- TXT
-
PDF
(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.)
Tip
?
Calendar No. 477
109th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 109-266
======================================================================
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2007
_______
June 22, 2006.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Bennett, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 5384]
The Committee on Appropriations, to which was referred the
bill (H.R. 5384) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for
other purposes, reports the same to the Senate with an
amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
Total obligational authority, fiscal year 2007
Total of bill as reported to the Senate\1\.............. $98,258,792,000
Amount of 2006 appropriations\2\........................ 102,897,101,000
Amount of 2007 budget estimate.......................... 93,312,118,000
Amount of House allowance............................... 93,526,233,000
Bill as recommended to Senate compared to--
2006 appropriations................................. -4,638,309,000
2007 budget estimate................................ +4,946,674,000
House allowance..................................... +4,732,559,000
\1\Including emergency appropriations of $4,159,000,000.
\2\Including emergency appropriations of $2,169,305,000.
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Summary of the Bill:
Overview and Summary of the Bill............................. 5
User Fee Legislative Proposals............................... 5
Display of Fiscal Year 2006 Spending Levels.................. 6
Emergency Spending........................................... 6
Reports to Congress.......................................... 6
Title I:
Agricultural Programs:
Production, Processing, and Marketing:
Office of the Secretary.............................. 8
Executive Operations................................. 9
Office of the Chief Information Officer.............. 11
Common Computing Environment......................... 12
Office of the Chief Financial Officer................ 12
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights... 13
Office of Civil Rights............................... 13
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration. 14
Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental
Payments........................................... 14
Hazardous Materials Management....................... 15
Departmental Administration.......................... 15
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional
Relations.......................................... 16
Office of Communications............................. 16
Office of Inspector General.......................... 17
Office of the General Counsel........................ 17
Office of the Under Secretary for Research,
Education, and Economics........................... 18
Economic Research Service............................ 19
National Agricultural Statistics Service............. 19
Agricultural Research Service........................ 20
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service............................................ 39
Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and
Regulatory Programs................................ 51
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service........... 51
Agricultural Marketing Service....................... 63
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards
Administration..................................... 68
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety........ 69
Food Safety and Inspection Service................... 69
Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign
Agricultural Services.............................. 71
Farm Service Agency.................................. 72
Risk Management Agency............................... 76
Corporations:
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund.............. 77
Commodity Credit Corporation Fund.................... 78
Title II:
Conservation Programs:
Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment............................................ 82
Natural Resources Conservation Service................... 83
Title III:
Rural Development Programs:
Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development...... 96
Rural Community Advancement Program...................... 97
Rural Housing Service.................................... 104
Rural Business--Cooperative Service...................... 110
Renewable Energy Program................................. 113
Rural Utilities Service.................................. 113
Title IV:
Domestic Food Programs:
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and
Consumer Services...................................... 117
Food and Nutrition Service............................... 117
Title V:
Foreign Assistance and Related Programs: Foreign Agricultural
Service.................................................... 128
Title VI:
Related Agencies and Food and Drug Administration:
Food and Drug Administration............................. 136
Independent Agencies:
Commodity Futures Trading Commission................. 148
Farm Credit Administration........................... 148
Title VII: General Provisions.................................... 150
Title VIII: Emergency Agricultural Disaster Assistance........... 153
Program, Project, and Activity................................... 153
Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI of the Standing Rules of
the Sen-
ate............................................................ 155
Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules
of the Senate.................................................. 156
Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of
the
Senate......................................................... 156
Budgetary Impact of Bill......................................... 164
BREAKDOWN BY TITLE
The amounts of obligational authority for each of the seven
titles are shown in the following table. A detailed tabulation,
showing comparisons, appears at the end of this report.
Recommendations for individual appropriation items, projects
and activities are carried in this report under the appropriate
item headings.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007 Committee
2006 recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I: Agricultural programs.... $35,403,790,000 $30,621,607,000
Title II: Conservation programs... 994,165,000 991,207,000
Title III: Rural economic and 2,503,055,000 2,223,490,000
community development programs...
Title IV: Domestic food programs.. 58,894,142,000 57,106,802,000
Title V: Foreign assistance and 1,468,711,000 1,489,168,000
related programs.................
Title VI: Related agencies........ 1,572,123,000 1,670,168,000
Title VII: General provisions..... -42,090,000 157,350,000
Title VIII: Emergency agricultural ................. 3,999,000,000
disaster assistance..............
Other appropriations.............. 2,103,205,000 .................
-------------------------------------
Total, new budget 102,897,101,000 98,258,792,000
(obligational) authority...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY OF THE BILL
The Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies appropriations bill
provides funding for a wide array of Federal programs, mostly
in the U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA]. These programs
include agricultural research, education, and extension
activities; natural resources conservation programs; farm
income and support programs; marketing and inspection
activities; domestic food assistance programs; rural housing,
economic and community development, and telecommunications and
electrification assistance; and various export and
international activities of the USDA.
The bill also provides funding for the Food and Drug
Administration [FDA] and the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission [CFTC], and allows the use of collected fees for
administrative expenses of the Farm Credit Administration
[FCA].
Given the budgetary constraints that the Committee faces,
the bill as reported provides the proper amount of emphasis on
agricultural and rural development programs and on other
programs and activities funded by the bill. It is within the
subcommittee's allocation for fiscal year 2007.
All accounts in the bill have been closely examined to
ensure that an appropriate level of funding is provided to
carry out the programs of USDA, FDA, CFTC, and FCA. Details on
each of the accounts, the funding level, and the Committee's
justifications for the funding levels are included in the
report.
The Committee has encouraged the consideration of grant and
loan applications from various entities. The Committee expects
the Department only to approve those applications judged
meritorious when subjected to the established review process.
User Fee Legislative Proposals
The fiscal year 2007 budget assumes the enactment,
collection, and expenditure of user fees for the following
agencies: the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; the
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration; the
Agricultural Marketing Service; the Food Safety and Inspection
Service; and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission. The
budget proposal for the aforementioned agencies includes a
reduction of over $300,000,000 from current levels, to reflect
the amount assumed to be collected by the unauthorized user
fees.
The Committee reminds the administration that jurisdiction
for the authorization of these fees in the Senate lies with the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, not the
Committee on Appropriations. Further, the U.S. Constitution
requires that all revenue measures originate in the House of
Representatives and to the extent that these proposals are held
to be revenue measures, for which similar proposals in the past
have, unilateral action by the Senate in this matter risks
violation of Constitutional principles.
The Committee notes that the legislation necessary to
authorize collection of the user fees at the various USDA
agencies was not submitted until May 4, 2006, approximately 3
months after the President's budget was submitted to Congress.
As of June 20, 2006, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission
still had not transmitted legislation authorizing its user fees
to Congress. It is apparent from the leisurely pace with which
the administration transmitted the user fee legislation that it
is not sincere in its desire to enact these user fees. The
Committee views this as disingenuous at best. The Committee
respectfully requests that the administration refrain from this
budget gimmickry in future fiscal years.
Display Of Fiscal Year 2006 Spending Levels
Section 3801 of chapter 8 of title III of division B of the
Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to
Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic
Influenza Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-148) imposed, with few
exceptions, a 1 percent across-the-board rescission. The 1
percent rescission applied to all discretionary accounts, with
the exception of levels of budget authority provided through
the collection of user fees, provided in the Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-97). Accordingly, all
fiscal year 2006 levels displayed in this report for which the
1 percent rescission applies reflect the 1 percent rescission.
Emergency Spending
The congressional budget resolution agreed to by Congress
for fiscal year 2006, and both the House and Senate versions of
the fiscal year 2007 budget resolution, include provisions
relating to emergency spending. These provisions require a
statement of how the emergency provisions meet the criteria for
emergency spending identified by the budget resolutions.
In title VII of this bill, the Committee recommends, and
specifically identifies, emergency spending for fiscal year
2007. The spending is related to unanticipated needs and is for
situations that are sudden, urgent, and unforeseen at the
Veterans Administration. These events fit the specific criteria
for emergencies.
In title VIII of this bill, the Committee recommends, and
specifically identifies, emergency spending for fiscal year
2007. The spending is related to unanticipated needs and is for
situations that are sudden, urgent, and unforeseen caused by an
agricultural disaster caused by weather, fire, pestilence, crop
failure, and related conditions. These events fit the specific
criteria for emergencies.
Reports to Congress
The Committee has, throughout this report, requested
agencies to provide studies and reports on various issues. The
Committee utilizes these reports to evaluate program
performance and make decisions on future appropriations. The
Committee requests that all studies and reports be provided as
one document per Department in an agreed upon format within 120
days after the date of enactment, unless an alternative
submission schedule is specifically stated in the report
request.
TITLE I
AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS
Production, Processing, and Marketing
Office of the Secretary
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $5,076,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 11,540,000
House allowance......................................... 5,499,000
Committee recommendation................................ 10,515,000
The Secretary of Agriculture, assisted by the Deputy
Secretary, Under Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries, Chief
Information Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and members of
their immediate staffs, directs and coordinates the work of the
Department. This includes developing policy, maintaining
relationships with agricultural organizations and others in the
development of farm programs, and maintaining liaison with the
Executive Office of the President and Members of Congress on
all matters pertaining to agricultural policy.
The general authority of the Secretary to supervise and
control the work of the Department is contained in the Organic
Act (7 U.S.C. 2201-2202). The delegation of regulatory
functions to Department employees and authorization of
appropriations to carry out these functions is contained in 7
U.S.C. 450c-450g.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $10,515,000
for the Office of the Secretary.
Budget Execution Report.--The Committee directs the
Department to submit quarterly budget execution reports showing
the status of obligations for all components of the Department.
The report should include the total obligational authority
appropriated (new budget authority plus unobligated carryover),
amount allotted to date, current year obligations, unobligated
authority (the difference between total obligational authority
and current year obligations), expenditures to date, and
unexpended obligations. This budget execution information is to
be provided at the account level of detail. The report shall be
submitted no later than 30 days after the close of each
quarter.
Chesapeake Bay Watershed.--The Committee notes the need to
develop partnerships to address vital resource needs in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed. Section 2003 of the Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-171) provides for
innovative uses of conservation funding to aid regions, such as
the Chesapeake Bay, in implementing conservation practices
important to protecting natural resources. The Committee
expects the Department to implement a program specifically
under the authorities of section 2003 and issue a request for
proposals under this program in fiscal year 2007.
Greenbook Charges.--The Committee is concerned that charges
assessed to agencies by the USDA, known as greenbook charges,
have grown excessively over the last few years. The disclosure
of these charges to Congress is limited and may impact program
delivery. The Committee directs the Government Accountability
Office to review greenbook charges at USDA for all agencies
funded through the Act accompanying this report. Additionally,
the Committee directs the USDA to explicitly present greenbook
charge information in future budget justifications, including
previous and current fiscal year charges and a description of
how the charges are assessed.
Provincial Reconstruction Teams.--The Committee
recommendation includes $5,000,000 for Provincial
Reconstruction Teams. These funds will allow USDA employees to
play a vital role in the stabilization and revitalization of
the agricultural and rural sectors of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Service-disabled Veteran-owned Small Businesses.--The
Committee strongly supports the Secretary's Service-disabled
Veteran-owned Small Business strategic initiative that supports
Executive Order 13360, signed by the President on October 21,
2004. The Committee directs the Secretary to work toward
attaining or exceeding the mandated 3 percent goal for
contracts awarded to service-disabled veteran-owned small
businesses. The Committee encourages the Secretary to take
appropriate steps necessary to increase the participation of
service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses in all USDA
contracting efforts, including Natural Resources Conservation
Service and Farm Service Agency contracting for environmental
assessments and environmental impact statements, preparation of
reviews for Conservation Reserve Enhancement Programs, on-going
National Environmental Policy Act training, and other
environmental programs. Additionally, the Committee encourages
the Secretary to review all applicable Information Technology
planned contract requirements to establish a goal of an
aggregate of 5 percent of the dollar value of these contracts
toward the participation of service-disabled veteran-owned
small businesses. The Secretary is to report to the Committee
no later than 120 days after the enactment of this Act on the
steps taken to increase participation of service-disabled
veteran-owned small businesses in contracts at USDA.
Executive Operations
Executive operations were established as a result of the
reorganization of the Department to provide a support team for
USDA policy officials and selected departmentwide services.
Activities under the executive operations include the Office of
the Chief Economist, the National Appeals Division, the Office
of Budget and Program Analysis, and the Homeland Security
Staff.
CHIEF ECONOMIST
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $10,434,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 11,226,000
House allowance......................................... 11,226,000
Committee recommendation................................ 11,226,000
The Office of the Chief Economist advises the Secretary of
Agriculture on the economic implications of Department policies
and programs. The Office serves as the single focal point for
the Nation's economic intelligence and analysis, risk
assessment, energy and new uses, and cost-benefit analysis
related to domestic and international food and agriculture
issues, and is responsible for coordination and review of all
commodity and aggregate agricultural and food-related data used
to develop outlook and situation material within the
Department.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $11,226,000
for the Office of the Chief Economist. The Committee
recommendation includes $1,500,000 for preferred procurement
and labeling for biobased products.
NATIONAL APPEALS DIVISION
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $14,379,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 14,795,000
House allowance......................................... 14,795,000
Committee recommendation................................ 14,795,000
The National Appeals Division conducts administrative
hearings and reviews of adverse program decisions made by the
Rural Development mission area, the Farm Service Agency, the
Risk Management Agency, and the Natural Resources Conservation
Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $14,795,000
for the National Appeals Division.
OFFICE OF BUDGET AND PROGRAM ANALYSIS
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $8,215,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 8,479,000
House allowance......................................... 8,479,000
Committee recommendation................................ 8,479,000
The Office of Budget and Program Analysis provides
direction and administration of the Department's budgetary
functions including development, presentation, and execution of
the budget; reviews program and legislative proposals for
program, budget, and related implications; analyzes program and
resource issues and alternatives, and prepares summaries of
pertinent data to aid the Secretary and departmental policy
officials and agency program managers in the decisionmaking
process; and provides departmentwide coordination for and
participation in the presentation of budget-related matters to
the committees of the Congress, the media, and interested
public. The Office also provides departmentwide coordination of
the preparation and processing of regulations and legislative
programs and reports.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $8,479,000 for
the Office of Budget and Program Analysis.
HOMELAND SECURITY STAFF
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $925,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 1,114,000
House allowance......................................... 954,000
Committee recommendation................................ 954,000
The Homeland Security Staff formulates emergency
preparedness policies and objectives for the Department of
Agriculture [USDA]. The Staff directs and coordinates all of
the Department's program activities that support USDA emergency
programs and liaison functions with the Congress, the
Department of Homeland Security, and other Federal departments
and agencies involving homeland security, natural disasters,
other emergencies, and agriculture-related international civil
emergency planning and related activities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $954,000 for
the Homeland Security Staff.
Office of the Chief Information Officer
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $16,297,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 16,936,000
House allowance......................................... 16,936,000
Committee recommendation................................ 16,936,000
The Office of the Chief Information Officer was established
in August 1996 (40 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), pursuant to the
Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, which required the establishment of
a Chief Information Officer for major Federal agencies. This
office provides policy guidance, leadership, coordination, and
direction to the Department's information management and
information technology investment activities in support of USDA
program delivery, and is the lead office in USDA e-gov efforts.
The Office provides long-range planning guidance, implements
measures to ensure that technology investments are economical
and effective, coordinates interagency information resources
management projects, and implements standards to promote
information exchange and technical interoperability. In
addition, the Office of the Chief Information Officer is
responsible for certain activities financed under the
Department's Working Capital Fund (7 U.S.C. 2235). The Office
also provides telecommunication and automated data processing
[ADP] services to USDA agencies through the National
Information Technology Center with locations in Fort Collins,
Colorado, and Kansas City, Missouri. Direct ADP operational
services are also provided to the Office of the General
Counsel, Office of Communications, the Office of the Chief
Financial Officer, and Executive Operations.
On November 28, 2004, the information technology staffs of
the Service Center Agencies [SCA] were converged into one IT
organization within the office of the Chief Information
Officer; this converged organization is named Information
Technology Services and replaces a network of cross-agency
teams used to coordinate IT infrastructure investment within
the SCA and allows for unified management of the IT
infrastructure.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $16,936,000
for the Office of the Chief Information Officer.
Common Computing Environment
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $108,971,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 108,900,000
House allowance......................................... 38,395,000
Committee recommendation................................................
The Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7
U.S.C. 6901 et seq.) requires the Secretary of Agriculture to
procure and use computer systems in a manner that enhances
efficiency, productivity, and client services, and that
promotes computer information sharing among agencies of the
Department. The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 requires USDA to
maximize the value of information technology acquisitions to
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of USDA programs.
Since its beginning in 1996, the USDA Service Center
Modernization initiative has been working to restructure county
field offices, modernize and integrate business approaches and
replace the current, aging information systems with a modern
Common Computing Environment that optimizes information
sharing, customer service, and staff efficiencies.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee does not recommend an appropriation for the
Common Computing Environment. The Committee recommendation
includes funding for Common Computing Environment activities in
the appropriate agency accounts.
