```

[Senate Report 108-340]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                       Calendar No. 694
108th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session                                                     108-340

======================================================================

 
   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2005
                                _______
                                

               September 14, 2004.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

          Mr. Bennett, from the Committee on Appropriations, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                    [To accompany S. 2803]

    The Committee on Appropriations, to which was referred the 
bill (H.R. 000) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies 
programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for 
other purposes, reports the same to the Senate with amendments 
and recommends that the bill as amended do pass. deg.
    The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 2803) 
making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food 
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes, 
reports favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.

Total obligational authority, fiscal year 2005

Amount of bill as reported to the Senate................ $84,053,760,000
Amount of 2004 appropriations acts to date..............  86,587,372,000
Amount of estimates, 2005...............................  83,324,539,000
The bill as recommended to the Senate:
    Under the appropriations provided in 2004...........   2,708,076,000
    Over the estimates for 2005.........................     729,221,000

                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Summary of the Bill:
    Overview and Summary of the Bill.............................     5
Government Performance and Results Act...........................     5
Display of Fiscal Year 2004 Spending Levels......................     6
User Fee Legislative Proposals...................................     6
Title I--Agricultural Programs:
    Production, Processing, and Marketing:
        Office of the Secretary..................................     7
        Executive Operations.....................................    11
        Office of the Chief Information Officer..................    13
        Common Computing Environment.............................    14
        Office of the Chief Financial Officer....................    14
        Working Capital Fund.....................................    15
        Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights.......    15
        Office of Civil Rights...................................    16
        Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration.....    16
        Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments.    17
        Hazardous Materials Management...........................    18
        Departmental Administration..............................    18
        Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional 
          Relations..............................................    19
        Office of Communications.................................    19
        Office of Inspector General..............................    20
        Office of the General Counsel............................    20
        Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, 
          and Economics..........................................    21
        Economic Research Service................................    22
        National Agricultural Statistics Service.................    22
        Agricultural Research Service............................    23
        Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 
          Service................................................    51
        Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and 
          Regulatory Programs....................................    64
        Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service...............    64
        Agricultural Marketing Service...........................    76
        Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration..    80
        Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety............    81
        Food Safety and Inspection Service.......................    82
        Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign 
          Agricultural Services..................................    84
        Farm Service Agency......................................    84
        Risk Management Agency...................................    88
    Corporations:
        Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund..................    89
        Commodity Credit Corporation Fund........................    90
Title II--Conservation Programs:
    Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and 
      Environment................................................    93
    Natural Resources Conservation Service.......................    93
Title III--Rural Economic and Community Development Programs:
    Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Economic and 
      Community Development......................................   104
    Rural Community Advancement Program..........................   106
    Rural Housing Service........................................   112
    Rural Business--Cooperative Service..........................   118
    Renewable Energy Program.....................................   120
    Rural Utilities Service......................................   121
Title IV--Domestic Food Programs:
    Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and 
      Consumer Services..........................................   125
    Food and Nutrition Service...................................   126
Title V--Foreign Assistance and Related Programs:
    Foreign Agricultural Service.................................   138
    McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child 
      Nutrition Program Grants...................................   143
Title VI--Related Agencies and Food and Drug Administration:
    Food and Drug Administration.................................   146
    Independent Agencies
        Commodity Futures Trading Commission.....................   156
        Farm Credit Administration...............................   156
Title VII--General Provisions:
    General Provisions...........................................   158
    Program, Project, and Activity...............................   159
Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI of the Standing Rules of 
  the Sen- 
  ate............................................................   159
Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules 
  of the Senate..................................................   160
Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of 
  the 
  Senate.........................................................   160
Budgetary Impact of Bill.........................................   161

                           BREAKDOWN BY TITLE

    The amounts of obligational authority for each of the six 
titles are shown in the following table. A detailed tabulation, 
showing comparisons, appears at the end of this report. 
Recommendations for individual appropriation items, projects 
and activities are carried in this report under the appropriate 
item headings.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         2005 Committee
                                           2004          recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I: Agricultural programs....    $32,848,079,000    $26,986,917,000
Title II: Conservation programs...      1,026,969,000        993,881,000
Title III: Rural economic and           2,447,943,000      2,441,042,000
 community development programs...
Title IV: Domestic food programs..     47,262,481,000     50,512,886,000
Title V: Foreign assistance and         1,503,398,000      1,549,540,000
 related programs.................
Title VI: Related agencies........      1,475,639,000      1,560,594,000
Title VII: General provisions.....         22,863,000          8,900,000
                                   -------------------------------------
      Total, new budget                86,587,372,000     84,053,760,000
       (obligational) authority...
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY OF THE BILL

    The Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies appropriations bill 
provides funding for a wide array of Federal programs, mostly 
in the U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA]. These programs 
include agricultural research, education, and extension 
activities; natural resources conservation programs; farm 
income and support programs; marketing and inspection 
activities; domestic food assistance programs; rural economic 
and community development activities, and telecommunications 
and electrification assistance; and various export and 
international activities of the USDA.
    The bill also provides funding for the Food and Drug 
Administration [FDA] and the Commodity Futures Trading 
Commission [CFTC], and allows the use of collected fees for 
administrative expenses of the Farm Credit Administration 
[FCA].
    Given the budgetary constraints that the Committee faces, 
the bill as reported provides the proper amount of emphasis on 
agricultural and rural development programs and on other 
programs and activities funded by the bill. It is within the 
subcommittee's allocation for fiscal year 2005.
    All accounts in the bill have been closely examined to 
ensure that an appropriate level of funding is provided to 
carry out the programs of USDA, FDA, CFTC, and FCA. Details on 
each of the accounts, the funding level, and the Committee's 
justifications behind the funding levels are included in the 
report.
    The Committee has encouraged the consideration of grant and 
loan applications from various entities. The Committee expects 
the Department only to approve those applications judged 
meritorious when subjected to the established review process.

                 Government Performance and Results Act

    Public Law 103-62, the Government Performance and Results 
Act [GPRA] of 1993, requires Federal agencies to develop 
succinct and precise strategic plans and annual performance 
plans that focus on results of funding decisions made by the 
Congress. Rather than simply providing details of activity 
levels, agencies will set outcome goals based on program 
activities and establish performance measures for use in 
management and budgeting. In an era of restricted and declining 
resources, it is paramount that agencies focus on the 
difference they make in citizens' lives.
    The Committee supports the concepts of this law and intends 
to use the agencies' plans for funding purposes. The Committee 
considers GPRA to be a viable way to reduce Federal spending 
while achieving a more efficient and effective Government and 
will closely monitor compliance with this law. The Committee is 
fully committed to the success and outcome of GPRA requirements 
as envisioned by the Congress, the administration, and this 
Committee.

              Display of Fiscal Year 2004 Spending Levels

    Section 168 of Division H of Public Law 108-199, the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004, imposed, with few 
exceptions, a rescission of 0.59 percent of the budget 
authority provided for all discretionary accounts in Divisions 
A through H of that Act. Division A of Public Law 108-199 
provided appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, 
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004.
    The 0.59 percent rescission applied to all discretionary 
accounts of Division A with the exception of levels of budget 
authority provided through the collection of user fees. 
Accordingly, all fiscal year 2004 spending levels displayed in 
this report for which the 0.59 percent rescission did apply 
reflect the 0.59 percent rescission.

                     User Fee Legislative Proposals

    The fiscal year 2005 budget request includes legislative 
proposals to authorize the collection and expenditure of user 
fees for a number of agencies under the jurisdiction of this 
subcommittee. These agencies include: the Animal and Plant 
Health Inspection Service; the Grain Inspection, Packers and 
Stockyards Administration; and the Food Safety and Inspection 
Service. The fiscal year 2005 budget assumes the collection and 
expenditure of these fees, and therefore reduces the fiscal 
year 2005 spending for this subcommittee by an additional 
$164,231,000 from current levels.
    Jurisdiction for the authorization of these fees in the 
Senate lies with the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry, not the Committee on Appropriations. Further, the 
U.S. Constitution requires that all revenue measures originate 
in the House of Representatives and to the extent that these 
proposals are held to be revenue measures (for which similar 
proposals in the past have), unilateral action by the Senate in 
this matter risks violation of Constitutional principles.
    This Committee again admonishes the administration for 
including in an annual budget request to the Appropriations 
Committee legislative proposals for which this Committee has no 
jurisdiction, proposals which have budgetary implications, and 
which raise possible Constitutional points of order. The 
Committee notes that similar proposals by this and past 
administrations have not met approval by the authorizing 
committees and there is no evidence to indicate that these 
proposals will meet with any greater success.
    The Committee included a General Provision (Section 721) in 
the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004 
(Division A of Public Law 108-199) which requires the President 
to identify reductions from his fiscal year 2005 budget 
submission in the event the authorization of the proposed fees 
has not been enacted prior to the convening of a committee on 
conference for the fiscal year 2005 appropriations act. 
Notwithstanding the delayed enactment of Public Law 108-199, 
the Committee expects compliance with Section 721, and urges 
the administration identify these reductions as soon as 
possible.

                     TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS

                 Production, Processing, and Marketing

                        Office of the Secretary

Appropriations, 2004....................................      $5,062,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................       5,185,000
Committee recommendation................................       5,124,000

    The Secretary of Agriculture, assisted by the Deputy 
Secretary, Under Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries, Chief 
Information Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and members of 
their immediate staffs, directs and coordinates the work of the 
Department. This includes developing policy, maintaining 
relationships with agricultural organizations and others in the 
development of farm programs, and maintaining liaison with the 
Executive Office of the President and Members of Congress on 
all matters pertaining to agricultural policy.
    The general authority of the Secretary to supervise and 
control the work of the Department is contained in the Organic 
Act (7 U.S.C. 2201-2202). The delegation of regulatory 
functions to Department employees and authorization of 
appropriations to carry out these functions is contained in 7 
U.S.C. 450c-450g.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Secretary, the Committee recommends 
an appropriation of $5,124,000. This amount is $62,000 more 
than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation.
    Hearing Responses.--The Committee is concerned about the 
Department's failure to respond to questions submitted during 
the fiscal year 2005 budget hearings. The Committee relies on 
the Department's answers and policy positions to carefully 
draft the appropriation bill. Failure to respond has affected 
the requests for specific programs and policy initiatives. 
Accordingly, the Committee directs that all answers to hearing 
questions submitted for the record for the fiscal year 2006 
budget be provided to the Committee no later than 60 days 
following submission of such questions. In the event any answer 
is not so provided, the Secretary is directed to notify the 
Committee by such date the reason that the answer is not 
forthcoming and the office, on that date, whose action or 
approval is necessary prior to further processing of that 
particular question.
    Drought Mitigation.--The Committee is concerned by the lack 
of a coherent national policy to combat drought. When drought 
strikes, it is a very serious disaster bringing economic and 
personal hardships to large sections of the nation. Long term 
drought conditions in the Intermountain West, as one example, 
have resulted in water supplies for agriculture falling below 
50 percent of normal supply. The report of the National Drought 
Commission, ``Preparing for Drought in the 21st Century'', 
recommends that Congress pass a National Drought Preparedness 
Act. Such an act would establish a Federal/non-Federal 
partnership through a National Drought Council responsible for 
implementing a national drought policy. The Committee expects 
the Secretary to carry out the recommendations of the National 
Drought Commission and coordinate USDA mission areas to provide 
a response to drought-stricken areas in as prompt and 
meaningful a way as possible.
    Administrative Convergence.--The Secretary is expected to 
seek the Committee's approval before implementing a merger or 
reduction of any administrative or information technology 
functions relating to the Farm Service Agency, Natural 
Resources Conservation Service, USDA Rural Development, or any 
other agency of the Department.
    Federal Procurement of Biobased Products.--The Committee 
urges the Secretary to make the implementation of section 9002 
of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 a 
priority. The biobased product purchasing program is an 
important initiative that will benefit farmers, biobased 
manufacturers, rural citizens, and the natural environment. 
Thus far, USDA has lagged behind in its implementation of 
several key aspects of the program, according to a recent GAO 
report.
    Chesapeake Bay Watershed.--The Committee remains concerned 
that the Department has failed to take action on the 
application submitted nearly 2 years ago by the Governors of 
Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, the Mayor of the District of 
Columbia, and the Chair of the Chesapeake Bay Commission under 
section 2003 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 
2002, entitled ``Partnerships and Cooperation''. In the Joint 
Explanatory Statement to accompany that Act, the Secretary is 
``strongly encouraged to be proactive in establishing 
partnerships in critical areas such as the Chesapeake Bay'' to 
address vital resource conservation issues. The Committee 
strongly urges the Department to utilize the authorities and 
funding made available under section 2003 and to proceed 
expeditiously with issuing an RFP, reviewing and evaluating 
proposals, and making awards before the end of 2004 with 
special attention given to the Chesapeake Bay.
    Coordination With the Department of Homeland Security.--The 
Homeland Security Act of 2002 transferred a number of functions 
previously under the direct jurisdiction of USDA to the newly-
created Department of Homeland Security [DHS]. Among these 
functions were research and diagnostic activities located at 
Plum Island, New York, and Agricultural Quarantine Inspection 
[AQI] activities located along our nation's borders and at 
select transportation centers. The Committee is aware of 
ongoing concerns within the agriculture sector that the 
transfer of these responsibilities may shift the focus away 
from agriculture to other priority areas of DHS. In order to 
ensure that the interests of U.S. agriculture are protected and 
that the intent of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 is being 
fully met, including the proper allocation of AQI and other 
funds, the Committee requests the Government Accountability 
Office to provide a report, no later than March 1, 2005, on the 
coordination between USDA and DHS in protecting the U.S. 
agriculture sector, including a description of the long-term 
objectives of joint activities at Plum Island and the 
effectiveness of AQI and other inspection activities.
    First Responders.--The Committee remains concerned that 
intentional or accidental introduction of infectious or 
pathogenic materials could pose substantial harm to the U.S. 
economy and present actual risk to this Nation's food security. 
Similarly, natural disasters often create demand for immediate 
assistance to rural areas like civil defense structures provide 
``first responder'' services in urban areas. For these reasons, 
the Committee requests that the Secretary work with State 
Departments of Agriculture to ascertain the advisability of 
establishing a program to provide Federal assistance for the 
homeland security efforts of these departments.
    Alternative Fuels.--The continuing development of bio-based 
energy products, such as E-85 capable vehicle technologies, 
provides economic and environmental opportunities for producers 
of agricultural products and consumers. The Secretary should 
use resources of the Department toward educational and 
infrastructure promotion to expand the availability of these 
products in Minnesota and other States.
    Washington Semester American Indian Program.--The Committee 
notes that Executive Order 13270 directs Federal agencies to 
take steps to enhance access to Federal opportunities and 
resources for American Indian and Alaska Native students from 
tribal colleges and other post-secondary institutions. The 
Washington Internships for Native Students [WINS] program, in 
cooperation with American University, is an effort founded on 
the idea that young people of the sovereign Native American 
nations can build leadership skills while living, studying, and 
interning in Washington, DC, and bring those skills back to 
their communities. The Committee urges the Department of 
Agriculture to participate in this worthwhile program.
    Economic Losses.--The Committee encourages the Secretary to 
utilize the authorities and resources of the Commodity Credit 
Corporation to provide assistance to compensate United States 
entities that export United States beef to be processed in 
Canada for re-importation to the United States that suffered 
economic losses as a direct result of the BSE-related border 
closing between the United States and Canada. The Committee is 
aware of the need to compensate an entity for such losses in 
Minnesota.
    The Committee encourages the Secretary to utilize the 
authorities and resources of the Commodity Credit Corporation 
to provide assistance to compensate goose producers in South 
Dakota for losses related to West Nile Virus.
    Foreign Office Security.--The Committee provides 
appropriations in this Act for covering certain costs 
associated with improving security at State Department overseas 
facilities for which it is anticipated that USDA personnel, 
notably of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and 
the Foreign Agricultural Service, will be located. While USDA 
costs associated with these improvements are relatively modest 
in the first year, projected increases for USDA donations are 
substantial. The Committee is aware that the Government 
Accountability Office is reviewing the capital cost sharing 
proposal for these facilities and expects the Secretary of 
Agriculture to receive assurances from the Secretary of State 
that costs assigned to USDA accurately reflect actual space 
needs, are reasonable, and that guarantees are in place to 
ensure that USDA personnel will be able to occupy anticipated 
space as scheduled in association with a space needs cost 
analysis. While this Committee provides appropriations to 
initiate the capital cost sharing proposal, future requests for 
this activity will be weighed heavily against assurances 
obtained by the Secretary of Agriculture and the conclusions of 
the Government Accountability Office.
    National Veterinary Medical Service Act.--The Committee 
encourages the Secretary to move forward with implementation of 
the National Veterinary Medical Service Act (Public Law 108-
161). The Committee believes the Act will encourage 
veterinarians to provide services to rural and underserved 
areas of the United States.
    Support of Local Agriculture in Massachusetts.--The 
Committee encourages the Secretary to provide technical and 
financial assistance to the Community in Support of Local 
Agriculture in Massachusetts to promote sustainable activities.
    Remote Telemedicine Services.--The Committee is aware of 
and encourages the Secretary to support the utilization of 
remote telemedicine services capable of transmitting medical 
information in both real-time and stored scenarios for 
diagnosis, medical monitoring, and emergency purposes. 
Furthermore, the Committee recognizes the need for integration 
and interoperability of real-time remote mobile medical 
technology with other devices, systems, and services which 
together offer increased capabilities, functionality, and 
levels of care.
    Wildlife Habitat Management Institute.--The Committee has 
included a general provision (Sec. 776) regarding the 
management of the Wildlife Habitat Management Institute [WHMI] 
in the State of Mississippi. The mission of the WHMI is to 
develop and disseminate scientifically based technical 
materials to assist the field staff of the National Resources 
Conservation Service and other relevant entities and 
individuals; to promote conservation and stewardship of fish 
and wildlife habitat; and to deliver sound habitat management 
principles and practices to land users in the United States. 
The Committee expects the Secretary to ensure that the WHMI has 
the resources and capabilities to fulfill its mission. 
Additionally, the Committee expects the Secretary to ensure 
that the WHMI has adequate staffing for the continuation of 
established, and development of additional, cooperative 
research agreements with non-governmental organizations and 
Federal, State, and local agencies.
    Nutrition Education.--The Committee encourages the 
Secretary of Agriculture to continue the existing Pennsylvania 
Food Stamp Nutrition Education Program in food pantries and 
shelters. The Committee also requests that the Department of 
Agriculture report to Congress on the adequacy and 
effectiveness of the Pennsylvania demonstration project, and 
how to increase its effectiveness in conjunction with Federal 
food commodity distribution. The Committee expects the 
Department of Agriculture to provide the requested report 
within 60 days of enactment.
    Soybean Rust.--The Committee is concerned about the 
potential introduction of soybean rust in the continental 
United States. Therefore, the Committee urges the Secretary to 
expedite training of county-based USDA employees and private 
sector crop scouts and consultants to be able to identify 
infestation of Phakopsora pachyrhizi (soybean rust) in host 
species, not only soybeans but other vulnerable species such as 
kudzu and edible beans. The Secretary is urged to establish a 
streamlined reporting procedure for suspected outbreaks; it is 
crucial that the appropriate test be conducted quickly so that 
migration procedures can be initiated if necessary.
    Remote Housing.--The Committee is concerned about the lack 
of housing for Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] 
employees in remote areas of Alaska not located on the road 
system. Within 60 days of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, 
in consultation with the State Conservationist, shall provide 
the Committee a report detailing the actions necessary to 
ensure adequate housing for NRCS employees working in remote 
areas of Alaska. The report shall contain information on the 
current availability of housing in these areas, the need for 
such housing, the potential beneficial impact to NRCS program 
delivery if housing was provided, and the estimated costs to 
provide housing.
    Food Aid Quality.--The Committee encourages the Secretary 
to work with a nonprofit organization to implement section 3013 
of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Public 
Law 107-171) for the Food Aid Quality Enhancement Project, to 
improve the quality of food commodities purchased by the 
Department of Agriculture for the government's domestic and 
foreign food assistance programs.

                          Executive Operations

    Executive operations were established as a result of the 
reorganization of the Department to provide a support team for 
USDA policy officials and selected Departmentwide services. 
Activities under the executive operations include the Office of 
the Chief Economist, the National Appeals Division, the Office 
of Budget and Program Analysis, and the Homeland Security 
Staff.

                            CHIEF ECONOMIST

Appropriations, 2004....................................      $8,656,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................      14,949,000
Committee recommendation................................       9,817,000

    The Office of the Chief Economist advises the Secretary of 
Agriculture on the economic implications of Department policies 
and programs. The Office serves as the single focal point for 
the Nation's economic intelligence and analysis, risk 
assessment, energy and new uses, and cost-benefit analysis 
related to domestic and international food and agriculture 
issues, and is responsible for coordination and review of all 
commodity and aggregate agricultural and food-related data used 
to develop outlook and situation material within the 
Department.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Chief Economist, the Committee 
recommends $9,817,000. This amount is $1,161,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2004 appropriation. The Committee provides 
$1,000,000 for preferred procurement and labeling for biobased 
products.

                       NATIONAL APPEALS DIVISION

Appropriations, 2004....................................     $13,589,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................      14,826,000
Committee recommendation................................      14,154,000

    The National Appeals Division conducts administrative 
hearings and reviews of adverse program decisions made by the 
Rural Development mission area, the Farm Service Agency, the 
Risk Management Agency, and the Natural Resources Conservation 
Service.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the National Appeals Division, the Committee recommends 
$14,154,000. This amount is $565,000 more than the fiscal year 
2004 appropriation. The Committee provides $300,000 for 
hardware and software modernization, as requested in the 
budget.

                 OFFICE OF BUDGET AND PROGRAM ANALYSIS

Appropriations, 2004....................................      $7,694,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................       8,146,000
Committee recommendation................................       8,128,000

    The Office of Budget and Program Analysis provides 
direction and administration of the Department's budgetary 
functions including development, presentation, and execution of 
the budget; reviews program and legislative proposals for 
program, budget, and related implications; analyzes program and 
resource issues and alternatives, and prepares summaries of 
pertinent data to aid the Secretary and departmental policy 
officials and agency program managers in the decisionmaking 
process; and provides departmentwide coordination for and 
participation in the presentation of budget-related matters to 
the committees of the Congress, the media, and interested 
public. The Office also provides departmentwide coordination of 
the preparation and processing of regulations and legislative 
programs and reports.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of Budget and Program Analysis, the 
Committee recommends $8,128,000. This amount is $434,000 more 
than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation.

                        HOMELAND SECURITY STAFF

Appropriations, 2004....................................        $496,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................       1,491,000
Committee recommendation................................       1,000,000

    The Homeland Security Staff formulates emergency 
preparedness policies and objectives for the Department of 
Agriculture [USDA]. The Staff directs and coordinates all of 
the Department's program activities that support USDA emergency 
programs and liaison functions with the Congress, the 
Department of Homeland Security, and other Federal departments 
and agencies involving homeland security, natural disasters, 
other emergencies, and agriculture-related international civil 
emergency planning and related activities.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Homeland Security Staff, the Committee recommends 
$1,000,000. This amount is $504,000 more than the fiscal year 
2004 appropriation, and includes $495,000 to continue 
operations originally funded by counterterrorism/homeland 
security supplemental funds.

                Office of the Chief Information Officer

Appropriations, 2004....................................     $15,402,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................      22,093,000
Committee recommendation................................      17,595,000

    The Office of the Chief Information Officer was established 
in August 1996, pursuant to the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, 
which required the establishment of a Chief Information Officer 
for major Federal agencies. This office provides policy 
guidance, leadership, coordination, and direction to the 
Department's information management and information technology 
investment activities in support of USDA program delivery, and 
is the lead office in USDA e-gov efforts. The Office provides 
long-range planning guidance, implements measures to ensure 
that technology investments are economical and effective, 
coordinates interagency information resources management 
projects, and implements standards to promote information 
exchange and technical interoperability. In addition, the 
Office of the Chief Information Officer is responsible for 
certain activities financed under the Department's working 
capital fund (7 U.S.C. 2235). The Office also provides 
telecommunication and automated data processing [ADP] services 
to USDA agencies through the National Information Technology 
Center with locations in Fort Collins, CO, and Kansas City, MO. 
Direct ADP operational services are also provided to the Office 
of the General Counsel, Office of Communications, the Office of 
the Chief Financial Officer, and Executive Operations.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends $17,595,000 for the Office of the 
Chief Information Officer. This amount is $2,193,000 more than 
the fiscal year 2004 appropriation, and includes $2,000,000 for 
requested program initiatives such as information systems 
certification and accreditation and the information 
survivability program which the CIO determines to be a 
priority.
    Information Technology Expenditures.--The Committee is 
aware of a recent General Accounting Office report which 
outlined significant systemic problems with the management of 
information technology within the Department. The Committee 
believes that the only way for the Department to address the 
underlying issues is to ensure that there is a coordinated 
effort throughout the Department. Therefore, the Committee has 
included statutory language (section 764) which requires that 
all expenditures over $25,000 of funds from any fiscal year for 
information technology must be approved in writing by the Chief 
Information Officer.

                      Common Computing Environment

Appropriations, 2004....................................    $118,585,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................     136,736,000
Committee recommendation................................     125,585,000

    The Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 
requires the Secretary of Agriculture to procure and use 
computer systems in a manner that enhances efficiency, 
productivity, and client services, and that promotes computer 
information sharing among agencies of the Department. The 
Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 requires USDA to maximize the value 
of information technology acquisitions to improve the 
efficiency and effectiveness of USDA programs. Since its 
beginning in 1996, the USDA Service Center Modernization 
initiative has been working to restructure county field 
offices, modernize and integrate business approaches and 
replace the current, aging information systems with a modern 
Common Computing Environment that optimizes information 
sharing, customer service, and staff efficiencies.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends $125,585,000 for the Common 
Computing Environment. This amount is $7,000,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2004 appropriation which is for requested program 
initiatives such as improved information technology security 
which the CIO determines to be a priority.
    The Committee is concerned about the lack of progress in 
certifying data for counties across the Nation required prior 
to implementation of the Geographical Information System and 
encourages the Department to place a high priority on 
completing this task.

                 Office of the Chief Financial Officer

Appropriations, 2004....................................      $5,650,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................       8,063,000
Committee recommendation................................       5,742,000

    The Office of the Chief Financial Officer is responsible 
for the dual roles of chief financial management policy officer 
and chief financial management advisor to the Secretary and 
mission area heads. The Office provides leadership for all 
financial management, accounting, travel, Federal assistance, 
and performance measurement activities within the Department. 
The Office is also responsible for the management and operation 
of the National Finance Center and the Departmental Working 
Capital Fund. In addition, the Office provides budget, 
accounting, and fiscal services to the Office of the Secretary, 
Departmental staff offices, Office of the Chief Information 
Officer, Office of Communications, and executive operations.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the 
Committee recommends $5,742,000. This amount is $92,000 more 
than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation.
    National Finance Center.--The Committee has been informed 
that the Department of Agriculture's National Finance Center 
[NFC] proposal for e-payroll consolidation was rated the 
highest in the internal competition held by the Office of 
Management and Budget [OMB] and the Office of Personnel 
Management [OPM]. The Committee believes that the NFC's 
demonstrated ability to provide a high level of service while 
operating on a fee-for-service basis similar to commercial 
industry provides a significant opportunity to utilize a 
public/private partnership to provide private sector investment 
and shared risk in the modernization of systems and 
infrastructure creation for e-payroll at the NFC. The Committee 
directs the Department of Agriculture to work with OMB and OPM 
to investigate the feasibility of creating a public/private 
partnership to help leverage scarce Federal resources to expand 
upon the existing e-payroll program to include such functions 
as automated data processing, cross-servicing capabilities, and 
other beneficial services to Federal agencies. The Committee 
further directs that the Secretary provide a feasibility report 
on this proposal to the Committee by March 1, 2005.

                          Working Capital Fund

Appropriations, 2004....................................................
Budget estimate, 2005...................................     $12,850,000
Committee recommendation................................................

    The Working Capital Fund was established in the 1944 
Appropriations Act. It was created for certain central services 
in the Department of Agriculture, including duplicating and 
other visual information services, art and graphics, video 
services, supply, centralized accounting system, centralized 
automated data processing system for payroll, personnel, and 
related services, voucher payments services, and ADP systems. 
The National Finance Center's expenses are also funded through 
this fund.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee is unable to fund the Working Capital Fund in 
fiscal year 2005 due to budgetary constraints. However, in an 
effort to continue to address the need for disaster recovery 
and continuity of operations issues at the National Finance 
Center, the Committee again includes a General Provision 
(Section 704) which provides authority for the Secretary to 
transfer unobligated balances of the Department of Agriculture 
to the Working Capital Fund.
    The Committee notes that funding provided in fiscal year 
2003 for disaster recovery and continuity activities for the 
National Finance Center has not been fully utilized.

           Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights

Appropriations, 2004....................................        $803,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................         819,000
Committee recommendation................................         819,000

    The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 
established by Section 10704 of the Farm Security and Rural 
Investment Act of 2002, provides oversight of civil rights and 
related functions. This includes coordination of the 
administration of civil rights laws and regulations for 
employees of the Department of Agriculture and participants in 
programs of the Department, and ensuring compliance with civil 
rights laws.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 
the Committee recommends an appropriation of $819,000. This 
amount is $16,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation 
and equals the budget request.
    Opportunities for Minority Farmers.--The Committee notes 
the progress being made by the Assistant Secretary for Civil 
Rights to address long-standing minority farmer issues within 
the Department. In particular, the Committee congratulates the 
Assistant Secretary for the recent Memorandum of Understanding 
which may increase opportunities for minority farmers to 
provide products to the hospitality industry by providing 
training, technical assistance, and mentoring. The Committee 
encourages the Assistant Secretary to continue efforts to be a 
strong advocate for minority farmers throughout the country.

                         Office of Civil Rights

Appropriations, 2004....................................     $17,347,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................      22,283,000
Committee recommendation................................      20,347,000

    The Office of Civil Rights provides overall leadership 
responsibility for all Department-wide civil rights activities. 
These activities include employment opportunity as well as 
program non-discrimination policy development, analysis, 
coordination, and compliance. The Office is responsible for 
providing leadership in facilitating the fair and equitable 
treatment of Department of Agriculture [USDA] employees, and 
for monitoring program activities to ensure that all USDA 
programs are delivered in a non-discriminatory manner. The 
Office's outreach functions provide leadership, coordination, 
facilitation, and expertise to internal and external partners 
to ensure equal and timely access to USDA programs for all 
constituents, with emphasis on the underserved, through 
information sharing, technical assistance, and training.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    For the Office of Civil Rights, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $20,347,000. This amount is $3,000,000 more 
than fiscal year 2004. The Committee notes that the Office of 
Civil Rights has received substantial increases in funding and 
staff levels in recent years to improve efficiencies, including 
caseload reduction.

          Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration

Appropriations, 2004....................................        $669,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................         808,000
Committee recommendation................................         682,000

    The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration 
directs and coordinates the work of the departmental staff in 
carrying out the laws enacted by the Congress relating to real 
and personal property management, personnel management, ethics, 
and other general administrative functions. In addition, the 
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration is 
responsible for certain activities financed under the 
Department's working capital fund (7 U.S.C. 2235).

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for 
Administration, the Committee recommends $682,000. This amount 
is $13,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation.

        Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments

Appropriations, 2004....................................    $155,546,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................     203,938,000
Committee recommendation................................     170,870,000

    Rental Payments.--Annual appropriations are made to finance 
the appropriated portion of the payments to the General 
Services Administration [GSA] for rental of space and for 
related services to all USDA agencies, except the Forest 
Service, which is funded by another appropriations bill.
    The requirement that GSA charge commercial rent rates to 
agencies occupying GSA-controlled space was established by the 
Public Buildings Amendments of 1972. The methods used to 
establish commercial rent rates in GSA space follow commercial 
real estate appraisal practices. Appeal and rate review 
procedures are in place to assure that agencies have an 
opportunity to contest rates they feel are incorrect.
    Building Operations and Maintenance.--On October 1, 1984, 
the General Services Administration [GSA] delegated the 
operations and maintenance function for the buildings in the 
D.C. complex to the Department. This activity provides 
departmental staff and support services to operate, maintain, 
and repair the buildings in the D.C. complex. GSA expanded the 
delegation to include two additional buildings on October 1, 
1986. One building is the Government-owned warehouse for forms 
in Lanham, MD, and the other is a leased warehouse for the 
excess property operation located at 49 L Street SW, 
Washington, DC. GSA retains responsibility for major 
nonrecurring repairs. In fiscal year 1999, USDA began 
operations and maintenance of the Beltsville office facility.
    Strategic Space Plan.--The Department's headquarters staff 
is presently housed in a four-building Government-owned complex 
in downtown Washington, DC, and in leased buildings in the 
Metropolitan Washington, DC, area. In 1995, USDA initiated a 
plan to improve the delivery of USDA programs to the American 
people, including streamlining the USDA organization. A high-
priority goal in the Secretary's plan is to improve the 
operation and effectiveness of the USDA headquarters in 
Washington, DC. To implement this goal, a strategy for 
efficient reallocation of space to house the restructured 
headquarters agencies in modern and safe facilities has been 
proposed. This USDA strategic space plan will correct serious 
problems USDA has faced in its facility program, including the 
inefficiencies of operating out of scattered leased facilities 
and serious safety hazards which exist in the Agriculture South 
Building.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For U.S. Department of Agriculture buildings and facilities 
and payments for the rental of space and related services, the 
Committee recommends $170,870,000. This amount is $15,324,000 
more than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation, and includes 
$5,000,000 in the building operations and maintenance account 
for requested program initiatives such as homeland security 
requirements and Fair Labor Standards Act requirements.
    The following table reflects the Committee's specific 
recommendations for this account as compared to the fiscal year 
2004 and budget request levels:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    2005 budget      Committee
                                                                   2004 enacted       request     recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rental Payments.................................................         123,179         128,319         128,319
Building Operations.............................................          32,367          41,642          37,551
Strategic Space Plan............................................  ..............          33,977           5,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
  Total.........................................................         155,546         203,938         170,870
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     Hazardous Materials Management

Appropriations, 2004....................................     $15,519,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................      15,730,000
Committee recommendation................................      15,532,000

    Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act and the Resource Conservation 
and Recovery Act, the Department has the responsibility to meet 
the same standards regarding the storage and disposition of 
hazardous materials as private businesses. The Department is 
required to contain, clean up, monitor, and inspect for 
hazardous materials in areas under the Department's 
jurisdiction.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends $15,532,000 for hazardous 
materials management. This amount is $13,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2004 appropriation.

                      Departmental Administration

Appropriations, 2004....................................     $22,895,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................      26,361,000
Committee recommendation................................      22,626,000

    Departmental administration is comprised of activities that 
provide staff support to top policy officials and overall 
direction and coordination of administrative functions of the 
Department. These activities include departmentwide programs 
for human resource management, ethics, occupational safety and 
health management, real and personal property management, 
procurement, contracting, motor vehicle and aircraft 
management, supply management, civil rights and equal 
opportunity, participation of small and disadvantaged 
businesses and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers in 
the Department's program activities, emergency preparedness, 
small and disadvantaged business utilization, and the 
regulatory hearing and administrative proceedings conducted by 
the Administrative Law Judges and Judicial Officer. 
Departmental administration also provides administrative 
support to the Board of Contract Appeals. Established as an 
independent entity within the Department, the Board adjudicates 
contract claims by and against the Department, and is funded as 
a reimbursable activity.
    Departmental administration is also responsible for 
representing USDA in the development of Governmentwide policies 
and initiatives; and analyzing the impact of Governmentwide 
trends and developing appropriate USDA principles, policies, 
and standards. In addition, departmental administration engages 
in strategic planning and evaluates programs to ensure USDA-
wide compliance with applicable laws, rules, and regulations 
pertaining to administrative matters for the Secretary and 
general officers of the Department.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For Departmental Administration, the Committee recommends 
an appropriation of $22,626,000. This amount is $269,000 less 
than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation.

     Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations

Appropriations, 2004....................................      $3,774,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................       4,263,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,852,000

    The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional 
Relations maintains a liaison with the Congress and White House 
on legislative matters. It also provides for overall direction 
and coordination in the development and implementation of 
policies and procedures applicable to the Department's intra- 
and inter-governmental relations.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional 
Relations, the Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$3,852,000. This amount is $78,000 more than the fiscal year 
2004 appropriation.
    The Committee allows these funds to be transferred to 
support congressional relations' activities at the agency 
level. Within 30 days from the enactment of this Act, the 
Secretary shall notify the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations on the allocation of these funds by USDA agency, 
along with an explanation for the agency-by-agency distribution 
of the funds as well as the staff years funded by these 
transfers.

                        Office of Communications

Appropriations, 2004....................................      $9,174,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................      10,288,000
Committee recommendation................................       9,365,000

    The Office of Communications provides direction, 
leadership, and coordination in the development and delivery of 
useful information through all media to the public on USDA 
programs. The Office serves as the liaison between the 
Department and the many associations and organizations with an 
interest in USDA's mission areas.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of Communications, the Committee recommends 
an appropriation of $9,365,000. This amount is $191,000 more 
than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation.

                    Office of the Inspector General

Appropriations, 2004....................................     $76,825,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................      78,392,000
Committee recommendation................................      78,289,000

    The Office of the Inspector General was established October 
12, 1978, by the Inspector General Act of 1978. This Act 
expanded and provided specific authorities for the activities 
of the Office of the Inspector General which had previously 
been carried out under the general authorities of the Secretary 
of Agriculture.
    The Office is administered by an inspector general who 
reports directly to the Secretary of Agriculture. Functions and 
responsibilities of this Office include direction and control 
of audit and investigative activities within the Department, 
formulation of audit and investigative policies and procedures 
regarding Department programs and operations, and analysis and 
coordination of program-related audit and investigation 
activities performed by other Department agencies.
    The activities of this Office are designed to assure 
compliance with existing laws, policies, regulations, and 
programs of the Department's agencies, and to provide 
appropriate officials with the means for prompt corrective 
action where deviations have occurred. The scope of audit and 
investigative activities is large and includes administrative, 
program, and criminal matters. These activities are 
coordinated, when appropriate, with various audit and 
investigative agencies of the executive and legislative 
branches of the Government.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of Inspector General, the Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $78,289,000. This amount is 
$1,464,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. The 
Committee provides the fiscal year 2004 level for OIG to 
continue to address violations of section 26 of the Animal 
Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2156) and to coordinate with State and 
local law enforcement personnel in this effort.

                     Office of the General Counsel

Appropriations, 2004....................................     $34,495,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................      38,589,000
Committee recommendation................................      36,236,000

    The Office of the General Counsel provides all legal 
advice, counsel, and services to the Secretary and to all 
agencies, offices, and corporations of the Department. The 
Office represents the Department in administrative proceedings; 
non-litigation debt collection proceedings; State water rights 
adjudications; proceedings before the Environmental Protection 
Agency, Interstate Commerce Commission, Federal Maritime 
Administration, and International Trade Commission; and, in 
conjunction with the Department of Justice, in judicial 
proceedings and litigation.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the General Counsel, the Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $36,236,000. This amount is 
$1,741,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation to meet 
the initiatives included in the budget request. The Committee 
provides an increase of $1,000,000 for requested program 
initiatives, such as additional legal services and support 
staff, information technology, and subscription renewals.

  Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics

Appropriations, 2004....................................        $592,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................         805,000
Committee recommendation................................         605,000

    The Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, 
and Economics provides direction and coordination in carrying 
out the laws enacted by the Congress for food and agricultural 
research, education, extension, and economic and statistical 
information. The Office has oversight and management 
responsibilities for the Agricultural Research Service; 
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service; 
Economic Research Service; and National Agricultural Statistics 
Service.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Research, 
Education, and Economics, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $605,000. This amount is $13,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2004 appropriation.
    The Committee directs the Under Secretary to provide by 
March 1, 2005, a feasibility study regarding the establishment 
of a supercomputing facility dedicated to agricultural and 
allied research. The study should review current supercomputing 
access for agricultural researchers, evaluate the need for a 
dedicated facility, discuss potential benefits to agricultural 
research, estimate establishment and recurring operational 
costs, and other pertinent information.
    The Committee notes the need to enhance awareness of animal 
disease outbreaks, whether intentional or naturally occurring, 
which could spread with devastating consequences to the 
national economy and international trade. In order to 
strengthen professional capabilities, and as an element of 
homeland security, the Committee encourages that resources 
available through education programs related to animal health, 
and veterinary sciences in particular, include components that 
focus on this growing area of national and international 
concern. The Committee expects that related research findings 
will be properly forwarded to institutions of higher learning 
and especially to accredited schools of veterinary medicine.
    Section 7404(a)(2) of the Farm Security and Rural 
Investment Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-171) established a task 
force to evaluate the merits of creating a National Institute 
for Plant and Agricultural Sciences. The challenge of this task 
force is to determine whether the National Institutes of Health 
[NIH] would be an appropriate model for advanced plant and 
agricultural research which would supplement existing USDA 
research programs. The Committee looks forward to reviewing the 
conclusions reached by the task force.

                       Economic Research Service

Appropriations, 2004....................................     $70,981,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................      80,032,000
Committee recommendation................................      75,268,000

    The Economic Research Service [ERS] provides economic and 
other social science information and analysis for public and 
private decisions on agriculture, natural resources, food, and 
rural America. The information ERS produces is for use by the 
general public and to help the executive and legislative 
branches develop, administer, and evaluate agricultural and 
rural policies and programs.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Economic Research Service, the Committee recommends 
an appropriation of $75,268,000. This amount is $4,287,000 more 
than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation, and includes 
$4,000,000 for requested program initiatives such as the food 
market surveillance system. The Committee directs that no less 
than $500,000 be used for the collection of information on the 
financial condition, production practices, resources used, and 
economic well-being of organic farming households.

                National Agricultural Statistics Service

Appropriations, 2004....................................    $128,161,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................     137,594,000
Committee recommendation................................     130,299,000

    The National Agricultural Statistics Service [NASS] 
administers the Department's program of collecting and 
publishing current national, State, and county agricultural 
statistics. These statistics provide accurate and timely 
projections of current agricultural production and measures of 
the economic and environmental welfare of the agricultural 
sector which are essential for making effective policy, 
production, and marketing decisions. NASS also furnishes 
statistical services to other USDA and Federal agencies in 
support of their missions, and provides consulting, technical 
assistance, and training to developing countries.
    The Service is also responsible for administration of the 
Census of Agriculture, which was transferred from the 
Department of Commerce to the Department of Agriculture in 
fiscal year 1997 to consolidate agricultural statistics 
programs. The Census of Agriculture is taken every 5 years and 
provides comprehensive data on the agricultural economy 
including: data on the number of farms, land use, production 
expenses, farm product values, value of land and buildings, 
farm size and characteristics of farm operators, market value 
of agricultural production sold, acreage of major crops, 
inventory of livestock and poultry, and farm irrigation 
practices.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the 
Committee recommends an appropriation of $130,299,000. This 
amount is $2,138,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 
appropriation, and includes $3,500,000 for requested program 
initiatives such as agricultural estimates and information 
technology security. Also included in this amount is 
$22,405,000 for the Census of Agriculture.
    The Committee encourages NASS to conduct Monthly Hogs and 
Pigs Inventory reporting, and Barrow and Gilt Slaughter 
reporting. The Committee also expects that the potato objective 
yield survey will be continued. The Committee also encourages 
NASS to use any available funding to ensure that timely, 
accurate, and useful statistics are provided for the organic 
industry.

                     Agricultural Research Service

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2004....................................  $1,082,468,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................     987,597,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,090,261,000

    The Agricultural Research Service [ARS] is responsible for 
conducting basic, applied, and developmental research on: soil, 
water, and air sciences; plant and animal productivity; 
commodity conversion and delivery; human nutrition; and the 
integration of agricultural systems. The research applies to a 
wide range of goals; commodities; natural resources; fields of 
science; and geographic, climatic, and environmental 
conditions.
    ARS is also responsible for the Abraham Lincoln National 
Agricultural Library which provides agricultural information 
and library services through traditional library functions and 
modern electronic dissemination to agencies of the USDA, public 
and private organizations, and individuals.
    As the U.S. Department of Agriculture's in-house 
agricultural research unit, ARS has major responsibilities for 
conducting and leading the national agricultural research 
effort. It provides initiative and leadership in five areas: 
research on broad regional and national problems, research to 
support Federal action and regulatory agencies, expertise to 
meet national emergencies, research support for international 
programs, and scientific resources to the executive branch and 
Congress.
    The mission of ARS research is to develop new knowledge and 
technology which will ensure an abundance of high-quality 
agricultural commodities and products at reasonable prices to 
meet the increasing needs of an expanding economy and to 
provide for the continued improvement in the standard of living 
of all Americans. This mission focuses on the development of 
technical information and technical products which bear 
directly on the need to: (1) manage and use the Nation's soil, 
water, air, and climate resources, and improve the Nation's 
environment; (2) provide an adequate supply of agricultural 
products by observing practices that will maintain a 
sustainable and effective agriculture sector; (3) improve the 
nutrition and well-being of the American people; (4) improve 
living in rural America; and (5) strengthen the Nation's 
balance of payments.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For salaries and expenses of the Agricultural Research 
Service, the Committee recommends $1,090,261,000. This is 
$7,793,000 more than the 2004 level.
    The Committee recognizes the need to ensure that the 
citizens of this Nation have a safe food supply, whether 
contaminations are intentional or unintentional. The Committee 
has provided the following amounts in the ARS salaries and 
expenses account for the Food and Agriculture Defense 
Initiative: $7,200,000 for food safety research, $3,000,000 for 
control of exotic and emerging diseases of animals, $2,000,000 
for control of exotic and emerging diseases of plants, and 
$3,000,000 for the national plant disease recovery system.
    The Committee concurs with the Department's initiative to 
promote a healthier lifestyle for the Nation's population, and 
to address the obesity epidemic in the United States. 
Therefore, the Committee directs that the funding for diet, 
nutrition, and obesity research carried out by ARS at the 
Pennington Biomedical Research Center, as well as funding at 
the Human Nutrition Center for the Aging, Tufts University, 
which are proposed for termination in the fiscal year 2005 
budget request, be restored at the fiscal year 2004 levels to 
finance these important nutrition and obesity research 
programs.
    For fiscal year 2005, the Committee recommends funding 
increases, as specified below, for ongoing research activities. 
The remaining increase in appropriations from the fiscal year 
2005 level is to be applied to pay and related cost increases 
to prevent the further erosion of the agency's capacity to 
maintain a viable research program at all research locations.
    The Committee expects the agency to give attention to the 
prompt implementation and allocation of funds provided for the 
purposes identified by Congress.
    In complying with the Committee's directives, ARS is 
expected not to redirect support for programs from one State to 
another without prior notification to and approval by the House 
and Senate Committees on Appropriations in accordance with the 
reprogramming procedures specified in this Act. Unless 
otherwise directed, the Agricultural Research Service shall 
implement appropriations by programs, projects, commodities, 
and activities as specified by the Appropriations Committees. 
Unspecified reductions necessary to carry out the provisions of 
this Act are to be implemented in accordance with the 
definitions contained in the ``Program, project, and activity'' 
section of this report.
    The Committee has again included statutory language to 
return to Colorado State University land which was conveyed to 
the Agricultural Research Service on February 1, 1966. This 
land is no longer being used by ARS. This transfer is expected 
to be completed in fiscal year 2005.
    The Committee's recommendations with respect to specific 
areas of research are as follows:
    Agricultural Genome Bioinformatics.--The Committee provides 
an increase of $250,000 above the fiscal year 2004 funding 
level to enhance work on the Bioinformatics Institute for Model 
Plant Species at the National Center for Genome Resources in 
New Mexico, as authorized in Section 227 of the Agriculture 
Risk Protection Act (Public Law 106-224).
    Agricultural Law, Drake University.--The Committee 
continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level for support of a 
national center focusing on State and local food and 
agricultural law and policy. Drake University in Des Moines, 
Iowa, is highly qualified to serve as the location of the 
center.
    Agriculture and Food System Security.--The Committee 
supports the efforts of USDA in implementing a national policy 
for defending the agriculture and food systems against 
terrorist attacks, as described in the Homeland Security 
Presidential Directive 9 [HSPD-9]. The Committee encourages 
USDA and ARS to consider the Illinois Institute of Technology 
[IIT] and its National Center for Food Safety and Technology 
(National Center) in implementing relevant tasks within HSPD-9. 
IIT and the National Center have been developing new 
counterterrorism technologies designed to contribute to 
detection of biological and chemical agents, screening and 
inspection of imported agricultural and food items, and 
recovery, disposal, and decontamination systems.
    Air Quality Research.--Agricultural operations produce a 
variety of particulates and gases that influence air quality. 
Agriculture, through wind erosion, tillage and harvest 
operations, burning, diesel-powered machinery and animal 
operations, is a source of particulate matter that can cause 
pulmonary problems to humans. While extensive regulatory 
measures have severely impacted agricultural production 
efficiencies, continuing urban expansion into high production 
regions have exacerbated the need for producers to further 
modify effective production practices to reduce harmful 
emissions.
    The Committee recognizes that expanded research is needed 
to quantify these emissions, determine emission factors, and to 
develop management practices for producers to address this 
problem. The Committee provides an increase of $250,000 above 
the fiscal year 2004 funding level for collaborative research 
with Utah State University's Space Dynamics Laboratory [SDL] to 
develop and evaluate sensors, protocols, and statistical 
procedures that accurately measure particulates and gaseous 
emissions from agriculture operations.
    Alternative Crops and Value-Added Products.--The Committee 
is aware that alternative crops and value-added products 
provide potential opportunities to enhance profitability. Niche 
marketing of agriculture products displaying ``identity-
preserved'' traits have received premiums in the marketplace. 
The Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level for 
alternative and value-added products.
    Animal Waste Treatment.--Animal production, a major 
component of the U.S. agricultural economy, is at risk because 
of both real and perceived animal environmental programs. 
Dramatic advancements are required to protect the environment, 
save the vital animal industry, and maintain food security in 
the United States. The USDA-ARS facility at Florence, SC, and 
its cooperators are leaders in this effort. The Committee 
provides an increase of $50,000 above the fiscal year 2004 
funding level to enhance this effort.
    Appalachian Fruit Research Station.--The Committee 
recognizes the importance of the fruit research program carried 
out at the Appalachian Fruit Research Station in Kearneysville, 
WV, and continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level for 
essential staffing to support the station's ongoing research to 
identify new alternatives for chemical control of insects, and 
to develop disease-resistant trees.
    Appalachian Horticulture Research.--Ornamental 
horticulture, floriculture and nursery crops, collectively 
constitute the third most important crop in the United States, 
surpassed only by corn and soybeans, with an average estimated 
value of more than $11,000,000,000 a year. Tennessee has a 
vibrant nursery industry and a growing floriculture industry. 
The Committee provides an increase of $250,000 above the fiscal 
year 2004 funding level for collaborative research with the 
University of Tennessee and Tennessee State University, 
including efforts to develop resistant genes in dogwoods and 
other woody ornamentals, new tissue culture techniques, and 
techniques to enable rapid deployment of new cultivars for the 
marketplace.
    Appalachian Pasture-Based Beef Systems.--The Committee is 
aware of the benefits to be derived from the pasture-raised 
beef research program currently underway at the ARS Appalachian 
Farming Systems Research Center located in Beaver, WV. The 
research partnership, which includes West Virginia University, 
Virginia Tech, and ARS, is targeted to Appalachian cattle 
farmers. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 funding 
level for this research, which will ensure the economic 
viability of these farmers and conserve and protect the 
region's environment.
