28–234 PDF 

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 

R E P O R T 

[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. 
(2) 

C O N T E N T S 

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 
Page

3 

Title III—Continued 

Rural Development Programs—Continued 

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

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. 

2006 2007 Committee 

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 community development programs ............................. 2,503,055,000 2,223,490,000 

Title IV: Domestic food programs ............................................................................... 58,894,142,000 57,106,802,000 

Title V: Foreign assistance and related programs ..................................................... 1,468,711,000 1,489,168,000 

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 disaster assistance .............................................. .............................. 3,999,000,000 

Other appropriations ................................................................................................... 2,103,205,000 ..............................

Total, new budget (obligational) authority ................................................... 102,897,101,000 98,258,792,000 
(5) 

OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY OF THE BILL 

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

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

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

and inspection activities; domestic food assistance programs; rural 

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 
6 

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 
7 

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. 
(8) 

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 
9 

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 Veteranowned 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. 
10 

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. 
11 

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 ClingerCohen Act of 1996, which required the establishment of a Chief Information Officer for major Federal agencies. This office provides 

policy guidance, leadership, coordination, and direction to the Department’s information management and information technology 

investment activities in support of USDA program delivery, and is 

the lead office in USDA e-gov efforts. The Office provides longrange planning guidance, implements measures to ensure that 

technology investments are economical and effective, coordinates 

interagency information resources management projects, and implements standards to promote information exchange and technical 

interoperability. In addition, the Office of the Chief Information Officer is responsible for certain activities financed under the Department’s Working Capital Fund (7 U.S.C. 2235). The Office also provides telecommunication and automated data processing [ADP] 

services to USDA agencies through the National Information Technology Center with locations in Fort Collins, 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 
12 

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. 
13 

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, 
14 

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: 
15 

[In thousands of dollars] 

2006 enacted 2007 budget 

request 

Committee 

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 adminis-
16 

trative 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 
17 

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 programrelated audit and investigation activities performed by other Department agencies. 

The activities of this Office are designed to assure compliance 

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

means for prompt corrective action where deviations have occurred. 

The scope of audit and investigative activities is large and includes 

administrative, program, and criminal matters. These activities are 

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

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 
18 

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 
19 

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 com-
20 

prehensive 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 
21 

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. 
22 

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 
23 

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, Mis-
24 

sissippi, 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. 
25 

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 postharvest 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. 
26 

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 
27 

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, wellbeing, 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. 
28 

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 
29 

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. 
30 

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), 
31 

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/ 
32 

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/Glassywinged 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), 
33 

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, 
34 

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. 
35 

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 
36 

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 
37 

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. 
38 

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. 
39 

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 
40 

education in food and agricultural sciences and to conduct agricultural research as authorized by the Hatch Act of 1887 (7 U.S.C. 

361a–361i); the Cooperative Forestry Research Act of 1962 (16 

U.S.C. 582a–7); Public Law 89–106, section (2) (7 U.S.C. 450i); the 

National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy 

Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.); the Equity in Educational 

Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 301); the Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 

7601 et seq.); and the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 

2002 (Public Law 107–171). Through these authorities, the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture participates with State and other cooperators to encourage and assist the State institutions to conduct 

agricultural research and education through the State agricultural 

experiment stations of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and 

the territories; by approved schools of forestry; by the 1890 landgrant institutions, Tuskegee University, and West Virginia State 

University; by colleges of veterinary medicine; and by other eligible 

institutions. 

The research and education programs participate in a nationwide 

system of agricultural research program planning and coordination 

among the State institutions, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and 

the agricultural industry of America. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

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 2006 enacted Fiscal year 2007 

budget 

Committee 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 Virginia 

State University ............................................................................... 37,215 37,868 39,076 

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 
41 

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

AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2006 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2007 

budget 

Committee recommendation 

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 
42 

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

AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2006 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2007 

budget 

Committee recommendation 

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 

(NY) ......................................................................................... 189 .......................... ..........................

