★ 21–547 

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 109–102 

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG 

ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2006 

JUNE 2, 2005.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. BONILLA, from the Committee on Appropriations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 2744] 

The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in 

explanation of the accompanying bill making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and 

Related Agencies for fiscal year 2006. 

(2) 

TITLE I—AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS 

PRODUCTION, PROCESSING, AND MARKETING

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $5,083,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 5,127,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 5,127,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... +44,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. - - - 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Secretary, the Committee provides an ap- propriation of $5,127,000, an increase of $44,000 above the amount 

available for fiscal year 2005 and the same amount as the budget 

request. 

Explanatory Notes.—The Committee appreciates receiving the detailed information provided in the Explanatory Notes prepared by 

the Department and relies heavily on this information when considering budget proposals. These materials have traditionally been 

prepared for the sole use of the Appropriations Committee in a format consistent with the organization and operation of the programs 

and the structure of the Appropriations Act. At the direction of the 

Office of Management and Budget, the Department has changed 

the format and content of these materials to focus on broader goals 

and objectives rather than the major program structure followed in 

the Act and in the actual conduct of the programs. For fiscal year 

2007 and future years, the Department is directed to present Explanatory Notes in a format consistent with the presentation used 

for the fiscal year 2002 Budget. Any deviations from that format 

are to be approved in advance by the Committee. 

Web-Based Supply Chain Management System.—The Committee 

does not provide $10,000,000, as requested, for the Web-Based Supply Chain Management System (WBSCM). In fiscal year 2005, the 

Committee directed the USDA to use section 32 administrative 

funds to initiate the procurement of WBSCM. The Committee again 

urges the USDA to use section 32 administrative funds for 

WBSCM. USDA’s budget justifications acknowledge that the current commodity purchase system has become obsolete and must be 

replaced. Unfortunately, the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has rejected USDA’s request to apportion section 32 funds 

for the system in fiscal year 2005. 

When the Administration came to the Committee last year to 

pursue the use of section 32 funds to respond to hurricanes that 

occurred in Florida, the Committee supported the Administration. 

It is disconcerting then that the Committee directed a legitimate 

use of section 32 funds for WBSCM, and that OMB has refused to 

3 

apportion the funds. USDA is spending more than $12,000,000 annually to maintain a commodity procurement system that—according to USDA—is ‘‘inflexible, resource intensive, and costly to maintain.’’ The implementation of WBSCM could save the USDA several 

million dollars annually in operational and maintenance costs, increase productivity, reduce purchase and shipping costs, and help 

reduce the deficit. 

Since fiscal year 2002, the Committee has provided the authority 

for USDA to transfer unobligated balances to the Working Capital 

Fund to fund various administrative, financial, and corporate systems. Through the use of these funds, significant results have been 

achieved, including: financial data warehouse; enterprise architecture initiative; civil rights enterprise; integrated acquisition; corporate asset management; and e-travel. Unless the OMB apportions funds in fiscal year 2005 and in subsequent years out of section 32 for WBSCM, the Committee will be forced to limit the 

availability of unobligated balances to be used only for the implementation of WBSCM. 

Counter-Terrorism Measures.—The Committee supports the efforts of USDA in implementing a national policy for defending the 

agriculture and food system against terrorist attacks. 

State Office Collocation.—The Committee continues to direct that 

any reallocation of resources related to the collocation of state offices scheduled for 2005 and subsequent years is subject to the 

Committee’s reprogramming procedures. The Committee notes that 

no such reprogramming requests have been received to date. 

Ralstonia.—The Committee notes that the Secretary of Agriculture initiated emergency actions during FY 2004 to ensure the 

eradication of the disease Ralstonia solanacearum, Race 3, Biovar 

2, which is of great concern to U.S. agriculture, including 

ornamentals growers, the potato industry, and others. The Committee strongly urges the Secretary of Agriculture to continue to 

use existing authority including that provided under CCC, to fund 

this initiative, and to establish a compensation program for persons 

suffering from losses as a result of the eradication and control efforts related to this disease. The Secretary shall submit to the 

Committee on Appropriations a report regarding the feasibility of 

establishing additional research and forward control programs in 

countries and/or regions that had been the point of origin for infected product. 

Administrative Provision.—The Committee directs the Secretary 

to advise the Committees on Appropriations in writing of the status 

of all reports requested of the Department in this bill, at the time 

of submission of the FY 2007 budget and quarterly thereafter. 

Cattle Exports.—The committee is concerned that USDA has not 

made reopening key export markets for U.S. breeding cattle a priority. The committee instructs USDA, specifically APHIS and FAS, 

to allocate the resources necessary to reopen export markets for 

U.S. breeding cattle and to effectively coordinate with other agencies to regain these markets. Increasing export opportunities for 

U.S. producers should be USDA’s top priority. 

Rice Reporting.—The Secretary of Agriculture shall prepare a report evaluating the benefits and issues associated with making 

price reporting mandatory for rice crops. Currently, only 75 percent 

4 

of the rice market reports rice prices to the Department of Agriculture, yet the Department uses this limited information to determine counter-cyclical payments for rice producers under the Farm 

Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. The Committee would 

like to know whether a benefit would result from making reporting 

mandatory, and what issues might arise as a result of mandatory 

price reporting, specifically regarding the Freedom of Information 

Act (5 U.S.C. 552). 

EXECUTIVE OPERATIONS

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ECONOMIST

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $10,234,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 10,539,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 10,539,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... +305,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. - - - 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Chief Economist, the Committee provides an 

appropriation of $10,539,000, an increase of $305,000 above the 

amount available for fiscal year 2005 and the same amount as the 

budget request. 

NATIONAL APPEALS DIVISION

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $14,216,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 14,524,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 14,524,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... +308,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. - - - 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the National Appeals Division, the Committee provides an 

appropriation of $14,524,000, an increase of $308,000 above the 

amount available for fiscal year 2005 and the same amount as the 

budget request. 

OFFICE OF BUDGET AND PROGRAM ANALYSIS

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $8,162,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 8,298,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 8,298,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... +136,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. - - - 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of Budget and Program Analysis, the Committee 

provides an appropriation of $8,298,000, an increase of $136,000 

above the amount available for fiscal year 2005 and the same as 

the budget request. 

5 

HOMELAND SECURITY STAFF

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $769,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 1,466,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 934,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... +165,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥532,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Homeland Security staff, the Committee provides an appropriation of $934,000, an increase of $165,000 above the amount 

available for fiscal year 2005 and a decrease of $532,000 below the 

budget request. While the Committee has provided additional funding for this account, the budget justification does not support an increase of $697,000, or 91 percent for the Homeland Security Staff. 

According to the Explanatory Notes, the only requested increase is 

for one additional Senior Executive Service (SES) staff year. The 

Committee has concerns about the need for an additional SES position for a staff of six that already has an SES position filled. The 

Committee recommendation does not include funds for a second 

Senior Executive Service position for the Homeland Security Staff. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $16,462,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 16,726,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 16,462,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... - - - 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥264,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Chief Information Officer, the Committee 

provides an appropriation of $16,462,000, the same amount available for fiscal year 2005 and a decrease of $264,000 below the 

budget request. 

As a result of OCIO’s progress towards completion of two of its 

highest priorities within fiscal years 2004 and 2005, the establishment of the Information Technology Services organization and key 

eGovernment initiatives, the Committee believes that the fiscal 

year 2005 funding level is sufficient to maintain advancement in 

these two areas as well as other priorities within the Office’s purview. 

COMMON COMPUTING ENVIRONMENT

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $124,580,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 142,465,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 124,580,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... - - - 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥17,885,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Common Computing Environment, the Committee provides an appropriation of $124,580,000, the same as the amount 

6 

available in fiscal year 2005 and a decrease of $17,885,000 below 

the budget request. 

Since fiscal year 2000, Congress has appropriated over $500,000,000 for the modernization and integration of information 

systems in USDA’s county field offices. The Committee has fully 

supported this effort, but will expect to see reduced or level funding 

levels for this account in future budget submissions as a result of 

anticipated efficiencies and economies of scale. 

The following table reflects the Committee’s recommendation: 

[Dollars in thousands] 

CCE base infrastructure ................................................................................. $ 23,735 

FSA specific ...................................................................................................... 82,645 

NRCS specific ................................................................................................... 13,000 

RD specific ........................................................................................................ 4,000 

Interagency e-Gov ............................................................................................ 1,200 

$124,580 

The Committee directs the Department to continue reporting to 

the Committee on Appropriations on a quarterly basis on the implementation of the Common Computing Environment. 

The Committee is aware that the acquisition of geospatial data 

and Geographic Information System technologies is critical to the 

Department of Agriculture’s plans to modernize its County Service 

Centers and install a common computing environment that optimizes information sharing, customer service, and staff efficiencies, 

and improves the Department’s ability to track and react to natural 

and/or man-made disasters. Within the funds provided in this Act, 

the Committee encourages the Department to provide the appropriate level of support for the acquisition of geospatial data and Geographic Information System technologies. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $5,696,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 5,874,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 5,874,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... +178,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. - - - 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the Committee provides an appropriation of $5,874,000, an increase of $178,000 above 

the amount available for fiscal year 2005 and the same amount as 

the budget request. 

The Committee has included bill language that directs the Chief 

Financial Officer to actively market and expand the cross-servicing 

activities of the National Finance Center. 

The Committee is aware that the National Finance Center’s 

(NFC) proposal for e-payroll consolidation was rated the highest in 

the competition held by the Office of Management and Budget and 

the Office of Personnel Management. The Committee believes that 

the NFC’s demonstrated ability to provide a high level of service 

while operating on a fee-for-service basis provides a significant opportunity to utilize a public/private partnership to provide private 

investment and share risk in the modernization of systems and inVerDate Aug 04 2004 21:47 Jun 06, 2005 Jkt 021547 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102
7 

frastructure creation for e-payroll. The Committee encourages the 

USDA to utilize the NFC to create a public/private partnership, 

such as the one that the State of Louisiana, private industry, and 

a consortium of academic institutions has developed, to help leverage scarce Federal resources to continue the modernization and development of Federal government wide e-payroll functions. 

The Committee directs the Department to submit a report concurrent with the Department’s annual budget submission for the 

following fiscal year, updating the Committee on its contracting out 

policies, including agency budgets for contracting out, for fiscal 

year 2005. The Committee is continuing bill language requiring the 

submission of the report on contracting out policies and agency 

budgets, prior to use of any funds appropriated to the Office of the 

Chief Financial Officer for FAIR Act or Circular A–76 activities. 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $12,747,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... - - - 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. - - - 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥12,747,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. - - - 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

The President’s budget does not request and the Committee does 

not provide an appropriation to the Working Capital Fund. 

The Committee again includes a General Provision, which provides authority for the Secretary to transfer unobligated balances 

of the Department of Agriculture to the Working Capital Fund. 

This authority should be sufficient to meet fiscal year 2006 needs. 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $811,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 821,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 811,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... - - - 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥10,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, the 

Committee provides an appropriation of $811,000, the same as the 

amount available for fiscal year 2005 and a decrease of $10,000 

below the budget request. 

OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $19,730,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 20,109,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 20,109,000 

Comparison 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... +379,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. - - - 

8 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of Civil Rights, the Committee recommends an appropriation of $20,109,000, an increase of $379,000 above the 

amount available for fiscal year 2005 and the same amount as the 

budget request. 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $664,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 676,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 676,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... +12,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. - - - 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration, the 

Committee provides an appropriation of $676,000, an increase of 

$12,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2005 and the 

same amount as the budget request. 

AGRICULTURE BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES AND RENTAL PAYMENTS

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $162,559,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 221,924,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 183,133,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... +20,574,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥38,791,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments, the Committee provides an appropriation of $183,133,000, an increase of $20,574,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 

2005 and a decrease of $38,791,000 below the budget request. Included in this amount is $147,734,000 for payments to GSA for 

rent and the Department of Homeland Security for building security. 

The following table represents the Committee’s specific recommendations for this account: 

AGRICULTURE BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES AND RENTAL PAYMENTS

[In thousands of dollars] 

2005 estimate 2006 budget 

request 

Committee 

recommendation 

Rental Payments ..................................... $127,292 $147,734 $147,734 

Building Operations ................................ 35,267 74,190 35,399 

Total .............................................. 162,559 221,924 183,133 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $15,408,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 15,644,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 15,644,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... +236,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. - - - 

9 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Hazardous Materials Management, the Committee provides an appropriation of $15,644,000, an increase of $236,000 above the 

amount available for fiscal year 2005 and the same amount as the 

budget request. 

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $22,445,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 23,103,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 23,103,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... +658,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. - - - 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Departmental Administration, the Committee provides an 

appropriation of $23,103,000, an increase of $658,000 above the 

amount available for fiscal year 2005 and the same amount as the 

budget request. 

The Committee recommendation includes an increase of 

$262,000, as requested, for providing the policies, technical guidance, and operating environment that enhances the safety and security of USDA personnel, information and facilities, and the continuity of its vital programs. 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR CONGRESSIONAL

RELATIONS

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $3,821,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 3,846,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 3,821,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... - - - 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥25,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations, the Committee provides an appropriation of $3,821,000, the 

same as the amount available for fiscal year 2005 and a decrease 

of $25,000 below the budget request. 

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. 

OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $9,290,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 9,509,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 9,509,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... +219,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. - - - 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of Communications, the Committee provides an 

appropriation of $9,509,000, an increase of $219,000 above the 

10 

amount available for fiscal year 2005 and the same amount as the 

budget request. 

The Committee directs the Office of Communications to continue 

to provide them with copies of open source news material made 

available to USDA officials through the use of appropriated funds. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $77,663,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 81,045,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 79,626,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... +1,963,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥1,419,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of Inspector General, the Committee provides an 

appropriation of $79,626,000, an increase of $1,963,000 above the 

amount available for fiscal year 2005, and a decrease of $1,419,000 

below the budget request. 

The Committee recommendation includes the requested increases 

for pay costs and improvements to the Computer Forensics Unit. 

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $35,574,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 40,263,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 38,439,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... +2,865,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥1,824,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the General Counsel, the Committee provides 

an appropriation of $38,439,000, an increase of $2,865,000 above 

the amount available for fiscal year 2005 and a decrease of 

$1,824,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee recommendation includes an increase of 

$1,996,000 of the amount requested, of which: $1,041,000 is for 

maintaining and supporting staff; $475,000 is for 5 staff years for 

additional legal services, of which 2 staff years are for the Marketing and Regulatory Programs; and $480,000 is for information 

technology requirements. 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND

ECONOMICS

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $587,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 598,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 598,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... +11,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. - - - 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, 

and Economics, the Committee provides an appropriation of 

11 

$598,000, an increase of $11,000 above the amount available for 

fiscal year 2005 and the same amount as the budget request. 

Proposed project terminations.—Research budgets submitted by 

the Department reflect a continuing disregard for Congressional 

program priorities. The Committee has made it clear on a number 

of occasions that the role of Congress in identifying essential agricultural needs of this Nation will be maintained. Agricultural research projects of regional and national priority will be funded. 

There has been no adequate justification presented to the Committee to support proposed project terminations. The Committee 

urges the Under Secretary to end the recycling of proposed terminations which have already been rejected by the Congress. Should 

similar proposals be submitted again in the budget for fiscal year 

2007, the Committee will expect the Under Secretary to explain 

and defend each proposed termination in detail during the fiscal 

year 2007 hearings. 

ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $74,170,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 80,749,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 75,931,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... +1,761,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥4,818,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Economic Research Service, the Committee provides an 

appropriation of $75,931,000, an increase of $1,761,000 above the 

amount available for fiscal year 2005 and a decrease of $4,818,000 

below the budget request. 

The Committee recommendation includes an increase of 

$1,000,000 of the amount requested to continue the development of 

the Consumer Data and Information System to develop an integrated and comprehensive data and analysis framework of the food 

system beyond the farm-gate that will provide a basis for understanding, monitoring, tracking, and identifying changes in the food 

supply and consumption patterns. 

The Committee provides $500,000, the same as the fiscal year 

2005 level, for the continuation of their organic data surveys, the 

compilation of non-survey data on organic production and marketing, its merger and reconciliation with any new survey information, analysis that reveal patterns, similarities and differences from 

comparisons among organic, other differentiated markets, and bulk 

or homogeneous product markets, and the development of policyrelevant findings from a full portfolio of data and information. 

NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS SERVICE

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $128,444,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 145,159,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 136,241,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... +7,797,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥8,918,000 

12 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the Committee provides an appropriation of $136,241,000, an increase of 

$7,797,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2005 and a 

decrease of $8,918,000 below the budget request. Included in this amount is $29,115,000, for the Census of Agri- culture, an increase of $6,889,000 above the amount available for 

fiscal year 2005 and the same amount as the budget request. The 

Census of Agriculture collects and provides comprehensive data on 

all aspects of the agricultural economy. Also, included in this 

amount is $107,126,000 for the Agricultural Estimates, an increase 

of $908,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2005 and a 

decrease of $8,918,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee encourages the National Agricultural Statistics 

Service to develop an organic data survey process based on the 

2002 Census of Agriculture and to expand organic data collection 

in the 2007 Census of Agriculture. 

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $1,102,000,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 996,107,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 1,035,475,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥66,525,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. +39,368,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

Salaries and expenses.—For salaries and expenses of the Agricultural Research Service, the Committee provides an appropriation of 

$1,035,475,000, a decrease of $66,525,000 below the amount available for fiscal year 2005 and an increase of $39,368,000 above the 

budget request. 

Air quality research.—The Committee supports the fiscal year 2006 budget request for $300,000 to reduce particulate matter 

emissions from beef cattle feedlots and feeding operations. This 

work will be carried out at the ARS research station in Bushland, 

Texas. 

Asian longhorned beetle/emerald ash borer.—The Committee 

continues to be alarmed about the devastation caused by these 

invasive pests. The Asian longhorned beetle is perhaps the most 

economically harmful invasive pest to enter this country and capable of causing tens of billions of dollars in damages to forests, parks 

and residential areas. The Committee provides an increase of 

$775,000 for expanded research to control Asian longhorned beetle 

and Emerald ash borer at Newark, Delaware, $275,000; Ithaca, 

New York, $300,000, and Peoria, Illinois $200,000. 

Avian pneumovirus.—The Committee notes the losses to the turkey and poultry producers due to the spread of avian pneumovirus. 

The eradication of this disease is vital to national and international 

competitiveness and is a limiting factor to the expansion of U.S. exports. The Committee directs the continuation of this research in 

fiscal year 2006. 

Bee research.—The Committee recognizes the importance of honeybee research carried out by ARS and provides an increase of 

13 

$500,000 in fiscal year 2006 to conduct research on varroa mites 

and marker-assisted breeding of honey bees at Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 

Bioenergy research.—Soaring energy prices, instability of petroleum exporting countries and environmental concerns highlight the 

need to develop alternative domestic sources of energy from industrial feedstocks. A significant, sustained, and coordinated research 

and development effort is needed to produce and enhance feedstocks, improve processes for converting them into fuels and coproducts, and reduce production costs in order to penetrate markets that are currently petroleum-based. The Committee provides 

an increase of $1,100,000 over fiscal year 2005 for expanded research to improve the quality and quantity of agricultural biomass 

feedstocks and develop technologies to produce biofuels and coproducts from agricultural commodities at the following locations: Peoria, Illinois, $500,000; Beltsville, Maryland, $300,000; and 

Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania, $300,000. 

Bovine genetics.—The Committee provides an increase of $300,000 over fiscal year 2005 for the ongoing 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) research.—The Committee considers research on BSE as essential if regulatory agencies are to develop policies and control programs based on the best 

available science. ARS is directed to implement an integrated BSE 

program in pathogenesis, diagnostics, and intervention. The Committee provides an increase of $3,300,000 for this research at 

Ames, Iowa, $1,800,000; Pullman, Washington, $1,000,000; and Albany, California, $500,000. 

Broomweed biological controls.—The Committee recognizes that 

increased infestations of exotic brooms and gorse weeds are causing 

serious economic and environmental losses to agriculture and 

rangelands in the Western United States. The Committee directs 

that this research be continued at the fiscal year 2005 funding 

level. 

Cereal crops research.—The Committee recognizes the research 

accomplishments of the Cereal Crops Research Laboratory in Madison, Wisconsin on the quality and improved production and marketing practices for small grains, particularly barley and oats. An 

increase of $250,000 is provided in fiscal year 2006 for expanded 

research on these important commodities. 

Citrus plant pathogens.—Exotic and emerging plant diseases 

may be attributable to genetic shifts in the pathogen population 

and other processes. The Committee provides an increase of 

$300,000 over fiscal year 2005 to the U.S. Horticultural Research 

Laboratory at Ft. Pierce, Florida for expanded research on threatening plant pathogens of citrus. This research involves the development of molecular diagnostics and characterization and 

pathogenosity studies to determine spread and dispersal patterns. 

The research will focus on citrus canker and citrus greening. 

Coffee and cocoa research.—World supply of coffee and cocoa continues to be threatened by severe crop diseases. Disease resistance 

14 

and alternative research program for coffee and cocoa has important economic benefits and implications for U.S. foreign policy in 

the coffee and cocoa producing nations of South Central America 

and West Africa. The Committee provides an increase of $75,000 

over fiscal year 2005 to the ARS research laboratories at Beltsville, 

Maryland for expanded research on disease resistance and alternative crop research development for coffee and cocoa. 

Conservation tillage.—Better management and conservation of 

natural resources is essential for sustainable crop production in the 

Columbia River Plateau and regional areas. The ARS Soil Conservation Laboratory at Pendleton, Oregon conducts non-irrigated 

dryland research important to this region. The Committee maintains the fiscal year 2005 funding level for this necessary research. 