    Aquaculture Research.--The Committee provides an increase 
of $250,000 above the fiscal year 2004 funding level to 
continue development of grain-based products for use in fish 
feeds, human food, and industrial products from novel cultivars 
of barley and oats in cooperation with the University of Idaho 
Hagerman Fish Culture Experiment Station in Hagerman, ID.
    Aquaculture Research.--The Committee acknowledges the 
importance of avoiding duplication in research administered by 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture at various locations 
throughout the country. In order to ensure that duplication 
does not occur in the field of warmwater aquaculture research, 
the Stuttgart research facility should not engage in channel 
catfish research related to production systems, nutrition, 
water quality, genetics, disease diagnosis, or food processing 
which is ongoing at the National Warmwater Aquaculture Research 
Center at Stoneville, MS.
    Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi.--The Committee understands 
that the Agency conducts research on Arbuscular mycorrhizal 
fungi [AMF] which are beneficial microorganisms that infect the 
roots of most crop plants. AMF benefits crops through increased 
nutrient update, increased resistance to disease and drought, 
and improved soil water holding capacity. The fungi are 
dependent on their plant host for sugars and other substances. 
Understanding the physiological relationships between AMF and 
their plant hosts will help scientists develop ways to mass-
produce the best fungi and apply them in the field to stimulate 
crop growth and yield. The Committee provides an increase of 
$87,000 which shall be directed to the Rodale Institute's 
Farming Systems Trial for fungi research.
    Arid Lands Research.--The challenges for agricultural 
production and natural resource management in the desert 
Southwest and adjoining border regions are immense. 
Technologies for arid land agriculture are needed for the 
remediation of arid and semi-arid rangelands, sustainable 
agriculture production for growers of irrigated cotton and 
selected crops, and the restoration of disturbed lands. The 
Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level for 
research in rangeland resource management, irrigated farming 
technology, and environmental horticulture at the Jornada 
Experimental Range Station at Las Cruces, NM.
    Arkansas Children's Nutrition Center, Little Rock, AR.--The 
Committee notes the importance of optimizing the nutrition and 
health of children from conception through adolescence. The 
Center is leading major research efforts to understand the 
relationship between chronic disease and diet, genetics, and 
lifestyle. The Committee provides an increase of $250,000 above 
the fiscal year 2004 funding level for investigations on these 
issues.
    Biological Control Research.--The Committee has been 
impressed by results of the various approaches which have been 
taken by the Jamie Whitten Delta States Research Center in the 
area of biological controls of cotton insect pests. The 
economic and environmental benefits of this research could 
eventually reduce the vulnerability of crops to major insect 
pests and create alternatives to traditional crop protection 
methods. The Committee continues funding for this project at 
the fiscal year 2004 funding level.
    Biomass Crop Production.--The Committee continues the 
fiscal year 2004 level for cooperative research between ARS and 
South Dakota State University to further investigate the 
applicability of using a method of fiber extrusion to dry and 
process wet distiller grains from ethanol production into high 
value feed for cattle, as well as conversion to increased 
ethanol production.
    Biomedical Materials in Plants.--Increased research is 
needed to carry out studies on tobacco and other plants as a 
medium to produce vaccines and other biomedical products for 
the prevention of many human and animal diseases. The Committee 
continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level for cooperative 
research with the Biotechnology Foundation.
    Biotechnology Research and Development Corporation.--The 
Committee directs the agency to continue its support of the 
Biotechnology Research and Development Corporation's research 
on both plants and animals at the fiscal year 2004 level.
    Biotechnology Research to Improve Crops and Livestock.--
Biotechnology research has opened the path for sequencing and 
mapping the genes of crops and livestock, marking genes for 
adding precision to breeding of improved plants and animals, 
and identifying gene products through proteomics technology. 
Other technological advancements can be achieved in the 
livestock industry through the development of imaging at the 
molecular level using light, heat, and/or fluorescing 
signatures. These biotechnology efforts generate huge volumes 
of data, which must be managed, transmitted electronically, and 
analyzed. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 funding 
level at Stoneville, MS, to support cooperative research in 
genomics and bioinformatics and in the use of biophotonics for 
the imaging of animal physiological processes at the cellular 
level.
    Broiler Production in the Mid South.--Reduced broiler 
production costs are essential for the industry to increase net 
profit and remain competitive internationally. The Committee 
recognizes the importance of the cooperation between the ARS 
Poultry Research Unit and the Mississippi Agricultural and 
Forestry Experiment Station at Mississippi State. This 
cooperation has resulted in improved bird nutrition, control of 
mycoplasma disease with vaccines, and overall health, vigor, 
and growth of the birds through improved housing environmental 
controls. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 funding 
level for cooperative research on reducing ammonia levels in 
poultry litter, improving environmental controls, and reducing 
mortality in broiler flocks.
    Cacao Germplasm.--The Committee is aware of the climatic 
differences encountered in maintaining cacao germplasm at the 
ARS facility in Florida and is also aware of the sharp increase 
in commercial planting of cacao in Hawaii. The Committee 
recommends that ARS consider moving its cacao germplasm 
collection to the Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center to 
take advantage of the more compatible cacao growing conditions 
at this location and to provide the applied research support 
needed by Hawaii's emerging chocolate industry.
    Canada Thistle.--The Committee recognizes the importance of 
controlling and eradicating the Canada thistle, a noxious, 
invasive weed that has surpassed leafy spurge in infested 
acreage in North Dakota. The Committee continues the fiscal 
year 2004 funding level to carry out research experiments to 
examine the population genetics and biology of Canada thistle 
and to combat this weed in North Dakota and surrounding States. 
The research is to be conducted at the ARS research facility at 
Fargo, ND.
    Catfish Genome Research.--Catfish is the major aquaculture 
species in the United States, accounting for 68 percent of all 
aquaculture production. The catfish industry has been steadily 
growing for decades and has strong potential for continued 
growth. To keep this industry competitive in the global market, 
the Committee provides an increase of $250,000 above the fiscal 
year 2004 funding level for catfish genome research at Auburn 
University.
    Catfish Health.--Disease-causing bacteria, viruses, and 
parasites threaten the economic viability of the Nation's 
billion dollar catfish industry. Rapid expansion of the U.S. 
channel catfish industry increases the vulnerability of the 
industry to outbreaks of diseases and parasites. Research 
urgently is needed to identify disease vectors, modes of 
transmission, life cycles and methods for controlling catfish 
diseases caused by parasites, fungi, bacteria, and viruses. A 
thorough understanding of the impact of environmental factors 
on disease will lead to improved management practices for 
conventional catfish culture in earthen ponds. The Committee 
continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level for the 
comprehensive catfish health research program based at the 
Stoneville, MS, National Warmwater Aquaculture Center. This 
Center is strategically located in the mid-delta, proximal to 
the vast majority of the U.S. commercial catfish farming 
acreage and already has a critical mass of scientists, 
facilities, and instrumentation addressing the disease issue. 
Ongoing research in genomics and breeding can be expanded to 
select for fish with disease and parasite resistance, but 
additional scientists, including a parasitologist and 
virologist, are required for a comprehensive disease and 
parasite genetic resistance research program.
    Center for Food Safety and Postharvest Technology.--The 
Committee is aware of the significance of the research 
currently underway relating to catfish and other food products 
at the Mississippi Center for Food Safety and Postharvest 
Technology and continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level for 
research on shellfish safety and methods of decreasing risks to 
consumers.
    Central Great Plains Research Station.--This is the only 
ARS station conducting research aimed at solving dryland 
production problems in Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, and Wyoming. 
The Committee provides an increase of $50,000 above the fiscal 
year 2004 funding level to the Central Great Plains Research 
Station at Akron, CO, for research on extensive crop rotation 
strategies. Research will focus on biological diversity to 
reduce weed, disease, and insects inherent in single crop 
rotation and utilize a complete systems approach to quantify 
comparative yield benefits under various rotation schemes.
    Cereal Disease Research.--The Committee continues the 
fiscal year 2004 funding level to support the core group of 
scientists currently performing research at the Cereal Disease 
Research Laboratory, St. Paul, Minnesota.
    Children's Nutrition Research Center.--The Children's 
Nutrition Research Center at the Baylor College of Medicine, 
Houston, TX, has helped define the role of nutrition in 
children's health, growth, and development; contributed to 
nutritional guidelines used by physicians, parents, and others 
responsible for the care and feeding of children, and is unique 
in it's ability to address a broad array of children's 
nutritional issues. The Committee continues the fiscal year 
2004 funding level for increased investigation of the 
nutritional needs of pregnant and nursing women, and children 
from conception to adolescence, at the Children's Nutrition 
Research Center, Houston, TX.
    Chronic Wasting Disease [CWD].--In order to reduce 
livestock losses and to improve efficiency of production, it is 
important to eradicate transmissable spongiform 
encephalopathies [TSE] in domestic animals. Scrapie of sheep 
and goats, bovine spongiform encephalopathies [BSE] and chronic 
wasting disease [CWD] of deer and elk are classes of TSE's of 
ruminant animals and are fatal diseases that can affect both 
animals and humans. The Committee continues the fiscal year 
2004 funding level to the Animal Disease Laboratory, Pullman, 
WA, and the National Animal Disease Laboratory, Ames, IA, for 
urgent research on CWD.
    Coffee and Cocoa.--The disease resistance and alternative 
crop research program for coffee and cocoa has important 
economic benefits and implications for foreign policy goals in 
South Central America and West Africa. As a globally marketable 
cash crop, cocoa can provide an alternative, environmentally 
beneficial choice for small farmers and an incentive to Andean 
farmers to abandon illegal crops for those that can provide 
stable long-term economic benefit. Cocoa is produced primarily 
by small farmers in the tropics of South Central America and 
West Africa that is also under severe disease pressure which 
threatens the stability of world supply of cocoa and the 
economies of other cocoa-producing nations. The Committee 
continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level to fully realize 
the research potential of coffee and cocoa as alternatives to 
illegal crops.
    Corn Germplasm.--Corn is a key resource in Iowa and 
throughout the world, providing food, industrial uses, 
livestock feed and export. It is important to broaden the 
germplasm base of corn hybrids grown by American farmers to 
establish genetic diversity and stability in corn production. 
The Committee provides an increase of $100,000 above the fiscal 
year 2004 funding level for the ARS Corn Germplasm Research 
Laboratory at Ames, Iowa for research to increase the 
productivity and genetic diversity of maize grown in the United 
States.
    Corn Resistant to Aflatoxin.--Contamination of corn by 
aflatoxin limits corn production in the southern United States. 
Understanding the corn genome and where the genes for 
resistance are located on the genome will accelerate the plant 
breeding process leading to resistant corn lines. The Committee 
recognizes the progress already made in the discovery and 
transfer of aflatoxin-resistant corn germplasm to commercial 
seed companies as a result of the cooperation between the 
Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station and 
the ARS Corn Host Plant Resistance Research Unit at Mississippi 
State. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 funding 
level at Mississippi State to continue this cooperative 
research on the development of corn plants resistant to 
aflatoxin.
    Cotton Genetics Research.--Global competition in the 
textile industry has caused domestic textile manufacturers to 
adopt more efficient cotton farm spinning technologies. These 
new technologies require higher fiber strength to operate 
resistance to nematodes and insect pests that annually inflict 
significant losses to the cotton industry. There is a need to 
broaden the genetic base of cotton germplasm with fiber 
properties that will meet today's more efficient yarn spinning 
machines, as well as cotton varieties with improved host 
resistance to insects and pathogens. The Committee continues 
the fiscal year 2004 funding level for cotton genetics 
research.
    Cotton Genomics, Breeding, and Variety Development.--The 
Committee recognizes the progress that has been made through 
the cooperative efforts of the ARS and the Mississippi 
Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station at Stoneville, MS, 
in the research, development, and transfer of improved cotton 
germplasm to the cotton industry. This cooperative research 
must incorporate new genetic material into agronomically-
acceptable varieties and to transfer reniform nematode and 
other pest resistance into improved cotton lines. The Committee 
continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level for the public 
cotton breeding program conducted by ARS at Stoneville, MS.
    Cotton Ginning Laboratory.--The Committee continues the 
fiscal year 2004 funding level for ARS cotton ginning research.
    Cropping Systems Management.--Crop management practices to 
limit erosion on the highly erodible soils of Tennessee and 
other southern States impacts soybean diseases, both favorably 
and adversely. Research is needed to optimize disease control 
while maintaining the best crop management practices to protect 
soil and water quality. The Committee provides an increase of 
$50,000 above the fiscal year 2004 funding level for cropping 
systems research at the University of Tennessee and the West 
Tennessee Agriculture Experiment Station.
    Dairy Forage Research.--The Committee recognizes the 
important research on dairy forage carried out by ARS at the 
U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center in Madison, WI. The Committee 
provides an increase of $450,000 above the fiscal year 2004 
funding level for expanded dairy forage research at the center.
    Delta Nutrition.--The Committee provides an increase of 
$100,000 above the fiscal year 2004 funding level for nutrition 
activities through a cooperative agreement with the Southern 
University Center for Food Nutrition and Health Promotion in 
Louisiana. This funding will advance research to assess the 
human health and nutrition status of underserved rural 
communities.
    Ecology of Tamarix.--Tamarix (salt cedar) are woody 
invasive plants which threaten aquatic systems by consuming 
large amounts of water, out competing native vegetation like 
willow and cottonwood trees for water. It is a serious problem 
in Nevada, California, Colorado, Texas, and other Western 
States. The Committee is aware of the ARS biocontrol field 
trials on China beetles to eradicate tamarix and continues the 
fiscal year 2004 funding level for research on tamarix control 
using China beetles and other biocontrols, and to continue 
research on cheat grass at the ARS research station in Reno, 
NV.
    Fish Disease Research.--The development of safe and 
effective vaccines for prevention of disease in catfish is 
essential to the growth of the catfish industry. There are 
currently only a number of approved therapeutic compounds 
available for farmers to heal diseases of fish. Vaccinations, 
successful in other animals, appear to be the best means of 
preventing diseases. The Committee continues the fiscal year 
2004 funding level at the ARS Fish Disease and Parasitic 
Research Laboratory at Auburn, AL, for increased research on 
the development of commercially approved vaccines for catfish.
    Floriculture and Nursery Research.--Nursery and greenhouse 
products rank third in production in the Nation. As the public 
demands more plants and trees to help clean the air, prevent 
water runoff and soil erosion, and improve water conservation 
and quality, the nursery industry is playing an expanding and 
significant role in enhancing environmental quality. The 
Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level for 
floriculture and nursery research aimed at reducing chemical 
use, improved post-harvest life of flowers and plants, disease 
and pest resistant flowers and plants, control of root 
diseases, robotics research, and control of run-off from 
greenhouse and nursery operations.
    Food Safety and Engineering.--The Committee continues the 
fiscal year 2004 funding level for increased collaborative 
research with Purdue University in the area of food safety and 
engineering.
    Forage and Range Research.--The Committee recognizes the 
important research being carried out by ARS at the Forage and 
Range Research Laboratory, Logan, UT. The research program 
seeks to develop and improve range and pasture plants, 
reinvigorate disturbed and over-used rangelands, effect 
revegetation following wild fires, combat invasive weeds, and 
provide improved forages for livestock. The Committee continues 
the fiscal year 2004 funding level for research required to 
develop range and pasture plant varieties, and provides an 
increase of $250,000 to support the creation of a turfgrass 
geneticist research position.
    Formosan Subterranean Termite.--The management of this 
termite is essential to Louisiana economic well-being. This 
termite has infested 32 parishes in Louisiana, with the most 
severe infestations occurring in the New Orleans and Lake 
Charles areas. This insect has caused millions of dollars worth 
of damage with an astonishing $300,000,000 impact in New 
Orleans alone. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 
funding level to the Southern Regional Research Center at New 
Orleans, LA, for research efforts focusing on improved termite 
detection systems, evaluation of wood products for protecting 
building materials, and enhancement of bait technology.
    The Committee also recognizes the University of 
Mississippi's ongoing research and development efforts to 
assist USDA entomologists who are focused on the reduction of 
Formosan subterranean termites. The National Center for 
Physical Acoustics at the University of Mississippi plays a 
unique role in development and application of acoustic 
detection methods for accurately locating Formosan termites in 
structures of the French Quarter in New Orleans. Accurate 
detection is an important aspect in control of these insects. 
The Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level for 
continued research and development in the use of insect 
acoustics.
    Glassy-Winged Sharpshooter.--The Committee continues to be 
concerned about the serious costs that the Glassy-winged 
sharpshooter [GWSS] and Pierce's disease [PD] inflict on U.S. 
vineyards. Citrus and nursery stock growers now have costly new 
shipping requirements to inspect and treat plants and crops to 
curb the spread of GWSS-PD. The Committee continues the fiscal 
year 2004 funding level to the ARS Parlier, CA, laboratory to 
continue its research efforts and collaborations to control and 
eradicate this devastating carrier and disease.
    Grand Forks Human Nutrition Laboratory.--Research is needed 
to study rural health problems related to diet in the Northern 
Great Plains. Particular emphasis will be given to the diets of 
Native Americans and the rural elderly. The Committee provides 
an increase of $150,000 above the fiscal year 2004 level for 
the Grand Forks Human Nutrition Lab to work with the Northern 
Great Plains Research Laboratory, Mandan, ND, the University of 
North Dakota and North Dakota State University on a healthy 
beef initiative.
    Great Lakes Aquaculture Research.--The Committee recognizes 
the important research studies that ARS carries out nationwide 
that benefit the aquaculture industry and the American 
consumer. There is a great need for expanded fundamental and 
applied research to improve production technology of Great 
Lakes species such as whitefish, lake trout, yellow perch 
walleye, and northern pike. The Committee continues the fiscal 
year 2004 funding level for a cooperative program with the 
Great Lakes Aquaculture Center to support this research.
    Harry Dupree National Aquaculture Research Center.--
Arkansas leads the Nation in raising hybrid striped bass, as 
well as in producing 80 percent of the Nation's baitfish and 
other food fishes. The Committee understands that this Center 
plays a significant role in meeting the needs of the U.S. 
aquaculture industry by conducting research aimed at improving 
yields, food quality, disease control, and stress tolerance. 
The Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level for 
increased research on the genetic improvement of hybrid striped 
bass.
    Hawaii Agriculture Research Center.--The Committee 
continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level for the Hawaii 
Agriculture Research Center to enhance the competitiveness of 
U.S. sugarcane producers and to continue to support the 
expansion of new crops and products, including those from 
agroforestry, to complement sugarcane production in Hawaii.
    Hides and Leather Research.--The USDA's only hides and 
leather research is carried out at the Eastern Regional 
Research Center in Wyndmoor, PA. The research provides the 
hides and leather industry with cost-effective and 
environmentally safe tanning processes which will enhance U.S. 
producers' competitiveness in world markets. The Committee 
provides an increase of $150,000 above the fiscal year 2004 
funding level for this research.
    Hops Research.--The Committee is aware of the importance of 
research to the hops industry in the Pacific Northwest. Hops 
are grown commercially in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. The 
Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level for 
research on powdery mildew that has caused widespread 
devastation to the hops production in the Northwest, to be 
carried out at the ARS research station at Corvallis, OR.
    Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging [HNRCA].--The 
HNRCA at Tufts University is one of six USDA research centers 
that study the effects of human nutrition on health. The 
program at HNRCA requires additional resources to maintain 
existing research. Not only are core instruments becoming 
increasingly obsolete, unreliable, and cost-prohibitive to 
repair, researchers in the new laboratories have no access to 
relatively new technologies. Therefore, the Committee provides 
an increase of $200,000 above the fiscal year 2004 funding 
level for new laboratory equipment.
    Improved Animal Waste Management.--The Committee 
understands the need for additional research to find new and 
economical treatments to eliminate animal wastes. The ARS 
research station at Florence, SC, is investigating alternative 
treatments and techniques to respond to this major problem in 
swine production. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 
funding level for this research.
    Improved Crop Production Practices.--The Committee 
continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level for cooperative 
projects at Auburn University, Tuskegee, and A&M working on 
integration of conservation tillage precision agriculture, and 
management of poultry litter. The Committee provides an 
increase of $250,000 above the fiscal year 2004 funding level 
for Auburn University to modernize the soil testing lab and 
develop web-based access information systems for producers.
    Improved Forage-Livestock Production.--This joint research 
project with the University of Kentucky focuses on enhancing 
the sustainability of forage-based farming systems. The 
research ranges from the molecular level to whole organism 
levels, and seeks to apply the best plant and animal 
technologies to promote animal health and profitability while 
preserving the environment. This program supported the landmark 
discovery that caterpillars were the vectors for Mare 
Reproductive Loss Syndrome. The Committee provides an increase 
of $180,000 to expand this research.
    Integrated Farming Systems.--The Committee understands that 
Integrated Farming Systems represents the agriculture operation 
in its entirety, including finances, natural resources and off-
farm environmental impacts. The National Soil Tilth Laboratory 
in Ames, IA, conducts this research with special emphasis on 
nutrient management. The Committee continues the fiscal year 
2004 funding level.
    Irrigated Cropping Systems in the Mid-South.--Irrigation in 
the Mid-South United States is essential for economically 
sustainable crop production systems. Growers cannot tolerate 
the risk associated with sporadic rainfall. The Committee 
continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level for cooperative 
research by ARS and the Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry 
Experiment Station at Stoneville, focusing on reducing plant 
stress, ameliorating the field environment, and managing water 
resources.
    Johne's Disease (Bovine Paratuberculosis).--Johne's is a 
contagious disease that causes chronic wasting or debilitating 
enteritis and eventual death in cattle, sheep, goats, deer and 
other wild and domestic ruminants. Infected animals 
intermittently shed the microorganisms into milk and feces. 
Infection is difficult to diagnose because of the fastidious, 
slow growth of the microorganisms and the poor reliability of 
the sero-diagnostic tools. Additional research is needed to 
develop improved diagnostics and vaccines, and better 
understanding of the pathogenicity of the organism. The 
Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level for 
research to control this devastating disease affecting this 
Nation's beef and dairy industries.
    Karnal Bunt.--The Committee is aware of the significant 
threat karnal bunt poses to the U.S. wheat industry and U.S. 
wheat exports. To aid in development of karnal bunt resistance 
and control methods, the Committee continues the fiscal year 
2004 funding level for research in this area. The Committee 
expects ARS to work with Kansas State University to establish a 
consortium in Manhattan, KS, that will work with other land 
grant universities in this research area.
    Livestock and Range Research.--The Committee recognizes the 
threat to long-term sustainability of the Northern Great Plains 
range livestock industry from infestations of noxious weeds 
such as leafy spurge and spotted knapweed. The objective of the 
Fort Keogh, MT, station is to develop low-input rangeland 
management strategies that impede or control the spread of 
noxious weeds into native rangelands and planted pastures. The 
Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level. 
Further, the Committee provides an increase of $100,000 above 
the fiscal year 2004 funding level to enhance the beef cattle 
molecular genomics program. This funding will allow ARS to hire 
two additional laboratory technicians to accelerate processing 
and analysis of DNA samples and to enhance the functional 
genetics program at Miles City, Montana.
    Livestock Genome Sequencing.--The Committee continues the 
fiscal year 2004 funding level for the U.S. Meat Animal 
Research Center at Clay Center, NE, for genomics research to 
identify the genes that influence disease resistance, 
reproduction, nutrition, and other economically important 
traits in livestock. This research is to be performed in 
collaboration with the University of Illinois.
    Malignant Catarrhal Fever [MCF] Virus.--The Committee 
acknowledges the importance of research for the sheep-
associated virus, Malignant Catarrhal Fever [MCF], infecting 
small ruminants. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 
funding level for research on the development of vaccines 
critical to the systematic eradication of MCF virus in small 
ruminants at the ARS laboratory at Pullman, WA, in cooperation 
with the ARS sheep, station at Dubois, ID, and Washington State 
University.
    Michael Fields Agricultural Institute.--The Committee 
continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level for ARS to 
initiate collaborative research with the Michael Fields 
Agricultural Institute. This research will develop high-quality 
corn in Wisconsin and other Mid-Western States for increased 
nutritional value and adaptation to sustainable farming 
systems. Collaborative research will be directed at corn 
breeding, analysis, corn quality, on-farm research and 
information dissemination.
    Microbial Genomics.--The Committee recognizes the 
importance and significance of the joint microbial genomics 
initiative between the ARS Animal Disease Research Unit at 
Pullman, WA, and the ARS Tick Research Unit at Kerrville, TX, 
and continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level.
    National Cold Water Marine Aquaculture Center.--The 
Committee notes the importance of aquaculture research to the 
State of Maine, which leads the Nation in Atlantic salmon 
cultivation. Other important aquaculture species in Maine 
include shellfish and trout. Research on marine finfish is 
vitally important to Maine's aquaculture program. Finfish, 
including haddock, halibut, and cod, are primary candidates for 
future diversity of Maine's aquaculture industry. The Committee 
provides an increase of $100,000 above the fiscal year 2004 
funding level for this research, which will be undertaken at 
the Franklin, Maine, research location.
    National Corn to Ethanol Research Pilot Plant.--The 
National Corn to Ethanol Research Pilot Plant at Edwardsville, 
IL, was constructed to avail researchers and commercial 
producers with a state-of-the-art facility to develop more 
efficient production of ethanol. The plant will operate on a 
time-share basis to Federal and State agencies, universities, 
and commercial producers. The plant has the near-term potential 
to improve the efficiency and decrease the cost of corn 
conversion for ethanol production. The Committee continues the 
fiscal year 2004 funding level for ARS research at the pilot 
plant. The research will utilize both wet milled and dry milled 
projects and will focus on processing efficiencies that can be 
adapted commercially in the near term.
    National Nutrition Monitoring System.--Health and dietary 
information gathered from a combined U.S. Department of 
Agriculture/Department of Health and Human Services is critical 
to the Nation and plays a key role in shaping national food 
policies and programs including food safety, food labeling, 
child nutrition, food assistance and dietary guidance. The 
Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level for the 
combined national nutrition monitoring program.
    National Sclerotinia Initiative.--The Committee recognizes 
the importance of controlling this disease which affects 
sunflowers, soybeans, canola, edible beans, peas and lentils. 
The Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level for 
this research initiative which is centered at the ARS research 
station at Fargo, ND.
    National Sedimentation Laboratory.--The National Center for 
Computational Hydroscience and Engineering, in cooperation with 
the Agriculture Research Service at Oxford, MS, has developed a 
series of mathematical models to assess and mitigate upland 
soil erosion, stream bank failure, and the transport and impact 
of sediment on stream morphology and ecology. These models have 
been recognized nationally and internationally as being at the 
forefront of research on understanding sediment transport 
processes. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 funding 
level at Oxford for expanding cooperative research with the 
Center and accelerating the transfer of the modeling technology 
to Federal and State agencies responsible for mitigating soil 
erosion and sediment transport in streams.
    National Soil Dynamics Laboratory.--The extent of soil 
degradation in the South not only impairs soil and water 
quality but also reduces profitability and economic 
sustainability of farms in the region. Improving profitability 
of farms in the South is critical to rural economies as farm 
numbers continue to decline. The Committee continues the fiscal 
year 2004 funding level to the ARS Soil Dynamics Laboratory at 
Auburn, AL, for research to develop technologies and strategies 
for managing soils to increase farm profitability, and preserve 
the soil resource for future generations.
    Natural Products.--The Committee continues the fiscal year 
2004 funding level for cooperative research with the National 
Center for Natural Products Research to discover and develop 
natural product chemicals for use in agriculture.
    New England Plant, Soil, and Water Laboratory.--The USDA-
ARS New England Plant, Soil, and Water Laboratory, Orono, ME, 
performs a critical function that benefits not only the Maine 
economy, but the agriculture industry as a whole. The research 
performed at this laboratory--including cropping systems and 
management practices, efficient use of nutrients and water, and 
control of pathogens, insects and weeds--benefits numerous 
agricultural interests, most notably the potato and livestock 
industries.
    It is especially vital to New England potato growers that 
this lab continue and even increase its important research. The 
laboratory conducts experiments to address unique challenges 
that face potato growers both in the region and across the 
Nation. Research at the Orono facility, for example, has 
included tracking late blight disease, a devastating epidemic 
that costs potato growers approximately $3,000,000,000 
annually. Of the nation-wide locations of USDA-ARS 
laboratories, this is the only laboratory located in New 
England and it should be noted that 95 percent of the potato 
acreage in the six New England States are in Maine where the 
laboratory has the benefit of being in close proximity to the 
grower's fields.
    The Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level 
to maintain the New England Plant, Soil, and Water Laboratory 
and research programs.
    Northern Grains Insect Research Laboratory.--Diverse 
economic and environmental pressures have impacted agriculture 
in the Northern Plains. The Northern Grains Insect Research 
Laboratory in Brookings, South Dakota focuses on production 
agriculture problems for the Northern Plains. This laboratory 
is working on research that directly benefits farmers, such as 
new cropping systems and innovative crop rotations that 
minimize use of chemicals and tillage. The Committee continues 
the fiscal year 2004 level to address the diverse economic and 
environmental problems in the Northern Plains.
    Northern Great Plains Ecosystem.--The Committee is aware of 
the research and outreach programs conducted by the ARS 
Biological Control and Soil Conservation Laboratory at Sidney, 
Montana. A major focus of research at the station is targeted 
to biocontrol of invasive and noxious weeds and enhancing the 
long-term sustainability of range, irrigated and dryland 
agriculture. Invasive weeds alter ecosystem structure and 
function, reduces biodiversity, displaces native plants and 
requires widespread use of herbicides. The Committee continues 
the fiscal year 2004 funding level to strengthen this program 
to increase the impact and efficiency of the biological weed 
control research.
    Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory.--The 
Committee understands the importance of expanding research on 
irrigated cropping practices, crop rotation, water use, and 
integrated pest management of weeds in irrigated and dryland 
crops in the Northern Plains. This research will improve 
production and crop quality, and will increase long-term 
economic returns to growers. The Committee provides an increase 
of $150,000 above the fiscal year 2004 funding level for this 
research at the Northern Plains Agricultural Research 
Laboratory.
    Noxious Weeds in the Desert Southwest.--Invasive and 
noxious weeds are expected to infest 140 million acres in the 
United States by the year 2010. Rangeland and pastures will be 
the primary land types invaded by these species. The Committee 
supports the biocontrol research on invasive non-native and 
tree species carried out by ARS at the Jornada Experimental 
Range in Las Cruces and continues the fiscal year 2004 funding 
level for this research.
    Nutrition Interventions.--Obesity is the Nation's fastest 
growing public health problem, affecting every segment of the 
American population. The Committee recognizes the importance 
and benefits of healthy diets to prevent obesity. The Committee 
provides an increase of $50,000 which shall be directed to the 
National Center of Excellence in Foods and Nutrition Research 
in Pennsylvania to assist with implementation of a national 
approach to increase levels and results of nutrition research 
and development, and to allow low-income families to 
participate in and benefit from service-based research 
programs, including rural delivery of nutritional counseling.
    NW Small Fruits Research.--The Committee supports the 
ongoing research conducted by the Small Fruit Genetics and 
Pathology Research unit at Corvallis, OR. The demand for fresh 
and processed berries and grapes in both domestic and 
international markets continues to grow at a rapid rate. The 
Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level for this 
research which involves cooperation between industry, State and 
Federal research.
    Obesity.--The Committee provides increases of $350,000 
above the fiscal year 2004 funding level for obesity research 
at the Children's Nutrition Research Center in Houston, TX, and 
$250,000 at the Human Nutrition Research on Aging in Boston, 
MA.
    Ogallala Aquifer.--Surface water in the Central High Plains 
region is severely limited and the Ogallala Aquifer, which 
underlies this area, has provided water for the development of 
a highly significant agricultural economy. However, the 
Ogallala Aquifer is a finite resource. The Committee provides 
an increase of $450,000 above the fiscal year 2004 funding 
level for research into the complex nature of water 
availability, potential uses, and costs which will help 
determine future water policy in this region. This research is 
to be based in Texas but coordinated with other affected 
States, including Kansas.
    Organic Research.--The Committee is aware of the growing 
interest in the production, marketing, and consumption of 
organic products. By some accounts, the level of retail sales 
in the United States has reached 1.8 percent of the entire food 
market, yet the dedication of USDA research directed to organic 
is well below that figure. The Committee encourages ARS, when 
appropriate, to direct research resources in a manner that 
reflects the growing interest in organic production and the 
need to provide enhanced research for this growing agricultural 
sector, and to conduct activities pursuant to section 7408 of 
the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. The 
Committee requests ARS to submit a report by March 1, 2005, on 
the levels of research funding directed to the various areas of 
the organics industry.
    Ornamental and Horticulture Research.--The Committee 
recognizes the collaborative research program between ARS and 
the University of Vermont [UVM]. Research currently underway at 
UVM includes Pear thrips and the Asian Long-horned Beetle. UVM 
research is critical to the protection of the ornamental and 
horticulture industries throughout New England. The Committee 
continues the 2004 funding level for Pear thrips research.
    Papaya Ringspot Virus.--The Committee provides the fiscal 
year 2004 funding level to the University of Hawaii College of 
Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources to monitor and refine 
control of the papaya ringspot virus; to induce nematode 
resistance, flowering control, and mealy bug wilt disease 
resistance in commercial pineapple varieties; and, to expand 
the techniques and knowledge obtained from this program to 
create disease and pest resistance in other tropical crops such 
as banana and flowers where there is strong industry support 
and interest in these transgenic approaches. The Committee 
views the development of pest and disease resistant plants as 
supportive of a national agricultural research agenda to 
minimize the application of chemical pesticides.
    Phytoestrogens Research.--The Committee is aware of the 
increased consumption of soy products and controversies 
surrounding the health claims from those products. 
Phytoestrogens, plant-derived products that can mimic or block 
estrogen, remain a priority issue for USDA researchers. 
Research studies have suggested that phytoestrogens have a 
range of human health benefits that can prevent certain 
diseases. However, extensive studies on their long-term 
benefits and side effects are lacking. The Committee continues 
the fiscal year 2004 funding level for this research. Current 
research is carried out at the Southern Regional Research 
Center in New Orleans in collaboration with other universities. 
The Committee directs that the same amount provided in fiscal 
year 2004 shall be used in collaboration with the University of 
Toledo to continue efforts to fingerprint and isolate novel 
products in stressed and unstressed soy.
    Plant Genetic Diversity and Gene Discovery Center.--The 
Committee recognizes the challenges of water availability, 
invasive weeds, fire cycles, and conservation in the Western 
United States. To meet these needs, the Committee continues to 
support the plant genetic diversity and gene discovery center 
at the ARS Forage and Range Research Laboratory in 
collaboration with the Utah Agricultural Experiment Station. 
The center will continue to access plant genetic relationships 
and identify native plant species through DNA technologies to 
help conservation efforts in genetic diversity and support wild 
lands rehabilitation efforts after fire, mining, and invasive 
weed control activities. The Committee continues the fiscal 
year 2004 funding level for this program.
    Poisonous Plant Research.--The USDA Poisonous Plant 
Research Laboratory at Logan, Utah conducts vital research on 
the effects of poisonous plants on livestock in support of the 
Nation's livestock industry. The Committee is aware of the 
important investigations carried out by this laboratory and the 
significant contributions it has made in agricultural plant and 
animal sciences. The Committee provides an increase of $450,000 
above the fiscal year 2004 funding level. These funds are 
necessary in order to add a biotechnology scientist and a 
chemist, and strengthen the technician base.
    Potato Breeding Research.--The Committee is concerned that 
funding levels and lack of personnel resources limit ARS' 
ability to address some aspects of potato variety research. The 
Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level to meet 
research staffing needs at the Aberdeen, ID, research 
laboratory.
    Potato Production.--The Committee recognizes the important 
contributions made by the USDA-ARS research units at Prosser 
and Wapato, Washington, but encourages closer cooperation 
between the units in conducting research and solving problems 
in potato production.
    Potato Research.--The Committee expects that the potato 
research funds appropriated to the ARS Research Unit in Wapato, 
Washington, be used for actual potato research, and recommends 
that ARS allocate a proportionate amount of these funds for 
potato entomology research, rather than only staff and indirect 
costs.
    Potato Storage.--The Committee recognizes the need for 
expanded investigations on potato storage and continues the 
fiscal year 2004 funding level for this work. Research will be 
conducted at the ARS Madison, WI, laboratory on plant 
physiology, fumigation, and cultural practices to help growers 
reduce pesticide inputs.
    Precision Agriculture Research.--The Committee continues 
the fiscal year 2004 funding level for the Mandan Northern 
Great Plains Research Laboratory for a precision agriculture 
research project and global climate change research. The 
precision agriculture research should be conducted in 
cooperation with the Upper Midwest Aerospace Consortium and 
DigitalGlobe. In addition, the Committee has restored the 
funding provided last year for the Hettinger Extension Service 
Southwest Feeders Program. ARS researchers can contribute 
significantly to the knowledge base UMAC can transfer to 
producers.
    Program Continuations.--The Committee directs the 
Agricultural Research Service to continue to fund the following 
areas of research in fiscal year 2005 at the same funding level 
provided in fiscal year 2004: Advanced Animal Vaccines, 
Greenport, NY; Agricultural Genome Bioinformatics, Ames, IA; 
Agricultural Law, Drake University, NAL; Agroforestry Research, 
Booneville, AR; Air Quality Research, Logan, UT, Manhattan, KS, 
HQ; Air Quality Research, Pullman, WA; Alternative Crops and 
Value Added Products, Stoneville, MS; Animal Health Consortium, 
Peoria, IL; Animal Waste Treatment, Florence, SC; Animal 
Welfare Information Center, NAL; Appalachian Fruit Research 
Station, Kearneysville, WV; Appalachian Horticulture Research, 
Poplarville, MS; University of TN/TN State; Appalachian Pasture 
Based Beef Systems, Beaver, WV; Aquaculture Initiative for Mid-
Atlantic Highlands, Leetown, WV; Aquaculture Research, 
Aberdeen, ID; Arctic Germplasm, Palmer, AK; Arid Lands 
Research, Las Cruces, NM; Arkansas Children's Nutrition Center, 
Little Rock, AR; Asian Bird Influenza, Athens, GA; Barley Food 
Health Benefits, Beltsville, MD; Bee Research, Logan, UT; 
Biomass Crop Production, Brookings, SD; Biomedical Materials in 
Plants, Beltsville, MD; Biomineral Soil Amendments for Control 
of Nematodes, Beltsville, MD; Biotechnology Research and 
Development Corp, Peoria, IL; Biotechnology Research to Improve 
Crops and Livestock, Stoneville, MS; Bovine Genetics, 
Beltsville, MD; Broiler Production in the Mid-South, 
Mississippi State, MS; Broomweed Biological Controls, Albany, 
CA; Canada Thistle, Fargo, ND; Catfish Genome, Auburn, AL; 
Catfish Health, Stoneville, MS; Central Great Plains Research 
Station, Akron, CO; Cereal Crops Research, Madison, WI; Cereal 
Crops, Northern Crops, Fargo, ND; Cereal Disease Research, St. 
Paul, MN; Chloroplast Genetic Engineering Research, Urbana, IL; 
Coffee and Cocoa Research, Miami, FL; Beltsville, MD; Corn 
Germplasm, Mississippi State, MS; Corn Germplasm, Ames, IA; 
Corn Resistant to Aflatoxin, Mississippi State, MS; Cotton 
Genetics Research, Florence, SC; Cotton Genomics, Breeding, and 
Variety Development, Stoneville, MS; Cotton Ginning Research, 
Las Cruces, NM; Crop Production and Food Processing, Peoria, 
IL; Cropping Systems Research, Stoneville, MS; Dairy Forage, 
Madison, WI; Dairy Genetics, Beltsville, MD; Delta Nutrition 
Intervention Initiative, Little Rock, AR; Diet Nutrition and 
Obesity Research, Pennington Biomedical Research Center; 
Dryland Production, Akron, CO; Ecology of Tamarix, Reno, NV; 
Emissions From Livestock Wastewater, Florence, SC; Endophyte 
Research, Booneville, AR; Feed Efficiency in Cattle, Clay 
Center, NE; Flood/Control Acoustic Technology, National 
Sedimentation Lab, Oxford, MS; Floriculture and Nursery Crops, 
HQ; Food Safety and Engineering, Wyndmoor, PA; Food Safety for 
Listeria and E.coli, Albany, CA; Wyndmoor, PA; HQ; Forage and 
Range Research, Logan, UT; Formosan Subterranean Termites, New 
Orleans, LA; Foundry Sand By-Products, Beltsville, MD; Golden 
Nematode, Ithaca, NY; Grain Legume Plant Pathologist Position, 
Pullman, WA; Grain Research, Manhattan, KS; Grand Forks Human 
Nutrition Laboratory, Grand Forks, ND; Grape Genetics, Geneva, 
NY; Grape Rootstock, Geneva, NY; Great Lakes Aquaculture 
Research, Ashland, WI; Milwaukee, WI; Greenhouse Lettuce 
Germplasm, Salinas, CA; Harry Dupree National Aquaculture 
Research Center, Stuttgart, AR; Hides and Leather Research, 
Wyndmoor, PA; Hops Research, Corvallis, OR; Human Nutrition 
Research Center on Aging, Boston, MA; Improved Animal Waste 
Management, Florence, SC; Improved Crop Production Practices, 
Auburn, AL; Improved Forage Livestock Production, Lexington, 
KY; Integrated Farming Systems, Ames, IA; Integrated Farming 
Systems/Dairy Forage, Madison, WI; Invasive Aphid Research, 
Stillwater, OK; IPM for Northern Climate Crops, Fairbanks, AK; 
Irrigated Cropping Systems in the Mid-South, Stoneville, MS; 
Johne's Disease, Ames, IA; Beltsville, MD; Jornada Experimental 
Range Research Station, Las Cruces, NM; Karnal Bunt, Manhattan, 
KS; Late Blight Fungus, Orono, ME; Livestock and Range 
Research, Miles City, MT; Livestock Genome Mapping, Clay 
Center, NE; Malignant Catarrhal Fever [MCF] Virus, Pullman, WA; 
Manure Management Research, Ames, IA; Medicinal Botanical 
Production and Processing, Beaver, WV; Michael Fields 
Agricultural Institute, Madison, WI; Microbial Genomics, 
Kerrville, TX; Pullman, WA; Minor Use Pesticide (IR--4); 
National Center for Cool and Cold Water Aquaculture, Leetown, 
WV; National Center for Cool and Cold Water Aquaculture--
Aquaculture Systems--Freshwater Institute, Leetown, WV; 
National Cold Water Marine Aquaculture, Orono, ME; National 
Corn to Ethanol Research Pilot Plant; National Germplasm 
Resources Program; National Nutrition Monitoring System, 
Beltsville, MD; National Sclerotinia Initiative, Fargo, ND; 
National Sedimentation Laboratory Acoustics, Oxford, MS; 
National Sedimentation Laboratory Yazoo Basin, Oxford, MS; 
National Sedimentation Laboratory Yazoo Basin/TMDLs, Oxford, 
MS; National Soil Dynamics Laboratory, Auburn, AL; National 
Soil Erosion Laboratory, West Lafayette, IN; National Warmwater 
Aquaculture Center, Stoneville, MS; Natural Products, Oxford, 
MS; Nematology Research, Tifton, GA; New England Plant, Soil, 
and Water Research, Orono, ME; Northern Grain Insect 
Laboratory, Brookings, SD; Northern Great Plains Ecosystem, 
Sidney, MT; Northern Great Plains Research Laboratory, Mandan, 
ND; Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory 
Agricultural Systems Research Unit Staffing, Sidney, MT; 
Noxious Weeds in the Desert Southwest, Las Cruces, NM; 
Nutritional Requirements, Houston, TX; NW Small Fruits 
Research, Corvallis, OR; Oat Virus, West Lafayette, IN; 
Ogallala Aquifer, Bushland, TX; Olive Fruit Fly, Parlier, CA; 
Montpelier, FR; Organic Minor Crop Research, Salinas, CA; 
Ornamental and Horticulture Research, Ithaca, NY; Pear Thrips, 
University of Vermont; Phytoestrogen Research, New Orleans, LA; 
Pierce's Disease/Glassy-Winged Sharpshooter, Davis, CA; 
Parlier, CA; Ft. Pierce, FL; Plant Genetic Diversity and Gene 
Discovery Center, Logan, UT; Poisonous Plant Research 
Laboratory, Logan, UT; Post-Harvest and Controlled Atmosphere 
Chamber (lettuce), Salinas, CA; Potato Breeding Research, 
Aberdeen, ID; Potato Research Enhancement, Prosser, WA; Potato 
Storage, Madison, WI; Poultry Disease (Avian Coccidiosis), 
Beltsville, MD; Poultry Disease (Avian Leukosis-J Virus), HQ; 
Poultry Disease, Athens, GA; Precision Agriculture Research, 
Mandan, ND; Rainbow Trout, Aberdeen, ID; Rainbow Trout, 
Leetown, WV; Rangeland Resource Management, Cheyenne, WY; 
Rangeland Resources Research, Las Cruces, NM; Red Imported Fire 
Ants, Stoneville, MS; Regional Molecular Genotyping, Fargo, ND; 
Manhattan, KS; Pullman, WA; Residue Management in Sugarcane, 
Houma, LA; Resistance Management and Risk Assessment in Bt 
Cotton, Stoneville, MS; Rice Research, Stuttgart, AR; Risk 
Assessment for Bt Corn, Ames, IA; Root Diseases in Wheat and 
Barley, Pullman, WA; Seafood Waste, Fairbanks, AK; 
Sedimentation Issues in Flood-Control Dam Rehabilitations, 
Oxford, MS; Seismic and Acoustic Technologies in Soils 
Sedimentation Laboratory, Oxford, MS; Shellfish Genetics, 
Newport, OR; Small Farms, Booneville, AR; Small Fruits 
Research, Poplarville, MS; Soil Plant Nutrient Research, Ft. 
Collins, CO; Soil Tilth Research, Ames, IA; Sorghum Research, 
Little Rock, AR; Manhattan, KS; Stillwater, OK; Bushland, TX; 
Lubbock, TX; Soybean Cyst Nematode, Stoneville, MS; Soybean 
Genetics, Columbia, MO; Soybean Research in the South, 
Stoneville, MS; Sudden Oak Disease, Frederick, MD; Sugarbeet 
Research, Kimberly, ID; Sugarcane Variety Research, Canal 
Point, FL; Sustainable Olive Production, Weslaco, TX; 
Sustainable Vineyard Practices, Davis, CA; Sustainable 
Viticulture Research, Davis, CA; Sweet Potato Research, 
Stoneville, MS; Swine Lagoon Alternatives Research, Florence, 
SC; Temperate Fruit Flies, Wapato, WA; Tree Fruit Quality 
Research, Wenatchee, WA; Trout Genome Mapping, Leetown, WV; 
Turfgrass Research, Washington, DC; U.S. Pacific Basin Ag 
Research Center, Hilo, HI; U.S. Vegetable Laboratory/Staffing, 
Charleston, SC; Vaccines and Microbe Control for Fish Health, 
Auburn, AL; Vegetable Crops Research, Madison, WI; Verticillium 
Wilt, Salinas, CA; Virus-Free Fruit Tree Cultivars, Wapato, WA; 
Virus-Free Potato Germplasm, Fairbanks, AK; Viticulture, 
Corvallis, OR; Waste Management Research, Bowling Green, KY; 
Waste Management Research, Mississippi State, MS; Water 
Management Research Laboratory, Brawley, CA; Water Use 
Reduction/Producer Enhancement Research, Dawson, GA; Watershed 
Research, Columbia, MO; Weed Management Research, Beltsville, 
MD; Western Grazinglands, Burns, OR; Western Wheat Quality 
Laboratory, Pullman, WA; Wheat and Barley Scab Initiative, 
Manhattan, KS; Raleigh, NC; Fargo, ND; Wheat Quality Research, 
Manhattan, KS; Fargo, ND; Wooster, OH; Pullman, WA; Wine Grape 
Foundation Block, Prosser, WA; Woody Genomics and Breeding for 
the Southeast, Poplarville, MS.
    Rainbow Trout.--The Committee continues the fiscal year 
2004 funding level to develop and test improved rainbow trout 
strains and alternative grain-based fish feeds in cooperation 
with the University of Idaho Hagerman Fish Culture Experiment 
Station in Hagerman, Idaho.
    Red Imported Fire Ants.--Nationally, the red imported fire 
ant causes damage and control costs of over $1,000,000,000 per 
year. As an invasive species, it has expanded from its apparent 
point of entry at Mobile, Alabama, to encompass over 300 
million acres in 12 Southern States including Mississippi and 
Texas, three Western States including California, and Puerto 
Rico. Range expansion into one-fourth of the United States and 
parts of Mexico is expected to continue without centralized 
aggressive action. The Committee recognizes the leadership 
provided by ARS at Stoneville, MS, in the development of 
natural enemy mass propagation and release technologies for 
area-wide suppression of the red imported fire ant and halting 
its spread. Other research is directed toward development of 
toxic baits and use of geographic information systems and 
remote sensing technologies to detect the delineate fire ant 
infested areas. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 
funding level for cooperative research to implement multi-year, 
community-wide trials in the mid-South to eliminate populations 
of the imported fire ant.
    Residue Management in Sugarcane.-- Sugarcane farmers have 
traditionally burned cane in the field before transport to the 
mill to achieve efficiency, a practice that is crucial to the 
survival of the sugarcane industry. However, residue from 
burning is a nuisance and potential hazard to nearby 
neighborhoods. The ARS Research Station in Houma, LA, conducts 
research to provide viable, cost-effective ``green cane'' 
harvesting methods that will provide alternatives to burning 
cane in the field. The Committee provides an increase of 
$250,000 above the fiscal year 2004 funding level for research 
on breeding, germplasm enhancement, and crop protection; 
integrated weed protection; and green cane harvesting methods.
    Resistance Management and Risk Assessment in Bt Cotton and 
Other Plant Incorporated Protectants.--Transgenic Bt cottons 
have provided outstanding control of insecticide-resistant 
tobacco budworms and suppressed other cotton caterpillar pests. 
However, potential evolution of resistance in caterpillar pests 
to the Bt protein(s) in transgenic cotton threaten the 
viability of the Bt plant protectant technology. The 
Environmental Protection Agency has imposed strategies for 
managing the evolution of resistance to preserve the Bt 
technology, but it is important to develop data to validate 
these strategies. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 
funding level to ARS at Stoneville, MS, to coordinate a 
national program for devising the most effective and 
economically sustainable production systems for ensuring the 
long-term integrity of Bt crop protection and resistance 
management.
    Seafood Waste.--The disposal of seafood waste continues to 
be a national and international problem. Additional research is 
needed to determine alternative uses of discarded fish as a 
possible source of additional income for seafood producers. The 
Committee supports the existing ARS/University of Alaska 
collaborative research project on feedstuff that can be 
generated from materials usually wasted during processing of 
seafoods. The Committee provides an increase of $320,000 from 
the level of funding available in fiscal year 2004 funding 
level for expanded research to address this problem, of which 
$100,000 shall be available to the State of Alaska.
    Sedimentation Issues in Flood-Control Dam Rehabilitation.--
Nearly 11,000 flood control dams have been constructed by the 
United States Department of Agriculture nationwide in 2,000 
watersheds since 1944. These watershed projects represent a 
$14,000,000,000 infrastructure, providing flood control, 
municipal water supply, recreation, and wildlife habitat 
enhancement. The life expectancy of these dams is projected to 
be 50 years. Sedimentation has reduced water-holing capacity, 
structural components have deteriorated, and safety regulations 
have become more strict. The Committee continues the fiscal 
year 2004 funding level to ARS at Oxford, MS, for assessing the 
efficiency of these structures in regulating floodwater, 
including the use of acoustics techniques, and hazards that the 
sediments may pose if introduced into the environment.
