- TXT
-
PDF
(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.)
Tip
?
Calendar No. 694
108th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 108-340
======================================================================
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2005
_______
September 14, 2004.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Bennett, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 2803]
The Committee on Appropriations, to which was referred the
bill (H.R. 000) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for
other purposes, reports the same to the Senate with amendments
and recommends that the bill as amended do pass. deg.
The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 2803)
making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes,
reports favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.
Total obligational authority, fiscal year 2005
Amount of bill as reported to the Senate................ $84,053,760,000
Amount of 2004 appropriations acts to date.............. 86,587,372,000
Amount of estimates, 2005............................... 83,324,539,000
The bill as recommended to the Senate:
Under the appropriations provided in 2004........... 2,708,076,000
Over the estimates for 2005......................... 729,221,000
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Summary of the Bill:
Overview and Summary of the Bill............................. 5
Government Performance and Results Act........................... 5
Display of Fiscal Year 2004 Spending Levels...................... 6
User Fee Legislative Proposals................................... 6
Title I--Agricultural Programs:
Production, Processing, and Marketing:
Office of the Secretary.................................. 7
Executive Operations..................................... 11
Office of the Chief Information Officer.................. 13
Common Computing Environment............................. 14
Office of the Chief Financial Officer.................... 14
Working Capital Fund..................................... 15
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights....... 15
Office of Civil Rights................................... 16
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration..... 16
Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments. 17
Hazardous Materials Management........................... 18
Departmental Administration.............................. 18
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional
Relations.............................................. 19
Office of Communications................................. 19
Office of Inspector General.............................. 20
Office of the General Counsel............................ 20
Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education,
and Economics.......................................... 21
Economic Research Service................................ 22
National Agricultural Statistics Service................. 22
Agricultural Research Service............................ 23
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service................................................ 51
Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and
Regulatory Programs.................................... 64
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service............... 64
Agricultural Marketing Service........................... 76
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.. 80
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety............ 81
Food Safety and Inspection Service....................... 82
Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign
Agricultural Services.................................. 84
Farm Service Agency...................................... 84
Risk Management Agency................................... 88
Corporations:
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund.................. 89
Commodity Credit Corporation Fund........................ 90
Title II--Conservation Programs:
Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment................................................ 93
Natural Resources Conservation Service....................... 93
Title III--Rural Economic and Community Development Programs:
Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Economic and
Community Development...................................... 104
Rural Community Advancement Program.......................... 106
Rural Housing Service........................................ 112
Rural Business--Cooperative Service.......................... 118
Renewable Energy Program..................................... 120
Rural Utilities Service...................................... 121
Title IV--Domestic Food Programs:
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and
Consumer Services.......................................... 125
Food and Nutrition Service................................... 126
Title V--Foreign Assistance and Related Programs:
Foreign Agricultural Service................................. 138
McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child
Nutrition Program Grants................................... 143
Title VI--Related Agencies and Food and Drug Administration:
Food and Drug Administration................................. 146
Independent Agencies
Commodity Futures Trading Commission..................... 156
Farm Credit Administration............................... 156
Title VII--General Provisions:
General Provisions........................................... 158
Program, Project, and Activity............................... 159
Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI of the Standing Rules of
the Sen-
ate............................................................ 159
Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules
of the Senate.................................................. 160
Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of
the
Senate......................................................... 160
Budgetary Impact of Bill......................................... 161
BREAKDOWN BY TITLE
The amounts of obligational authority for each of the six
titles are shown in the following table. A detailed tabulation,
showing comparisons, appears at the end of this report.
Recommendations for individual appropriation items, projects
and activities are carried in this report under the appropriate
item headings.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005 Committee
2004 recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I: Agricultural programs.... $32,848,079,000 $26,986,917,000
Title II: Conservation programs... 1,026,969,000 993,881,000
Title III: Rural economic and 2,447,943,000 2,441,042,000
community development programs...
Title IV: Domestic food programs.. 47,262,481,000 50,512,886,000
Title V: Foreign assistance and 1,503,398,000 1,549,540,000
related programs.................
Title VI: Related agencies........ 1,475,639,000 1,560,594,000
Title VII: General provisions..... 22,863,000 8,900,000
-------------------------------------
Total, new budget 86,587,372,000 84,053,760,000
(obligational) authority...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY OF THE BILL
The Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies appropriations bill
provides funding for a wide array of Federal programs, mostly
in the U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA]. These programs
include agricultural research, education, and extension
activities; natural resources conservation programs; farm
income and support programs; marketing and inspection
activities; domestic food assistance programs; rural economic
and community development activities, and telecommunications
and electrification assistance; and various export and
international activities of the USDA.
The bill also provides funding for the Food and Drug
Administration [FDA] and the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission [CFTC], and allows the use of collected fees for
administrative expenses of the Farm Credit Administration
[FCA].
Given the budgetary constraints that the Committee faces,
the bill as reported provides the proper amount of emphasis on
agricultural and rural development programs and on other
programs and activities funded by the bill. It is within the
subcommittee's allocation for fiscal year 2005.
All accounts in the bill have been closely examined to
ensure that an appropriate level of funding is provided to
carry out the programs of USDA, FDA, CFTC, and FCA. Details on
each of the accounts, the funding level, and the Committee's
justifications behind the funding levels are included in the
report.
The Committee has encouraged the consideration of grant and
loan applications from various entities. The Committee expects
the Department only to approve those applications judged
meritorious when subjected to the established review process.
Government Performance and Results Act
Public Law 103-62, the Government Performance and Results
Act [GPRA] of 1993, requires Federal agencies to develop
succinct and precise strategic plans and annual performance
plans that focus on results of funding decisions made by the
Congress. Rather than simply providing details of activity
levels, agencies will set outcome goals based on program
activities and establish performance measures for use in
management and budgeting. In an era of restricted and declining
resources, it is paramount that agencies focus on the
difference they make in citizens' lives.
The Committee supports the concepts of this law and intends
to use the agencies' plans for funding purposes. The Committee
considers GPRA to be a viable way to reduce Federal spending
while achieving a more efficient and effective Government and
will closely monitor compliance with this law. The Committee is
fully committed to the success and outcome of GPRA requirements
as envisioned by the Congress, the administration, and this
Committee.
Display of Fiscal Year 2004 Spending Levels
Section 168 of Division H of Public Law 108-199, the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004, imposed, with few
exceptions, a rescission of 0.59 percent of the budget
authority provided for all discretionary accounts in Divisions
A through H of that Act. Division A of Public Law 108-199
provided appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004.
The 0.59 percent rescission applied to all discretionary
accounts of Division A with the exception of levels of budget
authority provided through the collection of user fees.
Accordingly, all fiscal year 2004 spending levels displayed in
this report for which the 0.59 percent rescission did apply
reflect the 0.59 percent rescission.
User Fee Legislative Proposals
The fiscal year 2005 budget request includes legislative
proposals to authorize the collection and expenditure of user
fees for a number of agencies under the jurisdiction of this
subcommittee. These agencies include: the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service; the Grain Inspection, Packers and
Stockyards Administration; and the Food Safety and Inspection
Service. The fiscal year 2005 budget assumes the collection and
expenditure of these fees, and therefore reduces the fiscal
year 2005 spending for this subcommittee by an additional
$164,231,000 from current levels.
Jurisdiction for the authorization of these fees in the
Senate lies with the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry, not the Committee on Appropriations. Further, the
U.S. Constitution requires that all revenue measures originate
in the House of Representatives and to the extent that these
proposals are held to be revenue measures (for which similar
proposals in the past have), unilateral action by the Senate in
this matter risks violation of Constitutional principles.
This Committee again admonishes the administration for
including in an annual budget request to the Appropriations
Committee legislative proposals for which this Committee has no
jurisdiction, proposals which have budgetary implications, and
which raise possible Constitutional points of order. The
Committee notes that similar proposals by this and past
administrations have not met approval by the authorizing
committees and there is no evidence to indicate that these
proposals will meet with any greater success.
The Committee included a General Provision (Section 721) in
the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004
(Division A of Public Law 108-199) which requires the President
to identify reductions from his fiscal year 2005 budget
submission in the event the authorization of the proposed fees
has not been enacted prior to the convening of a committee on
conference for the fiscal year 2005 appropriations act.
Notwithstanding the delayed enactment of Public Law 108-199,
the Committee expects compliance with Section 721, and urges
the administration identify these reductions as soon as
possible.
TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS
Production, Processing, and Marketing
Office of the Secretary
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $5,062,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 5,185,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,124,000
The Secretary of Agriculture, assisted by the Deputy
Secretary, Under Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries, Chief
Information Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and members of
their immediate staffs, directs and coordinates the work of the
Department. This includes developing policy, maintaining
relationships with agricultural organizations and others in the
development of farm programs, and maintaining liaison with the
Executive Office of the President and Members of Congress on
all matters pertaining to agricultural policy.
The general authority of the Secretary to supervise and
control the work of the Department is contained in the Organic
Act (7 U.S.C. 2201-2202). The delegation of regulatory
functions to Department employees and authorization of
appropriations to carry out these functions is contained in 7
U.S.C. 450c-450g.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the Secretary, the Committee recommends
an appropriation of $5,124,000. This amount is $62,000 more
than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation.
Hearing Responses.--The Committee is concerned about the
Department's failure to respond to questions submitted during
the fiscal year 2005 budget hearings. The Committee relies on
the Department's answers and policy positions to carefully
draft the appropriation bill. Failure to respond has affected
the requests for specific programs and policy initiatives.
Accordingly, the Committee directs that all answers to hearing
questions submitted for the record for the fiscal year 2006
budget be provided to the Committee no later than 60 days
following submission of such questions. In the event any answer
is not so provided, the Secretary is directed to notify the
Committee by such date the reason that the answer is not
forthcoming and the office, on that date, whose action or
approval is necessary prior to further processing of that
particular question.
Drought Mitigation.--The Committee is concerned by the lack
of a coherent national policy to combat drought. When drought
strikes, it is a very serious disaster bringing economic and
personal hardships to large sections of the nation. Long term
drought conditions in the Intermountain West, as one example,
have resulted in water supplies for agriculture falling below
50 percent of normal supply. The report of the National Drought
Commission, ``Preparing for Drought in the 21st Century'',
recommends that Congress pass a National Drought Preparedness
Act. Such an act would establish a Federal/non-Federal
partnership through a National Drought Council responsible for
implementing a national drought policy. The Committee expects
the Secretary to carry out the recommendations of the National
Drought Commission and coordinate USDA mission areas to provide
a response to drought-stricken areas in as prompt and
meaningful a way as possible.
Administrative Convergence.--The Secretary is expected to
seek the Committee's approval before implementing a merger or
reduction of any administrative or information technology
functions relating to the Farm Service Agency, Natural
Resources Conservation Service, USDA Rural Development, or any
other agency of the Department.
Federal Procurement of Biobased Products.--The Committee
urges the Secretary to make the implementation of section 9002
of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 a
priority. The biobased product purchasing program is an
important initiative that will benefit farmers, biobased
manufacturers, rural citizens, and the natural environment.
Thus far, USDA has lagged behind in its implementation of
several key aspects of the program, according to a recent GAO
report.
Chesapeake Bay Watershed.--The Committee remains concerned
that the Department has failed to take action on the
application submitted nearly 2 years ago by the Governors of
Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, the Mayor of the District of
Columbia, and the Chair of the Chesapeake Bay Commission under
section 2003 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of
2002, entitled ``Partnerships and Cooperation''. In the Joint
Explanatory Statement to accompany that Act, the Secretary is
``strongly encouraged to be proactive in establishing
partnerships in critical areas such as the Chesapeake Bay'' to
address vital resource conservation issues. The Committee
strongly urges the Department to utilize the authorities and
funding made available under section 2003 and to proceed
expeditiously with issuing an RFP, reviewing and evaluating
proposals, and making awards before the end of 2004 with
special attention given to the Chesapeake Bay.
Coordination With the Department of Homeland Security.--The
Homeland Security Act of 2002 transferred a number of functions
previously under the direct jurisdiction of USDA to the newly-
created Department of Homeland Security [DHS]. Among these
functions were research and diagnostic activities located at
Plum Island, New York, and Agricultural Quarantine Inspection
[AQI] activities located along our nation's borders and at
select transportation centers. The Committee is aware of
ongoing concerns within the agriculture sector that the
transfer of these responsibilities may shift the focus away
from agriculture to other priority areas of DHS. In order to
ensure that the interests of U.S. agriculture are protected and
that the intent of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 is being
fully met, including the proper allocation of AQI and other
funds, the Committee requests the Government Accountability
Office to provide a report, no later than March 1, 2005, on the
coordination between USDA and DHS in protecting the U.S.
agriculture sector, including a description of the long-term
objectives of joint activities at Plum Island and the
effectiveness of AQI and other inspection activities.
First Responders.--The Committee remains concerned that
intentional or accidental introduction of infectious or
pathogenic materials could pose substantial harm to the U.S.
economy and present actual risk to this Nation's food security.
Similarly, natural disasters often create demand for immediate
assistance to rural areas like civil defense structures provide
``first responder'' services in urban areas. For these reasons,
the Committee requests that the Secretary work with State
Departments of Agriculture to ascertain the advisability of
establishing a program to provide Federal assistance for the
homeland security efforts of these departments.
Alternative Fuels.--The continuing development of bio-based
energy products, such as E-85 capable vehicle technologies,
provides economic and environmental opportunities for producers
of agricultural products and consumers. The Secretary should
use resources of the Department toward educational and
infrastructure promotion to expand the availability of these
products in Minnesota and other States.
Washington Semester American Indian Program.--The Committee
notes that Executive Order 13270 directs Federal agencies to
take steps to enhance access to Federal opportunities and
resources for American Indian and Alaska Native students from
tribal colleges and other post-secondary institutions. The
Washington Internships for Native Students [WINS] program, in
cooperation with American University, is an effort founded on
the idea that young people of the sovereign Native American
nations can build leadership skills while living, studying, and
interning in Washington, DC, and bring those skills back to
their communities. The Committee urges the Department of
Agriculture to participate in this worthwhile program.
Economic Losses.--The Committee encourages the Secretary to
utilize the authorities and resources of the Commodity Credit
Corporation to provide assistance to compensate United States
entities that export United States beef to be processed in
Canada for re-importation to the United States that suffered
economic losses as a direct result of the BSE-related border
closing between the United States and Canada. The Committee is
aware of the need to compensate an entity for such losses in
Minnesota.
The Committee encourages the Secretary to utilize the
authorities and resources of the Commodity Credit Corporation
to provide assistance to compensate goose producers in South
Dakota for losses related to West Nile Virus.
Foreign Office Security.--The Committee provides
appropriations in this Act for covering certain costs
associated with improving security at State Department overseas
facilities for which it is anticipated that USDA personnel,
notably of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and
the Foreign Agricultural Service, will be located. While USDA
costs associated with these improvements are relatively modest
in the first year, projected increases for USDA donations are
substantial. The Committee is aware that the Government
Accountability Office is reviewing the capital cost sharing
proposal for these facilities and expects the Secretary of
Agriculture to receive assurances from the Secretary of State
that costs assigned to USDA accurately reflect actual space
needs, are reasonable, and that guarantees are in place to
ensure that USDA personnel will be able to occupy anticipated
space as scheduled in association with a space needs cost
analysis. While this Committee provides appropriations to
initiate the capital cost sharing proposal, future requests for
this activity will be weighed heavily against assurances
obtained by the Secretary of Agriculture and the conclusions of
the Government Accountability Office.
National Veterinary Medical Service Act.--The Committee
encourages the Secretary to move forward with implementation of
the National Veterinary Medical Service Act (Public Law 108-
161). The Committee believes the Act will encourage
veterinarians to provide services to rural and underserved
areas of the United States.
Support of Local Agriculture in Massachusetts.--The
Committee encourages the Secretary to provide technical and
financial assistance to the Community in Support of Local
Agriculture in Massachusetts to promote sustainable activities.
Remote Telemedicine Services.--The Committee is aware of
and encourages the Secretary to support the utilization of
remote telemedicine services capable of transmitting medical
information in both real-time and stored scenarios for
diagnosis, medical monitoring, and emergency purposes.
Furthermore, the Committee recognizes the need for integration
and interoperability of real-time remote mobile medical
technology with other devices, systems, and services which
together offer increased capabilities, functionality, and
levels of care.
Wildlife Habitat Management Institute.--The Committee has
included a general provision (Sec. 776) regarding the
management of the Wildlife Habitat Management Institute [WHMI]
in the State of Mississippi. The mission of the WHMI is to
develop and disseminate scientifically based technical
materials to assist the field staff of the National Resources
Conservation Service and other relevant entities and
individuals; to promote conservation and stewardship of fish
and wildlife habitat; and to deliver sound habitat management
principles and practices to land users in the United States.
The Committee expects the Secretary to ensure that the WHMI has
the resources and capabilities to fulfill its mission.
Additionally, the Committee expects the Secretary to ensure
that the WHMI has adequate staffing for the continuation of
established, and development of additional, cooperative
research agreements with non-governmental organizations and
Federal, State, and local agencies.
Nutrition Education.--The Committee encourages the
Secretary of Agriculture to continue the existing Pennsylvania
Food Stamp Nutrition Education Program in food pantries and
shelters. The Committee also requests that the Department of
Agriculture report to Congress on the adequacy and
effectiveness of the Pennsylvania demonstration project, and
how to increase its effectiveness in conjunction with Federal
food commodity distribution. The Committee expects the
Department of Agriculture to provide the requested report
within 60 days of enactment.
Soybean Rust.--The Committee is concerned about the
potential introduction of soybean rust in the continental
United States. Therefore, the Committee urges the Secretary to
expedite training of county-based USDA employees and private
sector crop scouts and consultants to be able to identify
infestation of Phakopsora pachyrhizi (soybean rust) in host
species, not only soybeans but other vulnerable species such as
kudzu and edible beans. The Secretary is urged to establish a
streamlined reporting procedure for suspected outbreaks; it is
crucial that the appropriate test be conducted quickly so that
migration procedures can be initiated if necessary.
Remote Housing.--The Committee is concerned about the lack
of housing for Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS]
employees in remote areas of Alaska not located on the road
system. Within 60 days of enactment of this Act, the Secretary,
in consultation with the State Conservationist, shall provide
the Committee a report detailing the actions necessary to
ensure adequate housing for NRCS employees working in remote
areas of Alaska. The report shall contain information on the
current availability of housing in these areas, the need for
such housing, the potential beneficial impact to NRCS program
delivery if housing was provided, and the estimated costs to
provide housing.
Food Aid Quality.--The Committee encourages the Secretary
to work with a nonprofit organization to implement section 3013
of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Public
Law 107-171) for the Food Aid Quality Enhancement Project, to
improve the quality of food commodities purchased by the
Department of Agriculture for the government's domestic and
foreign food assistance programs.
Executive Operations
Executive operations were established as a result of the
reorganization of the Department to provide a support team for
USDA policy officials and selected Departmentwide services.
Activities under the executive operations include the Office of
the Chief Economist, the National Appeals Division, the Office
of Budget and Program Analysis, and the Homeland Security
Staff.
CHIEF ECONOMIST
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $8,656,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 14,949,000
Committee recommendation................................ 9,817,000
The Office of the Chief Economist advises the Secretary of
Agriculture on the economic implications of Department policies
and programs. The Office serves as the single focal point for
the Nation's economic intelligence and analysis, risk
assessment, energy and new uses, and cost-benefit analysis
related to domestic and international food and agriculture
issues, and is responsible for coordination and review of all
commodity and aggregate agricultural and food-related data used
to develop outlook and situation material within the
Department.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the Chief Economist, the Committee
recommends $9,817,000. This amount is $1,161,000 more than the
fiscal year 2004 appropriation. The Committee provides
$1,000,000 for preferred procurement and labeling for biobased
products.
NATIONAL APPEALS DIVISION
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $13,589,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 14,826,000
Committee recommendation................................ 14,154,000
The National Appeals Division conducts administrative
hearings and reviews of adverse program decisions made by the
Rural Development mission area, the Farm Service Agency, the
Risk Management Agency, and the Natural Resources Conservation
Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the National Appeals Division, the Committee recommends
$14,154,000. This amount is $565,000 more than the fiscal year
2004 appropriation. The Committee provides $300,000 for
hardware and software modernization, as requested in the
budget.
OFFICE OF BUDGET AND PROGRAM ANALYSIS
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $7,694,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 8,146,000
Committee recommendation................................ 8,128,000
The Office of Budget and Program Analysis provides
direction and administration of the Department's budgetary
functions including development, presentation, and execution of
the budget; reviews program and legislative proposals for
program, budget, and related implications; analyzes program and
resource issues and alternatives, and prepares summaries of
pertinent data to aid the Secretary and departmental policy
officials and agency program managers in the decisionmaking
process; and provides departmentwide coordination for and
participation in the presentation of budget-related matters to
the committees of the Congress, the media, and interested
public. The Office also provides departmentwide coordination of
the preparation and processing of regulations and legislative
programs and reports.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of Budget and Program Analysis, the
Committee recommends $8,128,000. This amount is $434,000 more
than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation.
HOMELAND SECURITY STAFF
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $496,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 1,491,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,000,000
The Homeland Security Staff formulates emergency
preparedness policies and objectives for the Department of
Agriculture [USDA]. The Staff directs and coordinates all of
the Department's program activities that support USDA emergency
programs and liaison functions with the Congress, the
Department of Homeland Security, and other Federal departments
and agencies involving homeland security, natural disasters,
other emergencies, and agriculture-related international civil
emergency planning and related activities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Homeland Security Staff, the Committee recommends
$1,000,000. This amount is $504,000 more than the fiscal year
2004 appropriation, and includes $495,000 to continue
operations originally funded by counterterrorism/homeland
security supplemental funds.
Office of the Chief Information Officer
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $15,402,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 22,093,000
Committee recommendation................................ 17,595,000
The Office of the Chief Information Officer was established
in August 1996, pursuant to the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996,
which required the establishment of a Chief Information Officer
for major Federal agencies. This office provides policy
guidance, leadership, coordination, and direction to the
Department's information management and information technology
investment activities in support of USDA program delivery, and
is the lead office in USDA e-gov efforts. The Office provides
long-range planning guidance, implements measures to ensure
that technology investments are economical and effective,
coordinates interagency information resources management
projects, and implements standards to promote information
exchange and technical interoperability. In addition, the
Office of the Chief Information Officer is responsible for
certain activities financed under the Department's working
capital fund (7 U.S.C. 2235). The Office also provides
telecommunication and automated data processing [ADP] services
to USDA agencies through the National Information Technology
Center with locations in Fort Collins, CO, and Kansas City, MO.
Direct ADP operational services are also provided to the Office
of the General Counsel, Office of Communications, the Office of
the Chief Financial Officer, and Executive Operations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends $17,595,000 for the Office of the
Chief Information Officer. This amount is $2,193,000 more than
the fiscal year 2004 appropriation, and includes $2,000,000 for
requested program initiatives such as information systems
certification and accreditation and the information
survivability program which the CIO determines to be a
priority.
Information Technology Expenditures.--The Committee is
aware of a recent General Accounting Office report which
outlined significant systemic problems with the management of
information technology within the Department. The Committee
believes that the only way for the Department to address the
underlying issues is to ensure that there is a coordinated
effort throughout the Department. Therefore, the Committee has
included statutory language (section 764) which requires that
all expenditures over $25,000 of funds from any fiscal year for
information technology must be approved in writing by the Chief
Information Officer.
Common Computing Environment
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $118,585,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 136,736,000
Committee recommendation................................ 125,585,000
The Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994
requires the Secretary of Agriculture to procure and use
computer systems in a manner that enhances efficiency,
productivity, and client services, and that promotes computer
information sharing among agencies of the Department. The
Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 requires USDA to maximize the value
of information technology acquisitions to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of USDA programs. Since its
beginning in 1996, the USDA Service Center Modernization
initiative has been working to restructure county field
offices, modernize and integrate business approaches and
replace the current, aging information systems with a modern
Common Computing Environment that optimizes information
sharing, customer service, and staff efficiencies.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends $125,585,000 for the Common
Computing Environment. This amount is $7,000,000 more than the
fiscal year 2004 appropriation which is for requested program
initiatives such as improved information technology security
which the CIO determines to be a priority.
The Committee is concerned about the lack of progress in
certifying data for counties across the Nation required prior
to implementation of the Geographical Information System and
encourages the Department to place a high priority on
completing this task.
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $5,650,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 8,063,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,742,000
The Office of the Chief Financial Officer is responsible
for the dual roles of chief financial management policy officer
and chief financial management advisor to the Secretary and
mission area heads. The Office provides leadership for all
financial management, accounting, travel, Federal assistance,
and performance measurement activities within the Department.
The Office is also responsible for the management and operation
of the National Finance Center and the Departmental Working
Capital Fund. In addition, the Office provides budget,
accounting, and fiscal services to the Office of the Secretary,
Departmental staff offices, Office of the Chief Information
Officer, Office of Communications, and executive operations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the
Committee recommends $5,742,000. This amount is $92,000 more
than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation.
National Finance Center.--The Committee has been informed
that the Department of Agriculture's National Finance Center
[NFC] proposal for e-payroll consolidation was rated the
highest in the internal competition held by the Office of
Management and Budget [OMB] and the Office of Personnel
Management [OPM]. The Committee believes that the NFC's
demonstrated ability to provide a high level of service while
operating on a fee-for-service basis similar to commercial
industry provides a significant opportunity to utilize a
public/private partnership to provide private sector investment
and shared risk in the modernization of systems and
infrastructure creation for e-payroll at the NFC. The Committee
directs the Department of Agriculture to work with OMB and OPM
to investigate the feasibility of creating a public/private
partnership to help leverage scarce Federal resources to expand
upon the existing e-payroll program to include such functions
as automated data processing, cross-servicing capabilities, and
other beneficial services to Federal agencies. The Committee
further directs that the Secretary provide a feasibility report
on this proposal to the Committee by March 1, 2005.
Working Capital Fund
Appropriations, 2004....................................................
Budget estimate, 2005................................... $12,850,000
Committee recommendation................................................
The Working Capital Fund was established in the 1944
Appropriations Act. It was created for certain central services
in the Department of Agriculture, including duplicating and
other visual information services, art and graphics, video
services, supply, centralized accounting system, centralized
automated data processing system for payroll, personnel, and
related services, voucher payments services, and ADP systems.
The National Finance Center's expenses are also funded through
this fund.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee is unable to fund the Working Capital Fund in
fiscal year 2005 due to budgetary constraints. However, in an
effort to continue to address the need for disaster recovery
and continuity of operations issues at the National Finance
Center, the Committee again includes a General Provision
(Section 704) which provides authority for the Secretary to
transfer unobligated balances of the Department of Agriculture
to the Working Capital Fund.
The Committee notes that funding provided in fiscal year
2003 for disaster recovery and continuity activities for the
National Finance Center has not been fully utilized.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $803,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 819,000
Committee recommendation................................ 819,000
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights,
established by Section 10704 of the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002, provides oversight of civil rights and
related functions. This includes coordination of the
administration of civil rights laws and regulations for
employees of the Department of Agriculture and participants in
programs of the Department, and ensuring compliance with civil
rights laws.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights,
the Committee recommends an appropriation of $819,000. This
amount is $16,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation
and equals the budget request.
Opportunities for Minority Farmers.--The Committee notes
the progress being made by the Assistant Secretary for Civil
Rights to address long-standing minority farmer issues within
the Department. In particular, the Committee congratulates the
Assistant Secretary for the recent Memorandum of Understanding
which may increase opportunities for minority farmers to
provide products to the hospitality industry by providing
training, technical assistance, and mentoring. The Committee
encourages the Assistant Secretary to continue efforts to be a
strong advocate for minority farmers throughout the country.
Office of Civil Rights
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $17,347,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 22,283,000
Committee recommendation................................ 20,347,000
The Office of Civil Rights provides overall leadership
responsibility for all Department-wide civil rights activities.
These activities include employment opportunity as well as
program non-discrimination policy development, analysis,
coordination, and compliance. The Office is responsible for
providing leadership in facilitating the fair and equitable
treatment of Department of Agriculture [USDA] employees, and
for monitoring program activities to ensure that all USDA
programs are delivered in a non-discriminatory manner. The
Office's outreach functions provide leadership, coordination,
facilitation, and expertise to internal and external partners
to ensure equal and timely access to USDA programs for all
constituents, with emphasis on the underserved, through
information sharing, technical assistance, and training.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
For the Office of Civil Rights, the Committee recommends an
appropriation of $20,347,000. This amount is $3,000,000 more
than fiscal year 2004. The Committee notes that the Office of
Civil Rights has received substantial increases in funding and
staff levels in recent years to improve efficiencies, including
caseload reduction.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $669,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 808,000
Committee recommendation................................ 682,000
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration
directs and coordinates the work of the departmental staff in
carrying out the laws enacted by the Congress relating to real
and personal property management, personnel management, ethics,
and other general administrative functions. In addition, the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration is
responsible for certain activities financed under the
Department's working capital fund (7 U.S.C. 2235).
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Administration, the Committee recommends $682,000. This amount
is $13,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation.
Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $155,546,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 203,938,000
Committee recommendation................................ 170,870,000
Rental Payments.--Annual appropriations are made to finance
the appropriated portion of the payments to the General
Services Administration [GSA] for rental of space and for
related services to all USDA agencies, except the Forest
Service, which is funded by another appropriations bill.
The requirement that GSA charge commercial rent rates to
agencies occupying GSA-controlled space was established by the
Public Buildings Amendments of 1972. The methods used to
establish commercial rent rates in GSA space follow commercial
real estate appraisal practices. Appeal and rate review
procedures are in place to assure that agencies have an
opportunity to contest rates they feel are incorrect.
Building Operations and Maintenance.--On October 1, 1984,
the General Services Administration [GSA] delegated the
operations and maintenance function for the buildings in the
D.C. complex to the Department. This activity provides
departmental staff and support services to operate, maintain,
and repair the buildings in the D.C. complex. GSA expanded the
delegation to include two additional buildings on October 1,
1986. One building is the Government-owned warehouse for forms
in Lanham, MD, and the other is a leased warehouse for the
excess property operation located at 49 L Street SW,
Washington, DC. GSA retains responsibility for major
nonrecurring repairs. In fiscal year 1999, USDA began
operations and maintenance of the Beltsville office facility.
Strategic Space Plan.--The Department's headquarters staff
is presently housed in a four-building Government-owned complex
in downtown Washington, DC, and in leased buildings in the
Metropolitan Washington, DC, area. In 1995, USDA initiated a
plan to improve the delivery of USDA programs to the American
people, including streamlining the USDA organization. A high-
priority goal in the Secretary's plan is to improve the
operation and effectiveness of the USDA headquarters in
Washington, DC. To implement this goal, a strategy for
efficient reallocation of space to house the restructured
headquarters agencies in modern and safe facilities has been
proposed. This USDA strategic space plan will correct serious
problems USDA has faced in its facility program, including the
inefficiencies of operating out of scattered leased facilities
and serious safety hazards which exist in the Agriculture South
Building.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For U.S. Department of Agriculture buildings and facilities
and payments for the rental of space and related services, the
Committee recommends $170,870,000. This amount is $15,324,000
more than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation, and includes
$5,000,000 in the building operations and maintenance account
for requested program initiatives such as homeland security
requirements and Fair Labor Standards Act requirements.
The following table reflects the Committee's specific
recommendations for this account as compared to the fiscal year
2004 and budget request levels:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005 budget Committee
2004 enacted request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rental Payments................................................. 123,179 128,319 128,319
Building Operations............................................. 32,367 41,642 37,551
Strategic Space Plan............................................ .............. 33,977 5,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total......................................................... 155,546 203,938 170,870
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous Materials Management
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $15,519,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 15,730,000
Committee recommendation................................ 15,532,000
Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act and the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, the Department has the responsibility to meet
the same standards regarding the storage and disposition of
hazardous materials as private businesses. The Department is
required to contain, clean up, monitor, and inspect for
hazardous materials in areas under the Department's
jurisdiction.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends $15,532,000 for hazardous
materials management. This amount is $13,000 more than the
fiscal year 2004 appropriation.
Departmental Administration
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $22,895,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 26,361,000
Committee recommendation................................ 22,626,000
Departmental administration is comprised of activities that
provide staff support to top policy officials and overall
direction and coordination of administrative functions of the
Department. These activities include departmentwide programs
for human resource management, ethics, occupational safety and
health management, real and personal property management,
procurement, contracting, motor vehicle and aircraft
management, supply management, civil rights and equal
opportunity, participation of small and disadvantaged
businesses and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers in
the Department's program activities, emergency preparedness,
small and disadvantaged business utilization, and the
regulatory hearing and administrative proceedings conducted by
the Administrative Law Judges and Judicial Officer.
Departmental administration also provides administrative
support to the Board of Contract Appeals. Established as an
independent entity within the Department, the Board adjudicates
contract claims by and against the Department, and is funded as
a reimbursable activity.
Departmental administration is also responsible for
representing USDA in the development of Governmentwide policies
and initiatives; and analyzing the impact of Governmentwide
trends and developing appropriate USDA principles, policies,
and standards. In addition, departmental administration engages
in strategic planning and evaluates programs to ensure USDA-
wide compliance with applicable laws, rules, and regulations
pertaining to administrative matters for the Secretary and
general officers of the Department.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For Departmental Administration, the Committee recommends
an appropriation of $22,626,000. This amount is $269,000 less
than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $3,774,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 4,263,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,852,000
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional
Relations maintains a liaison with the Congress and White House
on legislative matters. It also provides for overall direction
and coordination in the development and implementation of
policies and procedures applicable to the Department's intra-
and inter-governmental relations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional
Relations, the Committee recommends an appropriation of
$3,852,000. This amount is $78,000 more than the fiscal year
2004 appropriation.
The Committee allows these funds to be transferred to
support congressional relations' activities at the agency
level. Within 30 days from the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary shall notify the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations on the allocation of these funds by USDA agency,
along with an explanation for the agency-by-agency distribution
of the funds as well as the staff years funded by these
transfers.
Office of Communications
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $9,174,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 10,288,000
Committee recommendation................................ 9,365,000
The Office of Communications provides direction,
leadership, and coordination in the development and delivery of
useful information through all media to the public on USDA
programs. The Office serves as the liaison between the
Department and the many associations and organizations with an
interest in USDA's mission areas.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of Communications, the Committee recommends
an appropriation of $9,365,000. This amount is $191,000 more
than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation.
Office of the Inspector General
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $76,825,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 78,392,000
Committee recommendation................................ 78,289,000
The Office of the Inspector General was established October
12, 1978, by the Inspector General Act of 1978. This Act
expanded and provided specific authorities for the activities
of the Office of the Inspector General which had previously
been carried out under the general authorities of the Secretary
of Agriculture.
The Office is administered by an inspector general who
reports directly to the Secretary of Agriculture. Functions and
responsibilities of this Office include direction and control
of audit and investigative activities within the Department,
formulation of audit and investigative policies and procedures
regarding Department programs and operations, and analysis and
coordination of program-related audit and investigation
activities performed by other Department agencies.
The activities of this Office are designed to assure
compliance with existing laws, policies, regulations, and
programs of the Department's agencies, and to provide
appropriate officials with the means for prompt corrective
action where deviations have occurred. The scope of audit and
investigative activities is large and includes administrative,
program, and criminal matters. These activities are
coordinated, when appropriate, with various audit and
investigative agencies of the executive and legislative
branches of the Government.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of Inspector General, the Committee
recommends an appropriation of $78,289,000. This amount is
$1,464,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. The
Committee provides the fiscal year 2004 level for OIG to
continue to address violations of section 26 of the Animal
Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2156) and to coordinate with State and
local law enforcement personnel in this effort.
Office of the General Counsel
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $34,495,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 38,589,000
Committee recommendation................................ 36,236,000
The Office of the General Counsel provides all legal
advice, counsel, and services to the Secretary and to all
agencies, offices, and corporations of the Department. The
Office represents the Department in administrative proceedings;
non-litigation debt collection proceedings; State water rights
adjudications; proceedings before the Environmental Protection
Agency, Interstate Commerce Commission, Federal Maritime
Administration, and International Trade Commission; and, in
conjunction with the Department of Justice, in judicial
proceedings and litigation.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the General Counsel, the Committee
recommends an appropriation of $36,236,000. This amount is
$1,741,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation to meet
the initiatives included in the budget request. The Committee
provides an increase of $1,000,000 for requested program
initiatives, such as additional legal services and support
staff, information technology, and subscription renewals.
Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $592,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 805,000
Committee recommendation................................ 605,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education,
and Economics provides direction and coordination in carrying
out the laws enacted by the Congress for food and agricultural
research, education, extension, and economic and statistical
information. The Office has oversight and management
responsibilities for the Agricultural Research Service;
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service;
Economic Research Service; and National Agricultural Statistics
Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the Under Secretary for Research,
Education, and Economics, the Committee recommends an
appropriation of $605,000. This amount is $13,000 more than the
fiscal year 2004 appropriation.
The Committee directs the Under Secretary to provide by
March 1, 2005, a feasibility study regarding the establishment
of a supercomputing facility dedicated to agricultural and
allied research. The study should review current supercomputing
access for agricultural researchers, evaluate the need for a
dedicated facility, discuss potential benefits to agricultural
research, estimate establishment and recurring operational
costs, and other pertinent information.
The Committee notes the need to enhance awareness of animal
disease outbreaks, whether intentional or naturally occurring,
which could spread with devastating consequences to the
national economy and international trade. In order to
strengthen professional capabilities, and as an element of
homeland security, the Committee encourages that resources
available through education programs related to animal health,
and veterinary sciences in particular, include components that
focus on this growing area of national and international
concern. The Committee expects that related research findings
will be properly forwarded to institutions of higher learning
and especially to accredited schools of veterinary medicine.
Section 7404(a)(2) of the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-171) established a task
force to evaluate the merits of creating a National Institute
for Plant and Agricultural Sciences. The challenge of this task
force is to determine whether the National Institutes of Health
[NIH] would be an appropriate model for advanced plant and
agricultural research which would supplement existing USDA
research programs. The Committee looks forward to reviewing the
conclusions reached by the task force.
Economic Research Service
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $70,981,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 80,032,000
Committee recommendation................................ 75,268,000
The Economic Research Service [ERS] provides economic and
other social science information and analysis for public and
private decisions on agriculture, natural resources, food, and
rural America. The information ERS produces is for use by the
general public and to help the executive and legislative
branches develop, administer, and evaluate agricultural and
rural policies and programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Economic Research Service, the Committee recommends
an appropriation of $75,268,000. This amount is $4,287,000 more
than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation, and includes
$4,000,000 for requested program initiatives such as the food
market surveillance system. The Committee directs that no less
than $500,000 be used for the collection of information on the
financial condition, production practices, resources used, and
economic well-being of organic farming households.
National Agricultural Statistics Service
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $128,161,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 137,594,000
Committee recommendation................................ 130,299,000
The National Agricultural Statistics Service [NASS]
administers the Department's program of collecting and
publishing current national, State, and county agricultural
statistics. These statistics provide accurate and timely
projections of current agricultural production and measures of
the economic and environmental welfare of the agricultural
sector which are essential for making effective policy,
production, and marketing decisions. NASS also furnishes
statistical services to other USDA and Federal agencies in
support of their missions, and provides consulting, technical
assistance, and training to developing countries.
The Service is also responsible for administration of the
Census of Agriculture, which was transferred from the
Department of Commerce to the Department of Agriculture in
fiscal year 1997 to consolidate agricultural statistics
programs. The Census of Agriculture is taken every 5 years and
provides comprehensive data on the agricultural economy
including: data on the number of farms, land use, production
expenses, farm product values, value of land and buildings,
farm size and characteristics of farm operators, market value
of agricultural production sold, acreage of major crops,
inventory of livestock and poultry, and farm irrigation
practices.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the
Committee recommends an appropriation of $130,299,000. This
amount is $2,138,000 more than the fiscal year 2004
appropriation, and includes $3,500,000 for requested program
initiatives such as agricultural estimates and information
technology security. Also included in this amount is
$22,405,000 for the Census of Agriculture.
The Committee encourages NASS to conduct Monthly Hogs and
Pigs Inventory reporting, and Barrow and Gilt Slaughter
reporting. The Committee also expects that the potato objective
yield survey will be continued. The Committee also encourages
NASS to use any available funding to ensure that timely,
accurate, and useful statistics are provided for the organic
industry.
Agricultural Research Service
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $1,082,468,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 987,597,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,090,261,000
The Agricultural Research Service [ARS] is responsible for
conducting basic, applied, and developmental research on: soil,
water, and air sciences; plant and animal productivity;
commodity conversion and delivery; human nutrition; and the
integration of agricultural systems. The research applies to a
wide range of goals; commodities; natural resources; fields of
science; and geographic, climatic, and environmental
conditions.
ARS is also responsible for the Abraham Lincoln National
Agricultural Library which provides agricultural information
and library services through traditional library functions and
modern electronic dissemination to agencies of the USDA, public
and private organizations, and individuals.
As the U.S. Department of Agriculture's in-house
agricultural research unit, ARS has major responsibilities for
conducting and leading the national agricultural research
effort. It provides initiative and leadership in five areas:
research on broad regional and national problems, research to
support Federal action and regulatory agencies, expertise to
meet national emergencies, research support for international
programs, and scientific resources to the executive branch and
Congress.
The mission of ARS research is to develop new knowledge and
technology which will ensure an abundance of high-quality
agricultural commodities and products at reasonable prices to
meet the increasing needs of an expanding economy and to
provide for the continued improvement in the standard of living
of all Americans. This mission focuses on the development of
technical information and technical products which bear
directly on the need to: (1) manage and use the Nation's soil,
water, air, and climate resources, and improve the Nation's
environment; (2) provide an adequate supply of agricultural
products by observing practices that will maintain a
sustainable and effective agriculture sector; (3) improve the
nutrition and well-being of the American people; (4) improve
living in rural America; and (5) strengthen the Nation's
balance of payments.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For salaries and expenses of the Agricultural Research
Service, the Committee recommends $1,090,261,000. This is
$7,793,000 more than the 2004 level.
The Committee recognizes the need to ensure that the
citizens of this Nation have a safe food supply, whether
contaminations are intentional or unintentional. The Committee
has provided the following amounts in the ARS salaries and
expenses account for the Food and Agriculture Defense
Initiative: $7,200,000 for food safety research, $3,000,000 for
control of exotic and emerging diseases of animals, $2,000,000
for control of exotic and emerging diseases of plants, and
$3,000,000 for the national plant disease recovery system.
The Committee concurs with the Department's initiative to
promote a healthier lifestyle for the Nation's population, and
to address the obesity epidemic in the United States.
Therefore, the Committee directs that the funding for diet,
nutrition, and obesity research carried out by ARS at the
Pennington Biomedical Research Center, as well as funding at
the Human Nutrition Center for the Aging, Tufts University,
which are proposed for termination in the fiscal year 2005
budget request, be restored at the fiscal year 2004 levels to
finance these important nutrition and obesity research
programs.
For fiscal year 2005, the Committee recommends funding
increases, as specified below, for ongoing research activities.
The remaining increase in appropriations from the fiscal year
2005 level is to be applied to pay and related cost increases
to prevent the further erosion of the agency's capacity to
maintain a viable research program at all research locations.
The Committee expects the agency to give attention to the
prompt implementation and allocation of funds provided for the
purposes identified by Congress.
In complying with the Committee's directives, ARS is
expected not to redirect support for programs from one State to
another without prior notification to and approval by the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations in accordance with the
reprogramming procedures specified in this Act. Unless
otherwise directed, the Agricultural Research Service shall
implement appropriations by programs, projects, commodities,
and activities as specified by the Appropriations Committees.
Unspecified reductions necessary to carry out the provisions of
this Act are to be implemented in accordance with the
definitions contained in the ``Program, project, and activity''
section of this report.
The Committee has again included statutory language to
return to Colorado State University land which was conveyed to
the Agricultural Research Service on February 1, 1966. This
land is no longer being used by ARS. This transfer is expected
to be completed in fiscal year 2005.
The Committee's recommendations with respect to specific
areas of research are as follows:
Agricultural Genome Bioinformatics.--The Committee provides
an increase of $250,000 above the fiscal year 2004 funding
level to enhance work on the Bioinformatics Institute for Model
Plant Species at the National Center for Genome Resources in
New Mexico, as authorized in Section 227 of the Agriculture
Risk Protection Act (Public Law 106-224).
Agricultural Law, Drake University.--The Committee
continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level for support of a
national center focusing on State and local food and
agricultural law and policy. Drake University in Des Moines,
Iowa, is highly qualified to serve as the location of the
center.
Agriculture and Food System Security.--The Committee
supports the efforts of USDA in implementing a national policy
for defending the agriculture and food systems against
terrorist attacks, as described in the Homeland Security
Presidential Directive 9 [HSPD-9]. The Committee encourages
USDA and ARS to consider the Illinois Institute of Technology
[IIT] and its National Center for Food Safety and Technology
(National Center) in implementing relevant tasks within HSPD-9.
IIT and the National Center have been developing new
counterterrorism technologies designed to contribute to
detection of biological and chemical agents, screening and
inspection of imported agricultural and food items, and
recovery, disposal, and decontamination systems.
Air Quality Research.--Agricultural operations produce a
variety of particulates and gases that influence air quality.
Agriculture, through wind erosion, tillage and harvest
operations, burning, diesel-powered machinery and animal
operations, is a source of particulate matter that can cause
pulmonary problems to humans. While extensive regulatory
measures have severely impacted agricultural production
efficiencies, continuing urban expansion into high production
regions have exacerbated the need for producers to further
modify effective production practices to reduce harmful
emissions.
The Committee recognizes that expanded research is needed
to quantify these emissions, determine emission factors, and to
develop management practices for producers to address this
problem. The Committee provides an increase of $250,000 above
the fiscal year 2004 funding level for collaborative research
with Utah State University's Space Dynamics Laboratory [SDL] to
develop and evaluate sensors, protocols, and statistical
procedures that accurately measure particulates and gaseous
emissions from agriculture operations.
Alternative Crops and Value-Added Products.--The Committee
is aware that alternative crops and value-added products
provide potential opportunities to enhance profitability. Niche
marketing of agriculture products displaying ``identity-
preserved'' traits have received premiums in the marketplace.
The Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level for
alternative and value-added products.
Animal Waste Treatment.--Animal production, a major
component of the U.S. agricultural economy, is at risk because
of both real and perceived animal environmental programs.
Dramatic advancements are required to protect the environment,
save the vital animal industry, and maintain food security in
the United States. The USDA-ARS facility at Florence, SC, and
its cooperators are leaders in this effort. The Committee
provides an increase of $50,000 above the fiscal year 2004
funding level to enhance this effort.
Appalachian Fruit Research Station.--The Committee
recognizes the importance of the fruit research program carried
out at the Appalachian Fruit Research Station in Kearneysville,
WV, and continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level for
essential staffing to support the station's ongoing research to
identify new alternatives for chemical control of insects, and
to develop disease-resistant trees.
Appalachian Horticulture Research.--Ornamental
horticulture, floriculture and nursery crops, collectively
constitute the third most important crop in the United States,
surpassed only by corn and soybeans, with an average estimated
value of more than $11,000,000,000 a year. Tennessee has a
vibrant nursery industry and a growing floriculture industry.
The Committee provides an increase of $250,000 above the fiscal
year 2004 funding level for collaborative research with the
University of Tennessee and Tennessee State University,
including efforts to develop resistant genes in dogwoods and
other woody ornamentals, new tissue culture techniques, and
techniques to enable rapid deployment of new cultivars for the
marketplace.
Appalachian Pasture-Based Beef Systems.--The Committee is
aware of the benefits to be derived from the pasture-raised
beef research program currently underway at the ARS Appalachian
Farming Systems Research Center located in Beaver, WV. The
research partnership, which includes West Virginia University,
Virginia Tech, and ARS, is targeted to Appalachian cattle
farmers. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 funding
level for this research, which will ensure the economic
viability of these farmers and conserve and protect the
region's environment.
Aquaculture Research.--The Committee provides an increase
of $250,000 above the fiscal year 2004 funding level to
continue development of grain-based products for use in fish
feeds, human food, and industrial products from novel cultivars
of barley and oats in cooperation with the University of Idaho
Hagerman Fish Culture Experiment Station in Hagerman, ID.
Aquaculture Research.--The Committee acknowledges the
importance of avoiding duplication in research administered by
the U.S. Department of Agriculture at various locations
throughout the country. In order to ensure that duplication
does not occur in the field of warmwater aquaculture research,
the Stuttgart research facility should not engage in channel
catfish research related to production systems, nutrition,
water quality, genetics, disease diagnosis, or food processing
which is ongoing at the National Warmwater Aquaculture Research
Center at Stoneville, MS.
Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi.--The Committee understands
that the Agency conducts research on Arbuscular mycorrhizal
fungi [AMF] which are beneficial microorganisms that infect the
roots of most crop plants. AMF benefits crops through increased
nutrient update, increased resistance to disease and drought,
and improved soil water holding capacity. The fungi are
dependent on their plant host for sugars and other substances.
Understanding the physiological relationships between AMF and
their plant hosts will help scientists develop ways to mass-
produce the best fungi and apply them in the field to stimulate
crop growth and yield. The Committee provides an increase of
$87,000 which shall be directed to the Rodale Institute's
Farming Systems Trial for fungi research.
Arid Lands Research.--The challenges for agricultural
production and natural resource management in the desert
Southwest and adjoining border regions are immense.
Technologies for arid land agriculture are needed for the
remediation of arid and semi-arid rangelands, sustainable
agriculture production for growers of irrigated cotton and
selected crops, and the restoration of disturbed lands. The
Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level for
research in rangeland resource management, irrigated farming
technology, and environmental horticulture at the Jornada
Experimental Range Station at Las Cruces, NM.
Arkansas Children's Nutrition Center, Little Rock, AR.--The
Committee notes the importance of optimizing the nutrition and
health of children from conception through adolescence. The
Center is leading major research efforts to understand the
relationship between chronic disease and diet, genetics, and
lifestyle. The Committee provides an increase of $250,000 above
the fiscal year 2004 funding level for investigations on these
issues.
Biological Control Research.--The Committee has been
impressed by results of the various approaches which have been
taken by the Jamie Whitten Delta States Research Center in the
area of biological controls of cotton insect pests. The
economic and environmental benefits of this research could
eventually reduce the vulnerability of crops to major insect
pests and create alternatives to traditional crop protection
methods. The Committee continues funding for this project at
the fiscal year 2004 funding level.
Biomass Crop Production.--The Committee continues the
fiscal year 2004 level for cooperative research between ARS and
South Dakota State University to further investigate the
applicability of using a method of fiber extrusion to dry and
process wet distiller grains from ethanol production into high
value feed for cattle, as well as conversion to increased
ethanol production.
Biomedical Materials in Plants.--Increased research is
needed to carry out studies on tobacco and other plants as a
medium to produce vaccines and other biomedical products for
the prevention of many human and animal diseases. The Committee
continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level for cooperative
research with the Biotechnology Foundation.
Biotechnology Research and Development Corporation.--The
Committee directs the agency to continue its support of the
Biotechnology Research and Development Corporation's research
on both plants and animals at the fiscal year 2004 level.
Biotechnology Research to Improve Crops and Livestock.--
Biotechnology research has opened the path for sequencing and
mapping the genes of crops and livestock, marking genes for
adding precision to breeding of improved plants and animals,
and identifying gene products through proteomics technology.
Other technological advancements can be achieved in the
livestock industry through the development of imaging at the
molecular level using light, heat, and/or fluorescing
signatures. These biotechnology efforts generate huge volumes
of data, which must be managed, transmitted electronically, and
analyzed. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 funding
level at Stoneville, MS, to support cooperative research in
genomics and bioinformatics and in the use of biophotonics for
the imaging of animal physiological processes at the cellular
level.
Broiler Production in the Mid South.--Reduced broiler
production costs are essential for the industry to increase net
profit and remain competitive internationally. The Committee
recognizes the importance of the cooperation between the ARS
Poultry Research Unit and the Mississippi Agricultural and
Forestry Experiment Station at Mississippi State. This
cooperation has resulted in improved bird nutrition, control of
mycoplasma disease with vaccines, and overall health, vigor,
and growth of the birds through improved housing environmental
controls. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 funding
level for cooperative research on reducing ammonia levels in
poultry litter, improving environmental controls, and reducing
mortality in broiler flocks.
Cacao Germplasm.--The Committee is aware of the climatic
differences encountered in maintaining cacao germplasm at the
ARS facility in Florida and is also aware of the sharp increase
in commercial planting of cacao in Hawaii. The Committee
recommends that ARS consider moving its cacao germplasm
collection to the Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center to
take advantage of the more compatible cacao growing conditions
at this location and to provide the applied research support
needed by Hawaii's emerging chocolate industry.
Canada Thistle.--The Committee recognizes the importance of
controlling and eradicating the Canada thistle, a noxious,
invasive weed that has surpassed leafy spurge in infested
acreage in North Dakota. The Committee continues the fiscal
year 2004 funding level to carry out research experiments to
examine the population genetics and biology of Canada thistle
and to combat this weed in North Dakota and surrounding States.
The research is to be conducted at the ARS research facility at
Fargo, ND.
Catfish Genome Research.--Catfish is the major aquaculture
species in the United States, accounting for 68 percent of all
aquaculture production. The catfish industry has been steadily
growing for decades and has strong potential for continued
growth. To keep this industry competitive in the global market,
the Committee provides an increase of $250,000 above the fiscal
year 2004 funding level for catfish genome research at Auburn
University.
Catfish Health.--Disease-causing bacteria, viruses, and
parasites threaten the economic viability of the Nation's
billion dollar catfish industry. Rapid expansion of the U.S.
channel catfish industry increases the vulnerability of the
industry to outbreaks of diseases and parasites. Research
urgently is needed to identify disease vectors, modes of
transmission, life cycles and methods for controlling catfish
diseases caused by parasites, fungi, bacteria, and viruses. A
thorough understanding of the impact of environmental factors
on disease will lead to improved management practices for
conventional catfish culture in earthen ponds. The Committee
continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level for the
comprehensive catfish health research program based at the
Stoneville, MS, National Warmwater Aquaculture Center. This
Center is strategically located in the mid-delta, proximal to
the vast majority of the U.S. commercial catfish farming
acreage and already has a critical mass of scientists,
facilities, and instrumentation addressing the disease issue.
Ongoing research in genomics and breeding can be expanded to
select for fish with disease and parasite resistance, but
additional scientists, including a parasitologist and
virologist, are required for a comprehensive disease and
parasite genetic resistance research program.
Center for Food Safety and Postharvest Technology.--The
Committee is aware of the significance of the research
currently underway relating to catfish and other food products
at the Mississippi Center for Food Safety and Postharvest
Technology and continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level for
research on shellfish safety and methods of decreasing risks to
consumers.
Central Great Plains Research Station.--This is the only
ARS station conducting research aimed at solving dryland
production problems in Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, and Wyoming.
The Committee provides an increase of $50,000 above the fiscal
year 2004 funding level to the Central Great Plains Research
Station at Akron, CO, for research on extensive crop rotation
strategies. Research will focus on biological diversity to
reduce weed, disease, and insects inherent in single crop
rotation and utilize a complete systems approach to quantify
comparative yield benefits under various rotation schemes.
Cereal Disease Research.--The Committee continues the
fiscal year 2004 funding level to support the core group of
scientists currently performing research at the Cereal Disease
Research Laboratory, St. Paul, Minnesota.
Children's Nutrition Research Center.--The Children's
Nutrition Research Center at the Baylor College of Medicine,
Houston, TX, has helped define the role of nutrition in
children's health, growth, and development; contributed to
nutritional guidelines used by physicians, parents, and others
responsible for the care and feeding of children, and is unique
in it's ability to address a broad array of children's
nutritional issues. The Committee continues the fiscal year
2004 funding level for increased investigation of the
nutritional needs of pregnant and nursing women, and children
from conception to adolescence, at the Children's Nutrition
Research Center, Houston, TX.
Chronic Wasting Disease [CWD].--In order to reduce
livestock losses and to improve efficiency of production, it is
important to eradicate transmissable spongiform
encephalopathies [TSE] in domestic animals. Scrapie of sheep
and goats, bovine spongiform encephalopathies [BSE] and chronic
wasting disease [CWD] of deer and elk are classes of TSE's of
ruminant animals and are fatal diseases that can affect both
animals and humans. The Committee continues the fiscal year
2004 funding level to the Animal Disease Laboratory, Pullman,
WA, and the National Animal Disease Laboratory, Ames, IA, for
urgent research on CWD.
Coffee and Cocoa.--The disease resistance and alternative
crop research program for coffee and cocoa has important
economic benefits and implications for foreign policy goals in
South Central America and West Africa. As a globally marketable
cash crop, cocoa can provide an alternative, environmentally
beneficial choice for small farmers and an incentive to Andean
farmers to abandon illegal crops for those that can provide
stable long-term economic benefit. Cocoa is produced primarily
by small farmers in the tropics of South Central America and
West Africa that is also under severe disease pressure which
threatens the stability of world supply of cocoa and the
economies of other cocoa-producing nations. The Committee
continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level to fully realize
the research potential of coffee and cocoa as alternatives to
illegal crops.
Corn Germplasm.--Corn is a key resource in Iowa and
throughout the world, providing food, industrial uses,
livestock feed and export. It is important to broaden the
germplasm base of corn hybrids grown by American farmers to
establish genetic diversity and stability in corn production.
The Committee provides an increase of $100,000 above the fiscal
year 2004 funding level for the ARS Corn Germplasm Research
Laboratory at Ames, Iowa for research to increase the
productivity and genetic diversity of maize grown in the United
States.
Corn Resistant to Aflatoxin.--Contamination of corn by
aflatoxin limits corn production in the southern United States.
Understanding the corn genome and where the genes for
resistance are located on the genome will accelerate the plant
breeding process leading to resistant corn lines. The Committee
recognizes the progress already made in the discovery and
transfer of aflatoxin-resistant corn germplasm to commercial
seed companies as a result of the cooperation between the
Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station and
the ARS Corn Host Plant Resistance Research Unit at Mississippi
State. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 funding
level at Mississippi State to continue this cooperative
research on the development of corn plants resistant to
aflatoxin.
Cotton Genetics Research.--Global competition in the
textile industry has caused domestic textile manufacturers to
adopt more efficient cotton farm spinning technologies. These
new technologies require higher fiber strength to operate
resistance to nematodes and insect pests that annually inflict
significant losses to the cotton industry. There is a need to
broaden the genetic base of cotton germplasm with fiber
properties that will meet today's more efficient yarn spinning
machines, as well as cotton varieties with improved host
resistance to insects and pathogens. The Committee continues
the fiscal year 2004 funding level for cotton genetics
research.
Cotton Genomics, Breeding, and Variety Development.--The
Committee recognizes the progress that has been made through
the cooperative efforts of the ARS and the Mississippi
Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station at Stoneville, MS,
in the research, development, and transfer of improved cotton
germplasm to the cotton industry. This cooperative research
must incorporate new genetic material into agronomically-
acceptable varieties and to transfer reniform nematode and
other pest resistance into improved cotton lines. The Committee
continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level for the public
cotton breeding program conducted by ARS at Stoneville, MS.
Cotton Ginning Laboratory.--The Committee continues the
fiscal year 2004 funding level for ARS cotton ginning research.
Cropping Systems Management.--Crop management practices to
limit erosion on the highly erodible soils of Tennessee and
other southern States impacts soybean diseases, both favorably
and adversely. Research is needed to optimize disease control
while maintaining the best crop management practices to protect
soil and water quality. The Committee provides an increase of
$50,000 above the fiscal year 2004 funding level for cropping
systems research at the University of Tennessee and the West
Tennessee Agriculture Experiment Station.
Dairy Forage Research.--The Committee recognizes the
important research on dairy forage carried out by ARS at the
U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center in Madison, WI. The Committee
provides an increase of $450,000 above the fiscal year 2004
funding level for expanded dairy forage research at the center.
Delta Nutrition.--The Committee provides an increase of
$100,000 above the fiscal year 2004 funding level for nutrition
activities through a cooperative agreement with the Southern
University Center for Food Nutrition and Health Promotion in
Louisiana. This funding will advance research to assess the
human health and nutrition status of underserved rural
communities.
Ecology of Tamarix.--Tamarix (salt cedar) are woody
invasive plants which threaten aquatic systems by consuming
large amounts of water, out competing native vegetation like
willow and cottonwood trees for water. It is a serious problem
in Nevada, California, Colorado, Texas, and other Western
States. The Committee is aware of the ARS biocontrol field
trials on China beetles to eradicate tamarix and continues the
fiscal year 2004 funding level for research on tamarix control
using China beetles and other biocontrols, and to continue
research on cheat grass at the ARS research station in Reno,
NV.
Fish Disease Research.--The development of safe and
effective vaccines for prevention of disease in catfish is
essential to the growth of the catfish industry. There are
currently only a number of approved therapeutic compounds
available for farmers to heal diseases of fish. Vaccinations,
successful in other animals, appear to be the best means of
preventing diseases. The Committee continues the fiscal year
2004 funding level at the ARS Fish Disease and Parasitic
Research Laboratory at Auburn, AL, for increased research on
the development of commercially approved vaccines for catfish.
Floriculture and Nursery Research.--Nursery and greenhouse
products rank third in production in the Nation. As the public
demands more plants and trees to help clean the air, prevent
water runoff and soil erosion, and improve water conservation
and quality, the nursery industry is playing an expanding and
significant role in enhancing environmental quality. The
Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level for
floriculture and nursery research aimed at reducing chemical
use, improved post-harvest life of flowers and plants, disease
and pest resistant flowers and plants, control of root
diseases, robotics research, and control of run-off from
greenhouse and nursery operations.
Food Safety and Engineering.--The Committee continues the
fiscal year 2004 funding level for increased collaborative
research with Purdue University in the area of food safety and
engineering.
Forage and Range Research.--The Committee recognizes the
important research being carried out by ARS at the Forage and
Range Research Laboratory, Logan, UT. The research program
seeks to develop and improve range and pasture plants,
reinvigorate disturbed and over-used rangelands, effect
revegetation following wild fires, combat invasive weeds, and
provide improved forages for livestock. The Committee continues
the fiscal year 2004 funding level for research required to
develop range and pasture plant varieties, and provides an
increase of $250,000 to support the creation of a turfgrass
geneticist research position.
Formosan Subterranean Termite.--The management of this
termite is essential to Louisiana economic well-being. This
termite has infested 32 parishes in Louisiana, with the most
severe infestations occurring in the New Orleans and Lake
Charles areas. This insect has caused millions of dollars worth
of damage with an astonishing $300,000,000 impact in New
Orleans alone. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2004
funding level to the Southern Regional Research Center at New
Orleans, LA, for research efforts focusing on improved termite
detection systems, evaluation of wood products for protecting
building materials, and enhancement of bait technology.
The Committee also recognizes the University of
Mississippi's ongoing research and development efforts to
assist USDA entomologists who are focused on the reduction of
Formosan subterranean termites. The National Center for
Physical Acoustics at the University of Mississippi plays a
unique role in development and application of acoustic
detection methods for accurately locating Formosan termites in
structures of the French Quarter in New Orleans. Accurate
detection is an important aspect in control of these insects.
The Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level for
continued research and development in the use of insect
acoustics.
Glassy-Winged Sharpshooter.--The Committee continues to be
concerned about the serious costs that the Glassy-winged
sharpshooter [GWSS] and Pierce's disease [PD] inflict on U.S.
vineyards. Citrus and nursery stock growers now have costly new
shipping requirements to inspect and treat plants and crops to
curb the spread of GWSS-PD. The Committee continues the fiscal
year 2004 funding level to the ARS Parlier, CA, laboratory to
continue its research efforts and collaborations to control and
eradicate this devastating carrier and disease.
Grand Forks Human Nutrition Laboratory.--Research is needed
to study rural health problems related to diet in the Northern
Great Plains. Particular emphasis will be given to the diets of
Native Americans and the rural elderly. The Committee provides
an increase of $150,000 above the fiscal year 2004 level for
the Grand Forks Human Nutrition Lab to work with the Northern
Great Plains Research Laboratory, Mandan, ND, the University of
North Dakota and North Dakota State University on a healthy
beef initiative.
Great Lakes Aquaculture Research.--The Committee recognizes
the important research studies that ARS carries out nationwide
that benefit the aquaculture industry and the American
consumer. There is a great need for expanded fundamental and
applied research to improve production technology of Great
Lakes species such as whitefish, lake trout, yellow perch
walleye, and northern pike. The Committee continues the fiscal
year 2004 funding level for a cooperative program with the
Great Lakes Aquaculture Center to support this research.
Harry Dupree National Aquaculture Research Center.--
Arkansas leads the Nation in raising hybrid striped bass, as
well as in producing 80 percent of the Nation's baitfish and
other food fishes. The Committee understands that this Center
plays a significant role in meeting the needs of the U.S.
aquaculture industry by conducting research aimed at improving
yields, food quality, disease control, and stress tolerance.
The Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level for
increased research on the genetic improvement of hybrid striped
bass.
Hawaii Agriculture Research Center.--The Committee
continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level for the Hawaii
Agriculture Research Center to enhance the competitiveness of
U.S. sugarcane producers and to continue to support the
expansion of new crops and products, including those from
agroforestry, to complement sugarcane production in Hawaii.
Hides and Leather Research.--The USDA's only hides and
leather research is carried out at the Eastern Regional
Research Center in Wyndmoor, PA. The research provides the
hides and leather industry with cost-effective and
environmentally safe tanning processes which will enhance U.S.
producers' competitiveness in world markets. The Committee
provides an increase of $150,000 above the fiscal year 2004
funding level for this research.
Hops Research.--The Committee is aware of the importance of
research to the hops industry in the Pacific Northwest. Hops
are grown commercially in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. The
Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level for
research on powdery mildew that has caused widespread
devastation to the hops production in the Northwest, to be
carried out at the ARS research station at Corvallis, OR.
Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging [HNRCA].--The
HNRCA at Tufts University is one of six USDA research centers
that study the effects of human nutrition on health. The
program at HNRCA requires additional resources to maintain
existing research. Not only are core instruments becoming
increasingly obsolete, unreliable, and cost-prohibitive to
repair, researchers in the new laboratories have no access to
relatively new technologies. Therefore, the Committee provides
an increase of $200,000 above the fiscal year 2004 funding
level for new laboratory equipment.
Improved Animal Waste Management.--The Committee
understands the need for additional research to find new and
economical treatments to eliminate animal wastes. The ARS
research station at Florence, SC, is investigating alternative
treatments and techniques to respond to this major problem in
swine production. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2004
funding level for this research.
Improved Crop Production Practices.--The Committee
continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level for cooperative
projects at Auburn University, Tuskegee, and A&M; working on
integration of conservation tillage precision agriculture, and
management of poultry litter. The Committee provides an
increase of $250,000 above the fiscal year 2004 funding level
for Auburn University to modernize the soil testing lab and
develop web-based access information systems for producers.
Improved Forage-Livestock Production.--This joint research
project with the University of Kentucky focuses on enhancing
the sustainability of forage-based farming systems. The
research ranges from the molecular level to whole organism
levels, and seeks to apply the best plant and animal
technologies to promote animal health and profitability while
preserving the environment. This program supported the landmark
discovery that caterpillars were the vectors for Mare
Reproductive Loss Syndrome. The Committee provides an increase
of $180,000 to expand this research.
Integrated Farming Systems.--The Committee understands that
Integrated Farming Systems represents the agriculture operation
in its entirety, including finances, natural resources and off-
farm environmental impacts. The National Soil Tilth Laboratory
in Ames, IA, conducts this research with special emphasis on
nutrient management. The Committee continues the fiscal year
2004 funding level.
Irrigated Cropping Systems in the Mid-South.--Irrigation in
the Mid-South United States is essential for economically
sustainable crop production systems. Growers cannot tolerate
the risk associated with sporadic rainfall. The Committee
continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level for cooperative
research by ARS and the Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry
Experiment Station at Stoneville, focusing on reducing plant
stress, ameliorating the field environment, and managing water
resources.
Johne's Disease (Bovine Paratuberculosis).--Johne's is a
contagious disease that causes chronic wasting or debilitating
enteritis and eventual death in cattle, sheep, goats, deer and
other wild and domestic ruminants. Infected animals
intermittently shed the microorganisms into milk and feces.
Infection is difficult to diagnose because of the fastidious,
slow growth of the microorganisms and the poor reliability of
the sero-diagnostic tools. Additional research is needed to
develop improved diagnostics and vaccines, and better
understanding of the pathogenicity of the organism. The
Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level for
research to control this devastating disease affecting this
Nation's beef and dairy industries.
Karnal Bunt.--The Committee is aware of the significant
threat karnal bunt poses to the U.S. wheat industry and U.S.
wheat exports. To aid in development of karnal bunt resistance
and control methods, the Committee continues the fiscal year
2004 funding level for research in this area. The Committee
expects ARS to work with Kansas State University to establish a
consortium in Manhattan, KS, that will work with other land
grant universities in this research area.
Livestock and Range Research.--The Committee recognizes the
threat to long-term sustainability of the Northern Great Plains
range livestock industry from infestations of noxious weeds
such as leafy spurge and spotted knapweed. The objective of the
Fort Keogh, MT, station is to develop low-input rangeland
management strategies that impede or control the spread of
noxious weeds into native rangelands and planted pastures. The
Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level.
Further, the Committee provides an increase of $100,000 above
the fiscal year 2004 funding level to enhance the beef cattle
molecular genomics program. This funding will allow ARS to hire
two additional laboratory technicians to accelerate processing
and analysis of DNA samples and to enhance the functional
genetics program at Miles City, Montana.
Livestock Genome Sequencing.--The Committee continues the
fiscal year 2004 funding level for the U.S. Meat Animal
Research Center at Clay Center, NE, for genomics research to
identify the genes that influence disease resistance,
reproduction, nutrition, and other economically important
traits in livestock. This research is to be performed in
collaboration with the University of Illinois.
Malignant Catarrhal Fever [MCF] Virus.--The Committee
acknowledges the importance of research for the sheep-
associated virus, Malignant Catarrhal Fever [MCF], infecting
small ruminants. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2004
funding level for research on the development of vaccines
critical to the systematic eradication of MCF virus in small
ruminants at the ARS laboratory at Pullman, WA, in cooperation
with the ARS sheep, station at Dubois, ID, and Washington State
University.
Michael Fields Agricultural Institute.--The Committee
continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level for ARS to
initiate collaborative research with the Michael Fields
Agricultural Institute. This research will develop high-quality
corn in Wisconsin and other Mid-Western States for increased
nutritional value and adaptation to sustainable farming
systems. Collaborative research will be directed at corn
breeding, analysis, corn quality, on-farm research and
information dissemination.
Microbial Genomics.--The Committee recognizes the
importance and significance of the joint microbial genomics
initiative between the ARS Animal Disease Research Unit at
Pullman, WA, and the ARS Tick Research Unit at Kerrville, TX,
and continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level.
National Cold Water Marine Aquaculture Center.--The
Committee notes the importance of aquaculture research to the
State of Maine, which leads the Nation in Atlantic salmon
cultivation. Other important aquaculture species in Maine
include shellfish and trout. Research on marine finfish is
vitally important to Maine's aquaculture program. Finfish,
including haddock, halibut, and cod, are primary candidates for
future diversity of Maine's aquaculture industry. The Committee
provides an increase of $100,000 above the fiscal year 2004
funding level for this research, which will be undertaken at
the Franklin, Maine, research location.
National Corn to Ethanol Research Pilot Plant.--The
National Corn to Ethanol Research Pilot Plant at Edwardsville,
IL, was constructed to avail researchers and commercial
producers with a state-of-the-art facility to develop more
efficient production of ethanol. The plant will operate on a
time-share basis to Federal and State agencies, universities,
and commercial producers. The plant has the near-term potential
to improve the efficiency and decrease the cost of corn
conversion for ethanol production. The Committee continues the
fiscal year 2004 funding level for ARS research at the pilot
plant. The research will utilize both wet milled and dry milled
projects and will focus on processing efficiencies that can be
adapted commercially in the near term.
National Nutrition Monitoring System.--Health and dietary
information gathered from a combined U.S. Department of
Agriculture/Department of Health and Human Services is critical
to the Nation and plays a key role in shaping national food
policies and programs including food safety, food labeling,
child nutrition, food assistance and dietary guidance. The
Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level for the
combined national nutrition monitoring program.
National Sclerotinia Initiative.--The Committee recognizes
the importance of controlling this disease which affects
sunflowers, soybeans, canola, edible beans, peas and lentils.
The Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level for
this research initiative which is centered at the ARS research
station at Fargo, ND.
National Sedimentation Laboratory.--The National Center for
Computational Hydroscience and Engineering, in cooperation with
the Agriculture Research Service at Oxford, MS, has developed a
series of mathematical models to assess and mitigate upland
soil erosion, stream bank failure, and the transport and impact
of sediment on stream morphology and ecology. These models have
been recognized nationally and internationally as being at the
forefront of research on understanding sediment transport
processes. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 funding
level at Oxford for expanding cooperative research with the
Center and accelerating the transfer of the modeling technology
to Federal and State agencies responsible for mitigating soil
erosion and sediment transport in streams.
National Soil Dynamics Laboratory.--The extent of soil
degradation in the South not only impairs soil and water
quality but also reduces profitability and economic
sustainability of farms in the region. Improving profitability
of farms in the South is critical to rural economies as farm
numbers continue to decline. The Committee continues the fiscal
year 2004 funding level to the ARS Soil Dynamics Laboratory at
Auburn, AL, for research to develop technologies and strategies
for managing soils to increase farm profitability, and preserve
the soil resource for future generations.
Natural Products.--The Committee continues the fiscal year
2004 funding level for cooperative research with the National
Center for Natural Products Research to discover and develop
natural product chemicals for use in agriculture.
New England Plant, Soil, and Water Laboratory.--The USDA-
ARS New England Plant, Soil, and Water Laboratory, Orono, ME,
performs a critical function that benefits not only the Maine
economy, but the agriculture industry as a whole. The research
performed at this laboratory--including cropping systems and
management practices, efficient use of nutrients and water, and
control of pathogens, insects and weeds--benefits numerous
agricultural interests, most notably the potato and livestock
industries.
It is especially vital to New England potato growers that
this lab continue and even increase its important research. The
laboratory conducts experiments to address unique challenges
that face potato growers both in the region and across the
Nation. Research at the Orono facility, for example, has
included tracking late blight disease, a devastating epidemic
that costs potato growers approximately $3,000,000,000
annually. Of the nation-wide locations of USDA-ARS
laboratories, this is the only laboratory located in New
England and it should be noted that 95 percent of the potato
acreage in the six New England States are in Maine where the
laboratory has the benefit of being in close proximity to the
grower's fields.
The Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level
to maintain the New England Plant, Soil, and Water Laboratory
and research programs.
Northern Grains Insect Research Laboratory.--Diverse
economic and environmental pressures have impacted agriculture
in the Northern Plains. The Northern Grains Insect Research
Laboratory in Brookings, South Dakota focuses on production
agriculture problems for the Northern Plains. This laboratory
is working on research that directly benefits farmers, such as
new cropping systems and innovative crop rotations that
minimize use of chemicals and tillage. The Committee continues
the fiscal year 2004 level to address the diverse economic and
environmental problems in the Northern Plains.
Northern Great Plains Ecosystem.--The Committee is aware of
the research and outreach programs conducted by the ARS
Biological Control and Soil Conservation Laboratory at Sidney,
Montana. A major focus of research at the station is targeted
to biocontrol of invasive and noxious weeds and enhancing the
long-term sustainability of range, irrigated and dryland
agriculture. Invasive weeds alter ecosystem structure and
function, reduces biodiversity, displaces native plants and
requires widespread use of herbicides. The Committee continues
the fiscal year 2004 funding level to strengthen this program
to increase the impact and efficiency of the biological weed
control research.
Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory.--The
Committee understands the importance of expanding research on
irrigated cropping practices, crop rotation, water use, and
integrated pest management of weeds in irrigated and dryland
crops in the Northern Plains. This research will improve
production and crop quality, and will increase long-term
economic returns to growers. The Committee provides an increase
of $150,000 above the fiscal year 2004 funding level for this
research at the Northern Plains Agricultural Research
Laboratory.
Noxious Weeds in the Desert Southwest.--Invasive and
noxious weeds are expected to infest 140 million acres in the
United States by the year 2010. Rangeland and pastures will be
the primary land types invaded by these species. The Committee
supports the biocontrol research on invasive non-native and
tree species carried out by ARS at the Jornada Experimental
Range in Las Cruces and continues the fiscal year 2004 funding
level for this research.
Nutrition Interventions.--Obesity is the Nation's fastest
growing public health problem, affecting every segment of the
American population. The Committee recognizes the importance
and benefits of healthy diets to prevent obesity. The Committee
provides an increase of $50,000 which shall be directed to the
National Center of Excellence in Foods and Nutrition Research
in Pennsylvania to assist with implementation of a national
approach to increase levels and results of nutrition research
and development, and to allow low-income families to
participate in and benefit from service-based research
programs, including rural delivery of nutritional counseling.
NW Small Fruits Research.--The Committee supports the
ongoing research conducted by the Small Fruit Genetics and
Pathology Research unit at Corvallis, OR. The demand for fresh
and processed berries and grapes in both domestic and
international markets continues to grow at a rapid rate. The
Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level for this
research which involves cooperation between industry, State and
Federal research.
Obesity.--The Committee provides increases of $350,000
above the fiscal year 2004 funding level for obesity research
at the Children's Nutrition Research Center in Houston, TX, and
$250,000 at the Human Nutrition Research on Aging in Boston,
MA.
Ogallala Aquifer.--Surface water in the Central High Plains
region is severely limited and the Ogallala Aquifer, which
underlies this area, has provided water for the development of
a highly significant agricultural economy. However, the
Ogallala Aquifer is a finite resource. The Committee provides
an increase of $450,000 above the fiscal year 2004 funding
level for research into the complex nature of water
availability, potential uses, and costs which will help
determine future water policy in this region. This research is
to be based in Texas but coordinated with other affected
States, including Kansas.
Organic Research.--The Committee is aware of the growing
interest in the production, marketing, and consumption of
organic products. By some accounts, the level of retail sales
in the United States has reached 1.8 percent of the entire food
market, yet the dedication of USDA research directed to organic
is well below that figure. The Committee encourages ARS, when
appropriate, to direct research resources in a manner that
reflects the growing interest in organic production and the
need to provide enhanced research for this growing agricultural
sector, and to conduct activities pursuant to section 7408 of
the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. The
Committee requests ARS to submit a report by March 1, 2005, on
the levels of research funding directed to the various areas of
the organics industry.
Ornamental and Horticulture Research.--The Committee
recognizes the collaborative research program between ARS and
the University of Vermont [UVM]. Research currently underway at
UVM includes Pear thrips and the Asian Long-horned Beetle. UVM
research is critical to the protection of the ornamental and
horticulture industries throughout New England. The Committee
continues the 2004 funding level for Pear thrips research.
Papaya Ringspot Virus.--The Committee provides the fiscal
year 2004 funding level to the University of Hawaii College of
Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources to monitor and refine
control of the papaya ringspot virus; to induce nematode
resistance, flowering control, and mealy bug wilt disease
resistance in commercial pineapple varieties; and, to expand
the techniques and knowledge obtained from this program to
create disease and pest resistance in other tropical crops such
as banana and flowers where there is strong industry support
and interest in these transgenic approaches. The Committee
views the development of pest and disease resistant plants as
supportive of a national agricultural research agenda to
minimize the application of chemical pesticides.
Phytoestrogens Research.--The Committee is aware of the
increased consumption of soy products and controversies
surrounding the health claims from those products.
Phytoestrogens, plant-derived products that can mimic or block
estrogen, remain a priority issue for USDA researchers.
Research studies have suggested that phytoestrogens have a
range of human health benefits that can prevent certain
diseases. However, extensive studies on their long-term
benefits and side effects are lacking. The Committee continues
the fiscal year 2004 funding level for this research. Current
research is carried out at the Southern Regional Research
Center in New Orleans in collaboration with other universities.
The Committee directs that the same amount provided in fiscal
year 2004 shall be used in collaboration with the University of
Toledo to continue efforts to fingerprint and isolate novel
products in stressed and unstressed soy.
Plant Genetic Diversity and Gene Discovery Center.--The
Committee recognizes the challenges of water availability,
invasive weeds, fire cycles, and conservation in the Western
United States. To meet these needs, the Committee continues to
support the plant genetic diversity and gene discovery center
at the ARS Forage and Range Research Laboratory in
collaboration with the Utah Agricultural Experiment Station.
The center will continue to access plant genetic relationships
and identify native plant species through DNA technologies to
help conservation efforts in genetic diversity and support wild
lands rehabilitation efforts after fire, mining, and invasive
weed control activities. The Committee continues the fiscal
year 2004 funding level for this program.
Poisonous Plant Research.--The USDA Poisonous Plant
Research Laboratory at Logan, Utah conducts vital research on
the effects of poisonous plants on livestock in support of the
Nation's livestock industry. The Committee is aware of the
important investigations carried out by this laboratory and the
significant contributions it has made in agricultural plant and
animal sciences. The Committee provides an increase of $450,000
above the fiscal year 2004 funding level. These funds are
necessary in order to add a biotechnology scientist and a
chemist, and strengthen the technician base.
Potato Breeding Research.--The Committee is concerned that
funding levels and lack of personnel resources limit ARS'
ability to address some aspects of potato variety research. The
Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level to meet
research staffing needs at the Aberdeen, ID, research
laboratory.
Potato Production.--The Committee recognizes the important
contributions made by the USDA-ARS research units at Prosser
and Wapato, Washington, but encourages closer cooperation
between the units in conducting research and solving problems
in potato production.
Potato Research.--The Committee expects that the potato
research funds appropriated to the ARS Research Unit in Wapato,
Washington, be used for actual potato research, and recommends
that ARS allocate a proportionate amount of these funds for
potato entomology research, rather than only staff and indirect
costs.
Potato Storage.--The Committee recognizes the need for
expanded investigations on potato storage and continues the
fiscal year 2004 funding level for this work. Research will be
conducted at the ARS Madison, WI, laboratory on plant
physiology, fumigation, and cultural practices to help growers
reduce pesticide inputs.
Precision Agriculture Research.--The Committee continues
the fiscal year 2004 funding level for the Mandan Northern
Great Plains Research Laboratory for a precision agriculture
research project and global climate change research. The
precision agriculture research should be conducted in
cooperation with the Upper Midwest Aerospace Consortium and
DigitalGlobe. In addition, the Committee has restored the
funding provided last year for the Hettinger Extension Service
Southwest Feeders Program. ARS researchers can contribute
significantly to the knowledge base UMAC can transfer to
producers.
Program Continuations.--The Committee directs the
Agricultural Research Service to continue to fund the following
areas of research in fiscal year 2005 at the same funding level
provided in fiscal year 2004: Advanced Animal Vaccines,
Greenport, NY; Agricultural Genome Bioinformatics, Ames, IA;
Agricultural Law, Drake University, NAL; Agroforestry Research,
Booneville, AR; Air Quality Research, Logan, UT, Manhattan, KS,
HQ; Air Quality Research, Pullman, WA; Alternative Crops and
Value Added Products, Stoneville, MS; Animal Health Consortium,
Peoria, IL; Animal Waste Treatment, Florence, SC; Animal
Welfare Information Center, NAL; Appalachian Fruit Research
Station, Kearneysville, WV; Appalachian Horticulture Research,
Poplarville, MS; University of TN/TN State; Appalachian Pasture
Based Beef Systems, Beaver, WV; Aquaculture Initiative for Mid-
Atlantic Highlands, Leetown, WV; Aquaculture Research,
Aberdeen, ID; Arctic Germplasm, Palmer, AK; Arid Lands
Research, Las Cruces, NM; Arkansas Children's Nutrition Center,
Little Rock, AR; Asian Bird Influenza, Athens, GA; Barley Food
Health Benefits, Beltsville, MD; Bee Research, Logan, UT;
Biomass Crop Production, Brookings, SD; Biomedical Materials in
Plants, Beltsville, MD; Biomineral Soil Amendments for Control
of Nematodes, Beltsville, MD; Biotechnology Research and
Development Corp, Peoria, IL; Biotechnology Research to Improve
Crops and Livestock, Stoneville, MS; Bovine Genetics,
Beltsville, MD; Broiler Production in the Mid-South,
Mississippi State, MS; Broomweed Biological Controls, Albany,
CA; Canada Thistle, Fargo, ND; Catfish Genome, Auburn, AL;
Catfish Health, Stoneville, MS; Central Great Plains Research
Station, Akron, CO; Cereal Crops Research, Madison, WI; Cereal
Crops, Northern Crops, Fargo, ND; Cereal Disease Research, St.
Paul, MN; Chloroplast Genetic Engineering Research, Urbana, IL;
Coffee and Cocoa Research, Miami, FL; Beltsville, MD; Corn
Germplasm, Mississippi State, MS; Corn Germplasm, Ames, IA;
Corn Resistant to Aflatoxin, Mississippi State, MS; Cotton
Genetics Research, Florence, SC; Cotton Genomics, Breeding, and
Variety Development, Stoneville, MS; Cotton Ginning Research,
Las Cruces, NM; Crop Production and Food Processing, Peoria,
IL; Cropping Systems Research, Stoneville, MS; Dairy Forage,
Madison, WI; Dairy Genetics, Beltsville, MD; Delta Nutrition
Intervention Initiative, Little Rock, AR; Diet Nutrition and
Obesity Research, Pennington Biomedical Research Center;
Dryland Production, Akron, CO; Ecology of Tamarix, Reno, NV;
Emissions From Livestock Wastewater, Florence, SC; Endophyte
Research, Booneville, AR; Feed Efficiency in Cattle, Clay
Center, NE; Flood/Control Acoustic Technology, National
Sedimentation Lab, Oxford, MS; Floriculture and Nursery Crops,
HQ; Food Safety and Engineering, Wyndmoor, PA; Food Safety for
Listeria and E.coli, Albany, CA; Wyndmoor, PA; HQ; Forage and
Range Research, Logan, UT; Formosan Subterranean Termites, New
Orleans, LA; Foundry Sand By-Products, Beltsville, MD; Golden
Nematode, Ithaca, NY; Grain Legume Plant Pathologist Position,
Pullman, WA; Grain Research, Manhattan, KS; Grand Forks Human
Nutrition Laboratory, Grand Forks, ND; Grape Genetics, Geneva,
NY; Grape Rootstock, Geneva, NY; Great Lakes Aquaculture
Research, Ashland, WI; Milwaukee, WI; Greenhouse Lettuce
Germplasm, Salinas, CA; Harry Dupree National Aquaculture
Research Center, Stuttgart, AR; Hides and Leather Research,
Wyndmoor, PA; Hops Research, Corvallis, OR; Human Nutrition
Research Center on Aging, Boston, MA; Improved Animal Waste
Management, Florence, SC; Improved Crop Production Practices,
Auburn, AL; Improved Forage Livestock Production, Lexington,
KY; Integrated Farming Systems, Ames, IA; Integrated Farming
Systems/Dairy Forage, Madison, WI; Invasive Aphid Research,
Stillwater, OK; IPM for Northern Climate Crops, Fairbanks, AK;
Irrigated Cropping Systems in the Mid-South, Stoneville, MS;
Johne's Disease, Ames, IA; Beltsville, MD; Jornada Experimental
Range Research Station, Las Cruces, NM; Karnal Bunt, Manhattan,
KS; Late Blight Fungus, Orono, ME; Livestock and Range
Research, Miles City, MT; Livestock Genome Mapping, Clay
Center, NE; Malignant Catarrhal Fever [MCF] Virus, Pullman, WA;
Manure Management Research, Ames, IA; Medicinal Botanical
Production and Processing, Beaver, WV; Michael Fields
Agricultural Institute, Madison, WI; Microbial Genomics,
Kerrville, TX; Pullman, WA; Minor Use Pesticide (IR--4);
National Center for Cool and Cold Water Aquaculture, Leetown,
WV; National Center for Cool and Cold Water Aquaculture--
Aquaculture Systems--Freshwater Institute, Leetown, WV;
National Cold Water Marine Aquaculture, Orono, ME; National
Corn to Ethanol Research Pilot Plant; National Germplasm
Resources Program; National Nutrition Monitoring System,
Beltsville, MD; National Sclerotinia Initiative, Fargo, ND;
National Sedimentation Laboratory Acoustics, Oxford, MS;
National Sedimentation Laboratory Yazoo Basin, Oxford, MS;
National Sedimentation Laboratory Yazoo Basin/TMDLs, Oxford,
MS; National Soil Dynamics Laboratory, Auburn, AL; National
Soil Erosion Laboratory, West Lafayette, IN; National Warmwater
Aquaculture Center, Stoneville, MS; Natural Products, Oxford,
MS; Nematology Research, Tifton, GA; New England Plant, Soil,
and Water Research, Orono, ME; Northern Grain Insect
Laboratory, Brookings, SD; Northern Great Plains Ecosystem,
Sidney, MT; Northern Great Plains Research Laboratory, Mandan,
ND; Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory
Agricultural Systems Research Unit Staffing, Sidney, MT;
Noxious Weeds in the Desert Southwest, Las Cruces, NM;
Nutritional Requirements, Houston, TX; NW Small Fruits
Research, Corvallis, OR; Oat Virus, West Lafayette, IN;
Ogallala Aquifer, Bushland, TX; Olive Fruit Fly, Parlier, CA;
Montpelier, FR; Organic Minor Crop Research, Salinas, CA;
Ornamental and Horticulture Research, Ithaca, NY; Pear Thrips,
University of Vermont; Phytoestrogen Research, New Orleans, LA;
Pierce's Disease/Glassy-Winged Sharpshooter, Davis, CA;
Parlier, CA; Ft. Pierce, FL; Plant Genetic Diversity and Gene
Discovery Center, Logan, UT; Poisonous Plant Research
Laboratory, Logan, UT; Post-Harvest and Controlled Atmosphere
Chamber (lettuce), Salinas, CA; Potato Breeding Research,
Aberdeen, ID; Potato Research Enhancement, Prosser, WA; Potato
Storage, Madison, WI; Poultry Disease (Avian Coccidiosis),
Beltsville, MD; Poultry Disease (Avian Leukosis-J Virus), HQ;
Poultry Disease, Athens, GA; Precision Agriculture Research,
Mandan, ND; Rainbow Trout, Aberdeen, ID; Rainbow Trout,
Leetown, WV; Rangeland Resource Management, Cheyenne, WY;
Rangeland Resources Research, Las Cruces, NM; Red Imported Fire
Ants, Stoneville, MS; Regional Molecular Genotyping, Fargo, ND;
Manhattan, KS; Pullman, WA; Residue Management in Sugarcane,
Houma, LA; Resistance Management and Risk Assessment in Bt
Cotton, Stoneville, MS; Rice Research, Stuttgart, AR; Risk
Assessment for Bt Corn, Ames, IA; Root Diseases in Wheat and
Barley, Pullman, WA; Seafood Waste, Fairbanks, AK;
Sedimentation Issues in Flood-Control Dam Rehabilitations,
Oxford, MS; Seismic and Acoustic Technologies in Soils
Sedimentation Laboratory, Oxford, MS; Shellfish Genetics,
Newport, OR; Small Farms, Booneville, AR; Small Fruits
Research, Poplarville, MS; Soil Plant Nutrient Research, Ft.
Collins, CO; Soil Tilth Research, Ames, IA; Sorghum Research,
Little Rock, AR; Manhattan, KS; Stillwater, OK; Bushland, TX;
Lubbock, TX; Soybean Cyst Nematode, Stoneville, MS; Soybean
Genetics, Columbia, MO; Soybean Research in the South,
Stoneville, MS; Sudden Oak Disease, Frederick, MD; Sugarbeet
Research, Kimberly, ID; Sugarcane Variety Research, Canal
Point, FL; Sustainable Olive Production, Weslaco, TX;
Sustainable Vineyard Practices, Davis, CA; Sustainable
Viticulture Research, Davis, CA; Sweet Potato Research,
Stoneville, MS; Swine Lagoon Alternatives Research, Florence,
SC; Temperate Fruit Flies, Wapato, WA; Tree Fruit Quality
Research, Wenatchee, WA; Trout Genome Mapping, Leetown, WV;
Turfgrass Research, Washington, DC; U.S. Pacific Basin Ag
Research Center, Hilo, HI; U.S. Vegetable Laboratory/Staffing,
Charleston, SC; Vaccines and Microbe Control for Fish Health,
Auburn, AL; Vegetable Crops Research, Madison, WI; Verticillium
Wilt, Salinas, CA; Virus-Free Fruit Tree Cultivars, Wapato, WA;
Virus-Free Potato Germplasm, Fairbanks, AK; Viticulture,
Corvallis, OR; Waste Management Research, Bowling Green, KY;
Waste Management Research, Mississippi State, MS; Water
Management Research Laboratory, Brawley, CA; Water Use
Reduction/Producer Enhancement Research, Dawson, GA; Watershed
Research, Columbia, MO; Weed Management Research, Beltsville,
MD; Western Grazinglands, Burns, OR; Western Wheat Quality
Laboratory, Pullman, WA; Wheat and Barley Scab Initiative,
Manhattan, KS; Raleigh, NC; Fargo, ND; Wheat Quality Research,
Manhattan, KS; Fargo, ND; Wooster, OH; Pullman, WA; Wine Grape
Foundation Block, Prosser, WA; Woody Genomics and Breeding for
the Southeast, Poplarville, MS.
Rainbow Trout.--The Committee continues the fiscal year
2004 funding level to develop and test improved rainbow trout
strains and alternative grain-based fish feeds in cooperation
with the University of Idaho Hagerman Fish Culture Experiment
Station in Hagerman, Idaho.
Red Imported Fire Ants.--Nationally, the red imported fire
ant causes damage and control costs of over $1,000,000,000 per
year. As an invasive species, it has expanded from its apparent
point of entry at Mobile, Alabama, to encompass over 300
million acres in 12 Southern States including Mississippi and
Texas, three Western States including California, and Puerto
Rico. Range expansion into one-fourth of the United States and
parts of Mexico is expected to continue without centralized
aggressive action. The Committee recognizes the leadership
provided by ARS at Stoneville, MS, in the development of
natural enemy mass propagation and release technologies for
area-wide suppression of the red imported fire ant and halting
its spread. Other research is directed toward development of
toxic baits and use of geographic information systems and
remote sensing technologies to detect the delineate fire ant
infested areas. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2004
funding level for cooperative research to implement multi-year,
community-wide trials in the mid-South to eliminate populations
of the imported fire ant.
Residue Management in Sugarcane.-- Sugarcane farmers have
traditionally burned cane in the field before transport to the
mill to achieve efficiency, a practice that is crucial to the
survival of the sugarcane industry. However, residue from
burning is a nuisance and potential hazard to nearby
neighborhoods. The ARS Research Station in Houma, LA, conducts
research to provide viable, cost-effective ``green cane''
harvesting methods that will provide alternatives to burning
cane in the field. The Committee provides an increase of
$250,000 above the fiscal year 2004 funding level for research
on breeding, germplasm enhancement, and crop protection;
integrated weed protection; and green cane harvesting methods.
Resistance Management and Risk Assessment in Bt Cotton and
Other Plant Incorporated Protectants.--Transgenic Bt cottons
have provided outstanding control of insecticide-resistant
tobacco budworms and suppressed other cotton caterpillar pests.
However, potential evolution of resistance in caterpillar pests
to the Bt protein(s) in transgenic cotton threaten the
viability of the Bt plant protectant technology. The
Environmental Protection Agency has imposed strategies for
managing the evolution of resistance to preserve the Bt
technology, but it is important to develop data to validate
these strategies. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2004
funding level to ARS at Stoneville, MS, to coordinate a
national program for devising the most effective and
economically sustainable production systems for ensuring the
long-term integrity of Bt crop protection and resistance
management.
Seafood Waste.--The disposal of seafood waste continues to
be a national and international problem. Additional research is
needed to determine alternative uses of discarded fish as a
possible source of additional income for seafood producers. The
Committee supports the existing ARS/University of Alaska
collaborative research project on feedstuff that can be
generated from materials usually wasted during processing of
seafoods. The Committee provides an increase of $320,000 from
the level of funding available in fiscal year 2004 funding
level for expanded research to address this problem, of which
$100,000 shall be available to the State of Alaska.
Sedimentation Issues in Flood-Control Dam Rehabilitation.--
Nearly 11,000 flood control dams have been constructed by the
United States Department of Agriculture nationwide in 2,000
watersheds since 1944. These watershed projects represent a
$14,000,000,000 infrastructure, providing flood control,
municipal water supply, recreation, and wildlife habitat
enhancement. The life expectancy of these dams is projected to
be 50 years. Sedimentation has reduced water-holing capacity,
structural components have deteriorated, and safety regulations
have become more strict. The Committee continues the fiscal
year 2004 funding level to ARS at Oxford, MS, for assessing the
efficiency of these structures in regulating floodwater,
including the use of acoustics techniques, and hazards that the
sediments may pose if introduced into the environment.
