95–815 PDF 

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 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 
(2) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Summary of the Bill: 

Overview and Summary of the Bill ................................................................. 5 

Government Performance and Results Act ............................................................ 5 

Display of Fiscal Year 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 
Page

3 

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

BREAKDOWN BY TITLE 

The amounts of obligational authority for each of the six titles 

are shown in the following table. A detailed tabulation, showing 

comparisons, appears at the end of this report. Recommendations 

for individual appropriation items, projects and activities are carried in this report under the appropriate item headings. 

2004 2005 Committee 

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 community development programs ............................. 2,447,943,000 2,441,042,000 

Title IV: Domestic food programs ............................................................................... 47,262,481,000 50,512,886,000 

Title V: Foreign assistance and related programs ..................................................... 1,503,398,000 1,549,540,000 

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 (obligational) authority ................................................... 86,587,372,000 84,053,760,000 
(5) 

OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY OF THE BILL 

The Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies appropriations bill provides funding for 

a wide array of Federal programs, mostly in the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture [USDA]. These programs include agricultural research, education, and extension activities; natural resources conservation programs; farm income and support programs; marketing 

and inspection activities; domestic food assistance programs; rural 

economic and community development activities, and telecommunications and electrification assistance; and various export and international activities of the USDA. 

The bill also provides funding for the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

[CFTC], and allows the use of collected fees for administrative expenses of the Farm Credit Administration [FCA]. 

Given the budgetary constraints that the Committee faces, the 

bill as reported provides the proper amount of emphasis on agricultural and rural development programs and on other programs and 

activities funded by the bill. It is within the subcommittee’s allocation for fiscal year 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. 
6 

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. 
(7) 

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 
8 

supply. The report of the National Drought Commission, ‘‘Preparing for Drought in the 21st Century’’, recommends that Congress pass a National Drought Preparedness Act. Such an act 

would establish a Federal/non-Federal partnership through a National Drought Council responsible for implementing a national 

drought policy. The Committee expects the Secretary to carry out 

the recommendations of the National Drought Commission and coordinate USDA mission areas to provide a response to droughtstricken areas in as prompt and meaningful a way as possible. 

Administrative Convergence.—The Secretary is expected to seek 

the Committee’s approval before implementing a merger or reduction of any administrative or information technology functions relating to the Farm Service Agency, Natural Resources Conservation 

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. 
9 

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 
10 

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. 
11 

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 fis-
12 

cal 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 agri-
13 

culture-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 egov 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. 
14 

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 
15 

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. 
16 

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 ac-
17 

tivities 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. 
18 

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] 

2004 enacted 2005 budget 

request 

Committee 

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 
19 

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 
20 

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 programrelated audit and investigation activities performed by other Department agencies. 

The activities of this Office are designed to assure compliance 

with existing laws, policies, regulations, and programs of the Department’s agencies, and to provide appropriate officials with the 

means for prompt corrective action where deviations have occurred. 

The scope of audit and investigative activities is large and includes 

administrative, program, and criminal matters. These activities are 

coordinated, when appropriate, with various audit and investigative agencies of the executive and legislative branches of the Government. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Office of Inspector General, the Committee recommends 

an appropriation of $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 
21 

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. 
22 

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 
23 

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 nutri-
24 

tion 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: 
25 

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 
26 

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 
27 

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 semiarid 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, 
28 

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 lo-
29 

cated 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 
30 

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 aflatoxinresistant 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. 
31 

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. 
32 

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. 
33 

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. 
34 

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 
35 

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 MidWestern 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 
36 

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. 
37 

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 
38 

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 
39 

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 longterm 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 be-
40 

tween 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; 
41 

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, 
42 

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, 
43 

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. 
44 

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 
45 

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, 
46 

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 
47 

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. 
48 

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] 

State and facility 

Fiscal year— 

Committee 

recommendation 2004 enacted 2005 budget 

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 Research, 

Peoria ............................................................................................... 2,684 .......................... ..........................

Iowa: National Animal Disease Center, Ames ..................................... .......................... 178,000 122,000 

Kentucky: 

Animal Waste Management Research Laboratory, Bowling 

Green ...................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 2,300 

Forage-Animal Research Laboratory, Lexington ......................... .......................... .......................... 3,000 

Louisiana: ARS Sugarcane Research Laboratory, Houma ................... 1,342 .......................... 3,000 

Maine: Northeast Marine Cold Water Aquaculture Research Center, 

Orono/Franklin ................................................................................. 2,684 .......................... 3,000 

Maryland: 

Abraham Lincoln National Agricultural Library, Beltsville ......... 895 .......................... ..........................

Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, Beltsville ..................... 2,684 .......................... 3,000 

Mississippi: 

Jamie Whitten Delta States Research Center, Stoneville ......................................................................................... 4,831 .......................... 3,000 

Poultry Science Research Facility, Starkville .............................. .......................... .......................... 3,000 

Missouri: National Plant and Genetics Security Center, Columbia .... 2,416 .......................... 5,000 
49 

ARS BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

State and facility 

Fiscal year— 

Committee 

recommendation 2004 enacted 2005 budget 

estimate 

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 
50 

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 pro- vides $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 con-
51 

sidering 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-ofthe-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 Re-
52 

search, 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 2004 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2005 

budget 

Committee 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 Virginia 

State University ................................................................................. 35,788 36,000 36,000 

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 
53 

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

AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2004 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2005 

budget 

Committee recommendation 

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
54 

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

AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2004 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2005 

budget 

Committee recommendation 

Functional genomics (UT) ............................................................. 1,342 .......................... 1,625 

Future foods (IL) ........................................................................... 447 .......................... 475 

Generic commodity promotions, research, and evaluation (NY) .. 174 .......................... ..........................

