Corporations
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation: Federal crop insurance 4,095,128 3,159,379 3,159,379 3,159,379 -935,749 ................ ................
corporation fund.................................................
Commodity Credit Corporation Fund:
Reimbursement for net realized losses......................... 16,452,377 25,690,000 25,690,000 25,690,000 +9,237,623 ................ ................
Hazardous waste management (limitation on expenses)........... (5,000) (5,000) (5,000) (5,000) ................ ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Corporations......................................... 20,547,505 28,849,379 28,849,379 28,849,379 +8,301,874 ................ ................
=============================================================================================================================
Total, title I, Agricultural Programs....................... 27,041,494 35,081,521 35,195,960 35,461,185 +8,419,691 +379,664 +265,225
(By transfer)........................................... (295,322) (314,193) (302,183) (314,193) (+18,871) ................ (+12,010)
(Loan authorization).................................... (3,717,840) (3,803,253) (3,818,276) (3,743,000) (+25,160) (-60,253) (-75,276)
(Limitation on administrative expenses)................. (111,922) (113,130) (113,130) (113,130) (+1,208) ................ ................
=============================================================================================================================
TITLE II--CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environ- 735 744 744 744 +9 ................ ................
ment.............................................................
Natural Resources Conservation Service:
Conservation operations....................................... 830,661 767,783 773,640 819,561 -11,100 +51,778 +45,921
Watershed surveys and planning................................ 7,026 5,141 7,026 5,141 -1,885 ................ -1,885
Watershed and flood prevention operations..................... 74,971 ................ 60,000 60,000 -14,971 +60,000 ................
Watershed rehabilitation program.............................. 27,280 15,125 47,000 27,313 +33 +12,188 -19,687
Resource conservation and development......................... 51,228 25,600 51,360 51,228 ................ +25,628 -132
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Natural Resources Conservation Service............... 991,166 813,649 939,026 963,243 -27,923 +149,594 +24,217
=============================================================================================================================
Total, title II, Conservation Programs...................... 991,901 814,393 939,770 963,987 -27,914 +149,594 +24,217
=============================================================================================================================
TITLE III--RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development............... 627 635 627 635 +8 ................ +8
Rural Development:
Rural community advancement program........................... 710,321 521,689 657,389 705,106 -5,215 +183,417 +47,717
(Transfer out)............................................ (-27,776) ................ ................ (-28,000) (-224) (-28,000) (-28,000)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural community advancement program.............. 710,321 521,689 657,389 705,106 -5,215 +183,417 +47,717
RD expenses:
Salaries and expenses..................................... 147,264 167,849 152,623 164,773 +17,509 -3,076 +12,150
(Transfer from RHIF)...................................... (444,755) (465,886) (455,242) (465,886) (+21,131) ................ (+10,644)
(Transfer from RDLFP)..................................... (4,281) (6,656) (4,719) (6,656) (+2,375) ................ (+1,937)
(Transfer from RETLP)..................................... (37,971) (39,933) (38,907) (39,933) (+1,962) ................ (+1,026)
(Transfer from RTB)....................................... (3,127) (2,500) (2,500) (2,500) (-627) ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Transfers from program accounts............... (490,134) (514,975) (501,368) (514,975) (+24,841) ................ (+13,607)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, RD expenses...................................... (637,398) (682,824) (653,991) (679,748) (+42,350) (-3,076) (+25,757)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural Development................................ 857,585 689,538 810,012 869,879 +12,294 +180,341 +59,867
=============================================================================================================================
Rural Housing Service:
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account:
Loan authorizations:
Single family direct (sec. 502)....................... (1,140,800) (1,000,000) (1,140,799) (1,000,000) (-140,800) ................ (-140,799)
Unsubsidized guaranteed........................... (3,282,823) (3,681,033) (3,681,033) (3,681,033) (+398,210) ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Single family......................... (4,423,623) (4,681,033) (4,821,832) (4,681,033) (+257,410) ................ (-140,799)
Housing repair (sec. 504)............................. (34,720) (35,969) (35,969) (35,000) (+280) (-969) (-969)
Rental housing (sec. 515)............................. (99,200) (27,027) (100,000) (90,000) (-9,200) (+62,973) (-10,000)
Site loans (sec. 524)................................. (5,045) (5,000) (5,000) (5,000) (-45) ................ ................