Shellfish Genetics.--ARS has established a shellfish
genetics research program that focuses on genetics, ecology and
food quality. The Committee recognizes the importance of this
multi-State research program and continues the fiscal year 2004
funding level for shellfish genetics research at the Oregon
State University Hatfield Marine Science Center in Newport, OR.
Silverleaf Whitefly.--The silverleaf whitefly, also known
as the sweetpotato whitefly, causes millions of dollars in crop
damage in several States, including Hawaii. The Committee
recommends participation by all affected States in the
collaborative effort to control this pest.
Small Fruits Research.--The Committee recognizes the
importance of the cooperation between the ARS Small Fruits
Research Unit and the Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry
Experiment Station at Poplarville, MS. This cooperation
catalyzed and now undergirds the Gulf Coast blueberry and other
small fruit industries. This cooperation has expanded into the
development of vegetable, melon, and ornamental industries and
can revitalize small farms in the south. The Committee
continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level for the
cooperative research and development efforts on ornamentals,
vegetables, and melons at Poplarville, MS.
Soil, Plant, Nutrient Research.--The Committee understands
the important contributions made by the ARS Fort Collins Soil,
Plant, Nutrient Laboratory and continues the fiscal year 2004
funding level to support the cropping systems and nitrogen
management research program carried out at this laboratory.
Sorghum Research.--Sorghum is fourth on the list of
economically important grains, behind corn, soybeans, and
wheat. However, very little is known about the alternative uses
of this major U.S. cash crop with an estimated value of over
$2,100,000,000. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2004
funding level for research at the ARS Grain Sorghum Research
Laboratory, Manhattan, KS, on the measurement of sorghum
quality and the development of alternative uses of this
important crop.
Soybean Research in the South.--The Committee continues the
fiscal year 2004 funding level for the soybean research program
located at the Delta Branch Experiment Station in Stoneville,
Mississippi with the USDA/ARS focusing on soybean genetics and
breeding, and Mississippi Agriculture and Forestry Experiment
Station devoting efforts to production systems research.
Soybean Rust.--The Committee notes the growing concern
raised by the soybean industry due to the threat of soybean
rust. Soybean rust is a fungus that first appears on the leaves
of the plant and eventually causes pre-mature defoliation which
brings about substantial yield loss. The Committee encourages
the Department to accelerate research on plant varieties that
improve tolerance to soybean rust pathogens.
Subterranean Termite.--The Committee continues the fiscal
year 2004 funding level for termite research in Hawaii to
devise and test control methods that are consistent with public
health and environmental safety in Hawaii and other warm
weather States.
Sudden Oak Disease Syndrome.--This is a fungus that has
afflicted wood and nursery products in California and Oregon in
the last several years. Very little is known on how the fungus
is spread, which species are vulnerable, and how afflicted
species can be treated. The Committee is concerned about the
potential spread of the fungus to other parts of the country
without the appropriate treatment and management of the
disease. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 funding
level to the ARS Ft. Detrick, MD, research laboratory for
research critical in stemming the spread of this disease.
Sugarbeet Research.--There are 230,000 acres of sugarbeets
grown in Idaho and eastern Oregon requiring research
technologies to maintain and enhance production and
profitability. The Committee notes that while there has been
considerable work done on sugarbeet fertility, basic work is
needed on the interactions between fertility, genotype,
irrigation, and crop quality. Therefore, the Committee provides
an increase of $150,000 above the fiscal year 2004 funding
level to hire an agronomist/crop fertility specialist to do
work in this area. This research is carried out at the ARS
Kimberly, ID, research station.
Sugarcane Variety Research.--The Sugarcane Field Station in
Canal Point, Florida conducts research into sugarcane breeding,
pathology, and soil conservation strategies. Ongoing research
includes implementation of molecular marker-assisted breeding
strategies, utilization of molecular tools for screening
specific traits in order to minimize pesticide use, and
production of true sugarcane varieties that maintain acceptable
yields under reduced production inputs. The Committee provides
an increase of $150,000 above the fiscal year 2004 funding
level to strengthen and expand these efforts.
Sweet Potato Research.--Sweet potato is a high value,
nutritious, alternative crop for the Mid South. Improved
production practices, including timing of planting, agronomic
practices, and pest control, have the potential for doubling
the level of production per acre, further increasing the
profitability of this small farm crop. The Committee continues
the fiscal year 2004 funding level for ARS, Stoneville, MS, to
conduct research on sweet potato production in cooperation with
the Alcorn State University Demonstration Farm at Mound Bayou,
MS.
Swine Lagoon Alternatives Research.--The Committee is aware
of the research carried out at the ARS Florence, SC, laboratory
to treat the waste on small swine farms at a reasonable cost
while meeting stringent environmental regulations. The
Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level for this
research.
Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus.--The Committee is aware of the
widespread losses caused by the tomato spotted wilt virus in
Hawaii and encourages the agency to collaborate with and fund
as appropriate University of Hawaii scientists to transfer
generic resistance to tomato spotted wilt virus into University
of Hawaii breeding lines for the susceptible crops.
Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies.--The Committee
strongly supports ARS research to combat transmissible
spongiform encephalopathies, including bovine spongiform
encephalopathy, chronic wasting disease, and scrapie. The
Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level to the
Animal Disease Laboratory, Pullman, WA, and the National Animal
Disease Laboratory, Ames, IA, for research on chronic wasting
disease. In addition, the Committee provides an increase of
$450,000 to enhance overall research activities on these animal
diseases.
Tree Fruit Industry.--The Committee provides an increase of
$150,000 above the fiscal year 2004 funding level for new
genetics of fruit quality research at the ARS Wenatchee, WA
facility. This research will provide the fundamental scientific
knowledge that will allow development of new apple varieties
that are juicier, sweeter, and more nutritious and attractive
to consumers. This project is one of five parts of the National
Tree Fruit Technology Roadmap which will help the United States
be more competitive in the world apple market.
Trout Genome Mapping.--The Committee recognizes the
important tools of molecular genetics and biotechnology, and
their application to solve problems facing the cool and cold
water aquaculture industry, which has had a flat growth profile
nationally, but is an emerging industry in the Appalachian
region. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 funding
level for research on cool and cold water species at the
National Center for Cool and Cold Water Aquaculture, in
collaboration with West Virginia University.
Turfgrass Research.--The Committee provides an increase of
$300,000 above the fiscal year 2004 funding level for this
program to create a turfgrass research position in Beaver, WV.
U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center.--The
Committee continues to support funding for the collaborative
programmatic activities of the U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural
Research Center and provides an increase of $250,000 over the
fiscal year 2004 funding level to implement the staffing plan
devised by the Center's director.
Vaccines and Microbe Control for Fish Health.--The
increased frequency and severity of fish mortalities is
recognized as one of the top priorities of fish producers in
the southeastern United States and other regions of the
country. The development of new vaccines and methods for mass
immunization is urgently needed to protect the U.S. industry
and food supply. The Committee provides an increase of $20,000
above the fiscal year 2004 funding level for continued
collaborative research between ARS and Auburn University.
U.S. Vegetable Laboratory.--The Committee is aware of the
important scientific staffing requirements of the newly
completed U.S. Vegetable Laboratory located at Charleston, SC.
Additional scientists are necessary to conduct priority
research and to maximize use of the facility. The Committee
continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level for research
staffing.
Virus Free Fruit Tree Cultivars.--The Committee recognizes
the need for rapid foreign and domestic exchange of varieties
to sustain economic vitality of the U.S. tree fruit and nursery
industries. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2004
funding level to implement new technologies for more rapid and
dependable methods of pathogen detection and to provide secure
production and maintenance of virus-free fruit tree cultivars.
The collaborative research is to be carried out at the Prosser,
WA research station with the Irrigated Agriculture Research and
Extension Center.
Viticulture Research.--With the emerging importance of the
grape and wine industry in the Pacific Northwest, the Committee
continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level for the
viticulture research position at the University of Idaho Parma
Research and Extension Center, for research at the Center, and
for cooperative research agreements with University of Idaho
researchers for viticulture research.
Waste Management Research.--The Committee provides an
increase of $275,000 above the fiscal year 2004 funding level
for the joint research project with Western Kentucky
University. The cooperative program is located and carried out
at Bowling Green, KY, and is directed toward management of
poultry waste as a fertilizer source for pasture, food crops,
as a nutrient source for cattle, and other agricultural
applications.
Watershed Research, Columbia, MO.--The Committee continues
the fiscal year 2004 funding level for laboratory analysis of
water samples collected during implementation of, and in
accordance with, the Missouri Watershed Research, Assessment,
and Stewardship Project.
Weed Management Program.--The Committee is aware of the
need for biologically-based weed management, using biocontrols
and revegetation to provide economical and environmentally
sound technologies to control weeds. The Committee continues
the fiscal year 2004 funding level to develop non-chemical
alternatives for weed control.
Western Wheat Quality Laboratory.--The Committee recognizes
the important contributions made by the Western Wheat Quality
Laboratory in Pullman, Washington. The Committee continues the
fiscal year 2004 funding level to enhance its ability to handle
more samples, modernize equipment, and develop new predictive
quality tests.
Wheat and Barley Scab Initiative.--The Committee recognizes
the importance of the research carried out through the ARS
National Wheat and Barley Scab Initiative. Fusarium head blight
is a major threat to agriculture, inflicting heavy losses to
yield and quality on farms in 18 States. The Committee
continues the fiscal year 2004 funding level for this research.
Wine Grape Foundation Block.--The Committee is concerned
about the potential for virus-infected wine grape rootstock
which could cause economic harm to Pacific Northwest wine grape
growers and vintners. The Committee provides an increase of
$150,000 above the fiscal year 2004 funding level for wine
grape foundation block research at Prosser, WA.
BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $63,434,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 178,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 172,838,000
The ARS ``Buildings and Facilities'' account was
established for the acquisition of land, construction, repair,
improvement, extension, alteration, and purchase of fixed
equipment or facilities of, or used by, the Agricultural
Research Service. Routine construction or replacement items
continue to be funded under the limitations contained in the
regular account.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For Agricultural Research Service, Buildings and
Facilities, the Committee recommends an appropriation of
$172,838,000. This is $109,404,000 more than the 2004
appropriation. The Committee's specific recommendations are
indicated in the following table:
ARS BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
State and facility 2005 budget recommendation
2004 enacted estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California:
Grape Genomics Research Center, Davis.................... 2,684 ............... ...............
U.S. Agricultural Research Station, Salinas.............. 4,474 ............... ...............
Hawaii: U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center, Hilo 4,831 ............... 3,000
Idaho: Aquaculture Facility, Aberdeen/Billingsley Creek...... ............... ............... 1,000
Illinois: National Center for Agricultural Utilization 2,684 ............... ...............
Research, Peoria...........................................
Iowa: National Animal Disease Center, Ames................... ............... 178,000 122,000
Kentucky:
Animal Waste Management Research Laboratory, Bowling ............... ............... 2,300
Green...................................................
Forage-Animal Research Laboratory, Lexington............. ............... ............... 3,000
Louisiana: ARS Sugarcane Research Laboratory, Houma.......... 1,342 ............... 3,000
Maine: Northeast Marine Cold Water Aquaculture Research 2,684 ............... 3,000
Center, Orono/Franklin......................................
Maryland:
Abraham Lincoln National Agricultural Library, Beltsville 895 ............... ...............
Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, Beltsville...... 2,684 ............... 3,000
Mississippi:
Jamie Whitten Delta States Research Center, Stone- ville 4,831 ............... 3,000
Poultry Science Research Facility, Starkville............ ............... ............... 3,000
Missouri: National Plant and Genetics Security Center, 2,416 ............... 5,000
Columbia....................................................
Montana:
Animal Bioscience Facility, Bozeman...................... ............... ............... 2,000
Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory, Sidney 2,505 ............... ...............
New York:
Center for Grape Genetics, Geneva........................ 2,416 ............... ...............
Center for Crop-based Health Genomics, Ithaca............ 3,847 ............... ...............
Ohio: University of Toledo, Toledo........................... ............... ............... 2,000
Oklahoma:
Grazinglands Research Laboratory, Fort Reno.............. 2,147 ............... ...............
Southern Plains Research Station, Woodward............... ............... ............... 3,000
South Carolina: U.S. Vegetable Laboratory, Charleston........ 3,132 ............... 3,000
Washington: ARS Research Laboratory, Pullman................. 3,937 ............... 3,000
West Virginia: Appalachian Fruit Laboratory, Kearnysville 1,789 ............... 3,638
Wisconsin: Nutrient Management Laboratory, Marshfield........ 3,668 ............... 4,900
Upgrade security at all ARS laboratories..................... 10,468 ............... ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Total \1\.............................................. 63,434 178,000 172,838
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Totals may not add due to rounding.
The Committee provides funds for the following projects.
Due to budgetary constraints, the Committee is unable to
provide the full amounts required to complete construction of
all projects.
U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center.--The
Committee provides $3,000,000 toward the next phase of the U.S.
Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center in Hawaii.
Centers for Animal Health.--The Committee provides
$122,000,000 to complete the consolidated laboratory at the
Centers for Animal Health in Ames, Iowa.
Aquaculture Facility.--The Committee provides $1,000,000
for the design of an aquaculture facility in Aberdeen and
Billingsley Creek, Idaho.
Animal Waste Management Research Laboratory.--The Committee
provides $2,300,000 for the design of the Animal Waste
Management Research Laboratory in Bowling Green, Kentucky.
Forage-Animal Production Research Facility.--The Committee
provides $3,000,000 for the design of the Forage-Animal
Production Research Facility in Lexington, Kentucky.
Sugarcane Research Laboratory.--The Committee provides
$3,000,000 toward the construction of a headhouse, photoperiod
house, and greenhouse at the ARS Sugarcane Research Laboratory
at Houma, Louisiana.
National Cold Water Marine Aquaculture Research Center.--
The Committee provides $3,000,000 for construction of the
National Cold Water Marine Aquaculture Research Center [NCWMAC]
in Franklin, Maine.
The Committee understands that the original proposal for
the NCWMAC requested funding to build facilities at two
locations: Franklin, Maine, in conjunction with the University
of Maine Center for Cooperative Aquaculture and Orono, Maine,
on the campus of the University of Maine. The Committee
understands that the funds appropriated to date and the
additional funds provided in this Act will fully fund design
and construction of the facilities at the Franklin location.
This will permit ARS to begin design work immediately with the
goal of initiating the construction of the Franklin facilities
in fiscal year 2005.
Beltsville Agricultural Research Center.--The Committee
provides $3,000,000 toward the construction of the Beltsville
Agriculture Research Center in Beltsville, Maryland.
Jamie Whitten Delta States Research Center.--The Jamie
Whitten Delta States Research Center is strategically located
in the agriculturally important Yazoo-Mississippi River Delta.
Millions of acres of cotton, soybean, rice, and corn are
located in this Delta area, and the Delta leads the world in
channel catfish production. The Committee provides $3,000,000
toward the next phase of this construction and modernization
project.
Poultry Science Research Facility.--The Committee provides
$3,000,000 for planning and design of a Poultry Science
Research Facility in Starkville, Mississippi.
National Plant and Genetics Security Center.--The Committee
provides $5,000,000 toward construction of this project. The
Committee notes that the current collaborative effort between
the ARS Plant Genetics Research Unit and the University of
Missouri has resulted in a nationally-recognized crop
biotechnology effort in maize, soybeans, and wheat at Columbia,
Missouri.
Animal Bioscience Facility.--The Committee provides
$2,000,000 for the design of an animal bioscience facility at
Montana State University in Bozeman, Montana. Montana is the
leading beef cattle seed stock producer in the Nation. A new
research program would address short-and long-term needs of the
Montana stock growers and also address broader regional,
national, and international problems facing American animal
seek stock producers.
University of Toledo.--The Committee provides $2,000,000
for the design of an ARS facility at the University of Toledo
in Toledo, Ohio, to support research on basic and applied
problems of greenhouse production including bioremediation,
water and soil quality, and plant breeding.
Southern Plains Range Research Station.--The Committee
provides $3,000,000 toward completion of Phase II of the
modernization of the Southern Plains Range Research Station in
Woodward, Oklahoma.
U.S. Vegetable Laboratory.--The Committee provides
$3,000,000 toward the final phase of greenhouse and headhouse
construction at the U.S. Vegetable Laboratory in Charleston,
South Carolina.
ARS Research Laboratory.--The Committee provides $3,000,000
toward the construction of an ARS research laboratory on the
campus of Washington State University in Pullman, Washington.
Appalachian Fruit Laboratory.--The Committee provides
$3,638,000 to complete renovation and repair of the Appalachian
Fruit Laboratory in Kearneysville, West Virginia.
Nutrient Management Laboratory.--The Committee provides
$4,900,000 toward the completion of the Nutrient Management
Laboratory in Marshfield, Wisconsin.
Feasibility Studies.--The Committee notes that there is
widespread interest in additional construction and renovation
of ARS facilities throughout the country. This is not
surprising when considering the fact that many of the existing
facilities are decades old. The Committee continues to believe
that the ARS needs a master plan for addressing these needs.
Until such a master plan can be developed, however, the
Committee will not consider funding requests for projects for
which a prospectus has not been completed and submitted to the
Committee by March 1 of each year. Each prospectus shall, at a
minimum, include the following information: the feasibility,
requirements, and scope of the proposed project; details on
building size, cost, associated facilities, scientific
capacity, and other requirements; and details on existing and
planned program and resource requirements. Further, the
Committee strongly encourages the ARS to determine the merits
and priority for these projects.
Research at Alcorn State University in Lorman, Mississippi,
directly benefits small and disadvantaged farmers who grow
crops that are often left out of agriculture research aimed at
economies of scale. The Committee directs ARS to provide a
prospectus on a biotechnology laboratory at ASU.
The Committee has been made aware of the need for a state-
of-the-art animal disease facility at Laramie, Wyoming. The
Committee directs ARS to provide a prospectus on this project.
The Committee directs ARS to conduct a feasibility study to
review existing and future space requirements in Fairbanks and
Palmer, Alaska.
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service was established by the Secretary of Agriculture on
October 1, 1994, under the authority of the Department of
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6912). The
Service was created by the merger of the Cooperative State
Research Service and the Extension Service. The mission is to
work with university partners and customers to advance
research, extension, and higher education in the food and
agricultural sciences and related environmental and human
sciences to benefit people, communities, and the Nation.
RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $617,780,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 501,540,000
Committee recommendation................................ 628,492,000
The research and education programs administered by the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
[CSREES] are the U.S. Department of Agriculture's principal
entree to the university system of the United States to support
higher education in food and agricultural sciences and to
conduct agricultural research as authorized by the Hatch Act of
1887 (7 U.S.C. 361a-361i); the Cooperative Forestry Research
Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 582a-7); Public Law 89-106, section (2)
(7 U.S.C. 450i); the National Agricultural Research, Extension,
and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.); the
Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C.
301); the Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Reform
Act of 1998; and the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of
2002. Through these authorities, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture participates with State and other cooperators to
encourage and assist the State institutions to conduct
agricultural research and education through the State
agricultural experiment stations of the 50 States, the District
of Columbia, and the territories; by approved schools of
forestry; by the 1890 land-grant institutions, Tuskegee
University, and West Virginia State University; by colleges of
veterinary medicine; and by other eligible institutions.
The research and education programs participate in a
nationwide system of agricultural research program planning and
coordination among the State institutions, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, and the agricultural industry of America.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For research and education activities of the Cooperative
State Research, Education, and Extension Service, the Committee
recommends $628,492,000. This amount is $10,712,000 more than
the fiscal year 2004 appropriation.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendations for research and education activities of the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service,
as compared to the fiscal year 2004 and budget request levels:
COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICES [CSREES]--RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Committee
2004 enacted 2005 budget recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Payments under Hatch Act...................................... 179,085 180,148 180,148
Cooperative forestry research (McIntire-Stennis).............. 21,755 21,884 23,000
Payments to 1890 colleges, Tuskegee University, and West 35,788 36,000 36,000
Virginia State University....................................
Special research grants (Public Law 89-106):
Advanced genetic technologies (KY)........................ 600 ............... 700
Advanced spatial technologies (MS)........................ 880 ............... 1,005
Aegilops cylindrica (WA, ID).............................. 341 ............... 341
Agricultural diversification (HI)......................... 113 ............... 113
Agricultural diversity--Red River trade corridor (MN, ND). 544 ............... 650
Agricultural science (OH)................................. 444 ............... 650
Agriculture water usage (GA).............................. 260 ............... 260
Agroecology (MD).......................................... 355 ............... 425
Air quality (TX, KS)...................................... 895 ............... 950
Alliance for food protection (GA, NE)..................... 266 ............... 266
Alternative nutrient management (VT)...................... 148 ............... 200
Alternative salmon products (AK).......................... 565 ............... 1,650
Alternative uses for tobacco (MD)......................... 320 ............... 320
Animal disease research (WY).............................. 222 ............... 450
Animal science food safety consortium (AR, IA, KS)........ 1,444 ............... 1,444
Apple fire blight (MI, NY)................................ 456 ............... 498
Aquaculture (AR).......................................... 207 ............... 207
Aquaculture (ID, WA)...................................... 689 ............... 850
Aquaculture (LA).......................................... 313 ............... 313
Aquaculture (MS).......................................... 521 ............... 521
Aquaculture (NC).......................................... 260 ............... 300
Aquaculture (VA).......................................... 179 ............... 179
Aquaculture product and marketing development (WV)........ 671 ............... 750
Armillaria root rot (MI).................................. 142 ............... 160
Asparagus technology and production (WA).................. 249 ............... 249
Babcock Institute (WI).................................... 537 ............... 500
Beef technology transfer (MO)............................. 261 ............... 261
Berry research (AK)....................................... 179 ............... 600
Biobased nanocomposite research (ND)...................... 178 ............... 178
Biomass-based energy research (OK, MS).................... 1,023 ............... 1,023
Biotechnology (NC)........................................ 272 ............... 272
Biotechnology test production (IA)........................ 178 ............... 178
Bovine tuberculosis (MI).................................. 309 ............... 400
Brucellosis vaccine (MT).................................. 438 ............... 450
Center for Public Lands and Rural Economies (UT).......... 224 ............... 225
Center for Rural Studies (VT)............................. 302 ............... 400
Chesapeake Bay agroecology (MD)........................... 284 ............... 350
Childhood obesity and nutrition (VT)...................... 133 ............... 250
Citrus canker (FL)........................................ 447 ............... ...............
Citrus tristeza (CA)...................................... 644 ............... ...............
Competitiveness of agriculture products (WA).............. 604 ............... 700
Computational agriculture (NY)............................ 222 ............... ...............
Cool season legume research (ID, WA, ND).................. 537 ............... 600
Cotton fiber quality (GA)................................. 447 ............... 500
Council for Agriculture Science and Technology............ 134 ............... ...............
Cranberry/blueberry (MA).................................. 153 ............... 153
Cranberry/blueberry disease and breeding (NJ)............. 210 ............... 250
Crop diversification (MO)................................. 355 ............... 400
Crop integration and production (SD)...................... 268 ............... 325
Crop pathogens (NC)....................................... 178 ............... 250
Dairy and meat goat research (TX)......................... 57 ............... 57
Dairy farm profitability (PA)............................. 444 ............... 444
Delta rural revitalization (MS)........................... 183 ............... 308
Designing foods for health (TX)........................... 1,342 ............... 1,400
Diaprepes/root weevil (FL)................................ 400 ............... ...............
Dietary intervention (OH)................................. 895 ............... ...............
Drought mitigation (NE)................................... 201 ............... 224
Drought management (UT)................................... 671 ............... 900
Efficient irrigation (NM, TX)............................. 1,342 ............... 1,342
Environmental biotechnology (RI).......................... 533 ............... 700
Environmental research (NY)............................... 351 ............... ...............
Environmental risk factors/cancer (NY).................... 198 ............... ...............
Environmentally-safe products (VT)........................ 746 ............... 746
Ethnobotany research (AK)................................. 268 ............... 300
Exotic pest diseases (CA)................................. 1,789 ............... 1,789
Expanded wheat pasture (OK)............................... 275 ............... 275
Farm injuries and illnesses (NC).......................... 247 ............... 350
Feed barley for rangeland cattle (MT)..................... 741 ............... 741
Feed efficiency in cattle (FL)............................ 222 ............... ...............
Feedstock conversion (SD)................................. 671 ............... 675
Fish and shellfish technologies (VA)...................... 403 ............... 450
Floriculture (HI)......................................... 355 ............... 355
Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute (IA, MO)... 1,365 ............... 1,523
Food chain economic analysis (IA)......................... 358 ............... 358
Food Marketing Policy Center (CT)......................... 582 ............... 585
Food quality (AK)......................................... 313 ............... 375
Food safety (AL).......................................... 1,000 ............... 1,200
Food safety (OK).......................................... 556 ............... 556
Food safety (TX).......................................... 178 ............... 200
Food safety research consortium (NY)...................... 800 ............... ...............
Food safety risk assessment (ND).......................... 1,377 ............... 1,377
Food security (WA)........................................ 400 ............... 400
Food Systems Research Group (WI).......................... 492 ............... 459
Forages for advancing livestock production (KY)........... 386 ............... 400
Forestry (AR)............................................. 455 ............... 475
Functional genomics (UT).................................. 1,342 ............... 1,625
Future foods (IL)......................................... 447 ............... 475
Generic commodity promotions, research, and evaluation 174 ............... ...............
(NY).....................................................
Genomics (MS)............................................. 640 ............... 1,140
Geographic information system............................. .............. ............... 1,431
Global change/ultraviolet radiation....................... 2,000 2,500 2,000
Grain sorghum (KS)........................................ 124 ............... 150
Grapefruit juice/drug interaction (FL).................... 222 ............... ...............
Grass seed cropping systems for sustainable agriculture 407 ............... 407
(ID, OR, WA).............................................
Grazing research (WI)..................................... 224 ............... 300
Greenhouse crop production (AK)........................... 447 ............... 450
Hispanic leadership in agriculture (TX)................... 447 ............... 447
Hoop barns (IA)........................................... 291 ............... 291
Horn fly research (AL).................................... 134 ............... 200
Human nutrition (IA)...................................... 655 ............... 655
Human nutrition (LA)...................................... 712 ............... 712
Human nutrition (NY)...................................... 547 ............... ...............
Hydroponic tomato production (OH)......................... 179 ............... ...............
Illinois-Missouri Alliance for Biotechnology.............. 1,079 ............... 1,079
Improved dairy management practices (PA).................. 355 ............... 355
Improved early detection of crop disease (NC)............. 173 ............... ...............
Improved fruit practices (MI)............................. 212 ............... 212
Increasing shelf life of agricultural commodities (ID).... 707 ............... 950
Infectious disease research (CO).......................... 667 ............... 900
Institute for Biobased Products and Food Science (MT)..... 533 ............... 600
Institute for Food Science and Engineering (AR)........... 1,087 ............... 1,150
Integrated production systems (OK)........................ 207 ............... 207
Intelligent quality sensor for food safety (ND)........... 320 ............... ...............
International arid lands consortium....................... 582 ............... 582
Iowa biotechnology consortium............................. 1,789 ............... 1,789
Leopold Center hypoxia project............................ 224 ............... 224
Livestock and dairy policy (NY, TX)....................... 895 ............... 895
Livestock genome sequencing (IL).......................... 671 ............... ...............
Livestock waste (IA)...................................... 268 ............... 268
Lowbush blueberry research (ME)........................... 236 ............... 236
Maple research (VT)....................................... 133 ............... 133
Meadowfoam (OR)........................................... 262 ............... 262
Michigan biotechnology consortium......................... 559 ............... 559
Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance (NE)......... 426 ............... 429
Midwest agricultural products (IA)........................ 578 ............... 500
Midwest poultry consortium (IA)........................... 626 ............... 626
Milk safety (PA).......................................... 667 ............... 717
Minor use animal drugs.................................... 526 588 526
Molluscan shellfish (OR).................................. 351 ............... 351
Montana Sheep Institute (MT).............................. 497 ............... 650
Multi-commodity research (OR)............................. 355 ............... 355
Multi-cropping strategies for aquaculture (HI)............ 110 ............... 110
National beef cattle genetic evaluation consortium (NY, 671 ............... 900
CO)......................................................
National biological impact assessment..................... 225 253 225
National Center for Soybean Technology (MO)............... 895 ............... 1,000
Nematode resistance genetic engineering (NM).............. 130 ............... 150
Nevada arid rangelands initiative......................... 467 ............... 500
New crop opportunities (AK)............................... 447 ............... 447
New crop opportunities (KY)............................... 659 ............... 800
Nursery, greenhouse, and turf specialties (AL)............ 275 ............... 275
Oil resources from desert plants (NM)..................... 201 ............... 225
Organic cropping (WA)..................................... 224 ............... 500
Organic waste utilization (NM)............................ 88 ............... 100
Oyster post harvest treatment (FL)........................ 400 ............... ...............
Ozone air quality (CA).................................... 382 ............... 425
Pasture and forage research (UT).......................... 224 ............... 225
Peach tree short life (SC)................................ 233 ............... 300
Perennial wheat (WA)...................................... 133 ............... ...............
Pest control alternatives (SC)............................ 271 ............... 271
Phytophthora root rot (NM)................................ 165 ............... 200
Pierce's disease (CA)..................................... 2,013 ............... 2,163
Plant biotechnology (IA).................................. 222 ............... ...............
Plant, drought, and disease resistance gene cataloging 220 ............... 250
(NM).....................................................
Potato research........................................... 1,409 ............... 1,450
Precision agriculture (KY)................................ 659 ............... 700
Preharvest food safety (KS)............................... 185 ............... 200
Preservation and processing research (OK)................. 200 ............... 200
Protein utilization (IA).................................. 671 ............... 950
Rangeland ecosystems (NM)................................. 284 ............... 284
Regional barley gene mapping project...................... 676 ............... 700
Regionalized implications of farm programs (MO, TX)....... 537 ............... 537
Rice agronomy (MO)........................................ 178 ............... ...............
Ruminant nutrition consortium (MT, ND, SD, WY)............ 447 ............... 500
Rural development centers (ND, LA)........................ 157 ............... 157
Rural obesity (NY)........................................ 178 ............... ...............
Rural Policies Research Institute (NE, IA, MO)............ 1,129 ............... 1,300
Russian wheat aphid (CO).................................. 284 ............... 300
Seafood and aquaculture harvesting, processing, and 269 ............... 269
marketing (MS)...........................................
Seafood harvesting, processing, and marketing (AK)........ 1,067 ............... 1,067
Seafood safety (MA)....................................... 378 ............... 450
Seed research (AK)........................................ 358 ............... 358
Seed technology (SD)...................................... 313 ............... 400
Small fruit research (OR, WA, ID)......................... 355 ............... 400
Soil and environmental quality (DE)....................... 115 ............... 450
Southwest consortium for plant genetics and water 351 ............... 375
resources................................................
Soybean cyst nematode (MO)................................ 616 ............... ...............
Soybean research (IL)..................................... 755 ............... 1,171
STEEP III--water quality in Pacific Northwest............. 595 ............... 625
Sudden oak death (CA)..................................... 88 ............... 99
Sustainable agriculture (CA).............................. 444 ............... ...............
Sustainable agriculture (MI).............................. 387 ............... 387
Sustainable agriculture and natural resources (PA)........ 133 ............... 250
Sustainable beef supply (MT).............................. 890 ............... 1,000
Sustainable engineered materials from renewable resources 533 ............... 600
(VA).....................................................
Sustainable pest management for dryland wheat (MT)........ 402 ............... ...............
Swine and other animal waste management (NC).............. 440 ............... 500
Synthetic gene technology (OH)............................ 149 ............... ...............
Tick borne disease prevention (RI)........................ 88 ............... 200
Tillage, silviculture, and waste management (LA).......... 378 ............... 378
Tri-State joint peanut research (AL)...................... 533 ............... 600
Tropical aquaculture (FL)................................. 213 ............... ...............
Tropical and subtropical research/T STAR.................. 8,947 ............... 4,474
Uniform farm management program (MN)...................... 266 ............... 298
Value-added product development from agricultural 366 ............... 450
resources (MT)...........................................
Virtual plant database enhancement project (MO)........... 671 ............... 700
Viticulture consortium (NY, CA, PA)....................... 1,600 ............... 1,700
Water conservation (KS)................................... 71 ............... 79
Water use efficiency and water quality enhancement (GA)... 447 ............... 447
Weed control (ND)......................................... 387 ............... 387
West Nile virus (IL)...................................... 671 ............... 500
Wetland plants (LA)....................................... 533 ............... 600
Wheat genetic research (KS)............................... 236 ............... 255
Wheat sawfly research (MT)................................ 449 ............... 600
Wood utilization (AK, OR, MS, MN, NC, ME, MI, ID, TN, WV). 6,070 ............... 6,500
Wool research (TX, MT, WY)................................ 268 ............... 300
-------------------------------------------------
Total, special research grants.......................... 110,655 3,341 108,731
=================================================
Improved pest control:
Expert IPM decision support system........................ 158 177 158
Integrated pest management................................ 2,439 2,725 2,439
IR-4 minor crop pest management........................... 9,549 10,485 10,550
Pest management alternatives.............................. 1,448 1,619 1,448
-------------------------------------------------
Total, Improved pest control............................ 13,594 15,006 14,595
=================================================
1994 institutions research program............................ 1,087 998 1,087
Alaska Native-serving and Native Hawaiian-serving institutions 3,131 2,997 3,500
education grants.............................................
Alternative crops............................................. 1,063 ............... 840
Animal health and disease (sec. 1433)......................... 4,532 5,098 5,098
Aquaculture centers (sec. 1475)............................... 4,000 3,996 4,000
Capacity building grants (1890 institutions).................. 11,411 11,411 11,411
Critical Agricultural Materials Act........................... 1,111 ............... 1,111
Graduate fellowships grants................................... 2,883 4,500 2,883
Higher education agrosecurity program......................... .............. 5,000 ...............
Hispanic education partnership grants......................... 4,645 4,645 4,645
Institution challenge grants.................................. 4,859 5,500 4,859
Joe Skeen Institute for Rangeland Management (NM, TX, MT)..... 895 ............... 1,000
Multicultural scholars program................................ 986 998 998
National Research Initiative.................................. 164,027 180,000 183,000
Payments to the 1994 institutions............................. 1,679 2,250 1,689
Secondary agriculture education............................... 890 1,000 890
Sustainable agriculture research and education................ 12,222 9,230 12,222
=================================================
Federal administration:
Agriculture-based industrial lubricants (IA).............. 403 ............... 650
Agriculture development in the American Pacific........... 490 ............... 490
Agriculture waste utilization (WV)........................ 617 ............... 690
Agriculture water policy (GA)............................. 895 ............... 895
Alternative fuels characterization laboratory (ND)........ 268 ............... 300
Animal waste management (OK).............................. 298 ............... 298
Aquaculture (OH).......................................... 850 ............... 750
Aquaculture (PA).......................................... 222 ............... 222
Biotechnology research (MS)............................... 667 ............... 667
Botanical research (UT)................................... 792 ............... 1,000
Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (IA)........ 600 ............... 600
Center for Food Industry Excellence (TX).................. 222 ............... ...............
Center for Innovative Food Technology (OH)................ 1,043 ............... ...............
Center for North American Studies (TX).................... 895 ............... 895
Climate forecasting (FL).................................. 3,131 ............... ...............
Cotton research (TX)...................................... 2,237 ............... 2,237
Council for Agriculture Science and Technology............ .............. ............... 150
Data information system (REEIS)........................... 2,444 2,500 2,444
Electronic grants administration system................... 1,944 1,409 1,409
Feed efficiency (WV)...................................... 143 ............... 160
Fruit and vegetable market analysis (AZ, MO).............. 302 ............... ...............
Geographic information system............................. 1,431 ............... ...............
Germplasm development in forage grasses (OH).............. 88 ............... ...............
Greenhouse nurseries (OH)................................. 713 ............... ...............
High value horticultural crops (VA)....................... 447 ............... 650
Information technology (GA)............................... 222 ............... ...............
Livestock marketing information center (CO)............... 175 ............... 175
Mariculture (NC).......................................... 320 ............... 320
Mississippi Valley State University, curriculum 933 ............... 933
development..............................................
Monitoring agricultural sewage sludge application (OH).... 1,074 ............... ...............
Office of Extramural Programs............................. 401 448 401
Pasteurization of shell eggs.............................. 1,094 ............... ...............
Pay costs................................................. 2,273 2,832 2,665
Peer panels............................................... 312 349 312
Phytoremediation plant research (OH)...................... 569 ............... 700
PM-10 air quality study (WA).............................. 390 ............... 390
Precision agriculture, Tennessee Valley Research Center 582 ............... 625
(AL).....................................................
Produce pricing (AZ)...................................... 72 ............... ...............
Rural systems (MS)........................................ 311 ............... 311
Salmon quality standards (AK)............................. 134 ............... 200
Shrimp aquaculture (AZ, HI, MA, MS, SC, TX)............... 3,746 ............... 3,746
Sustainable agricultural development (OH)................. 179 ............... ...............
Sustainable agricultural freshwater conservation (TX)..... 1,789 ............... ...............
The Land Institute (KS)................................... 89 ............... ...............
Urban silviculture (NY)................................... 215 ............... ...............
Vitis gene discovery...................................... 358 ............... 400
Water pollutants (WV)..................................... 537 ............... 600
Water quality (ND)........................................ 386 ............... 500
Wetland plants (WV)....................................... 179 ............... ...............
-------------------------------------------------
Total, federal administration........................... 37,482 7,538 26,785
=================================================
Total, CSREES R&E.......................................; 617,780 501,540 628,492
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hatch Act.--The Committee acknowledges the beneficial
impact Hatch Act funding has on land-grant universities. Hatch
Act provides the base funds necessary for higher education and
research involving agriculture. The Committee recommends a
funding level of $180,148,000 for payments made under the Hatch
Act.
Special Research Grants Under Public Law 89-106.--The
Committee recommends a total of $108,731,000. Specifics of
individual grant allowances are included in the table above.
Special items are discussed below.
The Committee is aware of the need for special research
grants in order to conduct research to facilitate or expand
promising breakthroughs in areas of food and agricultural
sciences that are awarded on a discretionary basis. In addition
to these grants, the Committee believes research should be
supplemented by additional funding that is obtained on a
competitive basis.
Alliance for Food Protection.--The Committee provides
$266,000 for the Alliance for Food Protection. Of this amount,
$133,000 is to continue integrated fruit and vegetable research
at the University of Georgia.
Alternative Milk Policies.--The Committee directs that of
the funds made available to the Food and Agriculture Policy
Research Institute, the amount available in fiscal year 2004
shall be provided for collaborative work between the University
of Missouri and the University of Wisconsin/Madison, for an
analysis of dairy policy changes, including trade related
matters, and assist Congress in making policy decisions.
Alternative Salmon Products.--The Committee provides
$1,650,000 for alternative salmon products research. Of this
amount, $650,000 shall be used to continue research into and
development of baby food containing salmon.
Aquaculture Centers.--The Committee recommends $4,000,000,
the same as the fiscal year 2004 level.
The Committee is aware of and supports aquaculture research
efforts at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Great Lakes
Wisconsin Aquatic Technology and Environmental Research
Institute that is carried out in collaboration with the North
Central Regional Aquaculture Center.
Red River Valley Research Corridor Office.--Within the
amount provided for Agricultural Diversity, the Committee
continues the level provided in fiscal year 2004 for activities
of the Red River Valley Research Corridor Office.
Technology Transfer.--The Committee directs CSREES to
continue to support at the fiscal year 2004 level the cotton
technology transfer coordinator at Stoneville, MS.
Aquaculture (MS).--Of the $521,000 provided for this grant,
the Committee recommends at least $90,000 for continued studies
of the use of acoustics in aquaculture research to be conducted
by the National Center for Physical Acoustics in cooperation
with the Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment
Station [MAFES] and the Delta Research and Extension Center in
Stoneville.
Midwest Agricultural Products [MATRIC].--The Committee
directs the Department to allocate the designated funds for
MATRIC equally between Iowa State University and the Greater
Des Moines Partnership.
Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute.--The
Committee provides $1,523,000 for the Food and Agriculture
Policy Research Institute. Of this amount $158,000 shall be
used to fund the Center for Agricultural and Trade Policies for
the Northern Plains Region at North Dakota State University.
Milk Safety.--The Committee provides $717,000 for milk
safety research. Of this amount $50,000 shall be used for a
cooperative agreement with the Pennsylvania Department of
Agriculture's Center for Dairy Excellence.
Potato Research.--The Committee expects the Department to
ensure that funds provided to CSREES for potato research are
utilized for varietal development testing. Further, these funds
are to be awarded competitively after review by the potato
industry working group.
Wood Utilization Research.--The Committee recommends
$6,500,000 for wood utilization research and directs that all
member institutions receive no less than the amount provided in
fiscal year 2004. The Committee directs that funding continue
at the fiscal year 2004 level for forest inventory work
conducted by the Mississippi Forest and Wildlife Research
Center.
Competitive Research Grants.--The Committee supports the
National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program [NRI]
and provides funding of $183,000,000 for the program, an
increase of $18,973,000 from the fiscal year 2004 level. The
Committee includes a general provision to make 20 percent of
these funds available for a program under the same terms and
conditions as those provided in Section 401 of the Agricultural
Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998.
The Committee remains determined to see that quality
research and enhanced human resources development in the
agricultural and related sciences be a nationwide commitment.
Therefore, the Committee continues its direction that not less
than 10 percent of the competitive research grant funds be used
for USDA's agricultural research enhancement awards program
(including USDA-EPSCoR), in accordance with 7 U.S.C. 450i.
Classical Research.--The Committee notes the substantial
increase in public and private sector research related to
genomics, genetics, and other breakthrough biotechnology
developments. However, this shift in emphasis has resulted in a
decline in classical research in the animal and plant sciences.
The Committee encourages the Department, especially in the
establishment of priorities within the National Research
Initiative, to give consideration to research needs related to
classical plant and animal breeding.
Enhancing the Prosperity of Small Farms and Rural
Agricultural Communities.--The Committee is pleased to see that
the Department issued a Request For Proposals in the areas of
small and mid-sized farm profitability and rural economic
development pursuant to Section 401 of the Agricultural
Research, Extension and Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C.
7621). The Committee encourages the Department to request
proposals specific to critical emerging issues related to farm
income, rural economic and business and community development
and farm efficiency and profitability, including the viability
and competitiveness of small and medium-sized dairy, livestock,
crop and other commodity operations.
Alternative Crops.--The Committee recommends $840,000 for
alternative crop research to continue and strengthen research
efforts on canola, $223,000 less than the fiscal year 2004
level.
Sustainable Agriculture.--The Committee recommends
$12,222,000 for sustainable agriculture, the same as the fiscal
year 2004 level.
Higher Education.--The Committee recommends $30,875,000 for
higher education. The Committee provides $2,883,000 for
graduate fellowships; $4,859,000 for challenge grants; $998,000
for multicultural scholarships; and $4,645,000 for Hispanic
education partnership grants.
The Committee notes that the Department's higher education
multicultural scholars program enhances the mentoring of
scholars from under-represented groups. The Committee directs
the Department to ensure that Alaska Natives participate fully
in this program.
Alaska Native-Serving and Native Hawaiian-Serving
Institutions Education Grants.--The Committee provides
$3,500,000 for noncompetitive grants to individual eligible
institutions or consortia of eligible institutions in Alaska
and in Hawaii, with grant funds to be awarded equally between
Alaska and Hawaii to carry out the programs authorized in 7
U.S.C. 3242 (Section 759 of Public Law 106-78). The Committee
directs the agency to fully comply with the use of grant funds
as authorized.
Geographic Information System Program.--The Committee
provides the fiscal year 2004 funding level for the Geographic
Information System Program. The Committee recommends the amount
provided shall be made available for program activities of
entities in the same areas as in 2004 on a proportional basis.
For fiscal year 2004, this program was funded under Federal
Administration.
Federal Administration.--The Committee provides $26,785,000
for Federal administration. The Committee's specific
recommendations are reflected in the table above.
CAST.--The Committee provides $150,000 for the Council for
Agricultural Science and Technology [CAST]. For fiscal year
2004, this program was funded under Special Research Grants.
NATIVE AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS ENDOWMENT FUND
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $8,947,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 12,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 12,000,000
The Native American Institutions Endowment Fund authorized
by Public Law 103-382 provides an endowment for the 1994 land-
grant institutions (31 tribally controlled colleges). This
program will enhance educational opportunity for Native
Americans by building educational capacity at these
institutions in the areas of student recruitment and retention,
curricula development, faculty preparation, instruction
delivery systems, and scientific instrumentation for teaching.
Income funds are also available for facility renovation,
repair, construction, and maintenance. On the termination of
each fiscal year, the Secretary shall withdraw the income from
the endowment fund for the fiscal year, and after making
adjustments for the cost of administering the endowment fund,
distribute the adjusted income as follows: 60 percent of the
adjusted income from these funds shall be distributed among the
1994 land-grant institutions on a pro rata basis, the
proportionate share being based on the Indian student count;
and 40 percent of the adjusted income shall be distributed in
equal shares to the 1994 land-grant institutions.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund, the
Committee recommends $12,000,000. This amount is $3,053,000
more than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation.
EXTENSION ACTIVITIES
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $439,125,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 421,174,000
Committee recommendation................................ 443,061,000
Cooperative extension work was established by the Smith-
Lever Act of May 8, 1914. The Department of Agriculture is
authorized to provide, through the land-grant colleges,
cooperative extension work that consists of the development of
practical applications of research knowledge and the giving of
instruction and practical demonstrations of existing or
improved practices or technologies in agriculture, uses of
solar energy with respect to agriculture, home economics,
related subjects, and to encourage the application of such
information by demonstrations, publications, through 4-H clubs,
and other means to persons not in attendance or resident at the
colleges.
To fulfill the requirements of the Smith-Lever Act, State
and county extension offices in each State, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American
Samoa, the Northern Marianas, and Micronesia conduct
educational programs to improve American agriculture and
strengthen the Nation's families and communities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For extension activities of the Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service, the Committee recommends an
appropriation of $443,061,000. This amount is $3,936,000 more
than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendations for extension activities, as compared to the
fiscal year 2004 and budget request levels:
COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE [CSREES]--EXTENSION ACTIVITIES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Committee
2004 enacted 2005 budget recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smith-Lever sections 3(b) and 3(c).............................. 277,742 275,940 277,742
Smith-Lever section 3(d):
Farm safety................................................. 4,911 .............. 4,174
Food and nutrition education [EFNEP]........................ 52,057 57,909 58,000
Indian reservation agents................................... 1,774 1,996 1,774
Pest management............................................. 9,563 10,759 9,563
Sustainable agriculture..................................... 4,333 3,792 4,333
Youth at risk............................................... 7,538 8,481 7,538
Youth farm safety education and certification............... 444 499 444
1890 colleges, Tuskegee University, and West Virginia State 31,720 32,117 32,117
University.....................................................
1890 facilities grants.......................................... 14,912 14,912 14,912
Extension services at the 1994 institutions..................... 2,929 3,273 2,929
Grants to youth organizations................................... 2,667 .............. 2,667
Renewable Resources Extension Act [RREA]........................ 4,040 4,093 4,093
Rural health and safety education............................... 2,331 .............. 1,981
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................. 416,961 413,771 422,267
===============================================
Federal administration and special grants:
Ag in the classroom......................................... 622 750 850
Agricultural and entrepreneurship education (WI)............ 232 .............. 250
Alabama beef connection..................................... 336 .............. 400
Beef producers improvement (AR)............................. 174 .............. 190
Botanical garden initiative (IL)............................ 213 .............. ..............
Conservation technology transfer (WI)....................... 447 .............. 486
Dairy education (IA)........................................ 211 .............. 235
Dairy industry revitalization (WI).......................... 336 .............. 300
Diabetes detection and prevention (WA)...................... 1,089 .............. 1,089
E-commerce (MS)............................................. 334 .............. 334
Efficient irrigation (NM, TX)............................... 2,058 .............. 2,058
Entrepreneurial alternatives (PA)........................... 222 .............. 222
Extension specialist (MS)................................... 133 .............. 133
Family farm beef industry network (OH)...................... 1,240 .............. ..............
Food Animal Residue Avoidance Databank...................... 712 .............. 712
Food preparation and marketing (AK)......................... 268 .............. 400
Food product development (AK)............................... 402 .............. 550
General administration...................................... 5,467 6,653 5,445
Health education leadership (KY)............................ 800 .............. 900
Income enhancement demonstration (OH)....................... 214 .............. ..............
