H. Rept. 109-102 - 109th Congress (2005-2006)

Report text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this legislative text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


House Report 109-102 - AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2006

[House Report 109-102]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



109th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    109-102

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



 
   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2006

                                _______
                                

  June 2, 2005.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 2744]

    The Committee on Appropriations submits the following 
report in explanation of the accompanying bill making 
appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for fiscal year 2006.

                     TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS

                 Production, Processing, and Marketing

                        Office of the Secretary




2005 appropriation....................................        $5,083,000
2006 budget estimate..................................         5,127,000
Provided in the bill..................................         5,127,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................           +44,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................             - - -



                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Office of the Secretary, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $5,127,000, an increase of $44,000 above the 
amount available for fiscal year 2005 and the same amount as 
the budget request.
    Explanatory Notes.--The Committee appreciates receiving the 
detailed information provided in the Explanatory Notes prepared 
by the Department and relies heavily on this information when 
considering budget proposals. These materials have 
traditionally been prepared for the sole use of the 
Appropriations Committee in a format consistent with the 
organization and operation of the programs and the structure of 
the Appropriations Act. At the direction of the Office of 
Management and Budget, the Department has changed the format 
and content of these materials to focus on broader goals and 
objectives rather than the major program structure followed in 
the Act and in the actual conduct of the programs. For fiscal 
year 2007 and future years, the Department is directed to 
present Explanatory Notes in a format consistent with the 
presentation used for the fiscal year 2002 Budget. Any 
deviations from that format are to be approved in advance by 
the Committee.
    Web-Based Supply Chain Management System.--The Committee 
does not provide $10,000,000, as requested, for the Web-Based 
Supply Chain Management System (WBSCM). In fiscal year 2005, 
the Committee directed the USDA to use section 32 
administrative funds to initiate the procurement of WBSCM. The 
Committee again urges the USDA to use section 32 administrative 
funds for WBSCM. USDA's budget justifications acknowledge that 
the current commodity purchase system has become obsolete and 
must be replaced. Unfortunately, the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) has rejected USDA's request to apportion section 
32 funds for the system in fiscal year 2005.
    When the Administration came to the Committee last year to 
pursue the use of section 32 funds to respond to hurricanes 
that occurred in Florida, the Committee supported the 
Administration. It is disconcerting then that the Committee 
directed a legitimate use of section 32 funds for WBSCM, and 
that OMB has refused to apportion the funds. USDA is spending 
more than $12,000,000 annually to maintain a commodity 
procurement system that--according to USDA--is ``inflexible, 
resource intensive, and costly to maintain.'' The 
implementation of WBSCM could save the USDA several million 
dollars annually in operational and maintenance costs, increase 
productivity, reduce purchase and shipping costs, and help 
reduce the deficit.
    Since fiscal year 2002, the Committee has provided the 
authority for USDA to transfer unobligated balances to the 
Working Capital Fund to fund various administrative, financial, 
and corporate systems. Through the use of these funds, 
significant results have been achieved, including: financial 
data warehouse; enterprise architecture initiative; civil 
rights enterprise; integrated acquisition; corporate asset 
management; and e-travel. Unless the OMB apportions funds in 
fiscal year 2005 and in subsequent years out of section 32 for 
WBSCM, the Committee will be forced to limit the availability 
of unobligated balances to be used only for the implementation 
of WBSCM.
    Counter-Terrorism Measures.--The Committee supports the 
efforts of USDA in implementing a national policy for defending 
the agriculture and food system against terrorist attacks.
    State Office Collocation.--The Committee continues to 
direct that any reallocation of resources related to the 
collocation of state offices scheduled for 2005 and subsequent 
years is subject to the Committee's reprogramming procedures. 
The Committee notes that no such reprogramming requests have 
been received to date.
    Ralstonia.--The Committee notes that the Secretary of 
Agriculture initiated emergency actions during FY 2004 to 
ensure the eradication of the disease Ralstonia solanacearum, 
Race 3, Biovar 2, which is of great concern to U.S. 
agriculture, including ornamentals growers, the potato 
industry, and others. The Committee strongly urges the 
Secretary of Agriculture to continue to use existing authority 
including that provided under CCC, to fund this initiative, and 
to establish a compensation program for persons suffering from 
losses as a result of the eradication and control efforts 
related to this disease. The Secretary shall submit to the 
Committee on Appropriations a report regarding the feasibility 
of establishing additional research and forward control 
programs in countries and/or regions that had been the point of 
origin for infected product.
    Administrative Provision.--The Committee directs the 
Secretary to advise the Committees on Appropriations in writing 
of the status of all reports requested of the Department in 
this bill, at the time of submission of the FY 2007 budget and 
quarterly thereafter.
    Cattle Exports.--The committee is concerned that USDA has 
not made reopening key export markets for U.S. breeding cattle 
a priority. The committee instructs USDA, specifically APHIS 
and FAS, to allocate the resources necessary to reopen export 
markets for U.S. breeding cattle and to effectively coordinate 
with other agencies to regain these markets. Increasing export 
opportunities for U.S. producers should be USDA's top priority.
    Rice Reporting.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall prepare 
a report evaluating the benefits and issues associated with 
making price reporting mandatory for rice crops. Currently, 
only 75 percent of the rice market reports rice prices to the 
Department of Agriculture, yet the Department uses this limited 
information to determine counter-cyclical payments for rice 
producers under the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 
2002. The Committee would like to know whether a benefit would 
result from making reporting mandatory, and what issues might 
arise as a result of mandatory price reporting, specifically 
regarding the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).

                          Executive Operations


                     OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ECONOMIST




2005 appropriation....................................       $10,234,000
2006 budget estimate..................................        10,539,000
Provided in the bill..................................        10,539,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................          +305,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................             - - -


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Office of the Chief Economist, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $10,539,000, an increase of 
$305,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2005 and 
the same amount as the budget request.

                       NATIONAL APPEALS DIVISION




2005 appropriation....................................       $14,216,000
2006 budget estimate..................................        14,524,000
Provided in the bill..................................        14,524,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................          +308,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................             - - -


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the National Appeals Division, the Committee provides 
an appropriation of $14,524,000, an increase of $308,000 above 
the amount available for fiscal year 2005 and the same amount 
as the budget request.

                 OFFICE OF BUDGET AND PROGRAM ANALYSIS




2005 appropriation....................................        $8,162,000
2006 budget estimate..................................         8,298,000
Provided in the bill..................................         8,298,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................          +136,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................             - - -


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Office of Budget and Program Analysis, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $8,298,000, an increase 
of $136,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2005 and 
the same as the budget request.

                        HOMELAND SECURITY STAFF




2005 appropriation....................................          $769,000
2006 budget estimate..................................         1,466,000
Provided in the bill..................................           934,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................          +165,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................          -532,000


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Homeland Security staff, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $934,000, an increase of $165,000 above the 
amount available for fiscal year 2005 and a decrease of 
$532,000 below the budget request. While the Committee has 
provided additional funding for this account, the budget 
justification does not support an increase of $697,000, or 91 
percent for the Homeland Security Staff. According to the 
Explanatory Notes, the only requested increase is for one 
additional Senior Executive Service (SES) staff year. The 
Committee has concerns about the need for an additional SES 
position for a staff of six that already has an SES position 
filled. The Committee recommendation does not include funds for 
a second Senior Executive Service position for the Homeland 
Security Staff.

                Office of the Chief Information Officer





2005 appropriation....................................       $16,462,000
2006 budget estimate..................................        16,726,000
Provided in the bill..................................        16,462,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................             - - -
    2006 budget estimate..............................          -264,000


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Office of the Chief Information Officer, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $16,462,000, the same 
amount available for fiscal year 2005 and a decrease of 
$264,000 below the budget request.
    As a result of OCIO's progress towards completion of two of 
its highest priorities within fiscal years 2004 and 2005, the 
establishment of the Information Technology Services 
organization and key eGovernment initiatives, the Committee 
believes that the fiscal year 2005 funding level is sufficient 
to maintain advancement in these two areas as well as other 
priorities within the Office's purview.

                      Common Computing Environment





2005 appropriation....................................      $124,580,000
2006 budget estimate..................................       142,465,000
Provided in the bill..................................       124,580,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................             - - -
    2006 budget estimate..............................       -17,885,000


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Common Computing Environment, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $124,580,000, the same as the 
amount available in fiscal year 2005 and a decrease of 
$17,885,000 below the budget request.
    Since fiscal year 2000, Congress has appropriated over 
$500,000,000 for the modernization and integration of 
information systems in USDA's county field offices. The 
Committee has fully supported this effort, but will expect to 
see reduced or level funding levels for this account in future 
budget submissions as a result of anticipated efficiencies and 
economies of scale.
    The following table reflects the Committee's 
recommendation:

                         [Dollars in thousands]

CCE base infrastructure.......................................  $ 23,735
FSA specific..................................................    82,645
NRCS specific.................................................    13,000
RD specific...................................................     4,000
Interagency e-Gov.............................................     1,200
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

                                                                $124,580

    The Committee directs the Department to continue reporting 
to the Committee on Appropriations on a quarterly basis on the 
implementation of the Common Computing Environment.
    The Committee is aware that the acquisition of geospatial 
data and Geographic Information System technologies is critical 
to the Department of Agriculture's plans to modernize its 
County Service Centers and install a common computing 
environment that optimizes information sharing, customer 
service, and staff efficiencies, and improves the Department's 
ability to track and react to natural and/or man-made 
disasters. Within the funds provided in this Act, the Committee 
encourages the Department to provide the appropriate level of 
support for the acquisition of geospatial data and Geographic 
Information System technologies.

                 Office of the Chief Financial Officer





2005 appropriation....................................        $5,696,000
2006 budget estimate..................................         5,874,000
Provided in the bill..................................         5,874,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................          +178,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................             - - -


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $5,874,000, an increase 
of $178,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2005 and 
the same amount as the budget request.
    The Committee has included bill language that directs the 
Chief Financial Officer to actively market and expand the 
cross-servicing activities of the National Finance Center.
    The Committee is aware that the National Finance Center's 
(NFC) proposal for e-payroll consolidation was rated the 
highest in the competition held by the Office of Management and 
Budget and the Office of Personnel Management. The Committee 
believes that the NFC's demonstrated ability to provide a high 
level of service while operating on a fee-for-service basis 
provides a significant opportunity to utilize a public/private 
partnership to provide private investment and share risk in the 
modernization of systems and infrastructure creation for e-
payroll. The Committee encourages the USDA to utilize the NFC 
to create a public/private partnership, such as the one that 
the State of Louisiana, private industry, and a consortium of 
academic institutions has developed, to help leverage scarce 
Federal resources to continue the modernization and development 
of Federal government wide e-payroll functions.
    The Committee directs the Department to submit a report 
concurrent with the Department's annual budget submission for 
the following fiscal year, updating the Committee on its 
contracting out policies, including agency budgets for 
contracting out, for fiscal year 2005. The Committee is 
continuing bill language requiring the submission of the report 
on contracting out policies and agency budgets, prior to use of 
any funds appropriated to the Office of the Chief Financial 
Officer for FAIR Act or Circular A-76 activities.

                          Working Capital Fund





2005 appropriation....................................       $12,747,000
2006 budget estimate..................................             - - -
Provided in the bill..................................             - - -
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................       -12,747,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................             - - -


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    The President's budget does not request and the Committee 
does not provide an appropriation to the Working Capital Fund.
    The Committee again includes a General Provision, which 
provides authority for the Secretary to transfer unobligated 
balances of the Department of Agriculture to the Working 
Capital Fund. This authority should be sufficient to meet 
fiscal year 2006 needs.

           Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights





2005 appropriation....................................          $811,000
2006 budget estimate..................................           821,000
Provided in the bill..................................           811,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................             - - -
    2006 budget estimate..............................           -10,000


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 
the Committee provides an appropriation of $811,000, the same 
as the amount available for fiscal year 2005 and a decrease of 
$10,000 below the budget request.

                         Office of Civil Rights





2005 appropriation....................................       $19,730,000
2006 budget estimate..................................        20,109,000
Provided in the bill..................................        20,109,000
Comparison
    2005 appropriation................................          +379,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................             - - -


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Office of Civil Rights, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $20,109,000, an increase of $379,000 above the 
amount available for fiscal year 2005 and the same amount as 
the budget request.

          Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration





2005 appropriation....................................          $664,000
2006 budget estimate..................................           676,000
Provided in the bill..................................           676,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................           +12,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................             - - -


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for 
Administration, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$676,000, an increase of $12,000 above the amount available for 
fiscal year 2005 and the same amount as the budget request.

        Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments





2005 appropriation....................................      $162,559,000
2006 budget estimate..................................       221,924,000
Provided in the bill..................................       183,133,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................       +20,574,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................       -38,791,000


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental 
Payments, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$183,133,000, an increase of $20,574,000 above the amount 
available for fiscal year 2005 and a decrease of $38,791,000 
below the budget request.
    Included in this amount is $147,734,000 for payments to GSA 
for rent and the Department of Homeland Security for building 
security.
    The following table represents the Committee's specific 
recommendations for this account:

        Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments


                        [In thousands of dollars]

                                    2005     2006 budget     Committee
                                  estimate      request   recommendation

Rental Payments...............     $127,292     $147,734        $147,734
Building Operations...........       35,267       74,190          35,399
                               -----------------------------------------
      Total...................      162,559      221,924         183,133


                     Hazardous Materials Management





2005 appropriation....................................       $15,408,000
2006 budget estimate..................................        15,644,000
Provided in the bill..................................        15,644,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................          +236,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................             - - -


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For Hazardous Materials Management, the Committee provides 
an appropriation of $15,644,000, an increase of $236,000 above 
the amount available for fiscal year 2005 and the same amount 
as the budget request.

                      Departmental Administration





2005 appropriation....................................       $22,445,000
2006 budget estimate..................................        23,103,000
Provided in the bill..................................        23,103,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................          +658,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................             - - -


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For Departmental Administration, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $23,103,000, an increase of $658,000 above the 
amount available for fiscal year 2005 and the same amount as 
the budget request.
    The Committee recommendation includes an increase of 
$262,000, as requested, for providing the policies, technical 
guidance, and operating environment that enhances the safety 
and security of USDA personnel, information and facilities, and 
the continuity of its vital programs.

     Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations





2005 appropriation....................................        $3,821,000
2006 budget estimate..................................         3,846,000
Provided in the bill..................................         3,821,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................             - - -
    2006 budget estimate..............................           -25,000


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional 
Relations, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$3,821,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal year 
2005 and a decrease of $25,000 below the budget request.
    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.

                        Office of Communications





2005 appropriation....................................        $9,290,000
2006 budget estimate..................................         9,509,000
Provided in the bill..................................         9,509,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................          +219,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................             - - -


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Office of Communications, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $9,509,000, an increase of $219,000 above the 
amount available for fiscal year 2005 and the same amount as 
the budget request.
    The Committee directs the Office of Communications to 
continue to provide them with copies of open source news 
material made available to USDA officials through the use of 
appropriated funds.

                      Office of Inspector General





2005 appropriation....................................       $77,663,000
2006 budget estimate..................................        81,045,000
Provided in the bill..................................        79,626,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................        +1,963,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................        -1,419,000


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Office of Inspector General, the Committee provides 
an appropriation of $79,626,000, an increase of $1,963,000 
above the amount available for fiscal year 2005, and a decrease 
of $1,419,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee recommendation includes the requested 
increases for pay costs and improvements to the Computer 
Forensics Unit.

                     Office of the General Counsel





2005 appropriation....................................       $35,574,000
2006 budget estimate..................................        40,263,000
Provided in the bill..................................        38,439,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................        +2,865,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................        -1,824,000


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Office of the General Counsel, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $38,439,000, an increase of 
$2,865,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2005 and 
a decrease of $1,824,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee recommendation includes an increase of 
$1,996,000 of the amount requested, of which: $1,041,000 is for 
maintaining and supporting staff; $475,000 is for 5 staff years 
for additional legal services, of which 2 staff years are for 
the Marketing and Regulatory Programs; and $480,000 is for 
information technology requirements.

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





2005 appropriation....................................          $587,000
2006 budget estimate..................................           598,000
Provided in the bill..................................           598,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................           +11,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................             - - -


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Research, 
Education, and Economics, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $598,000, an increase of $11,000 above the 
amount available for fiscal year 2005 and the same amount as 
the budget request.
    Proposed project terminations.--Research budgets submitted 
by the Department reflect a continuing disregard for 
Congressional program priorities. The Committee has made it 
clear on a number of occasions that the role of Congress in 
identifying essential agricultural needs of this Nation will be 
maintained. Agricultural research projects of regional and 
national priority will be funded. There has been no adequate 
justification presented to the Committee to support proposed 
project terminations. The Committee urges the Under Secretary 
to end the recycling of proposed terminations which have 
already been rejected by the Congress. Should similar proposals 
be submitted again in the budget for fiscal year 2007, the 
Committee will expect the Under Secretary to explain and defend 
each proposed termination in detail during the fiscal year 2007 
hearings.

                       Economic Research Service





2005 appropriation....................................       $74,170,000
2006 budget estimate..................................        80,749,000
Provided in the bill..................................        75,931,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................        +1,761,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................        -4,818,000


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Economic Research Service, the Committee provides 
an appropriation of $75,931,000, an increase of $1,761,000 
above the amount available for fiscal year 2005 and a decrease 
of $4,818,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee recommendation includes an increase of 
$1,000,000 of the amount requested to continue the development 
of the Consumer Data and Information System to develop an 
integrated and comprehensive data and analysis framework of the 
food system beyond the farm-gate that will provide a basis for 
understanding, monitoring, tracking, and identifying changes in 
the food supply and consumption patterns.
    The Committee provides $500,000, the same as the fiscal 
year 2005 level, for the continuation of their organic data 
surveys, the compilation of non-survey data on organic 
production and marketing, its merger and reconciliation with 
any new survey information, analysis that reveal patterns, 
similarities and differences from comparisons among organic, 
other differentiated markets, and bulk or homogeneous product 
markets, and the development of policy-relevant findings from a 
full portfolio of data and information.

                National Agricultural Statistics Service





2005 appropriation....................................      $128,444,000
2006 budget estimate..................................       145,159,000
Provided in the bill..................................       136,241,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................        +7,797,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................        -8,918,000


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $136,241,000, an 
increase of $7,797,000 above the amount available for fiscal 
year 2005 and a decrease of $8,918,000 below the budget 
request.
    Included in this amount is $29,115,000, for the Census of 
Agriculture, an increase of $6,889,000 above the amount 
available for fiscal year 2005 and the same amount as the 
budget request. The Census of Agriculture collects and provides 
comprehensive data on all aspects of the agricultural economy. 
Also, included in this amount is $107,126,000 for the 
Agricultural Estimates, an increase of $908,000 above the 
amount available for fiscal year 2005 and a decrease of 
$8,918,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee encourages the National Agricultural 
Statistics Service to develop an organic data survey process 
based on the 2002 Census of Agriculture and to expand organic 
data collection in the 2007 Census of Agriculture.

                     Agricultural Research Service





2005 appropriation....................................    $1,102,000,000
2006 budget estimate..................................       996,107,000
Provided in the bill..................................     1,035,475,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................       -66,525,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................       +39,368,000


