```

[Senate Report 109-266]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                       Calendar No. 477
109th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session                                                     109-266

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

 
   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2007
                                _______
                                

                 June 22, 2006.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                                 REPORT

                        [To accompany H.R. 5384]

    The Committee on Appropriations, to which was referred the 
bill (H.R. 5384) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies 
programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for 
other purposes, reports the same to the Senate with an 
amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.

Total obligational authority, fiscal year 2007

Total of bill as reported to the Senate\1\.............. $98,258,792,000
Amount of 2006 appropriations\2\........................ 102,897,101,000
Amount of 2007 budget estimate..........................  93,312,118,000
Amount of House allowance...............................  93,526,233,000
Bill as recommended to Senate compared to--
    2006 appropriations.................................  -4,638,309,000
    2007 budget estimate................................  +4,946,674,000
    House allowance.....................................  +4,732,559,000

\1\Including emergency appropriations of $4,159,000,000.
\2\Including emergency appropriations of $2,169,305,000.

                                CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Summary of the Bill:
    Overview and Summary of the Bill.............................     5
    User Fee Legislative Proposals...............................     5
    Display of Fiscal Year 2006 Spending Levels..................     6
    Emergency Spending...........................................     6
    Reports to Congress..........................................     6
Title I:
    Agricultural Programs:
        Production, Processing, and Marketing:
            Office of the Secretary..............................     8
            Executive Operations.................................     9
            Office of the Chief Information Officer..............    11
            Common Computing Environment.........................    12
            Office of the Chief Financial Officer................    12
            Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights...    13
            Office of Civil Rights...............................    13
            Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration.    14
            Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental 
              Payments...........................................    14
            Hazardous Materials Management.......................    15
            Departmental Administration..........................    15
            Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional 
              Relations..........................................    16
            Office of Communications.............................    16
            Office of Inspector General..........................    17
            Office of the General Counsel........................    17
            Office of the Under Secretary for Research, 
              Education, and Economics...........................    18
            Economic Research Service............................    19
            National Agricultural Statistics Service.............    19
            Agricultural Research Service........................    20
            Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 
              Service............................................    39
            Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and 
              Regulatory Programs................................    51
            Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service...........    51
            Agricultural Marketing Service.......................    63
            Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards 
              Administration.....................................    68
            Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety........    69
            Food Safety and Inspection Service...................    69
            Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign 
              Agricultural Services..............................    71
            Farm Service Agency..................................    72
            Risk Management Agency...............................    76
        Corporations:
            Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund..............    77
            Commodity Credit Corporation Fund....................    78
Title II:
    Conservation Programs:
        Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and 
          Environment............................................    82
        Natural Resources Conservation Service...................    83
Title III:
    Rural Development Programs:
        Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development......    96
        Rural Community Advancement Program......................    97
        Rural Housing Service....................................   104
        Rural Business--Cooperative Service......................   110
        Renewable Energy Program.................................   113
        Rural Utilities Service..................................   113
Title IV:
    Domestic Food Programs:
        Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and 
          Consumer Services......................................   117
        Food and Nutrition Service...............................   117
Title V:
    Foreign Assistance and Related Programs: Foreign Agricultural 
      Service....................................................   128
Title VI:
    Related Agencies and Food and Drug Administration:
        Food and Drug Administration.............................   136
        Independent Agencies:
            Commodity Futures Trading Commission.................   148
            Farm Credit Administration...........................   148
Title VII: General Provisions....................................   150
Title VIII: Emergency Agricultural Disaster Assistance...........   153
Program, Project, and Activity...................................   153
Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI of the Standing Rules of 
  the Sen- 
  ate............................................................   155
Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules 
  of the Senate..................................................   156
Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of 
  the 
  Senate.........................................................   156
Budgetary Impact of Bill.........................................   164

                           BREAKDOWN BY TITLE

    The amounts of obligational authority for each of the seven 
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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         2007 Committee
                                           2006          recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I: Agricultural programs....    $35,403,790,000    $30,621,607,000
Title II: Conservation programs...        994,165,000        991,207,000
Title III: Rural economic and           2,503,055,000      2,223,490,000
 community development programs...
Title IV: Domestic food programs..     58,894,142,000     57,106,802,000
Title V: Foreign assistance and         1,468,711,000      1,489,168,000
 related programs.................
Title VI: Related agencies........      1,572,123,000      1,670,168,000
Title VII: General provisions.....        -42,090,000        157,350,000
Title VIII: Emergency agricultural  .................      3,999,000,000
 disaster assistance..............
Other appropriations..............      2,103,205,000  .................
                                   -------------------------------------
      Total, new budget               102,897,101,000     98,258,792,000
       (obligational) authority...
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY OF THE BILL

    The Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies appropriations bill 
provides funding for a wide array of Federal programs, mostly 
in the U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA]. These programs 
include agricultural research, education, and extension 
activities; natural resources conservation programs; farm 
income and support programs; marketing and inspection 
activities; domestic food assistance programs; rural housing, 
economic and community development, 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 2007.
    All accounts in the bill have been closely examined to 
ensure that an appropriate level of funding is provided to 
carry out the programs of USDA, FDA, CFTC, and FCA. Details on 
each of the accounts, the funding level, and the Committee's 
justifications for the funding levels are included in the 
report.
    The Committee has encouraged the consideration of grant and 
loan applications from various entities. The Committee expects 
the Department only to approve those applications judged 
meritorious when subjected to the established review process.

                     User Fee Legislative Proposals

    The fiscal year 2007 budget assumes the enactment, 
collection, and expenditure of user fees for the following 
agencies: the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; the 
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration; the 
Agricultural Marketing Service; the Food Safety and Inspection 
Service; and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission. The 
budget proposal for the aforementioned agencies includes a 
reduction of over $300,000,000 from current levels, to reflect 
the amount assumed to be collected by the unauthorized user 
fees.
    The Committee reminds the administration that 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.
    The Committee notes that the legislation necessary to 
authorize collection of the user fees at the various USDA 
agencies was not submitted until May 4, 2006, approximately 3 
months after the President's budget was submitted to Congress. 
As of June 20, 2006, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission 
still had not transmitted legislation authorizing its user fees 
to Congress. It is apparent from the leisurely pace with which 
the administration transmitted the user fee legislation that it 
is not sincere in its desire to enact these user fees. The 
Committee views this as disingenuous at best. The Committee 
respectfully requests that the administration refrain from this 
budget gimmickry in future fiscal years.

              Display Of Fiscal Year 2006 Spending Levels

    Section 3801 of chapter 8 of title III of division B of the 
Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to 
Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic 
Influenza Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-148) imposed, with few 
exceptions, a 1 percent across-the-board rescission. The 1 
percent rescission applied to all discretionary accounts, with 
the exception of levels of budget authority provided through 
the collection of user fees, provided in the Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-97). Accordingly, all 
fiscal year 2006 levels displayed in this report for which the 
1 percent rescission applies reflect the 1 percent rescission.

                           Emergency Spending

    The congressional budget resolution agreed to by Congress 
for fiscal year 2006, and both the House and Senate versions of 
the fiscal year 2007 budget resolution, include provisions 
relating to emergency spending. These provisions require a 
statement of how the emergency provisions meet the criteria for 
emergency spending identified by the budget resolutions.
    In title VII of this bill, the Committee recommends, and 
specifically identifies, emergency spending for fiscal year 
2007. The spending is related to unanticipated needs and is for 
situations that are sudden, urgent, and unforeseen at the 
Veterans Administration. These events fit the specific criteria 
for emergencies.
    In title VIII of this bill, the Committee recommends, and 
specifically identifies, emergency spending for fiscal year 
2007. The spending is related to unanticipated needs and is for 
situations that are sudden, urgent, and unforeseen caused by an 
agricultural disaster caused by weather, fire, pestilence, crop 
failure, and related conditions. These events fit the specific 
criteria for emergencies.

                          Reports to Congress

    The Committee has, throughout this report, requested 
agencies to provide studies and reports on various issues. The 
Committee utilizes these reports to evaluate program 
performance and make decisions on future appropriations. The 
Committee requests that all studies and reports be provided as 
one document per Department in an agreed upon format within 120 
days after the date of enactment, unless an alternative 
submission schedule is specifically stated in the report 
request.

                                TITLE I

                         AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS

                 Production, Processing, and Marketing

                        Office of the Secretary

Appropriations, 2006....................................      $5,076,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................      11,540,000
House allowance.........................................       5,499,000
Committee recommendation................................      10,515,000

    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

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $10,515,000 
for the Office of the Secretary.
    Budget Execution Report.--The Committee directs the 
Department to submit quarterly budget execution reports showing 
the status of obligations for all components of the Department. 
The report should include the total obligational authority 
appropriated (new budget authority plus unobligated carryover), 
amount allotted to date, current year obligations, unobligated 
authority (the difference between total obligational authority 
and current year obligations), expenditures to date, and 
unexpended obligations. This budget execution information is to 
be provided at the account level of detail. The report shall be 
submitted no later than 30 days after the close of each 
quarter.
    Chesapeake Bay Watershed.--The Committee notes the need to 
develop partnerships to address vital resource needs in the 
Chesapeake Bay watershed. Section 2003 of the Farm Security and 
Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-171) provides for 
innovative uses of conservation funding to aid regions, such as 
the Chesapeake Bay, in implementing conservation practices 
important to protecting natural resources. The Committee 
expects the Department to implement a program specifically 
under the authorities of section 2003 and issue a request for 
proposals under this program in fiscal year 2007.
    Greenbook Charges.--The Committee is concerned that charges 
assessed to agencies by the USDA, known as greenbook charges, 
have grown excessively over the last few years. The disclosure 
of these charges to Congress is limited and may impact program 
delivery. The Committee directs the Government Accountability 
Office to review greenbook charges at USDA for all agencies 
funded through the Act accompanying this report. Additionally, 
the Committee directs the USDA to explicitly present greenbook 
charge information in future budget justifications, including 
previous and current fiscal year charges and a description of 
how the charges are assessed.
    Provincial Reconstruction Teams.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $5,000,000 for Provincial 
Reconstruction Teams. These funds will allow USDA employees to 
play a vital role in the stabilization and revitalization of 
the agricultural and rural sectors of Afghanistan and Iraq.
    Service-disabled Veteran-owned Small Businesses.--The 
Committee strongly supports the Secretary's Service-disabled 
Veteran-owned Small Business strategic initiative that supports 
Executive Order 13360, signed by the President on October 21, 
2004. The Committee directs the Secretary to work toward 
attaining or exceeding the mandated 3 percent goal for 
contracts awarded to service-disabled veteran-owned small 
businesses. The Committee encourages the Secretary to take 
appropriate steps necessary to increase the participation of 
service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses in all USDA 
contracting efforts, including Natural Resources Conservation 
Service and Farm Service Agency contracting for environmental 
assessments and environmental impact statements, preparation of 
reviews for Conservation Reserve Enhancement Programs, on-going 
National Environmental Policy Act training, and other 
environmental programs. Additionally, the Committee encourages 
the Secretary to review all applicable Information Technology 
planned contract requirements to establish a goal of an 
aggregate of 5 percent of the dollar value of these contracts 
toward the participation of service-disabled veteran-owned 
small businesses. The Secretary is to report to the Committee 
no later than 120 days after the enactment of this Act on the 
steps taken to increase participation of service-disabled 
veteran-owned small businesses in contracts at USDA.

                          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, 2006....................................     $10,434,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................      11,226,000
House allowance.........................................      11,226,000
Committee recommendation................................      11,226,000

    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

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $11,226,000 
for the Office of the Chief Economist. The Committee 
recommendation includes $1,500,000 for preferred procurement 
and labeling for biobased products.

                       NATIONAL APPEALS DIVISION

Appropriations, 2006....................................     $14,379,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................      14,795,000
House allowance.........................................      14,795,000
Committee recommendation................................      14,795,000

    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

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $14,795,000 
for the National Appeals Division.

                 OFFICE OF BUDGET AND PROGRAM ANALYSIS

Appropriations, 2006....................................      $8,215,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................       8,479,000
House allowance.........................................       8,479,000
Committee recommendation................................       8,479,000

    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

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $8,479,000 for 
the Office of Budget and Program Analysis.

                        HOMELAND SECURITY STAFF

Appropriations, 2006....................................        $925,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................       1,114,000
House allowance.........................................         954,000
Committee recommendation................................         954,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $954,000 for 
the Homeland Security Staff.

                Office of the Chief Information Officer

Appropriations, 2006....................................     $16,297,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................      16,936,000
House allowance.........................................      16,936,000
Committee recommendation................................      16,936,000

    The Office of the Chief Information Officer was established 
in August 1996 (40 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), pursuant to the 
Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, which required the establishment of 
a Chief Information Officer for major Federal agencies. This 
office provides policy guidance, leadership, coordination, and 
direction to the Department's information management and 
information technology investment activities in support of USDA 
program delivery, and is the lead office in USDA e-gov efforts. 
The Office provides long-range planning guidance, implements 
measures to ensure that technology investments are economical 
and effective, coordinates interagency information resources 
management projects, and implements standards to promote 
information exchange and technical interoperability. In 
addition, the Office of the Chief Information Officer is 
responsible for certain activities financed under the 
Department's Working Capital Fund (7 U.S.C. 2235). The Office 
also provides telecommunication and automated data processing 
[ADP] services to USDA agencies through the National 
Information Technology Center with locations in Fort Collins, 
Colorado, and Kansas City, Missouri. Direct ADP operational 
services are also provided to the Office of the General 
Counsel, Office of Communications, the Office of the Chief 
Financial Officer, and Executive Operations.
    On November 28, 2004, the information technology staffs of 
the Service Center Agencies [SCA] were converged into one IT 
organization within the office of the Chief Information 
Officer; this converged organization is named Information 
Technology Services and replaces a network of cross-agency 
teams used to coordinate IT infrastructure investment within 
the SCA and allows for unified management of the IT 
infrastructure.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $16,936,000 
for the Office of the Chief Information Officer.

                      Common Computing Environment

Appropriations, 2006....................................    $108,971,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................     108,900,000
House allowance.........................................      38,395,000
Committee recommendation................................................

    The Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 
U.S.C. 6901 et seq.) requires the Secretary of Agriculture to 
procure and use computer systems in a manner that enhances 
efficiency, productivity, and client services, and that 
promotes computer information sharing among agencies of the 
Department. The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 requires USDA to 
maximize the value of information technology acquisitions to 
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of USDA programs. 
Since its beginning in 1996, the USDA Service Center 
Modernization initiative has been working to restructure county 
field offices, modernize and integrate business approaches and 
replace the current, aging information systems with a modern 
Common Computing Environment that optimizes information 
sharing, customer service, and staff efficiencies.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee does not recommend an appropriation for the 
Common Computing Environment. The Committee recommendation 
includes funding for Common Computing Environment activities in 
the appropriate agency accounts.

                 Office of the Chief Financial Officer

Appropriations, 2006....................................      $5,815,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................      19,931,000
House allowance.........................................       5,991,000
Committee recommendation................................      11,667,000

    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

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $11,667,000 
for the Chief Financial Officer.
    National Finance Center.--The Committee encourages USDA to 
continue the cost-effective, cross-servicing activities 
currently conducted by the National Finance Center [NFC] 
including an integrated payroll and personnel system, financial 
management and administrative accounting, and management of 
health benefits programs.
    The Committee is concerned that more than 9 months after 
Hurricane Katrina USDA has not restored NFC data center 
operations at a permanent site. Instead, NFC data center 
operations are still located in temporary space in 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Therefore, the Committee directs 
USDA to locate a permanent site for data center operations. In 
addition, the Committee encourages USDA to give close 
consideration to the establishment of an alternate work site 
for continuity of operations for the NFC in the State of 
Louisiana.

           Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights

Appropriations, 2006....................................        $813,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................         836,000
House allowance.........................................         836,000
Committee recommendation................................         836,000

    The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 
established by Section 10704 of the Farm Security and Rural 
Investment Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-171), provides oversight 
of civil rights and related functions. This includes 
coordination of the administration of civil rights laws and 
regulations for employees of the Department of Agriculture and 
participants in programs of the Department, and ensuring 
compliance with civil rights laws.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $836,000 for 
the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights.

                         Office of Civil Rights

Appropriations, 2006....................................     $19,908,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................      22,650,000
House allowance.........................................      22,650,000
Committee recommendation................................      22,650,000

    The Office of Civil Rights provides overall leadership 
responsibility for all departmentwide 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

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $22,650,000 
for the Office of Civil Rights.

          Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration

Appropriations, 2006....................................        $669,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................         773,000
House allowance.........................................         736,000
Committee recommendation................................         681,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $681,000 for 
the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration.

        Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments

Appropriations, 2006....................................    $185,857,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................     209,814,000
House allowance.........................................     206,669,000
Committee recommendation................................     209,814,000

    Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments.--
Department headquarters presently operates in a four-building 
Government-owned complex in downtown Washington, DC, and in 
leased buildings in the Metropolitan Washington, DC, area. 
Annual appropriations finance payments to the General Services 
Administration [GSA] for leased space and related services. 
Under this arrangement USDA operates, maintains, and repairs 
D.C. complex buildings, while GSA remains responsible for major 
nonrecurring repairs. GSA charges commercial rent rates 
pursuant to the Public Buildings Amendments of 1972, and 
agencies may review rate procedures and exercise rights to 
appeal. For the last several years the Department has 
implemented a strategic space plan to locate staff more 
efficiently, renovate its buildings, and eliminate safety 
hazards, particularly in the Agriculture South Building.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $209,814,000 
for Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments.
    The following table reflects the Committee's specific 
recommendations for this account as compared to the fiscal year 
2006 and budget request levels:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    2007 budget      Committee
                                                                   2006 enacted       request     recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rental Payments.................................................         146,257         155,851         155,851
Building Operations.............................................          39,600          53,963          53,963
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
  Total.........................................................         185,857         209,814         209,814
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     Hazardous Materials Management

Appropriations, 2006....................................     $11,880,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................      12,020,000
House allowance.........................................      12,020,000
Committee recommendation................................      12,020,000

    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 an appropriation of $12,020,000 
for Hazardous Materials Management.

                      Departmental Administration

Appropriations, 2006....................................     $22,872,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................      28,302,000
House allowance.........................................      24,114,000
Committee recommendation................................      24,114,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $24,114,000 
for Departmental Administration.
    Washington Semester American Indian Program.--The Committee 
continues strong support for USDA participation in the 
Washington Internships for Native Students [WINS] program, an 
American Indian/Alaska Native [AI/AN] internship program. 
Executive Order 13270 directs Federal agencies to provide 
improved opportunities and resource access to tribal college 
and other AI/AN post-secondary education students. Consistent 
with this Executive Order, the Committee urges USDA to maintain 
the annual average number of positions placed in past summers, 
and expects that the Department will place no less than 25 WINS 
AI/AN students each summer. The Committee recommends that the 
Department assign responsibility for coordination of the WINS 
program to Departmental Administration to ensure student intern 
sponsorship and placement with agencies managing natural 
resource or community development programs benefiting AI/AN or 
rural disadvantaged communities.

     Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations

Appropriations, 2006....................................      $3,783,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................       3,940,000
House allowance.........................................       3,940,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,830,000

    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

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,830,000 for 
the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional 
Relations.
    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, 2006....................................      $9,414,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................       9,695,000
House allowance.........................................       9,695,000
Committee recommendation................................       9,695,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $9,695,000 for 
the Office of Communications.

                    Office of the Inspector General

Appropriations, 2006....................................     $79,533,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................      82,493,000
House allowance.........................................      82,493,000
Committee recommendation................................      82,493,000

    The Office of the Inspector General was established October 
12, 1978 (Public Law 95-452), by the Inspector General Act of 
1978. This Act expanded and provided specific authorities for 
the activities of the Office of the Inspector General which had 
previously been carried out under the general authorities of 
the Secretary of Agriculture.
    The Office is administered by an inspector general who 
reports directly to the Secretary of Agriculture. Functions and 
responsibilities of this Office include direction and control 
of audit and investigative activities within the Department, 
formulation of audit and investigative policies and procedures 
regarding Department programs and operations, and analysis and 
coordination of program-related audit and investigation 
activities performed by other Department agencies.
    The activities of this Office are designed to assure 
compliance with existing laws, policies, regulations, and 
programs of the Department's agencies, and to provide 
appropriate officials with the means for prompt corrective 
action where deviations have occurred. The scope of audit and 
investigative activities is large and includes administrative, 
program, and criminal matters. These activities are 
coordinated, when appropriate, with various audit and 
investigative agencies of the executive and legislative 
branches of the government.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $82,493,000 
for the Office of the Inspector General. The Committee 
recommendation includes the fiscal year 2006 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, 2006....................................     $38,957,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................      40,647,000
House allowance.........................................      40,455,000
Committee recommendation................................      40,647,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $40,647,000 
for the Office of the General Counsel.

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

Appropriations, 2006....................................        $592,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................         694,000
House allowance.........................................         651,000
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

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $605,000 for 
the Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and 
Economics.
    Special Research, Education, and Extension Activities.--The 
Committee is aware of the need for special research, education, 
and extension activities which are made available on a 
discretionary basis under 7 U.S.C. 450i(c) and similar 
authorities. These grants are necessary in order to conduct 
research to facilitate or expand promising breakthroughs in 
areas of food and agricultural sciences and to ensure that 
these activities are further assimilated into the food, 
agriculture and rural sectors through higher education and 
extension programs. The Committee also believes that research, 
education, and extension activity funds made available on a 
discretionary basis should be sustained by additional funding 
from competitively-based or private ongoing sources.
    The Committee expects that specially awarded grants should 
be used to meet specific research, education, and extension 
objectives rather than primarily to supplement other funding 
sources on an indefinite basis. The Committee expects that 
prior to the receipt of an award under 7 U.S.C. 450i(c), or 
grants made under the Research and Education or Extension 
Service Federal Administration headings of the Cooperative 
State Research, Education, and Extension Service, the grantee 
must provide a report to the Committee that describes the 
specific objectives for which these funds will be used, 
methodologies to measure performance and determine when the 
objectives will be met, and the expected date of completion for 
the stated objective. If the report fails to identify a 
specific date for project completion, the Committee shall 
assume the objectives will be complete by the end of fiscal 
year 2007.
    The Committee has, in the past, continued funding special 
research grants [SRGs] in excess of the 3-year time period 
contemplated in the authorizing statute (7 U.S.C. 450i(c)). The 
Committee is concerned that this has lead to stagnation in 
research. Additionally, the Committee believes that without 
regular turnover of discretionary research, the ability to 
facilitate or expand promising breakthroughs in areas of the 
food and agricultural sciences of importance to the United 
States is compromised. Therefore, the Committee, beginning in 
fiscal year 2008, will no longer fund SRGs for more than 3 
years.

                       Economic Research Service

Appropriations, 2006....................................     $75,172,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................      82,544,000
House allowance.........................................      80,963,000
Committee recommendation................................      75,963,000

    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

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $75,963,000 
for the Economic Research Service. The Committee directs that 
no less than the fiscal year 2006 level be used to implement 
the ``Organic Production and Market Data Initiative'' included 
in section 7407 of Public Law 107-171.

                National Agricultural Statistics Service

Appropriations, 2006....................................    $139,293,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................     152,584,000
House allowance.........................................     148,219,000
Committee recommendation................................     148,719,000

    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 is taken every 5 years and 
provides comprehensive data on the agricultural economy 
including: data on the number of farms, land use, production 
expenses, farm product values, value of land and buildings, 
farm size and characteristics of farm operators, market value 
of agricultural production sold, acreage of major crops, 
inventory of livestock and poultry, and farm irrigation 
practices.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $148,719,000 
for the National Agricultural Statistics Service. Included in 
this amount is $36,582,000 for the Census of Agriculture.
    Organic Data Collection.--The Committee is pleased that 
NASS is working to expand the quantity of organic questions 
included in the Census of Agriculture, and is aware that there 
has been interest expressed in the need for a follow-up survey. 
Therefore, the Committee encourages NASS to take all necessary 
steps, including a follow-up survey, to collect in-depth 
coverage on acreage, yield, production, inventory, production 
practices, sales and expenses, marketing channels, and 
demographics of the organics industry.
    Potato Objective Yield Survey.--The Committee expects NASS 
to continue the potato objective yield survey.

                     Agricultural Research Service

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006....................................  $1,123,654,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................   1,001,385,000
House allowance.........................................   1,057,603,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,127,553,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,127,553,000 
for salaries and expenses of the Agricultural Research Service.
    For fiscal year 2007, the Committee recommends funding 
increases, as specified below, for ongoing research activities. 
The remaining increase in appropriations from the fiscal year 
2006 level is to be applied to pay and related cost increases 
to prevent the further erosion of the agency's capacity to 
maintain a viable research program at all research locations.
    The Committee expects the agency to give attention to the 
prompt implementation and allocation of funds provided for the 
purposes identified by Congress.
    In complying with the Committee's directives, ARS is 
expected not to redirect support for programs from one State to 
another without prior notification to and approval by the House 
and Senate Committees on Appropriations in accordance with the 
reprogramming procedures specified in this Act. Unless 
otherwise directed, the Agricultural Research Service shall 
implement appropriations by programs, projects, commodities, 
and activities as specified by the Appropriations Committees. 
Unspecified reductions necessary to carry out the provisions of 
this Act are to be implemented in accordance with the 
definitions contained in the ``Program, Project, and Activity'' 
section of this report.
    The Committee's recommendations with respect to specific 
areas of research are as follows:
    Agricultural Information.--The Committee recommends an 
increase of $540,000 for the National Agricultural Library to 
support library and information services, including $150,000 to 
strengthen collaborative programs with tribal college libraries 
and $40,000 to Drake University.
    Air Quality Research.--Agricultural operations produce a 
variety of particulates and gases that influence air quality. 
Agriculture, through wind erosion, tillage and harvest 
operations, burning, diesel-powered machinery and animal 
operations, is a source of particulate matter that can cause 
pulmonary problems to humans. The Committee recognizes that 
sustained research is needed to quantify these emissions, 
determine emission factors, and to develop management practices 
for producers to address this problem. The Committee recommends 
an increase of $200,000 for collaborative research with Utah 
State University's Space Dynamics Laboratory to develop and 
evaluate sensors, protocols, and statistical procedures that 
accurately measure particulates and gaseous emissions from 
agriculture operations.
    APHIS Support.--U.S. agriculture is faced with increasingly 
diverse and severe exotic emerging animal and plant diseases. 
In response to these diseases, ARS works closely with APHIS in 
providing significant scientific research required for 
effective regulatory action. The Committee supports the budget 
request to develop diagnostic methods for emerging diseases of 
citrus to confirm infection for epidemiological studies and 
regulatory actions. The Committee recommends an increase of 
$1,000,000 for the following locations for specific research 
studies: Fort Detrick, Maryland (Citrus Leprosis Virus) 
$300,000; and Parlier, California (Asian Citrus Canker) 
$300,000. In addition, the Committee supports the budget 
request for expanded research on Sudden Oak Death and 
recommends $400,000 to Corvallis, Oregon, for this purpose.
    Appalachian Fruit Research Station/Codling Moth.--The 
Committee recognizes the importance of fruit research carried 
out at the Appalachian Fruit Research Station in Kearneysville, 
West Virginia and recommends an increase of $400,000 for 
codling moth research.
    Appalachian Horticulture Research.--The Committee is aware 
that ornamental horticulture, floriculture and nursery crops, 
collectively constitute the third most important crop in the 
United States, surpassed only by corn and soybeans, with an 
average estimated value of more than $11,000,000,000 a year. 
Tennessee has a vibrant nursery industry and a growing 
floriculture industry. The Committee recommends an increase of 
$100,000 for collaborative research with the University of 
Tennessee and Tennessee State University, including efforts to 
develop resistant genes in dogwoods and other woody 
ornamentals, new tissue culture techniques, and techniques to 
enable rapid deployment of new cultivars for the marketplace. 
This program is managed through the ARS Poplarville, 
Mississippi, Research Station.
    Aquaculture (Hagerman Station).--The Committee recommends 
an increase of $300,000 to support an ARS scientist at the 
Hagerman Station, and to rear and maintain broodstock from 
selected strains and family lines, and to support multi-
location operational and partnership activities with the 
University of Idaho.
    Aquaculture Research.--The Committee acknowledges the 
importance of avoiding duplication in the research administered 
by the USDA 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, 
Mississippi.
    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. The fungi benefit crops through 
increased nutrient update, increased resistance to disease and 
drought, and improved soil water holding capacity. The fungi 
are dependent on their plant host for sugars and other 
substances. Understanding the physiological relationships 
between AMF and their plant hosts will help scientists develop 
ways to mass-produce the best fungi and apply them in the field 
to stimulate crop growth and yield. The Committee recommends 
the fiscal year 2006 funding level to the Rodale Institute's 
Farming Systems Trial for fungi research.
    Avian Influenza.--Avian influenza presents a major disease 
threat to the U.S. poultry industry. The recent outbreak of 
H5N1 avian influenza in chickens and people in Asia, Africa, 
and Europe illustrates the potential public health threats 
faced by this country. The Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $3,000,000 for expanded research on avian 
influenza at Athens, Georgia for the purpose of validating 
diagnostic technologies required for both nucleic acids and 
antibodies; understanding virus persistence and transmission in 
host reservoirs; and for developing and characterizing 
effective countermeasures.
    Bee Genetic Resources Research.--The Committee recognizes 
the importance of crop pollination research carried out by ARS 
and recommends an increase of $100,000 for Logan, Utah for non-
Apis research.
    Bioenergy Research.--Soaring energy prices, instability of 
petroleum exporting countries, and environmental concerns 
dictate the need to develop alternative domestic sources of 
energy from agricultural commodities. The Committee recommends 
an increase of $1,800,000 which includes $500,000 for 
bioenergy, bioprocessing, and bioproduct utilization research 
at Pullman, Washington; $500,000 for energy sugarcane biofuel 
research at Houma, Louisiana; $250,000 for biomass crop 
production research at Brookings, South Dakota; $250,000 for 
peanut oil biofuel research at Stillwater, Oklahoma; and 
$300,000 for collaborative bioenergy research with the 
University of Central Florida.
    Bioinformatics Institute for Model Plant Species.--The 
Committee recommends an increase of $300,000 to expand current 
agricultural genome bioinformatics research carried out by the 
Bioinformatics Institute for Model Plant Species, National 
Center for Genome Resources at Santa Fe, New Mexico.
    Biomedical Materials in Plants.--Continued 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 
recommends the fiscal year 2006 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 2006 level.
    Biotechnology Research to Improve Crops and Livestock.--
Biotechnology research has opened the path for sequencing and 
mapping the genes of crops and livestock, marking genes for 
adding precision to breeding of improved plants and animals, 
and identifying gene products through proteomics technology. 
Other technological advancements can be achieved in the 
livestock industry through the development of imaging at the 
molecular level using light, heat, and/or fluorescing 
signatures. These biotechnology efforts generate huge volumes 
of data, which must be managed, transmitted electronically, and 
analyzed. The Committee recommends the fiscal year 2006 funding 
level at Stoneville, Mississippi, to support cooperative 
research in genomics and bioinformatics and in the use of 
biophotonics for the imaging of animal physiological processes 
at the cellular level.
    Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy.--The Committee is aware 
of the serious health and economic consequences associated with 
bovine spongiform encephalopathy [BSE] and supports expanded 
research in the areas of pathogenesis, diagnostics, and 
intervention. The Committee recommends an increase of 
$3,000,000 which includes BSE risk assessment, species 
susceptibility, and animal tests at Ames, Iowa ($2,000,000); 
pathophysiology of BSE and feed decontamination at Albany, 
California ($600,000); and research on transmissible spongiform 
encephalopathy [TSE] strains at Pullman, Washington ($400,000). 
The Committee also recommends increases for expanded research 
to identify genetic variations associated with diseases 
susceptibility in cattle, sheep, and wildlife at Ames, Iowa 
($1,000,000) and at Clay Center, Nebraska ($1,000,000). The 
Committee also recommends increases for expanded research to 
develop effective countermeasures to control and eradicate TSE 
agents at Albany, California ($200,000); Ames, Iowa ($600,000) 
and at Pullman, Washington ($200,000).
    Broiler Production in the Mid-South.--Reduced broiler 
production costs are essential for the industry to increase net 
profit and remain competitive internationally. The Committee 
recognizes the importance of the cooperation between the ARS 
Poultry Research Unit and the Mississippi Agricultural and 
Forestry Experiment Station at Mississippi State. This 
cooperation has resulted in improved bird nutrition, control of 
mycoplasma disease with vaccines, and overall health, vigor, 
and growth of the birds through improved housing environmental 
controls. The Committee recommends the fiscal year 2006 funding 
level for cooperative research on reducing ammonia levels in 
poultry litter, improving environmental controls, and reducing 
mortality in broiler flocks.
    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 recommends the fiscal 
year 2006 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, North Dakota.
    Coffee and Cocoa.--The disease resistance and alternative 
crop research program for coffee and cocoa has important 
economic benefits and implications for U.S. foreign policy 
goals in South Central America and West Africa. As a globally 
marketable cash crop, cocoa can provide an alternative, 
environmentally beneficial choice for small farmers to abandon 
illegal crops. Cocoa is produced primarily by small farmers in 
the tropics of South Central America and West Africa that is 
also under severe disease pressure which threatens the 
stability of the world's supply of cocoa and the economies of 
other cocoa-producing nations. The Committee recommends the 
fiscal year 2006 funding level for this research on coffee and 
cocoa.
    Cotton Ginning Laboratory.--The Committee recommends an 
increase of $200,000 for ARS cotton ginning research at 
Stoneville, Mississippi.
    Cropping Systems Research.--Crop management practices to 
limit erosion on the highly erodible soils of Tennessee and 
other southern States impacts soybean diseases, both favorably 
and adversely. Research is needed to optimize disease control 
while maintaining the best crop management practices to protect 
soil and water quality. The Committee recommends an increase of 
$150,000 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, Wisconsin. The 
Committee recommends an increase of $600,000 for expanded dairy 
forage research at the center.
    Delta Human Nutrition Research.--The Committee recognizes 
the significant benefits to the health of rural populations 
from nutrition and dietary research at the Delta Human 
Nutrition Research Laboratory at Stoneville, Mississippi Center 
and recommends an increase of $400,000 for that critical 
effort.
    Drought Mitigation.--With an estimated cost to the Nation 
of $6,000,000,000 to $8,000,000,000 annually, drought is 
perhaps the most pervasive and devastating acts of nature. The 
Committee recommends an increase of $750,000 to reduce 
agriculture's vulnerability to drought, which includes $250,000 
each to Phoenix, Arizona; Riverside, California; and Akron, 
Colorado, for specific research on wastewater irrigation.
    Emerging Diseases of Crops.--Continued development of 
pathogen detection, exclusion, and quarantine treatment 
technologies is important for keeping new diseases from 
becoming established in the United States and for producing 
fruits, crops, and commodities that can be shipped and sold in 
markets around the world. The Committee supports the budget 
request and recommends an increase of $500,000 for expanded 
research to mitigate the impact of citrus canker at Fort 
Pierce, Florida and $300,000 for expanded research on pathogens 
of fruits and nursery crops at Beltsville, Maryland.
    Fish Diseases.--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 to support 
fish health. Vaccinations, successful in other animals, appear 
to be the best means of preventing diseases. The Committee 
recommends an increase of $300,000 for the ARS Fish Disease and 
Parasitic Research Laboratory at Auburn, Alabama.
    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 recommends the fiscal year 2006 funding level for 
floriculture and nursery research aimed at reducing chemical 
use, improved post-harvest life of flowers and plants, disease 
and pest resistant flowers and plants, control of root 
diseases, robotics research, and control of run-off from 
greenhouse and nursery operations.
    Food Safety.--The Committee supports the Department's 
request to expand research on pre- and post-harvest food safety 
research. Additional appropriations are provided to develop 
food animal surveillance and epidemiology programs for dairy 
animals at Beltsville, Maryland for $250,000. An increase of 
$200,000 is recommended for research on pathogens at the pre-
harvest stage at College Station, Texas. The Committee also 
supports expanded research to develop detection and processing 
methodologies on liquid egg products contamination at Wyndmoor, 
Pennsylvania for $250,000. 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 recommends an 
increase of $300,000 for research on the detection of food-
borne pathogens. The Committee also recommends $350,000 to 
Fargo, North Dakota, for the identification of toxic chemical 
residues and heavy metals that pose a food security risk.
    Forage and Range Research.--The Committee recommends an 
increase of $300,000 to be used to establish a germplasm 
geneticist research position at the USDA-ARS Forage and Range 
Research Laboratory at Logan, Utah. The germplasm geneticist 
position will be responsible for developing drought-resistant 
turfgrasses for western States.
    Genetic Resources.--The Committee supports the request for 
additional appropriations to preserve germplasm for traits of 
economic importance of livestock and poultry and to acquire, 
enhance, and characterize genetic resources of plants. The 
Committee recommends an increase of $200,000 each to Clay 
Center, Nebraska for cattle, poultry, swine, and sheep, 
germplasm; to Raleigh, North Carolina for genetic resource 
enhancement of maize; and to Aberdeen, Idaho for genetic 
resource enhancement of barley.
    Genomics Research.--The productivity of the U.S. beef 
industry is largely the result of the long-term genetic 
improvement research conducted over the last 75 years. While 
significant genetic change in beef output measures such as 
growth and meat yield and quality has been achieved, there has 
been virtually no change in traits directly affecting the cost 
of production, such as efficiency of energy utilization and 
reproductive rate. The Committee supports the budget request 
for expanded research on applied genomics for livestock 
production efficiency and recommends an increase of $550,000 
for Clay Center, Nebraska and $200,000 for Miles City, Montana. 
In addition, an increase of $250,000 is recommended to St. 
Paul, Minnesota for oat genomic research.
    Grazinglands Research.--The Committee recommends an 
increase of $200,000 for the Grazinglands Research Laboratory 
at El Reno, Oklahoma to expand important agronomic research in 
the efficient use of plant protein by grazing livestock.
    Great Lakes Aquaculture Research.--The Committee recognizes 
the important research studies that ARS carries out nationwide 
that benefit the aquaculture industry and the American 
consumer. Expanded research is essential if we are to improve 
production technology of Great Lakes species such as whitefish, 
lake trout, yellow perch, walleye, and northern pike. The 
Committee recommends an increase of $250,000 for a 
collaborative research 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 recommends the fiscal year 2006 funding level for 
research on the genetic improvement of hybrid striped bass.
    Hawaii Agriculture Research Center.--The Committee 
recommends the fiscal year 2006 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.
    Improved Crop Production Practices.--The Committee is aware 
of the excellent research progress on the integration of 
conservation tillage, precision agriculture, and management of 
poultry litter carried out at the National Soil Dynamics 
Laboratory, Auburn, Alabama. The Committee recommends an 
increase of $250,000 for expanded research activities.
    Improved Forage-Livestock Research.--The Committee 
recognizes the successful cooperation between ARS and the 
University of Kentucky scientists on forage-animal-based 
enterprises. The efficiency of nutrient use by forage animals 
can be improved by a better understanding of animal and 
microbial interaction at the Animal Rumen-forage interface, as 
well as to promote the health, well-being, and productivity of 
grazing animals by optimizing forages they consume. The 
Committee recommends an increase of $300,000 to continue this 
important cooperative research program. The purpose is to 
improve productivity, profitability, competitiveness and 
sustainability of animal enterprises dependent on forages.
    Malignanat Catarrhat Fever Virus.--The Committee 
acknowledges the importance of research for the sheep-
associated virus, Malignant Catarrhal Fever [MCF], infecting 
small ruminants. The Committee recommends the fiscal year 2006 
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, Washington, in 
cooperation with the ARS sheep station at Dubois, Idaho, and 
Washington State University.
    Medicinal and Bioactive Crops.--Increased research is 
needed to carry out studies on medicinal and bioactive crops as 
a medium to produce vaccines and other biomedical products for 
the prevention of many human and animal diseases. The Committee 
recommends an increase of $200,000 for Oxford, Mississippi, for 
cooperative research with the Stephen F. Austin State 
University, and $200,000 for the U.S. National Arboretum for 
cooperative research with the University of Maryland.
    Medusahead Research.--Medusahead, and other annual grasses, 
are destroying the agricultural economy, ecology, and fires 
regimes of the Great Basin. These weeds have invaded about 27 
million acres, and are spreading across the region at an 
alarming rate. These weeds displace native vegetation on which 
much of the rural economies depend. Medusahead, and other 
grasses, displace habitat for important wildlife, such as sage 
grouse. The Committee recommends an increase of $300,000 to 
ARS' Burns, Oregon research laboratory.
    Michael Fields Agricultural Institute.--The Committee 
recommends the fiscal year 2006 funding level for ARS 
collaborative research with the Michael Fields Agricultural 
Institute. This research provides for development of high-
quality corn in Wisconsin and other Midwestern States for 
increased nutritional value and adaptation to sustainable 
farming systems. Collaborative research is directed at corn 
breeding, analysis, corn quality, on-farm research and 
information dissemination.
    Mosquito Biological Control (West Nile Virus).--Mosquitoes 
have reemerged as disease transmitters with the occurrence of 
West Nile Virus. Their populations are at unacceptable levels 
throughout the lower Mississippi River floodplain. The 
Committee recommends an increase of $150,000 for research on 
the biological control of mosquitoes at the ARS Biological 
Control Laboratory at Stoneville, Mississippi. This ARS 
laboratory is strategically located to conduct research for 
biologically controlling mosquitoes.
    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 
recommends an increase of $250,000 for this research, which 
will be undertaken at the Franklin, Maine, research location.
    National Nutrition Monitoring System.--Health and dietary 
information gathered from USDA and the 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 recommends the fiscal year 2006 
funding level for the combined national nutrition monitoring 
program.
    National Sedimentation Laboratory.--The Committee 
recommends an increase of $200,000 to the National 
Sedimentation Laboratory to conduct research on sources and 
causes of water impairment in the Yazoo River Basin and to seek 
economically feasible Best Management Practices for attaining 
new water quality goals, commonly referenced as Total Maximum 
Daily Loads, at field, farm, watershed, and basin levels.
    Northern Appalachian Experimental Watershed, Coshocton, 
Ohio.--The mission of the North Appalachian Experimental 
Watershed is to conduct research on hydrology, surface runoff, 
groundwater quality, and erosion for agricultural and other 
purposes. Conservation tillage, filter strips, crop rotations, 
manure management, input of high runoff generating areas, 
reduced input management practices, and pasture management 
systems are evaluated using watersheds and monolith lysimeters. 
Quantification of runoff and water quality risks through 
analysis of data and precipitation and weather investigations 
are also a component of the research. A 67-year data base of 
measurements from rain gages, watershed flumes and weirs, and 
automated data collecting lysimeters along with soil and 
climatology data provide a long-term frame of reference which 
is essential in the evaluation of current experimental data. 
Research is designed to develop knowledge of basic water 
sediment, and chemical movement and to develop practical 
procedures and verify models describing their transport. 
Practical results of the research are to develop safe pesticide 
and nutrient management strategies while maintaining high 
agricultural productivity levels, and to develop practical 
management tools. The Committee recommends an increases of 
$100,000 for this research.
    Northern Great Plains Research Laboratory, Mandan, North 
Dakota.--This ARS research station conducts economically 
sustainable and environmentally sound integrated crop and 
livestock management systems for agricultural producers in the 
Northern Great Plains. In this regard, the station cooperates 
with the Hettinger Research and Extension Center in developing 
crop and livestock management systems that will increase the 
value of crops and animals produced in the region. The 
Committee recommends an increase of $100,000 for Northern Great 
Plains Research Laboratory, Mandan, North Dakota, to support 
planned research.
    National Center for Excellence in Foods and Nutrition 
Research.--The Committee believes there is a great potential 
benefit in the human nutrition work of the National Center for 
Excellence in Foods and Nutrition Research (NutriCore) 
headquartered in Indiana with regional hubs in Pennsylvania, 
California, Texas, Mississippi, and Iowa. The Committee 
recommends an increase of $100,000 to expand this program.
    Obesity Prevention.--The Economic Research Service 
estimates that health care costs resulting from poor nutrition 
and obesity cost Americans over $200,000,000,000 annually. Two 
out of every three American adults are overweight and the 
number of overweight children has doubled in the past 20 years. 
The Committee recognizes the scientific expertise and core 
capability of the ARS Human Nutrition program to conduct food-
based and multidisciplinary research strategy for reducing 
obesity in the United States. The Committee recommends an 
increase of $3,000,000, with $500,000 each provided to 
Beltsville, Maryland; Boston, Massachusetts; Grand Forks, North 
Dakota; Davis, California; Houston, Texas; and Little Rock.