Iowa vitality center........................................ 250 .............. 250
National Center for Agriculture Safety (IA)................. 224 .............. 262
National Wild Turkey Federation............................. 224 .............. 225
Nursery production (RI)..................................... 222 .............. ..............
Nutrition enhancement (WI).................................. 895 .............. 1,050
Ohio-Israel agriculture initiative.......................... 537 .............. 600
Oquirrh Institute........................................... 268 .............. 300
Pilot technology transfer (OK, MS).......................... 300 .............. 300
Pilot technology transfer (WI).............................. 215 .............. ..............
Potato pest management (WI)................................. 358 .............. 360
Range improvement (NM)...................................... 218 .............. 250
Resilient communities (NY).................................. 111 .............. ..............
Rural business enhancement (WI)............................. 179 .............. 200
Rural development (AK)...................................... 626 .............. 750
Rural development (NM)...................................... 351 .............. 351
Rural technologies (HI, WI)................................. 311 .............. 313
Urban horticulture (WI)..................................... 783 .............. 850
Urban market development (NY)............................... 224 .............. ..............
Web-based agriculture classes (MO).......................... 179 .............. 179
Wood biomass as an alternative farm product (NY)............ 179 .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Administration............................. 22,164 7,403 20,794
===============================================
Total, Extension Activities............................... 439,125 421,174 443,061
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ag in the Classroom.--The Committee recommends $850,000 for
Ag in the Classroom and expects that no less than $250,000 be
used to expand efforts in Illinois to promote consumption of
healthy foods and proper school nutrition.
Conservation Technology Transfer.--Of the funds provided
for Conservation Technology Transfer, the Committee provides
$447,000 for a nutrient management and conservation education
program to meet the needs of the Wisconsin comprehensive
nutrient management program in cooperation with Professional
Dairy Producers of Wisconsin, Dairy Business Association, and
others. In addition, the Committee provides the fiscal year
2004 funding level for the Dairy Discovery Farm Program.
Farm Safety.--Of the funds recommended for farm safety, the
Committee recommends a funding level of $3,312,000 for the
AgrAbility project being carried out in cooperation with the
National Easter Seal Society.
Nutrition Enhancement.--Of the funds provided for nutrition
enhancement, the Committee provides $50,000 for the Research
Institute for Family Health and Wellness at Marywood University
in Scranton, Pennsylvania.
Potato Pest Management.--Of the funds provided for Potato
Pest Management, the Committee provides the fiscal year 2004
funding level for the ongoing effort between the University of
Wisconsin, World Wildlife Fund, and Wisconsin Potato and
Vegetable Growers Association. The Committee also directs the
fiscal year 2004 funding level for an ongoing project with the
University of Wisconsin for pesticide use reduction efforts for
other commodities.
Rural Business Enhancement.--The Committee provides the
fiscal year 2004 funding level to the University of Wisconsin
at Platteville for collaborative work with the University of
Wisconsin Extension.
Urban Horticulture.--The Committee provides the fiscal year
2004 funding level for Urban Horticulture. In addition to funds
directed for University of Wisconsin Extension activities, the
Committee provides the fiscal year 2004 funding level for
Growing Power of Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $50,195,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 76,865,000
Committee recommendation................................ 57,242,000
Section 406 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Reform Act of 1998 authorizes an integrated research,
education, and extension competitive grants program. Water
Quality, Food Safety, and Regional Pest Management Centers
programs previously funded under Research and Education and/or
Extension Activities are included under this account, as well
as new programs that support integrated or multifunctional
projects.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For integrated activities of the Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service, the Committee
recommends $57,242,000. This amount is $7,047,000 more than the
fiscal year 2004 level.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendations for integrated activities:
COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE [CSREES]--INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Committee
2004 enacted 2005 budget recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical issues................................................. 444 2,500 444
Crops at risk from FQPA implementation.......................... 1,330 1,497 1,330
Food safety..................................................... 13,305 14,967 13,305
FQPA risk mitigation program for major food crop systems........ 4,345 4,889 4,345
Homeland security............................................... 7,953 30,000 15,000
International science and education grants...................... 895 1,000 895
Methyl bromide transition....................................... 3,131 2,498 3,131
Organic transition.............................................. 1,889 499 1,889
Regional pest management centers................................ 4,028 4,531 4,028
Regional rural development centers.............................. 1,345 1,513 1,345
Water quality................................................... 11,530 12,971 11,530
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 50,195 76,865 57,242
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OUTREACH FOR SOCIALLY DISADVANTAGED FARMERS
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $5,935,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 5,935,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,935,000
This program is authorized under section 2501 of title XXV
of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990.
Grants are made to eligible community-based organizations with
demonstrated experience in providing education on other
agriculturally-related services to socially disadvantaged
farmers and ranchers in their area of influence. Also eligible
are the 1890 land-grant colleges, Tuskegee University, West
Virginia State University, Indian tribal community colleges,
and Hispanic-serving postsecondary education facilities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For outreach for socially disadvantaged farmers, the
Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,935,000. This
amount is the same as the fiscal year 2004 appropriation.
Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $721,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 804,000
Committee recommendation................................ 733,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and
Regulatory Programs provides direction and coordination in
carrying out laws enacted by the Congress with respect to the
Department's marketing, grading, and standardization activities
related to grain; competitive marketing practices of livestock,
marketing orders, and various programs; veterinary services;
and plant protection and quarantine. The Office has oversight
and management responsibilities for the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service; Agricultural Marketing Service; and Grain
Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and
Regulatory Programs, the Committee recommends an appropriation
of $733,000. This amount is $12,000 more than the fiscal year
2004 appropriation.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $716,329,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 828,361,000
Committee recommendation................................ 786,866,000
The Secretary of Agriculture established the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service [APHIS] on April 2, 1972, under
the authority of reorganization plan No. 2 of 1953, and other
authorities. The major objectives of APHIS are to protect the
animal and plant resources of the Nation from diseases and
pests. These objectives are carried out under the major areas
of activity, as follows:
Pest and Disease Exclusion.--The Agency conducts inspection
and quarantine activities at U.S. ports of entry to prevent the
introduction of exotic animal and plant diseases and pests. The
Agency also participates in inspection, survey, and control
activities in foreign countries to reinforce its domestic
activities.
Agricultural Quarantine Inspection [AQI].--The agency
collects user fees to cover the cost of inspection and
quarantine activities at U.S. ports of entry to prevent the
introduction of exotic animal and plant diseases and pests.
Plant and Animal Health Monitoring.--The Agency conducts
programs to assess animal and plant health and to detect
endemic and exotic diseases and pests.
Pest and Disease Management Programs.--The Agency carries
out programs to control and eradicate pest infestations and
animal diseases that threaten the United States; reduce
agricultural losses caused by predatory animals, birds, and
rodents; provide technical assistance to other cooperators such
as States, counties, farmer or rancher groups, and foundations;
and ensure compliance with interstate movement and other
disease control regulations within the jurisdiction of the
Agency.
Animal Care.--The Agency conducts regulatory activities
that ensure the humane care and treatment of animals and horses
as the Animal Welfare and Horse Protection Acts require. These
activities include inspection of certain establishments that
handle animals intended for research, exhibition, and as pets,
and monitoring certain horse shows.
Scientific and Technical Services.--The Agency performs
other regulatory activities, including the development of
standards for the licensing and testing of veterinary
biologicals to ensure their safety and effectiveness;
diagnostic activities to support the control and eradication
programs in other functional components; applied research to
reduce economic damage from vertebrate animals; development of
new pest and animal damage control methods and tools; and
regulatory oversight of genetically engineered products.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For salaries and expenses of the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, the Committee recommends total funding of
$786,866,000. This is $70,537,000 more than the fiscal year
2004 appropriation. The Committee encourages the Secretary to
utilize authorities and resources of the Commodity Credit
Corporation [CCC] to provide assistance in response to animal
and plant health threats, and to allow compensation to certain
producers for losses sustained in connection with these threats
in instances when the additional assistance is deemed
necessary.
The Committee has provided the following amounts in the
APHIS salaries and expenses account for new and enhanced
activities under the Food and Agriculture Defense Initiative:
$33,197,000 for a national animal identification program,
$5,000,000 for State cooperative agreements, $2,500,000 for
biosurveillance, $500,000 for the control of select agents,
$3,500,000 for the National Veterinary Vaccine Bank, and
$8,641,000 for BSE testing.
The following table reflects the Committee's specific
recommendations for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service:
ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Fiscal year 2005 budget Committee
2004 enacted request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pest and disease exclusion:
Agricultural quarantine inspection....................... 25,450 25,031 24,802
Cattle ticks............................................. 6,495 6,720 6,720
Foot-and-mouth disease/emerging foreign animal diseases.. 8,685 12,969 8,740
Import/export............................................ 11,074 15,729 11,874
Trade issues resolution and management................... 12,472 15,727 12,578
Fruit fly exclusion and detection........................ 56,722 63,514 57,443
Screwworm................................................ 30,300 30,825 30,374
Tropical bunt tick....................................... 421 2,920 425
--------------------------------------------------
Total, pest and disease exclusion...................... 151,619 173,435 152,956
==================================================
Plant and animal health monitoring:
Animal health monitoring and surveillance................ 95,347 143,547 146,157
Animal and plant health regulatory enforcement........... 9,157 9,823 9,382
Biosurveillance.......................................... ............... 5,000 2,500
Emergency Management System.............................. 9,568 20,285 9,660
Pest detection........................................... 24,382 45,308 25,131
--------------------------------------------------
Total, plant and animal health monitoring.............. 138,454 223,963 192,830
==================================================
Pest and disease management programs:
Aquaculture.............................................. 1,243 1,600 1,255
Biocontrol............................................... 9,215 9,429 9,429
Boll weevil.............................................. 50,700 17,320 47,500
Brucellosis eradication.................................. 10,242 8,861 10,356
Chronic wasting disease.................................. 18,522 20,067 18,839
Emerging plant pests..................................... 93,098 104,415 94,422
Golden nematode.......................................... 787 985 801
Grasshopper.............................................. 5,459 4,356 5,528
Gypsy moth............................................... 4,697 4,768 4,768
Imported fire ant........................................ 2,415 2,148 2,148
Johne's disease.......................................... 18,689 3,155 18,740
Low pathogen avian influenza............................. 994 12,783 12,783
Noxious weeds............................................ 1,987 1,146 1,991
Pink bollworm............................................ 2,019 1,751 2,060
Plum pox................................................. 3,451 3,471 3,471
Pseudorabies............................................. 4,291 4,350 4,350
Scrapie eradication...................................... 15,607 20,874 15,768
Tuberculosis............................................. 14,837 20,935 14,937
Wildlife services operations............................. 71,313 71,684 73,225
Witchweed................................................ 1,517 1,523 1,523
--------------------------------------------------
Total, pest and disease management..................... 331,083 315,621 343,894
==================================================
Animal care:
Animal welfare........................................... 16,303 16,618 16,618
Horse protection......................................... 487 497 497
--------------------------------------------------
Total, animal care..................................... 16,790 17,115 17,115
==================================================
Scientific and technical services:
Biosecurity.............................................. 1,988 2,920 1,988
Biotechnology regulatory services........................ 5,402 12,048 5,504
Environmental services................................... 2,583 2,624 2,624
Plant methods development laboratories................... 8,160 8,381 8,381
Veterinary biologics..................................... 15,145 17,374 15,513
Veterinary diagnostics................................... 19,829 24,672 20,325
Wildlife services methods development.................... 16,999 13,876 17,428
--------------------------------------------------
Total, scientific and technical services............... 70,106 81,895 71,763
==================================================
Contingency fund............................................. 4,088 4,119 4,119
APHIS information technology infrastructure.................. 4,189 5,080 4,189
Physical security............................................ ............... 7,133 ...............
==================================================
Total, salaries and expenses........................... 716,329 828,361 786,866
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee is unable to provide the full increases
requested in the President's budget for the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Services. However, the Committee does provide
increases for a number of specific animal and plant health
programs. The Committee encourages the Secretary to continue
use of contingency funding from Commodity Credit Corporation
monies, as in past fiscal years, to cover needs as identified
in the President's budget and any additional emergencies as the
Secretary determines necessary.
Pest and Disease Exclusion
AQI.--For fiscal year 2005, the Committee provides an
appropriation of $24,802,000 for the AQI appropriated account
to conduct preclearance quarantine inspections of persons,
baggage, cargo, and other articles destined for movement from
the State of Hawaii to the continental United States, Guam,
Puerto Rico, or the United States Virgin Islands. The Committee
has included the fiscal year 2004 funding level for interline
activities in Hawaii.
The Committee urges the Department to establish protocols
that allow shipment of untreated fruits and vegetables grown in
Hawaii to cold-weather States during winter months while
maintaining reasonable assurances that potential transshipment
of such produce will not jeopardize the phytosanitary standards
of warm weather States.
The Committee continues its interest in more efficient and
less disruptive inspection of passengers and cargo at Hawaii
airports and, from within available funds, directs APHIS to
provide not less than the number of inspectors and inspection
equipment required in the APHIS-Hawaii staffing plan for fiscal
year 2004. The Committee also encourages the agency to
aggressively identify and evaluate flexible hiring and staff
deployment arrangements, such as the Senior Environmental
Employment Program, to minimize overtime rates charged to
agricultural shippers. The Committee further encourages APHIS
to acquire and deploy commercially available, state-of-the art
inspection technology and equipment for key ports of entry,
such as Hawaii, to screen passenger luggage for banned
agricultural products to reduce the introduction of dangerous
agricultural pests and diseases in the United States.
Fruit Fly Exclusion and Detection.--The Committee provides
$57,443,000 for the fruit fly exclusion and detection program,
of which no less than the fiscal year 2004 level shall be used
to enhance activities to prevent Medflies from moving into the
United States as well as activities at U.S. borders. The
Committee provides an increase of $100,000 above the fiscal
year 2004 funding level for fruit fly activities in the State
of Texas.
Import Inspection.--The Committee provides $11,874,000 for
import inspection, which includes an increase of $500,000 from
the fiscal year 2004 funding level to enhance inspection and
surveillance activities related to products entering the State
of California.
Plant and Animal Health Monitoring
Animal Health Monitoring and Surveillance.--The Committee
provides $146,157,000 for the Animal Health Monitoring and
Surveillance account. The Committee provides $33,197,000 for a
national animal identification program. This funding is in
addition to $18,800,000 that was transferred from the Commodity
Credit Corporation on April 27, 2004. The Committee also
includes statutory language that prohibits the Secretary from
implementing an animal identification program prior to the
notification of the Committees on Appropriations and the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry in the Senate
and the Committee on Agriculture in the House of
Representatives which shall include a detailed explanation of
the components of such system.
The Committee provides an increase of $200,000 above the
fiscal year 2004 funding level for a cooperative agreement with
the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer
Protection to continue work carried out by the Wisconsin
Livestock Identification Consortium. The Committee also
provides an increase of $200,000 above the fiscal year 2004
funding level for the National Farm Animal Identification and
Records Project. The Committee provides continued funding at
the 2004 level for the New Mexico Rapid Syndrome Validation
Program to develop an early detection and reporting system for
infectious animal diseases.
The Committee recognizes the efforts and the financial
commitment of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the Southeastern
Livestock Network in the development of a cooperative, regional
approach to animal identification. The Committee further
encourages the Secretary to consider these activities and the
substantial financial investments already undertaken in this
region when developing and finalizing a nationwide animal
identification program.
In order to ensure the health of the United States cattle
industry, the Committee believes it is necessary to implement a
secure, reliable, speedy and efficient animal identification
program at border crossings between the United States and
Mexico so that identity can be reconnected when ear tags are
lost and an animal health emergency is present. The Committee
is aware of several biometric identification systems, such as
DNA, nose printing, and retinal imaging, that can reliably
reconnect identity. The Committee encourages the Department to
consider these and other technologies when implementing any
animal identification program.
The Committee is aware of radio frequency identification
technology that is available through Digital Angel. This
technology has been proven on fish and has been in use for 15
years. The Committee urges the Department to consider this
technology when developing an animal identification program.
The Committee provides the fiscal year 2004 level to
continue the cooperative agreement with the Murray State
University, Breathitt Veterinary Center, Hopkinsville, KY, to
determine the impact on animal health from common agricultural
chemical usage.
The Committee provides an increase of $100,000 above the
fiscal year 2004 funding level to address bio-safety issues
relating to antibiotic resistant strains of bacterial pathogens
in the State of Vermont.
The Committee provides an increase of $200,000 above the
fiscal year 2004 funding level for a national institute at Iowa
State University devoted to risk assessment, mitigation, and
communication for genetically modified agricultural products.
Animal and Plant Health Regulatory Enforcement.--The
Committee continues funding for the animal and plant health
regulatory enforcement account for activities in support of
increased Animal Welfare Act compliance inspections.
The Committee is very concerned about reports of illegal
animal fighting activities and directs the Secretary to work
with relevant agencies on the most effective and proper means
for investigating and enforcing laws and regulations regarding
these activities.
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy.--The Committee is
concerned about the Department's ongoing bovine spongiform
encephalopathy [BSE] surveillance program. The Department's
Inspector General, in addition to scientists and other BSE
experts, has advocated for testing a statistically significant
sample of cattle over 30 months old. Older cattle such as these
may have eaten certain materials considered high risk for
transmitting BSE-related disease in their feed before FDA
implemented a feed ban on such materials and would help the
agency get a true picture of the prevalence of the disease in
cattle in this country. Testing older cattle helps calculate
BSE prevalence directly from the science-based surveillance
data rather than rely on complex and potentially faulty
mathematical calculations. The Committee urges the Department
to include testing of a statistically significant sample of
cattle more than 30 months of age, in addition to the
identified high-risk group, in its BSE surveillance program.
Emergency Management Systems.--The Committee provides an
increase of $92,000 for the emergency management systems
program.
Pest Detection.--The Committee provides an increase of
$749,000 for pest detection. The Committee is concerned about
continuing threats posed by the accidental or intentional
introduction of pests, disease, or species into this country
which could be devastating to our agricultural resources.
The Committee is aware of interest by the Florida
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to move toward
completion of the Western Escambia County Agriculture
Interdiction Station and encourages APHIS to work with the
State of Florida to determine and, if prudent, develop and
support a collaborative agreement for operations at this
station.
The Committee provides the fiscal year 2004 level to
continue the California County Pest Detection Augmentation
Program.
Pest and Disease Management
Aquaculture.--The Committee provides $1,255,000 for the
aquaculture program. The Committee provides funding at the
fiscal year 2004 level to continue telemetry and population
dynamics studies to develop environmentally and economically
sustainable methods to help catfish farmers manage cormorant
and pelican populations.
Boll Weevil.--The Committee provides $47,500,000 for fiscal
year 2005 to continue the Boll Weevil Eradication Program. This
funding will provide the active eradication zone areas with a
30 percent cost share and possible exceptions to address
special funding requirements arising from extraordinary
circumstances in some States.
Brucellosis Eradication.--The Committee provides an
increase of $114,000 above the fiscal year 2004 level for the
bruccellosis program. This amount continues funding at the
fiscal year 2004 level for the State of Montana to protect the
State's brucellosis-free status and for the operation of the
bison quarantine facility and the testing of bison that
surround Yellowstone National Park.
The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year
2004 level for the Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis
Committee, and encourages the coordination of Federal, State,
and private actions to eliminate brucellosis from wildlife in
the Greater Yellowstone area. This amount shall be equally
divided between the States of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.
Chronic Wasting Disease.--The Committee is concerned about
the number of deer and elk in different regions of the U.S.
testing positive for chronic wasting disease and provides an
increase of $317,000 for the chronic wasting disease
certification and control program to include additional
surveillance and disease control activities with free-ranging
cervids, and to increase State testing capacity for the timely
identification of the presence of this disease.
Of the amount provided for chronic wasting disease, the
Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 levels for the State
of Wisconsin, the State of Utah, and the Conservation Medicine
Center of Chicago which is a collaboration between the
University of Illinois College of Veterinary Medicine, Loyola
University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, and the
Brookfield Zoo. Of the amount provided, $250,000 is included to
monitor chronic wasting disease in the State of Alaska.
Emerging Plant Pests.--The Committee provides an increase
of $1,324,000 above the fiscal year 2004 funding level for
emerging plant pests. Within this total, the Committee provides
an increase of $750,000 above the fiscal year 2004 funding
level for Pierce's disease. The Committee continues the fiscal
year 2004 funding levels for citrus canker and the Asian long-
horned beetle program in Illinois and New York, of which no
less than the fiscal year 2004 funding level shall be for
activities in the area of Chicago, IL. The Committee continues
funding at the fiscal year 2004 funding level for sudden oak
death syndrome. The Committee provides the fiscal year 2004
fundng level for activities related to the emerald ash borer in
the State of Michigan. The Committee expects the Secretary to
make funds available from the CCC for activities related to
these and other plant pests in fiscal year 2005, as necessary.
The Committee is aware that APHIS has a compensation
program in place for wheat producers, grain handlers, and
facilities that karnal bunt impacts. However, the compensation
provided for handlers and facilities does not adequately
represent the costs these facilities incur when they receive
deliveries of karnal bunt-infected wheat. This inadequate
compensation has led to many facilities refusing to participate
in activities to prevent the spread of karnal bunt in the
United States. Due to the serious threat that karnal bunt poses
to U.S. wheat production and exports, the Committee expects
APHIS to work with the grain handling industry to develop an
adequate compensation plan.
The Committee notes that APHIS signed a cooperative
agreement with the Washington State Department of Agriculture
to survey and eradicate the citrus longhorned beetle. The
Committee recognizes that the citrus longhorned beetle presents
a severe threat to hardwood trees and tree fruit crops, and
urges APHIS to direct the resources necessary to eradicate the
citrus longhorned beetle.
Grasshopper.--The Committee provides an increase of $69,000
above the fiscal year 2004 level for the grasshopper account.
Of this amount, no less than $1,000,000 shall be for
grasshopper and Mormon cricket activities in the State of Utah
to prepare necessary environmental documents and continue
control measures. The Committee also provides the fiscal year
2004 level for grasshopper and Mormon cricket activities in the
State of Nevada, including survey, control, and eradication of
crickets.
Imported Fire Ant.--The Committee provides $2,148,000 for
the imported fire ant account to continue sharing
responsibility with the States to conduct detection and nursery
surveys; compliance monitoring; enforcement for quarantine of
nursery stock; and production, field release, and evaluation of
promising control agents. The Committee continues funding at
the fiscal 2004 level for the States of Tennessee and New
Mexico for control activities.
Johne's Disease.--The Committee provides an increase of
$51,000 above the fiscal year 2004 level for Johne's disease to
expand the agency's efforts to coordinate State certification
programs for herd-testing, and to provide assistance to States
to develop herd management plans that comply with APHIS's
national standards for certification. The Committee expects
APHIS to work with the Agricultural Research Service to
coordinate activities to research and develop an effective
diagnostic test for Johne's disease with appropriate field
validation and methods development.
Low Pathogenic Avian Influenza.--The Committee provides
$12,783,000 for detection, control and eradication of Low
Pathogenic Avian Influenza [LPAI]. This funding is in addition
to $13,700,000 that was transferred from the Commodity Credit
Corporation [CCC] on May 12, 2004. The Committee notes that the
funds from CCC have been used historically to provide
compensation to producers for losses associated with containing
this disease. The Committee believes that the Secretary should
continue to utilize the CCC for purposes of such compensation.
The Committee is concerned that this disease, which appears
to be endemic in certain live bird markets in urban areas, can
be spread to the commercial poultry and egg industry causing
significant economic harm to growers and processors. The
Committee is also concerned that LPAI in certain cases can
mutate into High Pathogenic Avian Influenza, a more virulent
and dangerous form of the disease. To prevent this from
happening, a robust surveillance and control program in both
the commercial industry and live bird markets is important.
The Committee notes that APHIS has combated LPAI in some
cases by utilizing a vaccination program. The Committee
encourages APHIS to utilize funds of the CCC to indemnify
producers for losses incurred in these vaccination programs.
The Committee is aware of the potential for the development
of a plant-based avian influenza vaccine. With a plant-based
avian influenza vaccine, and an accompanying diagnostic test,
regions at risk of avian influenza infection would have the
ability to implement a preventative disease control program
which includes a vaccination plan. The Committee encourages
APHIS to review and consider the benefits of a plant-based
avian influenza vaccine.
Noxious Weeds.--The Committee provides $1,991,000 for the
noxious weeds account. This amount includes the fiscal year
2004 level for the Nez Perce Bio-Control Center to increase the
availability and distribution of biological control organisms
used in an integrated weed management system. The Committee
provides continued funding at the fiscal year 2004 level for an
invasive species program to prevent the spread of cogongrass in
Mississippi, and requests that the agency take necessary steps
to address this invasive weed as a regional infestation
problem.
The Committee continues its concern for the serious threat
to pastures and watersheds resulting from the introduction of
alien weed pests, such as gorse and miconia, into Hawaii, and
directs APHIS to work with the Hawaii Department of Agriculture
and the Natural Resources Conservation Service to develop an
integrated approach, including environmentally safe biological
controls, for eradicating these pests, and to provide funds as
necessary.
Scrapie Eradication.--The Committee provides an increase of
$161,000 above the fiscal year 2004 level for the scrapie
eradication program, and directs the Secretary to use funds
from the CCC, as necessary, for additional eradication
activities in fiscal year 2005.
Tuberculosis.--The Committee provides $14,937,000 for the
tuberculosis program. Of this amount, no less than $5,000,000
shall be for activities in Michigan. The Committee is concerned
about the potential threats that wildlife poses for
transmitting tuberculosis to domestic livestock and directs the
agency to increase technical and operational assistance to
Michigan producers to prevent or reduce the transmission of
tuberculosis between wildlife and cattle. The Committee also
encourages the agency to continue its research for developing
methods to minimize the interaction between wildlife and
livestock. The Committee encourages the Secretary to use funds
from the CCC, as necessary, for additional surveillance and
eradication activities in fiscal year 2005.
Wildlife Services Operations.--The Committee does not
concur with the budget request to reduce funding in the
wildlife services operations account to allow cooperators to
assume a larger share of the costs associated with preventing
and reducing wildlife damage. The Committee provides funding to
continue cooperating with States to conduct wildlife management
programs such as livestock protection, migratory bird damage to
crops, invasive species damage, property damage, human health
and safety, and threatened and endangered species protection.
The Committee notes the success of the oral rabies
vaccination program and provides the fiscal year 2004 level for
rabies control activities. The Committee encourages the
Secretary to use funds from the CCC, as necessary, for
additional control activities in fiscal year 2005.
The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year
2004 level to fully implement the recommendations of the
Aviation Safety Review Committee.
Of the amount provided to conduct wildlife monitoring and
surveillance activities to prevent the spread of foreign animal
diseases in the United States, the Committee provides the
fiscal year 2004 level for remote diagnostic and wildlife
disease surveillance activities with North Dakota State
University and Dickinson State University.
The Committee is concerned about the growing number of
livestock that are killed or injured by preying animals,
especially wolves, in the Western Great Lakes and Southwest
regions of the United States. The Committee provides continued
funding at the fiscal year 2004 level for integrated predation
management activities in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan,
Arizona, and New Mexico. Of this amount, no less than
$1,215,000 shall be available for activities in the Western
Great Lakes States. A portion of the funding shall be made
available to assist livestock producers who are interested in
the proper use of non-lethal alternatives and best management
practices in order to fully ensure that all such methods are
exhausted before any lethal control occurs.
The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year
2004 level for the Tri-state predator control program for
livestock operators in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Due to the
increase in federally listed endangered species, the States'
operations accounts for wildlife services have suffered
financially.
The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year
2004 level for a cooperative agreement with the University of
Georgia, Auburn University, and the Wildlife Services
Operations in the State of Georgia to address the fluctuations
in game bird and predator species resulting from recent changes
in land use throughout the southeastern United States.
The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year
2004 level for the operation of the State Wildlife Services
office in Hawaii to provide on-site coordination of prevention
and control activities in Hawaii and the American Pacific. The
Committee also continues funding at the fiscal year 2004 level
for the Hawaii Department of Agriculture to coordinate and
operate a comprehensive brown tree snake prevention and
detection program for Hawaii and to initiate eradication and
control of coqui frogs.
The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year
2004 level for wildlife service operations with the South
Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks to meet the growing
demands of controlling predatory, nuisance, and diseased
animals.
The Committee provides an increase of $100,000 above the
fiscal year 2004 funding level for the management of beavers in
Mississippi. The Committee commends the agency's assistance in
cooperative relationships with local and Federal partners to
reduce beaver damage to cropland and forests. The Committee
also provides an increase of $300,000 above the fiscal year
2004 funding level for beaver control equally divided between
the State of Wisconsin, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and the
State of North Carolina.
The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year
2004 level to continue control measures for minimizing
blackbird damage to sunflowers in North Dakota and South
Dakota. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2004 funding
level for blackbird management efforts in Louisiana.
The Committee provides funding at the fiscal year 2004
level to assist the Nevada Division of Wildlife with returning
displaced wildlife back to its natural habitat. This rescue
initiative shall be a cooperative effort between Federal,
State, local, and private sources.
The Committee provides funding at the fiscal year 2004
level for a cooperative agreement with the Eastern Idaho
Sandhill Crane Lure Crop Project for integrated predator
management activities to reduce sandhill crane depredations and
grain crop damage in Eastern Idaho. The Committee also provides
$35,000 for crane operations in the State of Wisconsin.
The Committee also provides an increase of $200,000 above
the fiscal year 2004 funding level for the Predator Research
Station in the State of Utah. The Committee continues funding
at the fiscal year 2004 level for the control of goose
populations in the State of New York, the control of blackbirds
in the State of Kansas, and to address wildlife damage in the
State of New Hampshire. The Committee also provides $50,000 for
the Cooperative Livestock Protection Program in the State of
Pennsylvania. This program will provide technical and
operational assistance to agriculture producers in identifying
and controlling nuisance wildlife.
The Committee provides an increase of $100,000 above the
fiscal year 2004 funding level to assist in the management of
cormorants in the Lake Champlain Basin. The Committee also
provides an increase of $200,000 above the fiscal year 2004
funding level for Delta States operations to control
cormorants.
Animal Care
Animal Welfare.--The Committee provides $17,115,000 for the
Animal Care Unit for horse protection and enforcement of the
Animal Welfare Act.
The Committee does not assume collections from unauthorized
animal welfare inspection user fees, as proposed in the
President's budget.
Scientific and Technical Services
Veterinary Diagnostics.--The Committee provides $20,325,000
for the veterinary diagnostics account for fiscal year 2005.
The Committee provides the fiscal year 2004 level to continue
to update equipment needed to test certain animal samples in
the State of Colorado.
The Committee supports the ongoing activities of the
Department to strengthen safeguards against the accidental or
intentional introduction of catastrophic animal diseases. An
important part of this effort is cooperation with the States to
establish a National Diagnostic Network. As USDA continues this
effort in fiscal year 2005, the Committee encourages the
consideration of cooperative agreements with Kansas State
University, South Dakota State University, Washington State
University, and Auburn University for modernization and
facility upgrades through which these institutions can better
contribute to this national effort.
Wildlife Services Methods Development.--The Committee
provides $17,428,000 for wildlife services methods development.
Of this amount, the Committee provides the fiscal year 2004
level to continue existing research efforts at the National
Wildlife Research Center field station in Starkville, MS, for
resolving problems regarding bird damage to aquaculture farms
in the Southeast. The Committee also provides an increase of
$200,000 above the fiscal year 2004 funding level to continue
the existing program at the Jack Berryman Institute for
addressing wildlife damage management issues, including
wildlife disease threats and wildlife economics, and
facilitating a cooperative relationship with the Mississippi
Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station. The Committee
emphasizes the importance of close collaboration between the
Jack Berryman Institute and the National Wildlife Research
Center.
The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year
2004 level for the cooperative agreement with the Hawaii
Agriculture Research Center for rodent control only in active
agricultural areas.
The Committee provides the fiscal year 2004 level for the
National Wildlife Research Station located in the State of
Texas for activities related to emerging infectious diseases
associated with wildlife populations and human health.
Projects identified in Senate Report 108-107, and
Conference Report 108-401 that the Committee directed to be
funded for fiscal year 2004 are not funded for fiscal year 2005
unless specifically mentioned herein.
In complying with the Committee's directives, the Committee
expects APHIS not to redirect support for programs and
activities without prior notification to and approval by the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in accordance
with the reprogramming procedures specified in the Act. Unless
otherwise directed, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service shall implement appropriations by programs, projects,
and activities as specified by the Appropriations Committees.
Unspecified reductions necessary to carry out the provisions of
this Act are to be implemented in accordance with the
definitions contained in the ``Program, project, and activity''
section of this report.
BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $4,967,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 4,996,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,967,000
The APHIS appropriation for ``Buildings and Facilities''
funds major nonrecurring construction projects in support of
specific program activities and recurring construction,
alterations, preventive maintenance, and repairs of existing
APHIS facilities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For buildings and facilities of the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, the Committee recommends an appropriation
of $4,967,000. This amount is the same as the fiscal year 2004
appropriation.
Agricultural Marketing Service
MARKETING SERVICES
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $74,985,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 85,998,000
Committee recommendation................................ 78,198,000
The Agricultural Marketing Service [AMS] was established by
the Secretary of Agriculture on April 2, 1972. AMS carries out
programs authorized by some 31 different statutory authorities,
the primary ones being the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946
(7 U.S.C. 1621-1627); the U.S. Cotton Standards Act (7 U.S.C.
51-65); the Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act (7 U.S.C. 471-
476); the Tobacco Inspection Act (7 U.S.C. 511-511q); the
Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (7 U.S.C. 499a-499s);
the Egg Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 1031-1056); and
section 32 (15 U.S.C. 713c).
Programs administered by this Agency include the market
news services, payments to States for marketing activities, the
Plant Variety Protection Act, the Federal administration of
marketing agreements and orders, standardization, grading,
classing, and shell egg surveillance services, transportation
services, and market protection and promotion.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For marketing services of the Agricultural Marketing
Service, the Committee recommends an appropriation of
$78,198,000. This amount is $3,213,000 more than the fiscal
year 2004 appropriation. Included in this amount is $2,000,000
for the National Organic Program.
The Committee continues to encourage AMS to use this
funding to finalize the hiring of an Executive Director for the
National Organic Standards Board, to create a Peer Review Panel
to oversee the USDA accreditation process for organic
certifiers, and to improve scientific technical support for the
NOSB. The Committee also encourages AMS to regularly collect
and report agricultural price trends in the organic industry.
The Committee is aware that the current Processed Commodity
Inventory Management System [PCIMS] was developed nearly two
decades ago and has become inflexible and costly to maintain.
Therefore, the Committee directs that no less than $2,500,000
be used to begin development of a Web-Based Supply Chain
Management System to improve purchase and management of
commodities used in nutrition programs, and encourages the
Secretary to use any available authorities to transfer the
additional money necessary to fully fund this system from
Section 32 funds.
The Committee provides $14,645,000 for the Pesticide Data
Program. The Committee recognizes the importance of the
Pesticide Data Program [PDP] to collect reliable, scientific-
based pesticide residue data that benefits consumers, food
processors, crop protection, pesticide producers, and farmers.
The PDP is of particular importance since the passage of the
Food Quality Protection Act, which requires thorough re-
evaluation of agricultural pesticides and tolerances for uses
on individual crops. The PDP is an effective tool to maintain
the availability of critical products which allow the
production of safe and affordable foods.
The Committee encourages the Department to make grants to
the Kenai Peninsula Borough and Alaska regional marketing
organizations to promote wild salmon.
The State of Alaska has developed the Alaska Grown Program
to promote the sale of Alaskan products in both military and
civilian markets. The Committee fully supports this program and
expects the Department again to give full consideration to
funding applications submitted for the Alaska Grown Program,
which includes Alaska agricultural products and seafood
harvested in the State. The Alaska Grown Program should
coordinate with other regional marketing entities.
The amount provided also includes $6,195,000 for the
microbiological data program so that baselines may be
established for the incidence, number and types of food-borne
microorganisms. The Committee expects AMS to coordinate with
other agencies of USDA, other public health agencies of the
government, and industry to avoid duplication of effort and to
ensure that the data collected can be used by all interested
parties.
The Committee is aware that U.S. farmers and ranchers
operating beyond the contiguous 48 States tend to operate at a
competitive disadvantage because of their location. They are
located long distances from input and product markets and tend
to have fewer transportation alternatives than producers in the
contiguous 48 States. As such, they incur higher costs in
transporting the inputs necessary for efficient production and
shipping products to export markets. In November of 2003, USDA
completed a study entitled ``Report on Geographically
Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers'' and offered a number of
actions to alleviate some of the disadvantages. The Committee
encourages AMS to implement the recommendations made by this
study.
The Committee encourages AMS to work with ERS, NASS and RMA
on the collection of segregated data on the production and
marketing of organic agricultural products. This data should be
included in the ongoing baseline of data collection regarding
agricultural production and marketing, as directed in the 2002
Farm Bill. Specifically, data should be collected on prices,
yields, acreage and production costs in the organic sector.
The Committee is aware of the success of the Alaska Quality
Seafood Program and encourages AMS to develop a similar program
in Louisiana, modeled after the Alaska program.
The Committee encourages AMS to work with New York State
producers to design and test a distribution system that will
connect the products of upstate New York farmers with
distributors in New York City.
LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
Limitation, 2004........................................ $62,577,000
Budget limitation, 2004................................. 64,459,000
Committee recommendation................................ 64,459,000
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Public Law
97-35) initiated a system of user fees for the cost of grading
and classing cotton, tobacco, naval stores, and for warehouse
examination. These activities, authorized under the U.S. Cotton
Standards Act, the Tobacco Inspection Act, the Naval Stores
Act, the U.S. Warehouse Act, and other provisions of law are
designed to facilitate commerce and to protect participants in
the industry.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a limitation on administrative
expenses of the Agricultural Marketing Service of $64,459,000.
This amount is $1,882,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 level.
FUNDS FOR STRENGTHENING MARKETS, INCOME, AND SUPPLY
(SECTION 32)
MARKETING AGREEMENTS AND ORDERS
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $15,392,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 15,800,000
Committee recommendation................................ 15,800,000
Under section 32 of the act of August 24, 1935, (7 U.S.C.
612c), an amount equal to 30 percent of customs receipts
collected during each preceding calendar year and unused
balances are available for encouraging the domestic consumption
and exportation of agricultural commodities. An amount equal to
30 percent of receipts collected on fishery products is
transferred to the Department of Commerce. Additional transfers
to the child nutrition programs of the Food and Nutrition
Service have been provided in recent appropriations Acts.
The following table reflects the status of this fund for
fiscal years 2003-2005:
ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD, FISCAL YEARS 2003-2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 Fiscal year 2005
2003 actual current estimate budget estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation (30 percent of Customs Receipts)......... $5,798,093,321 $5,927,395,463 $6,030,964,691
Fiscal Year 2003 Appropriation (Public Law 108-7)...... 250,000,000 ................. .................
Less Transfers:
Food and Nutrition Service......................... -4,745,663,000 -4,699,661,000 -5,152,962,000
Commerce Department................................ -75,223,778 -79,724,463 -77,538,934
--------------------------------------------------------
Total, Transfers................................. -4,820,886,778 -4,779,385,463 -5,230,500,934
========================================================
Budget Authority....................................... 1,227,206,543 1,148,010,000 800,463,757
Recoveries of Prior Year Obligations................... 40,157,220 ................. .................
Unobligated Balance Available Start of Year............ 192,642,712 134,321,602 348,893,243
--------------------------------------------------------
Available for Obligation......................... 1,460,006,475 1,282,331,602 1,149,357,000
========================================================
Less Obligations:
Commodity Procurement:
Child Nutrition Purchases...................... 200,000,000 400,000,000 400,000,000
Drought Relief................................. 867,000,000 ................. .................
State Option Contract.......................... 948,480 5,000,000 5,000,000
Removal of Defective Commodities............... 999,919 1,000,000 1,000,000
Emergency Surplus Removal...................... 222,090,274 164,628,359 .................
Direct Payments................................ 8,000,000 18,750,000 .................
Lamb Grading and Certification Support......... 103,343 100,000 .................
Disaster Relief................................ 499,989 ................. .................
Estimated Future Purchases..................... ................. 317,525,000 416,325,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Total Commodity Procurement.................. 1,299,642,005 907,003,359 822,325,000
========================================================
Administrative Funds:
Commodity Purchase Services.................... 11,199,016 11,043,000 11,232,000
Marketing Agreements & Orders...................... 14,843,852 15,392,000 15,800,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Total, Administrative Funds...................... 26,042,868 26,435,000 27,032,000
========================================================
Total, Obligations............................... 1,325,684,873 933,438,359 849,357,000
========================================================
Unobligated Balance Available, End of Year............. 134,321,602 348,893,243 300,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a transfer from section 32 funds
of $15,800,000 for the formulation and administration of
marketing agreements and orders. This amount is $408,000 more
than the fiscal year 2004 level.
In previous fiscal years, section 32 funds have been spent
to purchase and distribute salmon for donation to schools,
institutions, and other domestic feeding programs. The
Committee directs the Agricultural Marketing Service [AMS] to
assess the existing inventories of pink salmon, salmon nuggets,
and pouched salmon and determine whether there is a surplus and
continued low prices. If a surplus exists, the Committee
expects the Department to purchase salmon for use in schools,
institutions, and other domestic feeding programs, and for
humanitarian aid.
The Committee encourages USDA to use all existing
authorities under the section 32 program through emergency
surplus removal and other commodity purchases, including fruit
and vegetable purchases, as mandated in the 2002 Farm Bill.
The Committee is aware that section 10603 of Public Law
107-171, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002,
mandates that the Secretary must use a minimum of $200,000,000
each fiscal year to purchase fruits, vegetables and other
specialty food crops. The Committee reminds USDA of the
language included in section 53 of the conference report
accompanying this law and expects that these purchases will be
made according to Congressional intent.
The Committee is aware of the recent pricing of cranberries
below the cost of production that has negatively impacted
cranberry producers in growing regions across the country.
Given the anticipated industry inventory of 3,400,000 barrels
during the coming fiscal year, the Committee directs USDA to
use all existing authorities under the section 32 program to
purchase no less than the average purchase amount over the past
3 fiscal years in order to prevent market instability.
The Committee is aware that farmed salmon imports from
Chile, Norway, and other countries have undercut the market for
wild Alaska salmon and have created a domestic surplus of wild
pink salmon. The Committee encourages the Department to use all
existing authorities under the section 32 program to purchase
surplus domestic salmon and stabilize the domestic salmon
industry.
The Committee is aware that fresh asparagus imports from
countries benefiting from the Andean Trade Preference Act have
displaced domestic asparagus producers, particularly in
Washington State, and created a domestic surplus. The Committee
is also aware that domestic asparagus producers have been
unable to access Trade Adjustment Assistance. The Committee
encourages the Department to use all existing authorities under
the section 32 program to purchase surplus domestic asparagus.
PAYMENTS TO STATES AND POSSESSIONS
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $3,318,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 1,347,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,847,000
The Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program [FSMIP] is
authorized by section 204(b) of the Agricultural Marketing Act
of 1946 and is also funded from appropriations. Payments are
made to State marketing agencies to: identify and test market
alternative farm commodities; determine methods of providing
more reliable market information, and develop better commodity
grading standards. This program has made possible many types of
projects, such as electronic marketing and agricultural product
diversification. Current projects are focused on the
improvement of marketing efficiency and effectiveness, and
seeking new outlets for existing farm produced commodities. The
legislation grants the U.S. Department of Agriculture authority
to establish cooperative agreements with State departments of
agriculture or similar State agencies to improve the efficiency
of the agricultural marketing chain. The States perform the
work or contract it to others, and must contribute at least
one-half of the cost of the projects.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For payments to States and possessions for Federal-State
marketing projects and activities, the Committee provides
$3,847,000. This amount is $529,000 more than the fiscal year
2004 appropriation. The Committee directs that $2,500,000 be
provided to the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and
Consumer Protection for the development of specialty markets.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $35,678,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 44,150,000
Committee recommendation................................ 37,299,000
The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
[GIPSA] was established pursuant to the Secretary's 1994
reorganization. Grain inspection and weighing programs are
carried out under the U.S. Grain Standards Act and other
programs under the authority of the Agricultural Marketing Act
of 1946, including the inspection and grading of rice and
grain-related products; conducting official weighing and grain
inspection activities; and grading dry beans and peas, and
processed grain products. Under the Packers and Stockyards Act,
assurance of the financial integrity of the livestock, meat,
and poultry markets is provided. The administration monitors
competition in order to protect producers, consumers, and
industry from deceptive and fraudulent practices which affect
meat and poultry prices.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For salaries and expenses of the Grain Inspection, Packers
and Stockyards Administration, the Committee recommends an
appropriation of $37,299,000. This amount is $1,621,000 more
than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation, and includes
$1,000,000 for requested program initiatives such as IT
security and BSE-related activities.
The Committee expects the Department to continue the market
catalog reporting.
The Committee continues funding for the Swine Contract
Library.
The Committee understands that GIPSA is assessing how to
facilitate the efficient marketing of grain by augmenting, not
supplanting, existing market mechanisms. The Committee
encourages the Department to continue the cooperative
relationship with the Iowa Corn Growers Association and the
Illinois Corn Growers Association, and provides the fiscal year
2004 funding level for an ongoing study of process verification
systems and protocols.
LIMITATION ON INSPECTION AND WEIGHING SERVICES EXPENSES
Limitation, 2004........................................ $42,463,000
Budget limitation, 2005................................. 42,463,000
Committee recommendation................................ 42,463,000
The Agency provides an official grain inspection and
weighing system under the U.S. Grain Standards Act [USGSA], and
official inspection of rice and grain-related products under
the Agricultural Marketing Act [AMA] of 1946. The USGSA was
amended in 1981 to require the collection of user fees to fund
the costs associated with the operation, supervision, and
administration of Federal grain inspection and weighing
activities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a $42,463,000 limitation on
inspection and weighing services expenses. This amount is the
same as the fiscal year 2004 level.
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $595,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 803,000
Committee recommendation................................ 608,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety provides
direction and coordination in carrying out the laws enacted by
the Congress with respect to the Department's inspection of
meat, poultry, and egg products. The Office has oversight and
management responsibilities for the Food Safety and Inspection
Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, the
Committee recommends an appropriation of $608,000. This amount
is $13,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation.
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $779,882,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 838,660,000
Committee recommendation................................ 823,757,000
The major objectives of the Food Safety and Inspection
Service are to assure that meat and poultry products are
wholesome, unadulterated, and properly labeled and packaged, as
required by the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry
Products Inspection Act; and to provide continuous in-plant
inspection to egg processing plants under the Egg Products
Inspection Act.
The Food Safety and Inspection Service was established on
June 17, 1981, by Secretary's Memorandum No. 1000-1, issued
pursuant to Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953.
The inspection program of the Food Safety and Inspection
Service provides continuous in-plant inspection of all domestic
plants preparing meat, poultry or egg products for sale or
distribution; reviews foreign inspection systems and
establishments that prepare meat or poultry products for export
to the United States; and provides technical and financial
assistance to States which maintain meat and poultry inspection
programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Food Safety and Inspection Service, the Committee
recommends an appropriation of $823,757,000. This amount is
$43,875,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. This
increase includes $12,267,000 for front line inspection costs,
bringing the total number of FSIS slaughter inspectors to
7,690. The Committee also provides $7,000,000 to continue
training for entry-level inspectors. In addition, the Committee
provides $3,000,000 to improve Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
[BSE] surveillance, as requested in the budget.
The Committee has provided the following amounts in the
Food Safety and Inspection Service account for new and enhanced
activities under the Food and Agriculture Defense Initiative:
$2,500,000 for biosurveillance, $7,000,000 for Food Emergency
Response Network, $1,250,000 for enhance lab capabilities, and
$1,000,000 for biosecurity training.
The Committee has provided an increase of $105,000 from the
fiscal year 2004 funding level for activities related to the
Codex Alimentarius.
Humane Slaughter.--The Committee notes the positive steps
taken by FSIS for enforcement of the Humane Methods of
Slaughter Act [HMSA]. Among the steps taken by FSIS has been
the establishment of a Humane Animal Tracking [HAT] system, and
the Committee provides $4,000,000 to incorporate the HAT system
into the FAIM architecture. The Committee further directs FSIS
to provide notification to the Committees on Appropriations
prior to obligating funds for incorporating HAT under FAIM.
This notification should provide the Committees with details on
specific costs associated with this action, a schedule for
incorporation, and how this action will benefit enforcement of
HMSA regulations.