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 (ID, 

OR, WA) .................................................................................... 407 .......................... 407 

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, CO) ..... 671 .......................... 900 

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 
55 

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

AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2004 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2005 

budget 

Committee recommendation 

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 (NM) ... 220 .......................... 250 

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

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 resources .. 351 .......................... 375 

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 

(VA) ........................................................................................... 533 .......................... 600 

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 resources 

(MT) .......................................................................................... 366 .......................... 450

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 
56 

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

AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2004 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2005 

budget 

Committee recommendation 

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 education grants ..................................................................................... 3,131 2,997 3,500 

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 
57 

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

AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2004 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2005 

budget 

Committee recommendation 

Mississippi Valley State University, curriculum development ...... 933 .......................... 933 

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 (AL) .... 582 .......................... 625 

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 
58 

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. 
59 

The Committee remains determined to see that quality research 

and enhanced human resources development in the agricultural 

and related sciences be a nationwide commitment. Therefore, the 

Committee continues its direction that not less than 10 percent of 

the competitive research grant funds be used for USDA’s agricultural research enhancement awards program (including USDAEPSCoR), in accordance with 7 U.S.C. 450i. 

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 pro-
60 

vided 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 landgrant 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. 
61 

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 2004 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2005 

budget 

Committee 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 University 31,720 32,117 32,117 

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 
62 

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

ACTIVITIES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2004 enacted Fiscal year 2005 

budget 

Committee recommendation 

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 
63 

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 2004 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2005 

budget 

Committee 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 
64 

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 
65 

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 2004 enacted Fiscal year 2005 

budget request 

Committee recommendation 

Pest and disease exclusion: 

Agricultural quarantine inspection ............................................. 25,450 25,031 24,802 
66 

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2004 enacted Fiscal year 2005 

budget request 

Committee recommendation 

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 
67 

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2004 enacted Fiscal year 2005 

budget request 

Committee recommendation 

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 im- port inspection, which includes an increase of $500,000 from the 
68 

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. 
69 

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 
70 

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- 
71 

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 herdtesting, 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. 
72 

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 tu- berculosis 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 
73 

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 
74 

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 
75 

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 pro- vides $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 
76 

$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, 
77 

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 
78 

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 

2003 actual Fiscal year 2004 cur- rent estimate 

Fiscal year 2005 

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 ..............................
79 

ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD, FISCAL YEARS 2003– 

2005—Continued 

2003 actual Fiscal year 2004 current estimate 

Fiscal year 2005 

budget estimate 

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. 
80 

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 mar- keting 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 
81 

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, 
82 

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 
83 

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 selfcontained 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 
84 

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 2004 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2005 

budget request 

Committee 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 
85 

Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, Public Law 103–354. The 

FSA administers a variety of activities, such as the commodity 

price support and production adjustment programs financed by the 

Commodity Credit Corporation; the Conservation Reserve Program 

[CRP]; the Emergency Conservation Program; the Commodity Operation Programs including the warehouse examination function; 

farm ownership, farm operating, emergency disaster, and other 

loan programs; and the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program [NAP], which provides crop loss protection for growers of 

many crops for which crop insurance is not available. In addition, 

FSA currently provides certain administrative support services to 

the Foreign Agricultural Service [FAS] and to the Risk Management Agency [RMA]. 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

[In thousands of dollars] 

Appropriations Transfers from 

program accounts 

Total, FSA, salaries and expenses 

Appropriations, 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, 
86 

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 
87 

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 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2005 

budget 

Committee 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 
88 

LOAN SUBSIDIES AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

[In thousands of dollars] 

Subsidies Administrative expenses 

Total ACIF 

Insured loan Guaranteed 

loan Total Appropriations Transfer to FSA 

Appropriations, 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] 

2004 enacted 2005 budget Committee 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 insur-
89 

ance 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, 
90 

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 
91 

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 suffi-
92 

cient 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. 
(93) 

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 
94 

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. Informa-
95 

tion 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 ap- propriation 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 sagegrouse 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 
96 

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 OnePlan 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 
97 

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. 
98 

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. 
99 

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. 
100 

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. 
101 

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. 
102 

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. 
103 

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. 
(104) 

TITLE III—RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 

The Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–354) abolished 

the Farmers Home Administration, Rural Development Administration, and Rural Electrification Administration and replaced 

those agencies with the Rural Housing and Community Development Service, (currently, the Rural Housing Service), Rural Business and Cooperative Development Service (currently, the Rural 

Business-Cooperative Service), and Rural Utilities Service and 

placed them under the oversight of the Under Secretary for Rural 

Economic and Community Development, (currently, Rural Development). These agencies deliver a variety of programs through a network of State, district, and county offices. 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 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 
105 

address the continuing and increasing demands for marketing and 

purchasing cooperatives. 

The Committee is concerned that the Department is restricting 

not-for-profit developer-owners of essential community facilities 

from entering into contracts to provide services with a third party 

not-for-profit entity for childcare and other related services. The 

Committee strongly encourages the Secretary to address this policy 

prohibition to allow such activities and insure the government’s interests are protected with third party contracts. The developerowner should be responsible for securing Departmental approval 

for any changes in existing contracts addressing issues that include 

services provided, liability, maintenance and administrative fees. 

The Committee 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. 
106 

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 
107 

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 govern-
108 

ments 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 recommendation 

appropriation 

2005 budget 

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 pro- vides $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 
109 

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 
110 

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 StatesMexico border; and $26,000,000 for water and waste disposal systems for Federally Recognized Native American Tribes. In addition, 

the Committee makes up to $13,500,000 available for the circuit 

rider program, 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 
111 

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 UnionLincoln 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 recommendation 2004 appropriation 2005 budget 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 Program Account ................................................................... 37,630 39,933 38,277 

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 
112 

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 setaside funds within rural housing programs to support self-help 

housing, home ownership partnerships, housing preservation and 
113 

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 recommendation 2004 2005 request 

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. 
114 

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 recommendation 2004 level 2005 request 

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 
115 

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 selfhelp 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 
116 

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 
117 

90 days of enactment of this Act. The Secretary should give funding priority to entities with equal or greater matching funds, including housing tax credits for rural housing assistance. Additional 

priority should be provided to entities with experience in the administration of revolving loan funds and the preservation of multifamily housing. 

