[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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