    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 recommends 
an increase of $500,000 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.
    Onion Iris Yellow Spot Virus and Thrip Research.--The 
Committee recommends an increase of $250,000 for research into 
treating and preventing Yellow Spot Virus, and preventing thrip 
infestation.
    Organic Research.--The Committee notes the growing 
importance of organic agriculture production and processing. 
Accordingly, the ARS is encouraged to direct funding, as 
appropriate, to research activities that benefit this sector of 
the agricultural sector.
    Papaya Ringspot Virus.--The Committee recommends the fiscal 
year 2006 funding level to the University of Hawaii College of 
Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources to monitor and refine 
control of the papaya ringspot virus; to induce nematode 
resistance, flowering control, and mealy bug wilt disease 
resistance in commercial pineapple varieties; and, to expand 
the techniques and knowledge obtained from this program to 
create disease and pest resistance in other tropical crops such 
as banana and flowers where there is strong industry support 
and interest in these transgenic approaches. The Committee 
views the development of pest and disease resistant plants as 
supportive of a national agricultural research agenda to 
minimize the application of chemical pesticides.
    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 recommends an increase of 
$125,000 to continue this important research.
    Polymer Research.--The Committee is aware of the research 
being carried out by the Kansas Polymer Research Center [KPRC] 
at Pittsburgh State University on biobased polymers that have a 
high potential for commercialization. The KPRC is a leader in 
research on converting vegetable oils, principally soybean oil, 
to polyols for use in industrial polyurethane applications. 
Also, KPRC scientists have been awarded nine patents in polymer 
research in the last 10 years. The Committee recommends an 
increase of $400,000 to Peoria, Illinois for collaborative 
research on polymer research with KPRC.
    Poultry Production and Product Safety Research.--The 
Committee is aware of the poultry production and product safety 
research being conducted by the ARS Poultry Laboratory at 
Fayetteville, Arkansas, in conjunction with the Center of 
Excellence for Poultry Science on the University of Arkansas 
campus in Fayetteville. The Committee recommends the fiscal 
year 2006 funding level in support of this poultry research to 
improve the quality of poultry production and reduce production 
problems for the poultry industry.
    Program Continuations.--The Committee directs the 
Agricultural Research Service to continue to fund the following 
areas of research in fiscal year 2007 at the same funding level 
recommended in fiscal year 2006: Agroforestry Research 
(Shiitake Mushroom), Booneville, Arkansas; Air Quality Research 
(PM-10), Pullman, Washington; Air Quality, Ames, Iowa, HQ (Utah 
State Space Dynamics Lab.); Alternative Crops and Value Added 
Products, Stoneville, Mississippi; Animal Health Consortium, 
Peoria, Illinois; Animal Vaccines, Greenport, New York; Animal 
Welfare Information Center; Appalachian Fruit Research Station, 
Kearneysville, West Virginia; Appalachian Horticulture Research 
(U of TN/TN State), Poplarville, Mississippi; Appalachian 
Pasture Based Beef Systems (WV Univ/VA Tech), Beaver, West 
Virginia; Aquaculture Fisheries Center, Pine Bluff, Arkansas; 
Aquaculture Initiative, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Inst., 
Stuttgart, Arkansas; Aquaculture Research, Aberdeen, Idaho; 
Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi (Rodale Inst.), Wyndmoor, 
Pennsylvania; Arctic Germplasm, Palmer, Alaska; Arid Lands, Las 
Cruces, New Mexico (Jornada); Barley Yellow Dwarf, West 
Lafayette, Indiana; Bee Research (Chalk Brood), Logan, Utah; 
Binational Agricultural Research and Development Program, HQ; 
Biological Weed Control, Sidney, Montana; Biomedical Materials 
in Plants (Biotech Foundation), Beltsville, Maryland; 
Bioremediation Research, Beltsville, Maryland; Biotechnology 
Research and Development Corporation, Peoria, Illinois; 
Biotechnology Research to Improve Crops & Livestock, 
Stoneville, Mississippi; Broiler Production in the Mid-South, 
Mississippi State, Mississippi; Canada Thistle, Fargo, North 
Dakota; Cereal Crops, Fargo, North Dakota; Cereal Crops 
Research, Madison, Wisconsin; Cereal Disease, St. Paul, 
Minnesota; Chronic Diseases of Children, Houston, Texas; Citrus 
Waste Utilization, Winter Haven, Florida; Coffee and Cocoa, 
Beltsville, Maryland; Coffee and Cocoa, Miami, Florida; Coffee 
and Cocoa (Control of Perennial and Annual Weeds), HQ; Corn 
Germplasm, Mississippi State, Mississippi; Corn Germplasm, 
Ames, Iowa; Corn Rootworm (Risk Assessment for Bt Corn), Ames, 
Iowa; Cotton Ginning Research, Las Cruces, New Mexico; Cotton 
Ginning, Stoneville, Mississippi; Cotton Pathology, Shafter, 
California; Cropping Systems Research, Stoneville, Mississippi 
(U TN/W TN Ag Expt. Sta.); Dairy Forage, Madison, Wisconsin; 
Delta Human Nutrition Research, Stoneville, Mississippi; Diet 
and Immune Function [ACNC], Little Rock, Arkansas; Diet 
Nutrition and Obesity Research (Pennington), New Orleans, 
Louisiana; Dryland Production, Akron, Colorado; Ecology of 
Tamarix, Reno, Nevada; Endophyte Research, Booneville, 
Arkansas; Flood/Control Acoustic Technology, Oxford, 
Mississippi; Floriculture and Nursery Crops, HQ; Food 
Fermentation Research, Raleigh, North Carolina; Food Safety for 
Listeria and E.coli, Albany, California; Forage and Range 
Research, Logan, Utah; Formosan Termite, New Orleans, 
Louisiana; Genomics of Pest Resistance in Wheat, West 
Lafayette, Indiana; Golden Nematode, Ithaca, New York; Grain 
Research, Manhattan, Kansas; Grape Genetics, Geneva, New York; 
Grape Rootstock, Geneva, New York; Grapefruit Juice/Drug 
Interaction, Winterhaven, Florida; Great Basins Rangeland, 
Boise, Idaho; Great Basins Rangeland, Reno, Nevada; Greenhouse 
and Hydroponics Research, Wooster, Ohio; Greenhouse Lettuce 
Germplasm, Salinas, California; Harry Dupree National 
Aquaculture Research Center, Stuttgart, Arkansas; Hops 
Research, Corvallis, Oregon; Hyperspectral Imaging, New 
Orleans, Louisiana; Improved Crop Practices, Auburn, Alabama; 
Improved Forage and Livestock Production, Lexington, Kentucky 
(U of KY); Integrated Farming, Ames, Iowa; Integrated Farming 
Systems/Dairy Forage, Madison, Wisconsin; Invasive Ludwigia 
Research, Davis, California; IPM for Northern Climate Crops, 
Fairbanks, Alaska; Irrigated Cropping Systems in the Mid-South, 
Stoneville, Mississippi; Jornada Experimental Range Research 
Station, Las Cruces, New Mexico; Karnal Bunt, Manhattan, 
Kansas; Lettuce Geneticist/Breeder, Salinas, California; 
Livestock & Range Research/Fort Keogh, Miles City, Montana; 
Malignant Catarrhal Fever [MCF] Virus, Pullman, Washington; 
Manure Management Research (National Swine Research Center), 
Ames, Iowa; Medicinal and Bioactive Crops (Stephen F. Austin 
State Univ./Univ. MD); Medicinal Botanical Production and 
Processing, Beaver, West Virginia; Michael Fields Agricultural 
Institute, Madison, Wisconsin; Microbial Genomics, Kerrville, 
Texas; Microbial Genomics, Pullman, Washington; Mid-West/Mid-
South Irrigation, Columbia, Missouri (Delta Center, U of MO); 
Minor Use Pesticide (IR-4), various locations; Mosquito 
Biological Control, Stoneville, Mississippi; National Center 
for Agricultural Law; National Cold Water Marine Aquaculture, 
Franklin, Maine; National Germplasm Resource Program, various 
locations; National Nutrition Monitoring System, Beltsville, 
Maryland; National Sclerotinia Initiative, Fargo, North Dakota; 
National Sedimentation Lab (Yazoo River Basin/TMDLs), Oxford, 
Mississippi; National Sedimentation Lab Acoustics, Oxford, 
Mississippi; National Sedimentation Laboratory Yazoo Basin, 
Oxford, Mississippi; National Soil Dynamics Lab (Improved Crop 
Production), Auburn, Alabama; National Wheat and Barley Scab 
Initiative, Fargo, North Dakota; National Wheat and Barley Scab 
Initiative, HQ; Nat'l Center for Cool & Coldwater Aquaculture, 
Leetown, West Virginia; Nat'l Center for Cool & Coldwater 
Aquaculture--Aquaculture Systems, Leetown, West Virginia; 
Natural Products, Oxford, Mississippi; NE Plant, Soil and Water 
Laboratory, Orono, Maine; Nematology Research, Tifton, Georgia; 
Northern Grain Insects Laboratory, Brookings, South Dakota; 
Northern Great Plains Ecosystem, Sidney, Montana; Northern 
Great Plains Research Laboratory, Mandan, North Dakota; 
Northern Plains Agricultural Research Lab, Sidney, Montana; 
Noxious Weeds in the Desert Southwest, Las Cruces, New Mexico; 
NutriCore (National Center for Excellence in Foods and 
Nutrition Research), HQ; Nutritional Requirements, Houston, 
Texas; NW Small Fruits Research (Eastern Filbert Blight), 
Corvallis, Oregon; Oat Virus, West Lafayette, Indiana; Ogallala 
Aquifer, Bushland, Texas (Texas A&M, Texas Tech and KSU]; Olive 
Fruit Fly, Parlier, California; Organic Minor Crop Research, 
Salinas, California; Pasture Systems and Watershed Management, 
University Park, Pennsylvania; Peanut Production, Dawson, 
Georgia; Peanut Research, Dawson, Georgia; Peanut Variety, 
Stillwater, Oklahoma; Pear Thrips, Ithaca, New York (U of VT); 
Pecan Scab Research, Byron, Georgia; Pierce's Disease/Glassy-
winged Sharpshooter, Davis, California; Pineapple Nematode 
Research, Hilo, Hawaii; Plant Genetic, Diversity and Gene 
Discovery, Logan, Utah; Plant Protein Grazing Livestock, El 
Reno, Oklahoma; Plum Pox, Frederick, Maryland; Post Harvest and 
Controlled Atmosphere Chamber (lettuce), Salinas, California; 
Potato Breeding, Aberdeen, Idaho; Prosser, Washington; Potato 
Research Enhancement, Prosser, Washington; Potato Storage, 
Madison, Wisconsin; Poultry Production and Product Safety Unit, 
Fayetteville, Arizona; Precision Agriculture Research, Mandan, 
North Dakota; Rainbow Trout, Aberdeen, Idaho; Range and Forage 
Management (Sage Grouse), Burns, Oregon; Rangeland Resource 
Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; Rangeland Resources Research, 
Las Cruces, New Mexico; Residue Management in Sugarcane 
(Sugarcane Research), Houma, Louisiana; Resist. Mgmt and Risk 
Assmt in Bt Cotton and Other Plant Inc Protectants, Stoneville, 
Mississippi; Rice Research, Stuttgart, Arkansas; Seafood Waste, 
Fairbanks, Alaska; Seasonal Grazing, Coshocton, Ohio; 
Sedimentation Issues in Flood Control Dam Rehabilitations, 
Oxford, Mississippi; Seismic and Acoustic Technologies in Soils 
Sed. Lab, Oxford, Mississippi; Shellfish Genetics, Newport, 
Oregon; Small Farms, Booneville, Arkansas; Small Fruits 
Research/Ornamental/Horticulture, Poplarville, Mississippi; 
Soil Erosion Lab, West Lafayette, Indiana; Soil Plant Nutrient 
Research, Fort Collins, Colorado; Sorghum Research, Little 
Rock, Arkansas, Manhattan, Kansas; Source Water Protection 
Initiatives, West Lafayette, Indiana; South Central 
Agricultural Research Laboratory, Lane, Oklahoma; Southeastern 
Fruit and Tree Nut Research, Byron, Georgia; Soybean and 
Nitrogen Fixation, Raleigh, North Carolina; Soybean Cyst 
Nematode, Stoneville, Mississippi; Soybean Genetics, Columbia, 
Missouri; Soybean Research in the South, Stoneville, 
Mississippi; Sugarbeet Research, Kimberly, Idaho; Sugarcane 
Variety Research, Canal Point, Florida; Sustainable Aquaculture 
Feeds, Aberdeen, Idaho; Sustainable Vineyards/Viticulture 
Practices, Davis, California; Sweet Potato, Stoneville, 
Mississippi; Swine Production Research (Meat-type pigs), Clay 
Center, Nebraska; Temperate Fruit Flies, Wapato, Washington; 
Termite Species in Hawaii, Hilo, Hawaii; Tree Fruit Quality 
Research, Wenatchee, Washington; Tropical Aquaculture Feeds 
(Oceanic Institute), Hilo, Hawaii; Trout Genome Mapping, 
Leetown, West Virginia; Turfgrass Research, Beaver, West 
Virginia; U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center 
[HARC], Hilo, Hawaii; U.S. Vegetable Laboratory, Charleston, 
South Carolina; Vegetable Crops Research, Madison, Wisconsin; 
Virus Free Fruit Tree Cultivars, Wapato, Washington; Virus Free 
Potato Germplasm, Fairbanks, Alaska; Viticulture, Corvallis, 
Oregon, HQ; Waste Management, Bowling Green, Kentucky (W. KY 
Univ.); Water Management Research Laboratory, Brawley, 
California; Water Resources Management, Tifton, Georgia; Water 
Use Management Technology, Tifton, Georgia; Water Use 
Reduction, Dawson, Georgia; Watershed Research, Columbia, 
Missouri; Weed Management Research, Beltsville, Maryland; 
Western Grazinglands, Burns, Oregon, Reno, Nevada; Wheat 
Quality Research, Fargo, North Dakota; Wheat Quality Research, 
Wooster, Ohio; Wheat Quality Research/Western Wheat, Pullman, 
Washington; Winter Grain Legume, Pullman, Washington; Woody 
Genomics and Breeding for the Southeast, Poplarville, 
Mississippi; Location/Unit Closures: Animal Physiology Unit, 
Athens, Georgia; Biological Control of Insects Unit, Columbia, 
Missouri; Cotton Ginning Research Unit, Las Cruces, New Mexico; 
Crop Genetic and Environmental Research Unit, Gainesville, 
Florida; Dairy Processing and Products Research Unit, Wyndmoor, 
Pennsylvania; Dale Bumpers Small Farms Research Center, 
Booneville, Arkansas; Exotic and Invasive Weeds Unit, Reno, 
Nevada; Fruit Laboratory, Beltsville, Maryland; Midwest 
Livestock Insects Unit, Lincoln, Nebraska; North Appalachian 
Experimental Watershed Unit, Coshocton, Ohio; Phytonutrients 
Laboratory, Beltsville, Maryland; Poultry Production and 
Products Safety, Fayetteville, Arkansas; Subarctic Agricultural 
Research Unit, Fairbanks, Alaska; Swine Odor and Manure 
Management Unit, Ames, Iowa; Tropical Plant Physiology, Disease 
and Production Unit, Hilo, Hawaii; Waste Management and Forage 
Unit, Mississippi State, Mississippi; Wild Rice, St. Paul, 
Minnesota; Wind Erosion Unit, Manhattan, Kansas.
    Program Redirections.--The Committee supports increased 
emphasis for national high priority research in the areas of 
emerging diseases in plants and animals; invasive species; 
bovine spongiform encephalopathy [BSE]; food safety; obesity

/

/

/

/

/

/
//nutrition; biobased products/bioenergy; air and water quality; 
genomics; and genetic resources and concurs with the 
redirection of the following ongoing programs to enhance these 
efforts: Arkansas Children's Nutrition Center; Asian Bird 
Influenza, Athens, Georgia; Avian Pneumovirus, Athens, Georgia; 
Bioinformatics Institute for Model Plant Species, Ames, Iowa; 
Biomass Crop Production, Brookings, South Dakota; Broomweed 
Biological Controls, Albany, California; Catfish Genome, 
Auburn, Alabama; Catfish Health, Stoneville, Mississippi; 
Center for Food Safety and Post-Harvest Technology, HQ; Corn 
Resistant to Aflatoxin, Mississippi State, Mississippi; Cotton 
Genomics, Breeding and Variety Development, Stoneville, 
Mississippi; Dairy Genetics, Beltsville, Maryland; Delta 
Nutrition Intervention Initiative, Little Rock, Arkansas; Feed 
Efficiency in Cattle, Clay Center, Nebraska; Food Safety and 
Engineering, Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania; Fort Pierce Horticulture 
Lab, Fort Pierce, Florida; Geisinger Rural Aging Study, Boston, 
Massachusetts; Grain Legume Plant Pathologist Position, 
Pullman, Washington; Grand Forks Human Nutrition Laboratory, 
North Dakota; Great Lakes Aquaculture Research, Madison, 
Wisconsin; Hides and Leather Research, Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania; 
Human Nutrition Center on Aging (Equipment), Boston, 
Massachusetts; Human Nutrition Center on Aging (Obesity), 
Boston, Massachusetts; Johne's Disease, Ames, Iowa; Livestock 
Genome Mapping, Clay Center, Nebraska; National Corn to Ethanol 
Research Pilot Plant, HQ; National Warmwater Aquaculture 
Center, Stoneville, Mississippi; National Wheat and Barley Scab 
Initiative, Manhattan, Kansas; Obesity Research, Houston, 
Texas; Phytoestrogen Research, New Orleans, Louisiana; 
Poisonous Plant Research Laboratory (Locoweed), Logan, Utah; 
Poult Enterititis-Mortality Syndrome [PEMS], Athens, Georgia; 
Poultry Disease, Athens, Georgia; Poultry Disease, East 
Lansing, Michigan; Red Imported Fire Ants, Stoneville, 
Mississippi; Regional Grains Genotyping Research, Raleigh, 
North Carolina; Regional Molecular Genotyping, Manhattan, 
Kansas; Regional Molecular Genotyping, Fargo, North Dakota; 
Regional Molecular Genotyping, Pullman, Washington; Root 
Diseases in Wheat and Barley, Pullman, Wisconsin; Sudden Oak 
Disease, Davis, California; Swine Lagoon Alternatives Research, 
Florence, South Carolina; Transmissible Spongiform 
Encephalopathies, Ames, Iowa; Vaccines and Microbe Control for 
Fish Health/Fish Diseases, Auburn, Alabama; Wheat Quality 
Research, Manhattan, Kansas.
    Red River Valley Agricultural Research.--The Committee 
supports the important research being carried out by ARS on 
wheat, barley, and oat production at the Red River Valley 
Agricultural Research Center, Fargo, North Dakota. The 
Committee recommends an increase of $300,000 to expand 
important research on these major grain crops.
    Regional Molecular Genotyping Research.--The Committee 
concurs with the need to accelerate the application of DNA 
molecular marker technology in order to accelerate plant 
improvement in wheat, barley, oats, and other small grains 
breeding programs. Regional molecular genotyping will further 
enhance this process by closely aligning both breeders and 
mappers for traits of value to particular geographical 
production areas and regional market needs. The Committee 
recommends an increase of $200,000 to the ARS Plant Science 
Research Laboratory at Fargo, North Dakota.
    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 recommends the fiscal year 2006 
funding level to ARS at Stoneville, Mississippi, 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.
    Shellfish Genetics.--ARS has established a shellfish 
genetics research program that focuses on genetics, ecology and 
food quality to ensure that consumers are provided with 
shellfish of high nutritional value as well as to address food 
security and health risks associated with shellfish 
consumption. The Committee recognizes the importance of this 
multi-State research program on shellfish genetics research at 
the Oregon State University Hatfield Marine Science Center in 
Newport, Oregon and recommends an increase of $150,000.
    Small Fruits Research.--The Pacific Northwest is the 
largest blueberry production area in the world and demand for 
the fruit has increased dramatically in recent years. This 
program works to establish new and improved cultivars, which 
are critical to the health and continued development of the 
blueberry industry. The Committee recommends an increase of 
$250,000 for this research at Corvallis, Oregon.
    Soil Restoration and Turf Production System Program.--The 
Committee recommends an increase of $300,000 for soil 
restoration and turfgrass production systems research at ARS' 
Appalachian Farming Systems Research Center, Beaver, West 
Virginia. This research is vital to improve the productivity of 
farmers to the Appalachian region.
    Southern Horticultural Research.--The Committee recommends 
an increase of $500,000 to support this research on small 
fruits, ornamentals, and vegetables and melons. The Committee 
recognizes the successful cooperation between ARS and 
Mississippi State University in economically important 
horticultural research carried out at Poplarville, Mississippi.
    Soybean and Wheat Stem Rust.--Exotic and emerging rust 
diseases poses severe problems throughout the U.S. New strains 
of wheat stem rust have recently infected experimental wheats 
in the highlands of Uganda in East Africa and potentially 
threaten wheat production elsewhere in the world. The economic 
impact of foliar diseases, such as soybean rust, can be 
devastating. The research on emerging rust diseases of grains 
and soybeans will minimize or prevent the establishment of 
these pathogens in the United States. The Committee supports 
the budget request for increased research to identify and 
incorporate diverse sources of genetic resistance into new 
grain and soybean varieties and germplasm. The Committee 
recommends an increase of $2,700,000 for specific areas of 
research as follows: Ames, Iowa, $300,000 for interactive data 
base development; St. Paul, Minnesota, $400,000 for pathogen 
virulence; Beltsville, Maryland, $300,000 for DNA markers; 
Aberdeen, Idaho, $400,000 for genetics resources; St. Paul, 
Minnesota, $300,000 for soybean rust resistance; Urbana, 
Illinois, $300,000 for soybean rust; Raleigh, North Carolina, 
$200,000 for disease management in Southeast, United States; 
Stoneville, Mississippi, $300,000 for soybean rust resistance; 
and Manhattan, Kansas, $200,000 for resistance and breeding. In 
addition, the Committee recommends an increase of $200,000 each 
for expanded research to develop predictive and diagnostic 
technology for rust diseases at Pullman, Washington, and 
Frederick, Maryland, and an increase of $200,000 each for 
expanded research to develop rust diseases management 
strategies at Stoneville, Mississippi and Raleigh, North 
Carolina.
    Tamarisk/Cheatgrass Research.--The Committee recommends an 
increase of $200,000 for research to control tamarisk, 
cheatgrass, and invasive plants at Reno, Nevada.
    Termite Species in Hawaii.--The Committee recommends an 
increase of $150,000 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.
    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 recommends the fiscal year 2006 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.
    U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center.--The 
Committee recommends an increase of $500,000 for implementation 
of an ARS staffing plan to strengthen collaborative 
programmatic activities of the U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural 
Research Center with the university system and for increased 
tropical plant physiology, diseases, and production research at 
the Center.
    Vegetable and Forage Crops.--The Committee recommends an 
increase of $300,000 for support of a research agronomist 
position at the ARS Vegetable and Forage Crops Research Unit, 
Prosser, Washington. There is currently very limited production 
of oilseed crops in Washington due to a lack of crop knowledge, 
processing infrastructure and a limited market for oil. 
Washington farmers have demonstrated interest in producing 
oilseeds due to the agronomic benefits and consequent cost 
savings these crops can provide in rotation with traditional 
crops. A research effort that can clearly identify technical 
barriers and provide practical solutions to biofuel production 
systems is needed to ensure success in this emerging industry. 
The production of oilseed crops represents a unique opportunity 
for Pacific Northwest farmers to provide a biodiesel feedstock 
for an emerging renewable energy industry. The inclusion of 
oilseeds in rotation offers farmers an alternative strategy to 
improve farm economies and gain additional benefits that 
improve soil and water conservation, reduce pest cycles, and 
diversify cropping systems.
    Viticulture Research.--The Committee recommends the fiscal 
year 2006 funding level for viticulture research at the 
University of Idaho Parma Research and Extension Center, and 
for cooperative research agreements with University of Idaho 
researchers.
    Waste Management Research.--The Committee recommends an 
increase of $300,000 for the joint research project with 
Western Kentucky University. The cooperative program is located 
and carried out at Bowling Green, Kentucky, 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, Missouri.--The Committee 
recommends the fiscal year 2006 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.--These programs are successful components 
of a comprehensive approach to farming practice and policy by 
addressing weeds with biologically based management approaches, 
thus reducing the negative aspects of chemical herbicides on 
water, crops, air, and soil. A collaborative program with 
Pennsylvania State University, the Rodale Institute, and the 
Sustainable Agriculture Laboratory of the USDA in Beltsville, 
Maryland will provide for research and conduct educational 
outreach programs on biologically based weed management 
techniques to farmers. The Committee recommends an increase of 
$100,000 for expanded collaborative research.
    Wind Erosion Research, Kansas.--The Committee recommends an 
increase of $200,000 for ongoing research on wind erosion at 
the ARS research station in Manhattan, Kansas that provides 
useful information on sustaining agriculture, protecting the 
environment, and conserving natural resources.
    World Food Prize.--The Committee recognizes the importance 
of public and private contributions to relieve world hunger. 
Human suffering related to food shortages resulting from 
famine, natural disaster, civil unrest, and similar 
circumstances is one of the greatest tragedies of current 
times. The Committee is aware of the organization which 
annually awards the World Food Prize for outstanding work in 
the field of humanitarian food assistance and recommends an 
appropriation of $350,000 to the Agricultural Research Service 
for administrative support to the world hunger organization.

                        BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

Appropriations, 2006....................................    $129,883,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................       8,415,000
House allowance.........................................     140,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      83,400,000

    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

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $83,400,000 
for buildings and facilities of the Agricultural Research 
Service.
    Due to budgetary constraints, the Committee is unable to 
recommend full funding to complete the construction of all 
ongoing projects. The Committee recommends funds for the 
following projects in fiscal year 2007:
    Agriculture Research Center, Pullman, Washington.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000 toward 
construction of this center.
    Alcorn State University Biotechnology Laboratory, Alcorn 
State, Mississippi.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$2,000,000 toward construction of this facility.
    Animal Bioscience Facility, Bozeman, Montana.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $16,000,000 to complete 
construction of this facility.
    Animal Waste Management Research Laboratory, Bowling Green, 
Kentucky.--The Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 
toward construction of this facility.
    ARS Agricultural Research Center, Logan, Utah.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $2,500,000 for planning and 
design of this center.
    Beltsville Agriculture Research Center, Beltsville, 
Maryland.--The Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000 
toward the modernization of this center. The Beltsville 
Agriculture Research Center [BARC] modernization effort has 
been ongoing for several years. The Agency is directed to 
provide a report to update the Committee on progress toward 
completion of the modernization plan, any changes to that plan 
that may have occurred, and a prioritization of funding 
requirements under this account to move this plan forward in 
the most efficient manner.
    Biotechnology Laboratory, Institute, West Virginia.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $2,500,000 for planning and 
design of this center.
    Dairy Forage Agriculture Research Center, Prairie du Sac, 
Wisconsin.--The Committee recommendation includes $3,900,000 
for planning and design of this center.
    Forage-Animal Production Research Facility, Lexington, 
Kentucky.--The Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 
toward construction of this facility.
    Grape Genetics Research Center, Geneva, New York.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000 toward 
construction of this center.
    Hagerman Fish Culture Experiment Station, Hagerman, 
Idaho.--The Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000 toward 
construction of this station.
    Jamie Whitten Delta States Research Center, Stoneville, 
Mississippi.--The Committee recommendation includes $8,000,000 
to complete the major modernization phase of this center.
    National Cold Water Marine Aquaculture Research Center, 
Orono, Maine.--The Committee recommendation includes $1,000,000 
toward the construction of this facility.
    National Plant and Genetics Security Center, Columbia, 
Missouri.--The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 
toward construction of this facility.
    Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center, Hilo, Hawaii.--
The Committee recommendation includes $15,000,000 to complete 
construction of this center.
    Poultry Science Research Facility, Starkville, 
Mississippi.--The Committee recommendation includes $4,000,000 
toward construction of this replacement facility.
    Sugarcane Research Laboratory, Houma, Louisiana.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 toward 
construction of this center.
    Systems Biology Research Facility, Lincoln, Nebraska.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000 for planning and 
design of this facility.
    U.S. Agriculture Research Center, Salinas, California.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 toward 
construction of this center.
    U.S. National Arboretum, Washington, DC.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $1,500,000 toward construction of the 
Bladensburg Road entrance.

      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 
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, 2006....................................    $670,081,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................     566,300,000
House allowance.........................................     651,506,000
Committee recommendation................................     678,089,000

    The research and education programs administered by the 
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service 
[CSREES] are the U.S. Department of Agriculture's principal 
entree to the university system of the United States to support 
higher education in food and agricultural sciences and to 
conduct agricultural research as authorized by the Hatch Act of 
1887 (7 U.S.C. 361a-361i); the Cooperative Forestry Research 
Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 582a-7); Public Law 89-106, section (2) 
(7 U.S.C. 450i); the National Agricultural Research, Extension, 
and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.); the 
Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 
301); the Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Reform 
Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7601 et seq.); and the Farm Security and 
Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-171). Through 
these authorities, the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
participates with State and other cooperators to encourage and 
assist the State institutions to conduct agricultural research 
and education through the State agricultural experiment 
stations of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the 
territories; by approved schools of forestry; by the 1890 land-
grant institutions, Tuskegee University, and West Virginia 
State University; by colleges of veterinary medicine; and by 
other eligible institutions.
    The research and education programs participate in a 
nationwide system of agricultural research program planning and 
coordination among the State institutions, U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, and the agricultural industry of America.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $678,089,000 
for research and education activities of the Cooperative State 
Research, Education, and Extension Service.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendations for research and education activities as 
compared to the fiscal year 2006 and budget request levels:

    COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE [CSREES]--RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Fiscal year      Fiscal year       Committee
                                                                 2006 enacted     2007 budget     recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Payments under Hatch Act.....................................          176,969          176,920          185,817
Cooperative forestry research (McIntire-Stennis).............           22,008           21,983           23,318
Payments to 1890 colleges, Tuskegee University, and West                37,215           37,868           39,076
 Virginia State University...................................
Special research grants (Public Law 89-106):
    Advanced computing research and education (UT)...........              540  ...............              540
    Advanced genetic technologies (KY).......................              639  ...............              639
    Advanced spatial technologies (MS).......................              927  ...............              927
    Aegilops cylindrica (WA, ID).............................              351  ...............              351
    Agricultural diversification (HI)........................              219  ...............              219
    Agricultural diversity--Red River trade corridor (MN, ND)              616  ...............              616
    Agricultural science (OH)................................              564  ...............              564
    Agroecology (MD).........................................              402  ...............              402
    Air quality (CA).........................................              297  ...............  ...............
    Air quality (TX, KS).....................................            1,558  ...............            1,558
    Alliance for food protection (NE)........................              155  ...............              155
    Alternative nutrient management (VT).....................              180  ...............              180
    Alternative salmon products (AK).........................            1,088  ...............            1,088
    Alternative uses for tobacco (MD)........................              329  ...............              329
    Animal disease research (WY).............................              347  ...............              347
    Animal science food safety consortium (AR, IA, KS).......            1,418  ...............            1,418
    Apple fire blight (MI, NY)...............................              495  ...............              495
    Aquaculture (AR).........................................              203  ...............              203
    Aquaculture (FL, CA, TX).................................              594  ...............              594
    Aquaculture (ID, WA).....................................              756  ...............              756
    Aquaculture (LA).........................................              326  ...............              326
    Aquaculture (MS).........................................              512  ...............              512
    Aquaculture (NC).........................................              322  ...............              322
    Aquaculture (VA).........................................              198  ...............              198
    Aquaculture product and marketing development (WV).......              743  ...............              743
    Armillaria root rot (MI).................................              149  ...............              149
    Asparagus technology and production (WA).................              246  ...............              246
    Avian bioscience (DE)....................................               99  ...............               99
    Babcock Institute (WI)...................................              594  ...............              594
    Barley for Rural Development (MT, ID)....................              728  ...............              728
    Beef improvement research (TX, MO).......................              990  ...............  ...............
    Beef technology transfer (MO)............................              256  ...............              256
    Berry research (AK)......................................            1,287  ...............            1,287
    Biobased nanocomposite research (ND).....................              175  ...............              175
    Biomass-based energy research (OK, MS)...................            1,188  ...............            1,188
    Biotechnology (NC).......................................              284  ...............              284
    Biotechnology research (IL)..............................               99  ...............               99
    Biotechnology test production (IA).......................              460  ...............              460
    Bovine tuberculosis (MI).................................              352  ...............              352
    Brucellosis vaccine (MT).................................              436  ...............              436
    Center for Public Lands and Rural Economies (UT).........              297  ...............              297
    Center for Rural Studies (VT)............................              361  ...............              361
    Chesapeake Bay agroecology (MD)..........................              311  ...............              311
    Childhood obesity and nutrition (VT).....................              199  ...............              199
    Citrus canker (FL).......................................              495  ...............              495
    Citrus tristeza (CA).....................................              684  ...............              684
    Competitiveness of agriculture products (WA).............              672  ...............              672
    Computational agriculture (NY)...........................              237  ...............  ...............
    Cool season legume research (ID, WA, ND).................              558  ...............              558
    Cotton insect management (GA)............................              489  ...............              489
    Cranberry/blueberry (MA).................................              158  ...............              158
    Cranberry/blueberry disease and breeding (NJ)............              644  ...............              644
    Crop diversification (MO)................................              371  ...............              371
    Crop integration and production (SD).....................              297  ...............              297
    Crop pathogens (NC)......................................              322  ...............              322
    Dairy and meat goat research (TX)........................              149  ...............              149
    Dairy farm profitability (PA)............................              495  ...............              495
    Delta rural revitalization (MS)..........................              248  ...............              248
    Designing foods for health (TX)..........................            1,980  ...............            1,980
    Diaprepes/root weevil (FL)...............................              495  ...............  ...............
    Drought management (UT)..................................              792  ...............              792
    Drought mitigation (NE)..................................              220  ...............              220
    Efficient irrigation (NM, TX)............................            1,658  ...............            1,658
    Environmental biotechnology (RI).........................              637  ...............              637
    Environmental research (NY)..............................              369  ...............  ...............
    Environmental risk factors/cancer (NY)...................              215  ...............  ...............
    Environmentally-safe products (VT).......................              743  ...............              743
    Ethnobotany research (AK)................................              248  ...............  ...............
    Exotic pest diseases (CA)................................            1,910  ...............            1,910
    Expanded wheat pasture (OK)..............................              320  ...............              320
    Feed efficiency in cattle (FL)...........................              396  ...............  ...............
    Feedstock conversion (SD)................................              668  ...............              668
    Fish and shellfish technologies (VA).....................              471  ...............              471
    Floriculture (HI)........................................              348  ...............              348
    Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute (IA, MO)..            1,596  ...............            1,596
    Food chain economic analysis (IA)........................              412  ...............              412
    Food Marketing Policy Center (CT)........................              573  ...............              573
    Food quality (AK)........................................              272  ...............              272
    Food safety (AL).........................................            1,135  ...............            1,135
    Food safety (OK, ME).....................................              546  ...............              546
    Food safety (TX).........................................              198  ...............              198
    Food safety initiatives (ND).............................            1,411  ...............            1,411
    Food safety research consortium (NY).....................              990  ...............  ...............
    Food security (WA).......................................              394  ...............              394
    Food Systems Research Group (WI).........................              545  ...............              545
    Forages for advancing livestock production (KY)..........              386  ...............              386
    Forestry research (AR)...................................              456  ...............              456
    Fruit and berry crop trials for rural villages (AK)......              495  ...............              495
    Fruit and vegetable market analysis (AZ, MO).............              347  ...............  ...............
    Functional genomics (UT).................................            1,470  ...............            1,470
    Future foods (IL)........................................              659  ...............              659
    Generic commodity promotions, research, and evaluation                 189  ...............  ...............
     (NY)....................................................
    Genetically enhanced plants for micro-nutrients and bio-               733  ...............              733
     renewable oils (MO).....................................
    Genomics (MS)............................................            1,129  ...............            1,129
    Geographic information system............................            1,784  ...............            1,784
    Global change/ultraviolet radiation......................            2,162            2,425            2,162
    Grain sorghum (KS).......................................              729  ...............              729
    Grapefruit juice/drug interaction (FL)...................              341  ...............              341
    Grass seed cropping systems for sustainable agriculture                446  ...............              446
     (ID, OR, WA)............................................
    Grazing research (WI)....................................              257  ...............              257
    Greenhouse crop production (AK)..........................              297  ...............              297
    Hardwood scanning (IN)...................................              297  ...............              297
    Horn fly research (AL)...................................              198  ...............              198
    Human nutrition (IA).....................................              644  ...............              644
    Human nutrition (LA).....................................              699  ...............              699
    Human nutrition (NY).....................................              574  ...............  ...............
    Hydroponic tomato production (OH)........................              177  ...............  ...............
    Illinois-Missouri Alliance for Biotechnology.............            1,158  ...............            1,158
    Improved dairy management practices (PA).................              348  ...............              348
    Improved fruit practices (MI)............................              210  ...............              210
    Increasing shelf life of agricultural commodities (ID)...              854  ...............              854
    Infectious disease research (CO).........................              809  ...............              809
    Institute for Biobased Products and Food Science (MT)....              557  ...............              557
    Institute for Food Science and Engineering (AR)..........            1,108  ...............            1,108
    Integrated fruit and vegetable research (GA).............              253  ...............              253
    Integrated production systems (OK).......................              252  ...............              252
    International arid lands consortium......................              573  ...............              573
    Iowa biotechnology consortium............................            1,757  ...............            1,757
    Leopold Center hypoxia project (IA)......................              220  ...............              220
    Livestock and dairy policy (NY, TX)......................              990  ...............              990
    Livestock genome sequencing (IL).........................              807  ...............              807
    Livestock waste (IA).....................................              263  ...............              263
    Lowbush blueberry research (ME)..........................              244  ...............              244
    Maple research (VT)......................................              138  ...............              138
    Meadowfoam (OR)..........................................              257  ...............              257
    Michigan biotechnology consortium........................              549  ...............  ...............
    Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance (NE)........              495  ...............              495
    Midwest agricultural products (IA).......................              606  ...............              606
    Midwest poultry consortium (IA)..........................              675  ...............              675
    Milk safety (PA).........................................              780  ...............              780
    Minor use animal drugs...................................              582              582              582
    Molluscan shellfish (OR).................................              361  ...............              361
    Montana Sheep Institute (MT).............................              591  ...............              591
    Multi-commodity research (OR)............................              349  ...............              349
    National beef cattle genetic evaluation consortium (NY,                871  ...............              871
     CO, GA).................................................
    National biological impact assessment....................              261              251              251
    National Center for Soybean Technology (MO)..............              977  ...............              977
    Nematode resistance genetic engineering (NM).............              138  ...............              138
    Nevada arid rangelands initiative........................              499  ...............              499
    New crop opportunities (AK)..............................              439  ...............              439
    New crop opportunities (KY)..............................              752  ...............              752
    Oil resources from desert plants (NM)....................              209  ...............              209
    Organic cropping (WA)....................................              355  ...............              355
    Organic waste utilization (NM)...........................               92  ...............               92
    Oyster post harvest treatment (FL).......................              442  ...............  ...............
    Ozone air quality (CA)...................................              397  ...............              397
    Pasture and forage research (UT).........................              223  ...............              223
    Peach tree short life (SC)...............................              275  ...............              275
    Perennial wheat (WA).....................................              140  ...............              140
    Pest control alternatives (SC)...........................              279  ...............              279
    Phytophthora research (GA)...............................              255  ...............              255
    Phytophthora research (MI)...............................              495  ...............              495
    Phytophthora root rot (NM)...............................              180  ...............              180
    Pierce's disease (CA)....................................            2,189  ...............            2,189
    Plant, drought, and disease resistance gene cataloging                 231  ...............              231
     (NM)....................................................
    Potato research..........................................            1,482  ...............            1,482
    Precision agriculture (KY)...............................              668  ...............              668
    Preharvest food safety (KS)..............................              200  ...............              200
    Preservation and processing research (OK)................              248  ...............              248
    Protein utilization (IA).................................              837  ...............              837
    Rangeland ecosystems (NM)................................              279  ...............              279
    Regional barley gene mapping project.....................              675  ...............              675
    Regionalized implications of farm programs (MO, TX)......              851  ...............              851
    Rice agronomy (MO).......................................              248  ...............              248
    Ruminant nutrition consortium (MT, ND, SD, WY)...........              489  ...............              489
    Rural development centers (ND, LA).......................              228  ...............              228
    Rural obesity (NY).......................................              185  ...............  ...............
    Rural Policies Research Institute (NE, IA, MO)...........            1,193  ...............            1,193
    Russian wheat aphid (CO).................................              303  ...............              303
    Seafood safety (MA)......................................              453  ...............              453
    Seed technology (SD).....................................              356  ...............              356
    Small fruit research (OR, WA, ID)........................              439  ...............              439
    Soil and environmental quality (DE)......................              292  ...............              292
    Southwest consortium for plant genetics and water re-                  388  ...............              388
     sources.................................................
    Soybean cyst nematode (MO)...............................              794  ...............              794
    Soybean research (IL)....................................            1,065  ...............            1,065
    STEEP III--water quality in Pacific Northwest............              634  ...............              634
    Sudden oak death (CA)....................................               97  ...............               97
    Sustainable agriculture (CA).............................              510  ...............  ...............
    Sustainable agriculture (MI).............................              380  ...............              380
    Sustainable agriculture and natural resources (PA).......              188  ...............              188
    Sustainable beef supply (MT).............................              974  ...............              974
    Sustainable engineered materials from renewable resources              693  ...............              693
     (VA)....................................................
    Swine and other animal waste management (NC).............              484  ...............              484
    Tick borne disease prevention (RI).......................              148  ...............              148
    Tillage, silviculture, and waste management (LA).........              495  ...............              495
    Tri-State joint peanut research (AL).....................              585  ...............              585
    Tropical and subtropical research/T STAR.................            9,453  ...............            9,453
    Tropical aquaculture (FL)................................              209  ...............              209
    Uniform farm management program (MN).....................              295  ...............              295
    Value-added product development from agricultural                      401  ...............              401
     resources (MT)..........................................
    Virtual plant database enhancement project (MO)..........              698  ...............              698
    Viticulture consortium (NY, CA, PA)......................            2,079  ...............            2,079
    Water conservation (KS)..................................               73  ...............               73
    Water use efficiency and water quality enhancement (GA)..              489  ...............              489
    Weed control (ND)........................................              380  ...............  ...............
    Wetland plants (LA)......................................              557  ...............              557
    Wheat genetic research (KS)..............................              340  ...............              340
    Wheat sawfly research (MT)...............................              516  ...............              516
    Wine grape foundation block (WA).........................              319  ...............              319
    Wood utilization (AK, OR, MS, MN, NC, ME, MI, ID, TN, WV)            6,371  ...............            6,371
    Wool research (TX, MT, WY)...............................              295  ...............              295
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, Special research grants.........................          126,941            3,258          119,341
                                                              ==================================================
Improved pest control:
    Expert IPM decision support system.......................              155              175              155
    Integrated pest management...............................            2,396            2,698            2,396
    IR-4 minor crop pest management..........................           10,677           10,380           10,677
    Pest management alternatives.............................            1,422            1,603            1,422
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, Improved pest control...........................           14,650           14,856           14,650
                                                              ==================================================
1994 institutions research program...........................            1,029            1,067            2,058
Alaska Native-serving and Native Hawaiian-serving                        3,218            2,967            3,218
 institutions education grants...............................
Animal health and disease (sec. 1433)........................            5,006  ...............            5,006
Aquaculture centers (sec. 1475)..............................            3,928            3,956            3,928
Capacity building grants (1890 institutions).................           12,189           12,375           12,375
Critical Agricultural Materials Act..........................            1,091  ...............            1,091
Graduate fellowships grants..................................            3,701            4,455            3,701
Higher education agrosecurity program........................  ...............            5,000  ...............
Hispanic education partnership grants........................            5,940            5,588            6,237
Institution challenge grants.................................            5,423            5,445            5,423
Joe Skeen Institute for Rangeland Management (NM, TX, MT)....              990  ...............              990
Multicultural scholars program...............................              988              988              988
National Research Initiative.................................          181,170          247,500          190,229
National Veterinary Medical Services Act.....................              495  ...............              750
Payments to the 1994 institutions............................            2,228            2,227            4,456
Resident Instruction Grants--Insular areas...................              495              495  ...............