Genetically enhanced plants for micro-nutrients and bio-renewable oils (MO) .................................................................. 733 .......................... 733 

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 (ID, 

OR, WA) .................................................................................. 446 .......................... 446 

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, CO, 

GA) .......................................................................................... 871 .......................... 871 
43 

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

AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2006 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2007 

budget 

Committee recommendation 

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 

(NM) ........................................................................................ 231 .......................... 231 

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 resources ................................................................................... 388 .......................... 388 

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 

(VA) ......................................................................................... 693 .......................... 693 

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 resources 

(MT) ........................................................................................ 401 .......................... 401 

Virtual plant database enhancement project (MO) ................... 698 .......................... 698 
44 

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

AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2006 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2007 

budget 

Committee recommendation 

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 institutions 

education grants ............................................................................. 3,218 2,967 3,218 

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 
45 

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

AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2006 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2007 

budget 

Committee recommendation 

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 development .... 1,419 .......................... 1,419 

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 (AL) .. 593 .......................... ..........................

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. 
46 

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 fund-
47 

ing 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 landgrant institutions (33 tribally controlled colleges). This program 

will enhance educational opportunity for Native Americans by 

building educational capacity at these institutions in the areas of 

student recruitment and retention, curricula development, faculty 

preparation, instruction delivery systems, and scientific instrumentation for teaching. Income funds are also available for facility renovation, repair, construction, and maintenance. On the termination 

of each fiscal year, the Secretary shall withdraw the income from 

the endowment fund for the fiscal year, and after making adjustments for the cost of administering the endowment fund, distribute 

the adjusted income as follows: 60 percent of the adjusted income 

from these funds shall be distributed among the 1994 land-grant 
48 

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 2006 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2007 

budget 

Committee 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 
49 

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

ACTIVITIES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2006 enacted Fiscal year 2007 

budget 

Committee recommendation 

1890 colleges, Tuskegee University, and West Virginia State 

University ................................................................................ 33,529 34,073 35,205 

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. 
50 

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 2006 enacted Fiscal year 2007 

budget 

Committee 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 
51 

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 landgrant 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 

1The 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 
52 

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: 
53 

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2006 enacted Fiscal year 2007 

budget request 

Committee 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 
54 

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2006 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2007 

budget request 

Committee recommendation 

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 ap- propriation 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 
55 

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 Com-
56 

prehensive 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 
57 

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 pro-
58 

vide 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- 
59 

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 Commit-
60 

tee’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 re-
61 

gion 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 
62 

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 oper- ations 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. 
63 

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 

1The budget estimate does not include proposed user fees in the amount of $2,212,000. 
64 

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 Com-
65 

mittee 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 

1The 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 
66 

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 

estimate 

Fiscal year 2006 

estimate 

Fiscal year 2007 

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 Commodities) ........................................................................ 399,481,824 465,000,000 465,000,000 

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. 
67 

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 stand-
68 

ards. 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 

1The 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 Com-
69 

mittee 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 

1The 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. 
70 

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 riskbased 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 
71 

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 2006 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2007 

budget request 1

Committee 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 
72 

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]. 
73 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

[In thousands of dollars] 

Appropriations Transfers from 

program accounts 

Total, FSA, salaries and 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 
74 

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. 
75 

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 
76 

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 2006 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2007 

budget 

Committee 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 

Total ACIF Direct loan Guaranteed loan Total Appropriations Transfer to 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] 

2006 enacted 2007 budget Committee 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 
77 

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 
78 

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 
79 

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. 
80 

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 
81 

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. 
(82) 

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 
83 

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. 
84 

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. 
85 

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. 
86 

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 smartgrowth 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 spe-
87 

cies. 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. 
88 

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. 
89 

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 lifesustaining 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, Mis-
90 

sissippi, 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. 
91 

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 wa-
92 

tersheds 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. 
93 

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, MillPacauyne, 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. 
94 

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. 
95 

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 costshare 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. 
(96) 

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 pro- vision 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. 
97 

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 BusinessCooperative 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 
98 

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 
99 

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: 
100 

RURAL COMMUNITY ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM 

[Budget authority in thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year— 