    Shellfish Genetics.--ARS has established a shellfish 
genetics research program that focuses on genetics, ecology and 
food quality. The Committee recognizes the importance of this 
multi-State research program and continues the fiscal year 2004 
funding level for shellfish genetics research at the Oregon 
State University Hatfield Marine Science Center in Newport, OR.
    Silverleaf Whitefly.--The silverleaf whitefly, also known 
as the sweetpotato whitefly, causes millions of dollars in crop 
damage in several States, including Hawaii. The Committee 
recommends participation by all affected States in the 
collaborative effort to control this pest.
    Small Fruits Research.--The Committee recognizes the 
importance of the cooperation between the ARS Small Fruits 
Research Unit and the Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry 
Experiment Station at Poplarville, MS. This cooperation 
catalyzed and now undergirds the Gulf Coast blueberry and other 
small fruit industries. This cooperation has expanded into the 
development of vegetable, melon, and ornamental industries and 
can revitalize small farms in the south. The Committee 
continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level for the 
cooperative research and development efforts on ornamentals, 
vegetables, and melons at Poplarville, MS.
    Soil, Plant, Nutrient Research.--The Committee understands 
the important contributions made by the ARS Fort Collins Soil, 
Plant, Nutrient Laboratory and continues the fiscal year 2004 
funding level to support the cropping systems and nitrogen 
management research program carried out at this laboratory.
    Sorghum Research.--Sorghum is fourth on the list of 
economically important grains, behind corn, soybeans, and 
wheat. However, very little is known about the alternative uses 
of this major U.S. cash crop with an estimated value of over 
$2,100,000,000. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 
funding level for research at the ARS Grain Sorghum Research 
Laboratory, Manhattan, KS, on the measurement of sorghum 
quality and the development of alternative uses of this 
important crop.
    Soybean Research in the South.--The Committee continues the 
fiscal year 2004 funding level for the soybean research program 
located at the Delta Branch Experiment Station in Stoneville, 
Mississippi with the USDA/ARS focusing on soybean genetics and 
breeding, and Mississippi Agriculture and Forestry Experiment 
Station devoting efforts to production systems research.
    Soybean Rust.--The Committee notes the growing concern 
raised by the soybean industry due to the threat of soybean 
rust. Soybean rust is a fungus that first appears on the leaves 
of the plant and eventually causes pre-mature defoliation which 
brings about substantial yield loss. The Committee encourages 
the Department to accelerate research on plant varieties that 
improve tolerance to soybean rust pathogens.
    Subterranean Termite.--The Committee continues the fiscal 
year 2004 funding level for termite research in Hawaii to 
devise and test control methods that are consistent with public 
health and environmental safety in Hawaii and other warm 
weather States.
    Sudden Oak Disease Syndrome.--This is a fungus that has 
afflicted wood and nursery products in California and Oregon in 
the last several years. Very little is known on how the fungus 
is spread, which species are vulnerable, and how afflicted 
species can be treated. The Committee is concerned about the 
potential spread of the fungus to other parts of the country 
without the appropriate treatment and management of the 
disease. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 funding 
level to the ARS Ft. Detrick, MD, research laboratory for 
research critical in stemming the spread of this disease.
    Sugarbeet Research.--There are 230,000 acres of sugarbeets 
grown in Idaho and eastern Oregon requiring research 
technologies to maintain and enhance production and 
profitability. The Committee notes that while there has been 
considerable work done on sugarbeet fertility, basic work is 
needed on the interactions between fertility, genotype, 
irrigation, and crop quality. Therefore, the Committee provides 
an increase of $150,000 above the fiscal year 2004 funding 
level to hire an agronomist/crop fertility specialist to do 
work in this area. This research is carried out at the ARS 
Kimberly, ID, research station.
    Sugarcane Variety Research.--The Sugarcane Field Station in 
Canal Point, Florida conducts research into sugarcane breeding, 
pathology, and soil conservation strategies. Ongoing research 
includes implementation of molecular marker-assisted breeding 
strategies, utilization of molecular tools for screening 
specific traits in order to minimize pesticide use, and 
production of true sugarcane varieties that maintain acceptable 
yields under reduced production inputs. The Committee provides 
an increase of $150,000 above the fiscal year 2004 funding 
level to strengthen and expand these efforts.
    Sweet Potato Research.--Sweet potato is a high value, 
nutritious, alternative crop for the Mid South. Improved 
production practices, including timing of planting, agronomic 
practices, and pest control, have the potential for doubling 
the level of production per acre, further increasing the 
profitability of this small farm crop. The Committee continues 
the fiscal year 2004 funding level for ARS, Stoneville, MS, to 
conduct research on sweet potato production in cooperation with 
the Alcorn State University Demonstration Farm at Mound Bayou, 
MS.
    Swine Lagoon Alternatives Research.--The Committee is aware 
of the research carried out at the ARS Florence, SC, laboratory 
to treat the waste on small swine farms at a reasonable cost 
while meeting stringent environmental regulations. The 
Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level for this 
research.
    Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus.--The Committee is aware of the 
widespread losses caused by the tomato spotted wilt virus in 
Hawaii and encourages the agency to collaborate with and fund 
as appropriate University of Hawaii scientists to transfer 
generic resistance to tomato spotted wilt virus into University 
of Hawaii breeding lines for the susceptible crops.
    Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies.--The Committee 
strongly supports ARS research to combat transmissible 
spongiform encephalopathies, including bovine spongiform 
encephalopathy, chronic wasting disease, and scrapie. The 
Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level to the 
Animal Disease Laboratory, Pullman, WA, and the National Animal 
Disease Laboratory, Ames, IA, for research on chronic wasting 
disease. In addition, the Committee provides an increase of 
$450,000 to enhance overall research activities on these animal 
diseases.
    Tree Fruit Industry.--The Committee provides an increase of 
$150,000 above the fiscal year 2004 funding level for new 
genetics of fruit quality research at the ARS Wenatchee, WA 
facility. This research will provide the fundamental scientific 
knowledge that will allow development of new apple varieties 
that are juicier, sweeter, and more nutritious and attractive 
to consumers. This project is one of five parts of the National 
Tree Fruit Technology Roadmap which will help the United States 
be more competitive in the world apple market.
    Trout Genome Mapping.--The Committee recognizes the 
important tools of molecular genetics and biotechnology, and 
their application to solve problems facing the cool and cold 
water aquaculture industry, which has had a flat growth profile 
nationally, but is an emerging industry in the Appalachian 
region. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 funding 
level for research on cool and cold water species at the 
National Center for Cool and Cold Water Aquaculture, in 
collaboration with West Virginia University.
    Turfgrass Research.--The Committee provides an increase of 
$300,000 above the fiscal year 2004 funding level for this 
program to create a turfgrass research position in Beaver, WV.
    U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center.--The 
Committee continues to support funding for the collaborative 
programmatic activities of the U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural 
Research Center and provides an increase of $250,000 over the 
fiscal year 2004 funding level to implement the staffing plan 
devised by the Center's director.
    Vaccines and Microbe Control for Fish Health.--The 
increased frequency and severity of fish mortalities is 
recognized as one of the top priorities of fish producers in 
the southeastern United States and other regions of the 
country. The development of new vaccines and methods for mass 
immunization is urgently needed to protect the U.S. industry 
and food supply. The Committee provides an increase of $20,000 
above the fiscal year 2004 funding level for continued 
collaborative research between ARS and Auburn University.
    U.S. Vegetable Laboratory.--The Committee is aware of the 
important scientific staffing requirements of the newly 
completed U.S. Vegetable Laboratory located at Charleston, SC. 
Additional scientists are necessary to conduct priority 
research and to maximize use of the facility. The Committee 
continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level for research 
staffing.
    Virus Free Fruit Tree Cultivars.--The Committee recognizes 
the need for rapid foreign and domestic exchange of varieties 
to sustain economic vitality of the U.S. tree fruit and nursery 
industries. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 
funding level to implement new technologies for more rapid and 
dependable methods of pathogen detection and to provide secure 
production and maintenance of virus-free fruit tree cultivars. 
The collaborative research is to be carried out at the Prosser, 
WA research station with the Irrigated Agriculture Research and 
Extension Center.
    Viticulture Research.--With the emerging importance of the 
grape and wine industry in the Pacific Northwest, the Committee 
continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level for the 
viticulture research position at the University of Idaho Parma 
Research and Extension Center, for research at the Center, and 
for cooperative research agreements with University of Idaho 
researchers for viticulture research.
    Waste Management Research.--The Committee provides an 
increase of $275,000 above the fiscal year 2004 funding level 
for the joint research project with Western Kentucky 
University. The cooperative program is located and carried out 
at Bowling Green, KY, and is directed toward management of 
poultry waste as a fertilizer source for pasture, food crops, 
as a nutrient source for cattle, and other agricultural 
applications.
    Watershed Research, Columbia, MO.--The Committee continues 
the fiscal year 2004 funding level for laboratory analysis of 
water samples collected during implementation of, and in 
accordance with, the Missouri Watershed Research, Assessment, 
and Stewardship Project.
    Weed Management Program.--The Committee is aware of the 
need for biologically-based weed management, using biocontrols 
and revegetation to provide economical and environmentally 
sound technologies to control weeds. The Committee continues 
the fiscal year 2004 funding level to develop non-chemical 
alternatives for weed control.
    Western Wheat Quality Laboratory.--The Committee recognizes 
the important contributions made by the Western Wheat Quality 
Laboratory in Pullman, Washington. The Committee continues the 
fiscal year 2004 funding level to enhance its ability to handle 
more samples, modernize equipment, and develop new predictive 
quality tests.
    Wheat and Barley Scab Initiative.--The Committee recognizes 
the importance of the research carried out through the ARS 
National Wheat and Barley Scab Initiative. Fusarium head blight 
is a major threat to agriculture, inflicting heavy losses to 
yield and quality on farms in 18 States. The Committee 
continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level for this research.
    Wine Grape Foundation Block.--The Committee is concerned 
about the potential for virus-infected wine grape rootstock 
which could cause economic harm to Pacific Northwest wine grape 
growers and vintners. The Committee provides an increase of 
$150,000 above the fiscal year 2004 funding level for wine 
grape foundation block research at Prosser, WA.

                        BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

Appropriations, 2004....................................     $63,434,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................     178,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     172,838,000

    The ARS ``Buildings and Facilities'' account was 
established for the acquisition of land, construction, repair, 
improvement, extension, alteration, and purchase of fixed 
equipment or facilities of, or used by, the Agricultural 
Research Service. Routine construction or replacement items 
continue to be funded under the limitations contained in the 
regular account.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For Agricultural Research Service, Buildings and 
Facilities, the Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$172,838,000. This is $109,404,000 more than the 2004 
appropriation. The Committee's specific recommendations are 
indicated in the following table:

                                          ARS BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                      State and facility                                          2005 budget     recommendation
                                                                 2004 enacted       estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California:
    Grape Genomics Research Center, Davis....................            2,684  ...............  ...............
    U.S. Agricultural Research Station, Salinas..............            4,474  ...............  ...............
Hawaii: U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center, Hilo            4,831  ...............            3,000
Idaho: Aquaculture Facility, Aberdeen/Billingsley Creek......  ...............  ...............            1,000
Illinois: National Center for Agricultural Utilization                   2,684  ...............  ...............
 Research,  Peoria...........................................
Iowa: National Animal Disease Center, Ames...................  ...............          178,000          122,000
Kentucky:
    Animal Waste Management Research Laboratory, Bowling       ...............  ...............            2,300
     Green...................................................
    Forage-Animal Research Laboratory, Lexington.............  ...............  ...............            3,000
Louisiana: ARS Sugarcane Research Laboratory, Houma..........            1,342  ...............            3,000
Maine: Northeast Marine Cold Water Aquaculture Research                  2,684  ...............            3,000
 Center, Orono/Franklin......................................
Maryland:
    Abraham Lincoln National Agricultural Library, Beltsville              895  ...............  ...............
    Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, Beltsville......            2,684  ...............            3,000
Mississippi:
    Jamie Whitten Delta States Research Center, Stone-  ville            4,831  ...............            3,000
    Poultry Science Research Facility, Starkville............  ...............  ...............            3,000
Missouri: National Plant and Genetics Security Center,                   2,416  ...............            5,000
 Columbia....................................................
Montana:
    Animal Bioscience Facility, Bozeman......................  ...............  ...............            2,000
    Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory,  Sidney            2,505  ...............  ...............
New York:
    Center for Grape Genetics, Geneva........................            2,416  ...............  ...............
    Center for Crop-based Health Genomics, Ithaca............            3,847  ...............  ...............
Ohio: University of Toledo, Toledo...........................  ...............  ...............            2,000
Oklahoma:
    Grazinglands Research Laboratory, Fort Reno..............            2,147  ...............  ...............
    Southern Plains Research Station, Woodward...............  ...............  ...............            3,000
South Carolina: U.S. Vegetable Laboratory, Charleston........            3,132  ...............            3,000
Washington: ARS Research Laboratory, Pullman.................            3,937  ...............            3,000
West Virginia: Appalachian Fruit Laboratory, Kearnysville                1,789  ...............            3,638
Wisconsin: Nutrient Management Laboratory, Marshfield........            3,668  ...............            4,900
Upgrade security at all ARS laboratories.....................           10,468  ...............  ...............
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total \1\..............................................           63,434          178,000          172,838
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Totals may not add due to rounding.

    The Committee provides funds for the following projects. 
Due to budgetary constraints, the Committee is unable to 
provide the full amounts required to complete construction of 
all projects.
    U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center.--The 
Committee provides $3,000,000 toward the next phase of the U.S. 
Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center in Hawaii.
    Centers for Animal Health.--The Committee provides 
$122,000,000 to complete the consolidated laboratory at the 
Centers for Animal Health in Ames, Iowa.
    Aquaculture Facility.--The Committee provides $1,000,000 
for the design of an aquaculture facility in Aberdeen and 
Billingsley Creek, Idaho.
    Animal Waste Management Research Laboratory.--The Committee 
provides $2,300,000 for the design of the Animal Waste 
Management Research Laboratory in Bowling Green, Kentucky.
    Forage-Animal Production Research Facility.--The Committee 
provides $3,000,000 for the design of the Forage-Animal 
Production Research Facility in Lexington, Kentucky.
    Sugarcane Research Laboratory.--The Committee provides 
$3,000,000 toward the construction of a headhouse, photoperiod 
house, and greenhouse at the ARS Sugarcane Research Laboratory 
at Houma, Louisiana.
    National Cold Water Marine Aquaculture Research Center.--
The Committee provides $3,000,000 for construction of the 
National Cold Water Marine Aquaculture Research Center [NCWMAC] 
in Franklin, Maine.
    The Committee understands that the original proposal for 
the NCWMAC requested funding to build facilities at two 
locations: Franklin, Maine, in conjunction with the University 
of Maine Center for Cooperative Aquaculture and Orono, Maine, 
on the campus of the University of Maine. The Committee 
understands that the funds appropriated to date and the 
additional funds provided in this Act will fully fund design 
and construction of the facilities at the Franklin location. 
This will permit ARS to begin design work immediately with the 
goal of initiating the construction of the Franklin facilities 
in fiscal year 2005.
    Beltsville Agricultural Research Center.--The Committee 
provides $3,000,000 toward the construction of the Beltsville 
Agriculture Research Center in Beltsville, Maryland.
    Jamie Whitten Delta States Research Center.--The Jamie 
Whitten Delta States Research Center is strategically located 
in the agriculturally important Yazoo-Mississippi River Delta. 
Millions of acres of cotton, soybean, rice, and corn are 
located in this Delta area, and the Delta leads the world in 
channel catfish production. The Committee provides $3,000,000 
toward the next phase of this construction and modernization 
project.
    Poultry Science Research Facility.--The Committee provides 
$3,000,000 for planning and design of a Poultry Science 
Research Facility in Starkville, Mississippi.
    National Plant and Genetics Security Center.--The Committee 
provides $5,000,000 toward construction of this project. The 
Committee notes that the current collaborative effort between 
the ARS Plant Genetics Research Unit and the University of 
Missouri has resulted in a nationally-recognized crop 
biotechnology effort in maize, soybeans, and wheat at Columbia, 
Missouri.
    Animal Bioscience Facility.--The Committee provides 
$2,000,000 for the design of an animal bioscience facility at 
Montana State University in Bozeman, Montana. Montana is the 
leading beef cattle seed stock producer in the Nation. A new 
research program would address short-and long-term needs of the 
Montana stock growers and also address broader regional, 
national, and international problems facing American animal 
seek stock producers.
    University of Toledo.--The Committee provides $2,000,000 
for the design of an ARS facility at the University of Toledo 
in Toledo, Ohio, to support research on basic and applied 
problems of greenhouse production including bioremediation, 
water and soil quality, and plant breeding.
    Southern Plains Range Research Station.--The Committee 
provides $3,000,000 toward completion of Phase II of the 
modernization of the Southern Plains Range Research Station in 
Woodward, Oklahoma.
    U.S. Vegetable Laboratory.--The Committee provides 
$3,000,000 toward the final phase of greenhouse and headhouse 
construction at the U.S. Vegetable Laboratory in Charleston, 
South Carolina.
    ARS Research Laboratory.--The Committee provides $3,000,000 
toward the construction of an ARS research laboratory on the 
campus of Washington State University in Pullman, Washington.
    Appalachian Fruit Laboratory.--The Committee provides 
$3,638,000 to complete renovation and repair of the Appalachian 
Fruit Laboratory in Kearneysville, West Virginia.
    Nutrient Management Laboratory.--The Committee provides 
$4,900,000 toward the completion of the Nutrient Management 
Laboratory in Marshfield, Wisconsin.
    Feasibility Studies.--The Committee notes that there is 
widespread interest in additional construction and renovation 
of ARS facilities throughout the country. This is not 
surprising when considering the fact that many of the existing 
facilities are decades old. The Committee continues to believe 
that the ARS needs a master plan for addressing these needs.
    Until such a master plan can be developed, however, the 
Committee will not consider funding requests for projects for 
which a prospectus has not been completed and submitted to the 
Committee by March 1 of each year. Each prospectus shall, at a 
minimum, include the following information: the feasibility, 
requirements, and scope of the proposed project; details on 
building size, cost, associated facilities, scientific 
capacity, and other requirements; and details on existing and 
planned program and resource requirements. Further, the 
Committee strongly encourages the ARS to determine the merits 
and priority for these projects.
    Research at Alcorn State University in Lorman, Mississippi, 
directly benefits small and disadvantaged farmers who grow 
crops that are often left out of agriculture research aimed at 
economies of scale. The Committee directs ARS to provide a 
prospectus on a biotechnology laboratory at ASU.
    The Committee has been made aware of the need for a state-
of-the-art animal disease facility at Laramie, Wyoming. The 
Committee directs ARS to provide a prospectus on this project.
    The Committee directs ARS to conduct a feasibility study to 
review existing and future space requirements in Fairbanks and 
Palmer, Alaska.

      Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

    The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 
Service was established by the Secretary of Agriculture on 
October 1, 1994, under the authority of the Department of 
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6912). The 
Service was created by the merger of the Cooperative State 
Research Service and the Extension Service. The mission is to 
work with university partners and customers to advance 
research, extension, and higher education in the food and 
agricultural sciences and related environmental and human 
sciences to benefit people, communities, and the Nation.

                   RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2004....................................    $617,780,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................     501,540,000
Committee recommendation................................     628,492,000

    The research and education programs administered by the 
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service 
[CSREES] are the U.S. Department of Agriculture's principal 
entree to the university system of the United States to support 
higher education in food and agricultural sciences and to 
conduct agricultural research as authorized by the Hatch Act of 
1887 (7 U.S.C. 361a-361i); the Cooperative Forestry Research 
Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 582a-7); Public Law 89-106, section (2) 
(7 U.S.C. 450i); the National Agricultural Research, Extension, 
and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.); the 
Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 
301); the Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Reform 
Act of 1998; and the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 
2002. Through these authorities, the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture participates with State and other cooperators to 
encourage and assist the State institutions to conduct 
agricultural research and education through the State 
agricultural experiment stations of the 50 States, the District 
of Columbia, and the territories; by approved schools of 
forestry; by the 1890 land-grant institutions, Tuskegee 
University, and West Virginia State University; by colleges of 
veterinary medicine; and by other eligible institutions.
    The research and education programs participate in a 
nationwide system of agricultural research program planning and 
coordination among the State institutions, U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, and the agricultural industry of America.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For research and education activities of the Cooperative 
State Research, Education, and Extension Service, the Committee 
recommends $628,492,000. This amount is $10,712,000 more than 
the fiscal year 2004 appropriation.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendations for research and education activities of the 
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, 
as compared to the fiscal year 2004 and budget request levels:

    COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICES [CSREES]--RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Fiscal year     Fiscal year       Committee
                                                                 2004 enacted     2005 budget     recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Payments under Hatch Act......................................         179,085         180,148          180,148
Cooperative forestry research (McIntire-Stennis)..............          21,755          21,884           23,000
Payments to 1890 colleges, Tuskegee University, and West                35,788          36,000           36,000
 Virginia State University....................................
Special research grants (Public Law 89-106):
    Advanced genetic technologies (KY)........................             600  ...............             700
    Advanced spatial technologies (MS)........................             880  ...............           1,005
    Aegilops cylindrica (WA, ID)..............................             341  ...............             341
    Agricultural diversification (HI).........................             113  ...............             113
    Agricultural diversity--Red River trade corridor (MN, ND).             544  ...............             650
    Agricultural science (OH).................................             444  ...............             650
    Agriculture water usage (GA)..............................             260  ...............             260
    Agroecology (MD)..........................................             355  ...............             425
    Air quality (TX, KS)......................................             895  ...............             950
    Alliance for food protection (GA, NE).....................             266  ...............             266
    Alternative nutrient management (VT)......................             148  ...............             200
    Alternative salmon products (AK)..........................             565  ...............           1,650
    Alternative uses for tobacco (MD).........................             320  ...............             320
    Animal disease research (WY)..............................             222  ...............             450
    Animal science food safety consortium (AR, IA, KS)........           1,444  ...............           1,444
    Apple fire blight (MI, NY)................................             456  ...............             498
    Aquaculture (AR)..........................................             207  ...............             207
    Aquaculture (ID, WA)......................................             689  ...............             850
    Aquaculture (LA)..........................................             313  ...............             313
    Aquaculture (MS)..........................................             521  ...............             521
    Aquaculture (NC)..........................................             260  ...............             300
    Aquaculture (VA)..........................................             179  ...............             179
    Aquaculture product and marketing development (WV)........             671  ...............             750
    Armillaria root rot (MI)..................................             142  ...............             160
    Asparagus technology and production (WA)..................             249  ...............             249
    Babcock Institute (WI)....................................             537  ...............             500
    Beef technology transfer (MO).............................             261  ...............             261
    Berry research (AK).......................................             179  ...............             600
    Biobased nanocomposite research (ND)......................             178  ...............             178
    Biomass-based energy research (OK, MS)....................           1,023  ...............           1,023
    Biotechnology (NC)........................................             272  ...............             272
    Biotechnology test production (IA)........................             178  ...............             178
    Bovine tuberculosis (MI)..................................             309  ...............             400
    Brucellosis vaccine (MT)..................................             438  ...............             450
    Center for Public Lands and Rural Economies (UT)..........             224  ...............             225
    Center for Rural Studies (VT).............................             302  ...............             400
    Chesapeake Bay agroecology (MD)...........................             284  ...............             350
    Childhood obesity and nutrition (VT)......................             133  ...............             250
    Citrus canker (FL)........................................             447  ...............  ...............
    Citrus tristeza (CA)......................................             644  ...............  ...............
    Competitiveness of agriculture products (WA)..............             604  ...............             700
    Computational agriculture (NY)............................             222  ...............  ...............
    Cool season legume research (ID, WA, ND)..................             537  ...............             600
    Cotton fiber quality (GA).................................             447  ...............             500
    Council for Agriculture Science and Technology............             134  ...............  ...............
    Cranberry/blueberry (MA)..................................             153  ...............             153
    Cranberry/blueberry disease and breeding (NJ).............             210  ...............             250
    Crop diversification (MO).................................             355  ...............             400
    Crop integration and production (SD)......................             268  ...............             325
    Crop pathogens (NC).......................................             178  ...............             250
    Dairy and meat goat research (TX).........................              57  ...............              57
    Dairy farm profitability (PA).............................             444  ...............             444
    Delta rural revitalization (MS)...........................             183  ...............             308
    Designing foods for health (TX)...........................           1,342  ...............           1,400
    Diaprepes/root weevil (FL)................................             400  ...............  ...............
    Dietary intervention (OH).................................             895  ...............  ...............
    Drought mitigation (NE)...................................             201  ...............             224
    Drought management (UT)...................................             671  ...............             900
    Efficient irrigation (NM, TX).............................           1,342  ...............           1,342
    Environmental biotechnology (RI)..........................             533  ...............             700
    Environmental research (NY)...............................             351  ...............  ...............
    Environmental risk factors/cancer (NY)....................             198  ...............  ...............
    Environmentally-safe products (VT)........................             746  ...............             746
    Ethnobotany research (AK).................................             268  ...............             300
    Exotic pest diseases (CA).................................           1,789  ...............           1,789
    Expanded wheat pasture (OK)...............................             275  ...............             275
    Farm injuries and illnesses (NC)..........................             247  ...............             350
    Feed barley for rangeland cattle (MT).....................             741  ...............             741
    Feed efficiency in cattle (FL)............................             222  ...............  ...............
    Feedstock conversion (SD).................................             671  ...............             675
    Fish and shellfish technologies (VA)......................             403  ...............             450
    Floriculture (HI).........................................             355  ...............             355
    Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute (IA, MO)...           1,365  ...............           1,523
    Food chain economic analysis (IA).........................             358  ...............             358
    Food Marketing Policy Center (CT).........................             582  ...............             585
    Food quality (AK).........................................             313  ...............             375
    Food safety (AL)..........................................           1,000  ...............           1,200
    Food safety (OK)..........................................             556  ...............             556
    Food safety (TX)..........................................             178  ...............             200
    Food safety research consortium (NY)......................             800  ...............  ...............
    Food safety risk assessment (ND)..........................           1,377  ...............           1,377
    Food security (WA)........................................             400  ...............             400
    Food Systems Research Group (WI)..........................             492  ...............             459
    Forages for advancing livestock production (KY)...........             386  ...............             400
    Forestry (AR).............................................             455  ...............             475
    Functional genomics (UT)..................................           1,342  ...............           1,625
    Future foods (IL).........................................             447  ...............             475
    Generic commodity promotions, research, and evaluation                 174  ...............  ...............
     (NY).....................................................
    Genomics (MS).............................................             640  ...............           1,140
    Geographic information system.............................  ..............  ...............           1,431
    Global change/ultraviolet radiation.......................           2,000           2,500            2,000
    Grain sorghum (KS)........................................             124  ...............             150
    Grapefruit juice/drug interaction (FL)....................             222  ...............  ...............
    Grass seed cropping systems for sustainable agriculture                407  ...............             407
     (ID, OR, WA).............................................
    Grazing research (WI).....................................             224  ...............             300
    Greenhouse crop production (AK)...........................             447  ...............             450
    Hispanic leadership in agriculture (TX)...................             447  ...............             447
    Hoop barns (IA)...........................................             291  ...............             291
    Horn fly research (AL)....................................             134  ...............             200
    Human nutrition (IA)......................................             655  ...............             655
    Human nutrition (LA)......................................             712  ...............             712
    Human nutrition (NY)......................................             547  ...............  ...............
    Hydroponic tomato production (OH).........................             179  ...............  ...............
    Illinois-Missouri Alliance for Biotechnology..............           1,079  ...............           1,079
    Improved dairy management practices (PA)..................             355  ...............             355
    Improved early detection of crop disease (NC).............             173  ...............  ...............
    Improved fruit practices (MI).............................             212  ...............             212
    Increasing shelf life of agricultural commodities (ID)....             707  ...............             950
    Infectious disease research (CO)..........................             667  ...............             900
    Institute for Biobased Products and Food Science (MT).....             533  ...............             600
    Institute for Food Science and Engineering (AR)...........           1,087  ...............           1,150
    Integrated production systems (OK)........................             207  ...............             207
    Intelligent quality sensor for food safety (ND)...........             320  ...............  ...............
    International arid lands consortium.......................             582  ...............             582
    Iowa biotechnology consortium.............................           1,789  ...............           1,789
    Leopold Center hypoxia project............................             224  ...............             224
    Livestock and dairy policy (NY, TX).......................             895  ...............             895
    Livestock genome sequencing (IL)..........................             671  ...............  ...............
    Livestock waste (IA)......................................             268  ...............             268
    Lowbush blueberry research (ME)...........................             236  ...............             236
    Maple research (VT).......................................             133  ...............             133
    Meadowfoam (OR)...........................................             262  ...............             262
    Michigan biotechnology consortium.........................             559  ...............             559
    Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance (NE).........             426  ...............             429
    Midwest agricultural products (IA)........................             578  ...............             500
    Midwest poultry consortium (IA)...........................             626  ...............             626
    Milk safety (PA)..........................................             667  ...............             717
    Minor use animal drugs....................................             526             588              526
    Molluscan shellfish (OR)..................................             351  ...............             351
    Montana Sheep Institute (MT)..............................             497  ...............             650
    Multi-commodity research (OR).............................             355  ...............             355
    Multi-cropping strategies for aquaculture (HI)............             110  ...............             110
    National beef cattle genetic evaluation consortium (NY,                671  ...............             900
     CO)......................................................
    National biological impact assessment.....................             225             253              225
    National Center for Soybean Technology (MO)...............             895  ...............           1,000
    Nematode resistance genetic engineering (NM)..............             130  ...............             150
    Nevada arid rangelands initiative.........................             467  ...............             500
    New crop opportunities (AK)...............................             447  ...............             447
    New crop opportunities (KY)...............................             659  ...............             800
    Nursery, greenhouse, and turf specialties (AL)............             275  ...............             275
    Oil resources from desert plants (NM).....................             201  ...............             225
    Organic cropping (WA).....................................             224  ...............             500
    Organic waste utilization (NM)............................              88  ...............             100
    Oyster post harvest treatment (FL)........................             400  ...............  ...............
    Ozone air quality (CA)....................................             382  ...............             425
    Pasture and forage research (UT)..........................             224  ...............             225
    Peach tree short life (SC)................................             233  ...............             300
    Perennial wheat (WA)......................................             133  ...............  ...............
    Pest control alternatives (SC)............................             271  ...............             271
    Phytophthora root rot (NM)................................             165  ...............             200
    Pierce's disease (CA).....................................           2,013  ...............           2,163
    Plant biotechnology (IA)..................................             222  ...............  ...............
    Plant, drought, and disease resistance gene cataloging                 220  ...............             250
     (NM).....................................................
    Potato research...........................................           1,409  ...............           1,450
    Precision agriculture (KY)................................             659  ...............             700
    Preharvest food safety (KS)...............................             185  ...............             200
    Preservation and processing research (OK).................             200  ...............             200
    Protein utilization (IA)..................................             671  ...............             950
    Rangeland ecosystems (NM).................................             284  ...............             284
    Regional barley gene mapping project......................             676  ...............             700
    Regionalized implications of farm programs (MO, TX).......             537  ...............             537
    Rice agronomy (MO)........................................             178  ...............  ...............
    Ruminant nutrition consortium (MT, ND, SD, WY)............             447  ...............             500
    Rural development centers (ND, LA)........................             157  ...............             157
    Rural obesity (NY)........................................             178  ...............  ...............
    Rural Policies Research Institute (NE, IA, MO)............           1,129  ...............           1,300
    Russian wheat aphid (CO)..................................             284  ...............             300
    Seafood and aquaculture harvesting, processing, and                    269  ...............             269
     marketing (MS)...........................................
    Seafood harvesting, processing, and marketing (AK)........           1,067  ...............           1,067
    Seafood safety (MA).......................................             378  ...............             450
    Seed research (AK)........................................             358  ...............             358
    Seed technology (SD)......................................             313  ...............             400
    Small fruit research (OR, WA, ID).........................             355  ...............             400
    Soil and environmental quality (DE).......................             115  ...............             450
    Southwest consortium for plant genetics and water                      351  ...............             375
     resources................................................
    Soybean cyst nematode (MO)................................             616  ...............  ...............
    Soybean research (IL).....................................             755  ...............           1,171
    STEEP III--water quality in Pacific Northwest.............             595  ...............             625
    Sudden oak death (CA).....................................              88  ...............              99
    Sustainable agriculture (CA)..............................             444  ...............  ...............
    Sustainable agriculture (MI)..............................             387  ...............             387
    Sustainable agriculture and natural resources (PA)........             133  ...............             250
    Sustainable beef supply (MT)..............................             890  ...............           1,000
    Sustainable engineered materials from renewable resources              533  ...............             600
     (VA).....................................................
    Sustainable pest management for dryland wheat (MT)........             402  ...............  ...............
    Swine and other animal waste management (NC)..............             440  ...............             500
    Synthetic gene technology (OH)............................             149  ...............  ...............
    Tick borne disease prevention (RI)........................              88  ...............             200
    Tillage, silviculture, and waste management (LA)..........             378  ...............             378
    Tri-State joint peanut research (AL)......................             533  ...............             600
    Tropical aquaculture (FL).................................             213  ...............  ...............
    Tropical and subtropical research/T STAR..................           8,947  ...............           4,474
    Uniform farm management program (MN)......................             266  ...............             298
    Value-added product development from agricultural                      366  ...............             450
     resources (MT)...........................................
    Virtual plant database enhancement project (MO)...........             671  ...............             700
    Viticulture consortium (NY, CA, PA).......................           1,600  ...............           1,700
    Water conservation (KS)...................................              71  ...............              79
    Water use efficiency and water quality enhancement (GA)...             447  ...............             447
    Weed control (ND).........................................             387  ...............             387
    West Nile virus (IL)......................................             671  ...............             500
    Wetland plants (LA).......................................             533  ...............             600
    Wheat genetic research (KS)...............................             236  ...............             255
    Wheat sawfly research (MT)................................             449  ...............             600
    Wood utilization (AK, OR, MS, MN, NC, ME, MI, ID, TN, WV).           6,070  ...............           6,500
    Wool research (TX, MT, WY)................................             268  ...............             300
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
      Total, special research grants..........................         110,655           3,341          108,731
                                                               =================================================
Improved pest control:
    Expert IPM decision support system........................             158             177              158
    Integrated pest management................................           2,439           2,725            2,439
    IR-4 minor crop pest management...........................           9,549          10,485           10,550
    Pest management alternatives..............................           1,448           1,619            1,448
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
      Total, Improved pest control............................          13,594          15,006           14,595
                                                               =================================================
1994 institutions research program............................           1,087             998            1,087
Alaska Native-serving and Native Hawaiian-serving institutions           3,131           2,997            3,500
 education grants.............................................
Alternative crops.............................................           1,063  ...............             840
Animal health and disease (sec. 1433).........................           4,532           5,098            5,098
Aquaculture centers (sec. 1475)...............................           4,000           3,996            4,000
Capacity building grants (1890 institutions)..................          11,411          11,411           11,411
Critical Agricultural Materials Act...........................           1,111  ...............           1,111
Graduate fellowships grants...................................           2,883           4,500            2,883
Higher education agrosecurity program.........................  ..............           5,000   ...............
Hispanic education partnership grants.........................           4,645           4,645            4,645
Institution challenge grants..................................           4,859           5,500            4,859
Joe Skeen Institute for Rangeland Management (NM, TX, MT).....             895  ...............           1,000
Multicultural scholars program................................             986             998              998
National Research Initiative..................................         164,027         180,000          183,000
Payments to the 1994 institutions.............................           1,679           2,250            1,689
Secondary agriculture education...............................             890           1,000              890
Sustainable agriculture research and education................          12,222           9,230           12,222
                                                               =================================================
Federal administration:
    Agriculture-based industrial lubricants (IA)..............             403  ...............             650
    Agriculture development in the American Pacific...........             490  ...............             490
    Agriculture waste utilization (WV)........................             617  ...............             690
    Agriculture water policy (GA).............................             895  ...............             895
    Alternative fuels characterization laboratory (ND)........             268  ...............             300
    Animal waste management (OK)..............................             298  ...............             298
    Aquaculture (OH)..........................................             850  ...............             750
    Aquaculture (PA)..........................................             222  ...............             222
    Biotechnology research (MS)...............................             667  ...............             667
    Botanical research (UT)...................................             792  ...............           1,000
    Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (IA)........             600  ...............             600
    Center for Food Industry Excellence (TX)..................             222  ...............  ...............
    Center for Innovative Food Technology (OH)................           1,043  ...............  ...............
    Center for North American Studies (TX)....................             895  ...............             895
    Climate forecasting (FL)..................................           3,131  ...............  ...............
    Cotton research (TX)......................................           2,237  ...............           2,237
    Council for Agriculture Science and Technology............  ..............  ...............             150
    Data information system (REEIS)...........................           2,444           2,500            2,444
    Electronic grants administration system...................           1,944           1,409            1,409
    Feed efficiency (WV)......................................             143  ...............             160
    Fruit and vegetable market analysis (AZ, MO)..............             302  ...............  ...............
    Geographic information system.............................           1,431  ...............  ...............
    Germplasm development in forage grasses (OH)..............              88  ...............  ...............
    Greenhouse nurseries (OH).................................             713  ...............  ...............
    High value horticultural crops (VA).......................             447  ...............             650
    Information technology (GA)...............................             222  ...............  ...............
    Livestock marketing information center (CO)...............             175  ...............             175
    Mariculture (NC)..........................................             320  ...............             320
    Mississippi Valley State University, curriculum                        933  ...............             933
     development..............................................
    Monitoring agricultural sewage sludge application (OH)....           1,074  ...............  ...............
    Office of Extramural Programs.............................             401             448              401
    Pasteurization of shell eggs..............................           1,094  ...............  ...............
    Pay costs.................................................           2,273           2,832            2,665
    Peer panels...............................................             312             349              312
    Phytoremediation plant research (OH)......................             569  ...............             700
    PM-10 air quality study (WA)..............................             390  ...............             390
    Precision agriculture, Tennessee Valley Research Center                582  ...............             625
     (AL).....................................................
    Produce pricing (AZ)......................................              72  ...............  ...............
    Rural systems (MS)........................................             311  ...............             311
    Salmon quality standards (AK).............................             134  ...............             200
    Shrimp aquaculture (AZ, HI, MA, MS, SC, TX)...............           3,746  ...............           3,746
    Sustainable agricultural development (OH).................             179  ...............  ...............
    Sustainable agricultural freshwater conservation (TX).....           1,789  ...............  ...............
    The Land Institute (KS)...................................              89  ...............  ...............
    Urban silviculture (NY)...................................             215  ...............  ...............
    Vitis gene discovery......................................             358  ...............             400
    Water pollutants (WV).....................................             537  ...............             600
    Water quality (ND)........................................             386  ...............             500
    Wetland plants (WV).......................................             179  ...............  ...............
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
      Total, federal administration...........................          37,482           7,538           26,785
                                                               =================================================
      Total, CSREES R&E.......................................         617,780         501,540          628,492
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hatch Act.--The Committee acknowledges the beneficial 
impact Hatch Act funding has on land-grant universities. Hatch 
Act provides the base funds necessary for higher education and 
research involving agriculture. The Committee recommends a 
funding level of $180,148,000 for payments made under the Hatch 
Act.
    Special Research Grants Under Public Law 89-106.--The 
Committee recommends a total of $108,731,000. Specifics of 
individual grant allowances are included in the table above. 
Special items are discussed below.
    The Committee is aware of the need for special research 
grants in order to conduct research to facilitate or expand 
promising breakthroughs in areas of food and agricultural 
sciences that are awarded on a discretionary basis. In addition 
to these grants, the Committee believes research should be 
supplemented by additional funding that is obtained on a 
competitive basis.
    Alliance for Food Protection.--The Committee provides 
$266,000 for the Alliance for Food Protection. Of this amount, 
$133,000 is to continue integrated fruit and vegetable research 
at the University of Georgia.
    Alternative Milk Policies.--The Committee directs that of 
the funds made available to the Food and Agriculture Policy 
Research Institute, the amount available in fiscal year 2004 
shall be provided for collaborative work between the University 
of Missouri and the University of Wisconsin/Madison, for an 
analysis of dairy policy changes, including trade related 
matters, and assist Congress in making policy decisions.
    Alternative Salmon Products.--The Committee provides 
$1,650,000 for alternative salmon products research. Of this 
amount, $650,000 shall be used to continue research into and 
development of baby food containing salmon.
    Aquaculture Centers.--The Committee recommends $4,000,000, 
the same as the fiscal year 2004 level.
    The Committee is aware of and supports aquaculture research 
efforts at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Great Lakes 
Wisconsin Aquatic Technology and Environmental Research 
Institute that is carried out in collaboration with the North 
Central Regional Aquaculture Center.
    Red River Valley Research Corridor Office.--Within the 
amount provided for Agricultural Diversity, the Committee 
continues the level provided in fiscal year 2004 for activities 
of the Red River Valley Research Corridor Office.
    Technology Transfer.--The Committee directs CSREES to 
continue to support at the fiscal year 2004 level the cotton 
technology transfer coordinator at Stoneville, MS.
    Aquaculture (MS).--Of the $521,000 provided for this grant, 
the Committee recommends at least $90,000 for continued studies 
of the use of acoustics in aquaculture research to be conducted 
by the National Center for Physical Acoustics in cooperation 
with the Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment 
Station [MAFES] and the Delta Research and Extension Center in 
Stoneville.
    Midwest Agricultural Products [MATRIC].--The Committee 
directs the Department to allocate the designated funds for 
MATRIC equally between Iowa State University and the Greater 
Des Moines Partnership.
    Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute.--The 
Committee provides $1,523,000 for the Food and Agriculture 
Policy Research Institute. Of this amount $158,000 shall be 
used to fund the Center for Agricultural and Trade Policies for 
the Northern Plains Region at North Dakota State University.
    Milk Safety.--The Committee provides $717,000 for milk 
safety research. Of this amount $50,000 shall be used for a 
cooperative agreement with the Pennsylvania Department of 
Agriculture's Center for Dairy Excellence.
    Potato Research.--The Committee expects the Department to 
ensure that funds provided to CSREES for potato research are 
utilized for varietal development testing. Further, these funds 
are to be awarded competitively after review by the potato 
industry working group.
    Wood Utilization Research.--The Committee recommends 
$6,500,000 for wood utilization research and directs that all 
member institutions receive no less than the amount provided in 
fiscal year 2004. The Committee directs that funding continue 
at the fiscal year 2004 level for forest inventory work 
conducted by the Mississippi Forest and Wildlife Research 
Center.
    Competitive Research Grants.--The Committee supports the 
National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program [NRI] 
and provides funding of $183,000,000 for the program, an 
increase of $18,973,000 from the fiscal year 2004 level. The 
Committee includes a general provision to make 20 percent of 
these funds available for a program under the same terms and 
conditions as those provided in Section 401 of the Agricultural 
Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998.
    The Committee remains determined to see that quality 
research and enhanced human resources development in the 
agricultural and related sciences be a nationwide commitment. 
Therefore, the Committee continues its direction that not less 
than 10 percent of the competitive research grant funds be used 
for USDA's agricultural research enhancement awards program 
(including USDA-EPSCoR), in accordance with 7 U.S.C. 450i.
    Classical Research.--The Committee notes the substantial 
increase in public and private sector research related to 
genomics, genetics, and other breakthrough biotechnology 
developments. However, this shift in emphasis has resulted in a 
decline in classical research in the animal and plant sciences. 
The Committee encourages the Department, especially in the 
establishment of priorities within the National Research 
Initiative, to give consideration to research needs related to 
classical plant and animal breeding.
    Enhancing the Prosperity of Small Farms and Rural 
Agricultural Communities.--The Committee is pleased to see that 
the Department issued a Request For Proposals in the areas of 
small and mid-sized farm profitability and rural economic 
development pursuant to Section 401 of the Agricultural 
Research, Extension and Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 
7621). The Committee encourages the Department to request 
proposals specific to critical emerging issues related to farm 
income, rural economic and business and community development 
and farm efficiency and profitability, including the viability 
and competitiveness of small and medium-sized dairy, livestock, 
crop and other commodity operations.
    Alternative Crops.--The Committee recommends $840,000 for 
alternative crop research to continue and strengthen research 
efforts on canola, $223,000 less than the fiscal year 2004 
level.
    Sustainable Agriculture.--The Committee recommends 
$12,222,000 for sustainable agriculture, the same as the fiscal 
year 2004 level.
    Higher Education.--The Committee recommends $30,875,000 for 
higher education. The Committee provides $2,883,000 for 
graduate fellowships; $4,859,000 for challenge grants; $998,000 
for multicultural scholarships; and $4,645,000 for Hispanic 
education partnership grants.
    The Committee notes that the Department's higher education 
multicultural scholars program enhances the mentoring of 
scholars from under-represented groups. The Committee directs 
the Department to ensure that Alaska Natives participate fully 
in this program.
    Alaska Native-Serving and Native Hawaiian-Serving 
Institutions Education Grants.--The Committee provides 
$3,500,000 for noncompetitive grants to individual eligible 
institutions or consortia of eligible institutions in Alaska 
and in Hawaii, with grant funds to be awarded equally between 
Alaska and Hawaii to carry out the programs authorized in 7 
U.S.C. 3242 (Section 759 of Public Law 106-78). The Committee 
directs the agency to fully comply with the use of grant funds 
as authorized.
    Geographic Information System Program.--The Committee 
provides the fiscal year 2004 funding level for the Geographic 
Information System Program. The Committee recommends the amount 
provided shall be made available for program activities of 
entities in the same areas as in 2004 on a proportional basis. 
For fiscal year 2004, this program was funded under Federal 
Administration.
    Federal Administration.--The Committee provides $26,785,000 
for Federal administration. The Committee's specific 
recommendations are reflected in the table above.
    CAST.--The Committee provides $150,000 for the Council for 
Agricultural Science and Technology [CAST]. For fiscal year 
2004, this program was funded under Special Research Grants.

              NATIVE AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS ENDOWMENT FUND

Appropriations, 2004....................................      $8,947,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................      12,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      12,000,000

    The Native American Institutions Endowment Fund authorized 
by Public Law 103-382 provides an endowment for the 1994 land-
grant institutions (31 tribally controlled colleges). This 
program will enhance educational opportunity for Native 
Americans by building educational capacity at these 
institutions in the areas of student recruitment and retention, 
curricula development, faculty preparation, instruction 
delivery systems, and scientific instrumentation for teaching. 
Income funds are also available for facility renovation, 
repair, construction, and maintenance. On the termination of 
each fiscal year, the Secretary shall withdraw the income from 
the endowment fund for the fiscal year, and after making 
adjustments for the cost of administering the endowment fund, 
distribute the adjusted income as follows: 60 percent of the 
adjusted income from these funds shall be distributed among the 
1994 land-grant institutions on a pro rata basis, the 
proportionate share being based on the Indian student count; 
and 40 percent of the adjusted income shall be distributed in 
equal shares to the 1994 land-grant institutions.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund, the 
Committee recommends $12,000,000. This amount is $3,053,000 
more than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation.

                          EXTENSION ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2004....................................    $439,125,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................     421,174,000
Committee recommendation................................     443,061,000

    Cooperative extension work was established by the Smith-
Lever Act of May 8, 1914. The Department of Agriculture is 
authorized to provide, through the land-grant colleges, 
cooperative extension work that consists of the development of 
practical applications of research knowledge and the giving of 
instruction and practical demonstrations of existing or 
improved practices or technologies in agriculture, uses of 
solar energy with respect to agriculture, home economics, 
related subjects, and to encourage the application of such 
information by demonstrations, publications, through 4-H clubs, 
and other means to persons not in attendance or resident at the 
colleges.
    To fulfill the requirements of the Smith-Lever Act, State 
and county extension offices in each State, the District of 
Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American 
Samoa, the Northern Marianas, and Micronesia conduct 
educational programs to improve American agriculture and 
strengthen the Nation's families and communities.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For extension activities of the Cooperative State Research, 
Education, and Extension Service, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $443,061,000. This amount is $3,936,000 more 
than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendations for extension activities, as compared to the 
fiscal year 2004 and budget request levels:

           COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE [CSREES]--EXTENSION ACTIVITIES
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Fiscal year     Fiscal year      Committee
                                                                   2004 enacted     2005 budget   recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smith-Lever sections 3(b) and 3(c)..............................         277,742         275,940         277,742
Smith-Lever section 3(d):
    Farm safety.................................................           4,911  ..............           4,174
    Food and nutrition education [EFNEP]........................          52,057          57,909          58,000
    Indian reservation agents...................................           1,774           1,996           1,774
    Pest management.............................................           9,563          10,759           9,563
    Sustainable agriculture.....................................           4,333           3,792           4,333
    Youth at risk...............................................           7,538           8,481           7,538
    Youth farm safety education and certification...............             444             499             444
1890 colleges, Tuskegee University, and West Virginia State               31,720          32,117          32,117
 University.....................................................
1890 facilities grants..........................................          14,912          14,912          14,912
Extension services at the 1994 institutions.....................           2,929           3,273           2,929
Grants to youth organizations...................................           2,667  ..............           2,667
Renewable Resources Extension Act [RREA]........................           4,040           4,093           4,093
Rural health and safety education...............................           2,331  ..............           1,981
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal..................................................         416,961         413,771         422,267
                                                                 ===============================================
Federal administration and special grants:
    Ag in the classroom.........................................             622             750             850
    Agricultural and entrepreneurship education (WI)............             232  ..............             250
    Alabama beef connection.....................................             336  ..............             400
    Beef producers improvement (AR).............................             174  ..............             190
    Botanical garden initiative (IL)............................             213  ..............  ..............
    Conservation technology transfer (WI).......................             447  ..............             486
    Dairy education (IA)........................................             211  ..............             235
    Dairy industry revitalization (WI)..........................             336  ..............             300
    Diabetes detection and prevention (WA)......................           1,089  ..............           1,089
    E-commerce (MS).............................................             334  ..............             334
    Efficient irrigation (NM, TX)...............................           2,058  ..............           2,058
    Entrepreneurial alternatives (PA)...........................             222  ..............             222
    Extension specialist (MS)...................................             133  ..............             133
    Family farm beef industry network (OH)......................           1,240  ..............  ..............
    Food Animal Residue Avoidance Databank......................             712  ..............             712
    Food preparation and marketing (AK).........................             268  ..............             400
    Food product development (AK)...............................             402  ..............             550
    General administration......................................           5,467           6,653           5,445
    Health education leadership (KY)............................             800  ..............             900
    Income enhancement demonstration (OH).......................             214  ..............  ..............
    Iowa vitality center........................................             250  ..............             250
    National Center for Agriculture Safety (IA).................             224  ..............             262
    National Wild Turkey Federation.............................             224  ..............             225
    Nursery production (RI).....................................             222  ..............  ..............
    Nutrition enhancement (WI)..................................             895  ..............           1,050
    Ohio-Israel agriculture initiative..........................             537  ..............             600
    Oquirrh Institute...........................................             268  ..............             300
    Pilot technology transfer (OK, MS)..........................             300  ..............             300
    Pilot technology transfer (WI)..............................             215  ..............  ..............
    Potato pest management (WI).................................             358  ..............             360
    Range improvement (NM)......................................             218  ..............             250
    Resilient communities (NY)..................................             111  ..............  ..............
    Rural business enhancement (WI).............................             179  ..............             200
    Rural development (AK)......................................             626  ..............             750
    Rural development (NM)......................................             351  ..............             351
    Rural technologies (HI, WI).................................             311  ..............             313
    Urban horticulture (WI).....................................             783  ..............             850
    Urban market development (NY)...............................             224  ..............  ..............
    Web-based agriculture classes (MO)..........................             179  ..............             179
    Wood biomass as an alternative farm product (NY)............             179  ..............  ..............