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $5,815,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 19,931,000
House allowance......................................... 5,991,000
Committee recommendation................................ 11,667,000
The Office of the Chief Financial Officer is responsible
for the dual roles of chief financial management policy officer
and chief financial management advisor to the Secretary and
mission area heads. The Office provides leadership for all
financial management, accounting, travel, Federal assistance,
and performance measurement activities within the Department.
The Office is also responsible for the management and operation
of the National Finance Center and the Departmental Working
Capital Fund. In addition, the Office provides budget,
accounting, and fiscal services to the Office of the Secretary,
Departmental staff offices, Office of the Chief Information
Officer, Office of Communications, and Executive Operations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $11,667,000
for the Chief Financial Officer.
National Finance Center.--The Committee encourages USDA to
continue the cost-effective, cross-servicing activities
currently conducted by the National Finance Center [NFC]
including an integrated payroll and personnel system, financial
management and administrative accounting, and management of
health benefits programs.
The Committee is concerned that more than 9 months after
Hurricane Katrina USDA has not restored NFC data center
operations at a permanent site. Instead, NFC data center
operations are still located in temporary space in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Therefore, the Committee directs
USDA to locate a permanent site for data center operations. In
addition, the Committee encourages USDA to give close
consideration to the establishment of an alternate work site
for continuity of operations for the NFC in the State of
Louisiana.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $813,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 836,000
House allowance......................................... 836,000
Committee recommendation................................ 836,000
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights,
established by Section 10704 of the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-171), provides oversight
of civil rights and related functions. This includes
coordination of the administration of civil rights laws and
regulations for employees of the Department of Agriculture and
participants in programs of the Department, and ensuring
compliance with civil rights laws.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $836,000 for
the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights.
Office of Civil Rights
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $19,908,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 22,650,000
House allowance......................................... 22,650,000
Committee recommendation................................ 22,650,000
The Office of Civil Rights provides overall leadership
responsibility for all departmentwide civil rights activities.
These activities include employment opportunity as well as
program non-discrimination policy development, analysis,
coordination, and compliance. The Office is responsible for
providing leadership in facilitating the fair and equitable
treatment of Department of Agriculture [USDA] employees, and
for monitoring program activities to ensure that all USDA
programs are delivered in a non-discriminatory manner. The
Office's outreach functions provide leadership, coordination,
facilitation, and expertise to internal and external partners
to ensure equal and timely access to USDA programs for all
constituents, with emphasis on the underserved, through
information sharing, technical assistance, and training.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $22,650,000
for the Office of Civil Rights.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $669,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 773,000
House allowance......................................... 736,000
Committee recommendation................................ 681,000
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration
directs and coordinates the work of the departmental staff in
carrying out the laws enacted by the Congress relating to real
and personal property management, personnel management, ethics,
and other general administrative functions. In addition, the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration is
responsible for certain activities financed under the
Department's Working Capital Fund (7 U.S.C. 2235).
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $681,000 for
the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration.
Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $185,857,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 209,814,000
House allowance......................................... 206,669,000
Committee recommendation................................ 209,814,000
Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments.--
Department headquarters presently operates in a four-building
Government-owned complex in downtown Washington, DC, and in
leased buildings in the Metropolitan Washington, DC, area.
Annual appropriations finance payments to the General Services
Administration [GSA] for leased space and related services.
Under this arrangement USDA operates, maintains, and repairs
D.C. complex buildings, while GSA remains responsible for major
nonrecurring repairs. GSA charges commercial rent rates
pursuant to the Public Buildings Amendments of 1972, and
agencies may review rate procedures and exercise rights to
appeal. For the last several years the Department has
implemented a strategic space plan to locate staff more
efficiently, renovate its buildings, and eliminate safety
hazards, particularly in the Agriculture South Building.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $209,814,000
for Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments.
The following table reflects the Committee's specific
recommendations for this account as compared to the fiscal year
2006 and budget request levels:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007 budget Committee
2006 enacted request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rental Payments................................................. 146,257 155,851 155,851
Building Operations............................................. 39,600 53,963 53,963
-----------------------------------------------
Total......................................................... 185,857 209,814 209,814
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous Materials Management
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $11,880,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 12,020,000
House allowance......................................... 12,020,000
Committee recommendation................................ 12,020,000
Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act and the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, the Department has the responsibility to meet
the same standards regarding the storage and disposition of
hazardous materials as private businesses. The Department is
required to contain, clean up, monitor, and inspect for
hazardous materials in areas under the Department's
jurisdiction.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $12,020,000
for Hazardous Materials Management.
Departmental Administration
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $22,872,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 28,302,000
House allowance......................................... 24,114,000
Committee recommendation................................ 24,114,000
Departmental Administration is comprised of activities that
provide staff support to top policy officials and overall
direction and coordination of administrative functions of the
Department. These activities include departmentwide programs
for human resource management, ethics, occupational safety and
health management, real and personal property management,
procurement, contracting, motor vehicle and aircraft
management, supply management, emergency preparedness, small
and disadvantaged business utilization, and the regulatory
hearing and administrative proceedings conducted by the
Administrative Law Judges and Judicial Officer. Departmental
Administration also provides administrative support to the
Board of Contract Appeals. Established as an independent entity
within the Department, the Board adjudicates contract claims by
and against the Department, and is funded as a reimbursable
activity.
Departmental Administration is also responsible for
representing USDA in the development of Governmentwide policies
and initiatives; and analyzing the impact of Governmentwide
trends and developing appropriate USDA principles, policies,
and standards. In addition, Departmental Administration engages
in strategic planning and evaluates programs to ensure USDA-
wide compliance with applicable laws, rules, and regulations
pertaining to administrative matters for the Secretary and
general officers of the Department.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $24,114,000
for Departmental Administration.
Washington Semester American Indian Program.--The Committee
continues strong support for USDA participation in the
Washington Internships for Native Students [WINS] program, an
American Indian/Alaska Native [AI/AN] internship program.
Executive Order 13270 directs Federal agencies to provide
improved opportunities and resource access to tribal college
and other AI/AN post-secondary education students. Consistent
with this Executive Order, the Committee urges USDA to maintain
the annual average number of positions placed in past summers,
and expects that the Department will place no less than 25 WINS
AI/AN students each summer. The Committee recommends that the
Department assign responsibility for coordination of the WINS
program to Departmental Administration to ensure student intern
sponsorship and placement with agencies managing natural
resource or community development programs benefiting AI/AN or
rural disadvantaged communities.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $3,783,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 3,940,000
House allowance......................................... 3,940,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,830,000
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional
Relations maintains a liaison with the Congress and White House
on legislative matters. It also provides for overall direction
and coordination in the development and implementation of
policies and procedures applicable to the Department's intra-
and inter-governmental relations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,830,000 for
the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional
Relations.
The Committee allows these funds to be transferred to
support congressional relations' activities at the agency
level. Within 30 days from the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary shall notify the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations on the allocation of these funds by USDA agency,
along with an explanation for the agency-by-agency distribution
of the funds as well as the staff years funded by these
transfers.
Office of Communications
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $9,414,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 9,695,000
House allowance......................................... 9,695,000
Committee recommendation................................ 9,695,000
The Office of Communications provides direction,
leadership, and coordination in the development and delivery of
useful information through all media to the public on USDA
programs. The Office serves as the liaison between the
Department and the many associations and organizations with an
interest in USDA's mission areas.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $9,695,000 for
the Office of Communications.
Office of the Inspector General
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $79,533,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 82,493,000
House allowance......................................... 82,493,000
Committee recommendation................................ 82,493,000
The Office of the Inspector General was established October
12, 1978 (Public Law 95-452), by the Inspector General Act of
1978. This Act expanded and provided specific authorities for
the activities of the Office of the Inspector General which had
previously been carried out under the general authorities of
the Secretary of Agriculture.
The Office is administered by an inspector general who
reports directly to the Secretary of Agriculture. Functions and
responsibilities of this Office include direction and control
of audit and investigative activities within the Department,
formulation of audit and investigative policies and procedures
regarding Department programs and operations, and analysis and
coordination of program-related audit and investigation
activities performed by other Department agencies.
The activities of this Office are designed to assure
compliance with existing laws, policies, regulations, and
programs of the Department's agencies, and to provide
appropriate officials with the means for prompt corrective
action where deviations have occurred. The scope of audit and
investigative activities is large and includes administrative,
program, and criminal matters. These activities are
coordinated, when appropriate, with various audit and
investigative agencies of the executive and legislative
branches of the government.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $82,493,000
for the Office of the Inspector General. The Committee
recommendation includes the fiscal year 2006 level for OIG to
continue to address violations of section 26 of the Animal
Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2156) and to coordinate with State and
local law enforcement personnel in this effort.
Office of the General Counsel
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $38,957,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 40,647,000
House allowance......................................... 40,455,000
Committee recommendation................................ 40,647,000
The Office of the General Counsel provides all legal
advice, counsel, and services to the Secretary and to all
agencies, offices, and corporations of the Department. The
Office represents the Department in administrative proceedings;
non-litigation debt collection proceedings; State water rights
adjudications; proceedings before the Environmental Protection
Agency, Interstate Commerce Commission, Federal Maritime
Administration, and International Trade Commission; and, in
conjunction with the Department of Justice, in judicial
proceedings and litigation.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $40,647,000
for the Office of the General Counsel.
Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $592,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 694,000
House allowance......................................... 651,000
Committee recommendation................................ 605,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education,
and Economics provides direction and coordination in carrying
out the laws enacted by the Congress for food and agricultural
research, education, extension, and economic and statistical
information. The Office has oversight and management
responsibilities for the Agricultural Research Service;
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service;
Economic Research Service; and National Agricultural Statistics
Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $605,000 for
the Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and
Economics.
Special Research, Education, and Extension Activities.--The
Committee is aware of the need for special research, education,
and extension activities which are made available on a
discretionary basis under 7 U.S.C. 450i(c) and similar
authorities. These grants are necessary in order to conduct
research to facilitate or expand promising breakthroughs in
areas of food and agricultural sciences and to ensure that
these activities are further assimilated into the food,
agriculture and rural sectors through higher education and
extension programs. The Committee also believes that research,
education, and extension activity funds made available on a
discretionary basis should be sustained by additional funding
from competitively-based or private ongoing sources.
The Committee expects that specially awarded grants should
be used to meet specific research, education, and extension
objectives rather than primarily to supplement other funding
sources on an indefinite basis. The Committee expects that
prior to the receipt of an award under 7 U.S.C. 450i(c), or
grants made under the Research and Education or Extension
Service Federal Administration headings of the Cooperative
State Research, Education, and Extension Service, the grantee
must provide a report to the Committee that describes the
specific objectives for which these funds will be used,
methodologies to measure performance and determine when the
objectives will be met, and the expected date of completion for
the stated objective. If the report fails to identify a
specific date for project completion, the Committee shall
assume the objectives will be complete by the end of fiscal
year 2007.
The Committee has, in the past, continued funding special
research grants [SRGs] in excess of the 3-year time period
contemplated in the authorizing statute (7 U.S.C. 450i(c)). The
Committee is concerned that this has lead to stagnation in
research. Additionally, the Committee believes that without
regular turnover of discretionary research, the ability to
facilitate or expand promising breakthroughs in areas of the
food and agricultural sciences of importance to the United
States is compromised. Therefore, the Committee, beginning in
fiscal year 2008, will no longer fund SRGs for more than 3
years.
Economic Research Service
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $75,172,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 82,544,000
House allowance......................................... 80,963,000
Committee recommendation................................ 75,963,000
The Economic Research Service [ERS] provides economic and
other social science information and analysis for public and
private decisions on agriculture, natural resources, food, and
rural America. The information ERS produces is for use by the
general public and to help the executive and legislative
branches develop, administer, and evaluate agricultural and
rural policies and programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $75,963,000
for the Economic Research Service. The Committee directs that
no less than the fiscal year 2006 level be used to implement
the ``Organic Production and Market Data Initiative'' included
in section 7407 of Public Law 107-171.
National Agricultural Statistics Service
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $139,293,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 152,584,000
House allowance......................................... 148,219,000
Committee recommendation................................ 148,719,000
The National Agricultural Statistics Service [NASS]
administers the Department's program of collecting and
publishing current national, State, and county agricultural
statistics. These statistics provide accurate and timely
projections of current agricultural production and measures of
the economic and environmental welfare of the agricultural
sector which are essential for making effective policy,
production, and marketing decisions. NASS also furnishes
statistical services to other USDA and Federal agencies in
support of their missions, and provides consulting, technical
assistance, and training to developing countries.
The Service is also responsible for administration of the
Census of Agriculture, which is taken every 5 years and
provides comprehensive data on the agricultural economy
including: data on the number of farms, land use, production
expenses, farm product values, value of land and buildings,
farm size and characteristics of farm operators, market value
of agricultural production sold, acreage of major crops,
inventory of livestock and poultry, and farm irrigation
practices.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $148,719,000
for the National Agricultural Statistics Service. Included in
this amount is $36,582,000 for the Census of Agriculture.
Organic Data Collection.--The Committee is pleased that
NASS is working to expand the quantity of organic questions
included in the Census of Agriculture, and is aware that there
has been interest expressed in the need for a follow-up survey.
Therefore, the Committee encourages NASS to take all necessary
steps, including a follow-up survey, to collect in-depth
coverage on acreage, yield, production, inventory, production
practices, sales and expenses, marketing channels, and
demographics of the organics industry.
Potato Objective Yield Survey.--The Committee expects NASS
to continue the potato objective yield survey.
Agricultural Research Service
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $1,123,654,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 1,001,385,000
House allowance......................................... 1,057,603,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,127,553,000
The Agricultural Research Service [ARS] is responsible for
conducting basic, applied, and developmental research on: soil,
water, and air sciences; plant and animal productivity;
commodity conversion and delivery; human nutrition; and the
integration of agricultural systems. The research applies to a
wide range of goals; commodities; natural resources; fields of
science; and geographic, climatic, and environmental
conditions.
ARS is also responsible for the Abraham Lincoln National
Agricultural Library which provides agricultural information
and library services through traditional library functions and
modern electronic dissemination to agencies of the USDA, public
and private organizations, and individuals.
As the U.S. Department of Agriculture's in-house
agricultural research unit, ARS has major responsibilities for
conducting and leading the national agricultural research
effort. It provides initiative and leadership in five areas:
research on broad regional and national problems, research to
support Federal action and regulatory agencies, expertise to
meet national emergencies, research support for international
programs, and scientific resources to the executive branch and
Congress.
The mission of ARS research is to develop new knowledge and
technology which will ensure an abundance of high-quality
agricultural commodities and products at reasonable prices to
meet the increasing needs of an expanding economy and to
provide for the continued improvement in the standard of living
of all Americans. This mission focuses on the development of
technical information and technical products which bear
directly on the need to: (1) manage and use the Nation's soil,
water, air, and climate resources, and improve the Nation's
environment; (2) provide an adequate supply of agricultural
products by observing practices that will maintain a
sustainable and effective agriculture sector; (3) improve the
nutrition and well-being of the American people; (4) improve
living in rural America; and (5) strengthen the Nation's
balance of payments.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,127,553,000
for salaries and expenses of the Agricultural Research Service.
For fiscal year 2007, the Committee recommends funding
increases, as specified below, for ongoing research activities.
The remaining increase in appropriations from the fiscal year
2006 level is to be applied to pay and related cost increases
to prevent the further erosion of the agency's capacity to
maintain a viable research program at all research locations.
The Committee expects the agency to give attention to the
prompt implementation and allocation of funds provided for the
purposes identified by Congress.
In complying with the Committee's directives, ARS is
expected not to redirect support for programs from one State to
another without prior notification to and approval by the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations in accordance with the
reprogramming procedures specified in this Act. Unless
otherwise directed, the Agricultural Research Service shall
implement appropriations by programs, projects, commodities,
and activities as specified by the Appropriations Committees.
Unspecified reductions necessary to carry out the provisions of
this Act are to be implemented in accordance with the
definitions contained in the ``Program, Project, and Activity''
section of this report.
The Committee's recommendations with respect to specific
areas of research are as follows:
Agricultural Information.--The Committee recommends an
increase of $540,000 for the National Agricultural Library to
support library and information services, including $150,000 to
strengthen collaborative programs with tribal college libraries
and $40,000 to Drake University.
Air Quality Research.--Agricultural operations produce a
variety of particulates and gases that influence air quality.
Agriculture, through wind erosion, tillage and harvest
operations, burning, diesel-powered machinery and animal
operations, is a source of particulate matter that can cause
pulmonary problems to humans. The Committee recognizes that
sustained research is needed to quantify these emissions,
determine emission factors, and to develop management practices
for producers to address this problem. The Committee recommends
an increase of $200,000 for collaborative research with Utah
State University's Space Dynamics Laboratory to develop and
evaluate sensors, protocols, and statistical procedures that
accurately measure particulates and gaseous emissions from
agriculture operations.