Committee 

2006 recommendation 

appropriation 

2007 budget 

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 Preven-
101 

tion, 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 
102 

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

the Committee makes up to $13,750,000 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 
103 

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 rec- 2006 appropria- ommendation tion 

2007 budget 

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 Program 

Account ................................................................................... 38,396 39,600 39,600 

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 assist-
104 

ance 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 multifamily revolving loan demonstration program, and $15,000,000 to 
105 

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 recommendation 2006 2007 request 

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 
106 

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 recommendation 2006 level 2007 request 

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. 
107 

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 ............................................................... ........................... 

1Funding 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 
108 

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. 
109 

Compensation for Construction Defects.—Compensation for construction defects provides funds for grants to eligible section 502 

borrowers to correct structural defects, or to pay claims of owners 

arising from such defects on a newly constructed dwelling purchased with RHS financial assistance. Claims are not paid until 

provisions under the builder’s warranty have been fully pursued. 

Requests for compensation for construction defects must be made 

by the owner of the property within 18 months after the date financial assistance was granted. 

Rural Housing Preservation Grants.—Rural housing preservation 

grants (section 522) of the Housing and Urban-Rural Recovery Act 

of 1983 (42 U.S.C. 1490m) authorizes the Rural Housing Service to 

administer a program of home repair directed at low- and very lowincome people. 

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 recommendation 2006 level 2007 request 

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] 

Loan level Subsidy 

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. Appropria-
110 

tions 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 

recommendation 2006 level 2007 request 

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. 
111 

RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2006 level 2007 request 

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 en-
112 

hance the operations of agricultural marketing cooperatives in 

rural areas. 

The Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas [ATTRA] 

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

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

environmentally friendly and lower production costs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends 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 grantmaking criteria to take into consideration outmigration when making awards to rural empowerment zones. 
113 

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 
114 

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 

recommendation 2006 level 2007 request 

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 Loans 

Programs Account .............................................................. 44,705 42,922 43,960 

(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. 
115 

DISTANCE LEARNING, TELEMEDICINE, AND BROADBAND PROGRAM

LOANS AND GRANT LEVELS

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2006 level 2007 request 

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 

recommendation 2006 level 2007 request 

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. 
116 

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. 
(117) 

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 
118 

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 
119 

Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–193), by an amendment 

to section 201A of the Emergency Food Assistance Act. 

Nutritious agricultural commodities are provided to residents of 

the Federated States of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands. Cash 

assistance is provided to distributing agencies to assist them in 

meeting administrative expenses incurred. It also provides funding 

for use in non-Presidentially declared disasters, and for FNS’ administrative costs in connection with relief for all disasters. Funds 

for this program are provided by direct appropriation. 

Nutrition Programs Administration.—Most salaries and Federal 

operating expenses of the Food and Nutrition Service are funded 

from this account. Also included is the Center for Nutrition Policy 

and Promotion [CNPP] which oversees improvements in and revisions to the food guidance systems, and serves as the focal point 

for advancing and coordinating nutrition promotion and education 

policy to improve the health of all Americans. 

CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS

[In thousands of dollars] 

Appropriation Section 32 

transfers 

Contingency 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. 
120 

TOTAL OBLIGATIONAL AUTHORITY 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Child nutrition programs 2006 estimate 2007 budget Committee 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 
121 

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 
122 

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. 
123 

FOOD STAMP PROGRAM

[In thousands of dollars] 

Expenses Amount in reserve 

Puerto Rico and 

American 

Samoa 

TEFAP commodity purchases 

CSFP expenses Total 

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. 
124 

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. 
125 

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 breastfeeding women who have low incomes, and reside in approved 

project areas. In addition, the program operates commodity distribution projects directed at low-income elderly persons 60 years 

of age or older. 

The foods for CSFP are provided by the Department of Agriculture for distribution through State agencies. The authorized 

commodities include: iron-fortified infant formula, rice cereal, 

cheese, canned juice, evaporated milk and/or nonfat dry milk, 

canned vegetables or fruits, canned meat or poultry, egg mix, dehydrated potatoes, farina, and peanut butter and dry beans. Elderly 

participants may receive all commodities except iron-fortified infant 

formula and rice cereal. 