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    Salaries and expenses.--For salaries and expenses of the 
Agricultural Research Service, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $1,035,475,000, a decrease of $66,525,000 
below the amount available for fiscal year 2005 and an increase 
of $39,368,000 above the budget request.
    Air quality research.--The Committee supports the fiscal 
year 2006 budget request for $300,000 to reduce particulate 
matter emissions from beef cattle feedlots and feeding 
operations. This work will be carried out at the ARS research 
station in Bushland, Texas.
    Asian longhorned beetle/emerald ash borer.--The Committee 
continues to be alarmed about the devastation caused by these 
invasive pests. The Asian longhorned beetle is perhaps the most 
economically harmful invasive pest to enter this country and 
capable of causing tens of billions of dollars in damages to 
forests, parks and residential areas. The Committee provides an 
increase of $775,000 for expanded research to control Asian 
longhorned beetle and Emerald ash borer at Newark, Delaware, 
$275,000; Ithaca, New York, $300,000, and Peoria, Illinois 
$200,000.
    Avian pneumovirus.--The Committee notes the losses to the 
turkey and poultry producers due to the spread of avian 
pneumovirus. The eradication of this disease is vital to 
national and international competitiveness and is a limiting 
factor to the expansion of U.S. exports. The Committee directs 
the continuation of this research in fiscal year 2006.
    Bee research.--The Committee recognizes the importance of 
honeybee research carried out by ARS and provides an increase 
of $500,000 in fiscal year 2006 to conduct research on varroa 
mites and marker-assisted breeding of honey bees at Baton 
Rouge, Louisiana.
    Bioenergy research.--Soaring energy prices, instability of 
petroleum exporting countries and environmental concerns 
highlight the need to develop alternative domestic sources of 
energy from industrial feedstocks. A significant, sustained, 
and coordinated research and development effort is needed to 
produce and enhance feedstocks, improve processes for 
converting them into fuels and co-products, and reduce 
production costs in order to penetrate markets that are 
currently petroleum-based. The Committee provides an increase 
of $1,100,000 over fiscal year 2005 for expanded research to 
improve the quality and quantity of agricultural biomass 
feedstocks and develop technologies to produce biofuels and 
coproducts from agricultural commodities at the following 
locations: Peoria, Illinois, $500,000; Beltsville, Maryland, 
$300,000; and Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania, $300,000.
    Bovine genetics.--The Committee provides an increase of 
$300,000 over fiscal year 2005 for the ongoing research on 
biotechnology and genetics in cattle jointly carried out by 
ARS, the University of Connecticut and the University of 
Illinois to improve efficiencies of clones and establish cell 
lines from elite cows and bulls for cloning.
    Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) research.--The 
Committee considers research on BSE as essential if regulatory 
agencies are to develop policies and control programs based on 
the best available science. ARS is directed to implement an 
integrated BSE program in pathogenesis, diagnostics, and 
intervention. The Committee provides an increase of $3,300,000 
for this research at Ames, Iowa, $1,800,000; Pullman, 
Washington, $1,000,000; and Albany, California, $500,000.
    Broomweed biological controls.--The Committee recognizes 
that increased infestations of exotic brooms and gorse weeds 
are causing serious economic and environmental losses to 
agriculture and rangelands in the Western United States. The 
Committee directs that this research be continued at the fiscal 
year 2005 funding level.
    Cereal crops research.--The Committee recognizes the 
research accomplishments of the Cereal Crops Research 
Laboratory in Madison, Wisconsin on the quality and improved 
production and marketing practices for small grains, 
particularly barley and oats. An increase of $250,000 is 
provided in fiscal year 2006 for expanded research on these 
important commodities.
    Citrus plant pathogens.--Exotic and emerging plant diseases 
may be attributable to genetic shifts in the pathogen 
population and other processes. The Committee provides an 
increase of $300,000 over fiscal year 2005 to the U.S. 
Horticultural Research Laboratory at Ft. Pierce, Florida for 
expanded research on threatening plant pathogens of citrus. 
This research involves the development of molecular diagnostics 
and characterization and pathogenosity studies to determine 
spread and dispersal patterns. The research will focus on 
citrus canker and citrus greening.
    Coffee and cocoa research.--World supply of coffee and 
cocoa continues to be threatened by severe crop diseases. 
Disease resistance and alternative research program for coffee 
and cocoa has important economic benefits and implications for 
U.S. foreign policy in the coffee and cocoa producing nations 
of South Central America and West Africa. The Committee 
provides an increase of $75,000 over fiscal year 2005 to the 
ARS research laboratories at Beltsville, Maryland for expanded 
research on disease resistance and alternative crop research 
development for coffee and cocoa.
    Conservation tillage.--Better management and conservation 
of natural resources is essential for sustainable crop 
production in the Columbia River Plateau and regional areas. 
The ARS Soil Conservation Laboratory at Pendleton, Oregon 
conducts non-irrigated dryland research important to this 
region. The Committee maintains the fiscal year 2005 funding 
level for this necessary research.
    Continuing programs.--The Committee recognizes the 
importance of ongoing research projects in addressing problems 
faced by the Nation's food and fiber producers. In this regard, 
the Committee directs the Agricultural Research Service to 
continue to fund the following areas of research at the fiscal 
year 2005 funding level: Advanced Animal Vaccines (Univ of CT/
Univ of MO), Greenport, NY; Aerial Application, College 
Station, TX; Aflatoxin in Cotton, Phoenix, AZ; Agricultural 
Law, Drake University, NAL; Animal Health Consortium, Peoria, 
IL; Animal Waste Treatment, Florence, SC; Appalachian 
Horticulture Research (Univ of TN/TN State), Poplarville, MS; 
Aquaculture Fisheries Center, Pine Bluff, AR; Aquaculture 
Initiative, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute, Stuttgart, 
AR; Aquaculture Research, Aberdeen, ID; Aquaculture Initiatives 
for Mid-Atlantic Highlands (WV); Arid Lands Research, Las 
Cruces, NM; Arkansas Children's Nutrition Center, Little Rock, 
AR; Asian Bird Influenza, Athens, GA; Avian Pneumovirus, 
Athens, GA; Barley Food Health Benefits, Beltsville, MD; Bee 
Research, Weslaco, TX; Binational Agricultural Research and 
Development Program; Biological Controls and Agricultural 
Research (FL A&M Univ), Gainesville, FL; Biomineral Soil 
Amendments for Control of Nematodes (N-VIRO Intl), Beltsville, 
MD; Biotechnology Research and Development Corp, Peoria, IL; 
Bovine Genetics (Univ of CT/Univ of IL), Beltsville, MD; 
Broomweed Biological Controls (Yellow Starthistle) (Univ of 
ID), Albany, CA; Catfish Genome (Auburn Univ), Auburn, AL; 
Cereal Crops, Fargo, ND; Cereal Crops Research, Madison, WI; 
Cereal Disease, St. Paul, MN; Chronic Diseases of Children 
(Baylor Univ Peanut Institute), Houston, TX; Citrus and 
Horticulture Research, Ft. Pierce, FL; Citrus Waste Utilization 
(Citrus Research Center), Winter Haven, FL; Coffee and Cocoa 
Research (Milwaukee Museum), Beltsville, MD; Miami, FL; 
Conservation Research/Tillage, Pendleton, OR; Corn Germplasm, 
Ames, IA; Corn Rootworm, Ames, IA; Cotton Genetics Research, 
Florence, SC; Cotton Ginning (Long Staple Cotton) (NM State), 
Las Cruces, NM; Cotton Pathology Research, Shafter, CA; Cotton 
Quality Research, Clemson, SC; Crop Production and Food 
Processing (Purdue/Univ of IL), Peoria, IL; Cropping Systems 
Research (TN Ag Experiment Station/ Univ of TN), Stoneville, 
MS; Dairy Genetics, Beltsville, MD; Diet and Immune Function, 
Little Rock, AR; Diet, Nutrition, and Obesity (Pennington), New 
Orleans, LA; Emissions from Livestock Wastewater, Florence, SC; 
Flood/Control Acoustic Technology, Oxford, MS; Floriculture and 
Nursery Crops; Food Fermentation Research, Raleigh, NC; Food 
Safety for Listeria and E coli, Albany, CA; Beltsville, MD; 
Clay Center, NE; Wyndmoor, PA; College Station, TX; Formosan 
Subterranean Termites, New Orleans, LA; Fort Pierce 
Horticultural Research Laboratory, Ft. Pierce, FL; Foundry Sand 
By-Products (Penn State/Ohio State/FIRST), Beltsville, MD; 
Golden Nematode (Cornell Univ), Ithaca, NY; Grain Legume Plant 
Pathologist Position, Pullman, WA; Grape Genetics, Geneva, NY; 
Grape Rootstock, Geneva, NY; Grapefruit Juice/Drug Interaction 
(Citrus Research Center), Winter Haven, FL; Great Basins 
Rangeland, Burns, OR; Greenhouse and Hydroponics (Univ of 
Toledo), Wooster, OH; Greenhouse Lettuce Germplasm, Salinas, 
CA; Harry Dupree National Aquaculture Research Center, 
Stuttgart, AR; Honey Bee Research, Baton Rouge, LA; Hops 
Research (WSU), Corvallis, OR; Improved Animal Waste 
Management, Florence, SC; Invasive Aquatic Weed (CT Ag 
Experiment Station), Ft. Lauderdale, FL; Jornada Experimental 
Range Research Station, Las Cruces, NM; Livestock Genome 
Mapping (Univ of IL), Clay Center, NE; Lyme Disease (Yale); 
Manure Management Research, Ames, IA; Microbial Genomics (WSU/
Institute for Genomic Research), Kerrville, TX; Pullman, WA; 
Mid-West/Mid-South Irrigation (MO Ag Experiment Station), 
Columbia, MO; Minor Use Pesticide (IR-4); Mosquito Trapping 
Research/West Nile Virus (CT Ag Experiment Station), 
Gainesville, FL; National Germplasm Resources Program; National 
Soil Dynamics Laboratory (Auburn, AL A&M, Tuskegee), Auburn, 
AL; Nematology Research, Tifton, GA; Northern Great Plains 
Research Laboratory (ND State), Mandan, ND; Noxious Weeds in 
the Desert Southwest, Las Cruces, NM; Nutritional Requirements, 
Houston, TX; NW Small Fruits, Corvallis, OR; Oat Virus (Univ of 
IL), West Lafayette, IN; Obesity Research, Houston, TX; 
Ogallala Aquifer, Bushland, TX; Olive Fruit Fly Research, 
Parlier, CA; Montpellier, FR; Organic Minor Crop Research, 
Salinas, CA; Peanut Research, Dawson, GA; Pecan Scab, Byron, 
GA; Phytoestrogen Research Tulane/Univ of Toledo), New Orleans, 
LA; Pierce's Disease/Glassy-winged Sharpshooter, Parlier, CA; 
Davis, CA; Ft. Pierce, FL; Plant Stress and Water Conservation 
Lab, Lubbock, TX; Potato Breeding (WSU/Univ of Idaho/OSU), 
Aberdeen, ID; Potato Research Enhancement, Prosser, WA; Poult 
Enterititis-Mortality Syndrome (PEMS), Athens, GA; Poultry 
Disease, Athens, GA; Beltsville, MD; Quantify Basin Water 
Budget Components in the Southwest (Univ of AZ), Tucson, AZ; 
Rainbow Trout (Univ of CT), Leetown, WV; Rangeland Resource 
Management, Las Cruces, NM; Regional Grain Genotyping Research, 
Raleigh, NC; Regional Molecular Genotyping (Club Wheat) (OSU), 
Manhattan, KS; Fargo, ND; Pullman, WA; Rice Research, 
Stuttgart, AR; Salmonella, Listeria, E. coli and Other Food 
Pathogens (Penn State), Wyndmoor, PA; Sedimentation Issues in 
Flood Control Dam Rehabilitations, Oxford, MS; Seismic and 
Acoustic Technologies in Soils Sed. Lab, Oxford, MS; Shellfish 
Genetics, Newport, OR; Small Farms (Univ of MO), Booneville, 
AR; Soil Tilth Research, Ames, IA; Sorghum Cold Tolerance, 
Lubbock, TX; Sorghum Research, Little Rock, AR; Manhattan, KS; 
Stillwater, OK; Bushland, TX, Lubbock, TX; Source Water 
Protection Initiatives, West Lafayette, IN; Columbus, OH; 
Southwest Pecan Research, College Station, TX; Soybean and 
Nitrogen Fixation, Raleigh, NC; Sudden Oak Disease, Davis, CA; 
Ft. Detrick, MD; Sugarbeet Research, Kimberly, ID; Sugarcane 
Variety Research, Canal Point, FL; Sustainable Vineyards/
Viticulture Practices, Davis, CA; Swine Lagoon Alternatives 
Research, Florence, SC; Temperate Fruit Flies, Wapato, WA; Tree 
Fruit Quality Research, Wenatchee, WA; Turfgrass Research, U.S. 
National Arboretum, Washington, DC; Germplasm/Ornamental 
Horticulture, U.S. National Arboretum, Washington, DC; Vaccines 
and Microbe Control for Fish Health/Fish Diseases, Auburn, AL; 
Vector-borne Diseases, Gainesville, FL; Verticillium Wilt 
Research, Salinas, CA; Virus-Free Fruit Tree Cultivars (WSU), 
Wapato, WA; Viticulture (Univ of ID/WSU/OSU), Corvallis, OR; 
Water Management Research Laboratory, Brawley, CA; Water 
Resource Management (Univ of GA), Tifton, GA; Water Use 
Management Technology, Tifton, GA; Water Use Reduction, Dawson, 
GA; Western Grazinglands, Burns, OR; Wheat and Barley Scab 
Init., Manhattan, KS; Raleigh, NC; Fargo, ND; Wheat Quality 
Research, Wooster, OH; Wild Rice (No. Central Ag Experiment 
Station), St. Paul, MN.
    Corn germplasm.--Corn is a key resource in this country and 
throughout the world, providing food, industrial uses, 
livestock feed, and export. The Committee understands the 
importance of the germplasm base of corn hybrids grown by 
American farmers to promote genetic diversity and stability in 
corn production. The Committee directs the continuation of this 
program in fiscal year 2006 at the ARS research laboratory at 
Ames, IA.
    Corn rootworm.--This pest continues to create economic and 
environmental problems in the Corn Belt region of the U.S. The 
Committee provides an increase of $100,000 at Ames, Iowa to 
fund priority research into the biology of controlling the corn 
rootworm which poses a significant economic threat to the corn 
industry.
    Cotton quality.--Since 1997, the U.S. textile industry has 
been in record decline, with over 196,000 jobs lost because of 
illegal transshipments of textile products into the U.S. With 
the growth of free trade and preferential trade agreements, the 
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection requires a quick and 
effective method of determining whether textile and apparel 
products entering the U.S. meet the eligibility criteria. An 
effective, economical system to track U.S. yarn from the mill 
to the finished product has been a goal of the U.S. textile 
industry for years to restore profitability to the failing 
industry. The Committee maintains the fiscal year 2005 funding 
level to the ARS Cotton Quality Research Laboratory at Clemson, 
SC for research and development of a tagging and identification 
system for the cotton textile industry.
    Cropping systems research.--The Committee recognizes the 
need for regional research in the Mississippi River watershed 
to develop new varieties of soybean and cropping systems that 
will improve disease resistance, enhance value of the crop, and 
protect the region's natural resources. Crop management 
practices to limit erosion on the highly erodible soils of 
Tennessee and other southern states impact soybean diseases, 
both favorably and adversely. Research is needed to optimize 
disease control while maintaining these best crop management 
practices to protect soil and water quality. Molecular genetics 
technologies are being used to develop better soybeans and 
site-specific systems will be developed for improving cropping 
systems in the region. The Committee directs the continuation 
of the ARS cooperative research program with the University of 
Tennessee Agriculture Experiment Station.
    Emerging diseases of corn.--The Committee recognizes the 
increased threat to corn production in the Southeast due to 
emerging diseases. The Committee provides an increase of 
$300,000 over fiscal year 2005 to the ARS Plant Science 
Research Laboratory at Raleigh, North Carolina for increased 
research to identify and genetically characterize emerging 
diseases of corn as a means for enhancing the diversity of corn 
germplasm in the Southeast.
    Emerging diseases of poultry.--The U.S. Poultry industry is 
increasingly susceptible to new disease agents and diseases 
such as Asian Influenza and Exotic Newcastle diseases which 
have been introduced from foreign countries. The Committee 
provides an increase of $350,000 to the Southeast Poultry 
Research Laboratory at Athens, Georgia for the operation of an 
emerging diseases investigation program that can respond, 
identify, and evaluate new and emerging poultry pathogen 
threats.
    Exotic vector borne zoonotic diseases.--The Committee 
provides an increase of $500,000 over fiscal year 2005 to the 
Arthropod-Borne Animal Diseases Research Laboratory at Laramie, 
Wyoming for expanded research on surveillance systems that will 
maximize rapid detection and response to exotic vector borne 
zoonotic pathogens, such as Rift Valley Fever Virus; and 
mosquito borne viruses, such as West Nile Virus.
    Expanded research projects.--The Committee provides 
additional funding in fiscal year 2006 for the following 
important research: Animal Vaccines, $31,000; Appalachian 
Horticulture, $100,000; Binational Agricultural Research and 
Development Program, $32,000; Greenhouse Lettuce Germplasm, 
$150,000; Pierce's Disease/Glassy-winged Sharpshooter, $25,000; 
Regional Grains Genotyping Research, $78,000; Salmonella, 
Listeria, E.coli, and Other Food Pathogens, $100,000; 
Viticulture, $150,000.
    Flood/Control acoustic technology.--The Committee provides 
funding to continue important research to develop a high 
resolution acoustic sub-bottom profiling system for use in 
flood-control dams. This research is to be conducted at the ARS 
Sedimentation Laboratory at Oxford, MS.
    Floriculture and nursery research.--Floriculture and 
nursery crops represent more than 10% of the total U.S. cash 
crop receipts while environmental horticulture is the third 
largest value crop in the U.S. The Committee recognizes the 
importance of ARS research on floral and nursery crops and 
provides an increase of $250,000 for this research in fiscal 
year 2006.
    Food pathogens.--The Committee directs the continuation of 
the cooperative research project at the fiscal year 2005 level 
for the development of capabilities for products for coating a 
wide variety of substrates. This research is coordinated at the 
ARS research center in Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania.
    Food safety research.--Consumption of contaminated foods, 
including those containing antibiotic resistant microorganisms 
can lead to serious illnesses and death, as well as threaten 
the competitiveness of U.S. agricultural products. Rapid and 
accurate methods of detection and quantitative measurement of 
pathogens are needed to carry out risk assessment and identify 
appropriate interventions methodologies. The Committee provides 
an increase of $2,650,000 over fiscal year 2005 for expanded 
food safety research at the following locations: Beltsville, 
Maryland, $1,050,000; Athens, Georgia, $800,000; Wyndmoor, 
Pennsylvania, $500,000; and Albany, California, $300,000.
    Formosan Subterranean termite.--The exotic Formosan 
Subterranean termite costs the U.S. one billion dollars each 
year. It is particularly damaging in the greater New Orleans 
area, along the Gulf Coast, and Hawaii. The Committee continues 
the fiscal year 2005 funding level to the Southern Regional 
Research Center at New Orleans, LA to continue current efforts 
to encompass the entire 108-block area of the historically and 
economically important French Quarter.
    Ft. Pierce Horticultural Research Laboratory.--This 
laboratory carries out critical research on citrus, fruits, 
vegetables and nursery crops. The Committee provides an 
increase of $250,000 in fiscal year 2006 for research at the 
U.S. Horticultural Research Laboratory at Ft. Pierce, FL.
    Genetic resources.--The Committee recognizes the importance 
of acquisition, maintenance, characterization and enhancement 
of genetic resources as carried out by ARS. The Committee 
provides an increase of $1,500,000 over fiscal year 2005 for 
this program. The increase of $250,000 each is provided for the 
following locations for the purpose requested in the budget: 
Miami, Florida; Raleigh, North Carolina; Madison, Wisconsin; 
Stuttgart, Arkansas; Ft. Collins, Colorado; and Ithaca, New 
York.
    Ginning technologies.--The Committee directs that the 
important research carried out by ARS in cotton ginning 
harvesting and the development of ginning technologies be 
maintained at fiscal year 2005 funding levels.
    Grape genetics.--Grapes are the 6th largest crop in the 
United States and one of the most important cash crops 
worldwide. The U.S. is the 4th largest producer of wine, 
responsible for about 10 percent of all world wine. The 
Committee provides an increase of $100,000 in fiscal year 2006 
to expand this important research program at the ARS facility 
in Geneva, NY.
    Invasive aquatic weeds.--Recent introductions of exotic 
weeds including Eurasian, variable Milfoil, and Cabomba 
seriously threaten the health of Connecticut lakes. Traditional 
control methods focusing on whole lake treatments are 
prohibitively expensive. More effective and economical weed 
control methods focusing on localized spot treatments of weed 
beds in large bodies of water are needed. The Committee 
provides an increase of $100,000 in fiscal year 2006 to the 
Agricultural Research Service for increased research on 
invasive aquatic weeds in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.
    Invasive species.--Invasive species have steadily increased 
with the growing movement of people and trade around the world. 
Currently, invasive weeds, insects, pathogens, and other pest 
species cost the U.S. in excess of $137 billion per year, 
causing agricultural losses, with severe impact to the 
environment and biological diversity. The Committee provides an 
increase of $1,150,000 over fiscal year 2005 for expanded 
research to develop IPM components and systems for invasive 
insect species and noxious and invasive weeds in cropping 
systems, rangelands, and natural areas, and develop improved 
knowledge of invasive insect species at the following 
locations: Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, $150,000; Montpellier, 
France, $200,000; Columbia, Missouri, $200,000; Beltsville, 
Maryland, $300,000; and Gainesville, Florida, $300,000.
    Library and information services.--The Committee provides 
the National Agricultural Library an increase of $400,000 over 
fiscal year 2005 to support agricultural information and 
delivery services.
    Livestock and crop genomics.--Characterizing plant and 
animal genes for traits of economic importance is essential to 
U.S. agriculture productivity. The Committee recommends 
additional appropriations for genomic research in fiscal year 
2006 at ARS laboratories located at Miles City, Montana, 
$300,000; Salinas, California, $225,000; and Clay Center, 
Nebraska, $600,000.
    Mid-West/Mid-South irrigation.--While irrigation is 
normally associated with the arid, western part of the U.S., 
the fastest growing irrigation states are found in the Mid-West 
and the Mid-South. The need for irrigation in these areas is 
critical in reducing production risks, increasing producer 
yields, promoting good land management practices, and reducing 
input costs. The Committee provides an increase of $68,000 in 
fiscal year 2006 to support cooperative research into 
irrigation methods and technologies with the Delta Center, 
University of Missouri at Portageville, Missouri.
    Nutrition research.--The Committee continues to support the 
nutrition research carried out at the Department's nutrition 
research centers. The Committee provides an increase of 
$1,400,000 for expanded research in dietary intake, nutrient 
content and obesity issues at Beltsville, Maryland, $400,000; 
Houston, Texas, $400,000; Davis, California, $300,000; and 
Little Rock, Arkansas, $300,000.
    Ogallala aquifer.--Surface water in the Central High Plains 
region of the U.S. is severely limited. The Ogallala Aquifer, 
which is a finite resource, has provided water resources in the 
development of a highly significant agricultural economy in 
this region. The Committee provides an increase of $1,075,000 
in fiscal year 2006 for research into the complex nature of 
water availability, potential uses, and costs to determine 
future water policy in this region, which includes Texas, 
Kansas, and adjoining states.
    Olive fruitfly research.--The olive fruitfly is the world's 
number one pest of olives, causing devastating effects on the 
olive industry in California. The Committee maintains the 
fiscal year 2005 funding level for continued integrated pest 
management research program to control the olive fruitfly at 
ARS' European Biological Control Laboratory at Montpellier, 
France, and Parlier, CA.
    Pay act costs.--The Committee provides funding for 
increased costs associated with Federal employee's salaries and 
benefits.
    Plant pathogens.--The Committee is aware of the importance 
of developing accurate science-based forecasting systems for 
each pathogen for increased deterrence in plants. The Committee 
provides an increase of $500,000 over fiscal year 2005 for the 
ARS Foreign Disease-Weed Science Research Laboratory at Ft. 
Detrick, Maryland for increased research on threatening plant 
pathogens to meet deterrence needs, including pathogen 
prioritization and development of detection technologies.
    Plum Island Animal Disease Center.--The Committee is aware 
of research advances in exotic and foreign animal diseases 
conducted at the Plum Island Animal Disease Center, Greenport, 
New York. The Committee provides an increase of $500,000 over 
fiscal year 2005 for increased research to develop antigen 
delivery systems that target immune systems compartments (i.e. 
mucosal, peripheral, reproductive tracts, and other sites).
    Quantify basin water budget components in the Southwest.--
The Committee acknowledges the need to expand efforts to 
accurately quantify components of a basin's water budget to 
support local and community based watershed management. The 
Committee provides an increase of $200,000 above the fiscal 
year 2005 level for additional research at the ARS research 
laboratory at Maricopa, Arizona.
    Soybean rust.--In fiscal year 2005, the Committee provided 
$800,000 in new appropriations for additional research on the 
devastating soybean rust disease. The Committee directs that 
these resources be continued in fiscal year 2006 at the ARS 
research stations located at Ames, Iowa and Beltsville, 
Maryland. As one of the Nation's prime agricultural 
commodities, the Committee recognizes the importance of 
developing integrated disease management strategies for 
soybeans. The Committee provides an increase of $600,000 over 
fiscal year 2005 for the ARS research laboratories at Urbana, 
Illinois and Ames, Iowa for expanded research to develop 
chemical treatments for emerging soybean diseases, and efficacy 
data required to register chemical controls.
    Stripe rust and other rust diseases in wheat.--The 
development of resistant germplasm and more sustainable, 
environmentally friendly control strategies provide practical 
solutions for U.S. producers. The Committee provides an 
increase of $350,000 over fiscal year 2005 to the ARS Wheat 
Genetics, Quality Physiology, and Disease Research Laboratory 
at Pullman, Washington for increased research to identify 
potential sources of durable resistance to rust diseases of 
wheat especially stripe rust.
    Sudden Oak disease.--Since 1995, oak trees have been dying 
in large numbers along the California and Oregon coasts. The 
disease has spread to other plants including rhododendron and 
huckleberry. There is a great potential for this disease to 
spread throughout the country. The Committee provides an 
increase of $600,000 for expanded research to control Sudden 
Oak Disease at Ft. Detrick, Maryland, $300,000, and Corvallis, 
Oregon, $300,000.
    Sugarbeet and vegetable production.--The Committee 
recognizes the importance of sugarbeet and vegetable production 
in California for domestic consumption. Continued development 
of pathogen detection is important for keeping new diseases 
from becoming established in the U.S. and for producing crops 
and commodities for domestic consumption and foreign exports. 
The Committee provides an increase of $350,000 over fiscal year 
2005 to the ARS Crop Improvement and Protection Research 
Laboratory at Salinas, California for increased research to 
address emerging viruses of sugarbeet and vegetable production, 
including vine mealy bug, in California.
    United States National Arboretum (USNA).--The country's 
interest in gardening and environmental horticulture, along 
with increased desire for urban green space continues to grow. 
The Arboretum maintains internationally acclaimed gardens for 
visitors and tourists seeking green space and solace in the 
middle of our Nation's capital. The Committee provides an 
increase of $250,000 over fiscal year 2005.
    Vaccines for control and eradication of biological threat 
agents in cattle, swine, and relevant wildlife species.--The 
Committee provides an increase of $900,000 over fiscal year 
2005 for increased research on immune responses to vaccination 
of natural infection in cattle, swine, and relevant wildlife 
species. This is important research that supports our nation's 
homeland security. The research will be conducted at the 
National Centers for Animal Health at Ames, Iowa.
    Cereal Disease.--The Committee understands the importance 
of ongoing Cereal Disease Research in St. Paul, MN. The 
Committee is concerned that ARS has not yet hired a scientist 
to fill the vacant research position, and urges the Department 
to quickly fill this position to ensure research continues on 
schedule.
    Reporting Requirement.--The Committee notes that the 
Agricultural Research Service has had the authority to 
construct certain buildings under 7 U.S.C. 2250 for several 
years. The Committee directs the Agricultural Research Service 
to notify the Committee on the use of this authority on a 
biannual basis.
    Plum Island Animal Disease Center.--The Committee directs 
that none of the funds appropriated to the Agricultural 
Research Service for the Advanced Animal Vaccine Project at the 
Plum Island Animal Disease Center may be directed for any other 
use by the Department of Homeland Security.
    Lyme disease research and prevention.--Lyme Disease is a 
major public health threat in the Northeast. Controlling the 
ticks that transmit Lyme Disease (and other diseases) is 
critical to public health, and is especially critical in rural 
areas. The amount provided for the Agricultural Research 
Service includes $760,000 for the further study of the 
Ecoepidemiology of emerging arthropod-borne pathogens in the 
Northeast and for further testing of new methods of preventing 
the transmission of Lyme Disease.
    Dietary Approaches to Stopping Hypertension.--The Committee 
recognizes the effect of diet on hypertension and the role that 
the Dietary Approaches to Stopping Hypertension (DASH) eating 
plan research had on developing the Dietary Guidelines for 
Americans. The Committee is concerned, however, that the DASH 
research did not treat all proteins equally. In preparation for 
the next round of dietary guidelines, the Committee instructs 
USDA, specifically ARS, to budget for, develop, conduct, and 
completes a DASH-like study that includes the effects of lean 
beef on hypertension and lipid levels.