The Committee provides the amount requested in the budget
to maintain the 63 full time equivalent positions which have
been increased for this purpose above the fiscal year 2002
level. The Committee strongly feels that a portion of that FTE
increase should be used to allow additional FSIS personnel to
work cooperatively with the existing District Veterinary
Medical Specialists [DVMS], whose duties are specifically tied
to HMSA enforcement, in order to increase the number of
facility visits by FSIS personnel with special expertise in
HMSA enforcement, and to allow each DVMS better opportunities
to visit facilities in other FSIS districts to enhance
communication and problem solving among all districts.
In addition, the Committee expects FSIS to consider a
number of objective scoring techniques to measure more
precisely the extent to and the occasions in which regulatory
actions may be appropriate, and means by which FSIS personnel
can actually document improvements or failures in animal
handling and slaughter operations. Further, the Committee
believes other scoring protocols will serve as useful tools to
the agency in directing limited resources. Such protocols may
include assigning overall facility ratings in regard to layout
and adoption by facility management of a systematic approach to
monitor and comply with HMSA requirements. In addition, the
Committee encourages FSIS to enhance capabilities to observe
animal handling and slaughter operations through the use of
location or technological opportunities to make unannounced
observations that will allow the initiation, when appropriate,
of regulatory actions.
The Committee directs FSIS to report to the Committee by
March 1, 2005, on additional progress or challenges the agency
has met in HMSA enforcement, including the adoption or
rejection of the recommendations made by the Committee.
Self-Contained Modular Facilities.--The Centers for Disease
Control [CDC] has incorporated self-contained modular
facilities [SCMF] and modular specimen triage units [STU] in
the development and implementation of its 50 State public
health laboratories and facilities comprising the Laboratory
Response Network [LRN]. The Committee encourages the Food
Safety and Inspection Service to consult with CDC to evaluate
the benefits of incorporating self-contained modular
facilities.
Import Inspection.--When a significant number of plants
initially audited in a particular country fail to meet U.S.
safety standards, the Committee continues to expect the
Department to exercise all authorities to limit imports from
all plants in that country which have not been audited in the
previous 12 months, as well as imports from those plants that
failed initial audits, until subsequent findings establish that
proper inspection systems are in place.
Baseline Studies.--The Committee is aware that FSIS is
currently conducting ongoing nationwide microbiological
baseline studies for nine commodities. These studies will
permit FSIS to collect more appropriate scientific data in
order to conduct risk assessments and to more accurately track
prevalence and levels of foodborne disease-causing bacteria.
The Committee directs that no less than $2,000,000, an increase
of $350,000, be used to continue these baseline studies.
The following table represents the Committee's specific
recommendations for the Food Safety and Inspection Service as
compared to the fiscal year 2004 and budget request levels:
FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Fiscal year 2005 budget Committee
2004 enacted request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food safety inspection:
Federal..................................................... 697,682 758,702 740,835
State....................................................... 49,564 53,198 52,552
International............................................... 18,290 19,815 19,425
Codex Alimentarius.............................................. 2,621 2,726 2,726
FAIM............................................................ 11,725 4,219 8,219
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 779,882 838,660 823,757
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural
Services
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $631,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 933,000
Committee recommendation................................ 648,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign
Agricultural Services provides direction and coordination in
carrying out the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to
the Department's international affairs (except for foreign
economics development) and commodity programs. The Office has
oversight and management responsibilities for the Farm Service
Agency, including the Commodity Credit Corporation, Risk
Management Agency, and the Foreign Agricultural Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign
Agricultural Services, the Committee recommends an
appropriation of $648,000. This amount is $17,000 more than the
fiscal year 2004 appropriation.
The Committee continues to urge the Secretary to work with
representatives of the dairy industry and appropriate non-
governmental organizations to increase the amount of fortified
dry milk exported under humanitarian assistance programs.
The Committee urges the U.S. Agency for International
Development and USDA to manage the Food Security Commodity
Reserve effectively to meet international food aid commitments
of the United States, including supplementing Public Law 480
title II funds to meet emergency food needs.
Farm Service Agency
The Farm Service Agency [FSA] was established October 3,
1994, pursuant to the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and
Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, Public
Law 103-354. The FSA administers a variety of activities, such
as the commodity price support and production adjustment
programs financed by the Commodity Credit Corporation; the
Conservation Reserve Program [CRP]; the Emergency Conservation
Program; the Commodity Operation Programs including the
warehouse examination function; farm ownership, farm operating,
emergency disaster, and other loan programs; and the Noninsured
Crop Disaster Assistance Program [NAP], which provides crop
loss protection for growers of many crops for which crop
insurance is not available. In addition, FSA currently provides
certain administrative support services to the Foreign
Agricultural Service [FAS] and to the Risk Management Agency
[RMA].
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfers from Total, FSA,
Appropriations program salaries and
accounts expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2004......................................... 982,934 283,244 1,266,178
Budget estimate, 2005........................................ 1,007,877 309,163 1,317,040
Committee recommendation..................................... 1,004,032 297,703 1,301,735
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The account ``Salaries and expenses, Farm Service Agency,''
funds the administrative expenses of program administration and
other functions assigned to FSA. The funds consist of
appropriations and transfers from the CCC export credit
guarantees, Public Law 480 loans, and agricultural credit
insurance fund program accounts, and miscellaneous advances
from other sources. All administrative funds used by FSA are
consolidated into one account. The consolidation provides
clarity and better management and control of funds, and
facilitates accounting, fiscal, and budgetary work by
eliminating the necessity for making individual allocations and
allotments and maintaining and recording obligations and
expenditures under numerous separate accounts.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For salaries and expenses of the Farm Service Agency [FSA],
including funds transferred from other program accounts, the
Committee recommends $1,301,735,000. This amount is $35,557,000
more than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. The Committee
includes funding for an information technology specialist, a
clerical support person, a new program coordinator, and a new
loan officer in the FSA headquarters in the State of Alaska.
STATE MEDIATION GRANTS
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $3,951,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 4,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,000,000
This program is authorized under title V of the
Agricultural Credit Act of 1987. Originally designed to address
agricultural credit disputes, the program was expanded by the
Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Act of 1994 to include other agricultural issues
such as wetland determinations, conservation compliance, rural
water loan programs, grazing on National Forest System lands,
and pesticides. Grants are made to States whose mediation
programs have been certified by the Farm Service Agency [FSA].
Grants will be solely for operation and administration of the
State's agricultural mediation program.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends $4,000,000 for State mediation
grants. This amount $49,000 more than the fiscal year 2004
appropriation.
DAIRY INDEMNITY PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $100,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 100,000
Committee recommendation................................ 100,000
Under the program, the Department makes indemnification
payments to dairy farmers and manufacturers of dairy products
who, through no fault of their own, suffer losses because they
are directed to remove their milk from commercial markets due
to contamination of their products by registered pesticides.
The program also authorizes indemnity payments to dairy farmers
for losses resulting from the removal of cows or dairy products
from the market due to nuclear radiation or fallout.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the dairy indemnity program, the Committee recommends
$100,000. This amount is the same as the fiscal year 2004
appropriation.
AGRICULTURAL CREDIT INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
The Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account is
used to insure or guarantee farm ownership, farm operating, and
emergency loans to individuals, as well as the following types
of loans to associations: irrigation and drainage, grazing,
Indian tribe land acquisition and boll weevil eradication. The
insurance endorsement on each insured loan may include an
agreement by the Government to purchase the loan after a
specified initial period.
FSA is also authorized to provide financial assistance to
borrowers by guaranteeing loans made by private lenders having
a contract of guarantee from FSA as approved by the Secretary
of Agriculture.
The following programs are financed through this fund:
Farm Ownership Loans.--Made to borrowers who cannot obtain
credit elsewhere to restructure their debts, improve or
purchase farms, refinance nonfarm enterprises which supplement
but do not supplant farm income, or make additions to farms.
Total indebtedness to FSA may not exceed $200,000 for direct
loans and $782,000 for guaranteed loans. Loans are made for 40
years or less.
Farm Operating Loans.--Provide short-to-intermediate term
production or chattel credit to farmers who cannot obtain
credit elsewhere, to improve their farm and home operations,
and to develop or maintain a reasonable standard of living.
Total indebtedness to FSA may not exceed $200,000 for direct
loans and $782,000 for guaranteed loans. The term of the loan
varies from 1 to 7 years.
Credit Sales of Acquired Property.--Property is sold out of
inventory and is made to an eligible buyer by providing FSA
loans.
Indian Tribe Land Acquisition Loans.--Made to any Indian
tribe recognized by the Secretary of the Interior or tribal
corporation established pursuant to the Indian Reorganization
Act which does not have adequate uncommitted funds to acquire
lands or interest in lands within the tribe's reservation or
Alaskan Indian community, as determined by the Secretary of the
Interior, for use of the tribe or the corporation or the
members thereof.
Boll Weevil Eradication Loans.--Made to assist foundations
in financing the operations of the boll weevil eradication
programs provided to farmers.
Emergency Loans.--Made to producers to aid recovery from
production and physical losses due to drought, flooding, other
natural disasters, or quarantine. The loans may be used to:
restore or replace essential property; pay all or part of
production costs associated with the disaster year; pay
essential family living expenses; reorganize the farming
operation; and refinance certain debts.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a total level for farm loans of
$3,362,000,000. This amount is $115,751,000 more than the
fiscal year 2004 level.
The Committee provides no new budget authority for the
emergency loan program. Currently, this loan program has over
$175,000,000 available for eligible producers. Based on
historical loan activity, this amount should meet all needs for
emergency loans in this fiscal year.
The following table reflects the program levels for farm
credit programs administered by the Farm Service Agency
recommended by the Committee, as compared to the fiscal year
2004 and the budget request levels:
AGRICULTURAL CREDIT PROGRAMS--LOAN LEVELS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 Fiscal year 2005 Committee
enacted budget recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farm ownership:
Direct................................................ 128,396 200,000 210,000
Guaranteed............................................ 944,395 1,400,000 1,100,000
Farm operating:
Direct................................................ 613,860 650,000 650,000
Guaranteed unsubsidized............................... 1,192,920 1,200,000 1,000,000
Guaranteed subsidized................................. 264,678 266,253 300,000
Indian tribe land acquisition............................. 2,000 2,000 2,000
Boll weevil eradication................................... 100,000 60,000 100,000
Emergency disaster........................................ ................ 25,000 ................
-----------------------------------------------------
Total, farm loans................................... 3,246,249 3,803,253 3,362,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOAN SUBSIDIES AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidies Administrative expenses
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Insured Guaranteed Transfer to Total ACIF
loan loan Total Appropriations FSA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2004........... 116,869 78,623 195,492 7,901 281,350 484,743
Budget estimate, 2005.......... 79,625 81,618 161,243 8,000 305,011 474,254
Committee recommendation....... 76,925 78,060 154,985 8,000 293,764 456,749
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the
program account. Appropriations to this account are used to
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct
loans obligated and loan guarantees committed, as well as for
administrative expenses.
The following table reflects the cost of loan programs
under credit reform:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
2004 enacted 2005 budget recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:
Farm ownership:
Direct............................................... 28,350 10,700 11,235
Guaranteed........................................... 5,100 7,420 5,830
Farm operating:
Direct............................................... 88,519 65,585 65,585
Guaranteed unsubsidized.............................. 39,724 38,760 32,300
Guaranteed subsidized................................ 33,799 35,438 39,930
Indian tribe land acquisition \1\........................ ............... 105 105
Boll weevil eradication \2\.............................. ............... ............... ...............
Emergency disaster........................................... ............... 3,235 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Total, loan subsidies................................ 195,492 161,243 154,985
ACIF expenses................................................ 289,251 313,011 301,764
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Negative subsidy rate for fiscal year 2004 is calculated for this program.
\2\ Negative subsidy rate for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 is calculated for this program.
Risk Management Agency
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $71,001,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 91,582,000
Committee recommendation................................ 72,044,000
The Risk Management Agency performs administrative
functions relative to the Federal crop insurance program that
is authorized by the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C.
1508), as amended by the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of
2000 [ARPA], Public Law 106-224, and the Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002 (2002 Act), Public Law 107-171.
ARPA authorized significant changes in the crop insurance
program. This Act provides higher government subsidies for
producer premiums to make coverage more affordable; expands
research and development for new insurance products and under-
served areas through contracts with the private sector; and
tightens compliance. Functional areas of risk management are:
research and development; insurance services; and compliance,
whose functions include policy formulation and procedures and
regulations development.
The 2002 Act maintains the basic crop insurance program
largely without change. This Act also requires the continuation
of the Adjusted Gross Revenue [AGR] pilot program, which
provides insurance coverage for crops for which traditional
crop insurance is not available. However, the 2002 Act
eliminates the ARPA provision that allowed selection of
continuous coverage levels, rather than coverage levels at
fixed intervals.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For administrative and operating expenses for the Risk
Management Agency, the Committee recommends an appropriation of
$72,044,000. This amount is $1,043,000 more than the fiscal
year 2004 appropriation.
The Committee encourages RMA to work with North Dakota
State University on an actuarial study regarding a proposed
pilot project that would develop an optional insurance program
in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota on wheat, barley,
soybeans, and corn.
The Committee encourages RMA to develop and implement an
actuarially-sound rider option to the current crop insurance
program for avocados to cover losses due to quarantines, and to
do so in close cooperation with the California avocado
industry. The Committee further requests the Department to
report on the economic impacts of recent domestic quarantines
and to analyze options for protecting avocado growers against
future losses due to such regulatory actions.
USDA has initiated a number of new rules intended to ensure
the safety of American beef. One of these rules prohibits the
entry of any downer animals into the food supply. While the
safety of the American food supply is of utmost importance, the
Committee is aware that the downer prohibition will have
financial implications for American farmers and ranchers who
raise and send cattle to slaughter. Although it is the
responsibility of these farmers and ranchers to work to ensure
that their animal remain healthy until they reach the slaughter
plant, the Committee suggests that USDA look into ways to
manage financial risk to producers when an animal becomes a
downer and is unable to be sent to the food supply. One such
way could be the creation of an insurance program similar to
the crop insurance program, which would cover and protect
against the loss of income due to downer animals. The Committee
requests USDA look into the development of such a program, and
report on potential benefits and problems by June 1, 2005.
CORPORATIONS
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund
Appropriations, 2004 \1\................................ $3,765,000,000
Budget estimate, 2005 \1\............................... 4,095,128,000
Committee recommendation \1\............................ 4,095,128,000
\1\ Current estimate. Such sums as may be necessary, to remain available
until expended, are provided.
The Federal Crop Insurance Reform Act of 1994 was designed
to replace the combination of crop insurance and ad hoc
disaster payment programs with a strengthened crop insurance
program.
The Federal Crop Insurance Act, as amended by the Federal
Crop Insurance Reform Act of 1994, authorizes the payment of
expenses which may include indemnity payments, loss adjustment,
delivery expenses, program-related research and development,
startup costs for implementing this legislation such as
studies, pilot projects, data processing improvements, public
outreach, and related tasks and functions.
All program costs, except for Federal salaries and
expenses, are mandatory expenditures subject to appropriation.
Producers of insurable crops are eligible to receive a
basic level of protection against catastrophic losses, which
cover 50 percent of the normal yield at 55 percent of the
expected price. The only cost to the producer is an
administrative fee of $100 per crop per policy.
The Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 [ARPA] amended
the Federal Crop Insurance Act to strengthen the safety net for
agricultural producers by providing greater access to more
affordable risk management tools and improved protection from
production and income loss, and to improve the efficiency and
integrity of the Federal crop insurance program. ARPA allows
for the improvement of basic crop insurance products by
implementing higher premium subsidies to make buy-up coverage
more affordable for producers; make adjustments in actual
production history guarantees; and revise the administrative
fees for catastrophic [CAT] coverage. More crops and
commodities have become insurable through pilot programs
effective with the 2001 crop year. ARPA provides for an
investment for over $8,200,000,000 in 5 years to further
improve Federal crop insurance.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation fund, the
Committee recommends an appropriation of such sums as may be
necessary, estimated to be $4,095,128,000. This amount is
$330,128,000 more than the current fiscal year 2004 estimate.
COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION FUND
The Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC] is a wholly owned
Government corporation created in 1933 to stabilize, support,
and protect farm income and prices; to help maintain balanced
and adequate supplies of agricultural commodities, including
products, foods, feeds, and fibers; and to help in the orderly
distribution of these commodities. CCC was originally
incorporated under a Delaware charter and was reincorporated
June 30, 1948, as a Federal corporation within the Department
of Agriculture by the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act,
approved June 29, 1948 (15 U.S.C. 714).
The Commodity Credit Corporation engages in buying,
selling, lending, and other activities with respect to
agricultural commodities, their products, food, feed, and
fibers. Its purposes include stabilizing, supporting, and
protecting farm income and prices; maintaining the balance and
adequate supplies of selected commodities; and facilitating the
orderly distribution of such commodities. In addition, the
Corporation makes available materials and facilities required
in connection with the storage and distribution of such
commodities. The Corporation also disburses funds for sharing
of costs with producers for the establishment of approved
conservation practices on environmentally sensitive land and
subsequent rental payments for such land for the duration of
Conservation Reserve Program contracts.
Corporation activities are primarily governed by the
following statutes: the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter
Act, as amended; the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended (1949
Act); the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended (the
1938 Act); the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended (1985
Act); and the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002
(2002 Act), enacted May 13, 2002.
Under the 2002 Act, the Secretary is required to offer a
program of direct and counter-cyclical payments and extend
nonrecourse marketing assistance loans and loan deficiency
payments for contract commodities (soybeans, wheat, corn, grain
sorghum, barley, oats, upland cotton, rice, other oilseeds, and
peanuts). The 2002 Act also provides for marketing loans for
wool, mohair, honey, small chickpeas, lentils and dry peas. A
national Milk Income Loss Contract [MILC] program was
established by the 2002 Act, providing that producers enter
into contracts extending through September 30, 2005. A milk
price support program is also provided to support the price of
milk via purchases of butter, cheese, and nonfat dry milk. The
rate of support is $9.90 per hundredweight.
The 2002 Act directs the Secretary to operate the sugar
program at no cost to the U.S. Treasury by avoiding sugar loan
forfeitures in the nonrecourse loan program. The nonrecourse
loan program is reauthorized through fiscal year 2007 at 18
cents per pound for raw cane sugar and 22.9 cents per pound for
refined beet sugar.
In the conservation area, the 2002 Act extends and expands
the conservation reserve program [CRP], the wetlands reserve
program [WRP], the environmental quality incentives program
[EQIP], the farmland protection program [FPP], and the wildlife
habitat incentives program [WHIP]. Each of these programs is
funded through the CCC.
The 2002 Act also authorizes and provides CCC funding for
other conservation programs, including the conservation
security program and the grassland reserve program.
Management of the Corporation is vested in a board of
directors, subject to the general supervision and direction of
the Secretary of Agriculture, who is an ex-officio director and
chairman of the board. The board consists of seven members, in
addition to the Secretary, who are appointed by the President
of the United States with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Officers of the Corporation are designated according to their
positions in the Department of Agriculture.
The activities of the Corporation are carried out mainly by
the personnel and through the facilities of the Farm Service
Agency [FSA] and the Farm Service Agency State and county
committees. The Foreign Agricultural Service, the General Sales
Manager, other agencies and offices of the Department, and
commercial agents are also used to carry out certain aspects of
the Corporation's activities.
The Corporation's capital stock of $100,000,000 is held by
the United States. Under present law, up to $30,000,000,000 may
be borrowed from the U.S. Treasury, from private lending
agencies, and from others at any one time. The Corporation
reserves a sufficient amount of its borrowing authority to
purchase at any time all notes and other obligations evidencing
loans made by such agencies and others. All bonds, notes,
debentures, and similar obligations issued by the Corporation
are subject to approval by the Secretary of the Treasury.
Under Public Law 87-155 (15 U.S.C. 713a-11, 713a-12),
annual appropriations are authorized for each fiscal year,
commencing with fiscal year 1961. These appropriations are to
reimburse the Corporation for net realized losses.
REIMBURSEMENT FOR NET REALIZED LOSSES
Appropriations, 2004 \1\................................ $22,937,000,000
Budget estimate, 2005 \1\............................... 16,452,377,000
Committee recommendation \1\............................ 16,452,377,000
\1\ Current estimate. Such sums as may be necessary are provided.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the payment to reimburse the Commodity Credit
Corporation [CCC] for net realized losses, the Committee
recommends an appropriation of such sums as may be necessary,
estimated in fiscal year 2005 to be $16,452,377,000. This
amount is $6,484,623,000 less than the current estimated
limitation.
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
Limitation, 2004........................................ $5,000,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 5,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,000,000
The Commodity Credit Corporation's [CCC] hazardous waste
management program is intended to ensure compliance with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
The CCC funds operations and maintenance costs as well as site
investigation and cleanup expenses. Investigative and cleanup
costs associated with the management of CCC hazardous waste are
also paid from USDA's hazardous waste management appropriation.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For Commodity Credit Corporation hazardous waste
management, the Committee provides a limitation of $5,000,000.
This amount is the same as the fiscal year 2004 limitation.
TITLE II--CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $741,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 936,000
Committee recommendation................................ 758,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment provides direction and coordination in carrying out
the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to natural
resources and the environment. The Office has oversight and
management responsibilities for the Natural Resources
Conservation Service and the Forest Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources
and Environment, the Committee recommends an appropriation of
$758,000. This amount is $17,000 more than the fiscal year 2004
appropriation.
The Committee continues its opposition to administration
proposals to fund technical assistance for Farm Bill
conservation programs from discretionary accounts provided in
this Act. The Committee provides statutory language under the
Conservation Operations, the Watershed Surveys and Planning,
the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations, and the
Watershed Rehabilitation Program accounts to prohibit the use
of any funds appropriated under these accounts to provide
technical assistance to carry out programs listed in section
1241(a) of the Food Security Act of 1985.
The Committee is aware that Devils Lake in the State of
North Dakota is now more than 25 feet higher than it was in
1993. The Committee encourages the NRCS, with the cooperation
of the FSA, to assist locally-coordinated flood response and
water management activities. NRCS and FSA should continue to
utilize conservation programs in providing water holding,
storage, and other innovative solutions as necessary measures
in watershed management.
Natural Resources Conservation Service
The Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] was
established pursuant to Public Law 103-354, the Department of
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6962). NRCS
combines the authorities of the former Soil Conservation
Service as well as five natural resource conservation cost-
share programs previously administered by the Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service. Through the years, this
Service, together with the agricultural conservation programs
and over 2 million conservation district cooperatives, has been
a major factor in reducing pollution. The Natural Resources
Conservation Service works with conservation districts,
watershed groups, and the Federal and State agencies having
related responsibilities to bring about physical adjustments in
land use that will conserve soil and water resources, provide
for agricultural production on a sustained basis, and reduce
damage by flood and sedimentation. The Service, with its dams,
debris basins, and planned watersheds, provides technical
advice to the agricultural conservation programs, where the
Federal Government pays about one-third of the cost, and,
through these programs, has done perhaps more to minimize
pollution than any other activity. These programs and water
sewage systems in rural areas tend to minimize pollution in the
areas of greatest damage, the rivers and harbors near our
cities.
The conservation activities of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service are guided by the priorities and
objectives as set forth in the National Conservation Program
[NCP] which was prepared in response to the provisions of the
Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977 [RCA] (Public
Law 95-192). The long-term objectives of the program are
designed to maintain and improve the soil, water, and related
resources of the Nation's nonpublic lands by: reducing
excessive soil erosion, improving irrigation efficiencies,
improving water management, reducing upstream flood damages,
improving range condition, and improving water quality.
CONSERVATION OPERATIONS
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $847,971,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 710,412,000
Committee recommendation................................ 845,863,000
Conservation operations are authorized by Public Law 74-46
(16 U.S.C. 590a-590f). Activities include:
Conservation Technical Assistance.--Provides assistance to
district cooperators and other land users in the planning and
application of conservation treatments to control erosion and
improve the quantity and quality of soil resources, improve and
conserve water, enhance fish and wildlife habitat, conserve
energy, improve woodland, pasture and range conditions, and
reduce upstream flooding; all to protect and enhance the
natural resource base.
Inventory and monitoring provides soil, water, and related
resource data for land conservation, use, and development;
guidance of community development; identification of prime
agricultural producing areas that should be protected;
environmental quality protection; and for the issuance of
periodic inventory reports of resource conditions.
Resource appraisal and program development ensures that
programs administered by the Secretary of Agriculture for the
conservation of soil, water, and related resources shall
respond to the Nation's long-term needs.
Soil Surveys.--Inventories the Nation's basic soil
resources and determines land capabilities and conservation
treatment needs. Soil survey publications include
interpretations useful to cooperators, other Federal agencies,
State, and local organizations.
Snow Survey and Water Forecasting.--Provides estimates of
annual water availability from high mountain snow packs and
relates to summer stream flow in the Western States and Alaska.
Information is used by agriculture, industry, and cities in
estimating future water supplies.
Plant Materials Centers.--Assembles, tests, and encourages
increased use of plant species which show promise for use in
the treatment of conservation problem areas.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For conservation operations, the Committee recommends an
appropriation of $845,863,000. This amount is $2,108,000 less
than the 2004 level.
For fiscal year 2005, the Committee recommends funding, as
specified below, for new and ongoing conservation activities.
Amounts provided by the Committee for specific conservation
measures shall be in addition to levels otherwise made
available to States.
Projects identified in Conference Report 108-401 that were
directed to be funded by the Committee for fiscal year 2004 are
not funded for fiscal year 2005, unless specifically mentioned
herein.
The Committee encourages the Secretary to utilize no less
than $5,000,000 from all appropriate funding sources to support
sage-grouse habitat conservation in States within the current
range of the greater sage-grouse. The Secretary shall make
assistance available for habitat conservation efforts on
private and leased public lands.
The Committee recognizes that the High Plains Aquifer, with
the Ogallala Aquifer as its most important component, lies
beneath eight States and is the primary source of water for all
reported uses in western Kansas. The Committee is aware that
the aquifer is depleting at alarming rates and absent
conservation efforts could be dry within two decades. The
Committee urges the agency to give consideration to the use of
ground and surface water funding for projects in Kansas that
will conserve this aquifer.
The Committee supports the preservation of the last
tallgrass prairie in North America, most of which is located in
the Flint Hills region of Kansas. The Committee recognizes that
the tallgrass prairie provides rich ranching lands, open
spaces, and habitat for a diverse assemblage of plants and
animals. The Committee urges the agency to give consideration
to the use of all appropriate funding sources for projects in
Kansas that will preserve and protect this unique area.
The Committee provides $12,000,000 for Snow Survey and
Water Supply Forecasting.
The Committee provides $23,500,000 for the Grazing Lands
Conservation Initiative.
The Committee provides $3,000,000 to maintain a partnership
between USDA and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
The Committee directs the agency to maintain a national
priority area pilot program under the guidelines of the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program [EQIP] in the Delta of
the State of Mississippi.
The Committee provides $1,500,000 for the Franklin County
Lake Project in the State of Mississippi.
The Committee provides $1,500,000 for a study to
characterize the on-site consequences, estimate off-site
impacts, and develop strategies to facilitate land use change
while preserving critical natural resources. The agency is
directed to work in cooperation with Clemson University.
The Committee provides $300,000 to continue the expansion
of the Potomac and Ohio River Basins Soil Nutrient Project to
include Jefferson, Berkeley, and Greenbrier Counties. This
funding will enable the NRCS, in cooperation with West Virginia
University and the Appalachian Small Farming Research Center,
Natural Soil Survey Laboratory in Lincoln, NE to identify and
characterize phosphorous movement in soils to determine
appropriate transportation, the holding capacity, and the
management of phosphorous. This information is critical in
helping Appalachian farmers deal with nutrient loading issues
and in protecting the Chesapeake Bay from eutrophication and
the Ohio River, Mississippi River, and Gulf of Mexico from
depletion of life-sustaining oxygen.
The Committee provides $950,000 for grazing land
conservation activities in the State of Wisconsin.
The Committee provides $315,000 to obtain and evaluate
materials and seeds of plants indigenous to regions north of 52
degrees North Latitude and equivalent vegetated regions in the
Southern Hemisphere (south of 52 degrees South Latitude). The
Committee directs the agency to continue working in conjunction
with the Alaska Division of Agriculture in this effort.
The Committee provides $400,000 for a cooperative agreement
with Western Kentucky University.
The Committee provides $850,000 to expand to the entire
State of Hawaii the agricultural development and resource
conservation program currently serving the Island of Molokai.
The Committee provides $860,000 to continue the Appalachian
Small Farmer Outreach Program in the State of West Virginia.
The Committee directs NRCS to support all existing offices
in the State of Alaska at current levels.
The Committee directs the agency to work with soil
scientists at regional land-grant universities to continue the
pilot project in Washington, Sharkey and Yazoo Counties,
Mississippi, to determine the proper classification and
taxonomic characteristics of Sharkey soils.
The Committee provides $1,200,000 to address erosion in the
Loess Hills/Hungry Canyon area in the State of Iowa.
The Committee provides $1,400,000 for the Delta
Conservation Demonstration Center in Washington County,
Mississippi.
The Committee provides $200,000 to continue the Idaho One-
Plan in Canyon County, Idaho.
The Committee provides $315,000 for commercialization of
native plant materials in the State of Alaska.
The Committee provides $1,000,000 for the continued
development of a geographic information system database in the
State of South Carolina to integrate commodity and conservation
program data at the field level for watershed analysis
purposes.
The Committee provides $160,000 to conduct nitrogen soil
tests and plant-available nitrogen tests, and to demonstrate
poultry litter and wood composting in an effort to improve
farmers' economic returns and minimize potential water quality
conditions resulting from excess application of nutrients from
manure and fertilizers on West Virginia's cropland.
The Committee provides $400,000 for the Little Red River
Irrigation Project in the State of Arkansas.
The Committee provides $2,800,000 to provide technical
assistance for the Kentucky Soil Erosion Control/Soil Survey
Program.
The Committee provides $900,000 for cattle and nutrient
management in stream crossings in cooperation with Mississippi
Conservation Districts.
The Committee provides $500,000 to continue the Certified
Environmental Management Systems for Agriculture in cooperation
with the Iowa Soybean Association.
The Committee provides $4,500,000 for the Geographic
Information System Center of Excellence at West Virginia
University.
The Committee provides $496,000 watershed management and
demonstration projects in cooperation with the National Pork
Producers Council and Iowa Soybean Association.
The Committee provides $175,000 for a cooperative agreement
between NRCS and Alcorn State University for the analysis of
soil erosion and water quality.
The Committee provides $5,813,000 for the Wildlife Habitat
Management Institute.
The Committee provides $1,000,000 to continue the
conversion to sprinkler irrigation in the vicinity of Minidoka,
Idaho.
The Committee provides $900,000 for the New Jersey State
Conservation Cost Share Program.
The Committee provides $570,000 to continue assistance for
conservation programs related to cranberry production in the
States of Massachusetts and Wisconsin. Of the funds provided to
Massachusetts, the NRCS should give consideration to
improvement of cranberry bogs in that State.
The Committee provides $350,000 to provide expedited
conservation planning of the Lake Okeechobee Watershed project
in the State of Florida. The Committee expects the agency to
work in cooperation with the Florida Department of Agriculture
and Consumer Services.
The Committee provides $300,000 for the ecological site
description project in the State of Idaho. The Committee
directs the agency to work in cooperation with the Idaho
Association of Soil Conservation Districts.
The Committee provides $125,000 for fiscal year 2004 for
flood protection around the Humphreys County Hospital and the
City of Belzoni, Humphreys County, Mississippi.
The Committee provides $300,000 for the Utah CAFO/AFO pilot
project.
The Committee provides $400,000 for geographic information
system based mapping and hyperspectral imaging of agricultural
lands in the State of Alaska.
The Committee provides $2,500,000 for a native grassland
demonstration project in the vicinity of Tar Creek, Oklahoma.
The Committee provides $1,000,000 for the Dry Creek project
in the State of Utah.
The Committee provides $500,000 for drainage improvements
in the City of Port Gibson, Claiborne County, Mississippi.
The Committee provides $500,000 to continue a study to
examine the environmental benefits of vegetative buffers along
waterways. The agency is directed to work in cooperation with
the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
The Committee provides $650,000 for conservation programs
in the Great Lakes Watershed.
The Committee expects the NRCS to work in conjunction with
the ARS Dairy Forage Laboratory in Madison, Wisconsin,
regarding dairy waste management and in the development of a
working arrangement regarding planned expansion of the Dairy
Forage Laboratory activities at Marshfield, Wisconsin and the
possible establishment of a NRCS Waste Management Institute at
that location.
The Committee provides $3,750,000 to implement the Source
Water Protection Program and encourages that these funds be
used in States with the greatest needs.
The Committee provides $300,000 to assist in the Wyoming
soil survey mapping project.
The Committee notes that the Natural Resource Inventory
[NRI] has not included the State of Alaska due to factors such
as accessibility of remote locations, climate, and staff
availability. The Committee believes that natural resources
data collection in Alaska is of critical national importance.
As such, the Committee provides $1,200,000 to continue NRI
pilot activity development in Alaska.
The Committee provides $120,000 for the Conservation Land
Internship Program in the State of Wisconsin.
The Committee provides $500,000 to address concerns with
the application of phosphorous on agricultural lands in the
State of North Carolina.
The Committee provides $250,000 for drainage improvements
in Hinds County, Mississippi.
The Committee provides $1,000,000 for additional
conservation technical assistance funding to Kentucky Soil
Conservation Districts.
The Committee provides $750,000 for a study to examine the
effect of vegetation manipulation on water yields and other
watershed functions. The agency is directed to work in
cooperation with Utah State University.
The Committee provides $3,600,000 for the Georgia Soil and
Water Conservation Commission cooperative agreement.
The Committee provides $250,000 for drainage improvements
in the City of Richland, Rankin County, Mississippi.
The Committee provides $300,000 for the West Cary Watershed
Project in the State of North Carolina.
The Committee provides $500,000 for range revegetation at
Fort Hood in the State of Texas.
The Committee provides $800,000 for the Innovative
Environmental Technologies program in the State of Indiana.
The Committee provides $500,000 for a cooperative agreement
with the University of Northern Iowa.
The Committee provides $1,500,000 for a cooperative
agreement with the Alaska Soil and Water Conservation District.
The Committee provides $550,000 for the continued
development of a conjunctive use optimization model in the
Pawcatuck Watershed in the State of Rhode Island.
The Committee provides $300,000 for the testing of emerging
alternative technology in the State of Vermont to reduce
phosphorus loading in Lake Champlain.
The Committee provides $300,000 for a cooperative agreement
with the Wisconsin Tribal Conservation Advisory Committee for
conservation and sustainable agricultural activities.
The Committee provides $1,200,000 for a cooperative
agreement with the Sand County Foundation in the State of
Wisconsin to carry out an expanded nitrogen removal test
project.
The Committee provides $300,000 for a cooperative agreement
with the University of Wisconsin-Platteville for the Pioneer
Farm project.
The Committee provides $600,000 to carry out riparian
restoration activities along the Rio Grande and Pecos Rivers in
the State of New Mexico.
The Committee provides $480,000 for a cooperative agreement
with Tufts University to conduct pilot programs in the State of
Connecticut to improve conservation practices and enhance the
diversification of agricultural production in the area.
The Committee provides $350,000 to the North Central
Planning Council to continue a Devils Lake water utilization
test project in the State of North Dakota to determine to what
extent excess water from Devils Lake can be used to irrigate
land for beneficial use.
The Committee provides $1,000,000 to continue the Red River
Basin Flood Prevention Project in the State of North Dakota in
cooperation with the Energy and Environmental Research Center.
The Committee provides $500,000 for assistance in the
Iroquois River Watershed in Iroquois County, Illinois.
The Committee provides $250,000 for the Illinois River
Agricultural Water Conservation Project in the State of
Illinois, in conjunction with Ducks Unlimited.
The Committee provides $250,000 for a wildlife habitat
education program in the State of Illinois, in conjunction with
the National Wild Turkey Federation.
The Committee provides $300,000 to establish a Pilot Farm
Viability Program Project in the State of Vermont.
The Committee provides $200,000 for assistance for an On
Farm Management Systems Evaluation Network.
The Committee provides $700,000 to continue the Delta Water
Resources Study in the State of Mississippi.
The Committee provides $1,500,000 for the Washington Fields
project in the State of Utah.
The Committee provides $300,000 for a cooperative agreement
with the University of Wisconsin for the Conservation
Technology Transfer project.
The Committee provides $500,000 for a cooperative agreement
between the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources and the Alabama Wildlife Federation for conservation
education in Millbrook, Alabama.
The Committee provides $250,000 for the Ozark nutrient
management project in the State of Arkansas.
The Committee provides $300,000 for the basalt and
groundwater protection project in the State of Idaho.
The Committee provides $250,000 for drainage improvements
in Mill Creek, Rankin County, Mississippi.
Plant Materials Centers.--The Committee provides no less
than $16,000,000 for NRCS plant material centers.
The Committee provides $1,750,000 for construction of the
Fallon, Nevada plant materials center.
The Committee provides $2,000,000 for construction of a
storage facility at the Alaska plant materials center.
FARM BILL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Appropriations, 2004....................................................
Budget estimate, 2005................................... $92,024,000
Committee recommendation................................................
As proposed, the Farm Bill Technical Assistance account
would fund the technical assistance needed to plan, design,
layout, and install conservation systems funded by the 2002
Farm bill for the Wetlands Reserve Program [WRP] and the
Conservation Reserve Program [CRP]. This would include both
NRCS's technical assistance costs, as well as the costs for
certified, non-Federal technical service providers to provide
technical assistance to farmers and ranchers for WRP and CRP.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee does not provide funding for the Farm Bill
Technical Assistance Account. This subject is addressed under
the Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment.
WATERSHED SURVEYS AND PLANNING
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $10,500,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 5,083,000
Committee recommendation................................ 7,500,000
The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, Public
Law 83-566, August 4, 1954, provided for the establishment of
the Small Watershed Program (16 U.S.C. 1001-1008), and section
6 of the act provided for the establishment of the River Basin
Surveys and Investigation Program (16 U.S.C. 1006-1009). A
separate appropriation funded the two programs until fiscal
year 1996 when they were combined into a single appropriation,
watershed surveys and planning.
River basin activities provide for cooperation with other
Federal, State, and local agencies in making investigations and
surveys of the watersheds of rivers and other waterways as a
basis for the development of coordinated programs. Reports of
the investigations and surveys are prepared to serve as a guide
for the development of agricultural, rural, and upstream
watershed aspects of water and related land resources, and as a
basis for coordination of this development with downstream and
other phases of water development.
Watershed planning activities provide for cooperation
between the Federal Government and the States and their
political subdivisions in a program of watershed planning.
Watershed plans form the basis for installing works of
improvement for floodwater retardation, erosion control, and
reduction of sedimentation in the watersheds of rivers and
streams and to further the conservation, development,
utilization, and disposal of water. The work of the Department
in watershed planning consists of assisting local organizations
to develop their watershed work plan by making investigations
and surveys in response to requests made by sponsoring local
organizations. These plans describe the soil erosion, water
management, and sedimentation problems in a watershed and works
of improvement proposed to alleviate these problems. Plans also
include estimated benefits and costs, cost-sharing and
operating and maintenance arrangements, and other appropriate
information necessary to justify Federal assistance for
carrying out the plan.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For watershed surveys and planning, the Committee
recommends an appropriation of $7,500,000. This amount is
$3,000,000 less than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation.
The Committee is concerned that additional watershed
surveys and planning work is being initiated at a time when
ongoing planning is not being completed in a timely manner, and
the backlog for watershed project implementation and
construction continues to mount. As such, the Committee does
not provide funding for any new planning starts. The Committee
directs the Chief of NRCS to evaluate and rank existing
planning efforts currently underway in order to fund and
complete the most promising projects, based upon merit, and
notify the Committee of the selected watershed projects.
WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION OPERATIONS
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $86,487,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 40,173,000
Committee recommendation................................ 64,000,000
The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public
Law 566, 83d Cong.) (16 U.S.C. 1001-1005, 1007-1009) provides
for cooperation between the Federal Government and the States
and their political subdivisions in a program to prevent
erosion, floodwater, and sediment damages in the watersheds or
rivers and streams and to further the conservation,
development, utilization, and disposal of water.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service has general
responsibility for administration of activities, which include
cooperation with local sponsors, State, and other public
agencies in the installation of planned works of improvement to
reduce erosion, floodwater, and sediment damage; conserve,
develop, utilize, and dispose of water; plan and install works
of improvement for flood prevention, including the development
of recreational facilities and the improvement of fish and
wildlife habitat; and loans to local organizations to help
finance the local share of the cost of carrying out planned
watershed and flood prevention works of improvement.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For watershed and flood prevention operations, the
Committee recommends an appropriation of $64,000,000. This
amount is $22,487,000 less than the fiscal year 2004
appropriation.
The Committee provides funds for the agency to continue
assistance for the Potomac Headwaters Land Treatment Project in
the State of West Virginia.
The Committee provides funds for the agency to continue
assistance for the Upper Deckers Creek watershed in the State
of West Virginia.
The Committee provides funds for the agency to continue
assistance for the Lost River Watershed Project in the State of
West Virginia.
The Committee provides funds for the agency to continue
assistance for the Square Butte Project in the State of North
Dakota.
The Committee provides funds for the agency to continue
assistance for Big Creek/Hurricane Creek, Moniteau Creek, East
Locust Creek, West Fork of Big Creek, East Yellow Creek,
McKenzie Creek, Hickory Creek, East Fork of Grand River,
Troublesome Creek, Willow Cravens Creek, and Upper Locust Creek
projects in the State of Missouri.
The Committee provides funds for the agency to complete the
Lower Hamakua Ditch Watershed, Upcountry Maui Watershed,
Lahaina Watershed, and the Wailuku-Alenaio Watershed projects
in the State of Hawaii.
The Committee provides funds for the agency to complete the
Kuhn Bayou Project in the State of Arkansas.
The Committee provides funds for the agency to continue
assistance for the Turkey Creek, Troublesome Creek, 12-Mile
Creek, East Fork of Grand River, West Fork of Big Creek, A&T;
Longbranch, Mill Creek, Hacklebarney, Bear Creek, Little Paint,
Mill-Pacauyne, Soap Creek, Little Sioux River, and West Tarkio
Creek projects in the State of Iowa.
The Committee provides funds for the agency to complete the
Tri-Valley project and to continue the Coal Creek project in
the State of Utah.
The Committee provides funds for the agency to continue
assistance for small watershed projects in the State of
Vermont.
The Committee provides funds for the agency to continue
assistance for the Piney Creek Watershed Project in Yazoo
County, Mississippi.
The Committee provides funding for the agency to continue
assistance for the Matanuska River Erosion Control Project in
the State of Alaska.
The Committee provides funds for the agency to continue
assistance for Town Creek in Lee County, Mississippi.
The Committee provides funds for the agency to continue
assistance for the Oaklimiter watershed in the State of
Mississippi.
The Committee provides funds for the agency to continue
assistance for the Tanana River in the State of Alaska.
The Committee provides funds for the agency to continue
assistance for McCarthy Creek in the State of Alaska.
WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $29,629,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 10,091,000
Committee recommendation................................ 25,000,000
The watershed rehabilitation program account provides for
technical and financial assistance to carry out rehabilitation
of structural measures, in accordance with Section 14 of the
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, approved August
4, 1954 (U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), as amended by Section 313 of
Public Law 106-472, November 9, 2000 (16 U.S.C. 1012), and by
section 2505 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of
2002 (Public Law 107-171).
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the watershed rehabilitation program, the Committee
recommends $25,000,000. This amount is $4,629,000 less than the
fiscal year 2004 level.
The Committee directs that funding under this program be
provided for rehabilitation of structures determined to be of
high priority need in order to protect property and ensure
public safety.
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $51,641,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 50,760,000
Committee recommendation................................ 50,760,000
The Natural Resources Conservation Service has general
responsibility under provisions of section 102, title I of the
Food and Agriculture Act of 1962, for developing overall work
plans for resource conservation and development projects in
cooperation with local sponsors; to help develop local programs
of land conservation and utilization; to assist local groups
and individuals in carrying out such plans and programs; to
conduct surveys and investigations relating to the conditions
and factors affecting such work on private lands; and to make
loans to project sponsors for conservation and development
purposes and to individual operators for establishing soil and
water conservation practices.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For resource conservation and development, the Committee
recommends an appropriation of $50,760,000, as requested in the
budget.
TITLE III--RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
The Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-354)
abolished the Farmers Home Administration, Rural Development
Administration, and Rural Electrification Administration and
replaced those agencies with the Rural Housing and Community
Development Service, (currently, the Rural Housing Service),
Rural Business and Cooperative Development Service (currently,
the Rural Business-Cooperative Service), and Rural Utilities
Service and placed them under the oversight of the Under
Secretary for Rural Economic and Community Development,
(currently, Rural Development). These agencies deliver a
variety of programs through a network of State, district, and
county offices.
Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $632,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 929,000
Committee recommendation................................ 645,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development
provides direction and coordination in carrying out the laws
enacted by the Congress with respect to the Department's rural
economic and community development activities. The Office has
oversight and management responsibilities for the Rural Housing
Service, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, and the Rural
Utilities Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the Under Secretary for Rural
Development, the Committee recommends an appropriation of
$645,000. This amount is $13,000 more than the fiscal year 2004
appropriation.
The Committee is aware the Department has previously
provided funding for the National Rural Development Partnership
[NRDP]. The NRDP, and its associated State Rural Development
Councils, provide technical support and guidance for rural
development at the State and local level. The Committee
encourages the Department to continue support for this
important organization from within available funds.
The Committee recognizes that the communities of Tchula,
Mississippi and Libby, Montana have requested technical and
programmatic assistance for housing, business,
telecommunication, and other essential community needs. The
Committee expects the Secretary to provide additional
resources, and encourages the use of available national reserve
funds.
The Committee recommends continued staffing and operations
of the Rural Business Cooperative Service Office in Hilo,
Hawaii, to address the continuing and increasing demands for
marketing and purchasing cooperatives.
The Committee is concerned that the Department is
restricting not-for-profit developer-owners of essential
community facilities from entering into contracts to provide
services with a third party not-for-profit entity for childcare
and other related services. The Committee strongly encourages
the Secretary to address this policy prohibition to allow such
activities and insure the government's interests are protected
with third party contracts. The developer-owner should be
responsible for securing Departmental approval for any changes
in existing contracts addressing issues that include services
provided, liability, maintenance and administrative fees.
The Committee directs the Under Secretary for Rural
Development to consider an application for the construction of
a public access seafood facility in Wrangell, Alaska, within
the applicable procedures and guidelines and provide a grant if
warranted.
The Committee is aware of distance learning and medical
link opportunities in the State of Hawaii and urges the
Department to fund a demonstration project to build upon
existing resources and to further the use of advanced
telecommunications by those island communities not having the
direct access to services and information that are currently
available in Honolulu.
The Committee is aware of recent advances in materials
handling of biomass sources that greatly enhance the economic
feasibility of producing ethanol from sugarcane bagasse and
other unwieldy biomass sources and encourages the Department to
give consideration to applications by the Kauai Bagasse to
Ethanol commercial scale demonstration project for loans and
grants from the renewable energy program.
The Committee encourages the Secretary to consider an
application for assistance to Women in Technology in Wisconsin
and Hawaii for consideration of a rural business enterprise
grant for the purpose of establishing revolving loan programs.
The Committee notes that for some time Rural Development
has considered relocating employees in the Abrams Federal
Building in St. Louis, Missouri, to Federal facilities on
Goodfellow Boulevard, also in St. Louis. The Committee
encourages the Department to continue to work with the General
Services Administration on the proposed move and to do so in a
cost-effective manner without adversely impacting Rural
Development employees or loan servicing.
The Committee is concerned that the current funding
allocation for general support is insufficient to meet the
notably higher operating expenses in the States of Alaska and
Hawaii. Therefore, the Committee directs the Under Secretary to
allocate $10,000 per FTE for general support to the Alaska and
Hawaii Rural Development State offices.
The Committee has included a general provision [Section
755) which provides $2,000,000 for the Denali Commission to
address deficiencies in solid waste management in the State of
Alaska. The Committee directs the Commission to work with the
State of Alaska to develop a legal framework for a solid waste
management authority that can become self-sustaining and is
authorized to establish a revolving loan fund to support solid
waste projects.