Continuing programs.—The Committee recognizes the importance of ongoing research projects in addressing problems faced by 

the Nation’s food and fiber producers. In this regard, the Committee directs the Agricultural Research Service to continue to fund 

the following areas of research at the fiscal year 2005 funding 

level: Advanced Animal Vaccines (Univ of CT/Univ of MO), 

Greenport, NY; Aerial Application, College Station, TX; Aflatoxin 

in Cotton, Phoenix, AZ; Agricultural Law, Drake University, NAL; 

Animal Health Consortium, Peoria, IL; Animal Waste Treatment, 

Florence, SC; Appalachian Horticulture Research (Univ of TN/TN 

State), Poplarville, MS; Aquaculture Fisheries Center, Pine Bluff, 

AR; Aquaculture Initiative, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute, Stuttgart, AR; Aquaculture Research, Aberdeen, ID; Aquaculture Initiatives for Mid-Atlantic Highlands (WV); Arid Lands 

Research, Las Cruces, NM; Arkansas Children’s Nutrition Center, 

Little Rock, AR; Asian Bird Influenza, Athens, GA; Avian 

Pneumovirus, Athens, GA; Barley Food Health Benefits, Beltsville, 

MD; Bee Research, Weslaco, TX; Binational Agricultural Research 

and Development Program; Biological Controls and Agricultural 

Research (FL A&M Univ), Gainesville, FL; Biomineral Soil Amendments for Control of Nematodes (N-VIRO Intl), Beltsville, MD; Biotechnology Research and Development Corp, Peoria, IL; Bovine Genetics (Univ of CT/Univ of IL), Beltsville, MD; Broomweed Biological Controls (Yellow Starthistle) (Univ of ID), Albany, CA; Catfish 

Genome (Auburn Univ), Auburn, AL; Cereal Crops, Fargo, ND; Cereal Crops Research, Madison, WI; Cereal Disease, St. Paul, MN; 

Chronic Diseases of Children (Baylor Univ Peanut Institute), Houston, TX; Citrus and Horticulture Research, Ft. Pierce, FL; Citrus 

Waste Utilization (Citrus Research Center), Winter Haven, FL; 

Coffee and Cocoa Research (Milwaukee Museum), Beltsville, MD; 

Miami, FL; Conservation Research/Tillage, Pendleton, OR; Corn 

Germplasm, Ames, IA; Corn Rootworm, Ames, IA; Cotton Genetics 

Research, Florence, SC; Cotton Ginning (Long Staple Cotton) (NM 

State), Las Cruces, NM; Cotton Pathology Research, Shafter, CA; 

Cotton Quality Research, Clemson, SC; Crop Production and Food 

Processing (Purdue/Univ of IL), Peoria, IL; Cropping Systems Research (TN Ag Experiment Station/ Univ of TN), Stoneville, MS; 

Dairy Genetics, Beltsville, MD; Diet and Immune Function, Little 

Rock, AR; Diet, Nutrition, and Obesity (Pennington), New Orleans, 

LA; Emissions from Livestock Wastewater, Florence, SC; Flood/ 

Control Acoustic Technology, Oxford, MS; Floriculture and Nursery 

15 

Crops; Food Fermentation Research, Raleigh, NC; Food Safety for 

Listeria and E coli, Albany, CA; Beltsville, MD; Clay Center, NE; 

Wyndmoor, PA; College Station, TX; Formosan Subterranean Termites, New Orleans, LA; Fort Pierce Horticultural Research Laboratory, Ft. Pierce, FL; Foundry Sand By-Products (Penn State/ 

Ohio State/FIRST), Beltsville, MD; Golden Nematode (Cornell 

Univ), Ithaca, NY; Grain Legume Plant Pathologist Position, Pullman, WA; Grape Genetics, Geneva, NY; Grape Rootstock, Geneva, 

NY; Grapefruit Juice/Drug Interaction (Citrus Research Center), 

Winter Haven, FL; Great Basins Rangeland, Burns, OR; Greenhouse and Hydroponics (Univ of Toledo), Wooster, OH; Greenhouse 

Lettuce Germplasm, Salinas, CA; Harry Dupree National Aquaculture Research Center, Stuttgart, AR; Honey Bee Research, 

Baton Rouge, LA; Hops Research (WSU), Corvallis, OR; Improved 

Animal Waste Management, Florence, SC; Invasive Aquatic Weed 

(CT Ag Experiment Station), Ft. Lauderdale, FL; Jornada Experimental Range Research Station, Las Cruces, NM; Livestock Genome Mapping (Univ of IL), Clay Center, NE; Lyme Disease (Yale); 

Manure Management Research, Ames, IA; Microbial Genomics 

(WSU/Institute for Genomic Research), Kerrville, TX; Pullman, 

WA; Mid-West/Mid-South Irrigation (MO Ag Experiment Station), 

Columbia, MO; Minor Use Pesticide (IR–4); Mosquito Trapping Research/West Nile Virus (CT Ag Experiment Station), Gainesville, 

FL; National Germplasm Resources Program; National Soil Dynamics Laboratory (Auburn, AL A&M, Tuskegee), Auburn, AL; 

Nematology Research, Tifton, GA; Northern Great Plains Research 

Laboratory (ND State), Mandan, ND; Noxious Weeds in the Desert 

Southwest, Las Cruces, NM; Nutritional Requirements, Houston, 

TX; NW Small Fruits, Corvallis, OR; Oat Virus (Univ of IL), West 

Lafayette, IN; Obesity Research, Houston, TX; Ogallala Aquifer, 

Bushland, TX; Olive Fruit Fly Research, Parlier, CA; Montpellier, 

FR; Organic Minor Crop Research, Salinas, CA; Peanut Research, 

Dawson, GA; Pecan Scab, Byron, GA; Phytoestrogen Research 

Tulane/Univ of Toledo), New Orleans, LA; Pierce’s Disease/Glassywinged Sharpshooter, Parlier, CA; Davis, CA; Ft. Pierce, FL; Plant 

Stress and Water Conservation Lab, Lubbock, TX; Potato Breeding 

(WSU/Univ of Idaho/OSU), Aberdeen, ID; Potato Research Enhancement, Prosser, WA; Poult Enterititis-Mortality Syndrome 

(PEMS), Athens, GA; Poultry Disease, Athens, GA; Beltsville, MD; 

Quantify Basin Water Budget Components in the Southwest (Univ 

of AZ), Tucson, AZ; Rainbow Trout (Univ of CT), Leetown, WV; 

Rangeland Resource Management, Las Cruces, NM; Regional Grain 

Genotyping Research, Raleigh, NC; Regional Molecular Genotyping 

(Club Wheat) (OSU), Manhattan, KS; Fargo, ND; Pullman, WA; 

Rice Research, Stuttgart, AR; Salmonella, Listeria, E. coli and 

Other Food Pathogens (Penn State), Wyndmoor, PA; Sedimentation 

Issues in Flood Control Dam Rehabilitations, Oxford, MS; Seismic 

and Acoustic Technologies in Soils Sed. Lab, Oxford, MS; Shellfish 

Genetics, Newport, OR; Small Farms (Univ of MO), Booneville, AR; 

Soil Tilth Research, Ames, IA; Sorghum Cold Tolerance, Lubbock, 

TX; Sorghum Research, Little Rock, AR; Manhattan, KS; Stillwater, OK; Bushland, TX, Lubbock, TX; Source Water Protection 

Initiatives, West Lafayette, IN; Columbus, OH; Southwest Pecan 

Research, College Station, TX; Soybean and Nitrogen Fixation, RaVerDate Aug 04 2004 21:47 Jun 06, 2005 Jkt 021547 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102
16 

leigh, NC; Sudden Oak Disease, Davis, CA; Ft. Detrick, MD; Sugarbeet Research, Kimberly, ID; Sugarcane Variety Research, Canal 

Point, FL; Sustainable Vineyards/Viticulture Practices, Davis, CA; 

Swine Lagoon Alternatives Research, Florence, SC; Temperate 

Fruit Flies, Wapato, WA; Tree Fruit Quality Research, Wenatchee, 

WA; Turfgrass Research, U.S. National Arboretum, Washington, 

DC; Germplasm/Ornamental Horticulture, U.S. National Arboretum, Washington, DC; Vaccines and Microbe Control for Fish 

Health/Fish Diseases, Auburn, AL; Vector-borne Diseases, Gainesville, FL; Verticillium Wilt Research, Salinas, CA; Virus-Free Fruit 

Tree Cultivars (WSU), Wapato, WA; Viticulture (Univ of ID/WSU/ 

OSU), Corvallis, OR; Water Management Research Laboratory, 

Brawley, CA; Water Resource Management (Univ of GA), Tifton, 

GA; Water Use Management Technology, Tifton, GA; Water Use 

Reduction, Dawson, GA; Western Grazinglands, Burns, OR; Wheat 

and Barley Scab Init., Manhattan, KS; Raleigh, NC; Fargo, ND; 

Wheat Quality Research, Wooster, OH; Wild Rice (No. Central Ag 

Experiment Station), St. Paul, MN. 

Corn germplasm.—Corn is a key resource in this country and 

throughout the world, providing food, industrial uses, livestock 

feed, and export. The Committee understands the importance of 

the germplasm base of corn hybrids grown by American farmers to 

promote genetic diversity and stability in corn production. The 

Committee directs the continuation of this program in fiscal year 

2006 at the ARS research laboratory at Ames, IA. 

Corn rootworm.—This pest continues to create economic and environmental problems in the Corn Belt region of the U.S. The Committee provides an increase of $100,000 at Ames, Iowa to fund priority research into the biology of controlling the corn rootworm 

which poses a significant economic threat to the corn industry. 

Cotton quality.—Since 1997, the U.S. textile industry has been in 

record decline, with over 196,000 jobs lost because of illegal transshipments of textile products into the U.S. With the growth of free 

trade and preferential trade agreements, the Bureau of Customs 

and Border Protection requires a quick and effective method of determining whether textile and apparel products entering the U.S. 

meet the eligibility criteria. An effective, economical system to 

track U.S. yarn from the mill to the finished product has been a 

goal of the U.S. textile industry for years to restore profitability to 

the failing industry. The Committee maintains the fiscal year 2005 

funding level to the ARS Cotton Quality Research Laboratory at 

Clemson, SC for research and development of a tagging and identification system for the cotton textile industry. 

Cropping systems research.—The Committee recognizes the need 

for regional research in the Mississippi River watershed to develop 

new varieties of soybean and cropping systems that will improve 

disease resistance, enhance value of the crop, and protect the region’s natural resources. Crop management practices to limit erosion on the highly erodible soils of Tennessee and other southern 

states impact soybean diseases, both favorably and adversely. Research is needed to optimize disease control while maintaining 

these best crop management practices to protect soil and water 

quality. Molecular genetics technologies are being used to develop 

better soybeans and site-specific systems will be developed for imVerDate Aug 04 2004 21:47 Jun 06, 2005 Jkt 021547 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102
17 

proving cropping systems in the region. The Committee directs the 

continuation of the ARS cooperative research program with the 

University of Tennessee Agriculture Experiment Station. 

Emerging diseases of corn.—The Committee recognizes the increased threat to corn production in the Southeast due to emerging 

diseases. The Committee provides an increase of $300,000 over fiscal year 2005 to the ARS Plant Science Research Laboratory at Raleigh, North Carolina for increased research to identify and genetically characterize emerging diseases of corn as a means for enhancing the diversity of corn germplasm in the Southeast. 

Emerging diseases of poultry.—The U.S. Poultry industry is increasingly susceptible to new disease agents and diseases such as 

Asian Influenza and Exotic Newcastle diseases which have been introduced from foreign countries. The Committee provides an increase of $350,000 to the Southeast Poultry Research Laboratory at 

Athens, Georgia for the operation of an emerging diseases investigation program that can respond, identify, and evaluate new and 

emerging poultry pathogen threats. 

Exotic vector borne zoonotic diseases.—The Committee provides an increase of $500,000 over fiscal year 2005 to the ArthropodBorne Animal Diseases Research Laboratory at Laramie, Wyoming 

for expanded research on surveillance systems that will maximize 

rapid detection and response to exotic vector borne zoonotic pathogens, such as Rift Valley Fever Virus; and mosquito borne viruses, 

such as West Nile Virus. 

Expanded research projects.—The Committee provides additional 

funding in fiscal year 2006 for the following important research: 

Animal Vaccines, $31,000; Appalachian Horticulture, $100,000; Binational Agricultural Research and Development Program, 

$32,000; Greenhouse Lettuce Germplasm, $150,000; Pierce’s Disease/Glassy-winged Sharpshooter, $25,000; Regional Grains 

Genotyping Research, $78,000; Salmonella, Listeria, E.coli, and 

Other Food Pathogens, $100,000; Viticulture, $150,000. 

Flood/Control acoustic technology.—The Committee provides 

funding to continue important research to develop a high resolution 

acoustic sub-bottom profiling system for use in flood-control dams. 

This research is to be conducted at the ARS Sedimentation Laboratory at Oxford, MS. 

Floriculture and nursery research.—Floriculture and nursery 

crops represent more than 10% of the total U.S. cash crop receipts 

while environmental horticulture is the third largest value crop in 

the U.S. The Committee recognizes the importance of ARS research 

on floral and nursery crops and provides an increase of $250,000 

for this research in fiscal year 2006. 

Food pathogens.—The Committee directs the continuation of the 

cooperative research project at the fiscal year 2005 level for the development of capabilities for products for coating a wide variety of 

substrates. This research is coordinated at the ARS research center 

in Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania. 

Food safety research.—Consumption of contaminated foods, including those containing antibiotic resistant microorganisms can 

lead to serious illnesses and death, as well as threaten the competitiveness of U.S. agricultural products. Rapid and accurate methods 

of detection and quantitative measurement of pathogens are needVerDate Aug 04 2004 21:47 Jun 06, 2005 Jkt 021547 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102
18 

ed to carry out risk assessment and identify appropriate interventions methodologies. The Committee provides an increase of 

$2,650,000 over fiscal year 2005 for expanded food safety research 

at the following locations: Beltsville, Maryland, $1,050,000; Athens, 

Georgia, $800,000; Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania, $500,000; and Albany, California, $300,000. 

Formosan Subterranean termite.—The exotic Formosan Subterranean termite costs the U.S. one billion dollars each year. It is particularly damaging in the greater New Orleans area, along the Gulf 

Coast, and Hawaii. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2005 

funding level to the Southern Regional Research Center at New Orleans, LA to continue current efforts to encompass the entire 108- 

block area of the historically and economically important French 

Quarter. 

Ft. Pierce Horticultural Research Laboratory.—This laboratory 

carries out critical research on citrus, fruits, vegetables and nursery crops. The Committee provides an increase of $250,000 in fiscal 

year 2006 for research at the U.S. Horticultural Research Laboratory at Ft. Pierce, FL. 

Genetic resources.—The Committee recognizes the importance of 

acquisition, maintenance, characterization and enhancement of genetic resources as carried out by ARS. The Committee provides an 

increase of $1,500,000 over fiscal year 2005 for this program. The 

increase of $250,000 each is provided for the following locations for 

the purpose requested in the budget: Miami, Florida; Raleigh, 

North Carolina; Madison, Wisconsin; Stuttgart, Arkansas; Ft. Collins, Colorado; and Ithaca, New York. 

Ginning technologies.—The Committee directs that the important 

research carried out by ARS in cotton ginning harvesting and the 

development of ginning technologies be maintained at fiscal year 

2005 funding levels. 

Grape genetics.—Grapes are the 6th largest crop in the United 

States and one of the most important cash crops worldwide. The 

U.S. is the 4th largest producer of wine, responsible for about 10 

percent of all world wine. The Committee provides an increase of 

$100,000 in fiscal year 2006 to expand this important research program at the ARS facility in Geneva, NY. 

Invasive aquatic weeds.—Recent introductions of exotic weeds including Eurasian, variable Milfoil, and Cabomba seriously threaten 

the health of Connecticut lakes. Traditional control methods focusing on whole lake treatments are prohibitively expensive. More effective and economical weed control methods focusing on localized 

spot treatments of weed beds in large bodies of water are needed. 

The Committee provides an increase of $100,000 in fiscal year 2006 

to the Agricultural Research Service for increased research on 

invasive aquatic weeds in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. 

Invasive species.—Invasive species have steadily increased with 

the growing movement of people and trade around the world. Currently, invasive weeds, insects, pathogens, and other pest species 

cost the U.S. in excess of $137 billion per year, causing agricultural 

losses, with severe impact to the environment and biological diversity. The Committee provides an increase of $1,150,000 over fiscal 

year 2005 for expanded research to develop IPM components and 

systems for invasive insect species and noxious and invasive weeds 

19 

in cropping systems, rangelands, and natural areas, and develop 

improved knowledge of invasive insect species at the following locations: Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, $150,000; Montpellier, France, 

$200,000; Columbia, Missouri, $200,000; Beltsville, Maryland, 

$300,000; and Gainesville, Florida, $300,000. 

Library and information services.—The Committee provides the 

National Agricultural Library an increase of $400,000 over fiscal 

year 2005 to support agricultural information and delivery services. 

Livestock and crop genomics.—Characterizing plant and animal 

genes for traits of economic importance is essential to U.S. agriculture productivity. The Committee recommends additional appropriations for genomic research in fiscal year 2006 at ARS laboratories located at Miles City, Montana, $300,000; Salinas, California, $225,000; and Clay Center, Nebraska, $600,000. 

Mid-West/Mid-South irrigation.—While irrigation is normally associated with the arid, western part of the U.S., the fastest growing 

irrigation states are found in the Mid-West and the Mid-South. The 

need for irrigation in these areas is critical in reducing production 

risks, increasing producer yields, promoting good land management 

practices, and reducing input costs. The Committee provides an increase of $68,000 in fiscal year 2006 to support cooperative research into irrigation methods and technologies with the Delta 

Center, University of Missouri at Portageville, Missouri. 

Nutrition research.—The Committee continues to support the nutrition research carried out at the Department’s nutrition research 

centers. The Committee provides an increase of $1,400,000 for expanded research in dietary intake, nutrient content and obesity 

issues at Beltsville, Maryland, $400,000; Houston, Texas, $400,000; 

Davis, California, $300,000; and Little Rock, Arkansas, $300,000. 

Ogallala aquifer.—Surface water in the Central High Plains region of the U.S. is severely limited. The Ogallala Aquifer, which is 

a finite resource, has provided water resources in the development 

of a highly significant agricultural economy in this region. The 

Committee provides an increase of $1,075,000 in fiscal year 2006 

for research into the complex nature of water availability, potential 

uses, and costs to determine future water policy in this region, 

which includes Texas, Kansas, and adjoining states. 

Olive fruitfly research.—The olive fruitfly is the world’s number 

one pest of olives, causing devastating effects on the olive industry 

in California. The Committee maintains the fiscal year 2005 funding level for continued integrated pest management research program to control the olive fruitfly at ARS’ European Biological Control Laboratory at Montpellier, France, and Parlier, CA. 

Pay act costs.—The Committee provides funding for increased 

costs associated with Federal employee’s salaries and benefits. 

Plant pathogens.—The Committee is aware of the importance of 

developing accurate science-based forecasting systems for each 

pathogen for increased deterrence in plants. The Committee provides an increase of $500,000 over fiscal year 2005 for the ARS 

Foreign Disease-Weed Science Research Laboratory at Ft. Detrick, 

Maryland for increased research on threatening plant pathogens to 

meet deterrence needs, including pathogen prioritization and development of detection technologies. 

20 

Plum Island Animal Disease Center.—The Committee is aware of 

research advances in exotic and foreign animal diseases conducted 

at the Plum Island Animal Disease Center, Greenport, New York. 

The Committee provides an increase of $500,000 over fiscal year 

2005 for increased research to develop antigen delivery systems 

that target immune systems compartments (i.e. mucosal, peripheral, reproductive tracts, and other sites). 

Quantify basin water budget components in the Southwest.—The 

Committee acknowledges the need to expand efforts to accurately 

quantify components of a basin’s water budget to support local and 

community based watershed management. The Committee provides 

an increase of $200,000 above the fiscal year 2005 level for additional research at the ARS research laboratory at Maricopa, Arizona. 

Soybean rust.—In fiscal year 2005, the Committee provided $800,000 in new appropriations for additional research on the devastating soybean rust disease. The Committee directs that these resources be continued in fiscal year 2006 at the ARS research stations located at Ames, Iowa and Beltsville, Maryland. As one of the 

Nation’s prime agricultural commodities, the Committee recognizes 

the importance of developing integrated disease management strategies for soybeans. The Committee provides an increase of $600,000 

over fiscal year 2005 for the ARS research laboratories at Urbana, 

Illinois and Ames, Iowa for expanded research to develop chemical 

treatments for emerging soybean diseases, and efficacy data required to register chemical controls. 

Stripe rust and other rust diseases in wheat.—The development 

of resistant germplasm and more sustainable, environmentally 

friendly control strategies provide practical solutions for U.S. producers. The Committee provides an increase of $350,000 over fiscal 

year 2005 to the ARS Wheat Genetics, Quality Physiology, and Disease Research Laboratory at Pullman, Washington for increased research to identify potential sources of durable resistance to rust 

diseases of wheat especially stripe rust. 

Sudden Oak disease.—Since 1995, oak trees have been dying in 

large numbers along the California and Oregon coasts. The disease 

has spread to other plants including rhododendron and 

huckleberry. There is a great potential for this disease to spread 

throughout the country. The Committee provides an increase of 

$600,000 for expanded research to control Sudden Oak Disease at 

Ft. Detrick, Maryland, $300,000, and Corvallis, Oregon, $300,000. 

Sugarbeet and vegetable production.—The Committee recognizes 

the importance of sugarbeet and vegetable production in California 

for domestic consumption. Continued development of pathogen detection is important for keeping new diseases from becoming established in the U.S. and for producing crops and commodities for domestic consumption and foreign exports. The Committee provides 

an increase of $350,000 over fiscal year 2005 to the ARS Crop Improvement and Protection Research Laboratory at Salinas, California for increased research to address emerging viruses of sugarbeet and vegetable production, including vine mealy bug, in California. 

United States National Arboretum (USNA).—The country’s interest in gardening and environmental horticulture, along with inVerDate Aug 04 2004 21:47 Jun 06, 2005 Jkt 021547 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102
21 

creased desire for urban green space continues to grow. The Arboretum maintains internationally acclaimed gardens for visitors and 

tourists seeking green space and solace in the middle of our Nation’s capital. The Committee provides an increase of $250,000 over 

fiscal year 2005. 

Vaccines for control and eradication of biological threat agents in 

cattle, swine, and relevant wildlife species.—The Committee provides an increase of $900,000 over fiscal year 2005 for increased research on immune responses to vaccination of natural infection in 

cattle, swine, and relevant wildlife species. This is important research that supports our nation’s homeland security. The research 

will be conducted at the National Centers for Animal Health at 

Ames, Iowa. 

Cereal Disease.—The Committee understands the importance of 

ongoing Cereal Disease Research in St. Paul, MN. The Committee 

is concerned that ARS has not yet hired a scientist to fill the vacant research position, and urges the Department to quickly fill 

this position to ensure research continues on schedule. 

Reporting Requirement.—The Committee notes that the Agricultural Research Service has had the authority to construct certain 

buildings under 7 U.S.C. 2250 for several years. The Committee directs the Agricultural Research Service to notify the Committee on 

the use of this authority on a biannual basis. 

Plum Island Animal Disease Center.—The Committee directs 

that none of the funds appropriated to the Agricultural Research 

Service for the Advanced Animal Vaccine Project at the Plum Island Animal Disease Center may be directed for any other use by 

the Department of Homeland Security. 

Lyme disease research and prevention.—Lyme Disease is a major 

public health threat in the Northeast. Controlling the ticks that 

transmit Lyme Disease (and other diseases) is critical to public 

health, and is especially critical in rural areas. The amount provided for the Agricultural Research Service includes $760,000 for 

the further study of the Ecoepidemiology of emerging arthropodborne pathogens in the Northeast and for further testing of new 

methods of preventing the transmission of Lyme Disease. 

Dietary Approaches to Stopping Hypertension.—The Committee 

recognizes the effect of diet on hypertension and the role that the 

Dietary Approaches to Stopping Hypertension (DASH) eating plan 

research had on developing the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. 

The Committee is concerned, however, that the DASH research did 

not treat all proteins equally. In preparation for the next round of 

dietary guidelines, the Committee instructs USDA, specifically 

ARS, to budget for, develop, conduct, and completes a DASH-like 

study that includes the effects of lean beef on hypertension and 

lipid levels. 

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $186,335,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 64,800,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 87,300,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥99,035,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. +22,500,000 

22 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Agricultural Research Service, Buildings and Facilities, the 

Committee provides an appropriation of $87,300,000, a decrease of 

$99,035,000, below the amount available in fiscal year 2005, and 

an increase of $22,500,000 above the budget request. 

The Committee acknowledges the importance of funding the construction of the National Centers for Animal Health located at 

Ames, Iowa and provides the final amount of $58,800,000 as requested in the President’s budget. The research and diagnostic programs carried out at the Centers are critical to the Nation’s homeland security and agricultural industry. 

The Committee provides additional funds in support of the modernization and construction of Federal research facilities as follows: 

National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research, Peoria, IL; 

Grape Genomics Research Center, Davis, CA; U.S. Agricultural Research Station, Salinas, CA; ARS Sugar Research Laboratory, 

Houma, LA; Center for Grape Genetics, Geneva, NY; Center for 

Crop-based Health Genomics, Ithaca, NY; ARS Research Laboratory, Pullman, WA, and the ARS Nutrient Management Research 

Laboratory, Marshfield, WI. Due to budgetary constraints, the 

Committee is unable to provide the full amount required to complete construction of these projects. 