The following table compares the grant program levels recommended by the Committee to the fiscal year 2004 levels and the 

budget request: 

RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GRANTS 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2004 level 2005 request 

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 workers .. 4,971 .......................... ..........................

Multi-family housing preservation ....................................................... .......................... .......................... 6,000 

Total ........................................................................................ 45,949 42,500 46,992 

FARM LABOR PROGRAM ACCOUNT

[In thousands of dollars] 

Loan level Subsidy 

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. 
118 

RURAL BUSINESS—COOPERATIVE SERVICE

The Rural Business—Cooperative Service [RBS] was established 

by Public Law 103–354, Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, dated October 

13, 1994. Its programs were previously administered by the Rural 

Development Administration, the Rural Electrification Administration, and the Agricultural Cooperative Service. 

The mission of the Rural Business-Cooperative Service is to enhance the quality of life for all rural residents by assisting new and 

existing cooperatives and other businesses through partnership 

with rural communities. The goals and objectives are to: (1) promote a stable business environment in rural America through financial assistance, sound business planning, technical assistance, 

appropriate research, education, and information; (2) support environmentally sensitive economic growth that meets the needs of the 

entire community; and (3) assure that the Service benefits are 

available to all segments of the rural community, with emphasis on 

those most in need. 

RURAL DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2004 level 2005 request 

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. 
119 

RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2004 level 2005 request 

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 en-
120 

hance the operations of agricultural marketing cooperatives in 

rural areas. 

The Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas [ATTRA] 

program was first authorized by the Food Security Act of 1985. The 

program provides information and technical assistance to agricultural producers to adopt sustainable agricultural practices that are 

environmentally friendly and lower production costs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $24,000,000 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. 
121 

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 recommendation 2004 level 2005 request 

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 
122 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2004 level 2005 request 

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 Loans 

Programs Account .............................................................. 37,814 45,091 43,435 

(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] 

Loan level Direct loan 

subsidy 

Administrative 

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 
123 

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 

recommendation 2004 level 2005 request 

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— 

2004 level 2005 request Committee 

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 serv-
124 

ices, 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 dialup 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. 
(125) 

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 
126 

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) 
127 

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] 

Appropriation Section 32 

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 
128 

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 afterschool 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 
129 

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. 
130 

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] 

Child nutrition programs 2004 estimate 2005 budget Committee 

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 Com-
131 

mittee recognizes the value that pooling has played in increasing 

participation in the CACFP program. 

SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS, 

AND CHILDREN [WIC]

Appropriations, 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 
132 

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] 

Expenses Amount in reserve 

Puerto Rico and 

American 

Samoa 

TEFAP commodity purchases 

Total 

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 gro-
133 

cer’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. 
134 

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 
135 

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 nonPresidentially declared disasters and for FNS’ administrative costs 

in connection with relief for all disasters. 

Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program.—The Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program [FMNP] provides WIC or WIC-eligible participants 

with coupons to purchase fresh, nutritious, unprepared foods, such 

as fruits and vegetables, from farmers’ markets. This benefits both 

participants and local farmers by increasing the awareness and use 

of farmers’ markets by low-income households. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Commodity Assistance Program, the Committee recommends an appropriation of $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. 
136 

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 Sup- plemental 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 fol-
137 

lowing: (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. 
(138) 

TITLE V—FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS 

FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

[In thousands of dollars] 

Appropriations Transfers from 

loan accounts Total 

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 attache ́s from the Department of State to the Foreign Agricultural Service. 

The Agency maintains a worldwide agricultural intelligence and 

reporting service to provide U.S. farmers and traders with information on world agricultural production and trade that they can use 

to adjust to changes in world demand for U.S. agricultural products. This is accomplished through a continuous program of reporting by 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 infor-
139 

mation about foreign importers, and performs a wide range of market development activities. 

FAS carries out several export assistance programs to counter 

the adverse effects of unfair trade practices by competitors on U.S. 

agricultural trade. The Export Enhancement Program uses CCCowned commodities as export bonuses to provide export enhancements to U.S. producers. The Market Access Program [MAP] conducts both generic and brand-identified promotional programs in 

conjunction with nonprofit agricultural associations and private 

firms financed through reimbursable CCC payments. 

These programs are supplemented by the Cooperator Program, a 

joint FAS-nonprofit private trade and producer association partnership program developing strategies for U.S. agriculture export expansion. In addition, GSM credit guarantee programs play an integral role in the recent progress of American agriculture in the 

world marketplace. 

The Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 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. 
140 

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 sup-
141 

port 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] 

Credit level Loan subsidy Administrative 

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. 
142 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For Public Law 480, title I, the Committee recommends total ap- propriations 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 Com- mittee 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, de-
143 

velopment 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 
144 

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 

levels 1

Guaranteed loan 

subsidy 1

Administrative 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 
145 

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. 
(146) 

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, 
147 

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] 

Appropriation 

Prescription 

drug user fees 

Medical device user 

fees 

Animal 

drug user fees 

Mammography clinics inspection fees 

Export and 

certification fees Total 

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: 
148 

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION SALARIES AND EXPENSES 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2004 enacted 2005 request 

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. 
149 

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 SummitArgo, 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. 
150 

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 
151 

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 Eval- uation 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 
152 

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 im-
153 

prove 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 
154 

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 nonfood 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. 
155 

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. 
156 

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. 
157 

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. 
(158) 

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. 
159 

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: 
160 

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 
161 

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 

allocation 1

Amount 

of bill 

Committee 

allocation 1

Amount 

of bill 

Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations 

to its subcommittees of amounts in the Budget Resolution 

for 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 for 

2005 ......................................................................................... NA 22,241 NA 18,125 

1 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

2 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

NA: Not applicable. 
162 

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] 