Secondary agriculture education..............................              990              990              990
Supplemental and alternative crops and products..............            1,175  ...............              825
Sustainable agriculture research and education...............           12,276            9,138           12,276
Federal administration:
    Agriculture based industrial lubricants (IA).............              544  ...............              544
    Agriculture development in the American Pacific..........              481  ...............              481
    Agriculture waste utilization (WV).......................              683  ...............              683
    Agriculture water policy (GA)............................              882  ...............              882
    Alternative fuels characterization laboratory (ND).......              279  ...............              279
    Animal waste management (OK).............................              392  ...............              392
    Applied agriculture and environmental research (CA)......              990  ...............              990
    Aquaculture (OH).........................................              891  ...............              891
    Aquaculture (PA).........................................              218  ...............              218
    Biodesign and processing research center (VA)............              940  ...............  ...............
    Biotechnology research (MS)..............................              680  ...............              680
    Botanical research (UT)..................................              891  ...............              891
    Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (IA).......              589  ...............              589
    Center for Food Industry Excellence (TX).................            1,353  ...............            1,353
    Center for Innovative Food Technology (OH)...............            1,134  ...............  ...............
    Center for North American Studies (TX)...................              990  ...............              990
    Climate forecasting (FL).................................            3,566  ...............            3,566
    Cotton research (TX).....................................            2,475  ...............            2,475
    Council for Agriculture Science and Technology...........              147  ...............              147
    Data information system (REEIS)..........................            2,561            2,723            2,723
    Dietary intervention (OH)................................            1,237  ...............            1,237
    Electronic grants administration system..................            2,030            2,151            2,151
    Farming and Dairy Training Instigative (UT)\1\...........  ...............  ...............  ...............
    Feed efficiency (WV).....................................              158  ...............              158
    Global environmental management (WI).....................              990  ...............  ...............
    Greenhouse nurseries (OH)................................              719  ...............              719
    High value horticultural crops (VA)......................              718  ...............              718
    Hispanic leadership in agriculture (TX)..................              541  ...............              541
    Information technology (GA)..............................              365  ...............  ...............
    Livestock marketing information center (CO)..............              172  ...............              172
    Mariculture (NC).........................................              314  ...............              314
    Mississippi Valley State University, curriculum                      1,419  ...............            1,419
     development.............................................
    Monitoring agricultural sewage sludge application (OH)...            1,274  ...............            1,274
    Northeast Center for Invasive Plants (CT, VT, ME)........              421  ...............              421
    Office of Extramural Programs............................              419              443              443
    Ohio Center for Farmland Policy Innovation\1\............  ...............  ...............              396
    Pasteurization of shell eggs (MI)........................            1,337  ...............  ...............
    Pay costs................................................            3,081            3,561            3,561
    Peer panels..............................................              307              346              346
    Phytoremediation plant research (OH).....................              771  ...............              771
    PM-10 air quality study (WA).............................              383  ...............              383
    Precision agriculture, Tennessee Valley Research Center                593  ...............  ...............
     (AL)....................................................
    Produce pricing (AZ).....................................               99  ...............  ...............
    Rio Grande/Rio Bravo physical assessment (TX)............              347  ...............  ...............
    Rural systems (MS).......................................              305  ...............              305
    Salmon quality standards (AK)............................              164  ...............              164
    Shrimp aquaculture (AZ, HI, MA, MS, SC, TX)..............            4,158  ...............            4,158
    Sustainable agricultural freshwater conservation (TX)....            1,832  ...............            1,832
    University of Hawaii.....................................            2,970  ...............  ...............
    Urban silviculture (NY)..................................              267  ...............  ...............
    Vitis gene discovery.....................................              602  ...............  ...............
    Water pollutants (WV)....................................              594  ...............              594
    Water quality (ND).......................................              495  ...............              495
    Wetland plants (WV)......................................              198  ...............  ...............
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal administration..........................           49,966            9,224           41,346
                                                              ==================================================
      Total, CSREES Research and Education Activities........          670,081          566,300          678,089
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\In fiscal year 2006, funding was provided through section 790 of Public Law 109-97.

    Agricultural Research Enhancement Awards.--The Committee 
remains determined to see that quality research and enhanced 
human resources development in the agricultural and related 
sciences be a nationwide commitment. Therefore, the Committee 
continues its direction that not less than 10 percent of the 
competitive research grant funds be used for USDA's 
agricultural research enhancement awards program (including 
USDA-EPSCoR), in accordance with 7 U.S.C. 450i.
    Alaska Native-Serving and Native Hawaiian-Serving 
Institutions Education Grants.--The Committee recommends 
$3,218,000 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.
    Alternative Crops.--The Committee recommends $825,000 for 
alternative crop research to continue and strengthen research 
efforts on canola. The Committee understands that the United 
States does not produce enough canola to meet its consumption 
needs and encourages the Department to provide funds in a 
manner that reaches those areas most likely to see expansions 
in canola production.
    Alternative Salmon Products.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $1,088,000 for alternative salmon products research. 
Of this amount, $450,000 shall be used to continue research and 
development of baby food containing salmon.
    Berry Research.--The Committee provides $1,287,000 for 
berry research. Of this amount, $1,000,000 shall be used for 
neutraceutical research at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
    Biotechnology Research.--The Committee provides $99,000 for 
biotechnology research at Southern Illinois University. These 
funds shall be used for modernization and expansion of regional 
biotechnology assets and research.
    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 and directs the Department 
to establish a specific category of grant application requests 
for classical plant and animal breeding to foster more diverse, 
energy efficient, and environmentally sustainable agricultural 
systems.
    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.
    Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute.--The 
Committee recommends $1,596,000 for the Food and Agriculture 
Policy Research Institute. Of this amount, the Committee 
recommends the fiscal year 2006 level to fund the Center for 
Agricultural and Trade Policies for the Northern Plains Region 
at North Dakota State University. In addition, the Committee 
recommends the fiscal year 2006 level be available 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.
    Forestry and Related Natural Resource Research.--The 
Committee recognizes that forestry and related natural resource 
research were an integral part of NRI at its inception. As NRI 
funding has grown, however, the allocation of NRI funds by 
CSREES for research on forestry and related natural resource 
topics has fallen behind. In the future, the Committee directs 
the NRI program administrator to put a greater emphasis on NRI 
funding for forestry and natural resources topics with a goal 
of eventually providing at least 10 percent of the total funds 
provided for NRI for forestry and natural resources related 
research on topics including: woody plant systems, including 
large scale efforts to sequence the genome for several 
economically important tree species, technologies for enhanced 
pest and disease resistance, and increased tree growth rates; 
management of complex forest ecosystems, including issues of 
forest health, productivity, economic sustainability, and 
restoration; assessing alternative management strategies, with 
emphasis on risk analysis, geospatial analysis including 
landscape implications, consideration of ecological services, 
providing decision support systems; and development of 
nanotechnology and biorefining technologies for the forest 
products sector as critical to enhancing global competitiveness 
and energy security.
    Milk Safety.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$780,000 for milk safety research at Pennsylvania State 
University. Of this amount, $100,000 is for a cooperative 
agreement with the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture's 
Center of Dairy Excellence.
    National Research Initiative.--The Committee supports the 
National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program [NRI] 
and recommends funding of $190,229,000 for the program. The 
Committee includes a general provision (section 718) to make 30 
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.
    Red River Valley Research Corridor Office.--Within the 
amount recommended for Agricultural Diversity, the Committee 
recommends the fiscal year 2006 level for activities of the Red 
River Valley Research Corridor Office.

              NATIVE AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS ENDOWMENT FUND

Appropriations, 2006....................................     $12,000,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................      11,880,000
House allowance.........................................      11,880,000
Committee recommendation................................      11,880,000

    The Native American Institutions Endowment Fund authorized 
by Public Law 103-382 provides an endowment for the 1994 land-
grant institutions (33 tribally controlled colleges). This 
program will enhance educational opportunity for Native 
Americans by building educational capacity at these 
institutions in the areas of student recruitment and retention, 
curricula development, faculty preparation, instruction 
delivery systems, and scientific instrumentation for teaching. 
Income funds are also available for facility renovation, 
repair, construction, and maintenance. On the termination of 
each fiscal year, the Secretary shall withdraw the income from 
the endowment fund for the fiscal year, and after making 
adjustments for the cost of administering the endowment fund, 
distribute the adjusted income as follows: 60 percent of the 
adjusted income from these funds shall be distributed among the 
1994 land-grant institutions on a pro rata basis, the 
proportionate share being based on the Indian student count; 
and 40 percent of the adjusted income shall be distributed in 
equal shares to the 1994 land-grant institutions.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $11,880,000 
for the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund.

                          EXTENSION ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2006....................................    $451,395,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................     430,727,000
House allowance.........................................     457,042,000
Committee recommendation................................     467,102,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $467,102,000 
for extension activities of the Cooperative State Research, 
Education, and Extension Service.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendations for extension activities, as compared to the 
fiscal year 2006 and budget request levels:

           COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE [CSREES]--EXTENSION ACTIVITIES
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Fiscal year      Fiscal year       Committee
                                                                 2006 enacted     2007 budget     recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smith-Lever sections 3(b) and 3(c)...........................          272,973          273,181          286,622
Smith-Lever section 3(d):
    Farm safety..............................................            4,517  ...............            4,517
    Food and nutrition education (EFNEP).....................           62,008           62,280           63,538
    Indian reservation agents................................            1,976            2,970            1,976
    New technologies for extension...........................            1,485            2,970            1,985
    Pest management..........................................            9,860           10,652            9,860
    Sustainable agriculture..................................            4,026            3,754            4,026
    Youth at risk............................................            7,651            8,396            7,651
    Youth farm safety education and certification............              440              494              440
    1890 colleges, Tuskegee University, and West Virginia               33,529           34,073           35,205
     State University........................................
    1890 facilities grants...................................           16,609           16,609           16,609
Extension services at the 1994 institutions..................            3,240            3,240            3,402
Grants to youth organizations................................            1,980  ...............            1,980
Renewable Resources Extension Act (RREA).....................            4,019            4,052            4,220
Rural health and safety education............................            1,946  ...............            1,946
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...............................................          426,259          422,671          443,977
                                                              ==================================================
Federal administration:
    Ag in the classroom......................................              856              742              856
    Agricultural and entrepreneurship education (WI).........              248  ...............              248
    Alabama beef connection..................................              842  ...............              842
    Beef producers improvement (AR)..........................              178  ...............              178
    Conservation technology transfer (WI)....................              481  ...............              481
    Dairy education (IA).....................................              227  ...............              227
    Dairy industry revitalization (WI).......................              295  ...............              295
    Diabetes detection and prevention (WA)...................            1,082  ...............            1,082
    E-commerce (MS)..........................................              328  ...............              328
    Efficient irrigation (NM, TX)............................            2,302  ...............            2,302
    Entrepreneurial alternatives (PA)........................              330  ...............              330
    Extension specialist (MS)................................              131  ...............              131
    Family health and wellness (PA)..........................              100  ...............              100
    Food Animal Residue Avoidance Databank...................              798  ...............              798
    Food preparation and marketing (AK)......................              328  ...............              328
    Food product development (AK)............................              347  ...............              347
    General administration...................................            6,847            7,314            7,314
    Health education leadership (KY).........................              835  ...............              835
    Income enhancement demonstration (OH)....................            1,235  ...............  ...............
    Iowa Vitality Center.....................................              246  ...............              246
    National Center for Agriculture Safety (IA)..............              239  ...............              239
    National Wild Turkey Federation..........................              232  ...............              232
    Natural resource planning................................              297  ...............              297
    Northern aquaculture demonstration (WI)..................              495  ...............  ...............
    Nursery production (RI)..................................              292  ...............  ...............
    Nutrition enhancement (WI)...............................              989  ...............              989
    Ohio-Israel agriculture initiative.......................              587  ...............              587
    Pilot technology transfer (OK, MS).......................              297  ...............              297
    Pilot technology transfer (WI)...........................              248  ...............              248
    Potato pest management (WI)..............................              396  ...............              396
    Range improvement (NM)...................................              242  ...............              242
    Rural business enhancement (WI)..........................              188  ...............              188
    Rural development (AK)...................................              676  ...............              676
    Rural development (NM)...................................              345  ...............              345
    Rural technologies (HI, WI)..............................              312  ...............              312
    Urban horticulture (WI)..................................              809  ...............              809
    Urban market development (NY)............................              270  ...............  ...............
    Wood biomass as an alternative farm product (NY).........              186  ...............  ...............
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal administration..........................           25,136            8,056           23,125
                                                              ==================================================
      Total, CSREES Extension Activities.....................          451,395          430,727          467,102
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ag in the Classroom.--The Committee recommends $856,000 for 
Ag in the Classroom and expects that no less than $247,000 be 
used to expand efforts in Illinois to promote consumption of 
healthy foods and proper school nutrition.
    Family Health and Wellness.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $100,000 for the Research Institute for Family Health 
and Wellness at Marywood University in Scranton, Pennsylvania.
    Farm Safety.--Of the funds recommended for farm safety, the 
Committee recommends a funding level of $4,517,000 for the 
AgrAbility project being carried out in cooperation with the 
National Easter Seal Society.
    Food Preparation and Marketing.--The Committee provides 
$400,000 for food preparation and marketing in the State of 
Alaska. The University of Alaska is directed to work with 
Alaska Grown to develop a marketing plan for Alaskan products.
    Rural Development.--The Committee recommends $676,000 for 
rural development extension activities in Alaska. Of this 
amount $200,000 shall be used to educate rural villages on 
gardening techniques and how to maximize food production using 
the soil in villages.

                         INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2006....................................     $55,234,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................      19,120,000
House allowance.........................................      58,379,000
Committee recommendation................................      58,704,000

    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

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $58,704,000 
for integrated activities of the Cooperative State Research, 
Education, and Extension Service.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendations for integrated activities:

          COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE [CSREES]--INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Fiscal year     Fiscal year      Committee
                                                                   2006 enacted     2007 budget   recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asian soybean rust..............................................  ..............           2,277           2,277
Critical issues.................................................             737           2,475             737
Crops at risk from FQPA implementation..........................           1,375  ..............           1,375
Food safety.....................................................          14,699  ..............          14,699
FQPA risk mitigation program for major food crop systems........           4,419  ..............           4,419
Homeland security...............................................           9,900          12,000          11,000
International science and education grants......................             990             990             990
Methyl bromide transition.......................................           3,075  ..............           3,075
Organic transition..............................................           1,855  ..............           1,948
Regional pest management centers................................           4,125  ..............           4,125
Regional rural development centers..............................           1,321           1,378           1,321
Water quality...................................................          12,738  ..............          12,738
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................          55,234          19,120          58,704
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              OUTREACH FOR SOCIALLY DISADVANTAGED FARMERS

Appropriations, 2006....................................      $5,940,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................       6,930,000
House allowance.........................................       7,030,000
Committee recommendation................................       5,940,000

    This program is authorized under section 2501 of title XXV 
of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 
(7 U.S.C. 2279). Grants are made to eligible community-based 
organizations with demonstrated experience in providing 
education on other agriculturally-related services to socially 
disadvantaged farmers and ranchers in their area of influence. 
Also eligible are the 1890 land-grant colleges, Tuskegee 
University, West Virginia State University, Indian tribal 
community colleges, and Hispanic-serving postsecondary 
education facilities.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,940,000 for 
Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers.

  Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs

Appropriations, 2006....................................        $717,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................         741,000
House allowance.........................................         741,000
Committee recommendation................................         731,000

    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

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $731,000 for 
the Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory 
Programs.

               Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006....................................    $807,306,000
Budget estimate, 2007\1\................................     945,153,000
House allowance.........................................     921,616,000
Committee recommendation................................     900,423,000

\1\The budget estimate does not include proposed user fees in the amount 
of $8,221,000.

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $900,423,000 
for salaries and expenses of the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service. The Committee encourages the Secretary to 
utilize authorities and resources of the Commodity Credit 
Corporation [CCC] to provide assistance in response to animal 
and plant health threats, and to allow compensation to certain 
producers for losses sustained in connection with these threats 
in instances when the additional assistance is deemed 
necessary.
    The following table reflects the Committee's specific 
recommendations for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service:

                                   ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Fiscal year
                                                                 Fiscal year      2007 budget       Committee
                                                                 2006 enacted       request       recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pest and disease exclusion:
    Agricultural quarantine inspection.......................           27,249           25,822           28,360
    Cattle ticks.............................................            7,551            7,016            7,016
    Foot-and-mouth disease/emerging foreign animal diseases..            8,656           15,188           11,979
    Import/export............................................           12,368           11,419           13,294
    Trade issues resolution and management...................           12,457           17,288           12,608
    Fruit fly exclusion and detection........................           59,376           73,841           60,187
    Screwworm................................................           27,720           30,635           27,788
    Tropical bunt tick.......................................              422              426              426
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, pest and disease exclusion......................          155,798          181,635          161,658
                                                              ==================================================
Plant and animal health monitoring:
    Animal health monitoring and surveillance................          145,975          156,143          150,567
    Animal and plant health regulatory enforcement...........           10,295           11,738           11,738
    Biosurveillance..........................................            1,987            2,531            2,195
    Emergency Management System..............................           13,549           22,838           14,781
    Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza........................  ...............           56,730           56,730
    Pest detection...........................................           27,043           46,654           34,032
    Select Agents............................................            3,484            5,323            3,518
    Wildlife disease monitoring and surveillance.............  ...............            1,950  ...............
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, plant and animal health monitoring..............          202,332          303,907          273,561
                                                              ==================================================
Pest and disease management programs:
    Aquaculture..............................................            1,249            1,260            1,260
    Biocontrol...............................................            9,483            9,683            9,683
    Boll weevil..............................................           38,610  ...............           38,200
    Brucellosis eradication..................................           10,348            8,957           10,506
    Chronic wasting disease..................................           18,523           15,306           18,092
    Cotton Pests.............................................  ...............           16,009  ...............
    Emerging plant pests.....................................           99,215          126,894          107,405
    Golden nematode..........................................              800              813              813
    Grasshopper..............................................            5,499            4,424            5,565
    Gypsy moth...............................................            4,770            4,836            4,836
    Imported fire ant........................................            2,132            2,140            2,140
    Invasive Species.........................................  ...............            9,900  ...............
    Johne's disease..........................................           13,057            3,206           10,000
    Low pathogenic avian influenza...........................           13,699           16,715           13,745
    Noxious weeds............................................            1,901            1,142            1,815
    Pink bollworm....................................            5,169  ...............            7,169
    Plum pox.................................................            2,194            2,203            2,203
    Pseudorabies.............................................            4,347            4,402            4,402
    Scrapie eradication......................................           18,414           18,565           18,565
    Tuberculosis.............................................           14,851           16,691           14,973
    Wildlife services operations.............................           77,148           75,503           78,692
    Witchweed................................................            1,512            1,518            1,518
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, pest and disease management.....................          342,921          340,167          351,582
                                                              ==================================================
Animal care:
    Animal welfare...........................................           17,303           19,142           19,142
    Horse protection.........................................              492              492              492
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, animal care.....................................           17,795           19,634           19,634
                                                              ==================================================
Scientific and technical services:
    Biosecurity..............................................            1,952            1,952            1,952
    Biotechnology regulatory services........................           10,468           13,922           10,638
    Environmental compliance.................................            2,626            2,664            2,664
    Plant methods development laboratories...................            8,450            9,654            8,656
    Veterinary biologics.....................................           15,491           19,369           15,882
    Veterinary diagnostics...................................           22,661           28,697           23,649
    Wildlife services methods development....................           17,216           17,525           20,924
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, scientific and technical services...............           78,864           93,783           84,365
                                                              ==================================================
Contingency fund.............................................            4,099            4,127            4,127
APHIS information technology infrastructure..................            4,506            5,029            4,506
Physical security............................................              990            5,092              990
                                                              ==================================================
      Total, salaries and expenses\1\........................          807,306          953,374          900,423
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Fiscal year 2007 budget request total does include proposed user fees in the amount of $8,221,000.

    The Committee is unable to recommend the full increases 
requested in the President's budget for the Animal and Plant 
Health Inspection Services. However, the Committee does 
recommend 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 2007, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $28,360,000 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 
recommends an increase of $228,000 for interline activities in 
Hawaii.
    The Committee urges the Department to establish protocols 
that allow shipment of untreated fruits and vegetables grown in 
Hawaii to cold-weather States during winter months while 
maintaining reasonable assurances that potential transshipment 
of such produce will not jeopardize the phytosanitary standards 
of warm weather States. The Committee also urges the Department 
to follow the same scientific principles used to justify rules 
for foreign imports in promulgating rules for exports from 
Hawaii to the U.S. mainland.
    The Committee continues its interest in more efficient and 
less disruptive inspection of passengers and cargo at Hawaii 
airports and, from within available funds, directs APHIS to 
provide not less than the number of inspectors and inspection 
equipment required in the APHIS-Hawaii staffing plan for fiscal 
year 2005. The Committee also encourages the agency to 
aggressively identify and evaluate flexible hiring and staff 
deployment arrangements, such as the Senior Environmental 
Employment Program, to minimize overtime rates charged to 
agricultural shippers. The Committee further encourages APHIS 
to acquire and deploy commercially available, state-of-the-art 
inspection technology and equipment for key ports of entry, 
such as Hawaii, to screen passenger luggage for banned 
agricultural products to reduce the introduction of dangerous 
agricultural pests and diseases in the United States.
    The Committee recommends $300,000 for the Clean Vines 
program in Washington State.
    Fruit Fly Exclusion and Detection.--The Committee 
recommends $60,187,000 for the fruit fly exclusion and 
detection program, of which no less than the fiscal year 2006 
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 recommends $3,563,000 for fruit fly 
activities in the State of Texas.
    Multiple Fruit Fly Species.--The Committee directs APHIS to 
conduct a feasibility report on the construction of a multi-
species fruit fly rearing facility in the State of Hawaii and 
provide a copy to the Committee within 120 days of enactment of 
this act. This report should include an estimate of the full 
construction and operational costs and describe any agreements 
with the State of Hawaii on joint operational cost-sharing 
arrangements. The report should further describe activities 
conducted jointly with the Hawaii Department of Agriculture and 
the California Department of Food and Agriculture regarding 
multi-species fruit fly control. The Committee recommends 
$200,000 toward costs associated with the planning and design 
of constructing such facility.
    The Committee is aware that APHIS and State cooperators 
participate in sterile fruit fly programs to control damage to 
fruit production caused primarily by the Mediterranean Fruit 
Fly. However, agricultural production in the State of Hawaii is 
also threatened by three other fruit fly species for which 
there is currently no sterile fly program. The Committee 
directs APHIS to consult with appropriate agricultural 
representatives in the State of Hawaii regarding this problem 
and report to the Committee on recommendations to control these 
additional pests, including the possibility of initiating 
sterile fly programs.
    Import Inspection.--The Committee recommends $13,294,000 
for import inspection, which includes $1,650,000 to enhance 
inspection and surveillance activities related to products 
entering the State of California.
    National Germplasm and Biotechnology Laboratory.--The 
Committee recommends $2,512,000 for ongoing activities at the 
National Germplasm and Biotechnology Laboratory.

Plant and Animal Health Monitoring

    Animal Health Monitoring and Surveillance.--The Committee 
recommends $150,567,000 for the Animal Health Monitoring and 
Surveillance account. The Committee recommends $33,107,000 for 
a national animal identification program. The Committee expects 
the Department to consult with private industry throughout the 
development of an animal identification program. The Committee 
also expects the Department to include private industry 
components in any national animal identification program.
    The Committee recommends $330,000 for an animal digester in 
the State of Arkansas.
    Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy [BSE].--The Committee 
recommends $17,243,000 to continue the ongoing BSE surveillance 
program. The Committee also includes $2,475,000 for the 
Comprehensive Surveillance System which will further enhance 
animal surveillance.
    National Animal Health Laboratory Network.--The Committee 
recommends $4,381,000 for National Animal Health Laboratory 
Network cooperative agreements.
    Animal Identification.--The Committee recommends 
$33,107,000 to continue implementation of the National Animal 
Identification System [NAIS]. The Committee is aware of the 
strong interest among livestock producers, processors, and the 
public in the NAIS. Although the Department has worked on the 
development of such a system for a number of years, the 
direction of this system remains unclear. The Committee 
requests the Government Accountability Office to conduct a 
review of the steps taken by USDA toward the establishment of 
the NAIS.
    The Committee recommends $2,000,000 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 recommends $500,000 for the National Farm 
Animal Identification and Records Project and $250,000 for 
animal tracking in the State of Washington.
    The Committee recognizes the efforts and the financial 
commitment of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the Southeastern 
Livestock Network in the development of a cooperative, regional 
approach to animal identification. The Committee further 
encourages the Secretary to consider these activities and the 
substantial financial investments already undertaken in this 
region when developing and finalizing a nationwide animal 
identification program.
    The Committee is aware of radio frequency identification 
technology that is available through Digital Angel. This 
technology has been proven on fish and has been in use for 15 
years. The Committee urges the Department to consider this 
technology when developing an animal identification program.
    New Mexico Rapid Syndrome Validation Program.--The 
Committee recommends $600,000 for the New Mexico Rapid Syndrome 
Validation Program to develop an early detection and reporting 
system for infectious animal diseases.
    Bio-safety.--The Committee recommends $350,000 to address 
bio-safety issues relating to antibiotic resistant strains of 
bacterial pathogens in the State of Vermont.
    Genetically Modified Products.--The Committee recommends 
$371,000 for a national institute at Iowa State University 
devoted to risk assessment, mitigation, and communication for 
genetically modified agricultural products.
    Population Management Center.--The Committee recommends 
$200,000 for the Population Management Center, a collaboration 
between the Lincoln Park Zoo and the Davee Center for 
Epidemiology in Chicago, Illinois. The intent of this funding 
is to improve techniques, processes, and systems to prevent 
disease transfer and ensure sustainability and maintenance of 
health in zoo populations nationwide.
    Animal and Plant Health Regulatory Enforcement.--The 
Committee recommends $11,738,000 for the animal and plant 
health regulatory enforcement account to support Animal Welfare 
Act (7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.) compliance inspections.
    The Committee is very concerned about reports of illegal 
animal fighting activities and directs the Secretary to work 
with relevant agencies on the most effective and proper means 
for investigating and enforcing laws and regulations regarding 
these activities.
    Emergency Management Systems.--The Committee recommends 
$14,781,000 for the emergency management systems program. 
Within this total, the Committee recommends $3,970,000 for the 
National Veterinary Stockpile.
    Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza.--The Committee 
recommends $56,730,000 for the newly established Highly 
Pathogenic Avian Influenza program, as requested in the budget. 
The potential for the introduction and spread of this disease 
into the United States is taken very seriously by the Committee 
and full recognition is given to the important role of USDA in 
meeting the animal surveillance and health responsibilities 
associated with the threat to both agriculture and human 
health. In addition, the Committee expects the Secretary, if 
appropriate, to transfer additional funds from the Low 
Pathogenic Avian Influenza program making a total of 
$70,475,000 available for fiscal year 2007.
    In the development of this program, the Committee 
encourages the Department to consider the need to adequately 
stockpile supplies necessary to stop the spread of the disease 
and to ensure adequate training, outreach and communication 
resources are in place to maximize the efficiency of response 
capabilities.
    Delmarva Peninsula.--The Committee is aware of the large 
poultry industry on the Delmarva Peninsula and the presence of 
live poultry markets in the Mid-Atlantic region. In preparation 
for a possible introduction of highly pathogenic avian 
influenza into the United States, the location and 
concentration of this industry, and its proximity to high human 
population centers and the Atlantic flyway for migratory birds, 
require serious response capabilities. Accordingly, the 
Committee encourages the Secretary to work with appropriate 
Delaware State officials and with the University of Delaware, 
to develop proper surveillance, diagnostic, and response 
systems.
    Pest Detection.--The Committee recommends $34,032,000 for 
pest detection activities. The Committee is concerned about 
continuing threats posed by the accidental or intentional 
introduction of pests, disease, or species into this country 
which could be devastating to our agricultural resources.
    The Committee recommends an increase of $169,000 to 
continue the California County Pest Detection Augmentation 
Program.

Pest and Disease Management

    Aquaculture.--The Committee recommends $1,260,000 for the 
aquaculture program. The Committee recommends funding at the 
fiscal year 2006 level to continue telemetry and population 
dynamics studies to develop environmentally and economically 
sustainable methods to help catfish farmers manage cormorant 
and pelican populations.
    Boll Weevil.--The Committee recommends $38,200,000 to 
continue the Boll Weevil Eradication Program. This funding will 
provide the active eradication zone areas with a 30 percent 
cost share and possible exceptions to address special funding 
requirements arising from extraordinary circumstances in some 
States.
    Brucellosis Eradication.--The Committee recommends 
$10,506,000 for the bruccellosis program. Within this total, 
the Committee recommends $781,000 for the State of Montana to 
protect the State's brucellosis-free status and operation of 
the bison quarantine facility and the testing of bison that 
surround Yellowstone National Park.
    The Committee recommends $980,000 for the Greater 
Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee, and encourages 
the coordination of Federal, State, and private actions to 
eliminate brucellosis from wildlife in the Greater Yellowstone 
area. This amount shall be equally divided between the States 
of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.
    Chronic Wasting Disease [CWD].--The Committee is concerned 
about the number of deer and elk in different regions of the 
United States testing positive for chronic wasting disease and 
recommends $18,092,000 for the chronic wasting disease 
certification and control program to include additional 
surveillance and disease control activities with free-ranging 
cervids, and to increase State testing capacity for the timely 
identification of the presence of this disease. Within this 
total, the Committee recommends $1,750,000 for the State of 
Wisconsin, $244,000 for the State of Utah, and $245,000 for the 
Conservation Medicine Center of Chicago which is a 
collaboration between the University of Illinois College of 
Veterinary Medicine, Loyola University Chicago Stritch School 
of Medicine, and the Brookfield Zoo. The total also includes 
$150,000 for the State of Colorado and $150,000 for the State 
of Alaska to monitor chronic wasting disease.
    The Committee is aware of confirmed reports that CWD has 
spread into Northeastern States and recommends $150,000 for 
control of this disease in the State of Vermont.
    Emerging Plant Pests.--The Committee recommends 
$103,452,000 for emerging plant pests. Within this total, the 
Committee recommends $24,079,000 for glassy-winged 
sharpshooter/Pierce's disease; $37,371,000 for citrus disease 
management; $16,890,000 for the Asian longhorn beetle program 
including activities in New York and New Jersey, and which also 
includes $2,470,000 for activities in the State of Illinois, 
including the City of Chicago; $4,055,000 for sudden oak death; 
$16,293,000 for the emerald ash borer which includes $1,975,000 
for Michigan and $1,500,000 for Illinois. The Committee expects 
the Secretary to make funds available from the CCC for 
activities related to these and other plant pests in fiscal 
year 2007, as necessary.
    The Committee recognizes the serious impact of Citrus 
Canker in Florida, particularly given the emergency situation 
due to the spread of the disease caused by recent hurricanes, 
and encourages and applauds efforts to address this devastating 
disease.
    The Committee is aware that APHIS has a compensation 
program in place for wheat producers, grain handlers, and 
facilities that karnal bunt impacts. However, the compensation 
provided for handlers and facilities does not adequately 
represent the costs these facilities incur when they receive 
deliveries of karnal bunt-infected wheat. This inadequate 
compensation has led to many facilities refusing to participate 
in activities to prevent the spread of karnal bunt in the 
United States. Due to the serious threat that karnal bunt poses 
to U.S. wheat production and exports, the Committee expects 
APHIS to work with the grain handling industry to develop an 
adequate compensation plan.
    The Committee notes that APHIS signed a cooperative 
agreement with the Washington State Department of Agriculture 
to survey and eradicate the citrus longhorned beetle. The 
Committee recognizes that the citrus longhorned beetle presents 
a severe threat to hardwood trees and tree fruit crops, and 
urges APHIS to direct the resources necessary to eradicate the 
citrus longhorned beetle.
    Grasshopper.--The Committee recommends $5,565,000 for the 
current grasshopper program. Within this total, no less than 
$1,000,000 shall be for grasshopper and Mormon cricket 
activities in the State of Utah to prepare necessary 
environmental documents and continue control measures. The 
total also includes $150,000 for grasshopper and Mormon cricket 
activities in the State of Nevada, including survey, control, 
and eradication of crickets.
    Imported Fire Ant.--The Committee recommends $2,140,000 for 
the imported fire ant account to continue sharing 
responsibility with the States to conduct detection and nursery 
surveys; compliance monitoring; enforcement for quarantine of 
nursery stock; and production, field release, and evaluation of 
promising control agents. Within this total, the Committee also 
recommends the fiscal year 2006 level for control activities in 
the State of Tennessee and the State of New Mexico.
    Johne's Disease.--The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for 
Johne's disease to expand the Agency's efforts to coordinate 
State certification programs for herd-testing, and to provide 
assistance to States to develop herd management plans that 
comply with APHIS's national standards for certification. The 
Committee expects APHIS to work with the Agricultural Research 
Service to coordinate activities to research and develop an 
effective diagnostic test for Johne's disease with appropriate 
field validation and methods development.
    Low Pathogenic Avian Influenza.--The Committee recommends 
$13,745,000 for detection, control and eradication of Low 
Pathogenic Avian Influenza [LPAI]. The Committee notes that in 
fiscal year 2006, $12,000,000 in financial assistance was 
provided to indemnify poultry producers that experienced losses 
due to avian influenza. The Committee also notes that this 
funding has not been obligated and will be available for fiscal 
year 2007.
    The Committee notes that APHIS has combated LPAI through 
both depopulation and vaccination, depending on individual 
circumstances. An emergency vaccination protocol was used most 
successfully after an outbreak on a farm in Connecticut. The 
Committee urges APHIS to utilize available funds to indemnify 
producers for costs and losses previously incurred in a 
successful pilot eradication program.
    The Committee is concerned that APHIS has failed to 
indemnify California turkey producers who destroyed their 
flocks due to a 2002 outbreak of LPAI. Further, despite 
language in the Committee's fiscal year 2006 Agriculture 
Appropriations Report that required APHIS to provide a report 
on this matter within 90 days of enactment, to date no such 
report has been received. Therefore, the Committee expects 
APHIS to transmit this report immediately. Further, the 
Committee notes that the Department has adequate authority and 
funding to allow indemnification to these producers as it has 
for producers in similar situations, and expects APHIS to 
provide compensation expeditiously.
    Noxious Weeds.--The Committee recommends $1,815,000 for the 
noxious weeds account. Within this total, the Committee 
includes $275,000 for the Nez Perce Bio-Control Center to 
increase the availability and distribution of biological 
control organisms used in an integrated weed management system. 
The total also includes $297,000 for an invasive species 
program to prevent the spread of cogongrass in Mississippi, and 
requests that the Agency take necessary steps to address this 
invasive weed as a regional infestation problem.
    The Committee directs that within funds available for State 
cooperative agreements, $50,000 shall be for a weed management 
program with the State of Nevada.
    Tuberculosis.--The Committee recommends $14,973,000 for the 
tuberculosis program which includes $5,096,000 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 is aware of an outbreak of bovine 
tuberculosis in New Mexico. In response, a memorandum of 
understanding has been executed between USDA and the State. The 
Committee urges the Secretary to use authorities and resources 
of the Department to provide testing, monitoring, surveillance, 
and other services, as needed, toward the control and 
eradication of this disease.
    Wildlife Services Operations.--The Committee recommends 
$78,692,000 for Wildlife Service Operations activities. The 
Committee does not concur with the budget request to reduce 
funding in the wildlife services operations account to allow 
cooperators to assume a larger share of the costs associated 
with preventing and reducing wildlife damage. The Committee 
provides funding to continue cooperating with States to conduct 
wildlife management programs such as livestock protection, 
migratory bird damage to crops, invasive species damage, 
property damage, human health and safety, and threatened and 
endangered species protection.
    The Committee's recommendations with respect to specific 
areas funded within the total for wildlife services activities 
are as follows:
    The Committee notes the success of the oral rabies 
vaccination program and recommends $25,094,000 for rabies 
control activities. Within this total, the Committee recommends 
$100,000 for activities in Broward County, Florida and $200,000 
in Suffolk County, New York. The Committee expects a portion of 
the program increase to be available for rabies activities in 
the Appalachian region and to further progress already made 
along the Appalachian Ridge to control this disease.
    The Committee recommends $400,000 to control coyotes in the 
State of West Virginia.
    The Committee recommends $4,428,000 to continue to 
implement recommendations of the Aviation Safety Review 
Committee.
    The Committee recommends an increase of $182,000 for remote 
diagnostic and wildlife disease surveillance activities with 
North Dakota State University and Dickinson State University.
    The Committee recommends $1,213,000 for integrated 
predation management activities in Minnesota, Wisconsin, 
Michigan, Arizona, and New Mexico, no less than $174,000 shall 
be available for activities in Arizona and New Mexico. 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 recommends $11,500,000 to continue wildlife 
control activities in Western States.
    The Committee recommends $1,337,000 for the Tri-state 
predator control program for livestock operators in Montana, 
Idaho, and Wyoming. The Committee directs that $100,000 of the 
funds provided to Idaho be allocated to the Idaho State 
Department of Agriculture. Due to the increase in federally 
listed endangered species, the States' operations accounts for 
wildlife services have suffered financially.
    The Committee recommends $619,000 for a cooperative 
agreement with the University of Georgia, Auburn University, 
and the Wildlife Services Operations in the State of Georgia to 
address the fluctuations in game bird and predator species 
resulting from recent changes in land use throughout the 
southeastern United States.
    The Committee recommends $400,000 for the operation of the 
State Wildlife Services office in Hawaii to provide on-site 
coordination of prevention and control activities in Hawaii and 
the American Pacific. The Committee directs that this increase 
be for enhanced coqui frog control activities. The Committee 
also recommends an increase of $950,000 for activities in 
Hawaii and Guam related to the brown tree snake.
    The Committee recommends $742,000 for wildlife service 
operations with the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and 
Parks to meet the growing demands of controlling predatory, 
nuisance, and diseased animals.
    The Committee recommends an increase of $100,000 above the 
fiscal year 2006 level for beaver management and control in the 
State of Mississippi. The Committee expects the Agency to make 
the fiscal year 2007 level of funding available to all counties 
in the State. 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 recommends $223,000 for the State of Wisconsin and 
$300,000 for the State of North Carolina for beaver control 
activities.
    The Committee recommends the fiscal year 2006 level for the 
National Wildlife Research Center, North Dakota Field Station, 
for blackbird damage reduction methods development on 
sunflowers. In addition, the Committee directs the Wildlife 
Services to continue its ongoing cattail control and other 
dispersal measures to help reduce blackbird damage in North and 
South Dakota. The Committee also recommends $134,000 for 
blackbird management efforts in Louisiana. The Committee also 
recommends $170,000 for blackbird management efforts in the 
State of Kansas.
    The Committee recommends the fiscal year 2006 level for 
goose control in the State of New York.
    The Committee also recommends the fiscal year 2006 funding 
level for the Jack Berryman Institute in the State of Utah.
    The Committee recommends $247,000 to continue State 
operations in New Hampshire and $300,000 to continue State 
operations in Kentucky.
    The Committee recommends $200,000 for the livestock 
protection program in the State of Pennsylvania.
    The Committee recommends $200,000 to assist in the 
management of cormorants in the Lake Champlain Basin. The 
Committee also recommends $298,000 for cormorant control in the 
State of Michigan. The Committee also recommends the fiscal 
year 2006 level for Delta States operations to control 
cormorants.

Animal Care

    Animal Welfare.--The Committee recommends $19,142,000 for 
the Animal Care Unit for enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act. 
The Committee does not assume collections from unauthorized 
animal welfare inspection user fees, as proposed in the 
President's budget.

Scientific and Technical Services

    Veterinary Diagnostics.--The Committee recommends 
$23,649,000 for the veterinary diagnostics account for fiscal 
year 2007. The Committee includes $200,000 for continued 
activities in the State of Louisiana. The Committee also 
recommends $750,000 for the National Agriculture Biosecurity 
Center in the State of Kansas.
    Wildlife Services Methods Development.--The Committee 
recommends $20,924,000 for wildlife services methods 
development. The Committee recommends the fiscal year 2006 
level to continue existing research efforts at the National 
Wildlife Research Center field station located in the State of 
Mississippi.
    The Committee also recommends the fiscal year 2006 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.
    Avian Influenza.--The Committee recommends $3,200,000 for 
avian influenza to assess the risk of virulent subtypes of 
avian influenza. This funding increase will also allow USDA to 
conduct research for improving environmental sample diagnostics 
and evaluate the risk associated with feral swine.
    The Committee recommends continued funding at the fiscal 
year 2006 level for the cooperative agreement with the Hawaii 
Agriculture Research Center for rodent control only in active 
agricultural areas.
    Sericea Lespedeza.--The Committee recognizes both the 
importance of sericea lespedeza as a field crop in the 
Southeastern United States and the environmental challenges 
sericea lespedeza poses to ecosystems in tallgrass prairielands 
in the Great Plains region. The Committee recommends that APHIS 
provide Federal field crop designations for sericea lespedeza 
on a regional basis so that conservation programs in tallgrass 
prairie regions where sericea lespedeza is an invasive species 
can partner with USDA to find economically and ecologically 
appropriate controls.
    The Committee recommends $515,000 for the National Wildlife 
Research Station located in the State of Texas for activities 
related to emerging infectious diseases associated with 
wildlife populations and human health.
    The Committee recommends the fiscal year 2006 funding level 
for ongoing activities at the Utah Predator Research Station.
    In complying with the Committee's directives, the Committee 
expects APHIS not to redirect support for programs and 
activities without prior notification to and approval by the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in accordance 
with the reprogramming procedures specified in the Act. Unless 
otherwise directed, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service shall implement appropriations by programs, projects, 
and activities as specified by the Appropriations Committees. 
Unspecified reductions necessary to carry out the provisions of 
this Act are to be implemented in accordance with the 
definitions contained in the Program, project, and activity 
section of this report.

                        BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

Appropriations, 2006....................................      $4,946,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................       6,431,000
House allowance.........................................       5,946,000
Committee recommendation................................       5,946,000

    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

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,946,000 for 
buildings and facilities of the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service.

                     Agricultural Marketing Service

                           MARKETING SERVICES

Appropriations, 2006....................................     $74,622,000
Budget estimate, 2007\1\................................      81,498,000
House allowance.........................................      77,269,000
Committee recommendation................................      71,170,000

\1\The budget estimate does not include proposed user fees in the amount 
of $2,212,000.

    The Agricultural Marketing Service [AMS] was established by 
the Secretary of Agriculture on April 2, 1972. AMS carries out 
programs authorized by more than 50 different statutory 
authorities, the primary ones being the Agricultural Marketing 
Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627); the U.S. Cotton Standards Act 
(7 U.S.C. 51-65); the Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act (7 
U.S.C. 471-476); the Tobacco Inspection Act (7 U.S.C. 511-
511q); the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (7 U.S.C. 
499a-499s); the Egg Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 1031-
1056); and section 32 (15 U.S.C. 713c).
    Programs administered by this Agency include the market 
news services, payments to States for marketing activities, the 
Plant Variety Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 2321 et seq.), the 
Federal administration of marketing agreements and orders, 
standardization, grading, classing, and shell egg surveillance 
services, transportation services, wholesale farmers and 
alternative market development, commodity purchases, Perishable 
Agricultural Commodities Act (7 U.S.C. 499a-499b), and market 
protection and promotion activities.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $71,170,000 
for marketing services of the Agricultural Marketing Service.
    Alaska Grown Program.--The State of Alaska has developed 
the Alaska Grown Program to promote the sale of Alaskan 
products in both military and civilian markets. The Committee 
fully supports this program and expects the Department to give 
full consideration to funding applications submitted for the 
Alaska Grown Program, which includes Alaska agricultural 
products and seafood harvested in the State. The Alaska Grown 
Program should coordinate with other regional marketing 
entities such as the Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation 
and the Lower Kuskokwim Economic Development Council.
    The Committee encourages the Department to make grants to 
local communities in Alaska and Alaska regional marketing 
organizations to promote wild salmon.
    Grading.--The Committee recommends $100,000 to establish a 
farm-raised catfish grading system.
    Horticulture Marketing.--The Committee is aware of an 
innovative urban horticulture planning, development, and 
marketing project in the State of Illinois. The Committee 
encourages the Department to provide appropriate technical and 
financial assistance to the Windy City Harvest initiative.