Multi-family housing guarantees (sec. 538)............ (99,200) (200,000) (100,000) (100,000) (+800) (-100,000) ................
Multi-family housing credit sales..................... (1,489) (1,500) (1,500) (1,500) (+11) ................ ................
Single family housing credit sales.................... (10,000) (10,000) (10,000) (10,000) ................ ................ ................
Self-help housing land develop. (sec. 523)............ (10,000) (5,048) (5,048) (5,048) (-4,952) ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan authorizations.......................... (4,683,277) (4,965,577) (5,079,349) (4,927,581) (+244,304) (-37,996) (-151,768)
Loan subsidies:
Single family direct (sec. 502)....................... 132,105 113,900 129,937 113,900 -18,205 ................ -16,037
Unsubsidized guaranteed........................... 33,339 40,900 40,900 40,900 +7,561 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Single family......................... 165,444 154,800 170,837 154,800 -10,644 ................ -16,037
Housing repair (sec. 504)............................. 10,090 10,521 10,521 10,238 +148 -283 -283
Rental housing (sec. 515)............................. 46,713 12,400 45,880 41,292 -5,421 +28,892 -4,588
Multi-family housing guarantees (sec. 538)............ 3,462 10,840 5,420 5,420 +1,958 -5,420 ................
Multi-family housing credit sales..................... 721 681 681 681 -40 ................ ................
Self-help housing land develop. (sec. 523)............ ................ 52 52 52 +52 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan subsidies............................... 226,430 189,294 233,391 212,483 -13,947 +23,189 -20,908
RHIF administrative expenses (transfer to RD)............. 444,755 465,886 455,242 465,886 +21,131 ................ +10,644
Rental assistance program:
(Sec. 521)............................................ 581,411 644,126 644,126 644,126 +62,715 ................ ................
(Sec. 502(c)(5)(D))................................... 5,853 5,900 5,900 8,976 +3,123 +3,076 +3,076
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rental assistance program.................... 587,264 650,026 650,026 653,102 +65,838 +3,076 +3,076
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural Housing Insurance Fund................. 1,258,449 1,305,206 1,338,659 1,331,471 +73,022 +26,265 -7,188
(Loan authorization)............................ (4,683,277) (4,965,577) (5,079,349) (4,927,581) (+244,304) (-37,996) (-151,768)
=============================================================================================================================
Rural housing voucher program................................. ................ 214,000 ................ 16,000 +16,000 -198,000 +16,000
Multi-family housing preservation............................. ................ ................ ................ 16,500 +16,500 +16,500 +16,500
Mutual and self-help housing grants........................... 33,728 34,000 34,000 34,000 +272 ................ ................
Rural housing assistance grants............................... 43,640 41,000 41,000 43,976 +336 +2,976 +2,976
Farm labor program account.................................... 33,845 32,728 32,728 29,607 -4,238 -3,121 -3,121
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, grants and payments............................... 111,213 107,728 107,728 107,583 -3,630 -145 -145
=============================================================================================================================
Total, Rural Housing Service................................ 1,369,662 1,626,934 1,446,387 1,471,554 +101,892 -155,380 +25,167
(Loan authorization).................................... (4,683,277) (4,965,577) (5,079,349) (4,927,581) (+244,304) (-37,996) (-151,768)
=============================================================================================================================
Rural Business-Cooperative Service:
Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account:
(Loan authorization)...................................... (33,939) (34,212) (34,212) (34,212) (+273) ................ ................
Loan subsidy.............................................. 15,741 14,718 14,718 14,718 -1,023 ................ ................