Item 2004 appropriation Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2004 appropriation Budget estimate 

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 Program Analysis ........................................................................................................... 7,694 8,146 8,128 ∂434 ¥18 Homeland Security staff .................................................................................................................................... 496 1,491 1,000 ∂504 ¥491 Office of the Chief Information Officer ............................................................................................................. 15,402 22,093 17,595 ∂2,193 ¥4,498 

Common computing environment ............................................................................................................ 118,585 136,736 125,585 ∂7,000 ¥11,151 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer ................................................................................................................ 5,650 8,063 5,742 ∂92 ¥2,321 Working capital fund ......................................................................................................................................... ............................ 12,850 ............................ ............................ ¥12,850 

Total, Executive Operations .......................................................................................................................... 170,072 219,154 182,021 ∂11,949 ¥37,133 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights ..................................................................................................... 803 819 819 16 ............................Office of Civil Rights ................................................................................................................................................. 17,347 22,283 20,347 ∂3,000 ¥1,936 Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration ................................................................................................ 669 808 682 ∂13 ¥126 Agriculture buildings and facilities and rental payments ........................................................................................ (155,546 ) (203,938 ) (170,870 ) (∂15,324 ) (¥33,068 ) 

Payments to GSA ............................................................................................................................................... 123,179 128,319 128,319 ∂5,140 ............................Building operations and maintenance .............................................................................................................. 32,367 41,642 37,551 ∂5,184 ¥4,091 Repairs, renovations, and construction ............................................................................................................ ............................ 33,977 5,000 ∂5,000 ¥28,977 

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 Secretary for Congressional Relations ................................................................................. 3,774 4,263 3,852 ∂78 ¥411 Office of Communications .......................................................................................................................................... 9,174 10,288 9,365 ∂191 ¥923 Office of the Inspector General .................................................................................................................................. 76,825 78,392 78,289 ∂1,464 ¥103 Office of the General Counsel .................................................................................................................................... 34,495 38,589 36,236 ∂1,741 ¥2,353 Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics .................................................................. 592 805 605 ∂13 ¥200 
163 

Economic Research Service ........................................................................................................................................ 70,981 80,032 75,268 ∂4,287 ¥4,764 National Agricultural Statistics Service ..................................................................................................................... 128,161 137,594 130,299 ∂2,138 ¥7,295 

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 Research Service ............................................................................................................ 1,145,902 1,165,597 1,263,099 ∂117,197 ∂97,502 

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service: 

Research and education activities ................................................................................................................... 617,780 501,540 628,492 ∂10,712 ∂126,952 Native American Institutions Endowment Fund ................................................................................................ (9,000 ) (12,000 ) (12,000 ) (∂3,000 ) ............................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 disadvantaged farmers .................................................................................................. 5,935 5,935 5,935 ............................ ............................

Total, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service ....................................................... 1,113,035 1,005,514 1,134,730 ∂21,695 ∂129,216 

Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs ................................................................... 721 804 733 ∂12 ¥71 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 Health Inspection Service ..................................................................................... 721,296 833,357 791,833 ∂70,537 ¥41,524 

Agricultural Marketing Service: 

Marketing Services ............................................................................................................................................ 74,985 85,998 78,198 ∂3,213 ¥7,800 

Standardization user fees ........................................................................................................................ (5,000 ) (5,000 ) (5,000 ) ............................ ............................

(Limitation on administrative expenses, from fees collected) ......................................................................... (62,577 ) (64,459 ) (64,459 ) (∂1,882 ) ............................Funds for strengthening markets, income, and supply (transfer from section 32) ........................................ 15,392 15,800 15,800 ∂408 ............................Payments to states and possessions ............................................................................................................... 3,318 1,347 3,847 ∂529 ∂2,500 

Total, Agricultural Marketing Service ........................................................................................................... 93,695 103,145 97,845 ∂4,150 ¥5,300 

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration: 

Salaries and expenses ...................................................................................................................................... 35,678 44,150 37,299 ∂1,621 ¥6,851 Limitation on inspection and weighing services .............................................................................................. (42,463 ) (42,463 ) (42,463 ) ............................ ............................

Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety ........................................................................................................... 595 803 608 ∂13 ¥195 Food Safety and Inspection Service ........................................................................................................................... 779,882 838,660 823,757 ∂43,875 ¥14,903 
164 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2004 appropriation Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2004 appropriation Budget estimate 

Lab accreditation fees ...................................................................................................................................... (1,000 ) (1,000 ) (1,000 ) ............................ ............................

Total, Production, Processing, and Marketing .............................................................................................. 4,602,719 4,836,271 4,901,839 ∂299,120 ∂65,568 

Farm Assistance Programs 

Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services .............................................................. 631 933 648 ∂17 ¥285 Farm Service Agency: 

Salaries and expenses ...................................................................................................................................... 982,934 1,007,877 1,004,032 ∂21,098 ¥3,845 (Transfer from export loans) ............................................................................................................................. (841 ) (1,033 ) (1,002 ) (∂161 ) (¥31 ) (Transfer from Public Law 480) ........................................................................................................................ (1,053 ) (3,119 ) (2,937 ) (∂1,884 ) (¥182 ) (Transfer from ACIF) .......................................................................................................................................... (281,350 ) (305,011 ) (293,764 ) (∂12,414 ) (¥11,247 ) 

Subtotal, transfers from program accounts ................................................................................................. (283,244 ) (309,163 ) (297,703 ) (∂14,459 ) (¥11,460 ) Total, Salaries and expenses ........................................................................................................................ (1,266,178 ) (1,317,040 ) (1,301,735 ) (∂35,557 ) (¥15,305 ) 

State mediation grants ..................................................................................................................................... 3,951 4,000 4,000 ∂49 ............................Dairy indemnity program ................................................................................................................................... 100 100 100 ............................ ............................