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Administration.............................          22,164           7,403          20,794
                                                                 ===============================================
      Total, Extension Activities...............................         439,125         421,174         443,061
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ag in the Classroom.--The Committee recommends $850,000 for 
Ag in the Classroom and expects that no less than $250,000 be 
used to expand efforts in Illinois to promote consumption of 
healthy foods and proper school nutrition.
    Conservation Technology Transfer.--Of the funds provided 
for Conservation Technology Transfer, the Committee provides 
$447,000 for a nutrient management and conservation education 
program to meet the needs of the Wisconsin comprehensive 
nutrient management program in cooperation with Professional 
Dairy Producers of Wisconsin, Dairy Business Association, and 
others. In addition, the Committee provides the fiscal year 
2004 funding level for the Dairy Discovery Farm Program.
    Farm Safety.--Of the funds recommended for farm safety, the 
Committee recommends a funding level of $3,312,000 for the 
AgrAbility project being carried out in cooperation with the 
National Easter Seal Society.
    Nutrition Enhancement.--Of the funds provided for nutrition 
enhancement, the Committee provides $50,000 for the Research 
Institute for Family Health and Wellness at Marywood University 
in Scranton, Pennsylvania.
    Potato Pest Management.--Of the funds provided for Potato 
Pest Management, the Committee provides the fiscal year 2004 
funding level for the ongoing effort between the University of 
Wisconsin, World Wildlife Fund, and Wisconsin Potato and 
Vegetable Growers Association. The Committee also directs the 
fiscal year 2004 funding level for an ongoing project with the 
University of Wisconsin for pesticide use reduction efforts for 
other commodities.
    Rural Business Enhancement.--The Committee provides the 
fiscal year 2004 funding level to the University of Wisconsin 
at Platteville for collaborative work with the University of 
Wisconsin Extension.
    Urban Horticulture.--The Committee provides the fiscal year 
2004 funding level for Urban Horticulture. In addition to funds 
directed for University of Wisconsin Extension activities, the 
Committee provides the fiscal year 2004 funding level for 
Growing Power of Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

                         INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2004....................................     $50,195,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................      76,865,000
Committee recommendation................................      57,242,000

    Section 406 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and 
Education Reform Act of 1998 authorizes an integrated research, 
education, and extension competitive grants program. Water 
Quality, Food Safety, and Regional Pest Management Centers 
programs previously funded under Research and Education and/or 
Extension Activities are included under this account, as well 
as new programs that support integrated or multifunctional 
projects.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For integrated activities of the Cooperative State 
Research, Education, and Extension Service, the Committee 
recommends $57,242,000. This amount is $7,047,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2004 level.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendations for integrated activities:

          COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE [CSREES]--INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Fiscal year     Fiscal year      Committee
                                                                   2004 enacted     2005 budget   recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical issues.................................................             444           2,500             444
Crops at risk from FQPA implementation..........................           1,330           1,497           1,330
Food safety.....................................................          13,305          14,967          13,305
FQPA risk mitigation program for major food crop systems........           4,345           4,889           4,345
Homeland security...............................................           7,953          30,000          15,000
International science and education grants......................             895           1,000             895
Methyl bromide transition.......................................           3,131           2,498           3,131
Organic transition..............................................           1,889             499           1,889
Regional pest management centers................................           4,028           4,531           4,028
Regional rural development centers..............................           1,345           1,513           1,345
Water quality...................................................          11,530          12,971          11,530
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................          50,195          76,865          57,242
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              OUTREACH FOR SOCIALLY DISADVANTAGED FARMERS

Appropriations, 2004....................................      $5,935,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................       5,935,000
Committee recommendation................................       5,935,000

    This program is authorized under section 2501 of title XXV 
of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990. 
Grants are made to eligible community-based organizations with 
demonstrated experience in providing education on other 
agriculturally-related services to socially disadvantaged 
farmers and ranchers in their area of influence. Also eligible 
are the 1890 land-grant colleges, Tuskegee University, West 
Virginia State University, Indian tribal community colleges, 
and Hispanic-serving postsecondary education facilities.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For outreach for socially disadvantaged farmers, the 
Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,935,000. This 
amount is the same as the fiscal year 2004 appropriation.

  Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs

Appropriations, 2004....................................        $721,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................         804,000
Committee recommendation................................         733,000

    The Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and 
Regulatory Programs provides direction and coordination in 
carrying out laws enacted by the Congress with respect to the 
Department's marketing, grading, and standardization activities 
related to grain; competitive marketing practices of livestock, 
marketing orders, and various programs; veterinary services; 
and plant protection and quarantine. The Office has oversight 
and management responsibilities for the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service; Agricultural Marketing Service; and Grain 
Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and 
Regulatory Programs, the Committee recommends an appropriation 
of $733,000. This amount is $12,000 more than the fiscal year 
2004 appropriation.

               Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2004....................................    $716,329,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................     828,361,000
Committee recommendation................................     786,866,000

    The Secretary of Agriculture established the Animal and 
Plant Health Inspection Service [APHIS] on April 2, 1972, under 
the authority of reorganization plan No. 2 of 1953, and other 
authorities. The major objectives of APHIS are to protect the 
animal and plant resources of the Nation from diseases and 
pests. These objectives are carried out under the major areas 
of activity, as follows:
    Pest and Disease Exclusion.--The Agency conducts inspection 
and quarantine activities at U.S. ports of entry to prevent the 
introduction of exotic animal and plant diseases and pests. The 
Agency also participates in inspection, survey, and control 
activities in foreign countries to reinforce its domestic 
activities.
    Agricultural Quarantine Inspection [AQI].--The agency 
collects user fees to cover the cost of inspection and 
quarantine activities at U.S. ports of entry to prevent the 
introduction of exotic animal and plant diseases and pests.
    Plant and Animal Health Monitoring.--The Agency conducts 
programs to assess animal and plant health and to detect 
endemic and exotic diseases and pests.
    Pest and Disease Management Programs.--The Agency carries 
out programs to control and eradicate pest infestations and 
animal diseases that threaten the United States; reduce 
agricultural losses caused by predatory animals, birds, and 
rodents; provide technical assistance to other cooperators such 
as States, counties, farmer or rancher groups, and foundations; 
and ensure compliance with interstate movement and other 
disease control regulations within the jurisdiction of the 
Agency.
    Animal Care.--The Agency conducts regulatory activities 
that ensure the humane care and treatment of animals and horses 
as the Animal Welfare and Horse Protection Acts require. These 
activities include inspection of certain establishments that 
handle animals intended for research, exhibition, and as pets, 
and monitoring certain horse shows.
    Scientific and Technical Services.--The Agency performs 
other regulatory activities, including the development of 
standards for the licensing and testing of veterinary 
biologicals to ensure their safety and effectiveness; 
diagnostic activities to support the control and eradication 
programs in other functional components; applied research to 
reduce economic damage from vertebrate animals; development of 
new pest and animal damage control methods and tools; and 
regulatory oversight of genetically engineered products.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For salaries and expenses of the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service, the Committee recommends total funding of 
$786,866,000. This is $70,537,000 more than the fiscal year 
2004 appropriation. The Committee encourages the Secretary to 
utilize authorities and resources of the Commodity Credit 
Corporation [CCC] to provide assistance in response to animal 
and plant health threats, and to allow compensation to certain 
producers for losses sustained in connection with these threats 
in instances when the additional assistance is deemed 
necessary.
    The Committee has provided the following amounts in the 
APHIS salaries and expenses account for new and enhanced 
activities under the Food and Agriculture Defense Initiative: 
$33,197,000 for a national animal identification program, 
$5,000,000 for State cooperative agreements, $2,500,000 for 
biosurveillance, $500,000 for the control of select agents, 
$3,500,000 for the National Veterinary Vaccine Bank, and 
$8,641,000 for BSE testing.
    The following table reflects the Committee's specific 
recommendations for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service:

                                   ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Fiscal year
                                                                 Fiscal year      2005 budget       Committee
                                                                 2004 enacted       request       recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pest and disease exclusion:
    Agricultural quarantine inspection.......................           25,450           25,031           24,802
    Cattle ticks.............................................            6,495            6,720            6,720
    Foot-and-mouth disease/emerging foreign animal diseases..            8,685           12,969            8,740
    Import/export............................................           11,074           15,729           11,874
    Trade issues resolution and management...................           12,472           15,727           12,578
    Fruit fly exclusion and detection........................           56,722           63,514           57,443
    Screwworm................................................           30,300           30,825           30,374
    Tropical bunt tick.......................................              421            2,920              425
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, pest and disease exclusion......................          151,619          173,435          152,956
                                                              ==================================================
Plant and animal health monitoring:
    Animal health monitoring and surveillance................           95,347          143,547          146,157
    Animal and plant health regulatory enforcement...........            9,157            9,823            9,382
    Biosurveillance..........................................  ...............            5,000            2,500
    Emergency Management System..............................            9,568           20,285            9,660
    Pest detection...........................................           24,382           45,308           25,131
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, plant and animal health monitoring..............          138,454          223,963          192,830
                                                              ==================================================
Pest and disease management programs:
    Aquaculture..............................................            1,243            1,600            1,255
    Biocontrol...............................................            9,215            9,429            9,429
    Boll weevil..............................................           50,700           17,320           47,500
    Brucellosis eradication..................................           10,242            8,861           10,356
    Chronic wasting disease..................................           18,522           20,067           18,839
    Emerging plant pests.....................................           93,098          104,415           94,422
    Golden nematode..........................................              787              985              801
    Grasshopper..............................................            5,459            4,356            5,528
    Gypsy moth...............................................            4,697            4,768            4,768
    Imported fire ant........................................            2,415            2,148            2,148
    Johne's disease..........................................           18,689            3,155           18,740
    Low pathogen avian influenza.............................              994           12,783           12,783
    Noxious weeds............................................            1,987            1,146            1,991
    Pink bollworm............................................            2,019            1,751            2,060
    Plum pox.................................................            3,451            3,471            3,471
    Pseudorabies.............................................            4,291            4,350            4,350
    Scrapie eradication......................................           15,607           20,874           15,768
    Tuberculosis.............................................           14,837           20,935           14,937
    Wildlife services operations.............................           71,313           71,684           73,225
    Witchweed................................................            1,517            1,523            1,523
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, pest and disease management.....................          331,083          315,621          343,894
                                                              ==================================================
Animal care:
    Animal welfare...........................................           16,303           16,618           16,618
    Horse protection.........................................              487              497              497
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, animal care.....................................           16,790           17,115           17,115
                                                              ==================================================
Scientific and technical services:
    Biosecurity..............................................            1,988            2,920            1,988
    Biotechnology regulatory services........................            5,402           12,048            5,504
    Environmental services...................................            2,583            2,624            2,624
    Plant methods development laboratories...................            8,160            8,381            8,381
    Veterinary biologics.....................................           15,145           17,374           15,513
    Veterinary diagnostics...................................           19,829           24,672           20,325
    Wildlife services methods development....................           16,999           13,876           17,428
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, scientific and technical services...............           70,106           81,895           71,763
                                                              ==================================================
Contingency fund.............................................            4,088            4,119            4,119
APHIS information technology infrastructure..................            4,189            5,080            4,189
Physical security............................................  ...............            7,133  ...............
                                                              ==================================================
      Total, salaries and expenses...........................          716,329          828,361          786,866
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee is unable to provide the full increases 
requested in the President's budget for the Animal and Plant 
Health Inspection Services. However, the Committee does provide 
increases for a number of specific animal and plant health 
programs. The Committee encourages the Secretary to continue 
use of contingency funding from Commodity Credit Corporation 
monies, as in past fiscal years, to cover needs as identified 
in the President's budget and any additional emergencies as the 
Secretary determines necessary.

Pest and Disease Exclusion

    AQI.--For fiscal year 2005, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $24,802,000 for the AQI appropriated account 
to conduct preclearance quarantine inspections of persons, 
baggage, cargo, and other articles destined for movement from 
the State of Hawaii to the continental United States, Guam, 
Puerto Rico, or the United States Virgin Islands. The Committee 
has included the fiscal year 2004 funding level for interline 
activities in Hawaii.
    The Committee urges the Department to establish protocols 
that allow shipment of untreated fruits and vegetables grown in 
Hawaii to cold-weather States during winter months while 
maintaining reasonable assurances that potential transshipment 
of such produce will not jeopardize the phytosanitary standards 
of warm weather States.
    The Committee continues its interest in more efficient and 
less disruptive inspection of passengers and cargo at Hawaii 
airports and, from within available funds, directs APHIS to 
provide not less than the number of inspectors and inspection 
equipment required in the APHIS-Hawaii staffing plan for fiscal 
year 2004. The Committee also encourages the agency to 
aggressively identify and evaluate flexible hiring and staff 
deployment arrangements, such as the Senior Environmental 
Employment Program, to minimize overtime rates charged to 
agricultural shippers. The Committee further encourages APHIS 
to acquire and deploy commercially available, state-of-the art 
inspection technology and equipment for key ports of entry, 
such as Hawaii, to screen passenger luggage for banned 
agricultural products to reduce the introduction of dangerous 
agricultural pests and diseases in the United States.
    Fruit Fly Exclusion and Detection.--The Committee provides 
$57,443,000 for the fruit fly exclusion and detection program, 
of which no less than the fiscal year 2004 level shall be used 
to enhance activities to prevent Medflies from moving into the 
United States as well as activities at U.S. borders. The 
Committee provides an increase of $100,000 above the fiscal 
year 2004 funding level for fruit fly activities in the State 
of Texas.
    Import Inspection.--The Committee provides $11,874,000 for 
import inspection, which includes an increase of $500,000 from 
the fiscal year 2004 funding level to enhance inspection and 
surveillance activities related to products entering the State 
of California.

Plant and Animal Health Monitoring

    Animal Health Monitoring and Surveillance.--The Committee 
provides $146,157,000 for the Animal Health Monitoring and 
Surveillance account. The Committee provides $33,197,000 for a 
national animal identification program. This funding is in 
addition to $18,800,000 that was transferred from the Commodity 
Credit Corporation on April 27, 2004. The Committee also 
includes statutory language that prohibits the Secretary from 
implementing an animal identification program prior to the 
notification of the Committees on Appropriations and the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry in the Senate 
and the Committee on Agriculture in the House of 
Representatives which shall include a detailed explanation of 
the components of such system.
    The Committee provides an increase of $200,000 above the 
fiscal year 2004 funding level for a cooperative agreement with 
the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer 
Protection to continue work carried out by the Wisconsin 
Livestock Identification Consortium. The Committee also 
provides an increase of $200,000 above the fiscal year 2004 
funding level for the National Farm Animal Identification and 
Records Project. The Committee provides continued funding at 
the 2004 level for the New Mexico Rapid Syndrome Validation 
Program to develop an early detection and reporting system for 
infectious animal diseases.
    The Committee recognizes the efforts and the financial 
commitment of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the Southeastern 
Livestock Network in the development of a cooperative, regional 
approach to animal identification. The Committee further 
encourages the Secretary to consider these activities and the 
substantial financial investments already undertaken in this 
region when developing and finalizing a nationwide animal 
identification program.
    In order to ensure the health of the United States cattle 
industry, the Committee believes it is necessary to implement a 
secure, reliable, speedy and efficient animal identification 
program at border crossings between the United States and 
Mexico so that identity can be reconnected when ear tags are 
lost and an animal health emergency is present. The Committee 
is aware of several biometric identification systems, such as 
DNA, nose printing, and retinal imaging, that can reliably 
reconnect identity. The Committee encourages the Department to 
consider these and other technologies when implementing any 
animal identification program.
    The Committee is aware of radio frequency identification 
technology that is available through Digital Angel. This 
technology has been proven on fish and has been in use for 15 
years. The Committee urges the Department to consider this 
technology when developing an animal identification program.
    The Committee provides the fiscal year 2004 level to 
continue the cooperative agreement with the Murray State 
University, Breathitt Veterinary Center, Hopkinsville, KY, to 
determine the impact on animal health from common agricultural 
chemical usage.
    The Committee provides an increase of $100,000 above the 
fiscal year 2004 funding level to address bio-safety issues 
relating to antibiotic resistant strains of bacterial pathogens 
in the State of Vermont.
    The Committee provides an increase of $200,000 above the 
fiscal year 2004 funding level for a national institute at Iowa 
State University devoted to risk assessment, mitigation, and 
communication for genetically modified agricultural products.
    Animal and Plant Health Regulatory Enforcement.--The 
Committee continues funding for the animal and plant health 
regulatory enforcement account for activities in support of 
increased Animal Welfare Act compliance inspections.
    The Committee is very concerned about reports of illegal 
animal fighting activities and directs the Secretary to work 
with relevant agencies on the most effective and proper means 
for investigating and enforcing laws and regulations regarding 
these activities.
    Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy.--The Committee is 
concerned about the Department's ongoing bovine spongiform 
encephalopathy [BSE] surveillance program. The Department's 
Inspector General, in addition to scientists and other BSE 
experts, has advocated for testing a statistically significant 
sample of cattle over 30 months old. Older cattle such as these 
may have eaten certain materials considered high risk for 
transmitting BSE-related disease in their feed before FDA 
implemented a feed ban on such materials and would help the 
agency get a true picture of the prevalence of the disease in 
cattle in this country. Testing older cattle helps calculate 
BSE prevalence directly from the science-based surveillance 
data rather than rely on complex and potentially faulty 
mathematical calculations. The Committee urges the Department 
to include testing of a statistically significant sample of 
cattle more than 30 months of age, in addition to the 
identified high-risk group, in its BSE surveillance program.
    Emergency Management Systems.--The Committee provides an 
increase of $92,000 for the emergency management systems 
program.
    Pest Detection.--The Committee provides an increase of 
$749,000 for pest detection. The Committee is concerned about 
continuing threats posed by the accidental or intentional 
introduction of pests, disease, or species into this country 
which could be devastating to our agricultural resources.
    The Committee is aware of interest by the Florida 
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to move toward 
completion of the Western Escambia County Agriculture 
Interdiction Station and encourages APHIS to work with the 
State of Florida to determine and, if prudent, develop and 
support a collaborative agreement for operations at this 
station.
    The Committee provides the fiscal year 2004 level to 
continue the California County Pest Detection Augmentation 
Program.

Pest and Disease Management

    Aquaculture.--The Committee provides $1,255,000 for the 
aquaculture program. The Committee provides funding at the 
fiscal year 2004 level to continue telemetry and population 
dynamics studies to develop environmentally and economically 
sustainable methods to help catfish farmers manage cormorant 
and pelican populations.
    Boll Weevil.--The Committee provides $47,500,000 for fiscal 
year 2005 to continue the Boll Weevil Eradication Program. This 
funding will provide the active eradication zone areas with a 
30 percent cost share and possible exceptions to address 
special funding requirements arising from extraordinary 
circumstances in some States.
    Brucellosis Eradication.--The Committee provides an 
increase of $114,000 above the fiscal year 2004 level for the 
bruccellosis program. This amount continues funding at the 
fiscal year 2004 level for the State of Montana to protect the 
State's brucellosis-free status and for the operation of the 
bison quarantine facility and the testing of bison that 
surround Yellowstone National Park.
    The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year 
2004 level for the Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis 
Committee, and encourages the coordination of Federal, State, 
and private actions to eliminate brucellosis from wildlife in 
the Greater Yellowstone area. This amount shall be equally 
divided between the States of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.
    Chronic Wasting Disease.--The Committee is concerned about 
the number of deer and elk in different regions of the U.S. 
testing positive for chronic wasting disease and provides an 
increase of $317,000 for the chronic wasting disease 
certification and control program to include additional 
surveillance and disease control activities with free-ranging 
cervids, and to increase State testing capacity for the timely 
identification of the presence of this disease.
    Of the amount provided for chronic wasting disease, the 
Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 levels for the State 
of Wisconsin, the State of Utah, and the Conservation Medicine 
Center of Chicago which is a collaboration between the 
University of Illinois College of Veterinary Medicine, Loyola 
University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, and the 
Brookfield Zoo. Of the amount provided, $250,000 is included to 
monitor chronic wasting disease in the State of Alaska.
    Emerging Plant Pests.--The Committee provides an increase 
of $1,324,000 above the fiscal year 2004 funding level for 
emerging plant pests. Within this total, the Committee provides 
an increase of $750,000 above the fiscal year 2004 funding 
level for Pierce's disease. The Committee continues the fiscal 
year 2004 funding levels for citrus canker and the Asian long-
horned beetle program in Illinois and New York, of which no 
less than the fiscal year 2004 funding level shall be for 
activities in the area of Chicago, IL. The Committee continues 
funding at the fiscal year 2004 funding level for sudden oak 
death syndrome. The Committee provides the fiscal year 2004 
fundng level for activities related to the emerald ash borer in 
the State of Michigan. The Committee expects the Secretary to 
make funds available from the CCC for activities related to 
these and other plant pests in fiscal year 2005, as necessary.
    The Committee is aware that APHIS has a compensation 
program in place for wheat producers, grain handlers, and 
facilities that karnal bunt impacts. However, the compensation 
provided for handlers and facilities does not adequately 
represent the costs these facilities incur when they receive 
deliveries of karnal bunt-infected wheat. This inadequate 
compensation has led to many facilities refusing to participate 
in activities to prevent the spread of karnal bunt in the 
United States. Due to the serious threat that karnal bunt poses 
to U.S. wheat production and exports, the Committee expects 
APHIS to work with the grain handling industry to develop an 
adequate compensation plan.
    The Committee notes that APHIS signed a cooperative 
agreement with the Washington State Department of Agriculture 
to survey and eradicate the citrus longhorned beetle. The 
Committee recognizes that the citrus longhorned beetle presents 
a severe threat to hardwood trees and tree fruit crops, and 
urges APHIS to direct the resources necessary to eradicate the 
citrus longhorned beetle.
    Grasshopper.--The Committee provides an increase of $69,000 
above the fiscal year 2004 level for the grasshopper account. 
Of this amount, no less than $1,000,000 shall be for 
grasshopper and Mormon cricket activities in the State of Utah 
to prepare necessary environmental documents and continue 
control measures. The Committee also provides the fiscal year 
2004 level for grasshopper and Mormon cricket activities in the 
State of Nevada, including survey, control, and eradication of 
crickets.
    Imported Fire Ant.--The Committee provides $2,148,000 for 
the imported fire ant account to continue sharing 
responsibility with the States to conduct detection and nursery 
surveys; compliance monitoring; enforcement for quarantine of 
nursery stock; and production, field release, and evaluation of 
promising control agents. The Committee continues funding at 
the fiscal 2004 level for the States of Tennessee and New 
Mexico for control activities.
    Johne's Disease.--The Committee provides an increase of 
$51,000 above the fiscal year 2004 level for Johne's disease to 
expand the agency's efforts to coordinate State certification 
programs for herd-testing, and to provide assistance to States 
to develop herd management plans that comply with APHIS's 
national standards for certification. The Committee expects 
APHIS to work with the Agricultural Research Service to 
coordinate activities to research and develop an effective 
diagnostic test for Johne's disease with appropriate field 
validation and methods development.
    Low Pathogenic Avian Influenza.--The Committee provides 
$12,783,000 for detection, control and eradication of Low 
Pathogenic Avian Influenza [LPAI]. This funding is in addition 
to $13,700,000 that was transferred from the Commodity Credit 
Corporation [CCC] on May 12, 2004. The Committee notes that the 
funds from CCC have been used historically to provide 
compensation to producers for losses associated with containing 
this disease. The Committee believes that the Secretary should 
continue to utilize the CCC for purposes of such compensation.
    The Committee is concerned that this disease, which appears 
to be endemic in certain live bird markets in urban areas, can 
be spread to the commercial poultry and egg industry causing 
significant economic harm to growers and processors. The 
Committee is also concerned that LPAI in certain cases can 
mutate into High Pathogenic Avian Influenza, a more virulent 
and dangerous form of the disease. To prevent this from 
happening, a robust surveillance and control program in both 
the commercial industry and live bird markets is important.
    The Committee notes that APHIS has combated LPAI in some 
cases by utilizing a vaccination program. The Committee 
encourages APHIS to utilize funds of the CCC to indemnify 
producers for losses incurred in these vaccination programs.
    The Committee is aware of the potential for the development 
of a plant-based avian influenza vaccine. With a plant-based 
avian influenza vaccine, and an accompanying diagnostic test, 
regions at risk of avian influenza infection would have the 
ability to implement a preventative disease control program 
which includes a vaccination plan. The Committee encourages 
APHIS to review and consider the benefits of a plant-based 
avian influenza vaccine.
    Noxious Weeds.--The Committee provides $1,991,000 for the 
noxious weeds account. This amount includes the fiscal year 
2004 level for the Nez Perce Bio-Control Center to increase the 
availability and distribution of biological control organisms 
used in an integrated weed management system. The Committee 
provides continued funding at the fiscal year 2004 level for an 
invasive species program to prevent the spread of cogongrass in 
Mississippi, and requests that the agency take necessary steps 
to address this invasive weed as a regional infestation 
problem.
    The Committee continues its concern for the serious threat 
to pastures and watersheds resulting from the introduction of 
alien weed pests, such as gorse and miconia, into Hawaii, and 
directs APHIS to work with the Hawaii Department of Agriculture 
and the Natural Resources Conservation Service to develop an 
integrated approach, including environmentally safe biological 
controls, for eradicating these pests, and to provide funds as 
necessary.
    Scrapie Eradication.--The Committee provides an increase of 
$161,000 above the fiscal year 2004 level for the scrapie 
eradication program, and directs the Secretary to use funds 
from the CCC, as necessary, for additional eradication 
activities in fiscal year 2005.
    Tuberculosis.--The Committee provides $14,937,000 for the 
tuberculosis program. Of this amount, no less than $5,000,000 
shall be for activities in Michigan. The Committee is concerned 
about the potential threats that wildlife poses for 
transmitting tuberculosis to domestic livestock and directs the 
agency to increase technical and operational assistance to 
Michigan producers to prevent or reduce the transmission of 
tuberculosis between wildlife and cattle. The Committee also 
encourages the agency to continue its research for developing 
methods to minimize the interaction between wildlife and 
livestock. The Committee encourages the Secretary to use funds 
from the CCC, as necessary, for additional surveillance and 
eradication activities in fiscal year 2005.
    Wildlife Services Operations.--The Committee does not 
concur with the budget request to reduce funding in the 
wildlife services operations account to allow cooperators to 
assume a larger share of the costs associated with preventing 
and reducing wildlife damage. The Committee provides funding to 
continue cooperating with States to conduct wildlife management 
programs such as livestock protection, migratory bird damage to 
crops, invasive species damage, property damage, human health 
and safety, and threatened and endangered species protection.
    The Committee notes the success of the oral rabies 
vaccination program and provides the fiscal year 2004 level for 
rabies control activities. The Committee encourages the 
Secretary to use funds from the CCC, as necessary, for 
additional control activities in fiscal year 2005.
    The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year 
2004 level to fully implement the recommendations of the 
Aviation Safety Review Committee.
    Of the amount provided to conduct wildlife monitoring and 
surveillance activities to prevent the spread of foreign animal 
diseases in the United States, the Committee provides the 
fiscal year 2004 level for remote diagnostic and wildlife 
disease surveillance activities with North Dakota State 
University and Dickinson State University.
    The Committee is concerned about the growing number of 
livestock that are killed or injured by preying animals, 
especially wolves, in the Western Great Lakes and Southwest 
regions of the United States. The Committee provides continued 
funding at the fiscal year 2004 level for integrated predation 
management activities in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, 
Arizona, and New Mexico. Of this amount, no less than 
$1,215,000 shall be available for activities in the Western 
Great Lakes States. A portion of the funding shall be made 
available to assist livestock producers who are interested in 
the proper use of non-lethal alternatives and best management 
practices in order to fully ensure that all such methods are 
exhausted before any lethal control occurs.
    The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year 
2004 level for the Tri-state predator control program for 
livestock operators in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Due to the 
increase in federally listed endangered species, the States' 
operations accounts for wildlife services have suffered 
financially.
    The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year 
2004 level for a cooperative agreement with the University of 
Georgia, Auburn University, and the Wildlife Services 
Operations in the State of Georgia to address the fluctuations 
in game bird and predator species resulting from recent changes 
in land use throughout the southeastern United States.
    The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year 
2004 level for the operation of the State Wildlife Services 
office in Hawaii to provide on-site coordination of prevention 
and control activities in Hawaii and the American Pacific. The 
Committee also continues funding at the fiscal year 2004 level 
for the Hawaii Department of Agriculture to coordinate and 
operate a comprehensive brown tree snake prevention and 
detection program for Hawaii and to initiate eradication and 
control of coqui frogs.
    The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year 
2004 level for wildlife service operations with the South 
Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks to meet the growing 
demands of controlling predatory, nuisance, and diseased 
animals.
    The Committee provides an increase of $100,000 above the 
fiscal year 2004 funding level for the management of beavers in 
Mississippi. The Committee commends the agency's assistance in 
cooperative relationships with local and Federal partners to 
reduce beaver damage to cropland and forests. The Committee 
also provides an increase of $300,000 above the fiscal year 
2004 funding level for beaver control equally divided between 
the State of Wisconsin, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and the 
State of North Carolina.
    The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year 
2004 level to continue control measures for minimizing 
blackbird damage to sunflowers in North Dakota and South 
Dakota. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 funding 
level for blackbird management efforts in Louisiana.
    The Committee provides funding at the fiscal year 2004 
level to assist the Nevada Division of Wildlife with returning 
displaced wildlife back to its natural habitat. This rescue 
initiative shall be a cooperative effort between Federal, 
State, local, and private sources.
    The Committee provides funding at the fiscal year 2004 
level for a cooperative agreement with the Eastern Idaho 
Sandhill Crane Lure Crop Project for integrated predator 
management activities to reduce sandhill crane depredations and 
grain crop damage in Eastern Idaho. The Committee also provides 
$35,000 for crane operations in the State of Wisconsin.
    The Committee also provides an increase of $200,000 above 
the fiscal year 2004 funding level for the Predator Research 
Station in the State of Utah. The Committee continues funding 
at the fiscal year 2004 level for the control of goose 
populations in the State of New York, the control of blackbirds 
in the State of Kansas, and to address wildlife damage in the 
State of New Hampshire. The Committee also provides $50,000 for 
the Cooperative Livestock Protection Program in the State of 
Pennsylvania. This program will provide technical and 
operational assistance to agriculture producers in identifying 
and controlling nuisance wildlife.
    The Committee provides an increase of $100,000 above the 
fiscal year 2004 funding level to assist in the management of 
cormorants in the Lake Champlain Basin. The Committee also 
provides an increase of $200,000 above the fiscal year 2004 
funding level for Delta States operations to control 
cormorants.

Animal Care

    Animal Welfare.--The Committee provides $17,115,000 for the 
Animal Care Unit for horse protection and enforcement of the 
Animal Welfare Act.
    The Committee does not assume collections from unauthorized 
animal welfare inspection user fees, as proposed in the 
President's budget.

Scientific and Technical Services

    Veterinary Diagnostics.--The Committee provides $20,325,000 
for the veterinary diagnostics account for fiscal year 2005. 
The Committee provides the fiscal year 2004 level to continue 
to update equipment needed to test certain animal samples in 
the State of Colorado.
    The Committee supports the ongoing activities of the 
Department to strengthen safeguards against the accidental or 
intentional introduction of catastrophic animal diseases. An 
important part of this effort is cooperation with the States to 
establish a National Diagnostic Network. As USDA continues this 
effort in fiscal year 2005, the Committee encourages the 
consideration of cooperative agreements with Kansas State 
University, South Dakota State University, Washington State 
University, and Auburn University for modernization and 
facility upgrades through which these institutions can better 
contribute to this national effort.
    Wildlife Services Methods Development.--The Committee 
provides $17,428,000 for wildlife services methods development. 
Of this amount, the Committee provides the fiscal year 2004 
level to continue existing research efforts at the National 
Wildlife Research Center field station in Starkville, MS, for 
resolving problems regarding bird damage to aquaculture farms 
in the Southeast. The Committee also provides an increase of 
$200,000 above the fiscal year 2004 funding level to continue 
the existing program at the Jack Berryman Institute for 
addressing wildlife damage management issues, including 
wildlife disease threats and wildlife economics, and 
facilitating a cooperative relationship with the Mississippi 
Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station. The Committee 
emphasizes the importance of close collaboration between the 
Jack Berryman Institute and the National Wildlife Research 
Center.
    The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year 
2004 level for the cooperative agreement with the Hawaii 
Agriculture Research Center for rodent control only in active 
agricultural areas.
    The Committee provides the fiscal year 2004 level for the 
National Wildlife Research Station located in the State of 
Texas for activities related to emerging infectious diseases 
associated with wildlife populations and human health.
    Projects identified in Senate Report 108-107, and 
Conference Report 108-401 that the Committee directed to be 
funded for fiscal year 2004 are not funded for fiscal year 2005 
unless specifically mentioned herein.
    In complying with the Committee's directives, the Committee 
expects APHIS not to redirect support for programs and 
activities without prior notification to and approval by the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in accordance 
with the reprogramming procedures specified in the Act. Unless 
otherwise directed, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service shall implement appropriations by programs, projects, 
and activities as specified by the Appropriations Committees. 
Unspecified reductions necessary to carry out the provisions of 
this Act are to be implemented in accordance with the 
definitions contained in the ``Program, project, and activity'' 
section of this report.

                        BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

Appropriations, 2004....................................      $4,967,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................       4,996,000
Committee recommendation................................       4,967,000

    The APHIS appropriation for ``Buildings and Facilities'' 
funds major nonrecurring construction projects in support of 
specific program activities and recurring construction, 
alterations, preventive maintenance, and repairs of existing 
APHIS facilities.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For buildings and facilities of the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service, the Committee recommends an appropriation 
of $4,967,000. This amount is the same as the fiscal year 2004 
appropriation.

                     Agricultural Marketing Service

                           MARKETING SERVICES

Appropriations, 2004....................................     $74,985,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................      85,998,000
Committee recommendation................................      78,198,000

    The Agricultural Marketing Service [AMS] was established by 
the Secretary of Agriculture on April 2, 1972. AMS carries out 
programs authorized by some 31 different statutory authorities, 
the primary ones being the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 
(7 U.S.C. 1621-1627); the U.S. Cotton Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 
51-65); the Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act (7 U.S.C. 471-
476); the Tobacco Inspection Act (7 U.S.C. 511-511q); the 
Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (7 U.S.C. 499a-499s); 
the Egg Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 1031-1056); and 
section 32 (15 U.S.C. 713c).
    Programs administered by this Agency include the market 
news services, payments to States for marketing activities, the 
Plant Variety Protection Act, the Federal administration of 
marketing agreements and orders, standardization, grading, 
classing, and shell egg surveillance services, transportation 
services, and market protection and promotion.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For marketing services of the Agricultural Marketing 
Service, the Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$78,198,000. This amount is $3,213,000 more than the fiscal 
year 2004 appropriation. Included in this amount is $2,000,000 
for the National Organic Program.
    The Committee continues to encourage AMS to use this 
funding to finalize the hiring of an Executive Director for the 
National Organic Standards Board, to create a Peer Review Panel 
to oversee the USDA accreditation process for organic 
certifiers, and to improve scientific technical support for the 
NOSB. The Committee also encourages AMS to regularly collect 
and report agricultural price trends in the organic industry.
    The Committee is aware that the current Processed Commodity 
Inventory Management System [PCIMS] was developed nearly two 
decades ago and has become inflexible and costly to maintain. 
Therefore, the Committee directs that no less than $2,500,000 
be used to begin development of a Web-Based Supply Chain 
Management System to improve purchase and management of 
commodities used in nutrition programs, and encourages the 
Secretary to use any available authorities to transfer the 
additional money necessary to fully fund this system from 
Section 32 funds.
    The Committee provides $14,645,000 for the Pesticide Data 
Program. The Committee recognizes the importance of the 
Pesticide Data Program [PDP] to collect reliable, scientific-
based pesticide residue data that benefits consumers, food 
processors, crop protection, pesticide producers, and farmers. 
The PDP is of particular importance since the passage of the 
Food Quality Protection Act, which requires thorough re-
evaluation of agricultural pesticides and tolerances for uses 
on individual crops. The PDP is an effective tool to maintain 
the availability of critical products which allow the 
production of safe and affordable foods.
    The Committee encourages the Department to make grants to 
the Kenai Peninsula Borough and Alaska regional marketing 
organizations to promote wild salmon.
    The State of Alaska has developed the Alaska Grown Program 
to promote the sale of Alaskan products in both military and 
civilian markets. The Committee fully supports this program and 
expects the Department again to give full consideration to 
funding applications submitted for the Alaska Grown Program, 
which includes Alaska agricultural products and seafood 
harvested in the State. The Alaska Grown Program should 
coordinate with other regional marketing entities.
    The amount provided also includes $6,195,000 for the 
microbiological data program so that baselines may be 
established for the incidence, number and types of food-borne 
microorganisms. The Committee expects AMS to coordinate with 
other agencies of USDA, other public health agencies of the 
government, and industry to avoid duplication of effort and to 
ensure that the data collected can be used by all interested 
parties.
    The Committee is aware that U.S. farmers and ranchers 
operating beyond the contiguous 48 States tend to operate at a 
competitive disadvantage because of their location. They are 
located long distances from input and product markets and tend 
to have fewer transportation alternatives than producers in the 
contiguous 48 States. As such, they incur higher costs in 
transporting the inputs necessary for efficient production and 
shipping products to export markets. In November of 2003, USDA 
completed a study entitled ``Report on Geographically 
Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers'' and offered a number of 
actions to alleviate some of the disadvantages. The Committee 
encourages AMS to implement the recommendations made by this 
study.
    The Committee encourages AMS to work with ERS, NASS and RMA 
on the collection of segregated data on the production and 
marketing of organic agricultural products. This data should be 
included in the ongoing baseline of data collection regarding 
agricultural production and marketing, as directed in the 2002 
Farm Bill. Specifically, data should be collected on prices, 
yields, acreage and production costs in the organic sector.
    The Committee is aware of the success of the Alaska Quality 
Seafood Program and encourages AMS to develop a similar program 
in Louisiana, modeled after the Alaska program.
    The Committee encourages AMS to work with New York State 
producers to design and test a distribution system that will 
connect the products of upstate New York farmers with 
distributors in New York City.

                 LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Limitation, 2004........................................     $62,577,000
Budget limitation, 2004.................................      64,459,000
Committee recommendation................................      64,459,000

    The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Public Law 
97-35) initiated a system of user fees for the cost of grading 
and classing cotton, tobacco, naval stores, and for warehouse 
examination. These activities, authorized under the U.S. Cotton 
Standards Act, the Tobacco Inspection Act, the Naval Stores 
Act, the U.S. Warehouse Act, and other provisions of law are 
designed to facilitate commerce and to protect participants in 
the industry.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends a limitation on administrative 
expenses of the Agricultural Marketing Service of $64,459,000. 
This amount is $1,882,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 level.

          FUNDS FOR STRENGTHENING MARKETS, INCOME, AND SUPPLY

                              (SECTION 32)

                    MARKETING AGREEMENTS AND ORDERS

Appropriations, 2004....................................     $15,392,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................      15,800,000
Committee recommendation................................      15,800,000

    Under section 32 of the act of August 24, 1935, (7 U.S.C. 
612c), an amount equal to 30 percent of customs receipts 
collected during each preceding calendar year and unused 
balances are available for encouraging the domestic consumption 
and exportation of agricultural commodities. An amount equal to 
30 percent of receipts collected on fishery products is 
transferred to the Department of Commerce. Additional transfers 
to the child nutrition programs of the Food and Nutrition 
Service have been provided in recent appropriations Acts.
    The following table reflects the status of this fund for 
fiscal years 2003-2005:

               ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD, FISCAL YEARS 2003-2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Fiscal year 2004   Fiscal year 2005
                                                            2003 actual      current estimate   budget estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation (30 percent of Customs Receipts).........     $5,798,093,321     $5,927,395,463     $6,030,964,691
Fiscal Year 2003 Appropriation (Public Law 108-7)......        250,000,000  .................  .................
Less Transfers:
    Food and Nutrition Service.........................     -4,745,663,000     -4,699,661,000     -5,152,962,000
    Commerce Department................................        -75,223,778        -79,724,463        -77,538,934
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Transfers.................................     -4,820,886,778     -4,779,385,463     -5,230,500,934
                                                        ========================================================
Budget Authority.......................................      1,227,206,543      1,148,010,000        800,463,757
Recoveries of Prior Year Obligations...................         40,157,220  .................  .................
Unobligated Balance Available Start of Year............        192,642,712        134,321,602        348,893,243
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Available for Obligation.........................      1,460,006,475      1,282,331,602      1,149,357,000
                                                        ========================================================
Less Obligations:
    Commodity Procurement:
        Child Nutrition Purchases......................        200,000,000        400,000,000        400,000,000
        Drought Relief.................................        867,000,000  .................  .................
        State Option Contract..........................            948,480          5,000,000          5,000,000
        Removal of Defective Commodities...............            999,919          1,000,000          1,000,000
        Emergency Surplus Removal......................        222,090,274        164,628,359  .................
        Direct Payments................................          8,000,000         18,750,000  .................
        Lamb Grading and Certification Support.........            103,343            100,000  .................
        Disaster Relief................................            499,989  .................  .................
        Estimated Future Purchases.....................  .................        317,525,000        416,325,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
          Total Commodity Procurement..................      1,299,642,005        907,003,359        822,325,000
                                                        ========================================================
    Administrative Funds:
        Commodity Purchase Services....................         11,199,016         11,043,000         11,232,000
    Marketing Agreements & Orders......................         14,843,852         15,392,000         15,800,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Administrative Funds......................         26,042,868         26,435,000         27,032,000
                                                        ========================================================
      Total, Obligations...............................      1,325,684,873        933,438,359        849,357,000
                                                        ========================================================
Unobligated Balance Available, End of Year.............        134,321,602        348,893,243        300,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends a transfer from section 32 funds 
of $15,800,000 for the formulation and administration of 
marketing agreements and orders. This amount is $408,000 more 
than the fiscal year 2004 level.
    In previous fiscal years, section 32 funds have been spent 
to purchase and distribute salmon for donation to schools, 
institutions, and other domestic feeding programs. The 
Committee directs the Agricultural Marketing Service [AMS] to 
assess the existing inventories of pink salmon, salmon nuggets, 
and pouched salmon and determine whether there is a surplus and 
continued low prices. If a surplus exists, the Committee 
expects the Department to purchase salmon for use in schools, 
institutions, and other domestic feeding programs, and for 
humanitarian aid.
    The Committee encourages USDA to use all existing 
authorities under the section 32 program through emergency 
surplus removal and other commodity purchases, including fruit 
and vegetable purchases, as mandated in the 2002 Farm Bill.
    The Committee is aware that section 10603 of Public Law 
107-171, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, 
mandates that the Secretary must use a minimum of $200,000,000 
each fiscal year to purchase fruits, vegetables and other 
specialty food crops. The Committee reminds USDA of the 
language included in section 53 of the conference report 
accompanying this law and expects that these purchases will be 
made according to Congressional intent.
    The Committee is aware of the recent pricing of cranberries 
below the cost of production that has negatively impacted 
cranberry producers in growing regions across the country. 
Given the anticipated industry inventory of 3,400,000 barrels 
during the coming fiscal year, the Committee directs USDA to 
use all existing authorities under the section 32 program to 
purchase no less than the average purchase amount over the past 
3 fiscal years in order to prevent market instability.
    The Committee is aware that farmed salmon imports from 
Chile, Norway, and other countries have undercut the market for 
wild Alaska salmon and have created a domestic surplus of wild 
pink salmon. The Committee encourages the Department to use all 
existing authorities under the section 32 program to purchase 
surplus domestic salmon and stabilize the domestic salmon 
industry.
    The Committee is aware that fresh asparagus imports from 
countries benefiting from the Andean Trade Preference Act have 
displaced domestic asparagus producers, particularly in 
Washington State, and created a domestic surplus. The Committee 
is also aware that domestic asparagus producers have been 
unable to access Trade Adjustment Assistance. The Committee 
encourages the Department to use all existing authorities under 
the section 32 program to purchase surplus domestic asparagus.

                   PAYMENTS TO STATES AND POSSESSIONS

Appropriations, 2004....................................      $3,318,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................       1,347,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,847,000

    The Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program [FSMIP] is 
authorized by section 204(b) of the Agricultural Marketing Act 
of 1946 and is also funded from appropriations. Payments are 
made to State marketing agencies to: identify and test market 
alternative farm commodities; determine methods of providing 
more reliable market information, and develop better commodity 
grading standards. This program has made possible many types of 
projects, such as electronic marketing and agricultural product 
diversification. Current projects are focused on the 
improvement of marketing efficiency and effectiveness, and 
seeking new outlets for existing farm produced commodities. The 
legislation grants the U.S. Department of Agriculture authority 
to establish cooperative agreements with State departments of 
agriculture or similar State agencies to improve the efficiency 
of the agricultural marketing chain. The States perform the 
work or contract it to others, and must contribute at least 
one-half of the cost of the projects.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For payments to States and possessions for Federal-State 
marketing projects and activities, the Committee provides 
$3,847,000. This amount is $529,000 more than the fiscal year 
2004 appropriation. The Committee directs that $2,500,000 be 
provided to the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and 
Consumer Protection for the development of specialty markets.

        Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2004....................................     $35,678,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................      44,150,000
Committee recommendation................................      37,299,000

    The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration 
[GIPSA] was established pursuant to the Secretary's 1994 
reorganization. Grain inspection and weighing programs are 
carried out under the U.S. Grain Standards Act and other 
programs under the authority of the Agricultural Marketing Act 
of 1946, including the inspection and grading of rice and 
grain-related products; conducting official weighing and grain 
inspection activities; and grading dry beans and peas, and 
processed grain products. Under the Packers and Stockyards Act, 
assurance of the financial integrity of the livestock, meat, 
and poultry markets is provided. The administration monitors 
competition in order to protect producers, consumers, and 
industry from deceptive and fraudulent practices which affect 
meat and poultry prices.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For salaries and expenses of the Grain Inspection, Packers 
and Stockyards Administration, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $37,299,000. This amount is $1,621,000 more 
than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation, and includes 
$1,000,000 for requested program initiatives such as IT 
security and BSE-related activities.
    The Committee expects the Department to continue the market 
catalog reporting.
    The Committee continues funding for the Swine Contract 
Library.
    The Committee understands that GIPSA is assessing how to 
facilitate the efficient marketing of grain by augmenting, not 
supplanting, existing market mechanisms. The Committee 
encourages the Department to continue the cooperative 
relationship with the Iowa Corn Growers Association and the 
Illinois Corn Growers Association, and provides the fiscal year 
2004 funding level for an ongoing study of process verification 
systems and protocols.

        LIMITATION ON INSPECTION AND WEIGHING SERVICES EXPENSES

Limitation, 2004........................................     $42,463,000
Budget limitation, 2005.................................      42,463,000
Committee recommendation................................      42,463,000

    The Agency provides an official grain inspection and 
weighing system under the U.S. Grain Standards Act [USGSA], and 
official inspection of rice and grain-related products under 
the Agricultural Marketing Act [AMA] of 1946. The USGSA was 
amended in 1981 to require the collection of user fees to fund 
the costs associated with the operation, supervision, and 
administration of Federal grain inspection and weighing 
activities.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends a $42,463,000 limitation on 
inspection and weighing services expenses. This amount is the 
same as the fiscal year 2004 level.

             Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety

Appropriations, 2004....................................        $595,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................         803,000
Committee recommendation................................         608,000

    The Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety provides 
direction and coordination in carrying out the laws enacted by 
the Congress with respect to the Department's inspection of 
meat, poultry, and egg products. The Office has oversight and 
management responsibilities for the Food Safety and Inspection 
Service.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, the 
Committee recommends an appropriation of $608,000. This amount 
is $13,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation.

                   Food Safety and Inspection Service

Appropriations, 2004....................................    $779,882,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................     838,660,000
Committee recommendation................................     823,757,000

    The major objectives of the Food Safety and Inspection 
Service are to assure that meat and poultry products are 
wholesome, unadulterated, and properly labeled and packaged, as 
required by the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry 
Products Inspection Act; and to provide continuous in-plant 
inspection to egg processing plants under the Egg Products 
Inspection Act.
    The Food Safety and Inspection Service was established on 
June 17, 1981, by Secretary's Memorandum No. 1000-1, issued 
pursuant to Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953.
    The inspection program of the Food Safety and Inspection 
Service provides continuous in-plant inspection of all domestic 
plants preparing meat, poultry or egg products for sale or 
distribution; reviews foreign inspection systems and 
establishments that prepare meat or poultry products for export 
to the United States; and provides technical and financial 
assistance to States which maintain meat and poultry inspection 
programs.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Food Safety and Inspection Service, the Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $823,757,000. This amount is 
$43,875,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. This 
increase includes $12,267,000 for front line inspection costs, 
bringing the total number of FSIS slaughter inspectors to 
7,690. The Committee also provides $7,000,000 to continue 
training for entry-level inspectors. In addition, the Committee 
provides $3,000,000 to improve Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy 
[BSE] surveillance, as requested in the budget.
    The Committee has provided the following amounts in the 
Food Safety and Inspection Service account for new and enhanced 
activities under the Food and Agriculture Defense Initiative: 
$2,500,000 for biosurveillance, $7,000,000 for Food Emergency 
Response Network, $1,250,000 for enhance lab capabilities, and 
$1,000,000 for biosecurity training.
    The Committee has provided an increase of $105,000 from the 
fiscal year 2004 funding level for activities related to the 
Codex Alimentarius.
    Humane Slaughter.--The Committee notes the positive steps 
taken by FSIS for enforcement of the Humane Methods of 
Slaughter Act [HMSA]. Among the steps taken by FSIS has been 
the establishment of a Humane Animal Tracking [HAT] system, and 
the Committee provides $4,000,000 to incorporate the HAT system 
into the FAIM architecture. The Committee further directs FSIS 
to provide notification to the Committees on Appropriations 
prior to obligating funds for incorporating HAT under FAIM. 
This notification should provide the Committees with details on 
specific costs associated with this action, a schedule for 
incorporation, and how this action will benefit enforcement of 
HMSA regulations.
    The Committee provides the amount requested in the budget 
to maintain the 63 full time equivalent positions which have 
been increased for this purpose above the fiscal year 2002 
level. The Committee strongly feels that a portion of that FTE 
increase should be used to allow additional FSIS personnel to 
work cooperatively with the existing District Veterinary 
Medical Specialists [DVMS], whose duties are specifically tied 
to HMSA enforcement, in order to increase the number of 
facility visits by FSIS personnel with special expertise in 
HMSA enforcement, and to allow each DVMS better opportunities 
to visit facilities in other FSIS districts to enhance 
communication and problem solving among all districts.
    In addition, the Committee expects FSIS to consider a 
number of objective scoring techniques to measure more 
precisely the extent to and the occasions in which regulatory 
actions may be appropriate, and means by which FSIS personnel 
can actually document improvements or failures in animal 
handling and slaughter operations. Further, the Committee 
believes other scoring protocols will serve as useful tools to 
the agency in directing limited resources. Such protocols may 
include assigning overall facility ratings in regard to layout 
and adoption by facility management of a systematic approach to 
monitor and comply with HMSA requirements. In addition, the 
Committee encourages FSIS to enhance capabilities to observe 
animal handling and slaughter operations through the use of 
location or technological opportunities to make unannounced 
observations that will allow the initiation, when appropriate, 
of regulatory actions.
    The Committee directs FSIS to report to the Committee by 
March 1, 2005, on additional progress or challenges the agency 
has met in HMSA enforcement, including the adoption or 
rejection of the recommendations made by the Committee.