APHIS Support.--U.S. agriculture is faced with increasingly
diverse and severe exotic emerging animal and plant diseases.
In response to these diseases, ARS works closely with APHIS in
providing significant scientific research required for
effective regulatory action. The Committee supports the budget
request to develop diagnostic methods for emerging diseases of
citrus to confirm infection for epidemiological studies and
regulatory actions. The Committee recommends an increase of
$1,000,000 for the following locations for specific research
studies: Fort Detrick, Maryland (Citrus Leprosis Virus)
$300,000; and Parlier, California (Asian Citrus Canker)
$300,000. In addition, the Committee supports the budget
request for expanded research on Sudden Oak Death and
recommends $400,000 to Corvallis, Oregon, for this purpose.
Appalachian Fruit Research Station/Codling Moth.--The
Committee recognizes the importance of fruit research carried
out at the Appalachian Fruit Research Station in Kearneysville,
West Virginia and recommends an increase of $400,000 for
codling moth research.
Appalachian Horticulture Research.--The Committee is aware
that ornamental horticulture, floriculture and nursery crops,
collectively constitute the third most important crop in the
United States, surpassed only by corn and soybeans, with an
average estimated value of more than $11,000,000,000 a year.
Tennessee has a vibrant nursery industry and a growing
floriculture industry. The Committee recommends an increase of
$100,000 for collaborative research with the University of
Tennessee and Tennessee State University, including efforts to
develop resistant genes in dogwoods and other woody
ornamentals, new tissue culture techniques, and techniques to
enable rapid deployment of new cultivars for the marketplace.
This program is managed through the ARS Poplarville,
Mississippi, Research Station.
Aquaculture (Hagerman Station).--The Committee recommends
an increase of $300,000 to support an ARS scientist at the
Hagerman Station, and to rear and maintain broodstock from
selected strains and family lines, and to support multi-
location operational and partnership activities with the
University of Idaho.
Aquaculture Research.--The Committee acknowledges the
importance of avoiding duplication in the research administered
by the USDA at various locations throughout the country. In
order to ensure that duplication does not occur in the field of
warmwater aquaculture research, the Stuttgart research facility
should not engage in channel catfish research related to
production systems, nutrition, water quality, genetics, disease
diagnosis, or food processing which is ongoing at the National
Warmwater Aquaculture Research Center at Stoneville,
Mississippi.
Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi.--The Committee understands
that the agency conducts research on Arbuscular mycorrhizal
fungi [AMF] which are beneficial microorganisms that infect the
roots of most crop plants. The fungi benefit crops through
increased nutrient update, increased resistance to disease and
drought, and improved soil water holding capacity. The fungi
are dependent on their plant host for sugars and other
substances. Understanding the physiological relationships
between AMF and their plant hosts will help scientists develop
ways to mass-produce the best fungi and apply them in the field
to stimulate crop growth and yield. The Committee recommends
the fiscal year 2006 funding level to the Rodale Institute's
Farming Systems Trial for fungi research.
Avian Influenza.--Avian influenza presents a major disease
threat to the U.S. poultry industry. The recent outbreak of
H5N1 avian influenza in chickens and people in Asia, Africa,
and Europe illustrates the potential public health threats
faced by this country. The Committee recommends an
appropriation of $3,000,000 for expanded research on avian
influenza at Athens, Georgia for the purpose of validating
diagnostic technologies required for both nucleic acids and
antibodies; understanding virus persistence and transmission in
host reservoirs; and for developing and characterizing
effective countermeasures.
Bee Genetic Resources Research.--The Committee recognizes
the importance of crop pollination research carried out by ARS
and recommends an increase of $100,000 for Logan, Utah for non-
Apis research.
Bioenergy Research.--Soaring energy prices, instability of
petroleum exporting countries, and environmental concerns
dictate the need to develop alternative domestic sources of
energy from agricultural commodities. The Committee recommends
an increase of $1,800,000 which includes $500,000 for
bioenergy, bioprocessing, and bioproduct utilization research
at Pullman, Washington; $500,000 for energy sugarcane biofuel
research at Houma, Louisiana; $250,000 for biomass crop
production research at Brookings, South Dakota; $250,000 for
peanut oil biofuel research at Stillwater, Oklahoma; and
$300,000 for collaborative bioenergy research with the
University of Central Florida.
Bioinformatics Institute for Model Plant Species.--The
Committee recommends an increase of $300,000 to expand current
agricultural genome bioinformatics research carried out by the
Bioinformatics Institute for Model Plant Species, National
Center for Genome Resources at Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Biomedical Materials in Plants.--Continued research is
needed to carry out studies on tobacco and other plants as a
medium to produce vaccines and other biomedical products for
the prevention of many human and animal diseases. The Committee
recommends the fiscal year 2006 funding level for cooperative
research with the Biotechnology Foundation.
Biotechnology Research and Development Corporation.--The
Committee directs the agency to continue its support of the
Biotechnology Research and Development Corporation's research
on both plants and animals at the fiscal year 2006 level.
Biotechnology Research to Improve Crops and Livestock.--
Biotechnology research has opened the path for sequencing and
mapping the genes of crops and livestock, marking genes for
adding precision to breeding of improved plants and animals,
and identifying gene products through proteomics technology.
Other technological advancements can be achieved in the
livestock industry through the development of imaging at the
molecular level using light, heat, and/or fluorescing
signatures. These biotechnology efforts generate huge volumes
of data, which must be managed, transmitted electronically, and
analyzed. The Committee recommends the fiscal year 2006 funding
level at Stoneville, Mississippi, to support cooperative
research in genomics and bioinformatics and in the use of
biophotonics for the imaging of animal physiological processes
at the cellular level.
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy.--The Committee is aware
of the serious health and economic consequences associated with
bovine spongiform encephalopathy [BSE] and supports expanded
research in the areas of pathogenesis, diagnostics, and
intervention. The Committee recommends an increase of
$3,000,000 which includes BSE risk assessment, species
susceptibility, and animal tests at Ames, Iowa ($2,000,000);
pathophysiology of BSE and feed decontamination at Albany,
California ($600,000); and research on transmissible spongiform
encephalopathy [TSE] strains at Pullman, Washington ($400,000).
The Committee also recommends increases for expanded research
to identify genetic variations associated with diseases
susceptibility in cattle, sheep, and wildlife at Ames, Iowa
($1,000,000) and at Clay Center, Nebraska ($1,000,000). The
Committee also recommends increases for expanded research to
develop effective countermeasures to control and eradicate TSE
agents at Albany, California ($200,000); Ames, Iowa ($600,000)
and at Pullman, Washington ($200,000).
Broiler Production in the Mid-South.--Reduced broiler
production costs are essential for the industry to increase net
profit and remain competitive internationally. The Committee
recognizes the importance of the cooperation between the ARS
Poultry Research Unit and the Mississippi Agricultural and
Forestry Experiment Station at Mississippi State. This
cooperation has resulted in improved bird nutrition, control of
mycoplasma disease with vaccines, and overall health, vigor,
and growth of the birds through improved housing environmental
controls. The Committee recommends the fiscal year 2006 funding
level for cooperative research on reducing ammonia levels in
poultry litter, improving environmental controls, and reducing
mortality in broiler flocks.
Canada Thistle.--The Committee recognizes the importance of
controlling and eradicating the Canada thistle, a noxious,
invasive weed that has surpassed leafy spurge in infested
acreage in North Dakota. The Committee recommends the fiscal
year 2006 funding level to carry out research experiments to
examine the population genetics and biology of Canada thistle
and to combat this weed in North Dakota and surrounding States.
The research is to be conducted at the ARS research facility at
Fargo, North Dakota.
Coffee and Cocoa.--The disease resistance and alternative
crop research program for coffee and cocoa has important
economic benefits and implications for U.S. foreign policy
goals in South Central America and West Africa. As a globally
marketable cash crop, cocoa can provide an alternative,
environmentally beneficial choice for small farmers to abandon
illegal crops. Cocoa is produced primarily by small farmers in
the tropics of South Central America and West Africa that is
also under severe disease pressure which threatens the
stability of the world's supply of cocoa and the economies of
other cocoa-producing nations. The Committee recommends the
fiscal year 2006 funding level for this research on coffee and
cocoa.
Cotton Ginning Laboratory.--The Committee recommends an
increase of $200,000 for ARS cotton ginning research at
Stoneville, Mississippi.
Cropping Systems Research.--Crop management practices to
limit erosion on the highly erodible soils of Tennessee and
other southern States impacts soybean diseases, both favorably
and adversely. Research is needed to optimize disease control
while maintaining the best crop management practices to protect
soil and water quality. The Committee recommends an increase of
$150,000 for cropping systems research at the University of
Tennessee and the West Tennessee Agriculture Experiment
Station.
Dairy Forage Research.--The Committee recognizes the
important research on dairy forage carried out by ARS at the
U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center in Madison, Wisconsin. The
Committee recommends an increase of $600,000 for expanded dairy
forage research at the center.
Delta Human Nutrition Research.--The Committee recognizes
the significant benefits to the health of rural populations
from nutrition and dietary research at the Delta Human
Nutrition Research Laboratory at Stoneville, Mississippi Center
and recommends an increase of $400,000 for that critical
effort.
Drought Mitigation.--With an estimated cost to the Nation
of $6,000,000,000 to $8,000,000,000 annually, drought is
perhaps the most pervasive and devastating acts of nature. The
Committee recommends an increase of $750,000 to reduce
agriculture's vulnerability to drought, which includes $250,000
each to Phoenix, Arizona; Riverside, California; and Akron,
Colorado, for specific research on wastewater irrigation.
Emerging Diseases of Crops.--Continued development of
pathogen detection, exclusion, and quarantine treatment
technologies is important for keeping new diseases from
becoming established in the United States and for producing
fruits, crops, and commodities that can be shipped and sold in
markets around the world. The Committee supports the budget
request and recommends an increase of $500,000 for expanded
research to mitigate the impact of citrus canker at Fort
Pierce, Florida and $300,000 for expanded research on pathogens
of fruits and nursery crops at Beltsville, Maryland.
Fish Diseases.--The development of safe and effective
vaccines for prevention of disease in catfish is essential to
the growth of the catfish industry. There are currently only a
number of approved therapeutic compounds available to support
fish health. Vaccinations, successful in other animals, appear
to be the best means of preventing diseases. The Committee
recommends an increase of $300,000 for the ARS Fish Disease and
Parasitic Research Laboratory at Auburn, Alabama.
Floriculture and Nursery Research.--Nursery and greenhouse
products rank third in production in the Nation. As the public
demands more plants and trees to help clean the air, prevent
water runoff and soil erosion, and improve water conservation
and quality, the nursery industry is playing an expanding and
significant role in enhancing environmental quality. The
Committee recommends the fiscal year 2006 funding level for
floriculture and nursery research aimed at reducing chemical
use, improved post-harvest life of flowers and plants, disease
and pest resistant flowers and plants, control of root
diseases, robotics research, and control of run-off from
greenhouse and nursery operations.
Food Safety.--The Committee supports the Department's
request to expand research on pre- and post-harvest food safety
research. Additional appropriations are provided to develop
food animal surveillance and epidemiology programs for dairy
animals at Beltsville, Maryland for $250,000. An increase of
$200,000 is recommended for research on pathogens at the pre-
harvest stage at College Station, Texas. The Committee also
supports expanded research to develop detection and processing
methodologies on liquid egg products contamination at Wyndmoor,
Pennsylvania for $250,000. The Committee is aware of the
significance of the research currently underway relating to
catfish and other food products at the Mississippi Center for
Food Safety and Postharvest Technology and recommends an
increase of $300,000 for research on the detection of food-
borne pathogens. The Committee also recommends $350,000 to
Fargo, North Dakota, for the identification of toxic chemical
residues and heavy metals that pose a food security risk.
Forage and Range Research.--The Committee recommends an
increase of $300,000 to be used to establish a germplasm
geneticist research position at the USDA-ARS Forage and Range
Research Laboratory at Logan, Utah. The germplasm geneticist
position will be responsible for developing drought-resistant
turfgrasses for western States.
Genetic Resources.--The Committee supports the request for
additional appropriations to preserve germplasm for traits of
economic importance of livestock and poultry and to acquire,
enhance, and characterize genetic resources of plants. The
Committee recommends an increase of $200,000 each to Clay
Center, Nebraska for cattle, poultry, swine, and sheep,
germplasm; to Raleigh, North Carolina for genetic resource
enhancement of maize; and to Aberdeen, Idaho for genetic
resource enhancement of barley.
Genomics Research.--The productivity of the U.S. beef
industry is largely the result of the long-term genetic
improvement research conducted over the last 75 years. While
significant genetic change in beef output measures such as
growth and meat yield and quality has been achieved, there has
been virtually no change in traits directly affecting the cost
of production, such as efficiency of energy utilization and
reproductive rate. The Committee supports the budget request
for expanded research on applied genomics for livestock
production efficiency and recommends an increase of $550,000
for Clay Center, Nebraska and $200,000 for Miles City, Montana.
In addition, an increase of $250,000 is recommended to St.
Paul, Minnesota for oat genomic research.
Grazinglands Research.--The Committee recommends an
increase of $200,000 for the Grazinglands Research Laboratory
at El Reno, Oklahoma to expand important agronomic research in
the efficient use of plant protein by grazing livestock.
Great Lakes Aquaculture Research.--The Committee recognizes
the important research studies that ARS carries out nationwide
that benefit the aquaculture industry and the American
consumer. Expanded research is essential if we are to improve
production technology of Great Lakes species such as whitefish,
lake trout, yellow perch, walleye, and northern pike. The
Committee recommends an increase of $250,000 for a
collaborative research with the Great Lakes Aquaculture Center
to support this research.
Harry Dupree National Aquaculture Research Center.--
Arkansas leads the Nation in raising hybrid striped bass, as
well as in producing 80 percent of the Nation's baitfish and
other food fishes. The Committee understands that this Center
plays a significant role in meeting the needs of the U.S.
aquaculture industry by conducting research aimed at improving
yields, food quality, disease control, and stress tolerance.
The Committee recommends the fiscal year 2006 funding level for
research on the genetic improvement of hybrid striped bass.
Hawaii Agriculture Research Center.--The Committee
recommends the fiscal year 2006 funding level for the Hawaii
Agriculture Research Center to enhance the competitiveness of
U.S. sugarcane producers and to continue to support the
expansion of new crops and products, including those from
agroforestry, to complement sugarcane production in Hawaii.
Improved Crop Production Practices.--The Committee is aware
of the excellent research progress on the integration of
conservation tillage, precision agriculture, and management of
poultry litter carried out at the National Soil Dynamics
Laboratory, Auburn, Alabama. The Committee recommends an
increase of $250,000 for expanded research activities.
Improved Forage-Livestock Research.--The Committee
recognizes the successful cooperation between ARS and the
University of Kentucky scientists on forage-animal-based
enterprises. The efficiency of nutrient use by forage animals
can be improved by a better understanding of animal and
microbial interaction at the Animal Rumen-forage interface, as
well as to promote the health, well-being, and productivity of
grazing animals by optimizing forages they consume. The
Committee recommends an increase of $300,000 to continue this
important cooperative research program. The purpose is to
improve productivity, profitability, competitiveness and
sustainability of animal enterprises dependent on forages.
Malignanat Catarrhat Fever Virus.--The Committee
acknowledges the importance of research for the sheep-
associated virus, Malignant Catarrhal Fever [MCF], infecting
small ruminants. The Committee recommends the fiscal year 2006
funding level for research on the development of vaccines
critical to the systematic eradication of MCF virus in small
ruminants at the ARS laboratory at Pullman, Washington, in
cooperation with the ARS sheep station at Dubois, Idaho, and
Washington State University.
Medicinal and Bioactive Crops.--Increased research is
needed to carry out studies on medicinal and bioactive crops as
a medium to produce vaccines and other biomedical products for
the prevention of many human and animal diseases. The Committee
recommends an increase of $200,000 for Oxford, Mississippi, for
cooperative research with the Stephen F. Austin State
University, and $200,000 for the U.S. National Arboretum for
cooperative research with the University of Maryland.
Medusahead Research.--Medusahead, and other annual grasses,
are destroying the agricultural economy, ecology, and fires
regimes of the Great Basin. These weeds have invaded about 27
million acres, and are spreading across the region at an
alarming rate. These weeds displace native vegetation on which
much of the rural economies depend. Medusahead, and other
grasses, displace habitat for important wildlife, such as sage
grouse. The Committee recommends an increase of $300,000 to
ARS' Burns, Oregon research laboratory.
Michael Fields Agricultural Institute.--The Committee
recommends the fiscal year 2006 funding level for ARS
collaborative research with the Michael Fields Agricultural
Institute. This research provides for development of high-
quality corn in Wisconsin and other Midwestern States for
increased nutritional value and adaptation to sustainable
farming systems. Collaborative research is directed at corn
breeding, analysis, corn quality, on-farm research and
information dissemination.