The Committee has attempted to provide funds to construct Federal research facilities that are necessary to keep American agriculture competitive within severe funding constraints. While the 

Committee has approved the final funding level, as requested in 

the budget, to complete the National Animal Disease Center in 

Ames, Iowa, there are several other high priority construction 

projects that have already been planned and designed, and are 

waiting for full funding for construction. There is in excess of 

$500,000,000 committed to such projects. As a result, the Committee does not provide any funding for the planning and design 

of construction projects for which feasibility studies have been completed, until the Committee can complete a full assessment on how 

to prioritize and fund the projects that have already been designed. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s provisions: 

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE, BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Committee provisions 

California, Davis: Grape Genomics Research Center ........................................................................................ $3,625 

California, Salinas: U.S. Agricultural Research Station .................................................................................... 3,625 

Illinois, Peoria: National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research .............................................................. 3,625 

Iowa, Ames: National Centers for Animal Health .............................................................................................. 58,800 

Louisiana, Houma: ARS Sugarcane Research Laboratory .................................................................................. 3,625 

New York, Geneva: Center for Grape Genetics .................................................................................................. 3,625 

New York, Ithaca: Center for Crop-based Health Genomics ............................................................................. 3,625 

Washington, Pullman: ARS Research Laboratory ............................................................................................... 3,625 

Wisconsin, Marshfield: Nutrient Management Research Laboratory ................................................................. 3,125 

Total, ARS Buildings and Facilities ...................................................................................................... 87,300 

23 

The Committee expects the ARS to provide a feasibility prospectus, by March 1, 2006, for the Kerrville, Texas facility, and the 

Center of Excellence for Vaccine Research (CT). 

COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION

SERVICE

RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $655,495,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 545,500,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 661,691,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... +6,196,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. +116,191,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Research and Education Activities, the Committee provides 

an appropriation of $661,691,000, an increase of $6,196,000 above 

the amount available for fiscal year 2005 and an increase of 

$116,191,000 above the budget request. 

For payments under the Hatch Act, the Committee provides an 

appropriation of $178,807,000, an increase of $100,000 above the 

amount available for fiscal year 2005 and an increase of 

$89,453,000 above the budget request. 

For cooperative forestry research, the Committee provides an appropriation of $22,255,000, an increase of $50,000 above the 

amount available for fiscal year 2005 and an increase of 

$11,152,000 above the budget request. 

For the Evans-Allen Program (payments to the 1890 land-grant 

colleges, Tuskegee University, and West Virginia State University), 

the Committee provides an appropriation of $37,704,000, an increase of $1,000,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 

2005 and a decrease of $546,000 above the budget request. 

For the National Research Initiative, the Committee provides an 

appropriation of $214,634,000, an increase of $35,082,000 above the 

amount available for fiscal year 2005 and a decrease of $35,366,000 

below the budget request. The Committee expects that the fiscal 

year 2005 funding levels for the following competitive grants will 

be maintained in fiscal year 2006: Water Quality; Food Safety; Regional Pest Management Centers; Crops at Risk from FQPA Implementation; FQPA Risk Mitigation for Major Food Crop Systems; 

Methyl Bromide Transition Program; and the Organic Transition 

Program. 

Alliance for Food Protection.—The Committee provides $413,000 

for the Alliance for Food Protection. Of this amount, $256,000 is to 

continue integrated fruit and vegetable research at the University 

of Georgia. 

Applied Agricultural and Environmental Research.—The Committee provides $550,000 for Applied Agricultural and Environmental Research. This research will provide for technology transfer 

and information dissemination directly to producers, processors, 

and consumers. These funds shall be equally divided between California State-Fresno, California State-San Luis Obispo, California 

State-Pomona, and California State-Chico. 

24 

Biodesign and Processing Research Center.—The Committee pro- vides $950,000 for the Biodesign and Processing Center at Virginia 

Tech University. The Center’s focus is on developing and promoting 

innovative technologies for use in commercial agriculture with an 

emphasis on waste management solutions. The Center will enhance 

the capabilities and economic viability of farmers, woodland owners, and wood processors by conducting cutting edge research for 

the design, production, and recovery of industrial enzymes and 

pharmaceuticals for transgenic corps and for conversion of agriculture wastes to value-added products. 

Dietary Intervention.—Within funds provided for dietary inter- vention research, $750,000 is provided for Ohio State University, 

and $500,000 is provided for the University of Toledo. 

Microbiological Safety of Food.—The Committee encourages the 

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension service to 

consider priority projects that enhance the microbiological safety of 

food through freezing. 

Polymer-Based University Research.—The Committee recognizes 

the work currently being conducted at some of our nation’s universities to further the development of products, methods and materials related to bio-based polymers for high-grade plastics. Replacement of petrochemicals with bio-based materials as well as reducing U.S. dependence of foreign oil are common goals of the country 

and the Committee recognizes the capability of polymer based research to help in accomplishing these goals. To this end, the Committee urges the Department to work with universities that specialize in vegetable oil-based polymer research in an effort to further utilize the capabilities this type of research and development 

represents. 

The following table reflects the amount provided by the Committee: 

25 


Insert offset foliio 01 here HR102.001
26 


Insert offset foliio 02 here HR102.002
27 


Insert offset foliio 03 here HR102.003
28 


Insert offset foliio 04 here HR102.004
29 


Insert offset foliio 05 here HR102.005
30 

NATIVE AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS ENDOWMENT FUND

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $12,000,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 12,000,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 12,000,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... - - - 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. - - - 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund, the 

Committee provides $12,000,000, the same as the amount available 

in fiscal year 2005 and the same as the budget request. 

EXTENSION ACTIVITIES

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $445,631,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 431,743,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 444,871,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥760,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. +13,128,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Extension Activities, the Committee provides an appropriation of $444,871,000, a decrease of $760,000 below the amount 

available for fiscal year 2005 and an increase of $13,128,000 above 

the budget request. 

The following table reflects the amount provided by the Committee: 

31 


Insert offset foliio 06 here HR102.006
32 

Farm Safety: AgrAbility.—Within the funds provided for Smith- Lever 3(d) for Farm Safety, the Committee recommends $4,563,000 

for the AgrAbility program, which helps people with disabilities to 

be able to farm safely, efficiently, and profitably through on-thefarm education and assistance. 

Northern Aquaculture Demonstration.—This project, located on 

the Red Cliff Indian Reservation (WI), will deliver a coordinated 

and focused applied research and demonstration program, combined with an aggressive direct-to-farm extension outreach program, to address the needs of fish farms and state, federal and 

tribal hatcheries and help overcome the unique development and 

operational challenges of aquaculture in the cold climates of northern states such as Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan. 

INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $54,712,000 

2006 budget estimates ....................................................................... 35,013,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 15,513,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥39,199,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥19,500,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Integrated Activities, the Committee provides an appropriation of $15,513,000, a decrease of $39,199,000 below the amount 

available for fiscal year 2005 and a decrease of $19,500,000 below 

the budget request. 

The following table reflects the amount provided by the Committee: 

33 


Insert offset folio 07 here HR102.007
34 

OUTREACH FOR SOCIALLY DISADVANTAGED FARMERS

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $5,888,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 5,935,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 5,935,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... +47,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. - - - 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and 

Ranchers Program, the Committee provides an appropriation of 

$5,935,000, an increase of $47,000 above the amount available for 

fiscal year 2005 and the same amount as the budget request. 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR MARKETING AND

REGULATORY PROGRAMS

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $715,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 724,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 724,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... +9,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. - - - 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, the Committee provides an appropriation of 

$724,000, an increase of $9,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2005 and the same amount as the budget request. 

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $808,106,000 

2006 budget estimate 1 ....................................................................... 855,162,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 823,635,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... +15,529,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥31,527,000 1The budget estimate does not include proposed user fees in the amount $10,857,000. 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Salaries 

and Expenses, the Committee recommends an appropriation of 

$823,635,000, an increase of $15,529,000 above the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2005, and a decrease of $31,527,000 below the 

budget request. 

The recommendation does not include $10,858,000 in Animal 

Welfare Act user fees, as proposed in the President’s budget. The 

Administration has not yet submitted a legislative proposal to Congress for these fees, which are not currently authorized in law. The 

Committee does not recommend establishing such fees in annual 

appropriations acts, but will consider such fees should they achieve 

authorization. 

The following table reflects the amounts provided by the Committee: 

35 


Insert offset folio 08 here HR102.008
36 


Insert offset folio 09 here HR102.009
37 

To maintain agency functions the Committee provides the requested amount for cost of living requirements. 

The Committee is concerned that the agency, while well intentioned, may be focusing more human resources on facilitating agricultural imports than on the export of American agricultural products. The Committee directs the agency to provide a report on staffing levels for sanitary and phytosanitary import certificates and export certificates. In addition, the report should include the number 

and value of approved import certificates versus the number and 

value of approved export certificates for plant and animal products. 

Agricultural Quarantine Inspection.—The Committee includes an 

appropriation of $3,262,000 for the National Germplasm and Biotechnology Laboratory to cover costs associated with the biosecurity 

level 3 greenhouse and for additional diagnostic and test validation 

activities at the laboratory, as requested. 

Fruit Fly Exclusion and Detection.—The Committee recommendation includes the full amount requested for fruit fly exclusion and detection, within which is $2,758,000 for Mexican fruitfly 

control in Texas, as requested. 

Animal health monitoring and surveillance.—The Committee pro- vides $149,014,000 for animal health monitoring and surveillance, 

an increase of $5,093,000 over the fiscal year 2005 amount. Included in the funding is $33,340,000 for the National Animal Identification System (NAIS), as requested. The Committee is carefully 

following the development of the NAIS, including issues of data use 

and confidentiality, applicability to different species, links to current systems used by state veterinarians, and costs. The Committee requires that APHIS provide quarterly progress reports on 

NAIS, including the status of the preceding issues and an accounting of funds. The Committee directs that not less than $2,000,000 be provided 

for a cooperative agreement with the Wisconsin Livestock Identification Consortium. This project supports the national plan to establish an animal and livestock 48–hour traceback system. 

The Committee provides not less than $600,000 for the Farm 

Animal Identification and Records (FAIR) program. Both the Wisconsin consortium and the FAIR project should also be eligible to 

apply for cooperative agreement funding for animal identification, 

which is funded within the NAIS total. 

The Committee provides $300,000 to assist in creating a database of North Carolina’s agriculture industry for rapid response capabilities. 

The Committee provides the full amount requested, $17,184,000, 

for activities related to Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). 

The Committee notes that the intense BSE surveillance testing 

program is scheduled to be completed shortly. As of May 8, 2005, 

347,491 cattle have been tested (with no positive results), which far 

exceeds the original goal to test 268,000 animals. Given the knowledge gained from the 2004–2005 testing program, the Committee 

requests a report within 30 days of enactment on the design, implementation and cost of an updated BSE surveillance system. 

The Committee continues funding for the New Mexico Rapid 

Syndrome Validation Program at $450,000 to support early detection of pathogens in animals and prevent its spread. 

38 

The Committee provides $300,000 for Iowa State University’s 

work regarding risk assessments of genetically modified agricultural products. 

Emergency management systems.—The Committee provides $5,000,000 for Field emergency coordinators and $3,009,000 for the 

vaccine bank. 

Pest detection.—The Committee provides an increase of $1,546,000 for surveys through the state-based Cooperative Agricultural Pest Surveys system. The Committee continues funding of $200,000 to evaluate the 

utility of remote sensing (hyperspectral imaging and Light Detection And Ranging) for the identification of ash trees, the early identification of emerald ash borer infestation, and the tracking and 

mapping of the diseased trees. 

The Committee provides funding for a cooperative agreement 

with the California County Pest Detection Augmentation Program 

at the fiscal year 2005 level. 

Select Agents.—Funding for the select agents function is included 

as a separate item, as requested. The total provided is an increase 

of $1,858,000 over the comparable fiscal year 2005 amounts, which 

were part of the Import/Export and Pest Detection line items. 

Brucellosis.—The Committee continues to provide the fiscal year 

2005 funding level for the Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee to eliminate brucellosis from wildlife in the Greater Yellowstone area. 

Chronic wasting disease.—For chronic wasting disease, the Com- mittee provides $16,880,000 for fiscal year 2006. The Committee directs that of this amount $1,750,000 shall go to the State of Wisconsin. 

Emerging plant pests.—The Committee expects the Secretary of 

Agriculture to continue to use the authority provided in this bill to 

transfer funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation for the arrest and eradication of animal and plant pests and diseases that 

threaten American agriculture. By providing funds in this account, 

the Committee is enhancing, but not replacing, the use of Commodity Credit Corporation funding for emergency outbreaks. 

For emerging plant pests, the Committee includes $100,695,000. 

The Committee provides the following amounts for eradication and 

control activities: $36,629,000 for citrus canker, $24,000,000 for 

Glassy-winged sharpshooter/Pierce’s Disease, $14,000,000 for Emerald Ash borer, $3,000,000 for Sudden Oak Death, and $2,753,000 

for Karnal bunt. 

The Committee continues funding for olive fruit fly trapping at 

the fiscal year 2005 level. 

The Committee provides $800,000 for hydrilla eradication around 

Lake Gaston in Virginia and North Carolina, and expects APHIS 

to monitor the effectiveness of hydrilla eradication around Smith 

Mountain Lake in Virginia regularly. 

The Committee provides $15,251,000 for the Asian long-horned 

beetle, as requested. The Committee is concerned about the damage that this pest can do, and requests that APHIS provide the 

analysis that supports the decision to control the beetle infestation 

rather than eradicate it, and includes an estimate of costs to eradicate the beetle. Further, the Committee expects the Secretary to 

39 

use his emergency authority to provide funds to combat the infestation when warranted. 

Imported fire ant.—The Committee provides $2,154,000 for imported fire ant of which $45,000 is for New Mexico. 

Johne’s Disease.—The Committee provides $7,752,000 for Johne’s 

disease, which is $4,561,000 above the budget request. 

Avian Influenza.—The Committee provides $22,837,000, the 

same as the request, for activities relating to the prevention, control, and eradication of Low Pathogenic Avian Influenza (LPAI). 

Within the total amount, $8,000,000 is for indemnities, $3,000,000 

is for surveillance activities, and $5,000,000 is for cooperative 

agreements with states. Funding is provided for live bird market 

closure for disinfection, as needed. The Committee is concerned 

that LPAI, which appears to be endemic in certain live bird markets in urban areas, could mutate into highly pathogenic forms. To 

prevent this from happening, a robust surveillance and control system in both commercial poultry industries and live bird markets is 

important. The Committee believes that industry cooperation and 

program fairness will be maximized through the indemnification of 

losses. 

The Committee notes that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has combated Low Pathogenic Avian Influenza (LPAI) 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 strongly encourages APHIS to utilize 

funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation or to utilize other authority to compensate producers for vaccination costs and related 

flock losses previously incurred due to the outbreak in Connecticut 

and the resulting sequential depopulation and restricted use of a 

USDA approved and authorized avian influenza vaccine. 

Wildlife services.—The Committee continues the fiscal year 2005 

funding levels for wildlife surveillance, Wildlife Services state operations, and aviation safety. The recommendation assumes the continuation of current cost share levels for cooperators. The Committee directs that, other than funding for the specific items noted 

in this report, the funds provided in the Wildlife Services line item 

are available for general operations needs. 

The Committee continues to provide $1,200,000 for wolf predation management, of which $1,050,000 is for Wisconsin, Minnesota, 

and Michigan, and $150,000 is for New Mexico and Arizona. 

The Committee continues funding for the following projects: 

$300,000 for Beaver management in North Carolina; $250,000 for 

crop and aquaculture losses in southeast Missouri; $625,000 for 

game bird predation work with the University of Georgia; $200,000 

for predation wildlife services in western and southside Virginia; 

$150,000 for blackbird control in Louisiana; $1,300,000 for predator 

control programs in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming; $1,000,000 for 

wildlife services in Texas; $200,000 for beaver management and 

damage in Wisconsin; $1,255,000 for brown tree snake management in Guam; $310,000 for Hawaii and Guam operations; $50,000 

for control of feral hogs in Missouri; $1,000,000 for cormorant control in New York; and $175,000 for cormorant control in Michigan. 

40 

The Committee provides a $4,000,000 increase above the fiscal 

year 2005 level for a cooperative rabies oral rabies vaccination program, for a total of $25,580,000. 

Wildlife services methods development.—The Committee continues to provide $400,000 in funding for the National Wildlife Research Station in Kingsville, Texas, to address emerging infectious 

disease issues associated with wildlife populations. 

The Committee provides funding to continue the cooperative 

agreement between the Hawaii Agricultural Research Center and 

the National Wildlife Research Center in Hilo at the fiscal year 

2005 level. 

Microchip identification of pets.—The Committee supports the 

microchipping of pets for identification under the universal 134 

kHz International Standards Organization (ISO) system of open 

microchip technology in which all scanners can read all chips. The 

Committee directs APHIS to develop the appropriate regulations to 

implement the universal 134 kHz ISO system, and to report to 

Congress within 90 days of the date of enactment of this Act on 

progress toward that end. 

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $4,927,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 4,996,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 4,996,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... +69,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. –––

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Buildings and 

Facilities, the Committee provides an appropriation of $4,996,000, 

an increase of $69,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 

2005 and the same as the budget request. 

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE

MARKETING SERVICES

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $75,092,000 

2006 budget estimate 1 ....................................................................... 84,114,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 78,032,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... +2,940,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥6,082,000 1The budget estimate does not include proposed user fees in the amount of $2,918,000. 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Marketing Services of the Agricultural Marketing Service, 

the Committee provides an appropriation of $78,032,000, an increase of $2,940,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 

2005 and a decrease of $6,082,000 below the budget request. 

Included in the appropriated amount are increases of $584,000 

for the Pesticide Data Program and $305,000 for Pesticide Recordkeeping, as requested. The Committee recommendation includes 

the proposed termination of the Biotechnology Program. 

41 

The Committee does not provide the increase requested for a new 

commodity purchasing computer system in this account. The Committee addresses the issue under the Section 32 Account. 

The Committee provides not less than $2,026,000 for activities 

relating to Organic Standards. The recommendation does not include $2,918,000 in standardization user fees, as proposed in the President’s budget. The Administration has not yet submitted a legislative proposal to Congress for 

these fees, which are not currently authorized in law. The Committee does not recommend establishing such fees in annual appropriations acts, but will consider such fees should they achieve authorization. 

The Committee provides $1,000,000 in this account for the Farmers’ Market Promotion Program to make grants to eligible entities 

for projects to establish, expand, and promote farmers’ markets. 

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

2005 limitation .................................................................................... ($64,459,000) 

2006 budget limitation ....................................................................... (65,667,000) 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. (65,667,000) 

Comparison: 

2005 limitation ............................................................................ +1,208,000 

2006 budget limitation ................................................................ –––

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For a Limitation on Administrative Expenses of the Agricultural 

Marketing Service, the Committee provides $65,667,000, an increase of $1,208,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 

2005 and the same as the budget request. 

FUNDS FOR STRENGTHENING MARKETS, INCOME, AND SUPPLY

(SECTION 32)

MARKETING AGREEMENT AND ORDERS

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. ($15,800,000) 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... (16,055,000) 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. (16,055,000) 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... +255,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. –––

The following table reflects the status of this fund for fiscal years 

2004 through 2006: 

42 


Insert offset folio 010 here HR102.010
43 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Marketing Agreements and Orders Program, the Committee provides a transfer from section 32 funds of $16,055,000, an 

increase of $255,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 

2005 and the same as the budget request. 

The Committee directs that $10,000,000 in funding be provided 

for the Web-based Supply Chain Management System (WBSCM) in 

this account, as shown in the preceding table in the Commodity 

Purchase Support line. While the business case for WBSCM has 

merit, and the Committee supports replacement of the existing system, the Committee will not appropriate funding for WBSCM. 

The Committee reiterates its position that administrative expenses to support section 32 purposes are expressly allowed, and 

that purchase and maintenance of a computer system supporting 

commodity purchases is an authorized administrative expense. All 

previous computer systems to support commodity purchase, including the existing Processed Commodity Inventory Management System (PCIMS), have been funded through section 32. Given the business case for WBSCM, the obsolescence of PCIMS, and the projected savings the new system will bring, the Administration’s refusal to fund WBSCM is unsupportable. 

PAYMENTS TO STATES AND POSSESSIONS

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $3,816,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 1,347,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 1,347,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥2,469,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. –––

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Payments to States and Possessions, the Committee provides 

an appropriation of $1,347,000, a decrease of $2,469,000 below the 

amount available for fiscal year 2005, and the same as the budget 

request. 

GRAIN INSPECTION, PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ADMINISTRATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $37,001,000 

2006 budget estimate 1 ....................................................................... 15,717,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 38,400,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... +1,399,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. +22,683,000 1The budget estimate does not include proposed user fees in the amount of $24,701,000. 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, 

the Committee provides $38,400,000, an increase of $1,399,000 over 

the amount available for fiscal year 2005, and an increase of 

$22,683,000 above the budget request. 

The recommendation does not include $24,701,000 in grain 

standardization and Packers and Stockyards licensing fees, as proposed in the President’s budget. The Administration has not yet 

44 

submitted a legislative proposal to Congress for these fees, which 

are not currently authorized in law. The Committee does not recommend establishing such fees in annual appropriations acts, but 

will consider such fees should they achieve authorization. 

The Committee continues its interest in the study on marketing arrangements that GIPSA has undertaken with $4,500,000 provided in fiscal year 2003 for that purpose. The Committee has been 

informed that the study, which was directed to be completed within 

two years, is now scheduled for completion in mid-2006. Although 

the study is significantly delayed, the Department has confirmed 

that the study will be completed with no additional funding. The 

Committee directs GIPSA to provide regular reports on the 

progress of the study and the collection of the transaction data. The 

Committee has concerns about maintaining the confidentiality of 

the transaction data being collected, future use of the data, and the 

potentially high costs of providing data; reports to the Committee 

should specifically address these issues. 

Product Verification Protocols Pilot.—The Committee understands that the Secretary has undertaken a product verification 

protocols pilot, in conjunction with the Missouri and Illinois Corn 

Growers Associations, to establish controls for regulated seed varieties and to augment grain marketing. The Committee provides 

$500,000 to continue this pilot program with the growers associations for development of production protocols. 

LIMITATION ON INSPECTION AND WEIGHING SERVICES EXPENSES

2005 limitation .................................................................................... ($42,463,000) 

2006 budget limitation ....................................................................... (42,463,000) 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. (42,463,000) 

Comparison: 

2005 limitation ............................................................................ –––

2006 budget limitation ................................................................ –––

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

The Committee includes a limitation on inspection and weighing 

services expenses of $42,463,000, the same as the amount available 

for fiscal year 2005 and the same as the budget request. The bill 

includes authority to exceed by 10 percent the limitation on inspection and weighing services with notification to the Committees on 

Appropriations. This allows for flexibility if export activities require 

additional supervision and oversight or other uncontrollable factors 

occur. 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD SAFETY

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $590,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 602,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 590,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... –––

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥12,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, the Com- mittee provides an appropriation of $590,000, the same as the 

45 

amount provided for fiscal year 2005 and a decrease of $12,000 

below the budget request. 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $817,170,000 

2006 budget estimate 1 ....................................................................... 710,717,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 837,264,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... +20,094,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. +126,547,000 1The budget estimate does not include proposed user fees in the amount of $139,000,000. 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Food Safety and Inspection Service, the Committee pro- vides an appropriation of $837,264,000, an increase of $20,094,000 

above the amount available for fiscal year 2005 and an increase of 

$126,547,000 above the budget request. The recommendation does not include $139,000,000 in meat inspection user fees, as proposed in the President’s budget. The Administration has not yet submitted a legislative proposal to Congress for these fees, which are not currently authorized in law. The 

Committee does not recommend establishing such fees in annual 

appropriations acts, but will consider such fees should they achieve 

authorization. 