Administrative expenses (transfer to RD).................. 4,281 6,656 4,719 6,656 +2,375 ................ +1,937
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural Development Loan Fund...................... 20,022 21,374 19,437 21,374 +1,352 ................ +1,937
Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account:
(Loan authorization)...................................... (24,803) (25,003) (25,003) (25,003) (+200) ................ ................
Direct subsidy............................................ 4,660 4,993 4,993 4,993 +333 ................ ................
Rural cooperative development grants.......................... 23,808 21,000 64,000 24,988 +1,180 +3,988 -39,012
Rural empowerment zones and enterprise communities grants..... 12,400 ................ 10,000 12,400 ................ +12,400 +2,400
Renewable energy program...................................... 22,816 10,000 23,000 23,000 +184 +13,000 ................
=============================================================================================================================
Total, Rural Business-Cooperative Service................... 83,706 57,367 121,430 86,755 +3,049 +29,388 -34,675
(Loan authorization).................................... (58,742) (59,215) (59,215) (59,215) (+473) ................ ................
=============================================================================================================================
Rural Utilities Service:
Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program
Account:
Loan authorizations:
Electric:
Direct, 5 percent................................. (119,040) (100,000) (100,000) (100,000) (-19,040) ................ ................
Direct, Municipal rate............................ (99,200) (100,000) (100,000) (100,000) (+800) ................ ................
Direct, FFB....................................... (2,000,000) (1,620,000) (2,000,000) (2,700,000) (+700,000) (+1,080,000) (+700,000)
Direct, Treasury rate............................. (1,000,000) (700,000) (1,000,000) (1,000,000) ................ (+300,000) ................
Guaranteed electric............................... (99,200) ................ (100,000) (100,000) (+800) (+100,000) ................
Guaranteed underwriting........................... (1,000,000) ................ (1,000,000) (1,500,000) (+500,000) (+1,500,000) (+500,000)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Electric.............................. (4,317,440) (2,520,000) (4,300,000) (5,500,000) (+1,182,560) (+2,980,000) (+1,200,000)
Telecommunications:
Direct, 5 percent................................. (145,000) (145,000) (145,000) (145,000) ................ ................ ................
Direct, Treasury rate............................. (248,000) (425,000) (424,000) (425,000) (+177,000) ................ (+1,000)
Direct, FFB....................................... (125,000) (100,000) (125,000) (125,000) ................ (+25,000) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Telecommunications.................... (518,000) (670,000) (694,000) (695,000) (+177,000) (+25,000) (+1,000)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan authorizations...................... (4,835,440) (3,190,000) (4,994,000) (6,195,000) (+1,359,560) (+3,005,000) (+1,201,000)
Loan subsidies:
Electric:
Direct, 5 percent................................. 3,619 920 920 920 -2,699 ................ ................
Direct, Municipal rate............................ 1,339 5,050 5,050 5,050 +3,711 ................ ................
Guaranteed electric............................... 60 ................ 90 90 +30 +90 ................
Direct, Treasury rate............................. ................ 70 100 100 +100 +30 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Electric.............................. 5,018 6,040 6,160 6,160 +1,142 +120 ................
Telecommunications: Direct, Treasury rate............. 99 212 212 212 +113 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Telecommunications........................ 99 212 212 212 +113 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan subsidies............................... 5,117 6,252 6,372 6,372 +1,255 +120 ................
RETLP administrative expenses (transfer to RD)............ 37,971 39,933 38,907 39,933 +1,962 ................ +1,026
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural Electrification and Telecommunications 43,088 46,185 45,279 46,305 +3,217 +120 +1,026
Loans Program Account..................................
(Loan authorization)................................ (4,835,440) (3,190,000) (4,994,000) (6,195,000) (+1,359,560) (+3,005,000) (+1,201,000)
=============================================================================================================================
Rural Telephone Bank Program Account:
(Loan authorization)...................................... (175,000) ................ ................ ................ (-175,000) ................ ................