    Self-Contained Modular Facilities.--The Centers for Disease 
Control [CDC] has incorporated self-contained modular 
facilities [SCMF] and modular specimen triage units [STU] in 
the development and implementation of its 50 State public 
health laboratories and facilities comprising the Laboratory 
Response Network [LRN]. The Committee encourages the Food 
Safety and Inspection Service to consult with CDC to evaluate 
the benefits of incorporating self-contained modular 
facilities.
    Import Inspection.--When a significant number of plants 
initially audited in a particular country fail to meet U.S. 
safety standards, the Committee continues to expect the 
Department to exercise all authorities to limit imports from 
all plants in that country which have not been audited in the 
previous 12 months, as well as imports from those plants that 
failed initial audits, until subsequent findings establish that 
proper inspection systems are in place.
    Baseline Studies.--The Committee is aware that FSIS is 
currently conducting ongoing nationwide microbiological 
baseline studies for nine commodities. These studies will 
permit FSIS to collect more appropriate scientific data in 
order to conduct risk assessments and to more accurately track 
prevalence and levels of foodborne disease-causing bacteria. 
The Committee directs that no less than $2,000,000, an increase 
of $350,000, be used to continue these baseline studies.
    The following table represents the Committee's specific 
recommendations for the Food Safety and Inspection Service as 
compared to the fiscal year 2004 and budget request levels:

                            FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE SALARIES AND EXPENSES
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Fiscal year
                                                                    Fiscal year     2005 budget      Committee
                                                                   2004 enacted       request     recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food safety inspection:
    Federal.....................................................         697,682         758,702         740,835
    State.......................................................          49,564          53,198          52,552
    International...............................................          18,290          19,815          19,425
Codex Alimentarius..............................................           2,621           2,726           2,726
FAIM............................................................          11,725           4,219           8,219
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................         779,882         838,660         823,757
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural 
                                Services

Appropriations, 2004....................................        $631,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................         933,000
Committee recommendation................................         648,000

    The Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign 
Agricultural Services provides direction and coordination in 
carrying out the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to 
the Department's international affairs (except for foreign 
economics development) and commodity programs. The Office has 
oversight and management responsibilities for the Farm Service 
Agency, including the Commodity Credit Corporation, Risk 
Management Agency, and the Foreign Agricultural Service.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign 
Agricultural Services, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $648,000. This amount is $17,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2004 appropriation.
    The Committee continues to urge the Secretary to work with 
representatives of the dairy industry and appropriate non-
governmental organizations to increase the amount of fortified 
dry milk exported under humanitarian assistance programs.
    The Committee urges the U.S. Agency for International 
Development and USDA to manage the Food Security Commodity 
Reserve effectively to meet international food aid commitments 
of the United States, including supplementing Public Law 480 
title II funds to meet emergency food needs.

                          Farm Service Agency

    The Farm Service Agency [FSA] was established October 3, 
1994, pursuant to the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and 
Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, Public 
Law 103-354. The FSA administers a variety of activities, such 
as the commodity price support and production adjustment 
programs financed by the Commodity Credit Corporation; the 
Conservation Reserve Program [CRP]; the Emergency Conservation 
Program; the Commodity Operation Programs including the 
warehouse examination function; farm ownership, farm operating, 
emergency disaster, and other loan programs; and the Noninsured 
Crop Disaster Assistance Program [NAP], which provides crop 
loss protection for growers of many crops for which crop 
insurance is not available. In addition, FSA currently provides 
certain administrative support services to the Foreign 
Agricultural Service [FAS] and to the Risk Management Agency 
[RMA].

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Transfers from    Total, FSA,
                                                                Appropriations      program        salaries and
                                                                                    accounts         expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2004.........................................          982,934          283,244        1,266,178
Budget estimate, 2005........................................        1,007,877          309,163        1,317,040
Committee recommendation.....................................        1,004,032          297,703        1,301,735
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The account ``Salaries and expenses, Farm Service Agency,'' 
funds the administrative expenses of program administration and 
other functions assigned to FSA. The funds consist of 
appropriations and transfers from the CCC export credit 
guarantees, Public Law 480 loans, and agricultural credit 
insurance fund program accounts, and miscellaneous advances 
from other sources. All administrative funds used by FSA are 
consolidated into one account. The consolidation provides 
clarity and better management and control of funds, and 
facilitates accounting, fiscal, and budgetary work by 
eliminating the necessity for making individual allocations and 
allotments and maintaining and recording obligations and 
expenditures under numerous separate accounts.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For salaries and expenses of the Farm Service Agency [FSA], 
including funds transferred from other program accounts, the 
Committee recommends $1,301,735,000. This amount is $35,557,000 
more than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. The Committee 
includes funding for an information technology specialist, a 
clerical support person, a new program coordinator, and a new 
loan officer in the FSA headquarters in the State of Alaska.

                         STATE MEDIATION GRANTS

Appropriations, 2004....................................      $3,951,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................       4,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       4,000,000

    This program is authorized under title V of the 
Agricultural Credit Act of 1987. Originally designed to address 
agricultural credit disputes, the program was expanded by the 
Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture 
Reorganization Act of 1994 to include other agricultural issues 
such as wetland determinations, conservation compliance, rural 
water loan programs, grazing on National Forest System lands, 
and pesticides. Grants are made to States whose mediation 
programs have been certified by the Farm Service Agency [FSA]. 
Grants will be solely for operation and administration of the 
State's agricultural mediation program.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends $4,000,000 for State mediation 
grants. This amount $49,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 
appropriation.

                        DAIRY INDEMNITY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2004....................................        $100,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................         100,000
Committee recommendation................................         100,000

    Under the program, the Department makes indemnification 
payments to dairy farmers and manufacturers of dairy products 
who, through no fault of their own, suffer losses because they 
are directed to remove their milk from commercial markets due 
to contamination of their products by registered pesticides. 
The program also authorizes indemnity payments to dairy farmers 
for losses resulting from the removal of cows or dairy products 
from the market due to nuclear radiation or fallout.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the dairy indemnity program, the Committee recommends 
$100,000. This amount is the same as the fiscal year 2004 
appropriation.

           AGRICULTURAL CREDIT INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

    The Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account is 
used to insure or guarantee farm ownership, farm operating, and 
emergency loans to individuals, as well as the following types 
of loans to associations: irrigation and drainage, grazing, 
Indian tribe land acquisition and boll weevil eradication. The 
insurance endorsement on each insured loan may include an 
agreement by the Government to purchase the loan after a 
specified initial period.
    FSA is also authorized to provide financial assistance to 
borrowers by guaranteeing loans made by private lenders having 
a contract of guarantee from FSA as approved by the Secretary 
of Agriculture.
    The following programs are financed through this fund:
    Farm Ownership Loans.--Made to borrowers who cannot obtain 
credit elsewhere to restructure their debts, improve or 
purchase farms, refinance nonfarm enterprises which supplement 
but do not supplant farm income, or make additions to farms. 
Total indebtedness to FSA may not exceed $200,000 for direct 
loans and $782,000 for guaranteed loans. Loans are made for 40 
years or less.
    Farm Operating Loans.--Provide short-to-intermediate term 
production or chattel credit to farmers who cannot obtain 
credit elsewhere, to improve their farm and home operations, 
and to develop or maintain a reasonable standard of living. 
Total indebtedness to FSA may not exceed $200,000 for direct 
loans and $782,000 for guaranteed loans. The term of the loan 
varies from 1 to 7 years.
    Credit Sales of Acquired Property.--Property is sold out of 
inventory and is made to an eligible buyer by providing FSA 
loans.
    Indian Tribe Land Acquisition Loans.--Made to any Indian 
tribe recognized by the Secretary of the Interior or tribal 
corporation established pursuant to the Indian Reorganization 
Act which does not have adequate uncommitted funds to acquire 
lands or interest in lands within the tribe's reservation or 
Alaskan Indian community, as determined by the Secretary of the 
Interior, for use of the tribe or the corporation or the 
members thereof.
    Boll Weevil Eradication Loans.--Made to assist foundations 
in financing the operations of the boll weevil eradication 
programs provided to farmers.
    Emergency Loans.--Made to producers to aid recovery from 
production and physical losses due to drought, flooding, other 
natural disasters, or quarantine. The loans may be used to: 
restore or replace essential property; pay all or part of 
production costs associated with the disaster year; pay 
essential family living expenses; reorganize the farming 
operation; and refinance certain debts.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends a total level for farm loans of 
$3,362,000,000. This amount is $115,751,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2004 level.
    The Committee provides no new budget authority for the 
emergency loan program. Currently, this loan program has over 
$175,000,000 available for eligible producers. Based on 
historical loan activity, this amount should meet all needs for 
emergency loans in this fiscal year.
    The following table reflects the program levels for farm 
credit programs administered by the Farm Service Agency 
recommended by the Committee, as compared to the fiscal year 
2004 and the budget request levels:

                                    AGRICULTURAL CREDIT PROGRAMS--LOAN LEVELS
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Fiscal year 2004  Fiscal year 2005      Committee
                                                                 enacted           budget        recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farm ownership:
    Direct................................................          128,396           200,000           210,000
    Guaranteed............................................          944,395         1,400,000         1,100,000
Farm operating:
    Direct................................................          613,860           650,000           650,000
    Guaranteed unsubsidized...............................        1,192,920         1,200,000         1,000,000
    Guaranteed subsidized.................................          264,678           266,253           300,000
Indian tribe land acquisition.............................            2,000             2,000             2,000
Boll weevil eradication...................................          100,000            60,000           100,000
Emergency disaster........................................  ................           25,000   ................
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total, farm loans...................................        3,246,249         3,803,253         3,362,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

           LOAN SUBSIDIES AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Subsidies                  Administrative expenses
                                --------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Insured     Guaranteed                               Transfer to   Total ACIF
                                     loan         loan        Total     Appropriations      FSA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2004...........      116,869       78,623      195,492          7,901       281,350      484,743
Budget estimate, 2005..........       79,625       81,618      161,243          8,000       305,011      474,254
Committee recommendation.......       76,925       78,060      154,985          8,000       293,764      456,749
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the 
program account. Appropriations to this account are used to 
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct 
loans obligated and loan guarantees committed, as well as for 
administrative expenses.
    The following table reflects the cost of loan programs 
under credit reform:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Committee
                                                                 2004 enacted     2005 budget     recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:
    Farm ownership:
        Direct...............................................           28,350           10,700           11,235
        Guaranteed...........................................            5,100            7,420            5,830
    Farm operating:
        Direct...............................................           88,519           65,585           65,585
        Guaranteed unsubsidized..............................           39,724           38,760           32,300
        Guaranteed subsidized................................           33,799           35,438           39,930
    Indian tribe land acquisition \1\........................  ...............              105              105
    Boll weevil eradication \2\..............................  ...............  ...............  ...............
Emergency disaster...........................................  ...............            3,235  ...............
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
        Total, loan subsidies................................          195,492          161,243          154,985
ACIF expenses................................................          289,251          313,011          301,764
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Negative subsidy rate for fiscal year 2004 is calculated for this program.
\2\ Negative subsidy rate for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 is calculated for this program.

                         Risk Management Agency

Appropriations, 2004....................................     $71,001,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................      91,582,000
Committee recommendation................................      72,044,000

    The Risk Management Agency performs administrative 
functions relative to the Federal crop insurance program that 
is authorized by the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 
1508), as amended by the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 
2000 [ARPA], Public Law 106-224, and the Farm Security and 
Rural Investment Act of 2002 (2002 Act), Public Law 107-171.
    ARPA authorized significant changes in the crop insurance 
program. This Act provides higher government subsidies for 
producer premiums to make coverage more affordable; expands 
research and development for new insurance products and under-
served areas through contracts with the private sector; and 
tightens compliance. Functional areas of risk management are: 
research and development; insurance services; and compliance, 
whose functions include policy formulation and procedures and 
regulations development.
    The 2002 Act maintains the basic crop insurance program 
largely without change. This Act also requires the continuation 
of the Adjusted Gross Revenue [AGR] pilot program, which 
provides insurance coverage for crops for which traditional 
crop insurance is not available. However, the 2002 Act 
eliminates the ARPA provision that allowed selection of 
continuous coverage levels, rather than coverage levels at 
fixed intervals.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For administrative and operating expenses for the Risk 
Management Agency, the Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$72,044,000. This amount is $1,043,000 more than the fiscal 
year 2004 appropriation.
    The Committee encourages RMA to work with North Dakota 
State University on an actuarial study regarding a proposed 
pilot project that would develop an optional insurance program 
in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota on wheat, barley, 
soybeans, and corn.
    The Committee encourages RMA to develop and implement an 
actuarially-sound rider option to the current crop insurance 
program for avocados to cover losses due to quarantines, and to 
do so in close cooperation with the California avocado 
industry. The Committee further requests the Department to 
report on the economic impacts of recent domestic quarantines 
and to analyze options for protecting avocado growers against 
future losses due to such regulatory actions.
    USDA has initiated a number of new rules intended to ensure 
the safety of American beef. One of these rules prohibits the 
entry of any downer animals into the food supply. While the 
safety of the American food supply is of utmost importance, the 
Committee is aware that the downer prohibition will have 
financial implications for American farmers and ranchers who 
raise and send cattle to slaughter. Although it is the 
responsibility of these farmers and ranchers to work to ensure 
that their animal remain healthy until they reach the slaughter 
plant, the Committee suggests that USDA look into ways to 
manage financial risk to producers when an animal becomes a 
downer and is unable to be sent to the food supply. One such 
way could be the creation of an insurance program similar to 
the crop insurance program, which would cover and protect 
against the loss of income due to downer animals. The Committee 
requests USDA look into the development of such a program, and 
report on potential benefits and problems by June 1, 2005.

                              CORPORATIONS

                Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund

Appropriations, 2004 \1\................................  $3,765,000,000
Budget estimate, 2005 \1\...............................   4,095,128,000
Committee recommendation \1\............................   4,095,128,000

\1\ Current estimate. Such sums as may be necessary, to remain available 
until expended, are provided.

    The Federal Crop Insurance Reform Act of 1994 was designed 
to replace the combination of crop insurance and ad hoc 
disaster payment programs with a strengthened crop insurance 
program.
    The Federal Crop Insurance Act, as amended by the Federal 
Crop Insurance Reform Act of 1994, authorizes the payment of 
expenses which may include indemnity payments, loss adjustment, 
delivery expenses, program-related research and development, 
startup costs for implementing this legislation such as 
studies, pilot projects, data processing improvements, public 
outreach, and related tasks and functions.
    All program costs, except for Federal salaries and 
expenses, are mandatory expenditures subject to appropriation.
    Producers of insurable crops are eligible to receive a 
basic level of protection against catastrophic losses, which 
cover 50 percent of the normal yield at 55 percent of the 
expected price. The only cost to the producer is an 
administrative fee of $100 per crop per policy.
    The Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 [ARPA] amended 
the Federal Crop Insurance Act to strengthen the safety net for 
agricultural producers by providing greater access to more 
affordable risk management tools and improved protection from 
production and income loss, and to improve the efficiency and 
integrity of the Federal crop insurance program. ARPA allows 
for the improvement of basic crop insurance products by 
implementing higher premium subsidies to make buy-up coverage 
more affordable for producers; make adjustments in actual 
production history guarantees; and revise the administrative 
fees for catastrophic [CAT] coverage. More crops and 
commodities have become insurable through pilot programs 
effective with the 2001 crop year. ARPA provides for an 
investment for over $8,200,000,000 in 5 years to further 
improve Federal crop insurance.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation fund, the 
Committee recommends an appropriation of such sums as may be 
necessary, estimated to be $4,095,128,000. This amount is 
$330,128,000 more than the current fiscal year 2004 estimate.

                   COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION FUND

    The Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC] is a wholly owned 
Government corporation created in 1933 to stabilize, support, 
and protect farm income and prices; to help maintain balanced 
and adequate supplies of agricultural commodities, including 
products, foods, feeds, and fibers; and to help in the orderly 
distribution of these commodities. CCC was originally 
incorporated under a Delaware charter and was reincorporated 
June 30, 1948, as a Federal corporation within the Department 
of Agriculture by the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act, 
approved June 29, 1948 (15 U.S.C. 714).
    The Commodity Credit Corporation engages in buying, 
selling, lending, and other activities with respect to 
agricultural commodities, their products, food, feed, and 
fibers. Its purposes include stabilizing, supporting, and 
protecting farm income and prices; maintaining the balance and 
adequate supplies of selected commodities; and facilitating the 
orderly distribution of such commodities. In addition, the 
Corporation makes available materials and facilities required 
in connection with the storage and distribution of such 
commodities. The Corporation also disburses funds for sharing 
of costs with producers for the establishment of approved 
conservation practices on environmentally sensitive land and 
subsequent rental payments for such land for the duration of 
Conservation Reserve Program contracts.
    Corporation activities are primarily governed by the 
following statutes: the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter 
Act, as amended; the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended (1949 
Act); the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended (the 
1938 Act); the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended (1985 
Act); and the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 
(2002 Act), enacted May 13, 2002.
    Under the 2002 Act, the Secretary is required to offer a 
program of direct and counter-cyclical payments and extend 
nonrecourse marketing assistance loans and loan deficiency 
payments for contract commodities (soybeans, wheat, corn, grain 
sorghum, barley, oats, upland cotton, rice, other oilseeds, and 
peanuts). The 2002 Act also provides for marketing loans for 
wool, mohair, honey, small chickpeas, lentils and dry peas. A 
national Milk Income Loss Contract [MILC] program was 
established by the 2002 Act, providing that producers enter 
into contracts extending through September 30, 2005. A milk 
price support program is also provided to support the price of 
milk via purchases of butter, cheese, and nonfat dry milk. The 
rate of support is $9.90 per hundredweight.
    The 2002 Act directs the Secretary to operate the sugar 
program at no cost to the U.S. Treasury by avoiding sugar loan 
forfeitures in the nonrecourse loan program. The nonrecourse 
loan program is reauthorized through fiscal year 2007 at 18 
cents per pound for raw cane sugar and 22.9 cents per pound for 
refined beet sugar.
    In the conservation area, the 2002 Act extends and expands 
the conservation reserve program [CRP], the wetlands reserve 
program [WRP], the environmental quality incentives program 
[EQIP], the farmland protection program [FPP], and the wildlife 
habitat incentives program [WHIP]. Each of these programs is 
funded through the CCC.
    The 2002 Act also authorizes and provides CCC funding for 
other conservation programs, including the conservation 
security program and the grassland reserve program.
    Management of the Corporation is vested in a board of 
directors, subject to the general supervision and direction of 
the Secretary of Agriculture, who is an ex-officio director and 
chairman of the board. The board consists of seven members, in 
addition to the Secretary, who are appointed by the President 
of the United States with the advice and consent of the Senate. 
Officers of the Corporation are designated according to their 
positions in the Department of Agriculture.
    The activities of the Corporation are carried out mainly by 
the personnel and through the facilities of the Farm Service 
Agency [FSA] and the Farm Service Agency State and county 
committees. The Foreign Agricultural Service, the General Sales 
Manager, other agencies and offices of the Department, and 
commercial agents are also used to carry out certain aspects of 
the Corporation's activities.
    The Corporation's capital stock of $100,000,000 is held by 
the United States. Under present law, up to $30,000,000,000 may 
be borrowed from the U.S. Treasury, from private lending 
agencies, and from others at any one time. The Corporation 
reserves a sufficient amount of its borrowing authority to 
purchase at any time all notes and other obligations evidencing 
loans made by such agencies and others. All bonds, notes, 
debentures, and similar obligations issued by the Corporation 
are subject to approval by the Secretary of the Treasury.
    Under Public Law 87-155 (15 U.S.C. 713a-11, 713a-12), 
annual appropriations are authorized for each fiscal year, 
commencing with fiscal year 1961. These appropriations are to 
reimburse the Corporation for net realized losses.

                 REIMBURSEMENT FOR NET REALIZED LOSSES

Appropriations, 2004 \1\................................ $22,937,000,000
Budget estimate, 2005 \1\...............................  16,452,377,000
Committee recommendation \1\............................  16,452,377,000

\1\ Current estimate. Such sums as may be necessary are provided.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the payment to reimburse the Commodity Credit 
Corporation [CCC] for net realized losses, the Committee 
recommends an appropriation of such sums as may be necessary, 
estimated in fiscal year 2005 to be $16,452,377,000. This 
amount is $6,484,623,000 less than the current estimated 
limitation.

                       HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT

Limitation, 2004........................................      $5,000,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................       5,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       5,000,000

    The Commodity Credit Corporation's [CCC] hazardous waste 
management program is intended to ensure compliance with the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
Liability Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. 
The CCC funds operations and maintenance costs as well as site 
investigation and cleanup expenses. Investigative and cleanup 
costs associated with the management of CCC hazardous waste are 
also paid from USDA's hazardous waste management appropriation.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For Commodity Credit Corporation hazardous waste 
management, the Committee provides a limitation of $5,000,000. 
This amount is the same as the fiscal year 2004 limitation.

                    TITLE II--CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

  Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment

Appropriations, 2004....................................        $741,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................         936,000
Committee recommendation................................         758,000

    The Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and 
Environment provides direction and coordination in carrying out 
the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to natural 
resources and the environment. The Office has oversight and 
management responsibilities for the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service and the Forest Service.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources 
and Environment, the Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$758,000. This amount is $17,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 
appropriation.
    The Committee continues its opposition to administration 
proposals to fund technical assistance for Farm Bill 
conservation programs from discretionary accounts provided in 
this Act. The Committee provides statutory language under the 
Conservation Operations, the Watershed Surveys and Planning, 
the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations, and the 
Watershed Rehabilitation Program accounts to prohibit the use 
of any funds appropriated under these accounts to provide 
technical assistance to carry out programs listed in section 
1241(a) of the Food Security Act of 1985.
    The Committee is aware that Devils Lake in the State of 
North Dakota is now more than 25 feet higher than it was in 
1993. The Committee encourages the NRCS, with the cooperation 
of the FSA, to assist locally-coordinated flood response and 
water management activities. NRCS and FSA should continue to 
utilize conservation programs in providing water holding, 
storage, and other innovative solutions as necessary measures 
in watershed management.

                 Natural Resources Conservation Service

    The Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] was 
established pursuant to Public Law 103-354, the Department of 
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6962). NRCS 
combines the authorities of the former Soil Conservation 
Service as well as five natural resource conservation cost-
share programs previously administered by the Agricultural 
Stabilization and Conservation Service. Through the years, this 
Service, together with the agricultural conservation programs 
and over 2 million conservation district cooperatives, has been 
a major factor in reducing pollution. The Natural Resources 
Conservation Service works with conservation districts, 
watershed groups, and the Federal and State agencies having 
related responsibilities to bring about physical adjustments in 
land use that will conserve soil and water resources, provide 
for agricultural production on a sustained basis, and reduce 
damage by flood and sedimentation. The Service, with its dams, 
debris basins, and planned watersheds, provides technical 
advice to the agricultural conservation programs, where the 
Federal Government pays about one-third of the cost, and, 
through these programs, has done perhaps more to minimize 
pollution than any other activity. These programs and water 
sewage systems in rural areas tend to minimize pollution in the 
areas of greatest damage, the rivers and harbors near our 
cities.
    The conservation activities of the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service are guided by the priorities and 
objectives as set forth in the National Conservation Program 
[NCP] which was prepared in response to the provisions of the 
Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977 [RCA] (Public 
Law 95-192). The long-term objectives of the program are 
designed to maintain and improve the soil, water, and related 
resources of the Nation's nonpublic lands by: reducing 
excessive soil erosion, improving irrigation efficiencies, 
improving water management, reducing upstream flood damages, 
improving range condition, and improving water quality.

                        CONSERVATION OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2004....................................    $847,971,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................     710,412,000
Committee recommendation................................     845,863,000

    Conservation operations are authorized by Public Law 74-46 
(16 U.S.C. 590a-590f). Activities include:
    Conservation Technical Assistance.--Provides assistance to 
district cooperators and other land users in the planning and 
application of conservation treatments to control erosion and 
improve the quantity and quality of soil resources, improve and 
conserve water, enhance fish and wildlife habitat, conserve 
energy, improve woodland, pasture and range conditions, and 
reduce upstream flooding; all to protect and enhance the 
natural resource base.
    Inventory and monitoring provides soil, water, and related 
resource data for land conservation, use, and development; 
guidance of community development; identification of prime 
agricultural producing areas that should be protected; 
environmental quality protection; and for the issuance of 
periodic inventory reports of resource conditions.
    Resource appraisal and program development ensures that 
programs administered by the Secretary of Agriculture for the 
conservation of soil, water, and related resources shall 
respond to the Nation's long-term needs.
    Soil Surveys.--Inventories the Nation's basic soil 
resources and determines land capabilities and conservation 
treatment needs. Soil survey publications include 
interpretations useful to cooperators, other Federal agencies, 
State, and local organizations.
    Snow Survey and Water Forecasting.--Provides estimates of 
annual water availability from high mountain snow packs and 
relates to summer stream flow in the Western States and Alaska. 
Information is used by agriculture, industry, and cities in 
estimating future water supplies.
    Plant Materials Centers.--Assembles, tests, and encourages 
increased use of plant species which show promise for use in 
the treatment of conservation problem areas.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For conservation operations, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $845,863,000. This amount is $2,108,000 less 
than the 2004 level.
    For fiscal year 2005, the Committee recommends funding, as 
specified below, for new and ongoing conservation activities. 
Amounts provided by the Committee for specific conservation 
measures shall be in addition to levels otherwise made 
available to States.
    Projects identified in Conference Report 108-401 that were 
directed to be funded by the Committee for fiscal year 2004 are 
not funded for fiscal year 2005, unless specifically mentioned 
herein.
    The Committee encourages the Secretary to utilize no less 
than $5,000,000 from all appropriate funding sources to support 
sage-grouse habitat conservation in States within the current 
range of the greater sage-grouse. The Secretary shall make 
assistance available for habitat conservation efforts on 
private and leased public lands.
    The Committee recognizes that the High Plains Aquifer, with 
the Ogallala Aquifer as its most important component, lies 
beneath eight States and is the primary source of water for all 
reported uses in western Kansas. The Committee is aware that 
the aquifer is depleting at alarming rates and absent 
conservation efforts could be dry within two decades. The 
Committee urges the agency to give consideration to the use of 
ground and surface water funding for projects in Kansas that 
will conserve this aquifer.
    The Committee supports the preservation of the last 
tallgrass prairie in North America, most of which is located in 
the Flint Hills region of Kansas. The Committee recognizes that 
the tallgrass prairie provides rich ranching lands, open 
spaces, and habitat for a diverse assemblage of plants and 
animals. The Committee urges the agency to give consideration 
to the use of all appropriate funding sources for projects in 
Kansas that will preserve and protect this unique area.
    The Committee provides $12,000,000 for Snow Survey and 
Water Supply Forecasting.
    The Committee provides $23,500,000 for the Grazing Lands 
Conservation Initiative.
    The Committee provides $3,000,000 to maintain a partnership 
between USDA and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
    The Committee directs the agency to maintain a national 
priority area pilot program under the guidelines of the 
Environmental Quality Incentives Program [EQIP] in the Delta of 
the State of Mississippi.
    The Committee provides $1,500,000 for the Franklin County 
Lake Project in the State of Mississippi.
    The Committee provides $1,500,000 for a study to 
characterize the on-site consequences, estimate off-site 
impacts, and develop strategies to facilitate land use change 
while preserving critical natural resources. The agency is 
directed to work in cooperation with Clemson University.
    The Committee provides $300,000 to continue the expansion 
of the Potomac and Ohio River Basins Soil Nutrient Project to 
include Jefferson, Berkeley, and Greenbrier Counties. This 
funding will enable the NRCS, in cooperation with West Virginia 
University and the Appalachian Small Farming Research Center, 
Natural Soil Survey Laboratory in Lincoln, NE to identify and 
characterize phosphorous movement in soils to determine 
appropriate transportation, the holding capacity, and the 
management of phosphorous. This information is critical in 
helping Appalachian farmers deal with nutrient loading issues 
and in protecting the Chesapeake Bay from eutrophication and 
the Ohio River, Mississippi River, and Gulf of Mexico from 
depletion of life-sustaining oxygen.
    The Committee provides $950,000 for grazing land 
conservation activities in the State of Wisconsin.
    The Committee provides $315,000 to obtain and evaluate 
materials and seeds of plants indigenous to regions north of 52 
degrees North Latitude and equivalent vegetated regions in the 
Southern Hemisphere (south of 52 degrees South Latitude). The 
Committee directs the agency to continue working in conjunction 
with the Alaska Division of Agriculture in this effort.
    The Committee provides $400,000 for a cooperative agreement 
with Western Kentucky University.
    The Committee provides $850,000 to expand to the entire 
State of Hawaii the agricultural development and resource 
conservation program currently serving the Island of Molokai.
    The Committee provides $860,000 to continue the Appalachian 
Small Farmer Outreach Program in the State of West Virginia.
    The Committee directs NRCS to support all existing offices 
in the State of Alaska at current levels.
    The Committee directs the agency to work with soil 
scientists at regional land-grant universities to continue the 
pilot project in Washington, Sharkey and Yazoo Counties, 
Mississippi, to determine the proper classification and 
taxonomic characteristics of Sharkey soils.
    The Committee provides $1,200,000 to address erosion in the 
Loess Hills/Hungry Canyon area in the State of Iowa.
    The Committee provides $1,400,000 for the Delta 
Conservation Demonstration Center in Washington County, 
Mississippi.
    The Committee provides $200,000 to continue the Idaho One-
Plan in Canyon County, Idaho.
    The Committee provides $315,000 for commercialization of 
native plant materials in the State of Alaska.
    The Committee provides $1,000,000 for the continued 
development of a geographic information system database in the 
State of South Carolina to integrate commodity and conservation 
program data at the field level for watershed analysis 
purposes.
    The Committee provides $160,000 to conduct nitrogen soil 
tests and plant-available nitrogen tests, and to demonstrate 
poultry litter and wood composting in an effort to improve 
farmers' economic returns and minimize potential water quality 
conditions resulting from excess application of nutrients from 
manure and fertilizers on West Virginia's cropland.
    The Committee provides $400,000 for the Little Red River 
Irrigation Project in the State of Arkansas.
    The Committee provides $2,800,000 to provide technical 
assistance for the Kentucky Soil Erosion Control/Soil Survey 
Program.
    The Committee provides $900,000 for cattle and nutrient 
management in stream crossings in cooperation with Mississippi 
Conservation Districts.
    The Committee provides $500,000 to continue the Certified 
Environmental Management Systems for Agriculture in cooperation 
with the Iowa Soybean Association.
    The Committee provides $4,500,000 for the Geographic 
Information System Center of Excellence at West Virginia 
University.
    The Committee provides $496,000 watershed management and 
demonstration projects in cooperation with the National Pork 
Producers Council and Iowa Soybean Association.
    The Committee provides $175,000 for a cooperative agreement 
between NRCS and Alcorn State University for the analysis of 
soil erosion and water quality.
    The Committee provides $5,813,000 for the Wildlife Habitat 
Management Institute.
    The Committee provides $1,000,000 to continue the 
conversion to sprinkler irrigation in the vicinity of Minidoka, 
Idaho.
    The Committee provides $900,000 for the New Jersey State 
Conservation Cost Share Program.
    The Committee provides $570,000 to continue assistance for 
conservation programs related to cranberry production in the 
States of Massachusetts and Wisconsin. Of the funds provided to 
Massachusetts, the NRCS should give consideration to 
improvement of cranberry bogs in that State.
    The Committee provides $350,000 to provide expedited 
conservation planning of the Lake Okeechobee Watershed project 
in the State of Florida. The Committee expects the agency to 
work in cooperation with the Florida Department of Agriculture 
and Consumer Services.
    The Committee provides $300,000 for the ecological site 
description project in the State of Idaho. The Committee 
directs the agency to work in cooperation with the Idaho 
Association of Soil Conservation Districts.
    The Committee provides $125,000 for fiscal year 2004 for 
flood protection around the Humphreys County Hospital and the 
City of Belzoni, Humphreys County, Mississippi.
    The Committee provides $300,000 for the Utah CAFO/AFO pilot 
project.
    The Committee provides $400,000 for geographic information 
system based mapping and hyperspectral imaging of agricultural 
lands in the State of Alaska.
    The Committee provides $2,500,000 for a native grassland 
demonstration project in the vicinity of Tar Creek, Oklahoma.
    The Committee provides $1,000,000 for the Dry Creek project 
in the State of Utah.
    The Committee provides $500,000 for drainage improvements 
in the City of Port Gibson, Claiborne County, Mississippi.
    The Committee provides $500,000 to continue a study to 
examine the environmental benefits of vegetative buffers along 
waterways. The agency is directed to work in cooperation with 
the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
    The Committee provides $650,000 for conservation programs 
in the Great Lakes Watershed.
    The Committee expects the NRCS to work in conjunction with 
the ARS Dairy Forage Laboratory in Madison, Wisconsin, 
regarding dairy waste management and in the development of a 
working arrangement regarding planned expansion of the Dairy 
Forage Laboratory activities at Marshfield, Wisconsin and the 
possible establishment of a NRCS Waste Management Institute at 
that location.
    The Committee provides $3,750,000 to implement the Source 
Water Protection Program and encourages that these funds be 
used in States with the greatest needs.
    The Committee provides $300,000 to assist in the Wyoming 
soil survey mapping project.
    The Committee notes that the Natural Resource Inventory 
[NRI] has not included the State of Alaska due to factors such 
as accessibility of remote locations, climate, and staff 
availability. The Committee believes that natural resources 
data collection in Alaska is of critical national importance. 
As such, the Committee provides $1,200,000 to continue NRI 
pilot activity development in Alaska.
    The Committee provides $120,000 for the Conservation Land 
Internship Program in the State of Wisconsin.
    The Committee provides $500,000 to address concerns with 
the application of phosphorous on agricultural lands in the 
State of North Carolina.
    The Committee provides $250,000 for drainage improvements 
in Hinds County, Mississippi.
    The Committee provides $1,000,000 for additional 
conservation technical assistance funding to Kentucky Soil 
Conservation Districts.
    The Committee provides $750,000 for a study to examine the 
effect of vegetation manipulation on water yields and other 
watershed functions. The agency is directed to work in 
cooperation with Utah State University.
    The Committee provides $3,600,000 for the Georgia Soil and 
Water Conservation Commission cooperative agreement.
    The Committee provides $250,000 for drainage improvements 
in the City of Richland, Rankin County, Mississippi.
    The Committee provides $300,000 for the West Cary Watershed 
Project in the State of North Carolina.
    The Committee provides $500,000 for range revegetation at 
Fort Hood in the State of Texas.
    The Committee provides $800,000 for the Innovative 
Environmental Technologies program in the State of Indiana.
    The Committee provides $500,000 for a cooperative agreement 
with the University of Northern Iowa.
    The Committee provides $1,500,000 for a cooperative 
agreement with the Alaska Soil and Water Conservation District.
    The Committee provides $550,000 for the continued 
development of a conjunctive use optimization model in the 
Pawcatuck Watershed in the State of Rhode Island.
    The Committee provides $300,000 for the testing of emerging 
alternative technology in the State of Vermont to reduce 
phosphorus loading in Lake Champlain.
    The Committee provides $300,000 for a cooperative agreement 
with the Wisconsin Tribal Conservation Advisory Committee for 
conservation and sustainable agricultural activities.
    The Committee provides $1,200,000 for a cooperative 
agreement with the Sand County Foundation in the State of 
Wisconsin to carry out an expanded nitrogen removal test 
project.
    The Committee provides $300,000 for a cooperative agreement 
with the University of Wisconsin-Platteville for the Pioneer 
Farm project.
    The Committee provides $600,000 to carry out riparian 
restoration activities along the Rio Grande and Pecos Rivers in 
the State of New Mexico.
    The Committee provides $480,000 for a cooperative agreement 
with Tufts University to conduct pilot programs in the State of 
Connecticut to improve conservation practices and enhance the 
diversification of agricultural production in the area.
    The Committee provides $350,000 to the North Central 
Planning Council to continue a Devils Lake water utilization 
test project in the State of North Dakota to determine to what 
extent excess water from Devils Lake can be used to irrigate 
land for beneficial use.
    The Committee provides $1,000,000 to continue the Red River 
Basin Flood Prevention Project in the State of North Dakota in 
cooperation with the Energy and Environmental Research Center.
    The Committee provides $500,000 for assistance in the 
Iroquois River Watershed in Iroquois County, Illinois.
    The Committee provides $250,000 for the Illinois River 
Agricultural Water Conservation Project in the State of 
Illinois, in conjunction with Ducks Unlimited.
    The Committee provides $250,000 for a wildlife habitat 
education program in the State of Illinois, in conjunction with 
the National Wild Turkey Federation.
    The Committee provides $300,000 to establish a Pilot Farm 
Viability Program Project in the State of Vermont.
    The Committee provides $200,000 for assistance for an On 
Farm Management Systems Evaluation Network.
    The Committee provides $700,000 to continue the Delta Water 
Resources Study in the State of Mississippi.
    The Committee provides $1,500,000 for the Washington Fields 
project in the State of Utah.
    The Committee provides $300,000 for a cooperative agreement 
with the University of Wisconsin for the Conservation 
Technology Transfer project.
    The Committee provides $500,000 for a cooperative agreement 
between the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural 
Resources and the Alabama Wildlife Federation for conservation 
education in Millbrook, Alabama.
    The Committee provides $250,000 for the Ozark nutrient 
management project in the State of Arkansas.
    The Committee provides $300,000 for the basalt and 
groundwater protection project in the State of Idaho.
    The Committee provides $250,000 for drainage improvements 
in Mill Creek, Rankin County, Mississippi.
    Plant Materials Centers.--The Committee provides no less 
than $16,000,000 for NRCS plant material centers.
    The Committee provides $1,750,000 for construction of the 
Fallon, Nevada plant materials center.
    The Committee provides $2,000,000 for construction of a 
storage facility at the Alaska plant materials center.

                     FARM BILL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

Appropriations, 2004....................................................
Budget estimate, 2005...................................     $92,024,000
Committee recommendation................................................

    As proposed, the Farm Bill Technical Assistance account 
would fund the technical assistance needed to plan, design, 
layout, and install conservation systems funded by the 2002 
Farm bill for the Wetlands Reserve Program [WRP] and the 
Conservation Reserve Program [CRP]. This would include both 
NRCS's technical assistance costs, as well as the costs for 
certified, non-Federal technical service providers to provide 
technical assistance to farmers and ranchers for WRP and CRP.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee does not provide funding for the Farm Bill 
Technical Assistance Account. This subject is addressed under 
the Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and 
Environment.

                     WATERSHED SURVEYS AND PLANNING

Appropriations, 2004....................................     $10,500,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................       5,083,000
Committee recommendation................................       7,500,000

    The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, Public 
Law 83-566, August 4, 1954, provided for the establishment of 
the Small Watershed Program (16 U.S.C. 1001-1008), and section 
6 of the act provided for the establishment of the River Basin 
Surveys and Investigation Program (16 U.S.C. 1006-1009). A 
separate appropriation funded the two programs until fiscal 
year 1996 when they were combined into a single appropriation, 
watershed surveys and planning.
    River basin activities provide for cooperation with other 
Federal, State, and local agencies in making investigations and 
surveys of the watersheds of rivers and other waterways as a 
basis for the development of coordinated programs. Reports of 
the investigations and surveys are prepared to serve as a guide 
for the development of agricultural, rural, and upstream 
watershed aspects of water and related land resources, and as a 
basis for coordination of this development with downstream and 
other phases of water development.
    Watershed planning activities provide for cooperation 
between the Federal Government and the States and their 
political subdivisions in a program of watershed planning. 
Watershed plans form the basis for installing works of 
improvement for floodwater retardation, erosion control, and 
reduction of sedimentation in the watersheds of rivers and 
streams and to further the conservation, development, 
utilization, and disposal of water. The work of the Department 
in watershed planning consists of assisting local organizations 
to develop their watershed work plan by making investigations 
and surveys in response to requests made by sponsoring local 
organizations. These plans describe the soil erosion, water 
management, and sedimentation problems in a watershed and works 
of improvement proposed to alleviate these problems. Plans also 
include estimated benefits and costs, cost-sharing and 
operating and maintenance arrangements, and other appropriate 
information necessary to justify Federal assistance for 
carrying out the plan.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For watershed surveys and planning, the Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $7,500,000. This amount is 
$3,000,000 less than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation.
    The Committee is concerned that additional watershed 
surveys and planning work is being initiated at a time when 
ongoing planning is not being completed in a timely manner, and 
the backlog for watershed project implementation and 
construction continues to mount. As such, the Committee does 
not provide funding for any new planning starts. The Committee 
directs the Chief of NRCS to evaluate and rank existing 
planning efforts currently underway in order to fund and 
complete the most promising projects, based upon merit, and 
notify the Committee of the selected watershed projects.

               WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2004....................................     $86,487,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................      40,173,000
Committee recommendation................................      64,000,000

    The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public 
Law 566, 83d Cong.) (16 U.S.C. 1001-1005, 1007-1009) provides 
for cooperation between the Federal Government and the States 
and their political subdivisions in a program to prevent 
erosion, floodwater, and sediment damages in the watersheds or 
rivers and streams and to further the conservation, 
development, utilization, and disposal of water.
    The Natural Resources Conservation Service has general 
responsibility for administration of activities, which include 
cooperation with local sponsors, State, and other public 
agencies in the installation of planned works of improvement to 
reduce erosion, floodwater, and sediment damage; conserve, 
develop, utilize, and dispose of water; plan and install works 
of improvement for flood prevention, including the development 
of recreational facilities and the improvement of fish and 
wildlife habitat; and loans to local organizations to help 
finance the local share of the cost of carrying out planned 
watershed and flood prevention works of improvement.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For watershed and flood prevention operations, the 
Committee recommends an appropriation of $64,000,000. This 
amount is $22,487,000 less than the fiscal year 2004 
appropriation.
    The Committee provides funds for the agency to continue 
assistance for the Potomac Headwaters Land Treatment Project in 
the State of West Virginia.
    The Committee provides funds for the agency to continue 
assistance for the Upper Deckers Creek watershed in the State 
of West Virginia.
    The Committee provides funds for the agency to continue 
assistance for the Lost River Watershed Project in the State of 
West Virginia.
    The Committee provides funds for the agency to continue 
assistance for the Square Butte Project in the State of North 
Dakota.
    The Committee provides funds for the agency to continue 
assistance for Big Creek/Hurricane Creek, Moniteau Creek, East 
Locust Creek, West Fork of Big Creek, East Yellow Creek, 
McKenzie Creek, Hickory Creek, East Fork of Grand River, 
Troublesome Creek, Willow Cravens Creek, and Upper Locust Creek 
projects in the State of Missouri.
    The Committee provides funds for the agency to complete the 
Lower Hamakua Ditch Watershed, Upcountry Maui Watershed, 
Lahaina Watershed, and the Wailuku-Alenaio Watershed projects 
in the State of Hawaii.
    The Committee provides funds for the agency to complete the 
Kuhn Bayou Project in the State of Arkansas.
    The Committee provides funds for the agency to continue 
assistance for the Turkey Creek, Troublesome Creek, 12-Mile 
Creek, East Fork of Grand River, West Fork of Big Creek, A&T 
Longbranch, Mill Creek, Hacklebarney, Bear Creek, Little Paint, 
Mill-Pacauyne, Soap Creek, Little Sioux River, and West Tarkio 
Creek projects in the State of Iowa.
    The Committee provides funds for the agency to complete the 
Tri-Valley project and to continue the Coal Creek project in 
the State of Utah.
    The Committee provides funds for the agency to continue 
assistance for small watershed projects in the State of 
Vermont.
    The Committee provides funds for the agency to continue 
assistance for the Piney Creek Watershed Project in Yazoo 
County, Mississippi.
    The Committee provides funding for the agency to continue 
assistance for the Matanuska River Erosion Control Project in 
the State of Alaska.
    The Committee provides funds for the agency to continue 
assistance for Town Creek in Lee County, Mississippi.
    The Committee provides funds for the agency to continue 
assistance for the Oaklimiter watershed in the State of 
Mississippi.
    The Committee provides funds for the agency to continue 
assistance for the Tanana River in the State of Alaska.
    The Committee provides funds for the agency to continue 
assistance for McCarthy Creek in the State of Alaska.

                    WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2004....................................     $29,629,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................      10,091,000
Committee recommendation................................      25,000,000

    The watershed rehabilitation program account provides for 
technical and financial assistance to carry out rehabilitation 
of structural measures, in accordance with Section 14 of the 
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, approved August 
4, 1954 (U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), as amended by Section 313 of 
Public Law 106-472, November 9, 2000 (16 U.S.C. 1012), and by 
section 2505 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 
2002 (Public Law 107-171).

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the watershed rehabilitation program, the Committee 
recommends $25,000,000. This amount is $4,629,000 less than the 
fiscal year 2004 level.
    The Committee directs that funding under this program be 
provided for rehabilitation of structures determined to be of 
high priority need in order to protect property and ensure 
public safety.

                 RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2004....................................     $51,641,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................      50,760,000
Committee recommendation................................      50,760,000

    The Natural Resources Conservation Service has general 
responsibility under provisions of section 102, title I of the 
Food and Agriculture Act of 1962, for developing overall work 
plans for resource conservation and development projects in 
cooperation with local sponsors; to help develop local programs 
of land conservation and utilization; to assist local groups 
and individuals in carrying out such plans and programs; to 
conduct surveys and investigations relating to the conditions 
and factors affecting such work on private lands; and to make 
loans to project sponsors for conservation and development 
purposes and to individual operators for establishing soil and 
water conservation practices.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For resource conservation and development, the Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $50,760,000, as requested in the 
budget.

                 TITLE III--RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

    The Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of 
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-354) 
abolished the Farmers Home Administration, Rural Development 
Administration, and Rural Electrification Administration and 
replaced those agencies with the Rural Housing and Community 
Development Service, (currently, the Rural Housing Service), 
Rural Business and Cooperative Development Service (currently, 
the Rural Business-Cooperative Service), and Rural Utilities 
Service and placed them under the oversight of the Under 
Secretary for Rural Economic and Community Development, 
(currently, Rural Development). These agencies deliver a 
variety of programs through a network of State, district, and 
county offices.

          Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development

Appropriations, 2004....................................        $632,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................         929,000
Committee recommendation................................         645,000

    The Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development 
provides direction and coordination in carrying out the laws 
enacted by the Congress with respect to the Department's rural 
economic and community development activities. The Office has 
oversight and management responsibilities for the Rural Housing 
Service, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, and the Rural 
Utilities Service.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Rural 
Development, the Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$645,000. This amount is $13,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 
appropriation.
    The Committee is aware the Department has previously 
provided funding for the National Rural Development Partnership 
[NRDP]. The NRDP, and its associated State Rural Development 
Councils, provide technical support and guidance for rural 
development at the State and local level. The Committee 
encourages the Department to continue support for this 
important organization from within available funds.
    The Committee recognizes that the communities of Tchula, 
Mississippi and Libby, Montana have requested technical and 
programmatic assistance for housing, business, 
telecommunication, and other essential community needs. The 
Committee expects the Secretary to provide additional 
resources, and encourages the use of available national reserve 
funds.
    The Committee recommends continued staffing and operations 
of the Rural Business Cooperative Service Office in Hilo, 
Hawaii, to address the continuing and increasing demands for 
marketing and purchasing cooperatives.
    The Committee is concerned that the Department is 
restricting not-for-profit developer-owners of essential 
community facilities from entering into contracts to provide 
services with a third party not-for-profit entity for childcare 
and other related services. The Committee strongly encourages 
the Secretary to address this policy prohibition to allow such 
activities and insure the government's interests are protected 
with third party contracts. The developer-owner should be 
responsible for securing Departmental approval for any changes 
in existing contracts addressing issues that include services 
provided, liability, maintenance and administrative fees.
    The Committee directs the Under Secretary for Rural 
Development to consider an application for the construction of 
a public access seafood facility in Wrangell, Alaska, within 
the applicable procedures and guidelines and provide a grant if 
warranted.
    The Committee is aware of distance learning and medical 
link opportunities in the State of Hawaii and urges the 
Department to fund a demonstration project to build upon 
existing resources and to further the use of advanced 
telecommunications by those island communities not having the 
direct access to services and information that are currently 
available in Honolulu.
    The Committee is aware of recent advances in materials 
handling of biomass sources that greatly enhance the economic 
feasibility of producing ethanol from sugarcane bagasse and 
other unwieldy biomass sources and encourages the Department to 
give consideration to applications by the Kauai Bagasse to 
Ethanol commercial scale demonstration project for loans and 
grants from the renewable energy program.
    The Committee encourages the Secretary to consider an 
application for assistance to Women in Technology in Wisconsin 
and Hawaii for consideration of a rural business enterprise 
grant for the purpose of establishing revolving loan programs.
    The Committee notes that for some time Rural Development 
has considered relocating employees in the Abrams Federal 
Building in St. Louis, Missouri, to Federal facilities on 
Goodfellow Boulevard, also in St. Louis. The Committee 
encourages the Department to continue to work with the General 
Services Administration on the proposed move and to do so in a 
cost-effective manner without adversely impacting Rural 
Development employees or loan servicing.
    The Committee is concerned that the current funding 
allocation for general support is insufficient to meet the 
notably higher operating expenses in the States of Alaska and 
Hawaii. Therefore, the Committee directs the Under Secretary to 
allocate $10,000 per FTE for general support to the Alaska and 
Hawaii Rural Development State offices.
    The Committee has included a general provision [Section 
755) which provides $2,000,000 for the Denali Commission to 
address deficiencies in solid waste management in the State of 
Alaska. The Committee directs the Commission to work with the 
State of Alaska to develop a legal framework for a solid waste 
management authority that can become self-sustaining and is 
authorized to establish a revolving loan fund to support solid 
waste projects.

                  Rural Community Advancement Program

Appropriations, 2004....................................    $752,956,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................     541,979,000
Committee recommendation................................     733,360,000

    The Rural Community Advancement Program [RCAP], authorized 
by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 
(Public Law 104-127), consolidates funding for the following 
programs: direct and guaranteed water and waste disposal loans, 
water and waste disposal grants, emergency community water 
assistance grants, solid waste management grants, direct and 
guaranteed community facility loans, community facility grants, 
direct and guaranteed business and industry loans, rural 
business enterprise grants, and rural business opportunity 
grants. This proposal is in accordance with the provisions set 
forth in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 
1996, Public Law 104-127. Consolidating funding for these 12 
rural development loan and grant programs under RCAP provides 
greater flexibility to tailor financial assistance to applicant 
needs.
    With the exception of the 10 percent in the ``National 
office reserve'' account, funding is allocated to rural 
development State directors for their priority setting on a 
State-by-State basis. State directors are authorized to 
transfer not more than 25 percent of the amount in the account 
that is allocated for the State for the fiscal year to any 
other account in which amounts are allocated for the State for 
the fiscal year, with up to 10 percent of funds allowed to be 
reallocated nationwide.
    Community facility loans were created by the Rural 
Development Act of 1972 to finance a variety of rural community 
facilities. Loans are made to organizations, including certain 
Indian tribes and corporations not operated for profit and 
public and quasipublic agencies, to construct, enlarge, extend, 
or otherwise improve community facilities providing essential 
services to rural residents. Such facilities include those 
providing or supporting overall community development, such as 
fire and rescue services, health care, transportation, traffic 
control, and community, social, cultural, and recreational 
benefits. Loans are made for facilities which primarily serve 
rural residents of open country and rural towns and villages of 
not more than 20,000 people. Health care and fire and rescue 
facilities are the priorities of the program and receive the 
majority of available funds.
    The Community Facility Grant Program authorized in the 
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public 
Law 104-127), is used in conjunction with the existing direct 
and guaranteed loan programs for the development of community 
facilities, such as hospitals, fire stations, and community 
centers. Grants are targeted to the lowest income communities. 