The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (2002 

Farm Bill), reauthorizes the program through fiscal year 2007 and 

establishes a specific administrative funding level for each caseload 

slot assigned, adjusted each year for inflation. 

The Emergency Food Assistance Program [TEFAP].—Authorized 

by the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 7501 et 

seq.), as amended, the program provides nutrition assistance to 

low-income people through prepared meals served on site and 

through the distribution of commodities to low-income households 

for home consumption. The commodities are provided by USDA to 

State agencies for distribution through State-established networks. 

State agencies make the commodities available to local organizations, such as soup kitchens, food pantries, food banks, and community action agencies, for their use in providing nutrition assistance 

to those in need. 

Funds are administered by FNS through grants to State agencies 

which operate commodity distribution programs. Allocation of the 

funds to States is based on a formula which considers the States’ 

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 
126 

for TEFAP, commodities obtained under agriculture support and 

surplus removal programs are donated to States for distribution 

through TEFAP. 

Pacific Island Assistance.—This program provides funding for assistance to the nuclear-affected islands in the form of commodities 

and administrative funds. It also provides funding for use in nonPresidentially declared disasters and for FNS’ administrative costs 

in connection with relief for all disasters. 

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

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

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

participants and local farmers by increasing the awareness and use 

of farmers’ markets by low-income households. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

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. 
127 

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. 
(128) 

TITLE V 

FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS 

FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

[In thousands of dollars] 

Appropriations Transfers from 

loan accounts Total 

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

The Agency maintains a worldwide agricultural intelligence and 

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

to adjust to changes in world demand for U.S. agricultural products. This is accomplished through a continuous program of reporting by 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 
129 

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

conjunction with nonprofit agricultural associations and private 

firms financed through reimbursable CCC payments. 

These programs are supplemented by the Cooperator Program, a 

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

world marketplace. 

The Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.) includes authority to establish up to 25 agricultural trade offices. 

Currently, 16 such offices are in operation at key foreign trading 

centers to assist U.S. exporters, trade groups, and State export 

marketing officials in trade promotion. 

The Service initiates, directs, and coordinates the Department’s 

formulation of trade policies and programs with the goal of maintaining and expanding world markets for U.S. agricultural products. It monitors international compliance with bilateral and multilateral trade agreements. It identifies restrictive tariff and trade 

practices which act as barriers to the import of U.S. agricultural 

commodities, then supports negotiations to remove them. It acts to 

counter and eliminate unfair trade practices by other countries 

that hinder U.S. agricultural exports to third markets. 

FAS also carries out the mission of the former Office of International Cooperation and Development [OICD] to promote U.S. agriculture and to advance the agriculture of developing countries as 

parts of a complementary global agricultural system capable of providing ample food and fiber for all people. To accomplish this mission, FAS applies USDA policies and U.S. agricultural perspectives 

in its programs of international agricultural cooperation and development, and in its work with foreign countries, international organizations, U.S. universities and other institutions, agencies of the 

U.S. Government, and the U.S. private sector. 

The General Sales Manager was established pursuant to section 

5(f) of the charter of the Commodity Credit Corporation and 15 

U.S.C. 714–714p. The funds allocated to the General Sales Manager are used for conducting the following programs: (1) CCC Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM–102), including supplier 

credit guarantees and facilities financing guarantees, (2) Intermediate Credit Guarantee Program (GSM–103), (3) Public Law 

480, (4) section 416 Overseas Donations Program, (5) Export Enhancement Program, (6) Market Access Program, and (7) programs 

authorized by the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act including barter, export sales of most CCC-owned commodities, ex-
130 

port 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. 
131 

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] 

Credit level Loan subsidy Administrative 

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. 
132 

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 
133 

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. 
134 

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. 