Subtotal, Farm Service Agency ..................................................................................................................... 986,985 1,011,977 1,008,132 ∂21,147 ¥3,845 

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 ) ............................
165 

Unsubsidized guaranteed ....................................................................................................... (1,192,920 ) (1,200,000 ) (1,000,000 ) (¥192,920 ) (¥200,000 ) Subsidized guaranteed ........................................................................................................... (264,678 ) (266,253 ) (300,000 ) (∂35,322 ) (∂33,747 ) 

Subtotal .............................................................................................................................. (2,071,458 ) (2,116,253 ) (1,950,000 ) (¥121,458 ) (¥166,253 ) 

Indian tribe land acquisition loans ................................................................................................ (2,000 ) (2,000 ) (2,000 ) ............................ ............................Natural disasters emergency insured loans ................................................................................... ............................ (25,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥25,000 ) Boll weevil eradication loans .......................................................................................................... (100,000 ) (60,000 ) (100,000 ) ............................ (∂40,000 ) 

Total, Loan authorizations .......................................................................................................... (3,246,249 ) (3,803,253 ) (3,362,000 ) (∂115,751 ) (¥441,253 ) 

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 guaranteed ....................................................................................................... 39,724 38,760 32,300 ¥7,424 ¥6,460 Subsidized guaranteed ........................................................................................................... 33,799 35,438 39,930 ∂6,131 ∂4,492 

Subtotal .............................................................................................................................. 162,042 139,783 137,815 ¥24,227 ¥1,968 

Indian tribe land acquisition .......................................................................................................... ............................ 105 105 ∂105 ............................Natural disasters emergency insured loans ................................................................................... ............................ 3,235 ............................ ............................ ¥3,235 

Total, Loan subsidies .................................................................................................................. 195,492 161,243 154,985 ¥40,507 ¥6,258 

ACIF expenses: 

Salaries and expense (transfer to FSA) .......................................................................................... 281,350 305,011 293,764 ∂12,414 ¥11,247 Administrative expenses .................................................................................................................. 7,901 8,000 8,000 ∂99 ............................

Total, ACIF expenses ................................................................................................................... 289,251 313,011 301,764 ∂12,513 ¥11,247 Total, Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund .................................................................................. 484,743 474,254 456,749 ¥27,994 ¥17,505 

(Loan authorization) ........................................................................................................... (3,246,249 ) (3,803,253 ) (3,362,000 ) (∂115,751 ) (¥441,253 ) 

Total, Farm Service Agency ........................................................................................................ 1,471,728 1,486,231 1,464,881 ¥6,847 ¥21,350 

Risk Management Agency .......................................................................................................................................... 71,001 91,582 72,044 ∂1,043 ¥19,538 
166 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2004 appropriation Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2004 appropriation Budget estimate 

Total, Farm Assistance Programs ................................................................................................................. 1,543,360 1,578,746 1,537,573 ¥5,787 ¥41,173 

Corporations 

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation: Federal crop insurance corporation fund ....................................................... 3,765,000 4,095,128 4,095,128 ∂330,128 ............................Commodity Credit Corporation Fund: 

Reimbursement for net realized losses ............................................................................................................ 22,937,000 16,452,377 16,452,377 ¥6,484,623 ............................Hazardous waste management (limitation on expenses) ................................................................................. (5,000 ) (5,000 ) (5,000 ) ............................ ............................

Total, Corporations ........................................................................................................................................ 26,702,000 20,547,505 20,547,505 ¥6,154,495 ............................Total, title I, Agricultural Programs ............................................................................................................. 32,848,079 26,962,522 26,986,917 ¥5,861,162 ∂24,395 

(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 administrative expenses) ............................................................................................. (110,040 ) (111,922 ) (111,922 ) (∂1,882 ) ............................

TITLE II—CONSERVATION PROGRAMS 

Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment ................................................................... 741 936 758 ∂17 ¥178 Natural Resources Conservation Service: 

Conservation operations .................................................................................................................................... 847,971 710,412 845,863 ¥2,108 ∂135,451 Watershed surveys and planning ...................................................................................................................... 10,500 5,083 7,500 ¥3,000 ∂2,417 Watershed and flood prevention operations ..................................................................................................... 86,487 40,173 64,000 ¥22,487 ∂23,827 Watershed rehabilitation program .................................................................................................................... 29,629 10,091 25,000 ¥4,629 ∂14,909 Resource conservation and development .......................................................................................................... 51,641 50,760 50,760 ¥881 ............................Farm bill technical assistance ......................................................................................................................... ............................ 92,024 ............................ ............................ ¥92,024 

Total, Natural Resources Conservation Service ............................................................................................ 1,026,228 908,543 993,123 ¥33,105 ∂84,580 Total, title II, Conservation Programs .......................................................................................................... 1,026,969 909,479 993,881 ¥33,088 ∂84,402 
167 

TITLE III—RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 

Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development ............................................................................................... 632 929 645 ∂13 ¥284 Rural Development: 

Rural community advancement program .......................................................................................................... 752,956 541,979 733,360 ¥19,596 ∂191,381 

(Transfer out) ........................................................................................................................................... (¥28,000 ) ............................ (¥28,000 ) ............................ (¥28,000 ) 

Total, Rural community advancement program .................................................................................. 752,956 541,979 733,360 ¥19,596 ∂191,381 

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 from program accounts ....................................................................................... (485,716 ) (515,803 ) (494,087 ) (∂8,371 ) (¥21,716 ) Total, RD expenses .............................................................................................................................. (626,748 ) (665,552 ) (637,539 ) (∂10,791 ) (¥28,013 ) Total, Rural Development .................................................................................................................... 893,988 691,728 876,812 ¥17,176 ∂185,084 

Rural Housing Service: 

Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account: 

Loan authorizations: 

Single family direct (sec. 502) ....................................................................................................... (1,351,397 ) (1,100,000 ) (1,200,000 ) (¥151,397 ) (∂100,000 ) 

Unsubsidized guaranteed ....................................................................................................... (2,709,094 ) (2,725,185 ) (2,725,185 ) (∂16,091 ) ............................