    Organics.--The Committee recommends $3,130,000 for the 
National Organic Program [NOP]. Of this amount, $500,000 is for 
continuation of the National Organic Cost Share Certification 
Program. The Committee is encouraged that AMS has hired an 
Executive Director for the National Organic Standards Board 
[NOSB], as well as a new Director for the National Organic 
Program. The Committee also notes that the audits performed by 
the American National Standards Institute in 2004 and by the 
USDA Office of Inspector General in 2005 made strong 
recommendations about changes needed in the administration of 
the NOP. The Committee expects AMS to take the necessary 
actions to comply with these recommendations, and to provide a 
written report to the Committee within 120 days of enactment of 
this Act regarding the process in implementing these 
recommendations. In addition, the Committee is aware of 
complaints that NOP has received regarding potential violations 
of the organic standards, and would like to receive updates on 
the progress of AMS in investigating and responding to these 
complaints. The Committee also expects the NOP to work closely 
with the NOSB to implement the Peer Review Panel requirements 
of the Organic Foods Production Act and USDA's organic 
regulations. The Committee also encourages AMS to continue 
collection of organic price information.
    Pesticide Data Program [PDP].--The Committee recommends 
$15,296,000 for the Pesticide Data Program. The Committee 
recognizes the importance of the Pesticide Data Program [PDP] 
to collect reliable, scientific-based pesticide residue data 
that benefits consumers, food processors, crop protection, 
pesticide producers, and farmers. The PDP is of particular 
importance since the passage of the Food Quality Protection Act 
(7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.), which requires thorough re-evaluation 
of agricultural pesticides and tolerances for uses on 
individual crops. The PDP is an effective tool to maintain the 
availability of critical products which allow the production of 
safe and affordable foods. The Committee also recommends 
$2,939,000 for the Pesticide Recordkeeping Program.

                 LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Limitation, 2006........................................     $65,667,000
Budget limitation, 2007.................................      62,211,000
House allowance.........................................      62,211,000
Committee recommendation................................      62,211,000

    The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Public Law 
97-35) initiated a system of user fees for the cost of grading 
and classing cotton, tobacco, naval stores, and for warehouse 
examination. These activities, authorized under the U.S. Cotton 
Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 51 et seq.), the Tobacco Inspection Act 
(7 U.S.C. 511 et seq.), the Naval Stores Act (7 U.S.C. 91 et 
seq.), the U.S. Warehouse Act (7 U.S.C. 241 et seq.), and other 
provisions of law are designed to facilitate commerce and to 
protect participants in the industry.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends a limitation of $62,211,000 on 
administrative expenses of the Agricultural Marketing Service.

          FUNDS FOR STRENGTHENING MARKETS, INCOME, AND SUPPLY

                              (SECTION 32)

                    MARKETING AGREEMENTS AND ORDERS

Appropriations, 2006....................................     $16,055,000
Budget estimate, 2007\1\................................       4,106,000
House allowance.........................................      16,425,000
Committee recommendation................................      16,425,000

\1\The budget estimate does not include proposed user fees in the amount 
of $12,000,000.

    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 2005-2007:

               ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD--FISCAL YEARS 2005-2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Fiscal year 2005  Fiscal year 2006  Fiscal year 2007
                                                                estimate          estimate          estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation (30 percent of Customs Receipts)............    $6,052,035,538    $6,481,777,400    $7,029,269,054
    Rescission............................................      -163,000,000       -37,601,000  ................
    Supplemental Appropriation............................        90,000,000  ................  ................
Less Transfers:
    Food and Nutrition Service............................    -5,152,962,000    -5,187,621,000    -5,731,073,000
    Commerce Department...................................       -77,538,934       -79,284,400       -82,817,054
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total, Transfers....................................    -5,230,500,934    -5,266,905,400    -5,813,890,054
                                                           =====================================================
Budget Authority..........................................       748,534,604     1,177,271,000     1,215,379,000
Unobligated Balance Available, Start of Year..............       408,050,706       286,159,865  ................
Recoveries of Prior Year Obligations......................        25,073,881        50,000,000  ................
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Available for Obligation............................     1,181,659,191     1,513,430,865     1,215,379,000
                                                           =====================================================
Less Obligations:
    Commodity Procurement:
        Child Nutrition Programs (Entitlement Commod-            399,481,824       465,000,000       465,000,000
         ities)...........................................
        State Option Contract.............................           134,160         5,000,000         5,000,000
        Removal of Defective Commodities..................           100,000         1,000,000         1,000,000
        Emergency Surplus Removal.........................       150,072,903       107,500,000  ................
        Direct Payments...................................       278,763,000       650,000,000  ................
        Disaster Relief...................................        40,597,491        34,402,509  ................
        Estimated Future Needs............................  ................       202,981,356       416,325,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
          Total, Commodity Procurement....................       869,149,378     1,465,883,865       887,325,000
                                                           =====================================================
Administrative Funds:
    Commodity Purchase Support............................        10,847,906        31,492,000        11,629,000
    Marketing Agreements and Orders.......................        15,502,042        16,055,000        16,425,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total, Administrative Funds.........................        26,349,948        47,547,000        28,054,000
                                                           =====================================================
Total Obligations.........................................       895,499,326     1,513,430,865       915,379,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
Unobligated Balance Available, End of Year................       286,159,865  ................       300,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends a transfer from section 32 funds 
of $16,425,000 for the formulation and administration of 
marketing agreements and orders.
    Commodity Purchases.--The Committee encourages USDA to use 
all existing authorities under the section 32 program through 
emergency surplus removal and other commodity purchases, 
including fruit and vegetable purchases, as mandated in the 
2002 Farm bill.
    The Committee is aware that section 10603 of Public Law 
107-171, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, 
mandates that the Secretary must use a minimum of $200,000,000 
each fiscal year to purchase fruits, vegetables and other 
specialty food crops. The Committee reminds USDA of the 
language included in section 53 of the conference report 
accompanying this law and expects that these purchases will be 
made according to Congressional intent.
    The Committee is aware that farmed salmon imports from 
Chile, Norway, and other countries have undercut the market for 
wild Alaska salmon and have created a domestic surplus of wild 
pink salmon. The Committee encourages the Department to use all 
existing authorities under the section 32 program to purchase 
surplus domestic salmon and stabilize the domestic salmon 
industry.
    The Committee is aware that red raspberry imports from 
Chile have displaced domestic red raspberry producers, 
particularly in Washington State, and have created a domestic 
surplus. The Committee encourages the Department to use all 
existing authorities under the section 32 program and other 
programs to purchase surplus domestic red raspberries.
    The Committee is aware that USDA has used its purchasing 
authorities in past years to help stabilize market conditions 
for cranberry production. As such, the Committee urges USDA to 
ensure that Federal cranberry purchases in fiscal year 2007 
remain at least at current levels.
    Section 32 Authorities.--Under the authority described in 
clause 3 of 7 U.S.C. 612c, the Secretary is able to direct 
funds from the section 32 account to increase the purchasing 
power of producers. This practice has been used on various 
occasions to provide direct assistance to producers when market 
forces or natural conditions adversely affect the financial 
condition of farmers and ranchers. The Committee notes the 
importance in the ability of the Secretary to utilize this 
authority, but believes that communication between the 
Department and the Congress should be improved when this 
practice is used. Therefore, the Committee directs the 
Secretary to provide notification to the Appropriations 
Committee in advance of any public announcement or release of 
section 32 funds under the specific authorities cited above.
    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.

                   PAYMENTS TO STATES AND POSSESSIONS

Appropriations, 2006....................................      $3,809,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................       1,334,000
House allowance.........................................       1,334,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,834,000

    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

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,834,000 for 
payments to States and possessions for Federal-State marketing 
projects and activities. The Committee directs that $2,500,000 
be provided to the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade 
and Consumer Protection for the development of specialty 
markets.
    The Committee encourages the Department to work with the 
Pride of New York Program and the New York Farm Viability 
Institute to support cooperative marketing partnerships between 
growers, processors and retailers that will increase consumer 
awareness of food products grown and made in New York and 
address barriers to profitability confronting farm businesses 
in the State.

        Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006....................................     $38,059,000
Budget estimate, 2007\1\................................      21,844,000
House allowance.........................................      39,737,000
Committee recommendation................................      38,737,000

\1\The budget estimate does not include proposed user fees in the amount 
of $19,663,000.

    The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration 
[GIPSA] was established pursuant to the Secretary's 1994 
reorganization. Grain inspection and weighing programs are 
carried out under the U.S. Grain Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 71 et 
seq.) and other programs under the authority of the 
Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, including the inspection 
and grading of rice and grain-related products; conducting 
official weighing and grain inspection activities; and grading 
dry beans and peas, and processed grain products. Under the 
Packers and Stockyards Act (7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.), assurance of 
the financial integrity of the livestock, meat, and poultry 
markets is provided. The administration monitors competition in 
order to protect producers, consumers, and industry from 
deceptive and fraudulent practices which affect meat and 
poultry prices.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $38,737,000 
for salaries and expenses of the Grain Inspection, Packers and 
Stockyards Administration.
    Marketing of Grain.--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 recommends $500,000 for 
an ongoing study of process verification systems and protocols.

        LIMITATION ON INSPECTION AND WEIGHING SERVICES EXPENSES

Limitation, 2006........................................     $42,463,000
Budget limitation, 2007.................................      42,463,000
House allowance.........................................      42,463,000
Committee recommendation................................      42,463,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends a limitation of $42,463,000 on 
inspection and weighing services expenses.

             Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety

Appropriations, 2006....................................        $596,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................         696,000
House allowance.........................................         656,000
Committee recommendation................................         607,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $607,000 for 
the Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety.

                   Food Safety and Inspection Service

Appropriations, 2006....................................    $829,378,000
Budget estimate, 2007\1\................................     757,470,000
House allowance.........................................     853,249,000
Committee recommendation................................     865,905,000

    \1\The budget estimate does not include proposed user fees in the 
amount of $105,435,000.

    The major objectives of the Food Safety and Inspection 
Service are to assure that meat and poultry products are 
wholesome, unadulterated, and properly labeled and packaged, as 
required by the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et 
seq.); and to provide continuous in-plant inspection to egg 
processing plants under the Egg Products Inspection Act.
    The Food Safety and Inspection Service was established on 
June 17, 1981, by Secretary's Memorandum No. 1000-1, issued 
pursuant to Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953.
    The inspection program of the Food Safety and Inspection 
Service provides continuous in-plant inspection of all domestic 
plants preparing meat, poultry or egg products for sale or 
distribution; reviews foreign inspection systems and 
establishments that prepare meat or poultry products for export 
to the United States; and provides technical and financial 
assistance to States which maintain meat and poultry inspection 
programs.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $865,905,000 
for the Food Safety and Inspection Service.
    The Committee recommendation includes the following 
increases: $16,625,000 for cost-of-living adjustments; 
$2,600,000 for risk-based inspection; $15,816,000 for food and 
agricultural defense; $600,000 to link FSIS systems into 
Department of Homeland Security Customs and Border Protection 
systems; and $1,886,000 to support FSIS enhancement of 
inspector communication systems and information technology 
updates.
    Baseline Studies.--The Committee directs that no less than 
$2,000,000 be used for baseline studies. The Committee is aware 
that FSIS intends to update microbiology data through new 
nationwide baseline studies of raw beef, pork, chicken, turkey, 
and ground products, targeting the prevalence and levels of 
select foodborne pathogens and microorganism as indicators of 
process control.
    Codex Alimentarius.--Codex Alimentarius is critical for the 
protection of consumer health globally and facilitating 
international trade. Therefore, the Committee recommends 
$3,029,000 exclusively for the activities of the U.S. Codex 
office including international outreach and education.
    Humane Slaughter.--The Committee recommends $3,000,000 for 
maintenance of the Humane Animal Tracking System [HATS]. The 
Committee has provided $7,000,000 total in fiscal years 2005 
and 2006 for this system. Of this funding, the Committee 
understands that $1,500,000 has been used to procure the 
software necessary to integrate HATS and FSIS public health 
data. The remaining $5,500,000 will be used for computer 
hardware, training, and professional services to develop the 
integrated reporting system. As part of the Agency's public 
health data communications infrastructure, this reporting tool 
will allow inspection program personnel in the District offices 
and headquarters to analyze HATS data together with other food 
safety verification data, thereby providing the Agency with a 
powerful management control tool for improved and consistent 
enforcement of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act [HMSA] and 
its public health responsibilities. The Committee is pleased 
that FSIS intends to have all 2,300 slaughter plants that have 
daily FSIS inspection connected to this system by the end of 
fiscal year 2006. The Committee further encourages FSIS to 
include funding for maintenance of this system in its budget 
request in future years.
    The Committee recommends the amount requested in the budget 
to maintain the 63 full time equivalent positions which have 
been increased for this purpose above the fiscal year 2002 
level. The Committee strongly feels that a portion of that FTE 
increase should be used to allow additional FSIS personnel to 
continue to work cooperatively with the existing District 
Veterinary Medical Specialists [DVMS], whose duties are 
specifically tied to HMSA enforcement, in order to increase the 
number of facility visits by FSIS personnel with special 
expertise in HMSA enforcement, and to allow each DVMS better 
opportunities to visit facilities in other FSIS districts to 
enhance communication and problem solving among all districts.
    Operations Maintenance.--The Committee notes that FSIS' 
overall budget is approximately 80 percent salaries and 
benefits. The fiscal year 2007 budget request includes an 
increase of $16,625,000 to cover an anticipated pay increase of 
2.2 percent, which the Committee recommends. However, the 
Committee also notes that FSIS routinely absorbs additional pay 
and benefit costs that are not requested in the budget. 
Therefore, the Committee directs FSIS to use recommended 
programmatic funding increases to support current activities 
and staff levels before entering into new agreements or 
engaging in new activities.
    Reprogramming Authority.--The Committee recommendation 
includes a general provision, section 713, that requires 15 day 
advance notification of any reprogramming of funds for 
activities, programs, or projects in excess of $500,000 or 10 
percent, whichever is less. This provision is the same as 
section 717 of Public Law 109-97 which provided fiscal year 
2006 funding for FSIS. The Committee is concerned that FSIS 
violated this notification requirement in fiscal year 2006 when 
it announced in April 2006 that it planned to reduce State 
inspection funding without prior notification of the Committee. 
Therefore, the Committee directs FSIS to provide the Committee 
on Appropriations notification of changes to funding 
allocations prior to any changes being enacted.
    The following table represents the Committee's specific 
recommendations for the Food Safety and Inspection Service as 
compared to the fiscal year 2006 and budget request levels:

                            FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE SALARIES AND EXPENSES
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Fiscal year
                                                                    Fiscal year     2007 budget      Committee
                                                                   2006 enacted     request\1\    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food safety inspection:
    Federal.....................................................         745,720         777,189         777,189
    State.......................................................          53,252          56,557          56,557
    International...............................................          19,355          20,780          20,780
Codex Alimentarius..............................................           2,972           3,029           3,029
FAIM............................................................           8,079           5,350           8,350
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................         829,378         862,905         865,905
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\This amount includes proposed user fees in the amount of $105,435,000.

    Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural 
                                Services

Appropriations, 2006....................................        $629,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................         737,000
House allowance.........................................         691,000
Committee recommendation................................         640,000

    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

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $640,000 for 
the Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign 
Agricultural Services.
    Dry Milk Exports.--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.
    Export Credit.--The Committee supports the General Sales 
Manager [GSM] export credit program, including the 
implementation of effective regional GSM programs, and expects 
USDA to fully utilize this program to expand markets for U.S. 
agricultural goods. The Committee expects USDA to set risk-
based fees to cover, and not exceed, long-term operating costs 
and losses of the program. USDA should be flexible and 
implement adjustments to risk-based fees as necessary to ensure 
program effectiveness and enhance the competitiveness of U.S. 
exports. The Committee expects that USDA will seek input from 
the private sector when evaluating country risk. The Committee 
believes fee schedules and country risk determinations should 
be reviewed regularly and modified in response to material 
changes in country risk conditions.
    Food Security Commodity Reserve.--The Committee urges USDA 
to manage the Food Security Commodity Reserve effectively to 
meet international food aid commitments of the United States, 
including supplementing Public Law 480 title II funds to meet 
emergency food needs.

                          Farm Service Agency

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

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Transfers from    Total, FSA,
                                                                Appropriations      program        salaries and
                                                                                    accounts         expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2006.........................................        1,019,700          306,551        1,326,251
Budget estimate, 2007........................................        1,091,359          319,294        1,410,653
House allowance..............................................        1,053,760          310,335        1,364,095
Committee recommendation.....................................        1,151,779          319,294        1,471,073
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,151,779,000 
for salaries and expenses of the Farm Service Agency. The 
Committee recommendation includes $64,702,000 for Common 
Computing Environment activities.
    Indian Credit Outreach.--The Committee is aware of the 
successful partnership between the Farm Service Agency and the 
National Tribal Development Association [NTDA]. This 
partnership focuses on reducing defaults and deficiencies in 
Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund loan programs. The Committee 
strongly encourages FSA to continue this cooperative agreement 
with NTDA at current levels.
    National Agriculture Imagery Program.--The Committee 
recommends $2,000,000 for the enhancement and management of the 
agriculture imagery catalog repositories and data warehouses at 
the USDA Aerial Photography Field Office for mirrored data 
storage hardware and software, including content addressable 
storage, and integrated software which guarantees authenticity 
over time and provides scalability to meet future requirements.
    The Committee recommends that funds be allocated to 
purchase high resolution satellite imagery data or products to 
meet programmatic requirements. The acquisition of high 
resolution satellite imagery will also encourage the 
development of second generation imagery satellites, which is 
key to preparing our Nation's agricultural economy to keep pace 
with 21st century technological innovation.

                         STATE MEDIATION GRANTS

Appropriations, 2006....................................      $4,208,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................       4,208,000
House allowance.........................................       4,208,000
Committee recommendation................................       4,208,000

    This program is authorized under title V of the 
Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 (7 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.). 
Originally designed to address agricultural credit disputes, 
the program was expanded by the Federal Crop Insurance Reform 
and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 
(Public Law 103-354) to include other agricultural issues such 
as wetland determinations, conservation compliance, rural water 
loan programs, grazing on National Forest System lands, and 
pesticides. The authorization for this program was extended 
through fiscal year 2010 by Public Law 109-17. 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 an appropriation of $4,208,000 for 
State Mediation Grants.

               GRASSROOTS SOURCE WATER PROTECTION PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2006....................................      $3,713,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................................
House allowance.........................................       3,713,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,713,000

    This program is authorized under section 2502 of Public Law 
107-171. It is intended to assist in the protection of 
groundwater through State rural water associations.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,713,000 for 
Grassroots Source Water Protection.

                        DAIRY INDEMNITY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2006....................................        $100,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................         100,000
House allowance.........................................         100,000
Committee recommendation................................         100,000

    Under the program, the Department makes indemnification 
payments to dairy farmers and manufacturers of dairy products 
who, through no fault of their own, suffer losses because they 
are directed to remove their milk from commercial markets due 
to contamination of their products by registered pesticides. 
The program also authorizes indemnity payments to dairy farmers 
for losses resulting from the removal of cows or dairy products 
from the market due to nuclear radiation or fallout. The 
authorization for this program was extended through fiscal year 
2007 by Public Law 107-171.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $100,000 for 
the Dairy Indemnity Program.

           AGRICULTURAL CREDIT INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

    The Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account is 
used to provide direct and guaranteed 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.
    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:
    Boll Weevil Eradication Loans.--Made to assist foundations 
in financing the operations of the boll weevil eradication 
programs provided to farmers.
    Credit Sales of Acquired Property.--Property is sold out of 
inventory and is made available to an eligible buyer by 
providing FSA loans.
    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.
    Farm Operating Loans.--Provide short-to-intermediate term 
production or chattel credit to farmers who cannot obtain 
credit elsewhere, to improve their farm and home operations, 
and to develop or maintain a reasonable standard of living. The 
term of the loan varies from 1 to 7 years.
    Farm Ownership Loans.--Made to borrowers who cannot obtain 
credit elsewhere to restructure their debts, improve or 
purchase farms, refinance nonfarm enterprises which supplement 
but do not supplant farm income, or make additions to farms. 
Loans are made for 40 years or less.
    Indian Tribe Land Acquisition Loans.--Made to any Indian 
tribe recognized by the Secretary of the Interior or tribal 
corporation established pursuant to the Indian Reorganization 
Act (Public Law 93-638) which does not have adequate 
uncommitted funds to acquire lands or interest in lands within 
the tribe's reservation or Alaskan Indian community, as 
determined by the Secretary of the Interior, for use of the 
tribe or the corporation or the members thereof.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends a total loan level of 
$3,427,470,000 for programs within the Agricultural Credit 
Insurance Fund Program Account.
    Emergency Loan Program.--The Committee recommends no new 
budget authority for the emergency loan program. Currently, 
this loan program has over $133,000,000 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 
2006 and the budget request levels:

                                    AGRICULTURAL CREDIT PROGRAMS--LOAN LEVELS
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Fiscal year      Fiscal year       Committee
                                                                 2006 enacted     2007 budget     recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farm ownership:
    Direct...................................................          205,918          222,750          222,750
    Guaranteed...............................................        1,386,000        1,200,000        1,200,000
Farm operating:
    Direct...................................................          643,500          643,500          643,500
    Guaranteed unsubsidized..................................        1,138,500        1,025,610        1,025,610
    Guaranteed subsidized....................................          271,886          272,250          272,250
Indian tribe land acquisition................................            2,000            3,960            3,960
Boll weevil eradication......................................          100,000           59,400           59,400
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, farm loans......................................        3,747,804        3,427,470        3,427,470
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

           LOAN SUBSIDIES AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Subsidies                  Administrative expenses
                                --------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Guaranteed                               Transfer to   Total ACIF
                                 Direct loan      loan        Total     Appropriations      FSA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2006...........       74,652       75,136      149,788          7,920       301,545      309,465
Budget estimate, 2007..........       86,525       27,387      113,912          7,920       311,737      319,657
House allowance................       86,525       62,781      149,306          7,920       307,338      315,258
Committee recommendation.......       86,525       59,708      146,233          7,920       311,737      319,657
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Committee
                                                                 2006 enacted     2007 budget     recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:
    Farm ownership:
        Direct...............................................           10,544            9,333            9,333
        Guaranteed...........................................            6,653  ...............            6,960
    Farm operating:
        Direct...............................................           64,028           75,225           75,225
        Guaranteed unsubsidized..............................           34,497            2,667           25,332
        Guaranteed subsidized................................           33,986           24,720           27,416
    Indian tribe land acquisition............................               80              838              838
    Boll weevil eradication..................................  ...............            1,129            1,129
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
        Total, loan subsidies................................          149,788          113,912          146,233
ACIF expenses................................................          309,465          319,657          319,657
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Risk Management Agency

Appropriations, 2006....................................     $76,278,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................      80,797,000
House allowance.........................................      77,197,000
Committee recommendation................................      78,477,000

    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, 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.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $78,477,000 
for the Risk Management Agency.
    Data Mining.--The Committee includes bill language allowing 
up to $3,600,000 of the unobligated funds of the Federal Crop 
Insurance Corporation Fund to be used for program integrity 
purposes.

                              CORPORATIONS

                Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund

Appropriations, 2006\1\.................................  $3,159,379,000
Budget estimate, 2007\1\................................   4,131,035,000
House allowance\1\......................................   4,131,035,000
Committee recommendation\1\.............................   4,131,035,000

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

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of such sums as 
may be necessary, estimated to be $4,131,035,000 for the 
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund.

                   Commodity Credit Corporation Fund

    The Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC] is a wholly owned 
Government corporation created in 1933 to stabilize, support, 
and protect farm income and prices; to help maintain balanced 
and adequate supplies of agricultural commodities, including 
products, foods, feeds, and fibers; and to help in the orderly 
distribution of these commodities. CCC was originally 
incorporated under a Delaware charter and was reincorporated 
June 30, 1948, as a Federal corporation within the Department 
of Agriculture by the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act, 
approved June 29, 1948 (15 U.S.C. 714).
    The Commodity Credit Corporation engages in buying, 
selling, lending, and other activities with respect to 
agricultural commodities, their products, food, feed, and 
fibers. Its purposes include stabilizing, supporting, and 
protecting farm income and prices; maintaining the balance and 
adequate supplies of selected commodities; and facilitating the 
orderly distribution of such commodities. In addition, the 
Corporation makes available materials and facilities required 
in connection with the storage and distribution of such 
commodities. The Corporation also disburses funds for sharing 
of costs with producers for the establishment of approved 
conservation practices on environmentally sensitive land and 
subsequent rental payments for such land for the duration of 
Conservation Reserve Program contracts.
    Corporation activities are primarily governed by the 
following statutes: the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter 
Act (Public Law 80-806), as amended; the Agricultural Act of 
1949 (Public Law 81-439), as amended (1949 Act); the 
Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (Public Law 75-430), as 
amended (the 1938 Act); the Food Security Act of 1985 (Public 
Law 99-198), as amended (1985 Act); and the Farm Security and 
Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-171) (2002 Act), 
enacted May 13, 2002.
    Under the 2002 Act, the Secretary is required to offer a 
program of direct and counter-cyclical payments and extend 
nonrecourse marketing assistance loans and loan deficiency 
payments for contract commodities (soybeans, wheat, corn, grain 
sorghum, barley, oats, upland cotton, rice, other oilseeds, and 
peanuts). The 2002 Act also provides for marketing loans for 
wool, mohair, honey, small chickpeas, lentils and dry peas. A 
national Milk Income Loss Contract [MILC] program was 
established by the 2002 Act, providing that producers enter 
into contracts extending through September 30, 2005. The 
authorization of the MILC program has been extended through 
August 2007 by Public Law 109-171. 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 incentive program [WHIP]. Each of these programs is 
funded through the CCC.
    The 2002 Act also authorizes and provides CCC funding for 
other conservation programs, including the conservation 
security program and the grassland reserve program.
    Management of the Corporation is vested in a board of 
directors, subject to the general supervision and direction of 
the Secretary of Agriculture, who is an ex-officio director and 
chairman of the board. The board consists of seven members, in 
addition to the Secretary, who are appointed by the President 
of the United States with the advice and consent of the Senate. 
Officers of the Corporation are designated according to their 
positions in the Department of Agriculture.
    The activities of the Corporation are carried out mainly by 
the personnel and through the facilities of the Farm Service 
Agency [FSA] and the Farm Service Agency State and county 
committees. The Foreign Agricultural Service, the General Sales 
Manager, other agencies and offices of the Department, and 
commercial agents are also used to carry out certain aspects of 
the Corporation's activities.
    The Corporation's capital stock of $100,000,000 is held by 
the United States. Under present law, up to $30,000,000,000 may 
be borrowed from the U.S. Treasury, from private lending 
agencies, and from others at any one time. The Corporation 
reserves a sufficient amount of its borrowing authority to 
purchase at any time all notes and other obligations evidencing 
loans made by such agencies and others. All bonds, notes, 
debentures, and similar obligations issued by the Corporation 
are subject to approval by the Secretary of the Treasury.
    Under Public Law 87-155 (15 U.S.C. 713a-11, 713a-12), 
annual appropriations are authorized for each fiscal year, 
commencing with fiscal year 1961. These appropriations are to 
reimburse the Corporation for net realized losses.

                 REIMBURSEMENT FOR NET REALIZED LOSSES

Appropriations, 2006\1\................................. $25,690,000,000
Budget estimate, 2007\1\................................  19,740,000,000
House allowance\1\......................................  19,740,000,000
Committee recommendation\1\.............................  19,740,000,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of such sums as 
may be necessary, estimated in fiscal year 2007 to be 
$19,740,000,000 for the payment to reimburse the Commodity 
Credit Corporation for net realized losses.
    CCC Inventories.--The Committee is aware that certain CCC 
surplus commodities have been used to supplement various 
programs, including support for domestic nutrition assistance. 
In those instances where surplus nonfat dry milk stocks have 
been used, information relating to the amount available and the 
quality of those stocks is important for program planning. The 
Committee directs the Department to provide monthly reports to 
the Committee regarding ending monthly stocks of nonfat dry 
milk. This report should include the amount of nonfat dry milk 
in stock at the end of each month; the quality of those stocks, 
including the quantity suitable for human consumption; detailed 
information on how the nonfat dry milk was distributed during 
the month; and the plans for distribution during the next 
month.
    The Committee directs the USDA through the Commodity Credit 
Corporation to provide, as stocks become available, 15 million 
pounds of nonfat dry milk unsuitable for human consumption, to 
the U.S. farm-raised catfish industry for evaluation as a 
catfish feed ingredient. This product shall be provided at 
prices and terms consistent with existing programs supporting 
other U.S. agricultural industries.

                       HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT

Limitation, 2006........................................      $5,000,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................       5,000,000
House allowance.........................................       5,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       5,000,000

    The Commodity Credit Corporation's [CCC] hazardous waste 
management program is intended to ensure compliance with the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) and the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). The CCC 
funds operations and maintenance costs as well as site 
investigation and cleanup expenses. Investigative and cleanup 
costs associated with the management of CCC hazardous waste are 
also paid from USDA's hazardous waste management appropriation.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends a limitation of $5,000,000 for 
Commodity Credit Corporation hazardous waste management.

              FARM STORAGE FACILITY LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2006....................................................
Budget estimate, 2007...................................      $4,560,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................       4,560,000

    The Farm Storage Facility Loan Program [FSFL], originally 
established in 1949, was discontinued in the early 1980's 
pending adequate capacity, and re-established in fiscal year 
2000 to address current storage space shortages. Federal 
Government subsidy costs supporting this program are estimated 
pursuant to the Federal Credit Reform Act [FCRA] of 1990 
(Public Law 101-508, sec. 13201, et seq.) (2 U.S.C. 661, et 
seq.). The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 
directed the CCC to establish a Sugar Storage Facility Loan 
Program to provide financing for domestic processors to 
construct and improve sugar storage and handling facilities. 
Administrative expenses for this program ($4,329,000 in fiscal 
year 2006) have been included in the Salaries and Expenses 
account of the Farm Service Agency [FSA], which administers the 
program. Following OMB guidance (Circular A-11), FSA recently 
moved these expenses to the FSFL account to comply with FCRA 
section 504(g) direction that all funding for an agency's 
administration of a direct loan or loan guarantee program shall 
be displayed as distinct and separately identified subaccounts 
within the same budget account as the program's cost (2 U.S.C. 
661c).

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,560,000 for 
administration of the Farm Storage Facility Loan Program.

                                TITLE II

                         CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

  Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment

Appropriations, 2006....................................        $737,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................         957,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................         752,000

    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 [NRCS].

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $752,000 for 
the Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and 
Environment.
    Atlantic Salmon Recovery.--The Committee supports the goals 
of the Penobscot River Restoration Project in the State of 
Maine. This project will restore over 500 miles of river 
habitat utilized by Atlantic salmon and 10 other species of 
native sea-run fish. The Committee strongly encourages the NRCS 
to improve migratory fish habitat in this watershed, including 
the removal of impediments to passage, by utilizing all 
appropriate funding sources.
    Colorado River Salinity.--The Committee is aware of 
continuing problems of water resource management in Western 
States, especially those States experiencing rapid growth in 
water demand, and urges the Secretary to dedicate adequate 
financial and technical assistance for on-farm measures to 
control Colorado River salinity, especially in the Price-San 
Rafael area of Utah.
    Devils Lake.--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.
    Klamath Basin.--The Committee recognizes that funds 
provided under this Act to Klamath Basin farmers and ranchers 
will go primarily to meet site-specific conservation goals. 
However, the Committee intends that on-farm conservation 
activities will be consistent with the broader goals for 
environmental restoration and the recovery of Endangered 
Species Act--listed species in the Klamath Basin, and enhance 
the stability of operations for the Federal reclamation 
project.
    Wetlands Reserve Program.--The Committee strongly 
encourages the NRCS to establish a demonstration pilot program 
utilizing rapid growth reforestation technology.
    Wetlands Reserve Program Assessments.--In February 2006, 
the Secretary announced a change in the Wetlands Reserve 
Program that would take into account the value of recreational 
and similar uses in determining the appraised value of 
easements offered under this program. The Committee directs the 
Secretary to minimize the effect this change will have in 
regard to geographical participation in the Wetlands Reserve 
Program and report to the Committee within 120 days of 
enactment of this Act on the impact this policy change may have 
on utilization of this program in all regions of the country 
and the steps taken to minimize such change.

                 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). The 
NRCS works with conservation districts, watershed groups, and 
Federal and State agencies 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 flood damage and sedimentation.

                        conservation operations

Appropriations, 2006....................................    $831,124,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................     744,877,000
House allowance.........................................     791,498,000
Committee recommendation................................     835,331,000

    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.
    Plant Materials Centers.--Assembles, tests, and encourages 
increased use of plant species which show promise for use in 
the treatment of conservation problem areas.
    Snow Survey and Water Forecasting.--Provides estimates of 
annual water availability from high mountain snow packs and 
relates to summer stream flow in the Western States and Alaska. 
Information is used by agriculture, industry, and cities in 
estimating future water supplies.
    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.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $835,331,000 
for Conservation Operations. The Committee recommendation 
includes $18,717,000 for Common Computing Environment 
activities.
    For fiscal year 2007, the Committee recommends funding, as 
specified below, for new and ongoing conservation activities. 
Amounts recommended by the Committee for specific conservation 
measures shall be in addition to levels otherwise made 
available to States.
    Projects identified in House Report 109-255, the conference 
report accompanying H.R. 2744, an Act making appropriations for 
agriculture, rural development, food and drug administration, 
and related agencies programs for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, that were directed 
to be funded in fiscal year 2006 are not funded in fiscal year 
2007, unless specifically mentioned herein.
    Agricultural Development and Resource Conservation.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $911,000 to expand the 
agricultural development and resource conservation program 
currently serving the Island of Molokai. These funds are to be 
shared equally among Hawaii, Oahu, Maui, and Kauai Counties in 
the State of Hawaii.
    Agricultural Waste Remediation.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $292,000 to continue agricultural waste 
remediation in the Lake Pontchartrain Basin of Louisiana.
    Alabama Association of Conservation Districts.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $99,000 for a cooperative 
agreement with the Alabama Association of Conservation 
Districts.
    Alaska Association of Conservation Districts.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $1,473,000 for a cooperative 
agreement with the Alaska Association of Conservation 
Districts. The cooperative agreement shall limit administrative 
expenses to no more than 10 percent of the appropriated funds.
    Alluvial Floodplain Conservation.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $743,000 for alluvial floodplain 
conservation in the State of Mississippi.
    Altamaha River Basin Water Quality.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $99,000 for a cooperative agreement 
with Georgia Southern University for the Altamaha River Basin 
water quality project.
    Appalachian Small Farmer Outreach.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $851,000 to continue the Appalachian 
small farmer outreach program in the State of West Virginia.
    Big Sandy Tri-State Watershed.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $200,000 for the Big Sandy Tri-State 
Watershed inventory and analysis for McDowell, Mingo, and Logan 
Counties in West Virginia.
    Carson City Erosion Control.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $450,000 for the Carson City erosion control project 
in the State of Nevada.
    Certified Environmental Management Systems.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $428,000 to continue the Certified 
Environmental Management Systems for Agriculture in cooperation 
with the Iowa Soybean Association.
    Chesapeake Bay.--The Committee supports continuing 
activities of the Chesapeake Bay Program and urges the agency 
to provide ongoing support to provide technical assistance to 
farmers and local governments throughout the Bay Watershed.
    Coastal Urban Wetland Restoration.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $500,000 for restoration activities 
associated with coastal urban wetlands in Louisiana.
    Cold Region Plant Materials and Seeds.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $297,000 to obtain and evaluate plant 
materials and seeds native to regions north of 52 degrees north 
latitude and equivalent vegetated regions in the southern 
hemisphere. The Committee directs the agency to continue 
working in conjunction with the Alaska Division of Agriculture.
    Conservation Education.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $442,000 for a cooperative agreement between the 
Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and 
the Alabama Wildlife Federation for conservation education in 
Millbrook, Alabama.
    Conservation Land Internship.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $119,000 for the conservation land internship program 
in the State of Wisconsin.
    Conservation Planning, Florida.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $347,000 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.
    Conservation Planning, Massachusetts and Wisconsin.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $594,000 to continue 
conservation planning related to cranberry production in the 
States of Massachusetts and Wisconsin.
    Conservation Practices and Agricultural Diversification.--
The Committee recommendation includes $495,000 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.
    Conservation Technology Transfer.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $297,000 for a cooperative agreement 
with the University of Wisconsin for the conservation 
technology transfer project.
    Dairy Waste Management.--The Committee expects the NRCS to 
work in conjunction with the Agricultural Research Service 
Dairy Forage Laboratory in Madison, Wisconsin, regarding dairy 
waste management and in the development of a working 
arrangement regarding planned expansion of the Dairy Forage 
Laboratory activities at Marshfield, Wisconsin, and the 
establishment of a NRCS Waste Management Institute at that 
location.
    Delta Conservation Demonstration.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $1,375,000 for the Delta Conservation 
Demonstration Center in Washington County, Mississippi.
    Delta Water Resources Study.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $687,000 to continue the delta water resources study 
in the State of Mississippi.
    Devils Lake Water Utilization.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $347,000 for a cooperative agreement 
with the North Central Planning Council to continue the 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.
    Driftless Area Conservation.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $260,000 for conservation in the Driftless area in the 
States of Wisconsin and Minnesota.
    Environmental Compliance.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $250,000 for a cooperative agreement with the 
Wisconsin Dairy Business Association to help livestock 
producers comply with recently enacted livestock siting 
requirements. Technical assistance provided through this 
agreement will help producers interested in practices that 
minimize odor, manage waste, and address smart-growth planning 
concerns.
    Farm Viability.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$297,000 to continue a pilot farm viability program project in 
the State of Vermont.
    Flint Hills of Kansas.--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.
    Geographic Information System Center of Excellence.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $4,455,000 for the geographic 
information system center of excellence at West Virginia 
University.
    Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $3,663,000 for a cooperative 
agreement with the Georgia Soil and Water Conservation 
Commission.
    Grazing Land Conservation, Wisconsin.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $941,000 for grazing land conservation 
activities in the State of Wisconsin.
    Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $27,255,000 for the grazing lands 
conservation initiative. The Committee expects that NRCS 
continue fiscal year 2006 levels to manage and prevent the 
spread of invasive species. The Committee encourages the agency 
to make western range lands a priority when allocating funding.
    Great Lakes Basin Soil and Erosion Control.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $2,475,000 for the Great Lakes Basin 
program for soil and erosion control.
    Green River Water Quality and Biological Diversity.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $392,000 for a cooperative 
agreement with Western Kentucky University to monitor water 
quality and biological diversity of the Green River and 
surrounding watersheds.
    Hardwood Forest Restoration.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $396,000 for hardwood forest restoration through the 
Operation Oak program.
    Hazardous Fuels.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$200,000 for activities related to hazardous fuels reduction in 
Nevada.
    High Plains Aquifer.--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.
    Illinois River Agricultural Water Conservation.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $240,000 for the Illinois 
River Agricultural Water Conservation Project in the State of 
Illinois, in conjunction with Ducks Unlimited.
    Illinois River Watershed.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $173,000 to assist in planning and operations in the 
Illinois River watershed.
    Invasive Species, Hawaii.--The Committee continues to be 
concerned about the serious threat to Hawaiian pastures and 
forest watersheds resulting from the introduction of invasive 
species, such as gorse and miconia, and encourages the NRCS to 
work with the Hawaii Department of Agriculture and the Animal 
and Plant Health Inspection Service to develop holistic 
approaches to controlling and eradicating these invasive alien 
pests and to provide funding as appropriate.
    Kentucky Association of Conservation Districts.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $990,000 for a cooperative 
agreement with the Kentucky Association of Conservation 
Districts.
    Lake Erie Wetlands Conservation Corridors.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $124,000 for the Lake Erie wetlands 
conservation corridors project in the State of Ohio.
    Land Use Change.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$1,178,000 for a study to characterize the on-site 
consequences, estimate off-site impacts, and develop strategies 
to facilitate land use change while preserving critical natural 
resources. The agency is directed to work in cooperation with 
Clemson University.
    Loess Hills Soil Erosion.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $1,188,000 to address soil erosion in the Loess Hills 
area in the State of Iowa.
    Long Island Sound Watershed Initiative.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $198,000 for the Long Island Sound 
watershed initiative in the State of New York.
    Mississippi Conservation Initiative.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $9,900,000 for the Mississippi 
Conservation Initiative.
    Mississippi River Alluvial Floodplain.--The Committee 
directs the agency to maintain a national priority area pilot 
program under the guidelines of the Environmental Quality 
Incentives Program in the alluvial floodplain of the 
Mississippi River.
    Molokai Agriculture Development and Resource 
Conservation.--The Committee recommendation includes $230,000 
to continue the agriculture development and resources 
conservation program on the Island of Molokai, Hawaii.
    Montana Association of Conservation Districts.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $250,000 for a cooperative 
agreement with the Montana Association of Conservation 
Districts.
    Narragansett Bay.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$150,000 for nitrate control in watersheds affecting the 
Narragansett Bay in Rhode Island.
    National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $2,970,000 to maintain a partnership 
between USDA and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
    Native Plant Materials Commercialization.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $297,000 for commercialization of 
native plant materials in the State of Alaska.
    Native Vegetation Utilization.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $442,000 for a cooperative agreement 
with the University of Northern Iowa.
    Natural Resource Inventory, Alaska.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $495,000 to continue Natural Resource 
Inventory pilot activity development in Alaska. The agency 
shall provide the Committee with a report detailing its 
progress on these activities.
    Nitrogen Removal.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$1,188,000 for a cooperative agreement with the Sand County 
Foundation in the State of Wisconsin to carry out an expanded 
nitrogen removal test project.
    Nutrient Application and Water Quality.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $158,000 to conduct nitrogen soil tests 
and plant-available nitrogen tests, and to demonstrate poultry 
litter and wood composting in an effort to improve farmers' 
economic returns and minimize potential water quality 
conditions resulting from excess application of nutrients from 
manure and fertilizers on West Virginia's cropland.
    Nutrient Management, Arkansas.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $223,000 for the Ozark nutrient 
management project in the State of Arkansas.
    Nutrient Management, Mississippi.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $884,000 for cattle and nutrient 
management in stream crossings in cooperation with Mississippi 
Association of Conservation Districts.
    On Farm Management Systems Evaluation Network.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $248,000 for assistance for 
an On Farm Management Systems Evaluation Network.
    Phosphorous Application.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $446,000 to address concerns with the application of 
phosphorous on agricultural lands in the State of North 
Carolina.
    Phosphorus Loading in Lake Champlain.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $297,000 for the testing of emerging 
alternative technology in the State of Vermont to reduce 
phosphorus loading in Lake Champlain.
    Pioneer Farm.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$297,000 for a cooperative agreement with the University of 
Wisconsin-Platteville for the Pioneer Farm project.
    Pioneers in Conservation.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $200,000 for a cooperative agreement with the 
Washington State Conservation Commission to carry out the Puget 
Sound Pioneers in Conservation program.
    Plant Materials Centers.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $10,678,000 for NRCS plant material centers.
    Potomac and Ohio River Basins Soil Nutrient 
Characterization.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$297,000 to continue the expansion of the Potomac and Ohio 
River Basins Soil Nutrient Project to include Jefferson, 
Berkeley, and Greenbrier Counties. This funding will enable the 
NRCS, in cooperation with West Virginia University, Appalachian 
Small Farming Research Center, and the Natural Soil Survey 
Laboratory in Lincoln, Nebraska, 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.
    Potomac River Tributary Program.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $250,000 to NRCS to assist agricultural 
producers in the Potomac Highlands to develop comprehensive 
nutrient management plans to address water quality issues in 
the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
    Range Revegetation.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$495,000 for range revegetation at Fort Hood in the State of 
Texas.
    Resource and Regulatory Compliance.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $198,000 for the continued development 
of comprehensive resource and regulatory compliance tools in 
the State of Idaho.
    Riparian Restoration.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $532,000 to carry out riparian restoration activities 
along the Rio Grande, Canadian, and Pecos Rivers in the State 
of New Mexico.
    Sage Grouse.--The Committee encourages the Secretary to 
utilize no less than $5,000,000 from all appropriate funding 
sources to support sage grouse habitat conservation in States 
within the current range of the greater sage grouse.
    Sharkey Soils.--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.
    Small Farm Outreach and Water Management Center.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $124,000 for a cooperative 
agreement with the Small Farm Outreach and Water Management 
Center at the University of Arkansas-Pine Bluff.
    Snow Survey and Water Supply Forecasting.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $10,698,000 for snow survey and water 
supply forecasting.
    Soil Erosion and Water Quality.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $190,000 for a cooperative agreement 
with Alcorn State University for the analysis of soil erosion 
and water quality in the State of Mississippi.
    Soil Productivity and Water Quality.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $990,000 to address soil productivity 
and water quality issues in the State of New Jersey.
    Soil Survey.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$89,291,000 for nationwide soil surveys.