                        BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES




 2005 appropriation...................................      $186,335,000
2006 budget estimate..................................        64,800,000
Provided in the bill..................................        87,300,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................       -99,035,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................       +22,500,000


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For Agricultural Research Service, Buildings and 
Facilities, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$87,300,000, a decrease of $99,035,000, below the amount 
available in fiscal year 2005, and an increase of $22,500,000 
above the budget request.
    The Committee acknowledges the importance of funding the 
construction of the National Centers for Animal Health located 
at Ames, Iowa and provides the final amount of $58,800,000 as 
requested in the President's budget. The research and 
diagnostic programs carried out at the Centers are critical to 
the Nation's homeland security and agricultural industry.
    The Committee provides additional funds in support of the 
modernization and construction of Federal research facilities 
as follows: National Center for Agricultural Utilization 
Research, Peoria, IL; Grape Genomics Research Center, Davis, 
CA; U.S. Agricultural Research Station, Salinas, CA; ARS Sugar 
Research Laboratory, Houma, LA; Center for Grape Genetics, 
Geneva, NY; Center for Crop-based Health Genomics, Ithaca, NY; 
ARS Research Laboratory, Pullman, WA, and the ARS Nutrient 
Management Research Laboratory, Marshfield, WI. Due to 
budgetary constraints, the Committee is unable to provide the 
full amount required to complete construction of these 
projects.
    The Committee has attempted to provide funds to construct 
Federal research facilities that are necessary to keep American 
agriculture competitive within severe funding constraints. 
While the Committee has approved the final funding level, as 
requested in the budget, to complete the National Animal 
Disease Center in Ames, Iowa, there are several other high 
priority construction projects that have already been planned 
and designed, and are waiting for full funding for 
construction. There is in excess of $500,000,000 committed to 
such projects. As a result, the Committee does not provide any 
funding for the planning and design of construction projects 
for which feasibility studies have been completed, until the 
Committee can complete a full assessment on how to prioritize 
and fund the projects that have already been designed.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's provisions:

         AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE, BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
                         [Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Committee
                                                            provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California, Davis: Grape Genomics Research Center......           $3,625
California, Salinas: U.S. Agricultural Research Station            3,625
Illinois, Peoria: National Center for Agricultural                 3,625
 Utilization Research..................................
Iowa, Ames: National Centers for Animal Health.........           58,800
Louisiana, Houma: ARS Sugarcane Research Laboratory....            3,625
New York, Geneva: Center for Grape Genetics............            3,625
New York, Ithaca: Center for Crop-based Health Genomics            3,625
Washington, Pullman: ARS Research Laboratory...........            3,625
Wisconsin, Marshfield: Nutrient Management Research                3,125
 Laboratory............................................
                                                        ----------------
      Total, ARS Buildings and Facilities..............           87,300
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee expects the ARS to provide a feasibility 
prospectus, by March 1, 2006, for the Kerrville, Texas 
facility, and the Center of Excellence for Vaccine Research 
(CT).

      Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service


                   RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES




2005 appropriation....................................      $655,495,000
2006 budget estimate..................................       545,500,000
Provided in the bill..................................       661,691,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................        +6,196,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................      +116,191,000


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For Research and Education Activities, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $661,691,000, an increase of 
$6,196,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2005 and 
an increase of $116,191,000 above the budget request.
     For payments under the Hatch Act, the Committee provides 
an appropriation of $178,807,000, an increase of $100,000 above 
the amount available for fiscal year 2005 and an increase of 
$89,453,000 above the budget request.
    For cooperative forestry research, the Committee provides 
an appropriation of $22,255,000, an increase of $50,000 above 
the amount available for fiscal year 2005 and an increase of 
$11,152,000 above the budget request.
    For the Evans-Allen Program (payments to the 1890 land-
grant colleges, Tuskegee University, and West Virginia State 
University), the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$37,704,000, an increase of $1,000,000 above the amount 
available for fiscal year 2005 and a decrease of $546,000 above 
the budget request.
    For the National Research Initiative, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $214,634,000, an increase of 
$35,082,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2005 and 
a decrease of $35,366,000 below the budget request. The 
Committee expects that the fiscal year 2005 funding levels for 
the following competitive grants will be maintained in fiscal 
year 2006: Water Quality; Food Safety; Regional Pest Management 
Centers; Crops at Risk from FQPA Implementation; FQPA Risk 
Mitigation for Major Food Crop Systems; Methyl Bromide 
Transition Program; and the Organic Transition Program.
    Alliance for Food Protection.--The Committee provides 
$413,000 for the Alliance for Food Protection. Of this amount, 
$256,000 is to continue integrated fruit and vegetable research 
at the University of Georgia.
    Applied Agricultural and Environmental Research.--The 
Committee provides $550,000 for Applied Agricultural and 
Environmental Research. This research will provide for 
technology transfer and information dissemination directly to 
producers, processors, and consumers. These funds shall be 
equally divided between California State-Fresno, California 
State-San Luis Obispo, California State-Pomona, and California 
State-Chico.
    Biodesign and Processing Research Center.--The Committee 
provides $950,000 for the Biodesign and Processing Center at 
Virginia Tech University. The Center's focus is on developing 
and promoting innovative technologies for use in commercial 
agriculture with an emphasis on waste management solutions. The 
Center will enhance the capabilities and economic viability of 
farmers, woodland owners, and wood processors by conducting 
cutting edge research for the design, production, and recovery 
of industrial enzymes and pharmaceuticals for transgenic corps 
and for conversion of agriculture wastes to value-added 
products.
    Dietary Intervention.--Within funds provided for dietary 
intervention research, $750,000 is provided for Ohio State 
University, and $500,000 is provided for the University of 
Toledo.
    Microbiological Safety of Food.--The Committee encourages 
the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 
service to consider priority projects that enhance the 
microbiological safety of food through freezing.
    Polymer-Based University Research.--The Committee 
recognizes the work currently being conducted at some of our 
nation's universities to further the development of products, 
methods and materials related to bio-based polymers for high-
grade plastics. Replacement of petrochemicals with bio-based 
materials as well as reducing U.S. dependence of foreign oil 
are common goals of the country and the Committee recognizes 
the capability of polymer based research to help in 
accomplishing these goals. To this end, the Committee urges the 
Department to work with universities that specialize in 
vegetable oil-based polymer research in an effort to further 
utilize the capabilities this type of research and development 
represents.
    The following table reflects the amount provided by the 
Committee:


              NATIVE AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS ENDOWMENT FUND




2005 appropriation....................................       $12,000,000
2006 budget estimate..................................        12,000,000
Provided in the bill..................................        12,000,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................             - - -
    2006 budget estimate..............................             - - -


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund, the 
Committee provides $12,000,000, the same as the amount 
available in fiscal year 2005 and the same as the budget 
request.

                          EXTENSION ACTIVITIES




2005 appropriation....................................      $445,631,000
2006 budget estimate..................................       431,743,000
Provided in the bill..................................       444,871,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................          -760,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................       +13,128,000


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For Extension Activities, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $444,871,000, a decrease of $760,000 below the 
amount available for fiscal year 2005 and an increase of 
$13,128,000 above the budget request.
    The following table reflects the amount provided by the 
Committee:


    Farm Safety: AgrAbility.--Within the funds provided for 
Smith-Lever 3(d) for Farm Safety, the Committee recommends 
$4,563,000 for the AgrAbility program, which helps people with 
disabilities to be able to farm safely, efficiently, and 
profitably through on-the-farm education and assistance.
    Northern Aquaculture Demonstration.--This project, located 
on the Red Cliff Indian Reservation (WI), will deliver a 
coordinated and focused applied research and demonstration 
program, combined with an aggressive direct-to-farm extension 
outreach program, to address the needs of fish farms and state, 
federal and tribal hatcheries and help overcome the unique 
development and operational challenges of aquaculture in the 
cold climates of northern states such as Wisconsin, Minnesota 
and Michigan.

                         INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES




2005 appropriation....................................       $54,712,000
2006 budget estimates.................................        35,013,000
Provided in the bill..................................        15,513,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................       -39,199,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................       -19,500,000


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For Integrated Activities, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $15,513,000, a decrease of $39,199,000 below 
the amount available for fiscal year 2005 and a decrease of 
$19,500,000 below the budget request.
    The following table reflects the amount provided by the 
Committee:


              OUTREACH FOR SOCIALLY DISADVANTAGED FARMERS




2005 appropriation....................................        $5,888,000
2006 budget estimate..................................         5,935,000
Provided in the bill..................................         5,935,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................           +47,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................             - - -


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and 
Ranchers Program, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$5,935,000, an increase of $47,000 above the amount available 
for fiscal year 2005 and the same amount as the budget request.

  Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs





2005 appropriation....................................          $715,000
2006 budget estimate..................................           724,000
Provided in the bill..................................           724,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................            +9,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................             - - -



                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and 
Regulatory Programs, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$724,000, an increase of $9,000 above the amount available for 
fiscal year 2005 and the same amount as the budget request.

               Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES




2005 appropriation ...................................      $808,106,000
2006 budget estimate \1\..............................       855,162,000
Provided in the bill..................................       823,635,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................       +15,529,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................      -31,527,000

\1\ The budget estimate does not include proposed user fees in the
  amount $10,857,000.

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 
Salaries and Expenses, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $823,635,000, an increase of $15,529,000 above 
the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2005, and a decrease of 
$31,527,000 below the budget request.
    The recommendation does not include $10,858,000 in Animal 
Welfare Act user fees, as proposed in the President's budget. 
The Administration has not yet submitted a legislative proposal 
to Congress for these fees, which are not currently authorized 
in law. The Committee does not recommend establishing such fees 
in annual appropriations acts, but will consider such fees 
should they achieve authorization.
    The following table reflects the amounts provided by the 
Committee:


    To maintain agency functions the Committee provides the 
requested amount for cost of living requirements.
    The Committee is concerned that the agency, while well 
intentioned, may be focusing more human resources on 
facilitating agricultural imports than on the export of 
American agricultural products. The Committee directs the 
agency to provide a report on staffing levels for sanitary and 
phytosanitary import certificates and export certificates. In 
addition, the report should include the number and value of 
approved import certificates versus the number and value of 
approved export certificates for plant and animal products.
    Agricultural Quarantine Inspection.--The Committee includes 
an appropriation of $3,262,000 for the National Germplasm and 
Biotechnology Laboratory to cover costs associated with the 
biosecurity level 3 greenhouse and for additional diagnostic 
and test validation activities at the laboratory, as requested.
    Fruit Fly Exclusion and Detection.--The Committee 
recommendation includes the full amount requested for fruit fly 
exclusion and detection, within which is $2,758,000 for Mexican 
fruitfly control in Texas, as requested.
    Animal health monitoring and surveillance.--The Committee 
provides $149,014,000 for animal health monitoring and 
surveillance, an increase of $5,093,000 over the fiscal year 
2005 amount. Included in the funding is $33,340,000 for the 
National Animal Identification System (NAIS), as requested. The 
Committee is carefully following the development of the NAIS, 
including issues of data use and confidentiality, applicability 
to different species, links to current systems used by state 
veterinarians, and costs. The Committee requires that APHIS 
provide quarterly progress reports on NAIS, including the 
status of the preceding issues and an accounting of funds.
    The Committee directs that not less than $2,000,000 be 
provided for a cooperative agreement with the Wisconsin 
Livestock Identification Consortium. This project supports the 
national plan to establish an animal and livestock 48-hour 
traceback system.
    The Committee provides not less than $600,000 for the Farm 
Animal Identification and Records (FAIR) program. Both the 
Wisconsin consortium and the FAIR project should also be 
eligible to apply for cooperative agreement funding for animal 
identification, which is funded within the NAIS total.
    The Committee provides $300,000 to assist in creating a 
database of North Carolina's agriculture industry for rapid 
response capabilities.
    The Committee provides the full amount requested, 
$17,184,000, for activities related to Bovine Spongiform 
Encephalopathy (BSE). The Committee notes that the intense BSE 
surveillance testing program is scheduled to be completed 
shortly. As of May 8, 2005, 347,491 cattle have been tested 
(with no positive results), which far exceeds the original goal 
to test 268,000 animals. Given the knowledge gained from the 
2004-2005 testing program, the Committee requests a report 
within 30 days of enactment on the design, implementation and 
cost of an updated BSE surveillance system.
    The Committee continues funding for the New Mexico Rapid 
Syndrome Validation Program at $450,000 to support early 
detection of pathogens in animals and prevent its spread.
    The Committee provides $300,000 for Iowa State University's 
work regarding risk assessments of genetically modified 
agricultural products.
    Emergency management systems.--The Committee provides 
$5,000,000 for Field emergency coordinators and $3,009,000 for 
the vaccine bank.
    Pest detection.--The Committee provides an increase of 
$1,546,000 for surveys through the state-based Cooperative 
Agricultural Pest Surveys system.
    The Committee continues funding of $200,000 to evaluate the 
utility of remote sensing (hyperspectral imaging and Light 
Detection And Ranging) for the identification of ash trees, the 
early identification of emerald ash borer infestation, and the 
tracking and mapping of the diseased trees.
    The Committee provides funding for a cooperative agreement 
with the California County Pest Detection Augmentation Program 
at the fiscal year 2005 level.
    Select Agents.--Funding for the select agents function is 
included as a separate item, as requested. The total provided 
is an increase of $1,858,000 over the comparable fiscal year 
2005 amounts, which were part of the Import/Export and Pest 
Detection line items.
    Brucellosis.--The Committee continues to provide the fiscal 
year 2005 funding level for the Greater Yellowstone Interagency 
Brucellosis Committee to eliminate brucellosis from wildlife in 
the Greater Yellowstone area.
    Chronic wasting disease.--For chronic wasting disease, the 
Committee provides $16,880,000 for fiscal year 2006. The 
Committee directs that of this amount $1,750,000 shall go to 
the State of Wisconsin.
    Emerging plant pests.--The Committee expects the Secretary 
of Agriculture to continue to use the authority provided in 
this bill to transfer funds from the Commodity Credit 
Corporation for the arrest and eradication of animal and plant 
pests and diseases that threaten American agriculture. By 
providing funds in this account, the Committee is enhancing, 
but not replacing, the use of Commodity Credit Corporation 
funding for emergency outbreaks.
    For emerging plant pests, the Committee includes 
$100,695,000. The Committee provides the following amounts for 
eradication and control activities: $36,629,000 for citrus 
canker, $24,000,000 for Glassy-winged sharpshooter/Pierce's 
Disease, $14,000,000 for Emerald Ash borer, $3,000,000 for 
Sudden Oak Death, and $2,753,000 for Karnal bunt.
    The Committee continues funding for olive fruit fly 
trapping at the fiscal year 2005 level.
    The Committee provides $800,000 for hydrilla eradication 
around Lake Gaston in Virginia and North Carolina, and expects 
APHIS to monitor the effectiveness of hydrilla eradication 
around Smith Mountain Lake in Virginia regularly.
    The Committee provides $15,251,000 for the Asian long-
horned beetle, as requested. The Committee is concerned about 
the damage that this pest can do, and requests that APHIS 
provide the analysis that supports the decision to control the 
beetle infestation rather than eradicate it, and includes an 
estimate of costs to eradicate the beetle. Further, the 
Committee expects the Secretary to use his emergency authority 
to provide funds to combat the infestation when warranted.
    Imported fire ant.--The Committee provides $2,154,000 for 
imported fire ant of which $45,000 is for New Mexico.
    Johne's Disease.--The Committee provides $7,752,000 for 
Johne's disease, which is $4,561,000 above the budget request.
    Avian Influenza.--The Committee provides $22,837,000, the 
same as the request, for activities relating to the prevention, 
control, and eradication of Low Pathogenic Avian Influenza 
(LPAI). Within the total amount, $8,000,000 is for indemnities, 
$3,000,000 is for surveillance activities, and $5,000,000 is 
for cooperative agreements with states. Funding is provided for 
live bird market closure for disinfection, as needed. The 
Committee is concerned that LPAI, which appears to be endemic 
in certain live bird markets in urban areas, could mutate into 
highly pathogenic forms. To prevent this from happening, a 
robust surveillance and control system in both commercial 
poultry industries and live bird markets is important. The 
Committee believes that industry cooperation and program 
fairness will be maximized through the indemnification of 
losses.
    The Committee notes that the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service (APHIS) has combated Low Pathogenic Avian 
Influenza (LPAI) through both depopulation and vaccination, 
depending on individual circumstances. An emergency vaccination 
protocol was used most successfully after an outbreak on a farm 
in Connecticut. The Committee strongly encourages APHIS to 
utilize funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation or to utilize 
other authority to compensate producers for vaccination costs 
and related flock losses previously incurred due to the 
outbreak in Connecticut and the resulting sequential 
depopulation and restricted use of a USDA approved and 
authorized avian influenza vaccine.
    Wildlife services.--The Committee continues the fiscal year 
2005 funding levels for wildlife surveillance, Wildlife 
Services state operations, and aviation safety. The 
recommendation assumes the continuation of current cost share 
levels for cooperators. The Committee directs that, other than 
funding for the specific items noted in this report, the funds 
provided in the Wildlife Services line item are available for 
general operations needs.
    The Committee continues to provide $1,200,000 for wolf 
predation management, of which $1,050,000 is for Wisconsin, 
Minnesota, and Michigan, and $150,000 is for New Mexico and 
Arizona.
    The Committee continues funding for the following projects: 
$300,000 for Beaver management in North Carolina; $250,000 for 
crop and aquaculture losses in southeast Missouri; $625,000 for 
game bird predation work with the University of Georgia; 
$200,000 for predation wildlife services in western and 
southside Virginia; $150,000 for blackbird control in 
Louisiana; $1,300,000 for predator control programs in Montana, 
Idaho, and Wyoming; $1,000,000 for wildlife services in Texas; 
$200,000 for beaver management and damage in Wisconsin; 
$1,255,000 for brown tree snake management in Guam; $310,000 
for Hawaii and Guam operations; $50,000 for control of feral 
hogs in Missouri; $1,000,000 for cormorant control in New York; 
and $175,000 for cormorant control in Michigan.
    The Committee provides a $4,000,000 increase above the 
fiscal year 2005 level for a cooperative rabies oral rabies 
vaccination program, for a total of $25,580,000.
    Wildlife services methods development.--The Committee 
continues to provide $400,000 in funding for the National 
Wildlife Research Station in Kingsville, Texas, to address 
emerging infectious disease issues associated with wildlife 
populations.
    The Committee provides funding to continue the cooperative 
agreement between the Hawaii Agricultural Research Center and 
the National Wildlife Research Center in Hilo at the fiscal 
year 2005 level.
    Microchip identification of pets.--The Committee supports 
the microchipping of pets for identification under the 
universal 134 kHz International Standards Organization (ISO) 
system of open microchip technology in which all scanners can 
read all chips. The Committee directs APHIS to develop the 
appropriate regulations to implement the universal 134 kHz ISO 
system, and to report to Congress within 90 days of the date of 
enactment of this Act on progress toward that end.

                        BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES




2005 appropriation....................................        $4,927,000
2006 budget estimate..................................         4,996,000
Provided in the bill..................................         4,996,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................           +69,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................             - - -


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Buildings 
and Facilities, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$4,996,000, an increase of $69,000 above the amount available 
for fiscal year 2005 and the same as the budget request.

                     Agricultural Marketing Service


                           MARKETING SERVICES




2005 appropriation....................................       $75,092,000
2006 budget estimate \1\..............................        84,114,000
Provided in the bill..................................        78,032,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................        +2,940,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................        -6,082,000

\1\ The budget estimate does not include proposed user fees in the
  amount of $2,918,000.

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For Marketing Services of the Agricultural Marketing 
Service, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$78,032,000, an increase of $2,940,000 above the amount 
available for fiscal year 2005 and a decrease of $6,082,000 
below the budget request.
    Included in the appropriated amount are increases of 
$584,000 for the Pesticide Data Program and $305,000 for 
Pesticide Recordkeeping, as requested. The Committee 
recommendation includes the proposed termination of the 
Biotechnology Program.
    The Committee does not provide the increase requested for a 
new commodity purchasing computer system in this account. The 
Committee addresses the issue under the Section 32 Account.
    The Committee provides not less than $2,026,000 for 
activities relating to Organic Standards.
    The recommendation does not include $2,918,000 in 
standardization user fees, as proposed in the President's 
budget. The Administration has not yet submitted a legislative 
proposal to Congress for these fees, which are not currently 
authorized in law. The Committee does not recommend 
establishing such fees in annual appropriations acts, but will 
consider such fees should they achieve authorization.
    The Committee provides $1,000,000 in this account for the 
Farmers' Market Promotion Program to make grants to eligible 
entities for projects to establish, expand, and promote 
farmers' markets.

                 LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES




2005 limitation.......................................     ($64,459,000)
2006 budget limitation................................      (65,667,000)
Provided in the bill..................................      (65,667,000)
Comparison:
    2005 limitation...................................        +1,208,000
    2006 budget limitation............................             - - -


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For a Limitation on Administrative Expenses of the 
Agricultural Marketing Service, the Committee provides 
$65,667,000, an increase of $1,208,000 above the amount 
available for fiscal year 2005 and the same as the budget 
request.

          FUNDS FOR STRENGTHENING MARKETS, INCOME, AND SUPPLY

                              (SECTION 32)

                     MARKETING AGREEMENT AND ORDERS


2005 appropriation....................................     ($15,800,000)
2006 budget estimate..................................      (16,055,000)
Provided in the bill..................................      (16,055,000)
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................          +255,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................             - - -


    The following table reflects the status of this fund for 
fiscal years 2004 through 2006:


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Marketing Agreements and Orders Program, the 
Committee provides a transfer from section 32 funds of 
$16,055,000, an increase of $255,000 above the amount available 
for fiscal year 2005 and the same as the budget request.
    The Committee directs that $10,000,000 in funding be 
provided for the Web-based Supply Chain Management System 
(WBSCM) in this account, as shown in the preceding table in the 
Commodity Purchase Support line. While the business case for 
WBSCM has merit, and the Committee supports replacement of the 
existing system, the Committee will not appropriate funding for 
WBSCM.
    The Committee reiterates its position that administrative 
expenses to support section 32 purposes are expressly allowed, 
and that purchase and maintenance of a computer system 
supporting commodity purchases is an authorized administrative 
expense. All previous computer systems to support commodity 
purchase, including the existing Processed Commodity Inventory 
Management System (PCIMS), have been funded through section 32. 
Given the business case for WBSCM, the obsolescence of PCIMS, 
and the projected savings the new system will bring, the 
Administration's refusal to fund WBSCM is unsupportable.

                   PAYMENTS TO STATES AND POSSESSIONS




2005 appropriation....................................        $3,816,000
2006 budget estimate..................................         1,347,000
Provided in the bill..................................         1,347,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................        -2,469,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................             - - -


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For Payments to States and Possessions, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $1,347,000, a decrease of 
$2,469,000 below the amount available for fiscal year 2005, and 
the same as the budget request.

        Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES




2005 appropriation....................................       $37,001,000
2006 budget estimate \1\..............................        15,717,000
Provided in the bill..................................        38,400,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................        +1,399,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................       +22,683,000

\1\ The budget estimate does not include proposed user fees in the
  amount of $24,701,000.