MC GOVERN-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. 
135 

COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION EXPORT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(EXPORT CREDIT PROGRAMS AND GSM–102)

[In thousands of dollars] 

Guaranteed loan levels 1

Guaranteed loan subsidy 1Administrative ex- penses 

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. 
(136) 

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. 
137 

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] 

Appropriation 

Prescription 

drug user fees 

Medical device user 

fees 

Animal 

drug user fees 

Mammography clinics inspection fees 

Export and 

certification fees Total 

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: 
138 

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION SALARIES AND EXPENSES 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2006 enacted 2007 request 

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 mem-
139 

bers 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 
140 

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 in-
141 

crease 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 
142 

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 
143 

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 
144 

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. 
145 

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 
146 

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 
147 

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. 
148 

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 

1The 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. 
149 

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. 
(150) 

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. 
151 

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 valueadded 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. 
152 

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. 
(153) 

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. 
154 

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. 
(155) 

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 
156 

—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 
157 

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 

* * * * * * * 

§ 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 

* * * * * * * 

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

(a) * * * 
158 

(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 ø2006¿ 

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 

ø2006¿ 2011. 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 87—EXPORT PROMOTION 

* * * * * * * 

SUBCHAPTER II—AGRICULTURAL EXPORT PROGRAMS 

* * * * * * * 

PART A—PROGRAMS

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 5622. EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEE PROGRAM 

(a) SHORT-TERM CREDIT GUARANTEES.— 

* * * * * * * 

ø(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.¿ 

ø(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— 

ø(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; 

ø(2) improve the capability of the importing country to 

purchase and use, on a long-term basis, United States agricultural commodities; or 
159 

ø(3) otherwise promote the export of United States agricultural commodities. 

øThe 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.¿ 

ø(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 øcommodities; and¿ commodities. 

ø(4) for such other purposes as the Secretary determines 

appropriate, consistent with the provisions of subsection (c) of 

this section.¿ 

ø(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. 

ø(f)¿ (d) RESTRICTIONS.— 

ø(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. 

ø(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— 

ø(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; 

ø(B) whether the country is addressing issues such 

as— 

ø(i) the convertibility of the currency of the country; 

ø(ii) adequate legal protection for foreign investments; 

ø(iii) the viability of the financial markets of the 

country; and 

ø(iv) adequate legal protection for the private 

property rights of citizens of the country; or 
160 

ø(C) any other factors that are relevant to the ability 

of the country to service the debt of the country.¿ 

ø(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. 

ø(h)¿ (f) UNITED STATES AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES.—The 

Commodity Credit Corporation shall finance or guarantee under 

this section only United States agricultural commodities. 

ø(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 øsubsections (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. 

ø(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. 

ø(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. 

ø(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, Nutri-
161 

tion, 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.— 

ø(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 øsubsections (a) and (b)¿ subsection (a) of section 

5622 of this title. 

ø(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 

* * * * * * * 

§ 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 ø2006¿ 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 ø2007¿ 2008 crop of peanuts. 

* * * * * * * 
162 

TITLE 22—FOREIGN RELATIONS AND INTERCOURSE 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 79—TRADE SANCTIONS REFORM AND EXPORT 

ENHANCEMENT 

* * * * * * * 

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

ø(a) Authorization of travel relating to commercial sale of 

agricultural commodities 

øThe 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 travelrelated 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, ø2004¿ 2006; and 

(B) a State in which (based on data available in øJune 

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 
163 

(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) ø75¿ 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 ø2006¿ 2011. 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 
164 

(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 ø2006¿ 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 

allocation 1

Amount 

of bill 

Committee 

allocation 1

Amount 

of 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 for 

2007 ......................................................................................... NA 25,316 NA 22,934 

1 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

2 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

NA: Not applicable. 
165 

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] 

Item 2006 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee rec- ommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 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 Economics ........................................................................................................ 592 694 651 605 ∂13 ¥89 ¥46 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 
166 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2006 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee rec- ommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2006 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

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 

Service .................................................................................... 1,182,650 1,023,077 1,173,957 1,209,835 ∂27,185 ∂186,758 ∂35,878 

Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs ................................................................................................... 717 741 741 731 ∂14 ¥10 ¥10 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 

from section 32) ......................................................................... 16,055 4,106 16,425 16,425 ∂370 ∂12,319 ............................
167 

Agriculture marketing service standardization (user fees) 

(leg. proposal) NA .............................................................. ............................ (12,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥12,000 ) ............................

