22–123 PDF 

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.

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 1Excluding emergency appropriations of $3,849,000,000. 
(2)

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
Page

3

Title IV—Domestic Food Programs—Continued

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 Senate .......................................................................................................................... 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
(4)

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.

2005 2006 Committee

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 community development programs ............................. 2,413,768,000 2,534,453,000

Title IV: Domestic food programs ............................................................................... 52,488,361,000 58,701,717,000

Title V: Foreign assistance and related programs ..................................................... 1,520,935,000 1,483,512,000

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 (obligational) authority ................................................... 85,590,376,000 100,717,949,000
(5)

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. 
6

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 ap-
7

propriations 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.
(8)

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 droughtstricken 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 
9

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 
10

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 re-
11

search 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 con-
12

tributions 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
13

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.
14

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 ClingerCohen 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 longrange 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 
15

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 imple-
16

mented 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 publicprivate 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. 
17

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. 
18

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:
19

[In thousands of dollars] 

2005 enacted 2006 budget

request 

Committee

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 adminis-
20

trative 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.
21

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 programrelated 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. 
22

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 
23

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 conver-
24

sion 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 
25

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 sta-
26

tion’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 hor-
27

ticulture 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 
28

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 
29

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 ben-
30

efits 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 Re-
31

search 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 
32

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 
33

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 
34

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. 
35

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 
36

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. 
37

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 
38

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 
39

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 
40

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 
41

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/MidSouth 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, 
42

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; VirusFree 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 
43

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 
44

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 pro-
45

vides 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. 
46

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. 
47

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 
48

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 
49

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 landgrant 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 2005 enacted Fiscal year 2006 

budget 

Committee recommendation 

Payments under Hatch Act .................................................................. 178,707 89,354 178,707

Cooperative forestry research (McIntire-Stennis) ................................ 22,205 11,103 22,205
50

COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICES [CSREES]—RESEARCH 

AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2005 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2006 

budget 

Committee recommendation 

Payments to 1890 colleges, Tuskegee University, and West Virginia 

State University ............................................................................... 36,704 38,250 37,477

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
51

COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICES [CSREES]—RESEARCH 

AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2005 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2006 

budget 

Committee recommendation 

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

(NY) ......................................................................................... 191 .......................... ..........................

Genetically enhanced plants for micro-nutrients and bio-renewable oils (MO) .................................................................. .......................... .......................... 740

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 (ID, 

OR, WA) .................................................................................. 450 .......................... 450

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
52

COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICES [CSREES]—RESEARCH 

AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2005 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2006 

budget 

Committee recommendation 

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, CO, 

GA) .......................................................................................... 780 .......................... 780

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

(NM) ........................................................................................ 233 .......................... 233

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 marketing (MS) ............................................................................. 267 .......................... 269

Seafood harvesting, processing, and marketing (AK) ................ 1,058 .......................... ..........................

Seafood safety (MA) .................................................................... 436 .......................... 458

Seed research (AK) ..................................................................... 355 .......................... ..........................
53

COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICES [CSREES]—RESEARCH 

AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2005 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2006 

budget 

Committee recommendation 

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 resources ................................................................................... 373 .......................... 392

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 

(VA) ......................................................................................... 603 .......................... 633

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 resources 

(MT) ........................................................................................ 405 .......................... 405

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 institutions 

education grants ............................................................................. 3,472 2,997 3,472

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
54

COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICES [CSREES]—RESEARCH 

AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2005 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2006 

budget 

Committee recommendation 

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 development .... 926 .......................... 1,433

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 (AL) .. 599 .......................... 250

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
55

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 Wis-
56

consin 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. 
57

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 USDAEPSCoR), 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. 
58

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 landgrant 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 
59

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 2005 enacted Fiscal year 2006 

budget 

Committee 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
60

COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE [CSREES]—EXTENSION 

ACTIVITIES—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2005 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2006 

budget 

Committee recommendation 

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 University ................................................................................................... 32,868 34,417 33,643

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 
61

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. 
62

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 2005 enacted Fiscal year 2006 

budget 

Committee 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 landgrant 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 
63

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

1The 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 
64

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 2005 enacted Fiscal year 2006 

budget request 

Committee 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
65

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2005 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2006 

budget request 

Committee recommendation 

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 bollworm1 ........................................................................... 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 fis-
66

cal 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 
67

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 
68

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 
69

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 longhorned 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 buntinfected 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 
70

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 nec-
71

essary 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 tu- berculosis 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. 
72