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards 
Administration, the Committee provides $38,400,000, an increase 
of $1,399,000 over the amount available for fiscal year 2005, 
and an increase of $22,683,000 above the budget request.
    The recommendation does not include $24,701,000 in grain 
standardization and Packers and Stockyards licensing fees, as 
proposed in the President's budget. The Administration has not 
yet submitted a legislative proposal to Congress for these 
fees, which are not currently authorized in law. The Committee 
does not recommend establishing such fees in annual 
appropriations acts, but will consider such fees should they 
achieve authorization.
    The Committee continues its interest in the study on 
marketing arrangements that GIPSA has undertaken with 
$4,500,000 provided in fiscal year 2003 for that purpose. The 
Committee has been informed that the study, which was directed 
to be completed within two years, is now scheduled for 
completion in mid-2006. Although the study is significantly 
delayed, the Department has confirmed that the study will be 
completed with no additional funding. The Committee directs 
GIPSA to provide regular reports on the progress of the study 
and the collection of the transaction data. The Committee has 
concerns about maintaining the confidentiality of the 
transaction data being collected, future use of the data, and 
the potentially high costs of providing data; reports to the 
Committee should specifically address these issues.
    Product Verification Protocols Pilot.--The Committee 
understands that the Secretary has undertaken a product 
verification protocols pilot, in conjunction with the Missouri 
and Illinois Corn Growers Associations, to establish controls 
for regulated seed varieties and to augment grain marketing. 
The Committee provides $500,000 to continue this pilot program 
with the growers associations for development of production 
protocols.

        LIMITATION ON INSPECTION AND WEIGHING SERVICES EXPENSES




2005 limitation.......................................     ($42,463,000)
2006 budget limitation................................      (42,463,000)
Provided in the bill..................................      (42,463,000)
Comparison:
    2005 limitation...................................             - - -
    2006 budget limitation............................             - - -


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    The Committee includes a limitation on inspection and 
weighing services expenses of $42,463,000, the same as the 
amount available for fiscal year 2005 and the same as the 
budget request. The bill includes authority to exceed by 10 
percent the limitation on inspection and weighing services with 
notification to the Committees on Appropriations. This allows 
for flexibility if export activities require additional 
supervision and oversight or other uncontrollable factors 
occur.

             Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety





2005 appropriation....................................          $590,000
2006 budget estimate..................................           602,000
Provided in the bill..................................           590,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................             - - -
    2006 budget estimate..............................           -12,000



                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $590,000, the same as 
the amount provided for fiscal year 2005 and a decrease of 
$12,000 below the budget request.

                   Food Safety and Inspection Service





2005 appropriation....................................      $817,170,000
2006 budget estimate \1\..............................       710,717,000
Provided in the bill..................................       837,264,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................       +20,094,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................      +126,547,000

\1\ The budget estimate does not include proposed user fees in the
  amount of $139,000,000.


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Food Safety and Inspection Service, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $837,264,000, an increase of 
$20,094,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2005 and 
an increase of $126,547,000 above the budget request.
    The recommendation does not include $139,000,000 in meat 
inspection user fees, as proposed in the President's budget. 
The Administration has not yet submitted a legislative proposal 
to Congress for these fees, which are not currently authorized 
in law. The Committee does not recommend establishing such fees 
in annual appropriations acts, but will consider such fees 
should they achieve authorization.
    The Committee provides the full amounts requested to cover 
pay costs, an increase of $13,858,000, and to support frontline 
inspection, an increase of $2,236,000. The Committee provides 
an increase of $6,745,000 for food defense activities, 
including $417,000 for biosurveillance, $2,820,000 for the Food 
Emergency Response Network (FERN), $2,500,000 for laboratory 
capacity and equipment, and $1,008,000 for related training. 
Within the base resources provided is $5,000,000 for 
enforcement of The Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. The 
Committee recommendation includes a cut of $3,000,000 in 
information technology savings as requested in the budget
    The Committee provides $2,000,000, the same as fiscal year 
2005, for outsourcing of microbiological testing, which 
supports the goal of establishing a continuous baseline for 
risk assessment. The Committee expects the Department to 
outsource the testing to private American Association for 
Laboratory Accreditation International Standards Organization-
approved laboratories. The Committee directs FSIS to report on 
the status of this project within 60 days of enactment.
    The Committee recommendation includes the requested 
increase for an initiative to support frontline inspection. 
FSIS has stated that with the funding, it will hire 22 Consumer 
Safety Officers to support Veterinary Public Health Officers. 
FSIS will then be able to better use the expertise of the 
veterinarians, who will complete at least three public health 
assessments in addition to other activities. The Committee 
requests periodic updates on the performance of this 
initiative, including: the location and number of the new 
hires; the number of assessments completed in fiscal year 2006, 
versus the number in prior years; and the public health outcome 
from the increased staffing.
    The Committee provides $3,002,000, for Codex Alimentarius 
activities, which are critical for maintaining food safety 
worldwide and facilitating international trade.
    Regulation development.--The Committee understands that FDA 
and FSIS are working on rules related to sausage casings and 
the small intestine of cattle. The Committee is concerned about 
the availability of this material, which has not been 
categorized a specified risk material. The Committee directs 
the agency to proceed on rulemaking in a timely manner, and to 
report to the Committee within 30 days of enactment on the 
regulatory status of sausage casings/small intestines, and on 
related guidance for the Field force.

                        FARM ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS


    Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural 
                                Services





2005 appropriation....................................          $626,000
2006 budget estimate..................................           635,000
Provided in the bill..................................           635,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................            +9,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................             - - -


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign 
Agricultural Services, the Committee provides an appropriation 
of $635,000, an increase of $9,000 above the amount available 
for fiscal year 2005 and the same amount as the budget request.

                          Farm Service Agency


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES


                                                                              Transfer from
                                                            Appropriation    program accts.     Total, FSA, S&E

2005 appropriation......................................      $999,536,000    ($295,322,000)    ($1,294,858,000)
2006 budget estimate....................................     1,050,875,000     (314,193,000)     (1,365,068,000)
Provided in the bill....................................     1,023,738,000     (302,183,000)     (1,325,921,000)
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation..................................       +24,202,000        +6,861,000         +31,063,000
    2006 budget estimate................................       -27,137,000       -12,010,000         -39,147,000


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For Salaries and Expenses of the Farm Service Agency (FSA), 
the Committee provides an appropriation of $1,023,738,000 and 
transfers from other accounts of $302,183,000, for a total 
program level of $1,325,921,000. This is an increase of 
$31,063,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2005 and 
a decrease of $39,147,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee recommendation includes an additional 
$21,719,000 for pay cost; an increase of $15,018,000 to 
maintain staffing levels being funded from carryover balances 
in fiscal year 2005; and, an additional $2,900,000 for the 
National Agricultural Imagery Program, of which $300,000 is for 
a pilot Automated Crop Cultivation Assessment Tool, and 
$1,000,000 is for the implementation of storage, security, and 
dissemination technologies for NAIP. The funding level includes 
a decrease of $15,435,000 for reduced operating expenses and 
reduced Federal/non-Federal staff years, as requested in the 
budget.
    The Committee is concerned about any Departmental plans to 
close FSA county offices at a time when the FSA office network 
is essential to helping farmers address critical economic and 
environmental issues. The Committee reiterates its strong view 
that no county office closure or consolidation should occur 
except in those locations for which closures and relocations 
are supported by rigorous analysis to ensure actions are cost 
effective, and that services available to the public will not 
be reduced.

                         STATE MEDIATION GRANTS




2005 appropriation....................................        $3,968,000
2006 budget estimate..................................         4,500,000
Provided in the bill..................................         4,250,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................          +282,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................          -250,000


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For State Mediation Grants, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $4,250,000, an increase of $282,000 above the 
amount available in fiscal year 2005 and a decrease of $250,000 
below the budget request.

                        DAIRY INDEMNITY PROGRAM




2005 appropriation....................................          $100,000
2006 budget estimate..................................           100,000
Provided in the bill..................................           100,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................             - - -
    2006 budget estimate..............................             - - -


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Dairy Indemnity Program, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $100,000, the same as the amount available for 
fiscal year 2005 and the same as the budget request.

           AGRICULTURAL CREDIT INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                         ESTIMATED LOAN LEVELS




2005 loan level.......................................    $3,717,840,000
2006 budget estimate..................................     3,803,253,000
Provided in the bill..................................     3,818,276,000
Comparison:
    2005 loan level...................................      +100,436,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................       +15,023,000


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    Approximate loan levels provided by the Committee for 
fiscal year 2006 for the Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund 
Programs are: $1,600,000,000 for farm ownership loans, of which 
$200,000,000 is for direct loans and $1,400,000,000 is for 
guaranteed loans; $2,116,256,000 for farm operating loans, of 
which $650,000,000 is for direct loans, $266,256,000 is for 
guaranteed subsidized loans, and $1,200,000,000 is for 
guaranteed unsubsidized loans; $2,020,000 for Indian tribe land 
acquisition loans; and $100,000,000 for boll weevil eradication 
loans.

                AGRICULTURE CREDIT PROGRAMS--LOAN LEVELS

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      FY 2006        Committee
                                                                  FY 2005  level     estimate       provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farm loan programs:
  Farm ownership:
    Direct......................................................        $208,320         200,000        $200,000
    Guaranteed..................................................       1,388,800       1,400,000       1,400,000
  Farm operating:
    Direct......................................................         644,800         650,000         650,000
    Unsubsidized guaranteed.....................................       1,091,200       1,200,000       1,200,000
    Subsidized guaranteed.......................................         282,720         266,253         266,256
Indian tribe land acquisition...................................           2,000           2,000           2,020
Natural disasters emergency.....................................               0          25,000               0
Boll Weevil Eradication.........................................         100,000          60,000         100,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, farm loans.........................................      $3,717,840      $3,803,253      $3,818,276
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

                                            [In thousands of dollars]

                                                                 Direct loan    Guaranteed loan   Administrative
                                                                   subsidy          subsidy          expenses

2005 appropriation...........................................          $76,310          $80,238           $7,936
2006 budget estimate.........................................           77,730           76,362            8,000
Provided in the bill.........................................           74,996           76,362            8,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation.......................................           -1,314           -3,876              +64
    2006 budget estimate.....................................           -2,734  ...............  ...............



    The following table reflects the costs of loan programs 
under credit reform:

                                     AGRICULTURE CREDIT PROGRAMS--Subsidies
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 FY 2005           FY 2006          Committee
                                                                estimate          estimate         provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:
  Farm ownership:
    Direct................................................           $11,145           $10,240           $10,240
    Guaranteed............................................             7,361             6,720             6,720
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal............................................            18,506            16,960            16,960
                                                           =====================================================
  Farm operating:
    Direct................................................            65,060            64,675            64,675
    Guaranteed unsubsidized...............................            35,246            36,360            36,360
    Guaranteed subsidized.................................            37,631            33,282            33,282
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal............................................           137,937           134,317           134,317
                                                           =====================================================
Indian tribe land acquisition.............................               105                80                81
Natural disasters emergency...............................                 0             2,735                 0
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Total, Loan subsidies.................................          $156,548          $154,092          $151,358
                                                           =====================================================
ACIF expenses:
  Salaries and expenses...................................           291,414           309,137           297,127
  Administrative expenses.................................             7,936             8,000             8,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Total, ACIF expenses..................................          $299,350          $317,137          $305,127
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Risk Management Agency





2005 appropriation....................................       $71,468,000
2006 budget estimate..................................        87,806,000
Provided in the bill..................................        77,806,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................        +6,338,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................       -10,000,000


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Risk Management Agency, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $77,806,000, an increase of $6,338,000 above 
the amount available for fiscal year 2005 and a decrease of 
$10,000,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee recommendation includes $3,600,000 to carry 
out data mining and data warehousing activities. The Risk 
Management Agency has indicated the effectiveness of these 
activities to eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse in the crop 
insurance program. The funding for this program was initiated 
in the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 from within 
funds available in the insurance fund of the Federal Crop 
Insurance Corporation. The crop insurance program is a multi-
billion dollar program, and that program should continue to 
bear the cost of this management tool. While the Committee 
provides the budget authority to extend this program through 
the end of fiscal year 2006, the Committee will not fund this 
program in the future.
    The amount provided includes an increase of $1,275,000 to 
fully fund the request for pay costs, and $1,463,000 of the 
amount requested for the blueprint to develop the Risk 
Management Agency's Emerging Information Technology 
Architecture.
    Risk Management Pilot.--The committee supports a lamb price 
insurance, risk management pilot for the U.S. sheep industry 
and understands that a lamb Livestock Risk Protection program 
would be benefical for producers. The Committee urges the Risk 
Management Agency to implement an LRP-Lamb pilot project of 
sufficient size and pilot length to properly test the viability 
of lamb price insurance for sheep producers of all size 
operations and geography.

                              Corporations


                FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION FUND




2005 appropriation.............................         1 $4,095,128,000
2006 budget estimate...........................          1 3,159,379,000
Provided in the bill...........................          1 3,159,379,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation.........................             -935,749,000
    2006 budget estimate.......................                    - - -


\1\ Current indefinite appropriation.

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of such sums as may be 
necessary (estimated to be $3,159,379,000 in the President's 
fiscal year 2006 Budget Request), a decrease of $935,749,000 
below the amount provided in fiscal year 2005 and the same as 
the budget request.

                   Commodity Credit Corporation Fund


                 REIMBURSEMENT FOR NET REALIZED LOSSES




2005 appropriation.............................        1 $16,452,377,000
2006 budget estimate...........................         1 25,690,000,000
Provided in the bill...........................       \1\ 25,690,000,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation.........................           +9,237,623,000
    2006 budget estimate.......................                    - - -


1 Current indefinite appropriation.

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For Reimbursement for Net Realized Losses to the Commodity 
Credit Corporation, the Committee provides such sums as may be 
necessary to reimburse for net realized losses sustained, but 
not previously reimbursed (estimated to be $25,690,000,000 in 
the President's fiscal year 2006 Budget Request), an increase 
of $9,237,623,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2005 
and the same as the budget request.

                       HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT




2004 limitation................................               $5,000,000
2006 budget estimate...........................                5,000,000
Provided in the bill...........................                5,000,000
Comparison:
    2004 limitation............................                    - - -
    2006 budget estimate.......................                    - - -


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For CCC Hazardous Waste Management, the Committee provides 
a limitation of $5,000,000, the same as the amount available 
for fiscal year 2005 and the same as the budget request.

                    TITLE II--CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

  Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment




2005 appropriation....................................          $735,000
2006 budget estimate..................................           744,000
Provided in the bill..................................           744,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................            +9,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................             - - -


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources 
and Environment, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$744,000, an increase of $9,000 above the amount available for 
fiscal year 2005 and the same amount as the budget request.

                 Natural Resources Conservation Service


                        CONSERVATION OPERATIONS




2005 appropriation....................................      $830,661,000
2006 budget estimate..................................       767,783,000
Provided in the bill..................................       793,640,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................       -37,021,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................       +25,857,000


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For Conservation Operations, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $793,640,000, a decrease of $37,021,000 below 
the amount available for fiscal year 2005 and an increase of 
$25,857,000 above the budget request. The Committee 
recommendation includes not more than $90,731,800 for National 
Headquarters salaries and expenses, as requested.
    The Committee provides $27,312,000 for the Grazing Lands 
Conservation Initiative, $10,457,000 for the Snow Survey and 
Water Supply Forecasting program, as requested, $10,547,000 for 
Plant Materials Centers, as requested, $88,149,000 for the Soil 
Surveys Program, as requested, and $657,175,000 for 
Conservation Technical Assistance. The recommendation for each 
program includes pay costs, as requested. The amount provided 
for the Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative includes an 
increase of $4,000,000 for enhanced prevention, management, and 
restoration activities for invasive species. For Conservation 
Operations, the Committee provides an increase of $14,280,000 
for the requested initiative to provide assistance to producers 
in meeting environmental regulations, including AFO/CAFO 
requirements. The Committee recommendation includes funding for 
one American Heritage River navigator position on the Hudson 
River.
    State funding allocations.--The Committee is concerned that 
funding allocations to the States are being reduced in 
proportion to Congressional earmarks funded in the Conservation 
Operations account. The Committee directs the Chief of the 
NRCS, in making the fiscal year 2006 Conservation Operations 
funding allocations to the States, to treat Congressional 
earmarks as additions to the States' funding allocation. The 
Committee directs the NRCS to provide a report to the Committee 
on Appropriations, not later than 45 days after the enactment 
of this Act, including the following: fiscal year 2005 
Conservation Operations allocation by State, fiscal year 2006 
Conservation Operations allocation by State, the fiscal year 
2006 Congressional earmarks by State, and the total 
conservation operations allocation by State. In addition, the 
Chief of the NRCS is directed to inform the Committee 
immediately about any changes to the formula or process by 
which the base state allocations are made.
    Animal Feeding Operations Pilot Projects.--The Committee 
provides $6,000,000 for the continued implementation of pilot 
projects for innovative technology systems resulting in a 75 
percent reduction in nutrients of wastewater discharged by 
animal feeding operations to be managed by Farm Pilot Project 
Coordination, Inc. The Secretary is directed to release these 
funds after submitting a report to the Committees on 
Appropriations that a satisfactory cooperative agreement 
between the NRCS and Farm Pilot Project Coordination, Inc. has 
been consummated.
    Conservation Technical Assistance Projects.--Funding for 
fiscal year 2005 projects is not continued in fiscal year 2006 
unless specifically mentioned in this report. The following 
funds are directed to be used in cooperative agreements, 
continued with the same cooperator entities as in the fiscal 
year 2005 agreements, except as noted: National Water 
Management Center (AR)--$2,750,000; Study to determine 
logistics of transportation/coordination of excess nutrients 
(AR)--$225,000; East Valley Conservation District/Santa Ana 
Watershed Authority (CA) non-native plant removal--$1,000,000; 
Monterey Bay Sanctuary--$600,000; Cooperative Agreement with 
Tufts University to improve conservation practices (CT)--
$480,000; Manatee Agriculture Reuse System (FL)--$2,000,000; 
Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission Cooperative 
Agreement--$3,700,000; Community Nutrient Management Facilities 
(GA)--$350,000; Idaho One Plan--$200,000; Trees Forever Program 
(IL)--$100,000; cooperative agreement with Kane County, 
Illinois, for Smart Growth Floodplain Mapping Project (IL)--
$600,000; Illinois River Basin--$600,000 through EQIP; Hungry 
Canyon/Loess Hills Erosion Control/Western Iowa--$1,200,000; 
Trees Forever Program (IA)--$100,000; CEMSA w/Iowa Soybean 
Association--$431,500; Technical assistance to providing grants 
to Soil Conservation Districts in Kentucky--$1,000,000; 
cooperative agreement with Louisiana State University on 
effectiveness of agriculture and forestry (LA)--$400,000; False 
River sedimentation/Bayou Grosse (LA)--$200,000; Chesapeake Bay 
activities--$6,000,000; Weed It Now-Taconic Mountains (MA/NY/
CT)--$200,000; Choctaw County (MS) feasibility study for 
surface impoundment--$250,000; Upper White River Water Quality 
Project Office in southern Missouri--$430,500; State 
conservation cost share program (NJ)--$1,000,000; Pastureland 
Management/Rotational Grazing (NY)--$600,000; Best management 
practices/Skaneateles and Owasco Watersheds (NY)--$325,000; 
Address non-point pollution in Onondaga and Oneida Lake 
Watersheds (NY)--$500,000; Watershed Agriculture Council in 
Walton (NY)--$720,000, of which $80,000 is for monitoring the 
easements purchased by the Council's Whole Farm Easement 
Program; Technical assistance to livestock/poultry industry 
(NC)--$450,000; Maumee Watershed Hydrological Study and Flood 
Mitigation Plan (OH)--$1,000,000; cooperative agreement with 
South Licking Watershed Conservancy District (OH)--$250,000; 
Oregon Garden Silverton (OR)--$325,000; Study to characterize 
land use change while preserving natural resources in 
cooperation with Clemson University (SC)--$900,000; Bexar, 
Medina, Uvalde Counties irrigation in Edwards Aquifer (TX)--
$500,000; Field office telecommunications pilot program/
advanced soil survey methods (TX)--$2,400,000; Range vegetation 
pilot project, Ft. Hood (TX)--$500,000; a cooperative agreement 
with the Texas Water Resources Institute to implement a 
watershed protection plan for Tarrant County (TX)--$500,000; 
Walla Walla (WA) watershed alliance--$500,000; Design/implement 
natural stream restoration initiatives (WV)--$800,000; Soil 
survey geographic database in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands (WV)--
$200,000; Grazing Lands Initiative/Wisconsin Department of 
Agriculture--$950,000; Audubon at Home Pilot Program--$500,000; 
Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil and Erosion Sediment--
$2,500,000; Source water protection project to states showing 
greatest need--$3,350,000; New York State Agriculture and 
Environment Management Program--$800,000; Operation Oak Program 
to restore hardwoods--$400,000; Dairy and poultry waste 
treatment in Suwannee, Dixie, and Lafayette Counties (FL)--
$1,000,000; Long Island (NY) Sound watershed initiative--
$200,000; Pace University Land Use Law center (NY)--$200,000; 
Erosion Control and Stabilization for Hudson River shoreline at 
Village of Tarrytown (NY)--$250,000; cooperative agreement with 
the Green Institute (FL)--$400,000; Lake Okeechobee (FL) 
Watershed project planning--$310,000; cooperative agreement 
with Sand County Foundation (WI)--$900,000; Soil survey mapping 
project (WY)--$300,000; and National Fish and Wildlife 
Foundation Partnerships--$3,000,000.
    The Committee provides $2,400,000 to continue a field 
office telecommunication and field technology program and to 
implement advanced soil survey methods and GIS visualization 
tools in West Texas.
    The Committee directs that the funding included in this 
account for the Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission 
Cooperative Agreement be provided to the Commission through the 
state NRCS office in a timely manner and in total, not in part, 
so that vital water projects in Georgia are not delayed.
    Plant Materials Centers.--The Committee provides full 
funding for the Plant Materials Centers, as requested. Included 
in the total is funding for the Kika de la Garza Plant 
Materials Center at no less than the fiscal year 2005 level.
    Assistance to Producers.--The Committee is concerned that 
producers' applications for assistance under the Environmental 
Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and other programs be 
prioritized fairly and that there not be any producer group 
that is systematically disadvantaged by the process and ranking 
system. In particular, the Committee is concerned that hog 
producers in Virginia are considered under the EQIP program on 
an equal basis with other producer types, and that program 
applicants are not disadvantaged because of the number of 
practices in their applications. The Committee requests a 
report from NRCS by February 1, 2006, on the participation of 
hog producers in NRCS programs in Virginia versus other 
producer types, if that participation rate is considered low or 
adequate, and for any plans to raise the participation rate for 
that segment.
    Feasibility Study.--The Committee directs NRCS to provide a 
report on the feasibility, requirements, and scope for the 
relocation of the National Water Management Center to Lonoke, 
Arkansas. The report should detail building size, cost, 
associated facilities, scientific capacity, and other 
requirements for collaboration with the University of Arkansas 
at Pine Bluff. The report should also detail existing and 
planned program and resource requirements for this location, 
and should be submitted to the Committee by March 1, 2006.

                     WATERSHED SURVEYS AND PLANNING




2005 appropriation....................................        $7,026,000
2006 budget estimate..................................         5,141,000
Provided in the bill..................................         7,026,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................             - - -
    2006 budget estimate..............................        +1,885,000


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For Watershed Surveys and Planning, the Committee provides 
an appropriation of $7,026,000, the same as the amount 
available for fiscal year 2005 and an increase of $1,885,000 
above the budget request.

               WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION OPERATIONS




2005 appropriation....................................       $74,971,000
2006 budget estimate..................................             - - -
Provided in the bill..................................        60,000,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................       -14,971,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................       +60,000,000


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $60,000,000, a decrease 
of $14,971,000 below fiscal year 2005 and an increase of 
$60,000,000 above the budget request. Language is included 
which limits the amount spent on technical assistance to not 
more than $25,000,000.
    The Committee is aware of and expects progress to continue 
and/or to provide financial/technical assistance for the next 
phase for the following projects: Big Slough Watershed (AR); 
Little Red River (AR); Four pilot projects in North Florida 
related to dairy and poultry cleanup efforts (FL); Lower 
Hamakua Ditch Watershed (HI); Upcountry Maui Watershed (HI); 
Indian Creek Watershed (IL); Hickory Creek Special Drainage 
District (IL); Madison County Water Supply Project (IA); Lyon's 
Creek Watershed No. 41 (KS); Lower Elk River and Upper Walnut 
North Watersheds (KS); Pigeon Roost Creek project, Jackson 
County (KY); Swan Quarter Dike (NC); Papillon Creek Watershed 
S-30 Structure (NE); Neshaminy Creek Watershed Project, Bucks 
County (PA); Christina Basin, Brandywine and RedWhite Clay 
(PA); Lower Colorado River water conservation project (TX); 
Fannin County Caney Creek Watershed, Site 3A (TX); Attoyac 
Bayou site 23A, Nacogdoches County (TX); Martinez 6 flood 
detention dam (TX); Big Cypress Reservation Water Conservation 
project (FL) as part of Everglades restoration; and Buena Vista 
Watershed (VA).
    It is the understanding of the Committee that the project 
for Marrowbone Creek Dam, in Henry County, Virginia, will be 
completed in fiscal year 2005 and that no fiscal year 2006 
funds are required. The Committee requires immediate 
notification if the project will be delayed due to technical or 
funding issues.