Subtotal, Single family ...................................................................................................... (4,060,491 ) (3,825,185 ) (3,925,185 ) (¥135,306 ) (∂100,000 ) 

Housing repair (sec. 504) ............................................................................................................... (34,797 ) (35,000 ) (35,000 ) (∂203 ) ............................Rental housing (sec. 515) .............................................................................................................. (115,857 ) (60,000 ) (90,000 ) (¥25,857 ) (∂30,000 ) Site loans (sec. 524) ....................................................................................................................... (5,045 ) (5,045 ) (5,045 ) ............................ ............................Multi-family housing guarantees (sec. 538) .................................................................................. (99,410 ) (100,000 ) (85,960 ) (¥13,450 ) (¥14,040 ) Multi-family housing credit sales ................................................................................................... (1,491 ) (1,501 ) (1,501 ) (∂10 ) ............................Single family housing credit sales ................................................................................................. (10,000 ) (10,000 ) (10,000 ) ............................ ............................Self-help housing land develop. (sec. 523) ................................................................................... (2,421 ) (5,000 ) (5,000 ) (∂2,579 ) ............................

Total, Loan authorizations .......................................................................................................... (4,329,512 ) (4,041,731 ) (4,157,691 ) (¥171,821 ) (∂115,960 ) 
168 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2004 appropriation Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2004 appropriation Budget estimate 

Loan subsidies: 

Single family direct (sec. 502) ....................................................................................................... 125,274 127,380 138,960 ∂13,686 ∂11,580 

Unsubsidized guaranteed ....................................................................................................... 39,668 33,608 33,608 ¥6,060 ............................

Subtotal, Single family ...................................................................................................... 164,942 160,988 172,568 ∂7,626 ∂11,580 

Housing repair (sec. 504) ............................................................................................................... 9,555 10,171 10,171 ∂616 ............................Rental housing (sec. 515) .............................................................................................................. 49,830 28,254 42,381 ¥7,449 ∂14,127 Site loans (sec. 524) ....................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................Multi-family housing guarantees (sec. 538) .................................................................................. 5,915 3,490 3,000 ¥2,915 ¥490 Multi-family housing credit sales ................................................................................................... 659 727 727 ∂68 ............................Single family housing credit sales ................................................................................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................Self-help housing land develop. (sec. 523) ................................................................................... 75 ............................ ............................ ¥75 ............................

Total, Loan subsidies .................................................................................................................. 230,976 203,630 228,847 ¥2,129 ∂25,217 

RHIF administrative expenses (transfer to RD) ....................................................................................... 440,687 465,886 448,342 ∂7,655 ¥17,544 Rental assistance program: 

(Sec. 521) ........................................................................................................................................ 574,689 586,100 580,000 ∂5,311 ¥6,100 (Sec. 502(c)(5)(D)) .......................................................................................................................... 5,865 5,900 5,900 ∂35 ............................

Total, Rental assistance program .............................................................................................. 580,554 592,000 585,900 ∂5,346 ¥6,100 Total, Rural Housing Insurance Fund ......................................................................................... 1,252,217 1,261,516 1,263,089 ∂10,872 ∂1,573 

(Loan authorization) ........................................................................................................... (4,329,512 ) (4,041,731 ) (4,157,691 ) (¥171,821 ) (∂115,960 ) 

Mutual and self-help housing grants ............................................................................................................... 33,799 34,000 34,000 ∂201 ............................Rural housing assistance grants ...................................................................................................................... 45,949 42,500 46,992 ∂1,043 ∂4,492 Farm labor program account ............................................................................................................................ 36,093 36,765 31,471 ¥4,622 ¥5,294 

Subtotal, grants and payments .................................................................................................................... 115,841 113,265 112,463 ¥3,378 ¥802 
169 

Total, Rural Housing Service ........................................................................................................................ 1,368,058 1,374,781 1,375,552 ∂7,494 ∂771 

(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 expenses (transfer to RD) ................................................................................................ 4,247 6,656 4,316 ∂69 ¥2,340 

Total, Rural Development Loan Fund .................................................................................................. 21,453 22,524 20,184 ¥1,269 ¥2,340 

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 development grants ............................................................................................................. 23,858 21,000 24,000 ∂142 ∂3,000 Rural empowerment zones and enterprise communities grants ...................................................................... 12,592 ............................ 12,500 ¥92 ∂12,500 Renewable energy program ............................................................................................................................... 22,864 10,770 20,000 ¥2,864 ∂9,230 

Total, Rural Business-Cooperative Service ................................................................................................... 83,543 58,992 81,382 ¥2,161 ∂22,390 

(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 percent .................................................................................................................... (240,000 ) (120,000 ) (120,000 ) (¥120,000 ) ............................Direct, Municipal rate ............................................................................................................ (1,000,000 ) (100,000 ) (100,000 ) (¥900,000 ) ............................Direct, FFB .............................................................................................................................. (1,900,000 ) (1,620,000 ) (2,100,000 ) (∂200,000 ) (∂480,000 ) Direct, Treasury rate ............................................................................................................... (750,000 ) (700,000 ) (1,000,000 ) (∂250,000 ) (∂300,000 ) Guaranteed electric ................................................................................................................ (99,410 ) (100,000 ) (100,000 ) (∂590 ) ............................Guaranteed underwriting ........................................................................................................ (1,000,000 ) ............................ (1,000,000 ) ............................ (∂1,000,000 ) 

Subtotal, Electric ............................................................................................................... (4,989,410 ) (2,640,000 ) (4,420,000 ) (¥569,410 ) (∂1,780,000 ) 

Telecommunications: 