RTB administrative expenses (transfer to RD).............. 3,127 2,500 2,500 2,500 -627 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural Telephone Bank Program Account............. 3,127 2,500 2,500 2,500 -627 ................ ................
High energy costs grants (by transfer)........................ (27,776) ................ ................ (28,000) (+224) (+28,000) (+28,000)
Distance learning, telemedicine, and broadband program:
Loan authorizations:
Distance learning and telemedicine.................... (50,000) ................ (50,000) ................ (-50,000) ................ (-50,000)
Broadband telecommunications.......................... (545,600) (358,875) (463,860) (550,000) (+4,400) (+191,125) (+86,140)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan authorizations.......................... (595,600) (358,875) (513,860) (550,000) (-45,600) (+191,125) (+36,140)
Loan subsidies:
Distance learning and telemedicine:
Direct............................................ 704 ................ 750 ................ -704 ................ -750
Grants............................................ 34,720 25,000 25,000 35,000 +280 +10,000 +10,000
Broadband telecommunications:
Direct............................................ 11,621 9,973 9,973 11,825 +204 +1,852 +1,852
Grants............................................ 8,928 ................ 9,000 10,000 +1,072 +10,000 +1,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan subsidies and grants................ 55,973 34,973 44,723 56,825 +852 +21,852 +12,102
=============================================================================================================================
Total, Rural Utilities Service.................. 102,188 83,658 92,502 105,630 +3,442 +21,972 +13,128
(Loan authorization)........................ (5,606,040) (3,548,875) (5,507,860) (6,745,000) (+1,138,960) (+3,196,125) (+1,237,140)
=============================================================================================================================
Total, title III, Rural Economic and Commu- ...
nity Development Programs..................... 2,413,768 2,458,132 2,470,958 2,534,453 +120,685 +76,321 +63,495
(By transfer)............................... (517,910) (514,975) (501,368) (542,975) (+25,065) (+28,000) (+41,607)
(Loan authorization)........................ (10,348,059) (8,573,667) (10,646,424) (11,731,796) (+1,383,737) (+3,158,129) (+1,085,372)
=============================================================================================================================
TITLE IV--DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer 590 599 599 599 +9 ................ ................
Services.........................................................
Food and Nutrition Service:
Child nutrition programs...................................... 6,629,038 7,304,207 7,224,406 7,224,406 +595,368 -79,801 ................
Transfer from section 32.................................. 5,152,962 5,111,820 5,187,621 5,187,621 +34,659 +75,801 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Child nutrition programs......................... 11,782,000 12,416,027 12,412,027 12,412,027 +630,027 -4,000 ................
Special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and 5,235,032 5,510,000 5,257,000 5,257,000 +21,968 -253,000 ................
children (WIC)...............................................
Food stamp program:
Expenses.................................................. 30,499,527 36,034,599 36,034,599 36,044,026 +5,544,499 +9,427 +9,427
Indian reservations (FDPIR)........................... ................ ................ ................ 4,000 +4,000 +4,000 +4,000
Armed forces provision.................................... ................ 1,000 1,000 1,000 +1,000 ................ ................
Reserve................................................... 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 ................ ................ ................
Nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico and Samoa............ 1,515,027 1,535,796 1,535,796 1,522,369 +7,342 -13,427 -13,427
The emergency food assistance program..................... 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 ................ ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Food stamp program............................... 35,154,554 40,711,395 40,711,395 40,711,395 +5,556,841 ................ ................
Commodity assistance program.................................. 177,367 177,935 178,797 179,935 +2,568 +2,000 +1,138
Nutrition programs administration............................. 138,818 140,761 140,761 140,761 +1,943 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Food and Nutrition Service........................... 52,487,771 58,956,118 58,699,980 58,701,118 +6,213,347 -255,000 +1,138
=============================================================================================================================
Total, title IV, Domestic Food Programs..................... 52,488,361 58,956,717 58,700,579 58,701,717 +6,213,356 -255,000 +1,138
=============================================================================================================================
TITLE V--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS
Foreign Agricultural Service:
Salaries and expenses, direct appropriation................... 136,719 148,792 148,224 147,868 +11,149 -924 -356
(Transfer from export loans).................................. (3,394) (3,440) (3,440) (3,440) (+46) ................ ................