                    WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROGRAM




2005 appropriation....................................       $27,280,000
2006 budget estimate..................................        15,125,000
Provided in the bill..................................        27,000,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................          -280,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................       +11,875,000


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Watershed Rehabilitation Program, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $27,000,000, a decrease of 
$280,000 below the amount available for fiscal year 2005 and an 
increase of $11,875,000 above the budget request.

                 RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT




2005 appropriation....................................       $51,228,000
2006 budget estimate..................................        25,600,000
Provided in the bill..................................        51,360,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................          +132,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................       +25,760,000


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For Resource Conservation and Development, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $51,360,000, an increase of 
$132,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2005 and an 
increase of $25,760,000 above the budget request.
    The Committee has restored this account, rather than 
accepting the proposal to defund the 189 Resource Conservation 
and Development (RC&D) Councils that have been in existence for 
twenty years or more. The Committee would except such a budget 
proposal to be based on the effectiveness and performance of 
the Councils rather than on Council age. The Committee requests 
that NRCS work with the Councils to develop appropriate 
measures of effectiveness for both conservation and economic 
development.
    The Committee expects the NRCS to promptly fill RC&D 
coordinator vacancies. The Committee expects support provided 
under this act to be allocated equitably among the 375 existing 
councils and that priority be given to providing every council 
a full-time coordinator.
    The Committee has included bill language related to a 
cooperative agreement with a national association.
    The Committee has included bill language limiting the 
amount that can be spent at national headquarters from this 
account.

                 TITLE III--RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

          Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development




2005 appropriation....................................          $627,000
2006 budget estimate..................................           635,000
Provided in the bill..................................           627,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................             - - -
    2006 budget estimate..............................            -8,000


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Rural 
Development, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$627,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal year 2005 
and a decrease of $8,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee directs the Under Secretary to give 
consideration to the following projects or organizations 
requesting financial and/or technical assistance, and grants 
and/or loans made available under the Rural Development mission 
area: Biomass Power Generation Project, Haskell County (KS); 
Biomass Power Generation Project, Deaf Smith County (TX); 
Rainsville Agricenter (AL); Construction of a new library, 
Cordova (AL); Sewer infrastructure improvements, Eva (AL); 
Sewer infrastructure improvements, Oneonta (AL); Water system 
improvements, Kennedy (AL); Agricultural Center for West 
Ouachita H.S. (LA); Town Hall, Village of Collinston (LA); 
Union-Lincoln Regional Water Supply Initiative (LA); Rural 
Economic Development Center (ME); Rural Heritage Site, 
Ridgefield (WA); Carriage Museum, Raymond (WA); Louisiana State 
University, Sustainable Economic Development Institute (LA); 
eCenter for Rural Health and Research Services (LA); Ascension 
Parish Agriculture Community Center (LA); Minority 
Manufacturers and Supply Chain Diversity (SC); Food Industry, 
Agribusiness Development Program (SC); Agriculture 
Demonstration and Outreach Center (AR); Family Farmer and Rural 
Development Training (GA); Plains Rural Agricultural Museum 
(GA); Enhancing Rural Economies through Wireless Technology, 
University of Georgia (GA); Mobile Infirmary, Telemedicine Plan 
(AL); Ozone Water Project, Johnson County (AR); Dickenson 
County Kitchen Incubator (VA); Russell County Incubator (VA); 
Alleghany County Incubator (VA); Critical Rural Services 
Initiative, Alachua County (FL); NGWA, Well Inspector Training 
Program (IN); Riley Hospital for Children, Riley Connections 
(IN); Downtown renovation of the City of Henderson (NC); Water 
and wastewater system upgrades for Luray (VA); Water and 
wastewater system upgrades for Madison (VA); Water and 
wastewater system upgrades, Shenandoah (VA); Water and 
wastewater system upgrades, Stanley (VA); Community and 
Economic Assistance for Rappahannock County (VA); Braxton 
County Senior Center (WV); Handley Volunteer Fire Department 
(WV); Kauai Bagasse to Ethanol Project (HI); Maui Cattle 
Industry Development (HI); Maui Community College SkyBridge 
(HI); Hawaiian Anti-Oxidant Extract from Fruit Wastes (HI); 
Anderson County Community Recreational Complex (KY); University 
of the Virgin Islands Research and Technology Park (VI); Sewer 
System Repair (VI); Town of Coward (SC), Elevated Water Well 
Project; City of Orangeburg (SC), SCSU Water Tower; Town of 
Turbeville (SC), water and Wastewater Treatment System; Town of 
Andrews (SC), Water Project; City of Orangeburg Railroad Corner 
Project (SC); Backhoe for Healdton (OK); Construct Technology 
Transfer Center, Ardmore (OK); Construct Community Center 
Building, Lone Grove (OK); Construction of a Water Tower, Elgin 
(OK); Farm Research Center Outreach Program (IL); Rainsville 
AgriCenter (AL); Madison County Agricultural Facility (FL); 
Upgrade Water System, Raceland (KY); Upgrade Water System, 
Cynthiana (KY); Farmers' Market, Bath County (KY); City of 
Coburg Wastewater System (OR); Freer WCID Water Improvement 
Project (TX); Duval County C&R District Water Improvements 
(TX); Jim Hogg County WCID Water Improvement Program (TX); 
Butte County (CA) Interoperable Radio/Data System; Rural 
Manufacturing Initiative (PA); Storm Drainage Improvements, 
Northampton Co. (VA); Community and Economic Development in 
East Tennessee (TN); St. John's/New Madrid Floodway project in 
Southeast Missouri (MO); Rural Telecardiology, Erie (PA); 
Calexico Telemedicine Center (CA); Imperial Valley Sugarcane, 
Renewable Energy, Ethanol (CA); Environmental Technology 
Business Park (CA); Desert Farming Institute (CA); Neighborhood 
House of Calexico Youth Center (CA); Villalba's Water 
Improvement Project (PR); Wilkesboro/Kerr Scott Reservoir 
Intake Project (NC); Historic and Rural Development Initiative 
(NJ); Chesapeake Fields, Kent County (MD); Maryland Agriculture 
and Rural Development (MD); Mid-Atlantic Broadband Cooperative 
(VA); Algoma Marina Dredging Project (WI); Federal Forest 
Landfill Closure, Town of Blackwell (WI); Federal Forest 
Landfill Closure, Town of Laona (WI); Avondale Waste Water 
Treatment Facility Expansion (AZ); Energy Surety Development 
for Nogales (AZ); Hardee County, (FL) Fire Houses; North Port, 
(FL) Master Plan for Stormwater Quality; Desoto County, City of 
Arcadia, (FL) Wastewater Project; Hardee County, (FL) Potable 
Water System; Midland Keyston Opportunity zone sewage 
infrastructure (PA); Bloomington Township Fire Department to 
construct a burn building in McLean County (IL); (SD) Value 
Added Center, Beef Processing Facility; Ohio State University's 
4-H Center (OH); (PA) Rural Manufacturing Initiative; Center 
for Dairy Excellence (PA); East Valley Water District (OR); 
Independence Telecommunications Enhancements (OR); City of 
Turner Reservoir Project (OR); Opal Creek Wilderness Area (OR); 
Vincennes University Agriculture Center Applied Technology 
(IN); (MD) Agricultural and Rural Development Initiative; Plant 
Bio-security in Urban environments (LA); Renovations to St. 
Helena Parish Courthouse (LA); community facilities in Dunmore 
Borough (PA); community development in Nanticoke City (PA); 
Town of Windermere (FL), Sewer Infrastructure; UW, River Falls 
Rural Urban Stewardship Initiative (WI); Statewide Rural Water 
Map (IL); Rural Partners, develop an Internet Web Portal (IL); 
Skagit County's Fiber Optics Expansion (WA); Chariton Valley 
Biomass Project (IA); Redlands Community College (OK); City of 
Perkins Water Distribution System (OK); City of Perkins Storm 
Water System (OK); Virtual Learning Community, Classroom 
Project (CA); San Juan County Fire, EMS, and Rescue Building 
(UT); URDC's Woody Biomass Project (UT); Springhill (LA), Water 
System Improvement; Village of Simpson (LA), Water System 
Improvement; NSU (LA), Bridging the Gap in Education; 
Plattsburgh drinking water filtration plant (NY); Adirondack 
Champlain Fiber Network (NY); Village of Ellisburg, water 
storage project; Southeastern (NC) Agricultural Center; Red 
Hills Coop, Mobile Poultry Processing Unit (GA); New Iberia 
Recreational Community Center Complex (LA); Lafourche Regional 
Agriculture Center (LA); Grand Isle Multiplex Center (LA); Old 
Hastings Civic Center Upgrade Project; Wastewater Plant 
Rehabilitation and Maintenance (FL); (ME) Rural Economic 
Development Center; Universal Public Information Access Project 
(ME); Western Maine (ME) Entrepreneur Fund; Vandalia Heritage 
Foundation (WV); Canaan Valley Institute (WV); Marymount 
Distance Learning, Mentoring for Nurses (VA); Diabetes 
detection, prevention (WA/PA); Joslin Diabetes Center (WA); 
Northampton (MA) Fairgrounds; Springfield (MA) Public Market; 
Relocation of Holmes County (OH) fairgrounds; Kosair Hospital 
Telemedicine Rural Outreach Program (KY); International Agr-
Center Education Facility (CA); Lindsay Wellness Center (CA); 
Tulare County Farm to Market Roads (CA); Breakwater Small 
Employer Healthcare Alliance (MN); Health Care Cooperative 
Purchasing Alliance (WI); Hospice Care of the Berkshires (MA); 
Avondale Waste Water Treatment Facility Expansion (AZ); 
Community Facility for Reserve (NM); Rural Community 
Development for Hurley (NM); Village of Columbus (NM); New 
Water Well, Town of Seminary (MS); Gas and Waterline 
extensions, Kemper County (MS); Water Plant Repair, City of 
Magnolia (MS); Agricultural Service Center, San Joaquin County 
(CA); Higginsport Sanitary Sewer Project (OH); St. Mary's 
Hospital, Huntington (WV); Little Colorado River Clean Up (AZ); 
White Mountain Apache North Fork Drinking Water (AZ); Holbrook 
Wastewater Sewer Interceptor (AZ); Canutillo Agricultural 
Science and Research Center (TX); Mill Creek of Arkansas (AR); 
NE Organic Fanning Association of Vermont (VT) Fanners' Market; 
Rural Manufacturing Initiative (PA); Bedford County Emergency 
Communications System (PA); City of Bald Knob (AR), Downtown 
Improvements; Petersburg Water Project in Mahoning County (OH); 
State Route 45 Waterline in Columbiana County (OH); Gallipolis 
(OH) Spruce St Waterline Improvement; Township of L'Anse Water 
and Sewer Project (MI); Spies Field, Menominee Recreational 
Facilities (MI); Northern Lakes Economic Alliance (MI); City of 
Munising Water and Sewer Improvement (MI); Intermediary 
Relending Program funds for Northern Initiatives, Marquette 
(MI); Adirondack Community Information Centers (NY); Buncombe 
County Emergency Operations Center (NC); Industrial 
Opportunities, Inc., Facility Expansion (NC); Graham County 
Emergency Services Facility (NC); Foothills Industries Blow 
Molding Operations (NC); Winters Library (CA); Laytonville 
Wastewater Treatment (CA); Water Storage Tank for Trinidad 
(CA); Aullwood Farm Rooted in the Future Initiative (OH); Port 
of Morrow Roof Rehabilitation (OR); EOU High School Outreach 
(OR); Eastern Oregon Center for Regional Economic Study (OR); 
Highland View Project in Oak Ridge (TN); Cumberland Gap (TN) 
Wastewater Improvement; Dandridge (TN) wastewater improvements; 
Bradley County (TN) Hiw'assee Utility Commission Water; Dayton 
(TN) Phase II wastewater treatment expansion; Sandoval Health 
Commons (NM); and Alpha Pump Station Photovoltaic Retrofit 
(CA).
    The Committee expects the Under Secretary to approve these 
projects only when such applications are judged to be 
meritorious when subject to established review procedures.
    It has come to the Committee's attention that the 
Hurricanes (Charley, Frances, Ivan, and Jeanne) in 2004 and 
tornadoes in 2005 have combined to cause significant damage and 
loss throughout the South, and in particular Southern Georgia. 
Families and businesses have been displaced and local rural 
communities are increasingly unable to address the housing and 
related losses of those affected. The Committee directs the 
Department to assess the cumulative effects of these storms, 
and give these communities priority consideration in the 
funding of housing reclamation projects, including Seminole 
County, Miller County, and Wayne County, Georgia ravaged by 
recent catastrophic weather events.

                  RURAL COMMUNITY ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM




2005 appropriation....................................      $710,321,000
2006 budget estimate..................................       521,689,000
Provided in the bill..................................       657,389,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................       -52,932,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................      +135,700,000


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Rural Community Advancement Program, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $657,389,000, a decrease of 
$52,932,000 below the amount available for fiscal year 2005 and 
an increase of $135,700,000 above the budget request.
    The following table provides the Committee's 
recommendations as compared to the budget request:

                   RURAL COMMUNITY ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM
               [Budget authority in thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     FY 2005      FY 2006     Committee
                                      level      estimated    provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Community facilities:
    Community facility direct          $12,150      $10,050      $10,050
     loans.......................
    Community facility guaranteed          189          756          756
     loans.......................
    Community facility grants....      $19,678       17,000       17,000
    Rural community development          6,299            0        6,200
     initiative..................
    Other........................       50,151            0        4,000
    Rescission...................          713            0            0
                                  --------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Community           89,180       27,806       38,006
           facilities............
                                  ======================================
Business:
    Business and industry loans:
        Guaranteed...............       29,939       44,221       44,221
    Rural business enterprise           39,680            0       40,000
     grants......................
    Rural business opportunity           2,976            0        3,000
     grants......................
    Other........................          992            0        1,000
    Rescission...................          593            0            0
                                  --------------------------------------
          Subtotal, business.....       74,180       44,221       88,221
                                  ======================================
Utilities:
    Water and waste disposal
     loans:
        Direct...................       89,280       69,100       69,100
    Water and waste disposal           431,078      377,062      457,062
     grants......................
    Solid waste management grants        3,472        3,500        3,500
    Emergency community water           22,949            0            0
     assistance grants...........
    Other........................        1,488            0        1,500
    Rescission...................        4,422            0            0
                                  --------------------------------------
          Subtotal, utilities....      552,689      449,662      531,162
    Rescission...................        5,728            0            0
                                  ======================================
          Total, loans and grants     $710,321     $521,689     $657,389
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following earmarks are included in bill language for 
the Rural Community Advancement Program: $1,000,000 is for 
grants to nonprofit organizations to finance construction, 
refurbishing, and servicing of individually-owned household 
water well systems in rural areas; $500,000 is for revolving 
funds for financing water and wastewater projects; $24,000,000 
for Federally Recognized Native American Tribes, of which 
$4,000,000 is for community facilities grants to tribal 
colleges, and of which $250,000 is for transportation technical 
assistance; $6,200,000 is for the Rural Community Development 
Initiative; $500,000 for rural transportation technical 
assistance; $1,000,000 is for grants to Mississippi Delta 
Region counties; $25,000,000 is for water and waste disposal 
systems in the Colonias; $17,500,000 is for technical 
assistance for rural water and waste systems; $14,000,000 is 
for a circuit rider program; and $21,367,000 for empowerment 
zones and enterprise communities (EZ/EC) and communities 
designated by the Secretary of Agriculture as Rural Economic 
Area Partnership Zones, of which $1,067,000 is for community 
facilities, of which $12,000,000 shall be for rural utilities 
programs, and of which $8,300,000 shall be for the rural 
business and cooperative development programs.
    Rural Community Assistance Programs.--The Committee directs 
that, of the funds provided for rural waste systems, $5,600,000 
is designated for the Rural Community Assistance Programs.
    The Committee expects the Department to coordinate with the 
Foundation for Affordable Drinking Water to carry out the 
provisions of section 7 U.S.C. 1926e of the Consolidated Farm 
and Rural Development Act.
    The Committee expects the Department to carry out the 
provisions of 7 U.S.C. 1926(a)(2)(B) to coordinate with groups 
who have expertise in operating revolving funds similar to that 
authorized under 7 U.S.C. 1926(a)(2), including Rural Community 
Assistance Programs.
    The Committee encourages the Rural Business-Cooperative 
Service to promulgate regulations to implement an annual 
guarantee fee for business and industry loans guaranteed under 
section 310B of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 
Act. This annual fee will allow this guarantee loan program to 
more effectively use its budget authority.
    The Committee is concerned that a final rule and 
implementation of the Household Water Well System Grant Program 
has not been completed. Funding for this program was made 
available in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 
(Public Law 108-199), and became effective on January 23, 2004. 
Additional funding for this program was made available in the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005 (Public Law 108-447). 
The Committee directs the Department to promptly publish a 
final rule and implement the Household Water Well System Grant 
Program. The Committee also directs the Department to provide a 
report to the Committee regarding the status and publication of 
a final rule by July 15, 2005.
    The committee encourages the Department to provide a rural 
business opportunity grant for the Tioga County Rural Economic 
Area Partnership Zone to coordinate and facilitate local 
community development projects in Tioga County, New York.
    The committee expects the Department to continue Rural 
Community Advancement Program predevelopment planning grants.
    The Committee encourages the Rural Utilities Service to 
continue a partnership with the Kentucky PRIDE program in 
providing technical expertise and program guidelines.

                RURAL DEVELOPMENT SALARIES AND EXPENSES

                                            [In thousands of dollars]

                                                                                                    Committee
                                                            FY 2005 estimate  FY 2006 estimate     provisions

Appropriations............................................          $147,264          $167,849          $152,623
Transfer from:
    Rural Housing Insurance Fund Loan Program Account.....           444,755           465,886           455,242
    Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans                37,971            39,933            38,907
     Program Account......................................
    Rural Telephone Bank Program Account..................             3,127             2,500             2,500
    Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account...........             4,281             6,656             4,719
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total, RD Salaries and Expenses.....................          $637,398          $682,824           653,991


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For Salaries and Expenses of the Rural Development mission 
areas, the Committee provides an appropriation of $152,623,000, 
an increase of $5,359,000 above the amount available for fiscal 
year 2005 and a decrease of $15,226,000 below the budget 
request.
    The Committee is concerned by the delay in receiving 
requested information on the consolidation of St. Louis Rural 
Development activities at the Goodfellow facility. The 
Committee directs the Department to provide a report on the 
total cost of the consolidation and what expenses the General 
Services Administration and Rural Development will be funding 
prior to July 15, 2005.
    The Committee includes $200,000 for the National 
Groundwater Association to fund a pilot program involving 
inspector training and certification relative to proper well 
construction, maintenance, sampling and ensuring the overall 
safety of private wells in rural areas.

                         Rural Housing Service


              RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                         ESTIMATED LOAN LEVELS




2005 loan levels......................................    $4,683,277,000
2006 budget estimate..................................     4,965,577,000
Provided in the bill..................................     5,079,349,000
Comparison:
    2005 loan level...................................      +396,072,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................      +113,772,000


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Rural Housing Insurance Fund program account, the 
Committee provides a loan level of $5,079,349,000, an increase 
of $396,072,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2005 
and an increase of $113,772,000 above the budget request.
    The following table reflects the loan levels for the Rural 
Housing Insurance Fund program account:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Committee
                                                           FY 2005 level     FY 2006 estimate      provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Loans and Grant:
    Single family housing (sec. 502):
        Direct.........................................         $1,140,800         $1,000,000         $1,140,799
        Unsubsidized guaranteed........................          3,282,823          3,681,033          3,681,033
    Rental housing (sec. 515)..........................             99,200             27,027            100,000
     Multi-family guaranteed (sec. 538)................             99,200            200,000            100,000
    Housing repair (sec. 504)..........................             34,720             35,969             35,969
    Credit sales of acquired property..................             11,489             11,500             11,500
    Housing site development (sec. 524)................              5,045              5,000              5,000
    Self-help housing land development fund............             10,000              5,048              5,048
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Loan authorization........................         $4,683,277         $4,965,577         $5,079,349
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Committee
                                                           FY 2005 level     FY 2006 estimate      provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account (loan
 subsidies):
    Single family housing (sec. 502):
        Direct.........................................           $132,105           $113,900           $129,937
        Unsubsidized guaranteed........................             33,339             40,900             40,900
    Rental housing (sec. 515)..........................             46,713             12,400             45,880
    Multi-family guaranteed (sec. 538).................              3,462             10,840              5,420
    Housing repair (sec. 504)..........................             10,090             10,521             10,521
    Credit sales of acquired property..................                721                681                681
    Housing site development (sec. 524)................  .................  .................  .................
    Self-help housing land development fund............  .................                 52                 52
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Loan subsidies............................           $226,430           $189,294           $233,391
                                                        ========================================================
RHIF expenses:
    Administrative expenses............................           $444,755           $465,886            455,242
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM




2005 appropriation....................................      $587,264,000
2006 budget estimate..................................       650,026,000
Provided in the bill..................................       650,026,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................       +62,762,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................             - - -


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Rental Assistance Program, the Committee provides a 
program level of $650,026,000, an increase of $62,762,000 above 
the amount available in fiscal year 2005 and the same amount as 
the budget request.

                     RURAL HOUSING VOUCHER PROGRAM




2005 appropriation.........................             - - -
2006 budget estimate.......................      $214,000,000
Provided in the bill.......................                 0
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation.....................             - - -
    2006 budget estimate...................      -214,000,000


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    The recommendation does not include $214,000,000 for the 
Rural Housing Voucher Program, as proposed in the President's 
budget. The Administration has not yet submitted a legislative 
proposal to Congress for this program. The Committee does not 
recommend establishing such program in annual appropriations 
acts, but will consider such program should they achieve 
authorization.

                  MUTUAL AND SELF-HELP HOUSING GRANTS




2005 appropriation....................................       $33,728,000
2006 budget estimate..................................        34,000,000
Provided in the bill..................................        34,000,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................          +272,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................             - - -



                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For Mutual and Self-Help Housing Grants, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $34,000,000, an increase of 
$272,000 above the amount available in fiscal year 2005 and the 
same amount as the budget request.

                    RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GRANTS




2005 appropriation....................................       $43,640,000
2006 budget estimate..................................        41,000,000
Provided in the bill..................................        41,000,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................        -2,640,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................             - - -


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Rural Housing Assistance Grants program, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $41,000,000, a decrease 
of $2,640,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2005 and 
the same amount as the budget request. The appropriated amount 
includes $1,000,000 for supervisory and technical assistance.

                       FARM LABOR PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Loan level       Subsidy level        Grants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005 appropriation........................................           $38,192            17,973            15,872
2006 budget estimate......................................            42,000            18,728            14,000
Provided in the bill......................................            42,000            18,728            14,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation....................................            +3,808              +755            -1,872
    2006 budget estimate..................................             - - -             - - -             - - -
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Farm Labor program account, the Committee provides 
a loan subsidy of $18,728,000, which supports a loan level of 
$42,000,000, an increase of $755,000 in loan subsidy and an 
increase of $3,808,000 in loan level above the amount available 
in fiscal year 2005, and the same amount in loan subsidy and 
loan level as the budget request.
    The Committee also provides $14,000,000 in grants, a 
decrease of $1,872,000 below the amount available in fiscal 
year 2005 and the same amount as the budget request.