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 fis-
73

cal 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. 
74

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

1The 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 under-
75

taken 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 fund-
76

ing 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

Fiscal year 2004 

actual 

Fiscal year 2005 

estimate 

Revised fiscal year 

2006 estimate 

Appropriation (30 percent of Customs Receipts) .......................... $5,927,395,463 $6,052,035,538 $6,481,777,400
77

ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD—FISCAL YEARS 2004–

2006—Continued

Fiscal year 2004 actual Fiscal year 2005 estimate Revised fiscal year 

2006 estimate 

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 Commodities) ........................................................................... 400,000,000 400,000,000 465,000,000

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. 
78

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 grow-
79

ers 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

1The 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 
80

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

1The 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. 
81

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 
82

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 2005 enacted Fiscal year 2006 

budget request 1

Committee 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 nonfat 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 
83

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] 

Appropriations Transfers from 

program accounts 

Total, FSA, salaries and 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 
84

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 con-
85

tamination 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. 
86

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 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2006 

budget 

Committee 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 

Total ACIF Insured loan Guaranteed loan Total Appropriations Transfer to 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] 

2005 enacted 2006 budget Committee recommendation 

Loan subsidies: 

Farm ownership: 

Direct .................................................................................. 11,145 10,240 10,650

Guaranteed ......................................................................... 7,361 6,720 6,720
87

[In thousands of dollars] 

2005 enacted 2006 budget Committee recommendation 

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.
88

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 Dela-
89

ware 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 
90

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. 
91

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.
(92)

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. 
93

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 wood-
94

land, 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 sagegrouse 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 
95

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. 
96

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 OnePlan 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. 
97

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. 
98

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. 
99

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.
100

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.
101

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 
102

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. 
103

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.
(104)

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 
105

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 developerowner 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
106

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, 
107

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. 
108

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 recommendation 

appropriation 

2006 budget

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 pro- vides $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: 
109

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 MontainBusiness 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 
110

(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 StatesMexico 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. 
111

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 recommendation 2005 appropriation 2006 budget 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 Program Account ................................................................... 37,971 39,933 39,933

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. Appropria-
112

tions 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 Comprehen-
113

sive 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 setaside 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 recommendation 2005 2006 request 

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
114

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 recommendation 2005 level 2006 request 

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. 
115

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. 
116

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 selfhelp 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 
117

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 lowincome 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 encour-
118

ages 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 multifamily 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 recommendation 2005 level 2006 request 

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] 

Loan level Subsidy 

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.
119

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

recommendation 2005 level 2006 request 

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. 
120

RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year— Committee

recommendation 2005 level 2006 request 

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 en-
121

hance 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 
122

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 
123

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

recommendation 2005 level 2006 request 

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 Loans 

Programs Account .............................................................. 43,088 46,185 46,305

(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 
124

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] 

Loan level Direct loan 

subsidy 

Administrative 

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 recommendation 2005 level 2006 request 

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
125

DISTANCE LEARNING, TELEMEDICINE, AND BROADBAND PROGRAM

LOANS AND GRANTS

[Budget authority In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year— Committee

recommendation 2005 level 2006 request 

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 dialup Internet services for rural areas. The Department should con-
126

tinue 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).
(127)

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 elec-
128

tronic 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) 
129

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] 

Appropriation Section 32 

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 
130

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] 

Child nutrition programs 2005 estimate 2006 budget Committee 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 Com-
131

mittee 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 inten-
132

tion 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] 

Expenses Amount in reserve 

Puerto Rico and 

American 

Samoa 

TEFAP commodity purchases 

Total 

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 ap-
133

proval. 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 
134

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 breastfeeding 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’ 
135

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 nonPresidentially 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 pro-
136

grams, and allow the use of TEFAP administrative funds for this 

purpose. The Committee provides $108,854,000 for the Commodity Sup- plemental 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.
(137)

TITLE V—FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS 

FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

[In thousands of dollars] 

Appropriations Transfers from 

loan accounts Total 

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 attache ́s 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 
138

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 CCCowned 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. 
139

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 
140

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] 

Credit level Loan subsidy Administrative

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. 
141

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 ap- propriations 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 Com- mittee 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 
142

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 
143

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. 
144

COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION EXPORT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(EXPORT CREDIT PROGRAMS, GSM–102 AND GSM–103)

[In thousands of dollars] 

Guaranteed loan levels 1

Guaranteed loan subsidy 1Administrative ex- penses 

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.
(145)

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, 
146

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] 

Appropriation 

Prescription 

drug user fees 

Medical device user 

fees 

Animal 

drug user fees 

Mammography clinics inspection fees 

Export and 

certification fees Total 

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:
147

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION SALARIES AND EXPENSES 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommenda2005 enacted 2006 request tion 

Centers and related field activities: 

Foods ............................................................................................................. 435,526 461,227 450,179

Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition [CFSAN] ....................... 152,002 155,819 157,519

Field activities ..................................................................................... 283,524 305,408 292,660

Human drugs ................................................................................................ 291,488 294,089 295,589

Center for Drug Evaluation and Research [CDER] ............................. 210,529 213,363 214,863

Field activities ..................................................................................... 80,959 80,726 80,726

Biologics ........................................................................................................ 123,112 122,238 122,238

Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research [CBER] ....................... 96,890 96,093 96,093

Field activities ..................................................................................... 26,222 26,145 26,145

Animal drugs ................................................................................................ 90,486 90,486 90,486

Center for Veterinary Medicine [CVM] ................................................. 55,292 55,292 55,292

Field activities ..................................................................................... 35,194 35,194 35,194

Medical and radiological devices ................................................................. 214,965 220,961 222,792

Center for Devices and Radiological Health

[CDRH] ............................................................................................. 163,246 165,042 166,873

Field activities ..................................................................................... 51,719 55,919 55,919

National Center for Toxicological Research [NCTR] ..................................... 40,206 41,152 41,152

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 Relations .......................................................................... 6,873 6,842 6,842

Office of Policy and Planning ....................................................................... 5,175 5,152 5,152

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 expenses, new budget authority ......................................................................................................... 1,450,098 1,492,726 1,485,009

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 de-
148

crease 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 
149

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. 
150

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 coldstorage 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 Eval- uation 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 
151

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 en-
152

hancements 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 wellbeing 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 
153

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 
154

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 CPath 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 
155

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 CPath 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 
156

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. 
157

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.
158

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.
(159)

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. 
160

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 
161

‘‘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:
162

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 

* * * * * * *
163

SUBCHAPTER IV—ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * *

§ 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 ø$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 

øApril 2004¿ June 2005)—
164

‘‘(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) ø66.67¿ 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 øJuly 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. 

* * * * * * *
165

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 

allocation 1

Amount

of bill 

Committee 

allocation 1

Amount

of 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 for

2006 ......................................................................................... NA 24,331 NA 20,422

1 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

2 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

NA: Not applicable. 
166

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] 

Item 2005 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee rec- ommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 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 ∂232Office 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 ............................ ∂10Office 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 ¥3,644Departmental 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 ............................ ∂25Office 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 ............................ ∂1,419Office of the General Counsel ................................................................. 35,574 40,263 38,439 40,263 ∂4,689 ............................ ∂1,824Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics ........................................................................................................ 587 598 598 598 ∂11 ............................ ............................Economic Research Service ..................................................................... 74,170 80,749 75,931 78,549 ∂4,379 ¥2,200 ∂2,618
167

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 ∂74,506Buildings 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 ¥10,315Native 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 ∂8,567Integrated activities ........................................................................ 54,712 35,013 15,513 55,784 ∂1,072 ∂20,771 ∂40,271Outreach for socially disadvantaged farmers ................................ 5,888 5,935 7,810 5,888 ............................ ¥47 ¥1,922

Total, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 

Service .................................................................................... 1,161,726 1,018,191 1,130,740 1,167,341 ∂5,615 ∂149,150 ∂36,601

Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs ................................................................................................... 715 724 724 724 ∂9 ............................ ............................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) 

(leg. proposal) NA .............................................................. ............................ (2,918) ............................ (2,918) (∂2,918) ............................ (∂2,918) 

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 

from section 32) ......................................................................... 15,800 16,055 16,055 16,055 ∂255 ............................ ............................

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
168

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2005 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee rec- ommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2005 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

Grain inspection, packers and stockyards administration 

(user fees) (leg. proposal) NA ........................................... ............................ (24,701) ............................ (24,701) (∂24,701) ............................ (∂24,701) 

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 ............................ ∂12Food 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 Services ...................................................................................................... 626 635 635 635 ∂9 ............................ ............................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 ∂4,250Dairy 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
169

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 ∂410Guaranteed ........................................................... 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 ¥3,030Subsidized 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 ............................ ¥1Natural 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
170

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2005 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee rec- ommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2005 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

Administrative expenses ............................................... 7,936 8,000 8,000 8,000 ∂64 ............................ ............................