Communities that have lower population and income levels 
receive a higher cost-share contribution through these grants, 
to a maximum contribution of 75 percent of the cost of 
developing the facility.
    The Rural Business and Industry Loans Program was created 
by the Rural Development Act of 1972, and finances a variety of 
rural industrial development loans. Loans are made for rural 
industrialization and rural community facilities under Rural 
Development Act amendments to the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
Development Act authorities. Business and industrial loans are 
made to public, private, or cooperative organizations organized 
for profit, to certain Indian tribes, or to individuals for the 
purpose of improving, developing or financing business, 
industry, and employment or improving the economic and 
environmental climate in rural areas. Such purposes include 
financing business and industrial acquisition, construction, 
enlargement, repair or modernization, financing the purchase 
and development of land, easements, rights-of-way, buildings, 
payment of startup costs, and supplying working capital. 
Industrial development loans may be made in any area that is 
not within the outer boundary of any city having a population 
of 50,000 or more and its immediately adjacent urbanized and 
urbanizing areas with a population density of more than 100 
persons per square mile. Special consideration for such loans 
is given to rural areas and cities having a population of less 
than 25,000.
    Rural business enterprise grants were authorized by the 
Rural Development Act of 1972. Grants are made to public bodies 
and nonprofit organizations to facilitate development of small 
and emerging business enterprises in rural areas, including the 
acquisition and development of land; the construction of 
buildings, plants, equipment, access streets and roads, parking 
areas, and utility extensions; refinancing fees; technical 
assistance; and startup operating costs and working capital.
    Rural business opportunity grants are authorized under 
section 306(a)(11) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
Development Act, as amended. Grants may be made, not to exceed 
$1,500,000 annually, to public bodies and private nonprofit 
community development corporations or entities. Grants are made 
to identify and analyze business opportunities that will use 
local rural economic and human resources; to identify, train, 
and provide technical assistance to rural entrepreneurs and 
managers; to establish business support centers; to conduct 
economic development planning and coordination, and leadership 
development; and to establish centers for training, technology, 
and trade that will provide training to rural businesses in the 
utilization of interactive communications technologies.
    The water and waste disposal program is authorized by 
sections 306, 306A, 309A, 306C, 306D, and 310B of the 
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1921 et 
seq., as amended). This program makes loans for water and waste 
development costs. Development loans are made to associations, 
including corporations operating on a nonprofit basis, 
municipalities and similar organizations, generally designated 
as public or quasipublic agencies, that propose projects for 
the development, storage, treatment, purification, and 
distribution of domestic water or the collection, treatment, or 
disposal of waste in rural areas. Such grants may not exceed 75 
percent of the development cost of the projects and can 
supplement other funds borrowed or furnished by applicants to 
pay development costs.
    The solid waste grant program is authorized under section 
310B(b) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act. 
Grants are made to public bodies and private nonprofit 
organizations to provide technical assistance to local and 
regional governments for the purpose of reducing or eliminating 
pollution of water resources and for improving the planning and 
management of solid waste disposal facilities.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Rural Community Advancement Program [RCAP], the 
Committee recommends $733,360,000. This amount is $19,596,000 
less than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation.
    The Committee notes that the subsidy costs for many 
programs in the Rural Community Advancement Program have 
increased substantially. However, even with budgetary 
constraints, the Committee has provided adequate funding for 
these national and regional programs.
    The following table provides the Committee's 
recommendations, as compared to the fiscal year 2004 and budget 
request levels:

                                       RURAL COMMUNITY ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM
                                   [Budget authority in thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Fiscal year--
                                                           ------------------------------------     Committee
                                                                  2004           2005 budget     recommendation
                                                              appropriation        request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Community:
    Community facility loan subsidies.....................  ................            12,339            10,180
    Community facility grants.............................            15,825            17,000            15,000
    Economic impact initiative grants.....................            21,870  ................            21,000
    High energy costs grants..............................            27,835  ................            28,000
    Rural community development initiative................             5,965  ................             6,500
    Tribal college grants.................................             3,976  ................             5,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, community.................................            75,471            29,339            85,680
                                                           =====================================================
Business:
    Business and industry guaranteed loan subsidies.......            26,841            30,180            30,180
    Rural business enterprise grants......................            42,399            40,000            40,000
    Rural business opportunity grants.....................             2,982             3,000             3,000
    Delta Regional Authority..............................             1,740  ................             1,000
    Community planning grants.............................                99                 0  ................
    Broadcasting system grants............................             1,988  ................  ................
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, business..................................            76,049            73,180            74,180
                                                           =====================================================
Utilities:
    Water and waste disposal direct loan subsidies........            34,379            90,000            67,500
    Water and waste disposal grants.......................           543,994           345,960           500,000
    Solid waste management grants.........................             3,479             3,500             3,500
    Emergency community water assistance grants...........            18,093  ................  ................
    Well system grants....................................               994  ................             2,000
    Water and wastewater revolving funds..................               497  ................               500
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, utilities.................................           601,436           439,460           573,500
                                                           =====================================================
      Total, loan subsidies and grants....................           752,956           541,979           733,360
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rural Community Advancement Program.--The Committee 
provides $750,000 for transportation technical assistance.
    The Committee directs the Department to continue the Rural 
Economic Area Partnership [REAP] initiative.
    The Committee directs that of the $26,000,000 provided for 
loans and grants to benefit Federally Recognized Native 
American Tribes, $250,000 be used to implement an American 
Indian and Alaska Native passenger transportation development 
and assistance initiative.
    Community Facilities Loans and Grants.--The Committee is 
aware of and encourages the Department to give consideration to 
applications relating to community facilities for the 
following: Jean Lafitte Emergency Shelter, LA; Grand Isle 
Multiplex, LA; Louisiana Forestry Museum; Chautauqua County 
Fairgrounds Equestrian Center, NY; Southside Economic District 
Community Resource Center, LA; John Breaux Multi-Purpose 
Community Facility, LA; Bawcomville Pumping Station, LA; 
Hurricane Evacuation Command Center in Golden Meadow, LA; St. 
Helena Parish ADA and Life Safety, LA; Coushatta Tribe of 
Louisiana; Jefferson Drainage Improvement Project, LA; 
Conservation Education Center, AL; Project Harvest Expansion, 
AL; Delaware State University Advanced Greenhouse; Farm Share 
Food Recovery, FL; Central Alabama Food Program; Town of 
Thompson, CT; Town of Chaplin, CT; Town of North Stonington, 
CT; Grambling Town Hall Complex, LA; Weather Radio System for 
Iron, Dickinson and Schoolcraft Counties, MI; Great Lakes 
Shipwreck Museum, MI; Cyclone II 95' Aerial Platform Truck, MI; 
National Museum of Cotton and Textiles, MS; Havre Human 
Resource Development Council, MT; God's Love We Deliver, NY; 
Redlands Community College at Darlington, OK; Union and Wallowa 
County Rail Line, OR; Tillamook County Processing Mill, OR; I-
90 Corridor Emergency Medical Center, WA; Brigham City, UT; 
Snow College, Ephraim, UT; and the Canton Workforce Training 
Center, MS.
    Economic Impact Initiative Grants.--The Committee includes 
statutory language to provide $21,000,000 for the Rural 
Community Facilities Grant Program for areas of extreme 
unemployment or severe economic depression.
    High Energy Cost Grants.--The Committee includes statutory 
language to provide $28,000,000 for the Rural Community 
Advancement Program for communities with extremely high energy 
costs which is to be administered by the Rural Utilities 
Service. The Committee directs that these funds shall be 
transferred within 30 days of enactment of this Act.
    Rural Business Opportunity Grants.--The Committee 
encourages the Department to give consideration to applications 
for rural business opportunity grants [RBOG] for the following: 
Agricultural Rural Development Initiative, GA; IDM Rural 
Opportunities Initiative, IA; and the Canton Strategic 
Development Plan, MS.
    Rural Business Enterprise Grants.--The Committee is also 
aware of and encourages the Department to give consideration to 
applications for rural business enterprise grants [RBEG] for 
the following: Mission Mountain Market Business Incubation, MT; 
Southern University Center for Community Economic Development, 
LA; Project Harvest, AL; Bio-Diesel Alternative Plant, LA; 
Ouachita Terminal and General Purpose Dock, LA; Livingston 
Parish Alternative Fuels Initiative, LA; Maine Rural Community 
Innovation Center; University of Maryland Eastern Shore; 
Southeast Massachusetts Agricultural Partnership; Claire County 
Enterprise Community, MI; Hibbing Technology Business Center, 
MN; Albert Lee Business Development Center, MN; Blackfeet 
Tribal Feedlot, MT; Montana Cannery Facility; Rural 
Revitalization at the Center for Rural Affairs, NE; Rural 
Enterprise Assistance Project, NE; 21st Century Fredonia 
Vineyard Laboratory, NY; Santiam Canyon Economic Development, 
OR; and the USC Salkehatchie Leadership Initiative, SC.
    The Committee expects the Department to ensure that the 
system by which applications for rural business enterprise 
grants are considered does not discriminate against 
applications which may benefit multiple States.
    Water and Waste Disposal Loans and Grants.--The Committee 
is aware of and encourages the Department to consider 
applications for water and waste disposal loans and grants for 
the following projects: Calaveras County Water District, CA; 
Laytonville Waste Water Treatment Project, CA; Washington 
Parish Water Reservoir, LA; St. John the Baptist Parish, LA; 
L'Anse Township USH 41 Watermain Extension Program, MI; Crystal 
Falls Township Water Improvement Project, MI; Alger County 
Water System, MI; Marion County, MS; Mississippi Band of 
Choctaws; North Ditch Water System for the Pueblos of Laguna 
and Acoma, NM; Columbus, NM; Lordsburg, NM; Pueblo of Jemez, 
NM; Picuris Pueblo, NM; Pueblo of San Felipe, NM; San Ildefonso 
Pueblo, NM; San Juan Pueblo, NM; Tucumcari, NM; Neuse Regional 
Water and Sewer Authority, NC; City of Perkins, OK; Water 
Supply System for Las Carolinas Sector, PR; Kane County Water 
Conservancy District, UT; and the Lake County Full Circle 
Project, CA.
    The Committee includes statutory language to make up to 
$28,000,000 in water and waste disposal loans and grants 
available for village safe water for the development of water 
systems for rural communities and native villages in Alaska. In 
addition, the Committee is aware of and encourages the 
Department to consider applications to the national program 
from small, regional hub villages in Alaska with a populations 
less than 5,000 which are not able to compete for village safe 
water funding; $25,000,000 for water and waste systems for the 
Colonias along the United States-Mexico border; and $26,000,000 
for water and waste disposal systems for Federally Recognized 
Native American Tribes. In addition, the Committee makes up to 
$13,500,000 available for the circuit rider program, and 
expects that the current level of circuit rider contracts in 
the State of Alaska shall be maintained.
    The Committee directs the Department to use a portion of 
the funds provided to the Alaska Village Safe Water Program for 
the preparation or completion of comprehensive community plans 
by rural communities in Alaska. No more than 5 percent of the 
total amount of the grant may be made available for this 
purpose and the amount allocated shall not exceed $35,000 per 
eligible Alaska community.
    Individually Owned Household Water Well Program.--The 
Committee provides $2,000,000 to continue the Individually 
Owned Household Water Well Program as authorized in section 
6012 of Public Law 107-171.
    Water and Waste Technical Assistance Training Grants.--The 
Committee provides a significant increase in the technical 
assistance account for water and waste systems and expects the 
Secretary to provide an increase in grant funding to the 
National Drinking Water Clearinghouse. The Committee is aware 
of and encourages the Department to consider applications from 
the Alaska Village Safe Water Program to provide statewide 
training in water and waste systems operation and maintenance.
    The Committee encourages the Department to provide 
technical assistance to Alachua County Critical Rural Services 
Initiative, FL; Western Kentucky University Water Center; 
wastewater system planning for Ketchum, Langley, and Disney, 
OK; and the Union-Lincoln Regional Water Supply Initiative, LA.
    Solid Waste Management Grants.--The Committee is aware of 
the need for landfill improvements for Point Barrow, Alaska, 
and urges the Department to give priority consideration for an 
application for a solid waste management grant.
    The Committee expects the Department to consider only those 
applications judged meritorious when subjected to the 
established review process.

                                     RURAL DEVELOPMENT SALARIES AND EXPENSES
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Fiscal year--
                                                           ------------------------------------     Committee
                                                                  2004           2005 budget     recommendation
                                                              appropriation        request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation.............................................          141,032           149,749           143,452
Transfer from:
    Rural Housing Insurance Fund Loan Program Account.....          440,687           465,886           448,342
    Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans               37,630            39,933            38,277
     Program Account......................................
    Rural Telephone Bank Program Account..................            3,152             3,328             3,152
    Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account...........            4,247             6,656             4,316
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total, RD salaries and expenses.....................          626,748           665,552           637,539
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These funds are used to administer the loan and grant 
programs of the Rural Utilities Service, the Rural Housing 
Service, and the Rural Business-Cooperative Service, including 
reviewing applications, making and collecting loans and 
providing technical assistance and guidance to borrowers; and 
to assist in extending other Federal programs to people in 
rural areas.
    Under credit reform, administrative costs associated with 
loan programs are appropriated to the program accounts. 
Appropriations to the salaries and expenses account will be for 
costs associated with grant programs.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends $637,539,000 for salaries and 
expenses for the Rural Economic and Community Development 
Programs. This amount is $10,791,000 more than the fiscal year 
2004 appropriation.
    The Committee expects that none of the funds provided for 
Rural Development, Salaries and Expenses should be used to 
enter into or renew a contract for any activity that is best 
suited as an inherent function of Government, without prior 
approval from the Committees on Appropriations of the House and 
Senate. Such activities may include, but are not limited to, 
any function that affects eligibility determination, 
disbursement, collection or accounting for Government subsidies 
provided under any of the direct or guaranteed loan programs of 
the Rural Development mission area or the Farm Service Agency.
    The Committee is concerned about the delayed application 
processing time related to broadband loans and encourages the 
Secretary to provide additional resources, including new full 
time Federal employees within the Rural Utilities Service, to 
address this issue.
    The Committee is aware that USDA Rural Development-Alaska 
area offices are separated by hundreds of miles of roadless 
area. To facilitate program outreach, RD-Alaska is authorized 
to fund a marketing program to increase participation in RD 
programs by Alaska Natives and other eligible Alaskans. Funds 
may be used for outreach through Alaska print or broadcast 
media, along with the purchase of promotional items.

                         Rural Housing Service

    The Rural Housing Service [RHS] was established under 
Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture 
Reorganization Act of 1994, dated October 13, 1994.
    The mission of the Service is to improve the quality of 
life in rural America by assisting rural residents and 
communities in obtaining adequate and affordable housing and 
access to needed community facilities. The goals and objectives 
of the Service are: (1) facilitate the economic revitalization 
of rural areas by providing direct and indirect economic 
benefits to individual borrowers, families, and rural 
communities; (2) assure that benefits are communicated to all 
program eligible customers with special outreach efforts to 
target resources to underserved, impoverished, or economically 
declining rural areas; (3) lower the cost of programs while 
retaining the benefits by redesigning more effective programs 
that work in partnership with State and local governments and 
the private sector; and (4) leverage the economic benefits 
through the use of low-cost credit programs, especially 
guaranteed loans.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends total appropriations of 
$1,375,552,000 for the Rural Housing Service. This amount is 
$7,494,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation.
    The Committee is concerned about the lack of resources 
devoted to the oversight of the section 538 multi-family 
housing guaranteed program and encourages the Secretary to make 
the necessary staff adjustments, including training for field 
offices, to adequately protect the government's interest.
    The Committee is concerned about the impact of the OMB 
allocation process that provided no funding in the first 
quarter for fiscal year 2002, fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 
2004 for the section 538 multi-family housing guaranteed 
program and encourages the Secretary to provide sufficient 
funding irrespective of prior year allocations for this program 
in fiscal year 2005.
    The Committee encourages the Department to continue to set-
aside funds within rural housing programs to support self-help 
housing, home ownership partnerships, housing preservation and 
State rental assistance, and other related activities that 
facilitate the development of housing in rural areas.
    The following table presents loan and grant program levels 
recommended by the Committee, as compared to the fiscal year 
2004 levels and the 2005 budget request:

                                              LOAN AND GRANT LEVELS
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                                                                     2004         2005 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account loan levels:
    Single family housing (sec. 502):
        Direct...............................................       1,351,397        1,100,000        1,200,000
        Unsubsidized guaranteed, purchase....................       2,485,250        2,500,000        2,500,000
        Unsubsidized guaranteed, refinance...................         223,844          225,185          225,185
    Housing repair (sec. 504)................................          34,797           35,000           35,000
    Multifamily housing guarantees (sec. 538)................          99,410          100,000           85,960
    Rental housing (sec. 515)................................         115,857           60,000           90,000
    Site loans (sec. 524)....................................           5,045            5,045            5,045
    Credit sales of acquired property........................          11,491           11,501           11,501
    Self-help housing land development fund..................           2,421            5,000            5,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, RHIF............................................       4,329,512        4,041,731        4,157,691
                                                              ==================================================
Farm Labor Program:
    Farm labor housing loan level............................          42,574           41,999           35,000
    Farm labor housing grants................................          17,901           17,000           15,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, Farm Labor Program..............................          60,475           58,999           50,000
                                                              ==================================================
Grants and payments:
    Mutual and self-help housing.............................          33,799           34,000           34,000
    Rental assistance........................................         580,554          592,000          585,900
    Rural housing assistance grants [RHAG]...................          45,949           42,500           46,992
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, rural housing grants and payments...............         660,302          668,500          666,892
                                                              ==================================================
      Total, RHS loans and grants............................       5,050,289        4,769,230        4,874,283
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

    This fund was established in 1965 (Public Law 89-117) 
pursuant to section 517 of title V of the Housing Act of 1949, 
as amended. This fund may be used to insure or guarantee rural 
housing loans for single-family homes, rental and cooperative 
housing, and rural housing sites. Rural housing loans are made 
to construct, improve, alter, repair, or replace dwellings and 
essential farm service buildings that are modest in size, 
design, and cost. Rental housing insured loans are made to 
individuals, corporations, associations, trusts, or 
partnerships to provide moderate-cost rental housing and 
related facilities for elderly persons in rural areas. These 
loans are repayable in not to exceed 30 years. Loan programs 
are limited to rural areas, which include towns, villages, and 
other places of not more than 10,000 population, which are not 
part of an urban area. Loans may also be made in areas with a 
population in excess of 10,000, but less than 20,000, if the 
area is not included in a standard metropolitan statistical 
area and has a serious lack of mortgage credit for low- and 
moderate-income borrowers.
    An increased priority should be placed on long term 
rehabilitation needs within the existing multi-family housing 
portfolio including increased equity loan activity and 
financial and technical assistance support for acquisition of 
existing projects.

            LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the 
program account. Appropriations to this account will be used to 
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct 
loans obligated and loan guarantees committed in 2005, as well 
as for administrative expenses. The following table presents 
the loan subsidy levels as compared to the 2004 levels and the 
2005 budget request:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Fiscal year--
                                                             -----------------------------------    Committee
                                                                 2004 level       2005 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:
    Single family (sec. 502):
        Direct..............................................          125,274           127,380          138,960
        Unsubsidized guaranteed, purchase...................           39,018            33,000           33,000
        Unsubsidized guaranteed, refinance..................              649               608              608
    Housing repair (sec. 504)...............................            9,555            10,171           10,171
    Multifamily housing guarantees (sec. 538)...............            5,915             3,490            3,000
    Rental housing (sec. 515)...............................           49,830            28,254           42,381
    Site loans (sec. 524) \1\...............................  ................  ...............  ...............
    Credit sales of acquired property.......................              659               727              727
    Self-help housing land development fund \2\.............               75   ...............  ...............
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
      Total, loan subsidies.................................          230,975           203,630          228,847
                                                             ===================================================
Administrative expenses.....................................          440,687           465,886          448,342
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Negative subsidy rates for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 are calculated for this program.
\2\ Negative subsidy rate for fiscal year 2005 is calculated for this program.

                       RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2004....................................    $580,554,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................     592,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     585,900,000

    The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 
established a rural rental assistance program to be 
administered through the rural housing loans program. The 
objective of the program is to reduce rents paid by low-income 
families living in Rural Housing Service financed rental 
projects and farm labor housing projects. Under this program, 
low-income tenants will contribute the higher of: (1) 30 
percent of monthly adjusted income; (2) 10 percent of monthly 
income; or (3) designated housing payments from a welfare 
agency.
    Payments from the fund are made to the project owner for 
the difference between the tenant's payment and the approved 
rental rate established for the unit.
    The program is administered in tandem with Rural Housing 
Service section 515 rural rental and cooperative housing 
programs and the farm labor loan and grant programs. Priority 
is given to existing projects for units occupied by rent over 
burdened low-income families and projects experiencing 
financial difficulties beyond the control of the owner; any 
remaining authority will be used for projects receiving new 
construction commitments under sections 514, 515, or 516 for 
very low-income families with certain limitations.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For rural rental assistance payments, the Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $585,900,000. This amount is 
$5,346,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation.
    The Committee is deeply concerned about the lack of 
accountability for the section 521 rental assistance program. 
The Committee has repeatedly brought this issue to the 
attention of the Department and has received inadequate 
responses. The March 2004 GAO Report, ``Standardization of the 
Budget Estimation Processes Needed for Rental Assistance 
Program'', outlined serious flaws in the management and budget 
processes for this large line-item appropriation account. The 
Committee strongly encourages the Secretary to provide the 
proper resources, oversight, and staff to accurately estimate 
the needs and increase the efficiency in administering this 
valuable and needed resource.

                  MUTUAL AND SELF-HELP HOUSING GRANTS

Appropriations, 2004....................................     $33,799,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................      34,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      34,000,000

    This grant program is authorized by title V of the Housing 
Act of 1949. Grants are made to local organizations to promote 
the development of mutual or self-help programs under which 
groups of usually 6 to 10 families build their own homes by 
mutually exchanging labor. Funds may be used to pay the cost of 
construction supervisors who will work with families in the 
construction of their homes and for administrative expenses of 
the organizations providing the self-help assistance.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends $34,000,000 for mutual and self-
help housing grants. This amount is $201,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2004 appropriation.
    The Committee encourages the Department to give 
consideration to a grant application from the Livingston Self 
Help Housing Program in Montana.

                    rural housing assistance grants

Appropriations, 2004....................................     $45,949,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................      42,500,000
Committee recommendation................................      46,992,000

    This program consolidates funding for rural housing grant 
programs. This consolidation of housing grant funding provides 
greater flexibility to tailor financial assistance to applicant 
needs.
    Very Low-income Housing Repair Grants.--The Very Low-Income 
Housing Repair Grants Program is authorized under section 504 
of title V of the Housing Act of 1949. The rural housing repair 
grant program is carried out by making grants to very low-
income families to make necessary repairs to their homes in 
order to make such dwellings safe and sanitary, and remove 
hazards to the health of the occupants, their families, or the 
community.
    These grants may be made to cover the cost of improvements 
or additions, such as repairing roofs, providing toilet 
facilities, providing a convenient and sanitary water supply, 
supplying screens, repairing or providing structural supports 
or making similar repairs, additions, or improvements, 
including all preliminary and installation costs in obtaining 
central water and sewer service. A grant can be made in 
combination with a section 504 very low-income housing repair 
loan.
    No assistance can be extended to any one individual in the 
form of a loan, grant, or combined loans and grants in excess 
of $27,500, and grant assistance is limited to persons, or 
families headed by persons who are 62 years of age or older.
    Supervisory and Technical Assistance Grants.--Supervisory 
and technical assistance grants are made to public and private 
nonprofit organizations for packaging loan applications for 
housing assistance under sections 502, 504, 514/516, 515, and 
533 of the Housing Act of 1949. The assistance is directed to 
very low-income families in underserved areas where at least 20 
percent of the population is below the poverty level and at 
least 10 percent or more of the population resides in 
substandard housing. In fiscal year 1994 a Homebuyer Education 
Program was implemented under this authority. This program 
provides low-income individuals and families education and 
counseling on obtaining and/or maintaining occupancy of 
adequate housing and supervised credit assistance to become 
successful homeowners.
    Compensation for Construction Defects.--Compensation for 
construction defects provides funds for grants to eligible 
section 502 borrowers to correct structural defects, or to pay 
claims of owners arising from such defects on a newly 
constructed dwelling purchased with RHS financial assistance. 
Claims are not paid until provisions under the builder's 
warranty have been fully pursued. Requests for compensation for 
construction defects must be made by the owner of the property 
within 18 months after the date financial assistance was 
granted.
    Rural Housing Preservation Grants.--Rural housing 
preservation grants (section 522) of the Housing and Urban-
Rural Recovery Act of 1983 authorizes the Rural Housing Service 
to administer a program of home repair directed at low- and 
very low-income people.
    The purpose of the preservation program is to improve the 
delivery of rehabilitation assistance by employing the 
expertise of housing organizations at the local level. Eligible 
applicants will compete on a State-by-State basis for grants 
funds. These funds may be administered as loans, loan write-
downs, or grants to finance home repair. The program will be 
administered by local grantees.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Rural Housing Assistance Grants Program the 
Committee recommends $46,992,000. This amount is $1,043,000 
more than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation.
    The Committee provides $6,000,000 for the preservation of 
the section 515 multi-family housing portfolio. The Committee 
encourages the Secretary to issue a Notice of Funding 
Availability within 90 days of enactment of this Act. The 
Secretary should give funding priority to entities with equal 
or greater matching funds, including housing tax credits for 
rural housing assistance. Additional priority should be 
provided to entities with experience in the administration of 
revolving loan funds and the preservation of multi-family 
housing.
    The following table compares the grant program levels 
recommended by the Committee to the fiscal year 2004 levels and 
the budget request:

                                         RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GRANTS
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                                                                  2004 level      2005 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very low-income housing repair grants........................           31,110           31,500           31,110
Supervisory and technical assistance.........................              986            1,000            1,000
Rural housing preservation grants............................            8,882           10,000            8,882
Demonstration housing grants for agricultural processing                 4,971  ...............  ...............
 workers.....................................................
Multi-family housing preservation............................  ...............  ...............            6,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total..................................................           45,949           42,500           46,992
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       FARM LABOR PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Subsidy
                                        Loan level    level      Grants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2004..................     42,574      18,192     17,901
Budget estimate, 2005.................     41,999      19,765     17,000
Committee recommendation..............     35,000      16,471     15,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The direct farm labor housing loan program is authorized 
under section 514 and the rural housing for domestic farm labor 
housing grant program is authorized under section 516 of the 
Housing Act of 1949, as amended. The loans, grants, and 
contracts are made to public and private nonprofit 
organizations for low-rent housing and related facilities for 
domestic farm labor. Grant assistance may not exceed 90 percent 
of the cost of a project. Loans and grants may be used for 
construction of new structures, site acquisition and 
development, rehabilitation of existing structures, and 
purchase of furnishings and equipment for dwellings, dining 
halls, community rooms, and infirmaries.
    Under credit reform, administrative costs associated with 
loan programs are appropriated to the program accounts. 
Appropriations to the salaries and expenses account will be for 
costs associated with grant programs.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the cost of direct farm labor housing loans and grants, 
the Committee recommends $31,471,000. This amount is $4,622,000 
less than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation.

                  Rural Business--Cooperative Service

    The Rural Business--Cooperative Service [RBS] was 
established by Public Law 103-354, Federal Crop Insurance 
Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 
1994, dated October 13, 1994. Its programs were previously 
administered by the Rural Development Administration, the Rural 
Electrification Administration, and the Agricultural 
Cooperative Service.
    The mission of the Rural Business-Cooperative Service is to 
enhance the quality of life for all rural residents by 
assisting new and existing cooperatives and other businesses 
through partnership with rural communities. The goals and 
objectives are to: (1) promote a stable business environment in 
rural America through financial assistance, sound business 
planning, technical assistance, appropriate research, 
education, and information; (2) support environmentally 
sensitive economic growth that meets the needs of the entire 
community; and (3) assure that the Service benefits are 
available to all segments of the rural community, with emphasis 
on those most in need.

              RURAL DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Fiscal year--
                                                           ------------------------------------     Committee
                                                               2004 level       2005 request     recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated loan level......................................           39,764            34,213            34,213
Direct loan subsidy.......................................           17,206            15,868            15,868
Administrative expenses...................................            4,247             6,656             4,316
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rural development (intermediary relending) loan program 
was originally authorized by the Economic Opportunity Act of 
1964 (Public Law 88-452). The making of rural development loans 
by the Department of Agriculture was reauthorized by Public Law 
99-425, the Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1986.
    Loans are made to intermediary borrowers (this is, small 
investment groups) who in turn will reloan the funds to rural 
businesses, community development corporations, private 
nonprofit organizations, public agencies, et cetera, for the 
purpose of improving business, industry, community facilities, 
and employment opportunities and diversification of the economy 
in rural areas.
    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the 
program account. Appropriations to this account will be used to 
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct 
loans obligated in 2004, as well as for administrative 
expenses.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For rural development (intermediary relending) loans, the 
Committee recommends a total loan level of $34,213,000. This 
amount is $5,551,000 less than the 2004 loan level.
    The Committee encourages the agency to consider the 
following for an intermediary relending loan: Rural Enterprise 
Assistance Project, NE.

            RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Fiscal year--
                                                           ------------------------------------     Committee
                                                               2004 level       2005 request     recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated loan level......................................           14,914            25,003            25,003
Direct loan subsidy \1\...................................            2,776             4,698             4,698
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Offset by a rescission from interest on the cushion of credit payments as authorized by section 313 of the
  Rural Electrification Act of 1936.

    The rural economic development loans program was 
established by the Reconciliation Act of December 1987 (Public 
Law 100-203), which amended the Rural Electrification Act of 
1936, by establishing a new section 313. This section of the 
Rural Electrification Act (7 U.S.C. 901) established a cushion 
of credits payment program and created the rural economic 
development subaccount. The Administrator of RUS is authorized 
under the act to utilize funds in this program to provide zero 
interest loans to electric and telecommunications borrowers for 
the purpose of promoting rural economic development and job 
creation projects, including funding for feasibility studies, 
startup costs, and other reasonable expenses for the purpose of 
fostering rural economic development.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a direct loan subsidy 
appropriation for rural economic development loans of 
$4,698,000. This amount is $1,922,000 more than the fiscal year 
2004 appropriation. As proposed in the budget, the $4,698,000 
provided is derived by transfer from interest on the cushion of 
credit payments.

                  RURAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS

Appropriations, 2004....................................     $23,858,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................      21,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      24,000,000

    Rural cooperative development grants are authorized under 
section 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 
Act, as amended. Grants are made to fund the establishment and 
operation centers for rural cooperative development with their 
primary purpose being the improvement of economic conditions in 
rural areas. Grants may be made to nonprofit institutions or 
institutions of higher education. Grants may be used to pay up 
to 75 percent of the cost of the project and associated 
administrative costs. The applicant must contribute at least 25 
percent from non-Federal sources, except 1994 institutions, 
which only need to provide 5 percent. Grants are competitive 
and are awarded based on specific selection criteria.
    Cooperative research agreements are authorized by 7 U.S.C. 
2204b. The funds are used for cooperative research agreements, 
primarily with colleges and universities, on critical 
operational, organizational, and structural issues facing 
cooperatives.
    Cooperative agreements are authorized under 7 U.S.C. 2201 
to any qualified State departments of agriculture, university, 
and other State entity to conduct research that will strengthen 
and enhance the operations of agricultural marketing 
cooperatives in rural areas.
    The Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas [ATTRA] 
program was first authorized by the Food Security Act of 1985. 
The program provides information and technical assistance to 
agricultural producers to adopt sustainable agricultural 
practices that are environmentally friendly and lower 
production costs.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends $24,000,000 for rural cooperative 
development grants. This amount is $142,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2004 appropriation.
    Of the funds provided, $2,500,000 is provided for the 
Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas program through 
a cooperative agreement with the National Center for 
Appropriate Technology.
    The Committee has included language in the bill that not 
more than $1,500,000 shall be made available to cooperatives or 
associations of cooperatives whose primary focus is to provide 
assistance to small, minority producers.
    The Committee provides $15,000,000 for value-added 
agricultural product market development grants and encourages 
the Department to give consideration to applications for the 
following: Market Connection Program, MT; Lake County Community 
Development Corporation, MT; Montana Pulping and Paper 
Production Pilot; Gilliam County Wheat Quality Initiative, OR; 
and the Tillamook County Processing Mill, OR.
    The Committee encourages the Department to give 
consideration to applications for rural cooperative grants for 
the following: Rhode Island Dairy Farm Cooperative; and the 
Small Farmers Distribution Center at Nelson Farms, NY.

       RURAL EMPOWERMENT ZONES AND ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES GRANTS

Appropriations, 2004....................................     $12,592,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................................
Committee recommendation................................      12,500,000

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends $12,500,000 for Rural Empowerment 
Zones and Enterprise Communities Grants. This amount is $92,000 
less than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation.

                        Renewable Energy Program

Appropriations, 2004....................................     $22,864,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................      10,770,000
Committee recommendation................................      20,000,000

    Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements 
is authorized under 7 U.S.C. 8106. This program may provide 
direct loans, loan guarantees, and grants to farmers, ranchers, 
and small rural businesses for the purchase of renewable energy 
systems and for energy efficiency improvements.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for the renewable 
energy program. This amount is $9,230,000 more than the budget 
request.
    The Committee encourages the Department to give 
consideration to applications for loans and grants for the 
renewable energy program for the following: Ethanol Freedlot 
Project, NE.

                        Rural Utilities Service

    The Rural Utilities Service [RUS] was established under the 
Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture 
Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-354), October 13, 
1994. RUS administers the electric and telephone programs of 
the former Rural Electrification Administration and the water 
and waste programs of the former Rural Development 
Administration.
    The mission of the RUS is to serve a leading role in 
improving the quality of life in rural America by administering 
its electric, telecommunications, and water and waste programs 
in a service oriented, forward looking, and financially 
responsible manner. All three programs have the common goal of 
modernizing and revitalizing rural communities. RUS provides 
funding and support service for utilities serving rural areas. 
The public-private partnerships established by RUS and local 
utilities assist rural communities in modernizing local 
infrastructure. RUS programs are also characterized by the 
substantial amount of private investment which is leveraged by 
the public funds invested into infrastructure and technology, 
resulting in the creation of new sources of employment.

   RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

    The Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901 et 
seq.) provides the statutory authority for the electric and 
telecommunications programs.
    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the 
program account. An appropriation to this account will be used 
to cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct 
loans obligated and loan guarantees committed in 2004, as well 
as for administrative expenses.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The following table reflects the Committee's recommendation 
for the rural electrification and telecommunications loans 
program account, the loan subsidy and administrative expenses, 
as compared to the fiscal year 2004 and budget request levels:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                                                                  2004 level      2005 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan authorizations:
    Electric:
        Direct, 5 percent....................................          240,000          120,000          120,000
        Direct, Muni.........................................        1,000,000          100,000          100,000
        Direct, FFB..........................................        1,900,000        1,620,000        2,100,000
        Direct, Treasury rate................................          750,000          700,000        1,000,000
        Guaranteed...........................................           99,410          100,000          100,000
        Guaranteed, Underwriting.............................        1,000,000  ...............        1,000,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal...........................................        4,989,410        2,640,000        4,420,000
                                                              ==================================================
    Telecommunications:
        Direct, 5 percent....................................          145,000          145,000          145,000
        Direct, Treasury rate................................          248,525          250,000          250,000
        Direct, FFB..........................................          120,000          100,000          125,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal...........................................          513,525          495,000          520,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
          Total, loan authorizations.........................        5,502,935        3,135,000        4,940,000
                                                              ==================================================
Loan Subsidies:
    Electric:
        Direct, 5 percent \1\................................  ...............            3,648            3,648
        Direct, Muni \1\.....................................  ...............            1,350            1,350
        Direct, FFB \2\......................................  ...............  ...............  ...............
        Direct, Treasury rate \2\............................  ...............  ...............  ...............
        Guaranteed...........................................               60               60               60
        Guaranteed, Underwriting \2\.........................  ...............  ...............
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal...........................................               60            5,058            5,058
                                                              ==================================================
    Telecommunications:
        Direct, 5 percent \1\................................  ...............  ...............  ...............
        Direct, Treasury rate................................              124              100              100
        Direct, FFB \2\......................................  ...............  ...............  ...............
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal...........................................              124              100              100
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
          Total, loan subsidies..............................              184            5,158            5,158
                                                              ==================================================
Administrative expenses......................................           37,630           39,933           38,277
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, Rural Electrification and Telecommunications               37,814           45,091           43,435
       Loans Programs Account................................
                                                              ==================================================
          (Loan authorization)...............................        5,502,935        3,135,000        4,940,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Negative subsidy rate for fiscal year 2004 is calculated for this program.
\2\ Negative subsidy rates for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 are calculated for these programs.

                  RURAL TELEPHONE BANK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Direct loan  Administrative
                                Loan level     subsidy       expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2004 \1\.....      173,503   ...........          3,152
Budget estimate, 2005 \1\....  ............  ...........          3,328
Committee recommendation \1\.      175,000   ...........          3,152
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Negative subsidy rates for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 are calculated
  for this program.

    The Rural Telephone Bank [RTB] is required by law to begin 
privatization (repurchase of federally owned stock) in fiscal 
year 1996. RTB borrowers are able to borrow at private market 
rates and no longer require Federal assistance.
    The Rural Telephone Bank is managed by a 13-member board of 
directors. The Administrator of RUS serves as Governor of the 
Bank until conversion to private ownership, control, and 
operation. This will take place when 51 percent of the class A 
stock issued to the United States and outstanding at any time 
after September 30, 1996, has been fully redeemed and retired. 
Activities of the Bank are carried out by RUS employees and the 
Office of the General Counsel of the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture.
    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the 
program account. Appropriations to this account will be used to 
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct 
loans obligated in 2004, as well as for administrative 
expenses.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends a loan level of $175,000,000. This 
amount is $1,497,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 level.

         DISTANCE LEARNING, TELEMEDICINE, AND BROADBAND PROGRAM

                         LOANS AND GRANT LEVELS

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                                                                  2004 level      2005 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan and Grant Levels:
    Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program:
        Direct loans.........................................          300,000  ...............           20,000
        Grants...............................................           38,770           25,000           25,000
    Broadband Program:
        Direct loans.........................................  ...............           35,917  ...............
        Treasury rate loans..................................          598,101          255,164          600,000
        Guaranteed loans.....................................  ...............           40,000  ...............
        Grants...............................................            8,947  ...............            9,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
          Total, DLTB grants and loan authorizations.........          945,818          356,081          654,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

         DISTANCE LEARNING, TELEMEDICINE, AND BROADBAND PROGRAM

                            LOANS AND GRANTS

                                   [Budget authority In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Fiscal year--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Committee
                                                                  2004 level      2005 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program:
    Direct loan subsidies \1\................................  ...............  ...............              284
    Grants...................................................           38,770           25,000           38,000
Broadband Program:
    Direct loan subsidies....................................  ...............            2,877  ...............
    Treasury subsidies.......................................           13,039            5,435           12,780
    Guaranteed subsidies.....................................  ...............            1,572  ...............
    Grants...................................................            8,947  ...............            9,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, grants and loan subsidies.......................           60,756           34,884           60,064
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Negative subsidy rate for fiscal year 2004 is calculated for this program.

    The Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program 
is authorized by the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade 
Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4017, 7 U.S.C. 950aaa et seq.), as 
amended by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act 
of 1996. This program provides incentives to improve the 
quality of phone services, to provide access to advanced 
telecommunications services and computer networks, and to 
improve rural opportunities.
    This program provides the facilities and equipment to link 
rural education and medical facilities with more urban centers 
and other facilities providing rural residents access to better 
health care through technology and increasing educational 
opportunities for rural students. These funds are available for 
loans and grants.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband 
Program, the Committee recommends $60,064,000. This amount is 
$692,000 less than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. Of this 
amount, the Committee has provided $13,000,000 for public 
broadcasting systems grants to allow noncommercial educational 
television broadcast stations that serve rural areas to convert 
from analog to digital operations.
    The Committee supports awarding grants to public television 
stations that provide a broadcast service to rural populations 
through one or more transmitters or associated translators, 
regardless of the location of their main transmitters. A public 
station's main transmitter may be physically located in a city; 
however, the signal may reach many rural communities throughout 
their entire digital coverage area. Therefore, consideration 
should be given to the overall population served by the 
television broadcast signal when establishing criteria for 
rurality and per capita income. The Committee notes that the 
purpose of this funding is to equip public television stations 
serving rural communities with the capacity to provide rich 
educational services through the use of their digital broadcast 
spectrum.
    In addition, of the funds provided, $9,000,000 in grants 
shall be made available to support broadband transmission and 
local dial-up Internet services for rural areas. The Department 
should continue to provide financial support in addition to the 
Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband grant and loan 
accounts.
    The Committee is aware of and encourages the Department to 
give consideration to the following applications for grants and 
loans: College in the Downtown of Bridgetown, NJ; Alabama Rural 
Health Network, AL; Maui Community College SkyBridge 
Interactive Television Network, HI; Farm Resource Management 
System, KY; Coushatta Tribe Of Louisiana; Rural Telework 
Coordinating Center, MN; Technology Improvements at SUNY 
Potsdam, NY; Caswell County, NC; Rural Utility Corridor, OR; I-
90 Corridor Emergency Medical Center, WA; Louisiana Broadband 
Initiative; Market Connection Program, MT; University of 
Maryland Eastern Shore; Rural Information Technology Job 
Initiative, WA; and the Adirondack-Champlain Community Fiber 
Network, NY.

                    TITLE IV--DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services

Appropriations, 2004....................................        $595,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................         799,000
Committee recommendation................................         608,000

    The Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and 
Consumer Services provides direction and coordination in 
carrying out the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to 
the Department's food and consumer activities. The Office has 
oversight and management responsibilities for the Food and 
Nutrition Service.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition 
and Consumer Services, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $608,000. This amount is $13,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2004 appropriation.
    The Committee has provided increases throughout FNS to 
promote healthy eating and to combat obesity. The Committee 
believes it is imperative that USDA maintain and increase 
obesity prevention and nutrition education activities, and work 
with other government and private entities to provide the 
public with appropriate, up-to-date information on healthy 
eating and exercise habits. The Committee encourages the 
Department to utilize the International Fitness Diplomats to 
further educate children in regard to combating childhood 
obesity.
    The Committee is aware of the efforts of several non-profit 
groups throughout the country, such as Farm Share in Florida, 
whose mission is to recover and distribute surplus fresh and 
nutritious fruits and vegetables. These organizations recover 
fresh produce in bulk or by gleaning fields with the help of 
volunteers. The produce is washed, sorted, packed, and 
distributed locally, statewide and throughout the United States 
to a network of participating social service agencies serving 
the homeless and low-income households. The Committee believes 
the activities carried out by these organizations are extremely 
worthwhile, and strongly encourages USDA to support their 
efforts in any way possible.
    The Committee notes the growing problem of childhood 
obesity and recent reports that many school children receive a 
substantial percentage of their calories from sweetened drinks, 
candy, and high fat snacks. Likewise, many non-subsidized 
school lunches are high in fat content and low in certain 
nutrients linked to school performance such as Omega 3 fatty 
acids. The Committee directs the Food and Nutrition Service to 
work aggressively to develop food products for the school lunch 
program that are appealing to children, high in nutrition, and 
will foster lifelong healthy eating patterns. The Committee 
also notes that learning disabilities and behavioral disorders 
have been linked to low serum levels of Omega 3 fatty acids. 
Therefore, particular attention should be paid to developing 
food choices that are high in Omega 3 fatty acids. FNS should 
develop incentives to encourage schools to serve healthy food 
choices and should impose disincentives to schools which 
continue to offer high fat and sugar content foods to children 
either through the school lunch program or other sources.
    The Committee is aware of efforts in the State of Vermont 
to provide milk coolers and milk vending machines to schools 
through matching grants, and understands that these machines, 
which also dispense yogurt and individual portion cheese 
products, have been very successful and competed well with 
other products sold in vending machines. Therefore, the 
Committee encourages USDA to work with the State of Vermont to 
identify any available funding to expand their efforts.

                       Food and Nutrition Service

    The Food and Nutrition Service represents an organizational 
effort to eliminate hunger and malnutrition in this country. 
Nutrition assistance programs provide access to a nutritionally 
adequate diet for families and persons with low incomes and 
encourage better eating patterns among the Nation's children. 
These programs include:
    Child Nutrition Programs.--The National School Lunch and 
School Breakfast, Summer Food Service, and Child and Adult Care 
Food programs provide funding to the States, Puerto Rico, the 
Virgin Islands, and Guam for use in serving nutritious lunches 
and breakfasts to children attending schools of high school 
grades and under, to children of preschool age in child care 
centers, and to children in other institutions in order to 
improve the health and well-being of the Nation's children, and 
broaden the markets for agricultural food commodities. Through 
the Special Milk Program, assistance is provided to the States 
for making reimbursement payments to eligible schools and child 
care institutions which institute or expand milk service in 
order to increase the consumption of fluid milk by children. 
Funds for this program are provided by direct appropriation and 
transfer from section 32.
    Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, 
and Children [WIC].--This program safeguards the health of 
pregnant, post partum, and breast-feeding women, infants, and 
children up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk because of 
inadequate nutrition and income by providing supplemental 
foods. The delivery of supplemental foods may be done through 
health clinics, vouchers redeemable at retail food stores, or 
other approved methods which a cooperating State health agency 
may select. Funds for this program are provided by direct 
appropriation.
    Food Stamp Program.--This program seeks to improve 
nutritional standards of needy persons and families. Assistance 
is provided to eligible households to enable them to obtain a 
better diet by increasing their food purchasing capability, 
usually by furnishing benefits in the form of electronic access 
to funds. The program also includes Nutrition Assistance to 
Puerto Rico. The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 
(Public Law 107-171) authorizes block grants for Nutrition 
Assistance to Puerto Rico and American Samoa, which provide 
broad flexibility in establishing nutrition assistance programs 
specifically tailored to the needs of their low-income 
households.
    The program also includes the Food Distribution Program on 
Indian Reservations which provides nutritious agricultural 
commodities to low-income persons living on or near Indian 
reservations who choose not to participate in the Food Stamp 
Program.
    The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, Public 
Law 107-171, enacted May 13, 2002, provides that $140,000,000 
from funds appropriated in the Food Stamp account be used to 
purchase commodities for The Emergency Food Assistance Program.
    Commodity Assistance Program [CAP].--This program provides 
funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program [CSFP], and 
administrative expenses for The Emergency Food Assistance 
Program [TEFAP].
    CSFP provides supplemental foods to infants and children up 
to age 6, and to pregnant, post partum, and breast-feeding 
women with low incomes, and who reside in approved project 
areas. In addition, this program operates commodity 
distribution projects directed at low-income elderly persons.
    TEFAP provides commodities and grant funds to State 
agencies to assist in the cost of storage and distribution of 
donated commodities. The Soup Kitchen/Food Bank Program was 
absorbed into TEFAP under the Personal Responsibility and Work 
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-193), by 
an amendment to section 201A of the Emergency Food Assistance 
Act.
    Nutritious agricultural commodities are provided to 
residents of the Federated States of Micronesia and the 
Marshall Islands. Cash assistance is provided to distributing 
agencies to assist them in meeting administrative expenses 
incurred. It also provides funding for use in non-
Presidentially declared disasters, and for FNS' administrative 
costs in connection with relief for all disasters. Funds for 
this program are provided by direct appropriation.
    Nutrition Programs Administration.--Most salaries and 
Federal operating expenses of the Food and Nutrition Service 
are funded from this account. Also included is the Center for 
Nutrition Policy and Promotion [CNPP] which oversees 
improvements in and revisions to the food and guidance systems, 
and serves as the focal point for advancing and coordinating 
nutrition promotion and education policy to improve the health 
of all Americans.

                        CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Section 32
                               Appropriation    transfers       Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2004.........      6,717,780     4,699,661    11,417,441
Budget estimate, 2005........      6,060,860     5,319,697    11,380,557
Committee recommendation.....      6,060,860     5,319,697    11,380,557
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Child Nutrition Programs, authorized by the Richard B. 
Russell National School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition Act 
of 1966, provide Federal assistance to State agencies in the 
form of cash and commodities for use in preparing and serving 
nutritious meals to children while they are attending school, 
residing in service institutions, or participating in other 
organized activities away from home. The purpose of these 
programs is to help maintain the health and proper physical 
development of America's children. Milk is provided to children 
either free or at a low cost, depending on their family income 
level. FNS provides cash subsidies to States for administering 
the programs and directly administers the program in the States 
which choose not to do so. Grants are also made for nutritional 
training and surveys and for State administrative expenses. 
Under current law, most of these payments are made on the basis 
of reimbursement rates established by law and applied to 
lunches and breakfasts actually served by the States. The 
reimbursement rates are adjusted annually to reflect changes in 
the Consumer Price Index for food away from home.
    The William F. Goodling Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act 
of 1998, Public Law 105-336, contains a number of child 
nutrition provisions. These include:
    Summer Food Service Program [SFSP].--Reauthorizes the 
program through 2004 and relaxes the site limitations for 
private nonprofit sponsors in SFSP.
    Child and Adult Care Food Program [CACFP].--Permanently 
authorizes payments for snacks provided to children through age 
18 in after-school programs, and provides funds for 
demonstration projects to expand services to homeless children 
and family day care homes in low-income areas.
    National School Lunch Program [NSLP].--(1) Significantly 
expands reimbursement for snacks for children up to age 18 in 
after-school care programs; (2) provides for free snacks in 
needy areas; and (3) requires participating schools to obtain a 
food safety inspection conducted by a State or local agency.
    A description of Child Nutrition Programs follows:
    1. Cash Payments to States.--The programs are operated 
under an agreement entered into by the State agencies and the 
Department. Funds are made available under letters of credit to 
State agencies for use in reimbursing participating schools and 
other institutions. Sponsors apply to the State agencies, and 
if approved, are reimbursed on a per-meal basis in accordance 
with the terms of their agreements and rates prescribed by law. 
The reimbursement rates are adjusted annually to reflect 
changes in the Consumer Price Index for food away from home.
          (a) School Lunch Program.--Assistance is provided to 
        the States for the service of lunches to all school 
        children, regardless of family income. States must 
        match some of the Federal cash grant. In fiscal year 
        2005, the School Lunch Program will provide assistance 
        for serving an estimated 4.9 billion school lunches 
        including 2.0 billion for children from upper-income 
        families and 2.9 billion for children from lower and 
        low-income families. An estimated 29.2 million children 
        are expected to participate in the program daily during 
        the school year.
          (b) Special Assistance for Free and Reduced-Price 
        Lunches.--Additional assistance is provided to the 
        States for serving lunches free or at a reduced price 
        to needy children. In fiscal year 2005, under current 
        law, the program will provide assistance for about 2.9 
        billion lunches, of which 2.4 billion will be served 
        free of charge and 0.5 billion at reduced price. Over 
        17 million needy children will participate in the 
        program on an average schoolday during the year.
          (c) School Breakfast Program.--Federal reimbursement 
        to the States is based on the number of breakfasts 
        served free, at a reduced price, or at the general rate 
        for those served to nonneedy children. Certain schools 
        are designated in severe need because, in the second 
        preceding year, they served at least 40 percent of 
        their lunches at free or reduced prices and because the 
        regular breakfast reimbursement is insufficient to 
        cover cost. These schools receive higher rates of 
        reimbursement in both the free and reduced-price 
        categories. In fiscal year 2005, the program will serve 
        an estimated 1.5 billion breakfasts to a daily average 
        of 9.0 million children.