                   Rural Business-Cooperative Service


              RURAL DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                          ESTIMATED LOAN LEVEL




2004 loan level.......................................       $33,939,000
2006 budget estimate..................................        34,212,000
Provided in the bill..................................        34,212,000
Comparison:
    2004 loan level...................................          +273,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................             - - -



                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Rural Development Loan Fund program account, the 
Committee provides for a loan level of $34,212,000, an increase 
of $273,000 above the amount provided for fiscal year 2005 and 
the same as the budget request.

       ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS


                                         Direct loan     Administrative
                                           subsidy          expenses

2005 appropriation..................       $15,741,000        $4,281,000
2006 budget estimate................        14,718,000         6,656,000
Provided in the bill................        14,718,000         4,719,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation..............        -1,023,000          +438,000
    2006 budget estimates...........             - - -        -1,937,000


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the estimated loan subsidy, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $14,718,000, a decrease of $1,023,000 below 
the amount provided in fiscal year 2005 and the same amount as 
the budget request.
    The Committee also provides $4,719,000 in administrative 
expenses, an increase of $438,000 above the amount available in 
fiscal year 2005 and a decrease of $1,937,000 below the budget 
request.

            RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                          ESTIMATED LOAN LEVEL




2004 loan level.......................................       $24,803,000
2006 budget estimate..................................        25,003,000
Provided in the bill..................................        25,003,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................          +200,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................             - - -


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Rural Economic Development Loans program account, 
the Committee provides for a loan level of $25,003,000, an 
increase of $200,000 above the amount provided for fiscal year 
2005, and the same as the budget request.

                         ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY


                                                   Direct loan subsidy

2005 appropriation.............................           \1\ $4,660,000
2006 budget estimate...........................            \1\ 4,993,000
Provided in the bill...........................            \1\ 4,993,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation.........................                 +333,000
    2006 budget estimate.......................                    - - -

\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.

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the estimated loan subsidy, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $4,993,000, an increase of $333,000 above the 
amount provided for fiscal year 2005 and the same as the budget 
request.

                  RURAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS




2005 appropriation....................................       $23,808,000
2006 budget estimate..................................        21,000,000
Provided in the bill..................................        24,000,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................          +192,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................        +3,000,000



                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For Rural Cooperative Development Grants, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $24,000,000, an increase of 
$192,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2005 and an 
increase of $3,000,000 above the budget request.
    Of the funds provided, not to exceed $2,500,000 is provided 
for a cooperative agreement for the Appropriate Technology 
Transfer for Rural Areas (ATTRA) program through a cooperative 
agreement with the National Center for Appropriate Technology, 
and $15,500,000 is for value-added market development grants.
    The Committee encourages the Department to continue the 
Agriculture Innovations Center Program in the Rural Business-
Cooperative Service. The program has provided assistance to 
farmers in value-added agriculture production and marketing.

       RURAL EMPOWERMENT ZONES AND ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES GRANTS




2005 appropriation....................................       $12,400,000
2006 budget estimate..................................                 0
Provided in the bill..................................        10,000,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................        -2,400,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................       +10,000,000


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For Rural Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities 
Grants, the Committee provides an appropriation of $10,000,000, 
a decrease of $2,400,000 below the amount available in fiscal 
year 2005 and an increase of $10,000,000 above the budget 
request.

                        RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAM




2005 appropriation....................................       $22,816,000
2006 budget estimate..................................        10,000,000
Provided in the bill..................................        23,000,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................          +184,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................       +13,000,000


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Renewable Energy Program, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $23,000,000, an increase of $184,000 above the 
amount available in fiscal year 2005 and an increase of 
$13,000,000 above the budget request.

                        Rural Utilities Service


   RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                          ESTIMATED LOAN LEVEL




2005 loan level.......................................    $4,835,440,000
2006 budget estimate..................................     3,190,000,000
Provided in the bill..................................     4,994,000,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................      +158,560,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................    +1,804,000,000


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    The following table reflects the loan levels for the Rural 
Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program account:

                                             [Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Committee
                                                             FY 2005 enacted  FY 2006 estimate     provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan authorizations:
    Electric:
        Direct, 5%........................................          $119,040          $100,000          $100,000
        Direct, Municipal rate............................            99,200           100,000           100,000
        Direct, FFB.......................................         2,000,000         1,620,000         2,000,000
        Direct, Treasury Rate.............................         1,000,000           700,000         1,000,000
        Guaranteed electric...............................            99,200             - - -           100,000
        Guaranteed underwriting...........................         1,000,000                 0         1,000,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
            Subtotal......................................         4,317,440         2,520,000         4,300,000
                                                           =====================================================
    Telecommunications:
        Direct, 5%........................................           145,000           145,000           145,000
        Direct, Treasury rate.............................           248,000           425,000           424,000
        Direct, FFB.......................................           125,000           100,000           125,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
            Subtotal......................................           518,000           670,000           694,000
                                                           =====================================================
            Total, Loan authorizations....................        $4,835,440        $3,190,000        $4,994,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

                                             [Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Committee
                                                             FY 2005 enacted  FY 2006 estimate     provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:
    Electric:
        Direct, 5%........................................            $3,619              $920              $920
        Direct, Municipal rate............................             1,339             5,050             5,050
        Direct, Treasury rate.............................                 0                70               100
        Guaranteed Electric...............................                60                 0                90
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
            Subtotal......................................             5,018             6,040             6,160
                                                           =====================================================
    Telecommunications:
        Direct, Treasury rate.............................                99               212               212
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
            Subtotal......................................                99               212               212
                                                           =====================================================
            Total, Loan subsidies.........................            $5,117            $6,252            $6,372
                                                           =====================================================
    E & T expenses:
        Administrative expenses...........................           $37,971           $39,933           $38,907
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee recommendation includes a general provision 
to limit RUS from drafting or implementing any regulation or 
rule insofar as it would require recertification of rural 
status for each electric and telecommunications borrower for 
the Rural Electrification and Telecommunication Loans program. 
The Committee is concerned by the Departments proposal to 
change the long-standing practice of the ``Once Rural, Always 
Rural'' principle.

                  RURAL TELEPHONE BANK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                          ESTIMATED LOAN LEVEL




2005 loan level.......................................      $175,000,000
2006 budget estimate..................................                 0
Provided in the bill..................................                 0
Comparison:
    2005 loan level...................................      -175,000,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................             - - -


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Rural Telephone Bank Program, the Committee does 
not provide for a loan level, which is a decrease of 
$175,000,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2005 and 
the same amount as the budget request.
    The Committee does not include the provision from the 
fiscal year 2005 bill which limits the retirement of the Class 
A stock of the Rural Telephone Bank.

       ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

                         [Dollars in thousands]


                                         Direct loan     Administrative
                                           subsidy          expenses

2005 appropriation..................  ................        $3,127,000
2006 budget estimate................  ................     \1\ 2,500,000
Provided in the bill................  ................     \2\ 2,500,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation..............  ................          -627,000
    2006 budget estimate............  ................             - - -

\1\ Offset by a transfer of unobligated balances from the RTB
  Liquidating account.
\2\ Offset by a rescission of unobligated balances from the RTB
  Liquidating account.

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    The Committee provides $2,500,000 in administrative 
expenses, a decrease of $627,000 below the amount available in 
fiscal year 2005 and the same as the budget request.

         DISTANCE LEARNING, TELEMEDICINE AND BROADBAND PROGRAM

                         [Dollars in thousands]


                                                                   Loan level      Subsidy level      Grants

2005 appropriation............................................      $595,600,000     $12,325,000     $43,648,000
2006 budget estimate..........................................       358,875,000       9,973,000      25,000,000
Provided in the bill..........................................       513,860,000      10,723,000      34,000,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation........................................       -81,740,000      -1,602,000      -9,648,000
    2006 budget estimates.....................................      +154,985,000        +750,000      +9,000,000



                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband 
Program, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$44,723,000, a decrease of $11,250,000 below the amount 
available for fiscal year 2005 and an increase of $9,750,000 
above the budget request, including $750,000 for Distance 
Learning and Telemedicine loan subsidy, which supports a loan 
level of $50,000,000; $25,000,000 for Distance Learning and 
Telemedicine Grants; $9,973,000 for Broadband 
Telecommunications loan subsidy, which supports a loan level of 
$463,860,000; and $9,000,000 for Broadband Grants.

                    TITLE IV--DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS

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




2005 appropriation....................................          $590,000
2006 budget estimate..................................           599,000
Provided in the bill..................................           599,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................            +9,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................             - - -


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition 
and Consumer Services, the Committee provides an appropriation 
of $599,000, an increase of $9,000 above the amount provided in 
fiscal year 2005 and the same amount as the budget request.
    Buy American.--The Committee is concerned that foreign 
agricultural products are being purchased at the local level 
for use in the National School Lunch Program. The Committee 
urges the Department to implement a Buy American procurement-
training program for state and local administrators.
    Pilot Study.--The Committee encourages the Food and 
Nutrition Service to conduct a pilot study, in all or part of 5 
States, as authorized by section 124 of the Child Nutrition and 
WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004.

                        CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS

                         [Dollars in thousands]


                                                               Direct         Transfer from      Total program
                                                           appropriation        section 32           level

2005 appropriation.....................................     $6,629,038,000     $5,152,962,000    $11,782,000,000
2006 budget estimate...................................      7,304,207,000      5,111,820,000     12,416,027,000
Provided in the bill...................................      7,224,406,000      5,187,621,000     12,412,027,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation.................................       +595,368,000        +34,659,000       +630,027,000
    2006 budget estimate...............................        -79,801,000        +75,801,000         -4,000,000


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Child Nutrition Programs, the Committee provides a 
total of $12,412,027,000, an increase of $630,027,000 above the 
amount available for fiscal year 2005 and a decrease of 
$4,000,000 below the budget request. Of the total amount 
provided, $7,224,406,000 is by direct appropriation and 
$5,187,621,000 is by transfer from Section 32.

Child Nutrition Programs:

                         [Dollars in thousands]



    School lunch program..............................        $7,194,237
    School breakfast program..........................         2,030,357
    Child and adult care food program.................         2,174,293
    Summer food service program.......................           298,364
    Special milk program..............................            14,819
    State administrative expenses.....................           156,061
    Commodity procurement.............................           518,206
    School meals initiative...........................            10,025
    Food safety education.............................             1,000
    Coordinated review effort.........................             5,235
    Computer support and processing...................             9,373
    Program pay cost..................................                57
                                                       -----------------
        Total.........................................        12,412,027


SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS, AND CHILDREN 
                                 (WIC)




2005 appropriation....................................    $5,235,032,000
2006 budget estimate..................................     5,510,000,000
Provided in the bill..................................     5,257,000,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................       +21,968,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................      -253,000,000


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, 
Infants, and Children (WIC) the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $5,257,000,000, an increase of $21,968,000 
above the amount available for fiscal year 2005 and a decrease 
of $253,000,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee recommendation for the Special Supplemental 
Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) is 
$5,257,000,000. The Committee notes that since the budget 
request was submitted last February, estimates for 
participation and food costs in the WIC program have declined 
for fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006. In fiscal year 2006, 
there are estimated to be 300,000 fewer participants a month 
and the average food cost per person per month has decreased by 
twenty-one cents. The Office of Management and Budget has 
notified the Committee that the budget request is higher than 
estimated program needs. Therefore, the recommended funding 
level, although below the budget request, is currently 
estimated to be sufficient to meet program needs. However, the 
Committee will continue to monitor WIC food costs and 
participation, and take additional action as necessary to 
ensure that the funding provided in fiscal year 2006 is 
sufficient to serve all eligible applicants.
    In addition, the Committee notes that $125,000,000 is 
available in the contingency fund in fiscal year 2006.
    The recommended funding level includes $15,000,000 for 
continuation of the breastfeeding peer counselor program.
    The Committee has concerns about the need for the 
Department's request of $3,000,000 for the evaluation and 
research of program cost containment strategies. In May 2003, 
the Economic Research Service published an Assessment of WIC 
Cost-Containment Practices. The Committee encourages FNS and 
ERS to explore potential research needs in support of vendor 
cost-containment policies. The Committee recommendation does 
not include funds for an evaluation of cost containment 
strategies.
    The Committee does not include the provision, as requested, 
that requires funding for nutrition services and administration 
grants to States be capped at 25 percent of the total amount 
provided.
    The Committee includes language, as requested by the 
Administration, that provides guidance that funds under this 
heading shall not be used for WIC benefits for individuals who 
receive medical assistance or whose family member is a pregnant 
woman or infant who receives assistance, unless it falls below 
250 percent of the applicable poverty guidelines.
    Electronic Benefit Transfer.--The Committee recommendation 
includes language to allow funds to be used for WIC electronic 
benefit transfer (EBT) systems and sets the authorized level of 
infrastructure funding at $13,600,000, which includes funding 
to develop EBT systems.
    WIC Services and Referrals.--While the Committee supports 
State and local agency efforts to utilize WIC as a means of 
participation referral to other health care services, it also 
recognizes the constraints that WIC programs experience 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 is not the 
Committee's intention that WIC should perform aggressive 
screening, referral and assessment functions in a manner that 
supplants the responsibilities of other programs, nor should 
WIC State and local agencies 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 1966, unless fully 
reimbursed by the appropriate Federal agency.
    Food Prescription Package.--The Committee directs the 
Department to move expeditiously in consultation with WIC 
agencies to develop for public comment a food prescription rule 
responding to the needs of the WIC population and to provide a 
report to the Committee regarding the status and publication of 
a final rule prior to February 1, 2006.

                           FOOD STAMP PROGRAM




2005 appropriation....................................   $35,154,554,000
2006 budget estimate..................................    40,711,395,000
Provided in the bill..................................    40,711,395,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................    +5,556,841,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................             - - -


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Food Stamp Program, the Committee provides 
$40,711,395,000, an increase of $5,556,841,000 above the amount 
available for fiscal year 2005 and the same amount as the 
budget request. The total amount includes $3,000,000,000 for a 
contingency reserve in fiscal year 2006; $1,535,796,000 for 
nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico and American Samoa; and 
$140,000,000 for The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP).

                      COMMODITY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM




2005 appropriation....................................      $177,367,000
2006 budget estimate..................................       177,935,000
Provided in the bill..................................       178,797,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................        +1,430,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................          +862,000




                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    The Committee provides an appropriation of $178,797,000 for 
the Commodity Assistance Program, an increase of $1,430,000 
above the amount available for fiscal year 2005 and an increase 
of $862,000 above the budget request.
    The recommended funding level for the Commodity 
Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) is $107,716,000, an increase 
of $862,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2005 and 
above the budget request. The Committee notes that 
approximately $6,020,000 in commodity inventory is expected to 
be available to the CSFP in fiscal year 2006, making the total 
available for the program approximately $113,736,000.
    The Committee has included $50,000,000 for administration 
of TEFAP, an increase of $400,000 above the amount available in 
fiscal year 2005 and the same as the budget request. These 
funds may be used for administration purposes or for food costs 
at the discretion of the States. In addition, the Committee 
recommendation includes a general provision that allows the 
Secretary to transfer up to $10,000,000 of TEFAP commodity 
funding to processing, storage, and distribution costs.
    For the Food Donations Programs the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $1,081,000 for Pacific Island Assistance, an 
increase of $9,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 
2005 and the same as the budget request.
    Farmers' Market Nutrition Program.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $20,000,000 for the Farmers' Market 
Nutrition Program, an increase of $160,000 above the amount 
available for fiscal year 2005 and the same as the budget 
request.
    Seniors Farmers' Market Program.--Public Law 107-171, 
Section 4402, directs mandatory funding for this program from 
funds available to the Commodity Credit Corporation. The 
funding level is $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.

                   nutrition programs administration





2005 appropriation....................................      $138,818,000
2006 budget estimate..................................       140,761,000
Provided in the bill..................................       140,761,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................        +1,943,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................             - - -


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For Nutrition Programs Administration, the Committee has 
provided $140,761,000, an increase of $1,943,000 above the 
amount available for fiscal year 2005 and the same amount as 
the budget request.
    The Committee directs the Department to promptly publish 
interim final regulations regarding WIC vendor cost 
containment, as described in the legislative history of the 
Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act. In the event the 
Department should fail to publish such regulations before the 
enactment of this Act, the Committee has provided an extension 
of the moratorium on authorization of new ``WIC-only'' stores 
until the issuance of vendor cost containment regulations. This 
moratorium is not intended to restrict the transfer or 
relocation of existing ``WIC-only'' stores or prevent 
authorization of stores that are not expected to increase 
program cost.

            TITLE V--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS

                      Foreign Agricultural Service

                                             [Dollars in thousands]

                                                                                 Transfer from
                                                                 Appropriation   loan accounts     Total, FAS

2005 appropriation............................................        $136,719        ($4,482)        ($141,201)
2006 budget estimate..........................................         148,792         (3,608)         (152,400)
Provided in the bill..........................................         148,224         (3,608)         (151,832)
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation........................................         +11,505            -874           +10,631
    2006 budget estimate......................................            -568           - - -              -568


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Foreign Agricultural Service, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $148,224,000 and transfers of 
$3,608,000, for a total salaries and expenses level of 
$151,832,000, an increase of $10,631,000 above the amount 
available for fiscal year 2005 and a decrease of $568,000 below 
the budget request.
    The Committee recommendation includes: $2,311,000 for pay 
cost; $1,200,000 for ICASS; $4,000,000 to offset the increased 
costs in overseas currency rates; $300,000 for FAS to promote 
American agricultural products in Baghdad; $951,000 for Title I 
administration; and $2,743,000 for the capital surcharge being 
levied on the Foreign Agricultural Service by the State 
Department.
    The Committee recommendation includes $600,000, the same as 
fiscal year 2005, for technical assistance for the promotion of 
specialty crop exports.
    The Committee has included language that allows for the use 
of not more than $5,000,000 of funds transferred to the Foreign 
Agricultural Service from the Commodity Credit Corporation for 
Information Resource Management requirements.
    The Trade Assistance Act for Farmers requires that 
technical assistance be provided to farmers negatively impacted 
by imports. This technical assistance is an education program 
that helps farmers develop marketing opportunities, increase 
production efficiency and seek alternatives to offset losses 
created by imports. The Committee directs that from the funds 
made available by the Trade Adjustment Act that $3,000,000 be 
available to the Digital Center for Risk Management Education 
to coordinate an intensive technical assistance program for 
farmers.

                             Public Law 480


                       PROGRAM AND GRANT ACCOUNTS

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 
envisioned the use of USDA commodity monetization programs to 
support rural electrification development in developing 
countries carried out with the help of the international 
assistance program of U.S. rural electric cooperatives. The 
Committee considers it an important and necessary step to 
integrate the successful U.S. rural electrification experience 
as a component of on-going USDA assistance to food-aid 
recipient countries in order to help them overcome chronic 
conditions of hunger and poverty and, over the long term, to 
reduce their dependency on feeding assistance programs from the 
U.S. and other donor nations.
    The following table reflects the loan levels, subsidy 
levels, and administrative costs for all Public Law 480 
programs:

                                             [Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Committee
                                                             FY 2005 enacted  FY 2006 estimate     provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Law 480 Program Account:
    Title I--Credit sales:
        Direct loans......................................        ($109,000)         ($74,032)         ($74,032)
        Loan subsidies....................................            93,444            65,040            65,040
        Ocean freight differential........................            22,541            11,940            11,940
    Title II--Commodities for disposition abroad:
        Program level.....................................       (1,173,041)         (885,000)       (1,107,094)
        Appropriation.....................................         1,173,041           885,000         1,107,094
    Salaries and expenses:
        FAS...............................................             1,088               168               168
        FSA...............................................             2,914             3,217             3,217
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
          Total, P.L. 480-S&E.............................             4,002             3,385             3,385

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Funds interchange.--The Committee has included bill 
language providing that funds made available for the cost of 
title I agreements and for title I ocean freight differential 
may be used interchangeably.

                    CCC EXPORT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                        ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES




2005 appropriation....................................        $4,388,000
2006 budget estimate..................................         5,279,000
Provided in the bill..................................         5,279,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................          +891,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................             - - -


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For administrative expenses of the Commodity Credit 
Corporation Export Loans Program Account, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $5,279,000, an increase of 
$891,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2005 and 
the same amount as the budget request.

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




2005 appropriation....................................       $86,800,000
2006 budget estimate..................................       100,000,000
Provided in the bill..................................       100,000,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................       +13,200,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................             - - -


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For McGovern-Dole Food for Education and Child Nutrition 
Program Grants, as authorized by Section 3107 of P.L. 107-171 
(7 U.S.C. 1736o-1), the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$100,000,000, an increase of $13,200,000 above the amount 
available for fiscal year 2005, and the same amount as the 
budget request.

      TITLE VI--RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                      Food and Drug Administration

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES


                                                                              Drug, device and
                                                             Appropriation    animal drug user   Total, FDA, S&E
                                                                                    fees

2005 appropriation......................................      $1,450,098,000      $326,686,000    $1,776,784,000
2006 budget estimate....................................       1,492,726,000       356,950,000     1,849,676,000
Provided in the bill....................................       1,480,978,000       356,950,000     1,837,928,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation..................................         +30,880,000       +30,264,000       +61,144,000
    2006 budget estimate................................         -11,748,000             - - -       -11,748,000