    Soil Surveys, Kentucky.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $2,970,000 to provide technical assistance for the 
Kentucky Soil Erosion Control/Soil Survey Program.
    Soil Surveys, Rhode Island.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $99,000 to continue soil surveys in the State of Rhode 
Island.
    Soil Surveys, Wyoming.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $297,000 to continue soil surveys in the State of 
Wyoming.
    Tribal Conservation.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$297,000 for a cooperative agreement with the Wisconsin Tribal 
Conservation Advisory Committee for conservation and 
sustainable agricultural activities.
    Union-Lincoln Parish Regional Water Conservation.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $124,000 for the Union-
Lincoln Parish regional water conservation project in the State 
of Louisiana.
    Utah Conservation Initiative.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $4,950,000 to continue the Utah Conservation 
Initiative.
    Vegetation Manipulation Study.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $792,000 for a cooperative agreement 
with Utah State University to examine the effect of vegetation 
manipulation on water yields and other watershed functions.
    Water Conservation and Efficient Irrigation, California.--
The Committee recommendation includes $198,000 for a water 
conservation and efficient irrigation project with the 
Municipal Water District of Orange County, California.
    Water Conservation and Efficient Irrigation, Idaho.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $250,000 for a cooperative 
agreement with the Little Wood River Irrigation District in the 
State of Idaho.
    Water Conservation.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$500,000 for a cooperative agreement with the Central Colorado 
Water Conservancy District in the State of Colorado.
    Water Conveyance Efficiency.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $2,970,000 to improve water conveyance efficiency 
through the Washington Fields project in the State of Utah.
    Water Quality Best Management Practices.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $396,000 for a study on the 
effectiveness of agriculture and forestry best management 
practices on water quality. The Committee directs the agency to 
work in cooperation with Louisiana State University.
    Water Quality, Utah.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$297,000 to improve water quality through the Utah confined 
animal feed operation/animal feeding operation pilot project.
    Watershed Management, Iowa.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $543,000 for watershed management and demonstration 
projects in cooperation with the National Pork Producers 
Council and Iowa Soybean Association.
    Wildlife Habitat Improvement.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $240,000 for wildlife habitat improvement through the 
Energy for Wildlife program in the State of Illinois.
    Wildlife Habitat Management Institute.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $2,970,000 for the Wildlife Habitat 
Management Institute [WHMI]. The Committee recognizes the 
unique attributes and contributions made by the WHMI toward 
wildlife conservation goals of the Nation. As such, the 
Committee encourages the NRCS to continue a competitive grants 
process with a goal of leveraging innovative habitat 
conservation efforts on private lands.
    Wildlife Management on Private Lands.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $198,000 for a cooperative agreement 
with Alaska Village Initiatives for a private lands wildlife 
management program in the State of Alaska.

                     WATERSHED SURVEYS AND PLANNING

Appropriations, 2006....................................      $6,022,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................................
House allowance.........................................       6,022,000
Committee recommendation................................       6,022,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,022,000 for 
Watershed Surveys and Planning.
    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 recommend 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, 2006....................................     $74,250,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................................
House allowance.........................................      40,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      62,070,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $62,070,000 
for Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations.
    Arkabutla Watershed.--The Committee recommendation includes 
funding for NRCS to stabilize stream banks in the Arkabutla 
watershed in the State of Mississippi.
    Coal Creek.--The Committee recommendation includes funding 
for NRCS to complete the Coal Creek project in the State of 
Utah.
    Hawaii Watershed Projects.--The Committee recommendation 
includes funding for NRCS to complete the next phase of the 
Lahaina Watershed, Lower Hamakua Ditch Watershed, Manoa 
Watershed, Upcountry Maui Watershed, and Wailuku-Alenaio 
Watershed projects in the State of Hawaii.
    Iowa Watershed Projects.--The Committee recommendation 
includes funding for NRCS to complete the next phase of the 12-
Mile Creek, A&T Longbranch, Bear Creek, East Fork of Grand 
River, Hacklebarney, Little River, Little Sioux River, Mill 
Creek, Mill-Pacauyne, Mosquito of Harrison, Soap Creek, 
Troublesome Creek, Turkey Creek, West Fork of Big Creek, and 
West Tarkio Creek projects in the State of Iowa.
    Little Red River.--The Committee recommendation includes 
funding for NRCS to complete the next phase of the Little Red 
River irrigation project in the State of Arkansas.
    Little Whitestick Watershed.--The Committee recommendation 
includes funding for NRCS to complete the Little Whitestick 
watershed project in the State of West Virginia.
    Long Beach Watershed.--The Committee recommendation 
includes funding for NRCS to make channel improvements in the 
Long Beach Watershed, Canal 2-3, Harrison County, Mississippi.
    Lost River.--The Committee recommendation includes funding 
for NRCS to complete the next phase of the Lost River watershed 
project in the State of West Virginia.
    Matanuska River.--The Committee recommendation includes 
funding for NRCS to complete the next phase of the Matanuska 
River erosion control project in the State of Alaska.
    Missouri Watershed Projects.--The Committee recommendation 
includes funding for NRCS to complete the next phase of the Big 
Creek-Hurricane Creek, East Locust Creek, Little Otter Creek, 
and West Fork of Big Creek projects in the State of Missouri.
    Pine Barren Watershed.--The Committee recommendation 
includes funding to NRCS to complete the next phase of the Pine 
Barren watershed project in the State of Alabama.
    Potomac Headwaters.--The Committee recommendation includes 
funding for NRCS to complete the next phase of the Potomac 
Headwaters land treatment project in the State of West 
Virginia.
    Town Creek Watershed.--The Committee recommendation 
includes funding for NRCS to complete the next phase of the 
Town Creek watershed project, Lee County, Mississippi.
    Upper Deckers Creek.--The Committee recommendation includes 
funding for NRCS to continue the next phase of the Upper 
Deckers Creek watershed project in the State of West Virginia.
    Upper Tallahatchie Watershed.--The Committee recommendation 
includes funding for NRCS for channel grade control in the 
Upper Tallahatchie watershed, Union and Tippah Counties, 
Mississippi.
    Upper Tygart.--The Committee recommendation includes 
funding for NRCS to continue the next phase of the Upper Tygart 
project in the State of West Virginia.
    West Branch DuPage River Watershed.--The Committee 
recommendation includes funding for NRCS to complete the next 
phase of the West Branch DuPage River watershed project in the 
State of Illinois.
    Yadkin County 5-D project.--The Committee recommendation 
includes funding for NRCS to initiate the next phase of the 
Yadkin County 5-D project in the State of North Carolina.

                    WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2006....................................     $31,245,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................      15,300,000
House allowance.........................................      31,245,000
Committee recommendation................................      31,245,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $31,245,000 
for the Watershed Rehabilitation Program.
    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, 2006....................................     $50,787,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................      25,933,000
House allowance.........................................      50,787,000
Committee recommendation................................      50,787,000

    The Natural Resources Conservation Service has general 
responsibility under provisions of section 102, title I of the 
Food and Agriculture Act of 1962 (7 U.S.C. 1010 et seq.), for 
developing overall work plans for resource conservation and 
development projects in cooperation with local sponsors; to 
help develop local programs of land conservation and 
utilization; to assist local groups and individuals in carrying 
out such plans and programs; to conduct surveys and 
investigations relating to the conditions and factors affecting 
such work on private lands; and to make loans to project 
sponsors for conservation and development purposes and to 
individual operators for establishing soil and water 
conservation practices.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $50,787,000 
for Resource Conservation and Development.

                    HEALTHY FORESTS RESERVE PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2006\1\.................................      $2,475,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................       2,475,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................       5,000,000

\1\In fiscal year 2006, funding was provided through section 771 of 
Public Law 109-97.

    The healthy forests reserve program [HFRP] was authorized 
by title V of Public Law 108-148 (16 U.S.C. 6571-6578). The 
purpose of the HFRP is to restore and enhance forest ecosystems 
to promote the recovery of threatened and endangered species; 
to improve biodiversity; and to enhance carbon sequestration. 
The program operates on a voluntary basis with private 
landowners utilizing cost-share agreements or easements of 
varying duration. The Federal Government assists participating 
landowners with the cost of the approved conservation 
practices.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,000,000 for 
the Healthy Forest Reserve Program.

                               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, 2006....................................        $629,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................         823,000
House allowance.........................................         692,000
Committee recommendation................................         640,000

    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

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $640,000 for 
the Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development.
    Broadband Service.--The Committee is concerned that 
significant portions of rural America remain without broadband 
service, thus limiting economic opportunity in those areas. The 
Committee directs that RUS revise its rules and procedures to 
reduce the burdensome application process and make the program 
requirements more reasonable, particularly in regard to cash-
on-hand requirements.
    Denali Commission.--The Committee has included a general 
provision which recommends $750,000 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.
    Interoperable Emergency Communication Equipment.--The 
Committee notes that the community facilities program provides 
funding for essential services for rural residents to address 
the public health, safety, and emergency needs of small rural 
communities. The Committee encourages the Secretary to give 
priority consideration to funding requests made for 
interoperable emergency communications equipment to further 
enhance these efforts.
    National Rural Development Partnership [NRDP].--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.
    Renewable Energy.--The Committee strongly encourages the 
Department to continue to extend support to agricultural 
producers and cooperatives, especially rural small businesses 
and small agricultural producers for the development of 
renewable fuels from the full range of its business lending and 
investment programs.
    Rural-Business Cooperative Service.--The Committee 
recommends continued staffing and operations of the Rural 
Business-Cooperative Service office in Hilo, Hawaii to address 
the increasing demand for marketing and purchasing cooperatives 
by an expanding diversified agriculture sector in Hawaii.
    Stationary Fuel Cells.--The Committee is aware of the 
potential economic and environmental benefits of using ethanol 
as a feedstock to power fuel cells, and encourages the 
Secretary to establish new criteria for the Biomass Research 
and Development Program authorized by Public Law 106-224 (7 
U.S.C. 7624 note) for competitive solicitations to initiate a 
demonstration program for such purposes.
    Technical Assistance.--The Committee recognizes that 
Eastern Oregon University and the communities of Tchula, 
Mississippi and Libby, Montana have requested technical and 
programmatic assistance for housing, business, 
telecommunication, and other essential community needs. The 
Committee expects the Secretary to provide additional 
resources, and encourages the use of available national reserve 
funds.

                  Rural Community Advancement Program

Appropriations, 2006....................................    $694,922,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................     600,762,000
House allowance.........................................     704,893,000
Committee recommendation................................     714,958,000

    The Rural Community Advancement Program [RCAP], authorized 
by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 
(Public Law 104-127), consolidates funding for the following 
programs: direct and guaranteed water and waste disposal loans, 
water and waste disposal grants, emergency community water 
assistance grants, solid waste management grants, direct and 
guaranteed community facility loans, community facility grants, 
direct and guaranteed business and industry loans, rural 
business enterprise grants, and rural business opportunity 
grants. This proposal is in accordance with the provisions set 
forth in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 
1996, Public Law 104-127. Consolidating funding for these 12 
rural development loan and grant programs under RCAP provides 
greater flexibility to tailor financial assistance to applicant 
needs.
    With the exception of the 10 percent in the ``National 
office reserve'' account, funding is allocated to rural 
development State directors for their priority setting on a 
State-by-State basis. State directors are authorized to 
transfer not more than 25 percent of the amount in the account 
that is allocated for the State for the fiscal year to any 
other account in which amounts are allocated for the State for 
the fiscal year, with up to 10 percent of funds allowed to be 
reallocated nationwide.
    Community facility loans were created by the Rural 
Development Act of 1972 (7 U.S.C. 1926 et seq.) to finance a 
variety of rural community facilities. Loans are made to 
organizations, including certain Indian tribes and corporations 
not operated for profit and public and quasipublic agencies, to 
construct, enlarge, extend, or otherwise improve community 
facilities providing essential services to rural residents. 
Such facilities include those providing or supporting overall 
community development, such as fire and rescue services, health 
care, transportation, traffic control, and community, social, 
cultural, and recreational benefits. Loans are made for 
facilities which primarily serve rural residents of open 
country and rural towns and villages of not more than 20,000 
people. Health care and fire and rescue facilities are the 
priorities of the program and receive the majority of available 
funds.
    The Community Facility Grant Program authorized in the 
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public 
Law 104-127), is used in conjunction with the existing direct 
and guaranteed loan programs for the development of community 
facilities, such as hospitals, fire stations, and community 
centers. Grants are targeted to the lowest income communities. 
Communities that have lower population and income levels 
receive a higher cost-share contribution through these grants, 
to a maximum contribution of 75 percent of the cost of 
developing the facility.
    The Rural Business and Industry Loans Program was created 
by the Rural Development Act of 1972, and finances a variety of 
rural industrial development loans. Loans are made for rural 
industrialization and rural community facilities under Rural 
Development Act amendments to the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932 et seq.) authorities. Business 
and industrial loans are made to public, private, or 
cooperative organizations organized for profit, to certain 
Indian tribes, or to individuals for the purpose of improving, 
developing or financing business, industry, and employment or 
improving the economic and environmental climate in rural 
areas. Such purposes include financing business and industrial 
acquisition, construction, enlargement, repair or 
modernization, financing the purchase and development of land, 
easements, rights-of-way, buildings, payment of startup costs, 
and supplying working capital. Industrial development loans may 
be made in any area that is not within the outer boundary of 
any city having a population of 50,000 or more and its 
immediately adjacent urbanized and urbanizing areas with a 
population density of more than 100 persons per square mile. 
Special consideration for such loans is given to rural areas 
and cities having a population of less than 25,000.
    Rural business enterprise grants were authorized by the 
Rural Development Act of 1972. Grants are made to public bodies 
and nonprofit organizations to facilitate development of small 
and emerging business enterprises in rural areas, including the 
acquisition and development of land; the construction of 
buildings, plants, equipment, access streets and roads, parking 
areas, and utility extensions; refinancing fees; technical 
assistance; and startup operating costs and working capital.
    Rural business opportunity grants are authorized under 
section 306(a)(11) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
Development Act, as amended. Grants may be made to public 
bodies and private nonprofit community development corporations 
or entities. Grants are made to identify and analyze business 
opportunities that will use local rural economic and human 
resources; to identify, train, and provide technical assistance 
to rural entrepreneurs and managers; to establish business 
support centers; to conduct economic development planning and 
coordination, and leadership development; and to establish 
centers for training, technology, and trade that will provide 
training to rural businesses in the utilization of interactive 
communications technologies.
    The water and waste disposal program is authorized by 
sections 306, 306A, 309A, 306C, 306D, and 310B of the 
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1921 et 
seq., as amended). This program makes loans for water and waste 
development costs. Development loans are made to associations, 
including corporations operating on a nonprofit basis, 
municipalities and similar organizations, generally designated 
as public or quasipublic agencies, that propose projects for 
the development, storage, treatment, purification, and 
distribution of domestic water or the collection, treatment, or 
disposal of waste in rural areas. Such grants may not exceed 75 
percent of the development cost of the projects and can 
supplement other funds borrowed or furnished by applicants to 
pay development costs.
    The solid waste grant program is authorized under section 
310B(b) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act. 
Grants are made to public bodies and private nonprofit 
organizations to provide technical assistance to local and 
regional governments for the purpose of reducing or eliminating 
pollution of water resources and for improving the planning and 
management of solid waste disposal facilities.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $714,958,000 
for the Rural Community Advancement Program.
    Subsidy Costs.--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 recommended adequate funding for 
these national and regional programs.
    The following table provides the Committee's 
recommendations, as compared to the fiscal year 2006 and budget 
request levels:

                                       RURAL COMMUNITY ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM
                                   [Budget authority in thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Fiscal year--
                                                           ------------------------------------     Committee
                                                                  2006           2007 budget     recommendation
                                                              appropriation        request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Community:
    Community facility direct loan........................             9,950            19,038            19,038
    Community facility guaranteed loan....................               748             7,609             7,609
    Community facility grants.............................            16,830            16,830            16,830
    Economic impact initiative grants.....................            17,820  ................            21,000
    High energy costs grants..............................            25,740  ................            26,000
    Rural community development initiative................             6,287  ................             6,287
    Tribal college grants.................................             4,419  ................             5,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, community.................................            81,794            43,477           101,764
                                                           =====================================================
Business:
    Business and industry guaranteed loan subsidies.......            43,779            43,164            43,164
    Rural business enterprise grants......................            39,600  ................            39,600
    Rural business opportunity grants.....................             2,970  ................             2,970
    Delta Regional Authority..............................             1,980  ................             2,500
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, business..................................            88,329            43,164            88,234
                                                           =====================================================
Utilities:
    Water and waste disposal direct loan subsidies........            68,409           164,736            80,000
    Water and waste disposal grants.......................           437,748           345,920           440,000
    Solid waste management grants.........................             3,465             3,465             3,465
    Emergency community water assistance grants...........            13,692  ................  ................
    Well system grants....................................               990  ................             1,000
    Water and wastewater revolving funds..................               495  ................               495
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, utilities.................................           524,799           514,121           524,960
                                                           =====================================================
      Total, loan subsidies and grants....................           694,922           600,762           714,958
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rural Community Advancement Program.--The Committee 
recommends $500,000 for transportation technical assistance.
    The Committee directs the Department to continue the Rural 
Economic Area Partnership [REAP] initiative.
    The Committee directs that of the $26,000,000 recommended 
for loans and grants to benefit Federally Recognized Native 
American Tribes, $250,000 be used to implement an American 
Indian and Alaska Native passenger transportation development 
and assistance initiative.
    Consideration to applications.--The Committee is aware of 
and encourages the Department to give consideration to 
applications relating to community facilities for the 
following: Armstrong County Planning & Development--Kittanning 
Campus Reuse, Pennsylvania; Bergland Township Community/Senior 
Center and Fire Truck Garage, Michigan; Bladen County Agri-
Industrial Expo Center, North Carolina; Central Kentucky 
Agriculture and Exposition Center, Kentucky; Central Michigan 
University Center for Children with Low-Incidence Disabilities; 
City of Bastrop--Multi-purpose Tech Center, Louisiana; City of 
Munising Fire and Police Building, Michigan; City of Opelousas 
Community Improvements, Louisiana; Claiborne Parish Fire 
District No. 3 Central Fire Station, Louisiana; East Feliciana 
Parish Police Jury's Council on Aging Program, Louisiana; 
Esmeralda Rural School Fire Prevention, Nevada; Japonski Island 
Infrastructure Project, Alaska; Lafourche Regional Agricultural 
Center, Louisiana; Lamar Dixon Agricultural Community Center, 
Ascension Parish, Louisiana; Larose Civic Center Waterproofing 
Project, Louisiana; Mackinac Straits Hospital and Health 
Center, St. Ignace, Michigan; Northern Utah 800 MHz Radio 
System Expansion; Northwest Commission--Multi-Region Wireless 
Infrastructure Project, Pennsylvania; Rapides Parish Police 
Jury Weirs & Pumps, Louisiana; Rural Education Transportation 
Demonstration Project, Nevada; School Wellness and Nutrition 
Facilities Upgrades, Vermont; St. Ignace Fire Department Fire 
Station, Michigan; St. Mary Parish--Water Infrastructure, 
Louisiana; The Wakefield Memorial Community Building 
Foundation, Michigan; Town of Fort Edward Community Health Care 
Center, New York; and the Yolo County--Clarksburg Fire Station, 
California.
    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 $26,000,000 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 [RBOG].--The Committee 
encourages the Department to give consideration to applications 
for rural business opportunity grants for the following: 
Accelerating Micro-Enterprise Development, Louisiana; Gadsden 
County Rural Business Initiative, Florida; Lenawee Chamber 
Economic Diversification Strategic Modeling for Micropolitan 
Communities Project, Michigan; Made by American Indian 
Marketing Outreach and Economic Development Program, Montana; 
Northwest Agriculture Business Center, Washington; Northwest 
Commission--Multi-Region Wireless Infrastructure Project, 
Pennsylvania; Northwest Michigan Council of Governments Rural 
Rail Freight Assessment; Rhode Island Farmways Agritourism 
Program; San Luis Valley Sustainable Environment and Economic 
Development Park, Colorado; and the Chippewa Cree Tribal 
Ethanol & Wheat Gluten Facility, Montana.
    Rural Business Enterprise Grants [RBEG].--The Committee is 
also aware of and encourages the Department to give 
consideration to applications for rural business enterprise 
grants for the following: Agriculture Innovation and Energy 
Development Program, Montana; Calaveras County--Healthy Impact 
Product Solutions [CHIPS], California; Grambling Catfish 
Revitalization Program, Louisiana; Maryland Agricultural and 
Resource-Based Industry Development Corporation; Rhode Island 
Farmways Agritourism Program; Rural Michigan Technology Center, 
Michigan; Saint Mary Parish Industrial Park and Business 
Incubator, Louisiana; and the Women in Technology in Wisconsin 
and Hawaii.
    Business and Industry Guaranteed Loans [B&I].--The 
Committee encourages the Department to give consideration to 
applications for business and industry loans for the following: 
Agrium Blue Sky Project, Alaska; Lake Providence Dry-Mill 
Ethanol Plant, Louisiana.
    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: Alamo Navajo, New Mexico; Baton Rouge 
Water Well, Louisiana; Cameron Parish--Water Infrastructure, 
Louisiana; Canyon Improvement and Service District Water 
Project, Wyoming; Chaparral, New Mexico; Charter Township of 
Breitung Water Infrastructure Project, Michigan; City of Big 
Bear Lake Water Development--Lake Williams Interconnect, 
California; City of Coburg Waste Water Project, Oregon; City of 
Grambling Wastewater Collection, Louisiana; City of Greenwood--
Water System, Louisiana; City of Perkins Water/Sewer System 
Upgrades, Oklahoma; City of Portsmouth Clarifiers Replacement 
Project, Ohio; City of Richwood--Water System, Louisiana; 
Cochiti Pueblo, New Mexico; Company Canal Pump Station Project, 
Louisiana; Eagle Harbor Water System Infrastructure Replacement 
Project, Michigan; Eunice Water Upgrades, New Mexico; Gogebic 
Range Water Authority Ironwood Township Water System 
Improvements, Michigan; Germfask Township Water System 
Extension, Michigan; Hamilton County Rural Utilities 
Improvements, Florida; Hobbs Water Treatment Plant, New Mexico; 
Hull and Griggsville Water Projects, Illinois; Jal Water 
Upgrades, New Mexico; Kenockee Township Avoca Innovative Waste 
Water Treatment System, Michigan; Lake County Full Circle, 
California; Lovington Utility Improvements, New Mexico; 
Mendocino County Integrated Water Resources Management Plan, 
California; Milagro, New Mexico; Montana Vista, New Mexico; 
Navajo Mountain Water System, Utah; Owenton Raw Water Intake 
Project, Kentucky; Ozark Mountain Regional Public Water 
Authority, Arkansas; Plumas County Chester Storm Drain 
Improvements, California; Ramah Navajo, New Mexico; Red Rock 
Rural Water Wastewater Facility, New Mexico; San Ildefonso 
Pueblo, New Mexico; SE Washington County Water Project 
Arkansas; Three Rivers Wet Weather Demonstration Program, 
Pennsylvania; Vaughn, Water System Improvements, New Mexico; 
Village of Downsville Wastewater Treatment, Louisiana; and the 
Village of Emmett Waste Water Collection and Treatment System, 
Michigan.
    The Committee includes statutory language to make up to 
$25,000,000 in water and waste disposal loans and grants 
available for village safe water for the development of water 
systems for rural communities and native villages in Alaska. In 
addition, the Committee is aware of and encourages the 
Department to consider applications to the national program 
from small, regional hub villages in Alaska with a populations 
less than 5,000 which are not able to compete for village safe 
water funding; $25,000,000 for water and waste systems for the 
Colonias along the United States-Mexico border; and $26,000,000 
for water and waste disposal systems for Federally Recognized 
Native American Tribes. In addition, the Committee makes up to 
$13,750,000 available for the circuit rider program.
    The Committee directs the Department to use a portion of 
the funds recommended for the Alaska Village Safe Water Program 
for the preparation or completion of comprehensive community 
plans by rural communities in Alaska. No more than 5 percent of 
the total amount of the grant may be made available for this 
purpose and the amount allocated shall not exceed $35,000 per 
eligible Alaska community.
    The Committee encourages the RUS to increase its efforts 
towards the use of innovative and alternative methods of 
collecting and treating waste water in very small communities. 
Many technologies exist that lower both construction and 
operating costs, allowing the RUS to further benefit 
communities which in many cases have no central waste 
treatment. The RUS should consider supporting State and 
regional efforts to promote such alternative efforts as well as 
individual projects.
    Individually Owned Household Water Well Program.--The 
Committee recommends $1,000,000 to continue the Individually 
Owned Household Water Well Program as authorized in section 
6012 of Public Law 107-171. The Committee encourages the 
Department to give consideration to the Wellcare Model Project 
in the State of Georgia.
    Water and Waste Technical Assistance Training Grants.--The 
Committee recommends a significant increase in the technical 
assistance account for water and waste systems and expects the 
Secretary to provide an increase in grant funding to the 
National Drinking Water Clearinghouse. The Committee is aware 
of and encourages the Department to consider applications from 
the Alaska Village Safe Water Program to provide statewide 
training in water and waste systems operation and maintenance.
    The Committee encourages the Department to provide 
technical assistance to the Alachua County Critical Rural 
Services Initiative (Florida).
    Solid Waste Management Grants.--The Committee recommends 
$3,465,000 for grants for solid waste management.
    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
                                                                     2006         2007 budget     recommendation
                                                                appropriation       request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation................................................          162,979          170,741          176,522
Transfer from:
    Rural Housing Insurance Fund Loan Program Account........          450,261          455,776          455,776
    Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans                  38,396           39,600           39,600
     Program Account.........................................
    Rural Telephone Bank Program Account.....................            2,475  ...............  ...............
    Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account..............            4,745            4,950            4,950
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, RD salaries and expenses........................          658,856          671,067          676,848
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 an appropriation of $676,848,000 
for salaries and expenses of Rural Development. The Committee 
recommendation includes $5,781,000 for Common Computing 
Environment activities.
    Inherent Function of Government.--The Committee expects 
that none of the funds recommended for Rural Development, 
Salaries and Expenses should be used to enter into or renew a 
contract for any activity that is best suited as an inherent 
function of Government, without prior approval from the 
Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate. Such 
activities may include, but are not limited to, any function 
that affects eligibility determination, disbursement, 
collection or accounting for Government subsidies provided 
under any of the direct or guaranteed loan programs of the 
Rural Development mission area or the Farm Service Agency.

                         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 a loan and grant level of 
$5,516,238,000 for the Rural Housing Service.
    Section 515/Multifamily Housing Revitalization Program.--
The Committee recommends $28,000,000 to continue the 
Department's efforts to address the preservation of the section 
515 portfolio through financial options to project owners, 
including vouchers. The Committee provided funding and this 
authority in two separate accounts in fiscal year 2006. The 
Committee recommends $10,000,000 for rural housing vouchers, 
$3,000,000 for the multi-family revolving loan demonstration 
program, and $15,000,000 to restructure existing section 515 
loans. The Committee provides statutory language to allow the 
Secretary to transfer funding between the programs to meet 
existing need. The Committee recognizes that the Department has 
authorizing language currently under consideration by Congress 
and provides the Secretary, upon enactment, the authority to 
transfer funds made available under this heading to carry out 
such legislation with prior approval of the Committee on 
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.
    The Committee recommends $100,000,000 for the section 515 
program and encourages the Secretary to give priority in 
awarding new construction 515 financing to eligible communities 
that have projects that have been accepted for prepayment and 
where the housing market reflects a continued need for 
affordable low-income rental housing.
    Housing Set-asides and Partnerships.--The Committee 
encourages the Department to continue to set-aside funds within 
rural housing programs to support self-help housing, home 
ownership partnerships, housing preservation and State rental 
assistance, and other related activities that facilitate the 
development of housing in rural areas.
    The following table presents loan and grant program levels 
recommended by the Committee, as compared to the fiscal year 
2006 levels and the 2007 budget request:

                                              LOAN AND GRANT LEVELS
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Fiscal year--
                                                                 --------------------------------    Committee
                                                                       2006        2007 request   recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account loan levels:
    Single family housing (sec. 502):
        Direct..................................................       1,129,391       1,237,498       1,129,391
        Unsubsidized guaranteed.................................       3,644,224       3,564,238       3,644,223
    Housing repair (sec. 504)...................................          34,652          36,382          34,652
    Multifamily housing guarantees (sec. 538)...................          99,000         197,997         100,000
    Rental housing (sec. 515)...................................          99,000  ..............         100,000
    Site loans (sec. 524).......................................           5,000           5,045           5,000
    Credit sales of acquired property...........................          11,485          11,482          11,482
    Self-help housing land development fund.....................           4,998           4,980           4,980
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, RHIF...............................................       5,027,750       5,057,622       5,029,728
                                                                 ===============================================
Farm Labor Program:
    Farm labor housing loan level...............................          38,117          41,580          35,000
    Farm labor housing grants...................................          13,860          13,860          13,860
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, Farm Labor Program.................................          51,977          55,440          48,860
                                                                 ===============================================
Grants and payments:
    Rural housing voucher program...............................          15,840  ..............  ..............
    Multifamily housing preservation............................           8,910  ..............  ..............
    Multifamily Housing Revitalization Program..................  ..............          74,250          28,000
    Mutual and self-help housing................................          33,660          37,620          33,660
    Rental assistance...........................................         646,571         486,320         335,400
    Rural housing assistance grants [RHAG]......................          43,536          40,590          40,590
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, rural housing grants and payments..................         748,517         638,780         437,650
                                                                 ===============================================
      Total, RHS loans and grants...............................       5,828,244       5,751,842       5,516,238
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

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

            LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-508) 
established the program account. Appropriations to this account 
will be used to cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated 
with the direct loans obligated and loan guarantees committed 
in 2007, as well as for administrative expenses. The following 
table presents the loan subsidy levels as compared to the 2006 
levels and the 2007 budget request:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                                                                  2006 level      2007 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:
    Single family (sec. 502):
        Direct...............................................          128,638          124,121          113,278
        Unsubsidized guaranteed..............................           40,491            7,772           42,641
    Housing repair (sec. 504)................................           10,136           10,751           10,240
    Multi-family housing guarantees (sec. 538)...............            5,366           15,325            7,740
    Rental housing (sec. 515)................................           45,421  ...............           45,880
    Site loans (sec. 524)\1\.................................  ...............  ...............  ...............
    Credit sales of acquired property........................              674              720              720
    Multifamily housing preservation.........................            8,910  ...............  ...............
    Self-help housing land development fund..................               51              123              123
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, loan subsidies..................................          239,687          158,812          220,622
                                                              ==================================================
Administrative expenses......................................          450,261          455,776          455,776
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Negative subsidy rates for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 are calculated for this program.

                       RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2006....................................    $646,571,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................     486,320,000
House allowance.........................................     335,400,000
Committee recommendation................................     335,400,000

    The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 
U.S.C. 1490a) established a rural rental assistance program to 
be administered through the rural housing loans program. The 
objective of the program is to reduce rents paid by low-income 
families living in Rural Housing Service financed rental 
projects and farm labor housing projects. Under this program, 
low-income tenants will contribute the higher of: (1) 30 
percent of monthly adjusted income; (2) 10 percent of monthly 
income; or (3) designated housing payments from a welfare 
agency.
    Payments from the fund are made to the project owner for 
the difference between the tenant's payment and the approved 
rental rate established for the unit.
    The program is administered in tandem with Rural Housing 
Service section 515 rural rental and cooperative housing 
programs and the farm labor loan and grant programs. Priority 
is given to existing projects for units occupied by rent over 
burdened low-income families and projects experiencing 
financial difficulties beyond the control of the owner; any 
remaining authority will be used for projects receiving new 
construction commitments under sections 514, 515, or 516 for 
very low-income families with certain limitations.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $335,400,000 
for the Rental Assistance Program.
    Rental Assistance.--The Committee provides funding to meet 
the needs of expiring and new rental assistance contracts for 
section 515 and 514/516 multi-family housing projects. The 
Committee includes statutory language requiring that contracts 
renewed or entered into shall be for a one-year period. The 
Committee also includes statutory language regarding the use of 
rental assistance in section 514/516 projects.

                     RURAL HOUSING VOUCHER PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2006....................................     $15,840,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation\1\.............................................

\1\Funding for this program is provided under the Multifamily Housing 
Revitalization Program Account.

                  MUTUAL AND SELF-HELP HOUSING GRANTS

Appropriations, 2006....................................     $33,660,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................      37,620,000
House allowance.........................................      37,620,000
Committee recommendation................................      33,660,000

    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 an appropriation of $33,660,000 
for Mutual and Self-help Housing Grants.
    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, 2006....................................     $43,536,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................      40,590,000
House allowance.........................................      40,590,000
Committee recommendation................................      40,590,000

    This program consolidates funding for rural housing grant 
programs. This consolidation of housing grant funding provides 
greater flexibility to tailor financial assistance to applicant 
needs.
    Very Low-income Housing Repair Grants.--The Very Low-Income 
Housing Repair Grants Program is authorized under section 504 
of title V of the Housing Act of 1949. The rural housing repair 
grant program is carried out by making grants to very low-
income families to make necessary repairs to their homes in 
order to make such dwellings safe and sanitary, and remove 
hazards to the health of the occupants, their families, or the 
community.
    These grants may be made to cover the cost of improvements 
or additions, such as repairing roofs, providing toilet 
facilities, providing a convenient and sanitary water supply, 
supplying screens, repairing or providing structural supports 
or making similar repairs, additions, or improvements, 
including all preliminary and installation costs in obtaining 
central water and sewer service. A grant can be made in 
combination with a section 504 very low-income housing repair 
loan.
    No assistance can be extended to any one individual in the 
form of a loan, grant, or combined loans and grants in excess 
of $27,500, and grant assistance is limited to persons, or 
families headed by persons who are 62 years of age or older.
    Supervisory and Technical Assistance Grants.--Supervisory 
and technical assistance grants are made to public and private 
nonprofit organizations for packaging loan applications for 
housing assistance under sections 502, 504, 514/516, 515, and 
533 of the Housing Act of 1949. The assistance is directed to 
very low-income families in underserved areas where at least 20 
percent of the population is below the poverty level and at 
least 10 percent or more of the population resides in 
substandard housing. In fiscal year 1994 a Homebuyer Education 
Program was implemented under this authority. This program 
provides low-income individuals and families education and 
counseling on obtaining and/or maintaining occupancy of 
adequate housing and supervised credit assistance to become 
successful homeowners.
    Compensation for Construction Defects.--Compensation for 
construction defects provides funds for grants to eligible 
section 502 borrowers to correct structural defects, or to pay 
claims of owners arising from such defects on a newly 
constructed dwelling purchased with RHS financial assistance. 
Claims are not paid until provisions under the builder's 
warranty have been fully pursued. Requests for compensation for 
construction defects must be made by the owner of the property 
within 18 months after the date financial assistance was 
granted.
    Rural Housing Preservation Grants.--Rural housing 
preservation grants (section 522) of the Housing and Urban-
Rural Recovery Act of 1983 (42 U.S.C. 1490m) authorizes the 
Rural Housing Service to administer a program of home repair 
directed at low- and very low-income people.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $40,590,000 
for the Rural Housing Assistance Grants Program.
    The following table compares the grant program levels 
recommended by the Committee to the fiscal year 2006 levels and 
the budget request:

                                         RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GRANTS
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                                                                  2006 level      2007 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very low-income housing repair grants........................           29,700           29,700           29,700
Supervisory and technical assistance.........................              990              990              990
Rural housing preservation grants............................            9,900            9,900            9,900
Multi-family housing preservation............................            2,946  ...............  ...............
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total..................................................           43,536           40,590           40,590
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       FARM LABOR PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Subsidy
                                        Loan level    level      Grants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2006..................     38,117      16,996     13,860
Budget estimate, 2007.................     41,580      19,938     13,860
Committee recommendation..............     35,000      16,783     13,860
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $30,643,000 
for the cost of Direct Farm Labor Housing Loans and Grants.

                  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
                                                                  2006 level      2007 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated loan level.........................................           33,870           33,925           33,925
Direct loan subsidy..........................................           14,571           14,951           14,951
Administrative expenses......................................            4,745            4,950            4,950
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $33,925,000 
for Rural Development (intermediary relending) loans.

            RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                                                                  2006 level      2007 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated loan level.........................................           24,752           34,652           34,652
Direct loan subsidy\1\.......................................            4,943            7,568            7,568
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Offset by a rescission from interest on the cushion of credit payments as authorized by section 313 of the
  Rural Electrification Act of 1936.

    The rural economic development loans program was 
established by the Reconciliation Act of December 1987 (Public 
Law 100-203), which amended the Rural Electrification Act of 
1936 (Act of May 20, 1936), by establishing a new section 313. 
This section of the Rural Electrification Act (7 U.S.C. 901) 
established a cushion of credits payment program and created 
the rural economic development subaccount. The Administrator of 
RUS is authorized under the act to utilize funds in this 
program to provide zero interest loans to electric and 
telecommunications borrowers for the purpose of promoting rural 
economic development and job creation projects, including 
funding for feasibility studies, startup costs, and other 
reasonable expenses for the purpose of fostering rural economic 
development.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a direct loan subsidy 
appropriation of $7,568,000 for Rural Economic Development 
Loans. As proposed in the budget, the $7,568,000 recommended is 
derived by transfer from interest on the cushion of credit 
payments.

                  RURAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS

Appropriations, 2006....................................     $29,193,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................      27,225,000
House allowance.........................................       9,913,000
Committee recommendation................................      29,500,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $29,500,000 
for Rural Cooperative Development Grants.
    Of the funds recommended, $2,500,000 is for the Appropriate 
Technology Transfer for Rural Areas program through a 
cooperative agreement with the National Center for Appropriate 
Technology.
    The Committee recommends $500,000 for a research agreement 
on the economic impact of cooperatives to be conducted by a 
qualified academic institution.
    The Committee has included language in the bill that not 
more than $1,500,000 shall be made available to cooperatives or 
associations of cooperatives whose primary focus is to provide 
assistance to small, minority producers.
    Value Added.--The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for 
value-added agricultural product market development grants and 
encourages the Department to give consideration to applications 
for the following: Iowa Agriculture Innovations Center; 
Penobscot Bay Commercial Kitchen, Maine; Rhode Island Farmways 
Agritourism Program; Rhode Island Grown Agricultural Product 
Development; Upper Valley--Oil Extrusion Processor, Maine; and 
the York County Food Business Incubator, Maine.

       RURAL EMPOWERMENT ZONES AND ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES GRANTS

Appropriations, 2006....................................     $11,088,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................................
House allowance.........................................      11,088,000
Committee recommendation................................      10,000,000

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $10,000,000 
for Rural Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities Grants 
which includes $1,000,000 for Round III.
    Outmigration.--The Committee is concerned that rural 
empowerment zones, particularly zones selected because of 
outmigration, are having a difficult time successfully 
competing for USDA Rural Development programs due primarily to 
the fact that many programs are tied to household income 
levels. Often, household income levels have very little to do 
with the reasons for outmigration. Economic development efforts 
in these zones cannot advance without additional funding from 
competitive grant programs to supplement the funding that the 
Committee has earmarked for the zones for the last several 
years. USDA is directed to provide a report to the Committee 
with suggestions on how to revise competitive grant-making 
criteria to take into consideration outmigration when making 
awards to rural empowerment zones.

                        Renewable Energy Program

Appropriations, 2006....................................     $22,770,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................      10,163,000
House allowance.........................................      20,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      25,000,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $25,000,000 
for the Renewable Energy Program.
    Consideration to applications.--The Committee encourages 
the Department to give consideration to applications for loans 
and grants for the renewable energy program for the following: 
Ag Utilization Research Institute, Minnesota; Baker County 
Integrated Wood Utilization Center, Oregon; Borough of 
Lewistown--Wastewater Bio-solids Anaerobic Digestion Project, 
Pennsylvania; Cellulose/Biomass to Ethanol Pilot Project, 
Center for Rural Life Stewardship, Utah; City of Connell Energy 
Independence Initiative, Washington; Kauai Bagasse to Ethanol 
Project, Hawaii; and the Stationary Fuel Cell Demonstration 
Project, South Dakota.

                        Rural Utilities Service

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

   RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

    The Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901 et 
seq.) provides the statutory authority for the electric and 
telecommunications programs.
    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-508) 
established the program account. An appropriation to this 
account will be used to cover the lifetime subsidy costs 
associated with the direct loans obligated and loan guarantees 
committed in 2004, as well as for administrative expenses.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The following table reflects the Committee's recommendation 
for the rural electrification and telecommunications loans 
program account, the loan subsidy and administrative expenses, 
as compared to the fiscal year 2006 and budget request levels:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                                                                  2006 level      2007 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan authorizations:
    Electric:
        Direct, 5 percent....................................           99,000           99,018           99,000
        Direct, Muni.........................................           99,000           39,602           99,000
        Direct, FFB..........................................        2,600,000        3,000,000        5,000,000
        Direct, Treasury rate................................          990,000          700,000          990,000
        Guaranteed...........................................           99,000  ...............           99,000
        Guaranteed, Underwriting.............................        1,500,000  ...............        1,500,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal...........................................        5,387,000        3,838,620        7,787,000
                                                              ==================================================
    Telecommunications:
        Direct, 5 percent....................................          145,000          143,513          143,513
        Direct, Treasury rate................................          419,760          246,666          419,760
        Direct, FFB..........................................          125,000          299,000          299,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal...........................................          689,760          689,179          862,273
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
          Total, loan authorizations.........................        6,076,760        4,527,799        8,649,273
                                                              ==================================================
Loan Subsidies:
    Electric:
        Direct, 5 percent....................................              911            2,119            2,119
        Direct, Muni.........................................            5,000              598            1,495
        Direct, FFB..........................................  ...............  ...............  ...............
        Direct, Treasury rate................................               99  ...............  ...............
        Guaranteed...........................................               89  ...............               89
        Guaranteed, Underwriting.............................  ...............  ...............  ...............
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal...........................................            6,099            2,717            3,703
                                                              ==================================================
    Telecommunications:
        Direct, 5 percent....................................  ...............              531              531
        Direct, Treasury rate................................              210               74              126
        Direct, FFB..........................................  ...............  ...............  ...............
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal...........................................              210              605              657
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
          Total, loan subsidies..............................            6,309            3,322            4,360
                                                              ==================================================
Administrative expenses......................................           38,396           39,600           39,600
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, Rural Electrification and Telecommunications               44,705           42,922           43,960
       Loans Programs Account................................
                                                              ==================================================
          (Loan authorization)...............................        6,076,760        4,527,799        8,649,273
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consideration to applications.--The Committee strongly 
encourages the Rural Utilities Service to evaluate and give 
priority consideration to any proposal submitted which would 
connect a community in the State of Alaska to the Black Bear 
Hydropower Grid.

         DISTANCE LEARNING, TELEMEDICINE, AND BROADBAND PROGRAM

                         LOANS AND GRANT LEVELS

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                                                                  2006 level      2007 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan and Grant Levels:
    Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program:
        Direct loans.........................................           24,750  ...............  ...............
        Grants...............................................           29,700           24,750           30,000
    Broadband Program:
        Direct loans.........................................  ...............           29,699  ...............
        Treasury rate loans..................................          495,000          297,023          500,000
        Guaranteed loans.....................................  ...............           29,697  ...............
        Grants...............................................            8,910  ...............           10,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
          Total, DLTB grants and loan authorizations.........          558,360          381,169          540,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

         DISTANCE LEARNING, TELEMEDICINE, AND BROADBAND PROGRAM

                            LOANS AND GRANTS

                                   [Budget authority In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                                                                  2006 level      2007 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program:
    Direct loan subsidies....................................              371  ...............  ...............
    Grants...................................................           29,700           24,750           30,000
Broadband Program:
    Direct loan subsidies....................................  ...............            3,065  ...............
    Treasury subsidies.......................................           10,643            6,386           10,750
    Guaranteed subsidies.....................................  ...............            1,375  ...............
    Grants...................................................            8,910  ...............           10,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, grants and loan subsidies.......................           49,624           35,576           50,750
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program 
is authorized by the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade 
Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 950aaa et seq.), as amended by the 
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public 
Law 104-127). This program provides incentives to improve the 
quality of phone services, to provide access to advanced 
telecommunications services and computer networks, and to 
improve rural opportunities.
    This program provides the facilities and equipment to link 
rural education and medical facilities with more urban centers 
and other facilities providing rural residents access to better 
health care through technology and increasing educational 
opportunities for rural students. These funds are available for 
loans and grants.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $50,750,000 
for the Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program. 