The Committee provides the full amounts requested to cover pay costs, an increase of $13,858,000, and to support frontline inspection, an increase of $2,236,000. The Committee provides an increase of $6,745,000 for food defense activities, including $417,000 

for biosurveillance, $2,820,000 for the Food Emergency Response 

Network (FERN), $2,500,000 for laboratory capacity and equipment, and $1,008,000 for related training. Within the base resources provided is $5,000,000 for enforcement of The Humane 

Methods of Slaughter Act. The Committee recommendation includes a cut of $3,000,000 in information technology savings as requested in the budget 

The Committee provides $2,000,000, the same as fiscal year 

2005, for outsourcing of microbiological testing, which supports the 

goal of establishing a continuous baseline for risk assessment. The 

Committee expects the Department to outsource the testing to private American Association for Laboratory Accreditation International Standards Organization-approved laboratories. The Committee directs FSIS to report on the status of this project within 

60 days of enactment. 

The Committee recommendation includes the requested increase 

for an initiative to support frontline inspection. FSIS has stated 

that with the funding, it will hire 22 Consumer Safety Officers to 

support Veterinary Public Health Officers. FSIS will then be able 

to better use the expertise of the veterinarians, who will complete 

at least three public health assessments in addition to other activities. The Committee requests periodic updates on the performance 

of this initiative, including: the location and number of the new 

hires; the number of assessments completed in fiscal year 2006, 

versus the number in prior years; and the public health outcome 

from the increased staffing. 

46 

The Committee provides $3,002,000, for Codex Alimentarius activities, which are critical for maintaining food safety worldwide 

and facilitating international trade. 

Regulation development.—The Committee understands that FDA 

and FSIS are working on rules related to sausage casings and the 

small intestine of cattle. The Committee is concerned about the 

availability of this material, which has not been categorized a specified risk material. The Committee directs the agency to proceed on 

rulemaking in a timely manner, and to report to the Committee 

within 30 days of enactment on the regulatory status of sausage 

casings/small intestines, and on related guidance for the Field 

force. 

FARM ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FARM AND FOREIGN

AGRICULTURAL SERVICES

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $626,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 635,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 635,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... +9,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. –––

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services, the Committee provides an appropriation of 

$635,000, an increase of $9,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2005 and the same amount as the budget request. 

FARM SERVICE AGENCY

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation Transfer from 

program accts. Total, FSA, S&E 

2005 appropriation .......... $999,536,000 ($295,322,000) ($1,294,858,000) 

2006 budget estimate ..... 1,050,875,000 (314,193,000) (1,365,068,000) 

Provided in the bill ......... 1,023,738,000 (302,183,000) (1,325,921,000) 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation .. +24,202,000 +6,861,000 +31,063,000 

2006 budget estimate ...................... ¥27,137,000 ¥12,010,000 ¥39,147,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Salaries and Expenses of the Farm Service Agency (FSA), 

the Committee provides an appropriation of $1,023,738,000 and 

transfers from other accounts of $302,183,000, for a total program 

level of $1,325,921,000. This is an increase of $31,063,000 above 

the amount available for fiscal year 2005 and a decrease of 

$39,147,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee recommendation includes an additional 

$21,719,000 for pay cost; an increase of $15,018,000 to maintain 

staffing levels being funded from carryover balances in fiscal year 

2005; and, an additional $2,900,000 for the National Agricultural 

Imagery Program, of which $300,000 is for a pilot Automated Crop 

Cultivation Assessment Tool, and $1,000,000 is for the implementaVerDate Aug 04 2004 21:47 Jun 06, 2005 Jkt 021547 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102
47 

tion of storage, security, and dissemination technologies for NAIP. 

The funding level includes a decrease of $15,435,000 for reduced 

operating expenses and reduced Federal/non-Federal staff years, as 

requested in the budget. 

The Committee is concerned about any Departmental plans to 

close FSA county offices at a time when the FSA office network is 

essential to helping farmers address critical economic and environmental issues. The Committee reiterates its strong view that no 

county office closure or consolidation should occur except in those 

locations for which closures and relocations are supported by rigorous analysis to ensure actions are cost effective, and that services 

available to the public will not be reduced. 

STATE MEDIATION GRANTS

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $3,968,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 4,500,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 4,250,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... +282,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥250,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For State Mediation Grants, the Committee provides an appro- priation of $4,250,000, an increase of $282,000 above the amount 

available in fiscal year 2005 and a decrease of $250,000 below the 

budget request. 

DAIRY INDEMNITY PROGRAM

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $100,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 100,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 100,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... –––

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. –––

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Dairy Indemnity Program, the Committee provides an appropriation of $100,000, the same as the amount available for 

fiscal year 2005 and the same as the budget request. 

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

ESTIMATED LOAN LEVELS

2005 loan level .................................................................................... $3,717,840,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 3,803,253,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 3,818,276,000 

Comparison: 

2005 loan level ............................................................................. +100,436,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. +15,023,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

Approximate loan levels provided by the Committee for fiscal 

year 2006 for the Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Programs 

are: $1,600,000,000 for farm ownership loans, of which 

$200,000,000 is for direct loans and $1,400,000,000 is for guaranteed loans; $2,116,256,000 for farm operating loans, of which 

48 

$650,000,000 is for direct loans, $266,256,000 is for guaranteed 

subsidized loans, and $1,200,000,000 is for guaranteed unsubsidized loans; $2,020,000 for Indian tribe land acquisition loans; 

and $100,000,000 for boll weevil eradication loans. 

AGRICULTURE CREDIT PROGRAMS—LOAN LEVELS

[In thousands of dollars] 

FY 2005 

level 

FY 2006 

estimate 

Committee 

provisions 

Farm loan programs: 

Farm ownership: 

Direct .................................................................................................. $208,320 200,000 $200,000 

Guaranteed ......................................................................................... 1,388,800 1,400,000 1,400,000 

Farm operating: 

Direct .................................................................................................. 644,800 650,000 650,000

Unsubsidized guaranteed .................................................................. 1,091,200 1,200,000 1,200,000 

Subsidized guaranteed ...................................................................... 282,720 266,253 266,256 

Indian tribe land acquisition ...................................................................... 2,000 2,000 2,020 

Natural disasters emergency ...................................................................... 0 25,000 0 

Boll Weevil Eradication ............................................................................... 100,000 60,000 100,000 

Total, farm loans ........................................................................... $3,717,840 $3,803,253 $3,818,276 

ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

[In thousands of dollars] 

Direct loan 

subsidy 

Guaranteed loan 

subsidy 

Administrative expenses 

2005 appropriation .................... $76,310 $80,238 $7,936 

2006 budget estimate ............... 77,730 76,362 8,000 

Provided in the bill ................... 74,996 76,362 8,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ............ ¥1,314 ¥3,876 +64 

2006 budget estimate ........ ¥2,734 .......................... ..........................

The following table reflects the costs of loan programs under 

credit reform: 

AGRICULTURE CREDIT PROGRAMS—Subsidies 

[In thousands of dollars] 

FY 2005 

estimate 

FY 2006 

estimate 

Committee 

provisions 

Loan subsidies: 

Farm ownership: 

Direct ...................................................................................... $11,145 $10,240 $10,240 

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

Subtotal ............................................................................. 18,506 16,960 16,960 

Farm operating: 

Direct ...................................................................................... 65,060 64,675 64,675 

Guaranteed unsubsidized ...................................................... 35,246 36,360 36,360 

Guaranteed subsidized .......................................................... 37,631 33,282 33,282 

Subtotal ............................................................................. 137,937 134,317 134,317 

Indian tribe land acquisition .......................................................... 105 80 81 

Natural disasters emergency .......................................................... 0 2,735 0 

Total, Loan subsidies ............................................................. $156,548 $154,092 $151,358 

49 

AGRICULTURE CREDIT PROGRAMS—Subsidies—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

FY 2005 

estimate 

FY 2006 

estimate 

Committee 

provisions 

ACIF expenses: 

Salaries and expenses ............................................................... 291,414 309,137 297,127 

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

Total, ACIF expenses .............................................................. $299,350 $317,137 $305,127 

RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $71,468,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 87,806,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 77,806,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... +6,338,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥10,000,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Risk Management Agency, the Committee provides an 

appropriation of $77,806,000, an increase of $6,338,000 above the 

amount available for fiscal year 2005 and a decrease of $10,000,000 

below the budget request. 

The Committee recommendation includes $3,600,000 to carry out 

data mining and data warehousing activities. The Risk Management Agency has indicated the effectiveness of these activities to 

eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse in the crop insurance program. 

The funding for this program was initiated in the Agricultural Risk 

Protection Act of 2000 from within funds available in the insurance 

fund of the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation. The crop insurance program is a multi-billion dollar program, and that program 

should continue to bear the cost of this management tool. While the 

Committee provides the budget authority to extend this program 

through the end of fiscal year 2006, the Committee will not fund 

this program in the future. 

The amount provided includes an increase of $1,275,000 to fully 

fund the request for pay costs, and $1,463,000 of the amount requested for the blueprint to develop the Risk Management Agency’s 

Emerging Information Technology Architecture. 

Risk Management Pilot.—The committee supports a lamb price 

insurance, risk management pilot for the U.S. sheep industry and 

understands that a lamb Livestock Risk Protection program would 

be benefical for producers. The Committee urges the Risk Management Agency to implement an LRP-Lamb pilot project of sufficient 

size and pilot length to properly test the viability of lamb price insurance for sheep producers of all size operations and geography. 

50 

CORPORATIONS

FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION FUND

2005 appropriation ................................................................. 1 $4,095,128,000 

2006 budget estimate ............................................................. 1 3,159,379,000 

Provided in the bill ................................................................. 1 3,159,379,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation .......................................................... ¥935,749,000 

2006 budget estimate ...................................................... –––

1 Current indefinite appropriation. 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund, the Committee provides an appropriation of such sums as may be necessary 

(estimated to be $3,159,379,000 in the President’s fiscal year 2006 

Budget Request), a decrease of $935,749,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2005 and the same as the budget request. 

COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION FUND

REIMBURSEMENT FOR NET REALIZED LOSSES

2005 appropriation ................................................................. 1 $16,452,377,000 

2006 budget estimate ............................................................. 1 25,690,000,000 

Provided in the bill ................................................................. 1 25,690,000,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation .......................................................... +9,237,623,000 

2006 budget estimate ...................................................... –––

1 Current indefinite appropriation. 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Reimbursement for Net Realized Losses to the Commodity 

Credit Corporation, the Committee provides such sums as may be 

necessary to reimburse for net realized losses sustained, but not 

previously reimbursed (estimated to be $25,690,000,000 in the 

President’s fiscal year 2006 Budget Request), an increase of 

$9,237,623,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2005 and 

the same as the budget request. 

HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT

2004 limitation ........................................................................ $5,000,000 

2006 budget estimate ............................................................. 5,000,000 

Provided in the bill ................................................................. 5,000,000 

Comparison: 

2004 limitation ................................................................ –––

2006 budget estimate ...................................................... –––

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For CCC Hazardous Waste Management, the Committee pro- vides a limitation of $5,000,000, the same as the amount available 

for fiscal year 2005 and the same as the budget request. 

(51) 

TITLE II—CONSERVATION PROGRAMS 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR NATURAL RESOURCES AND

ENVIRONMENT

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $735,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 744,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 744,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... +9,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. – – –

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and 

Environment, the Committee provides an appropriation of 

$744,000, an increase of $9,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2005 and the same amount as the budget request. 

NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE

CONSERVATION OPERATIONS

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $830,661,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 767,783,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 793,640,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥37,021,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. +25,857,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Conservation Operations, the Committee provides an appro- priation of $793,640,000, a decrease of $37,021,000 below the 

amount available for fiscal year 2005 and an increase of 

$25,857,000 above the budget request. The Committee recommendation includes not more than $90,731,800 for National 

Headquarters salaries and expenses, as requested. The Committee provides $27,312,000 for the Grazing Lands Con- servation Initiative, $10,457,000 for the Snow Survey and Water 

Supply Forecasting program, as requested, $10,547,000 for Plant 

Materials Centers, as requested, $88,149,000 for the Soil Surveys 

Program, as requested, and $657,175,000 for Conservation Technical Assistance. The recommendation for each program includes 

pay costs, as requested. The amount provided for the Grazing 

Lands Conservation Initiative includes an increase of $4,000,000 

for enhanced prevention, management, and restoration activities 

for invasive species. For Conservation Operations, the Committee 

provides an increase of $14,280,000 for the requested initiative to 

provide assistance to producers in meeting environmental regulations, including AFO/CAFO requirements. The Committee recommendation includes funding for one American Heritage River 

navigator position on the Hudson River. 

52 

State funding allocations.—The Committee is concerned that 

funding allocations to the States are being reduced in proportion to 

Congressional earmarks funded in the Conservation Operations account. The Committee directs the Chief of the NRCS, in making 

the fiscal year 2006 Conservation Operations funding allocations to 

the States, to treat Congressional earmarks as additions to the 

States’ funding allocation. The Committee directs the NRCS to provide a report to the Committee on Appropriations, not later than 

45 days after the enactment of this Act, including the following: fiscal year 2005 Conservation Operations allocation by State, fiscal 

year 2006 Conservation Operations allocation by State, the fiscal 

year 2006 Congressional earmarks by State, and the total conservation operations allocation by State. In addition, the Chief of 

the NRCS is directed to inform the Committee immediately about 

any changes to the formula or process by which the base state allocations are made. 

Animal Feeding Operations Pilot Projects.—The Committee pro- vides $6,000,000 for the continued implementation of pilot projects 

for innovative technology systems resulting in a 75 percent reduction in nutrients of wastewater discharged by animal feeding operations to be managed by Farm Pilot Project Coordination, Inc. The 

Secretary is directed to release these funds after submitting a report to the Committees on Appropriations that a satisfactory cooperative agreement between the NRCS and Farm Pilot Project Coordination, Inc. has been consummated. 

Conservation Technical Assistance Projects.—Funding for fiscal 

year 2005 projects is not continued in fiscal year 2006 unless specifically mentioned in this report. The following funds are directed 

to be used in cooperative agreements, continued with the same cooperator entities as in the fiscal year 2005 agreements, except as 

noted: National Water Management Center (AR)—$2,750,000; 

Study to determine logistics of transportation/coordination of excess 

nutrients (AR)—$225,000; East Valley Conservation District/Santa 

Ana Watershed Authority (CA) non-native plant removal—

$1,000,000; Monterey Bay Sanctuary—$600,000; Cooperative 

Agreement with Tufts University to improve conservation practices 

(CT)—$480,000; Manatee Agriculture Reuse System (FL)—

$2,000,000; Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission Cooperative Agreement—$3,700,000; Community Nutrient Management Facilities (GA)—$350,000; Idaho One Plan—$200,000; Trees 

Forever Program (IL)—$100,000; cooperative agreement with Kane 

County, Illinois, for Smart Growth Floodplain Mapping Project 

(IL)—$600,000; Illinois River Basin—$600,000 through EQIP; Hungry Canyon/Loess Hills Erosion Control/Western Iowa—$1,200,000; 

Trees Forever Program (IA)—$100,000; CEMSA w/Iowa Soybean 

Association—$431,500; Technical assistance to providing grants to 

Soil Conservation Districts in Kentucky—$1,000,000; cooperative 

agreement with Louisiana State University on effectiveness of agriculture and forestry (LA)—$400,000; False River sedimentation/ 

Bayou Grosse (LA)—$200,000; Chesapeake Bay activities—

$6,000,000; Weed It Now-Taconic Mountains (MA/NY/CT)—

$200,000; Choctaw County (MS) feasibility study for surface impoundment—$250,000; Upper White River Water Quality Project 

Office in southern Missouri—$430,500; State conservation cost 

53 

share program (NJ)—$1,000,000; Pastureland Management/Rotational Grazing (NY)—$600,000; Best management practices/ 

Skaneateles and Owasco Watersheds (NY)—$325,000; Address nonpoint pollution in Onondaga and Oneida Lake Watersheds (NY)— $500,000; Watershed Agriculture Council in Walton (NY)— $720,000, of which $80,000 is for monitoring the easements purchased by the Council’s Whole Farm Easement Program; Technical 

assistance to livestock/poultry industry (NC)—$450,000; Maumee 

Watershed Hydrological Study and Flood Mitigation Plan (OH)— $1,000,000; cooperative agreement with South Licking Watershed 

Conservancy District (OH)—$250,000; Oregon Garden Silverton 

(OR)—$325,000; Study to characterize land use change while preserving natural resources in cooperation with Clemson University 

(SC)—$900,000; Bexar, Medina, Uvalde Counties irrigation in Edwards Aquifer (TX)—$500,000; Field office telecommunications 

pilot program/advanced soil survey methods (TX)—$2,400,000; 

Range vegetation pilot project, Ft. Hood (TX)—$500,000; a cooperative agreement with the Texas Water Resources Institute to implement a watershed protection plan for Tarrant County (TX)— $500,000; Walla Walla (WA) watershed alliance—$500,000; Design/ 

implement natural stream restoration initiatives (WV)—$800,000; 

Soil survey geographic database in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands 

(WV)—$200,000; Grazing Lands Initiative/Wisconsin Department 

of Agriculture—$950,000; Audubon at Home Pilot Program— $500,000; Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil and Erosion Sediment—$2,500,000; Source water protection project to states showing greatest need—$3,350,000; New York State Agriculture and 

Environment Management Program—$800,000; Operation Oak 

Program to restore hardwoods—$400,000; Dairy and poultry waste 

treatment in Suwannee, Dixie, and Lafayette Counties (FL)— $1,000,000; Long Island (NY) Sound watershed initiative— $200,000; Pace University Land Use Law center (NY)—$200,000; 

Erosion Control and Stabilization for Hudson River shoreline at 

Village of Tarrytown (NY)—$250,000; cooperative agreement with 

the Green Institute (FL)—$400,000; Lake Okeechobee (FL) Watershed project planning—$310,000; cooperative agreement with Sand 

County Foundation (WI)—$900,000; Soil survey mapping project 

(WY)—$300,000; and National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Partnerships—$3,000,000. 

The Committee provides $2,400,000 to continue a field office telecommunication and field technology program and to implement advanced soil survey methods and GIS visualization tools in West 

Texas. 

The Committee directs that the funding included in this account 

for the Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission Cooperative Agreement be provided to the Commission through the state 

NRCS office in a timely manner and in total, not in part, so that 

vital water projects in Georgia are not delayed. 

Plant Materials Centers.—The Committee provides full funding 

for the Plant Materials Centers, as requested. Included in the total 

is funding for the Kika de la Garza Plant Materials Center at no 

less than the fiscal year 2005 level. 

Assistance to Producers.—The Committee is concerned that producers’ applications for assistance under the Environmental QualVerDate Aug 04 2004 21:47 Jun 06, 2005 Jkt 021547 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102
54 

ity Incentives Program (EQIP) and other programs be prioritized 

fairly and that there not be any producer group that is systematically disadvantaged by the process and ranking system. In particular, the Committee is concerned that hog producers in Virginia 

are considered under the EQIP program on an equal basis with 

other producer types, and that program applicants are not disadvantaged because of the number of practices in their applications. The Committee requests a report from NRCS by February 1, 

2006, on the participation of hog producers in NRCS programs in 

Virginia versus other producer types, if that participation rate is 

considered low or adequate, and for any plans to raise the participation rate for that segment. 

Feasibility Study.—The Committee directs NRCS to provide a report on the feasibility, requirements, and scope for the relocation 

of the National Water Management Center to Lonoke, Arkansas. 

The report should detail building size, cost, associated facilities, scientific capacity, and other requirements for collaboration with the 

University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff. The report should also detail 

existing and planned program and resource requirements for this 

location, and should be submitted to the Committee by March 1, 

2006. 

WATERSHED SURVEYS AND PLANNING

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $7,026,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 5,141,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 7,026,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... –––

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. +1,885,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Watershed Surveys and Planning, the Committee provides 

an appropriation of $7,026,000, the same as the amount available 

for fiscal year 2005 and an increase of $1,885,000 above the budget 

request. 

WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION OPERATIONS

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $74,971,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... –––

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 60,000,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥14,971,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. +60,000,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations, the Committee 

provides an appropriation of $60,000,000, a decrease of $14,971,000 

below fiscal year 2005 and an increase of $60,000,000 above the 

budget request. Language is included which limits the amount 

spent on technical assistance to not more than $25,000,000. 

The Committee is aware of and expects progress to continue and/ 

or to provide financial/technical assistance for the next phase for 

the following projects: Big Slough Watershed (AR); Little Red River 

(AR); Four pilot projects in North Florida related to dairy and poultry cleanup efforts (FL); Lower Hamakua Ditch Watershed (HI); 

55 

Upcountry Maui Watershed (HI); Indian Creek Watershed (IL); 

Hickory Creek Special Drainage District (IL); Madison County 

Water Supply Project (IA); Lyon’s Creek Watershed No. 41 (KS); 

Lower Elk River and Upper Walnut North Watersheds (KS); Pigeon Roost Creek project, Jackson County (KY); Swan Quarter 

Dike (NC); Papillon Creek Watershed S–30 Structure (NE); 

Neshaminy Creek Watershed Project, Bucks County (PA); Christina Basin, Brandywine and RedWhite Clay (PA); Lower Colorado 

River water conservation project (TX); Fannin County Caney Creek 

Watershed, Site 3A (TX); Attoyac Bayou site 23A, Nacogdoches 

County (TX); Martinez 6 flood detention dam (TX); Big Cypress 

Reservation Water Conservation project (FL) as part of Everglades 

restoration; and Buena Vista Watershed (VA). 

It is the understanding of the Committee that the project for 

Marrowbone Creek Dam, in Henry County, Virginia, will be completed in fiscal year 2005 and that no fiscal year 2006 funds are 

required. The Committee requires immediate notification if the 

project will be delayed due to technical or funding issues. 

WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROGRAM

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $27,280,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 15,125,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 27,000,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥280,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. +11,875,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Watershed Rehabilitation Program, the Committee provides an appropriation of $27,000,000, a decrease of $280,000 below 

the amount available for fiscal year 2005 and an increase of 

$11,875,000 above the budget request. 

RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $51,228,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 25,600,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 51,360,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... +132,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. +25,760,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Resource Conservation and Development, the Committee 

provides an appropriation of $51,360,000, an increase of $132,000 

above the amount available for fiscal year 2005 and an increase of 

$25,760,000 above the budget request. 

The Committee has restored this account, rather than accepting 

the proposal to defund the 189 Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) Councils that have been in existence for twenty 

years or more. The Committee would except such a budget proposal 

to be based on the effectiveness and performance of the Councils 

rather than on Council age. The Committee requests that NRCS 

work with the Councils to develop appropriate measures of effectiveness for both conservation and economic development. 

56 

The Committee expects the NRCS to promptly fill RC&D coordinator vacancies. The Committee expects support provided under 

this act to be allocated equitably among the 375 existing councils 

and that priority be given to providing every council a full-time coordinator. 