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    The Committee recommendation includes $1,837,928,000 for 
the salaries and expenses of the Food and Drug Administration. 
Of the total, $1,480,978,000 is provided in budget authority, 
and the Committee makes available $305,332,000 in prescription 
drug user fees, $40,300,000 in medical device user fees and 
$11,318,000 in animal drug user fees. The budget authority 
provided is $30,880,000 over the fiscal year 2005 level, and 
$11,748,000 under the budget request.
    Included in this funding level are increases of $5,000,000 
for the Office of Drug Safety and $5,996,000 for medical device 
review, as requested; and an increase of $12,442,000 for food 
safety and counter-terrorism activities. Within the total 
amount for the agency, not less than $486,511,000 in budget 
authority and $9,869,000 in user fees are made available for 
field activities conducted by the Office of Regulatory Affairs. 
The Committee assumes a cut of $6,670,000 from FDA's base 
resources, as proposed in the President's budget.
    The Committee directs that within the amount provided for 
food safety and counter-terrorism activities, priority should 
be given to maintaining existing personnel and operations that 
are critical to ensuring the safety of domestic and imported 
food, rather than funding new functions, grants, or agreements.
    Within the amount provided for Other Activities in the Act, 
$36,330,000 is for the Office of the Commissioner, $51,172,000 
is for the Office of Management, $11,014,000 is for the Office 
of External Relations, $11,720,000 is for the Office of Policy 
and Planning, and $6,823,000 is for central services for the 
Offices in this account. The Committee notes that funds for 
these Offices, as well as for the other activities, programs, 
or projects named in this Act, are subject to the requirements 
of Section 718 of this Act.
    Drug Safety.--The Committee provides all budget authority 
requested, $22,900,000 for the Office of Drug Safety, as well 
as full funding for the patient safety function within the 
agency, which totals nearly $70,000,000. In addition, 
$13,100,000 in user fees is made available for patient safety, 
of which $10,500,000 is for the Office of Drug Safety. The 
Committee is extremely concerned about this issue, and expects 
to receive, at a minimum, quarterly reports from the agency on 
the situation, including, but not limited to: the status and 
results of the Institute of Medicine study regarding drug 
safety issues and FDA effectiveness; planned changes within FDA 
related to drug safety, including review processes or 
reprogrammings; plans for external review; and new initiatives, 
including education efforts or labeling changes.
    The Committee provides an additional $5,000,000 for the 
Drugs Program, and directs FDA to use these funds for the 
highest priority drug safety needs. For these funds and those 
provided for the Office of Drug Safety, the Committee requires 
a detailed spending plan within 30 days of enactment.
    Generic Drugs.--The base funding includes not less than 
$56,228,000 in funding for the Generic Drugs Program. This is a 
vital program and the Committee is concerned that its potential 
as part of the solution to high quality and affordable health 
care is not realized.
    Bovine Spongiform Encephalophathy (BSE).--The Committee 
provides the total amount requested, $29,566,000 for BSE 
prevention activities, primarily to continue enforcement of the 
1997 feed ban.
    Antibiotic Resistance Monitoring.--The Committee believes 
that the National Antibiotic Resistance Monitoring System 
(NARMS) program is critical to public health surveillance and 
encourages FDA to provide funding to USDA (the animal arm) at a 
level equal to the total for FDA and Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention (the human arm). The Committee expects 
that the agencies will coordinate their activities and directs 
that an Executive Summary of 2004 NARMS data and a preliminary 
report on 2005 data be sent to the Committee by March 1, 2006. 
The summary should present findings of all three components in 
a format that is accessible to users of the data. The Committee 
directs that FDA perform a review of all components of the 
NARMS program to analyze whether the arms of the program remain 
scientifically sound and relevant to public health, the 
criteria utilized to evaluate the program, and what is needed 
to make the NARMS program complete.
    Pediatric Use of HIV Vaccines.--The Committee recognizes 
the importance of ensuring that promising HIV/AIDS vaccines are 
tested in infants and youth as early as is medically and 
ethically appropriate. The Committee requests that the 
Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, in 
consultation with appropriate public and private entities, 
consider the logistical, regulatory, medical and ethical issues 
presented by pediatric testing of these vaccines so that 
children can share in the benefit of any advances in vaccines 
research. The Committee urges FDA to issue guidance not later 
than six months after enactment of this Act on the minimum 
requirements for obtaining approval of the Food and Drug 
Administration to test an HIV vaccine in pediatric populations 
and the minimum requirements for obtaining Food and Drug 
Administration approval of a pediatric indication of an HIV 
vaccine.
    Abuse of Prescription Drugs.--The Committee is interested 
in the potential benefit from FDA's development of procedures 
for the processing and review of applications for approval for 
abuse-resistant formulations of schedule II painkillers and 
other prescription drugs currently on the market.
    The Committee notes that FDA priority review can be granted 
in cases in which the drug product ``would be a significant 
improvement compared to marketed products . . . in the 
treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of a disease'' including 
``elimination or substantial reduction of a treatment-limiting 
drug reaction''. The Committee requests FDA to report on 
whether a drug less prone to abuse would be considered under 
that provision, and if so, how many drugs were considered under 
the provision due to less potential for abuse, and granted 
priority status.
    Additionally, FDA should take all appropriate steps to 
ensure that health care providers and patients are given all 
relevant information concerning the abuse-resistant qualities 
of safer drugs. Providers and patients alike will benefit from 
the expedited review of safer drugs, as well as the provision 
of information that accurately differentiates abuse-resistant 
formulations.
    Women's health.--The Committee recommendation includes not 
less than $4,000,000 for the Office of Women's Health. The 
Committee continues to be committed to this function, and in 
particular activities related to cardiovascular disease in 
women and the hormone therapy education program.
    Orphan products.--The Committee directs that no less than 
$15,000,000 be available for grants and contracts awarded under 
section 5 of the Orphan Drug Act, the same amount as fiscal 
year 2005.
    Rent and related activities.--The Committee provides 
$21,974,000 in budget authority, an increase of $4,128,000, for 
relocation costs to the White Oak, Maryland, facility as 
requested.
    Financial management.--In the fiscal year 2005 
appropriations Act, Congress directed that the funding level 
for the Unified Financial Management System (UFMS) was at the 
same level as in fiscal year 2004. In response to the Questions 
for Record submitted to the Committee in April 2005, FDA 
reports that spending for the UFMS was $9,389,000 in fiscal 
year 2004 and is expected to be $13,582,000 in fiscal year 
2005, a 45 percent increase. The Committee has not received the 
required notification of this increase. For fiscal year 2006, 
the Committee directs that no more than $9,389,000 is available 
for UFMS, and requires a quarterly report on the expenditures. 
The Committee reiterates that any additional costs for this 
purpose, either direct or by transfer, are subject to approval 
by the Committee.
    Human resources.--The Committee requests a report within 60 
days of enactment regarding the DHHS human resource 
consolidation including: total FDA obligations; an update on 
the performance metrics specified in the service level 
agreement between FDA and DHHS; a description of any cases in 
which the performance measures were not met during fiscal year 
2005, and the resolution of those cases; and a list of the DHHS 
operating divisions that are participating in the 
consolidation.
    Consolidation.--The Committee directs DHHS to include all 
future consolidations that impact FDA in the President's budget 
request submitted to Congress.
    Fees.--The Committee directs that none of the funds made 
available to FDA in this bill be for any assessments, fees, or 
charges by DHHS or any other Department or Office unless such 
assessments, fees, or charges are identified in the FDA budget 
justification and expressly provided by Congress, or approved 
by Congress in the official reprogramming process as required 
in the General Provisions of this bill.
    Shellfish safety.--The Committee expects that FDA will 
continue its work with the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation 
Commission (ISSC) to promote educational and research 
activities related to shellfish safety in general, and Vibrio 
vulnificus in particular. The Committee directs the use of not 
less than $250,000 for this effort. In addition, the Committee 
expects that FDA will continue its work with ISSC through a 
memorandum of understanding, and that FDA will devote not less 
than $200,000 to that work. The Committee expects the FDA to 
require all states to work cooperatively in conformity with the 
National Shellfish Sanitation Program implemented by the ISSC.
    Food safety.--The Committee recognizes the contributions 
which the National Center for Food Safety and Technology 
(NCFST) is making toward ensuring the security of the nation's 
food supply. The Committee directs that FDA continue to provide 
$3,000,000 to NCFST through the cooperative agreement. The 
$3,000,000 in funding shall be exclusive of any additional 
initiative funds that FDA may award to NCFST.
    Test method evaluation.--The Committee directs that the 
agency continue its contract to conduct method evaluation of 
rapid test methods of fresh fruits and vegetables for 
microbiological pathogens with New Mexico State University's 
Physical Science Laboratory at the fiscal year 2005 level.
    WERC.--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 the fiscal year 2005 level.
    Antibiotics in shrimp imports.--The Committee continues to 
have serious concerns regarding seafood safety issues posed by 
banned antibiotic contamination in farm-raised shrimp imports. 
It is the Committee's understanding that FDA is now using 
testing methods that detect chloramphenicol at 0.3 parts per 
billion, rather than 1 part per billion. The Committee 
recommends that the FDA, in cooperation with any state testing 
programs, continue testing of farm-raised shrimp imports for 
chloramphenicol and other related harmful antibiotics used in 
the aquaculture industry and ensure that any adulterated shrimp 
that tests positive for chloramphenicol or other banned 
antibiotics will be destroyed or exported from the United 
States. The Committee requests a report by March 1, 2006, on 
the number of shrimp samples tested for antibiotics, and the 
number of positive tests for chloramphenicol in fiscal years 
2004, 2005 and to date in 2006.
    Food Labels.--The Committee is interested in ensuring that 
the public can be certain that the Nutrition Facts panel on 
food products reflects accurate, lawful and factual nutritional 
information, particularly as it relates to the New Dietary 
Guidelines for Americans 2005. Given the important nature of 
the information provided on the food label, the Committee is 
concerned that consumers may be faced with illegal low calorie 
claims, healthy claims and heart health claims. Additionally, 
there may be product names that violate the standards of 
identity for particular products. Consumers need to know that 
they can trust the accuracy of food labels. The Committee, 
therefore, directs the Agency to systematically examine 
Nutrition Facts labels, and report to the Committee by February 
1, 2006, with a summary of the types of labeling violations 
discovered, and the actions taken to address such violations.
    Regulation development.--The Committee understands that FDA 
and FSIS are working on rules related to sausage casings and 
the small intestine of cattle. The Committee is concerned about 
the availability of this material, which has not been 
categorized as a specified risk material. The Committee directs 
the agency to proceed on rulemaking in a timely manner, and to 
report to the Committee within 30 days of enactment on the 
regulatory status of sausage casings/small intestines and on 
related guidance for the Field force.
    Hearing on budget request.--The Committee has taken the 
step of withholding five percent of the funds provided to the 
central offices at FDA until there is a public hearing with the 
head of the agency on the fiscal year 2006 budget request. The 
Committee appreciates the willingness of the agency's head to 
present the budget request in March 2005, and regrets that the 
administration insisted on postponing his scheduled appearance. 
The Committee wants to make it clear to the administration that 
it will insist on a hearing with the agency's head before 
providing it the funds requested in the budget.
    Direct to consumer advertising.--The Committee provides an 
increase of $884,000 for the review of direct-to-consumer drug 
ads. Because staff levels for these activities, under the 
Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising and Communication in 
the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research in FDA, have 
remained flat for some time, despite the growth of direct to 
consumer ads, the Committee believes this increase is needed.

                        BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES




2005 appropriation....................................             - - -
2006 budget estimate..................................        $7,000,000
Provided in the bill..................................         5,000,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................        +5,000,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................        -2,000,000


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For Buildings and Facilities of the Food and Drug 
Administration, the Committee provides $5,000,000.

                          Independent Agencies


                  Commodity Futures Trading Commission





2005 appropriation....................................       $93,572,000
2006 budget estimate..................................        99,386,000
Provided in the bill..................................        98,386,000
Comparison:
    2005 appropriation................................        +4,814,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................        -1,000,000


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $98,386,000, an increase of 
$4,814,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2005 and 
a decrease of $1,000,000 below the budget request.

                       Farm Credit Administration


                 LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES




2004 limitation.......................................     ($42,350,000)
2006 budget estimate..................................             - - -
Provided in the bill..................................      (44,250,000)
Comparison:
    2004 limitation...................................        +1,900,000
    2006 budget estimate..............................       +44,250,000


                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For a limitation on the expenses of the Farm Credit 
Administration, the Committee provides $44,250,000, an increase 
of $1,900,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2005 
and an increase of $44,250,000 above the budget request.

                     TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

    The General Provisions contained in the accompanying bill 
for fiscal year 2005 are fundamentally the same as those 
included in last year's appropriations bill.
    Section 719: Language is included to prohibit funds from 
being used to carry out the Initiative for Future Agriculture 
and Food Systems.
    Section 722: Language is included that provides $2,500,000 
for a hunger fellowship program.
    Section 723: Language is included that provides that any 
balances available to carry out Title III of the Agricultural 
Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, and any 
recoveries and reimbursements that become available, may be 
used to carry out Title II of such Act. Funds were last 
appropriated for Title III programming in FY 2000. However, 
there are Title III balances remaining of less than $500,000. 
This provision allows remaining Title III account balances to 
be used for Title II programming since no new Title III 
programming is anticipated. This provision will allow the use 
of remaining Title III balances for Title II even though 
Section 412 of P.L. 480 provides that only 50 percent of the 
funds available for Title III may be used to carry out Title 
II.
    Section 724: Language is included that amends Section 
375(e)(6)(B) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act 
regarding the National Sheep Industry Improvement Center 
revolving fund.
    Section 725: Language is included that allows the use of 
section 416(b) commodities to be used in mitigating the effects 
of HIV/AIDS.
    Section 726: Language is included that provides that the 
Natural Resources Conservation Service shall provide assistance 
to certain locations under the Watershed and Flood Prevention 
Operations program.
    Section 727: Language is included that provides that no 
funds may be transferred to any department, agency, or 
instrumentality of the United States Government, except 
pursuant to a transfer made by, or transfer authority provided 
in, this Act or any other appropriation Act.
    Section 728: Language is included that allows funds to be 
used to carry out a competitive grants program.
    Section 729: Language is included that limits the dam 
rehabilitation program.
    Section 730: Language is included that limits the rural 
strategic investment program.
    Section 731: Language is included that allows for 
unobligated funds to reimburse the Office of the General 
Counsel for certain expenses.
    Section 732: Language is included that limits the rural 
firefighters and emergency personnel grant program.
    Section 733: Language is included regarding costs 
associated with the distribution of commodities.
    Section 734: Language is included that limits the wetlands 
reserve program.
    Section 735: Language is included that limits the 
environmental quality incentives program.
    Section 736: Language is included that limits the renewable 
energy program.
    Section 737: Language is included that limits the broadband 
program.
    Section 738: Language is included that allows for 
reimbursement of the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust.
    Section 739: Language is included that limits the value-
added market development grant program.
    Section 740: Language is included that ensures that 
sufficient funds are available to pay the subsidy costs for 
note guarantees for certain rural electric programs.
    Section 741: Language is included that limits the 
conservation security program.
    Section 742: Language is included that limits the Wildlife 
Habitat Incentive Program.
    Section 743: Language is included that limits the Farm and 
Ranch Lands Protection Program.
    Section 744: Language is included that limits the Rural 
Business Investment Program.
    Section 745: Language is included that provides that none 
of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this 
Act shall be used to violate P.L. 105-264.
    Section 746: Language is included that limits the Ground 
and Surface Water Conservation Program.
    Section 747: Language is included related to final 
rulemaking on cost-sharing for APHIS animal and plant health 
emergency programs.
    Section 748: Language is included related to competitive 
sourcing related to rural development and farm loan programs.
    Section 749: Language is included related to the leasing of 
aircraft to carry out certain APHIS activities.
    Section 750: Language is included that limits the Bioenergy 
Program.
    Section 751: Language is included allowing the use of funds 
for certain purposes.
    Section 752: Language is included regarding the 
availability of funds for certain conservation programs.
    Section 753: Language is included regarding WIC-only 
vendors.
    Section 754: Language is included regarding a grant.
    Section 755: Language is included that limits the 
Agricultural Management Assistance Program.
    Section 756: Language is included that limits the Biomass 
Research and Development Program.
    Section 757: Language is included regarding the disposal of 
certain federal facilities in Phoenix, AZ.
    Section 758: Language is included regarding the 
recertification of rural status.
    Section 759: Language is included regarding country of 
origin labeling for meat or meat products.
    Section 760: Language is included regarding the rural 
designation of certain communities.
    Section 761: Language is included regarding citrus canker 
compensation.
    Section 762: Language is included extending eligibility for 
certain counties for the rural community advancement program.
    Section 763: Language is included regarding a rescission in 
the WIC contingency reserve.
    Section 764: The purpose of Section 508(e)(3) of the 
Federal Crop Insurance Act is to allow insurance providers to 
compete with premium discounts, while maintaining the financial 
soundness of approved insurance providers and the integrity of 
the Federal crop insurance program. Preliminary information 
from the initial experience with the program creates doubt 
about maintaining the integrity of the Federal crop insurance 
program. This Amendment would provide time for an independent 
analysis of the program and the regulatory resources required 
by USDA to satisfy the statutory requirements. It would give 
the authorizing committees time to evaluate the premium 
discounting program and make proper adjustments in the law 
before it is expanded. Existing 2005 policies would continue in 
force for the farmers who have purchased such policies and 
could be serviced by the company who sold such policies. Thus, 
no existing policyholder or existing approved insurance 
provider would be jeopardized for policies in place in the 2005 
crop insurance year.
    Section 765: Language is included regarding the prohibition 
of funds for certain FDA activities.
    Section 766: Language is included that relates to 
government sponsored news stories.
    Section 767: The Committee includes $7,000,000 for a 
specialty crops competitiveness program.

              HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS

    The following items are included in accordance with various 
requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

                        CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

    Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives states that:

          Each report of a committee on a bill or joint 
        resolution of a public character, shall include a 
        statement citing the specific powers granted to the 
        Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed 
        by the bill or joint resolution.

    The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to 
report this legislation from Clause 7 of Section 9 of Article I 
of the Constitution of the United States of America which 
states:

          No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in 
        consequence of Appropriations made by law * * *

    Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to 
this specific power granted by the Constitution.

                           Transfer of Funds

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following statement is submitted 
describing the transfer of funds provided in the accompanying 
bill.
    1. Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental 
Payments.--The bill allows funds to be transferred to cover the 
costs of new or replacement space.
    2. Hazardous Materials Management.--The bill allows the 
funds appropriated to the Department for hazardous materials 
management to be transferred to agencies of the Department as 
required.
    3. Departmental Administration.--The bill requires 
reimbursement for expenses related to certain hearings.
    4. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional 
Relations.--The bill allows a portion of the funds appropriated 
to the Office of the Assistant Secretary to be transferred to 
agencies.
    5. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.--Authority 
is included to enable the Secretary of Agriculture to transfer 
from other appropriations or funds of the Department such sums 
as may be necessary to combat emergency outbreaks of certain 
diseases of animals, plants, and poultry.
    6. Agricultural Marketing Service.--The bill limits the 
transfer of section 32 funds to purposes specified in the bill.
    7. Farm Service Agency.--The bill provides that funds 
provided to other accounts in the agency may be merged with the 
salaries and expenses account of the Farm Service Agency.
    8. Dairy Indemnity Program.--The bill authorizes the 
transfer of funds to the Commodity Credit Corporation, by 
reference.
    9. Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund.--The bill provides 
that funds from the account shall be transferred to the Farm 
Service Agency salaries and expenses account, and that funds 
may be transferred among lending programs.
    10. Rural Community Advancement Program.--The bill provides 
that prior year balances for high cost energy grants shall be 
transferred to and merged with the High Energy Costs Grants 
Account.
    11. Rural Development Salaries and Expenses.--The bill 
provides that prior year balances from certain accounts shall 
be transferred to and merged with this account.
    12. Rural Housing Insurance Fund program account; Rural 
Development Loan Fund program account; Rural Electrification 
and Telecommunications Loans program account; and Rural 
Telephone Bank program account.--The bill provides that 
administrative funds shall be transferred to the Rural 
Development Salaries and Expenses Account.
    13. Child Nutrition Programs.--The bill includes authority 
to transfer section 32 funds to these programs.
    14. Foreign Agricultural Service.--The bill allows for the 
transfer of funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation Export 
Loan Program Account and from the Public Law 480 Program 
Account.
    15. Public Law 480 Title I Program Account.--The bill 
allows funds to be transferred to the Foreign Agricultural 
Service, Salaries and Expenses account.
    16. Public Law 480 Title I Ocean Freight Differential 
Grants.--The bill provides that funds made available for the 
cost of title I agreements and for title I ocean freight 
differential may be used interchangeably.
    17. Commodity Credit Corporation Export Loans Program.--The 
bill provides for transfer of funds to the Foreign Agricultural 
Service and to the Farm Service Agency for overhead expenses 
associated with credit reform.
    18. Food and Drug Administration, Salaries and Expenses.--
The bill allows funds to be transferred among activities.