Rural Community Advancement Program
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $752,956,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 541,979,000
Committee recommendation................................ 733,360,000
The Rural Community Advancement Program [RCAP], authorized
by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996
(Public Law 104-127), consolidates funding for the following
programs: direct and guaranteed water and waste disposal loans,
water and waste disposal grants, emergency community water
assistance grants, solid waste management grants, direct and
guaranteed community facility loans, community facility grants,
direct and guaranteed business and industry loans, rural
business enterprise grants, and rural business opportunity
grants. This proposal is in accordance with the provisions set
forth in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of
1996, Public Law 104-127. Consolidating funding for these 12
rural development loan and grant programs under RCAP provides
greater flexibility to tailor financial assistance to applicant
needs.
With the exception of the 10 percent in the ``National
office reserve'' account, funding is allocated to rural
development State directors for their priority setting on a
State-by-State basis. State directors are authorized to
transfer not more than 25 percent of the amount in the account
that is allocated for the State for the fiscal year to any
other account in which amounts are allocated for the State for
the fiscal year, with up to 10 percent of funds allowed to be
reallocated nationwide.
Community facility loans were created by the Rural
Development Act of 1972 to finance a variety of rural community
facilities. Loans are made to organizations, including certain
Indian tribes and corporations not operated for profit and
public and quasipublic agencies, to construct, enlarge, extend,
or otherwise improve community facilities providing essential
services to rural residents. Such facilities include those
providing or supporting overall community development, such as
fire and rescue services, health care, transportation, traffic
control, and community, social, cultural, and recreational
benefits. Loans are made for facilities which primarily serve
rural residents of open country and rural towns and villages of
not more than 20,000 people. Health care and fire and rescue
facilities are the priorities of the program and receive the
majority of available funds.
The Community Facility Grant Program authorized in the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public
Law 104-127), is used in conjunction with the existing direct
and guaranteed loan programs for the development of community
facilities, such as hospitals, fire stations, and community
centers. Grants are targeted to the lowest income communities.
Communities that have lower population and income levels
receive a higher cost-share contribution through these grants,
to a maximum contribution of 75 percent of the cost of
developing the facility.
The Rural Business and Industry Loans Program was created
by the Rural Development Act of 1972, and finances a variety of
rural industrial development loans. Loans are made for rural
industrialization and rural community facilities under Rural
Development Act amendments to the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act authorities. Business and industrial loans are
made to public, private, or cooperative organizations organized
for profit, to certain Indian tribes, or to individuals for the
purpose of improving, developing or financing business,
industry, and employment or improving the economic and
environmental climate in rural areas. Such purposes include
financing business and industrial acquisition, construction,
enlargement, repair or modernization, financing the purchase
and development of land, easements, rights-of-way, buildings,
payment of startup costs, and supplying working capital.
Industrial development loans may be made in any area that is
not within the outer boundary of any city having a population
of 50,000 or more and its immediately adjacent urbanized and
urbanizing areas with a population density of more than 100
persons per square mile. Special consideration for such loans
is given to rural areas and cities having a population of less
than 25,000.
Rural business enterprise grants were authorized by the
Rural Development Act of 1972. Grants are made to public bodies
and nonprofit organizations to facilitate development of small
and emerging business enterprises in rural areas, including the
acquisition and development of land; the construction of
buildings, plants, equipment, access streets and roads, parking
areas, and utility extensions; refinancing fees; technical
assistance; and startup operating costs and working capital.
Rural business opportunity grants are authorized under
section 306(a)(11) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act, as amended. Grants may be made, not to exceed
$1,500,000 annually, to public bodies and private nonprofit
community development corporations or entities. Grants are made
to identify and analyze business opportunities that will use
local rural economic and human resources; to identify, train,
and provide technical assistance to rural entrepreneurs and
managers; to establish business support centers; to conduct
economic development planning and coordination, and leadership
development; and to establish centers for training, technology,
and trade that will provide training to rural businesses in the
utilization of interactive communications technologies.
The water and waste disposal program is authorized by
sections 306, 306A, 309A, 306C, 306D, and 310B of the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1921 et
seq., as amended). This program makes loans for water and waste
development costs. Development loans are made to associations,
including corporations operating on a nonprofit basis,
municipalities and similar organizations, generally designated
as public or quasipublic agencies, that propose projects for
the development, storage, treatment, purification, and
distribution of domestic water or the collection, treatment, or
disposal of waste in rural areas. Such grants may not exceed 75
percent of the development cost of the projects and can
supplement other funds borrowed or furnished by applicants to
pay development costs.
The solid waste grant program is authorized under section
310B(b) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act.
Grants are made to public bodies and private nonprofit
organizations to provide technical assistance to local and
regional governments for the purpose of reducing or eliminating
pollution of water resources and for improving the planning and
management of solid waste disposal facilities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Rural Community Advancement Program [RCAP], the
Committee recommends $733,360,000. This amount is $19,596,000
less than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation.
The Committee notes that the subsidy costs for many
programs in the Rural Community Advancement Program have
increased substantially. However, even with budgetary
constraints, the Committee has provided adequate funding for
these national and regional programs.
The following table provides the Committee's
recommendations, as compared to the fiscal year 2004 and budget
request levels:
RURAL COMMUNITY ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM
[Budget authority in thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------------ Committee
2004 2005 budget recommendation
appropriation request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Community:
Community facility loan subsidies..................... ................ 12,339 10,180
Community facility grants............................. 15,825 17,000 15,000
Economic impact initiative grants..................... 21,870 ................ 21,000
High energy costs grants.............................. 27,835 ................ 28,000
Rural community development initiative................ 5,965 ................ 6,500
Tribal college grants................................. 3,976 ................ 5,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, community................................. 75,471 29,339 85,680
=====================================================
Business:
Business and industry guaranteed loan subsidies....... 26,841 30,180 30,180
Rural business enterprise grants...................... 42,399 40,000 40,000
Rural business opportunity grants..................... 2,982 3,000 3,000
Delta Regional Authority.............................. 1,740 ................ 1,000
Community planning grants............................. 99 0 ................
Broadcasting system grants............................ 1,988 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, business.................................. 76,049 73,180 74,180
=====================================================
Utilities:
Water and waste disposal direct loan subsidies........ 34,379 90,000 67,500
Water and waste disposal grants....................... 543,994 345,960 500,000
Solid waste management grants......................... 3,479 3,500 3,500
Emergency community water assistance grants........... 18,093 ................ ................
Well system grants.................................... 994 ................ 2,000
Water and wastewater revolving funds.................. 497 ................ 500
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, utilities................................. 601,436 439,460 573,500
=====================================================
Total, loan subsidies and grants.................... 752,956 541,979 733,360
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Community Advancement Program.--The Committee
provides $750,000 for transportation technical assistance.
The Committee directs the Department to continue the Rural
Economic Area Partnership [REAP] initiative.
The Committee directs that of the $26,000,000 provided for
loans and grants to benefit Federally Recognized Native
American Tribes, $250,000 be used to implement an American
Indian and Alaska Native passenger transportation development
and assistance initiative.
Community Facilities Loans and Grants.--The Committee is
aware of and encourages the Department to give consideration to
applications relating to community facilities for the
following: Jean Lafitte Emergency Shelter, LA; Grand Isle
Multiplex, LA; Louisiana Forestry Museum; Chautauqua County
Fairgrounds Equestrian Center, NY; Southside Economic District
Community Resource Center, LA; John Breaux Multi-Purpose
Community Facility, LA; Bawcomville Pumping Station, LA;
Hurricane Evacuation Command Center in Golden Meadow, LA; St.
Helena Parish ADA and Life Safety, LA; Coushatta Tribe of
Louisiana; Jefferson Drainage Improvement Project, LA;
Conservation Education Center, AL; Project Harvest Expansion,
AL; Delaware State University Advanced Greenhouse; Farm Share
Food Recovery, FL; Central Alabama Food Program; Town of
Thompson, CT; Town of Chaplin, CT; Town of North Stonington,
CT; Grambling Town Hall Complex, LA; Weather Radio System for
Iron, Dickinson and Schoolcraft Counties, MI; Great Lakes
Shipwreck Museum, MI; Cyclone II 95' Aerial Platform Truck, MI;
National Museum of Cotton and Textiles, MS; Havre Human
Resource Development Council, MT; God's Love We Deliver, NY;
Redlands Community College at Darlington, OK; Union and Wallowa
County Rail Line, OR; Tillamook County Processing Mill, OR; I-
90 Corridor Emergency Medical Center, WA; Brigham City, UT;
Snow College, Ephraim, UT; and the Canton Workforce Training
Center, MS.
Economic Impact Initiative Grants.--The Committee includes
statutory language to provide $21,000,000 for the Rural
Community Facilities Grant Program for areas of extreme
unemployment or severe economic depression.
High Energy Cost Grants.--The Committee includes statutory
language to provide $28,000,000 for the Rural Community
Advancement Program for communities with extremely high energy
costs which is to be administered by the Rural Utilities
Service. The Committee directs that these funds shall be
transferred within 30 days of enactment of this Act.
Rural Business Opportunity Grants.--The Committee
encourages the Department to give consideration to applications
for rural business opportunity grants [RBOG] for the following:
Agricultural Rural Development Initiative, GA; IDM Rural
Opportunities Initiative, IA; and the Canton Strategic
Development Plan, MS.
Rural Business Enterprise Grants.--The Committee is also
aware of and encourages the Department to give consideration to
applications for rural business enterprise grants [RBEG] for
the following: Mission Mountain Market Business Incubation, MT;
Southern University Center for Community Economic Development,
LA; Project Harvest, AL; Bio-Diesel Alternative Plant, LA;
Ouachita Terminal and General Purpose Dock, LA; Livingston
Parish Alternative Fuels Initiative, LA; Maine Rural Community
Innovation Center; University of Maryland Eastern Shore;
Southeast Massachusetts Agricultural Partnership; Claire County
Enterprise Community, MI; Hibbing Technology Business Center,
MN; Albert Lee Business Development Center, MN; Blackfeet
Tribal Feedlot, MT; Montana Cannery Facility; Rural
Revitalization at the Center for Rural Affairs, NE; Rural
Enterprise Assistance Project, NE; 21st Century Fredonia
Vineyard Laboratory, NY; Santiam Canyon Economic Development,
OR; and the USC Salkehatchie Leadership Initiative, SC.
The Committee expects the Department to ensure that the
system by which applications for rural business enterprise
grants are considered does not discriminate against
applications which may benefit multiple States.
Water and Waste Disposal Loans and Grants.--The Committee
is aware of and encourages the Department to consider
applications for water and waste disposal loans and grants for
the following projects: Calaveras County Water District, CA;
Laytonville Waste Water Treatment Project, CA; Washington
Parish Water Reservoir, LA; St. John the Baptist Parish, LA;
L'Anse Township USH 41 Watermain Extension Program, MI; Crystal
Falls Township Water Improvement Project, MI; Alger County
Water System, MI; Marion County, MS; Mississippi Band of
Choctaws; North Ditch Water System for the Pueblos of Laguna
and Acoma, NM; Columbus, NM; Lordsburg, NM; Pueblo of Jemez,
NM; Picuris Pueblo, NM; Pueblo of San Felipe, NM; San Ildefonso
Pueblo, NM; San Juan Pueblo, NM; Tucumcari, NM; Neuse Regional
Water and Sewer Authority, NC; City of Perkins, OK; Water
Supply System for Las Carolinas Sector, PR; Kane County Water
Conservancy District, UT; and the Lake County Full Circle
Project, CA.
The Committee includes statutory language to make up to
$28,000,000 in water and waste disposal loans and grants
available for village safe water for the development of water
systems for rural communities and native villages in Alaska. In
addition, the Committee is aware of and encourages the
Department to consider applications to the national program
from small, regional hub villages in Alaska with a populations
less than 5,000 which are not able to compete for village safe
water funding; $25,000,000 for water and waste systems for the
Colonias along the United States-Mexico border; and $26,000,000
for water and waste disposal systems for Federally Recognized
Native American Tribes. In addition, the Committee makes up to
$13,500,000 available for the circuit rider program, and
expects that the current level of circuit rider contracts in
the State of Alaska shall be maintained.
The Committee directs the Department to use a portion of
the funds provided to the Alaska Village Safe Water Program for
the preparation or completion of comprehensive community plans
by rural communities in Alaska. No more than 5 percent of the
total amount of the grant may be made available for this
purpose and the amount allocated shall not exceed $35,000 per
eligible Alaska community.
Individually Owned Household Water Well Program.--The
Committee provides $2,000,000 to continue the Individually
Owned Household Water Well Program as authorized in section
6012 of Public Law 107-171.
Water and Waste Technical Assistance Training Grants.--The
Committee provides a significant increase in the technical
assistance account for water and waste systems and expects the
Secretary to provide an increase in grant funding to the
National Drinking Water Clearinghouse. The Committee is aware
of and encourages the Department to consider applications from
the Alaska Village Safe Water Program to provide statewide
training in water and waste systems operation and maintenance.
The Committee encourages the Department to provide
technical assistance to Alachua County Critical Rural Services
Initiative, FL; Western Kentucky University Water Center;
wastewater system planning for Ketchum, Langley, and Disney,
OK; and the Union-Lincoln Regional Water Supply Initiative, LA.
Solid Waste Management Grants.--The Committee is aware of
the need for landfill improvements for Point Barrow, Alaska,
and urges the Department to give priority consideration for an
application for a solid waste management grant.
The Committee expects the Department to consider only those
applications judged meritorious when subjected to the
established review process.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------------ Committee
2004 2005 budget recommendation
appropriation request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation............................................. 141,032 149,749 143,452
Transfer from:
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Loan Program Account..... 440,687 465,886 448,342
Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans 37,630 39,933 38,277
Program Account......................................
Rural Telephone Bank Program Account.................. 3,152 3,328 3,152
Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account........... 4,247 6,656 4,316
-----------------------------------------------------
Total, RD salaries and expenses..................... 626,748 665,552 637,539
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These funds are used to administer the loan and grant
programs of the Rural Utilities Service, the Rural Housing
Service, and the Rural Business-Cooperative Service, including
reviewing applications, making and collecting loans and
providing technical assistance and guidance to borrowers; and
to assist in extending other Federal programs to people in
rural areas.
Under credit reform, administrative costs associated with
loan programs are appropriated to the program accounts.
Appropriations to the salaries and expenses account will be for
costs associated with grant programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends $637,539,000 for salaries and
expenses for the Rural Economic and Community Development
Programs. This amount is $10,791,000 more than the fiscal year
2004 appropriation.
The Committee expects that none of the funds provided for
Rural Development, Salaries and Expenses should be used to
enter into or renew a contract for any activity that is best
suited as an inherent function of Government, without prior
approval from the Committees on Appropriations of the House and
Senate. Such activities may include, but are not limited to,
any function that affects eligibility determination,
disbursement, collection or accounting for Government subsidies
provided under any of the direct or guaranteed loan programs of
the Rural Development mission area or the Farm Service Agency.
The Committee is concerned about the delayed application
processing time related to broadband loans and encourages the
Secretary to provide additional resources, including new full
time Federal employees within the Rural Utilities Service, to
address this issue.
The Committee is aware that USDA Rural Development-Alaska
area offices are separated by hundreds of miles of roadless
area. To facilitate program outreach, RD-Alaska is authorized
to fund a marketing program to increase participation in RD
programs by Alaska Natives and other eligible Alaskans. Funds
may be used for outreach through Alaska print or broadcast
media, along with the purchase of promotional items.
Rural Housing Service
The Rural Housing Service [RHS] was established under
Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Act of 1994, dated October 13, 1994.
The mission of the Service is to improve the quality of
life in rural America by assisting rural residents and
communities in obtaining adequate and affordable housing and
access to needed community facilities. The goals and objectives
of the Service are: (1) facilitate the economic revitalization
of rural areas by providing direct and indirect economic
benefits to individual borrowers, families, and rural
communities; (2) assure that benefits are communicated to all
program eligible customers with special outreach efforts to
target resources to underserved, impoverished, or economically
declining rural areas; (3) lower the cost of programs while
retaining the benefits by redesigning more effective programs
that work in partnership with State and local governments and
the private sector; and (4) leverage the economic benefits
through the use of low-cost credit programs, especially
guaranteed loans.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends total appropriations of
$1,375,552,000 for the Rural Housing Service. This amount is
$7,494,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation.
The Committee is concerned about the lack of resources
devoted to the oversight of the section 538 multi-family
housing guaranteed program and encourages the Secretary to make
the necessary staff adjustments, including training for field
offices, to adequately protect the government's interest.
The Committee is concerned about the impact of the OMB
allocation process that provided no funding in the first
quarter for fiscal year 2002, fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year
2004 for the section 538 multi-family housing guaranteed
program and encourages the Secretary to provide sufficient
funding irrespective of prior year allocations for this program
in fiscal year 2005.
The Committee encourages the Department to continue to set-
aside funds within rural housing programs to support self-help
housing, home ownership partnerships, housing preservation and
State rental assistance, and other related activities that
facilitate the development of housing in rural areas.
The following table presents loan and grant program levels
recommended by the Committee, as compared to the fiscal year
2004 levels and the 2005 budget request:
LOAN AND GRANT LEVELS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2004 2005 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account loan levels:
Single family housing (sec. 502):
Direct............................................... 1,351,397 1,100,000 1,200,000
Unsubsidized guaranteed, purchase.................... 2,485,250 2,500,000 2,500,000
Unsubsidized guaranteed, refinance................... 223,844 225,185 225,185
Housing repair (sec. 504)................................ 34,797 35,000 35,000
Multifamily housing guarantees (sec. 538)................ 99,410 100,000 85,960
Rental housing (sec. 515)................................ 115,857 60,000 90,000
Site loans (sec. 524).................................... 5,045 5,045 5,045
Credit sales of acquired property........................ 11,491 11,501 11,501
Self-help housing land development fund.................. 2,421 5,000 5,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total, RHIF............................................ 4,329,512 4,041,731 4,157,691
==================================================
Farm Labor Program:
Farm labor housing loan level............................ 42,574 41,999 35,000
Farm labor housing grants................................ 17,901 17,000 15,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total, Farm Labor Program.............................. 60,475 58,999 50,000
==================================================
Grants and payments:
Mutual and self-help housing............................. 33,799 34,000 34,000
Rental assistance........................................ 580,554 592,000 585,900
Rural housing assistance grants [RHAG]................... 45,949 42,500 46,992
--------------------------------------------------
Total, rural housing grants and payments............... 660,302 668,500 666,892
==================================================
Total, RHS loans and grants............................ 5,050,289 4,769,230 4,874,283
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
This fund was established in 1965 (Public Law 89-117)
pursuant to section 517 of title V of the Housing Act of 1949,
as amended. This fund may be used to insure or guarantee rural
housing loans for single-family homes, rental and cooperative
housing, and rural housing sites. Rural housing loans are made
to construct, improve, alter, repair, or replace dwellings and
essential farm service buildings that are modest in size,
design, and cost. Rental housing insured loans are made to
individuals, corporations, associations, trusts, or
partnerships to provide moderate-cost rental housing and
related facilities for elderly persons in rural areas. These
loans are repayable in not to exceed 30 years. Loan programs
are limited to rural areas, which include towns, villages, and
other places of not more than 10,000 population, which are not
part of an urban area. Loans may also be made in areas with a
population in excess of 10,000, but less than 20,000, if the
area is not included in a standard metropolitan statistical
area and has a serious lack of mortgage credit for low- and
moderate-income borrowers.
An increased priority should be placed on long term
rehabilitation needs within the existing multi-family housing
portfolio including increased equity loan activity and
financial and technical assistance support for acquisition of
existing projects.
LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the
program account. Appropriations to this account will be used to
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct
loans obligated and loan guarantees committed in 2005, as well
as for administrative expenses. The following table presents
the loan subsidy levels as compared to the 2004 levels and the
2005 budget request:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
----------------------------------- Committee
2004 level 2005 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:
Single family (sec. 502):
Direct.............................................. 125,274 127,380 138,960
Unsubsidized guaranteed, purchase................... 39,018 33,000 33,000
Unsubsidized guaranteed, refinance.................. 649 608 608
Housing repair (sec. 504)............................... 9,555 10,171 10,171
Multifamily housing guarantees (sec. 538)............... 5,915 3,490 3,000
Rental housing (sec. 515)............................... 49,830 28,254 42,381
Site loans (sec. 524) \1\............................... ................ ............... ...............
Credit sales of acquired property....................... 659 727 727
Self-help housing land development fund \2\............. 75 ............... ...............
---------------------------------------------------
Total, loan subsidies................................. 230,975 203,630 228,847
===================================================
Administrative expenses..................................... 440,687 465,886 448,342
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Negative subsidy rates for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 are calculated for this program.
\2\ Negative subsidy rate for fiscal year 2005 is calculated for this program.
RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $580,554,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 592,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 585,900,000
The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974
established a rural rental assistance program to be
administered through the rural housing loans program. The
objective of the program is to reduce rents paid by low-income
families living in Rural Housing Service financed rental
projects and farm labor housing projects. Under this program,
low-income tenants will contribute the higher of: (1) 30
percent of monthly adjusted income; (2) 10 percent of monthly
income; or (3) designated housing payments from a welfare
agency.
Payments from the fund are made to the project owner for
the difference between the tenant's payment and the approved
rental rate established for the unit.
The program is administered in tandem with Rural Housing
Service section 515 rural rental and cooperative housing
programs and the farm labor loan and grant programs. Priority
is given to existing projects for units occupied by rent over
burdened low-income families and projects experiencing
financial difficulties beyond the control of the owner; any
remaining authority will be used for projects receiving new
construction commitments under sections 514, 515, or 516 for
very low-income families with certain limitations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For rural rental assistance payments, the Committee
recommends an appropriation of $585,900,000. This amount is
$5,346,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation.
The Committee is deeply concerned about the lack of
accountability for the section 521 rental assistance program.
The Committee has repeatedly brought this issue to the
attention of the Department and has received inadequate
responses. The March 2004 GAO Report, ``Standardization of the
Budget Estimation Processes Needed for Rental Assistance
Program'', outlined serious flaws in the management and budget
processes for this large line-item appropriation account. The
Committee strongly encourages the Secretary to provide the
proper resources, oversight, and staff to accurately estimate
the needs and increase the efficiency in administering this
valuable and needed resource.
MUTUAL AND SELF-HELP HOUSING GRANTS
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $33,799,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 34,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 34,000,000
This grant program is authorized by title V of the Housing
Act of 1949. Grants are made to local organizations to promote
the development of mutual or self-help programs under which
groups of usually 6 to 10 families build their own homes by
mutually exchanging labor. Funds may be used to pay the cost of
construction supervisors who will work with families in the
construction of their homes and for administrative expenses of
the organizations providing the self-help assistance.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends $34,000,000 for mutual and self-
help housing grants. This amount is $201,000 more than the
fiscal year 2004 appropriation.
The Committee encourages the Department to give
consideration to a grant application from the Livingston Self
Help Housing Program in Montana.
rural housing assistance grants
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $45,949,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 42,500,000
Committee recommendation................................ 46,992,000
This program consolidates funding for rural housing grant
programs. This consolidation of housing grant funding provides
greater flexibility to tailor financial assistance to applicant
needs.
Very Low-income Housing Repair Grants.--The Very Low-Income
Housing Repair Grants Program is authorized under section 504
of title V of the Housing Act of 1949. The rural housing repair
grant program is carried out by making grants to very low-
income families to make necessary repairs to their homes in
order to make such dwellings safe and sanitary, and remove
hazards to the health of the occupants, their families, or the
community.
These grants may be made to cover the cost of improvements
or additions, such as repairing roofs, providing toilet
facilities, providing a convenient and sanitary water supply,
supplying screens, repairing or providing structural supports
or making similar repairs, additions, or improvements,
including all preliminary and installation costs in obtaining
central water and sewer service. A grant can be made in
combination with a section 504 very low-income housing repair
loan.
No assistance can be extended to any one individual in the
form of a loan, grant, or combined loans and grants in excess
of $27,500, and grant assistance is limited to persons, or
families headed by persons who are 62 years of age or older.
Supervisory and Technical Assistance Grants.--Supervisory
and technical assistance grants are made to public and private
nonprofit organizations for packaging loan applications for
housing assistance under sections 502, 504, 514/516, 515, and
533 of the Housing Act of 1949. The assistance is directed to
very low-income families in underserved areas where at least 20
percent of the population is below the poverty level and at
least 10 percent or more of the population resides in
substandard housing. In fiscal year 1994 a Homebuyer Education
Program was implemented under this authority. This program
provides low-income individuals and families education and
counseling on obtaining and/or maintaining occupancy of
adequate housing and supervised credit assistance to become
successful homeowners.
Compensation for Construction Defects.--Compensation for
construction defects provides funds for grants to eligible
section 502 borrowers to correct structural defects, or to pay
claims of owners arising from such defects on a newly
constructed dwelling purchased with RHS financial assistance.
Claims are not paid until provisions under the builder's
warranty have been fully pursued. Requests for compensation for
construction defects must be made by the owner of the property
within 18 months after the date financial assistance was
granted.
Rural Housing Preservation Grants.--Rural housing
preservation grants (section 522) of the Housing and Urban-
Rural Recovery Act of 1983 authorizes the Rural Housing Service
to administer a program of home repair directed at low- and
very low-income people.
The purpose of the preservation program is to improve the
delivery of rehabilitation assistance by employing the
expertise of housing organizations at the local level. Eligible
applicants will compete on a State-by-State basis for grants
funds. These funds may be administered as loans, loan write-
downs, or grants to finance home repair. The program will be
administered by local grantees.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Rural Housing Assistance Grants Program the
Committee recommends $46,992,000. This amount is $1,043,000
more than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation.
The Committee provides $6,000,000 for the preservation of
the section 515 multi-family housing portfolio. The Committee
encourages the Secretary to issue a Notice of Funding
Availability within 90 days of enactment of this Act. The
Secretary should give funding priority to entities with equal
or greater matching funds, including housing tax credits for
rural housing assistance. Additional priority should be
provided to entities with experience in the administration of
revolving loan funds and the preservation of multi-family
housing.
The following table compares the grant program levels
recommended by the Committee to the fiscal year 2004 levels and
the budget request:
RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GRANTS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2004 level 2005 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very low-income housing repair grants........................ 31,110 31,500 31,110
Supervisory and technical assistance......................... 986 1,000 1,000
Rural housing preservation grants............................ 8,882 10,000 8,882
Demonstration housing grants for agricultural processing 4,971 ............... ...............
workers.....................................................
Multi-family housing preservation............................ ............... ............... 6,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 45,949 42,500 46,992
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FARM LABOR PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidy
Loan level level Grants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2004.................. 42,574 18,192 17,901
Budget estimate, 2005................. 41,999 19,765 17,000
Committee recommendation.............. 35,000 16,471 15,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The direct farm labor housing loan program is authorized
under section 514 and the rural housing for domestic farm labor
housing grant program is authorized under section 516 of the
Housing Act of 1949, as amended. The loans, grants, and
contracts are made to public and private nonprofit
organizations for low-rent housing and related facilities for
domestic farm labor. Grant assistance may not exceed 90 percent
of the cost of a project. Loans and grants may be used for
construction of new structures, site acquisition and
development, rehabilitation of existing structures, and
purchase of furnishings and equipment for dwellings, dining
halls, community rooms, and infirmaries.
Under credit reform, administrative costs associated with
loan programs are appropriated to the program accounts.
Appropriations to the salaries and expenses account will be for
costs associated with grant programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the cost of direct farm labor housing loans and grants,
the Committee recommends $31,471,000. This amount is $4,622,000
less than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation.
Rural Business--Cooperative Service
The Rural Business--Cooperative Service [RBS] was
established by Public Law 103-354, Federal Crop Insurance
Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of
1994, dated October 13, 1994. Its programs were previously
administered by the Rural Development Administration, the Rural
Electrification Administration, and the Agricultural
Cooperative Service.
The mission of the Rural Business-Cooperative Service is to
enhance the quality of life for all rural residents by
assisting new and existing cooperatives and other businesses
through partnership with rural communities. The goals and
objectives are to: (1) promote a stable business environment in
rural America through financial assistance, sound business
planning, technical assistance, appropriate research,
education, and information; (2) support environmentally
sensitive economic growth that meets the needs of the entire
community; and (3) assure that the Service benefits are
available to all segments of the rural community, with emphasis
on those most in need.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------------ Committee
2004 level 2005 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated loan level...................................... 39,764 34,213 34,213
Direct loan subsidy....................................... 17,206 15,868 15,868
Administrative expenses................................... 4,247 6,656 4,316
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rural development (intermediary relending) loan program
was originally authorized by the Economic Opportunity Act of
1964 (Public Law 88-452). The making of rural development loans
by the Department of Agriculture was reauthorized by Public Law
99-425, the Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1986.
Loans are made to intermediary borrowers (this is, small
investment groups) who in turn will reloan the funds to rural
businesses, community development corporations, private
nonprofit organizations, public agencies, et cetera, for the
purpose of improving business, industry, community facilities,
and employment opportunities and diversification of the economy
in rural areas.
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the
program account. Appropriations to this account will be used to
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct
loans obligated in 2004, as well as for administrative
expenses.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For rural development (intermediary relending) loans, the
Committee recommends a total loan level of $34,213,000. This
amount is $5,551,000 less than the 2004 loan level.
The Committee encourages the agency to consider the
following for an intermediary relending loan: Rural Enterprise
Assistance Project, NE.
RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------------ Committee
2004 level 2005 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated loan level...................................... 14,914 25,003 25,003
Direct loan subsidy \1\................................... 2,776 4,698 4,698
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Offset by a rescission from interest on the cushion of credit payments as authorized by section 313 of the
Rural Electrification Act of 1936.
The rural economic development loans program was
established by the Reconciliation Act of December 1987 (Public
Law 100-203), which amended the Rural Electrification Act of
1936, by establishing a new section 313. This section of the
Rural Electrification Act (7 U.S.C. 901) established a cushion
of credits payment program and created the rural economic
development subaccount. The Administrator of RUS is authorized
under the act to utilize funds in this program to provide zero
interest loans to electric and telecommunications borrowers for
the purpose of promoting rural economic development and job
creation projects, including funding for feasibility studies,
startup costs, and other reasonable expenses for the purpose of
fostering rural economic development.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a direct loan subsidy
appropriation for rural economic development loans of
$4,698,000. This amount is $1,922,000 more than the fiscal year
2004 appropriation. As proposed in the budget, the $4,698,000
provided is derived by transfer from interest on the cushion of
credit payments.
RURAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $23,858,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 21,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 24,000,000
Rural cooperative development grants are authorized under
section 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act, as amended. Grants are made to fund the establishment and
operation centers for rural cooperative development with their
primary purpose being the improvement of economic conditions in
rural areas. Grants may be made to nonprofit institutions or
institutions of higher education. Grants may be used to pay up
to 75 percent of the cost of the project and associated
administrative costs. The applicant must contribute at least 25
percent from non-Federal sources, except 1994 institutions,
which only need to provide 5 percent. Grants are competitive
and are awarded based on specific selection criteria.
Cooperative research agreements are authorized by 7 U.S.C.
2204b. The funds are used for cooperative research agreements,
primarily with colleges and universities, on critical
operational, organizational, and structural issues facing
cooperatives.
Cooperative agreements are authorized under 7 U.S.C. 2201
to any qualified State departments of agriculture, university,
and other State entity to conduct research that will strengthen
and enhance the operations of agricultural marketing
cooperatives in rural areas.
The Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas [ATTRA]
program was first authorized by the Food Security Act of 1985.
The program provides information and technical assistance to
agricultural producers to adopt sustainable agricultural
practices that are environmentally friendly and lower
production costs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends $24,000,000 for rural cooperative
development grants. This amount is $142,000 more than the
fiscal year 2004 appropriation.
Of the funds provided, $2,500,000 is provided for the
Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas program through
a cooperative agreement with the National Center for
Appropriate Technology.
The Committee has included language in the bill that not
more than $1,500,000 shall be made available to cooperatives or
associations of cooperatives whose primary focus is to provide
assistance to small, minority producers.
The Committee provides $15,000,000 for value-added
agricultural product market development grants and encourages
the Department to give consideration to applications for the
following: Market Connection Program, MT; Lake County Community
Development Corporation, MT; Montana Pulping and Paper
Production Pilot; Gilliam County Wheat Quality Initiative, OR;
and the Tillamook County Processing Mill, OR.
The Committee encourages the Department to give
consideration to applications for rural cooperative grants for
the following: Rhode Island Dairy Farm Cooperative; and the
Small Farmers Distribution Center at Nelson Farms, NY.
RURAL EMPOWERMENT ZONES AND ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES GRANTS
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $12,592,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 12,500,000
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends $12,500,000 for Rural Empowerment
Zones and Enterprise Communities Grants. This amount is $92,000
less than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation.
Renewable Energy Program
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $22,864,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 10,770,000
Committee recommendation................................ 20,000,000
Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements
is authorized under 7 U.S.C. 8106. This program may provide
direct loans, loan guarantees, and grants to farmers, ranchers,
and small rural businesses for the purchase of renewable energy
systems and for energy efficiency improvements.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for the renewable
energy program. This amount is $9,230,000 more than the budget
request.
The Committee encourages the Department to give
consideration to applications for loans and grants for the
renewable energy program for the following: Ethanol Freedlot
Project, NE.
Rural Utilities Service
The Rural Utilities Service [RUS] was established under the
Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-354), October 13,
1994. RUS administers the electric and telephone programs of
the former Rural Electrification Administration and the water
and waste programs of the former Rural Development
Administration.
The mission of the RUS is to serve a leading role in
improving the quality of life in rural America by administering
its electric, telecommunications, and water and waste programs
in a service oriented, forward looking, and financially
responsible manner. All three programs have the common goal of
modernizing and revitalizing rural communities. RUS provides
funding and support service for utilities serving rural areas.
The public-private partnerships established by RUS and local
utilities assist rural communities in modernizing local
infrastructure. RUS programs are also characterized by the
substantial amount of private investment which is leveraged by
the public funds invested into infrastructure and technology,
resulting in the creation of new sources of employment.
RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
The Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901 et
seq.) provides the statutory authority for the electric and
telecommunications programs.
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the
program account. An appropriation to this account will be used
to cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct
loans obligated and loan guarantees committed in 2004, as well
as for administrative expenses.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The following table reflects the Committee's recommendation
for the rural electrification and telecommunications loans
program account, the loan subsidy and administrative expenses,
as compared to the fiscal year 2004 and budget request levels:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2004 level 2005 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan authorizations:
Electric:
Direct, 5 percent.................................... 240,000 120,000 120,000
Direct, Muni......................................... 1,000,000 100,000 100,000
Direct, FFB.......................................... 1,900,000 1,620,000 2,100,000
Direct, Treasury rate................................ 750,000 700,000 1,000,000
Guaranteed........................................... 99,410 100,000 100,000
Guaranteed, Underwriting............................. 1,000,000 ............... 1,000,000
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................... 4,989,410 2,640,000 4,420,000
==================================================
Telecommunications:
Direct, 5 percent.................................... 145,000 145,000 145,000
Direct, Treasury rate................................ 248,525 250,000 250,000
Direct, FFB.......................................... 120,000 100,000 125,000
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................... 513,525 495,000 520,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total, loan authorizations......................... 5,502,935 3,135,000 4,940,000
==================================================
Loan Subsidies:
Electric:
Direct, 5 percent \1\................................ ............... 3,648 3,648
Direct, Muni \1\..................................... ............... 1,350 1,350
Direct, FFB \2\...................................... ............... ............... ...............
Direct, Treasury rate \2\............................ ............... ............... ...............
Guaranteed........................................... 60 60 60
Guaranteed, Underwriting \2\......................... ............... ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................... 60 5,058 5,058
==================================================
Telecommunications:
Direct, 5 percent \1\................................ ............... ............... ...............
Direct, Treasury rate................................ 124 100 100
Direct, FFB \2\...................................... ............... ............... ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................... 124 100 100
--------------------------------------------------
Total, loan subsidies.............................. 184 5,158 5,158
==================================================
Administrative expenses...................................... 37,630 39,933 38,277
--------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural Electrification and Telecommunications 37,814 45,091 43,435
Loans Programs Account................................
==================================================
(Loan authorization)............................... 5,502,935 3,135,000 4,940,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Negative subsidy rate for fiscal year 2004 is calculated for this program.
\2\ Negative subsidy rates for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 are calculated for these programs.
RURAL TELEPHONE BANK PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct loan Administrative
Loan level subsidy expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2004 \1\..... 173,503 ........... 3,152
Budget estimate, 2005 \1\.... ............ ........... 3,328
Committee recommendation \1\. 175,000 ........... 3,152
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Negative subsidy rates for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 are calculated
for this program.
The Rural Telephone Bank [RTB] is required by law to begin
privatization (repurchase of federally owned stock) in fiscal
year 1996. RTB borrowers are able to borrow at private market
rates and no longer require Federal assistance.
The Rural Telephone Bank is managed by a 13-member board of
directors. The Administrator of RUS serves as Governor of the
Bank until conversion to private ownership, control, and
operation. This will take place when 51 percent of the class A
stock issued to the United States and outstanding at any time
after September 30, 1996, has been fully redeemed and retired.
Activities of the Bank are carried out by RUS employees and the
Office of the General Counsel of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the
program account. Appropriations to this account will be used to
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct
loans obligated in 2004, as well as for administrative
expenses.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a loan level of $175,000,000. This
amount is $1,497,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 level.
DISTANCE LEARNING, TELEMEDICINE, AND BROADBAND PROGRAM
LOANS AND GRANT LEVELS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2004 level 2005 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan and Grant Levels:
Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program:
Direct loans......................................... 300,000 ............... 20,000
Grants............................................... 38,770 25,000 25,000
Broadband Program:
Direct loans......................................... ............... 35,917 ...............
Treasury rate loans.................................. 598,101 255,164 600,000
Guaranteed loans..................................... ............... 40,000 ...............
Grants............................................... 8,947 ............... 9,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total, DLTB grants and loan authorizations......... 945,818 356,081 654,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISTANCE LEARNING, TELEMEDICINE, AND BROADBAND PROGRAM
LOANS AND GRANTS
[Budget authority In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
2004 level 2005 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program:
Direct loan subsidies \1\................................ ............... ............... 284
Grants................................................... 38,770 25,000 38,000
Broadband Program:
Direct loan subsidies.................................... ............... 2,877 ...............
Treasury subsidies....................................... 13,039 5,435 12,780
Guaranteed subsidies..................................... ............... 1,572 ...............
Grants................................................... 8,947 ............... 9,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total, grants and loan subsidies....................... 60,756 34,884 60,064
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Negative subsidy rate for fiscal year 2004 is calculated for this program.
The Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program
is authorized by the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade
Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4017, 7 U.S.C. 950aaa et seq.), as
amended by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act
of 1996. This program provides incentives to improve the
quality of phone services, to provide access to advanced
telecommunications services and computer networks, and to
improve rural opportunities.
This program provides the facilities and equipment to link
rural education and medical facilities with more urban centers
and other facilities providing rural residents access to better
health care through technology and increasing educational
opportunities for rural students. These funds are available for
loans and grants.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband
Program, the Committee recommends $60,064,000. This amount is
$692,000 less than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. Of this
amount, the Committee has provided $13,000,000 for public
broadcasting systems grants to allow noncommercial educational
television broadcast stations that serve rural areas to convert
from analog to digital operations.
The Committee supports awarding grants to public television
stations that provide a broadcast service to rural populations
through one or more transmitters or associated translators,
regardless of the location of their main transmitters. A public
station's main transmitter may be physically located in a city;
however, the signal may reach many rural communities throughout
their entire digital coverage area. Therefore, consideration
should be given to the overall population served by the
television broadcast signal when establishing criteria for
rurality and per capita income. The Committee notes that the
purpose of this funding is to equip public television stations
serving rural communities with the capacity to provide rich
educational services through the use of their digital broadcast
spectrum.
In addition, of the funds provided, $9,000,000 in grants
shall be made available to support broadband transmission and
local dial-up Internet services for rural areas. The Department
should continue to provide financial support in addition to the
Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband grant and loan
accounts.
The Committee is aware of and encourages the Department to
give consideration to the following applications for grants and
loans: College in the Downtown of Bridgetown, NJ; Alabama Rural
Health Network, AL; Maui Community College SkyBridge
Interactive Television Network, HI; Farm Resource Management
System, KY; Coushatta Tribe Of Louisiana; Rural Telework
Coordinating Center, MN; Technology Improvements at SUNY
Potsdam, NY; Caswell County, NC; Rural Utility Corridor, OR; I-
90 Corridor Emergency Medical Center, WA; Louisiana Broadband
Initiative; Market Connection Program, MT; University of
Maryland Eastern Shore; Rural Information Technology Job
Initiative, WA; and the Adirondack-Champlain Community Fiber
Network, NY.
TITLE IV--DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $595,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 799,000
Committee recommendation................................ 608,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and
Consumer Services provides direction and coordination in
carrying out the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to
the Department's food and consumer activities. The Office has
oversight and management responsibilities for the Food and
Nutrition Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition
and Consumer Services, the Committee recommends an
appropriation of $608,000. This amount is $13,000 more than the
fiscal year 2004 appropriation.
The Committee has provided increases throughout FNS to
promote healthy eating and to combat obesity. The Committee
believes it is imperative that USDA maintain and increase
obesity prevention and nutrition education activities, and work
with other government and private entities to provide the
public with appropriate, up-to-date information on healthy
eating and exercise habits. The Committee encourages the
Department to utilize the International Fitness Diplomats to
further educate children in regard to combating childhood
obesity.
The Committee is aware of the efforts of several non-profit
groups throughout the country, such as Farm Share in Florida,
whose mission is to recover and distribute surplus fresh and
nutritious fruits and vegetables. These organizations recover
fresh produce in bulk or by gleaning fields with the help of
volunteers. The produce is washed, sorted, packed, and
distributed locally, statewide and throughout the United States
to a network of participating social service agencies serving
the homeless and low-income households. The Committee believes
the activities carried out by these organizations are extremely
worthwhile, and strongly encourages USDA to support their
efforts in any way possible.
The Committee notes the growing problem of childhood
obesity and recent reports that many school children receive a
substantial percentage of their calories from sweetened drinks,
candy, and high fat snacks. Likewise, many non-subsidized
school lunches are high in fat content and low in certain
nutrients linked to school performance such as Omega 3 fatty
acids. The Committee directs the Food and Nutrition Service to
work aggressively to develop food products for the school lunch
program that are appealing to children, high in nutrition, and
will foster lifelong healthy eating patterns. The Committee
also notes that learning disabilities and behavioral disorders
have been linked to low serum levels of Omega 3 fatty acids.
Therefore, particular attention should be paid to developing
food choices that are high in Omega 3 fatty acids. FNS should
develop incentives to encourage schools to serve healthy food
choices and should impose disincentives to schools which
continue to offer high fat and sugar content foods to children
either through the school lunch program or other sources.
The Committee is aware of efforts in the State of Vermont
to provide milk coolers and milk vending machines to schools
through matching grants, and understands that these machines,
which also dispense yogurt and individual portion cheese
products, have been very successful and competed well with
other products sold in vending machines. Therefore, the
Committee encourages USDA to work with the State of Vermont to
identify any available funding to expand their efforts.
Food and Nutrition Service
The Food and Nutrition Service represents an organizational
effort to eliminate hunger and malnutrition in this country.
Nutrition assistance programs provide access to a nutritionally
adequate diet for families and persons with low incomes and
encourage better eating patterns among the Nation's children.
These programs include:
Child Nutrition Programs.--The National School Lunch and
School Breakfast, Summer Food Service, and Child and Adult Care
Food programs provide funding to the States, Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands, and Guam for use in serving nutritious lunches
and breakfasts to children attending schools of high school
grades and under, to children of preschool age in child care
centers, and to children in other institutions in order to
improve the health and well-being of the Nation's children, and
broaden the markets for agricultural food commodities. Through
the Special Milk Program, assistance is provided to the States
for making reimbursement payments to eligible schools and child
care institutions which institute or expand milk service in
order to increase the consumption of fluid milk by children.
Funds for this program are provided by direct appropriation and
transfer from section 32.
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants,
and Children [WIC].--This program safeguards the health of
pregnant, post partum, and breast-feeding women, infants, and
children up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk because of
inadequate nutrition and income by providing supplemental
foods. The delivery of supplemental foods may be done through
health clinics, vouchers redeemable at retail food stores, or
other approved methods which a cooperating State health agency
may select. Funds for this program are provided by direct
appropriation.
Food Stamp Program.--This program seeks to improve
nutritional standards of needy persons and families. Assistance
is provided to eligible households to enable them to obtain a
better diet by increasing their food purchasing capability,
usually by furnishing benefits in the form of electronic access
to funds. The program also includes Nutrition Assistance to
Puerto Rico. The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002
(Public Law 107-171) authorizes block grants for Nutrition
Assistance to Puerto Rico and American Samoa, which provide
broad flexibility in establishing nutrition assistance programs
specifically tailored to the needs of their low-income
households.
The program also includes the Food Distribution Program on
Indian Reservations which provides nutritious agricultural
commodities to low-income persons living on or near Indian
reservations who choose not to participate in the Food Stamp
Program.
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, Public
Law 107-171, enacted May 13, 2002, provides that $140,000,000
from funds appropriated in the Food Stamp account be used to
purchase commodities for The Emergency Food Assistance Program.
Commodity Assistance Program [CAP].--This program provides
funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program [CSFP], and
administrative expenses for The Emergency Food Assistance
Program [TEFAP].
CSFP provides supplemental foods to infants and children up
to age 6, and to pregnant, post partum, and breast-feeding
women with low incomes, and who reside in approved project
areas. In addition, this program operates commodity
distribution projects directed at low-income elderly persons.
TEFAP provides commodities and grant funds to State
agencies to assist in the cost of storage and distribution of
donated commodities. The Soup Kitchen/Food Bank Program was
absorbed into TEFAP under the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-193), by
an amendment to section 201A of the Emergency Food Assistance
Act.
Nutritious agricultural commodities are provided to
residents of the Federated States of Micronesia and the
Marshall Islands. Cash assistance is provided to distributing
agencies to assist them in meeting administrative expenses
incurred. It also provides funding for use in non-
Presidentially declared disasters, and for FNS' administrative
costs in connection with relief for all disasters. Funds for
this program are provided by direct appropriation.
Nutrition Programs Administration.--Most salaries and
Federal operating expenses of the Food and Nutrition Service
are funded from this account. Also included is the Center for
Nutrition Policy and Promotion [CNPP] which oversees
improvements in and revisions to the food and guidance systems,
and serves as the focal point for advancing and coordinating
nutrition promotion and education policy to improve the health
of all Americans.
CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 32
Appropriation transfers Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2004......... 6,717,780 4,699,661 11,417,441
Budget estimate, 2005........ 6,060,860 5,319,697 11,380,557
Committee recommendation..... 6,060,860 5,319,697 11,380,557
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Child Nutrition Programs, authorized by the Richard B.
Russell National School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition Act
of 1966, provide Federal assistance to State agencies in the
form of cash and commodities for use in preparing and serving
nutritious meals to children while they are attending school,
residing in service institutions, or participating in other
organized activities away from home. The purpose of these
programs is to help maintain the health and proper physical
development of America's children. Milk is provided to children
either free or at a low cost, depending on their family income
level. FNS provides cash subsidies to States for administering
the programs and directly administers the program in the States
which choose not to do so. Grants are also made for nutritional
training and surveys and for State administrative expenses.
Under current law, most of these payments are made on the basis
of reimbursement rates established by law and applied to
lunches and breakfasts actually served by the States. The
reimbursement rates are adjusted annually to reflect changes in
the Consumer Price Index for food away from home.
The William F. Goodling Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act
of 1998, Public Law 105-336, contains a number of child
nutrition provisions. These include:
Summer Food Service Program [SFSP].--Reauthorizes the
program through 2004 and relaxes the site limitations for
private nonprofit sponsors in SFSP.
Child and Adult Care Food Program [CACFP].--Permanently
authorizes payments for snacks provided to children through age
18 in after-school programs, and provides funds for
demonstration projects to expand services to homeless children
and family day care homes in low-income areas.
National School Lunch Program [NSLP].--(1) Significantly
expands reimbursement for snacks for children up to age 18 in
after-school care programs; (2) provides for free snacks in
needy areas; and (3) requires participating schools to obtain a
food safety inspection conducted by a State or local agency.
A description of Child Nutrition Programs follows:
1. Cash Payments to States.--The programs are operated
under an agreement entered into by the State agencies and the
Department. Funds are made available under letters of credit to
State agencies for use in reimbursing participating schools and
other institutions. Sponsors apply to the State agencies, and
if approved, are reimbursed on a per-meal basis in accordance
with the terms of their agreements and rates prescribed by law.