The Committee has included bill language related to a cooperative agreement with a national association. 

The Committee has included bill language limiting the amount 

that can be spent at national headquarters from this account. 

(57) 

TITLE III—RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $627,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 635,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 627,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... –––

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥8,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development, the 

Committee provides an appropriation of $627,000, the same as the 

amount available for fiscal year 2005 and a decrease of $8,000 

below the budget request. 

The Committee directs the Under Secretary to give consideration 

to the following projects or organizations requesting financial and/ 

or technical assistance, and grants and/or loans made available 

under the Rural Development mission area: Biomass Power Generation Project, Haskell County (KS); Biomass Power Generation 

Project, Deaf Smith County (TX); Rainsville Agricenter (AL); Construction of a new library, Cordova (AL); Sewer infrastructure improvements, Eva (AL); Sewer infrastructure improvements, 

Oneonta (AL); Water system improvements, Kennedy (AL); Agricultural Center for West Ouachita H.S. (LA); Town Hall, Village of 

Collinston (LA); Union-Lincoln Regional Water Supply Initiative 

(LA); Rural Economic Development Center (ME); Rural Heritage 

Site, Ridgefield (WA); Carriage Museum, Raymond (WA); Louisiana 

State University, Sustainable Economic Development Institute 

(LA); eCenter for Rural Health and Research Services (LA); Ascension Parish Agriculture Community Center (LA); Minority Manufacturers and Supply Chain Diversity (SC); Food Industry, Agribusiness Development Program (SC); Agriculture Demonstration 

and Outreach Center (AR); Family Farmer and Rural Development 

Training (GA); Plains Rural Agricultural Museum (GA); Enhancing 

Rural Economies through Wireless Technology, University of Georgia (GA); Mobile Infirmary, Telemedicine Plan (AL); Ozone Water 

Project, Johnson County (AR); Dickenson County Kitchen Incubator 

(VA); Russell County Incubator (VA); Alleghany County Incubator 

(VA); Critical Rural Services Initiative, Alachua County (FL); 

NGWA, Well Inspector Training Program (IN); Riley Hospital for 

Children, Riley Connections (IN); Downtown renovation of the City 

of Henderson (NC); Water and wastewater system upgrades for 

Luray (VA); Water and wastewater system upgrades for Madison 

(VA); Water and wastewater system upgrades, Shenandoah (VA); 

Water and wastewater system upgrades, Stanley (VA); Community 

and Economic Assistance for Rappahannock County (VA); Braxton 

County Senior Center (WV); Handley Volunteer Fire Department 

58 

(WV); Kauai Bagasse to Ethanol Project (HI); Maui Cattle Industry 

Development (HI); Maui Community College SkyBridge (HI); Hawaiian Anti-Oxidant Extract from Fruit Wastes (HI); Anderson 

County Community Recreational Complex (KY); University of the 

Virgin Islands Research and Technology Park (VI); Sewer System 

Repair (VI); Town of Coward (SC), Elevated Water Well Project; 

City of Orangeburg (SC), SCSU Water Tower; Town of Turbeville 

(SC), water and Wastewater Treatment System; Town of Andrews 

(SC), Water Project; City of Orangeburg Railroad Corner Project 

(SC); Backhoe for Healdton (OK); Construct Technology Transfer 

Center, Ardmore (OK); Construct Community Center Building, 

Lone Grove (OK); Construction of a Water Tower, Elgin (OK); 

Farm Research Center Outreach Program (IL); Rainsville 

AgriCenter (AL); Madison County Agricultural Facility (FL); Upgrade Water System, Raceland (KY); Upgrade Water System, 

Cynthiana (KY); Farmers’ Market, Bath County (KY); City of 

Coburg Wastewater System (OR); Freer WCID Water Improvement 

Project (TX); Duval County C&R District Water Improvements 

(TX); Jim Hogg County WCID Water Improvement Program (TX); 

Butte County (CA) Interoperable Radio/Data System; Rural Manufacturing Initiative (PA); Storm Drainage Improvements, Northampton Co. (VA); Community and Economic Development in East 

Tennessee (TN); St. John’s/New Madrid Floodway project in Southeast Missouri (MO); Rural Telecardiology, Erie (PA); Calexico Telemedicine Center (CA); Imperial Valley Sugarcane, Renewable Energy, Ethanol (CA); Environmental Technology Business Park (CA); 

Desert Farming Institute (CA); Neighborhood House of Calexico 

Youth Center (CA); Villalba’s Water Improvement Project (PR); 

Wilkesboro/Kerr Scott Reservoir Intake Project (NC); Historic and 

Rural Development Initiative (NJ); Chesapeake Fields, Kent County (MD); Maryland Agriculture and Rural Development (MD); MidAtlantic Broadband Cooperative (VA); Algoma Marina Dredging 

Project (WI); Federal Forest Landfill Closure, Town of Blackwell 

(WI); Federal Forest Landfill Closure, Town of Laona (WI); 

Avondale Waste Water Treatment Facility Expansion (AZ); Energy 

Surety Development for Nogales (AZ); Hardee County, (FL) Fire 

Houses; North Port, (FL) Master Plan for Stormwater Quality; 

Desoto County, City of Arcadia, (FL) Wastewater Project; Hardee 

County, (FL) Potable Water System; Midland Keyston Opportunity 

zone sewage infrastructure (PA); Bloomington Township Fire Department to construct a burn building in McLean County (IL); (SD) 

Value Added Center, Beef Processing Facility; Ohio State University’s 4–H Center (OH); (PA) Rural Manufacturing Initiative; Center for Dairy Excellence (PA); East Valley Water District (OR); 

Independence Telecommunications Enhancements (OR); City of 

Turner Reservoir Project (OR); Opal Creek Wilderness Area (OR); 

Vincennes University Agriculture Center Applied Technology (IN); 

(MD) Agricultural and Rural Development Initiative; Plant Bio-security in Urban environments (LA); Renovations to St. Helena Parish Courthouse (LA); community facilities in Dunmore Borough 

(PA); community development in Nanticoke City (PA); Town of 

Windermere (FL), Sewer Infrastructure; UW, River Falls Rural 

Urban Stewardship Initiative (WI); Statewide Rural Water Map 

(IL); Rural Partners, develop an Internet Web Portal (IL); Skagit 

59 

County’s Fiber Optics Expansion (WA); Chariton Valley Biomass 

Project (IA); Redlands Community College (OK); City of Perkins 

Water Distribution System (OK); City of Perkins Storm Water System (OK); Virtual Learning Community, Classroom Project (CA); 

San Juan County Fire, EMS, and Rescue Building (UT); URDC’s 

Woody Biomass Project (UT); Springhill (LA), Water System Improvement; Village of Simpson (LA), Water System Improvement; 

NSU (LA), Bridging the Gap in Education; Plattsburgh drinking 

water filtration plant (NY); Adirondack Champlain Fiber Network 

(NY); Village of Ellisburg, water storage project; Southeastern (NC) 

Agricultural Center; Red Hills Coop, Mobile Poultry Processing 

Unit (GA); New Iberia Recreational Community Center Complex 

(LA); Lafourche Regional Agriculture Center (LA); Grand Isle Multiplex Center (LA); Old Hastings Civic Center Upgrade Project; 

Wastewater Plant Rehabilitation and Maintenance (FL); (ME) 

Rural Economic Development Center; Universal Public Information 

Access Project (ME); Western Maine (ME) Entrepreneur Fund; 

Vandalia Heritage Foundation (WV); Canaan Valley Institute 

(WV); Marymount Distance Learning, Mentoring for Nurses (VA); 

Diabetes detection, prevention (WA/PA); Joslin Diabetes Center 

(WA); Northampton (MA) Fairgrounds; Springfield (MA) Public 

Market; Relocation of Holmes County (OH) fairgrounds; Kosair 

Hospital Telemedicine Rural Outreach Program (KY); International 

Agr-Center Education Facility (CA); Lindsay Wellness Center (CA); 

Tulare County Farm to Market Roads (CA); Breakwater Small Employer Healthcare Alliance (MN); Health Care Cooperative Purchasing Alliance (WI); Hospice Care of the Berkshires (MA); 

Avondale Waste Water Treatment Facility Expansion (AZ); Community Facility for Reserve (NM); Rural Community Development 

for Hurley (NM); Village of Columbus (NM); New Water Well, 

Town of Seminary (MS); Gas and Waterline extensions, Kemper 

County (MS); Water Plant Repair, City of Magnolia (MS); Agricultural Service Center, San Joaquin County (CA); Higginsport Sanitary Sewer Project (OH); St. Mary’s Hospital, Huntington (WV); 

Little Colorado River Clean Up (AZ); White Mountain Apache 

North Fork Drinking Water (AZ); Holbrook Wastewater Sewer Interceptor (AZ); Canutillo Agricultural Science and Research Center 

(TX); Mill Creek of Arkansas (AR); NE Organic Fanning Association of Vermont (VT) Fanners’ Market; Rural Manufacturing Initiative (PA); Bedford County Emergency Communications System 

(PA); City of Bald Knob (AR), Downtown Improvements; Petersburg 

Water Project in Mahoning County (OH); State Route 45 Waterline 

in Columbiana County (OH); Gallipolis (OH) Spruce St Waterline 

Improvement; Township of L’Anse Water and Sewer Project (MI); 

Spies Field, Menominee Recreational Facilities (MI); Northern 

Lakes Economic Alliance (MI); City of Munising Water and Sewer 

Improvement (MI); Intermediary Relending Program funds for 

Northern Initiatives, Marquette (MI); Adirondack Community Information Centers (NY); Buncombe County Emergency Operations 

Center (NC); Industrial Opportunities, Inc., Facility Expansion 

(NC); Graham County Emergency Services Facility (NC); Foothills 

Industries Blow Molding Operations (NC); Winters Library (CA); 

Laytonville Wastewater Treatment (CA); Water Storage Tank for 

Trinidad (CA); Aullwood Farm Rooted in the Future Initiative 

60 

(OH); Port of Morrow Roof Rehabilitation (OR); EOU High School 

Outreach (OR); Eastern Oregon Center for Regional Economic 

Study (OR); Highland View Project in Oak Ridge (TN); Cumberland 

Gap (TN) Wastewater Improvement; Dandridge (TN) wastewater 

improvements; Bradley County (TN) Hiw’assee Utility Commission 

Water; Dayton (TN) Phase II wastewater treatment expansion; 

Sandoval Health Commons (NM); and Alpha Pump Station Photovoltaic Retrofit (CA). 

The Committee expects the Under Secretary to approve these 

projects only when such applications are judged to be meritorious 

when subject to established review procedures. 

It has come to the Committee’s attention that the Hurricanes 

(Charley, Frances, Ivan, and Jeanne) in 2004 and tornadoes in 

2005 have combined to cause significant damage and loss throughout the South, and in particular Southern Georgia. Families and 

businesses have been displaced and local rural communities are increasingly unable to address the housing and related losses of those 

affected. The Committee directs the Department to assess the cumulative effects of these storms, and give these communities priority consideration in the funding of housing reclamation projects, 

including Seminole County, Miller County, and Wayne County, 

Georgia ravaged by recent catastrophic weather events. 

RURAL COMMUNITY ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $710,321,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 521,689,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 657,389,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥52,932,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. +135,700,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Community Advancement Program, the Committee provides an appropriation of $657,389,000, a decrease of 

$52,932,000 below the amount available for fiscal year 2005 and an 

increase of $135,700,000 above the budget request. 

The following table provides the Committee’s recommendations 

as compared to the budget request: 

RURAL COMMUNITY ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM 

[Budget authority in thousands of dollars] 

FY 2005 

level 

FY 2006 

estimated 

Committee 

provisions 

Community facilities: 

Community facility direct loans .................................................................... $12,150 $10,050 $10,050 

Community facility guaranteed loans ........................................................... 189 756 756 

Community facility grants ............................................................................. $19,678 17,000 17,000 

Rural community development initiative ....................................................... 6,299 0 6,200 

Other .............................................................................................................. 50,151 0 4,000 

Rescission ...................................................................................................... 713 0 0 

Subtotal, Community facilities ......................................................... 89,180 27,806 38,006 

Business: 

Business and industry loans: 

Guaranteed ............................................................................................ 29,939 44,221 44,221 

Rural business enterprise grants .................................................................. 39,680 0 40,000 

61 

RURAL COMMUNITY ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM—Continued 

[Budget authority in thousands of dollars] 

FY 2005 

level 

FY 2006 

estimated 

Committee 

provisions 

Rural business opportunity grants ................................................................ 2,976 0 3,000 

Other .............................................................................................................. 992 0 1,000 

Rescission ...................................................................................................... 593 0 0 

Subtotal, business ............................................................................ 74,180 44,221 88,221 

Utilities: 

Water and waste disposal loans: 

Direct ..................................................................................................... 89,280 69,100 69,100

Water and waste disposal grants ................................................................. 431,078 377,062 457,062 

Solid waste management grants .................................................................. 3,472 3,500 3,500 

Emergency community water assistance grants ........................................... 22,949 0 0 

Other .............................................................................................................. 1,488 0 1,500 

Rescission ...................................................................................................... 4,422 0 0 

Subtotal, utilities .............................................................................. 552,689 449,662 531,162 

Rescission ...................................................................................................... 5,728 0 0 

Total, loans and grants ................................................................... $710,321 $521,689 $657,389 

The following earmarks are included in bill language for the 

Rural Community Advancement Program: $1,000,000 is for grants 

to nonprofit organizations to finance construction, refurbishing, and 

servicing of individually-owned household water well systems in 

rural areas; $500,000 is for revolving funds for financing water and 

wastewater projects; $24,000,000 for Federally Recognized Native 

American Tribes, of which $4,000,000 is for community facilities 

grants to tribal colleges, and of which $250,000 is for transportation technical assistance; $6,200,000 is for the Rural Community 

Development Initiative; $500,000 for rural transportation technical 

assistance; $1,000,000 is for grants to Mississippi Delta Region 

counties; $25,000,000 is for water and waste disposal systems in 

the Colonias; $17,500,000 is for technical assistance for rural water 

and waste systems; $14,000,000 is for a circuit rider program; and 

$21,367,000 for empowerment zones and enterprise communities 

(EZ/EC) and communities designated by the Secretary of Agriculture as Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones, of which 

$1,067,000 is for community facilities, of which $12,000,000 shall 

be for rural utilities programs, and of which $8,300,000 shall be for 

the rural business and cooperative development programs. 

Rural Community Assistance Programs.—The Committee directs 

that, of the funds provided for rural waste systems, $5,600,000 is 

designated for the Rural Community Assistance Programs. 

The Committee expects the Department to coordinate with the 

Foundation for Affordable Drinking Water to carry out the provisions of section 7 U.S.C. 1926e of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 

Development Act. 

The Committee expects the Department to carry out the provisions of 7 U.S.C. 1926(a)(2)(B) to coordinate with groups who have 

expertise in operating revolving funds similar to that authorized 

under 7 U.S.C. 1926(a)(2), including Rural Community Assistance 

Programs. 

62 

The Committee encourages the Rural Business-Cooperative Service to promulgate regulations to implement an annual guarantee 

fee for business and industry loans guaranteed under section 310B 

of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act. This annual 

fee will allow this guarantee loan program to more effectively use 

its budget authority. 

The Committee is concerned that a final rule and implementation of the Household Water Well System Grant Program has not 

been completed. Funding for this program was made available in 

the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 (Public Law 108–199), 

and became effective on January 23, 2004. Additional funding for 

this program was made available in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005 (Public Law 108–447). The Committee directs the 

Department to promptly publish a final rule and implement the 

Household Water Well System Grant Program. The Committee also 

directs the Department to provide a report to the Committee regarding the status and publication of a final rule by July 15, 2005. 

The committee encourages the Department to provide a rural 

business opportunity grant for the Tioga County Rural Economic 

Area Partnership Zone to coordinate and facilitate local community 

development projects in Tioga County, New York. 

The committee expects the Department to continue Rural Community Advancement Program predevelopment planning grants. 

The Committee encourages the Rural Utilities Service to continue a partnership with the Kentucky PRIDE program in providing technical expertise and program guidelines. 

RURAL DEVELOPMENT SALARIES AND EXPENSES

[In thousands of dollars] 

FY 2005 estimate FY 2006 estimate Committee provisions 

Appropriations .................... $147,264 $167,849 $152,623 

Transfer from: 

Rural Housing Insurance Fund Loan Program Account ........... 444,755 465,886 455,242 

Rural Electrification 

and Telecommunications Loans Program Account ........... 37,971 39,933 38,907 

Rural Telephone Bank 

Program Account ...... 3,127 2,500 2,500 

Rural Development 

Loan Fund Program 

Account ..................... 4,281 6,656 4,719 

Total, RD Salaries 

and Expenses ........ $637,398 $682,824 653,991 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Salaries and Expenses of the Rural Development mission 

areas, the Committee provides an appropriation of $152,623,000, 

an increase of $5,359,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 

2005 and a decrease of $15,226,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee is concerned by the delay in receiving requested 

information on the consolidation of St. Louis Rural Development 

activities at the Goodfellow facility. The Committee directs the DeVerDate Aug 04 2004 21:47 Jun 06, 2005 Jkt 021547 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102
63 

partment to provide a report on the total cost of the consolidation 

and what expenses the General Services Administration and Rural 

Development will be funding prior to July 15, 2005. The Committee includes $200,000 for the National Groundwater 

Association to fund a pilot program involving inspector training 

and certification relative to proper well construction, maintenance, 

sampling and ensuring the overall safety of private wells in rural 

areas. 

RURAL HOUSING SERVICE

RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

ESTIMATED LOAN LEVELS

2005 loan levels .................................................................................. $4,683,277,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 4,965,577,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 5,079,349,000 

Comparison: 

2005 loan level ............................................................................. +396,072,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. +113,772,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Housing Insurance Fund program account, the 

Committee provides a loan level of $5,079,349,000, an increase of 

$396,072,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2005 and an 

increase of $113,772,000 above the budget request. 

The following table reflects the loan levels for the Rural Housing 

Insurance Fund program account: 

[In thousands of dollars] 

FY 2005 level FY 2006 estimate Committee provisions 

Rural Housing Insurance Fund Loans and Grant: 

Single family housing (sec. 502): 

Direct ....................................................................... $1,140,800 $1,000,000 $1,140,799 

Unsubsidized guaranteed ....................................... 3,282,823 3,681,033 3,681,033 

Rental housing (sec. 515) ............................................... 99,200 27,027 100,000 

Multi-family guaranteed (sec. 538) ............................... 99,200 200,000 100,000 

Housing repair (sec. 504) ................................................ 34,720 35,969 35,969 

Credit sales of acquired property .................................... 11,489 11,500 11,500 

Housing site development (sec. 524) .............................. 5,045 5,000 5,000 

Self-help housing land development fund ...................... 10,000 5,048 5,048 

Total, Loan authorization ............................................ $4,683,277 $4,965,577 $5,079,349 

ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

[In thousands of dollars] 

FY 2005 level FY 2006 estimate Committee provisions 

Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account (loan subsidies): 

Single family housing (sec. 502): 

Direct ....................................................................... $132,105 $113,900 $129,937 

Unsubsidized guaranteed ....................................... 33,339 40,900 40,900 

Rental housing (sec. 515) ............................................... 46,713 12,400 45,880 

Multi-family guaranteed (sec. 538) ................................ 3,462 10,840 5,420 

Housing repair (sec. 504) ................................................ 10,090 10,521 10,521 

Credit sales of acquired property .................................... 721 681 681 

Housing site development (sec. 524) .............................. .............................. .............................. ..............................

Self-help housing land development fund ...................... .............................. 52 52 

64 

[In thousands of dollars] 

FY 2005 level FY 2006 estimate Committee provisions 

Total, Loan subsidies .................................................. $226,430 $189,294 $233,391 

RHIF expenses: 

Administrative expenses .................................................. $444,755 $465,886 455,242 

RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $587,264,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 650,026,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 650,026,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... +62,762,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. –––

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rental Assistance Program, the Committee provides a 

program level of $650,026,000, an increase of $62,762,000 above 

the amount available in fiscal year 2005 and the same amount as 

the budget request. 

RURAL HOUSING VOUCHER PROGRAM

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. –––

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... $214,000,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 0 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... –––

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥214,000,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

The recommendation does not include $214,000,000 for the Rural 

Housing Voucher Program, as proposed in the President’s budget. 

The Administration has not yet submitted a legislative proposal to 

Congress for this program. The Committee does not recommend establishing such program in annual appropriations acts, but will 

consider such program should they achieve authorization. 

MUTUAL AND SELF-HELP HOUSING GRANTS

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $33,728,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 34,000,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 34,000,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... +272,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. –––

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Mutual and Self-Help Housing Grants, the Committee provides an appropriation of $34,000,000, an increase of $272,000 

above the amount available in fiscal year 2005 and the same 

amount as the budget request. 

65 

RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GRANTS

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $43,640,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 41,000,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 41,000,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥2,640,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. –––

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Housing Assistance Grants program, the Com- mittee provides an appropriation of $41,000,000, a decrease of 

$2,640,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2005 and the 

same amount as the budget request. The appropriated amount includes $1,000,000 for supervisory and technical assistance. 

FARM LABOR PROGRAM ACCOUNT

[In thousands of dollars] 

Loan level Subsidy level Grants 

2005 appropriation ................................................ $38,192 17,973 15,872 

2006 budget estimate ........................................... 42,000 18,728 14,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................... 42,000 18,728 14,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ....................................... +3,808 +755 ¥1,872 

2006 budget estimate .................................. ––– ––– –––

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Farm Labor program account, the Committee provides a loan subsidy of $18,728,000, which supports a loan level of 

$42,000,000, an increase of $755,000 in loan subsidy and an increase of $3,808,000 in loan level above the amount available in fiscal year 2005, and the same amount in loan subsidy and loan level 

as the budget request. 

The Committee also provides $14,000,000 in grants, a decrease 

of $1,872,000 below the amount available in fiscal year 2005 and 

the same amount as the budget request. 

RURAL BUSINESS-COOPERATIVE SERVICE

RURAL DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

ESTIMATED LOAN LEVEL

2004 loan level .................................................................................... $33,939,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 34,212,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 34,212,000 

Comparison: 

2004 loan level ............................................................................. +273,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. –––

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Development Loan Fund program account, the 

Committee provides for a loan level of $34,212,000, an increase of 

$273,000 above the amount provided for fiscal year 2005 and the 

same as the budget request. 

66 

ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

Direct loan subsidy Administrative 

expenses 

2005 appropriation ............................................. $15,741,000 $4,281,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................... 14,718,000 6,656,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................. 14,718,000 4,719,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................... ¥1,023,000 +438,000 

2006 budget estimates ................................ ––– ¥1,937,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the estimated loan subsidy, the Committee provides an appropriation of $14,718,000, a decrease of $1,023,000 below the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2005 and the same amount as the 

budget request. 

The Committee also provides $4,719,000 in administrative expenses, an increase of $438,000 above the amount available in fiscal year 2005 and a decrease of $1,937,000 below the budget request. 

RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

ESTIMATED LOAN LEVEL

2004 loan level .................................................................................... $24,803,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 25,003,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 25,003,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... +200,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. –––

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Economic Development Loans program account, 

the Committee provides for a loan level of $25,003,000, an increase 

of $200,000 above the amount provided for fiscal year 2005, and 

the same as the budget request. 

ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY

2005 appropriation ................................................................. 1 $4,660,000 

2006 budget estimate ............................................................. 1 4,993,000 

Provided in the bill ................................................................. 1 4,993,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation .......................................................... +333,000 

2006 budget estimate ...................................................... - - - 1Offset by a rescission from interest on the cushion of credit payments, as authorized by section 313 of 

the Rural Electrification Act of 1936. 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the estimated loan subsidy, the Committee provides an appropriation of $4,993,000, an increase of $333,000 above the 

amount provided for fiscal year 2005 and the same as the budget 

request. 

67 

RURAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $23,808,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 21,000,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 24,000,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... +192,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. +3,000,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Rural Cooperative Development Grants, the Committee provides an appropriation of $24,000,000, an increase of $192,000 

above the amount available for fiscal year 2005 and an increase of 

$3,000,000 above the budget request. 

Of the funds provided, not to exceed $2,500,000 is provided for 

a cooperative agreement for the Appropriate Technology Transfer 

for Rural Areas (ATTRA) program through a cooperative agreement 

with the National Center for Appropriate Technology, and 

$15,500,000 is for value-added market development grants. 

The Committee encourages the Department to continue the Agriculture Innovations Center Program in the Rural Business-Cooperative Service. The program has provided assistance to farmers in 

value-added agriculture production and marketing. 

RURAL EMPOWERMENT ZONES AND ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES GRANTS

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $12,400,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 0 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 10,000,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥2,400,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. +10,000,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Rural Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities 

Grants, the Committee provides an appropriation of $10,000,000, a 

decrease of $2,400,000 below the amount available in fiscal year 

2005 and an increase of $10,000,000 above the budget request. 

RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAM

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $22,816,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 10,000,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 23,000,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... +184,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. +13,000,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Renewable Energy Program, the Committee provides an 

appropriation of $23,000,000, an increase of $184,000 above the 

amount available in fiscal year 2005 and an increase of 

$13,000,000 above the budget request. 

68 

RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE

RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS LOANS PROGRAM

ACCOUNT

ESTIMATED LOAN LEVEL

2005 loan level .................................................................................... $4,835,440,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 3,190,000,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 4,994,000,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... +158,560,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. +1,804,000,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

The following table reflects the loan levels for the Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program account: 

[Dollars in thousands] 

FY 2005 enacted FY 2006 estimate Committee 

provisions 

Loan authorizations: 

Electric: 

Direct, 5% ..................................................................... $119,040 $100,000 $100,000 

Direct, Municipal rate ................................................... 99,200 100,000 100,000 

Direct, FFB .................................................................... 2,000,000 1,620,000 2,000,000 

Direct, Treasury Rate .................................................... 1,000,000 700,000 1,000,000 

Guaranteed electric ....................................................... 99,200 - - - 100,000 

Guaranteed underwriting .............................................. 1,000,000 0 1,000,000 

Subtotal ................................................................ 4,317,440 2,520,000 4,300,000 

Telecommunications: 

Direct, 5% ..................................................................... 145,000 145,000 145,000 

Direct, Treasury rate ..................................................... 248,000 425,000 424,000 

Direct, FFB .................................................................... 125,000 100,000 125,000 

Subtotal ................................................................ 518,000 670,000 694,000 

Total, Loan authorizations ................................... $4,835,440 $3,190,000 $4,994,000 

ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

[Dollars in thousands] 

FY 2005 enacted FY 2006 estimate Committee 

provisions 

Loan subsidies: 

Electric: 

Direct, 5% ..................................................................... $3,619 $920 $920 

Direct, Municipal rate ................................................... 1,339 5,050 5,050 

Direct, Treasury rate ..................................................... 0 70 100 

Guaranteed Electric ...................................................... 60 0 90 

Subtotal ................................................................ 5,018 6,040 6,160 

Telecommunications: 

Direct, Treasury rate ..................................................... 99 212 212 

Subtotal ................................................................ 99 212 212 

Total, Loan subsidies ........................................... $5,117 $6,252 $6,372 

69 

[Dollars in thousands] 

FY 2005 enacted FY 2006 estimate Committee 

provisions 

E & T expenses: 

Administrative expenses ............................................... $37,971 $39,933 $38,907 

The Committee recommendation includes a general provision to 

limit RUS from drafting or implementing any regulation or rule insofar as it would require recertification of rural status for each 

electric and telecommunications borrower for the Rural Electrification and Telecommunication Loans program. The Committee is 

concerned by the Departments proposal to change the long-standing practice of the ‘‘Once Rural, Always Rural’’ principle. 

RURAL TELEPHONE BANK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

ESTIMATED LOAN LEVEL

2005 loan level .................................................................................... $175,000,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 0 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 0 

Comparison: 

2005 loan level ............................................................................. ¥175,000,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. - - - 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Telephone Bank Program, the Committee does not 

provide for a loan level, which is a decrease of $175,000,000 below 

the amount provided in fiscal year 2005 and the same amount as 

the budget request. 

The Committee does not include the provision from the fiscal 

year 2005 bill which limits the retirement of the Class A stock of 

the Rural Telephone Bank. 

ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

Direct loan 

subsidy 

Administrative 

expenses 

2005 appropriation ............................................. ............................ $3,127,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................... ............................ 1 2,500,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................. ............................ 2 2,500,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................... ............................ ¥627,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................. ............................ - - - 1Offset by a transfer of unobligated balances from the RTB Liquidating account. 

2Offset by a rescission of unobligated balances from the RTB Liquidating account. 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

The Committee provides $2,500,000 in administrative expenses, 

a decrease of $627,000 below the amount available in fiscal year 

2005 and the same as the budget request. 

70 

DISTANCE LEARNING, TELEMEDICINE AND BROADBAND PROGRAM

Loan level Subsidy level Grants 

2005 appropriation ...................... $595,600,000 $12,325,000 $43,648,000 

2006 budget estimate ................. 358,875,000 9,973,000 25,000,000 

Provided in the bill ..................... 513,860,000 10,723,000 34,000,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation .............. ¥81,740,000 ¥1,602,000 ¥9,648,000 

2006 budget estimates ......... +154,985,000 +750,000 +9,000,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program, the Committee provides an appropriation of $44,723,000, a 

decrease of $11,250,000 below the amount available for fiscal year 

2005 and an increase of $9,750,000 above the budget request, including $750,000 for Distance Learning and Telemedicine loan subsidy, which supports a loan level of $50,000,000; $25,000,000 for 

Distance Learning and Telemedicine Grants; $9,973,000 for 

Broadband Telecommunications loan subsidy, which supports a 

loan level of $463,860,000; and $9,000,000 for Broadband Grants. 

(71) 

TITLE IV—DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD, NUTRITION AND

CONSUMER SERVICES

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $590,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 599,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 599,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... +9,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. - - - 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and 

Consumer Services, the Committee provides an appropriation of 

$599,000, an increase of $9,000 above the amount provided in fiscal 

year 2005 and the same amount as the budget request. 

Buy American.—The Committee is concerned that foreign agricultural products are being purchased at the local level for use in 

the National School Lunch Program. The Committee urges the Department to implement a Buy American procurement-training program for state and local administrators. 

Pilot Study.—The Committee encourages the Food and Nutrition 

Service to conduct a pilot study, in all or part of 5 States, as authorized by section 124 of the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004. 

CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS

Direct appropriation Transfer from 

section 32 Total program level 

2005 appropriation ........ $6,629,038,000 $5,152,962,000 $11,782,000,000 

2006 budget estimate ... 7,304,207,000 5,111,820,000 12,416,027,000 

Provided in the bill ....... 7,224,406,000 5,187,621,000 12,412,027,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation +595,368,000 +34,659,000 +630,027,000 

2006 budget estimate .................... ¥79,801,000 +75,801,000 ¥4,000,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Child Nutrition Programs, the Committee provides a 

total of $12,412,027,000, an increase of $630,027,000 above the 

amount available for fiscal year 2005 and a decrease of $4,000,000 

below the budget request. Of the total amount provided, 

$7,224,406,000 is by direct appropriation and $5,187,621,000 is by 

transfer from Section 32. 

72 

Child Nutrition Programs: 

[Dollars in thousands] 

School lunch program ................................................................. $7,194,237 

School breakfast program ........................................................... 2,030,357 

Child and adult care food program ............................................ 2,174,293 

Summer food service program .................................................... 298,364 

Special milk program .................................................................. 14,819 

State administrative expenses ................................................... 156,061 

Commodity procurement ............................................................ 518,206 

School meals initiative ................................................................ 10,025 

Food safety education ................................................................. 1,000 

Coordinated review effort ........................................................... 5,235 

Computer support and processing ............................................. 9,373 

Program pay cost ......................................................................... 57 

Total ...................................................................................... 12,412,027 

SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS, 

AND CHILDREN (WIC)

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $5,235,032,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 5,510,000,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 5,257,000,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... +21,968,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥253,000,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) the Committee provides an appropriation of $5,257,000,000, an increase of $21,968,000 above the 

amount available for fiscal year 2005 and a decrease of 

$253,000,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee recommendation for the Special Supplemental 

Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) is 

$5,257,000,000. The Committee notes that since the budget request 

was submitted last February, estimates for participation and food 

costs in the WIC program have declined for fiscal year 2005 and 

fiscal year 2006. In fiscal year 2006, there are estimated to be 

300,000 fewer participants a month and the average food cost per 

person per month has decreased by twenty-one cents. The Office of 

Management and Budget has notified the Committee that the 

budget request is higher than estimated program needs. Therefore, 

the recommended funding level, although below the budget request, 

is currently estimated to be sufficient to meet program needs. However, the Committee will continue to monitor WIC food costs and 

participation, and take additional action as necessary to ensure 

that the funding provided in fiscal year 2006 is sufficient to serve 

all eligible applicants. 

In addition, the Committee notes that $125,000,000 is available 

in the contingency fund in fiscal year 2006. 

The recommended funding level includes $15,000,000 for continuation of the breastfeeding peer counselor program. 

The Committee has concerns about the need for the Department’s request of $3,000,000 for the evaluation and research of program cost containment strategies. In May 2003, the Economic Research Service published an Assessment of WIC Cost-Containment 

Practices. The Committee encourages FNS and ERS to explore poVerDate Aug 04 2004 21:47 Jun 06, 2005 Jkt 021547 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102
73 

tential research needs in support of vendor cost-containment policies. The Committee recommendation does not include funds for an 

evaluation of cost containment strategies. 

The Committee does not include the provision, as requested, that 

requires funding for nutrition services and administration grants to 

States be capped at 25 percent of the total amount provided. 

The Committee includes language, as requested by the Administration, that provides guidance that funds under this heading shall 

not be used for WIC benefits for individuals who receive medical 

assistance or whose family member is a pregnant woman or infant 

who receives assistance, unless it falls below 250 percent of the applicable poverty guidelines. 

Electronic Benefit Transfer.—The Committee recommendation includes language to allow funds to be used for WIC electronic benefit transfer (EBT) systems and sets the authorized level of infrastructure funding at $13,600,000, which includes funding to develop EBT systems. 

WIC Services and Referrals.—While the Committee supports 

State and local agency efforts to utilize WIC as a means of participation referral to other health care services, it also recognizes the 

constraints that WIC programs experience 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 is not the Committee’s intention that WIC should perform aggressive screening, referral and assessment functions in a 

manner that supplants the responsibilities of other programs, nor 

should WIC State and local agencies 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 1966, unless fully reimbursed by the appropriate Federal agency. 

Food Prescription Package.—The Committee directs the Department to move expeditiously in consultation with WIC agencies to 

develop for public comment a food prescription rule responding to 

the needs of the WIC population and to provide a report to the 

Committee regarding the status and publication of a final rule 

prior to February 1, 2006. 

FOOD STAMP PROGRAM

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $35,154,554,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 40,711,395,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 40,711,395,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... +5,556,841,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. - - - 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Food Stamp Program, the Committee provides 

$40,711,395,000, an increase of $5,556,841,000 above the amount 

available for fiscal year 2005 and the same amount as the budget 

request. The total amount includes $3,000,000,000 for a continVerDate Aug 04 2004 21:47 Jun 06, 2005 Jkt 021547 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102
74 

gency reserve in fiscal year 2006; $1,535,796,000 for nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico and American Samoa; and $140,000,000 

for The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP). 

COMMODITY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $177,367,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 177,935,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 178,797,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... +1,430,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. +862,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

The Committee provides an appropriation of $178,797,000 for the 

Commodity Assistance Program, an increase of $1,430,000 above 

the amount available for fiscal year 2005 and an increase of 

$862,000 above the budget request. 

The recommended funding level for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) is $107,716,000, an increase of 

$862,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2005 and above 

the budget request. The Committee notes that approximately 

$6,020,000 in commodity inventory is expected to be available to 

the CSFP in fiscal year 2006, making the total available for the 

program approximately $113,736,000. 

The Committee has included $50,000,000 for administration of 

TEFAP, an increase of $400,000 above the amount available in fiscal year 2005 and the same as the budget request. These funds 

may be used for administration purposes or for food costs at the 

discretion of the States. In addition, the Committee recommendation includes a general provision that allows the Secretary to transfer up to $10,000,000 of TEFAP commodity funding to processing, 

storage, and distribution costs. 

For the Food Donations Programs the Committee provides an appropriation of $1,081,000 for Pacific Island Assistance, an increase 

of $9,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2005 and the 

same as the budget request. 

Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program.—The Committee recommendation includes $20,000,000 for the Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program, an increase of $160,000 above the amount available 

for fiscal year 2005 and the same as the budget request. 

Seniors Farmers’ Market Program.—Public Law 107–171, Section 

4402, directs mandatory funding for this program from funds available to the Commodity Credit Corporation. The funding level is 

$15,000,000 for fiscal year 2006. 

NUTRITION PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $138,818,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 140,761,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 140,761,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... +1,943,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. - - - 

75 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Nutrition Programs Administration, the Committee has provided $140,761,000, an increase of $1,943,000 above the amount 

available for fiscal year 2005 and the same amount as the budget 

request. 

The Committee directs the Department to promptly publish interim final regulations regarding WIC vendor cost containment, as 

described in the legislative history of the Child Nutrition and WIC 

Reauthorization Act. In the event the Department should fail to 

publish such regulations before the enactment of this Act, the Committee has provided an extension of the moratorium on authorization of new ‘‘WIC-only’’ stores until the issuance of vendor cost containment regulations. This moratorium is not intended to restrict 

the transfer or relocation of existing ‘‘WIC-only’’ stores or prevent 

authorization of stores that are not expected to increase program 

cost. 

(76) 

TITLE V—FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS 

FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE

[Dollars in thousands] 

Appropriation Transfer from loan accounts Total, FAS 

2005 appropriation ...................... $136,719 ($4,482) ($141,201) 

2006 budget estimate ................. 148,792 (3,608) (152,400) 

Provided in the bill ..................... 148,224 (3,608) (151,832) 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation .............. +11,505 ¥874 +10,631 

2006 budget estimate .......... ¥568 - - - ¥568 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Foreign Agricultural Service, the Committee provides an 

appropriation of $148,224,000 and transfers of $3,608,000, for a 

total salaries and expenses level of $151,832,000, an increase of 

$10,631,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2005 and a 

decrease of $568,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee recommendation includes: $2,311,000 for pay 

cost; $1,200,000 for ICASS; $4,000,000 to offset the increased costs 

in overseas currency rates; $300,000 for FAS to promote American 

agricultural products in Baghdad; $951,000 for Title I administration; and $2,743,000 for the capital surcharge being levied on the 

Foreign Agricultural Service by the State Department. 

The Committee recommendation includes $600,000, the same as 

fiscal year 2005, for technical assistance for the promotion of specialty crop exports. 

The Committee has included language that allows for the use of 

not more than $5,000,000 of funds transferred to the Foreign Agricultural Service from the Commodity Credit Corporation for Information Resource Management requirements. 

The Trade Assistance Act for Farmers requires that technical assistance be provided to farmers negatively impacted by imports. 

This technical assistance is an education program that helps farmers develop marketing opportunities, increase production efficiency 

and seek alternatives to offset losses created by imports. The Committee directs that from the funds made available by the Trade Adjustment Act that $3,000,000 be available to the Digital Center for 

Risk Management Education to coordinate an intensive technical 

assistance program for farmers. 

77 

PUBLIC LAW 480 

PROGRAM AND GRANT ACCOUNTS

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 envisioned 

the use of USDA commodity monetization programs to support 

rural electrification development in developing countries carried 

out with the help of the international assistance program of U.S. 

rural electric cooperatives. The Committee considers it an important and necessary step to integrate the successful U.S. rural electrification experience as a component of on-going USDA assistance 

to food-aid recipient countries in order to help them overcome 

chronic conditions of hunger and poverty and, over the long term, 

to reduce their dependency on feeding assistance programs from 

the U.S. and other donor nations. 

The following table reflects the loan levels, subsidy levels, and 

administrative costs for all Public Law 480 programs: 

[Dollars in thousands] 

FY 2005 enacted FY 2006 estimate Committee provisions 

Public Law 480 Program Account: 

Title I—Credit sales: 

Direct loans ................................................................... ($109,000) ($74,032) ($74,032) 

Loan subsidies .............................................................. 93,444 65,040 65,040 

Ocean freight differential ............................................. 22,541 11,940 11,940 

Title II—Commodities for disposition abroad: 

Program level ................................................................ (1,173,041) (885,000) (1,107,094) 

Appropriation ................................................................. 1,173,041 885,000 1,107,094 

Salaries and expenses: 

FAS ................................................................................ 1,088 168 168 

FSA ................................................................................ 2,914 3,217 3,217 

Total, P.L. 480–S&E ................................................. 4,002 3,385 3,385 

Funds interchange.—The Committee has included bill language 

providing that funds made available for the cost of title I agreements and for title I ocean freight differential may be used interchangeably. 

CCC EXPORT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $4,388,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 5,279,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 5,279,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... +891,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. - - - 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For administrative expenses of the Commodity Credit Corporation Export Loans Program Account, the Committee provides an 

appropriation of $5,279,000, an increase of $891,000 above the 

amount available for fiscal year 2005 and the same amount as the 

budget request. 

78 

MCGOVERN-DOLE INTERNATIONAL FOOD FOR EDUCATION AND CHILD

NUTRITION PROGRAM GRANTS

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $86,800,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 100,000,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 100,000,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... +13,200,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. - - - 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For McGovern-Dole Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program Grants, as authorized by Section 3107 of P.L. 107–171 (7 

U.S.C. 1736o–1), the Committee provides an appropriation of $100,000,000, an increase of $13,200,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2005, and the same amount as the budget request. 

(79) 

TITLE VI—RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG 

ADMINISTRATION 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation Drug, device and animal drug user fees Total, FDA, S&E 

2005 appropriation .......... $1,450,098,000 $326,686,000 $1,776,784,000 

2006 budget estimate ..... 1,492,726,000 356,950,000 1,849,676,000 

Provided in the bill ......... 1,480,978,000 356,950,000 1,837,928,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation .. +30,880,000 +30,264,000 +61,144,000 

2006 budget estimate ...................... ¥11,748,000 - - - ¥11,748,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

The Committee recommendation includes $1,837,928,000 for the 

salaries and expenses of the Food and Drug Administration. Of the 

total, $1,480,978,000 is provided in budget authority, and the Committee makes available $305,332,000 in prescription drug user fees, 

$40,300,000 in medical device user fees and $11,318,000 in animal 

drug user fees. The budget authority provided is $30,880,000 over 

the fiscal year 2005 level, and $11,748,000 under the budget request. 

Included in this funding level are increases of $5,000,000 for the 

Office of Drug Safety and $5,996,000 for medical device review, as 

requested; and an increase of $12,442,000 for food safety and 

counter-terrorism activities. Within the total amount for the agency, not less than $486,511,000 in budget authority and $9,869,000 

in user fees are made available for field activities conducted by the 

Office of Regulatory Affairs. The Committee assumes a cut of 

$6,670,000 from FDA’s base resources, as proposed in the President’s budget. 

The Committee directs that within the amount provided for food 

safety and counter-terrorism activities, priority should be given to 

maintaining existing personnel and operations that are critical to 

ensuring the safety of domestic and imported food, rather than 

funding new functions, grants, or agreements. 

Within the amount provided for Other Activities in the Act, $36,330,000 is for the Office of the Commissioner, $51,172,000 is 

for the Office of Management, $11,014,000 is for the Office of External Relations, $11,720,000 is for the Office of Policy and Planning, and $6,823,000 is for central services for the Offices in this 

account. The Committee notes that funds for these Offices, as well 

as for the other activities, programs, or projects named in this Act, 

are subject to the requirements of Section 718 of this Act. 

80 

Drug Safety.—The Committee provides all budget authority re- quested, $22,900,000 for the Office of Drug Safety, as well as full 

funding for the patient safety function within the agency, which totals nearly $70,000,000. In addition, $13,100,000 in user fees is 

made available for patient safety, of which $10,500,000 is for the 

Office of Drug Safety. The Committee is extremely concerned about 

this issue, and expects to receive, at a minimum, quarterly reports 

from the agency on the situation, including, but not limited to: the 

status and results of the Institute of Medicine study regarding drug 

safety issues and FDA effectiveness; planned changes within FDA 

related to drug safety, including review processes or 

reprogrammings; plans for external review; and new initiatives, including education efforts or labeling changes. The Committee provides an additional $5,000,000 for the Drugs 

Program, and directs FDA to use these funds for the highest priority drug safety needs. For these funds and those provided for the 

Office of Drug Safety, the Committee requires a detailed spending 

plan within 30 days of enactment. 

Generic Drugs.—The base funding includes not less than $56,228,000 in funding for the Generic Drugs Program. This is a 

vital program and the Committee is concerned that its potential as 

part of the solution to high quality and affordable health care is 

not realized. 

Bovine Spongiform Encephalophathy (BSE).—The Committee 

provides the total amount requested, $29,566,000 for BSE prevention activities, primarily to continue enforcement of the 1997 feed 

ban. 

Antibiotic Resistance Monitoring.—The Committee believes that 

the National Antibiotic Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS) 

program is critical to public health surveillance and encourages 

FDA to provide funding to USDA (the animal arm) at a level equal 

to the total for FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (the human arm). The Committee expects that the agencies 

will coordinate their activities and directs that an Executive Summary of 2004 NARMS data and a preliminary report on 2005 data 

be sent to the Committee by March 1, 2006. The summary should 

present findings of all three components in a format that is accessible to users of the data. The Committee directs that FDA perform 

a review of all components of the NARMS program to analyze 

whether the arms of the program remain scientifically sound and 

relevant to public health, the criteria utilized to evaluate the program, and what is needed to make the NARMS program complete. 

Pediatric Use of HIV Vaccines.—The Committee recognizes the 

importance of ensuring that promising HIV/AIDS vaccines are tested in infants and youth as early as is medically and ethically appropriate. The Committee requests that the Commissioner of the 

Food and Drug Administration, in consultation with appropriate 

public and private entities, consider the logistical, regulatory, medical and ethical issues presented by pediatric testing of these vaccines so that children can share in the benefit of any advances in 

vaccines research. The Committee urges FDA to issue guidance not 

later than six months after enactment of this Act on the minimum 

requirements for obtaining approval of the Food and Drug Administration to test an HIV vaccine in pediatric populations and the 

81 

minimum requirements for obtaining Food and Drug Administration approval of a pediatric indication of an HIV vaccine. 

Abuse of Prescription Drugs.—The Committee is interested in the 

potential benefit from FDA’s development of procedures for the 

processing and review of applications for approval for abuse-resistant formulations of schedule II painkillers and other prescription 

drugs currently on the market. 