(Transfer from Public Law 480)................................ (1,088) (168) (168) (168) (-920) ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Salaries and expenses program level.................. (141,201) (152,400) (151,832) (151,476) (+10,275) (-924) (-356)
Public Law 480 Program and Grant Accounts:
Program account:
Loan authorization, direct................................ (109,000) (74,032) (74,032) (74,032) (-34,968) ................ ................
Loan subsidies............................................ 93,444 65,040 65,040 65,040 -28,404 ................ ................
Ocean freight differential grants......................... 22,541 11,940 11,940 11,940 -10,601 ................ ................
Title II--Commodities for disposition abroad:
Program level............................................. (1,173,041) (885,000) (1,107,094) (1,150,000) (-23,041) (+265,000) (+42,906)
Appropriation............................................. 1,173,041 885,000 1,107,094 1,150,000 -23,041 +265,000 +42,906
Salaries and expenses:
Foreign Agricultural Service (transfer to FAS)............ 1,088 168 168 168 -920 ................ ................
Farm Service Agency (transfer to FSA)..................... 2,914 3,217 3,217 3,217 +303 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ 4,002 3,385 3,385 3,385 -617 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Public Law 480:
Program level....................................... (1,173,041) (885,000) (1,107,094) (1,150,000) (-23,041) (+265,000) (+42,906)
Appropriation....................................... 1,293,028 965,365 1,187,459 1,230,365 -62,663 +265,000 +42,906
=============================================================================================================================
CCC Export Loans Program Account (administrative expenses):
Salaries and expenses (Export Loans):
General Sales Manager (transfer to FAS)................... 3,394 3,440 3,440 3,440 +46 ................ ................
Farm Service Agency (transfer to FSA)..................... 994 1,839 1,839 1,839 +845 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, CCC Export Loans Program Account................. 4,388 5,279 5,279 5,279 +891 ................ ................
McGovern-Dole international food for education and child nutrition 86,800 100,000 100,000 100,000 +13,200 ................ ................
program grants...................................................
=============================================================================================================================
Total, title V, Foreign Assistance and Related Programs..... 1,520,935 1,219,436 1,440,962 1,483,512 -37,423 +264,076 +42,550
(By transfer)........................................... (4,482) (3,608) (3,608) (3,608) (-874) ................ ................
=============================================================================================================================
TITLE VI--RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
Salaries and expenses, direct appropriation....................... 1,450,098 1,492,726 1,480,978 1,485,009 +34,911 -7,717 +4,031
Prescription drug user fee act................................ (284,394) (305,332) (305,332) (305,332) (+20,938) ................ ................
Medical device user fee act................................... (33,938) (40,300) (40,300) (40,300) (+6,362) ................ ................
Animal drug user fee act...................................... (8,354) (11,318) (11,318) (11,318) (+2,964) ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... (1,776,784) (1,849,676) (1,837,928) (1,841,959) (+65,175) (-7,717) (+4,031)
Mammography clinics user fee (outlay savings)................. (16,919) (17,173) (17,173) (17,173) (+254) ................ ................
Export and color certification................................ (6,838) (7,640) (7,640) (7,640) (+802) ................ ................
Payments to GSA............................................... (129,815) (134,853) (134,853) (134,853) (+5,038) ................ ................
Buildings and facilities.......................................... ................ 7,000 5,000 7,000 +7,000 ................ +2,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Food and Drug Administration......................... 1,450,098 1,499,726 1,485,978 1,492,009 +41,911 -7,717 +6,031
=============================================================================================================================
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.............................. 93,572 99,386 98,386 98,386 +4,814 -1,000 ................