The reimbursement rates are adjusted annually to reflect
changes in the Consumer Price Index for food away from home.
(a) School Lunch Program.--Assistance is provided to
the States for the service of lunches to all school
children, regardless of family income. States must
match some of the Federal cash grant. In fiscal year
2005, the School Lunch Program will provide assistance
for serving an estimated 4.9 billion school lunches
including 2.0 billion for children from upper-income
families and 2.9 billion for children from lower and
low-income families. An estimated 29.2 million children
are expected to participate in the program daily during
the school year.
(b) Special Assistance for Free and Reduced-Price
Lunches.--Additional assistance is provided to the
States for serving lunches free or at a reduced price
to needy children. In fiscal year 2005, under current
law, the program will provide assistance for about 2.9
billion lunches, of which 2.4 billion will be served
free of charge and 0.5 billion at reduced price. Over
17 million needy children will participate in the
program on an average schoolday during the year.
(c) School Breakfast Program.--Federal reimbursement
to the States is based on the number of breakfasts
served free, at a reduced price, or at the general rate
for those served to nonneedy children. Certain schools
are designated in severe need because, in the second
preceding year, they served at least 40 percent of
their lunches at free or reduced prices and because the
regular breakfast reimbursement is insufficient to
cover cost. These schools receive higher rates of
reimbursement in both the free and reduced-price
categories. In fiscal year 2005, the program will serve
an estimated 1.5 billion breakfasts to a daily average
of 9.0 million children.
(d) State Administrative Expenses.--The funds may be
used for State employee salaries, benefits, support
services, and office equipment. Public Law 95-627 made
the State administrative expenses grant equal to 1.5
percent of certain Federal payments in the second
previous year. In fiscal year 2005, $148,176,000 will
be allocated among the States to fund ongoing State
administrative expenses and to improve the management
of various nutrition programs.
(e) Summer Food Service Program.--Meals served free
to children in low-income neighborhoods during the
summer months are supported on a performance basis by
Federal cash subsidies to State agencies. Funds are
also provided for related State and local
administrative expenses. During the summer of 2005,
approximately 130.1 million meals will be served.
(f) Child and Adult Care Food Program.--Preschool
children receive year-round food assistance in
nonprofit child care centers and family and group day
care homes under this program. Public Law 97-35 permits
profitmaking child care centers receiving compensation
under title XX of the Social Security Act to
participate in the program if 25 percent of the
children served are title XX participants. Certain
adult day care centers are also eligible for
participation in this program, providing subsidized
meals to nonimpaired individuals age 60 years or older.
The Child and Adult Care Food Program reimburses State
agencies at varying rates for breakfasts, lunches,
suppers, and meal supplements and for program-related
State audit expenses. In fiscal year 2005,
approximately 2.1 billion meals will be served.
2. Commodity Procurement.--Commodities are purchased for
distribution to the school lunch, child care food, and summer
food service programs. The minimum commodity support rate for
all school lunch and child care center lunches and suppers
served is mandated by law and adjusted annually on July 1 to
reflect changes in the producer price index for food used in
schools and institutions. The commodities purchased with these
funds are supplemented by commodities purchased with section 32
funds.
3. Nutrition Studies and Education.--The National Food
Service Management Institute provides instruction for educators
and school food service personnel in nutrition and food service
management.
4. Special Milk.--In fiscal year 2005, approximately 107
million half-pints will be served in the Special Milk Program.
These include about 99.7 million half-pints served to children
whose family income is above 130 percent of poverty. During
fiscal year 2005, the average full cost reimbursement for milk
served to needy children is expected to be 14.1 cents for each
half-pint. Milk served to nonneedy children is expected to be
reimbursed at 13.9 cents for each half-pint.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the child nutrition programs, the Committee recommends
an appropriation of $6,060,860,000, plus transfers from section
32 of $5,319,697,000, for a total program of $11,380,557,000.
This amount is $36,884,000 less than the fiscal year 2004
level.
The Committee's recommendation provides for the following
annual rates for the child nutrition programs.
TOTAL OBLIGATIONAL AUTHORITY
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Child nutrition programs 2004 estimate 2005 budget recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
School Lunch Program......................................... 6,766,815 6,532,488 6,532,488
School Breakfast Program..................................... 1,752,394 1,825,646 1,825,646
State administrative expenses................................ 140,042 148,176 148,176
Summer Food Service Program.................................. 281,894 295,305 295,305
Child and Adult Care Food Program............................ 1,989,841 2,064,676 2,064,676
Special Milk Program......................................... 14,141 14,875 14,875
Commodity procurement, processing, and computer support...... 451,017 479,074 479,074
Coordinated review system.................................... 5,235 5,235 5,235
Team nutrition............................................... 10,025 10,025 10,025
Food safety education........................................ 1,000 1,000 1,000
Child nutrition program pay costs............................ 37 57 57
Child nutrition program integrity funds...................... 5,000 ............... ...............
Performance measurement and program assessment............... ............... 4,000 4,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee provides $4,000,000, as requested in the
budget, for Child Nutrition Program assessment activities. This
funding will support a range of program assessment activities,
including development of comprehensive measures of program
performance to inform and foster outcome-based planning and
management, focused studies of program operations, and
technical assistance to States and communities for practical
demonstrations of potential policy and program improvements.
The Committee provides $10,025,000 for TEAM nutrition.
Included in this amount is $4,000,000 for food service training
grants to States; $1,600,000 for technical assistance
materials; $800,000 for National Food Service Management
Institute cooperative agreements; $400,000 for print and
electronic food service resource systems; and $3,225,000 for
other activities.
The Committee expects FNS to utilize the National Food
Service Management Institute to carry out the food safety
education program.
The Committee also encourages States to conduct outreach to
recruit new providers into the CACFP program through the 25
percent free or reduced price meal eligibility criteria option.
The Committee recognizes the value that pooling has played in
increasing participation in the CACFP program.
SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS, AND CHILDREN
[WIC]
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $4,611,861,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 4,787,250,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,175,250,000
The special supplemental nutrition program for women,
infants, and children [WIC] is authorized by section 17 of the
Child Nutrition Act of 1966. Its purpose is to safeguard the
health of pregnant, breast-feeding and post partum women and
infants, and children up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk
because of inadequate nutrition and inadequate income. The
budget estimate assumes an average monthly participation of
7.86 million participants at an average food cost of $36.55 per
person per month in fiscal year 2005.
The WIC program food packages are designed to provide foods
which studies have demonstrated are lacking in the diets of the
WIC program target population. The authorized supplemental
foods are iron-fortified breakfast cereal, fruit or vegetable
juice which contains vitamin C, dry beans, peas, and peanut
butter.
There are three general types of delivery systems for WIC
foods: (1) retail purchase in which participants obtain
supplemental foods through retail stores; (2) home delivery
systems in which food is delivered to the participant's home;
and (3) direct distribution systems in which participants pick
up food from a distribution outlet. The food is free of charge
to all participants.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women,
Infants, and Children [WIC], the Committee recommends an
appropriation of $5,175,250,000. This amount is $563,389,000
more than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation and $388,000,000
more than the budget request. The Committee includes statutory
language designating $125,000,000 as an emergency to address
increased food costs and to meet expected caseload.
The Committee provides no less than $15,000,000 for
breastfeeding support initiatives. The Committee also provides
up to $5,000,000 for childhood obesity and up to $20,000,000
for State management information systems, if the Secretary
determines that those funds are not needed to maintain caseload
requirements.
The Secretary of Agriculture under 7 U.S.C. 2257 has the
authority to transfer funds between accounts within an agency.
Under this authority the Secretary could transfer $335,000,000
into the WIC program if needed to meet unforeseen increases in
food prices or participation levels.
Funding is provided for the Farmers' Market Nutrition
Program under the Commodity Assistance Program account, as
proposed in the budget.
While the Committee continues to support and encourage
State and local agency efforts to utilize WIC as an important
means of participation referral to other health care services,
it also continues to recognize the constraints that WIC
programs are experiencing as a result of expanding health care
priorities and continuing demand for core WIC program
activities. The Committee wishes to clarify that while WIC
plays an important role in screening and referral to other
health care services, it was never the Committee's intention
that WIC should perform aggressive screening, referral and
assessment functions in such a manner that supplants the
responsibilities of other programs, nor was it the Committee's
intention that WIC State and local agencies should assume the
burden of entering into and negotiating appropriate cost
sharing agreements. The Committee again includes language in
the bill to preserve WIC funding for WIC services authorized by
law to ensure that WIC funds are not used to pay the expenses
or to coordinate operations or activities other than those
allowable pursuant to section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act of
1996, unless fully reimbursed by the appropriate Federal
agency.
The Committee is concerned about the potential impact of
television, radio and print media advertising, promotional gift
packs, reduced price coupons, and other offerings of infant
formula products on the rates of initiation and duration of
breastfeeding among the WIC population. The Committee requests
that the Government Accountability Office conduct a review
regarding what is currently known and what else needs to be
studied in order to fully understand the impact of these
activities, and report to the Committee by January 1, 2006.
food stamp program
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Puerto Rico TEFAP
Expenses Amount in and American commodity Total
reserve Samoa purchases
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2004...................... 26,403,176 3,000,000 1,402,805 140,000 30,945,981
Budget estimate, 2005..................... 29,053,276 3,000,000 1,448,522 140,000 33,641,798
Committee recommendation.................. 29,053,276 3,000,000 1,448,522 140,000 33,641,798
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Food Stamp Program, authorized by the Food Stamp Act of
1977, attempts to alleviate hunger and malnutrition among low-
income persons by increasing their food purchasing power.
Eligible households receive food stamp benefits with which they
can purchase food through regular retail stores. They are thus
enabled to obtain a more nutritious diet than would be possible
without food stamp assistance. The Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002, Public Law 107-171, enacted May 13,
2002, reauthorizes the Food Stamp Program through fiscal year
2007.
The Food Stamp Program is currently in operation in all 50
States, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.
Participating households receive food benefits, the value of
which is determined by household size and income. The cost of
the benefits is paid by the Federal Government. As required by
law, the Food and Nutrition Service annually revises household
stamp allotments to reflect changes in the cost of the thrifty
food plan.
At the authorized retail store, the recipient presents his/
her card and enters a unique personal identification number
into a terminal that debits the household's account for the
amount of purchases. Federal funds are shifted from the Federal
Reserve to the EBT processor's financial institution so that it
may reimburse the grocer's account for the amount of purchases.
The grocer's account at a designated bank is credited for the
amount of purchases. The associated benefit cost is accounted
for in the same manner as those benefit costs that result from
issuance of coupons.
Nutrition Assistance to Puerto Rico.--The Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002, Public Law 107-171, authorized
block grants for Nutrition Assistance to Puerto Rico and
American Samoa which gives the Commonwealth broad flexibility
to establish a nutrition assistance program that is
specifically tailored to the needs of its low-income
households. However, the Commonwealth must submit its annual
plan of operation to the Secretary for approval. The Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, Public Law 107-171,
enacted May 13, 2002, reauthorizes appropriations through
fiscal year 2007. In addition to the provision of direct
benefits to the needy, a portion of the grant may be used to
fund up to 50 percent of the cost of administering the program.
The grant may also be used to fund projects to improve
agriculture and food distribution in Puerto Rico.
The program also includes the Food Distribution Program on
Indian Reservations which provides nutritious agricultural
commodities to low-income persons living on or near Indian
reservations who choose not to participate in the Food Stamp
Program.
Administrative Costs.--All direct and indirect
administrative costs incurred for certification of households,
issuance of food coupons, quality control, outreach, and fair
hearing efforts are shared by the Federal Government and the
States on a 50-50 basis. The Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act of 2002, (Public Law 107-171), substantially revised the
performance requirements for States under the Quality Control
[QC] System. States with poor performance over 2 years face
sanctions. States that demonstrate a high degree of accuracy or
substantial improvement in their degree of accuracy under the
QC system are eligible to share in a $48,000,000 ``bonus fund''
established by Congress to reward States for good performance.
State Administration also Includes State Antifraud
Activities.--Under the provisions of the Food Stamp Act of
1977, as amended by the Mickey Leland Childhood Hunger Relief
Act of 1993, States are eligible to be reimbursed for 50
percent of the costs of their food stamp fraud investigations
and prosecutions.
States are required to implement an employment and training
program for the purpose of assisting members of households
participating in the Food Stamp Program in gaining skills,
training, or experience that will increase their ability to
obtain regular employment. The Department of Agriculture has
implemented a grant program to States to assist them in
providing employment and training services.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Food Stamp Program, the Committee recommends
$33,641,798,000. This amount is $2,695,817,000 more than the
fiscal year 2004 appropriation. Of the amount provided,
$3,000,000,000 is made available as a contingency reserve. This
is the same as the 2004 contingency reserve level and the
budget request.
Included in this amount is up to $4,000,000 to purchase
bison for the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations
from Native American producers and Cooperative Organizations
without competition.
The Committee is aware that there continues to be a
pressing need for infrastructure development in the Food
Distribution Program on Indian Reservations [FDPIR].
Warehousing facilities on some reservations do not allow for
the proper and efficient storage and distribution of
commodities, and Indian Tribal Organization must be able to
replace and upgrade equipment such as tractor trailers and fork
lifts. Facilities have not always been able to keep pace with
improvements in the food package, including the addition of
fresh produce and more frozen foods as program options, which
generates the need for cooler and freezer equipment.
Military Pay Exclusion.--The Committee includes statutory
language to exclude special pay for military personnel deployed
to designated combat areas when determining food stamp
eligibility. This provision will ensure that food stamp
participants will not be eliminated from the program due to
special or supplemental military pay.
commodity assistance program
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $149,115,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 169,416,000
Committee recommendation................................ 172,081,000
The Commodity Assistance Program includes funding for the
Commodity Supplemental Food Program and funding to pay expenses
associated with the storage and distribution of commodities
through The Emergency Food Assistance Program.
The Commodity Supplemental Food Program [CSFP].--Authorized
by section 4(a) of the Agricultural and Consumer Protection Act
of 1973, as amended in 1981 by Public Law 97-98, this program
provides supplemental food to infants and children up to age 6,
and to pregnant, post partum, and breast-feeding women who have
low incomes, and reside in approved project areas. In addition,
the program operates commodity distribution projects directed
at low-income elderly persons 60 years of age or older.
In fiscal year 2005 approximately 54,000 women, infants,
and young children and 413,000 elderly are eligible to receive
food packages each month. The foods are provided by the
Department of Agriculture for distribution through State
agencies. The authorized commodities are iron-fortified infant
formula, rice cereal, canned juice, evaporated milk and/or
nonfat dry milk, canned vegetables or fruits, canned meat or
poultry, egg mix, dehydrated potatoes, farina, and peanut
butter or dry beans. Elderly participants may receive all
commodities except iron-fortified infant formula and rice
cereal.
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (2002
Farm Bill), reauthorizes the program through fiscal year 2007
and establishes a specific administrative funding level for
each caseload slot assigned, adjusted each year for inflation.
The Emergency Food Assistance Program [TEFAP].--Authorized
by the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983, as amended, the
program provides nutrition assistance to low-income people
through prepared meals served on site and through the
distribution of commodities to low-income households for home
consumption. The commodities are provided by USDA to State
agencies for distribution through State-established networks.
State agencies make the commodities available to local
organizations, such as soup kitchens, food pantries, food
banks, and community action agencies, for their use in
providing nutrition assistance to those in need.
Funds are administered by FNS through grants to State
agencies which operate commodity distribution programs.
Allocation of the funds to States is based on a formula which
considers the States' unemployment rate and the number of
persons with income below the poverty level.
In fiscal year 2003, $372,400,000 worth of commodities were
distributed to assist needy individuals. Precise levels of
donations depend upon the availability of surplus commodities
and requirements regarding displacement.
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 permits
State and local agencies to pay costs associated with the
storage and distribution of USDA commodities and commodities
secured from other sources. At the request of the State, these
funds can be used by USDA to purchase additional commodities.
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 increases
funding available for the purchase of TEFAP commodities from
$100,000,000 to $140,000,000. In addition to the commodities
purchased specifically for TEFAP, commodities obtained under
agriculture support programs are donated to States for
distribution through TEFAP.
Pacific Island Assistance.--This program provides funding
for assistance to the nuclear-affected islands in the form of
commodities and administrative funds. It also provides funding
for use in non-Presidentially declared disasters and for FNS'
administrative costs in connection with relief for all
disasters.
Farmers' Market Nutrition Program.--The Farmers' Market
Nutrition Program [FMNP] provides WIC or WIC-eligible
participants with coupons to purchase fresh, nutritious,
unprepared foods, such as fruits and vegetables, from farmers'
markets. This benefits both participants and local farmers by
increasing the awareness and use of farmers' markets by low-
income households.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Commodity Assistance Program, the Committee
recommends an appropriation of $172,081,000. This amount is
$22,966,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation.
The Committee is aware that the Farmers' Market Nutrition
Program provides fresh fruits and vegetables to low income
mothers and children, benefiting not only WIC participants, but
local farmers as well. Therefore, the Committee provides
$20,000,000 for the Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, the same
as the budget request, and directs the Secretary to obligate
these funds within 45 days.
The Committee continues to encourage the Department to
distribute Commodity Assistance Program funds equitably among
the States, based on an assessment of the needs and priorities
of each State and the State's preference to receive commodity
allocations through each of the programs funded under this
account.
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 provides
$140,000,000 for TEFAP commodities to be purchased with food
stamp funds. The Committee provides $50,000,000 for TEFAP
administrative funding. In addition, the Committee provides the
Secretary authority to transfer up to an additional $10,000,000
from TEFAP commodities for this purpose.
The Committee is aware that a significant quantity of food
products are made available by hunters and other game
harvesting operations which are approved through USDA or State
inspected facilities, and present an additional source of
donated commodities. The Department should give consideration
to this opportunity as a means to supplement and provide
variety to food assistance programs, and allow the use of TEFAP
administrative funds for this purpose.
The Committee provides $101,000,000 for the Commodity
Supplemental Food Program. This amount is $2,665,000 more than
the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. Of this amount, no less
than $26,182,000 shall be available for administrative funding.
The Committee recognizes the success of the Seniors
Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, which is expected to provide
fresh fruits and vegetables to more than 419,000 low-income
senior citizens and benefit more than 8,500 farmers in fiscal
year 2004. The Committee notes that $15,000,000 in funding is
available for the program in fiscal year 2005 through the Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002.
The Committee encourages USDA to consider developing a
partnership with a non-profit technology organization, with
proven delivery of commodities and food within hunger programs,
for the application of advanced supply chain capabilities and
technologies to The Emergency Food Assistance Program. If the
Department of Agriculture determines that this technology is
beneficial and appropriate, the Committee encourages the
Department of Agriculture to fund demonstration pilot programs
in not less than five States implementing this technology, with
the goal of the demonstration programs being to reduce
administrative costs while improving the efficiency of the
delivery of food.
NUTRITION PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $137,488,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 152,227,000
Committee recommendation................................ 142,592,000
The Nutrition Programs Administration appropriation
provides for most of the Federal operating expenses of the Food
and Nutrition Service, which includes the Child Nutrition
Programs; Special Milk Program; Special Supplemental Nutrition
Program for Women, Infants, and Children [WIC], including the
Farmers' Market Nutrition Program; Food Stamp Program;
Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico; the Commodity Assistance
Program, including the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, and
the Emergency Food Assistance Program; and the Food Donations
Programs, including Pacific Island Assistance.
The major objective of Nutrition Programs Administration is
to efficiently and effectively carry out the nutrition
assistance programs mandated by law. This is to be accomplished
by the following: (1) giving clear and consistent guidance and
supervision to State agencies and other cooperators; (2)
assisting the States and other cooperators by providing
program, managerial, financial, and other advice and expertise;
(3) measuring, reviewing, and analyzing the progress being made
toward achieving program objectives; and (4) carrying out
regular staff support functions.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For Nutrition Programs Administration, the Committee
recommends an appropriation of $142,592,000. This amount is
$5,104,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. The
Committee provides $1,000,000 for childhood obesity/nutrition
education, $1,000,000 for the Food Guide Pyramid, and $655,000
for Dietary Guidelines, as requested in the budget.
The Committee provides not less than $4,000,000 to improve
integrity in the Food Stamp and Child Nutrition Programs. The
Committee directs that USDA provide a detailed spending plan on
these activities by March 1, 2005.
The Committee remains concerned about the growing
incidences of obesity in this country. Recent estimates by the
Centers for Disease Control state that over 64 percent of
adults, as well as 15 percent of children, were overweight or
obese in the United States. The CDC also states that overweight
or obese adults are at risk for a number of health problems
including heart disease, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure,
and some forms of cancer. Further, overweight adolescents have
a 70 percent chance of becoming overweight adults. Therefore,
the Committee believes it is critical to ensure that children
are taught how to maintain a healthy lifestyle and have access
to healthy foods, and provides $1,000,000 above the fiscal year
2004 level for obesity prevention and nutrition education
activities.
TITLE V--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS
Foreign Agricultural Service
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfers
Appropriations from loan Total
accounts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2004.......... 131,368 4,355 135,723
Budget estimate, 2005......... 143,077 4,542 147,619
Committee recommendation...... 139,162 4,518 143,680
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Foreign Agricultural Service [FAS] was established
March 10, 1953, by Secretary's Memorandum No. 1320, supplement
1. Public Law 83-690, approved August 28, 1954, transferred the
agricultural attaches from the Department of State to the
Foreign Agricultural Service.
The Agency maintains a worldwide agricultural intelligence
and reporting service to provide U.S. farmers and traders with
information on world agricultural production and trade that
they can use to adjust to changes in world demand for U.S.
agricultural products. This is accomplished through a
continuous program of reporting by 63 posts located throughout
the world covering some 130 countries.
The Foreign Agricultural Service analyzes agricultural
information essential to the assessment of foreign supply and
demand conditions in order to provide estimates of the current
situation and to forecast the export potential for specific
U.S. agricultural commodities. Published economic data about
commodities are combined with attache reports and subjected to
analysis through advanced econometric techniques to generate
these estimates.
In addition, the Service is now using advanced techniques
for identifying, delineating, and assessing the impact of
events which may affect the condition and expected production
of foreign crops of economic importance to the United States.
The crop condition activity relies heavily on computer-aided
analysis of satellite, meteorological, agricultural, and
related data.
The mission of FAS overseas is to represent U.S.
agricultural interests, to promote export of domestic farm
products, improve world trade conditions, and report on
agricultural production and trade in foreign countries. FAS
staff are stationed at 80 offices around the world where they
provide expertise in agricultural economics and marketing, as
well as provide attache services.
The Foreign Agricultural Service works in conjunction with
market development cooperators, trade associations, State
departments of agriculture and their affiliates, and U.S. sales
teams to develop foreign markets for U.S. farm products. FAS
sponsors overseas trade exhibits to promote U.S. agricultural
products, provides information about foreign importers, and
performs a wide range of market development activities.
FAS carries out several export assistance programs to
counter the adverse effects of unfair trade practices by
competitors on U.S. agricultural trade. The Export Enhancement
Program uses CCC-owned commodities as export bonuses to provide
export enhancements to U.S. producers. The Market Access
Program [MAP] conducts both generic and brand-identified
promotional programs in conjunction with nonprofit agricultural
associations and private firms financed through reimbursable
CCC payments.
These programs are supplemented by the Cooperator Program,
a joint FAS-nonprofit private trade and producer association
partnership program developing strategies for U.S. agriculture
export expansion. In addition, GSM credit guarantee programs
play an integral role in the recent progress of American
agriculture in the world marketplace.
The Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 includes authority to
establish up to 25 agricultural trade offices. Currently, 17
such offices are in operation at key foreign trading centers to
assist U.S. exporters, trade groups, and State export marketing
officials in trade promotion.
The Service initiates, directs, and coordinates the
Department's formulation of trade policies and programs with
the goal of maintaining and expanding world markets for U.S.
agricultural products. It monitors international compliance
with bilateral and multilateral trade agreements. It identifies
restrictive tariff and trade practices which act as barriers to
the import of U.S. agricultural commodities, then supports
negotiations to remove them. It acts to counter and eliminate
unfair trade practices by other countries that hinder U.S.
agricultural exports to third markets.
FAS also carries out the mission of the former Office of
International Cooperation and Development [OICD] to promote
U.S. agriculture and to advance the agriculture of developing
countries as parts of a complementary global agricultural
system capable of providing ample food and fiber for all
people. To accomplish this mission, FAS applies USDA policies
and U.S. agricultural perspectives in its programs of
international agricultural cooperation and development, and in
its work with foreign countries, international organizations,
U.S. universities and other institutions, agencies of the U.S.
Government, and the U.S. private sector.
The General Sales Manager was established pursuant to
section 5(f) of the charter of the Commodity Credit Corporation
and 15 U.S.C. 714-714p. The funds allocated to the General
Sales Manager are used for conducting the following programs:
(1) CCC Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-102), including
supplier credit guarantees and facilities financing guarantees,
(2) Intermediate Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-103), (3) Public
Law 480, (4) section 416 Overseas Donations Program, (5) Export
Enhancement Program, (6) Market Access Program, and (7)
programs authorized by the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter
Act including barter, export sales of most CCC-owned
commodities, export payments, and other programs as assigned to
encourage and enhance the export of U.S. agricultural
commodities.
A provision in the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriation Act,
2003, Division A of Public Law 108-7, made permanent a
prohibition on the use of agency funds to promote the sale or
export of tobacco or tobacco products.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Foreign Agricultural Service, the Committee
recommends an appropriation of $139,162,000. This amount is
$7,794,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation.
The Committee expects the FAS to fund the Foreign Market
Development Cooperator Program at no less than the fiscal year
2004 level.
The Committee provides the fiscal year 2005 budget request
level of $5,000,000 for the Cochran Fellowship Program. The
Committee encourages the Secretary to continue to provide
additional support for the program through the Commodity Credit
Corporation Emerging Markets Program.
The Committee continues to include language in a general
provision in the bill, as requested in the budget, to allow up
to $1,000,000 of the amount appropriated to the FAS to remain
available until expended solely for the purpose of offsetting
fluctuations in international currency exchange rates, subject
to documentation.
The Committee expects the Secretary to use the fully-
authorized levels of the Dairy Export Incentive Program [DEIP],
consistent with GATT Uruguay commitments, in order to ensure
U.S. producers have fair access to foreign markets.
The Committee encourages the Foreign Agricultural Service
to assist the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute and the Alaska
Salmon Task Force in marketing Alaska salmon and other seafood
to overseas markets.
To promote the export of domestic farm products and improve
world agriculture trade conditions, the Foreign Agricultural
Service must increase its efforts to improve the understanding
among trading partners of the safety of biotechnology and the
thoroughness of the U.S. regulatory oversight of biotechnology.
As trading partners construct regulatory systems for
biotechnology and commodity trade, FAS is frequently requested
to provide experts for the purpose of educating foreign
government officials on the U.S. regulatory system. If the
United States fails to participate in such discussions, those
attempting to limit the access to foreign markets by U.S.
producers will be presented an opportunity to undermine
confidence in the benefits and safety of the technology while
reducing trade opportunities for American producers. The
Committee directs FAS to allocate adequate funding to meet the
needs of our trading partners so that officials from the
Department of Agriculture may, when requested, educate foreign
regulators on the safety of the technology and the thoroughness
of the U.S. regulatory process.
In addition, the Committee continues to urge the Secretary
to work with representatives of the dairy industry and
appropriate non-governmental organizations to increase the
amount of fortified dry milk exported under humanitarian
assistance programs.
The Committee is aware of the continuing buildup of surplus
non-fat dry milk acquired by the CCC through the dairy price
support program. The Committee is concerned with increasing
storage costs associated with this buildup and encourages the
agency to utilize all existing food donation programs to reduce
this growing surplus.
The Trade Assistance Act for Farmers [TAAF] requires that
technical assistance be provided to farmers negatively impacted
by imports. The Committee encourages the Department to work
with interested parties, including the Digital Center for Risk
Management Education, to coordinate an intensive technical
assistance program for farmers using available funds consistent
with that Act.
The Committee is aware of FAS activities to provide
technical assistance for the promotion of specialty crop
exports, consistent with section 3205 of the Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002. The Committee provides an
increase of $1,000,000 from the fiscal year 2004 level to
support these activities.
PUBLIC LAW 480 TITLE I PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative
Credit level Loan subsidy expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2004......................................... 130,892 103,274 2,122
Budget estimate, 2005........................................ 100,000 86,420 4,221
Committee recommendation..................................... 109,000 94,198 4,034
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the
program account. Appropriations to this account will be used to
cover the lifetime subsidy cost associated with direct loans
obligated in 2004 and beyond, as well as for administrative
expenses.
Financing sales of agricultural commodities to developing
countries and private entities for dollars on credit terms, or
for local currencies (including for local currencies on credit
terms) for use under section 104; and for furnishing
commodities to carry out the Food for Progress Act of 1985, as
amended (title I).--Title I of the act authorizes financing of
sales to developing countries for local currencies and for
dollars on credit terms. Sales for dollars or local currency
may be made to foreign governments. The legislation provides
for repayment terms either in local currencies or U.S. dollars
on credit terms of up to 30 years, with a grace period of up to
5 years.
Local currencies under title I sales agreements may be used
in carrying out activities under section 104 of the
Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as
amended. Activities in the recipient country for which these
local currencies may be used include developing new markets for
U.S. agricultural commodities, paying U.S. obligations, and
supporting agricultural development and research.
Title I appropriated funds may also be used under the Food
for Progress Act of 1985 to furnish commodities on credit terms
or on a grant basis to assist developing countries and
countries that are emerging democracies that have a commitment
to introduce and expand free enterprise elements in their
agricultural economies.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For Public Law 480, title I, the Committee recommends total
appropriations of $98,232,000. This amount is $7,164,000 less
than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. This appropriation
will support a Public Law 480, title I, credit level of
$109,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, $21,892,000 less than the
fiscal year 2004 level. The corresponding loan levels, loan
subsidy amounts, and administrative expenses are reflected in
the table above, as compared to the fiscal year 2004 and budget
request levels.
PUBLIC LAW 480 TITLE I OCEAN FREIGHT DIFFERENTIAL GRANTS
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $27,835,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 22,723,000
Committee recommendation................................ 22,723,000
Ocean freight differential costs in connection with
commodity sales financed for local currencies or U.S. dollars
(title I).--The Commodity Credit Corporation pays ocean freight
differential costs on shipments under this title. These costs
are the difference between foreign flag and U.S. flag shipping
costs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For Public Law 480 ocean freight differential costs, the
Committee recommends $22,723,000. This amount is $5,112,000
less than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation, and the same as
the budget request.
PUBLIC LAW 480 TITLE II GRANTS
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $1,184,967,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 1,185,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,185,000,000
The Committee recognizes the important mission of the
Public Law 480 Program to combat hunger and malnutrition;
promote broad-based equitable and sustainable development;
expand international trade; develop and expand export markets
for U.S. agricultural commodities; and to foster and encourage
the development of private enterprise and democratic
participation in developing countries. The Committee strongly
supports the continued efficient operation of this important
program.
Commodities Supplied in Connection With Dispositions Abroad
(Title II) (7 U.S.C. 1721-1726).--Commodities are supplied
without cost through foreign governments to combat malnutrition
and to meet famine and other emergency requirements.
Commodities are also supplied for nonemergencies through public
and private agencies, including intergovernmental
organizations. The Commodity Credit Corporation pays ocean
freight on shipments under this title, and may also pay
overland transportation costs to a landlocked country, as well
as internal distribution costs in emergency situations. The
funds appropriated for title II are made available to private
voluntary organizations and cooperatives to assist these
organizations in meeting administrative and related costs.
Commodities Supplied in Connection With Dispositions Abroad
(Title III).--Commodities are supplied without cost to least
developed countries through foreign governments for direct
feeding, development of emergency food reserves, or may be sold
with the proceeds of such sale used by the recipient country
for specific economic development purposes. The Commodity
Credit Corporation may pay ocean freight on shipments under
this title, and may also pay overland transportation costs to a
landlocked country, as well as internal distribution costs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For Title II, the Committee recommends a program level of
$1,185,000,000. This amount is $33,000 more than the fiscal
year 2004 appropriation.
The Committee directs the administration not to place
arbitrary limits on monetization under the Public Law 480 title
II program. In food-deficit, import-reliant countries,
monetization stimulates the economy and allows needed
commodities to be provided in the marketplace. Food aid
proposals should be approved based on the merits of the program
plan to promote food security and improve people's lives, not
on the level of monetization.
The Committee supports the use of title II funds in fiscal
year 2005 to continue the fiscal year 2004 level of funding for
the orphan feeding program in Haiti.
The Committee notes the extraordinary effort made by the
people of Alaska through Rotary International, the Interfaith
Council, the Municipality of Anchorage, and other groups to
collect and distribute food and other assistance to people
living in the Russian Far East. The Committee urges the
Administration to work with these entities to take advantage of
their volunteer efforts in feeding people in the Russian Far
East, particularly abandoned children living in orphanages and
hospitals.
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002
increased the level of Public Law 480 Title II non-emergency
assistance to 1,875,000 metric tons. Congress provided this
level to help address the underlying causes of hunger in the
world, which leads to weakened immune systems, higher rates of
chronic disease and poverty, and the inability of entire
populations to achieve economic and social independence. The
Committee expects that funding for Public Law 480 Title II will
be used for its intended purpose and not for ad hoc emergency
assistance. In the event of additional emergency needs, the
Committee reminds the Department of the availability of the
Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust.
As proposed in the budget, the Committee provides no new
funding for title III grants. Authority is provided by law (7
U.S.C. 1736f) to transfer up to 15 percent of the funds
available for any fiscal year for carrying out any title of
Public Law 480 to any other title of the program. This
authority may be used to transfer funds to title III should a
transfer be deemed appropriate.
McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition
Program Grants
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $49,705,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 75,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 100,000,000
Authorized in the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of
2002, Public Law 107-171, the McGovern-Dole International Food
for Education and Child Nutrition Program helps support
education, child development, and food security for some of the
world's poorest children. The program provides for donations of
U.S. agricultural products, as well as financial and technical
assistance, for school feeding and maternal and child nutrition
projects in low-income, food-deficit countries that are
committed to universal education. Commodities made available
for donation through agreements with private voluntary
organizations, cooperatives, intergovernmental organizations,
and foreign governments may be donated for direct feeding or
for local sale to generate proceeds to support school feeding
and nutrition projects.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee provides $100,000,000 for the McGovern-Dole
International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program.
This amount is $50,295,000 more than the fiscal year 2004
appropriation.
The Committee notes that this program was initiated with
funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation and supplemented
with 1-year mandatory spending in the 2002 Farm Bill. This
Committee first provided discretionary funding for this program
in fiscal year 2004 and, in spite of extremely limited funds,
has provided a significant increase for fiscal year 2005. The
Committee believes the McGovern-Dole program will serve as a
effective tool in promoting higher standards of living in
developing nations, and in providing the United States an
opportunity to demonstrate to the world its goals of promoting
individual well being as an important element in world peace.
COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION EXPORT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
(EXPORT CREDIT PROGRAMS, GSM-102 AND GSM-103)
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guaranteed loan Guaranteed loan Administrative
levels \1\ subsidy \1\ expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2004......................................... 4,155,000 289,000 4,127
Budget estimate, 2005........................................ 4,528,000 309,000 4,473
Committee recommendation..................................... 4,528,000 309,000 4,423
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No appropriation required since export credit authorizations are permanent authority.
In 1980, the Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC] instituted
the Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-102) under its charter
authority. With this program, CCC guarantees, for a fee,
payments due U.S. exporters under deferred payment sales
contracts (up to 36 months) for defaults due to commercial as
well as noncommercial risks. The risk to CCC extends from the
date of export to the end of the deferred payment period
covered in the export sales contract and covers only that
portion of the payments agreed to in the assurance agreement.
Operation of this program is based on criteria which will
assure that it is used only where it is determined that it will
develop new market opportunities and maintain and expand
existing world markets for U.S. agricultural commodities. The
program encourages U.S. financial institutions to provide
financing to those areas where the institutions would be
unwilling to provide financing in the absence of the CCC
guarantees. Other credit activities may also be financed under
the Export Credit Guarantee programs including supplier credit
guarantee, under which CCC guarantees payments due to importers
under short term financing (up to 180 days) that exporters
extend directly to importers for the purchase of U.S.
agricultural products. CCC also provides facilities financing
guarantees.
In 1986, the Intermediate Export Credit Guarantee Program
(GSM-103) was implemented by CCC under its charter authority as
required by the Food Security Act of 1985. The program is
similar to the Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-102), but
provides for CCC guarantees to exporters for commodities sold
on credit terms in excess of 3 years, but not more than 10
years. The program also provides for adjusting the maximum
amount of interest which CCC guarantees to pay under the
payment guarantee and permits freight costs to be covered for
breeding animals financed under the GSM-102 and GSM-103
programs.
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 establishes the
program account. The subsidy costs of the CCC export guarantee
programs are exempt from the requirement of advance
appropriations of budget authority according to section
504(c)(2) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, Public Law
101-508. Appropriations to this account will be used for
administrative expenses.
TITLE VI--RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
The Food and Drug Administration [FDA] is a scientific
regulatory agency whose mission is to promote and protect the
public health and safety of Americans. FDA's work is a blending
of science and law. The Food and Drug Administration
Modernization Act of 1997 [FDAMA] reaffirmed the
responsibilities of the FDA: to ensure safe and effective
products reach the market to a timely way, and to monitor
products for continued safety after they are in use. In
addition, FDA is entrusted with two critical functions in the
Nation's war on terrorism: preventing willful contamination of
all regulated products, including food, and improving the
availability of medications to prevent or treat injuries caused
by biological, chemical or nuclear agents.
The FDA Foods program has the primary responsibility for
assuring that the food supply, quality of foods, food
ingredients and dietary supplements are safe, sanitary,
nutritious, wholesome, and honestly labeled, and that cosmetic
products are safe and properly labeled. The variety and
complexity of the food supply has grown dramatically while new
and more complex safety issues, such as emerging microbial
pathogens, natural toxins, and technological innovations in
production and processing, have developed. This program plays a
major role in keeping the United States food supply among the
safest in the world.
The FDA Drugs programs are comprised of three separate
areas, Human Drugs, Animal Drugs and Biologics. FDA is
responsible for the life cycle of the product, including
premarket review and postmarket surveillance of human, animal
and biological products to ensure their safety and efficacy.
For Human Drugs this includes assuring that all drug products
used for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of disease are
safe and effective. Additional procedures include the review of
investigational new drug applications; evaluation of market
applications for new and generic drugs, labeling and
composition of prescription and over-the-counter drugs;
monitoring the quality and safety of products manufactured in,
or imported into, the United States; and, regulating the
advertising and promotion of prescription drugs. The Animal
Drugs and Feeds Program ensures only safe and beneficial
veterinary drugs, intended for the treatment and/or prevention
of diseases in animals and the improved production of food-
producing animals, are approved for marketing.
The FDA Biologics program assures that blood and blood
products, blood test kits, vaccines, and therapeutics are pure,
potent, safe, effective, and properly labeled. The program
inspects blood banks and blood processors, licenses and
inspects firms collecting human source plasma, evaluates and
licenses biologics manufacturing firms and products; lot
releases licensed products; and monitors adverse events
associated with vaccine immunization.
The FDA Devices and Radiological program ensures the safety
and effectiveness of medical devices and eliminates unnecessary
human exposure to manmade radiation from medical, occupational,
and consumer products. In addition, the program enforces
quality standards under the Mammography Quality Standards Act.
Medical devices include thousands of products from thermometers
and contact lenses to heart pacemakers, hearing aids, MRIs,
microwave ovens, and video display terminals.
FDA's National Center for Toxicological Research in
Jefferson, Arkansas, serves as a specialized resource,
conducting peer-review scientific research that provides the
basis for FDA to make sound science-based regulatory decisions
through its premarket review and postmarket surveillance. The
research is designed to define and understand the biological
mechanisms of action underlying the toxicity of products and
developing methods to improve assessment of human exposure,
susceptibility and risk of those products regulated by FDA.
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammography
Prescription Medical Animal clinics Export and
Appropriation drug user device drug user inspection certification Total
fees user fees fees fees fees
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2004......................................... 1,378,779 249,825 31,654 5,000 16,576 6,649 1,688,483
Budget estimate, 2005........................................ 1,494,517 284,394 33,938 8,000 16,919 6,838 1,844,606
Committee recommendation..................................... 1,465,267 284,394 33,938 8,000 16,919 6,838 1,815,356
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For salaries and expenses, the Committee recommends an
appropriation of $1,465,267,000. This amount is $86,488,000
more than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. The Committee
also recommends $284,394,000 in Prescription Drug User Fee Act
user fee collections, $33,938,000 in Medical Device User Fee
and Modernization Act user fee collections, $8,000,000 in
Animal Drug User Fee Act user fee collections, $16,919,000 in
Mammography Quality Standards Act fee collections, and
$6,838,000 in export and certification fees, as assumed in the
President's budget. These amounts are $34,569,000, $2,284,000,
$3,000,000, $343,000, and $189,000 more than the 2004 levels,
respectively. The Committee includes bill language which
prohibits FDA from developing, establishing, or operating any
program of user fees authorized by 31 U.S.C. 9701.
The following table reflects the Committee's
recommendations, as compared to the fiscal year 2004 and budget
request levels:
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------------- Committee
2004 enacted 2005 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Centers and related field activities:
Foods....................................................... 410,674 470,405 439,038
-----------------------------------------------
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition [CFSAN].... 144,715 164,235 155,478
Field activities........................................ 265,959 306,170 283,560
===============================================
Human drugs................................................. 294,160 294,679 292,639
-----------------------------------------------
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research [CDER].......... 211,760 212,126 211,027
Field activities........................................ 82,400 82,553 81,612
===============================================
Biologics................................................... 122,810 124,258 123,804
-----------------------------------------------
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research [CBER]..... 96,511 97,667 97,521
Field activities........................................ 26,299 26,591 26,283
===============================================
Animal drugs................................................ 84,147 91,905 91,216
-----------------------------------------------
Center for Veterinary Medicine [CVM].................... 54,955 56,091 55,738
Field activities........................................ 29,192 35,814 35,478
===============================================
Medical and radiological devices............................ 191,144 216,699 216,699
-----------------------------------------------
Center for Devices and Radiological Health [CDRH]....... 141,059 165,608 164,563
Field activities........................................ 50,085 51,091 52,136
===============================================
National Center for Toxicological Research [NCTR]........... 39,652 40,530 40,530
===============================================
Other activities................................................ 90,190 89,411 87,911
-----------------------------------------------
Office of the Commissioner.................................. 29,699 31,562 30,062
Office of Management and Systems............................ 40,852 38,826 38,826
Office of External Relations................................ 7,280 6,928 6,928
Office of Policy, Legislation, and Planning................. 5,481 5,217 5,217
Central services............................................ 6,878 6,878 6,878
===============================================
Rent and related activities..................................... 38,408 59,036 59,036
===============================================
Rental payments to GSA.......................................... 107,594 107,594 114,394
===============================================
Total, FDA salaries and expenses, new budget authority.... 1,378,779 1,494,517 1,465,267
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends the following increases in budget
authority for FDA salaries and expenses activities: $40,500,000
for counterterrorism activities related to food safety;
$25,555,000 for increased medical device review; and $8,325,000
for BSE-related activities. The Committee also recommends a
decrease in budget authority requested in the budget of
$23,122,000 associated with management savings.
The Committee understands that FDA and the Department of
Health and Human Services [DHHS] are making progress in
migrating from FDA's legacy systems and preparing for the
implementation of the DHHS Unified Financial Management System.
The Committee expects the same funding ratios for the two
respective projects as was established in fiscal year 2003 to
continue progress.
Rent Payments.--The Committee recommends $114,394,000 for
FDA rental payments to the General Services Administration
[GSA]. This amount is $6,800,000 more than fiscal year 2004 and
the budget request, and reflects the funds reprogrammed during
both fiscal years 2003 and 2004 from FDA's Foods, Human Drugs,
Biologics, and Animal Drugs and Feeds program areas to address
increased requirements for this account. In addition, the
Committee has included $23,628,000 for relocation expenses
related to the move of the Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research to the consolidated White Oak campus, including
$3,000,000 derived from the Prescription Drug User Fee account.
Within the total funding available, at least $2,500,000 is
for FDA activities in support of Codex Alimentarius.
Agricultural Products Food Safety Laboratory.--The
Committee provides an increase of $250,000 above the fiscal
year 2004 funding level for the FDA to expand its contract with
New Mexico State University's Physical Sciences Laboratory to
operate the Food Technology Evaluation Laboratory, which
conducts evaluation and development of rapid screening
methodologies, technologies, and instrumentation; and to
provide technology deployment modeling and data analysis for
food safety and product safety in order to facilitate FDA's
regulations and responsibilities in food safety, product
safety, homeland security, bioterrorism, and other initiatives.
The Committee expects the FDA to continue its support for
the Waste Management Education and Research Consortium [WERC]
and its work in food safety technology verification and
education at no less than the fiscal year 2004 level.
With the growing threat of foodborne illness to the public
health, the Committee believes that collaborative research in
food safety should continue among Government, academia, and
private industry. The national model for that collaboration has
been the National Center for Food Safety and Technology [NCFST]
in Summit-Argo, Illinois. The Committee expects the FDA to
maintain sufficient funding for the National Center to continue
the important work done there.
In addition, the funding provided for food safety will
ensure the continuation of food contract inspections in the
State of Alaska. Specifically, it will allow the FDA to renew
its contract with the State of Alaska for inspections of food
and seafood processors operating in Alaska. A new contract
became effective on July 1, 2004. It funds at least 292
inspections, approximately 272 seafood/HACCP inspections and 20
other food inspections. The establishments to be inspected will
be mutually agreed upon by FDA and the State of Alaska.
Seafood Safety.--General Accounting Office [GAO] reports on
the safety of seafood have documented the inadequacy of the FDA
efforts to address foodborne hazards in seafood, including
shellfish. GAO found FDA's seafood inspection system provides
consumers with inadequate protection for seafood-related
foodborne illness. The Committee urges FDA to promote the
development of new food safety technologies such as
irradiation, flash freezing, high-pressure processing, or
others that can cost-effectively reduce the incidence of
pathogens, and technologies that can ensure constant safe
temperatures of seafood throughout the food chain.
The Committee supports the ongoing work of the Interstate
Shellfish Sanitation Conference and its joint efforts with the
FDA and the shellfish industry to formulate shellfish safety
regulations through the National Shellfish Sanitation Program.
The Committee recommends no less than the fiscal year 2004
level be directed through the Office of Seafood Inspection to
continue these activities, and directs that $200,000 be
directed to the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference for
the Vibrio Vulnificus Education Program.
The Committee is concerned that FDA has not taken effective
action to address foodborne illness risks from the consumption
of raw shellfish. In particular, the Committee is concerned
that Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Commission's [ISSC]
proposed steps to reduce the rates of death and illness due to
consumption of Vibrio vulnificus-contaminated raw shellfish may
not effectively address public health concerns.
The Committee also continues its concern with the agency's
failure to bring FDA-regulated seafood into compliance with
HACCP. However, the Committee is aware that special or unique
circumstances may exist for particular seafood processors.
While ultimate HAACP compliance is not in question, the
Committee is specifically aware of Hawaii's lengthy and
culturally important history of hook-and-line fisheries,
auction markets, and the high consumption of raw tuna and other
pelagic fish in Hawaii, and strongly encourages the Agency to
take into account both the history and the industry's practical
experience in approving a plan that is consistent with healthy
seafood products and national standards for seafood safety.
The Committee has been advised that farmed salmon imported
from overseas is fed feed with chemical additives to change the
color of its flesh or the flesh is artificially dyed. A lawsuit
was recently filed against national grocery chains alleging
they do not adequately label the fish which are dyed. The
Committee directs the Food and Drug Administration to continue
to monitor information concerning the safety of the use of such
additives and dyes in seafood and to more aggressively enforce
the clear and conspicuous disclosure of such additives and dyes
to consumers on consumer packaging.
Chloramphenicol.--The Committee continues to have serious
concerns regarding seafood safety issues posed by banned
antibiotic contamination in farm-raised shrimp imports. The
Committee encourages FDA to use any available funding, in
cooperation with State testing programs, to substantially
increase the percentage of farm-raised shrimp imports tested
for chloramphenicol and other related harmful antibiotics used
in the aquaculture industry. Further, FDA is encouraged to
develop a program for testing existing U.S. cold-storage
inventories of farm-raised shrimp originating from countries
known to use chloramphenicol or other banned antibiotics, and
to ensure that any shrimp that tests positive for these
substances will not be subsequently consumed.