Total, ACIF expenses ................................................. 299,350 317,137 305,127 317,137 ∂17,787 ............................ ∂12,010Total, 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 corporation fund .............................................................................................. 4,095,128 3,159,379 3,159,379 3,159,379 ¥935,749 ............................ ............................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 Environment ..................................................................................................... 735 744 744 744 ∂9 ............................ ............................
171

Natural Resources Conservation Service: 

Conservation operations .................................................................. 830,661 767,783 773,640 819,561 ¥11,100 ∂51,778 ∂45,921Watershed surveys and planning ................................................... 7,026 5,141 7,026 5,141 ¥1,885 ............................ ¥1,885Watershed 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 ¥19,687Resource 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 ∂24,217Total, 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 ............................ ∂8Rural 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)
172

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2005 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee rec- ommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2005 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

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 ¥283Rental housing (sec. 515) ............................................ 46,713 12,400 45,880 41,292 ¥5,421 ∂28,892 ¥4,588Multi-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 ............................ ∂10,644Rental 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 ∂3,076Total, Rural Housing Insurance Fund ...................... 1,258,449 1,305,206 1,338,659 1,331,471 ∂73,022 ∂26,265 ¥7,188
173

(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 ∂16,000Multi-family housing preservation .................................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ 16,500 ∂16,500 ∂16,500 ∂16,500Mutual 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 ∂2,976Farm 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 ¥145Total, 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 ¥39,012Rural empowerment zones and enterprise communities grants .... 12,400 ............................ 10,000 12,400 ............................ ∂12,400 ∂2,400Renewable 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) ............................
174

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2005 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee rec- ommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2005 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

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 

Loans Program Account ................................................ 43,088 46,185 45,279 46,305 ∂3,217 ∂120 ∂1,026
175

(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 ............................ ¥750Grants ................................................................... 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 ∂1,852Grants ................................................................... 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 ∂12,102Total, 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 Community 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 Services ...................................................................................................... 590 599 599 599 ∂9 ............................ ............................
176

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2005 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee rec- ommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2005 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

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 

children (WIC) ............................................................................. 5,235,032 5,510,000 5,257,000 5,257,000 ∂21,968 ¥253,000 ............................

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 ¥13,427The 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 ∂1,138Nutrition 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 ∂1,138Total, 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) ............................ ............................
177

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 

program grants .................................................................................... 86,800 100,000 100,000 100,000 ∂13,200 ............................ ............................

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) ............................ ............................
178

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2005 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee rec- ommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2005 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

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 Administration ..................................................................................... 1,543,670 1,599,112 1,584,364 1,590,395 ∂46,725 ¥8,717 ∂6,031

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.

724) ..................................................................................................... 992 ............................ 500 2,000 ∂1,008 ∂2,000 ∂1,500

Citrus canker compensation (sec. 760) .................................................. 29,760 ............................ 10,000 ............................ ¥29,760 ............................ ¥10,000Northern 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 ∂1,500Local TV loan guarantee (rescission) ...................................................... ¥88,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ∂88,000 ............................ ............................Agricultural conservation prog. (rescission) ............................................ ¥3,500 ............................ ............................ ............................ ∂3,500 ............................ ............................Section 32 (rescission) ............................................................................ ¥163,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ∂163,000 ............................ ............................
179

Public Law 480 Title I (rescission) .......................................................... ¥191,108 ............................ ............................ ............................ ∂191,108 ............................ ............................Milk processing and packaging facilities ............................................... 992 ............................ ............................ 1,000 ∂8 ∂1,000 ∂1,000Alaska private lands wildlife management ............................................. 496 ............................ ............................ 500 ∂4 ∂500 ∂500Livestock Expo Center (sec. 753) ............................................................ 992 ............................ 1,000 ............................ ¥992 ............................ ¥1,000Virginia Horse Center ............................................................................... 992 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥992 ............................ ............................Great Plains conservation program, unobligated balances (rescissions) ................................................................................................... ¥8,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ∂8,000 ............................ ............................Wisconsin Federation of Cooperatives ..................................................... 2,232 ............................ ............................ 2,250 ∂18 ∂2,250 ∂2,250Florida 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 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥7,000SFSP Summer food serivce program ....................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ 1,000 ∂1,000 ∂1,000 ∂1,000Fruit and Vegetable pilot program .......................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ 2,000 ∂2,000 ∂2,000 ∂2,000National Agriculture Imagery program .................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ 1,250 ∂1,250 ∂1,250 ∂1,250World 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: 

Emerg watershed protection program (emerg) ................................... 250,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥250,000 ............................ ............................

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 program (emergency) ................................................................................ 50,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥50,000 ............................ ............................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 ............................ ............................
180

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2005 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee rec- ommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2005 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

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 ∂24,217Title III—Rural economic and community development programs (discretionary) ............................................................................................ 2,413,768 2,458,132 2,470,958 2,534,453 ∂120,685 ∂76,321 ∂63,495Title 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
181

Title VI—Related agencies and Food and Drug Administration (discretionary) ................................................................................................. 1,543,670 1,599,112 1,584,364 1,590,395 ∂46,725 ¥8,717 ∂6,031Title 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

Æ