Of this amount, the Committee has recommended $5,000,000 for 
public broadcasting systems grants to allow noncommercial 
educational television broadcast stations that serve rural 
areas to convert from analog to digital operations.
    Broadband Grants.--In addition, of the funds recommended, 
$10,000,000 in grants shall be made available to support 
broadband transmission and local dial-up Internet services for 
rural areas. The Department should continue to provide 
financial support in addition to the Distance Learning, 
Telemedicine, and Broadband grant and loan accounts.
    Consideration to applications.--The Committee is aware of 
and encourages the Department to give consideration to the 
following applications for grants and loans: Agricultural 
Broadband Testbed, Ohio; Day Kimball Hospital Geriatric 
Telemedicine Network, Putnam, Connecticut; North Country 
Connectivity Initiative, New Hampshire; Northern Michigan 
University Operation UP Link, Michigan; Southeastern Oklahoma 
State University Learning Center Project, Oklahoma; Southern 
University eCenter for Rural Health Research and Services, 
Louisiana; and the Telehealth Access and Infrastructure, 
Colorado.
    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.

                                TITLE IV

                         DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS

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

Appropriations, 2006....................................        $593,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................         732,000
House allowance.........................................         652,000
Committee recommendation................................         604,000

    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

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $604,000 for 
the Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and 
Consumer Services.
    Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Recovery.--The Committee is 
aware of efforts by groups such as Farm Share in Florida, and 
Farmers Against Hunger in New Jersey, whose mission is to 
collect and distribute fresh fruits and vegetables from local 
farms to organizations and social service agencies dedicated to 
helping feed people. The Committee believes these activities 
are an innovative and important tool in the fight against 
hunger, and strongly encourages USDA to support their efforts.
    Nutrition Information.--The Committee is aware of the work 
of national groups such as the Hispanic Communications Network, 
as well as local groups such as the Children's Hunger Alliance 
in Ohio, to address the growing prevalence of obesity among our 
Nation's children by providing culturally and age appropriate 
nutrition materials to children and adults alike. The Committee 
supports the efforts of groups such as these, and strongly 
encourages USDA to work with them, including providing 
financial support, to assist in 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, American Samoa, and Guam for use in serving 
nutritious lunches and breakfasts to children attending schools 
of high school grades and under, to children of preschool age 
in child care centers, and to children in other institutions in 
order to improve the health and well-being of the Nation's 
children, and broaden the markets for agricultural food 
commodities. Through the Special Milk Program, assistance is 
provided to the States for making reimbursement payments to 
eligible schools and child care institutions which institute or 
expand milk service in order to increase the consumption of 
fluid milk by children. Funds for this program are provided by 
direct appropriation and transfer from section 32.
    Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, 
and Children [WIC].--This program safeguards the health of 
pregnant, post partum, and breast-feeding women, infants, and 
children up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk because of 
inadequate nutrition and income by providing supplemental 
foods. The delivery of supplemental foods may be done through 
health clinics, vouchers redeemable at retail food stores, or 
other approved methods which a cooperating State health agency 
may select. Funds for this program are provided by direct 
appropriation.
    Food Stamp Program.--This program seeks to improve 
nutritional standards of needy persons and families. Assistance 
is provided to eligible households to enable them to obtain a 
better diet by increasing their food purchasing capability, 
usually by furnishing benefits in the form of electronic access 
to funds. The program also includes Nutrition Assistance to 
Puerto Rico. The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 
(Public Law 107-171) authorizes block grants for Nutrition 
Assistance to Puerto Rico and American Samoa, which provide 
broad flexibility in establishing nutrition assistance programs 
specifically tailored to the needs of their low-income 
households.
    The program also includes the Food Distribution Program on 
Indian Reservations, which provides nutritious agricultural 
commodities to low-income persons living on or near Indian 
reservations who choose not to participate in the Food Stamp 
Program.
    The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, Public 
Law 107-171, enacted May 13, 2002, provides that $140,000,000 
from funds appropriated in the Food Stamp account be used to 
purchase commodities for The Emergency Food Assistance Program 
[TEFAP].
    Commodity Assistance Program [CAP].--This program provides 
funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program [CSFP], the 
Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, Disaster Assistance, Pacific 
Island Assistance, and administrative expenses for TEFAP.
    CSFP provides supplemental foods to infants and children up 
to age 6, and to pregnant, post partum, and breast-feeding 
women with low incomes, and who reside in approved project 
areas. In addition, this program operates commodity 
distribution projects directed at low-income elderly persons.
    TEFAP provides commodities and grant funds to State 
agencies to assist in the cost of storage and distribution of 
donated commodities. The Soup Kitchen/Food Bank Program was 
absorbed into TEFAP under the Personal Responsibility and Work 
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-193), by 
an amendment to section 201A of the Emergency Food Assistance 
Act.
    Nutritious agricultural commodities are provided to 
residents of the Federated States of Micronesia and the 
Marshall Islands. Cash assistance is provided to distributing 
agencies to assist them in meeting administrative expenses 
incurred. It also provides funding for use in non-
Presidentially declared disasters, and for FNS' administrative 
costs in connection with relief for all disasters. Funds for 
this program are provided by direct appropriation.
    Nutrition Programs Administration.--Most salaries and 
Federal operating expenses of the Food and Nutrition Service 
are funded from this account. Also included is the Center for 
Nutrition Policy and Promotion [CNPP] which oversees 
improvements in and revisions to the food guidance systems, and 
serves as the focal point for advancing and coordinating 
nutrition promotion and education policy to improve the health 
of all Americans.

                        child nutrition programs

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Section 32    Contingency
                                                         Appropriation    transfers      reserve        Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2006...................................      7,473,208     5,187,621  ............    12,660,829
Budget estimate, 2007..................................      7,763,200     5,582,287       300,000    13,645,487
House allowance........................................      7,610,897     5,734,590  ............    13,345,487
Committee recommendation...............................      7,623,414     5,731,073       300,000    13,654,487
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Child Nutrition Programs, authorized by the Richard B. 
Russell National School Lunch Act (Public Law 79-396) and the 
Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-642), provide 
Federal assistance to State agencies in the form of cash and 
commodities for use in preparing and serving nutritious meals 
to children while they are attending school, residing in 
service institutions, or participating in other organized 
activities away from home. The purpose of these programs is to 
help maintain the health and proper physical development of 
America's children. Milk is provided to children either free or 
at a low cost, depending on their family income level. FNS 
provides cash subsidies to States for administering the 
programs and directly administers the program in the States 
which choose not to do so. Grants are also made for nutritional 
training and surveys and for State administrative expenses. 
Under current law, most of these payments are made on the basis 
of reimbursement rates established by law and applied to 
lunches and breakfasts actually served by the States. The 
reimbursement rates are adjusted annually to reflect changes in 
the Consumer Price Index for food away from home.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$7,923,414,000, plus transfers from section 32 of 
$5,731,073,000, for a total of $13,654,487,000 for the Child 
Nutrition Programs. This amount includes a contingency reserve 
of $300,000,000 as requested in the budget.
    The Committee's recommendation provides for the following 
annual rates for the child nutrition programs.

                                          TOTAL OBLIGATIONAL AUTHORITY
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Committee
                   Child nutrition programs                     2006 estimate     2007 budget     recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
School Lunch Program.........................................        7,421,220        7,760,857        7,760,857
School Breakfast Program.....................................        2,082,855        2,251,275        2,251,275
State administrative expenses................................          156,061          165,481          165,481
Summer Food Service Program..................................          290,201          305,897          305,897
Child and Adult Care Food Program............................        2,156,445        2,272,053        2,272,053
Special Milk Program.........................................           14,998           13,988           13,988
Commodity procurement, processing, and computer support......          522,708          559,567          559,567
Coordinated review system....................................            5,231            5,335            5,335
Team nutrition...............................................           10,038           10,027           10,027
Food safety education........................................            1,001            1,007            1,007
Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program............................            6,000  ...............            9,000
Contingency reserve..........................................  ...............          300,000          300,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee recommends $10,027,000 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 $3,227,000 for 
other activities.
    The Committee expects FNS to utilize the National Food 
Service Management Institute to carry out the food safety 
education program.
    Farm to Cafeteria.--The Committee is aware of interest in 
the Farm to Cafeteria program, which links farms and schools to 
bring locally-grown food into the school lunch program. This 
program was authorized in the Child Nutrition Reauthorization 
Act of 2004. However, no funding was provided then, and funding 
has not yet been requested in the administration's budget. The 
Committee supports the intent of this program, and strongly 
encourages USDA to work to identify funding sources through 
which Farm to Cafeteria grants can begin to be made. The 
Committee notes growing interest in local procurement among 
school food service systems across the country. Local 
procurement can help farmers capture a bigger share of food 
expenditures and strengthen local food systems. The Committee 
encourages the Department to work with school lunch 
administrators and local food advocates to identify 
opportunities for growth in local procurement, and directs FNS 
to study ways to enhance local procurement in school food 
service and report back to the Committee within 120 days of 
enactment of this act.
    Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program.--The Committee 
recommends $9,000,000 for expansion of the Fresh Fruit and 
Vegetable Pilot Program to all States receiving funding through 
Public Law 109-97, as well as Arkansas, California and Georgia. 
The Committee understands that there is significant interest in 
greater expansion of this program, but notes that this program 
was authorized as a pilot program in 2003, and based upon 
initial reviews, expansion was authorized in the Child 
Nutrition Reauthorization Act of 2004. Funding recommended in 
this bill will allow a total of 16 States and three Indian 
tribal organizations to participate in this program, and the 
Committee does not believe the program should be expanded 
further until the full evaluation, required by law to be 
completed by December 31, 2008, is complete. At that time, the 
Committee would strongly encourage the appropriate authorizing 
committees of the House and Senate to determine whether 
expansion to all 50 States is appropriate, and if so, to 
provide the necessary mandatory funding.

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

Appropriations, 2006....................................  $5,204,430,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................   5,200,000,000
House allowance.........................................   5,244,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   5,264,000,000

    The special supplemental nutrition program for women, 
infants, and children [WIC] is authorized by section 17 of the 
Child Nutrition Act of 1966. Its purpose is to safeguard the 
health of pregnant, breast-feeding and post partum women and 
infants, and children up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk 
because of inadequate nutrition and inadequate income. The 
budget estimate assumes an average monthly participation of 8.2 
million participants at an average food cost of $39.30 per 
person per month in fiscal year 2007.
    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

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,264,000,000 
for the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, 
and Children [WIC].
    The Committee recommends no less than $15,000,000 for 
breastfeeding support initiatives, and $20,000,000 for State 
management information systems.
    Estimates.--The Committee recommendation of $5,264,000,000 
takes into account several changes from the budget request.
    First, The Committee recommendation does not include a 
limitation on State nutrition services and administration [NSA] 
grants as proposed in the budget. The budget request included a 
reduction of $152,000,000 associated with this limitation. The 
Committee is concerned that the proposed limitation on NSA 
grants is shortsighted and does not take into account the 
positive experience the Federal Government has had since a 
similar approach was abandoned nineteen years ago. Establishing 
a cap on NSA grants will not only reduce essential nutrition 
services, but it will also serve as a disincentive for States 
to contain food costs which could cost the Federal Government 
significantly more over time.
    Second, since the budget request was submitted in February 
2006, the estimates for food costs and participation are 
trending downward. As a result, expected carryover funds from 
fiscal year 2006 to 2007 will be higher than estimated and 
program needs will be lower in fiscal year 2007 than estimated. 
In addition, current estimates show an unobligated balance of 
$142,600,000 in the contingency reserve. This amount is 
$17,600,000 above the contingency reserve appropriation of 
$125,000,000. The Committee recommendation includes a provision 
to allow the unobligated balance over $125,000,000 to be used 
for program needs.
    Third, the Committee recommends an appropriation for the 
Commodity Supplemental Food Program [CSFP], which was 
eliminated in the budget request. The budget request assumes 
increased participation in WIC because of the elimination of 
CSFP. Because the Committee recommendation does not eliminate 
CSFP, the additional funding included in WIC is no longer 
necessary.
    The Committee recommendation for WIC is currently estimated 
to be sufficient to meet program needs. The Committee will 
continue to monitor food costs, participation and carryover 
funds, and take additional action as necessary to ensure that 
funding provided in fiscal year 2007 is sufficient to serve all 
eligible applicants.
    Food Package.--In April 2005, the Institute of Medicine 
released a report that recommended revisions to the food 
package offered to WIC participants. In accordance with the 
Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004, the 
Department is to issue a final rule within 18 months of the 
publication of this report modifying the WIC food package. The 
Committee expects the Department to meet the mandated deadline 
and directs the Department to move expeditiously in 
consultation with stakeholders to finalize the rule.
    Health Care Services Referral.--While the Committee 
continues to support and encourage State and local agency 
efforts to utilize WIC as an important means of participation 
referral to other health care services, it also continues to 
recognize the constraints that WIC programs are experiencing as 
a result of expanding health care priorities and continuing 
demand for core WIC program activities. The Committee wishes to 
clarify that while WIC plays an important role in screening and 
referral to other health care services, it was never the 
Committee's intention that WIC should perform aggressive 
screening, referral and assessment functions in such a manner 
that supplants the responsibilities of other programs, nor was 
it the Committee's intention that WIC State and local agencies 
should assume the burden of entering into and negotiating 
appropriate cost sharing agreements. The Committee again 
includes language in the bill to preserve WIC funding for WIC 
services authorized by law to ensure that WIC funds are not 
used to pay the expenses or to coordinate operations or 
activities other than those allowable pursuant to section 17 of 
the Child Nutrition Act of 1996, unless fully reimbursed by the 
appropriate Federal agency.

                           food stamp program

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Puerto Rico      TEFAP
                                Expenses      Amount in   and American    commodity       CSFP          Total
                                               reserve        Samoa       purchases     expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2006........    36,048,996     3,000,000     1,522,369       140,000  ............    40,711,365
Budget estimate, 2007.......    33,187,215     3,000,000     1,565,016       140,000        42,000    37,934,231
House allowance.............    33,160,215     3,000,000     1,565,016       140,000  ............    37,865,231
Committee recommendation....    33,160,215     3,000,000     1,565,016       140,000  ............    37,865,231
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Food Stamp Program, authorized by the Food Stamp Act of 
1977 (Public Law 88-525), attempts to alleviate hunger and 
malnutrition among low-income persons by increasing their food 
purchasing power. Eligible households receive food stamp 
benefits with which they can purchase food through regular 
retail stores. They are thus enabled to obtain a more 
nutritious diet than would be possible without food stamp 
assistance. The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, 
Public Law 107-171, enacted May 13, 2002, reauthorizes the Food 
Stamp Program through fiscal year 2007.
    The Food Stamp Program is currently in operation in all 50 
States, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, and Guam. 
Participating households receive food benefits, the value of 
which is determined by household size and income. The cost of 
the benefits is paid by the Federal Government. As required by 
law, the Food and Nutrition Service annually revises household 
stamp allotments to reflect changes in the cost of the thrifty 
food plan.
    At the authorized retail store, the recipient presents his

/

/

/

/

/

/
//her card and enters a unique personal identification number 
into a terminal that debits the household's account for the 
amount of purchases. Federal funds are shifted from the Federal 
Reserve to the EBT processor's financial institution so that it 
may reimburse the grocer's account for the amount of purchases. 
The grocer's account at a designated bank is credited for the 
amount of purchases. The associated benefit cost is accounted 
for in the same manner as those benefit costs that result from 
issuance of coupons.
    Nutrition Assistance to Puerto Rico.--The Farm Security and 
Rural Investment Act of 2002, Public Law 107-171, authorized 
block grants for Nutrition Assistance to Puerto Rico and 
American Samoa which gives the Commonwealth broad flexibility 
to establish a nutrition assistance program that is 
specifically tailored to the needs of its low-income 
households. However, the Commonwealth must submit its annual 
plan of operation to the Secretary for approval. The Farm 
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, Public Law 107-171, 
enacted May 13, 2002, reauthorizes appropriations through 
fiscal year 2007. In addition to the provision of direct 
benefits to the needy, a portion of the grant may be used to 
fund up to 50 percent of the cost of administering the program. 
The grant may also be used to fund projects to improve 
agriculture and food distribution in Puerto Rico.
    The program also includes the Food Distribution Program on 
Indian Reservations which provides nutritious agricultural 
commodities to low-income persons living on or near Indian 
reservations who choose not to participate in the Food Stamp 
Program.
    Administrative Costs.--All direct and indirect 
administrative costs incurred for certification of households, 
issuance of benefits, quality control, outreach, and fair 
hearing efforts are shared by the Federal Government and the 
States on a 50-50 basis. The Farm Security and Rural Investment 
Act of 2002, (Public Law 107-171), substantially revised the 
performance requirements for States under the Quality Control 
[QC] System. States with poor performance over 2 years face 
sanctions. States that demonstrate a high degree of accuracy or 
substantial improvement in their degree of accuracy under the 
QC system are eligible to share in a $48,000,000 ``bonus fund'' 
established by Congress to reward States for good performance.
    State Antifraud Activities.--Under the provisions of the 
Food Stamp Act of 1977, as amended by the Mickey Leland 
Childhood Hunger Relief Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-66), States 
are eligible to be reimbursed for 50 percent of the costs of 
their food stamp fraud investigations and prosecutions.
    States are required to implement an employment and training 
program for the purpose of assisting members of households 
participating in the Food Stamp Program in gaining skills, 
training, or experience that will increase their ability to 
obtain regular employment. The Department of Agriculture has 
implemented a grant program to States to assist them in 
providing employment and training services.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$37,865,231,000 for the Food Stamp Program. Of the amount 
recommended, $3,000,000,000 is made available as a contingency 
reserve. The Committee recommendation includes language that 
permits the Food and Nutrition Service to conduct studies and 
evaluations consistent with the budget request.
    Commodity Supplemental Food Program.--The Committee 
recommendation does not include a provision, requested in the 
budget, that would provide transitional benefits to Commodity 
Supplemental Food Program [CSFP] participants. The Committee 
recommends an appropriation for CSFP in the Commodity 
Assistance Program which makes the provision in the Food Stamp 
Program unnecessary.
    Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations.--The 
Committee encourages the Secretary to continue the purchase of 
bison from producer-owned and Native American owned 
cooperatives for the Food Distribution Program on Indian 
Reservations. Although funding is not provided specifically for 
bison purchase, historically these purchases have been 
important for the Native American population both economically 
and nutritionally.
    Military Pay Exclusion.--The Committee recommendation 
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, 2006....................................    $177,572,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................      70,370,000
House allowance.........................................     189,370,000
Committee recommendation................................     179,366,000

    The Commodity Assistance Program includes funding for the 
Commodity Supplemental Food Program and funding to pay expenses 
associated with the storage and distribution of commodities 
through The Emergency Food Assistance Program.
    The Commodity Supplemental Food Program [CSFP].--Authorized 
by section 4(a) of the Agricultural and Consumer Protection Act 
of 1973 (7 U.S.C. 612c note), as amended in 1981 by Public Law 
97-98, this program provides supplemental food to infants and 
children up to age 6, and to pregnant, post partum, and breast-
feeding women who have low incomes, and reside in approved 
project areas. In addition, the program operates commodity 
distribution projects directed at low-income elderly persons 60 
years of age or older.
    The foods for CSFP are provided by the Department of 
Agriculture for distribution through State agencies. The 
authorized commodities include: iron-fortified infant formula, 
rice cereal, cheese, canned juice, evaporated milk and/or 
nonfat dry milk, canned vegetables or fruits, canned meat or 
poultry, egg mix, dehydrated potatoes, farina, and peanut 
butter and dry beans. Elderly participants may receive all 
commodities except iron-fortified infant formula and rice 
cereal.
    The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (2002 
Farm Bill), reauthorizes the program through fiscal year 2007 
and establishes a specific administrative funding level for 
each caseload slot assigned, adjusted each year for inflation.
    The Emergency Food Assistance Program [TEFAP].--Authorized 
by the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 7501 et 
seq.), as amended, the program provides nutrition assistance to 
low-income people through prepared meals served on site and 
through the distribution of commodities to low-income 
households for home consumption. The commodities are provided 
by USDA to State agencies for distribution through State-
established networks. State agencies make the commodities 
available to local organizations, such as soup kitchens, food 
pantries, food banks, and community action agencies, for their 
use in providing nutrition assistance to those in need.
    Funds are administered by FNS through grants to State 
agencies which operate commodity distribution programs. 
Allocation of the funds to States is based on a formula which 
considers the States' unemployment rate and the number of 
persons with income below the poverty level.
    The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 permits 
State and local agencies to pay costs associated with the 
storage and distribution of USDA commodities and commodities 
secured from other sources. At the request of the State, these 
funds can be used by USDA to purchase additional commodities. 
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 increases 
funding available for the purchase of TEFAP commodities from 
$100,000,000 to $140,000,000. In addition to the commodities 
purchased specifically for TEFAP, commodities obtained under 
agriculture support and surplus removal programs are donated to 
States for distribution through TEFAP.
    Pacific Island Assistance.--This program provides funding 
for assistance to the nuclear-affected islands in the form of 
commodities and administrative funds. It also provides funding 
for use in non-Presidentially declared disasters and for FNS' 
administrative costs in connection with relief for all 
disasters.
    Farmers' Market Nutrition Program.--The Farmers' Market 
Nutrition Program [FMNP] provides WIC or WIC-eligible 
participants with coupons to purchase fresh, nutritious, 
unprepared foods, such as fruits and vegetables, from farmers' 
markets. This benefits both participants and local farmers by 
increasing the awareness and use of farmers' markets by low-
income households.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $179,366,000 
for the Commodity Assistance Program. 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.
    Commodity Supplemental Food Program.--The Committee 
recommends $108,285,000 for the Commodity Supplemental Food 
Program. The Committee encourages the Secretary to utilize all 
possible resources (including section 32) to maintain the 
higher caseloads provided for States impacted by Hurricanes 
Katrina and Rita without altering caseload allocations to other 
areas.
    Farmers' Market Nutrition Program.--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 recommends $20,000,000 for the 
Farmers' Market Nutrition Program and directs the Secretary to 
obligate these funds within 45 days.
    Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program.--The Committee 
recognizes the success of the Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition 
Program, which is expected to provide fresh fruits and 
vegetables to more than 800,000 low-income senior citizens and 
benefit almost 19,000 farmers, farmers' markets, roadside 
stands and community supported agriculture programs in fiscal 
year 2007. The Committee notes that $15,000,000 in funding is 
available annually for the program through fiscal year 2007 by 
the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002.
    The Emergency Food Assistance Program.--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 recommends $50,000,000 for TEFAP administrative 
funding. In addition, the Committee recommendation grants the 
Secretary authority to transfer up to an additional $10,000,000 
from TEFAP commodities for this purpose.

                   nutrition programs administration

Appropriations, 2006....................................    $139,353,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................     160,429,000
House allowance.........................................     142,314,000
Committee recommendation................................     143,114,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $143,114,000 
for Nutrition Programs Administration. The Committee 
recommendation includes an increase of $2,761,000 for pay and 
an increase of $1,000,000 to promote the initiatives requested 
in the budget for the Center for Nutrition Policy and 
Promotion.

                                TITLE V

                FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS

                      Foreign Agricultural Service

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Transfers
                                Appropriations   from loan      Total
                                                  accounts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2006..........        146,422         3,572      149,994
Budget estimate, 2007.........        157,486         4,985      162,471
House allowance...............        156,486         4,985      161,471
Committee recommendation......        156,186         4,985      161,171
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Foreign Agricultural Service [FAS] was established 
March 10, 1953, by Secretary's Memorandum No. 1320, supplement 
1. Public Law 83-690, approved August 28, 1954, transferred the 
agricultural attaches from the Department of State to the 
Foreign Agricultural Service.
    The Agency maintains a worldwide agricultural intelligence 
and reporting service to provide U.S. farmers and traders with 
information on world agricultural production and trade that 
they can use to adjust to changes in world demand for U.S. 
agricultural products. This is accomplished through a 
continuous program of reporting by 61 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 77 offices around the world where they 
provide expertise in agricultural economics and marketing, as 
well as provide attache services.
    The Foreign Agricultural Service works in conjunction with 
market development cooperators, trade associations, State 
departments of agriculture and their affiliates, and U.S. sales 
teams to develop foreign markets for U.S. farm products. FAS 
sponsors overseas trade exhibits to promote U.S. agricultural 
products, provides information about foreign importers, and 
performs a wide range of market development activities.
    FAS carries out several export assistance programs to 
counter the adverse effects of unfair trade practices by 
competitors on U.S. agricultural trade. The Export Enhancement 
Program uses CCC-owned commodities as export bonuses to provide 
export enhancements to U.S. producers. The Market Access 
Program [MAP] conducts both generic and brand-identified 
promotional programs in conjunction with nonprofit agricultural 
associations and private firms financed through reimbursable 
CCC payments.
    These programs are supplemented by the Cooperator Program, 
a joint FAS-nonprofit private trade and producer association 
partnership program developing strategies for U.S. agriculture 
export expansion. In addition, GSM credit guarantee programs 
play an integral role in the recent progress of American 
agriculture in the world marketplace.
    The Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.) 
includes authority to establish up to 25 agricultural trade 
offices. Currently, 16 such offices are in operation at key 
foreign trading centers to assist U.S. exporters, trade groups, 
and State export marketing officials in trade promotion.
    The Service initiates, directs, and coordinates the 
Department's formulation of trade policies and programs with 
the goal of maintaining and expanding world markets for U.S. 
agricultural products. It monitors international compliance 
with bilateral and multilateral trade agreements. It identifies 
restrictive tariff and trade practices which act as barriers to 
the import of U.S. agricultural commodities, then supports 
negotiations to remove them. It acts to counter and eliminate 
unfair trade practices by other countries that hinder U.S. 
agricultural exports to third markets.
    FAS also carries out the mission of the former Office of 
International Cooperation and Development [OICD] to promote 
U.S. agriculture and to advance the agriculture of developing 
countries as parts of a complementary global agricultural 
system capable of providing ample food and fiber for all 
people. To accomplish this mission, FAS applies USDA policies 
and U.S. agricultural perspectives in its programs of 
international agricultural cooperation and development, and in 
its work with foreign countries, international organizations, 
U.S. universities and other institutions, agencies of the U.S. 
Government, and the U.S. private sector.
    The General Sales Manager was established pursuant to 
section 5(f) of the charter of the Commodity Credit Corporation 
and 15 U.S.C. 714-714p. The funds allocated to the General 
Sales Manager are used for conducting the following programs: 
(1) CCC Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-102), including 
supplier credit guarantees and facilities financing guarantees, 
(2) Intermediate Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-103), (3) Public 
Law 480, (4) section 416 Overseas Donations Program, (5) Export 
Enhancement Program, (6) Market Access Program, and (7) 
programs authorized by the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter 
Act including barter, export sales of most CCC-owned 
commodities, export payments, and other programs as assigned to 
encourage and enhance the export of U.S. agricultural 
commodities.
    A provision in the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 
2003, Division A of Public Law 108-7, made permanent a 
prohibition on the use of agency funds to promote the sale or 
export of tobacco or tobacco products.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $156,186,000 
for the Foreign Agricultural Service.
    Alaska Salmon.--The Committee encourages the Foreign 
Agricultural Service to assist the Alaska Seafood Marketing 
Institute in marketing Alaska salmon and other seafood to 
overseas markets.
    Biotechnology.--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.
    Capital Security Cost Sharing.--The Committee recommends 
$2,907,000 for Capital Security Cost Sharing [CSCS], as 
proposed in the budget. The Committee funds the fiscal year 
2007 CSCS assessment at the level requested by FAS with the 
understanding that space assignments made by the Department of 
State in newly constructed embassies will meet current and 
projected FAS space requirements.
    Cochran Fellowship Program.--The Committee recommends 
$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.
    Commodity Forecasting.--The Committee notes the role that 
the crop assessment division plays in worldwide commodity 
forecasting and the value of this information in maintaining 
and improving the U.S. market share in key agricultural 
commodities. The Committee recognizes that substantial 
investments will be needed to further develop and deploy 
advanced forecasting technologies and to maintain the USDA 
position as the global commodities forecasting standard.
    Currency Exchange Rates.--The Committee continues to 
include language in a general provision in the bill, as 
requested in the budget, to allow up to $2,000,000 of the 
amount appropriated to the FAS to remain available until 
expended solely for the purpose of offsetting fluctuations in 
international currency exchange rates, subject to 
documentation.
    Food Aid Quality.--The Committee recommends $700,000 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.
    Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program.--The 
Committee expects the FAS to fund the Foreign Market 
Development Cooperator Program at no less than the fiscal year 
2006 level.
    Specialty Crops.--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 recommends an 
increase of $200,000 to support these activities.
    Trade Adjustment Act.--The Trade Adjustment Assistance for 
Farmers Act [TAAF] (19 U.S.C. 2401 et seq.) requires that 
technical assistance be provided to farmers negatively impacted 
by imports. This technical assistance is an education program 
that helps farmers develop marketing opportunities, increase 
production efficiency and seek alternatives to offset losses 
created by imports. The Committee directs that from the funds 
made available by the Trade Adjustment Act that $3,000,000 be 
available to the Digital Center for Risk Management Education 
to coordinate an intensive technical assistance program for 
farmers using available funds consistent with that Act.

                 PUBLIC LAW 480 TITLE I PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Administrative
                                                                 Credit level     Loan subsidy       expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2006.........................................           74,032           64,390            3,351
Budget estimate, 2007........................................  ...............  ...............            2,651
House allowance..............................................  ...............  ...............            2,651
Committee recommendation.....................................  ...............  ...............            2,651
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Public Law 480 title I authorizes the financing of sales to 
developing countries for local currencies and for dollars on 
credit terms. Sales for dollars or local currency may be made 
to foreign governments. The legislation provides for repayment 
terms either in local currencies or U.S. dollars on credit 
terms of up to 30 years, with a grace period of up to 5 years.
    Local currencies under title I sales agreements may be used 
in carrying out activities under section 104 of the 
Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (7 
U.S.C. 1704), as amended. Activities in the recipient country 
for which these local currencies may be used include developing 
new markets for U.S. agricultural commodities, paying U.S. 
obligations, and supporting agricultural development and 
research.
    Title I appropriated funds may also be used under the Food 
for Progress Act of 1985 to furnish commodities on credit terms 
or on a grant basis to assist developing countries and 
countries that are emerging democracies that have a commitment 
to introduce and expand free enterprise elements in their 
agricultural economies.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee does not recommend an appropriation for 
Public Law 480, title I. The Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $2,651,000 for administrative expenses to 
continue servicing existing agreements.
    The Committee notes the significant decline in the use of 
title I activities over the past number of years at a time when 
the demand for title II has substantially increased. While the 
Committee does not recommend an appropriation for title I 
program subsidies at this time, there does remain available 
$75,000,000 in unobligated funds for this purpose. This amount 
is nearly $11,000,000 more than the amount appropriated for 
title I program subsidies in fiscal year 2006. The Committee 
believes these funds, in addition to title I administrative 
funds recommended for fiscal year 2007, will be adequate to 
meet any title I requirements for the coming year.
    The Committee recognizes the successful history of the 
Public Law 480 program that has been in place for more than 50 
years. As noted above, there are $75,000,000 in unobligated 
funds in the title I program and an additional $18,000,000 will 
be provided from reimbursements from the Maritime 
Administration. The Committee expects the Secretary to use the 
available funds, as described above, for title I requirements, 
including concessional sales, and report to the Committee 
within 120 days of enactment of this Act and quarterly 
thereafter on applications for, and commitments and obligations 
of these funds.

        PUBLIC LAW 480 TITLE I OCEAN FREIGHT DIFFERENTIAL GRANTS

Appropriations, 2006....................................     $11,821,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................................

    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

    The Committee does not recommend an appropriation for 
Public Law 480 ocean freight differential costs.

                     PUBLIC LAW 480 TITLE II GRANTS

Appropriations, 2006....................................  $1,138,500,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................   1,218,500,000
House allowance.........................................   1,223,100,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,225,000,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends a program level of $1,225,000,000 
for title II. The Committee does not agree with the 
administration's proposal to shift up to 25 percent of the 
Public Law 480 title II program level to USAID to be used for 
direct cash purchases of commodities and other purposes as well 
as the proposal to lift the requirement that Public Law 480 
funds be used to meet sub-minimum tonnage requirements designed 
to meet the challenge of chronic world hunger. The Committee is 
committed to meeting needs related to emergency food shortages, 
long-term food security, and special conditions such as 
mitigating the effects of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus and 
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome on individuals, households, 
and communities.
    Feeding Program.--The Committee supports the use of title 
II funds in fiscal year 2007 to continue the fiscal year 2006 
level of funding for the orphan feeding program in Haiti.
    Monetization.--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.
    Non-emergency Assistance.--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.
    Russian Far East.--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.

  MCGOVERN-DOLE INTERNATIONAL FOOD FOR EDUCATION AND CHILD NUTRITION 
                             PROGRAM GRANTS

Appropriations, 2006....................................     $99,000,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................      99,000,000
House allowance.........................................     100,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     100,000,000

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $100,000,000 
for the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and 
Child Nutrition Program.

       COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION EXPORT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                  (EXPORT CREDIT PROGRAMS AND GSM-102)

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Guaranteed loan  Guaranteed loan   Administrative
                                                                  levels\1\        subsidy\1\        expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2006.........................................        3,107,000          128,448            5,227
Budget estimate, 2007........................................        3,167,000          114,625            5,331
House allowance..............................................        3,167,000          114,625            5,331
Committee recommendation.....................................        3,167,000          114,625            5,331
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\No appropriation required since export credit authorizations are permanent authority.

    In 1980, the Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC] instituted 
the Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-102) under its charter 
authority. With this program, CCC guarantees, for a fee, 
payments due U.S. exporters under deferred payment sales 
contracts (up to 36 months) for defaults due to commercial as 
well as noncommercial risks. The risk to CCC extends from the 
date of export to the end of the deferred payment period 
covered in the export sales contract and covers only that 
portion of the payments agreed to in the assurance agreement. 
Operation of this program is based on criteria which will 
assure that it is used only where it is determined that it will 
develop new market opportunities and maintain and expand 
existing world markets for U.S. agricultural commodities. The 
program encourages U.S. financial institutions to provide 
financing to those areas where the institutions would be 
unwilling to provide financing in the absence of the CCC 
guarantees. Other credit activities may also be financed under 
the Export Credit Guarantee programs including supplier credit 
guarantee, under which CCC guarantees payments due to importers 
under short term financing (up to 180 days) that exporters 
extend directly to importers for the purchase of U.S. 
agricultural products. CCC also provides facilities financing 
guarantees.
    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 establishes the 
program account. The subsidy costs of the CCC export guarantee 
programs are exempt from the requirement of advance 
appropriations of budget authority according to section 
504(c)(2) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, Public Law 
101-508. Appropriations to this account will be used for 
administrative expenses.

                                TITLE VI

           RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                      Food and Drug Administration

    The Food and Drug Administration [FDA] is a scientific 
regulatory agency whose mission is to promote and protect the 
public health and safety of Americans. FDA's work is a blending 
of science and law. The Food and Drug Administration 
Modernization Act of 1997 [FDAMA] (Public Law 105-115) 
reaffirmed the responsibilities of the FDA: to ensure safe and 
effective products reach the market to a timely way, and to 
monitor products for continued safety after they are in use. In 
addition, FDA is entrusted with two critical functions in the 
Nation's war on terrorism: preventing willful contamination of 
all regulated products, including food, and improving the 
availability of medications to prevent or treat injuries caused 
by biological, chemical or nuclear agents.
    The FDA Foods program has the primary responsibility for 
assuring that the food supply, quality of foods, food 
ingredients and dietary supplements are safe, sanitary, 
nutritious, wholesome, and honestly labeled, and that cosmetic 
products are safe and properly labeled. The variety and 
complexity of the food supply has grown dramatically while new 
and more complex safety issues, such as emerging microbial 
pathogens, natural toxins, and technological innovations in 
production and processing, have developed. This program plays a 
major role in keeping the United States food supply among the 
safest in the world.
    The FDA Drugs programs are comprised of three separate 
areas, Human Drugs, Animal Drugs and Biologics. FDA is 
responsible for the life cycle of the product, including 
premarket review and postmarket surveillance of human, animal 
and biological products to ensure their safety and efficacy. 
For Human Drugs this includes assuring that all drug products 
used for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of disease are 
safe and effective. Additional procedures include the review of 
investigational new drug applications; evaluation of market 
applications for new and generic drugs, labeling and 
composition of prescription and over-the-counter drugs; 
monitoring the quality and safety of products manufactured in, 
or imported into, the United States; and, regulating the 
advertising and promotion of prescription drugs. The Animal 
Drugs and Feeds Program ensures only safe and beneficial 
veterinary drugs, intended for the treatment and/or prevention 
of diseases in animals and the improved production of food-
producing animals, are approved for marketing.
    The FDA Biologics program assures that blood and blood 
products, blood test kits, vaccines, and therapeutics are pure, 
potent, safe, effective, and properly labeled. The program 
inspects blood banks and blood processors, licenses and 
inspects firms collecting human source plasma, evaluates and 
licenses biologics manufacturing firms and products; lot 
releases licensed products; and monitors adverse events 
associated with vaccine immunization.
    The FDA Devices and Radiological program ensures the safety 
and effectiveness of medical devices and eliminates unnecessary 
human exposure to manmade radiation from medical, occupational, 
and consumer products. In addition, the program enforces 
quality standards under the Mammography Quality Standards Act 
(Public Law 108-365). Medical devices include thousands of 
products from thermometers and contact lenses to heart 
pacemakers, hearing aids, MRIs, microwave ovens, and video 
display terminals.
    FDA's National Center for Toxicological Research in 
Jefferson, Arkansas, serves as a specialized resource, 
conducting peer-review scientific research that provides the 
basis for FDA to make sound science-based regulatory decisions 
through its premarket review and postmarket surveillance. The 
research is designed to define and understand the biological 
mechanisms of action underlying the toxicity of products and 
developing methods to improve assessment of human exposure, 
susceptibility and risk of those products regulated by FDA.

                         salaries and expenses

                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                  Mammography
                                                                              Prescription   Medical     Animal     clinics      Export and
                                                               Appropriation    drug user     device   drug user   inspection  certification     Total
                                                                                  fees      user fees     fees        fees          fees
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2006.........................................     1,466,801       305,332      40,300     11,318      17,173         7,640     1,848,564
Budget estimate, 2007........................................     1,540,399       320,600      43,726     11,604      17,522         8,481     1,942,332
House allowance..............................................     1,538,452       320,600      43,726     11,604      17,522         8,481     1,937,385
Committee recommendation.....................................     1,565,716       320,600      43,726     11,604      17,522         8,481     1,967,649
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       committee recommendations

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,565,716,000 
for FDA salaries and expenses. The Committee also recommends 
$320,600,000 in Prescription Drug User Fee Act user fee 
collections, $43,726,000 in Medical Device User Fee and 
Modernization Act user fee collections, $11,604,000 in Animal 
Drug User Fee Act user fee collections, $17,522,000 in 
Mammography Quality Standards Act fee collections, and 
$8,481,000 in export and certification fees, as assumed in the 
President's budget. The Committee recommendation 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 2006 and budget 
request levels:

                               FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION SALARIES AND EXPENSES
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                                                                 2006 enacted     2007 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Centers and related field activities:
    Foods....................................................          438,721          449,687          457,936
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
        Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition [CFSAN].          153,568          148,363          162,687
        Field activities.....................................          285,153          301,324          295,249
                                                              ==================================================
    Human drugs..............................................          297,716          305,003          315,003
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
        Center for Drug Evaluation and Research [CDER].......          217,797          225,209          235,209
        Field activities.....................................           79,919           79,794           79,794
                                                              ==================================================
    Biologics................................................          121,016          150,582          150,582
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
        Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research [CBER]..           95,132          121,806          121,806
        Field activities.....................................           25,884           28,776           28,776
                                                              ==================================================
    Animal drugs.............................................           89,581           95,494           95,494
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
        Center for Veterinary Medicine [CVM].................           54,739           59,716           59,716
        Field activities.....................................           34,842           35,778           35,778
                                                              ==================================================
    Medical and radiological devices.........................          220,564          229,334          230,549
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
        Center for Devices and Radiological Health [CDRH]....          165,204          170,977          172,192
        Field activities.....................................           55,360           58,357           58,357
                                                              ==================================================
    National Center for Toxicological Research [NCTR]........           40,740           34,240           41,273
                                                              ==================================================
Other activities.............................................           84,905           88,236           87,056
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
    Office of the Commissioner...............................           29,353           31,217           31,217
    Office of Management.....................................           36,870           37,980           36,800
    Office of External Relations.............................            6,804            6,890            6,890
    Office of Policy and Planning............................            5,123            5,394            5,394
    Central services.........................................            6,755            6,755            6,755
                                                              ==================================================
Rent and related activities..................................           57,155           60,952           60,952
                                                              ==================================================
Rental payments to GSA.......................................          116,403          126,871          126,871
                                                              ==================================================
      Total, FDA salaries and expenses, new budget authority.        1,466,801        1,540,399        1,565,716
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee recommends the following increases in budget 
authority for FDA salaries and expenses activities: $20,267,000 
for cost of living adjustments; $5,475,000 for counterterrorism 
activities related to food safety; $8,640,000 for increased 
medical device and animal drug review; $3,960,000 for drug 
safety; $50,490,000 for pandemic influenza preparedness; 
$5,940,000 for the critical path initiative; $2,475,000 for 
tissue safety; $10,000,000 for generic drug review; $3,797,000 
for FDA's consolidation at the White Oak campus; and 
$10,468,000 for rental payments to the General Services 
Administration. The Committee recommendation also restores 
$29,680,000 in base program reductions assumed in the budget 
request.
    Advisory Committee Member Conflicts of Interest.--The 
Committee recommendation includes a general provision regarding 
the issuance of conflict of interest waivers for advisory 
committee members and new appointments to advisory committees. 
The Committee believes that FDA should try to find sufficiently 
qualified candidates for its advisory committees with minimal 
or no potential conflicts of interest and requests a semi-
annual report on FDA's efforts to find such candidates. In 
cases where individuals are appointed that have medium or high 
involvement as specified in the FDA Waiver Criteria 2000 
document, the Committee requests that FDA provide a rationale 
for the appointment, including: the lack of other available 
experts; the individual offers considerably more expertise than 
other willing candidates; or there are no willing candidates 
who have no or low involvement as specified in the FDA Waiver 
Criteria 2000 document. In addition, the report should include 
information on the number of meetings held and waivers issued 
for product specific meetings and meetings about particular 
matters of general applicability.
    Agricultural Products Food Safety Laboratory.--The 
Committee recommends no less than the fiscal year 2006 amount 
for the FDA's 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 provides technology deployment, modeling, 
and data analysis for food safety and product safety, including 
advanced risk-based systems for screening and inspection, to 
facilitate FDA's regulations and responsibilities in food 
safety, product safety, homeland security, bioterrorism, and 
other initiatives.
    Authorized Generics.--The Committee is aware that 
amendments to the Hatch-Waxman Act (Public Law 98-417) provided 
180 day marketing exclusivity to a generic drug that 
successfully challenges the patent of a name brand 
pharmaceutical company, and that the purpose of this 
exclusivity was to provide incentives to bring lower cost 
generic drugs to the market as quickly as possible. The 
Committee has been informed that ``authorized'' generics are 
entering the market at the same time as generic drugs, and is 
concerned that this practice may have the ultimate effect of 
decreasing the number of generic drugs that enter the market, 
keeping prices ultimately higher for the consumer. Therefore, 
the Committee strongly encourages FDA to work to ensure that 
incentives for generic drugs, which are currently written into 
law, are protected, and that consumers continue to have access 
to safe, effective generic drugs at the earliest possible time.
    Base Reductions.--The Committee recommendation restores 
$29,680,000 of the $52,277,000 reduction in base funding 
proposed in the budget request. During the month of May 2006, 
the Committee held a series of briefings to discuss the impact 
of the proposed budget reductions on FDA's core mission areas. 
As a result of these briefings, the Committee recommendation 
restores the proposed reductions for the Center for Food Safety 
and Applied Nutrition, field activities related to the foods 
program, and the National Center for Toxicological Research. 
These program areas would be the most negatively affected if 
the reductions are enacted, and as a result of the proposed 
reduction, have already initiated hiring freezes, buy-outs, and 
other cost saving measures during this fiscal year. The 
Committee believes that FDA should not abandon core food safety 
and research activities to fund other activities and is deeply 
concerned that the Agency took this approach in its fiscal year 
2007 budget request.
    The funding level in the Committee recommendation will 
permit the foods program to continue fiscal year 2006 
activities including, but not limited to, facility inspection 
(including reinspection), the food contact notification 
program, review of food and color additive petitions, active 
participation in Codex Alimentarius, the cosmetics program, 
export certification, and monitoring for chemical contaminants. 