Mosquito Biological Control (West Nile Virus).--Mosquitoes
have reemerged as disease transmitters with the occurrence of
West Nile Virus. Their populations are at unacceptable levels
throughout the lower Mississippi River floodplain. The
Committee recommends an increase of $150,000 for research on
the biological control of mosquitoes at the ARS Biological
Control Laboratory at Stoneville, Mississippi. This ARS
laboratory is strategically located to conduct research for
biologically controlling mosquitoes.
National Cold Water Marine Aquaculture Center.--The
Committee notes the importance of aquaculture research to the
State of Maine, which leads the Nation in Atlantic salmon
cultivation. Other important aquaculture species in Maine
include shellfish and trout. Research on marine finfish is
vitally important to Maine's aquaculture program. Finfish,
including haddock, halibut, and cod, are primary candidates for
future diversity of Maine's aquaculture industry. The Committee
recommends an increase of $250,000 for this research, which
will be undertaken at the Franklin, Maine, research location.
National Nutrition Monitoring System.--Health and dietary
information gathered from USDA and the Department of Health and
Human Services is critical to the Nation and plays a key role
in shaping national food policies and programs including food
safety, food labeling, child nutrition, food assistance and
dietary guidance. The Committee recommends the fiscal year 2006
funding level for the combined national nutrition monitoring
program.
National Sedimentation Laboratory.--The Committee
recommends an increase of $200,000 to the National
Sedimentation Laboratory to conduct research on sources and
causes of water impairment in the Yazoo River Basin and to seek
economically feasible Best Management Practices for attaining
new water quality goals, commonly referenced as Total Maximum
Daily Loads, at field, farm, watershed, and basin levels.
Northern Appalachian Experimental Watershed, Coshocton,
Ohio.--The mission of the North Appalachian Experimental
Watershed is to conduct research on hydrology, surface runoff,
groundwater quality, and erosion for agricultural and other
purposes. Conservation tillage, filter strips, crop rotations,
manure management, input of high runoff generating areas,
reduced input management practices, and pasture management
systems are evaluated using watersheds and monolith lysimeters.
Quantification of runoff and water quality risks through
analysis of data and precipitation and weather investigations
are also a component of the research. A 67-year data base of
measurements from rain gages, watershed flumes and weirs, and
automated data collecting lysimeters along with soil and
climatology data provide a long-term frame of reference which
is essential in the evaluation of current experimental data.
Research is designed to develop knowledge of basic water
sediment, and chemical movement and to develop practical
procedures and verify models describing their transport.
Practical results of the research are to develop safe pesticide
and nutrient management strategies while maintaining high
agricultural productivity levels, and to develop practical
management tools. The Committee recommends an increases of
$100,000 for this research.
Northern Great Plains Research Laboratory, Mandan, North
Dakota.--This ARS research station conducts economically
sustainable and environmentally sound integrated crop and
livestock management systems for agricultural producers in the
Northern Great Plains. In this regard, the station cooperates
with the Hettinger Research and Extension Center in developing
crop and livestock management systems that will increase the
value of crops and animals produced in the region. The
Committee recommends an increase of $100,000 for Northern Great
Plains Research Laboratory, Mandan, North Dakota, to support
planned research.
National Center for Excellence in Foods and Nutrition
Research.--The Committee believes there is a great potential
benefit in the human nutrition work of the National Center for
Excellence in Foods and Nutrition Research (NutriCore)
headquartered in Indiana with regional hubs in Pennsylvania,
California, Texas, Mississippi, and Iowa. The Committee
recommends an increase of $100,000 to expand this program.
Obesity Prevention.--The Economic Research Service
estimates that health care costs resulting from poor nutrition
and obesity cost Americans over $200,000,000,000 annually. Two
out of every three American adults are overweight and the
number of overweight children has doubled in the past 20 years.
The Committee recognizes the scientific expertise and core
capability of the ARS Human Nutrition program to conduct food-
based and multidisciplinary research strategy for reducing
obesity in the United States. The Committee recommends an
increase of $3,000,000, with $500,000 each provided to
Beltsville, Maryland; Boston, Massachusetts; Grand Forks, North
Dakota; Davis, California; Houston, Texas; and Little Rock.
Ogallala Aquifer.--Surface water in the Central High Plains
region is severely limited and the Ogallala Aquifer, which
underlies this area, has provided water for the development of
a highly significant agricultural economy. However, the
Ogallala Aquifer is a finite resource. The Committee recommends
an increase of $500,000 for research into the complex nature of
water availability, potential uses, and costs which will help
determine future water policy in this region. This research is
to be based in Texas but coordinated with other affected
States, including Kansas.
Onion Iris Yellow Spot Virus and Thrip Research.--The
Committee recommends an increase of $250,000 for research into
treating and preventing Yellow Spot Virus, and preventing thrip
infestation.
Organic Research.--The Committee notes the growing
importance of organic agriculture production and processing.
Accordingly, the ARS is encouraged to direct funding, as
appropriate, to research activities that benefit this sector of
the agricultural sector.
Papaya Ringspot Virus.--The Committee recommends the fiscal
year 2006 funding level to the University of Hawaii College of
Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources to monitor and refine
control of the papaya ringspot virus; to induce nematode
resistance, flowering control, and mealy bug wilt disease
resistance in commercial pineapple varieties; and, to expand
the techniques and knowledge obtained from this program to
create disease and pest resistance in other tropical crops such
as banana and flowers where there is strong industry support
and interest in these transgenic approaches. The Committee
views the development of pest and disease resistant plants as
supportive of a national agricultural research agenda to
minimize the application of chemical pesticides.
Poisonous Plant Research.--The USDA Poisonous Plant
Research Laboratory at Logan, Utah conducts vital research on
the effects of poisonous plants on livestock in support of the
Nation's livestock industry. The Committee is aware of the
important investigations carried out by this laboratory and the
significant contributions it has made in agricultural plant and
animal sciences. The Committee recommends an increase of
$125,000 to continue this important research.
Polymer Research.--The Committee is aware of the research
being carried out by the Kansas Polymer Research Center [KPRC]
at Pittsburgh State University on biobased polymers that have a
high potential for commercialization. The KPRC is a leader in
research on converting vegetable oils, principally soybean oil,
to polyols for use in industrial polyurethane applications.
Also, KPRC scientists have been awarded nine patents in polymer
research in the last 10 years. The Committee recommends an
increase of $400,000 to Peoria, Illinois for collaborative
research on polymer research with KPRC.
Poultry Production and Product Safety Research.--The
Committee is aware of the poultry production and product safety
research being conducted by the ARS Poultry Laboratory at
Fayetteville, Arkansas, in conjunction with the Center of
Excellence for Poultry Science on the University of Arkansas
campus in Fayetteville. The Committee recommends the fiscal
year 2006 funding level in support of this poultry research to
improve the quality of poultry production and reduce production
problems for the poultry industry.
Program Continuations.--The Committee directs the
Agricultural Research Service to continue to fund the following
areas of research in fiscal year 2007 at the same funding level
recommended in fiscal year 2006: Agroforestry Research
(Shiitake Mushroom), Booneville, Arkansas; Air Quality Research
(PM-10), Pullman, Washington; Air Quality, Ames, Iowa, HQ (Utah
State Space Dynamics Lab.); Alternative Crops and Value Added
Products, Stoneville, Mississippi; Animal Health Consortium,
Peoria, Illinois; Animal Vaccines, Greenport, New York; Animal
Welfare Information Center; Appalachian Fruit Research Station,
Kearneysville, West Virginia; Appalachian Horticulture Research
(U of TN/TN State), Poplarville, Mississippi; Appalachian
Pasture Based Beef Systems (WV Univ/VA Tech), Beaver, West
Virginia; Aquaculture Fisheries Center, Pine Bluff, Arkansas;
Aquaculture Initiative, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Inst.,
Stuttgart, Arkansas; Aquaculture Research, Aberdeen, Idaho;
Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi (Rodale Inst.), Wyndmoor,
Pennsylvania; Arctic Germplasm, Palmer, Alaska; Arid Lands, Las
Cruces, New Mexico (Jornada); Barley Yellow Dwarf, West
Lafayette, Indiana; Bee Research (Chalk Brood), Logan, Utah;
Binational Agricultural Research and Development Program, HQ;
Biological Weed Control, Sidney, Montana; Biomedical Materials
in Plants (Biotech Foundation), Beltsville, Maryland;
Bioremediation Research, Beltsville, Maryland; Biotechnology
Research and Development Corporation, Peoria, Illinois;
Biotechnology Research to Improve Crops & Livestock,
Stoneville, Mississippi; Broiler Production in the Mid-South,
Mississippi State, Mississippi; Canada Thistle, Fargo, North
Dakota; Cereal Crops, Fargo, North Dakota; Cereal Crops
Research, Madison, Wisconsin; Cereal Disease, St. Paul,
Minnesota; Chronic Diseases of Children, Houston, Texas; Citrus
Waste Utilization, Winter Haven, Florida; Coffee and Cocoa,
Beltsville, Maryland; Coffee and Cocoa, Miami, Florida; Coffee
and Cocoa (Control of Perennial and Annual Weeds), HQ; Corn
Germplasm, Mississippi State, Mississippi; Corn Germplasm,
Ames, Iowa; Corn Rootworm (Risk Assessment for Bt Corn), Ames,
Iowa; Cotton Ginning Research, Las Cruces, New Mexico; Cotton
Ginning, Stoneville, Mississippi; Cotton Pathology, Shafter,
California; Cropping Systems Research, Stoneville, Mississippi
(U TN/W TN Ag Expt. Sta.); Dairy Forage, Madison, Wisconsin;
Delta Human Nutrition Research, Stoneville, Mississippi; Diet
and Immune Function [ACNC], Little Rock, Arkansas; Diet
Nutrition and Obesity Research (Pennington), New Orleans,
Louisiana; Dryland Production, Akron, Colorado; Ecology of
Tamarix, Reno, Nevada; Endophyte Research, Booneville,
Arkansas; Flood/Control Acoustic Technology, Oxford,
Mississippi; Floriculture and Nursery Crops, HQ; Food
Fermentation Research, Raleigh, North Carolina; Food Safety for
Listeria and E.coli, Albany, California; Forage and Range
Research, Logan, Utah; Formosan Termite, New Orleans,
Louisiana; Genomics of Pest Resistance in Wheat, West
Lafayette, Indiana; Golden Nematode, Ithaca, New York; Grain
Research, Manhattan, Kansas; Grape Genetics, Geneva, New York;
Grape Rootstock, Geneva, New York; Grapefruit Juice/Drug
Interaction, Winterhaven, Florida; Great Basins Rangeland,
Boise, Idaho; Great Basins Rangeland, Reno, Nevada; Greenhouse
and Hydroponics Research, Wooster, Ohio; Greenhouse Lettuce
Germplasm, Salinas, California; Harry Dupree National
Aquaculture Research Center, Stuttgart, Arkansas; Hops
Research, Corvallis, Oregon; Hyperspectral Imaging, New
Orleans, Louisiana; Improved Crop Practices, Auburn, Alabama;
Improved Forage and Livestock Production, Lexington, Kentucky
(U of KY); Integrated Farming, Ames, Iowa; Integrated Farming
Systems/Dairy Forage, Madison, Wisconsin; Invasive Ludwigia
Research, Davis, California; IPM for Northern Climate Crops,
Fairbanks, Alaska; Irrigated Cropping Systems in the Mid-South,
Stoneville, Mississippi; Jornada Experimental Range Research
Station, Las Cruces, New Mexico; Karnal Bunt, Manhattan,
Kansas; Lettuce Geneticist/Breeder, Salinas, California;
Livestock & Range Research/Fort Keogh, Miles City, Montana;
Malignant Catarrhal Fever [MCF] Virus, Pullman, Washington;
Manure Management Research (National Swine Research Center),
Ames, Iowa; Medicinal and Bioactive Crops (Stephen F. Austin
State Univ./Univ. MD); Medicinal Botanical Production and
Processing, Beaver, West Virginia; Michael Fields Agricultural
Institute, Madison, Wisconsin; Microbial Genomics, Kerrville,
Texas; Microbial Genomics, Pullman, Washington; Mid-West/Mid-
South Irrigation, Columbia, Missouri (Delta Center, U of MO);
Minor Use Pesticide (IR-4), various locations; Mosquito
Biological Control, Stoneville, Mississippi; National Center
for Agricultural Law; National Cold Water Marine Aquaculture,
Franklin, Maine; National Germplasm Resource Program, various
locations; National Nutrition Monitoring System, Beltsville,
Maryland; National Sclerotinia Initiative, Fargo, North Dakota;
National Sedimentation Lab (Yazoo River Basin/TMDLs), Oxford,
Mississippi; National Sedimentation Lab Acoustics, Oxford,
Mississippi; National Sedimentation Laboratory Yazoo Basin,
Oxford, Mississippi; National Soil Dynamics Lab (Improved Crop
Production), Auburn, Alabama; National Wheat and Barley Scab
Initiative, Fargo, North Dakota; National Wheat and Barley Scab
Initiative, HQ; Nat'l Center for Cool & Coldwater Aquaculture,
Leetown, West Virginia; Nat'l Center for Cool & Coldwater
Aquaculture--Aquaculture Systems, Leetown, West Virginia;
Natural Products, Oxford, Mississippi; NE Plant, Soil and Water
Laboratory, Orono, Maine; Nematology Research, Tifton, Georgia;
Northern Grain Insects Laboratory, Brookings, South Dakota;
Northern Great Plains Ecosystem, Sidney, Montana; Northern
Great Plains Research Laboratory, Mandan, North Dakota;
Northern Plains Agricultural Research Lab, Sidney, Montana;
Noxious Weeds in the Desert Southwest, Las Cruces, New Mexico;
NutriCore (National Center for Excellence in Foods and
Nutrition Research), HQ; Nutritional Requirements, Houston,
Texas; NW Small Fruits Research (Eastern Filbert Blight),
Corvallis, Oregon; Oat Virus, West Lafayette, Indiana; Ogallala
Aquifer, Bushland, Texas (Texas A&M;, Texas Tech and KSU]; Olive
Fruit Fly, Parlier, California; Organic Minor Crop Research,
Salinas, California; Pasture Systems and Watershed Management,
University Park, Pennsylvania; Peanut Production, Dawson,
Georgia; Peanut Research, Dawson, Georgia; Peanut Variety,
Stillwater, Oklahoma; Pear Thrips, Ithaca, New York (U of VT);
Pecan Scab Research, Byron, Georgia; Pierce's Disease/Glassy-
winged Sharpshooter, Davis, California; Pineapple Nematode
Research, Hilo, Hawaii; Plant Genetic, Diversity and Gene
Discovery, Logan, Utah; Plant Protein Grazing Livestock, El
Reno, Oklahoma; Plum Pox, Frederick, Maryland; Post Harvest and
Controlled Atmosphere Chamber (lettuce), Salinas, California;
Potato Breeding, Aberdeen, Idaho; Prosser, Washington; Potato
Research Enhancement, Prosser, Washington; Potato Storage,
Madison, Wisconsin; Poultry Production and Product Safety Unit,
Fayetteville, Arizona; Precision Agriculture Research, Mandan,
North Dakota; Rainbow Trout, Aberdeen, Idaho; Range and Forage
Management (Sage Grouse), Burns, Oregon; Rangeland Resource
Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; Rangeland Resources Research,
Las Cruces, New Mexico; Residue Management in Sugarcane
(Sugarcane Research), Houma, Louisiana; Resist. Mgmt and Risk
Assmt in Bt Cotton and Other Plant Inc Protectants, Stoneville,
Mississippi; Rice Research, Stuttgart, Arkansas; Seafood Waste,
Fairbanks, Alaska; Seasonal Grazing, Coshocton, Ohio;
Sedimentation Issues in Flood Control Dam Rehabilitations,
Oxford, Mississippi; Seismic and Acoustic Technologies in Soils
Sed. Lab, Oxford, Mississippi; Shellfish Genetics, Newport,
Oregon; Small Farms, Booneville, Arkansas; Small Fruits
Research/Ornamental/Horticulture, Poplarville, Mississippi;
Soil Erosion Lab, West Lafayette, Indiana; Soil Plant Nutrient
Research, Fort Collins, Colorado; Sorghum Research, Little
Rock, Arkansas, Manhattan, Kansas; Source Water Protection
Initiatives, West Lafayette, Indiana; South Central
Agricultural Research Laboratory, Lane, Oklahoma; Southeastern
Fruit and Tree Nut Research, Byron, Georgia; Soybean and
Nitrogen Fixation, Raleigh, North Carolina; Soybean Cyst
Nematode, Stoneville, Mississippi; Soybean Genetics, Columbia,
Missouri; Soybean Research in the South, Stoneville,
Mississippi; Sugarbeet Research, Kimberly, Idaho; Sugarcane
Variety Research, Canal Point, Florida; Sustainable Aquaculture
Feeds, Aberdeen, Idaho; Sustainable Vineyards/Viticulture
Practices, Davis, California; Sweet Potato, Stoneville,
Mississippi; Swine Production Research (Meat-type pigs), Clay
Center, Nebraska; Temperate Fruit Flies, Wapato, Washington;
Termite Species in Hawaii, Hilo, Hawaii; Tree Fruit Quality
Research, Wenatchee, Washington; Tropical Aquaculture Feeds
(Oceanic Institute), Hilo, Hawaii; Trout Genome Mapping,
Leetown, West Virginia; Turfgrass Research, Beaver, West
Virginia; U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center
[HARC], Hilo, Hawaii; U.S. Vegetable Laboratory, Charleston,
South Carolina; Vegetable Crops Research, Madison, Wisconsin;
Virus Free Fruit Tree Cultivars, Wapato, Washington; Virus Free
Potato Germplasm, Fairbanks, Alaska; Viticulture, Corvallis,
Oregon, HQ; Waste Management, Bowling Green, Kentucky (W. KY
Univ.); Water Management Research Laboratory, Brawley,
California; Water Resources Management, Tifton, Georgia; Water
Use Management Technology, Tifton, Georgia; Water Use
Reduction, Dawson, Georgia; Watershed Research, Columbia,
Missouri; Weed Management Research, Beltsville, Maryland;
Western Grazinglands, Burns, Oregon, Reno, Nevada; Wheat
Quality Research, Fargo, North Dakota; Wheat Quality Research,
Wooster, Ohio; Wheat Quality Research/Western Wheat, Pullman,
Washington; Winter Grain Legume, Pullman, Washington; Woody
Genomics and Breeding for the Southeast, Poplarville,
Mississippi; Location/Unit Closures: Animal Physiology Unit,
Athens, Georgia; Biological Control of Insects Unit, Columbia,
Missouri; Cotton Ginning Research Unit, Las Cruces, New Mexico;
Crop Genetic and Environmental Research Unit, Gainesville,
Florida; Dairy Processing and Products Research Unit, Wyndmoor,
Pennsylvania; Dale Bumpers Small Farms Research Center,
Booneville, Arkansas; Exotic and Invasive Weeds Unit, Reno,
Nevada; Fruit Laboratory, Beltsville, Maryland; Midwest
Livestock Insects Unit, Lincoln, Nebraska; North Appalachian
Experimental Watershed Unit, Coshocton, Ohio; Phytonutrients
Laboratory, Beltsville, Maryland; Poultry Production and
Products Safety, Fayetteville, Arkansas; Subarctic Agricultural
Research Unit, Fairbanks, Alaska; Swine Odor and Manure
Management Unit, Ames, Iowa; Tropical Plant Physiology, Disease
and Production Unit, Hilo, Hawaii; Waste Management and Forage
Unit, Mississippi State, Mississippi; Wild Rice, St. Paul,
Minnesota; Wind Erosion Unit, Manhattan, Kansas.