          (d) State Administrative Expenses.--The funds may be 
        used for State employee salaries, benefits, support 
        services, and office equipment. Public Law 95-627 made 
        the State administrative expenses grant equal to 1.5 
        percent of certain Federal payments in the second 
        previous year. In fiscal year 2005, $148,176,000 will 
        be allocated among the States to fund ongoing State 
        administrative expenses and to improve the management 
        of various nutrition programs.
          (e) Summer Food Service Program.--Meals served free 
        to children in low-income neighborhoods during the 
        summer months are supported on a performance basis by 
        Federal cash subsidies to State agencies. Funds are 
        also provided for related State and local 
        administrative expenses. During the summer of 2005, 
        approximately 130.1 million meals will be served.
          (f) Child and Adult Care Food Program.--Preschool 
        children receive year-round food assistance in 
        nonprofit child care centers and family and group day 
        care homes under this program. Public Law 97-35 permits 
        profitmaking child care centers receiving compensation 
        under title XX of the Social Security Act to 
        participate in the program if 25 percent of the 
        children served are title XX participants. Certain 
        adult day care centers are also eligible for 
        participation in this program, providing subsidized 
        meals to nonimpaired individuals age 60 years or older. 
        The Child and Adult Care Food Program reimburses State 
        agencies at varying rates for breakfasts, lunches, 
        suppers, and meal supplements and for program-related 
        State audit expenses. In fiscal year 2005, 
        approximately 2.1 billion meals will be served.
    2. Commodity Procurement.--Commodities are purchased for 
distribution to the school lunch, child care food, and summer 
food service programs. The minimum commodity support rate for 
all school lunch and child care center lunches and suppers 
served is mandated by law and adjusted annually on July 1 to 
reflect changes in the producer price index for food used in 
schools and institutions. The commodities purchased with these 
funds are supplemented by commodities purchased with section 32 
funds.
    3. Nutrition Studies and Education.--The National Food 
Service Management Institute provides instruction for educators 
and school food service personnel in nutrition and food service 
management.
    4. Special Milk.--In fiscal year 2005, approximately 107 
million half-pints will be served in the Special Milk Program. 
These include about 99.7 million half-pints served to children 
whose family income is above 130 percent of poverty. During 
fiscal year 2005, the average full cost reimbursement for milk 
served to needy children is expected to be 14.1 cents for each 
half-pint. Milk served to nonneedy children is expected to be 
reimbursed at 13.9 cents for each half-pint.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the child nutrition programs, the Committee recommends 
an appropriation of $6,060,860,000, plus transfers from section 
32 of $5,319,697,000, for a total program of $11,380,557,000. 
This amount is $36,884,000 less than the fiscal year 2004 
level.
    The Committee's recommendation provides for the following 
annual rates for the child nutrition programs.

                                          TOTAL OBLIGATIONAL AUTHORITY
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Committee
                   Child nutrition programs                     2004 estimate     2005 budget     recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
School Lunch Program.........................................        6,766,815        6,532,488        6,532,488
School Breakfast Program.....................................        1,752,394        1,825,646        1,825,646
State administrative expenses................................          140,042          148,176          148,176
Summer Food Service Program..................................          281,894          295,305          295,305
Child and Adult Care Food Program............................        1,989,841        2,064,676        2,064,676
Special Milk Program.........................................           14,141           14,875           14,875
Commodity procurement, processing, and computer support......          451,017          479,074          479,074
Coordinated review system....................................            5,235            5,235            5,235
Team nutrition...............................................           10,025           10,025           10,025
Food safety education........................................            1,000            1,000            1,000
Child nutrition program pay costs............................               37               57               57
Child nutrition program integrity funds......................            5,000  ...............  ...............
Performance measurement and program assessment...............  ...............            4,000            4,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee provides $4,000,000, as requested in the 
budget, for Child Nutrition Program assessment activities. This 
funding will support a range of program assessment activities, 
including development of comprehensive measures of program 
performance to inform and foster outcome-based planning and 
management, focused studies of program operations, and 
technical assistance to States and communities for practical 
demonstrations of potential policy and program improvements.
    The Committee provides $10,025,000 for TEAM nutrition. 
Included in this amount is $4,000,000 for food service training 
grants to States; $1,600,000 for technical assistance 
materials; $800,000 for National Food Service Management 
Institute cooperative agreements; $400,000 for print and 
electronic food service resource systems; and $3,225,000 for 
other activities.
    The Committee expects FNS to utilize the National Food 
Service Management Institute to carry out the food safety 
education program.
    The Committee also encourages States to conduct outreach to 
recruit new providers into the CACFP program through the 25 
percent free or reduced price meal eligibility criteria option. 
The Committee recognizes the value that pooling has played in 
increasing participation in the CACFP program.

SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS, AND CHILDREN 
                                 [WIC]

Appropriations, 2004....................................  $4,611,861,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................   4,787,250,000
Committee recommendation................................   5,175,250,000
    The special supplemental nutrition program for women, 
infants, and children [WIC] is authorized by section 17 of the 
Child Nutrition Act of 1966. Its purpose is to safeguard the 
health of pregnant, breast-feeding and post partum women and 
infants, and children up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk 
because of inadequate nutrition and inadequate income. The 
budget estimate assumes an average monthly participation of 
7.86 million participants at an average food cost of $36.55 per 
person per month in fiscal year 2005.
    The WIC program food packages are designed to provide foods 
which studies have demonstrated are lacking in the diets of the 
WIC program target population. The authorized supplemental 
foods are iron-fortified breakfast cereal, fruit or vegetable 
juice which contains vitamin C, dry beans, peas, and peanut 
butter.
    There are three general types of delivery systems for WIC 
foods: (1) retail purchase in which participants obtain 
supplemental foods through retail stores; (2) home delivery 
systems in which food is delivered to the participant's home; 
and (3) direct distribution systems in which participants pick 
up food from a distribution outlet. The food is free of charge 
to all participants.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, 
Infants, and Children [WIC], the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $5,175,250,000. This amount is $563,389,000 
more than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation and $388,000,000 
more than the budget request. The Committee includes statutory 
language designating $125,000,000 as an emergency to address 
increased food costs and to meet expected caseload.
    The Committee provides no less than $15,000,000 for 
breastfeeding support initiatives. The Committee also provides 
up to $5,000,000 for childhood obesity and up to $20,000,000 
for State management information systems, if the Secretary 
determines that those funds are not needed to maintain caseload 
requirements.
    The Secretary of Agriculture under 7 U.S.C. 2257 has the 
authority to transfer funds between accounts within an agency. 
Under this authority the Secretary could transfer $335,000,000 
into the WIC program if needed to meet unforeseen increases in 
food prices or participation levels.
    Funding is provided for the Farmers' Market Nutrition 
Program under the Commodity Assistance Program account, as 
proposed in the budget.
    While the Committee continues to support and encourage 
State and local agency efforts to utilize WIC as an important 
means of participation referral to other health care services, 
it also continues to recognize the constraints that WIC 
programs are experiencing as a result of expanding health care 
priorities and continuing demand for core WIC program 
activities. The Committee wishes to clarify that while WIC 
plays an important role in screening and referral to other 
health care services, it was never the Committee's intention 
that WIC should perform aggressive screening, referral and 
assessment functions in such a manner that supplants the 
responsibilities of other programs, nor was it the Committee's 
intention that WIC State and local agencies should assume the 
burden of entering into and negotiating appropriate cost 
sharing agreements. The Committee again includes language in 
the bill to preserve WIC funding for WIC services authorized by 
law to ensure that WIC funds are not used to pay the expenses 
or to coordinate operations or activities other than those 
allowable pursuant to section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act of 
1996, unless fully reimbursed by the appropriate Federal 
agency.
    The Committee is concerned about the potential impact of 
television, radio and print media advertising, promotional gift 
packs, reduced price coupons, and other offerings of infant 
formula products on the rates of initiation and duration of 
breastfeeding among the WIC population. The Committee requests 
that the Government Accountability Office conduct a review 
regarding what is currently known and what else needs to be 
studied in order to fully understand the impact of these 
activities, and report to the Committee by January 1, 2006.

                           food stamp program

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Puerto Rico      TEFAP
                                              Expenses      Amount in   and American    commodity       Total
                                                             reserve        Samoa       purchases
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2004......................    26,403,176     3,000,000     1,402,805       140,000    30,945,981
Budget estimate, 2005.....................    29,053,276     3,000,000     1,448,522       140,000    33,641,798
Committee recommendation..................    29,053,276     3,000,000     1,448,522       140,000    33,641,798
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Food Stamp Program, authorized by the Food Stamp Act of 
1977, attempts to alleviate hunger and malnutrition among low-
income persons by increasing their food purchasing power. 
Eligible households receive food stamp benefits with which they 
can purchase food through regular retail stores. They are thus 
enabled to obtain a more nutritious diet than would be possible 
without food stamp assistance. The Farm Security and Rural 
Investment Act of 2002, Public Law 107-171, enacted May 13, 
2002, reauthorizes the Food Stamp Program through fiscal year 
2007.
    The Food Stamp Program is currently in operation in all 50 
States, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, and Guam. 
Participating households receive food benefits, the value of 
which is determined by household size and income. The cost of 
the benefits is paid by the Federal Government. As required by 
law, the Food and Nutrition Service annually revises household 
stamp allotments to reflect changes in the cost of the thrifty 
food plan.
    At the authorized retail store, the recipient presents his/
her card and enters a unique personal identification number 
into a terminal that debits the household's account for the 
amount of purchases. Federal funds are shifted from the Federal 
Reserve to the EBT processor's financial institution so that it 
may reimburse the grocer's account for the amount of purchases. 
The grocer's account at a designated bank is credited for the 
amount of purchases. The associated benefit cost is accounted 
for in the same manner as those benefit costs that result from 
issuance of coupons.
    Nutrition Assistance to Puerto Rico.--The Farm Security and 
Rural Investment Act of 2002, Public Law 107-171, authorized 
block grants for Nutrition Assistance to Puerto Rico and 
American Samoa which gives the Commonwealth broad flexibility 
to establish a nutrition assistance program that is 
specifically tailored to the needs of its low-income 
households. However, the Commonwealth must submit its annual 
plan of operation to the Secretary for approval. The Farm 
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, Public Law 107-171, 
enacted May 13, 2002, reauthorizes appropriations through 
fiscal year 2007. In addition to the provision of direct 
benefits to the needy, a portion of the grant may be used to 
fund up to 50 percent of the cost of administering the program. 
The grant may also be used to fund projects to improve 
agriculture and food distribution in Puerto Rico.
    The program also includes the Food Distribution Program on 
Indian Reservations which provides nutritious agricultural 
commodities to low-income persons living on or near Indian 
reservations who choose not to participate in the Food Stamp 
Program.
    Administrative Costs.--All direct and indirect 
administrative costs incurred for certification of households, 
issuance of food coupons, quality control, outreach, and fair 
hearing efforts are shared by the Federal Government and the 
States on a 50-50 basis. The Farm Security and Rural Investment 
Act of 2002, (Public Law 107-171), substantially revised the 
performance requirements for States under the Quality Control 
[QC] System. States with poor performance over 2 years face 
sanctions. States that demonstrate a high degree of accuracy or 
substantial improvement in their degree of accuracy under the 
QC system are eligible to share in a $48,000,000 ``bonus fund'' 
established by Congress to reward States for good performance.
    State Administration also Includes State Antifraud 
Activities.--Under the provisions of the Food Stamp Act of 
1977, as amended by the Mickey Leland Childhood Hunger Relief 
Act of 1993, States are eligible to be reimbursed for 50 
percent of the costs of their food stamp fraud investigations 
and prosecutions.
    States are required to implement an employment and training 
program for the purpose of assisting members of households 
participating in the Food Stamp Program in gaining skills, 
training, or experience that will increase their ability to 
obtain regular employment. The Department of Agriculture has 
implemented a grant program to States to assist them in 
providing employment and training services.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Food Stamp Program, the Committee recommends 
$33,641,798,000. This amount is $2,695,817,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2004 appropriation. Of the amount provided, 
$3,000,000,000 is made available as a contingency reserve. This 
is the same as the 2004 contingency reserve level and the 
budget request.
    Included in this amount is up to $4,000,000 to purchase 
bison for the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations 
from Native American producers and Cooperative Organizations 
without competition.
    The Committee is aware that there continues to be a 
pressing need for infrastructure development in the Food 
Distribution Program on Indian Reservations [FDPIR]. 
Warehousing facilities on some reservations do not allow for 
the proper and efficient storage and distribution of 
commodities, and Indian Tribal Organization must be able to 
replace and upgrade equipment such as tractor trailers and fork 
lifts. Facilities have not always been able to keep pace with 
improvements in the food package, including the addition of 
fresh produce and more frozen foods as program options, which 
generates the need for cooler and freezer equipment.
    Military Pay Exclusion.--The Committee includes statutory 
language to exclude special pay for military personnel deployed 
to designated combat areas when determining food stamp 
eligibility. This provision will ensure that food stamp 
participants will not be eliminated from the program due to 
special or supplemental military pay.

                      commodity assistance program

Appropriations, 2004....................................    $149,115,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................     169,416,000
Committee recommendation................................     172,081,000

    The Commodity Assistance Program includes funding for the 
Commodity Supplemental Food Program and funding to pay expenses 
associated with the storage and distribution of commodities 
through The Emergency Food Assistance Program.
    The Commodity Supplemental Food Program [CSFP].--Authorized 
by section 4(a) of the Agricultural and Consumer Protection Act 
of 1973, as amended in 1981 by Public Law 97-98, this program 
provides supplemental food to infants and children up to age 6, 
and to pregnant, post partum, and breast-feeding women who have 
low incomes, and reside in approved project areas. In addition, 
the program operates commodity distribution projects directed 
at low-income elderly persons 60 years of age or older.
    In fiscal year 2005 approximately 54,000 women, infants, 
and young children and 413,000 elderly are eligible to receive 
food packages each month. The foods are provided by the 
Department of Agriculture for distribution through State 
agencies. The authorized commodities are iron-fortified infant 
formula, rice cereal, canned juice, evaporated milk and/or 
nonfat dry milk, canned vegetables or fruits, canned meat or 
poultry, egg mix, dehydrated potatoes, farina, and peanut 
butter or dry beans. Elderly participants may receive all 
commodities except iron-fortified infant formula and rice 
cereal.
    The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (2002 
Farm Bill), reauthorizes the program through fiscal year 2007 
and establishes a specific administrative funding level for 
each caseload slot assigned, adjusted each year for inflation.
    The Emergency Food Assistance Program [TEFAP].--Authorized 
by the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983, as amended, the 
program provides nutrition assistance to low-income people 
through prepared meals served on site and through the 
distribution of commodities to low-income households for home 
consumption. The commodities are provided by USDA to State 
agencies for distribution through State-established networks. 
State agencies make the commodities available to local 
organizations, such as soup kitchens, food pantries, food 
banks, and community action agencies, for their use in 
providing nutrition assistance to those in need.
    Funds are administered by FNS through grants to State 
agencies which operate commodity distribution programs. 
Allocation of the funds to States is based on a formula which 
considers the States' unemployment rate and the number of 
persons with income below the poverty level.
    In fiscal year 2003, $372,400,000 worth of commodities were 
distributed to assist needy individuals. Precise levels of 
donations depend upon the availability of surplus commodities 
and requirements regarding displacement.
    The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 permits 
State and local agencies to pay costs associated with the 
storage and distribution of USDA commodities and commodities 
secured from other sources. At the request of the State, these 
funds can be used by USDA to purchase additional commodities. 
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 increases 
funding available for the purchase of TEFAP commodities from 
$100,000,000 to $140,000,000. In addition to the commodities 
purchased specifically for TEFAP, commodities obtained under 
agriculture support programs are donated to States for 
distribution through TEFAP.
    Pacific Island Assistance.--This program provides funding 
for assistance to the nuclear-affected islands in the form of 
commodities and administrative funds. It also provides funding 
for use in non-Presidentially declared disasters and for FNS' 
administrative costs in connection with relief for all 
disasters.
    Farmers' Market Nutrition Program.--The Farmers' Market 
Nutrition Program [FMNP] provides WIC or WIC-eligible 
participants with coupons to purchase fresh, nutritious, 
unprepared foods, such as fruits and vegetables, from farmers' 
markets. This benefits both participants and local farmers by 
increasing the awareness and use of farmers' markets by low-
income households.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Commodity Assistance Program, the Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $172,081,000. This amount is 
$22,966,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation.
    The Committee is aware that the Farmers' Market Nutrition 
Program provides fresh fruits and vegetables to low income 
mothers and children, benefiting not only WIC participants, but 
local farmers as well. Therefore, the Committee provides 
$20,000,000 for the Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, the same 
as the budget request, and directs the Secretary to obligate 
these funds within 45 days.
    The Committee continues to encourage the Department to 
distribute Commodity Assistance Program funds equitably among 
the States, based on an assessment of the needs and priorities 
of each State and the State's preference to receive commodity 
allocations through each of the programs funded under this 
account.
    The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 provides 
$140,000,000 for TEFAP commodities to be purchased with food 
stamp funds. The Committee provides $50,000,000 for TEFAP 
administrative funding. In addition, the Committee provides the 
Secretary authority to transfer up to an additional $10,000,000 
from TEFAP commodities for this purpose.
    The Committee is aware that a significant quantity of food 
products are made available by hunters and other game 
harvesting operations which are approved through USDA or State 
inspected facilities, and present an additional source of 
donated commodities. The Department should give consideration 
to this opportunity as a means to supplement and provide 
variety to food assistance programs, and allow the use of TEFAP 
administrative funds for this purpose.
    The Committee provides $101,000,000 for the Commodity 
Supplemental Food Program. This amount is $2,665,000 more than 
the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. Of this amount, no less 
than $26,182,000 shall be available for administrative funding.
    The Committee recognizes the success of the Seniors 
Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, which is expected to provide 
fresh fruits and vegetables to more than 419,000 low-income 
senior citizens and benefit more than 8,500 farmers in fiscal 
year 2004. The Committee notes that $15,000,000 in funding is 
available for the program in fiscal year 2005 through the Farm 
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002.
    The Committee encourages USDA to consider developing a 
partnership with a non-profit technology organization, with 
proven delivery of commodities and food within hunger programs, 
for the application of advanced supply chain capabilities and 
technologies to The Emergency Food Assistance Program. If the 
Department of Agriculture determines that this technology is 
beneficial and appropriate, the Committee encourages the 
Department of Agriculture to fund demonstration pilot programs 
in not less than five States implementing this technology, with 
the goal of the demonstration programs being to reduce 
administrative costs while improving the efficiency of the 
delivery of food.

                   NUTRITION PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2004....................................    $137,488,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................     152,227,000
Committee recommendation................................     142,592,000

    The Nutrition Programs Administration appropriation 
provides for most of the Federal operating expenses of the Food 
and Nutrition Service, which includes the Child Nutrition 
Programs; Special Milk Program; Special Supplemental Nutrition 
Program for Women, Infants, and Children [WIC], including the 
Farmers' Market Nutrition Program; Food Stamp Program; 
Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico; the Commodity Assistance 
Program, including the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, and 
the Emergency Food Assistance Program; and the Food Donations 
Programs, including Pacific Island Assistance.
    The major objective of Nutrition Programs Administration is 
to efficiently and effectively carry out the nutrition 
assistance programs mandated by law. This is to be accomplished 
by the following: (1) giving clear and consistent guidance and 
supervision to State agencies and other cooperators; (2) 
assisting the States and other cooperators by providing 
program, managerial, financial, and other advice and expertise; 
(3) measuring, reviewing, and analyzing the progress being made 
toward achieving program objectives; and (4) carrying out 
regular staff support functions.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For Nutrition Programs Administration, the Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $142,592,000. This amount is 
$5,104,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. The 
Committee provides $1,000,000 for childhood obesity/nutrition 
education, $1,000,000 for the Food Guide Pyramid, and $655,000 
for Dietary Guidelines, as requested in the budget.
    The Committee provides not less than $4,000,000 to improve 
integrity in the Food Stamp and Child Nutrition Programs. The 
Committee directs that USDA provide a detailed spending plan on 
these activities by March 1, 2005.
    The Committee remains concerned about the growing 
incidences of obesity in this country. Recent estimates by the 
Centers for Disease Control state that over 64 percent of 
adults, as well as 15 percent of children, were overweight or 
obese in the United States. The CDC also states that overweight 
or obese adults are at risk for a number of health problems 
including heart disease, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, 
and some forms of cancer. Further, overweight adolescents have 
a 70 percent chance of becoming overweight adults. Therefore, 
the Committee believes it is critical to ensure that children 
are taught how to maintain a healthy lifestyle and have access 
to healthy foods, and provides $1,000,000 above the fiscal year 
2004 level for obesity prevention and nutrition education 
activities.

            TITLE V--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS

                      Foreign Agricultural Service

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Transfers
                                Appropriations   from loan      Total
                                                  accounts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2004..........        131,368         4,355      135,723
Budget estimate, 2005.........        143,077         4,542      147,619
Committee recommendation......        139,162         4,518      143,680
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Foreign Agricultural Service [FAS] was established 
March 10, 1953, by Secretary's Memorandum No. 1320, supplement 
1. Public Law 83-690, approved August 28, 1954, transferred the 
agricultural attaches from the Department of State to the 
Foreign Agricultural Service.
    The Agency maintains a worldwide agricultural intelligence 
and reporting service to provide U.S. farmers and traders with 
information on world agricultural production and trade that 
they can use to adjust to changes in world demand for U.S. 
agricultural products. This is accomplished through a 
continuous program of reporting by 63 posts located throughout 
the world covering some 130 countries.
    The Foreign Agricultural Service analyzes agricultural 
information essential to the assessment of foreign supply and 
demand conditions in order to provide estimates of the current 
situation and to forecast the export potential for specific 
U.S. agricultural commodities. Published economic data about 
commodities are combined with attache reports and subjected to 
analysis through advanced econometric techniques to generate 
these estimates.
    In addition, the Service is now using advanced techniques 
for identifying, delineating, and assessing the impact of 
events which may affect the condition and expected production 
of foreign crops of economic importance to the United States. 
The crop condition activity relies heavily on computer-aided 
analysis of satellite, meteorological, agricultural, and 
related data.
    The mission of FAS overseas is to represent U.S. 
agricultural interests, to promote export of domestic farm 
products, improve world trade conditions, and report on 
agricultural production and trade in foreign countries. FAS 
staff are stationed at 80 offices around the world where they 
provide expertise in agricultural economics and marketing, as 
well as provide attache services.
    The Foreign Agricultural Service works in conjunction with 
market development cooperators, trade associations, State 
departments of agriculture and their affiliates, and U.S. sales 
teams to develop foreign markets for U.S. farm products. FAS 
sponsors overseas trade exhibits to promote U.S. agricultural 
products, provides information about foreign importers, and 
performs a wide range of market development activities.
    FAS carries out several export assistance programs to 
counter the adverse effects of unfair trade practices by 
competitors on U.S. agricultural trade. The Export Enhancement 
Program uses CCC-owned commodities as export bonuses to provide 
export enhancements to U.S. producers. The Market Access 
Program [MAP] conducts both generic and brand-identified 
promotional programs in conjunction with nonprofit agricultural 
associations and private firms financed through reimbursable 
CCC payments.
    These programs are supplemented by the Cooperator Program, 
a joint FAS-nonprofit private trade and producer association 
partnership program developing strategies for U.S. agriculture 
export expansion. In addition, GSM credit guarantee programs 
play an integral role in the recent progress of American 
agriculture in the world marketplace.
    The Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 includes authority to 
establish up to 25 agricultural trade offices. Currently, 17 
such offices are in operation at key foreign trading centers to 
assist U.S. exporters, trade groups, and State export marketing 
officials in trade promotion.
    The Service initiates, directs, and coordinates the 
Department's formulation of trade policies and programs with 
the goal of maintaining and expanding world markets for U.S. 
agricultural products. It monitors international compliance 
with bilateral and multilateral trade agreements. It identifies 
restrictive tariff and trade practices which act as barriers to 
the import of U.S. agricultural commodities, then supports 
negotiations to remove them. It acts to counter and eliminate 
unfair trade practices by other countries that hinder U.S. 
agricultural exports to third markets.
    FAS also carries out the mission of the former Office of 
International Cooperation and Development [OICD] to promote 
U.S. agriculture and to advance the agriculture of developing 
countries as parts of a complementary global agricultural 
system capable of providing ample food and fiber for all 
people. To accomplish this mission, FAS applies USDA policies 
and U.S. agricultural perspectives in its programs of 
international agricultural cooperation and development, and in 
its work with foreign countries, international organizations, 
U.S. universities and other institutions, agencies of the U.S. 
Government, and the U.S. private sector.
    The General Sales Manager was established pursuant to 
section 5(f) of the charter of the Commodity Credit Corporation 
and 15 U.S.C. 714-714p. The funds allocated to the General 
Sales Manager are used for conducting the following programs: 
(1) CCC Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-102), including 
supplier credit guarantees and facilities financing guarantees, 
(2) Intermediate Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-103), (3) Public 
Law 480, (4) section 416 Overseas Donations Program, (5) Export 
Enhancement Program, (6) Market Access Program, and (7) 
programs authorized by the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter 
Act including barter, export sales of most CCC-owned 
commodities, export payments, and other programs as assigned to 
encourage and enhance the export of U.S. agricultural 
commodities.
    A provision in the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 
2003, Division A of Public Law 108-7, made permanent a 
prohibition on the use of agency funds to promote the sale or 
export of tobacco or tobacco products.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Foreign Agricultural Service, the Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $139,162,000. This amount is 
$7,794,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation.
    The Committee expects the FAS to fund the Foreign Market 
Development Cooperator Program at no less than the fiscal year 
2004 level.
    The Committee provides the fiscal year 2005 budget request 
level of $5,000,000 for the Cochran Fellowship Program. The 
Committee encourages the Secretary to continue to provide 
additional support for the program through the Commodity Credit 
Corporation Emerging Markets Program.
    The Committee continues to include language in a general 
provision in the bill, as requested in the budget, to allow up 
to $1,000,000 of the amount appropriated to the FAS to remain 
available until expended solely for the purpose of offsetting 
fluctuations in international currency exchange rates, subject 
to documentation.
    The Committee expects the Secretary to use the fully-
authorized levels of the Dairy Export Incentive Program [DEIP], 
consistent with GATT Uruguay commitments, in order to ensure 
U.S. producers have fair access to foreign markets.
    The Committee encourages the Foreign Agricultural Service 
to assist the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute and the Alaska 
Salmon Task Force in marketing Alaska salmon and other seafood 
to overseas markets.
    To promote the export of domestic farm products and improve 
world agriculture trade conditions, the Foreign Agricultural 
Service must increase its efforts to improve the understanding 
among trading partners of the safety of biotechnology and the 
thoroughness of the U.S. regulatory oversight of biotechnology. 
As trading partners construct regulatory systems for 
biotechnology and commodity trade, FAS is frequently requested 
to provide experts for the purpose of educating foreign 
government officials on the U.S. regulatory system. If the 
United States fails to participate in such discussions, those 
attempting to limit the access to foreign markets by U.S. 
producers will be presented an opportunity to undermine 
confidence in the benefits and safety of the technology while 
reducing trade opportunities for American producers. The 
Committee directs FAS to allocate adequate funding to meet the 
needs of our trading partners so that officials from the 
Department of Agriculture may, when requested, educate foreign 
regulators on the safety of the technology and the thoroughness 
of the U.S. regulatory process.
    In addition, the Committee continues to urge the Secretary 
to work with representatives of the dairy industry and 
appropriate non-governmental organizations to increase the 
amount of fortified dry milk exported under humanitarian 
assistance programs.
    The Committee is aware of the continuing buildup of surplus 
non-fat dry milk acquired by the CCC through the dairy price 
support program. The Committee is concerned with increasing 
storage costs associated with this buildup and encourages the 
agency to utilize all existing food donation programs to reduce 
this growing surplus.
    The Trade Assistance Act for Farmers [TAAF] requires that 
technical assistance be provided to farmers negatively impacted 
by imports. The Committee encourages the Department to work 
with interested parties, including the Digital Center for Risk 
Management Education, to coordinate an intensive technical 
assistance program for farmers using available funds consistent 
with that Act.
    The Committee is aware of FAS activities to provide 
technical assistance for the promotion of specialty crop 
exports, consistent with section 3205 of the Farm Security and 
Rural Investment Act of 2002. The Committee provides an 
increase of $1,000,000 from the fiscal year 2004 level to 
support these activities.

                 PUBLIC LAW 480 TITLE I PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Administrative
                                                                 Credit level     Loan subsidy       expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2004.........................................          130,892          103,274            2,122
Budget estimate, 2005........................................          100,000           86,420            4,221
Committee recommendation.....................................          109,000           94,198            4,034
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the 
program account. Appropriations to this account will be used to 
cover the lifetime subsidy cost associated with direct loans 
obligated in 2004 and beyond, as well as for administrative 
expenses.
    Financing sales of agricultural commodities to developing 
countries and private entities for dollars on credit terms, or 
for local currencies (including for local currencies on credit 
terms) for use under section 104; and for furnishing 
commodities to carry out the Food for Progress Act of 1985, as 
amended (title I).--Title I of the act authorizes financing of 
sales to developing countries for local currencies and for 
dollars on credit terms. Sales for dollars or local currency 
may be made to foreign governments. The legislation provides 
for repayment terms either in local currencies or U.S. dollars 
on credit terms of up to 30 years, with a grace period of up to 
5 years.
    Local currencies under title I sales agreements may be used 
in carrying out activities under section 104 of the 
Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as 
amended. Activities in the recipient country for which these 
local currencies may be used include developing new markets for 
U.S. agricultural commodities, paying U.S. obligations, and 
supporting agricultural development and research.
    Title I appropriated funds may also be used under the Food 
for Progress Act of 1985 to furnish commodities on credit terms 
or on a grant basis to assist developing countries and 
countries that are emerging democracies that have a commitment 
to introduce and expand free enterprise elements in their 
agricultural economies.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For Public Law 480, title I, the Committee recommends total 
appropriations of $98,232,000. This amount is $7,164,000 less 
than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. This appropriation 
will support a Public Law 480, title I, credit level of 
$109,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, $21,892,000 less than the 
fiscal year 2004 level. The corresponding loan levels, loan 
subsidy amounts, and administrative expenses are reflected in 
the table above, as compared to the fiscal year 2004 and budget 
request levels.

        PUBLIC LAW 480 TITLE I OCEAN FREIGHT DIFFERENTIAL GRANTS

Appropriations, 2004....................................     $27,835,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................      22,723,000
Committee recommendation................................      22,723,000

    Ocean freight differential costs in connection with 
commodity sales financed for local currencies or U.S. dollars 
(title I).--The Commodity Credit Corporation pays ocean freight 
differential costs on shipments under this title. These costs 
are the difference between foreign flag and U.S. flag shipping 
costs.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For Public Law 480 ocean freight differential costs, the 
Committee recommends $22,723,000. This amount is $5,112,000 
less than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation, and the same as 
the budget request.

                     PUBLIC LAW 480 TITLE II GRANTS

Appropriations, 2004....................................  $1,184,967,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................   1,185,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,185,000,000

    The Committee recognizes the important mission of the 
Public Law 480 Program to combat hunger and malnutrition; 
promote broad-based equitable and sustainable development; 
expand international trade; develop and expand export markets 
for U.S. agricultural commodities; and to foster and encourage 
the development of private enterprise and democratic 
participation in developing countries. The Committee strongly 
supports the continued efficient operation of this important 
program.
    Commodities Supplied in Connection With Dispositions Abroad 
(Title II) (7 U.S.C. 1721-1726).--Commodities are supplied 
without cost through foreign governments to combat malnutrition 
and to meet famine and other emergency requirements. 
Commodities are also supplied for nonemergencies through public 
and private agencies, including intergovernmental 
organizations. The Commodity Credit Corporation pays ocean 
freight on shipments under this title, and may also pay 
overland transportation costs to a landlocked country, as well 
as internal distribution costs in emergency situations. The 
funds appropriated for title II are made available to private 
voluntary organizations and cooperatives to assist these 
organizations in meeting administrative and related costs.
    Commodities Supplied in Connection With Dispositions Abroad 
(Title III).--Commodities are supplied without cost to least 
developed countries through foreign governments for direct 
feeding, development of emergency food reserves, or may be sold 
with the proceeds of such sale used by the recipient country 
for specific economic development purposes. The Commodity 
Credit Corporation may pay ocean freight on shipments under 
this title, and may also pay overland transportation costs to a 
landlocked country, as well as internal distribution costs.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For Title II, the Committee recommends a program level of 
$1,185,000,000. This amount is $33,000 more than the fiscal 
year 2004 appropriation.
    The Committee directs the administration not to place 
arbitrary limits on monetization under the Public Law 480 title 
II program. In food-deficit, import-reliant countries, 
monetization stimulates the economy and allows needed 
commodities to be provided in the marketplace. Food aid 
proposals should be approved based on the merits of the program 
plan to promote food security and improve people's lives, not 
on the level of monetization.
    The Committee supports the use of title II funds in fiscal 
year 2005 to continue the fiscal year 2004 level of funding for 
the orphan feeding program in Haiti.
    The Committee notes the extraordinary effort made by the 
people of Alaska through Rotary International, the Interfaith 
Council, the Municipality of Anchorage, and other groups to 
collect and distribute food and other assistance to people 
living in the Russian Far East. The Committee urges the 
Administration to work with these entities to take advantage of 
their volunteer efforts in feeding people in the Russian Far 
East, particularly abandoned children living in orphanages and 
hospitals.
    The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 
increased the level of Public Law 480 Title II non-emergency 
assistance to 1,875,000 metric tons. Congress provided this 
level to help address the underlying causes of hunger in the 
world, which leads to weakened immune systems, higher rates of 
chronic disease and poverty, and the inability of entire 
populations to achieve economic and social independence. The 
Committee expects that funding for Public Law 480 Title II will 
be used for its intended purpose and not for ad hoc emergency 
assistance. In the event of additional emergency needs, the 
Committee reminds the Department of the availability of the 
Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust.
    As proposed in the budget, the Committee provides no new 
funding for title III grants. Authority is provided by law (7 
U.S.C. 1736f) to transfer up to 15 percent of the funds 
available for any fiscal year for carrying out any title of 
Public Law 480 to any other title of the program. This 
authority may be used to transfer funds to title III should a 
transfer be deemed appropriate.

  McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition 
                             Program Grants

Appropriations, 2004....................................     $49,705,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................      75,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     100,000,000

    Authorized in the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 
2002, Public Law 107-171, the McGovern-Dole International Food 
for Education and Child Nutrition Program helps support 
education, child development, and food security for some of the 
world's poorest children. The program provides for donations of 
U.S. agricultural products, as well as financial and technical 
assistance, for school feeding and maternal and child nutrition 
projects in low-income, food-deficit countries that are 
committed to universal education. Commodities made available 
for donation through agreements with private voluntary 
organizations, cooperatives, intergovernmental organizations, 
and foreign governments may be donated for direct feeding or 
for local sale to generate proceeds to support school feeding 
and nutrition projects.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee provides $100,000,000 for the McGovern-Dole 
International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program. 
This amount is $50,295,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 
appropriation.
    The Committee notes that this program was initiated with 
funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation and supplemented 
with 1-year mandatory spending in the 2002 Farm Bill. This 
Committee first provided discretionary funding for this program 
in fiscal year 2004 and, in spite of extremely limited funds, 
has provided a significant increase for fiscal year 2005. The 
Committee believes the McGovern-Dole program will serve as a 
effective tool in promoting higher standards of living in 
developing nations, and in providing the United States an 
opportunity to demonstrate to the world its goals of promoting 
individual well being as an important element in world peace.

       COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION EXPORT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

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

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Guaranteed loan  Guaranteed loan   Administrative
                                                                  levels \1\      subsidy \1\        expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2004.........................................        4,155,000          289,000            4,127
Budget estimate, 2005........................................        4,528,000          309,000            4,473
Committee recommendation.....................................        4,528,000          309,000            4,423
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No appropriation required since export credit authorizations are permanent authority.

    In 1980, the Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC] instituted 
the Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-102) under its charter 
authority. With this program, CCC guarantees, for a fee, 
payments due U.S. exporters under deferred payment sales 
contracts (up to 36 months) for defaults due to commercial as 
well as noncommercial risks. The risk to CCC extends from the 
date of export to the end of the deferred payment period 
covered in the export sales contract and covers only that 
portion of the payments agreed to in the assurance agreement. 
Operation of this program is based on criteria which will 
assure that it is used only where it is determined that it will 
develop new market opportunities and maintain and expand 
existing world markets for U.S. agricultural commodities. The 
program encourages U.S. financial institutions to provide 
financing to those areas where the institutions would be 
unwilling to provide financing in the absence of the CCC 
guarantees. Other credit activities may also be financed under 
the Export Credit Guarantee programs including supplier credit 
guarantee, under which CCC guarantees payments due to importers 
under short term financing (up to 180 days) that exporters 
extend directly to importers for the purchase of U.S. 
agricultural products. CCC also provides facilities financing 
guarantees.
    In 1986, the Intermediate Export Credit Guarantee Program 
(GSM-103) was implemented by CCC under its charter authority as 
required by the Food Security Act of 1985. The program is 
similar to the Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-102), but 
provides for CCC guarantees to exporters for commodities sold 
on credit terms in excess of 3 years, but not more than 10 
years. The program also provides for adjusting the maximum 
amount of interest which CCC guarantees to pay under the 
payment guarantee and permits freight costs to be covered for 
breeding animals financed under the GSM-102 and GSM-103 
programs.
    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 establishes the 
program account. The subsidy costs of the CCC export guarantee 
programs are exempt from the requirement of advance 
appropriations of budget authority according to section 
504(c)(2) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, Public Law 
101-508. Appropriations to this account will be used for 
administrative expenses.

      TITLE VI--RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                      Food and Drug Administration

    The Food and Drug Administration [FDA] is a scientific 
regulatory agency whose mission is to promote and protect the 
public health and safety of Americans. FDA's work is a blending 
of science and law. The Food and Drug Administration 
Modernization Act of 1997 [FDAMA] reaffirmed the 
responsibilities of the FDA: to ensure safe and effective 
products reach the market to a timely way, and to monitor 
products for continued safety after they are in use. In 
addition, FDA is entrusted with two critical functions in the 
Nation's war on terrorism: preventing willful contamination of 
all regulated products, including food, and improving the 
availability of medications to prevent or treat injuries caused 
by biological, chemical or nuclear agents.
    The FDA Foods program has the primary responsibility for 
assuring that the food supply, quality of foods, food 
ingredients and dietary supplements are safe, sanitary, 
nutritious, wholesome, and honestly labeled, and that cosmetic 
products are safe and properly labeled. The variety and 
complexity of the food supply has grown dramatically while new 
and more complex safety issues, such as emerging microbial 
pathogens, natural toxins, and technological innovations in 
production and processing, have developed. This program plays a 
major role in keeping the United States food supply among the 
safest in the world.
    The FDA Drugs programs are comprised of three separate 
areas, Human Drugs, Animal Drugs and Biologics. FDA is 
responsible for the life cycle of the product, including 
premarket review and postmarket surveillance of human, animal 
and biological products to ensure their safety and efficacy. 
For Human Drugs this includes assuring that all drug products 
used for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of disease are 
safe and effective. Additional procedures include the review of 
investigational new drug applications; evaluation of market 
applications for new and generic drugs, labeling and 
composition of prescription and over-the-counter drugs; 
monitoring the quality and safety of products manufactured in, 
or imported into, the United States; and, regulating the 
advertising and promotion of prescription drugs. The Animal 
Drugs and Feeds Program ensures only safe and beneficial 
veterinary drugs, intended for the treatment and/or prevention 
of diseases in animals and the improved production of food-
producing animals, are approved for marketing.
    The FDA Biologics program assures that blood and blood 
products, blood test kits, vaccines, and therapeutics are pure, 
potent, safe, effective, and properly labeled. The program 
inspects blood banks and blood processors, licenses and 
inspects firms collecting human source plasma, evaluates and 
licenses biologics manufacturing firms and products; lot 
releases licensed products; and monitors adverse events 
associated with vaccine immunization.
    The FDA Devices and Radiological program ensures the safety 
and effectiveness of medical devices and eliminates unnecessary 
human exposure to manmade radiation from medical, occupational, 
and consumer products. In addition, the program enforces 
quality standards under the Mammography Quality Standards Act. 
Medical devices include thousands of products from thermometers 
and contact lenses to heart pacemakers, hearing aids, MRIs, 
microwave ovens, and video display terminals.
    FDA's National Center for Toxicological Research in 
Jefferson, Arkansas, serves as a specialized resource, 
conducting peer-review scientific research that provides the 
basis for FDA to make sound science-based regulatory decisions 
through its premarket review and postmarket surveillance. The 
research is designed to define and understand the biological 
mechanisms of action underlying the toxicity of products and 
developing methods to improve assessment of human exposure, 
susceptibility and risk of those products regulated by FDA.

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                  Mammography
                                                                              Prescription   Medical     Animal     clinics      Export and
                                                               Appropriation    drug user     device   drug user   inspection  certification     Total
                                                                                  fees      user fees     fees        fees          fees
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2004.........................................     1,378,779       249,825      31,654      5,000      16,576         6,649     1,688,483
Budget estimate, 2005........................................     1,494,517       284,394      33,938      8,000      16,919         6,838     1,844,606
Committee recommendation.....................................     1,465,267       284,394      33,938      8,000      16,919         6,838     1,815,356
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For salaries and expenses, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $1,465,267,000. This amount is $86,488,000 
more than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. The Committee 
also recommends $284,394,000 in Prescription Drug User Fee Act 
user fee collections, $33,938,000 in Medical Device User Fee 
and Modernization Act user fee collections, $8,000,000 in 
Animal Drug User Fee Act user fee collections, $16,919,000 in 
Mammography Quality Standards Act fee collections, and 
$6,838,000 in export and certification fees, as assumed in the 
President's budget. These amounts are $34,569,000, $2,284,000, 
$3,000,000, $343,000, and $189,000 more than the 2004 levels, 
respectively. The Committee includes bill language which 
prohibits FDA from developing, establishing, or operating any 
program of user fees authorized by 31 U.S.C. 9701.
    The following table reflects the Committee's 
recommendations, as compared to the fiscal year 2004 and budget 
request levels:

                               FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION SALARIES AND EXPENSES
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Fiscal year--
                                                                 --------------------------------    Committee
                                                                   2004 enacted    2005 request   recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Centers and related field activities:
    Foods.......................................................         410,674         470,405         439,038
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition [CFSAN]....         144,715         164,235         155,478
        Field activities........................................         265,959         306,170         283,560
                                                                 ===============================================
    Human drugs.................................................         294,160         294,679         292,639
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Center for Drug Evaluation and Research [CDER]..........         211,760         212,126         211,027
        Field activities........................................          82,400          82,553          81,612
                                                                 ===============================================
    Biologics...................................................         122,810         124,258         123,804
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research [CBER].....          96,511          97,667          97,521
        Field activities........................................          26,299          26,591          26,283
                                                                 ===============================================
    Animal drugs................................................          84,147          91,905          91,216
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Center for Veterinary Medicine [CVM]....................          54,955          56,091          55,738
        Field activities........................................          29,192          35,814          35,478
                                                                 ===============================================
    Medical and radiological devices............................         191,144         216,699         216,699
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Center for Devices and Radiological Health [CDRH].......         141,059         165,608         164,563
        Field activities........................................          50,085          51,091          52,136
                                                                 ===============================================
    National Center for Toxicological Research [NCTR]...........          39,652          40,530          40,530
                                                                 ===============================================
Other activities................................................          90,190          89,411          87,911
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Office of the Commissioner..................................          29,699          31,562          30,062
    Office of Management and Systems............................          40,852          38,826          38,826
    Office of External Relations................................           7,280           6,928           6,928
    Office of Policy, Legislation, and Planning.................           5,481           5,217           5,217
    Central services............................................           6,878           6,878           6,878
                                                                 ===============================================
Rent and related activities.....................................          38,408          59,036          59,036
                                                                 ===============================================
Rental payments to GSA..........................................         107,594         107,594         114,394
                                                                 ===============================================
      Total, FDA salaries and expenses, new budget authority....       1,378,779       1,494,517       1,465,267
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee recommends the following increases in budget 
authority for FDA salaries and expenses activities: $40,500,000 
for counterterrorism activities related to food safety; 
$25,555,000 for increased medical device review; and $8,325,000 
for BSE-related activities. The Committee also recommends a 
decrease in budget authority requested in the budget of 
$23,122,000 associated with management savings.
    The Committee understands that FDA and the Department of 
Health and Human Services [DHHS] are making progress in 
migrating from FDA's legacy systems and preparing for the 
implementation of the DHHS Unified Financial Management System. 
The Committee expects the same funding ratios for the two 
respective projects as was established in fiscal year 2003 to 
continue progress.
    Rent Payments.--The Committee recommends $114,394,000 for 
FDA rental payments to the General Services Administration 
[GSA]. This amount is $6,800,000 more than fiscal year 2004 and 
the budget request, and reflects the funds reprogrammed during 
both fiscal years 2003 and 2004 from FDA's Foods, Human Drugs, 
Biologics, and Animal Drugs and Feeds program areas to address 
increased requirements for this account. In addition, the 
Committee has included $23,628,000 for relocation expenses 
related to the move of the Center for Drug Evaluation and 
Research to the consolidated White Oak campus, including 
$3,000,000 derived from the Prescription Drug User Fee account.
    Within the total funding available, at least $2,500,000 is 
for FDA activities in support of Codex Alimentarius.
    Agricultural Products Food Safety Laboratory.--The 
Committee provides an increase of $250,000 above the fiscal 
year 2004 funding level for the FDA to expand its contract with 
New Mexico State University's Physical Sciences Laboratory to 
operate the Food Technology Evaluation Laboratory, which 
conducts evaluation and development of rapid screening 
methodologies, technologies, and instrumentation; and to 
provide technology deployment modeling and data analysis for 
food safety and product safety in order to facilitate FDA's 
regulations and responsibilities in food safety, product 
safety, homeland security, bioterrorism, and other initiatives.
    The Committee expects the FDA to continue its support for 
the Waste Management Education and Research Consortium [WERC] 
and its work in food safety technology verification and 
education at no less than the fiscal year 2004 level.
    With the growing threat of foodborne illness to the public 
health, the Committee believes that collaborative research in 
food safety should continue among Government, academia, and 
private industry. The national model for that collaboration has 
been the National Center for Food Safety and Technology [NCFST] 
in Summit-Argo, Illinois. The Committee expects the FDA to 
maintain sufficient funding for the National Center to continue 
the important work done there.
    In addition, the funding provided for food safety will 
ensure the continuation of food contract inspections in the 
State of Alaska. Specifically, it will allow the FDA to renew 
its contract with the State of Alaska for inspections of food 
and seafood processors operating in Alaska. A new contract 
became effective on July 1, 2004. It funds at least 292 
inspections, approximately 272 seafood/HACCP inspections and 20 
other food inspections. The establishments to be inspected will 
be mutually agreed upon by FDA and the State of Alaska.
    Seafood Safety.--General Accounting Office [GAO] reports on 
the safety of seafood have documented the inadequacy of the FDA 
efforts to address foodborne hazards in seafood, including 
shellfish. GAO found FDA's seafood inspection system provides 
consumers with inadequate protection for seafood-related 
foodborne illness. The Committee urges FDA to promote the 
development of new food safety technologies such as 
irradiation, flash freezing, high-pressure processing, or 
others that can cost-effectively reduce the incidence of 
pathogens, and technologies that can ensure constant safe 
temperatures of seafood throughout the food chain.
    The Committee supports the ongoing work of the Interstate 
Shellfish Sanitation Conference and its joint efforts with the 
FDA and the shellfish industry to formulate shellfish safety 
regulations through the National Shellfish Sanitation Program. 
The Committee recommends no less than the fiscal year 2004 
level be directed through the Office of Seafood Inspection to 
continue these activities, and directs that $200,000 be 
directed to the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference for 
the Vibrio Vulnificus Education Program.
    The Committee is concerned that FDA has not taken effective 
action to address foodborne illness risks from the consumption 
of raw shellfish. In particular, the Committee is concerned 
that Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Commission's [ISSC] 
proposed steps to reduce the rates of death and illness due to 
consumption of Vibrio vulnificus-contaminated raw shellfish may 
not effectively address public health concerns.
    The Committee also continues its concern with the agency's 
failure to bring FDA-regulated seafood into compliance with 
HACCP. However, the Committee is aware that special or unique 
circumstances may exist for particular seafood processors. 
While ultimate HAACP compliance is not in question, the 
Committee is specifically aware of Hawaii's lengthy and 
culturally important history of hook-and-line fisheries, 
auction markets, and the high consumption of raw tuna and other 
pelagic fish in Hawaii, and strongly encourages the Agency to 
take into account both the history and the industry's practical 
experience in approving a plan that is consistent with healthy 
seafood products and national standards for seafood safety.
    The Committee has been advised that farmed salmon imported 
from overseas is fed feed with chemical additives to change the 
color of its flesh or the flesh is artificially dyed. A lawsuit 
was recently filed against national grocery chains alleging 
they do not adequately label the fish which are dyed. The 
Committee directs the Food and Drug Administration to continue 
to monitor information concerning the safety of the use of such 
additives and dyes in seafood and to more aggressively enforce 
the clear and conspicuous disclosure of such additives and dyes 
to consumers on consumer packaging.
    Chloramphenicol.--The Committee continues to have serious 
concerns regarding seafood safety issues posed by banned 
antibiotic contamination in farm-raised shrimp imports. The 
Committee encourages FDA to use any available funding, in 
cooperation with State testing programs, to substantially 
increase the percentage of farm-raised shrimp imports tested 
for chloramphenicol and other related harmful antibiotics used 
in the aquaculture industry. Further, FDA is encouraged to 
develop a program for testing existing U.S. cold-storage 
inventories of farm-raised shrimp originating from countries 
known to use chloramphenicol or other banned antibiotics, and 
to ensure that any shrimp that tests positive for these 
substances will not be subsequently consumed.
    Mercury.--In March 2004, the FDA and the Environmental 
Protection Agency released a revised joint dietary advisory on 
mercury in seafood. During the development of the advisory, the 
Committee understands that significant information gaps were 
found in what consumers, especially sensitive populations such 
as women who are or may become pregnant and young children, 
know about mercury levels in various seafood species. The 
Committee encourages FDA to implement an outreach and education 
effort with physicians and other appropriate outlets in order 
to increase awareness among potentially affected consumers, and 
to measure the effectiveness of the efforts on target group 
behavior and impact on their overall consumption of seafood.
    National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring Service.--The 
Committee supports the work of the National Antimicrobial 
Resistance Monitoring Service [NARMS] and its collaborative 
relationship between FDA, the Department of Agriculture, and 
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The Committee 
expects the coordination of activities among these three areas 
of Government to result in the most unbiased presentation of 
timely, accurate data in the best interest of public health. 
The Committee encourages the FDA to continue to provide 
adequate funding to USDA to perform the animal portion of 
NARMS, and requests a report within 90 days of enactment of 
this Act on the distribution of total NARMS funding within the 
three agencies.
    Orphan Products Grants.--Included in the Center for Drug 
Evaluation and Research is $13,270,000 for the Orphan Products 
Grants Program.
    Dietary Supplements.--The Committee believes that the 
potential for dietary supplements to have positive health 
benefits has been realized in many cases. However, it is 
essential that FDA continue its efforts to ensure their safety, 
and to fully enforce the prohibition of false, misleading or 
unsubstantiated claims regarding dietary supplements 
implemented in the Dietary Supplement and Health Education Act 
[DSHEA] of 1994. The budget request includes total funding of 
approximately $5,360,000 for the CFSAN Adverse Events Reporting 
System [CAERS], of which approximately $1,500,000 is for 
dietary supplements.