Further, the Committee recommendation will permit the National 
Center for Toxicological Research to maintain scientific 
expertise and continue important research to support the 
Critical Path initiative, biohazard identification, and the 
safety of FDA-regulated compounds.
    Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy.--The Committee recommends 
$29,566,000 for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy [BSE]. The 
Committee understands that this funding will be used to conduct 
yearly inspections of all renderers and feed mills processing 
products containing prohibited materials; extend BSE 
inspections into targeted segments of industries subject to the 
BSE Feed regulation but previously minimally inspected; 
validate test methods for the detection of bovine-derived 
proteins in animal feed; and continue to conduct research on 
Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies in FDA's product 
centers.
    Budget Justification.--The Committee directs the Agency to 
submit the fiscal year 2008 budget request in a format that 
follows the same account structure as the fiscal year 2007 
budget request unless otherwise approved by the Committee.
    Carcinogens.--The Committee believes that the FDA should 
conduct consumer testing on the wording and location of the 
current warning label on indoor tanning equipment and any 
proposed changes to the warning label to ensure that the 
appropriate risk information is being conveyed to consumers 
using sunbeds and sunlamps. This testing should take into 
account that exposure to sunbeds and sunlamps has been 
acknowledged as a known human carcinogen. In addition, the 
Committee believes it is important to receive public input on 
the labeling and any proposed changes and would encourage the 
FDA to hold public hearings on the issue. The Committee directs 
the FDA to conduct the above actions and to report back to 
Congress their findings within 120 days of enactment of this 
Act.
    Chloramphenicol.--The Committee continues to have serious 
concerns regarding seafood safety issues posed by banned 
antibiotic contamination in farm-raised shrimp imports. In 
addition, the Committee is concerned that the FDA inspects less 
than 2 percent of shrimp being imported into the United States. 
Therefore, the Committee strongly encourages the FDA to 
develop, in cooperation with State testing programs, a program 
for increasing the inspection of imported shrimp, possibly 
including cold-storage inventories, for banned antibiotics, 
including chloramphenicol.
    Citizen Petitions.--The Committee notes that the FDA report 
received in May 2006 regarding the Agency's citizen petition 
improvement efforts stated that the number of citizen petitions 
is increasing significantly. In fact, CDER recorded a nearly 50 
percent increase in the number of citizen petitions received in 
calendar year 2004 over the number received in calendar year 
2003. The report also stated that many of these citizen 
petitions might reasonably appear to have been filed in an 
attempt to delay approval of a generic version of a drug that 
is not yet subject to generic competition. The report 
reiterated FDA's intention to send petitions that may warrant 
an investigation into anti-competitive activities to the 
Federal Trade Commission, and the Committee strongly supports 
this intention.
    In addition, the Committee is aware of the importance of 
properly and clearly responding to citizen petitions in a 
timely fashion, as these responses may often be required as 
part of FDA's legal response to a challenge to a drug approval. 
Therefore, the Committee is pleased with the steps FDA has 
taken to improve Agency response to citizen petitions, 
including earlier and more frequent communication between FDA 
offices, increased coordination and faster turnaround goal 
times, and organizational changes made within the Office of 
Generic Drugs, which has dedicated a group of scientists who 
will be responsible for addressing citizen petition processes. 
The Committee notes that FDA is currently undertaking an 
initial review of its citizen petition improvement efforts, and 
directs FDA to report, within 120 days of the enactment of this 
Act, on its findings, including any need for additional 
funding.
    Codex Alimentarius.--Within the total funding available, at 
least $2,500,000 is for FDA activities in support of Codex 
Alimentarius.
    Collaborative Drug Safety Research.-- The Committee 
commends FDA for its work in developing the Critical Path 
Initiative to foster collaboration with outside researchers and 
develop new tools to both promote drug safety and accelerate 
the development of innovative new therapies. The Committee 
further commends the C-Path Institute, founded by the 
University of Arizona, for its innovative research efforts to 
develop more efficient tools for medical product development 
and drug safety. For this important effort, the Committee 
recommends no less than the fiscal year 2006 amount to support 
collaborative research with the C-Path Institute and the 
University of Utah on cardiovascular biomarkers predictive of 
safety and clinical outcomes. The Committee understands the 
research would involve identifying candidate genes and proteins 
in University of Utah databases, designing and conducting 
genomic and proteomic biomarker validation experiments by the 
C-Path Institute, the University of Utah, FDA and 
manufacturers, determining which biomarkers identify heart 
failure patients who are most likely to respond favorably to 
drug therapy and those at highest risk of adverse events. The 
Committee expects that this research will enhance patient 
safety, reduce the number of patients necessary for clinical 
testing, and enable manufacturers to accelerate drug 
development and bring safer, innovative life-saving drugs to 
market more quickly.
    Congressional Reports.--The Committee is concerned that, to 
date, FDA has transmitted only 5 of the approximately 13 
reports requested in the Senate and conference reports 
accompanying the fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill. All of 
these reports should have been received by May 10, 2006. The 
Committee reminds FDA that reports to Congress play an 
important role in the Committee's decision making process. The 
Committee understands that FDA is aware of these concerns and 
has begun implementing a new process for preparing reports. The 
Committee directs FDA to take all necessary action to provide 
reports in a timely fashion.
    Dietary Supplements.--The Committee recommends total 
funding of approximately $5,306,000 for the CFSAN Adverse 
Events Reporting System [CAERS], of which approximately 
$1,500,000 is for dietary supplements. This is $1,000,000 more 
than the amount in the budget request.
    The Committee is encouraged by FDA's activities to enforce 
provisions contained within the Dietary Supplement Health and 
Education Act of 1994 [DSHEA] (Public Law 103-417). The 
Committee has recommended funding to continue enforcement of 
the provisions contained in DSHEA. It is the Committee's intent 
that these funds be prioritized by the agency to step up 
activities against products that are clearly in violation of 
DSHEA. In addition, the Committee is concerned that Current 
Good Manufacturing Practice [CGMP] regulations, which have been 
under development for some time, have not been issued. 
Accordingly, the Committee directs FDA to issue the dietary 
supplement CGMP regulations.
    FDA has indicated that the ability to identify and analyze 
specific components in ingredients, including botanical 
ingredients, is an essential component of research and 
regulatory programs directed at ensuring the safety and 
effectiveness of dietary supplements. The Committee recommends 
no less than the fiscal year 2006 amount for review of 
botanicals in dietary supplements. This work is being carried 
out by FDA in collaboration with the National Center for 
Natural Products Research, Oxford, Mississippi.
    Expedited filing.--The Committee directs FDA to expedite 
and support the filing, review, and final action on new drug 
applications or a supplement to a new drug application seeking 
approval of a reformulated active ingredient, or combination of 
active ingredients, previously approved as safe and effective 
that would replace or provide a therapeutic alternative to a 
currently marketed drug product that contains an active 
ingredient that is the subject of diversion and/or abuse 
outside regulated channels of commerce.
    Food Labeling.--In a report issued September 28, 2005, 
regarding qualified health claims, FDA noted that qualifying 
statements on food labels that used only words were confusing 
to consumers, and statements presented in a ``report card'' 
style were somewhat clearer. Further the report stated that 
qualifying statements had unexpected effects on consumers' 
judgments about the health benefits and overall healthfulness 
of the product bearing the claim. The Committee notes that FDA 
when approving qualified health claims is required to take into 
consideration the effect upon consumers' ability to understand 
labeling, and encourages the Agency to continue to do so.
    The Committee also notes that as part of FDA's labeling 
compliance program, FDA investigators routinely review selected 
food labels during regularly scheduled food manufacturer 
inspections performed under the agency's food safety compliance 
programs. Approximately 28,000 field examinations of domestic 
and imported food labels were conducted between October 1, 2005 
and December 6, 2005. The Committee believes that State food 
and drug officials can help supplement FDA enforcement efforts, 
and encourages FDA to consult with the States to leverage the 
training and enforcement activities conducted by each entity.
    Foodborne Illness.--The Committee is aware of the effective 
work of the Partnership for Food Safety Education to provide 
information to the general public about simple, commonsense 
suggestions regarding safe food preparation and handling. 
Currently, the Partnership for Food Safety Education is working 
to develop a public education campaign aimed at populations 
vulnerable to listeria, including pregnant women and adults 
with weakened immune systems. The Committee believes this is a 
worthwhile effort, and encourages FDA to continue working with 
the Partnership for Food Safety Education in executing this 
education campaign. In addition, the Committee encourages the 
FDA to provide funding, as appropriate, to support this 
collaborative effort.
    Generic Drugs.--The Committee recommends $74,663,000 for 
the generic drugs program at FDA, of which $39,079,000 is for 
the Office of Generic Drugs. This is an increase of $10,000,000 
above the budget request. The Committee is aware that generic 
drug applications have increased significantly in recent years, 
and that this trend is expected to continue. Further, the 
Committee understands that the current FDA policy is to review 
generic drug applications in the order in which they are 
received at the agency, with certain exceptions, such as drug 
shortages. The Committee has been informed that FDA is looking 
at alternatives to the current policy to better serve 
consumers, including giving priority status to generic drugs 
that would be the first generic to enter the market upon 
approval. On April 26, 2006, FDA published a paper noting that 
while the first generic drug to enter the market is normally 
priced approximately six percent below its comparative brand 
name drug, the second generic drug reduces prices more 
significantly, nearly in half. The Committee is supportive of 
FDA's efforts to improve its generic drug approval process, and 
strongly encourages the agency to take into account this 
information when making those decisions. The Committee requests 
a report within 120 days of enactment of this Act on any 
changes that have been made, or are being proposed, either in 
statute or through administrative procedures, for the generic 
drug approval process.
    Human Drug Compounding.--The Committee acknowledges the 
important and increasing role that compounding pharmacists play 
in providing health care to consumers. The Committee also 
acknowledges the important role the United States Pharmacopeia 
[USP] and Pharmacy Compounding Accreditation Board [PCAB] play 
in promoting consumer health through activities directed at 
promoting quality pharmacy compounding practices and products. 
The Committee encourages FDA to work with, including providing 
funding if available, USP and PCAB to develop monographs for 
commonly prescribed or critically needed compounded 
preparations. The Committee encourages USP and PCAB to consult 
with compounding pharmacists to identify commonly prescribed or 
critically needed compounded preparations for monograph 
development and to encourage participation in the PCAB 
accreditation program. The Committee makes clear that the 
development of monographs will not limit or infringe upon the 
current practice of compounding pharmacists in preparing and 
dispensing prescriptions, or alter the existing State and 
Federal regulatory roles regarding compounding.
    Influenza.--The Committee recommendation includes an 
increase of $50,490,000 for pandemic influenza preparedness. 
Included in this amount is $20,000,000 to annualize the funding 
provided in the fiscal year 2006 supplemental and $30,490,000 
to enhance FDA's pandemic influenza efforts in fiscal year 
2007. In addition, the Committee understands that almost three-
quarters of the way through the fiscal year FDA has obligated 
approximately $7,000,000 of the $20,000,000 provided in the 
fiscal year 2006 supplemental. Because this funding is 
available until September 30, 2007, FDA will be able to utilize 
supplemental funding not spent in fiscal year 2006 in addition 
to the $50,490,000 included in the Committee recommendation 
throughout fiscal year 2007. Including base resources, the 
estimated fiscal year 2007 amount available for pandemic 
influenza preparedness is in excess of $60,000,000.
    Mammography.--The Committee recommends no less than 
$10,600,000 in appropriated funds for activities related to the 
Mammography Quality Standards Act. Appropriations for this 
program fund research grants and various activities to develop 
and enforce quality standards for mammography services, 
including a Federal advisory committee, accreditation bodies, 
inspections of government entities and facilities that provided 
50 percent or more mammography screenings with grants provided 
through the Center for Disease Control's National Breast and 
Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program, issuance and renewal 
of certificates, appeal procedures, certification of personnel, 
and imposing sanctions for noncompliance.
    The Committee is aware that the Institute of Medicine 
released a report entitled ``Breast Imaging Quality Standards'' 
on May 23, 2005. Further, the Committee is aware that the 
Government Accountability Office is scheduled to soon release a 
report dealing with mammography access and an assessment of 
states that act as both accrediting and certifying bodies. The 
Committee directs FDA to provide a report within 120 days of 
enactment of this Act on how it plans to respond to 
recommendations contained in these reports.
    Medical Device Application Review.--The Committee 
recommendation includes an appropriated amount of $230,549,000 
for the Devices and Radiological Health Program. This amount is 
sufficient to meet the triggers as defined in the Medical 
Device User Fee and Modernization Act (Public Law 107-250) and 
the Medical Device User Fee Stabilization Act (Public Law 109-
43). The Committee notes with concern that this is the second 
year in a row that the inflation rate assumed in the budget 
request is not sufficient to meet the mandated trigger amount.
    National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System.--The 
Committee supports the work of the National Antimicrobial 
Resistance Monitoring System [NARMS] and its collaborative 
relationship between FDA, USDA, and the Centers for Disease 
Control 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, and encourages FDA to 
equally divide research funding among the three branches of the 
program.
    National Center for Food Safety and Technology.--With the 
growing threat of foodborne illness to the public health, the 
Committee believes that collaborative research in food safety 
should continue among Government, academia, and private 
industry. The national model for that collaboration has been 
the National Center for Food Safety and Technology [NCFST] in 
Summit-Argo, Illinois. The Committee recommends $3,000,000 for 
NCFST to continue the important work done there. This funding 
should be exclusive of any initiative funds which the FDA may 
provide in addition to NCFST.
    Office of Women's Health.--The Committee believes that it 
is imperative for FDA to pay sufficient attention to gender-
based research, ensuring that products approved by the FDA are 
safe and effective for women as well as men. The Committee 
notes that in the budget request, the Office of Women's Health 
at FDA is funded at not less than $4,000,000 for program 
operation and oversight. The Committee encourages FDA to ensure 
that the Office of Women's Health is sufficiently funded to 
carry out its activities, and to enhance its funding if 
necessary.
    Operations Maintenance.--The Committee notes that FDA's 
overall budget is approximately 60 percent salaries and 
benefits. Further, in FDA's field organization, front-line 
inspection staff for imports and manufacturing facilities, 
salaries and benefits is approximately 80 percent of the 
budget. The fiscal year 2007 budget request includes an 
increase of $20,267,000 to cover an anticipated pay increase of 
2.2 percent, which the Committee recommends. However, the 
Committee also notes that FDA routinely absorbs additional pay 
and benefit costs that are not requested in the budget. 
Therefore, the Committee directs the FDA to use the recommended 
programmatic funding increases to support current activities 
and staff levels before entering into new agreements or 
engaging in new activities.
    Orphan Products Grants.--The Committee recommends 
$14,696,000 for the Orphan Products Grants Program within the 
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
    Perchlorate.--The Committee directs the FDA to report to 
Congress the results of the 2004 and 2005 perchlorate food 
surveys that included over 1,000 samples of milk (including 
milk collected at farms), bottled water, fruits, vegetables, 
grain products, fish, infant foods, and infant formulas within 
120 days after the enactment of this Act. The Committee also 
directs FDA to report to Congress the perchlorate results from 
the 2006 Total Diet Study of both infant and adult food as soon 
as practicable. The Committee believes it is important to 
continue to include perchlorate as part of the Total Diet Study 
of both infant and adult food in order to determine the need 
for risk management strategies.
    Personalized Medicine.--The Committee is aware that, with 
the completion of the Human Genome Project, pharmaceutical and 
biologics research is moving rapidly into an era of 
personalized medicine. Developing products that are tailored to 
the specific genetic make-up of the individual patient promises 
to improve effectiveness, reduce adverse events, and save money 
currently wasted on treatment modalities that are less safe and 
less effective than desired. Specific targeting of drugs based 
on an individual's genotype will create new review issues for 
FDA and for industry. In March 2005, the FDA issued guidance 
for industry on the agency's current thinking with regard to 
pharmacogenomics and on data submission. As the science 
matures, FDA will need to regularly review and update its 
position. The Committee encourages FDA to work closely with 
government, academic, and industry researchers to assure that 
its actions serve to bring balance to a field of research that 
will ultimately enhance the public's health.
    Prescription Drug Monographs.--The Committee is interested 
in ensuring that FDA adopts a uniform and transparent system 
for regulating pharmaceuticals that have been marketed for a 
material extent and for a material amount of time without 
documented safety problems and outside of the current new drug 
approval process. Last year, the Committee requested a report 
on an alternative approach that provides for the uniform and 
transparent regulation of these products. To date, the 
Committee has not received this report. Therefore, the 
Committee directs the FDA to devise an approach that provides 
for the uniform and transparent regulation of these drugs. The 
Committee encourages the agency to ensure that enforcement 
resources are prioritized to address safety and effectiveness 
concerns.
    Seafood Safety.--The Committee supports the ongoing work of 
the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference [ISSC] and its 
joint efforts with the FDA and the shellfish industry to 
formulate shellfish safety regulations through the National 
Shellfish Sanitation Program. The Committee recommends no less 
than $200,000 be directed through the Office of Seafood 
Inspection to continue these activities and $250,000 be 
directed to the ISSC 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 ISSC's proposed steps to reduce the rates of death and 
illness due to consumption of Vibrio Vulnificus-contaminated 
raw shellfish may not effectively address public health 
concerns.
    The Committee also continues its concern with the agency's 
failure to bring FDA-regulated seafood into compliance with 
Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point [HACCP] standards. 
However, the Committee is aware that special or unique 
circumstances may exist for particular seafood processors. 
While ultimate HAACP compliance is not in question, the 
Committee is specifically aware of Hawaii's lengthy and 
culturally important history of hook-and-line fisheries, 
auction markets, and the high consumption of raw tuna and other 
pelagic fish in Hawaii, and strongly encourages the Agency to 
take into account both the history and the industry's practical 
experience in approving a plan that is consistent with healthy 
seafood products and national standards for seafood safety.
    The Committee has been advised that farmed salmon imported 
from overseas is fed feed with chemical additives to change the 
color of its flesh or the flesh is artificially dyed. A lawsuit 
was filed against national grocery chains alleging they do not 
adequately label the fish which are dyed. The Committee directs 
the Food and Drug Administration to continue to monitor 
information concerning the safety of the use of such additives 
and dyes in seafood and to more aggressively enforce the clear 
and conspicuous disclosure of such additives and dyes to 
consumers on consumer packaging.
    In addition, the funding recommended 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. The contract 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.
    Standards of Identity.--The Committee is aware of the 
ongoing debate surrounding increased importation and use of 
milk protein concentrate. The Committee remains concerned with 
FDA's current lack of enforcement of standards of identity as 
it relates to the potential use of milk protein concentrate in 
standardized cheese and the labeling thereof.
    Unified Financial Management System.--The Committee 
recommendation includes no more than $13,026,000 for the 
Unified Financial Management System. Of this amount, $9,720,000 
is for development and implementation, and $3,306,000 is for 
operations and maintenance. The Committee reminds FDA that 
these amounts are subject to the reprogramming requirements 
outlined in the general provisions of this Act.
    Waste Management Education and Research Consortium.--The 
Committee recommends no less than the fiscal year 2006 amount 
for the FDA to continue its support for the Waste Management 
Education and Research Consortium and its work in food safety 
technology verification and education.

                        buildings and facilities

Appropriations, 2006....................................      $7,920,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................       4,950,000
House allowance.........................................       4,950,000
Committee recommendation................................       4,950,000

    FDA maintains offices and staff in 49 States and in the 
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, including field 
laboratories and specialized facilities, as well as the 
National Center for Toxicological Research complex. Repairs, 
modifications, improvements, and construction to FDA 
headquarters and field facilities must be made to preserve the 
properties, ensure employee safety, meet changing program 
requirements, and permit the Agency to keep its laboratory 
methods up to date.

                       committee recommendations

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,950,000 for 
FDA buildings and facilities.

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                  Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Appropriations, 2006....................................     $97,402,000
Budget estimate, 2007\1\................................................
House allowance.........................................     109,402,000
Committee recommendation................................      99,502,000

\1\The budget estimate proposed a user fee of $127,000,000.

    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

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $99,502,000 
for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

                       Farm Credit Administration

                 limitation on administrative expenses

Limitation, 2006........................................     $44,250,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................................
House allowance.........................................      44,250,000
Committee recommendation................................      44,250,000

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

                       committee recommendations

    The Committee recommends a limitation of $44,250,000 on 
administrative expenses of the Farm Credit Administration 
[FCA]. The Committee recommendation that the limitation does 
not apply to expenses associated with receiverships.

                               TITLE VII

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

    The Committee recommends the following provisions:
    Section 701. This section makes funds available for the 
purchase, replacement, and hire of passenger motor vehicles.
    Section 702. This section makes funds for certain accounts 
within the Department of Agriculture available until expended.
    Section 703. This section gives the Secretary of 
Agriculture authority to transfer unobligated balances to the 
Working Capital Fund.
    Section 704. This section limits the funding provided in 
the bill to 1 year, unless otherwise specified.
    Section 705. This section limits negotiated indirect costs 
on cooperative agreements between the Department of Agriculture 
and nonprofit organizations to 10 percent.
    Section 706. This section limits indirect costs charged to 
certain grant awards issued by the Cooperative State Research, 
Education, and Extension Service to 20 percent of total Federal 
funds.
    Section 707. This section makes appropriations to the 
Department of Agriculture for the cost of direct guaranteed 
loans available until expended to disburse obligations for 
certain Rural Development programs.
    Section 708. This section makes funds available for the 
expenses and activities of certain advisory committees, panels, 
commissions, and task forces at the Department of Agriculture.
    Section 709. This section prohibits the use of funds to 
establish an inspection panel at the Department of Agriculture.
    Section 710. This section requires Department of 
Agriculture agencies to provide reimbursement to other 
Department of Agriculture agencies for employees detailed for 
longer than 30 days.
    Section 711. This section prohibits the Department of 
Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services 
from transmitting questions or responses as a result of the 
appropriations hearing process to non-Department employees.
    Section 712. This section prohibits the purchase of new 
information technology equipment and equipment in excess of 
$25,000 without the prior approval of the Chief Information 
Officer.
    Section 713. This section prohibits the reprogramming of 
funds for programs, projects, or activities in excess of 
$500,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less without the prior 
notification of the Committee on Appropriations.
    Section 714. This section requires the Natural Resources 
and Conservation Service to provide financial and technical 
assistance for certain projects.
    Section 715. This section prohibits the closing of the Food 
and Drug Administration's St. Louis, Missouri laboratory.
    Section 716. This section provides funding for Bill Emerson 
and Mickey Leland Hunger Fellowships.
    Section 717. This section provides funding for the National 
Sheep Industry Improvement Center.
    Section 718. This section permits 30 percent of the funds 
available for competitive research grants to be used to carry 
out a competitive grants program under section 401 of the 
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 
1998.
    Section 719. This section prohibits the use of funds for 
the dam rehabilitation program.
    Section 720. This section provides a funding limitation for 
renewable energy systems.
    Section 721. This section provides a funding limitation for 
the environmental quality incentives program.
    Section 722. This section provides a funding limitation for 
broadband telecommunications services.
    Section 723. This section limits the amount of funding 
available to reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for the 
release of commodities under the Bill Emerson Humanitarian 
Trust.
    Section 724. This section provides a funding limitation for 
value-added market development grants.
    Section 725. This section modifies the guaranteed 
underwriting loan program.
    Section 726. This section provides funding for the Denali 
Commission.
    Section 727. This section provides a funding limitation for 
the wildlife habitat incentives program.
    Section 728. This section provides a funding limitation for 
the farmland protection program.
    Section 729. This section provides a funding limitation for 
the ground and surface water conservation program.
    Section 730. This section prohibits the promulgation of a 
final rule related to animal and plant health programs.
    Section 731. This section makes funds for certain 
conservation programs available until expended to disburse 
certain obligations made in the current fiscal year. This 
section also makes fiscal years 2004-2007 funds for the 
Agricultural Management Assistance Program available until 
expended to disburse obligations.
    Section 732. This section makes certain locations eligible 
for certain rural development programs.
    Section 733. This section gives the Secretary of 
Agriculture the authority to make funding and other assistance 
available for damage to non-Federal lands damaged by fires 
initiated by the Federal Government, and waives cost-sharing 
requirements.
    Section 734. This section prohibits the Department of 
Agriculture from requiring the recertification of rural Status 
for each electric and telecommunications borrower for certain 
Rural Utilities Service programs.
    Section 735. This section gives the Secretary of 
Agriculture authority to use unobligated funds in certain Rural 
Utilities Service programs for the purpose of expanding 9-1-1 
access.
    Section 736. This section provides funding for specialty 
crop block grants.
    Section 737. This section gives the Secretary of 
Agriculture authorization to transfer land to the City of 
Elkhart, Kansas.
    Section 738. This section expands the Simplified Summer 
Food Service Program.
    Section 739. This section prohibits the use of funds to 
conduct competitive sourcing activities in rural development 
and farm loan programs.
    Section 740. This section provides a funding limitation for 
section 32.
    Section 741. This section prohibits funds from being used 
to pay the administrative expenses of a State agency that 
authorizes new WIC-only vendors. The section also permits the 
Secretary of Agriculture to approve new WIC-only vendors under 
certain circumstances.
    Section 742. This section requires FDA to meet certain 
disclosure requirements before advisory committee meeting are 
held where waivers are issued for conflicts of interest. The 
section also requires FDA to submit a semi-annual report on 
conflicts of interest.
    Section 743. This section expands eligibility to 
agricultural processing workers for the Farm Labor Housing 
program.
    Section 744. This section directs the Secretary of 
Agriculture to administer the Farm and Ranchland Protection 
Program in accordance with 7 CFR Part 1491.
    Section 745. This section provides that certain locations 
shall be considered eligible for certain rural development 
programs.
    Section 746. This section provides base funding for all 
institutions participating in the expanded food nutrition 
education program.
    Section 747. This section provides funding for the National 
Center for Natural Products Research.
    Section 748. This section establishes a transfer limit on 
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    Section 749. This section provides funding to continue a 
tribal housing demonstration project.
    Section 750. This section makes certain service areas 
eligible for financing through the Rural Utilities Service.
    Section 751. This section extends the authorization for an 
education grants program to Alaska native serving and Native 
Hawaiian serving institutions.
    Section 752. This section modifies export credit programs.
    Section 753. This section makes commercial fisherman 
eligible for certain Farm Service Agency loans.
    Section 754. This section extends the authority of the 
Secretary of Agriculture to pay storage, handling, and other 
associated costs for peanuts.
    Section 755. This section facilitates travel related to 
licensed sales of agricultural and medical goods to Cuba.
    Section 756. This section provides emergency appropriations 
for the Veterans Administration.
    Section 757. This section expresses a sense of the Senate 
regarding U.S. beef exports to Japan.

                               TITLE VIII

               EMERGENCY AGRICULTURAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE

                   Commodity Credit Corporation Fund

                        CROP DISASTER ASSISTANCE

    The Committee recommends emergency spending of such sums as 
are necessary of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation, 
estimated in fiscal year 2007 to be $1,016,000,000, to make 
emergency financial assistance to producers on a farm that 
incurred qualifying losses for the 2005 crop due to damaging 
weather or damage that occurred due to Mormon Crickets in 
Nevada and other insect infestations in other States. Crop 
losses for the 2006 crop lost due to flooding in California, 
Hawaii and Vermont that occurred prior to the date of enactment 
are also covered.

                          LIVESTOCK ASSISTANCE

    The Committee recommends emergency spending of such sums as 
are necessary of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation, 
estimated in fiscal year 2007 to be $1,020,000,000 to provide a 
Livestock Compensation Program and Livestock Indemnity Payments 
for losses during calendar years 2005 and 2006 that occurred 
prior to the date of enactment due to a disaster, such as 
wildfire losses in Texas and other States, and drought losses 
in New Mexico and other States. Only producers in designated 
disaster counties are eligible. The Committee recommendation 
also includes emergency spending of $13,000,000 for a Ewe Lamb 
Replacement and Retention Program.

                     FLOODED CROP AND GRAZING LAND

    The Committee recommends emergency spending of $6,000,000 
of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to assist 
eligible owners of flooded farmland that has been unable to be 
used for the 2 preceding crop years in the Devils Lake basin 
and the McHugh, Lake Laretta, and Rose Lake areas of North 
Dakota.

                     SUGAR BEET DISASTER ASSISTANCE

    The Committee recommends emergency spending of $24,000,000 
of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to assist 
sugar beet producers that suffered production and quality 
losses in the 2005 crop year.
    The Committee recommends emergency spending of $6,000,000 
of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to assist an 
agricultural transportation cooperative in Hawaii.

                BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS HERD INDEMNIFICATION

    The Committee recommends emergency spending of $2,000,000 
of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to indemnify 
producers that suffered losses to herds of cattle due to bovine 
tuberculosis during 2005.

                      REPLINISHEMENT OF SECTION 32

    The Committee recommends emergency spending of $100,000,000 
of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to make grants 
to each State to promote and support specialty crop production.

                  SUPPLEMENTAL ECONOMIC LOSS PAYMENTS

    The Committee recommends emergency spending of such sums as 
are necessary of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation, 
estimated in fiscal year 2007 to be $1,728,000,000, provides a 
supplemental economic loss payment to producers of program 
crops and dairy producers.

                 EMERGENCY WATERSHED PROTECTION PROGRAM

    The Committee recommends an emergency appropriation of 
$53,600,000 of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to 
carry out emergency measures identified by the Chief of the 
Natural Resources Conservation Service through the Emergency 
Watershed Protection Program.

                     EMERGENCY CONSERVATION PROGRAM

    The Committee recommends an emergency appropriation of 
$17,000,000 of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to 
carry out emergency measures in New Mexico and other States 
that are identified by the Administrator of the Farm Service 
Agency through the Emergency Conservation Program.

                    FUNDING FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL

    The Committee recommends an emergency appropriation of 
$13,400,000 of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to 
hire additional County Farm Service Agency personnel to 
expedite the implementation of the programs funded through this 
title.

                     PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY

    During fiscal year 2007, 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, 2007, 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 2007 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 2007 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 programs 
which currently lack authorization for fiscal year 2007:
  --Commodity Futures Trading Commission;
  --Food and Nutrition Service, Child and Adult Care Food 
        Program;
  --Food and Drug Administration, Orphan Product Grants; and
  --Food and Drug Administration, Sections 310 and 311 of the 
        Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness 
        and Response Act of 2002.

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

    Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on June 22, 2006, 
the Committee ordered reported, en bloc, H.R. 5384, making 
appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes, with an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, and H.R. 5521, making 
appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes, with an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, with each bill subject 
to further amendment and subject to the budget allocation, by a 
recorded vote of 28-0, a quorum being present. The vote was as 
follows:
        Yeas                          Nays
Chairman Cochran
Mr. Stevens
Mr. Specter
Mr. Domenici
Mr. Bond
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Burns
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Gregg
Mr. Bennett
Mr. Craig
Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. DeWine
Mr. Brownback
Mr. Allard
Mr. Byrd
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Reid
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray
Mr. Dorgan
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Durbin
Mr. Johnson
Ms. Landrieu

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

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

TITLE 7--AGRICULTURE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 50--AGRICULTURAL CREDIT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SUBCHAPTER IV--ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 1991. Definitions

    (a) As used in this chapter:
            (1) The term ``farmer'' includes a person who is 
        engaged in, or who, with assistance afforded under this 
        chapter, intends to engage in, fish farming and, in the 
        case of subtitle B, commercial fishing.
            (2) The term ``farming'' shall be deemed to include 
        fish farming and, in the case of subtitle B, commercial 
        fishing.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (b) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (4) * * *
    (c) Definition of Farm.--In subtitle B, the term ``farm'' 
includes a commercial fishing enterprise.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 64--AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, EXTENSION, AND TEACHING

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

       SUBCHAPTER VII--PROGRAMS FOR HISPANIC, ALASKA NATIVE, AND 
NATIVEHAWAIIAN SERVING INSTITUTIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 3242. Education grants to Alaska Native serving institutions and 
                    Native Hawaiian serving institutions

(a) * * *
    (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (3) Authorization of appropriations

    There are authorized to be appropriated to make grants 
under this subsection $10,000,000 in fiscal years 2001 through 
[2006] 2011.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(b) * * *
    (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (3) Authorization of appropriations

    There are authorized to be appropriated to make grants 
under this subsection $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 
through [2006] 2011.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 87--EXPORT PROMOTION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SUBCHAPTER II--AGRICULTURAL EXPORT PROGRAMS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Part A--Programs

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 5622. EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEE PROGRAM

    (a) Short-term Credit Guarantees.--

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    [(b) Intermediate-term Credit Guarantees.--Subject to the 
provisions of subsection (c) of this section, the Commodity 
Credit Corporation may guarantee the repayment of credit made 
available by financial institutions in the United States to 
finance commercial export sales of agricultural commodities, 
including processed agricultural products and high-value 
agricultural products, from privately owned stocks on credit 
terms that are for not less than a 3-year period nor for more 
than a 10-year period in a manner that will directly benefit 
United States agricultural producers.]
    [(c) Required Determinations.--The Commodity Credit 
Corporation shall not guarantee under subsection (b) of this 
section the repayment of credit made available to finance an 
export sale unless the Secretary determines that such sale 
will--
            [(1) develop, expand, or maintain the importing 
        country as a foreign market, on a long-term basis, for 
        the commercial sale and export of United States 
        agricultural commodities, without displacing normal 
        commercial sales;
            [(2) improve the capability of the importing 
        country to purchase and use, on a long-term basis, 
        United States agricultural commodities; or
            [(3) otherwise promote the export of United States 
        agricultural commodities.
[The reference in paragraphs (1) and (2) to ``on a long-term 
basis'' shall not apply in the case of determinations with 
respect to sales to the independent states of the former Soviet 
Union.]
    [(d)] (b) Purpose of Program.--The Commodity Credit 
Corporation may use export credit guarantees authorized under 
this section--
            (1) to increase exports of agricultural 
        commodities;
            (2) to compete against foreign agricultural 
        exports; and
            (3) to assist countries in meeting their food and 
        fiber needs, particularly--
                    (A) developing countries; and
                    (B) countries that are emerging markets 
                that have committed to carry out, or are 
                carrying out, policies that promote economic 
                freedom, private domestic production of food 
                commodities for domestic consumption, and the 
                creation and expansion of efficient domestic 
                markets for the purchase and sale of 
                agricultural [commodities; and] commodities.
            [(4) for such other purposes as the Secretary 
        determines appropriate, consistent with the provisions 
        of subsection (c) of this section.]
    [(e)] (c) Restrictions on Use of Credit Guarantees.--Export 
credit guarantees authorized by this section shall not be used 
for foreign aid, foreign policy, or debt rescheduling purposes. 
The provisions of the cargo preference laws shall not apply to 
export sales with respect to which credit is guaranteed under 
this section.
    [(f)] (d) Restrictions.--
            [(1) In general.--]The Commodity Credit Corporation 
        shall not make credit guarantees available in 
        connection with sales of agricultural commodities to 
        any country that the Secretary determines cannot 
        adequately service the debt associated with such sale.
            [(2) Criteria for determination.--In making the 
        determination required under paragraph (1) with respect 
        to credit guarantees under subsection (b) of this 
        section for a country, the Secretary may consider, in 
        addition to financial, macroeconomic, and monetary 
        indicators--
                    [(A) whether an International Monetary Fund 
                standby agreement, Paris Club rescheduling 
                plan, or other economic restructuring plan is 
                in place with respect to the country;
                    [(B) whether the country is addressing 
                issues such as--
                            [(i) the convertibility of the 
                        currency of the country;
                            [(ii) adequate legal protection for 
                        foreign investments;
                            [(iii) the viability of the 
                        financial markets of the country; and
                            [(iv) adequate legal protection for 
                        the private property rights of citizens 
                        of the country; or
                    [(C) any other factors that are relevant to 
                the ability of the country to service the debt 
                of the country.]
    [(g)] (e) Terms.--Export credit guarantees issued pursuant 
to this section shall contain such terms and conditions as the 
Commodity Credit Corporation determines to be necessary.
    [(h)] (f) United States Agricultural Commodities.--The 
Commodity Credit Corporation shall finance or guarantee under 
this section only United States agricultural commodities.
    [(i)] (g) Ineligibility of Financial Institutions.--
            (1) In general.--A financial institution shall be 
        ineligible to receive an assignment of a credit 
        guarantee issued by the Commodity Credit Corporation 
        under this section if it is determined by the 
        Corporation, at the time of the assignment, that such 
        financial institution--
                    (A) is the financial institution issuing 
                the letter of credit or a subsidiary of such 
                institution; or
                    (B) is owned or controlled by an entity 
                that owns or controls that financial 
                institution issuing the letter of credit.
            (2) Third country banks.--The Commodity Credit 
        Corporation may guarantee under [subsections (a) and 
        (b)] subsection (a) of this section the repayment of 
        credit made available to finance an export sale 
        irrespective of whether the obligor is located in the 
        country to which the export sale is destined.
    [(j)] (h) Conditions for Fish and Processed Fish 
Products.--In making available any guarantees of credit under 
this section in connection with sales of fish and processed 
fish products, the Secretary shall make such guarantees 
available under terms and conditions that are comparable to the 
terms and conditions that apply to guarantees provided with 
respect to sales of other agricultural commodities under this 
section.
    [(k)] (i) Processed and High-value Products.--
            (1) In general.--In issuing export credit 
        guarantees under this section, the Commodity Credit 
        Corporation shall, subject to paragraph (2), ensure 
        that not less than 25 percent for each of fiscal years 
        1996 and 1997, 30 percent for each of fiscal years 1998 
        and 1999, and 35 percent for each of fiscal years 2000 
        through 2007, of the total amount of credit guarantees 
        issued for a fiscal year is issued to promote the 
        export of processed or high-value agricultural products 
        and that the balance is issued to promote the export of 
        bulk or raw agricultural commodities.
            (2) Limitation.--The percentage requirement of 
        paragraph (1) shall apply for a fiscal year to the 
        extent that a reduction in the total amount of credit 
        guarantees issued for the fiscal year is not required 
        to meet the percentage requirement.
    [(l)] (j) Consultation on Agricultural Export Credit 
Programs.--The Secretary and the United States Trade 
Representative shall consult on a regular basis with the 
Committee on Agriculture, and the Committee on International 
Relations, of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate on the 
status of multilateral negotiations regarding agricultural 
export credit programs.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Part B--Implementation

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 5641. FUNDING LEVELS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (a) Direct Credit Programs.--The Commodity Credit 
Corporation may make available for each fiscal year such funds 
of the Commodity Credit Corporation as it determines necessary 
to carry out any direct credit program established under 
section 5621 of this title.
    (b) Export Credit Guarantee Programs.--
            [(1) Export credit guarantees.--]The Commodity 
        Credit Corporation shall make available for each of 
        fiscal years 1996 through 2007 not less than 
        $5,500,000,000 in credit guarantees under [subsections 
        (a) and (b)] subsection (a) of section 5622 of this 
        title.
            [(2) Limitation on origination fee.--
        Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
        Secretary may not charge an origination fee with 
        respect to any credit guarantee transaction under 
        section 5622(a) of this title in excess of an amount 
        equal to 1 percent of the amount of credit to be 
        guaranteed under the transaction, except with respect 
        to an export credit guarantee transaction pursuant to 
        section 1542(b) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, 
        and Trade Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-624; 7 U.S.C. 
        5622 note).]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 106--COMMODITY PROGRAMS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SUBCHAPTER III--PEANUTS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 7957. Marketing assistance loans and loan deficiency 
payments for peanuts

(a) Nonrecourse loans available

    (1) Availability * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (6) Payment of peanut storage costs

            Effective for the 2002 through [2006] 2007 crops of 
        peanuts, to ensure proper storage of peanuts for which 
        a loan is made under this section, the Secretary shall 
        use the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to 
        pay storage, handling, and other associated costs. This 
        authority terminates beginning with the [2007] 2008 
        crop of peanuts.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

TITLE 22--FOREIGN RELATIONS AND INTERCOURSE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 79--TRADE SANCTIONS REFORM AND EXPORT ENHANCEMENT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 7209. Requirements relating to certain travel-related transactions 
                    with Cuba

[(a) Authorization of travel relating to commercial sale of 
        agricultural commodities

    [The Secretary of the Treasury shall promulgate regulations 
under which the travel-related transactions listed in 
subsection (c) of section 515.560 of title 31, Code of Federal 
Regulations, may be authorized on a case-by-case basis by a 
specific license for travel to, from, or within Cuba for the 
commercial export sale of agricultural commodities pursuant to 
the provisions of this chapter.]
    (a) Authorization of Travel Relating to Commercial Sales of 
Agricultural and Medical Goods.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
shall promulgate regulations under which the travel-related 
transactions listed in paragraph (c) of section 515.560 of 
title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, are authorized by 
general license for travel to, from, or within Cuba for the 
purpose of conferring, exhibiting, marketing, planning, sales 
negotiation, delivery, expediting, facilitating, or servicing 
commercial export sale of agricultural and medical goods 
pursuant to the provisions of this title.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

RICHARD B. RUSSELL NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH ACT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                             PILOT PROJECTS

    Sec. 18. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (f) Simplified Summer Food Programs.--
            (1) Definition of eligible state.--In this 
        subsection, the term ``eligible State'' means--
                    (A) a State participating in the program 
                under this subsection as of May 1, [2004] 2006; 
                and
                    (B) a State in which (based on data 
                available in [June 2005] May 2006)--
                            (i) the percentage obtained by 
                        dividing--
                                    (I) the sum of--
                                            (aa) the average 
                                        daily number of 
                                        children attending the 
                                        summer food service 
                                        program in the State in 
                                        July 2003; and
                                            (bb) the average 
                                        daily number of 
                                        children receiving free 
                                        or reduced price meals 
                                        under the school lunch 
                                        program in the State in 
                                        July 2003; by
                                    (II) the average daily 
                                number of children receiving 
                                free or reduced price meals 
                                under the school lunch program 
                                in the State in March 2003; is 
                                less than
                            (ii) [75] 78 percent of the 
                        percentage obtained by dividing--

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

HOUSING ACT OF 1949

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

PART X--RURAL HOUSING

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                         TITLE V--FARM HOUSING

INSURANCE OF LOANS FOR THE PROVISION OF HOUSING AND RELATED FACILITIES 
                        FOR DOMESTIC FARM LABOR

    Sec. 514. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (f) As used in this section--
            (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (3) the term ``domestic farm labor'' means any 
        person (and the family of such person) who receives a 
        substantial portion of his or her income from primary 
        production of agricultural or aquacultural commodities 
        or the handling of such commodities in the unprocessed 
        stage or the processing of such commodities, without 
        respect to the source of employment, except that--

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000, PUBLIC LAW 106-78

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                     TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

    Sec. 759. Education Grants to Alaska Native Serving 
Institutions and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions. (a) 
Education Grants Program for Alaska Native Serving 
Institutions.--
            (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (3) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
        authorized to be appropriated to make grants under this 
        subsection $10,000,000 in fiscal years 2001 through 
        [2006] 2011.
    (b) * * *
            (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (3) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
        authorized to be appropriated to make grants under this 
        subsection $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 
        through [2006] 2011.

                                            BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL
  PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS
                                                     AMENDED
                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Budget authority                 Outlays
                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Committee     Amount  of     Committee     Amount  of
                                                         allocation\1\      bill      allocation\1\      bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee
 allocations to its subcommittees of budget totals for
 2007: Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development,
 Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies:
    Mandatory.........................................         70,945        70,945             NA        52,946
    Discretionary.....................................         18,200        18,200             NA     \1\61,942
Projections of outlays associated with the
 recommendation:
    2007..............................................  ..............  ...........  ..............    \2\61,942
    2008..............................................  ..............  ...........  ..............       10,458
    2009..............................................  ..............  ...........  ..............          845
    2010..............................................  ..............  ...........  ..............          237
    2011 and future years.............................  ..............  ...........  ..............          131
Financial assistance to State and local governments                NA        25,316             NA        22,934
 for  2007............................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\2\Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

NA: Not applicable.

                 COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007
                                                                                    [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                            Senate Committee recommendation compared with (+ or
                                                                                                                                                                      )
                               Item                                       2006         Budget estimate   House allowance      Committee    -----------------------------------------------------
                                                                      appropriation                                        recommendation         2006
                                                                                                                                              appropriation    Budget estimate   House allowance
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS

               Production, Processing, and Marketing

Office of the Secretary...........................................            5,076            11,540             5,499            10,515            +5,439            -1,025            +5,016

Executive Operations:
    Chief Economist...............................................           10,434            11,226            11,226            11,226              +792   ................  ................