Direct, 5 percent .................................................................................................................... (145,000 ) (145,000 ) (145,000 ) ............................ ............................Direct, Treasury rate ............................................................................................................... (248,525 ) (250,000 ) (250,000 ) (∂1,475 ) ............................Direct, FFB .............................................................................................................................. (120,000 ) (100,000 ) (125,000 ) (∂5,000 ) (∂25,000 ) 

Subtotal, Telecommunications ........................................................................................... (513,525 ) (495,000 ) (520,000 ) (∂6,475 ) (∂25,000 ) 
170 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2004 appropriation Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2004 appropriation Budget estimate 

Total, Loan authorizations ................................................................................................. (5,502,935 ) (3,135,000 ) (4,940,000 ) (¥562,935 ) (∂1,805,000 ) 

Loan subsidies: 

Electric: 

Direct, 5 percent .................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ 3,648 ∂3,648 ∂3,648 Direct, Municipal rate ............................................................................................................ ............................ ............................ 1,350 ∂1,350 ∂1,350 Guaranteed electric ................................................................................................................ 60 5,058 60 ............................ ¥4,998 

Subtotal, Electric ............................................................................................................... 60 5,058 5,058 ∂4,998 ............................

Telecommunications: 

Direct, 5 percent .................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................Direct, Treasury rate ............................................................................................................... 124 100 100 ¥24 ............................

Subtotal, Telecommunications ........................................................................................... 124 100 100 ¥24 ............................Total, Loan subsidies ......................................................................................................... 184 5,158 5,158 ∂4,974 ............................

RETLP administrative expenses (transfer to RD) .................................................................................... 37,630 39,933 38,277 ∂647 ¥1,656 

Total, Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program Account .................................. 37,814 45,091 43,435 ∂5,621 ¥1,656 

(Loan authorization) .................................................................................................................... (5,502,935 ) (3,135,000 ) (4,940,000 ) (¥562,935 ) (∂1,805,000 ) 

Rural Telephone Bank Program Account: 

(Loan authorization) ................................................................................................................................. (173,503 ) ............................ (175,000 ) (∂1,497 ) (∂175,000 ) Direct loan subsidy .................................................................................................................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................RTB administrative expenses (transfer to RD) ........................................................................................ 3,152 3,328 3,152 ............................ ¥176 

Total, Rural Telephone Bank Program Account ................................................................................... 3,152 3,328 3,152 ............................ ¥176 

High energy costs grants (by transfer) ............................................................................................................ (27,835 ) ............................ (28,000 ) (∂165 ) (∂28,000 ) 
171 

Distance learning, telemedicine, and broadband program: 

Loan authorizations: 

Distance learning and telemedicine ............................................................................................... (300,000 ) ............................ (20,000 ) (¥280,000 ) (∂20,000 ) Broadband telecommunications ...................................................................................................... (598,101 ) (331,081 ) (600,000 ) (∂1,899 ) (∂268,919 ) 

Total, Loan authorizations .......................................................................................................... (898,101 ) (331,081 ) (620,000 ) (¥278,101 ) (∂288,919 ) 

Loan subsidies: 

Distance learning and telemedicine: 

Direct ...................................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ 284 ∂284 ∂284 Grants ..................................................................................................................................... 38,770 25,000 38,000 ¥770 ∂13,000 

Broadband telecommunications: 

Direct ...................................................................................................................................... 13,039 9,884 12,780 ¥259 ∂2,896 Grants ..................................................................................................................................... 8,947 ............................ 9,000 ∂53 ∂9,000 

Total, Loan subsidies and grants ..................................................................................... 60,756 34,884 60,064 ¥692 ∂25,180 Total, Rural Utilities Service .............................................................................................. 101,722 83,303 106,651 ∂4,929 ∂23,348 

(Loan authorization) .................................................................................................. (6,574,539 ) (3,466,081 ) (5,735,000 ) (¥839,539 ) (∂2,268,919 ) 

Total, title III, Rural Economic and Community Development Programs ......................... 2,447,943 2,209,733 2,441,042 ¥6,901 ∂231,309 

(By transfer) .............................................................................................................. (513,551 ) (515,803 ) (522,087 ) (∂8,536 ) (∂6,284 ) (Loan authorization) .................................................................................................. (10,958,729 ) (7,567,028 ) (9,951,907 ) (¥1,006,822 ) (∂2,384,879 ) 

TITLE IV—DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS 

Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services .............................................................. 595 799 608 ∂13 ¥191 Food and Nutrition Service: 

Child nutrition programs ................................................................................................................................... 6,717,780 6,060,860 6,060,860 ¥656,920 ............................

Transfer from section 32 ......................................................................................................................... 4,699,661 5,319,697 5,319,697 ∂620,036 ............................

Total, Child nutrition programs ........................................................................................................... 11,417,441 11,380,557 11,380,557 ¥36,884 ............................

Special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children (WIC) ......................................... 4,611,861 4,787,250 5,050,250 ∂438,389 ∂263,000 

(Contingent emergency appropriations) ................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ 125,000 ∂125,000 ∂125,000 

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 for Puerto Rico and Samoa .................................................................................... 1,402,805 1,448,522 1,448,522 ∂45,717 ............................
172 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2004 appropriation Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2004 appropriation Budget estimate 

The emergency food assistance program ................................................................................................ 140,000 140,000 140,000 ............................ ............................

Total, Food stamp program ................................................................................................................. 30,945,981 33,641,798 33,641,798 ∂2,695,817 ............................