The Committee notes that FDA priority review can be granted in 

cases in which the drug product ‘‘would be a significant improvement compared to marketed products . . . in the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of a disease’’ including ‘‘elimination or substantial reduction of a treatment-limiting drug reaction’’. The Committee requests FDA to report on whether a drug less prone to 

abuse would be considered under that provision, and if so, how 

many drugs were considered under the provision due to less potential for abuse, and granted priority status. 

Additionally, FDA should take all appropriate steps to ensure 

that health care providers and patients are given all relevant information concerning the abuse-resistant qualities of safer drugs. Providers and patients alike will benefit from the expedited review of 

safer drugs, as well as the provision of information that accurately 

differentiates abuse-resistant formulations. 

Women’s health.—The Committee recommendation includes not 

less than $4,000,000 for the Office of Women’s Health. The Committee continues to be committed to this function, and in particular 

activities related to cardiovascular disease in women and the hormone therapy education program. 

Orphan products.—The Committee directs that no less than 

$15,000,000 be available for grants and contracts awarded under 

section 5 of the Orphan Drug Act, the same amount as fiscal year 

2005. 

Rent and related activities.—The Committee provides 

$21,974,000 in budget authority, an increase of $4,128,000, for relocation costs to the White Oak, Maryland, facility as requested. 

Financial management.—In the fiscal year 2005 appropriations 

Act, Congress directed that the funding level for the Unified Financial Management System (UFMS) was at the same level as in fiscal 

year 2004. In response to the Questions for Record submitted to the 

Committee in April 2005, FDA reports that spending for the UFMS 

was $9,389,000 in fiscal year 2004 and is expected to be 

$13,582,000 in fiscal year 2005, a 45 percent increase. The Committee has not received the required notification of this increase. 

For fiscal year 2006, the Committee directs that no more than 

$9,389,000 is available for UFMS, and requires a quarterly report 

on the expenditures. The Committee reiterates that any additional 

costs for this purpose, either direct or by transfer, are subject to 

approval by the Committee. 

Human resources.—The Committee requests a report within 60 

days of enactment regarding the DHHS human resource consolidation including: total FDA obligations; an update on the performance metrics specified in the service level agreement between FDA 

and DHHS; a description of any cases in which the performance 

measures were not met during fiscal year 2005, and the resolution 

82 

of those cases; and a list of the DHHS operating divisions that are 

participating in the consolidation. 

Consolidation.—The Committee directs DHHS to include all future consolidations that impact FDA in the President’s budget request submitted to Congress. 

Fees.—The Committee directs that none of the funds made available to FDA in this bill be for any assessments, fees, or charges by 

DHHS or any other Department or Office unless such assessments, 

fees, or charges are identified in the FDA budget justification and 

expressly provided by Congress, or approved by Congress in the official reprogramming process as required in the General Provisions 

of this bill. 

Shellfish safety.—The Committee expects that FDA will continue 

its work with the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Commission 

(ISSC) to promote educational and research activities related to 

shellfish safety in general, and Vibrio vulnificus in particular. The 

Committee directs the use of not less than $250,000 for this effort. 

In addition, the Committee expects that FDA will continue its work 

with ISSC through a memorandum of understanding, and that 

FDA will devote not less than $200,000 to that work. The Committee expects the FDA to require all states to work cooperatively 

in conformity with the National Shellfish Sanitation Program implemented by the ISSC. 

Food safety.—The Committee recognizes the contributions which 

the National Center for Food Safety and Technology (NCFST) is 

making toward ensuring the security of the nation’s food supply. The Committee directs that FDA continue to provide $3,000,000 to 

NCFST through the cooperative agreement. The $3,000,000 in 

funding shall be exclusive of any additional initiative funds that 

FDA may award to NCFST. 

Test method evaluation.—The Committee directs that the agency 

continue its contract to conduct method evaluation of rapid test 

methods of fresh fruits and vegetables for microbiological pathogens with New Mexico State University’s Physical Science Laboratory at the fiscal year 2005 level. 

WERC.—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 the fiscal year 2005 level. 

Antibiotics in shrimp imports.—The Committee continues to have 

serious concerns regarding seafood safety issues posed by banned 

antibiotic contamination in farm-raised shrimp imports. It is the 

Committee’s understanding that FDA is now using testing methods 

that detect chloramphenicol at 0.3 parts per billion, rather than 1 

part per billion. The Committee recommends that the FDA, in cooperation with any state testing programs, continue testing of 

farm-raised shrimp imports for chloramphenicol and other related 

harmful antibiotics used in the aquaculture industry and ensure 

that any adulterated shrimp that tests positive for chloramphenicol 

or other banned antibiotics will be destroyed or exported from the 

United States. The Committee requests a report by March 1, 2006, 

on the number of shrimp samples tested for antibiotics, and the 

number of positive tests for chloramphenicol in fiscal years 2004, 

2005 and to date in 2006. 

83 

Food Labels.—The Committee is interested in ensuring that the 

public can be certain that the Nutrition Facts panel on food products reflects accurate, lawful and factual nutritional information, 

particularly as it relates to the New Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005. Given the important nature of the information provided 

on the food label, the Committee is concerned that consumers may 

be faced with illegal low calorie claims, healthy claims and heart 

health claims. Additionally, there may be product names that violate the standards of identity for particular products. Consumers 

need to know that they can trust the accuracy of food labels. The 

Committee, therefore, directs the Agency to systematically examine 

Nutrition Facts labels, and report to the Committee by February 

1, 2006, with a summary of the types of labeling violations discovered, and the actions taken to address such violations. 

Regulation development.—The Committee understands that FDA 

and FSIS are working on rules related to sausage casings and the 

small intestine of cattle. The Committee is concerned about the 

availability of this material, which has not been categorized as a 

specified risk material. The Committee directs the agency to proceed on rulemaking in a timely manner, and to report to the Committee within 30 days of enactment on the regulatory status of sausage casings/small intestines and on related guidance for the Field 

force. 

Hearing on budget request.—The Committee has taken the step 

of withholding five percent of the funds provided to the central offices at FDA until there is a public hearing with the head of the 

agency on the fiscal year 2006 budget request. The Committee appreciates the willingness of the agency’s head to present the budget 

request in March 2005, and regrets that the administration insisted on postponing his scheduled appearance. The Committee 

wants to make it clear to the administration that it will insist on 

a hearing with the agency’s head before providing it the funds requested in the budget. 

Direct to consumer advertising.—The Committee provides an increase of $884,000 for the review of direct-to-consumer drug ads. 

Because staff levels for these activities, under the Division of Drug 

Marketing, Advertising and Communication in the Center for Drug 

Evaluation and Research in FDA, have remained flat for some 

time, despite the growth of direct to consumer ads, the Committee 

believes this increase is needed. 

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. - - - 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... $7,000,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 5,000,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... +5,000,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥2,000,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Buildings and Facilities of the Food and Drug Administration, the Committee provides $5,000,000. 

84 

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

2005 appropriation ............................................................................. $93,572,000 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... 99,386,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 98,386,000 

Comparison: 

2005 appropriation ...................................................................... +4,814,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥1,000,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Committee 

provides an appropriation of $98,386,000, an increase of $4,814,000 

above the amount available for fiscal year 2005 and a decrease of 

$1,000,000 below the budget request. 

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

2004 limitation .................................................................................... ($42,350,000) 

2006 budget estimate ......................................................................... - - - 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. (44,250,000) 

Comparison: 

2004 limitation ............................................................................ +1,900,000 

2006 budget estimate .................................................................. +44,250,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For a limitation on the expenses of the Farm Credit Administration, the Committee provides $44,250,000, an increase of 

$1,900,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2005 and an 

increase of $44,250,000 above the budget request. 

(85) 

TITLE VII—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

The General Provisions contained in the accompanying bill for 

fiscal year 2005 are fundamentally the same as those included in 

last year’s appropriations bill. 

Section 719: Language is included to prohibit funds from being 

used to carry out the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food 

Systems. 

Section 722: Language is included that provides $2,500,000 for a 

hunger fellowship program. 

Section 723: Language is included that provides that any balances available to carry out Title III of the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, and any recoveries and reimbursements that become available, may be used to carry out 

Title II of such Act. Funds were last appropriated for Title III programming in FY 2000. However, there are Title III balances remaining of less than $500,000. This provision allows remaining 

Title III account balances to be used for Title II programming since 

no new Title III programming is anticipated. This provision will 

allow the use of remaining Title III balances for Title II even 

though Section 412 of P.L. 480 provides that only 50 percent of the 

funds available for Title III may be used to carry out Title II. 

Section 724: Language is included that amends Section 

375(e)(6)(B) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act 

regarding the National Sheep Industry Improvement Center revolving fund. 

Section 725: Language is included that allows the use of section 

416(b) commodities to be used in mitigating the effects of HIV/ 

AIDS. 

Section 726: Language is included that provides that the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service shall provide assistance to certain 

locations under the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations 

program. 

Section 727: Language is included that provides that no funds 

may be transferred to any department, agency, or instrumentality 

of the United States Government, except pursuant to a transfer 

made by, or transfer authority provided in, this Act or any other 

appropriation Act. 

Section 728: Language is included that allows funds to be used 

to carry out a competitive grants program. 

Section 729: Language is included that limits the dam rehabilitation program. 

Section 730: Language is included that limits the rural strategic 

investment program. 

Section 731: Language is included that allows for unobligated 

funds to reimburse the Office of the General Counsel for certain expenses. 

86 

Section 732: Language is included that limits the rural firefighters and emergency personnel grant program. 

Section 733: Language is included regarding costs associated 

with the distribution of commodities. 

Section 734: Language is included that limits the wetlands reserve program. 

Section 735: Language is included that limits the environmental 

quality incentives program. 

Section 736: Language is included that limits the renewable energy program. 

Section 737: Language is included that limits the broadband program. 

Section 738: Language is included that allows for reimbursement 

of the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust. 

Section 739: Language is included that limits the value-added 

market development grant program. 

Section 740: Language is included that ensures that sufficient 

funds are available to pay the subsidy costs for note guarantees for 

certain rural electric programs. 

Section 741: Language is included that limits the conservation 

security program. 

Section 742: Language is included that limits the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program. 

Section 743: Language is included that limits the Farm and 

Ranch Lands Protection Program. 

Section 744: Language is included that limits the Rural Business 

Investment Program. 

Section 745: Language is included that provides that none of the 

funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act shall 

be used to violate P.L. 105–264. 

Section 746: Language is included that limits the Ground and 

Surface Water Conservation Program. 

Section 747: Language is included related to final rulemaking on 

cost-sharing for APHIS animal and plant health emergency programs. 

Section 748: Language is included related to competitive sourcing 

related to rural development and farm loan programs. 

Section 749: Language is included related to the leasing of aircraft to carry out certain APHIS activities. 

Section 750: Language is included that limits the Bioenergy Program. 

Section 751: Language is included allowing the use of funds for 

certain purposes. 

Section 752: Language is included regarding the availability of 

funds for certain conservation programs. 

Section 753: Language is included regarding WIC-only vendors. 

Section 754: Language is included regarding a grant. 

Section 755: Language is included that limits the Agricultural 

Management Assistance Program. 

Section 756: Language is included that limits the Biomass Research and Development Program. 

Section 757: Language is included regarding the disposal of certain federal facilities in Phoenix, AZ. 

87 

Section 758: Language is included regarding the recertification of 

rural status. 

Section 759: Language is included regarding country of origin labeling for meat or meat products. 

Section 760: Language is included regarding the rural designation of certain communities. 

Section 761: Language is included regarding citrus canker compensation. 

Section 762: Language is included extending eligibility for certain 

counties for the rural community advancement program. 

Section 763: Language is included regarding a rescission in the 

WIC contingency reserve. 

Section 764: The purpose of Section 508(e)(3) of the Federal Crop 

Insurance Act is to allow insurance providers to compete with premium discounts, while maintaining the financial soundness of approved insurance providers and the integrity of the Federal crop insurance program. Preliminary information from the initial experience with the program creates doubt about maintaining the integrity of the Federal crop insurance program. This Amendment would 

provide time for an independent analysis of the program and the 

regulatory resources required by USDA to satisfy the statutory requirements. It would give the authorizing committees time to 

evaluate the premium discounting program and make proper adjustments in the law before it is expanded. Existing 2005 policies 

would continue in force for the farmers who have purchased such 

policies and could be serviced by the company who sold such policies. Thus, no existing policyholder or existing approved insurance 

provider would be jeopardized for policies in place in the 2005 crop 

insurance year. 

Section 765: Language is included regarding the prohibition of 

funds for certain FDA activities. 

Section 766: Language is included that relates to government 

sponsored news stories. Section 767: The Committee includes $7,000,000 for a specialty 

crops competitiveness program. 

(88) 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS 

The following items are included in accordance with various requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives states that: 

Each report of a committee on a bill or joint resolution 

of a public character, shall include a statement citing the 

specific powers granted to the Congress in the Constitution 

to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint resolution. 

The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to report 

this legislation from Clause 7 of Section 9 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States of America which states: 

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of Appropriations made by law * * * 

Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to this 

specific power granted by the Constitution. 

TRANSFER OF FUNDS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following statement is submitted describing 

the transfer of funds provided in the accompanying bill. 

1. Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments.— The bill allows funds to be transferred to cover the costs of new or 

replacement space. 

2. Hazardous Materials Management.—The bill allows the funds 

appropriated to the Department for hazardous materials management to be transferred to agencies of the Department as required. 

3. Departmental Administration.—The bill requires reimbursement for expenses related to certain hearings. 

4. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations.— The bill allows a portion of the funds appropriated to the Office of 

the Assistant Secretary to be transferred to agencies. 

5. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.—Authority is included to enable the Secretary of Agriculture to transfer from other 

appropriations or funds of the Department such sums as may be 

necessary to combat emergency outbreaks of certain diseases of 

animals, plants, and poultry. 

6. Agricultural Marketing Service.—The bill limits the transfer of 

section 32 funds to purposes specified in the bill. 

7. Farm Service Agency.—The bill provides that funds provided 

to other accounts in the agency may be merged with the salaries 

and expenses account of the Farm Service Agency. 

8. Dairy Indemnity Program.—The bill authorizes the transfer of 

funds to the Commodity Credit Corporation, by reference. 

89 

9. Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund.—The bill provides that 

funds from the account shall be transferred to the Farm Service 

Agency salaries and expenses account, and that funds may be 

transferred among lending programs. 

10. Rural Community Advancement Program.—The bill provides 

that prior year balances for high cost energy grants shall be transferred to and merged with the High Energy Costs Grants Account. 

11. Rural Development Salaries and Expenses.—The bill provides 

that prior year balances from certain accounts shall be transferred 

to and merged with this account. 

12. Rural Housing Insurance Fund program account; Rural Development Loan Fund program account; Rural Electrification and 

Telecommunications Loans program account; and Rural Telephone 

Bank program account.—The bill provides that administrative 

funds shall be transferred to the Rural Development Salaries and 

Expenses Account. 

13. Child Nutrition Programs.—The bill includes authority to 

transfer section 32 funds to these programs. 

14. Foreign Agricultural Service.—The bill allows for the transfer 

of funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation Export Loan Program Account and from the Public Law 480 Program Account. 

15. Public Law 480 Title I Program Account.—The bill allows 

funds to be transferred to the Foreign Agricultural Service, Salaries and Expenses account. 

16. Public Law 480 Title I Ocean Freight Differential Grants.—

The bill provides that funds made available for the cost of title I 

agreements and for title I ocean freight differential may be used 

interchangeably. 

17. Commodity Credit Corporation Export Loans Program.—The 

bill provides for transfer of funds to the Foreign Agricultural Service and to the Farm Service Agency for overhead expenses associated with credit reform. 

18. Food and Drug Administration, Salaries and Expenses.—The 

bill allows funds to be transferred among activities. 

CHANGES IN THE APPLICATION OF EXISTING LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(A) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the following statements are submitted 

describing the effect of provisions in the accompanying bill which 

directly or indirectly change the application of existing law. In most 

instances, these provisions have been included in prior appropriations bills, often at the request of or with the knowledge and consent of the responsible legislative committees. 

Language is included in various parts of the bill to continue ongoing activities of those Federal agencies which require annual authorization or additional legislation which to date has not been enacted. 

Language is included in the bill in several accounts that earmarks funds for empowerment zones and enterprise communities 

as authorized by title XIII of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 

Act of 1995. 

The bill includes a number of provisions which place limitations 

on the use of funds in the bill or change existing limitations and 

90 

which might, under some circumstances, be construed as changing 

the application of existing law: 

1. Office of the Secretary.—Language is included to limit the 

amount of funds for official reception and representation expenses, 

as determined by the Secretary. 

2. Common Computing Environment.—Language is included to 

provide that obligation of funds shall be consistent with the Service 

Center Modernization Plan, and with the concurrence of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

3. Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments.— Language is included that allows for the reconfiguration and release of space back into the General Services Administration inventory in order to reduce space rental cost for space not needed for 

USDA programs. 

4. Departmental Administration.—Language is included to reimburse the agency for travel expenses incident to the holding of 

hearings. 

5. Agricultural Research Service.—Language is included that allows the Agricultural Research Service to grant easements at the 

Beltsville, MD agricultural research center. 

6. Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service.—The bill includes language that prohibits funds from being 

used to carry out research related to the production, processing or 

marketing of tobacco or tobacco products. 

7. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.—A provision carried in the bill since fiscal year 1973 regarding state matching 

funds has been continued to assure more effective operation of the 

brucellosis control program through state cost sharing, with resulting savings to the Federal budget. 

Language is included to allow APHIS to recoup expenses incurred from providing technical assistance goods, or services to 

non-APHIS personnel, and to allow transfers of funds for Agricultural emergencies. 

8. Agricultural Marketing Service.—The bill includes language 

that allows the Secretary to charge user fees for AMS activity related to preparation of standards. 

9. Agricultural Marketing Service, Limitation on Administrative 

Expenses.—The bill includes language to allow AMS to exceed the 

limitation on administrative expenses by 10 percent with notification to the Appropriations Committees. This allows flexibility in 

case crop size is understated and/or other uncontrollable events 

occur. 

10. Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, Inspection and Weighing Services.—The bill includes authority to exceed the limitation on inspection and weighing services by 10 percent with notification to the Appropriations Committees. This allows for flexibility if export activities require additional supervision 

and oversight, or other uncontrollable factors occur. 

11. Dairy Indemnity Program.—Language is included by reference that allows the Secretary to utilize the services of the Commodity Credit Corporation for the purpose of making dairy indemnity payments. 

12. Risk Management Agency.—Language is included to limit the 

amount of funds for official reception and representation expenses. 

91 

13. Commodity Credit Corporation Fund.—Language is included 

to provide for the reimbursement appropriation. Language is also 

included which limits the amount of funds that can be spent on operation and maintenance costs of CCC hazardous waste sites. 

14. Natural Resources Conservation Service—Conservation Operations.—Language which has been included in the bill since 1938 

prohibits construction of buildings on land not owned by the government, although construction on land owned by states and counties is authorized by basic law. 

15. Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations.—Language 

which was included in the Emergency Jobs Bill of 1983 (P.L. 98– 8) and all bills since 1984 provides that funds may be used for rehabilitation of existing works. 

16. Rural Housing Service—Rental Assistance Program.—Language is included which provides that agreements entered into during the current fiscal year be funded for a four-year period. 

17. Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loan program 

account.—Language is included to allow borrowers’ interest rates 

for loans to exceed seven percent. 

18. Child Nutrition Programs.—Language is included to prohibit 

funds from being used for studies and evaluations. 

19. Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, 

and Children (WIC).—Language is included to: provide funds for a 

breastfeeding support initiative; prohibit funds from being used for 

studies and evaluations; pay administrative expenses of clinics except those that have an announced policy prohibiting smoking 

within the space used to carry out the program; purchase infant 

formula except in accordance with law; or pay for activities that are 

not fully reimbursed by other departments or agencies unless authorized by law. 

20. Food Stamp Program.—Language is included to prohibit 

funds from being used for studies and evaluations. 

21. Foreign Agricultural Service.—Language carried since 1979 

enables this agency to use funds received by an advance or by reimbursement to carry out its activities involving international development and technical cooperation. Language is included to limit 

the amount of funds for official reception and representation expenses. Language is included to allow certain funds transferred 

from the Commodity Credit Corporation to be used for information 

resource management. 

22. Commodity Futures Trading Commission.—Language is included to limit the amount of funds for official reception and representation expenses. 

23. General Provisions.—

Section 704: This provision, carried since 1976, is again included which provides that certain appropriations in this Act 

shall remain available until expended where the programs or 

projects involved are continuing in nature under the provisions 

of authorizing legislation, but for which such legislation may 

not specifically provide for extended availability. This authority 

tends to result in savings by preventing the wasteful practice 

often found in government of rushing to commit funds at the 

end of the fiscal year without due regard to the value of the 

purpose for which the funds are used. Such extended availVerDate Aug 04 2004 21:47 Jun 06, 2005 Jkt 021547 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102
92 

ability is also essential in view of the long lead time frequently 

required to negotiate agreements or contracts which normally 

extend over a period of more than one year. Under these conditions such authority is commonly provided in Appropriations 

Acts where omitted from basic law. These provisions have been 

carried through the years in this Act to facilitate efficient and 

effective program execution and to assure maximum savings. 

They involve the following items: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the contingency fund to meet emergency conditions, information technology infrastructure, the boll weevil 

program, up to 25 percent of the screwworm program, up to 

$33,340,000 for an animal identification program, up to 

$8,000,000 for avian influenza-related indemnities, up to 

$1,500,000 for scrapie-related indemnities, fruit fly program, 

emerging plant pests, up to $1,000,000 for Wildlife Services 

aviation safety, and up to $3,009,000 for a vaccine bank; Food 

Safety and Inspection Service, field automation and information management project; Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, funds for competitive research 

grants; Farm Service Agency, salaries and expenses to county 

committees; Foreign Agricultural Service, middle-income country training program and up to $1,565,000 for foreign currency 

fluctuations. 

Section 707: This provision limits, to $50,000, the level of 

funds that are available to provide appropriate orientation and 

language. 

Section 709: This provision, added in 1987, provides that 

none of the funds in this Act may be used to restrict the authority of CCC to lease space. This provision allows CCC to 

continue to lease space at a lower cost than space leased by 

GSA. 

Section 710: This provision provides that none of the funds 

in this Act may be made available to pay indirect costs charged 

against competitive agricultural research, education, or extension grants awarded by the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service in excess of 20 percent of total 

direct costs, except for grants available under the Small Business Innovation and Development Act. 

Section 711: This provision clarifies that loan levels provided 

in the Act are to be considered estimates and not limitations. 

The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 provides that the appropriated subsidy is the controlling factor for the amount of 

loans made and that as lifetime costs and interest rates 

change, the amount of loan authority will fluctuate. 

Section 712: This provision allows funds made available in 

the current fiscal year for the Rural Development Loan Fund 

program account; Rural Telephone Bank program account; the 

Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans program 

account; and the Rural Housing Insurance Fund program account to remain available until expended. The Credit Reform 

Act requires that the lifetime costs of loans be appropriated. 

Current law requires that funds unexpended after five years 

expire. The life of some loans extends well beyond the five-year 

93 

period and this provision allows funds appropriated to remain 

available until the loans are closed out. 

Section 713: Provides that of the funds made available, not 

more than $1,800,000 shall be used to cover expenses of activities related to all advisory committees, panels, commissions, 

and task forces of the Department of Agriculture except for 

panels used to comply with negotiated rule makings and panels used to evaluate competitively awarded grants. 

Section 714: Provides that none of the funds may be used to 

carry out certain provisions of meat and poultry inspection 

acts. 