Mercury.--In March 2004, the FDA and the Environmental
Protection Agency released a revised joint dietary advisory on
mercury in seafood. During the development of the advisory, the
Committee understands that significant information gaps were
found in what consumers, especially sensitive populations such
as women who are or may become pregnant and young children,
know about mercury levels in various seafood species. The
Committee encourages FDA to implement an outreach and education
effort with physicians and other appropriate outlets in order
to increase awareness among potentially affected consumers, and
to measure the effectiveness of the efforts on target group
behavior and impact on their overall consumption of seafood.
National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring Service.--The
Committee supports the work of the National Antimicrobial
Resistance Monitoring Service [NARMS] and its collaborative
relationship between FDA, the Department of Agriculture, and
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The Committee
expects the coordination of activities among these three areas
of Government to result in the most unbiased presentation of
timely, accurate data in the best interest of public health.
The Committee encourages the FDA to continue to provide
adequate funding to USDA to perform the animal portion of
NARMS, and requests a report within 90 days of enactment of
this Act on the distribution of total NARMS funding within the
three agencies.
Orphan Products Grants.--Included in the Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research is $13,270,000 for the Orphan Products
Grants Program.
Dietary Supplements.--The Committee believes that the
potential for dietary supplements to have positive health
benefits has been realized in many cases. However, it is
essential that FDA continue its efforts to ensure their safety,
and to fully enforce the prohibition of false, misleading or
unsubstantiated claims regarding dietary supplements
implemented in the Dietary Supplement and Health Education Act
[DSHEA] of 1994. The budget request includes total funding of
approximately $5,360,000 for the CFSAN Adverse Events Reporting
System [CAERS], of which approximately $1,500,000 is for
dietary supplements.
FDA has indicated that the ability to identify and analyze
specific components in ingredients, including botanical
ingredients, is an essential component of research and
regulatory programs directed at ensuring the safety and
effectiveness of dietary supplements. The Committee expects the
same level of review of botanicals in dietary supplements to
continue in fiscal year 2005. This work is being carried out by
FDA in collaboration with the National Center for Natural
Products Research, Oxford, MS.
Biotechnology.--The Committee understands that the FDA
frequently receives requests from foreign governments for FDA
regulators to visit foreign countries to educate regulators on
the evaluation of the safety of biotechnology. Providing
information on the soundness of the U.S. regulatory process
will promote the understanding of the benefits of biotechnology
to human health and the environment and improve the climate for
acceptance of U.S. agricultural products abroad. The Committee
directs the FDA to allocate adequate funding so that agency
representatives may perform this service.
Standards of Identity.--The Committee is aware of the
ongoing debate surrounding increased importation and use of
milk protein concentrate. A General Accounting Office
investigation highlighted a dramatic increase in milk protein
concentrate imports. The Committee remains concerned with FDA's
current lack of enforcement of standards of identity as it
relates to the potential illegal use of milk protein
concentrate in standardized cheese.
Office of Women's Health.--The Committee believes that it
is imperative for FDA to pay sufficient attention to gender-
based research, ensuring that products approved by the FDA are
safe and effective for women as well as men. The Committee
notes that in the budget request, the Office of Women's Health
at FDA is funded at not less than $3,650,000 for program
operation and oversight. The Committee encourages FDA to ensure
that the Office of Women's Health is sufficiently funded to
carry out its activities, and to enhance its funding if
necessary.
Medical Device Application Review.--The Committee continues
to support the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act
[MDUFMA] program, and acknowledges the efforts by the FDA to
address the significant funding shortfall. The Committee has
provided an increase of $25,555,000 for the Center for Devices
and Radiological Health specifically for medical device review,
as requested in the budget. The Committee encourages the Senate
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions to make
necessary modifications to the Act in order to continue this
user fee program beyond fiscal year 2005.
Implanted Medical Devices.--The Committee acknowledges
current FDA requlations designed to improve post-market
surveillance for medical devices, and strongly encourages FDA
to devote the necessary resources to require registries and
monitor well-designed long-term safety studies for implanted
devices, including but not limited to jaw implants. As the
aging U.S. population becomes more dependent on implanted
devices, the Committee believes it is essential that the FDA
allocate adequate resources to patient safety activities
related to these devices, such as registries, post-market
surveillance, and long-term phase IV trials.
Tissue Safety.--In 1997, the FDA proposed rules that would
regulate human cells, tissues, and related products. As of May
2004, the FDA has finalized the first two of the three proposed
rules. The Committee remains concerned that the third rule,
which would provide guidelines for current good manufacturing
practices for establishments that produce human cells, tissues,
and related products, has not yet been finalized.
Prescription Drug Monograph System.--In July of 2003,
almost 1 year ago, the Committee directed the FDA to prepare a
report for the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions regarding the
feasibility and cost of a monograph system for prescription
drug products. The FDA has, to date, not produced that report.
Current FDA policy regarding certain old drugs appears to
have raised prices to the consuming public and placed small
businesses in jeopardy, while adding nothing to public safety.
The Committee therefore directs the FDA to provide a report, no
later than 60 days after enactment of this Act, on the
feasibility and cost of a monograph system for this class of
old drugs, or present to the Committee a reasonable, viable
alternative method for its enforcement resources to be
dedicated to activities that are most likely to improve the
public health, preserve access to affordable medicines, and
foster a more cooperative regulatory environment for small
businesses.
Rare Diseases Clinical Trials and Drug Evaluation.--The
Committee supports rapid access to therapeutics for children
and adults with rare diseases. It is the view of the Committee
that improvements can be made with respect to clinical trial
design and FDA Advisory Committees. The Committee encourages
the FDA to make the best possible use of FDA's Advisory
Committee members in FDA's considerations of clinical trial
design and allow the same panel to participate in final review
meetings, when feasible. The Committee supports utilization of
qualified independent consultants as reflected in the draft
guidance document ``Independent Consultants for Biotechnology
Clinical Protocols'' issued by CBER/CDER on May 12, 2003. The
Committee encourages enhanced exploration of potential
surrogate endpoints and use of FDAMA's fast-track provision,
where appropriate, to make drugs available as early as possible
for serious and life-threatening orphan diseases that have no
treatment. The Committee believes these policy enhancements
will lead to more efficient and timely evaluation of rare
disease therapeutics and further stimulate private sector
investment in rare disease research.
Drug Counterfeiting.--The Food and Drug Administration
[FDA] has reported that it has seen growing evidence of efforts
by increasingly well-organized counterfeiters, backed by
increasingly sophisticated technologies and criminal
operations, to profit from drug counterfeiting at the expense
of American patients. In a report released in February 2004 on
combating counterfeit drugs, the FDA identified the use of new
technologies to protect the consumer, including authentication
technologies. The report stated that these ``technologies have
been sufficiently perfected that they can now serve as a
critical component of any strategy to protect products against
counterfeiting.'' One such technology is color-shifting ink.
This technology is used in U.S. currency and no known
counterfeits of the color-shifting component have surfaced, to
date. Six of the 20 largest pharmaceutical manufacturers are
already experimenting with color-shift technology on 11 of
their products. Counterfeiting of life sustaining medications
not only defrauds consumers, but it is potentially life
threatening to patients who desperately need the therapies. The
Committee directs that the FDA work with industry to facilitate
the use of authentication technologies, including color-
shifting inks, on labels and packages of drugs. Further, the
Committee directs the FDA to provide an update on these efforts
by February 1, 2005.
Self-Contained Modular Facilities.--The Centers for Disease
Control [CDC] has incorporated self-contained modular
facilities [SCMF] and modular specimen triage units [STU] in
the development and implementation of its 50 State public
health laboratories and facilities comprising the Laboratory
Response Network [LRN]. The Committee encourages the FDA to
consult with CDC to evaluate the benefits of incorporating
self-contained modular facilities.
Human Drug Compounding.--The Committee believes that all
compounded human drugs should be prepared according to strict
guidelines, known as monographs, that lay out quality, purity,
and strength standards. Except for those monographs the United
States Pharmacopeia, a national drug standard-setting
organization recognized by Congress, has developed on its own,
there are currently no enforceable national standards for
compounded prescription drugs.
The Committee believes that national standards for these
medications should be developed without delay and supports the
formation of a public-private partnership between the FDA and
organizations with demonstrated expertise in setting standards
for compounded drugs to initiate the development of national
standards to be published in the official compendium recognized
in the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.
Therefore, the Committee believes that the FDA should
undertake the formation of such a public-private partnership
during fiscal year 2005 and commence the development of
national standards for compounded prescription drugs. Further,
the Committee encourages the FDA to request adequate funding in
the fiscal year 2006 budget request to support this effort.
Finally, the Committee requests that the FDA provide a report
on progress toward these objectives on a regular basis.
Animal Drug Compounding.--The Committee is aware that in
2003, the FDA issued a Compliance Policy Guideline [CPG]
regarding animal drug compounding. The Committee is concerned
that the CPG represents a shift in policy, and does not clearly
explain how the FDA's enforcement priorities have changed,
particularly with respect to compounding from bulk drug
substances for non-food producing animals. Further, the
Committee is concerned that the FDA did not seek public comment
prior to issuing the CPG, although public input is currently
being gathered from the animal drug compounding community and
other interested parties. Therefore, the Committee strongly
encourages the FDA to work closely with all interested parties
to ensure that the reasons for issuing the CPG, as well as
changes that will result from it, are well understood, and to
seriously consider all public comments made regarding this CPG.
Food Labeling.--The FDA Office of Nutritional Products,
Labeling and Dietary Supplements [ONPLDS] is responsible for
several important public health and consumer protection
programs. Responsibilities of ONPLDS include developing policy
and regulations for dietary supplements, nutrition labeling and
food standards, infant formula and medical foods, and
scientific evaluation to support such regulations and related
policy development. Further, ONPLDS supports compliance and
enforcement actions and is responsible for the clinical review,
data summaries, and, as appropriate, follow-up and research
related to adverse events associated with dietary supplements
and infant formula. The Committee is aware that funding for
activities in ONPLDS other than the regulation of dietary
supplements has remained level for several years, while the
responsibilities relegated to this office have increased.
Therefore, the Committee encourages FDA to determine if
additional funding is necessary for ONPLDS to more effectively
carry out its important responsibilities, and, if appropriate,
increase funding for this office in its fiscal year 2006 budget
request.
Center of Excellence.--The Committee is aware of the
important work currently being done at FDA's three Centers of
Excellence regarding food safety and dietary supplements. The
Committee is also aware of interest in creating a new Center of
Excellence at the University of California at Davis to address
the unique nature and contributions of this region of the
country, both in terms of its role as the source of a
substantial portion of the domestic food supply and as the
gateway for foods arriving from our international trading
partners. Due to financial constraints, the Committee is unable
to provide funding to establish this Center, but encourages the
FDA to consider the development of a Center of Excellence at
the University of California at Davis, if it is determined to
be an important and appropriate use of Federal dollars.
Perchlorate.--The Committee directs the FDA to continue
conducting perchlorate surveys of food and bottled water and to
report back to Congress the findings of these surveys. The
surveys should include a variety of produce and fluid milk
samples and should identify level of contamination in order to
determine the need for risk management strategies. The
Committee believes it is important to assess produce, milk, and
bottled water produced in areas with known perchlorate
contamination, with naturally occurring perchlorate, or grown
near sites where perchlorate was or is used.
Canned Tuna.--The Committee encourages the Food and Drug
Administration to initiate rulemaking to revise the standard of
identity for canned tuna as requested in ``Citizens Petition to
Amend Canned Tuna Standard of Identity, 21 CFR 161.190, Docket
No. 94P-0286'' to replace the current press cake weight
requirement with a drained weight requirement and to
incorporate any other changes that may be deemed necessary.
BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $6,959,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................................
Committee recommendation................................................
In addition to Washington, DC, area laboratories which are
in six separate locations, FDA has 16 laboratories at other
locations around the country, including regular field
laboratories and specialized facilities, as well as the
National Center for Toxicological Research complex. Repairs,
modifications, improvements and construction to FDA
headquarters and field facilities must be made to preserve the
properties, ensure employee safety, meet changing program
requirements, and permit the agency to keep its laboratory
methods up to date.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The President's budget does not request and the Committee
does not provide an appropriation for FDA buildings and
facilities.
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $89,901,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 95,327,000
Committee recommendation................................ 95,327,000
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission [CFTC] was
established as an independent agency by the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 1389; 7 U.S.C. 4a).
The Commission administers the Commodity Exchange Act, 7
U.S.C. section 1, et seq. The 1974 Act brought under Federal
regulation futures trading in all goods, articles, services,
rights, and interests; commodity options trading; and leverage
trading in gold and silver bullion and coins; and otherwise
strengthened the regulation of the commodity futures trading
industry. It established a comprehensive regulatory structure
to oversee the volatile futures trading complex.
The purpose of the Commission is to protect and further the
economic utility of futures and commodity options markets by
encouraging their efficiency, assuring their integrity, and
protecting participants against manipulation, abusive trade
practices, fraud, and deceit. The objective is to enable the
markets to better serve their designated functions of providing
a price discovery mechanism and providing price risk insurance.
In properly serving these functions, the futures and commodity
options markets contribute toward better production and
financial planning, more efficient distribution and
consumption, and more economical marketing.
Programs in support of the overall mission include market
surveillance analysis and research; registration, audits, and
contract markets; enforcement; reparations; proceedings; legal
counsel; agency direction; and administrative support services.
CFTC activities are carried out in Washington, DC; two regional
offices located in Chicago and New York; and smaller offices in
Kansas City, Los Angeles, and Minneapolis.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Committee
recommends $95,327,000. This amount is $5,426,000 more than the
fiscal year 2004 appropriation and the same as the budget
request. This includes $1,000,000 for enforcement programs
support and $863,000 for increased costs of personnel benefits,
as requested in the budget.
Farm Credit Administration
LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
Limitation, 2004........................................ $40,900,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 41,800,000
The Farm Credit Administration [FCA] is the independent
agency in the executive branch of the Government responsible
for the examination and regulation of the banks, associations,
and other institutions of the Farm Credit System.
Activities of the Farm Credit Administration include the
planning and execution of examinations of Farm Credit System
institutions and the preparation of examination reports. FCA
also establishes standards, enforces rules and regulations, and
approves certain actions of the institutions.
The administration and the institutions under its
jurisdiction now operate under authorities contained in the
Farm Credit Act of 1971, Public Law 92-181, effective December
10, 1971. Public Law 99-205, effective December 23, 1985,
restructured FCA and gave the agency regulatory authorities and
enforcement powers.
The act provides for the farmer-owned cooperative system to
make sound, adequate, and constructive credit available to
farmers and ranchers and their cooperatives, rural residences,
and associations and other entities upon which farming
operations are dependent, and to modernize existing farm credit
law to meet current and future rural credit needs.
The Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 authorized the
formation of the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation
[FAMC] to operate a secondary market for agricultural and rural
housing mortgages. The Farm Credit Administration, under
section 8.11 of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended, is
assigned the responsibility of regulating this entity and
assuring its safe and sound operation.
Expenses of the Farm Credit Administration are paid by
assessments collected from the Farm Credit System institutions
and by assessments to the Federal Agricultural Mortgage
Corporation.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a limitation of $41,800,000 on
administrative expenses of the Farm Credit Administration
[FCA]. This limitation allows for an increase of $900,000 to
address personnel compensation and benefits. The Committee
notes a substantial amount of carryover funds remain available
to meet any unanticipated examination activities.
TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
The majority of the general provisions are essentially the
same as those included in the fiscal year 2004 and previous
years' appropriations acts. In addition, the Committee
recommends the following provisions:
Section 705 to include wildlife services methods
development and aviation safety in the APHIS appropriation
items which shall remain available until expended.
Section 741 to make permanent a provision regarding
personal protection in remote locations.
Section 749 to provide $2,400,000 for the Northern Great
Plains Regional Authority, to remain available until September
30, 2006.
Section 753 to make permanent a provision regarding
eligibility for rural housing programs.
Section 756 to provide eligibility of rural areas in Hawaii
for programs in the Rural Development mission area until the
2010 decennial Census.
Section 762 to rescind funds from the Local Television Loan
Guarantee Program.
Section 763 to require written approval by the USDA Chief
Information Officer for IT expenditures over $25,000.
Section 764 to limit the availability of funds under
section 9010 of Public Law 107-171.
Section 765 to allow the use of approved unique identifiers
rather than Social Security numbers in central filing systems
for the registration of liens on farm products.
Section 766 provides eligibility for community facilities
grants to certain projects in the State of Alaska.
Section 767 regarding eligibility under Public Law 103-382.
Section 768 to rescind unobligated balances in the
Agricultural Conservation Program.
Section 769 regarding the availability of unobligated rural
development funds.
Section 770 to prohibit the approval of new WIC-only
locations.
Section 771 to rescind unobligated balances from section 32
of the Act of August 24, 1935.
Section 772 to rescind unobligated balances available to
the Foreign Agricultural Service.
Section 773 regarding section 315 of the Rural
Electrification Act of 1936.
Section 774 regarding the management of the Wildlife
Habitat Management Institute in the State of Mississippi.
Section 775 to allow renewable energy system loan
guarantees.
Section 776 regarding Cuba travel.
Section 777 to include elk, reindeer and bison in livestock
assistance programs.
Section 778 regarding RHIF eligibility.
Section 779 regarding rural development loan eligibility.
Section 780 regarding RUS program eligibility.
Section 781 regarding milk processing and packaging
facilities.
Section 782 regarding Native American tribes and Alaska
Native Corporations participation in USDA programs.
Section 783 regarding Alaska private lands wildlife
management.
Section 784 regarding Child Nutrition and WIC
Reauthorization Act of 2004 technical corrections.
Section 785 regarding conservation in Hawaii.
Program, Project, and Activity
During fiscal year 2005, for purposes of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law
99-177) or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Reaffirmation Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-119), the following
information provides the definition of the term ``program,
project, and activity'' for departments and agencies under the
jurisdiction of the Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related
Agencies Subcommittee. The term ``program, project, and
activity'' shall include the most specific level of budget
items identified in the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2005, the House and Senate Committee reports, and the
conference report and accompanying joint explanatory statement
of the managers of the committee of conference.
If a sequestration order is necessary, in implementing the
Presidential order, departments and agencies shall apply any
percentage reduction required for fiscal year 2005 pursuant to
the provisions of Public Law 99-177 or Public Law 100-119 to
all items specified in the explanatory notes submitted to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate in support
of the fiscal year 2005 budget estimates, as amended, for such
departments and agencies, as modified by congressional action,
and in addition:
For the Agricultural Research Service the definition shall
include specific research locations as identified in the
explanatory notes and lines of research specifically identified
in the reports of the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees.
For the Natural Resources Conservation Service the
definition shall include individual flood prevention projects
as identified in the explanatory notes and individual
operational watershed projects as summarized in the notes.
For the Farm Service Agency the definition shall include
individual, regional, State, district, and county offices.
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports
accompanying general appropriations bills identify each
recommended amendment which proposes an item of appropriation
which is not made to carry out the provisions of an existing
law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously
passed by the Senate during that session.
The Committee recommends funding for the following program
which currently lacks authorization for fiscal year 2005:
Compact of Free Association Act of 1985.
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(C), RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on September 14,
2004, the Committee ordered reported en bloc S. 2803, an
original bill making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, S.
2804, an original bill making appropriations for the Department
of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2005; and an original bill making appropriations
for the Departments of Transportation and Treasury, and
independent agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2005, each subject to amendment and each subject to the budget
allocations, by a recorded vote of 29-0, a quorum being
present. The vote was as follows:
Yeas Nays
Chairman Stevens
Mr. Cochran
Mr. Specter
Mr. Domenici
Mr. Bond
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Burns
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Gregg
Mr. Bennett
Mr. Campbell
Mr. Craig
Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. DeWine
Mr. Brownback
Mr. Byrd
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Hollings
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Reid
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray
Mr. Dorgan
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Durbin
Mr. Johnson
Ms. Landrieu
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports
on a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute
or part of any statute include ``(a) the text of the statute or
part thereof which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a
comparative print of that part of the bill or joint resolution
making the amendment and of the statute or part thereof
proposed to be amended, showing by stricken-through type and
italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical
devices the omissions and insertions which would be made by the
bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form recommended by
the committee.''
In compliance with this rule, the following changes in
existing law proposed to be made by the bill are shown as
follows: existing law to be omitted is enclosed in black
brackets; new matter is printed in italics; and existing law in
which no change is proposed is shown in roman.
With respect to this bill, it is the opinion of the
Committee that it is necessary to dispense with these
requirements in order to expedite the business of the Senate.
BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL
PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS
AMENDED
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget authority Outlays
---------------------------------------------------------
Committee Amount of Committee Amount of
allocation \1\ bill allocation \1\ bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee
allocations to its subcommittees of amounts in the
Budget Resolution for 2005: Subcommittee on
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies:
Discretionary..................................... 16,772 16,772 18,282 \1\ 18,282
Mandatory......................................... 58,312 66,370 44,305 \1\ 43,908
Projections of outlays associated with the
recommendation:
2005.............................................. .............. ........... .............. \2\ 51,434
2006.............................................. .............. ........... .............. 2,588
2007.............................................. .............. ........... .............. 805
2008.............................................. .............. ........... .............. 342
2009 and future years............................. .............. ........... .............. 447
Financial assistance to State and local governments NA 22,241 NA 18,125
for 2005............................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\2\ Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
NA: Not applicable.
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2005
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Committee recommendation compared with (+ or
-)
Item 2004 Budget House allowance Committee -----------------------------------------------------
appropriation estimate deg. recommendation 2004 Budget House
appropriation estimate allowance
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------
TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS
Production, Processing, and
Marketing
Office of the Secretary....... 5,062 5,185 5,124 +62 -61
Executive Operations:
Chief Economist........... 8,656 14,949 9,817 +1,161 -5,132
National Appeals Division. 13,589 14,826 14,154 +565 -672
Office of Budget and 7,694 8,146 8,128 +434 -18
Program Analysis.........
Homeland Security staff... 496 1,491 1,000 +504 -491
Office of the Chief 15,402 22,093 17,595 +2,193 -4,498
Information Officer......
Common computing 118,585 136,736 125,585 +7,000 -11,151
environment..........
Office of the Chief 5,650 8,063 5,742 +92 -2,321
Financial Officer........
Working capital fund...... ................ 12,850 ................ ................ -12,850
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Executive 170,072 219,154 182,021 +11,949 -37,133
Operations.............
Office of the Assistant 803 819 819 16 ................
Secretary for Civil Rights...
Office of Civil Rights........ 17,347 22,283 20,347 +3,000 -1,936
Office of the Assistant 669 808 682 +13 -126
Secretary for Administration.
Agriculture buildings and (155,546) (203,938) (170,870) (+15,324) (-33,068)
facilities and rental
payments.....................
Payments to GSA........... 123,179 128,319 128,319 +5,140 ................
Building operations and 32,367 41,642 37,551 +5,184 -4,091
maintenance..............
Repairs, renovations, and ................ 33,977 5,000 +5,000 -28,977
construction.............
Hazardous materials management 15,519 15,730 15,532 +13 -198
Departmental administration... 22,895 26,361 22,626 -269 -3,735
Office of the Assistant 3,774 4,263 3,852 +78 -411
Secretary for Congressional
Relations....................
Office of Communications...... 9,174 10,288 9,365 +191 -923
Office of the Inspector 76,825 78,392 78,289 +1,464 -103
General......................
Office of the General Counsel. 34,495 38,589 36,236 +1,741 -2,353
Office of the Under Secretary 592 805 605 +13 -200
for Research, Education, and
Economics....................
Economic Research Service..... 70,981 80,032 75,268 +4,287 -4,764
National Agricultural 128,161 137,594 130,299 +2,138 -7,295
Statistics Service...........
Census of Agriculture..... (25,279) (22,520) (22,405) (-2,874) (-115)
Agricultural Research Service:
Salaries and expenses..... 1,082,468 987,597 1,090,261 +7,793 +102,664
Buildings and facilities.. 63,434 178,000 172,838 +109,404 -5,162
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Agricultural 1,145,902 1,165,597 1,263,099 +117,197 +97,502
Research Service.......
Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension
Service:
Research and education 617,780 501,540 628,492 +10,712 +126,952
activities...............
Native American (9,000) (12,000) (12,000) (+3,000) ................
Institutions Endowment
Fund.....................
Extension activities...... 439,125 421,174 443,061 +3,936 +21,887
Integrated activities..... 50,195 76,865 57,242 +7,047 -19,623
Outreach for socially 5,935 5,935 5,935 ................ ................
disadvantaged farmers....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Cooperative State 1,113,035 1,005,514 1,134,730 +21,695 +129,216
Research, Education,
and Extension Service..
Office of the Under Secretary 721 804 733 +12 -71
for Marketing and Regulatory
Programs.....................
Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service:
Salaries and expenses..... 716,329 828,361 786,866 +70,537 -41,495
Buildings and facilities.. 4,967 4,996 4,967 ................ -29
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Animal and Plant 721,296 833,357 791,833 +70,537 -41,524
Health Inspection
Service................
Agricultural Marketing
Service:
Marketing Services........ 74,985 85,998 78,198 +3,213 -7,800
Standardization user (5,000) (5,000) (5,000) ................ ................
fees.................
(Limitation on (62,577) (64,459) (64,459) (+1,882) ................
administrative expenses,
from fees collected).....
Funds for strengthening 15,392 15,800 15,800 +408 ................
markets, income, and
supply (transfer from
section 32)..............
Payments to states and 3,318 1,347 3,847 +529 +2,500
possessions..............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Agricultural 93,695 103,145 97,845 +4,150 -5,300
Marketing Service......
Grain Inspection, Packers and
Stockyards Administration:
Salaries and expenses..... 35,678 44,150 37,299 +1,621 -6,851
Limitation on inspection (42,463) (42,463) (42,463) ................ ................
and weighing services....
Office of the Under Secretary 595 803 608 +13 -195
for Food Safety..............
Food Safety and Inspection 779,882 838,660 823,757 +43,875 -14,903
Service......................
Lab accreditation fees.... (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) ................ ................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Production, 4,602,719 4,836,271 4,901,839 +299,120 +65,568
Processing, and
Marketing..............
=========================================================================================================================
Farm Assistance Programs
Office of the Under Secretary 631 933 648 +17 -285
for Farm and Foreign
Agricultural Services........
Farm Service Agency:
Salaries and expenses..... 982,934 1,007,877 1,004,032 +21,098 -3,845
(Transfer from export (841) (1,033) (1,002) (+161) (-31)
loans)...................
(Transfer from Public Law (1,053) (3,119) (2,937) (+1,884) (-182)
480).....................
(Transfer from ACIF)...... (281,350) (305,011) (293,764) (+12,414) (-11,247)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, transfers from (283,244) (309,163) (297,703) (+14,459) (-11,460)
program accounts.......
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Salaries and (1,266,178) (1,317,040) (1,301,735) (+35,557) (-15,305)
expenses...............
State mediation grants.... 3,951 4,000 4,000 +49 ................
Dairy indemnity program... 100 100 100 ................ ................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Farm Service 986,985 1,011,977 1,008,132 +21,147 -3,845
Agency.................
Agricultural Credit
Insurance Fund Program
Account:
Loan authorizations:
Farm ownership
loans:
Direct........ (128,396) (200,000) (210,000) (+81,604) (+10,000)
Guaranteed.... (944,395) (1,400,000) (1,100,000) (+155,605) (-300,000)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.... (1,072,791) (1,600,000) (1,310,000) (+237,209) (-290,000)
Farm operating
loans:
Direct........ (613,860) (650,000) (650,000) (+36,140) ................
Unsubsidized (1,192,920) (1,200,000) (1,000,000) (-192,920) (-200,000)
guaranteed...
Subsidized (264,678) (266,253) (300,000) (+35,322) (+33,747)
guaranteed...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.... (2,071,458) (2,116,253) (1,950,000) (-121,458) (-166,253)
Indian tribe land (2,000) (2,000) (2,000) ................ ................
acquisition loans
Natural disasters ................ (25,000) ................ ................ (-25,000)
emergency insured
loans............
Boll weevil (100,000) (60,000) (100,000) ................ (+40,000)
eradication loans
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan (3,246,249) (3,803,253) (3,362,000) (+115,751) (-441,253)
authorizations.
Loan subsidies:
Farm ownership
loans:
Direct........ 28,350 10,700 11,235 -17,115 +535
Guaranteed.... 5,100 7,420 5,830 +730 -1,590
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.... 33,450 18,120 17,065 -16,385 -1,055
Farm operating
loans:
Direct........ 88,519 65,585 65,585 -22,934 ................
Unsubsidized 39,724 38,760 32,300 -7,424 -6,460
guaranteed...
Subsidized 33,799 35,438 39,930 +6,131 +4,492
guaranteed...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.... 162,042 139,783 137,815 -24,227 -1,968
Indian tribe land ................ 105 105 +105 ................
acquisition......
Natural disasters ................ 3,235 ................ ................ -3,235
emergency insured
loans............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan 195,492 161,243 154,985 -40,507 -6,258
subsidies......
ACIF expenses:
Salaries and 281,350 305,011 293,764 +12,414 -11,247
expense (transfer
to FSA)..........
Administrative 7,901 8,000 8,000 +99 ................
expenses.........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, ACIF 289,251 313,011 301,764 +12,513 -11,247
expenses.......
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, 484,743 474,254 456,749 -27,994 -17,505
Agricultural
Credit
Insurance Fund.
(Loan (3,246,249) (3,803,253) (3,362,000) (+115,751) (-441,253)
authorizati
on)........
=========================================================================================================================
Total, Farm 1,471,728 1,486,231 1,464,881 -6,847 -21,350
Service Agency.
=========================================================================================================================
Risk Management Agency........ 71,001 91,582 72,044 +1,043 -19,538
=========================================================================================================================
Total, Farm Assistance 1,543,360 1,578,746 1,537,573 -5,787 -41,173
Programs...............
=========================================================================================================================
Corporations
Federal Crop Insurance 3,765,000 4,095,128 4,095,128 +330,128 ................
Corporation: Federal crop
insurance corporation fund...
Commodity Credit Corporation
Fund:
Reimbursement for net 22,937,000 16,452,377 16,452,377 -6,484,623 ................
realized losses..........
Hazardous waste management (5,000) (5,000) (5,000) ................ ................
(limitation on expenses).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Corporations..... 26,702,000 20,547,505 20,547,505 -6,154,495 ................
=========================================================================================================================
Total, title I, 32,848,079 26,962,522 26,986,917 -5,861,162 +24,395
Agricultural Programs..
(By transfer)....... (283,244) (309,163) (297,703) (+14,459) (-11,460)
(Loan authorization) (3,246,249) (3,803,253) (3,362,000) (+115,751) (-441,253)
(Limitation on (110,040) (111,922) (111,922) (+1,882) ................
administrative
expenses)..........
=========================================================================================================================
TITLE II--CONSERVATION
PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary 741 936 758 +17 -178
for Natural Resources and
Environment..................
Natural Resources Conservation
Service:
Conservation operations... 847,971 710,412 845,863 -2,108 +135,451
Watershed surveys and 10,500 5,083 7,500 -3,000 +2,417
planning.................
Watershed and flood 86,487 40,173 64,000 -22,487 +23,827
prevention operations....
Watershed rehabilitation 29,629 10,091 25,000 -4,629 +14,909
program..................
Resource conservation and 51,641 50,760 50,760 -881 ................
development..............
Farm bill technical ................ 92,024 ................ ................ -92,024
assistance...............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Natural Resources 1,026,228 908,543 993,123 -33,105 +84,580
Conservation Service...
=========================================================================================================================
Total, title II, 1,026,969 909,479 993,881 -33,088 +84,402
Conservation Programs..
=========================================================================================================================
TITLE III--RURAL DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary 632 929 645 +13 -284
for Rural Development........
Rural Development:
Rural community 752,956 541,979 733,360 -19,596 +191,381
advancement program......
(Transfer out)........ (-28,000) ................. (-28,000) ................ (-28,000)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural 752,956 541,979 733,360 -19,596 +191,381
community
advancement program
RD expenses:
Salaries and expenses. 141,032 149,749 143,452 +2,420 -6,297
(Transfer from RHIF).. (440,687) (465,886) (448,342) (+7,655) (-17,544)
(Transfer from RDLFP). (4,247) (6,656) (4,316) (+69) (-2,340)
(Transfer from RETLP). (37,630) (39,933) (38,277) (+647) (-1,656)
(Transfer from RTB)... (3,152) (3,328) (3,152) ................ (-176)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Transfers (485,716) (515,803) (494,087) (+8,371) (-21,716)
from program
accounts...........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, RD expenses.. (626,748) (665,552) (637,539) (+10,791) (-28,013)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural 893,988 691,728 876,812 -17,176 +185,084
Development........
=========================================================================================================================
Rural Housing Service:
Rural Housing Insurance
Fund Program Account:
Loan authorizations:
Single family (1,351,397) (1,100,000) (1,200,000) (-151,397) (+100,000)
direct (sec. 502)
Unsubsidized (2,709,094) (2,725,185) (2,725,185) (+16,091) ................
guaranteed...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, (4,060,491) (3,825,185) (3,925,185) (-135,306) (+100,000)
Single
family.....
Housing repair (34,797) (35,000) (35,000) (+203) ................
(sec. 504).......
Rental housing (115,857) (60,000) (90,000) (-25,857) (+30,000)
(sec. 515).......
Site loans (sec. (5,045) (5,045) (5,045) ................ ................
524).............
Multi-family (99,410) (100,000) (85,960) (-13,450) (-14,040)
housing
guarantees (sec.
538).............
Multi-family (1,491) (1,501) (1,501) (+10) ................
housing credit
sales............
Single family (10,000) (10,000) (10,000) ................ ................
housing credit
sales............
Self-help housing (2,421) (5,000) (5,000) (+2,579) ................
land develop.
(sec. 523).......
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan (4,329,512) (4,041,731) (4,157,691) (-171,821) (+115,960)
authorizations.
Loan subsidies:
Single family 125,274 127,380 138,960 +13,686 +11,580
direct (sec. 502)
Unsubsidized 39,668 33,608 33,608 -6,060 ................
guaranteed...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, 164,942 160,988 172,568 +7,626 +11,580
Single
family.....
Housing repair 9,555 10,171 10,171 +616 ................
(sec. 504).......
Rental housing 49,830 28,254 42,381 -7,449 +14,127
(sec. 515).......
Site loans (sec. ................ ................. ................ ................ ................
524).............
Multi-family 5,915 3,490 3,000 -2,915 -490
housing
guarantees (sec.
538).............
Multi-family 659 727 727 +68 ................
housing credit
sales............
Single family ................ ................. ................ ................ ................
housing credit
sales............
Self-help housing 75 ................. ................ -75 ................
land develop.
(sec. 523).......
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan 230,976 203,630 228,847 -2,129 +25,217
subsidies......
RHIF administrative 440,687 465,886 448,342 +7,655 -17,544
expenses (transfer to
RD)..................
Rental assistance
program:
(Sec. 521)........ 574,689 586,100 580,000 +5,311 -6,100
(Sec. 5,865 5,900 5,900 +35 ................
502(c)(5)(D))....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rental 580,554 592,000 585,900 +5,346 -6,100
assistance
program........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural 1,252,217 1,261,516 1,263,089 +10,872 +1,573
Housing
Insurance Fund.
(Loan (4,329,512) (4,041,731) (4,157,691) (-171,821) (+115,960)
authorizati
on)........
=========================================================================================================================
Mutual and self-help 33,799 34,000 34,000 +201 ................
housing grants...........
Rural housing assistance 45,949 42,500 46,992 +1,043 +4,492
grants...................
Farm labor program account 36,093 36,765 31,471 -4,622 -5,294
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, grants and 115,841 113,265 112,463 -3,378 -802
payments...............
=========================================================================================================================
Total, Rural Housing 1,368,058 1,374,781 1,375,552 +7,494 +771
Service................
(Loan authorization) (4,329,512) (4,041,731) (4,157,691) (-171,821) (+115,960)
=========================================================================================================================
Rural Business-Cooperative
Service:
Rural Development Loan
Fund Program Account:
(Loan authorization).. (39,764) (34,213) (34,213) (-5,551) ................
Loan subsidy.......... 17,206 15,868 15,868 -1,338 ................
Administrative 4,247 6,656 4,316 +69 -2,340
expenses (transfer to
RD)..................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural 21,453 22,524 20,184 -1,269 -2,340
Development Loan
Fund...............
Rural Economic Development
Loans Program Account:
(Loan authorization).. (14,914) (25,003) (25,003) (+10,089) ................
Direct subsidy........ 2,776 4,698 4,698 +1,922 ................
Rural cooperative 23,858 21,000 24,000 +142 +3,000
development grants.......
Rural empowerment zones 12,592 ................. 12,500 -92 +12,500
and enterprise
communities grants.......
Renewable energy program.. 22,864 10,770 20,000 -2,864 +9,230
=========================================================================================================================
Total, Rural Business- 83,543 58,992 81,382 -2,161 +22,390
Cooperative Service....
(Loan authorization) (54,678) (59,216) (59,216) (+4,538) ................
=========================================================================================================================
Rural Utilities Service:
Rural Electrification and
Telecommunications Loans
Program Account:
Loan authorizations:
Electric:
Direct, 5 (240,000) (120,000) (120,000) (-120,000) ................
percent......
Direct, (1,000,000) (100,000) (100,000) (-900,000) ................
Municipal
rate.........
Direct, FFB... (1,900,000) (1,620,000) (2,100,000) (+200,000) (+480,000)
Direct, (750,000) (700,000) (1,000,000) (+250,000) (+300,000)
Treasury rate
Guaranteed (99,410) (100,000) (100,000) (+590) ................
electric.....
Guaranteed (1,000,000) ................. (1,000,000) ................ (+1,000,000)
underwriting.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, (4,989,410) (2,640,000) (4,420,000) (-569,410) (+1,780,000)
Electric...
Telecommunications
:
Direct, 5 (145,000) (145,000) (145,000) ................ ................
percent......
Direct, (248,525) (250,000) (250,000) (+1,475) ................
Treasury rate
Direct, FFB... (120,000) (100,000) (125,000) (+5,000) (+25,000)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, (513,525) (495,000) (520,000) (+6,475) (+25,000)
Telecommuni
cations....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan (5,502,935) (3,135,000) (4,940,000) (-562,935) (+1,805,000)
authorizati
ons........
Loan subsidies:
Electric:
Direct, 5 ................ ................. 3,648 +3,648 +3,648
percent......
Direct, ................ ................. 1,350 +1,350 +1,350
Municipal
rate.........
Guaranteed 60 5,058 60 ................ -4,998
electric.....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, 60 5,058 5,058 +4,998 ................
Electric...
Telecommunications
:
Direct, 5 ................ ................. ................ ................ ................
percent......
Direct, 124 100 100 -24 ................
Treasury rate
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, 124 100 100 -24 ................
Telecommuni
cations....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan 184 5,158 5,158 +4,974 ................
subsidies..
RETLP administrative 37,630 39,933 38,277 +647 -1,656
expenses (transfer to
RD)..................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural 37,814 45,091 43,435 +5,621 -1,656
Electrification and
Telecommunications
Loans Program
Account............
(Loan (5,502,935) (3,135,000) (4,940,000) (-562,935) (+1,805,000)
authorization).
=========================================================================================================================
Rural Telephone Bank
Program Account:
(Loan authorization).. (173,503) ................. (175,000) (+1,497) (+175,000)
Direct loan subsidy... ................ ................. ................ ................ ................
RTB administrative 3,152 3,328 3,152 ................ -176
expenses (transfer to
RD)..................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural 3,152 3,328 3,152 ................ -176
Telephone Bank
Program Account....
High energy costs grants (27,835) ................. (28,000) (+165) (+28,000)
(by transfer)............
Distance learning,
telemedicine, and
broadband program:
Loan authorizations:
Distance learning (300,000) ................. (20,000) (-280,000) (+20,000)
and telemedicine.
Broadband (598,101) (331,081) (600,000) (+1,899) (+268,919)
telecommunication
s................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan (898,101) (331,081) (620,000) (-278,101) (+288,919)
authorizations.
Loan subsidies:
Distance learning
and telemedicine:
Direct........ ................ ................. 284 +284 +284
Grants........ 38,770 25,000 38,000 -770 +13,000
Broadband
telecommunication
s:
Direct........ 13,039 9,884 12,780 -259 +2,896
Grants........ 8,947 ................. 9,000 +53 +9,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan 60,756 34,884 60,064 -692 +25,180
subsidies
and grants.
=========================================================================================================================
Total, Rural 101,722 83,303 106,651 +4,929 +23,348
Utilities
Service....
(Loan (6,574,539) (3,466,081) (5,735,000) (-839,539) (+2,268,919)
authorizati
on)........
=========================================================================================================================
Total, title 2,447,943 2,209,733 2,441,042 -6,901 +231,309
III, Rural
Economic
and
Community
Development
Programs...
(By (513,551) (515,803) (522,087) (+8,536) (+6,284)
transfer)..
(Loan (10,958,729) (7,567,028) (9,951,907) (-1,006,822) (+2,384,879)
authorizati
on)........
=========================================================================================================================
TITLE IV--DOMESTIC FOOD
PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary 595 799 608 +13 -191
for Food, Nutrition and
Consumer Services............
Food and Nutrition Service:
Child nutrition programs.. 6,717,780 6,060,860 6,060,860 -656,920 ................
Transfer from section 4,699,661 5,319,697 5,319,697 +620,036 ................
32...................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Child 11,417,441 11,380,557 11,380,557 -36,884 ................
nutrition programs.
Special supplemental 4,611,861 4,787,250 5,050,250 +438,389 +263,000
nutrition program for
women, infants, and
children (WIC)...........
(Contingent emergency ................ ................. 125,000 +125,000 +125,000
appropriations)......
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, (WIC)........ 4,611,861 4,787,250 5,175,250 +563,389 +388,000
Food stamp program:
Expenses.............. 26,403,176 29,053,276 29,053,276 +2,650,100 ................
Reserve............... 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 ................ ................
Nutrition assistance 1,402,805 1,448,522 1,448,522 +45,717 ................
for Puerto Rico and
Samoa................
The emergency food 140,000 140,000 140,000 ................ ................
assistance program...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Food stamp 30,945,981 33,641,798 33,641,798 +2,695,817 ................
program............
Commodity assistance 149,115 169,416 172,081 +22,966 +2,665
program..................
Nutrition programs 137,488 152,227 142,592 +5,104 -9,635
administration...........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Food and 47,261,886 50,131,248 50,512,278 +3,250,392 +381,030
Nutrition Service......
=========================================================================================================================
Total, title IV, 47,262,481 50,132,047 50,512,886 +3,250,405 +380,839
Domestic Food Programs.
=========================================================================================================================
TITLE V--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE
AND RELATED PROGRAMS
Foreign Agricultural Service:
Salaries and expenses, 131,368 143,077 139,162 +7,794 -3,915
direct appropriation.....
(Transfer from export (3,286) (3,440) (3,421) (+135) (-19)
loans)...................
(Transfer from Public Law (1,069) (1,102) (1,097) (+28) (-5)
480).....................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Salaries and (135,723) (147,619) (143,680) (+7,957) (-3,939)
expenses program level.
Public Law 480 Program and
Grant Accounts:
Program account:
Loan authorization, (130,892) (100,000) (109,000) (-21,892) (+9,000)
direct...............
Loan subsidies........ 103,274 86,420 94,198 -9,076 +7,778
Ocean freight 27,835 22,723 22,723 -5,112 ................
differential grants..
Title II--Commodities for
disposition abroad:
Program level......... (1,184,967) (1,185,000) (1,185,000) (+33) ................
Appropriation......... 1,184,967 1,185,000 1,185,000 +33 ................
Salaries and expenses:
Foreign Agricultural 1,069 1,102 1,097 +28 -5
Service (transfer to
FAS).................
Farm Service Agency 1,053 3,119 2,937 +1,884 -182
(transfer to FSA)....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............ 2,122 4,221 4,034 +1,912 -187
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Public Law
480:
Program level... (1,184,967) (1,185,000) (1,185,000) (+33) ................
Appropriation... 1,318,198 1,298,364 1,305,955 -12,243 +7,591
=========================================================================================================================
CCC Export Loans Program
Account (administrative
expenses):
Salaries and expenses
(Export Loans):
General Sales Manager 3,286 3,440 3,421 +135 -19
(transfer to FAS)....
Farm Service Agency 841 1,033 1,002 +161 -31
(transfer to FSA)....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, CCC Export 4,127 4,473 4,423 +296 -50
Loans Program
Account............
McGovern-Dole international 49,705 75,000 100,000 +50,295 +25,000
food for education and child
nutrition program grants.....
=========================================================================================================================
Total, title V, Foreign 1,503,398 1,520,914 1,549,540 +46,142 +28,626
Assistance and Related
Programs...............
(By transfer)....... (4,355) (4,542) (4,518) (+163) (-24)
=========================================================================================================================
TITLE VI--RELATED AGENCIES AND
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
Salaries and expenses, direct 1,378,779 1,494,517 1,465,267 +86,488 -29,250
appropriation................
Prescription Drug User Fee (249,825) (284,394) (284,394) (+34,569) ................
Act......................
Medical Device User Fee (31,654) (33,938) (33,938) (+2,284) ................
Act......................
Animal Drug User Fee Act.. (5,000) (8,000) (8,000) (+3,000) ................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................ (1,665,258) (1,820,849) (1,791,599) (+126,341) (-29,250)
Mammography clinics user (16,576) (16,919) (16,919) (+343) ................
fee (outlay savings).....
Export and color (6,649) (6,838) (6,838) (+189) ................
certification............
Payments to GSA........... (119,594) (123,015) (129,815) (+10,221) (+6,800)
Buildings and facilities...... 6,959 ................. ................ -6,959 ................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Food and Drug 1,385,738 1,494,517 1,465,267 +79,529 -29,250
Administration.........
=========================================================================================================================
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Commodity Futures Trading 89,901 95,327 95,327 +5,426 ................
Commission...................
Farm Credit Administration (40,900) ................. (41,800) (+900) (+41,800)
(limitation on administrative
expenses)....................
=========================================================================================================================
Total, title VI, Related 1,475,639 1,589,844 1,560,594 +84,955 -29,250
Agencies and Food and
Drug Administration....
=========================================================================================================================
TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Hunger fellowships............ 2,982 ................. 2,500 -482 +2,500
National Sheep Industry 496 ................. 2,000 +1,504 +2,000
Improvement Center revolving
fund.........................
Tree assistance (sec. 747).... 14,912 ................. ................ -14,912 ................
Northern Great Plains Regional 1,491 ................. 2,400 +909 +2,400
Authority....................
Denali Commission............. 994 ................. 500 -494 +500
Food stamp program freeze..... 1,988 ................. ................ -1,988 ................
Milk processing and packaging ................ ................. 1,000 +1,000 +1,000
facilities...................
Alaska private lands wildlife ................ ................. 500 +500 +500
management...................
=========================================================================================================================
Total, title VII, 22,863 ................. 8,900 -13,963 +8,900
General provisions.....
=========================================================================================================================
OTHER APPROPRIATIONS
Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2004 (Public Law 108-
199) Conservation Programs
Natural Resources Conservation 149,115 ................. ................ -149,115 ................
Service (Sec. 102(d)):
Emergency watershed
protection program
(emergency)..................
Tree assistance program 12,426 ................. ................ -12,426 ................
(emergency) (Sec. 102(e))....
Emergency conservation prog. 12,426 ................. ................ -12,426 ................
(emergency) (Sec. 102(f))....
Commodity Credit Corporation 497 ................. ................ -497 ................
Fund: Livestock indemnity
prog. (emergency)
(Sec.102(g)).................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Other 174,464 ................. ................ -174,464 ................
appropriations.........
Grand total:
New budget 86,761,836 83,324,539 84,053,760 -2,708,076 +729,221
(obligational)
authority..........
Appropriations.. (86,587,372) (83,324,539) (83,928,760) (-2,658,612) (+604,221)
Emergency 174,464 ................. ................ -174,464 ................
Appropriations.
Contingent ................ ................. (125,000) (+125,000) (+125,000)
emergency
Appropriations.
(By transfer)....... (801,150) (829,508) (824,308) (+23,158) (-5,200)
(Loan authorization) (14,335,870) (11,470,281) (13,422,907) (-912,963) (+1,952,626)
(Limitation on (150,940) (111,922) (153,722) (+2,782) (+41,800)
administrative
expenses)..........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