               Changes in the Application of Existing Law

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(A) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the following statements are 
submitted describing the effect of provisions in the 
accompanying bill which directly or indirectly change the 
application of existing law. In most instances, these 
provisions have been included in prior appropriations bills, 
often at the request of or with the knowledge and consent of 
the responsible legislative committees.
    Language is included in various parts of the bill to 
continue ongoing activities of those Federal agencies which 
require annual authorization or additional legislation which to 
date has not been enacted.
    Language is included in the bill in several accounts that 
earmarks funds for empowerment zones and enterprise communities 
as authorized by title XIII of the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1995.
    The bill includes a number of provisions which place 
limitations on the use of funds in the bill or change existing 
limitations and which might, under some circumstances, be 
construed as changing the application of existing law:
    1. Office of the Secretary.--Language is included to limit 
the amount of funds for official reception and representation 
expenses, as determined by the Secretary.
    2. Common Computing Environment.--Language is included to 
provide that obligation of funds shall be consistent with the 
Service Center Modernization Plan, and with the concurrence of 
the Chief Information Officer.
    3. Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental 
Payments.--Language is included that allows for the 
reconfiguration and release of space back into the General 
Services Administration inventory in order to reduce space 
rental cost for space not needed for USDA programs.
    4. Departmental Administration.--Language is included to 
reimburse the agency for travel expenses incident to the 
holding of hearings.
    5. Agricultural Research Service.--Language is included 
that allows the Agricultural Research Service to grant 
easements at the Beltsville, MD agricultural research center.
    6. Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 
Service.--The bill includes language that prohibits funds from 
being used to carry out research related to the production, 
processing or marketing of tobacco or tobacco products.
    7. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.--A provision 
carried in the bill since fiscal year 1973 regarding state 
matching funds has been continued to assure more effective 
operation of the brucellosis control program through state cost 
sharing, with resulting savings to the Federal budget.
    Language is included to allow APHIS to recoup expenses 
incurred from providing technical assistance goods, or services 
to non-APHIS personnel, and to allow transfers of funds for 
Agricultural emergencies.
    8. Agricultural Marketing Service.--The bill includes 
language that allows the Secretary to charge user fees for AMS 
activity related to preparation of standards.
    9. Agricultural Marketing Service, Limitation on 
Administrative Expenses.--The bill includes language to allow 
AMS to exceed the limitation on administrative expenses by 10 
percent with notification to the Appropriations Committees. 
This allows flexibility in case crop size is understated and/or 
other uncontrollable events occur.
    10. Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards 
Administration, Inspection and Weighing Services.--The bill 
includes authority to exceed the limitation on inspection and 
weighing services by 10 percent with notification to the 
Appropriations Committees. This allows for flexibility if 
export activities require additional supervision and oversight, 
or other uncontrollable factors occur.
    11. Dairy Indemnity Program.--Language is included by 
reference that allows the Secretary to utilize the services of 
the Commodity Credit Corporation for the purpose of making 
dairy indemnity payments.
    12. Risk Management Agency.--Language is included to limit 
the amount of funds for official reception and representation 
expenses.
    13. Commodity Credit Corporation Fund.--Language is 
included to provide for the reimbursement appropriation. 
Language is also included which limits the amount of funds that 
can be spent on operation and maintenance costs of CCC 
hazardous waste sites.
    14. Natural Resources Conservation Service--Conservation 
Operations.--Language which has been included in the bill since 
1938 prohibits construction of buildings on land not owned by 
the government, although construction on land owned by states 
and counties is authorized by basic law.
    15. Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations.--Language 
which was included in the Emergency Jobs Bill of 1983 (P.L. 98-
8) and all bills since 1984 provides that funds may be used for 
rehabilitation of existing works.
    16. Rural Housing Service--Rental Assistance Program.--
Language is included which provides that agreements entered 
into during the current fiscal year be funded for a four-year 
period.
    17. Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loan 
program account.--Language is included to allow borrowers' 
interest rates for loans to exceed seven percent.
    18. Child Nutrition Programs.--Language is included to 
prohibit funds from being used for studies and evaluations.
    19. Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, 
Infants, and Children (WIC).--Language is included to: provide 
funds for a breastfeeding support initiative; prohibit funds 
from being used for studies and evaluations; pay administrative 
expenses of clinics except those that have an announced policy 
prohibiting smoking within the space used to carry out the 
program; purchase infant formula except in accordance with law; 
or pay for activities that are not fully reimbursed by other 
departments or agencies unless authorized by law.
    20. Food Stamp Program.--Language is included to prohibit 
funds from being used for studies and evaluations.
    21. Foreign Agricultural Service.--Language carried since 
1979 enables this agency to use funds received by an advance or 
by reimbursement to carry out its activities involving 
international development and technical cooperation. Language 
is included to limit the amount of funds for official reception 
and representation expenses. Language is included to allow 
certain funds transferred from the Commodity Credit Corporation 
to be used for information resource management.
    22. Commodity Futures Trading Commission.--Language is 
included to limit the amount of funds for official reception 
and representation expenses.
    23. General Provisions.--
          Section 704: This provision, carried since 1976, is 
        again included which provides that certain 
        appropriations in this Act shall remain available until 
        expended where the programs or projects involved are 
        continuing in nature under the provisions of 
        authorizing legislation, but for which such legislation 
        may not specifically provide for extended availability. 
        This authority tends to result in savings by preventing 
        the wasteful practice often found in government of 
        rushing to commit funds at the end of the fiscal year 
        without due regard to the value of the purpose for 
        which the funds are used. Such extended availability is 
        also essential in view of the long lead time frequently 
        required to negotiate agreements or contracts which 
        normally extend over a period of more than one year. 
        Under these conditions such authority is commonly 
        provided in Appropriations Acts where omitted from 
        basic law. These provisions have been carried through 
        the years in this Act to facilitate efficient and 
        effective program execution and to assure maximum 
        savings. They involve the following items: Animal and 
        Plant Health Inspection Service, the contingency fund 
        to meet emergency conditions, information technology 
        infrastructure, the boll weevil program, up to 25 
        percent of the screwworm program, up to $33,340,000 for 
        an animal identification program, up to $8,000,000 for 
        avian influenza-related indemnities, up to $1,500,000 
        for scrapie-related indemnities, fruit fly program, 
        emerging plant pests, up to $1,000,000 for Wildlife 
        Services aviation safety, and up to $3,009,000 for a 
        vaccine bank; Food Safety and Inspection Service, field 
        automation and information management project; 
        Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 
        Service, funds for competitive research grants; Farm 
        Service Agency, salaries and expenses to county 
        committees; Foreign Agricultural Service, middle-income 
        country training program and up to $1,565,000 for 
        foreign currency fluctuations.
          Section 707: This provision limits, to $50,000, the 
        level of funds that are available to provide 
        appropriate orientation and language.
          Section 709: This provision, added in 1987, provides 
        that none of the funds in this Act may be used to 
        restrict the authority of CCC to lease space. This 
        provision allows CCC to continue to lease space at a 
        lower cost than space leased by GSA.
          Section 710: This provision provides that none of the 
        funds in this Act may be made available to pay indirect 
        costs charged against competitive agricultural 
        research, education, or extension grants awarded by the 
        Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 
        Service in excess of 20 percent of total direct costs, 
        except for grants available under the Small Business 
        Innovation and Development Act.
          Section 711: This provision clarifies that loan 
        levels provided in the Act are to be considered 
        estimates and not limitations. The Federal Credit 
        Reform Act of 1990 provides that the appropriated 
        subsidy is the controlling factor for the amount of 
        loans made and that as lifetime costs and interest 
        rates change, the amount of loan authority will 
        fluctuate.
          Section 712: This provision allows funds made 
        available in the current fiscal year for the Rural 
        Development Loan Fund program account; Rural Telephone 
        Bank program account; the Rural Electrification and 
        Telecommunications Loans program account; and the Rural 
        Housing Insurance Fund program account to remain 
        available until expended. The Credit Reform Act 
        requires that the lifetime costs of loans be 
        appropriated. Current law requires that funds 
        unexpended after five years expire. The life of some 
        loans extends well beyond the five-year period and this 
        provision allows funds appropriated to remain available 
        until the loans are closed out.
          Section 713: Provides that of the funds made 
        available, not more than $1,800,000 shall be used to 
        cover expenses of activities related to all advisory 
        committees, panels, commissions, and task forces of the 
        Department of Agriculture except for panels used to 
        comply with negotiated rule makings and panels used to 
        evaluate competitively awarded grants.
          Section 714: Provides that none of the funds may be 
        used to carry out certain provisions of meat and 
        poultry inspection acts.
          Section 715: This provision prohibits any employee of 
        the Department of Agriculture from being detailed or 
        assigned to any other agency or office of the 
        Department for more than 30 days unless the 
        individual's employing agency or office is fully 
        reimbursed by the receiving agency or office for the 
        salary and expenses of the employee for the period of 
        assignment.
          Section 716: This provision prohibits the Department 
        of Agriculture from transmitting or making available to 
        any non-Department of Agriculture or the Food and Drug 
        Administration employee questions or responses to 
        questions that are a result of information requested 
        for the appropriations hearing process.
          Section 717: Language is included that requires 
        approval of the Chief Information Officer and the 
        concurrence of the Executive Information Technology 
        Investment Review Board for acquisition of new 
        information technology systems or significant upgrades, 
        and that prohibits the transfer of funds to the Office 
        of the Chief Information Officer without the 
        notification of the Committees on Appropriations of 
        both Houses of Congress.
          Section 718: Language is included that requires 
        certain reprogramming procedures of funds provided in 
        Appropriations Acts.
          Section 719: Language is included to prohibit funds 
        from being used to carry out the Initiative for Future 
        Agriculture and Food Systems.
          Section 720: Language is included that prohibits 
        funds from being used to prepare a budget submission to 
        Congress that assumes reductions from the previous 
        year's budget due to user fee proposals unless the 
        submission also identifies spending reductions which 
        should occur if the user fees are not enacted.
          Section 721: Language is included that provides that 
        no funds may be used to close or relocate a state Rural 
        Development office unless or until cost effectiveness 
        and enhancement of program delivery have been 
        determined.
          Section 722: Language is included that provides 
        $2,500,000 for a hunger fellowship program.
          Section 723: Language is included that provides that 
        any balances available to carry out Title III of the 
        Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 
        1954, and any recoveries and reimbursements that become 
        available, may be used to carry out Title II of such 
        Act. Funds were last appropriated for Title III 
        programming in FY 2000. However, there are Title III 
        balances remaining of less than $500,000. This 
        provision allows remaining Title III account balances 
        to be used for Title II programming since no new Title 
        III programming is anticipated. This provision will 
        allow the use of remaining Title III balances for Title 
        II even though Section 412 of P.L. 480 provides that 
        only 50 percent of the funds available for Title III 
        may be used to carry out Title II.
          Section 724: Language is included that amends Section 
        375(e)(6)(B) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
        Development Act regarding the National Sheep Industry 
        Improvement Center revolving fund.
          Section 725: Language is included that allows the use 
        of section 416(b) commodities to be used in mitigating 
        the effects of HIV/AIDS.
          Section 726: Language is included that Natural 
        Resources Conservation Service shall provide certain 
        assistance to certain locations under the Watershed and 
        Flood Prevention Operations program.
          Section 727: Language is included that provides that 
        no funds may be transferred to any other entity except 
        pursuant to authority provided in an appropriation Act.
          Section 728: Language is included that allows funds 
        to be used to carry out a competitive grants program.
          Section 729: Language is included that limits the dam 
        rehabilitation program.
          Section 730: Language is included that limits the 
        rural strategic investment program.
          Section 731: Language is included that allows for 
        unobligated funds to reimburse the Office of the 
        General Counsel for certain expenses.
          Section 732: Language is included that limits the 
        rural firefighters and emergency personnel grant 
        program.
          Section 733: Language is included regarding costs 
        associated with the distribution of commodities.
          Section 734: Language is included that limits the 
        wetlands reserve program.
          Section 735: Language is included that limits the 
        environmental quality incentives program.
          Section 736: Language is included that limits the 
        renewable energy program.
          Section 737: Language is included that limits the 
        broadband program.
          Section 738: Language is included that allows for 
        reimbursement of the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust.
          Section 739: Language is included that limits the 
        value-added market development grant program.
          Section 740: Language is included that ensures that 
        sufficient funds are available to pay the subsidy costs 
        for note guarantees for certain rural electric 
        programs.
          Section 741: Language is included that limits the 
        conservation security program.
          Section 742: Language is included that limits the 
        Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program.
          Section 743: Language is included that limits the 
        Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program.
          Section 744: Language is included that limits the 
        Rural Business Investment Program.
          Section 745: Language is included that provides that 
        none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
        available by this Act shall be used to violate P.L. 
        105-264.
          Section 746. Language is included that limits the 
        Ground and Surface Water Conservation Program.
          Section 747: Language is included related to final 
        rulemaking on cost-sharing for APHIS animal and plant 
        health emergency programs.
          Section 748: Language is included related to 
        competitive sourcing related to rural development or 
        farm loan programs.
          Section 749: Language is included related to the 
        leasing of aircraft to carry out certain APHIS 
        activities.
          Section 750: Language is included that limits the 
        Bioenergy Program.
          Section 751: Language is included allowing the use of 
        funds for certain purposes.
          Section 752: Language is included regarding the 
        availability of funds for certain conservation 
        programs.
          Section 753: Language is included regarding WIC-only 
        vendors.
          Section 754: Language is included regarding a grant.
          Section 755: Language is included that limits the 
        Agricultural Management Assistance Program.
          Section 756: Language is included that limits the 
        Biomass Research and Development Program.
          Section 757: Language is included regarding the 
        disposal of certain federal facilities in Phoenix, AZ.
          Section 758: Language is included regarding the 
        recertification of rural status.
          Section 759: Language is included regarding country 
        of origin labeling for meat or meat products.
          Section 760: Language is included regarding the rural 
        designation of certain communities.
          Section 761: Language is included regarding citrus 
        canker compensation.
          Section 762: Language is included extending 
        eligiblity for certain counties for the rural community 
        advancement program.
          Section 763: Language is included regarding a 
        rescission in the WIC contingency reserve.
          Section 764: The purpose of Section 508(e)(3) of the 
        Federal Crop Insurance Act is to allow insurance 
        providers to compete with premium discounts, while 
        maintaining the financial soundness of approved 
        insurance providers and the integrity of the Federal 
        crop insurance program. Preliminary information from 
        the initial experience with the program creates doubt 
        about maintaining the integrity of the Federal crop 
        insurance program. This Amendment would provide time 
        for an independent analysis of the program and the 
        regulatory resources required by USDA to satisfy the 
        statutory requirements. It would give the authorizing 
        committees time to evaluate the premium discounting 
        program and make proper adjustments in the law before 
        it is expanded. Existing 2005 policies would continue 
        in force for the farmers who have purchased such 
        policies and could be serviced by the company who sold 
        such policies. Thus, no existing policyholder or 
        existing approved insurance provider would be 
        jeopardized for policies in place in the 2005 crop 
        insurance year.
          Section 765: Language is included regarding the 
        prohibition of funds for certain FDA activities.
          Section 766: Language is included that relates to 
        government sponsored news stories.
          Section 767: The Committee includes $7,000,000 for a 
        specialty crops competitiveness program.

         Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following is a statement of 
general performance goals and objectives for which this measure 
authorizes funding:
    The Committee on Appropriations considers program 
performance, including a program's success in developing and 
attaining outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing 
funding recommendations.

        Compliance With Clause 3(e) of Rule XIII (Ramseyer Rule)

    In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

     SECTION 375 OF THE CONSOLIDATED FARM AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT ACT


SEC. 375. NATIONAL SHEEP INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT CENTER.

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (e) Revolving Fund.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (6) Funding.--
                  (A) * * *
                  (B) Mandatory funds.--Out of any moneys in 
                the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the 
                Secretary of the Treasury shall provide to the 
                Center not to exceed [$27,998,000] $28,498,000 
                to carry out this section.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


   SECTION 723 OF THE AGRICULTURE, RURAL, DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG 
     ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005


                    (Division A of Public Law 108-7)

    Sec. 721. In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated or 
made available by this Act, $2,500,000 is appropriated for the 
purpose of providing Bill Emerson and Mickey Leland Hunger 
Fellowships[, as authorized by section 4404 of Public Law 107-
171 (2 U.S.C. 1161)] through the Congressional Hunger Center.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                  Appropriations Not Authorized By Law

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(B) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the following table lists the 
appropriations in the accompanying bill which are not 
authorized by law:
      

                                             [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Appropriations
    Program and last year of authorization           Authorization level        in last year of   Appropriations
                                                                                 authorization     in this bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grain Standards and Warehouse Improvement Act
 of 2000; P.L. 106-472, Sec. 306
  Farm Service Agency:
    State Agricultural Mediation Program:
      FY 2005................................  $7,500                                     3,968            4,250
Grain Standards and Warehouse Improvement Act
 of 2000; P.L. 106-472, Sec. 108
  Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards
   Administration:
    United States Grain Standards Act:
      FY 2005................................  Such sums as necessary                    42,000           42,000
Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000;
 P.L. 106-224, Sec. 121
  Risk Management Agency:
    Program Compliance and Integrity:
      FY 2005................................  From amounts available from the            1,800            3,600
                                                FCIC fund, no more than
                                                $23,000
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.........  Indefinite                               $93,572          $98,386
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Rescissions

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following information is 
submitted describing the rescissions recommended in the 
accompanying bill:
    The bill proposes rescissions of $18,877,000 of funds 
derived from interest on the cushion of credit payments in 
fiscal year 2006 under the Rural Economic Development Loans 
Program Account, which is an annual technical adjustment 
contained in the budget estimates; $2,500,000 from the Rural 
Telephone Bank Liquidating Account; and $32,000,000 from the 
WIC Contingency reserve.

                   Comparison With Budget Resolution

    Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires an explanation of compliance with 
section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and 
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as 
amended, which requires that the report accompanying a bill 
providing new budget authority contain a statement detailing 
how that authority compares with the reports submitted under 
section 302 of the Act for the most recently agreed to 
concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year from 
the Committee's section 302(a) allocation. This information 
follows:

                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  302(b) allocation             This bill
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                     Full committee data                         Budget                    Budget
                                                               authority     Outlays     authority     Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison with Budget Resolution:
    Discretionary...........................................      $16,832      $18,691      $16,832      $18,552
    Mandatory...............................................       69,535       50,456       69,535       50,456
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Five-Year Outlay Projections

    In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, the following table contains 
five-year projections associated with the budget authority 
provided in the accompanying bill:

             [Five year projections, in millions of dollars]
Outlays:
    2006..............................................            57,096
    2007..............................................            14,801
    2008..............................................               884
    2009..............................................               563
    2010 and beyond...................................               732


               Assistance to State and Local Governments

    In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, the financial assistance to 
state and local governments is as follows:


                        [In millions of dollars]
New budget authority..................................            24,250
Fiscal year 2006 outlays resulting therefrom..........            20,406


                     Program, Project, and Activity

    During fiscal year 2006 for purposes of the Balanced Budget 
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-177), 
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, 
Food and Drug Administration, 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 of 
2006, 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 
required Presidential Order, departments and agencies shall 
apply any percentage reduction for fiscal year 2006 pursuant to 
the provisions of Public Law 99-177 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 2006 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 state, district, and county offices.

                          Full Committee Votes

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of 
the House of Representatives, the results of each roll call 
vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with 
the names of those voting for and those voting against, are 
printed below:

                             ROLLCALL NO. 1

    Date: May 25, 2005.
    Measure: Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 
2006.
    Motion by: Mr. Hinchey.
    Description of Motion: To allow the Food and Drug 
Administration to require companies to conduct post-marketing 
studies of FDA-approved drugs, and to allow the Food and Drug 
Administration to require changes to the labels of FDA-approved 
drugs.
    Results: Rejected 25 yeas to 31 nays.

        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Berry                           Mr. Aderholt
Mr. Bishop                          Mr. Alexander
Mr. Clyburn                         Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Cramer                          Mr. Carter
Ms. DeLauro                         Mr. Crenshaw
Mr. Dicks                           Mr. Culberson
Mr. Edwards                         Mr. Doolittle
Mr. Farr                            Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Fattah                          Mr. Goode
Mr. Hinchey                         Ms. Granger
Mr. Jackson                         Mr. Hobson
Ms. Kaptur                          Mr. Istook
Mr. Kennedy                         Mr. Kingston
Ms. Kilpatrick                      Mr. Kirk
Mrs. Lowey                          Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Moran                           Mr. Kolbe
Mr. Obey                            Mr. LaHood
Mr. Olver                           Mr. Latham
Mr. Pastor                          Mr. Lewis
Mr. Price                           Mr. Peterson
Ms. Roybal-Allard                   Mr. Regula
Mr. Sabo                            Mr. Rehberg
Mr. Serrano                         Mr. Sherwood
Mr. Visclosky                       Mr. Simpson
Mr. Wolf                            Mr. Sweeney
                                    Mr. Tiahrt
                                    Mr. Walsh
                                    Mr. Wamp
                                    Dr. Weldon
                                    Mr. Wicker
                                    Mr. Young

                          Full Committee Votes

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of 
the House of Representatives, the results of each roll call 
vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with 
the names of those voting for and those voting against, are 
printed below:

                             ROLLCALL NO. 2

    Date: May 25, 2005.
    Measure: Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 
2006.
    Motion by: Mr. Jackson.
    Description of Motion: To provide an additional 
$392,906,000, provided that such amount is designated as an 
emergency requirement, for commodities supplied in connection 
with dispositions abroad under title II of the Agricultural 
Trade and Development and Assistance Act of 1954.
    Results: Rejected 24 yeas to 29 nays.

        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Berry                           Mr. Aderholt
Mr. Bishop                          Mr. Alexander
Mr. Clyburn                         Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Cramer                          Mr. Carter
Ms. DeLauro                         Mr. Crenshaw
Mr. Dicks                           Mr. Culberson
Mr. Edwards                         Mr. Doolittle
Mr. Fattah                          Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Hinchey                         Ms. Granger
Mr. Jackson                         Mr. Hobson
Ms. Kaptur                          Mr. Istook
Mr. Kennedy                         Mr. Kingston
Ms. Kilpatrick                      Mr. Kirk
Mrs. Lowey                          Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Mollohan                        Mr. Kolbe
Mr. Moran                           Mr. LaHood
Mr. Obey                            Mr. Latham
Mr. Olver                           Mr. Lewis
Mr. Pastor                          Mr. Peterson
Mr. Rothman                         Mr. Regula
Ms. Roybal-Allard                   Mr. Rehberg
Mr. Sabo                            Mr. Rogers
Mr. Serrano                         Mr. Sherwood
Mr. Visclosky                       Mr. Simpson
                                    Mr. Sweeney
                                    Mr. Walsh
                                    Mr. Wamp
                                    Mr. Wicker
                                    Mr. Young
                                    
                                    

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

    The funding allocation for this bill provided only $93 
million more than the 2006 budget request. This brings the 
funding level up just to last year's level.
    While this bill is an improvement over the President's 
budget request, there are a number of key funding shortfalls in 
the bill and important policy issues that should be brought to 
the attention of our colleagues and the public
    Food and Drug Administration. While there are numerous 
important questions about FDA that need answers, the 
subcommittee was hampered in getting answers this year by the 
administration's decision to stop Acting Commissioner Crawford 
from testifying on the budget, purportedly because of his 
pending nomination to become the Commissioner.
    It is essential that the subcommittee hear from the head of 
this agency. To make this absolutely clear to the 
administration, Rep. DeLauro proposed an amendment to hold back 
five percent of the funding for the leadership offices at FDA 
until a hearing with the Commissioner or Acting Commissioner is 
held. We applaud the subcommittee's unanimous adoption of this 
amendment and urge the administration to take notice.
    But important issues involving FDA cannot be ignored while 
we wait for a hearing. One basic issue is whether FDA has the 
authorities it needs to protect public health. The public was 
shocked to learn that FDA lacks any real authority to make a 
company change a label or to order a company to conduct a 
safety study of a drug already on the market when concerns are 
raised.
    To address these problems, Rep. Hinchey offered an 
amendment in committee to give FDA labeling and post-market 
study authorities.
    Although the amendment was supported by all the Democratic 
Members present and by one Republican, it was defeated, 25-31.
    Two funding amendments adopted in Committee at the request 
of Rep. DeLauro will help FDA's drug safety work:
           The Committee agreed to double the funding 
        for the small office at FDA that reviews direct-to-
        consumer drug advertisements. While drug companies now 
        spend billions of dollars a year on drug ads, staffing 
        for the office has remained flat for years, and an 
        increase was long overdue.
           The Committee agreed to include an 
        additional $5 million for drug safety activities at 
        FDA. These funds, too, are badly needed, and this is a 
        step in the right direction.
    Because of our concerns about other problems with the FDA 
budget, we looked closely at how FDA is handling its existing 
resources. This brought troublesome questions about its 
priorities and management to light. Here are some examples:
           FDA has spent $19,674,855 on employee 
        bonuses since January 2003. This is twice the increase 
        proposed this year for the Office of Drug Safety.
           FDA's most senior staff spent more than 
        $442,000 on travel since January 2003--equal to 50 
        percent of what FDA spends in one year to review 
        consumer drug ads.
           The FDA general counsel's office has spent 
        15,041 hours reviewing draft warning letters to drug 
        companies about illegal drug ads since March 2002. This 
        is equal to more than seven people working full-time 
        for a year. The result has been a drop in the number of 
        letters issued and delays in issuing them, but no 
        indication whatsoever that company compliance has 
        improved.
    While FDA fritters away precious funds in these areas, it 
is falling behind in some of its most basic responsibilities to 
protect the public. Comparing 2006 to 2004, we find, for 
example, a serious drop in the percentage of imported food and 
drug lines inspected; fewer foreign drug facilities being 
inspected; and a large drop in the percentage of imported 
biologics products inspected. Making sure that our food, drug 
and vaccine supplies are safe should be the agency's highest 
priority. We believe the agency should examine its spending 
from top to bottom and redirect resources to this goal.
    Rural development. Funding for several key programs at USDA 
that help rural communities provide basic clean water, 
affordable housing and essential community facilities does not 
keep pace with demand.
           Water and waste disposal funding: funding 
        for water and waste grants in this bill is $87 million 
        below 2004, but demand for grants at the end of fiscal 
        year 2004 far exceeded funding in 2005 or in this bill. 
        While direct loan funding is held at the 2005 level, 
        USDA had nearly $1.3 billion in applications for the 
        loans on hand at the end of fiscal year 2004, much more 
        than it could fund under the final 2005 level or the 
        level in this bill.
           Single family housing direct loans: this 
        bill funds single family direct loans at the 2005 
        level, but that still leaves the program $211 million 
        below 2004. Such a cut is a matter of serious concern 
        because these loans are extremely popular: at the end 
        of 2004, USDA had 30,458 applications on hand for $2.6 
        billion in single family direct loans, far over the 
        level in this bill.
           Community facility grants: funding in this 
        bill for this program, which funds essential community 
        facilities in rural areas such as fire and medical 
        facilities, is $17 million, under the final 2005 level 
        of $19.7 million. Yet there is high demand for these 
        grants--as of March 2005, USDA had $90.7 million in 
        funding requests for these grants on hand--far in 
        excess of the amount available in 2005 or in this bill.
    Nutrition programs. Two nutrition funding issues should be 
noted:
           CSFP: this bill does not provide enough 
        funding to maintain current participation in the 
        Commodity Supplemental Food Program. At least 45,000 
        participants--the overwhelming majority of them 
        elderly--would have to be dropped from the program 
        unless more funds are provided, and the figure could 
        turn out to be much higher. We are deeply concerned 
        about the impact this would have on the vulnerable 
        population served by CSFP.
           WIC: the bill reduces the WIC program by 
        $253 million below the request and rescinds $32 million 
        from the WIC reserve fund. While current estimates 
        suggest this reduction can be made without reducing 
        participation, language included in the report affirms 
        the Committee's intent to continue to monitor program 
        costs and to provide sufficient funding to serve all 
        eligible applicants in the final bill.
    International food aid. We are pleased that the Committee 
rejected an ill-advised administration proposal to move $300 
million of international food aid to USAID, rather than 
continuing to fund it through the PL 480 program. The USAID 
funds would be used to buy food abroad, instead of American 
commodities, thus undermining the historically broad support 
for international food aid in this country.
    This bill restores to PL 480 $222 million of the $300 
million that would have gone to USAID, leaving total funding 
about $78 million short of the total budget request level. Rep. 
Jackson offered two amendments in committee to increase funding 
that were, unfortunately, defeated.
    Conservation programs. The administration budget for the 
discretionary conservation programs in this bill proposed 
severe cuts in each of the major accounts. This bill improves 
upon the request, but total funding for these programs is still 
$52 million lower than last year's level.
    This bill cuts mandatory conservation programs more deeply 
than the Bush budget. While the administration cut in the EQIP 
program is reduced slightly, the bill limits the Wetland 
Reserve Program, takes a deeper cut from the Conservation 
Security Program than the budget and cuts the ground and 
surface water conservation program, which the budget left 
untouched.
    General provisions. We would like to express our views on 
several measures included in the bill as general provisions:
           WIC-only stores. We are also concerned about 
        language in this bill that undoes an agreement reached 
        last year between Congress and the administration on 
        limiting so-called ``WIC-only stores.'' We hope that 
        our concerns will be addressed in conference.
           Propaganda. We are pleased that the 
        subcommittee unanimously accepted an amendment by Rep. 
        DeLauro to prohibit the use of funds in this bill to 
        produce a pre-packaged news story without including a 
        clear notification that the story was prepared or 
        funded by a federal agency. Taxpayers have a right to 
        know how their money is spent, and who is the source of 
        the messages they see in print or on television, so 
        they can make an informed decision based on the 
        information before them.
           Drug reimportation. As in the past two 
        years, this bill includes language to allow 
        prescription drug importation. Soaring prices for life-
        saving drugs are a reality--and a public health issue--
        that millions of Americans confront daily. But while 
        the Agriculture appropriations bills included this 
        language the last two years, the provisions were 
        mysteriously dropped in conference without any public 
        consideration. This must not happen again. This issue 
        merits direct, open and full consideration this year.
    We look forward to a vigorous debate on these and other 
issues when the House considers this bill. We will work hard 
there and in conference with the Senate to address the concerns 
we have identified.

                                   Rosa L. DeLauro.
                                   Maurice Hinchey.
                                   Sam Farr.
                                   Allen Boyd.
                                   Marcy Kaptur.
                                   David R. Obey.