Program Redirections.--The Committee supports increased
emphasis for national high priority research in the areas of
emerging diseases in plants and animals; invasive species;
bovine spongiform encephalopathy [BSE]; food safety; obesity
/
/
/
/
/
/
//nutrition; biobased products/bioenergy; air and water quality;
genomics; and genetic resources and concurs with the
redirection of the following ongoing programs to enhance these
efforts: Arkansas Children's Nutrition Center; Asian Bird
Influenza, Athens, Georgia; Avian Pneumovirus, Athens, Georgia;
Bioinformatics Institute for Model Plant Species, Ames, Iowa;
Biomass Crop Production, Brookings, South Dakota; Broomweed
Biological Controls, Albany, California; Catfish Genome,
Auburn, Alabama; Catfish Health, Stoneville, Mississippi;
Center for Food Safety and Post-Harvest Technology, HQ; Corn
Resistant to Aflatoxin, Mississippi State, Mississippi; Cotton
Genomics, Breeding and Variety Development, Stoneville,
Mississippi; Dairy Genetics, Beltsville, Maryland; Delta
Nutrition Intervention Initiative, Little Rock, Arkansas; Feed
Efficiency in Cattle, Clay Center, Nebraska; Food Safety and
Engineering, Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania; Fort Pierce Horticulture
Lab, Fort Pierce, Florida; Geisinger Rural Aging Study, Boston,
Massachusetts; Grain Legume Plant Pathologist Position,
Pullman, Washington; Grand Forks Human Nutrition Laboratory,
North Dakota; Great Lakes Aquaculture Research, Madison,
Wisconsin; Hides and Leather Research, Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania;
Human Nutrition Center on Aging (Equipment), Boston,
Massachusetts; Human Nutrition Center on Aging (Obesity),
Boston, Massachusetts; Johne's Disease, Ames, Iowa; Livestock
Genome Mapping, Clay Center, Nebraska; National Corn to Ethanol
Research Pilot Plant, HQ; National Warmwater Aquaculture
Center, Stoneville, Mississippi; National Wheat and Barley Scab
Initiative, Manhattan, Kansas; Obesity Research, Houston,
Texas; Phytoestrogen Research, New Orleans, Louisiana;
Poisonous Plant Research Laboratory (Locoweed), Logan, Utah;
Poult Enterititis-Mortality Syndrome [PEMS], Athens, Georgia;
Poultry Disease, Athens, Georgia; Poultry Disease, East
Lansing, Michigan; Red Imported Fire Ants, Stoneville,
Mississippi; Regional Grains Genotyping Research, Raleigh,
North Carolina; Regional Molecular Genotyping, Manhattan,
Kansas; Regional Molecular Genotyping, Fargo, North Dakota;
Regional Molecular Genotyping, Pullman, Washington; Root
Diseases in Wheat and Barley, Pullman, Wisconsin; Sudden Oak
Disease, Davis, California; Swine Lagoon Alternatives Research,
Florence, South Carolina; Transmissible Spongiform
Encephalopathies, Ames, Iowa; Vaccines and Microbe Control for
Fish Health/Fish Diseases, Auburn, Alabama; Wheat Quality
Research, Manhattan, Kansas.
Red River Valley Agricultural Research.--The Committee
supports the important research being carried out by ARS on
wheat, barley, and oat production at the Red River Valley
Agricultural Research Center, Fargo, North Dakota. The
Committee recommends an increase of $300,000 to expand
important research on these major grain crops.
Regional Molecular Genotyping Research.--The Committee
concurs with the need to accelerate the application of DNA
molecular marker technology in order to accelerate plant
improvement in wheat, barley, oats, and other small grains
breeding programs. Regional molecular genotyping will further
enhance this process by closely aligning both breeders and
mappers for traits of value to particular geographical
production areas and regional market needs. The Committee
recommends an increase of $200,000 to the ARS Plant Science
Research Laboratory at Fargo, North Dakota.
Resistance Management and Risk Assessment in Bt Cotton and
Other Plant Incorporated Protectants.--Transgenic Bt cottons
have provided outstanding control of insecticide-resistant
tobacco budworms and suppressed other cotton caterpillar pests.
However, potential evolution of resistance in caterpillar pests
to the Bt protein(s) in transgenic cotton threaten the
viability of the Bt plant protectant technology. The
Environmental Protection Agency has imposed strategies for
managing the evolution of resistance to preserve the Bt
technology, but it is important to develop data to validate
these strategies. The Committee recommends the fiscal year 2006
funding level to ARS at Stoneville, Mississippi, to coordinate
a national program for devising the most effective and
economically sustainable production systems for ensuring the
long-term integrity of Bt crop protection and resistance
management.
Shellfish Genetics.--ARS has established a shellfish
genetics research program that focuses on genetics, ecology and
food quality to ensure that consumers are provided with
shellfish of high nutritional value as well as to address food
security and health risks associated with shellfish
consumption. The Committee recognizes the importance of this
multi-State research program on shellfish genetics research at
the Oregon State University Hatfield Marine Science Center in
Newport, Oregon and recommends an increase of $150,000.
Small Fruits Research.--The Pacific Northwest is the
largest blueberry production area in the world and demand for
the fruit has increased dramatically in recent years. This
program works to establish new and improved cultivars, which
are critical to the health and continued development of the
blueberry industry. The Committee recommends an increase of
$250,000 for this research at Corvallis, Oregon.
Soil Restoration and Turf Production System Program.--The
Committee recommends an increase of $300,000 for soil
restoration and turfgrass production systems research at ARS'
Appalachian Farming Systems Research Center, Beaver, West
Virginia. This research is vital to improve the productivity of
farmers to the Appalachian region.
Southern Horticultural Research.--The Committee recommends
an increase of $500,000 to support this research on small
fruits, ornamentals, and vegetables and melons. The Committee
recognizes the successful cooperation between ARS and
Mississippi State University in economically important
horticultural research carried out at Poplarville, Mississippi.
Soybean and Wheat Stem Rust.--Exotic and emerging rust
diseases poses severe problems throughout the U.S. New strains
of wheat stem rust have recently infected experimental wheats
in the highlands of Uganda in East Africa and potentially
threaten wheat production elsewhere in the world. The economic
impact of foliar diseases, such as soybean rust, can be
devastating. The research on emerging rust diseases of grains
and soybeans will minimize or prevent the establishment of
these pathogens in the United States. The Committee supports
the budget request for increased research to identify and
incorporate diverse sources of genetic resistance into new
grain and soybean varieties and germplasm. The Committee
recommends an increase of $2,700,000 for specific areas of
research as follows: Ames, Iowa, $300,000 for interactive data
base development; St. Paul, Minnesota, $400,000 for pathogen
virulence; Beltsville, Maryland, $300,000 for DNA markers;
Aberdeen, Idaho, $400,000 for genetics resources; St. Paul,
Minnesota, $300,000 for soybean rust resistance; Urbana,
Illinois, $300,000 for soybean rust; Raleigh, North Carolina,
$200,000 for disease management in Southeast, United States;
Stoneville, Mississippi, $300,000 for soybean rust resistance;
and Manhattan, Kansas, $200,000 for resistance and breeding. In
addition, the Committee recommends an increase of $200,000 each
for expanded research to develop predictive and diagnostic
technology for rust diseases at Pullman, Washington, and
Frederick, Maryland, and an increase of $200,000 each for
expanded research to develop rust diseases management
strategies at Stoneville, Mississippi and Raleigh, North
Carolina.
Tamarisk/Cheatgrass Research.--The Committee recommends an
increase of $200,000 for research to control tamarisk,
cheatgrass, and invasive plants at Reno, Nevada.
Termite Species in Hawaii.--The Committee recommends an
increase of $150,000 for termite research in Hawaii to devise
and test control methods that are consistent with public health
and environmental safety in Hawaii and other warm weather
States.
Trout Genome Mapping.--The Committee recognizes the
important tools of molecular genetics and biotechnology, and
their application to solve problems facing the cool and cold
water aquaculture industry, which has had a flat growth profile
nationally, but is an emerging industry in the Appalachian
region. The Committee recommends the fiscal year 2006 funding
level for research on cool and cold water species at the
National Center for Cool and Cold Water Aquaculture, in
collaboration with West Virginia University.
U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center.--The
Committee recommends an increase of $500,000 for implementation
of an ARS staffing plan to strengthen collaborative
programmatic activities of the U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural
Research Center with the university system and for increased
tropical plant physiology, diseases, and production research at
the Center.
Vegetable and Forage Crops.--The Committee recommends an
increase of $300,000 for support of a research agronomist
position at the ARS Vegetable and Forage Crops Research Unit,
Prosser, Washington. There is currently very limited production
of oilseed crops in Washington due to a lack of crop knowledge,
processing infrastructure and a limited market for oil.
Washington farmers have demonstrated interest in producing
oilseeds due to the agronomic benefits and consequent cost
savings these crops can provide in rotation with traditional
crops. A research effort that can clearly identify technical
barriers and provide practical solutions to biofuel production
systems is needed to ensure success in this emerging industry.
The production of oilseed crops represents a unique opportunity
for Pacific Northwest farmers to provide a biodiesel feedstock
for an emerging renewable energy industry. The inclusion of
oilseeds in rotation offers farmers an alternative strategy to
improve farm economies and gain additional benefits that
improve soil and water conservation, reduce pest cycles, and
diversify cropping systems.
Viticulture Research.--The Committee recommends the fiscal
year 2006 funding level for viticulture research at the
University of Idaho Parma Research and Extension Center, and
for cooperative research agreements with University of Idaho
researchers.
Waste Management Research.--The Committee recommends an
increase of $300,000 for the joint research project with
Western Kentucky University. The cooperative program is located
and carried out at Bowling Green, Kentucky, and is directed
toward management of poultry waste as a fertilizer source for
pasture, food crops, as a nutrient source for cattle, and other
agricultural applications.
Watershed Research, Columbia, Missouri.--The Committee
recommends the fiscal year 2006 funding level for laboratory
analysis of water samples collected during implementation of,
and in accordance with, the Missouri Watershed Research,
Assessment, and Stewardship Project.
Weed Management.--These programs are successful components
of a comprehensive approach to farming practice and policy by
addressing weeds with biologically based management approaches,
thus reducing the negative aspects of chemical herbicides on
water, crops, air, and soil. A collaborative program with
Pennsylvania State University, the Rodale Institute, and the
Sustainable Agriculture Laboratory of the USDA in Beltsville,
Maryland will provide for research and conduct educational
outreach programs on biologically based weed management
techniques to farmers. The Committee recommends an increase of
$100,000 for expanded collaborative research.
Wind Erosion Research, Kansas.--The Committee recommends an
increase of $200,000 for ongoing research on wind erosion at
the ARS research station in Manhattan, Kansas that provides
useful information on sustaining agriculture, protecting the
environment, and conserving natural resources.
World Food Prize.--The Committee recognizes the importance
of public and private contributions to relieve world hunger.
Human suffering related to food shortages resulting from
famine, natural disaster, civil unrest, and similar
circumstances is one of the greatest tragedies of current
times. The Committee is aware of the organization which
annually awards the World Food Prize for outstanding work in
the field of humanitarian food assistance and recommends an
appropriation of $350,000 to the Agricultural Research Service
for administrative support to the world hunger organization.
BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $129,883,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 8,415,000
House allowance......................................... 140,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 83,400,000
The ARS ``Buildings and Facilities'' account was
established for the acquisition of land, construction, repair,
improvement, extension, alteration, and purchase of fixed
equipment or facilities of, or used by, the Agricultural
Research Service. Routine construction or replacement items
continue to be funded under the limitations contained in the
regular account.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $83,400,000
for buildings and facilities of the Agricultural Research
Service.
Due to budgetary constraints, the Committee is unable to
recommend full funding to complete the construction of all
ongoing projects. The Committee recommends funds for the
following projects in fiscal year 2007:
Agriculture Research Center, Pullman, Washington.--The
Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000 toward
construction of this center.
Alcorn State University Biotechnology Laboratory, Alcorn
State, Mississippi.--The Committee recommendation includes
$2,000,000 toward construction of this facility.
Animal Bioscience Facility, Bozeman, Montana.--The
Committee recommendation includes $16,000,000 to complete
construction of this facility.
Animal Waste Management Research Laboratory, Bowling Green,
Kentucky.--The Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000
toward construction of this facility.
ARS Agricultural Research Center, Logan, Utah.--The
Committee recommendation includes $2,500,000 for planning and
design of this center.
Beltsville Agriculture Research Center, Beltsville,
Maryland.--The Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000
toward the modernization of this center. The Beltsville
Agriculture Research Center [BARC] modernization effort has
been ongoing for several years. The Agency is directed to
provide a report to update the Committee on progress toward
completion of the modernization plan, any changes to that plan
that may have occurred, and a prioritization of funding
requirements under this account to move this plan forward in
the most efficient manner.
Biotechnology Laboratory, Institute, West Virginia.--The
Committee recommendation includes $2,500,000 for planning and
design of this center.
Dairy Forage Agriculture Research Center, Prairie du Sac,
Wisconsin.--The Committee recommendation includes $3,900,000
for planning and design of this center.
Forage-Animal Production Research Facility, Lexington,
Kentucky.--The Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000
toward construction of this facility.
Grape Genetics Research Center, Geneva, New York.--The
Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000 toward
construction of this center.
Hagerman Fish Culture Experiment Station, Hagerman,
Idaho.--The Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000 toward
construction of this station.
Jamie Whitten Delta States Research Center, Stoneville,
Mississippi.--The Committee recommendation includes $8,000,000
to complete the major modernization phase of this center.
National Cold Water Marine Aquaculture Research Center,
Orono, Maine.--The Committee recommendation includes $1,000,000
toward the construction of this facility.
National Plant and Genetics Security Center, Columbia,
Missouri.--The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000
toward construction of this facility.
Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center, Hilo, Hawaii.--
The Committee recommendation includes $15,000,000 to complete
construction of this center.