Commodity assistance program ........................................................................................................................ 149,115 169,416 172,081 ∂22,966 ∂2,665 Nutrition programs administration ................................................................................................................... 137,488 152,227 142,592 ∂5,104 ¥9,635 

Total, Food and Nutrition Service ................................................................................................................. 47,261,886 50,131,248 50,512,278 ∂3,250,392 ∂381,030 Total, title IV, Domestic Food Programs ....................................................................................................... 47,262,481 50,132,047 50,512,886 ∂3,250,405 ∂380,839 

TITLE V—FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS 

Foreign Agricultural Service: 

Salaries and expenses, direct appropriation .................................................................................................... 131,368 143,077 139,162 ∂7,794 ¥3,915 (Transfer from export loans) ............................................................................................................................. (3,286 ) (3,440 ) (3,421 ) (∂135 ) (¥19 ) (Transfer from Public Law 480) ........................................................................................................................ (1,069 ) (1,102 ) (1,097 ) (∂28 ) (¥5 ) 

Total, Salaries and expenses program level ................................................................................................ (135,723 ) (147,619 ) (143,680 ) (∂7,957 ) (¥3,939 ) 

Public Law 480 Program and Grant Accounts: 

Program account: 

Loan authorization, direct ........................................................................................................................ (130,892 ) (100,000 ) (109,000 ) (¥21,892 ) (∂9,000 ) Loan subsidies ......................................................................................................................................... 103,274 86,420 94,198 ¥9,076 ∂7,778 Ocean freight differential grants ............................................................................................................. 27,835 22,723 22,723 ¥5,112 ............................

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 Service (transfer to FAS) ......................................................................................... 1,069 1,102 1,097 ∂28 ¥5 Farm Service Agency (transfer to FSA) .................................................................................................... 1,053 3,119 2,937 ∂1,884 ¥182 
173 

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 (transfer to FAS) ................................................................................................ 3,286 3,440 3,421 ∂135 ¥19 Farm Service Agency (transfer to FSA) .................................................................................................... 841 1,033 1,002 ∂161 ¥31 

Total, CCC Export Loans Program Account ......................................................................................... 4,127 4,473 4,423 ∂296 ¥50 

McGovern-Dole international food for education and child nutrition program grants ............................................. 49,705 75,000 100,000 ∂50,295 ∂25,000 

Total, title V, Foreign Assistance and Related Programs ............................................................................ 1,503,398 1,520,914 1,549,540 ∂46,142 ∂28,626 

(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 appropriation ............................................................................................................. 1,378,779 1,494,517 1,465,267 ∂86,488 ¥29,250 

Prescription Drug User Fee Act ......................................................................................................................... (249,825 ) (284,394 ) (284,394 ) (∂34,569 ) ............................Medical Device User Fee Act ............................................................................................................................. (31,654 ) (33,938 ) (33,938 ) (∂2,284 ) ............................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 fee (outlay savings) .............................................................................................. (16,576 ) (16,919 ) (16,919 ) (∂343 ) ............................Export and color certification ............................................................................................................................ (6,649 ) (6,838 ) (6,838 ) (∂189 ) ............................Payments to GSA ............................................................................................................................................... (119,594 ) (123,015 ) (129,815 ) (∂10,221 ) (∂6,800 ) 

Buildings and facilities .............................................................................................................................................. 6,959 ............................ ............................ ¥6,959 ............................

Total, Food and Drug Administration ........................................................................................................... 1,385,738 1,494,517 1,465,267 ∂79,529 ¥29,250 

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission .................................................................................................................. 89,901 95,327 95,327 ∂5,426 ............................
174 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2004 appropriation Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2004 appropriation Budget estimate 

Farm Credit Administration (limitation on administrative expenses) ....................................................................... (40,900 ) ............................ (41,800 ) (∂900 ) (∂41,800 ) 

Total, title VI, Related Agencies and Food and Drug Administration ......................................................... 1,475,639 1,589,844 1,560,594 ∂84,955 ¥29,250 

TITLE VII—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Hunger fellowships ..................................................................................................................................................... 2,982 ............................ 2,500 ¥482 ∂2,500 National Sheep Industry Improvement Center revolving fund ................................................................................... 496 ............................ 2,000 ∂1,504 ∂2,000 Tree assistance (sec. 747) ......................................................................................................................................... 14,912 ............................ ............................ ¥14,912 ............................Northern Great Plains Regional Authority .................................................................................................................. 1,491 ............................ 2,400 ∂909 ∂2,400 Denali Commission ..................................................................................................................................................... 994 ............................ 500 ¥494 ∂500 Food stamp program freeze ....................................................................................................................................... 1,988 ............................ ............................ ¥1,988 ............................Milk processing and packaging facilities .................................................................................................................. ............................ ............................ 1,000 ∂1,000 ∂1,000 Alaska private lands wildlife management ............................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ 500 ∂500 ∂500 

Total, title VII, General provisions ................................................................................................................ 22,863 ............................ 8,900 ¥13,963 ∂8,900 

OTHER APPROPRIATIONS 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (Public Law 108–199) Conservation Programs Natural Resources Conservation Service (Sec. 102(d)): Emergency watershed protection program (emergency) ... 149,115 ............................ ............................ ¥149,115 ............................Tree assistance program (emergency) (Sec. 102(e)) ................................................................................................. 12,426 ............................ ............................ ¥12,426 ............................Emergency conservation prog. (emergency) (Sec. 102(f)) ......................................................................................... 12,426 ............................ ............................ ¥12,426 ............................Commodity Credit Corporation Fund: Livestock indemnity prog. (emergency) (Sec.102(g)) ..................................... 497 ............................ ............................ ¥497 ............................

Total, Other appropriations ........................................................................................................................... 174,464 ............................ ............................ ¥174,464 ............................Grand total: 

New budget (obligational) authority .................................................................................................... 86,761,836 83,324,539 84,053,760 ¥2,708,076 ∂729,221 

Appropriations ............................................................................................................................. (86,587,372 ) (83,324,539 ) (83,928,760 ) (¥2,658,612 ) (∂604,221 ) Emergency Appropriations .......................................................................................................... 174,464 ............................ ............................ ¥174,464 ............................Contingent emergency Appropriations ........................................................................................ ............................ ............................ (125,000 ) (∂125,000 ) (∂125,000 ) 
175 

(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 administrative expenses) ............................................................................................. (150,940 ) (111,922 ) (153,722 ) (∂2,782 ) (∂41,800 ) 

Æ