Farm Credit Administration (limitation on administrative expenses) (42,350) ................ (44,250) (44,250) (+1,900) (+44,250) ................
=============================================================================================================================
Total, title VI, Related Agencies and Food and Drug 1,543,670 1,599,112 1,584,364 1,590,395 +46,725 -8,717 +6,031
Administration.............................................
=============================================================================================================================
TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Hunger fellowships (sec. 722)..................................... 2,480 ................ 2,500 2,500 +20 +2,500 ................
National Sheep Industry Improvement Center revolving fund (sec. 992 ................ 500 2,000 +1,008 +2,000 +1,500
724).............................................................
Citrus canker compensation (sec. 760)............................. 29,760 ................ 10,000 ................ -29,760 ................ -10,000
Northern Great Plains Regional Authority.......................... 1,479 ................ ................ ................ -1,479 ................ ................
Rural housing assistance grants (rescission)...................... -1,000 ................ ................ ................ +1,000 ................ ................
Rural housing insurance fund (rescission)......................... -3,000 ................ ................ ................ +3,000 ................ ................
Denali Commission................................................. 1,488 ................ ................ 1,500 +12 +1,500 +1,500
Local TV loan guarantee (rescission).............................. -88,000 ................ ................ ................ +88,000 ................ ................
Agricultural conservation prog. (rescission)...................... -3,500 ................ ................ ................ +3,500 ................ ................
Section 32 (rescission)........................................... -163,000 ................ ................ ................ +163,000 ................ ................
Public Law 480 Title I (rescission)............................... -191,108 ................ ................ ................ +191,108 ................ ................
Milk processing and packaging facilities.......................... 992 ................ ................ 1,000 +8 +1,000 +1,000
Alaska private lands wildlife management.......................... 496 ................ ................ 500 +4 +500 +500
Livestock Expo Center (sec. 753).................................. 992 ................ 1,000 ................ -992 ................ -1,000
Virginia Horse Center............................................. 992 ................ ................ ................ -992 ................ ................
Great Plains conservation program, unobligated balances (rescis- -8,000 ................ ................ ................ +8,000 ................ ................
sions)...........................................................
Wisconsin Federation of Cooperatives.............................. 2,232 ................ ................ 2,250 +18 +2,250 +2,250
Florida citrus promotion.......................................... 5,952 ................ ................ ................ -5,952 ................ ................
CACFP audit funds................................................. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Data mining and data warehousing activities....................... ................ 3,600 ................ ................ ................ -3,600 ................
WIC contingency reserve (rescission) (sec. 762)................... ................ ................ -32,000 -32,000 -32,000 -32,000 ................
Specialty crop grants (sec. 766).................................. ................ ................ 7,000 ................ ................ ................ -7,000
SFSP Summer food serivce program.................................. ................ ................ ................ 1,000 +1,000 +1,000 +1,000
Fruit and Vegetable pilot program................................. ................ ................ ................ 2,000 +2,000 +2,000 +2,000
National Agriculture Imagery program.............................. ................ ................ ................ 1,250 +1,250 +1,250 +1,250
World food prize.................................................. ................ ................ ................ 700 +700 +700 +700
=============================================================================================================================
Total, title VII, General provisions........................ -409,753 3,600 -11,000 -17,300 +392,453 -20,900 -6,300
=============================================================================================================================
OTHER APPROPRIATIONS
Hurricane Disaster Assistance Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-324)
Farm Assistance Programs: Farm Service Agency:
Emergency conservation program (emergency).................... 100,000 ................ ................ ................ -100,000 ................ ................
Conservation Programs: Natural Resources Conservation Service: 250,000 ................ ................ ................ -250,000 ................ ................
Emerg watershed protection program (emerg).......................
Rural Development Programs:
Rural community advancement proram (emergency)................ 68,000 ................ ................ ................ -68,000 ................ ................
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account:
Housing repairs (sec. 504):
Loan authorization (emergency)........................ (17,000) ................ ................ ................ (-17,000) ................ ................