    FDA has indicated that the ability to identify and analyze 
specific components in ingredients, including botanical 
ingredients, is an essential component of research and 
regulatory programs directed at ensuring the safety and 
effectiveness of dietary supplements. The Committee expects the 
same level of review of botanicals in dietary supplements to 
continue in fiscal year 2005. This work is being carried out by 
FDA in collaboration with the National Center for Natural 
Products Research, Oxford, MS.
    Biotechnology.--The Committee understands that the FDA 
frequently receives requests from foreign governments for FDA 
regulators to visit foreign countries to educate regulators on 
the evaluation of the safety of biotechnology. Providing 
information on the soundness of the U.S. regulatory process 
will promote the understanding of the benefits of biotechnology 
to human health and the environment and improve the climate for 
acceptance of U.S. agricultural products abroad. The Committee 
directs the FDA to allocate adequate funding so that agency 
representatives may perform this service.
    Standards of Identity.--The Committee is aware of the 
ongoing debate surrounding increased importation and use of 
milk protein concentrate. A General Accounting Office 
investigation highlighted a dramatic increase in milk protein 
concentrate imports. The Committee remains concerned with FDA's 
current lack of enforcement of standards of identity as it 
relates to the potential illegal use of milk protein 
concentrate in standardized cheese.
    Office of Women's Health.--The Committee believes that it 
is imperative for FDA to pay sufficient attention to gender-
based research, ensuring that products approved by the FDA are 
safe and effective for women as well as men. The Committee 
notes that in the budget request, the Office of Women's Health 
at FDA is funded at not less than $3,650,000 for program 
operation and oversight. The Committee encourages FDA to ensure 
that the Office of Women's Health is sufficiently funded to 
carry out its activities, and to enhance its funding if 
necessary.
    Medical Device Application Review.--The Committee continues 
to support the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act 
[MDUFMA] program, and acknowledges the efforts by the FDA to 
address the significant funding shortfall. The Committee has 
provided an increase of $25,555,000 for the Center for Devices 
and Radiological Health specifically for medical device review, 
as requested in the budget. The Committee encourages the Senate 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions to make 
necessary modifications to the Act in order to continue this 
user fee program beyond fiscal year 2005.
    Implanted Medical Devices.--The Committee acknowledges 
current FDA requlations designed to improve post-market 
surveillance for medical devices, and strongly encourages FDA 
to devote the necessary resources to require registries and 
monitor well-designed long-term safety studies for implanted 
devices, including but not limited to jaw implants. As the 
aging U.S. population becomes more dependent on implanted 
devices, the Committee believes it is essential that the FDA 
allocate adequate resources to patient safety activities 
related to these devices, such as registries, post-market 
surveillance, and long-term phase IV trials.
    Tissue Safety.--In 1997, the FDA proposed rules that would 
regulate human cells, tissues, and related products. As of May 
2004, the FDA has finalized the first two of the three proposed 
rules. The Committee remains concerned that the third rule, 
which would provide guidelines for current good manufacturing 
practices for establishments that produce human cells, tissues, 
and related products, has not yet been finalized.
    Prescription Drug Monograph System.--In July of 2003, 
almost 1 year ago, the Committee directed the FDA to prepare a 
report for the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions regarding the 
feasibility and cost of a monograph system for prescription 
drug products. The FDA has, to date, not produced that report.
    Current FDA policy regarding certain old drugs appears to 
have raised prices to the consuming public and placed small 
businesses in jeopardy, while adding nothing to public safety. 
The Committee therefore directs the FDA to provide a report, no 
later than 60 days after enactment of this Act, on the 
feasibility and cost of a monograph system for this class of 
old drugs, or present to the Committee a reasonable, viable 
alternative method for its enforcement resources to be 
dedicated to activities that are most likely to improve the 
public health, preserve access to affordable medicines, and 
foster a more cooperative regulatory environment for small 
businesses.
    Rare Diseases Clinical Trials and Drug Evaluation.--The 
Committee supports rapid access to therapeutics for children 
and adults with rare diseases. It is the view of the Committee 
that improvements can be made with respect to clinical trial 
design and FDA Advisory Committees. The Committee encourages 
the FDA to make the best possible use of FDA's Advisory 
Committee members in FDA's considerations of clinical trial 
design and allow the same panel to participate in final review 
meetings, when feasible. The Committee supports utilization of 
qualified independent consultants as reflected in the draft 
guidance document ``Independent Consultants for Biotechnology 
Clinical Protocols'' issued by CBER/CDER on May 12, 2003. The 
Committee encourages enhanced exploration of potential 
surrogate endpoints and use of FDAMA's fast-track provision, 
where appropriate, to make drugs available as early as possible 
for serious and life-threatening orphan diseases that have no 
treatment. The Committee believes these policy enhancements 
will lead to more efficient and timely evaluation of rare 
disease therapeutics and further stimulate private sector 
investment in rare disease research.
    Drug Counterfeiting.--The Food and Drug Administration 
[FDA] has reported that it has seen growing evidence of efforts 
by increasingly well-organized counterfeiters, backed by 
increasingly sophisticated technologies and criminal 
operations, to profit from drug counterfeiting at the expense 
of American patients. In a report released in February 2004 on 
combating counterfeit drugs, the FDA identified the use of new 
technologies to protect the consumer, including authentication 
technologies. The report stated that these ``technologies have 
been sufficiently perfected that they can now serve as a 
critical component of any strategy to protect products against 
counterfeiting.'' One such technology is color-shifting ink. 
This technology is used in U.S. currency and no known 
counterfeits of the color-shifting component have surfaced, to 
date. Six of the 20 largest pharmaceutical manufacturers are 
already experimenting with color-shift technology on 11 of 
their products. Counterfeiting of life sustaining medications 
not only defrauds consumers, but it is potentially life 
threatening to patients who desperately need the therapies. The 
Committee directs that the FDA work with industry to facilitate 
the use of authentication technologies, including color-
shifting inks, on labels and packages of drugs. Further, the 
Committee directs the FDA to provide an update on these efforts 
by February 1, 2005.
    Self-Contained Modular Facilities.--The Centers for Disease 
Control [CDC] has incorporated self-contained modular 
facilities [SCMF] and modular specimen triage units [STU] in 
the development and implementation of its 50 State public 
health laboratories and facilities comprising the Laboratory 
Response Network [LRN]. The Committee encourages the FDA to 
consult with CDC to evaluate the benefits of incorporating 
self-contained modular facilities.
    Human Drug Compounding.--The Committee believes that all 
compounded human drugs should be prepared according to strict 
guidelines, known as monographs, that lay out quality, purity, 
and strength standards. Except for those monographs the United 
States Pharmacopeia, a national drug standard-setting 
organization recognized by Congress, has developed on its own, 
there are currently no enforceable national standards for 
compounded prescription drugs.
    The Committee believes that national standards for these 
medications should be developed without delay and supports the 
formation of a public-private partnership between the FDA and 
organizations with demonstrated expertise in setting standards 
for compounded drugs to initiate the development of national 
standards to be published in the official compendium recognized 
in the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.
    Therefore, the Committee believes that the FDA should 
undertake the formation of such a public-private partnership 
during fiscal year 2005 and commence the development of 
national standards for compounded prescription drugs. Further, 
the Committee encourages the FDA to request adequate funding in 
the fiscal year 2006 budget request to support this effort. 
Finally, the Committee requests that the FDA provide a report 
on progress toward these objectives on a regular basis.
    Animal Drug Compounding.--The Committee is aware that in 
2003, the FDA issued a Compliance Policy Guideline [CPG] 
regarding animal drug compounding. The Committee is concerned 
that the CPG represents a shift in policy, and does not clearly 
explain how the FDA's enforcement priorities have changed, 
particularly with respect to compounding from bulk drug 
substances for non-food producing animals. Further, the 
Committee is concerned that the FDA did not seek public comment 
prior to issuing the CPG, although public input is currently 
being gathered from the animal drug compounding community and 
other interested parties. Therefore, the Committee strongly 
encourages the FDA to work closely with all interested parties 
to ensure that the reasons for issuing the CPG, as well as 
changes that will result from it, are well understood, and to 
seriously consider all public comments made regarding this CPG.
    Food Labeling.--The FDA Office of Nutritional Products, 
Labeling and Dietary Supplements [ONPLDS] is responsible for 
several important public health and consumer protection 
programs. Responsibilities of ONPLDS include developing policy 
and regulations for dietary supplements, nutrition labeling and 
food standards, infant formula and medical foods, and 
scientific evaluation to support such regulations and related 
policy development. Further, ONPLDS supports compliance and 
enforcement actions and is responsible for the clinical review, 
data summaries, and, as appropriate, follow-up and research 
related to adverse events associated with dietary supplements 
and infant formula. The Committee is aware that funding for 
activities in ONPLDS other than the regulation of dietary 
supplements has remained level for several years, while the 
responsibilities relegated to this office have increased. 
Therefore, the Committee encourages FDA to determine if 
additional funding is necessary for ONPLDS to more effectively 
carry out its important responsibilities, and, if appropriate, 
increase funding for this office in its fiscal year 2006 budget 
request.
    Center of Excellence.--The Committee is aware of the 
important work currently being done at FDA's three Centers of 
Excellence regarding food safety and dietary supplements. The 
Committee is also aware of interest in creating a new Center of 
Excellence at the University of California at Davis to address 
the unique nature and contributions of this region of the 
country, both in terms of its role as the source of a 
substantial portion of the domestic food supply and as the 
gateway for foods arriving from our international trading 
partners. Due to financial constraints, the Committee is unable 
to provide funding to establish this Center, but encourages the 
FDA to consider the development of a Center of Excellence at 
the University of California at Davis, if it is determined to 
be an important and appropriate use of Federal dollars.
    Perchlorate.--The Committee directs the FDA to continue 
conducting perchlorate surveys of food and bottled water and to 
report back to Congress the findings of these surveys. The 
surveys should include a variety of produce and fluid milk 
samples and should identify level of contamination in order to 
determine the need for risk management strategies. The 
Committee believes it is important to assess produce, milk, and 
bottled water produced in areas with known perchlorate 
contamination, with naturally occurring perchlorate, or grown 
near sites where perchlorate was or is used.
    Canned Tuna.--The Committee encourages the Food and Drug 
Administration to initiate rulemaking to revise the standard of 
identity for canned tuna as requested in ``Citizens Petition to 
Amend Canned Tuna Standard of Identity, 21 CFR 161.190, Docket 
No. 94P-0286'' to replace the current press cake weight 
requirement with a drained weight requirement and to 
incorporate any other changes that may be deemed necessary.

                        BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

Appropriations, 2004....................................      $6,959,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................................
Committee recommendation................................................

    In addition to Washington, DC, area laboratories which are 
in six separate locations, FDA has 16 laboratories at other 
locations around the country, including regular field 
laboratories and specialized facilities, as well as the 
National Center for Toxicological Research complex. Repairs, 
modifications, improvements and construction to FDA 
headquarters and field facilities must be made to preserve the 
properties, ensure employee safety, meet changing program 
requirements, and permit the agency to keep its laboratory 
methods up to date.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The President's budget does not request and the Committee 
does not provide an appropriation for FDA buildings and 
facilities.

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                  Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Appropriations, 2004....................................     $89,901,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................      95,327,000
Committee recommendation................................      95,327,000
    The Commodity Futures Trading Commission [CFTC] was 
established as an independent agency by the Commodity Futures 
Trading Commission Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 1389; 7 U.S.C. 4a).
    The Commission administers the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 
U.S.C. section 1, et seq. The 1974 Act brought under Federal 
regulation futures trading in all goods, articles, services, 
rights, and interests; commodity options trading; and leverage 
trading in gold and silver bullion and coins; and otherwise 
strengthened the regulation of the commodity futures trading 
industry. It established a comprehensive regulatory structure 
to oversee the volatile futures trading complex.
    The purpose of the Commission is to protect and further the 
economic utility of futures and commodity options markets by 
encouraging their efficiency, assuring their integrity, and 
protecting participants against manipulation, abusive trade 
practices, fraud, and deceit. The objective is to enable the 
markets to better serve their designated functions of providing 
a price discovery mechanism and providing price risk insurance. 
In properly serving these functions, the futures and commodity 
options markets contribute toward better production and 
financial planning, more efficient distribution and 
consumption, and more economical marketing.
    Programs in support of the overall mission include market 
surveillance analysis and research; registration, audits, and 
contract markets; enforcement; reparations; proceedings; legal 
counsel; agency direction; and administrative support services. 
CFTC activities are carried out in Washington, DC; two regional 
offices located in Chicago and New York; and smaller offices in 
Kansas City, Los Angeles, and Minneapolis.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    For the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Committee 
recommends $95,327,000. This amount is $5,426,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2004 appropriation and the same as the budget 
request. This includes $1,000,000 for enforcement programs 
support and $863,000 for increased costs of personnel benefits, 
as requested in the budget.

                       Farm Credit Administration

                 LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Limitation, 2004........................................     $40,900,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................................
Committee recommendation................................      41,800,000

    The Farm Credit Administration [FCA] is the independent 
agency in the executive branch of the Government responsible 
for the examination and regulation of the banks, associations, 
and other institutions of the Farm Credit System.
    Activities of the Farm Credit Administration include the 
planning and execution of examinations of Farm Credit System 
institutions and the preparation of examination reports. FCA 
also establishes standards, enforces rules and regulations, and 
approves certain actions of the institutions.
    The administration and the institutions under its 
jurisdiction now operate under authorities contained in the 
Farm Credit Act of 1971, Public Law 92-181, effective December 
10, 1971. Public Law 99-205, effective December 23, 1985, 
restructured FCA and gave the agency regulatory authorities and 
enforcement powers.
    The act provides for the farmer-owned cooperative system to 
make sound, adequate, and constructive credit available to 
farmers and ranchers and their cooperatives, rural residences, 
and associations and other entities upon which farming 
operations are dependent, and to modernize existing farm credit 
law to meet current and future rural credit needs.
    The Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 authorized the 
formation of the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation 
[FAMC] to operate a secondary market for agricultural and rural 
housing mortgages. The Farm Credit Administration, under 
section 8.11 of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended, is 
assigned the responsibility of regulating this entity and 
assuring its safe and sound operation.
    Expenses of the Farm Credit Administration are paid by 
assessments collected from the Farm Credit System institutions 
and by assessments to the Federal Agricultural Mortgage 
Corporation.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends a limitation of $41,800,000 on 
administrative expenses of the Farm Credit Administration 
[FCA]. This limitation allows for an increase of $900,000 to 
address personnel compensation and benefits. The Committee 
notes a substantial amount of carryover funds remain available 
to meet any unanticipated examination activities.

                     TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

    The majority of the general provisions are essentially the 
same as those included in the fiscal year 2004 and previous 
years' appropriations acts. In addition, the Committee 
recommends the following provisions:
    Section 705 to include wildlife services methods 
development and aviation safety in the APHIS appropriation 
items which shall remain available until expended.
    Section 741 to make permanent a provision regarding 
personal protection in remote locations.
    Section 749 to provide $2,400,000 for the Northern Great 
Plains Regional Authority, to remain available until September 
30, 2006.
    Section 753 to make permanent a provision regarding 
eligibility for rural housing programs.
    Section 756 to provide eligibility of rural areas in Hawaii 
for programs in the Rural Development mission area until the 
2010 decennial Census.
    Section 762 to rescind funds from the Local Television Loan 
Guarantee Program.
    Section 763 to require written approval by the USDA Chief 
Information Officer for IT expenditures over $25,000.
    Section 764 to limit the availability of funds under 
section 9010 of Public Law 107-171.
    Section 765 to allow the use of approved unique identifiers 
rather than Social Security numbers in central filing systems 
for the registration of liens on farm products.
    Section 766 provides eligibility for community facilities 
grants to certain projects in the State of Alaska.
    Section 767 regarding eligibility under Public Law 103-382.
    Section 768 to rescind unobligated balances in the 
Agricultural Conservation Program.
    Section 769 regarding the availability of unobligated rural 
development funds.
    Section 770 to prohibit the approval of new WIC-only 
locations.
    Section 771 to rescind unobligated balances from section 32 
of the Act of August 24, 1935.
    Section 772 to rescind unobligated balances available to 
the Foreign Agricultural Service.
    Section 773 regarding section 315 of the Rural 
Electrification Act of 1936.
    Section 774 regarding the management of the Wildlife 
Habitat Management Institute in the State of Mississippi.
    Section 775 to allow renewable energy system loan 
guarantees.
    Section 776 regarding Cuba travel.
    Section 777 to include elk, reindeer and bison in livestock 
assistance programs.
    Section 778 regarding RHIF eligibility.
    Section 779 regarding rural development loan eligibility.
    Section 780 regarding RUS program eligibility.
    Section 781 regarding milk processing and packaging 
facilities.
    Section 782 regarding Native American tribes and Alaska 
Native Corporations participation in USDA programs.
    Section 783 regarding Alaska private lands wildlife 
management.
    Section 784 regarding Child Nutrition and WIC 
Reauthorization Act of 2004 technical corrections.
    Section 785 regarding conservation in Hawaii.

                     Program, Project, and Activity

    During fiscal year 2005, for purposes of the Balanced 
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 
99-177) or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
Reaffirmation Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-119), the following 
information provides the definition of the term ``program, 
project, and activity'' for departments and agencies under the 
jurisdiction of the Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related 
Agencies Subcommittee. The term ``program, project, and 
activity'' shall include the most specific level of budget 
items identified in the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food 
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
Act, 2005, the House and Senate Committee reports, and the 
conference report and accompanying joint explanatory statement 
of the managers of the committee of conference.
    If a sequestration order is necessary, in implementing the 
Presidential order, departments and agencies shall apply any 
percentage reduction required for fiscal year 2005 pursuant to 
the provisions of Public Law 99-177 or Public Law 100-119 to 
all items specified in the explanatory notes submitted to the 
Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate in support 
of the fiscal year 2005 budget estimates, as amended, for such 
departments and agencies, as modified by congressional action, 
and in addition:
    For the Agricultural Research Service the definition shall 
include specific research locations as identified in the 
explanatory notes and lines of research specifically identified 
in the reports of the House and Senate Appropriations 
Committees.
    For the Natural Resources Conservation Service the 
definition shall include individual flood prevention projects 
as identified in the explanatory notes and individual 
operational watershed projects as summarized in the notes.
    For the Farm Service Agency the definition shall include 
individual, regional, State, district, and county offices.

  COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE 
                                 SENATE

    Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports 
accompanying general appropriations bills identify each 
recommended amendment which proposes an item of appropriation 
which is not made to carry out the provisions of an existing 
law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously 
passed by the Senate during that session.
    The Committee recommends funding for the following program 
which currently lacks authorization for fiscal year 2005:
    Compact of Free Association Act of 1985.

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(C), RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE 
                                 SENATE

    Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on September 14, 
2004, the Committee ordered reported en bloc S. 2803, an 
original bill making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies 
programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, S. 
2804, an original bill making appropriations for the Department 
of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2005; and an original bill making appropriations 
for the Departments of Transportation and Treasury, and 
independent agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
2005, each subject to amendment and each subject to the budget 
allocations, by a recorded vote of 29-0, a quorum being 
present. The vote was as follows:
        Yeas                          Nays
Chairman Stevens
Mr. Cochran
Mr. Specter
Mr. Domenici
Mr. Bond
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Burns
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Gregg
Mr. Bennett
Mr. Campbell
Mr. Craig
Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. DeWine
Mr. Brownback
Mr. Byrd
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Hollings
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Reid
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray
Mr. Dorgan
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Durbin
Mr. Johnson
Ms. Landrieu

 COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE 
                                 SENATE

    Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports 
on a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute 
or part of any statute include ``(a) the text of the statute or 
part thereof which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a 
comparative print of that part of the bill or joint resolution 
making the amendment and of the statute or part thereof 
proposed to be amended, showing by stricken-through type and 
italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical 
devices the omissions and insertions which would be made by the 
bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form recommended by 
the committee.''
    In compliance with this rule, the following changes in 
existing law proposed to be made by the bill are shown as 
follows: existing law to be omitted is enclosed in black 
brackets; new matter is printed in italics; and existing law in 
which no change is proposed is shown in roman.
    With respect to this bill, it is the opinion of the 
Committee that it is necessary to dispense with these 
requirements in order to expedite the business of the Senate.

                                            BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL
  PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS
                                                     AMENDED
                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Budget authority                 Outlays
                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Committee     Amount  of     Committee     Amount  of
                                                        allocation \1\      bill     allocation \1\      bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee
 allocations to its subcommittees of amounts in the
 Budget Resolution for 2005: Subcommittee on
 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
 Administration, and Related Agencies:
    Discretionary.....................................         16,772        16,772         18,282    \1\ 18,282
    Mandatory.........................................         58,312        66,370         44,305    \1\ 43,908
Projections of outlays associated with the
 recommendation:
    2005..............................................  ..............  ...........  ..............   \2\ 51,434
    2006..............................................  ..............  ...........  ..............        2,588
    2007..............................................  ..............  ...........  ..............          805
    2008..............................................  ..............  ...........  ..............          342
    2009 and future years.............................  ..............  ...........  ..............          447
Financial assistance to State and local governments                NA        22,241             NA        18,125
 for  2005............................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\2\ Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

NA: Not applicable.

  COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
                                                                        YEAR 2005
                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                         Senate Committee recommendation compared with (+ or
                                                                                                                                  -)
             Item                     2004              Budget        House allowance      Committee    -----------------------------------------------------
                                  appropriation   estimate        deg.         recommendation         2004              Budget            House
                                                                                                           appropriation   estimate  allowance
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------
TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS

  Production, Processing, and
           Marketing

Office of the Secretary.......            5,062              5,185             5,124               +62               -61

Executive Operations:
    Chief Economist...........            8,656             14,949             9,817            +1,161            -5,132
    National Appeals Division.           13,589             14,826            14,154              +565              -672
    Office of Budget and                  7,694              8,146             8,128              +434               -18
     Program Analysis.........
    Homeland Security staff...              496              1,491             1,000              +504              -491
    Office of the Chief                  15,402             22,093            17,595            +2,193            -4,498
     Information Officer......
        Common computing                118,585            136,736           125,585            +7,000           -11,151
         environment..........
    Office of the Chief                   5,650              8,063             5,742               +92            -2,321
     Financial Officer........
    Working capital fund......  ................            12,850   ................  ................          -12,850
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Executive                  170,072            219,154           182,021           +11,949           -37,133
       Operations.............

Office of the Assistant                     803                819               819                16   ................
 Secretary for Civil Rights...
Office of Civil Rights........           17,347             22,283            20,347            +3,000            -1,936
Office of the Assistant                     669                808               682               +13              -126
 Secretary for Administration.
Agriculture buildings and              (155,546)          (203,938)         (170,870)         (+15,324)         (-33,068)
 facilities and rental
 payments.....................
    Payments to GSA...........          123,179            128,319           128,319            +5,140   ................
    Building operations and              32,367             41,642            37,551            +5,184            -4,091
     maintenance..............
    Repairs, renovations, and   ................            33,977             5,000            +5,000           -28,977
     construction.............
Hazardous materials management           15,519             15,730            15,532               +13              -198
Departmental administration...           22,895             26,361            22,626              -269            -3,735
Office of the Assistant                   3,774              4,263             3,852               +78              -411
 Secretary for Congressional
 Relations....................
Office of Communications......            9,174             10,288             9,365              +191              -923
Office of the Inspector                  76,825             78,392            78,289            +1,464              -103
 General......................
Office of the General Counsel.           34,495             38,589            36,236            +1,741            -2,353

Office of the Under Secretary               592                805               605               +13              -200
 for Research, Education, and
 Economics....................

Economic Research Service.....           70,981             80,032            75,268            +4,287            -4,764
National Agricultural                   128,161            137,594           130,299            +2,138            -7,295
 Statistics Service...........
    Census of Agriculture.....          (25,279)           (22,520)          (22,405)          (-2,874)            (-115)

Agricultural Research Service:
    Salaries and expenses.....        1,082,468            987,597         1,090,261            +7,793          +102,664
    Buildings and facilities..           63,434            178,000           172,838          +109,404            -5,162
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Agricultural             1,145,902          1,165,597         1,263,099          +117,197           +97,502
       Research Service.......

Cooperative State Research,
 Education, and Extension
 Service:
    Research and education              617,780            501,540           628,492           +10,712          +126,952
     activities...............
    Native American                      (9,000)           (12,000)          (12,000)          (+3,000)  ................
     Institutions Endowment
     Fund.....................
    Extension activities......          439,125            421,174           443,061            +3,936           +21,887
    Integrated activities.....           50,195             76,865            57,242            +7,047           -19,623
    Outreach for socially                 5,935              5,935             5,935   ................  ................
     disadvantaged farmers....
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Cooperative State        1,113,035          1,005,514         1,134,730           +21,695          +129,216
       Research, Education,
       and Extension Service..

Office of the Under Secretary               721                804               733               +12               -71
 for Marketing and Regulatory
 Programs.....................

Animal and Plant Health
 Inspection Service:
    Salaries and expenses.....          716,329            828,361           786,866           +70,537           -41,495
    Buildings and facilities..            4,967              4,996             4,967   ................              -29
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Animal and Plant           721,296            833,357           791,833           +70,537           -41,524
       Health Inspection
       Service................

Agricultural Marketing
 Service:
    Marketing Services........           74,985             85,998            78,198            +3,213            -7,800
        Standardization user             (5,000)            (5,000)           (5,000)  ................  ................
         fees.................
    (Limitation on                      (62,577)           (64,459)          (64,459)          (+1,882)  ................
     administrative expenses,
     from fees collected).....
    Funds for strengthening              15,392             15,800            15,800              +408   ................
     markets, income, and
     supply (transfer from
     section 32)..............
    Payments to states and                3,318              1,347             3,847              +529            +2,500
     possessions..............
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Agricultural                93,695            103,145            97,845            +4,150            -5,300
       Marketing Service......

Grain Inspection, Packers and
 Stockyards Administration:
    Salaries and expenses.....           35,678             44,150            37,299            +1,621            -6,851
    Limitation on inspection            (42,463)           (42,463)          (42,463)  ................  ................
     and weighing services....

Office of the Under Secretary               595                803               608               +13              -195
 for Food Safety..............

Food Safety and Inspection              779,882            838,660           823,757           +43,875           -14,903
 Service......................
    Lab accreditation fees....           (1,000)            (1,000)           (1,000)  ................  ................
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Production,              4,602,719          4,836,271         4,901,839          +299,120           +65,568
       Processing, and
       Marketing..............
                               =========================================================================================================================
   Farm Assistance Programs

Office of the Under Secretary               631                933               648               +17              -285
 for Farm and Foreign
 Agricultural Services........

Farm Service Agency:
    Salaries and expenses.....          982,934          1,007,877         1,004,032           +21,098            -3,845

    (Transfer from export                  (841)            (1,033)           (1,002)            (+161)             (-31)
     loans)...................
    (Transfer from Public Law            (1,053)            (3,119)           (2,937)          (+1,884)            (-182)
     480).....................
    (Transfer from ACIF)......         (281,350)          (305,011)         (293,764)         (+12,414)         (-11,247)
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, transfers from         (283,244)          (309,163)         (297,703)         (+14,459)         (-11,460)
       program accounts.......
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Salaries and            (1,266,178)        (1,317,040)       (1,301,735)         (+35,557)         (-15,305)
       expenses...............

    State mediation grants....            3,951              4,000             4,000               +49   ................
    Dairy indemnity program...              100                100               100   ................  ................
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Farm Service            986,985          1,011,977         1,008,132           +21,147            -3,845
       Agency.................

    Agricultural Credit
     Insurance Fund Program
     Account:
        Loan authorizations:
            Farm ownership
             loans:
                Direct........         (128,396)          (200,000)         (210,000)         (+81,604)         (+10,000)
                Guaranteed....         (944,395)        (1,400,000)       (1,100,000)        (+155,605)        (-300,000)
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal....       (1,072,791)        (1,600,000)       (1,310,000)        (+237,209)        (-290,000)

            Farm operating
             loans:
                Direct........         (613,860)          (650,000)         (650,000)         (+36,140)  ................
                Unsubsidized         (1,192,920)        (1,200,000)       (1,000,000)        (-192,920)        (-200,000)
                 guaranteed...
                Subsidized             (264,678)          (266,253)         (300,000)         (+35,322)         (+33,747)
                 guaranteed...
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal....       (2,071,458)        (2,116,253)       (1,950,000)        (-121,458)        (-166,253)

            Indian tribe land            (2,000)            (2,000)           (2,000)  ................  ................
             acquisition loans
            Natural disasters   ................           (25,000)  ................  ................         (-25,000)
             emergency insured
             loans............
            Boll weevil                (100,000)           (60,000)         (100,000)  ................         (+40,000)
             eradication loans
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Loan            (3,246,249)        (3,803,253)       (3,362,000)        (+115,751)        (-441,253)
               authorizations.

        Loan subsidies:
            Farm ownership
             loans:
                Direct........           28,350             10,700            11,235           -17,115              +535
                Guaranteed....            5,100              7,420             5,830              +730            -1,590
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal....           33,450             18,120            17,065           -16,385            -1,055

            Farm operating
             loans:
                Direct........           88,519             65,585            65,585           -22,934   ................
                Unsubsidized             39,724             38,760            32,300            -7,424            -6,460
                 guaranteed...
                Subsidized               33,799             35,438            39,930            +6,131            +4,492
                 guaranteed...
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal....          162,042            139,783           137,815           -24,227            -1,968

            Indian tribe land   ................               105               105              +105   ................
             acquisition......
            Natural disasters   ................             3,235   ................  ................           -3,235
             emergency insured
             loans............
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Loan               195,492            161,243           154,985           -40,507            -6,258
               subsidies......

        ACIF expenses:
            Salaries and                281,350            305,011           293,764           +12,414           -11,247
             expense (transfer
             to FSA)..........
            Administrative                7,901              8,000             8,000               +99   ................
             expenses.........
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, ACIF               289,251            313,011           301,764           +12,513           -11,247
               expenses.......
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total,                    484,743            474,254           456,749           -27,994           -17,505
               Agricultural
               Credit
               Insurance Fund.
                  (Loan              (3,246,249)        (3,803,253)       (3,362,000)        (+115,751)        (-441,253)
                   authorizati
                   on)........
                               =========================================================================================================================
              Total, Farm             1,471,728          1,486,231         1,464,881            -6,847           -21,350
               Service Agency.
                               =========================================================================================================================
Risk Management Agency........           71,001             91,582            72,044            +1,043           -19,538
                               =========================================================================================================================
      Total, Farm Assistance          1,543,360          1,578,746         1,537,573            -5,787           -41,173
       Programs...............
                               =========================================================================================================================
         Corporations

Federal Crop Insurance                3,765,000          4,095,128         4,095,128          +330,128   ................
 Corporation: Federal crop
 insurance corporation fund...
Commodity Credit Corporation
 Fund:
    Reimbursement for net            22,937,000         16,452,377        16,452,377        -6,484,623   ................
     realized losses..........
    Hazardous waste management           (5,000)            (5,000)           (5,000)  ................  ................
     (limitation on expenses).
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Corporations.....       26,702,000         20,547,505        20,547,505        -6,154,495   ................
                               =========================================================================================================================
      Total, title I,                32,848,079         26,962,522        26,986,917        -5,861,162           +24,395
       Agricultural Programs..
          (By transfer).......         (283,244)          (309,163)         (297,703)         (+14,459)         (-11,460)
          (Loan authorization)       (3,246,249)        (3,803,253)       (3,362,000)        (+115,751)        (-441,253)
          (Limitation on               (110,040)          (111,922)         (111,922)          (+1,882)  ................
           administrative
           expenses)..........
                               =========================================================================================================================
    TITLE II--CONSERVATION
           PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary               741                936               758               +17              -178
 for Natural Resources and
 Environment..................

Natural Resources Conservation
 Service:
    Conservation operations...          847,971            710,412           845,863            -2,108          +135,451
    Watershed surveys and                10,500              5,083             7,500            -3,000            +2,417
     planning.................
    Watershed and flood                  86,487             40,173            64,000           -22,487           +23,827
     prevention operations....
    Watershed rehabilitation             29,629             10,091            25,000            -4,629           +14,909
     program..................
    Resource conservation and            51,641             50,760            50,760              -881   ................
     development..............
    Farm bill technical         ................            92,024   ................  ................          -92,024
     assistance...............
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Natural Resources        1,026,228            908,543           993,123           -33,105           +84,580
       Conservation Service...
                               =========================================================================================================================
      Total, title II,                1,026,969            909,479           993,881           -33,088           +84,402
       Conservation Programs..
                               =========================================================================================================================
 TITLE III--RURAL DEVELOPMENT
           PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary               632                929               645               +13              -284
 for Rural Development........

Rural Development:
    Rural community                     752,956            541,979           733,360           -19,596          +191,381
     advancement program......
        (Transfer out)........         (-28,000)  .................         (-28,000)  ................         (-28,000)
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Rural                  752,956            541,979           733,360           -19,596          +191,381
           community
           advancement program

    RD expenses:
        Salaries and expenses.          141,032            149,749           143,452            +2,420            -6,297

        (Transfer from RHIF)..         (440,687)          (465,886)         (448,342)          (+7,655)         (-17,544)
        (Transfer from RDLFP).           (4,247)            (6,656)           (4,316)             (+69)          (-2,340)
        (Transfer from RETLP).          (37,630)           (39,933)          (38,277)            (+647)          (-1,656)
        (Transfer from RTB)...           (3,152)            (3,328)           (3,152)  ................            (-176)
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Transfers          (485,716)          (515,803)         (494,087)          (+8,371)         (-21,716)
           from program
           accounts...........
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, RD expenses..         (626,748)          (665,552)         (637,539)         (+10,791)         (-28,013)
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Rural                  893,988            691,728           876,812           -17,176          +185,084
           Development........
                               =========================================================================================================================
Rural Housing Service:
    Rural Housing Insurance
     Fund Program Account:
        Loan authorizations:
            Single family            (1,351,397)        (1,100,000)       (1,200,000)        (-151,397)        (+100,000)
             direct (sec. 502)
                Unsubsidized         (2,709,094)        (2,725,185)       (2,725,185)         (+16,091)  ................
                 guaranteed...
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal,          (4,060,491)        (3,825,185)       (3,925,185)        (-135,306)        (+100,000)
                   Single
                   family.....

            Housing repair              (34,797)           (35,000)          (35,000)            (+203)  ................
             (sec. 504).......
            Rental housing             (115,857)           (60,000)          (90,000)         (-25,857)         (+30,000)
             (sec. 515).......
            Site loans (sec.             (5,045)            (5,045)           (5,045)  ................  ................
             524).............
            Multi-family                (99,410)          (100,000)          (85,960)         (-13,450)         (-14,040)
             housing
             guarantees (sec.
             538).............
            Multi-family                 (1,491)            (1,501)           (1,501)             (+10)  ................
             housing credit
             sales............
            Single family               (10,000)           (10,000)          (10,000)  ................  ................
             housing credit
             sales............
            Self-help housing            (2,421)            (5,000)           (5,000)          (+2,579)  ................
             land develop.
             (sec. 523).......
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Loan            (4,329,512)        (4,041,731)       (4,157,691)        (-171,821)        (+115,960)
               authorizations.

        Loan subsidies:
            Single family               125,274            127,380           138,960           +13,686           +11,580
             direct (sec. 502)
                Unsubsidized             39,668             33,608            33,608            -6,060   ................
                 guaranteed...
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal,             164,942            160,988           172,568            +7,626           +11,580
                   Single
                   family.....

            Housing repair                9,555             10,171            10,171              +616   ................
             (sec. 504).......
            Rental housing               49,830             28,254            42,381            -7,449           +14,127
             (sec. 515).......
            Site loans (sec.    ................  .................  ................  ................  ................
             524).............
            Multi-family                  5,915              3,490             3,000            -2,915              -490
             housing
             guarantees (sec.
             538).............
            Multi-family                    659                727               727               +68   ................
             housing credit
             sales............
            Single family       ................  .................  ................  ................  ................
             housing credit
             sales............
            Self-help housing                75   .................  ................              -75   ................
             land develop.
             (sec. 523).......
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Loan               230,976            203,630           228,847            -2,129           +25,217
               subsidies......

        RHIF administrative             440,687            465,886           448,342            +7,655           -17,544
         expenses (transfer to
         RD)..................

        Rental assistance
         program:
            (Sec. 521)........          574,689            586,100           580,000            +5,311            -6,100
            (Sec.                         5,865              5,900             5,900               +35   ................
             502(c)(5)(D))....
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Rental             580,554            592,000           585,900            +5,346            -6,100
               assistance
               program........
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Rural            1,252,217          1,261,516         1,263,089           +10,872            +1,573
               Housing
               Insurance Fund.
                  (Loan              (4,329,512)        (4,041,731)       (4,157,691)        (-171,821)        (+115,960)
                   authorizati
                   on)........
                               =========================================================================================================================
    Mutual and self-help                 33,799             34,000            34,000              +201   ................
     housing grants...........
    Rural housing assistance             45,949             42,500            46,992            +1,043            +4,492
     grants...................
    Farm labor program account           36,093             36,765            31,471            -4,622            -5,294
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, grants and              115,841            113,265           112,463            -3,378              -802
       payments...............
                               =========================================================================================================================
      Total, Rural Housing            1,368,058          1,374,781         1,375,552            +7,494              +771
       Service................
          (Loan authorization)       (4,329,512)        (4,041,731)       (4,157,691)        (-171,821)        (+115,960)
                               =========================================================================================================================
Rural Business-Cooperative
 Service:
    Rural Development Loan
     Fund Program Account:
        (Loan authorization)..          (39,764)           (34,213)          (34,213)          (-5,551)  ................
        Loan subsidy..........           17,206             15,868            15,868            -1,338   ................
        Administrative                    4,247              6,656             4,316               +69            -2,340
         expenses (transfer to
         RD)..................
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Rural                   21,453             22,524            20,184            -1,269            -2,340
           Development Loan
           Fund...............

    Rural Economic Development
     Loans Program Account:
        (Loan authorization)..          (14,914)           (25,003)          (25,003)         (+10,089)  ................
        Direct subsidy........            2,776              4,698             4,698            +1,922   ................
    Rural cooperative                    23,858             21,000            24,000              +142            +3,000
     development grants.......
    Rural empowerment zones              12,592   .................           12,500               -92           +12,500
     and enterprise
     communities grants.......
    Renewable energy program..           22,864             10,770            20,000            -2,864            +9,230
                               =========================================================================================================================
      Total, Rural Business-             83,543             58,992            81,382            -2,161           +22,390
       Cooperative Service....
          (Loan authorization)          (54,678)           (59,216)          (59,216)          (+4,538)  ................
                               =========================================================================================================================
Rural Utilities Service:
    Rural Electrification and
     Telecommunications Loans
     Program Account:
        Loan authorizations:
            Electric:
                Direct, 5              (240,000)          (120,000)         (120,000)        (-120,000)  ................
                 percent......
                Direct,              (1,000,000)          (100,000)         (100,000)        (-900,000)  ................
                 Municipal
                 rate.........
                Direct, FFB...       (1,900,000)        (1,620,000)       (2,100,000)        (+200,000)        (+480,000)
                Direct,                (750,000)          (700,000)       (1,000,000)        (+250,000)        (+300,000)
                 Treasury rate
                Guaranteed              (99,410)          (100,000)         (100,000)            (+590)  ................
                 electric.....
                Guaranteed           (1,000,000)  .................       (1,000,000)  ................      (+1,000,000)
                 underwriting.
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal,          (4,989,410)        (2,640,000)       (4,420,000)        (-569,410)      (+1,780,000)
                   Electric...

            Telecommunications
             :
                Direct, 5              (145,000)          (145,000)         (145,000)  ................  ................
                 percent......
                Direct,                (248,525)          (250,000)         (250,000)          (+1,475)  ................
                 Treasury rate
                Direct, FFB...         (120,000)          (100,000)         (125,000)          (+5,000)         (+25,000)
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal,            (513,525)          (495,000)         (520,000)          (+6,475)         (+25,000)
                   Telecommuni
                   cations....
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Total, Loan        (5,502,935)        (3,135,000)       (4,940,000)        (-562,935)      (+1,805,000)
                   authorizati
                   ons........

        Loan subsidies:
            Electric:
                Direct, 5       ................  .................            3,648            +3,648            +3,648
                 percent......
                Direct,         ................  .................            1,350            +1,350            +1,350
                 Municipal
                 rate.........
                Guaranteed                   60              5,058                60   ................           -4,998
                 electric.....
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal,                  60              5,058             5,058            +4,998   ................
                   Electric...

            Telecommunications
             :
                Direct, 5       ................  .................  ................  ................  ................
                 percent......
                Direct,                     124                100               100               -24   ................
                 Treasury rate
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal,                 124                100               100               -24   ................
                   Telecommuni
                   cations....
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Total, Loan               184              5,158             5,158            +4,974   ................
                   subsidies..

        RETLP administrative             37,630             39,933            38,277              +647            -1,656
         expenses (transfer to
         RD)..................
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Rural                   37,814             45,091            43,435            +5,621            -1,656
           Electrification and
           Telecommunications
           Loans Program
           Account............
              (Loan                  (5,502,935)        (3,135,000)       (4,940,000)        (-562,935)      (+1,805,000)
               authorization).
                               =========================================================================================================================
    Rural Telephone Bank
     Program Account:
        (Loan authorization)..         (173,503)  .................         (175,000)          (+1,497)        (+175,000)
        Direct loan subsidy...  ................  .................  ................  ................  ................
        RTB administrative                3,152              3,328             3,152   ................             -176
         expenses (transfer to
         RD)..................
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Rural                    3,152              3,328             3,152   ................             -176
           Telephone Bank
           Program Account....

    High energy costs grants            (27,835)  .................          (28,000)            (+165)         (+28,000)
     (by transfer)............

    Distance learning,
     telemedicine, and
     broadband program:
        Loan authorizations:
            Distance learning          (300,000)  .................          (20,000)        (-280,000)         (+20,000)
             and telemedicine.
            Broadband                  (598,101)          (331,081)         (600,000)          (+1,899)        (+268,919)
             telecommunication
             s................
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Loan              (898,101)          (331,081)         (620,000)        (-278,101)        (+288,919)
               authorizations.

        Loan subsidies:
            Distance learning
             and telemedicine:
                Direct........  ................  .................              284              +284              +284
                Grants........           38,770             25,000            38,000              -770           +13,000
            Broadband
             telecommunication
             s:
                Direct........           13,039              9,884            12,780              -259            +2,896
                Grants........            8,947   .................            9,000               +53            +9,000
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Total, Loan            60,756             34,884            60,064              -692           +25,180
                   subsidies
                   and grants.
                               =========================================================================================================================
                  Total, Rural          101,722             83,303           106,651            +4,929           +23,348
                   Utilities
                   Service....
                      (Loan          (6,574,539)        (3,466,081)       (5,735,000)        (-839,539)      (+2,268,919)
                   authorizati
                   on)........
                               =========================================================================================================================
                  Total, title        2,447,943          2,209,733         2,441,042            -6,901          +231,309
                   III, Rural
                   Economic
                   and
                   Community
                   Development
                   Programs...
                      (By              (513,551)          (515,803)         (522,087)          (+8,536)          (+6,284)
                   transfer)..
                      (Loan         (10,958,729)        (7,567,028)       (9,951,907)      (-1,006,822)      (+2,384,879)
                   authorizati
                   on)........
                               =========================================================================================================================
    TITLE IV--DOMESTIC FOOD
           PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary               595                799               608               +13              -191
 for Food, Nutrition and
 Consumer Services............

Food and Nutrition Service:
    Child nutrition programs..        6,717,780          6,060,860         6,060,860          -656,920   ................
        Transfer from section         4,699,661          5,319,697         5,319,697          +620,036   ................
         32...................
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Child               11,417,441         11,380,557        11,380,557           -36,884   ................
           nutrition programs.

    Special supplemental              4,611,861          4,787,250         5,050,250          +438,389          +263,000
     nutrition program for
     women, infants, and
     children (WIC)...........
        (Contingent emergency   ................  .................          125,000          +125,000          +125,000
         appropriations)......
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, (WIC)........        4,611,861          4,787,250         5,175,250          +563,389          +388,000

    Food stamp program:
        Expenses..............       26,403,176         29,053,276        29,053,276        +2,650,100   ................
        Reserve...............        3,000,000          3,000,000         3,000,000   ................  ................
        Nutrition assistance          1,402,805          1,448,522         1,448,522           +45,717   ................
         for Puerto Rico and
         Samoa................
        The emergency food              140,000            140,000           140,000   ................  ................
         assistance program...
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Food stamp          30,945,981         33,641,798        33,641,798        +2,695,817   ................
           program............

    Commodity assistance                149,115            169,416           172,081           +22,966            +2,665
     program..................
    Nutrition programs                  137,488            152,227           142,592            +5,104            -9,635
     administration...........
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Food and                47,261,886         50,131,248        50,512,278        +3,250,392          +381,030
       Nutrition Service......
                               =========================================================================================================================
      Total, title IV,               47,262,481         50,132,047        50,512,886        +3,250,405          +380,839
       Domestic Food Programs.
                               =========================================================================================================================
  TITLE V--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE
     AND RELATED PROGRAMS

Foreign Agricultural Service:
    Salaries and expenses,              131,368            143,077           139,162            +7,794            -3,915
     direct appropriation.....
    (Transfer from export                (3,286)            (3,440)           (3,421)            (+135)             (-19)
     loans)...................
    (Transfer from Public Law            (1,069)            (1,102)           (1,097)             (+28)              (-5)
     480).....................
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Salaries and              (135,723)          (147,619)         (143,680)          (+7,957)          (-3,939)
       expenses program level.

Public Law 480 Program and
 Grant Accounts:
    Program account:
        Loan authorization,            (130,892)          (100,000)         (109,000)         (-21,892)          (+9,000)
         direct...............
        Loan subsidies........          103,274             86,420            94,198            -9,076            +7,778
        Ocean freight                    27,835             22,723            22,723            -5,112   ................
         differential grants..
    Title II--Commodities for
     disposition abroad:
        Program level.........       (1,184,967)        (1,185,000)       (1,185,000)             (+33)  ................
        Appropriation.........        1,184,967          1,185,000         1,185,000               +33   ................

    Salaries and expenses:
        Foreign Agricultural              1,069              1,102             1,097               +28                -5
         Service (transfer to
         FAS).................
        Farm Service Agency               1,053              3,119             2,937            +1,884              -182
         (transfer to FSA)....
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal............            2,122              4,221             4,034            +1,912              -187
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Public Law
           480:
              Program level...       (1,184,967)        (1,185,000)       (1,185,000)             (+33)  ................
              Appropriation...        1,318,198          1,298,364         1,305,955           -12,243            +7,591
                               =========================================================================================================================
CCC Export Loans Program
 Account (administrative
 expenses):
    Salaries and expenses
     (Export Loans):
        General Sales Manager             3,286              3,440             3,421              +135               -19
         (transfer to FAS)....
        Farm Service Agency                 841              1,033             1,002              +161               -31
         (transfer to FSA)....
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, CCC Export               4,127              4,473             4,423              +296               -50
           Loans Program
           Account............

McGovern-Dole international              49,705             75,000           100,000           +50,295           +25,000
 food for education and child
 nutrition program grants.....
                               =========================================================================================================================
      Total, title V, Foreign         1,503,398          1,520,914         1,549,540           +46,142           +28,626
       Assistance and Related
       Programs...............
          (By transfer).......           (4,355)            (4,542)           (4,518)            (+163)             (-24)
                               =========================================================================================================================
TITLE VI--RELATED AGENCIES AND
 FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
           SERVICES

 Food and Drug Administration

Salaries and expenses, direct         1,378,779          1,494,517         1,465,267           +86,488           -29,250
 appropriation................
    Prescription Drug User Fee         (249,825)          (284,394)         (284,394)         (+34,569)  ................
     Act......................
    Medical Device User Fee             (31,654)           (33,938)          (33,938)          (+2,284)  ................
     Act......................
    Animal Drug User Fee Act..           (5,000)            (8,000)           (8,000)          (+3,000)  ................
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................       (1,665,258)        (1,820,849)       (1,791,599)        (+126,341)         (-29,250)

    Mammography clinics user            (16,576)           (16,919)          (16,919)            (+343)  ................
     fee (outlay savings).....
    Export and color                     (6,649)            (6,838)           (6,838)            (+189)  ................
     certification............
    Payments to GSA...........         (119,594)          (123,015)         (129,815)         (+10,221)          (+6,800)

Buildings and facilities......            6,959   .................  ................           -6,959   ................
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Food and Drug            1,385,738          1,494,517         1,465,267           +79,529           -29,250
       Administration.........
                               =========================================================================================================================
     INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Commodity Futures Trading                89,901             95,327            95,327            +5,426   ................
 Commission...................
Farm Credit Administration              (40,900)  .................          (41,800)            (+900)         (+41,800)
 (limitation on administrative
 expenses)....................
                               =========================================================================================================================
      Total, title VI, Related        1,475,639          1,589,844         1,560,594           +84,955           -29,250
       Agencies and Food and
       Drug Administration....
                               =========================================================================================================================
 TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Hunger fellowships............            2,982   .................            2,500              -482            +2,500
National Sheep Industry                     496   .................            2,000            +1,504            +2,000
 Improvement Center revolving
 fund.........................
Tree assistance (sec. 747)....           14,912   .................  ................          -14,912   ................
Northern Great Plains Regional            1,491   .................            2,400              +909            +2,400
 Authority....................
Denali Commission.............              994   .................              500              -494              +500
Food stamp program freeze.....            1,988   .................  ................           -1,988   ................
Milk processing and packaging   ................  .................            1,000            +1,000            +1,000
 facilities...................
Alaska private lands wildlife   ................  .................              500              +500              +500
 management...................
                               =========================================================================================================================
      Total, title VII,                  22,863   .................            8,900           -13,963            +8,900
       General provisions.....
                               =========================================================================================================================
     OTHER APPROPRIATIONS

Consolidated Appropriations
 Act, 2004 (Public Law 108-
 199) Conservation Programs

Natural Resources Conservation          149,115   .................  ................         -149,115   ................
 Service (Sec. 102(d)):
 Emergency watershed
 protection program
 (emergency)..................
Tree assistance program                  12,426   .................  ................          -12,426   ................
 (emergency) (Sec. 102(e))....
Emergency conservation prog.             12,426   .................  ................          -12,426   ................
 (emergency) (Sec. 102(f))....
Commodity Credit Corporation                497   .................  ................             -497   ................
 Fund: Livestock indemnity
 prog. (emergency)
 (Sec.102(g)).................
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Other                      174,464   .................  ................         -174,464   ................
       appropriations.........
      Grand total:
          New budget                 86,761,836         83,324,539        84,053,760        -2,708,076          +729,221
           (obligational)
           authority..........
              Appropriations..      (86,587,372)       (83,324,539)      (83,928,760)      (-2,658,612)        (+604,221)
              Emergency                 174,464   .................  ................         -174,464   ................
               Appropriations.
              Contingent        ................  .................         (125,000)        (+125,000)        (+125,000)
               emergency
               Appropriations.
          (By transfer).......         (801,150)          (829,508)         (824,308)         (+23,158)          (-5,200)
          (Loan authorization)      (14,335,870)       (11,470,281)      (13,422,907)        (-912,963)      (+1,952,626)
          (Limitation on               (150,940)          (111,922)         (153,722)          (+2,782)         (+41,800)
           administrative
           expenses)..........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


```