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 

(user fees) (leg. proposal) NA ........................................... ............................ (19,663 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥19,663 ) ............................

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 Services ...................................................................................................... 629 737 691 640 ∂11 ¥97 ¥51 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) 

NA ...................................................................................... ............................ (25,000 ) ............................ (25,000 ) (∂25,000 ) ............................ (∂25,000 ) 

(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 ............................
168 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2006 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee rec- ommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2006 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

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 
169 

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 ) 
170 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2006 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee rec- ommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2006 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

(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 Environment ..................................................................................................... 737 957 ............................ 752 ∂15 ¥205 ∂752 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 ) 
171 

(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 
172 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2006 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee rec- ommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2006 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

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 
173 

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 ............................ ............................
174 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2006 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee rec- ommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2006 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

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 Telecommunications Loans Program Account ................. 44,705 42,922 43,320 43,960 ¥745 ∂1,038 ∂640 

(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 
175 

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 Development Programs ........................ 2,503,055 2,202,847 2,161,653 2,223,490 ¥279,565 ∂20,643 ∂61,837 

(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 Services ...................................................................................................... 593 732 652 604 ∂11 ¥128 ¥48 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 

children (WIC) ............................................................................. 5,204,430 5,200,000 5,244,000 5,264,000 ∂59,570 ∂64,000 ∂20,000 

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 ............................
176 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2006 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee rec- ommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2006 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

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 ) 
177 

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 

program grants .................................................................................... 99,000 99,000 100,000 100,000 ∂1,000 ∂1,000 ............................

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

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2006 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee rec- ommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2006 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

Farm Credit Administration (limitation on administrative expenses) ..... (44,250 ) ............................ (44,250 ) (44,250 ) ............................ (∂44,250 ) ............................

Total, 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 

TITLE VII—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Hunger fellowships (sec. 716) ................................................................. 2,500 ............................ 2,500 2,500 ............................ ∂2,500 ............................National Sheep Industry Improvement Center revolving fund (sec. 

717) ..................................................................................................... 1,238 ............................ 250 1,000 ¥238 ∂1,000 ∂750 

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 
179 

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 ............................ ............................
180 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2006 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee rec- ommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2006 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

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 ............................ ............................
181 

Total, Title II, Chapter 1 (emergency) ........................................ 111,350 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥111,350 ............................ ............................

TITLE III, CHAPTER 1 

Department of Agriculture 

Natural Resources Conservation Service: Conservation Operations (rescission) ............................................................................................... ¥10,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ∂10,000 ............................ ............................

Rural Utilities Service 

Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband direct loan financing 

(rescission) .......................................................................................... ¥9,900 ............................ ............................ ............................ ∂9,900 ............................ ............................

Food and Nutrition Service: Food Stamp Program (rescission) .............. ¥11,200 ............................ ............................ ............................ ∂11,200 ............................ ............................

Foreign Agricultural Service 

Public Law 480 Title I Ocean Freight Differential Grants (rescission) ... ¥35,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ∂35,000 ............................ ............................

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 ............................ ............................
182 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2006 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee rec- ommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2006 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

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 appropriations) .................................................................................................... 50,955 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥50,955 ............................ ............................

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 ) 
183 

(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 (discretionary) ............................................................................................ 2,503,055 2,202,847 2,161,653 2,223,490 ¥279,565 ∂20,643 ∂61,837 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 (discretionary) ................................................................................................. 1,572,123 1,672,349 1,652,804 1,670,168 ∂98,045 ¥2,181 ∂17,364 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 (discretionary) ....................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ 3,999,000 ∂3,999,000 ∂3,999,000 ∂3,999,000 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 

Æ