Section 715: This provision prohibits any employee of the Department of Agriculture from being detailed or assigned to any 

other agency or office of the Department for more than 30 days 

unless the individual’s employing agency or office is fully reimbursed by the receiving agency or office for the salary and expenses of the employee for the period of assignment. 

Section 716: This provision prohibits the Department of Agriculture from transmitting or making available to any non-Department of Agriculture or the Food and Drug Administration 

employee questions or responses to questions that are a result 

of information requested for the appropriations hearing process. 

Section 717: Language is included that requires approval of 

the Chief Information Officer and the concurrence of the Executive Information Technology Investment Review Board for acquisition of new information technology systems or significant 

upgrades, and that prohibits the transfer of funds to the Office 

of the Chief Information Officer without the notification of the 

Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress. 

Section 718: Language is included that requires certain reprogramming procedures of funds provided in Appropriations 

Acts. 

Section 719: Language is included to prohibit funds from 

being used to carry out the Initiative for Future Agriculture 

and Food Systems. 

Section 720: Language is included that prohibits funds from 

being used to prepare a budget submission to Congress that assumes reductions from the previous year’s budget due to user 

fee proposals unless the submission also identifies spending reductions which should occur if the user fees are not enacted. 

Section 721: Language is included that provides that no 

funds may be used to close or relocate a state Rural Development office unless or until cost effectiveness and enhancement 

of program delivery have been determined. 

Section 722: Language is included that provides $2,500,000 

for a hunger fellowship program. 

Section 723: Language is included that provides that any 

balances available to carry out Title III of the Agricultural 

Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, and any recoveries and reimbursements that become available, may be used 

to carry out Title II of such Act. Funds were last appropriated 

for Title III programming in FY 2000. However, there are Title 

III balances remaining of less than $500,000. This provision alVerDate Aug 04 2004 21:47 Jun 06, 2005 Jkt 021547 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102
94 

lows remaining Title III account balances to be used for Title 

II programming since no new Title III programming is anticipated. This provision will allow the use of remaining Title III 

balances for Title II even though Section 412 of P.L. 480 provides that only 50 percent of the funds available for Title III 

may be used to carry out Title II. 

Section 724: Language is included that amends Section 

375(e)(6)(B) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 

Act regarding the National Sheep Industry Improvement Center revolving fund. 

Section 725: Language is included that allows the use of section 416(b) commodities to be used in mitigating the effects of 

HIV/AIDS. 

Section 726: Language is included that Natural Resources 

Conservation Service shall provide certain assistance to certain 

locations under the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations program. 

Section 727: Language is included that provides that no 

funds may be transferred to any other entity except pursuant 

to authority provided in an appropriation Act. 

Section 728: Language is included that allows funds to be 

used to carry out a competitive grants program. 

Section 729: Language is included that limits the dam rehabilitation program. 

Section 730: Language is included that limits the rural strategic investment program. 

Section 731: Language is included that allows for unobligated funds to reimburse the Office of the General Counsel for 

certain expenses. 

Section 732: Language is included that limits the rural firefighters and emergency personnel grant program. 

Section 733: Language is included regarding costs associated 

with the distribution of commodities. 

Section 734: Language is included that limits the wetlands 

reserve program. 

Section 735: Language is included that limits the environmental quality incentives program. 

Section 736: Language is included that limits the renewable 

energy program. 

Section 737: Language is included that limits the broadband 

program. 

Section 738: Language is included that allows for reimbursement of the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust. 

Section 739: Language is included that limits the valueadded market development grant program. 

Section 740: Language is included that ensures that sufficient funds are available to pay the subsidy costs for note guarantees for certain rural electric programs. 

Section 741: Language is included that limits the conservation security program. 

Section 742: Language is included that limits the Wildlife 

Habitat Incentive Program. 

Section 743: Language is included that limits the Farm and 

Ranch Lands Protection Program. 

95 

Section 744: Language is included that limits the Rural 

Business Investment Program. 

Section 745: Language is included that provides that none of 

the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act 

shall be used to violate P.L. 105–264. 

Section 746. Language is included that limits the Ground 

and Surface Water Conservation Program. 

Section 747: Language is included related to final rulemaking on cost-sharing for APHIS animal and plant health 

emergency programs. 

Section 748: Language is included related to competitive 

sourcing related to rural development or farm loan programs. 

Section 749: Language is included related to the leasing of 

aircraft to carry out certain APHIS activities. 

Section 750: Language is included that limits the Bioenergy 

Program. 

Section 751: Language is included allowing the use of funds 

for certain purposes. 

Section 752: Language is included regarding the availability 

of funds for certain conservation programs. 

Section 753: Language is included regarding WIC-only vendors. 

Section 754: Language is included regarding a grant. 

Section 755: Language is included that limits the Agricultural Management Assistance Program. 

Section 756: Language is included that limits the Biomass 

Research and Development Program. 

Section 757: Language is included regarding the disposal of 

certain federal facilities in Phoenix, AZ. 

Section 758: Language is included regarding the recertification of rural status. 

Section 759: Language is included regarding country of origin labeling for meat or meat products. 

Section 760: Language is included regarding the rural designation of certain communities. 

Section 761: Language is included regarding citrus canker 

compensation. 

Section 762: Language is included extending eligiblity for 

certain counties for the rural community advancement program. 

Section 763: Language is included regarding a rescission in 

the WIC contingency reserve. 

Section 764: The purpose of Section 508(e)(3) of the Federal 

Crop Insurance Act is to allow insurance providers to compete 

with premium discounts, while maintaining the financial 

soundness of approved insurance providers and the integrity of 

the Federal crop insurance program. Preliminary information 

from the initial experience with the program creates doubt 

about maintaining the integrity of the Federal crop insurance 

program. This Amendment would provide time for an independent analysis of the program and the regulatory resources 

required by USDA to satisfy the statutory requirements. It 

would give the authorizing committees time to evaluate the 

premium discounting program and make proper adjustments 

96 

in the law before it is expanded. Existing 2005 policies would 

continue in force for the farmers who have purchased such 

policies and could be serviced by the company who sold such 

policies. Thus, no existing policyholder or existing approved insurance provider would be jeopardized for policies in place in 

the 2005 crop insurance year. 

Section 765: Language is included regarding the prohibition 

of funds for certain FDA activities. 

Section 766: Language is included that relates to government 

sponsored news stories. 

Section 767: The Committee includes $7,000,000 for a specialty crops competitiveness program. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is a statement of general performance goals and objectives for which this measure authorizes funding: 

The Committee on Appropriations considers program performance, including a program’s success in developing and attaining 

outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing funding recommendations. 

COMPLIANCE WITH CLAUSE 3(e) OF RULE XIII (RAMSEYER RULE) 

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

SECTION 375 OF THE CONSOLIDATED FARM AND RURAL 

DEVELOPMENT ACT 

SEC. 375. NATIONAL SHEEP INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT CENTER. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(e) REVOLVING FUND.—

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(6) FUNDING.—

(A) * * * 

(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¿ $28,498,000 to carry out this section. 

* * * * * * * 

97 

SECTION 723 OF THE AGRICULTURE, RURAL, DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005 

(Division A of Public Law 108–7) 

SEC. 721. In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated or made 

available by this Act, $2,500,000 is appropriated for the purpose of 

providing Bill Emerson and Mickey Leland Hunger Fellowshipsø, 

as authorized by section 4404 of Public Law 107–171 (2 U.S.C. 

1161)¿ through the Congressional Hunger Center. 

* * * * * * * 

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(B) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the following table lists the appropriations in the accompanying bill which are not authorized by law: 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Program and last year of authorization Authorization level 

Appropriations in 

last year of authorization 

Appropriations in 

this bill 

Grain Standards and Warehouse Improvement Act of 2000; P.L. 

106–472, Sec. 306 

Farm Service Agency: 

State Agricultural Mediation Program: 

FY 2005 ................................................................................ $7,500 3,968 4,250 

Grain Standards and Warehouse Improvement Act of 2000; P.L. 

106–472, Sec. 108 

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration: 

United States Grain Standards Act: 

FY 2005 ................................................................................ Such sums as 

necessary 

42,000 42,000 

Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000; P.L. 106–224, Sec. 121 

Risk Management Agency: 

Program Compliance and Integrity: 

FY 2005 ................................................................................ From amounts 

available from 

the FCIC fund, 

no more than 

$23,000 

1,800 3,600 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission .......................................... Indefinite $93,572 $98,386 

RESCISSIONS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following information is submitted describing the rescissions recommended in the accompanying bill: 

The bill proposes rescissions of $18,877,000 of funds derived from 

interest on the cushion of credit payments in fiscal year 2006 under 

the Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account, which is 

an annual technical adjustment contained in the budget estimates; 

$2,500,000 from the Rural Telephone Bank Liquidating Account; 

and $32,000,000 from the WIC Contingency reserve. 

98 

COMPARISON WITH BUDGET RESOLUTION

Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an explanation of compliance with section 

308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control 

Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–344), as amended, which requires that 

the report accompanying a bill providing new budget authority contain a statement detailing how that authority compares with the 

reports submitted under section 302 of the Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal 

year from the Committee’s section 302(a) allocation. This information follows: 

[In millions of dollars] 

Full committee data 

302(b) allocation This bill 

Budget 

authority Outlays Budget authority Outlays 

Comparison with Budget Resolution: 

Discretionary ......................................................................... $16,832 $18,691 $16,832 $18,552 

Mandatory ............................................................................. 69,535 50,456 69,535 50,456 

FIVE-YEAR OUTLAY PROJECTIONS

In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the Congressional 

Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93– 344), as amended, the following table contains five-year projections 

associated with the budget authority provided in the accompanying 

bill: 

[Five year projections, in millions of dollars] 

Outlays: 

2006 .............................................................................................. 57,096 

2007 .............................................................................................. 14,801 

2008 .............................................................................................. 884 

2009 .............................................................................................. 563 

2010 and beyond .......................................................................... 732 

ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the Congressional 

Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93– 344), as amended, the financial assistance to state and local governments is as follows: 

[In millions of dollars] 

New budget authority ........................................................................ 24,250 

Fiscal year 2006 outlays resulting therefrom .................................. 20,406 

PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY

During fiscal year 2006 for purposes of the Balanced Budget and 

Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99–177), the 

following information provides the definition of the term ‘‘program, 

project, and activity’’ for departments and agencies under the jurisdiction of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee. The term ‘‘program, project, and activity’’ shall include the most specific level of 

budget items identified in the Agriculture, Rural Development, 

Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies AppropriaVerDate Aug 04 2004 21:47 Jun 06, 2005 Jkt 021547 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102
99 

tions Act of 2006, the House and Senate Committee reports, and 

the conference report and accompanying joint explanatory statement of the managers of the committee of conference. 

If a Sequestration Order is necessary, in implementing the required Presidential Order, departments and agencies shall apply 

any percentage reduction for fiscal year 2006 pursuant to the provisions of Public Law 99–177 to all items specified in the explanatory 

notes submitted to the Committees on Appropriations of the House 

and Senate in support of the fiscal year 2006 budget estimates, as 

amended, for such departments and agencies, as modified by congressional action, and in addition: 

For the Agricultural Research Service the definition shall include 

specific research locations as identified in the explanatory notes 

and lines of research specifically identified in the reports of the 

House and Senate Appropriations Committees. 

For the Natural Resources Conservation Service the definition 

shall include individual flood prevention projects as identified in 

the explanatory notes and individual operational watershed 

projects as summarized in the notes. 

For the Farm Service Agency the definition shall include individual state, district, and county offices. 

(100) 

FULL COMMITTEE VOTES

Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House 

of Representatives, the results of each roll call vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with the names of those 

voting for and those voting against, are printed below: 

ROLLCALL NO. 1

Date: May 25, 2005. 

Measure: Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 2006. 

Motion by: Mr. Hinchey. 

Description of Motion: To allow the Food and Drug Administration to require companies to conduct post-marketing studies of 

FDA-approved drugs, and to allow the Food and Drug Administration to require changes to the labels of FDA-approved drugs. 

Results: Rejected 25 yeas to 31 nays. 

Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay 

Mr. Berry Mr. Aderholt 

Mr. Bishop Mr. Alexander 

Mr. Clyburn Mr. Bonilla 

Mr. Cramer Mr. Carter 

Ms. DeLauro Mr. Crenshaw 

Mr. Dicks Mr. Culberson 

Mr. Edwards Mr. Doolittle 

Mr. Farr Mr. Frelinghuysen 

Mr. Fattah Mr. Goode 

Mr. Hinchey Ms. Granger 

Mr. Jackson Mr. Hobson 

Ms. Kaptur Mr. Istook 

Mr. Kennedy Mr. Kingston 

Ms. Kilpatrick Mr. Kirk 

Mrs. Lowey Mr. Knollenberg 

Mr. Moran Mr. Kolbe 

Mr. Obey Mr. LaHood 

Mr. Olver Mr. Latham 

Mr. Pastor Mr. Lewis 

Mr. Price Mr. Peterson 

Ms. Roybal-Allard Mr. Regula 

Mr. Sabo Mr. Rehberg 

Mr. Serrano Mr. Sherwood 

Mr. Visclosky Mr. Simpson 

Mr. Wolf Mr. Sweeney 

Mr. Tiahrt 

Mr. Walsh 

Mr. Wamp 

Dr. Weldon 

Mr. Wicker 

Mr. Young 

(101) 

FULL COMMITTEE VOTES

Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House 

of Representatives, the results of each roll call vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with the names of those 

voting for and those voting against, are printed below: 

ROLLCALL NO. 2

Date: May 25, 2005. 

Measure: Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 2006. 

Motion by: Mr. Jackson. 

Description of Motion: To provide an additional $392,906,000, 

provided that such amount is designated as an emergency requirement, for commodities supplied in connection with dispositions 

abroad under title II of the Agricultural Trade and Development 

and Assistance Act of 1954. 

Results: Rejected 24 yeas to 29 nays. 

Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay 

Mr. Berry Mr. Aderholt 

Mr. Bishop Mr. Alexander 

Mr. Clyburn Mr. Bonilla 

Mr. Cramer Mr. Carter 

Ms. DeLauro Mr. Crenshaw 

Mr. Dicks Mr. Culberson 

Mr. Edwards Mr. Doolittle 

Mr. Fattah Mr. Frelinghuysen 

Mr. Hinchey Ms. Granger 

Mr. Jackson Mr. Hobson 

Ms. Kaptur Mr. Istook 

Mr. Kennedy Mr. Kingston 

Ms. Kilpatrick Mr. Kirk 

Mrs. Lowey Mr. Knollenberg 

Mr. Mollohan Mr. Kolbe 

Mr. Moran Mr. LaHood 

Mr. Obey Mr. Latham 

Mr. Olver Mr. Lewis 

Mr. Pastor Mr. Peterson 

Mr. Rothman Mr. Regula 

Ms. Roybal-Allard Mr. Rehberg 

Mr. Sabo Mr. Rogers 

Mr. Serrano Mr. Sherwood 

Mr. Visclosky Mr. Simpson 

Mr. Sweeney 

Mr. Walsh 

Mr. Wamp 

Mr. Wicker 

Mr. Young 

102 


Insert offset folio 013 here HR102.011
103 


Insert offset folio 014 here HR102.012
104 


Insert offset folio 015 here HR102.013
105 


Insert offset folio 016 here HR102.014
106 


Insert offset folio 017 here HR102.015
107 


Insert offset folio 018 here HR102.016
108 


Insert offset folio 019 here HR102.017
109 


Insert offset folio 020 here HR102.018
110 


Insert offset folio 021 here HR102.019
111 


Insert offset folio 022 here HR102.020
112 


Insert offset folio 023 here HR102.021
113 


Insert offset folio 024 here HR102.022
114 


Insert offset folio 025 here HR102.023
115 


Insert offset folio 026 here HR102.024
116 


Insert offset folio 027 here HR102.025
117 


Insert offset folio 028 here HR102.026
118 


Insert offset folio 029 here HR102.027
119 


Insert offset folio 030 here HR102.028
120 


Insert offset folio 031 here HR102.029
121 


Insert offset folio 031 here HR102.030
122 


Insert offset folio 032 here HR102.031
123 


Insert offset folio 033 here HR102.032
124 


Insert offset folio 034 here HR102.033
(125) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

The funding allocation for this bill provided only $93 million 

more than the 2006 budget request. This brings the funding level 

up just to last year’s level. 

While this bill is an improvement over the President’s budget request, there are a number of key funding shortfalls in the bill and 

important policy issues that should be brought to the attention of 

our colleagues and the public 

Food and Drug Administration. While there are numerous important questions about FDA that need answers, the subcommittee 

was hampered in getting answers this year by the administration’s 

decision to stop Acting Commissioner Crawford from testifying on 

the budget, purportedly because of his pending nomination to become the Commissioner. 

It is essential that the subcommittee hear from the head of this 

agency. To make this absolutely clear to the administration, Rep. 

DeLauro proposed an amendment to hold back five percent of the 

funding for the leadership offices at FDA until a hearing with the 

Commissioner or Acting Commissioner is held. We applaud the 

subcommittee’s unanimous adoption of this amendment and urge 

the administration to take notice. 

But important issues involving FDA cannot be ignored while we 

wait for a hearing. One basic issue is whether FDA has the authorities it needs to protect public health. The public was shocked 

to learn that FDA lacks any real authority to make a company 

change a label or to order a company to conduct a safety study of 

a drug already on the market when concerns are raised. 

To address these problems, Rep. Hinchey offered an amendment 

in committee to give FDA labeling and post-market study authorities. 

Although the amendment was supported by all the Democratic 

Members present and by one Republican, it was defeated, 25–31. 

Two funding amendments adopted in Committee at the request 

of Rep. DeLauro will help FDA’s drug safety work: 

• The Committee agreed to double the funding for the small 

office at FDA that reviews direct-to-consumer drug advertisements. While drug companies now spend billions of dollars a 

year on drug ads, staffing for the office has remained flat for 

years, and an increase was long overdue. 

• The Committee agreed to include an additional $5 million 

for drug safety activities at FDA. These funds, too, are badly 

needed, and this is a step in the right direction. 

Because of our concerns about other problems with the FDA 

budget, we looked closely at how FDA is handling its existing resources. This brought troublesome questions about its priorities 

and management to light. Here are some examples: 

126 

• FDA has spent $19,674,855 on employee bonuses since 

January 2003. This is twice the increase proposed this year for 

the Office of Drug Safety. • FDA’s most senior staff spent more than $442,000 on travel since January 2003—equal to 50 percent of what FDA 

spends in one year to review consumer drug ads. • The FDA general counsel’s office has spent 15,041 hours 

reviewing draft warning letters to drug companies about illegal 

drug ads since March 2002. This is equal to more than seven 

people working full-time for a year. The result has been a drop 

in the number of letters issued and delays in issuing them, but 

no indication whatsoever that company compliance has improved. 

While FDA fritters away precious funds in these areas, it is falling behind in some of its most basic responsibilities to protect the 

public. Comparing 2006 to 2004, we find, for example, a serious 

drop in the percentage of imported food and drug lines inspected; 

fewer foreign drug facilities being inspected; and a large drop in 

the percentage of imported biologics products inspected. Making 

sure that our food, drug and vaccine supplies are safe should be the 

agency’s highest priority. We believe the agency should examine its 

spending from top to bottom and redirect resources to this goal. 

Rural development. Funding for several key programs at USDA 

that help rural communities provide basic clean water, affordable 

housing and essential community facilities does not keep pace with 

demand. • Water and waste disposal funding: funding for water and waste grants in this bill is $87 million below 2004, but demand 

for grants at the end of fiscal year 2004 far exceeded funding 

in 2005 or in this bill. While direct loan funding is held at the 

2005 level, USDA had nearly $1.3 billion in applications for the 

loans on hand at the end of fiscal year 2004, much more than 

it could fund under the final 2005 level or the level in this bill. • Single family housing direct loans: this bill funds single 

family direct loans at the 2005 level, but that still leaves the 

program $211 million below 2004. Such a cut is a matter of serious concern because these loans are extremely popular: at the 

end of 2004, USDA had 30,458 applications on hand for $2.6 

billion in single family direct loans, far over the level in this 

bill. 

• Community facility grants: funding in this bill for this program, which funds essential community facilities in rural areas 

such as fire and medical facilities, is $17 million, under the 

final 2005 level of $19.7 million. Yet there is high demand for 

these grants—as of March 2005, USDA had $90.7 million in 

funding requests for these grants on hand—far in excess of the 

amount available in 2005 or in this bill. 

Nutrition programs. Two nutrition funding issues should be 

noted: 

• CSFP: this bill does not provide enough funding to maintain current participation in the Commodity Supplemental 

Food Program. At least 45,000 participants—the overwhelming 

majority of them elderly—would have to be dropped from the 

program unless more funds are provided, and the figure could 

127 

turn out to be much higher. We are deeply concerned about the 

impact this would have on the vulnerable population served by 

CSFP. • WIC: the bill reduces the WIC program by $253 million below the request and rescinds $32 million from the WIC reserve fund. While current estimates suggest this reduction can 

be made without reducing participation, language included in 

the report affirms the Committee’s intent to continue to monitor program costs and to provide sufficient funding to serve all 

eligible applicants in the final bill. 

International food aid. We are pleased that the Committee re- jected an ill-advised administration proposal to move $300 million 

of international food aid to USAID, rather than continuing to fund 

it through the PL 480 program. The USAID funds would be used 

to buy food abroad, instead of American commodities, thus undermining the historically broad support for international food aid in 

this country. This bill restores to PL 480 $222 million of the $300 million that 

would have gone to USAID, leaving total funding about $78 million 

short of the total budget request level. Rep. Jackson offered two 

amendments in committee to increase funding that were, unfortunately, defeated. 

Conservation programs. The administration budget for the discretionary conservation programs in this bill proposed severe cuts in 

each of the major accounts. This bill improves upon the request, 

but total funding for these programs is still $52 million lower than 

last year’s level. 

This bill cuts mandatory conservation programs more deeply 

than the Bush budget. While the administration cut in the EQIP 

program is reduced slightly, the bill limits the Wetland Reserve 

Program, takes a deeper cut from the Conservation Security Program than the budget and cuts the ground and surface water conservation program, which the budget left untouched. 

General provisions. We would like to express our views on several measures included in the bill as general provisions: 

• WIC-only stores. We are also concerned about language in 

this bill that undoes an agreement reached last year between 

Congress and the administration on limiting so-called ‘‘WIConly stores.’’ We hope that our concerns will be addressed in 

conference. 

• Propaganda. We are pleased that the subcommittee unanimously accepted an amendment by Rep. DeLauro to prohibit 

the use of funds in this bill to produce a pre-packaged news 

story without including a clear notification that the story was 

prepared or funded by a federal agency. Taxpayers have a 

right to know how their money is spent, and who is the source 

of the messages they see in print or on television, so they can 

make an informed decision based on the information before 

them. 

• Drug reimportation. As in the past two years, this bill includes language to allow prescription drug importation. Soaring prices for life-saving drugs are a reality—and a public 

health issue—that millions of Americans confront daily. But 

while the Agriculture appropriations bills included this lanVerDate Aug 04 2004 21:47 Jun 06, 2005 Jkt 021547 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102
128 

guage the last two years, the provisions were mysteriously 

dropped in conference without any public consideration. This 

must not happen again. This issue merits direct, open and full 

consideration this year. 

We look forward to a vigorous debate on these and other issues 

when the House considers this bill. We will work hard there and 

in conference with the Senate to address the concerns we have 

identified. 

ROSA L. DELAURO. 

MAURICE HINCHEY. 

SAM FARR. 

ALLEN BOYD. 

MARCY KAPTUR. 

DAVID R. OBEY. 

Æ