Poultry Science Research Facility, Starkville,
Mississippi.--The Committee recommendation includes $4,000,000
toward construction of this replacement facility.
Sugarcane Research Laboratory, Houma, Louisiana.--The
Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 toward
construction of this center.
Systems Biology Research Facility, Lincoln, Nebraska.--The
Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000 for planning and
design of this facility.
U.S. Agriculture Research Center, Salinas, California.--The
Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 toward
construction of this center.
U.S. National Arboretum, Washington, DC.--The Committee
recommendation includes $1,500,000 toward construction of the
Bladensburg Road entrance.
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service was established by the Secretary of Agriculture on
October 1, 1994, under the authority of the Department of
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6912). The
mission is to work with university partners and customers to
advance research, extension, and higher education in the food
and agricultural sciences and related environmental and human
sciences to benefit people, communities, and the Nation.
RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $670,081,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 566,300,000
House allowance......................................... 651,506,000
Committee recommendation................................ 678,089,000
The research and education programs administered by the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
[CSREES] are the U.S. Department of Agriculture's principal
entree to the university system of the United States to support
higher education in food and agricultural sciences and to
conduct agricultural research as authorized by the Hatch Act of
1887 (7 U.S.C. 361a-361i); the Cooperative Forestry Research
Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 582a-7); Public Law 89-106, section (2)
(7 U.S.C. 450i); the National Agricultural Research, Extension,
and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.); the
Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C.
301); the Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Reform
Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7601 et seq.); and the Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-171). Through
these authorities, the U.S. Department of Agriculture
participates with State and other cooperators to encourage and
assist the State institutions to conduct agricultural research
and education through the State agricultural experiment
stations of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the
territories; by approved schools of forestry; by the 1890 land-
grant institutions, Tuskegee University, and West Virginia
State University; by colleges of veterinary medicine; and by
other eligible institutions.
The research and education programs participate in a
nationwide system of agricultural research program planning and
coordination among the State institutions, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, and the agricultural industry of America.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $678,089,000
for research and education activities of the Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendations for research and education activities as
compared to the fiscal year 2006 and budget request levels:
COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE [CSREES]--RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Committee
2006 enacted 2007 budget recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Payments under Hatch Act..................................... 176,969 176,920 185,817
Cooperative forestry research (McIntire-Stennis)............. 22,008 21,983 23,318
Payments to 1890 colleges, Tuskegee University, and West 37,215 37,868 39,076
Virginia State University...................................
Special research grants (Public Law 89-106):
Advanced computing research and education (UT)........... 540 ............... 540
Advanced genetic technologies (KY)....................... 639 ............... 639
Advanced spatial technologies (MS)....................... 927 ............... 927
Aegilops cylindrica (WA, ID)............................. 351 ............... 351
Agricultural diversification (HI)........................ 219 ............... 219
Agricultural diversity--Red River trade corridor (MN, ND) 616 ............... 616
Agricultural science (OH)................................ 564 ............... 564
Agroecology (MD)......................................... 402 ............... 402
Air quality (CA)......................................... 297 ............... ...............
Air quality (TX, KS)..................................... 1,558 ............... 1,558
Alliance for food protection (NE)........................ 155 ............... 155
Alternative nutrient management (VT)..................... 180 ............... 180
Alternative salmon products (AK)......................... 1,088 ............... 1,088
Alternative uses for tobacco (MD)........................ 329 ............... 329
Animal disease research (WY)............................. 347 ............... 347
Animal science food safety consortium (AR, IA, KS)....... 1,418 ............... 1,418
Apple fire blight (MI, NY)............................... 495 ............... 495
Aquaculture (AR)......................................... 203 ............... 203
Aquaculture (FL, CA, TX)................................. 594 ............... 594
Aquaculture (ID, WA)..................................... 756 ............... 756
Aquaculture (LA)......................................... 326 ............... 326
Aquaculture (MS)......................................... 512 ............... 512
Aquaculture (NC)......................................... 322 ............... 322
Aquaculture (VA)......................................... 198 ............... 198
Aquaculture product and marketing development (WV)....... 743 ............... 743
Armillaria root rot (MI)................................. 149 ............... 149
Asparagus technology and production (WA)................. 246 ............... 246
Avian bioscience (DE).................................... 99 ............... 99
Babcock Institute (WI)................................... 594 ............... 594
Barley for Rural Development (MT, ID).................... 728 ............... 728
Beef improvement research (TX, MO)....................... 990 ............... ...............
Beef technology transfer (MO)............................ 256 ............... 256
Berry research (AK)...................................... 1,287 ............... 1,287
Biobased nanocomposite research (ND)..................... 175 ............... 175
Biomass-based energy research (OK, MS)................... 1,188 ............... 1,188
Biotechnology (NC)....................................... 284 ............... 284
Biotechnology research (IL).............................. 99 ............... 99
Biotechnology test production (IA)....................... 460 ............... 460
Bovine tuberculosis (MI)................................. 352 ............... 352
Brucellosis vaccine (MT)................................. 436 ............... 436
Center for Public Lands and Rural Economies (UT)......... 297 ............... 297
Center for Rural Studies (VT)............................ 361 ............... 361
Chesapeake Bay agroecology (MD).......................... 311 ............... 311
Childhood obesity and nutrition (VT)..................... 199 ............... 199
Citrus canker (FL)....................................... 495 ............... 495
Citrus tristeza (CA)..................................... 684 ............... 684
Competitiveness of agriculture products (WA)............. 672 ............... 672
Computational agriculture (NY)........................... 237 ............... ...............
Cool season legume research (ID, WA, ND)................. 558 ............... 558
Cotton insect management (GA)............................ 489 ............... 489
Cranberry/blueberry (MA)................................. 158 ............... 158
Cranberry/blueberry disease and breeding (NJ)............ 644 ............... 644
Crop diversification (MO)................................ 371 ............... 371
Crop integration and production (SD)..................... 297 ............... 297
Crop pathogens (NC)...................................... 322 ............... 322
Dairy and meat goat research (TX)........................ 149 ............... 149
Dairy farm profitability (PA)............................ 495 ............... 495
Delta rural revitalization (MS).......................... 248 ............... 248
Designing foods for health (TX).......................... 1,980 ............... 1,980
Diaprepes/root weevil (FL)............................... 495 ............... ...............
Drought management (UT).................................. 792 ............... 792
Drought mitigation (NE).................................. 220 ............... 220
Efficient irrigation (NM, TX)............................ 1,658 ............... 1,658
Environmental biotechnology (RI)......................... 637 ............... 637
Environmental research (NY).............................. 369 ............... ...............
Environmental risk factors/cancer (NY)................... 215 ............... ...............
Environmentally-safe products (VT)....................... 743 ............... 743
Ethnobotany research (AK)................................ 248 ............... ...............
Exotic pest diseases (CA)................................ 1,910 ............... 1,910
Expanded wheat pasture (OK).............................. 320 ............... 320
Feed efficiency in cattle (FL)........................... 396 ............... ...............
Feedstock conversion (SD)................................ 668 ............... 668
Fish and shellfish technologies (VA)..................... 471 ............... 471
Floriculture (HI)........................................ 348 ............... 348
Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute (IA, MO).. 1,596 ............... 1,596
Food chain economic analysis (IA)........................ 412 ............... 412
Food Marketing Policy Center (CT)........................ 573 ............... 573
Food quality (AK)........................................ 272 ............... 272
Food safety (AL)......................................... 1,135 ............... 1,135
Food safety (OK, ME)..................................... 546 ............... 546
Food safety (TX)......................................... 198 ............... 198
Food safety initiatives (ND)............................. 1,411 ............... 1,411
Food safety research consortium (NY)..................... 990 ............... ...............
Food security (WA)....................................... 394 ............... 394
Food Systems Research Group (WI)......................... 545 ............... 545
Forages for advancing livestock production (KY).......... 386 ............... 386
Forestry research (AR)................................... 456 ............... 456
Fruit and berry crop trials for rural villages (AK)...... 495 ............... 495
Fruit and vegetable market analysis (AZ, MO)............. 347 ............... ...............
Functional genomics (UT)................................. 1,470 ............... 1,470
Future foods (IL)........................................ 659 ............... 659
Generic commodity promotions, research, and evaluation 189 ............... ...............
(NY)....................................................
Genetically enhanced plants for micro-nutrients and bio- 733 ............... 733
renewable oils (MO).....................................
Genomics (MS)............................................ 1,129 ............... 1,129
Geographic information system............................ 1,784 ............... 1,784
Global change/ultraviolet radiation...................... 2,162 2,425 2,162
Grain sorghum (KS)....................................... 729 ............... 729
Grapefruit juice/drug interaction (FL)................... 341 ............... 341
Grass seed cropping systems for sustainable agriculture 446 ............... 446
(ID, OR, WA)............................................
Grazing research (WI).................................... 257 ............... 257
Greenhouse crop production (AK).......................... 297 ............... 297
Hardwood scanning (IN)................................... 297 ............... 297
Horn fly research (AL)................................... 198 ............... 198
Human nutrition (IA)..................................... 644 ............... 644
Human nutrition (LA)..................................... 699 ............... 699
Human nutrition (NY)..................................... 574 ............... ...............
Hydroponic tomato production (OH)........................ 177 ............... ...............
Illinois-Missouri Alliance for Biotechnology............. 1,158 ............... 1,158
Improved dairy management practices (PA)................. 348 ............... 348
Improved fruit practices (MI)............................ 210 ............... 210
Increasing shelf life of agricultural commodities (ID)... 854 ............... 854
Infectious disease research (CO)......................... 809 ............... 809
Institute for Biobased Products and Food Science (MT).... 557 ............... 557
Institute for Food Science and Engineering (AR).......... 1,108 ............... 1,108
Integrated fruit and vegetable research (GA)............. 253 ............... 253
Integrated production systems (OK)....................... 252 ............... 252
International arid lands consortium...................... 573 ............... 573
Iowa biotechnology consortium............................ 1,757 ............... 1,757
Leopold Center hypoxia project (IA)...................... 220 ............... 220
Livestock and dairy policy (NY, TX)...................... 990 ............... 990
Livestock genome sequencing (IL)......................... 807 ............... 807
Livestock waste (IA)..................................... 263 ............... 263
Lowbush blueberry research (ME).......................... 244 ............... 244
Maple research (VT)...................................... 138 ............... 138
Meadowfoam (OR).......................................... 257 ............... 257
Michigan biotechnology consortium........................ 549 ............... ...............
Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance (NE)........ 495 ............... 495
Midwest agricultural products (IA)....................... 606 ............... 606
Midwest poultry consortium (IA).......................... 675 ............... 675
Milk safety (PA)......................................... 780 ............... 780
Minor use animal drugs................................... 582 582 582
Molluscan shellfish (OR)................................. 361 ............... 361
Montana Sheep Institute (MT)............................. 591 ............... 591
Multi-commodity research (OR)............................ 349 ............... 349
National beef cattle genetic evaluation consortium (NY, 871 ............... 871
CO, GA).................................................
National biological impact assessment.................... 261 251 251
National Center for Soybean Technology (MO).............. 977 ............... 977
Nematode resistance genetic engineering (NM)............. 138 ............... 138
Nevada arid rangelands initiative........................ 499 ............... 499
New crop opportunities (AK).............................. 439 ............... 439
New crop opportunities (KY).............................. 752 ............... 752
Oil resources from desert plants (NM).................... 209 ............... 209
Organic cropping (WA).................................... 355 ............... 355
Organic waste utilization (NM)........................... 92 ............... 92
Oyster post harvest treatment (FL)....................... 442 ............... ...............
Ozone air quality (CA)................................... 397 ............... 397
Pasture and forage research (UT)......................... 223 ............... 223
Peach tree short life (SC)............................... 275 ............... 275
Perennial wheat (WA)..................................... 140 ............... 140
Pest control alternatives (SC)........................... 279 ............... 279
Phytophthora research (GA)............................... 255 ............... 255
Phytophthora research (MI)............................... 495 ............... 495
Phytophthora root rot (NM)............................... 180 ............... 180
Pierce's disease (CA).................................... 2,189 ............... 2,189
Plant, drought, and disease resistance gene cataloging 231 ............... 231
(NM)....................................................
Potato research.......................................... 1,482 ............... 1,482
Precision agriculture (KY)............................... 668 ............... 668
Preharvest food safety (KS).............................. 200 ............... 200
Preservation and processing research (OK)................ 248 ............... 248
Protein utilization (IA)................................. 837 ............... 837
Rangeland ecosystems (NM)................................ 279 ............... 279
Regional barley gene mapping project..................... 675 ............... 675
Regionalized implications of farm programs (MO, TX)...... 851 ............... 851
Rice agronomy (MO)....................................... 248 ............... 248
Ruminant nutrition consortium (MT, ND, SD, WY)........... 489 ............... 489
Rural development centers (ND, LA)....................... 228 ............... 228
Rural obesity (NY)....................................... 185 ............... ...............
Rural Policies Research Institute (NE, IA, MO)........... 1,193 ............... 1,193
Russian wheat aphid (CO)................................. 303 ............... 303
Seafood safety (MA)...................................... 453 ............... 453
Seed technology (SD)..................................... 356 ............... 356
Small fruit research (OR, WA, ID)........................ 439 ............... 439
Soil and environmental quality (DE)...................... 292 ............... 292
Southwest consortium for plant genetics and water re- 388 ............... 388
sources.................................................
Soybean cyst nematode (MO)............................... 794 ............... 794
Soybean research (IL).................................... 1,065 ............... 1,065
STEEP III--water quality in Pacific Northwest............ 634 ............... 634
Sudden oak death (CA).................................... 97 ............... 97
Sustainable agriculture (CA)............................. 510 ............... ...............
Sustainable agriculture (MI)............................. 380 ............... 380
Sustainable agriculture and natural resources (PA)....... 188 ............... 188
Sustainable beef supply (MT)............................. 974 ............... 974
Sustainable engineered materials from renewable resources 693 ............... 693
(VA)....................................................
Swine and other animal waste management (NC)............. 484 ............... 484
Tick borne disease prevention (RI)....................... 148 ............... 148
Tillage, silviculture, and waste management (LA)......... 495 ............... 495
Tri-State joint peanut research (AL)..................... 585 ............... 585
Tropical and subtropical research/T STAR................. 9,453 ............... 9,453
Tropical aquaculture (FL)................................ 209 ............... 209
Uniform farm management program (MN)..................... 295 ............... 295
Value-added product development from agricultural 401 ............... 401
resources (MT)..........................................
Virtual plant database enhancement project (MO).......... 698 ............... 698
Viticulture consortium (NY, CA, PA)...................... 2,079 ............... 2,079
Water conservation (KS).................................. 73 ............... 73
Water use efficiency and water quality enhancement (GA).. 489 ............... 489
Weed control (ND)........................................ 380 ............... ...............
Wetland plants (LA)...................................... 557 ............... 557
Wheat genetic research (KS).............................. 340 ............... 340
Wheat sawfly research (MT)............................... 516 ............... 516
Wine grape foundation block (WA)......................... 319 ............... 319
Wood utilization (AK, OR, MS, MN, NC, ME, MI, ID, TN, WV) 6,371 ............... 6,371
Wool research (TX, MT, WY)............................... 295 ............... 295
--------------------------------------------------
Total, Special research grants......................... 126,941 3,258 119,341
==================================================
Improved pest control:
Expert IPM decision support system....................... 155 175 155
Integrated pest management............................... 2,396 2,698 2,396
IR-4 minor crop pest management.......................... 10,677 10,380 10,677
Pest management alternatives............................. 1,422 1,603 1,422
--------------------------------------------------
Total, Improved pest control........................... 14,650 14,856 14,650
==================================================
1994 institutions research program........................... 1,029 1,067 2,058
Alaska Native-serving and Native Hawaiian-serving 3,218 2,967 3,218
institutions education grants...............................
Animal health and disease (sec. 1433)........................ 5,006 ............... 5,006
Aquaculture centers (sec. 1475).............................. 3,928 3,956 3,928
Capacity building grants (1890 institutions)................. 12,189 12,375 12,375
Critical Agricultural Materials Act.......................... 1,091 ............... 1,091
Graduate fellowships grants.................................. 3,701 4,455 3,701
Higher education agrosecurity program........................ ............... 5,000 ...............
Hispanic education partnership grants........................ 5,940 5,588 6,237
Institution challenge grants................................. 5,423 5,445 5,423
Joe Skeen Institute for Rangeland Management (NM, TX, MT).... 990 ............... 990
Multicultural scholars program............................... 988 988 988
National Research Initiative................................. 181,170 247,500 190,229
National Veterinary Medical Services Act..................... 495 ............... 750
Payments to the 1994 institutions............................ 2,228 2,227 4,456
Resident Instruction Grants--Insular areas................... 495 495 ...............