Loan subsidies (emergency)............................ 5,000 ................ ................ ................ -5,000 ................ ................
Rural housing assistance grants (emergency)............... 13,000 ................ ................ ................ -13,000 ................ ................
Emergency watershed protection program/emergency conservation 50,000 ................ ................ ................ -50,000 ................ ................
program (emergency)..............................................
Section 32 transfer (emergency)................................... 90,000 ................ ................ ................ -90,000 ................ ................
Producer assistance (emergency)................................... 2,928,500 ................ ................ ................ -2,928,500 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Public Law 108-324 (emergency)....................... 3,504,500 ................ ................ ................ -3,504,500 ................ ................
Emerg. Supplemental Approps. for Defense, The Global War on
Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005 (Public Law 109-13)
Foreign Agricultural Service:
Public Law 480 Title II Grants (emergency).................... 240,000 ................ ................ ................ -240,000 ................ ................
Natural Resources Conservation Service:
Emergency watershed protection program (emergency)............ 104,500 ................ ................ ................ -104,500 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Public Law 109-13 (emergency)........................ 344,500 ................ ................ ................ -344,500 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Other appropriations (emergency)..................... 3,849,000 ................ ................ ................ -3,849,000 ................ ................
Grand total:
New budget (obligational) authority..................... 89,439,376 100,132,911 100,321,593 100,717,949 +11,278,573 +585,038 +396,356
Appropriations...................................... (86,047,984) (100,132,911) (100,353,593) (100,749,949) (+14,701,965) (+617,038) (+396,356)
Emergency Appropriations............................ 3,849,000 ................ ................ ................ -3,849,000 ................ ................
Contingent emergency Appropriations................. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
(By transfer)........................................... (817,714) (832,776) (807,159) (860,776) (+43,062) (+28,000) (+53,617)
(Loan authorization).................................... (14,191,899) (12,450,952) (14,538,732) (15,548,828) (+1,356,929) (+3,097,876) (+1,010,096)
(Limitation on administrative expenses)................. (154,272) (113,130) (157,380) (157,380) (+3,108) (+44,250) ................
=============================================================================================================================
RECAPITULATION
Title I--Agricultural programs.................................... 27,041,494 35,081,521 35,195,960 35,461,185 +8,419,691 +379,664 +265,225
Mandatory..................................................... (20,563,405) (28,865,534) (28,865,534) (28,865,534) (+8,302,129) ................ ................
Discretionary................................................. (6,478,089) (6,215,987) (6,330,426) (6,595,651) (+117,562) (+379,664) (+265,225)
Title II--Conservation programs (discretionary)................... 991,901 814,393 939,770 963,987 -27,914 +149,594 +24,217
Title III--Rural economic and community development programs 2,413,768 2,458,132 2,470,958 2,534,453 +120,685 +76,321 +63,495
(discretionary)..................................................
Title IV--Domestic food programs (discretionary).................. 52,488,361 58,956,717 58,700,579 58,701,717 +6,213,356 -255,000 +1,138
Mandatory..................................................... (46,936,554) (53,126,422) (53,122,422) (53,118,422) (+6,181,868) (-8,000) (-4,000)
Discretionary................................................. (5,551,807) (5,830,295) (5,578,157) (5,583,295) (+31,488) (-247,000) (+5,138)
Title V--Foreign assistance and related programs (discretionary).. 1,520,935 1,219,436 1,440,962 1,483,512 -37,423 +264,076 +42,550
Title VI--Related agencies and Food and Drug Administration 1,543,670 1,599,112 1,584,364 1,590,395 +46,725 -8,717 +6,031
(discretionary)..................................................
Title VII--General provisions (discretionary)..................... -409,753 3,600 -11,000 -17,300 +392,453 -20,900 -6,300
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, new budget (obligational) authority.................. 85,590,376 100,132,911 100,321,593 100,717,949 +15,127,573 +585,038 +396,356
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------