    National Appeals Division.....................................           14,379            14,795            14,795            14,795              +416   ................  ................
    Office of Budget and Program Analysis.........................            8,215             8,479             8,479             8,479              +264   ................  ................
    Homeland Security staff.......................................              925             1,114               954               954               +29              -160   ................
    Office of the Chief Information Officer.......................           16,297            16,936            16,936            16,936              +639   ................  ................
        Common computing environment..............................          108,971           108,900            38,395   ................         -108,971          -108,900           -38,395
    Office of the Chief Financial Officer.........................            5,815            19,931             5,991            11,667            +5,852            -8,264            +5,676
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Executive Operations.................................          165,036           181,381            96,776            64,057          -100,979          -117,324           -32,719

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights................              813               836               836               836               +23   ................  ................
Office of Civil Rights............................................           19,908            22,650            22,650            22,650            +2,742   ................  ................
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration..............              669               773               736               681               +12               -92               -55
Agriculture buildings and facilities and rental payments..........         (185,857)         (209,814)         (206,669)         (209,814)         (+23,957)  ................          (+3,145)
    Payments to GSA...............................................          146,257           155,851           155,851           155,851            +9,594   ................  ................
    Building operations and maintenance...........................           39,600            53,963            50,818            53,963           +14,363   ................           +3,145
Hazardous materials management....................................           11,880            12,020            12,020            12,020              +140   ................  ................
Departmental administration.......................................           22,872            28,302            24,114            24,114            +1,242            -4,188   ................
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations.....            3,783             3,940             3,940             3,830               +47              -110              -110
Office of Communications..........................................            9,414             9,695             9,695             9,695              +281   ................  ................
Office of the Inspector General...................................           79,533            82,493            82,493            82,493            +2,960   ................  ................
Office of the General Counsel.....................................           38,957            40,647            40,455            40,647            +1,690   ................             +192
Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Econom-              592               694               651               605               +13               -89               -46
  ics.............................................................

Economic Research Service.........................................           75,172            82,544            80,963            75,963              +791            -6,581            -5,000
National Agricultural Statistics Service..........................          139,293           152,584           148,219           148,719            +9,426            -3,865              +500
    Census of Agriculture.........................................          (28,824)          (36,582)          (36,582)          (36,582)          (+7,758)  ................  ................

Agricultural Research Service:
    Salaries and expenses.........................................        1,123,654         1,001,385         1,057,603         1,127,553            +3,899          +126,168           +69,950
    Buildings and facilities......................................          129,883             8,415           140,000            83,400           -46,483           +74,985           -56,600
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Agricultural Research Service........................        1,253,537         1,009,800         1,197,603         1,210,953           -42,584          +201,153           +13,350

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service:
    Research and education activities.............................          670,081           566,300           651,506           678,089            +8,008          +111,789           +26,583
    Native American Institutions Endowment Fund...................          (12,000)          (11,880)          (11,880)          (11,880)            (-120)  ................  ................
    Extension activities..........................................          451,395           430,727           457,042           467,102           +15,707           +36,375           +10,060
    Integrated activities.........................................           55,234            19,120            58,379            58,704            +3,470           +39,584              +325
    Outreach for socially disadvantaged farmers...................            5,940             6,930             7,030             5,940   ................             -990            -1,090
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension         1,182,650         1,023,077         1,173,957         1,209,835           +27,185          +186,758           +35,878
       Service....................................................

Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Pro-                 717               741               741               731               +14               -10               -10
 grams............................................................

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service:
    Salaries and expenses.........................................          807,306           945,153           921,616           900,423           +93,117           -44,730           -21,193
        Animal welfare (user fees) (leg. proposal) NA.............  ................           (8,221)  ................  ................  ................          (-8,221)  ................
    Buildings and facilities......................................            4,946             6,431             5,946             5,946            +1,000              -485   ................
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service...........          812,252           951,584           927,562           906,369           +94,117           -45,215           -21,193

Agricultural Marketing Service:
    Marketing Services............................................           74,622            81,498            77,269            71,170            -3,452           -10,328            -6,099
        Standardization (user fees) (leg. proposal) NA............  ................           (2,212)  ................  ................  ................          (-2,212)  ................
    (Limitation on administrative expenses, from fees collected)..          (65,667)          (62,211)          (62,211)          (62,211)          (-3,456)  ................  ................
    Funds for strengthening markets, income, and supply (transfer            16,055             4,106            16,425            16,425              +370           +12,319   ................
     from section 32).............................................
        Agriculture marketing service standardization (user fees)   ................          (12,000)  ................  ................  ................         (-12,000)  ................
         (leg. proposal) NA.......................................
        Discretionary appropriations..............................           20,000   ................            9,900            10,000           -10,000           +10,000              +100
    Payments to states and possessions............................            3,809             1,334             1,334             3,834               +25            +2,500            +2,500
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Agricultural Marketing Service.......................          114,486            86,938           104,928           101,429           -13,057           +14,491            -3,499

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration:
    Salaries and expenses.........................................           38,059            21,844            39,737            38,737              +678           +16,893            -1,000
        Grain inspection, packers and stockyards administration     ................          (19,663)  ................  ................  ................         (-19,663)  ................
         (user fees) (leg. proposal) NA...........................
    Limitation on inspection and weighing services................          (42,463)          (42,463)          (42,463)          (42,463)  ................  ................  ................

Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety.....................              596               696               656               607               +11               -89               -49
Food Safety and Inspection Service................................          829,378           757,470           853,249           865,905           +36,527          +108,435           +12,656
    Food safety inspection (user fees) (leg. prop) NA.............  ................         (105,435)  ................  ................  ................        (-105,435)  ................
    Lab accreditation fees........................................           (1,000)           (1,000)           (1,000)           (1,000)  ................  ................  ................
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Production, Processing, and Marketing................        4,990,530         4,692,063         5,034,149         5,041,205           +50,675          +349,142            +7,056
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================

                     Farm Assistance Programs

Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural                 629               737               691               640               +11               -97               -51
 Services.........................................................

Farm Service Agency:
    Salaries and expenses.........................................        1,019,700         1,091,359         1,053,760         1,151,779          +132,079           +60,420           +98,019
        Loan deficiency payments (user fees) (leg. proposal) NA...  ................          (10,000)  ................          (10,000)         (+10,000)  ................         (+10,000)
        Conservation reserve program (user fees) (leg. proposal)    ................          (25,000)  ................          (25,000)         (+25,000)  ................         (+25,000)
         NA.......................................................

    (Transfer from export loans)..................................           (1,821)             (346)             (346)             (346)          (-1,475)  ................  ................
    (Transfer from Public Law 480)................................           (3,185)           (2,651)           (2,651)           (2,651)            (-534)  ................  ................
    (Transfer from ACIF)..........................................         (301,545)         (311,737)         (307,338)         (311,737)         (+10,192)  ................          (+4,399)
    (Transfer from farm storage loan program account).............  ................           (4,560)  ................           (4,560)          (+4,560)  ................          (+4,560)
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, transfers from program accounts...................         (306,551)         (319,294)         (310,335)         (319,294)         (+12,743)  ................          (+8,959)
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Salaries and expenses................................       (1,326,251)       (1,410,653)       (1,364,095)       (1,471,073)        (+144,822)         (+60,420)        (+106,978)

    State mediation grants........................................            4,208             4,208             4,208             4,208   ................  ................  ................
    Grassroot source water protection program.....................            3,713   ................            3,713             3,713   ................           +3,713   ................
    Dairy indemnity program.......................................              100               100               100               100   ................  ................  ................
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Farm Service Agency...............................        1,027,721         1,095,667         1,061,781         1,159,800          +132,079           +64,133           +98,019

Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account:
    Loan authorizations:
        Farm ownership loans:
            Direct................................................         (205,918)         (222,750)         (222,750)         (222,750)         (+16,832)  ................  ................
            Guaranteed............................................       (1,386,000)       (1,200,000)       (1,200,000)       (1,200,000)        (-186,000)  ................  ................
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal............................................       (1,591,918)       (1,422,750)       (1,422,750)       (1,422,750)        (-169,168)  ................  ................

        Farm operating loans:
            Direct................................................         (643,500)         (643,500)         (643,500)         (643,500)  ................  ................  ................
            Unsubsidized guaranteed...............................       (1,138,500)       (1,025,610)       (1,150,000)       (1,025,610)        (-112,890)  ................        (-124,390)
            Subsidized guaranteed.................................         (271,886)         (272,250)         (272,254)         (272,250)            (+364)  ................              (-4)
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal............................................       (2,053,886)       (1,941,360)       (2,065,754)       (1,941,360)        (-112,526)  ................        (-124,394)

        Indian tribe land acquisition loans.......................           (2,000)           (3,960)           (3,960)           (3,960)          (+1,960)  ................  ................
        Boll weevil eradication loans.............................         (100,000)          (59,400)          (59,400)          (59,400)         (-40,600)  ................  ................
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Loan authorizations..............................       (3,747,804)       (3,427,470)       (3,551,864)       (3,427,470)        (-320,334)  ................        (-124,394)
    Loan subsidies:
        Farm ownership loans:
            Direct................................................           10,544             9,333             9,333             9,333            -1,211   ................  ................
            Guaranteed............................................            6,653   ................            6,960             6,960              +307            +6,960   ................
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal............................................           17,197             9,333            16,293            16,293              -904            +6,960   ................

        Farm operating loans:
            Direct................................................           64,028            75,225            75,225            75,225           +11,197   ................  ................
            Unsubsidized guaranteed...............................           34,497             2,667            28,405            25,332            -9,165           +22,665            -3,073
            Subsidized guaranteed.................................           33,986            24,720            27,416            27,416            -6,570            +2,696   ................
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal............................................          132,511           102,612           131,046           127,973            -4,538           +25,361            -3,073

        Indian tribe land acquisition.............................               80               838               838               838              +758   ................  ................
        Boll weevil eradication loans.............................  ................            1,129             1,129             1,129            +1,129   ................  ................
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Loan subsidies...................................          149,788           113,912           149,306           146,233            -3,555           +32,321            -3,073

    ACIF expenses:
        Salaries and expense (transfer to FSA)....................          301,545           311,737           307,338           311,737           +10,192   ................           +4,399
        Administrative expenses...................................            7,920             7,920             7,920             7,920   ................  ................  ................
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, ACIF expenses....................................          309,465           319,657           315,258           319,657           +10,192   ................           +4,399
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund...............          459,253           433,569           464,564           465,890            +6,637           +32,321            +1,326
              (Loan authorization)................................       (3,747,804)       (3,427,470)       (3,551,864)       (3,427,470)        (-320,334)  ................        (-124,394)
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================

          Total, Farm Service Agency..............................        1,486,974         1,529,236         1,526,345         1,625,690          +138,716           +96,454           +99,345
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================

Risk Management Agency............................................           76,278            80,797            77,197            78,477            +2,199            -2,320            +1,280
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
      Total, Farm Assistance Programs.............................        1,563,881         1,610,770         1,604,233         1,704,807          +140,926           +94,037          +100,574
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
                           Corporations

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation:
    Federal crop insurance corporation fund.......................        3,159,379         4,131,035         4,131,035         4,131,035          +971,656   ................  ................
Commodity Credit Corporation Fund:
    Reimbursement for net realized losses.........................       25,690,000        19,740,000        19,740,000        19,740,000        -5,950,000   ................  ................
    Hazardous waste management (limitation on expenses)...........           (5,000)           (5,000)           (5,000)           (5,000)  ................  ................  ................
Farm Storage Facility Loans Program Account:
    Salaries and expenses:
        Farm Service Agency (transfer to FSA).....................  ................            4,560   ................            4,560            +4,560   ................           +4,560
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Corporations.....................................       28,849,379        23,875,595        23,871,035        23,875,595        -4,973,784   ................           +4,560
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
          Total, title I, Agricultural Programs...................       35,403,790        30,178,428        30,509,417        30,621,607        -4,782,183          +443,179          +112,190
              (By transfer).......................................         (306,551)         (319,294)         (310,335)         (319,294)         (+12,743)  ................          (+8,959)
              (Loan authorization)................................       (3,747,804)       (3,427,470)       (3,551,864)       (3,427,470)        (-320,334)  ................        (-124,394)
              (Limitation on administrative expenses).............         (113,130)         (109,674)         (109,674)         (109,674)          (-3,456)  ................  ................
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
                  TITLE II--CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environ-                737               957   ................              752               +15              -205              +752
 ment.............................................................

Natural Resources Conservation Service:
    Conservation operations.......................................          831,124           744,877           791,498           835,331            +4,207           +90,454           +43,833
    Watershed surveys and planning................................            6,022   ................            6,022             6,022   ................           +6,022   ................
    Watershed and flood prevention operations.....................           74,250   ................           40,000            62,070           -12,180           +62,070           +22,070
    Watershed rehabilitation program..............................           31,245            15,300            31,245            31,245   ................          +15,945   ................
    Resource conservation and development.........................           50,787            25,933            50,787            50,787   ................          +24,854   ................
    Healthy forests reserve program...............................  ................            2,475   ................            5,000            +5,000            +2,525            +5,000
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Natural Resources Conservation Service...............          993,428           788,585           919,552           990,455            -2,973          +201,870           +70,903
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
      Total, title II, Conservation Programs......................          994,165           789,542           919,552           991,207            -2,958          +201,665           +71,655
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
               TITLE III--RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development...............              629               823               692               640               +11              -183               -52

Rural Development:
    Rural community advancement program...........................          694,922           600,762           704,893           714,958           +20,036          +114,196           +10,065
        (Transfer out)............................................         (-25,740)  ................  ................         (-26,000)            (-260)         (-26,000)         (-26,000)
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Rural community advancement program..............          694,922           600,762           704,893           714,958           +20,036          +114,196           +10,065

    RD expenses:
        Salaries and expenses.....................................          162,979           170,741           182,860           176,522           +13,543            +5,781            -6,338
        (Transfer from RHIF)......................................         (450,261)         (455,776)         (430,080)         (455,776)          (+5,515)  ................         (+25,696)
        (Transfer from MHRP)......................................  ................  ................             (990)  ................  ................  ................            (-990)
        (Transfer from RDLFP).....................................           (4,745)           (4,950)           (4,780)           (4,950)            (+205)  ................            (+170)
        (Transfer from RETLP).....................................          (38,396)          (39,600)          (39,101)          (39,600)          (+1,204)  ................            (+499)
        (Transfer from RTB).......................................           (2,475)  ................  ................  ................          (-2,475)  ................  ................
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Transfers from program accounts...............         (495,877)         (500,326)         (474,951)         (500,326)          (+4,449)  ................         (+25,375)
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, RD expenses......................................         (658,856)         (671,067)         (657,811)         (676,848)         (+17,992)          (+5,781)         (+19,037)
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Rural Development................................          857,901           771,503           887,753           891,480           +33,579          +119,977            +3,727
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
Rural Housing Service:
    Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account:
        Loan authorizations:
            Single family direct (sec. 502).......................       (1,129,391)       (1,237,498)       (1,237,498)       (1,129,391)  ................        (-108,107)        (-108,107)
                Unsubsidized guaranteed...........................       (3,644,224)       (3,564,238)       (3,564,238)       (3,644,223)              (-1)         (+79,985)         (+79,985)
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal, Single family.........................       (4,773,615)       (4,801,736)       (4,801,736)       (4,773,614)              (-1)         (-28,122)         (-28,122)

            Housing repair (sec. 504).............................          (34,652)          (36,382)          (36,382)          (34,652)  ................          (-1,730)          (-1,730)
            Rental housing (sec. 515).............................          (99,000)  ................         (100,000)         (100,000)          (+1,000)        (+100,000)  ................
            Site loans (sec. 524).................................           (5,000)           (5,045)           (5,045)           (5,000)  ................             (-45)             (-45)
            Multi-family housing guarantees (sec. 538)............          (99,000)         (197,997)         (100,000)         (100,000)          (+1,000)         (-97,997)  ................
            Multi-family housing credit sales.....................           (1,485)           (1,482)           (1,482)           (1,482)              (-3)  ................  ................
            Single family housing credit sales....................          (10,000)          (10,000)          (10,000)          (10,000)  ................  ................  ................
            Self-help housing land develop. (sec. 523)............           (4,998)           (4,980)           (4,980)           (4,980)             (-18)  ................  ................
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Loan authorizations..........................       (5,027,750)       (5,057,622)       (5,059,625)       (5,029,728)          (+1,978)         (-27,894)         (-29,897)

        Loan subsidies:
            Single family direct (sec. 502).......................          128,638           124,121           124,121           113,278           -15,360           -10,843           -10,843
                Unsubsidized guaranteed...........................           40,491             7,772             7,772            42,641            +2,150           +34,869           +34,869
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal, Single family.........................          169,129           131,893           131,893           155,919           -13,210           +24,026           +24,026

            Housing repair (sec. 504).............................           10,136            10,751            10,751            10,240              +104              -511              -511
            Rental housing (sec. 515).............................           45,421   ................           45,670            45,880              +459           +45,880              +210
            Multi-family housing guarantees (sec. 538)............            5,366            15,325             7,740             7,740            +2,374            -7,585   ................
            Multi-family housing credit sales.....................              674               672               672               672                -2   ................  ................
            Single family housing credit sales....................  ................               48                48                48               +48   ................  ................
            Self-help housing land develop. (sec. 523)............               51               123               123               123               +72   ................  ................
            Multi-family housing preservation.....................            8,910   ................  ................  ................           -8,910   ................  ................
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Loan subsidies...............................          239,687           158,812           196,897           220,622           -19,065           +61,810           +23,725

        RHIF administrative expenses (transfer to RD).............          450,261           455,776           430,080           455,776            +5,515   ................          +25,696

        Rental assistance program:
            (Sec. 521)............................................          638,651           486,320           329,500           329,500          -309,151          -156,820   ................
            (Sec. 502(c)(5)(D))...................................            7,920   ................            5,900             5,900            -2,020            +5,900   ................
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Rental assistance program....................          646,571           486,320           335,400           335,400          -311,171          -150,920   ................
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Rural Housing Insurance Fund.................        1,336,519         1,100,908           962,377         1,011,798          -324,721           -89,110           +49,421
                  (Loan authorization)............................       (5,027,750)       (5,057,622)       (5,059,625)       (5,029,728)          (+1,978)         (-27,894)         (-29,897)
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
    Rural housing voucher program.................................           15,840   ................  ................  ................          -15,840   ................  ................
    Multifamily housing revitalization program account............  ................           74,250            28,000            28,000           +28,000           -46,250   ................
    MHRP administrative expenses (transfer to RD).................  ................  ................              990   ................  ................  ................             -990
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Multifamily housing revitalization...................  ................           74,250            28,990            28,000           +28,000           -46,250              -990

    Mutual and self-help housing grants...........................           33,660            37,620            37,620            33,660   ................           -3,960            -3,960
    Rural housing assistance grants...............................           43,536            40,590            40,590            40,590            -2,946   ................  ................
    Farm labor program account....................................           30,856            33,798            47,525            30,643              -213            -3,155           -16,882
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, grants and payments...............................          108,052           112,008           125,735           104,893            -3,159            -7,115           -20,842
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
      Total, Rural Housing Service................................        1,460,411         1,287,166         1,117,102         1,144,691          -315,720          -142,475           +27,589
          (Loan authorization)....................................       (5,027,750)       (5,057,622)       (5,059,625)       (5,029,728)          (+1,978)         (-27,894)         (-29,897)
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
Rural Business-Cooperative Service:
    Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account:
        (Loan authorization)......................................          (33,870)          (33,925)          (33,925)          (33,925)             (+55)  ................  ................
        Loan subsidy..............................................           14,571            14,951            14,951            14,951              +380   ................  ................
        Administrative expenses (transfer to RD)..................            4,745             4,950             4,780             4,950              +205   ................             +170
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Rural Development Loan Fund......................           19,316            19,901            19,731            19,901              +585   ................             +170

    Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account:
        (Loan authorization)......................................          (24,752)          (34,652)          (34,652)          (34,652)          (+9,900)  ................  ................
        Direct subsidy............................................            4,943             7,568             7,568             7,568            +2,625   ................  ................
    Rural cooperative development grants..........................           29,193            27,225             9,913            29,500              +307            +2,275           +19,587
    Rural empowerment zones and enterprise communities grants.....           11,088   ................           11,088            10,000            -1,088           +10,000            -1,088
    Renewable energy program......................................           22,770            10,163            20,000            25,000            +2,230           +14,837            +5,000
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
      Total, Rural Business-Cooperative Service...................           87,310            64,857            68,300            91,969            +4,659           +27,112           +23,669
          (Loan authorization)....................................          (58,622)          (68,577)          (68,577)          (68,577)          (+9,955)  ................  ................
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
Rural Utilities Service:
    Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program
     Account:
        Loan authorizations:
            Electric:
                Direct, 5 percent.................................          (99,000)          (99,018)          (99,018)          (99,000)  ................             (-18)             (-18)
                Direct, Municipal rate............................          (99,000)          (39,602)          (99,000)          (99,000)  ................         (+59,398)  ................
                Direct, FFB.......................................       (2,600,000)       (3,000,000)       (3,000,000)       (5,000,000)      (+2,400,000)      (+2,000,000)      (+2,000,000)
                Direct, Treasury rate.............................         (990,000)         (700,000)         (990,000)         (990,000)  ................        (+290,000)  ................
                Guaranteed electric...............................          (99,000)  ................  ................          (99,000)  ................         (+99,000)         (+99,000)
                Guaranteed underwriting...........................       (1,500,000)  ................         (500,000)       (1,500,000)  ................      (+1,500,000)      (+1,000,000)
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal, Electric..............................       (5,387,000)       (3,838,620)       (4,688,018)       (7,787,000)      (+2,400,000)      (+3,948,380)      (+3,098,982)

            Telecommunications:
                Direct, 5 percent.................................         (145,000)         (143,513)         (143,513)         (143,513)          (-1,487)  ................  ................
                Direct, Treasury rate.............................         (419,760)         (246,666)         (246,666)         (419,760)  ................        (+173,094)        (+173,094)
                Direct, FFB.......................................         (125,000)         (299,000)         (299,000)         (299,000)        (+174,000)  ................  ................
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal, Telecommunications....................         (689,760)         (689,179)         (689,179)         (862,273)        (+172,513)        (+173,094)        (+173,094)
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Total, Loan authorizations......................       (6,076,760)       (4,527,799)       (5,377,197)       (8,649,273)      (+2,572,513)      (+4,121,474)      (+3,272,076)

        Loan subsidies:
            Electric:
                Direct, 5 percent.................................              911             2,119             2,119             2,119            +1,208   ................  ................
                Direct, Municipal rate............................            5,000               598             1,495             1,495            -3,505              +897   ................
                Guaranteed electric...............................               89   ................  ................               89   ................              +89               +89
                Direct, Treasury rate.............................               99   ................  ................  ................              -99   ................  ................
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal, Electric..............................            6,099             2,717             3,614             3,703            -2,396              +986               +89

            Telecommunications:
                Direct, 5 percent.................................  ................              531               531               531              +531   ................  ................
                Direct, Treasury rate.............................              210                74                74               126               -84               +52               +52
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal, Telecommunications....................              210               605               605               657              +447               +52               +52
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Total, Loan subsidies...........................            6,309             3,322             4,219             4,360            -1,949            +1,038              +141

                RETLP administrative expenses (transfer to RD)....           38,396            39,600            39,101            39,600            +1,204   ................             +499
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Total, Rural Electrification and                           44,705            42,922            43,320            43,960              -745            +1,038              +640
                   Telecommunications Loans Program Account.......
                      (Loan authorization)........................       (6,076,760)       (4,527,799)       (5,377,197)       (8,649,273)      (+2,572,513)      (+4,121,474)      (+3,272,076)
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
    Rural Telephone Bank Program Account:
        RTB administrative expenses (transfer to RD)..............            2,475   ................  ................  ................           -2,475   ................  ................
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Rural Telephone Bank Program Account.............            2,475   ................  ................  ................           -2,475   ................  ................

    High energy costs grants (by transfer)........................          (26,000)  ................  ................          (26,000)  ................         (+26,000)         (+26,000)

    Distance learning, telemedicine, and broadband program:
        Loan authorizations:
            Distance learning and telemedicine....................          (24,750)  ................  ................  ................         (-24,750)  ................  ................
            Broadband telecommunications..........................         (495,000)         (356,419)         (503,535)         (500,000)          (+5,000)        (+143,581)          (-3,535)
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Loan authorizations..........................         (519,750)         (356,419)         (503,535)         (500,000)         (-19,750)        (+143,581)          (-3,535)

        Loan subsidies:
            Distance learning and telemedicine:
                Direct............................................              371   ................  ................  ................             -371   ................  ................
                Grants............................................           29,700            24,750            24,750            30,000              +300            +5,250            +5,250
            Broadband telecommunications:
                Direct............................................           10,643            10,826            10,826            10,750              +107               -76               -76
                Grants............................................            8,910   ................            8,910            10,000            +1,090           +10,000            +1,090
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Total, Loan subsidies and grants................           49,624            35,576            44,486            50,750            +1,126           +15,174            +6,264
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
                  Total, Rural Utilities Service..................           96,804            78,498            87,806            94,710            -2,094           +16,212            +6,904
                      (Loan authorization)........................       (6,596,510)       (4,884,218)       (5,880,732)       (9,149,273)      (+2,552,763)      (+4,265,055)      (+3,268,541)
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
                  Total, title III, Rural Economic and Community          2,503,055         2,202,847         2,161,653         2,223,490          -279,565           +20,643           +61,837
                   Development Programs...........................
                      (By transfer)...............................         (521,877)         (500,326)         (474,951)         (526,326)          (+4,449)         (+26,000)         (+51,375)
                      (Loan authorization)........................      (11,682,882)      (10,010,417)      (11,008,934)      (14,247,578)      (+2,564,696)      (+4,237,161)      (+3,238,644)
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
                 TITLE IV--DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer                  593               732               652               604               +11              -128               -48
 Services.........................................................

Food and Nutrition Service:
    Child nutrition programs......................................        7,473,208         7,763,200         7,610,897         7,614,414          +141,206          -148,786            +3,517
        Transfer from section 32..................................        5,187,621         5,582,287         5,734,590         5,731,073          +543,452          +148,786            -3,517
    Contingency reserve...........................................  ................          300,000   ................          300,000          +300,000   ................         +300,000
        Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Pilot program...................  ................  ................  ................            9,000            +9,000            +9,000            +9,000
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Child nutrition programs.........................       12,660,829        13,645,487        13,345,487        13,654,487          +993,658            +9,000          +309,000

    Special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and        5,204,430         5,200,000         5,244,000         5,264,000           +59,570           +64,000           +20,000
     children (WIC)...............................................

    Food stamp program:
        Expenses..................................................       36,045,026        33,186,215        33,159,215        33,159,215        -2,885,811           -27,000   ................
            Indian reservations (FDPIR)...........................            2,970   ................  ................  ................           -2,970   ................  ................
        Armed forces provision....................................            1,000             1,000             1,000             1,000   ................  ................  ................
        Reserve...................................................        3,000,000         3,000,000         3,000,000         3,000,000   ................  ................  ................
        Nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico and Samoa............        1,522,369         1,565,016         1,565,016         1,565,016           +42,647   ................  ................
        The emergency food assistance program.....................          140,000           140,000           140,000           140,000   ................  ................  ................
        CSFP transitional benefit.................................  ................           21,000   ................  ................  ................          -21,000   ................
            CSFP nutrition education..............................  ................            2,000   ................  ................  ................           -2,000   ................
            CSFP food Stamp expenses..............................  ................           19,000   ................  ................  ................          -19,000   ................
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Food stamp program...........................       40,711,365        37,934,231        37,865,231        37,865,231        -2,846,134           -69,000   ................

    Commodity assistance program..................................          177,572            70,370           189,370           179,366            +1,794          +108,996           -10,004
    Nutrition programs administration.............................          139,353           160,429           142,314           143,114            +3,761           -17,315              +800
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Food and Nutrition Service...........................       58,893,549        57,010,517        56,786,402        57,106,198        -1,787,351           +95,681          +319,796
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
      Total, title IV, Domestic Food Programs.....................       58,894,142        57,011,249        56,787,054        57,106,802        -1,787,340           +95,553          +319,748
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
         TITLE V--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS

Foreign Agricultural Service:
    Salaries and expenses, direct appropriation...................          146,422           157,486           156,486           156,186            +9,764            -1,300              -300
    (Transfer from export loans)..................................           (3,406)           (4,985)           (4,985)           (4,985)          (+1,579)  ................  ................
    (Transfer from Public Law 480)................................             (166)  ................  ................  ................            (-166)  ................  ................
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Salaries and expenses program level..................         (149,994)         (162,471)         (161,471)         (161,171)         (+11,177)          (-1,300)            (-300)

Public Law 480 Program and Grant Accounts:
    Program account:
        Loan authorization, direct................................          (74,032)  ................  ................  ................         (-74,032)  ................  ................
        Loan subsidies............................................           64,390   ................  ................  ................          -64,390   ................  ................
        Ocean freight differential grants.........................           11,821   ................  ................  ................          -11,821   ................  ................
    Title II--Commodities for disposition abroad:
        Program level.............................................       (1,138,500)       (1,218,500)       (1,223,100)       (1,225,000)         (+86,500)          (+6,500)          (+1,900)
        Appropriation.............................................        1,138,500         1,218,500         1,223,100         1,225,000           +86,500            +6,500            +1,900

    Salaries and expenses:
        Foreign Agricultural Service (transfer to FAS)............              166   ................  ................  ................             -166   ................  ................
        Farm Service Agency (transfer to FSA).....................            3,185             2,651             2,651             2,651              -534   ................  ................
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal................................................            3,351             2,651             2,651             2,651              -700   ................  ................
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Public Law 480:
              Program level.......................................       (1,138,500)       (1,218,500)       (1,223,100)       (1,225,000)         (+86,500)          (+6,500)          (+1,900)
              Appropriation.......................................        1,218,062         1,221,151         1,225,751         1,227,651            +9,589            +6,500            +1,900
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
CCC Export Loans Program Account (administrative expenses):
    Salaries and expenses (Export Loans):
        General Sales Manager (transfer to FAS)...................            3,406             4,985             4,985             4,985            +1,579   ................  ................
        Farm Service Agency (transfer to FSA).....................            1,821               346               346               346            -1,475   ................  ................
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, CCC Export Loans Program Account.................            5,227             5,331             5,331             5,331              +104   ................  ................

McGovern-Dole international food for education and child nutrition           99,000            99,000           100,000           100,000            +1,000            +1,000   ................
 program grants...................................................
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
      Total, title V, Foreign Assistance and Related Programs.....        1,468,711         1,482,968         1,487,568         1,489,168           +20,457            +6,200            +1,600
          (By transfer)...........................................           (3,572)           (4,985)           (4,985)           (4,985)          (+1,413)  ................  ................
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
    TITLE VI--RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

              DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                   Food and Drug Administration

Salaries and expenses, direct appropriation.......................        1,466,801         1,540,399         1,538,452         1,565,716           +98,915           +25,317           +27,264
    Prescription Drug User Fee Act................................         (305,332)         (320,600)         (320,600)         (320,600)         (+15,268)  ................  ................
    Medical Device User Fee Act...................................          (40,300)          (43,726)          (43,726)          (43,726)          (+3,426)  ................  ................
    Animal Drug User Fee Act......................................          (11,318)          (11,604)          (11,604)          (11,604)            (+286)  ................  ................
    Reinspection fees (user fees) (leg. prop) NA..................  ................          (22,000)  ................  ................  ................         (-22,000)  ................
    Food export fees (user fees) (leg. prop) NA...................  ................           (3,536)  ................  ................  ................          (-3,536)  ................
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal....................................................       (1,823,751)       (1,916,329)       (1,914,382)       (1,941,646)        (+117,895)         (+25,317)         (+27,264)

    Mammography clinics user fee (outlay savings).................          (17,173)          (17,522)          (17,522)          (17,522)            (+349)  ................  ................
    Export and color certification................................           (7,640)           (8,481)           (8,481)           (8,481)            (+841)  ................  ................
    Payments to GSA...............................................         (134,853)         (146,013)         (146,013)         (146,013)         (+11,160)  ................  ................

Buildings and facilities..........................................            7,920             4,950             4,950             4,950            -2,970   ................  ................
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Food and Drug Administration.........................        1,474,721         1,545,349         1,543,402         1,570,666           +95,945           +25,317           +27,264
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
                       INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Commodity Futures Trading Commission..............................           97,402           127,000           109,402            99,502            +2,100           -27,498            -9,900
    Transaction fees (user fees) (leg. prop) NA...................  ................         (127,000)  ................  ................  ................        (-127,000)  ................
Farm Credit Administration (limitation on administrative expenses)          (44,250)  ................          (44,250)          (44,250)  ................         (+44,250)  ................
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
      Total, title VI, Related Agencies and Food and Drug                 1,572,123         1,672,349         1,652,804         1,670,168           +98,045            -2,181           +17,364
       Administration.............................................
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
                   TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Hunger fellowships (sec. 716).....................................            2,500   ................            2,500             2,500   ................           +2,500   ................
National Sheep Industry Improvement Center revolving fund (sec.               1,238   ................              250             1,000              -238            +1,000              +750
 717).............................................................
Denali Commission.................................................              743   ................  ................              750                +7              +750              +750
Section 32 (rescission) (sec. 740)................................          -37,601   ................           -9,900            -9,900           +27,701            -9,900   ................
Milk processing and packaging facilities..........................              644   ................  ................  ................             -644   ................  ................
Alaska private lands wildlife management..........................              198   ................  ................  ................             -198   ................  ................
Livestock Expo Center.............................................              990   ................  ................  ................             -990   ................  ................
Wisconsin Federation of Cooperatives..............................            2,228   ................  ................  ................           -2,228   ................  ................
WIC contingency reserve (rescission)..............................          -32,000   ................  ................  ................          +32,000   ................  ................
Specialty crop grants (sec. 736)..................................            6,930   ................           15,600            10,000            +3,070           +10,000            -5,600
SFSP Summer food service program..................................            1,000   ................  ................  ................           -1,000   ................  ................
Healthy Forest Reserve............................................            2,475   ................  ................  ................           -2,475   ................  ................
Fruit and vegetable pilot program (sec. 738)......................            6,000   ................           25,000   ................           -6,000   ................          -25,000
World food prize..................................................              347   ................  ................  ................             -347   ................  ................
Utah State........................................................              198   ................  ................  ................             -198   ................  ................
University of Nevada..............................................              139   ................  ................  ................             -139   ................  ................
Ohio State University.............................................              396   ................  ................  ................             -396   ................  ................
Nueces County.....................................................              495   ................  ................  ................             -495   ................  ................
IRP Choctaw.......................................................              990   ................  ................            1,000               +10            +1,000            +1,000
High energy cost grants (rescission) (sec. 744)...................  ................          -25,265           -25,265   ................  ................          +25,265           +25,265
MILC extension (sec. 752).........................................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
National Center for Natural Products Research.....................  ................  ................  ................            4,000            +4,000            +4,000            +4,000
Export credit (rescission)........................................  ................  ................  ................          -12,000           -12,000           -12,000           -12,000
Veterans Administration (emergency)...............................  ................  ................  ................          160,000          +160,000          +160,000          +160,000
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
      Total, title VII, General provisions........................          -42,090           -25,265             8,185           157,350          +199,440          +182,615          +149,165
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
       TITLE VIII--EMERGENCY AGRICLTURAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE

                     Department of Agriculture

Commodity Credit Corparation Fund:
    Emergency Agriculture Disaster (emergency)....................  ................  ................  ................        3,999,000        +3,999,000        +3,999,000        +3,999,000
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
                       OTHER APPROPRIATIONS

    EMERG. SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPS. FOR DEFENSE, THE GLOBAL WAR ON
       TERROR, AND TSUNAMI RELIEF, 2005 (PUBLIC LAW 109-13)

Foreign Agricultural Service:
    Public Law 480 Title II Grants (emergency)....................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
Natural Resources Conservation Service:
    Emergency watershed protection program (emergency)............  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Public Law 109-13 (emergency)........................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
 DEMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT TO ADDRESS HURRICANES
IN THE GULF OF MEXICO AND PANDEMIC INFLUENZA, 2006 (PUBLIC LAW 109-
                         148, DIVISION B)

                        TITLE I, CHAPTER 1

                     Department of Agriculture

Executive Operations, Working capital fund (emerg.)...............           35,000   ................  ................  ................          -35,000   ................  ................

                   Agricultural Research Service

Buildings and facilities (emergency)..............................            9,200   ................  ................  ................           -9,200   ................  ................

                         Rural Development

Rural community advancement program (emergency)...................           45,000   ................  ................  ................          -45,000   ................  ................

                       Rural Housing Service

Rural housing insurance fund program (emergency)..................           45,000   ................  ................  ................          -45,000   ................  ................
Rural housing assistance grants (emergency).......................           20,000   ................  ................  ................          -20,000   ................  ................

                      Rural Utilities Service

Rural electrification and telecom (emergency).....................            8,000   ................  ................  ................           -8,000   ................  ................

                    Food and Nutrition Service

Commodity assistance program (emergency)..........................            4,000   ................  ................  ................           -4,000   ................  ................
The emergency food assistance program (emergency).................            6,000   ................  ................  ................           -6,000   ................  ................

                        General Provisions

Emergency conservation program (emergency)........................          199,800   ................  ................  ................         -199,800   ................  ................
Watershed and flood prevention operations (emergency).............          300,000   ................  ................  ................         -300,000   ................  ................
Emergency forestry conservation reserve program...................           50,000   ................  ................  ................          -50,000   ................  ................
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Title I, Chapter 1 (emergency).......................          722,000   ................  ................  ................         -722,000   ................  ................

                        TITLE II, CHAPTER 1

                     Department of Agriculture

Office of the Secretary (emergency)...............................           11,350   ................  ................  ................          -11,350   ................  ................

                   Agricultural Research Service

Salaries and expenses (emergency).................................            7,000   ................  ................  ................           -7,000   ................  ................

   Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

Research and educational activities (emergency)...................            1,500   ................  ................  ................           -1,500   ................  ................

            Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Salaries and expenses (emergency).................................           71,500   ................  ................  ................          -71,500   ................  ................

              Department of Health and Human Services

Salaries and expenses (emergency).................................           20,000   ................  ................  ................          -20,000   ................  ................
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Title II, Chapter 1 (emergency)......................          111,350   ................  ................  ................         -111,350   ................  ................

                       TITLE III, CHAPTER 1

                     Department of Agriculture

Natural Resources Conservation Service: Conservation Operations             -10,000   ................  ................  ................          +10,000   ................  ................
 (rescission).....................................................

                      Rural Utilities Service

Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband direct loan                   -9,900   ................  ................  ................           +9,900   ................  ................
 financing (rescission)...........................................
Food and Nutrition Service: Food Stamp Program (rescission).......          -11,200   ................  ................  ................          +11,200   ................  ................

                   Foreign Agricultural Service

Public Law 480 Title I Ocean Freight Differential Grants                    -35,000   ................  ................  ................          +35,000   ................  ................
 (rescission).....................................................
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Title III, Chapter 1 (rescissions)...................          -66,100   ................  ................  ................          +66,100   ................  ................
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Public Law 109-148...................................          767,250   ................  ................  ................         -767,250   ................  ................
          Emergency appropriations................................          833,350   ................  ................  ................         -833,350   ................  ................
      (Rescissions)...............................................         (-66,100)  ................  ................  ................         (+66,100)  ................  ................

EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR
                    AND HURRICANE RELIEF, 2006

          Title I--The Golbal War on Terror Supplemental

                     Department of Agriculture

                   Foreign Agricultural Service

Public Law 480 Title II Grants(emergency appropriation............          350,000   ................  ................  ................         -350,000   ................  ................

       Title II--Further Hurricane Disaster Relief Recovery

                             Chapter 1

                     Department of Agriculture

                       Executive Operations

Working Capital fund (emergency appropriations)...................           25,000   ................  ................  ................          -25,000   ................  ................

                  Office of the Inspector General

Salaries and expenses (emergency appropriations)..................          445,000   ................  ................  ................         -445,000   ................  ................

                   Agricultural Research Service

Salaries and expenses (emergency appropriations)..................           10,000   ................  ................  ................          -10,000   ................  ................
Buildings and facilities (emergency appropriations)...............           20,000   ................  ................  ................          -20,000   ................  ................
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal....................................................           30,000   ................  ................  ................          -30,000   ................  ................

              Natural Resources Conservation Service

Emergency Watershead Protection Program (emergency appropria-                50,955   ................  ................  ................          -50,955   ................  ................
 tions)...........................................................

                         Rural Development

Salaries and expenses (emergency appropriations)..................            1,000   ................  ................  ................           -1,000   ................  ................
Rural Community Advancement Program (emergency appropriations)....           25,000   ................  ................  ................          -25,000   ................  ................
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal....................................................           26,000   ................  ................  ................          -26,000   ................  ................

       Title III--Emergency Agricultural Disaster Assistance

                     Department of Agriculture

                           Corporations

Commodity Credit Corporation Fund:
    Emergency Agricultural Disaster (emergency appropriations)....          409,000   ................  ................  ................         -409,000   ................  ................
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Public Law 109-234...................................        1,335,955   ................  ................  ................       -1,335,955   ................  ................
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Other appropriations.................................        2,103,205   ................  ................  ................       -2,103,205   ................  ................
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
      Grand total.................................................      102,897,101        93,312,118        93,526,233        98,258,792        -4,638,309        +4,946,674        +4,732,559
          Appropriations..........................................     (100,863,497)      (93,337,383)      (93,561,398)      (94,121,692)      (-6,741,805)        (+784,309)        (+560,294)
          Emergency Appropriations................................        2,169,305   ................  ................        4,159,000        +1,989,695        +4,159,000        +4,159,000
          Rescissions.............................................        (-135,701)         (-25,265)         (-35,165)         (-21,900)        (+113,801)          (+3,365)         (+13,265)
      (By transfer)...............................................         (832,000)         (824,605)         (790,271)         (850,605)         (+18,605)         (+26,000)         (+60,334)
      (Loan authorization)........................................      (15,504,718)      (13,437,887)      (14,560,798)      (17,675,048)      (+2,170,330)      (+4,237,161)      (+3,114,250)
      (Limitation on administrative expenses).....................         (157,380)         (109,674)         (153,924)         (153,924)          (-3,456)         (+44,250)  ................
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
                          RECAPITULATION

Title I--Agricultural programs....................................       35,403,790        30,178,428        30,509,417        30,621,607        -4,782,183          +443,179          +112,190
    Mandatory.....................................................      (28,865,534)      (23,875,241)      (23,887,560)      (23,887,560)      (-4,977,974)         (+12,319)  ................
    Discretionary.................................................       (6,538,256)       (6,303,187)       (6,621,857)       (6,734,047)        (+195,791)        (+430,860)        (+112,190)
Title II--Conservation programs (discretionary)...................          994,165           789,542           919,552           991,207            -2,958          +201,665           +71,655
Title III--Rural economic and community development programs              2,503,055         2,202,847         2,161,653         2,223,490          -279,565           +20,643           +61,837
 (discretionary)..................................................
Title IV--Domestic food programs (discretionary)..................       58,894,142        57,011,249        56,787,054        57,106,802        -1,787,340           +95,553          +319,748
    Mandatory.....................................................      (53,368,224)      (51,536,718)      (51,209,718)      (51,509,718)      (-1,858,506)         (-27,000)        (+300,000)
    Discretionary.................................................       (5,525,918)       (5,474,531)       (5,577,336)       (5,597,084)         (+71,166)        (+122,553)         (+19,748)
Title V--Foreign assistance and related programs (discretionary)..        1,468,711         1,482,968         1,487,568         1,489,168           +20,457            +6,200            +1,600
Title VI--Related agencies and Food and Drug Administration               1,572,123         1,672,349         1,652,804         1,670,168           +98,045            -2,181           +17,364
 (discretionary)..................................................
Title VII--General provisions (discretionary).....................          -42,090           -25,265             8,185           157,350          +199,440          +182,615          +149,165
Title VIII--Emergency Agricultural Disasater Assistance             ................  ................  ................        3,999,000        +3,999,000        +3,999,000        +3,999,000
 (discretion-  ary)...............................................
Other appropriations (discretionary)..............................        2,103,205   ................  ................  ................       -2,103,205   ................  ................
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.......................................................      102,897,101        93,312,118        93,526,233        98,258,792        -4,638,309        +4,946,674        +4,732,559
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


```