Secondary agriculture education.............................. 990 990 990
Supplemental and alternative crops and products.............. 1,175 ............... 825
Sustainable agriculture research and education............... 12,276 9,138 12,276
Federal administration:
Agriculture based industrial lubricants (IA)............. 544 ............... 544
Agriculture development in the American Pacific.......... 481 ............... 481
Agriculture waste utilization (WV)....................... 683 ............... 683
Agriculture water policy (GA)............................ 882 ............... 882
Alternative fuels characterization laboratory (ND)....... 279 ............... 279
Animal waste management (OK)............................. 392 ............... 392
Applied agriculture and environmental research (CA)...... 990 ............... 990
Aquaculture (OH)......................................... 891 ............... 891
Aquaculture (PA)......................................... 218 ............... 218
Biodesign and processing research center (VA)............ 940 ............... ...............
Biotechnology research (MS).............................. 680 ............... 680
Botanical research (UT).................................. 891 ............... 891
Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (IA)....... 589 ............... 589
Center for Food Industry Excellence (TX)................. 1,353 ............... 1,353
Center for Innovative Food Technology (OH)............... 1,134 ............... ...............
Center for North American Studies (TX)................... 990 ............... 990
Climate forecasting (FL)................................. 3,566 ............... 3,566
Cotton research (TX)..................................... 2,475 ............... 2,475
Council for Agriculture Science and Technology........... 147 ............... 147
Data information system (REEIS).......................... 2,561 2,723 2,723
Dietary intervention (OH)................................ 1,237 ............... 1,237
Electronic grants administration system.................. 2,030 2,151 2,151
Farming and Dairy Training Instigative (UT)\1\........... ............... ............... ...............
Feed efficiency (WV)..................................... 158 ............... 158
Global environmental management (WI)..................... 990 ............... ...............
Greenhouse nurseries (OH)................................ 719 ............... 719
High value horticultural crops (VA)...................... 718 ............... 718
Hispanic leadership in agriculture (TX).................. 541 ............... 541
Information technology (GA).............................. 365 ............... ...............
Livestock marketing information center (CO).............. 172 ............... 172
Mariculture (NC)......................................... 314 ............... 314
Mississippi Valley State University, curriculum 1,419 ............... 1,419
development.............................................
Monitoring agricultural sewage sludge application (OH)... 1,274 ............... 1,274
Northeast Center for Invasive Plants (CT, VT, ME)........ 421 ............... 421
Office of Extramural Programs............................ 419 443 443
Ohio Center for Farmland Policy Innovation\1\............ ............... ............... 396
Pasteurization of shell eggs (MI)........................ 1,337 ............... ...............
Pay costs................................................ 3,081 3,561 3,561
Peer panels.............................................. 307 346 346
Phytoremediation plant research (OH)..................... 771 ............... 771
PM-10 air quality study (WA)............................. 383 ............... 383
Precision agriculture, Tennessee Valley Research Center 593 ............... ...............
(AL)....................................................
Produce pricing (AZ)..................................... 99 ............... ...............
Rio Grande/Rio Bravo physical assessment (TX)............ 347 ............... ...............
Rural systems (MS)....................................... 305 ............... 305
Salmon quality standards (AK)............................ 164 ............... 164
Shrimp aquaculture (AZ, HI, MA, MS, SC, TX).............. 4,158 ............... 4,158
Sustainable agricultural freshwater conservation (TX).... 1,832 ............... 1,832
University of Hawaii..................................... 2,970 ............... ...............
Urban silviculture (NY).................................. 267 ............... ...............
Vitis gene discovery..................................... 602 ............... ...............
Water pollutants (WV).................................... 594 ............... 594
Water quality (ND)....................................... 495 ............... 495
Wetland plants (WV)...................................... 198 ............... ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal administration.......................... 49,966 9,224 41,346
==================================================
Total, CSREES Research and Education Activities........ 670,081 566,300 678,089
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\In fiscal year 2006, funding was provided through section 790 of Public Law 109-97.
Agricultural Research Enhancement Awards.--The Committee
remains determined to see that quality research and enhanced
human resources development in the agricultural and related
sciences be a nationwide commitment. Therefore, the Committee
continues its direction that not less than 10 percent of the
competitive research grant funds be used for USDA's
agricultural research enhancement awards program (including
USDA-EPSCoR), in accordance with 7 U.S.C. 450i.
Alaska Native-Serving and Native Hawaiian-Serving
Institutions Education Grants.--The Committee recommends
$3,218,000 for noncompetitive grants to individual eligible
institutions or consortia of eligible institutions in Alaska
and in Hawaii, with grant funds to be awarded equally between
Alaska and Hawaii to carry out the programs authorized in 7
U.S.C. 3242 (section 759 of Public Law 106-78). The Committee
directs the agency to fully comply with the use of grant funds
as authorized.
Alternative Crops.--The Committee recommends $825,000 for
alternative crop research to continue and strengthen research
efforts on canola. The Committee understands that the United
States does not produce enough canola to meet its consumption
needs and encourages the Department to provide funds in a
manner that reaches those areas most likely to see expansions
in canola production.
Alternative Salmon Products.--The Committee recommendation
includes $1,088,000 for alternative salmon products research.
Of this amount, $450,000 shall be used to continue research and
development of baby food containing salmon.
Berry Research.--The Committee provides $1,287,000 for
berry research. Of this amount, $1,000,000 shall be used for
neutraceutical research at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
Biotechnology Research.--The Committee provides $99,000 for
biotechnology research at Southern Illinois University. These
funds shall be used for modernization and expansion of regional
biotechnology assets and research.
Classical Research.--The Committee notes the substantial
increase in public and private sector research related to
genomics, genetics, and other breakthrough biotechnology
developments. However, this shift in emphasis has resulted in a
decline in classical research in the animal and plant sciences.
The Committee encourages the Department, especially in the
establishment of priorities within the National Research
Initiative, to give consideration to research needs related to
classical plant and animal breeding and directs the Department
to establish a specific category of grant application requests
for classical plant and animal breeding to foster more diverse,
energy efficient, and environmentally sustainable agricultural
systems.
Enhancing the Prosperity of Small Farms and Rural
Agricultural Communities.--The Committee is pleased to see that
the Department issued a Request For Proposals in the areas of
small and mid-sized farm profitability and rural economic
development pursuant to section 401 of the Agricultural
Research, Extension and Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C.
7621). The Committee encourages the Department to request
proposals specific to critical emerging issues related to farm
income, rural economic and business and community development
and farm efficiency and profitability, including the viability
and competitiveness of small and medium-sized dairy, livestock,
crop and other commodity operations.
Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute.--The
Committee recommends $1,596,000 for the Food and Agriculture
Policy Research Institute. Of this amount, the Committee
recommends the fiscal year 2006 level to fund the Center for
Agricultural and Trade Policies for the Northern Plains Region
at North Dakota State University. In addition, the Committee
recommends the fiscal year 2006 level be available for
collaborative work between the University of Missouri and the
University of Wisconsin/Madison, for an analysis of dairy
policy changes, including trade related matters.
Forestry and Related Natural Resource Research.--The
Committee recognizes that forestry and related natural resource
research were an integral part of NRI at its inception. As NRI
funding has grown, however, the allocation of NRI funds by
CSREES for research on forestry and related natural resource
topics has fallen behind. In the future, the Committee directs
the NRI program administrator to put a greater emphasis on NRI
funding for forestry and natural resources topics with a goal
of eventually providing at least 10 percent of the total funds
provided for NRI for forestry and natural resources related
research on topics including: woody plant systems, including
large scale efforts to sequence the genome for several
economically important tree species, technologies for enhanced
pest and disease resistance, and increased tree growth rates;
management of complex forest ecosystems, including issues of
forest health, productivity, economic sustainability, and
restoration; assessing alternative management strategies, with
emphasis on risk analysis, geospatial analysis including
landscape implications, consideration of ecological services,
providing decision support systems; and development of
nanotechnology and biorefining technologies for the forest
products sector as critical to enhancing global competitiveness
and energy security.
Milk Safety.--The Committee recommendation includes
$780,000 for milk safety research at Pennsylvania State
University. Of this amount, $100,000 is for a cooperative
agreement with the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture's
Center of Dairy Excellence.
National Research Initiative.--The Committee supports the
National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program [NRI]
and recommends funding of $190,229,000 for the program. The
Committee includes a general provision (section 718) to make 30
percent of these funds available for a program under the same
terms and conditions as those provided in section 401 of the
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of
1998.
Red River Valley Research Corridor Office.--Within the
amount recommended for Agricultural Diversity, the Committee
recommends the fiscal year 2006 level for activities of the Red
River Valley Research Corridor Office.
NATIVE AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS ENDOWMENT FUND
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $12,000,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 11,880,000
House allowance......................................... 11,880,000
Committee recommendation................................ 11,880,000
The Native American Institutions Endowment Fund authorized
by Public Law 103-382 provides an endowment for the 1994 land-
grant institutions (33 tribally controlled colleges). This
program will enhance educational opportunity for Native
Americans by building educational capacity at these
institutions in the areas of student recruitment and retention,
curricula development, faculty preparation, instruction
delivery systems, and scientific instrumentation for teaching.
Income funds are also available for facility renovation,
repair, construction, and maintenance. On the termination of
each fiscal year, the Secretary shall withdraw the income from
the endowment fund for the fiscal year, and after making
adjustments for the cost of administering the endowment fund,
distribute the adjusted income as follows: 60 percent of the
adjusted income from these funds shall be distributed among the
1994 land-grant institutions on a pro rata basis, the
proportionate share being based on the Indian student count;
and 40 percent of the adjusted income shall be distributed in
equal shares to the 1994 land-grant institutions.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $11,880,000
for the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund.
EXTENSION ACTIVITIES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $451,395,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 430,727,000
House allowance......................................... 457,042,000
Committee recommendation................................ 467,102,000
Cooperative extension work was established by the Smith-
Lever Act of May 8, 1914. The Department of Agriculture is
authorized to provide, through the land-grant colleges,
cooperative extension work that consists of the development of
practical applications of research knowledge and the giving of
instruction and practical demonstrations of existing or
improved practices or technologies in agriculture, uses of
solar energy with respect to agriculture, home economics,
related subjects, and to encourage the application of such
information by demonstrations, publications, through 4-H clubs,
and other means to persons not in attendance or resident at the
colleges.
To fulfill the requirements of the Smith-Lever Act, State
and county extension offices in each State, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American
Samoa, the Northern Marianas, and Micronesia conduct
educational programs to improve American agriculture and
strengthen the Nation's families and communities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $467,102,000
for extension activities of the Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendations for extension activities, as compared to the
fiscal year 2006 and budget request levels:
COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE [CSREES]--EXTENSION ACTIVITIES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Committee
2006 enacted 2007 budget recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smith-Lever sections 3(b) and 3(c)........................... 272,973 273,181 286,622
Smith-Lever section 3(d):
Farm safety.............................................. 4,517 ............... 4,517
Food and nutrition education (EFNEP)..................... 62,008 62,280 63,538
Indian reservation agents................................ 1,976 2,970 1,976
New technologies for extension........................... 1,485 2,970 1,985
Pest management.......................................... 9,860 10,652 9,860
Sustainable agriculture.................................. 4,026 3,754 4,026
Youth at risk............................................ 7,651 8,396 7,651
Youth farm safety education and certification............ 440 494 440
1890 colleges, Tuskegee University, and West Virginia 33,529 34,073 35,205
State University........................................
1890 facilities grants................................... 16,609 16,609 16,609
Extension services at the 1994 institutions.................. 3,240 3,240 3,402
Grants to youth organizations................................ 1,980 ............... 1,980
Renewable Resources Extension Act (RREA)..................... 4,019 4,052 4,220
Rural health and safety education............................ 1,946 ............... 1,946
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................... 426,259 422,671 443,977
==================================================
Federal administration:
Ag in the classroom...................................... 856 742 856
Agricultural and entrepreneurship education (WI)......... 248 ............... 248
Alabama beef connection.................................. 842 ............... 842
Beef producers improvement (AR).......................... 178 ............... 178
Conservation technology transfer (WI).................... 481 ............... 481
Dairy education (IA)..................................... 227 ............... 227
Dairy industry revitalization (WI)....................... 295 ............... 295
Diabetes detection and prevention (WA)................... 1,082 ............... 1,082
E-commerce (MS).......................................... 328 ............... 328
Efficient irrigation (NM, TX)............................ 2,302 ............... 2,302
Entrepreneurial alternatives (PA)........................ 330 ............... 330
Extension specialist (MS)................................ 131 ............... 131
Family health and wellness (PA).......................... 100 ............... 100
Food Animal Residue Avoidance Databank................... 798 ............... 798
Food preparation and marketing (AK)...................... 328 ............... 328
Food product development (AK)............................ 347 ............... 347
General administration................................... 6,847 7,314 7,314
Health education leadership (KY)......................... 835 ............... 835
Income enhancement demonstration (OH).................... 1,235 ............... ...............
Iowa Vitality Center..................................... 246 ............... 246
National Center for Agriculture Safety (IA).............. 239 ............... 239
National Wild Turkey Federation.......................... 232 ............... 232
Natural resource planning................................ 297 ............... 297
Northern aquaculture demonstration (WI).................. 495 ............... ...............
Nursery production (RI).................................. 292 ............... ...............
Nutrition enhancement (WI)............................... 989 ............... 989
Ohio-Israel agriculture initiative....................... 587 ............... 587
Pilot technology transfer (OK, MS)....................... 297 ............... 297
Pilot technology transfer (WI)........................... 248 ............... 248
Potato pest management (WI).............................. 396 ............... 396
Range improvement (NM)................................... 242 ............... 242
Rural business enhancement (WI).......................... 188 ............... 188
Rural development (AK)................................... 676 ............... 676
Rural development (NM)................................... 345 ............... 345
Rural technologies (HI, WI).............................. 312 ............... 312
Urban horticulture (WI).................................. 809 ............... 809
Urban market development (NY)............................ 270 ............... ...............
Wood biomass as an alternative farm product (NY)......... 186 ............... ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal administration.......................... 25,136 8,056 23,125
==================================================
Total, CSREES Extension Activities..................... 451,395 430,727 467,102
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ag in the Classroom.--The Committee recommends $856,000 for
Ag in the Classroom and expects that no less than $247,000 be
used to expand efforts in Illinois to promote consumption of
healthy foods and proper school nutrition.
Family Health and Wellness.--The Committee recommendation
includes $100,000 for the Research Institute for Family Health
and Wellness at Marywood University in Scranton, Pennsylvania.
Farm Safety.--Of the funds recommended for farm safety, the
Committee recommends a funding level of $4,517,000 for the
AgrAbility project being carried out in cooperation with the
National Easter Seal Society.
Food Preparation and Marketing.--The Committee provides
$400,000 for food preparation and marketing in the State of
Alaska. The University of Alaska is directed to work with
Alaska Grown to develop a marketing plan for Alaskan products.
Rural Development.--The Committee recommends $676,000 for
rural development extension activities in Alaska. Of this
amount $200,000 shall be used to educate rural villages on
gardening techniques and how to maximize food production using
the soil in villages.
INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $55,234,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 19,120,000
House allowance......................................... 58,379,000
Committee recommendation................................ 58,704,000
Section 406 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Reform Act of 1998 authorizes an integrated research,
education, and extension competitive grants program. Water
Quality, Food Safety, and Regional Pest Management Centers
programs previously funded under Research and Education and/or
Extension Activities are included under this account, as well
as new programs that support integrated or multifunctional
projects.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $58,704,000
for integrated activities of the Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendations for integrated activities:
COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE [CSREES]--INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Committee
2006 enacted 2007 budget recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asian soybean rust.............................................. .............. 2,277 2,277
Critical issues................................................. 737 2,475 737
Crops at risk from FQPA implementation.......................... 1,375 .............. 1,375
Food safety..................................................... 14,699 .............. 14,699
FQPA risk mitigation program for major food crop systems........ 4,419 .............. 4,419
Homeland security............................................... 9,900 12,000 11,000
International science and education grants...................... 990 990 990
Methyl bromide transition....................................... 3,075 .............. 3,075
Organic transition.............................................. 1,855 .............. 1,948
Regional pest management centers................................ 4,125 .............. 4,125
Regional rural development centers.............................. 1,321 1,378 1,321
Water quality................................................... 12,738 .............. 12,738
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 55,234 19,120 58,704
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OUTREACH FOR SOCIALLY DISADVANTAGED FARMERS
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $5,940,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 6,930,000
House allowance......................................... 7,030,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,940,000
This program is authorized under section 2501 of title XXV
of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990
(7 U.S.C. 2279). Grants are made to eligible community-based
organizations with demonstrated experience in providing
education on other agriculturally-related services to socially
disadvantaged farmers and ranchers in their area of influence.
Also eligible are the 1890 land-grant colleges, Tuskegee
University, West Virginia State University, Indian tribal
community colleges, and Hispanic-serving postsecondary
education facilities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,940,000 for
Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers.
Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $717,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 741,000
House allowance......................................... 741,000
Committee recommendation................................ 731,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and
Regulatory Programs provides direction and coordination in
carrying out laws enacted by the Congress with respect to the
Department's marketing, grading, and standardization activities
related to grain; competitive marketing practices of livestock,
marketing orders, and various programs; veterinary services;
and plant protection and quarantine. The Office has oversight
and management responsibilities for the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service; Agricultural Marketing Service; and Grain
Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $731,000 for
the Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory
Programs.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $807,306,000
Budget estimate, 2007\1\................................ 945,153,000
House allowance......................................... 921,616,000
Committee recommendation................................ 900,423,000
\1\The budget estimate does not include proposed user fees in the amount
of $8,221,000.
The Secretary of Agriculture established the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service [APHIS] on April 2, 1972, under
the authority of reorganization plan No. 2 of 1953, and other
authorities. The major objectives of APHIS are to protect the
animal and plant resources of the Nation from diseases and
pests. These objectives are carried out under the major areas
of activity, as follows:
Pest and Disease Exclusion.--The Agency conducts inspection
and quarantine activities at U.S. ports of entry to prevent the
introduction of exotic animal and plant diseases and pests. The
Agency also participates in inspection, survey, and control
activities in foreign countries to reinforce its domestic
activities.
Agricultural Quarantine Inspection [AQI].--The agency
collects user fees to cover the cost of inspection and
quarantine activities at U.S. ports of entry to prevent the
introduction of exotic animal and plant diseases and pests.
Plant and Animal Health Monitoring.--The Agency conducts
programs to assess animal and plant health and to detect
endemic and exotic diseases and pests.
Pest and Disease Management Programs.--The Agency carries
out programs to control and eradicate pest infestations and
animal diseases that threaten the United States; reduce
agricultural losses caused by predatory animals, birds, and
rodents; provide technical assistance to other cooperators such
as States, counties, farmer or rancher groups, and foundations;
and ensure compliance with interstate movement and other
disease control regulations within the jurisdiction of the
Agency.
Animal Care.--The Agency conducts regulatory activities
that ensure the humane care and treatment of animals and horses
as the Animal Welfare and Horse Protection Acts require. These
activities include inspection of certain establishments that
handle animals intended for research, exhibition, and as pets,
and monitoring certain horse shows.
Scientific and Technical Services.--The Agency performs
other regulatory activities, including the development of
standards for the licensing and testing of veterinary
biologicals to ensure their safety and effectiveness;
diagnostic activities to support the control and eradication
programs in other functional components; applied research to
reduce economic damage from vertebrate animals; development of
new pest and animal damage control methods and tools; and
regulatory oversight of genetically engineered products.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $900,423,000
for salaries and expenses of the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service. The Committee encourages the Secretary to
utilize authorities and resources of the Commodity Credit
Corporation [CCC] to provide assistance in response to animal
and plant health threats, and to allow compensation to certain
producers for losses sustained in connection with these threats
in instances when the additional assistance is deemed
necessary.
The following table reflects the Committee's specific
recommendations for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service:
ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Fiscal year 2007 budget Committee
2006 enacted request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pest and disease exclusion:
Agricultural quarantine inspection....................... 27,249 25,822 28,360
Cattle ticks............................................. 7,551 7,016 7,016
Foot-and-mouth disease/emerging foreign animal diseases.. 8,656 15,188 11,979
Import/export............................................ 12,368 11,419 13,294
Trade issues resolution and management................... 12,457 17,288 12,608
Fruit fly exclusion and detection........................ 59,376 73,841 60,187
Screwworm................................................ 27,720 30,635 27,788
Tropical bunt tick....................................... 422 426 426
--------------------------------------------------
Total, pest and disease exclusion...................... 155,798 181,635 161,658
==================================================
Plant and animal health monitoring:
Animal health monitoring and surveillance................ 145,975 156,143 150,567
Animal and plant health regulatory enforcement........... 10,295 11,738 11,738
Biosurveillance.......................................... 1,987 2,531 2,195
Emergency Management System.............................. 13,549 22,838 14,781
Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza........................ ............... 56,730 56,730
Pest detection........................................... 27,043 46,654 34,032
Select Agents............................................ 3,484 5,323 3,518
Wildlife disease monitoring and surveillance............. ............... 1,950 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Total, plant and animal health monitoring.............. 202,332 303,907 273,561
==================================================
Pest and disease management programs:
Aquaculture.............................................. 1,249 1,260 1,260
Biocontrol............................................... 9,483 9,683 9,683
Boll weevil.............................................. 38,610 ............... 38,200
Brucellosis eradication.................................. 10,348 8,957 10,506
Chronic wasting disease.................................. 18,523 15,306 18,092
Cotton Pests............................................. ............... 16,009 ...............
Emerging plant pests..................................... 99,215 126,894 107,405
Golden nematode.......................................... 800 813 813
Grasshopper.............................................. 5,499 4,424 5,565
Gypsy moth............................................... 4,770 4,836 4,836
Imported fire ant........................................ 2,132 2,140 2,140
Invasive Species......................................... ............... 9,900 ...............
Johne's disease.......................................... 13,057 3,206 10,000
Low pathogenic avian influenza........................... 13,699 16,715 13,745
Noxious weeds............................................ 1,901 1,142 1,815
Pink bollworm.................................... 5,169 ............... 7,169
Plum pox................................................. 2,194 2,203 2,203
Pseudorabies............................................. 4,347 4,402 4,402
Scrapie eradication...................................... 18,414 18,565 18,565
Tuberculosis............................................. 14,851 16,691 14,973
Wildlife services operations............................. 77,148 75,503 78,692
Witchweed................................................ 1,512 1,518 1,518
--------------------------------------------------
Total, pest and disease management..................... 342,921 340,167 351,582
==================================================
Animal care:
Animal welfare........................................... 17,303 19,142 19,142
Horse protection......................................... 492 492 492
--------------------------------------------------
Total, animal care..................................... 17,795 19,634 19,634
==================================================
Scientific and technical services:
Biosecurity.............................................. 1,952 1,952 1,952
Biotechnology regulatory services........................ 10,468 13,922 10,638
Environmental compliance................................. 2,626 2,664 2,664
Plant methods development laboratories................... 8,450 9,654 8,656
Veterinary biologics..................................... 15,491 19,369 15,882
Veterinary diagnostics................................... 22,661 28,697 23,649
Wildlife services methods development.................... 17,216 17,525 20,924
--------------------------------------------------
Total, scientific and technical services............... 78,864 93,783 84,365
==================================================
Contingency fund............................................. 4,099 4,127 4,127
APHIS information technology infrastructure.................. 4,506 5,029 4,506
Physical security............................................ 990 5,092 990
==================================================
Total, salaries and expenses\1\........................ 807,306 953,374 900,423
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Fiscal year 2007 budget request total does include proposed user fees in the amount of $8,221,000.
The Committee is unable to recommend the full increases
requested in the President's budget for the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Services. However, the Committee does
recommend increases for a number of specific animal and plant
health programs. The Committee encourages the Secretary to
continue use of contingency funding from Commodity Credit
Corporation monies, as in past fiscal years, to cover needs as
identified in the President's budget and any additional
emergencies as the Secretary determines necessary.
Pest and Disease Exclusion
AQI.--For fiscal year 2007, the Committee recommends an
appropriation of $28,360,000 for the AQI appropriated account
to conduct preclearance quarantine inspections of persons,
baggage, cargo, and other articles destined for movement from
the State of Hawaii to the continental United States, Guam,
Puerto Rico, or the United States Virgin Islands. The Committee
recommends an increase of $228,000 for interline activities in
Hawaii.
The Committee urges the Department to establish protocols
that allow shipment of untreated fruits and vegetables grown in
Hawaii to cold-weather States during winter months while
maintaining reasonable assurances that potential transshipment
of such produce will not jeopardize the phytosanitary standards
of warm weather States. The Committee also urges the Department
to follow the same scientific principles used to justify rules
for foreign imports in promulgating rules for exports from
Hawaii to the U.S. mainland.
The Committee continues its interest in more efficient and
less disruptive inspection of passengers and cargo at Hawaii
airports and, from within available funds, directs APHIS to
provide not less than the number of inspectors and inspection
equipment required in the APHIS-Hawaii staffing plan for fiscal
year 2005. The Committee also encourages the agency to
aggressively identify and evaluate flexible hiring and staff
deployment arrangements, such as the Senior Environmental
Employment Program, to minimize overtime rates charged to
agricultural shippers. The Committee further encourages APHIS
to acquire and deploy commercially available, state-of-the-art
inspection technology and equipment for key ports of entry,
such as Hawaii, to screen passenger luggage for banned
agricultural products to reduce the introduction of dangerous
agricultural pests and diseases in the United States.
The Committee recommends $300,000 for the Clean Vines
program in Washington State.
Fruit Fly Exclusion and Detection.--The Committee
recommends $60,187,000 for the fruit fly exclusion and
detection program, of which no less than the fiscal year 2006
level shall be used to enhance activities to prevent Medflies
from moving into the United States as well as activities at
U.S. borders. The Committee recommends $3,563,000 for fruit fly
activities in the State of Texas.
Multiple Fruit Fly Species.--The Committee directs APHIS to
conduct a feasibility report on the construction of a multi-
species fruit fly rearing facility in the State of Hawaii and
provide a copy to the Committee within 120 days of enactment of
this act. This report should include an estimate of the full
construction and operational costs and describe any agreements
with the State of Hawaii on joint operational cost-sharing
arrangements. The report should further describe activities
conducted jointly with the Hawaii Department of Agriculture and
the California Department of Food and Agriculture regarding
multi-species fruit fly control. The Committee recommends
$200,000 toward costs associated with the planning and design
of constructing such facility.
The Committee is aware that APHIS and State cooperators
participate in sterile fruit fly programs to control damage to
fruit production caused primarily by the Mediterranean Fruit
Fly. However, agricultural production in the State of Hawaii is
also threatened by three other fruit fly species for which
there is currently no sterile fly program. The Committee
directs APHIS to consult with appropriate agricultural
representatives in the State of Hawaii regarding this problem
and report to the Committee on recommendations to control these
additional pests, including the possibility of initiating
sterile fly programs.
Import Inspection.--The Committee recommends $13,294,000
for import inspection, which includes $1,650,000 to enhance
inspection and surveillance activities related to products
entering the State of California.
National Germplasm and Biotechnology Laboratory.--The
Committee recommends $2,512,000 for ongoing activities at the
National Germplasm and Biotechnology Laboratory.
Plant and Animal Health Monitoring
Animal Health Monitoring and Surveillance.--The Committee
recommends $150,567,000 for the Animal Health Monitoring and
Surveillance account. The Committee recommends $33,107,000 for
a national animal identification program. The Committee expects
the Department to consult with private industry throughout the
development of an animal identification program. The Committee
also expects the Department to include private industry
components in any national animal identification program.
The Committee recommends $330,000 for an animal digester in
the State of Arkansas.
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy [BSE].--The Committee
recommends $17,243,000 to continue the ongoing BSE surveillance
program. The Committee also includes $2,475,000 for the
Comprehensive Surveillance System which will further enhance
animal surveillance.
National Animal Health Laboratory Network.--The Committee
recommends $4,381,000 for National Animal Health Laboratory
Network cooperative agreements.
Animal Identification.--The Committee recommends
$33,107,000 to continue implementation of the National Animal
Identification System [NAIS]. The Committee is aware of the
strong interest among livestock producers, processors, and the
public in the NAIS. Although the Department has worked on the
development of such a system for a number of years, the
direction of this system remains unclear. The Committee
requests the Government Accountability Office to conduct a
review of the steps taken by USDA toward the establishment of
the NAIS.
The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for a cooperative
agreement with the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade
and Consumer Protection to continue work carried out by the
Wisconsin Livestock Identification Consortium.
The Committee recommends $500,000 for the National Farm
Animal Identification and Records Project and $250,000 for
animal tracking in the State of Washington.
The Committee recognizes the efforts and the financial
commitment of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the Southeastern
Livestock Network in the development of a cooperative, regional
approach to animal identification. The Committee further
encourages the Secretary to consider these activities and the
substantial financial investments already undertaken in this
region when developing and finalizing a nationwide animal
identification program.
The Committee is aware of radio frequency identification
technology that is available through Digital Angel. This
technology has been proven on fish and has been in use for 15
years. The Committee urges the Department to consider this
technology when developing an animal identification program.
New Mexico Rapid Syndrome Validation Program.--The
Committee recommends $600,000 for the New Mexico Rapid Syndrome
Validation Program to develop an early detection and reporting
system for infectious animal diseases.
Bio-safety.--The Committee recommends $350,000 to address
bio-safety issues relating to antibiotic resistant strains of
bacterial pathogens in the State of Vermont.
Genetically Modified Products.--The Committee recommends
$371,000 for a national institute at Iowa State University
devoted to risk assessment, mitigation, and communication for
genetically modified agricultural products.
Population Management Center.--The Committee recommends
$200,000 for the Population Management Center, a collaboration
between the Lincoln Park Zoo and the Davee Center for
Epidemiology in Chicago, Illinois. The intent of this funding
is to improve techniques, processes, and systems to prevent
disease transfer and ensure sustainability and maintenance of
health in zoo populations nationwide.
Animal and Plant Health Regulatory Enforcement.--The
Committee recommends $11,738,000 for the animal and plant
health regulatory enforcement account to support Animal Welfare
Act (7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.) compliance inspections.
The Committee is very concerned about reports of illegal
animal fighting activities and directs the Secretary to work
with relevant agencies on the most effective and proper means
for investigating and enforcing laws and regulations regarding
these activities.
Emergency Management Systems.--The Committee recommends
$14,781,000 for the emergency management systems program.
Within this total, the Committee recommends $3,970,000 for the
National Veterinary Stockpile.
Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza.--The Committee
recommends $56,730,000 for the newly established Highly
Pathogenic Avian Influenza program, as requested in the budget.
The potential for the introduction and spread of this disease
into the United States is taken very seriously by the Committee
and full recognition is given to the important role of USDA in
meeting the animal surveillance and health responsibilities
associated with the threat to both agriculture and human
health. In addition, the Committee expects the Secretary, if
appropriate, to transfer additional funds from the Low
Pathogenic Avian Influenza program making a total of
$70,475,000 available for fiscal year 2007.
In the development of this program, the Committee
encourages the Department to consider the need to adequately
stockpile supplies necessary to stop the spread of the disease
and to ensure adequate training, outreach and communication
resources are in place to maximize the efficiency of response
capabilities.
Delmarva Peninsula.--The Committee is aware of the large
poultry industry on the Delmarva Peninsula and the presence of
live poultry markets in the Mid-Atlantic region. In preparation
for a possible introduction of highly pathogenic avian
influenza into the United States, the location and
concentration of this industry, and its proximity to high human
population centers and the Atlantic flyway for migratory birds,
require serious response capabilities. Accordingly, the
Committee encourages the Secretary to work with appropriate
Delaware State officials and with the University of Delaware,
to develop proper surveillance, diagnostic, and response
systems.
Pest Detection.--The Committee recommends $34,032,000 for
pest detection activities. The Committee is concerned about
continuing threats posed by the accidental or intentional
introduction of pests, disease, or species into this country
which could be devastating to our agricultural resources.
The Committee recommends an increase of $169,000 to
continue the California County Pest Detection Augmentation
Program.
Pest and Disease Management
Aquaculture.--The Committee recommends $1,260,000 for the
aquaculture program. The Committee recommends funding at the
fiscal year 2006 level to continue telemetry and population
dynamics studies to develop environmentally and economically
sustainable methods to help catfish farmers manage cormorant
and pelican populations.
Boll Weevil.--The Committee recommends $38,200,000 to
continue the Boll Weevil Eradication Program. This funding will
provide the active eradication zone areas with a 30 percent
cost share and possible exceptions to address special funding
requirements arising from extraordinary circumstances in some
States.
Brucellosis Eradication.--The Committee recommends
$10,506,000 for the bruccellosis program. Within this total,
the Committee recommends $781,000 for the State of Montana to
protect the State's brucellosis-free status and operation of
the bison quarantine facility and the testing of bison that
surround Yellowstone National Park.
The Committee recommends $980,000 for the Greater
Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee, and encourages
the coordination of Federal, State, and private actions to
eliminate brucellosis from wildlife in the Greater Yellowstone
area. This amount shall be equally divided between the States
of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.
Chronic Wasting Disease [CWD].--The Committee is concerned
about the number of deer and elk in different regions of the
United States testing positive for chronic wasting disease and
recommends $18,092,000 for the chronic wasting disease
certification and control program to include additional
surveillance and disease control activities with free-ranging
cervids, and to increase State testing capacity for the timely
identification of the presence of this disease. Within this
total, the Committee recommends $1,750,000 for the State of
Wisconsin, $244,000 for the State of Utah, and $245,000 for the
Conservation Medicine Center of Chicago which is a
collaboration between the University of Illinois College of
Veterinary Medicine, Loyola University Chicago Stritch School
of Medicine, and the Brookfield Zoo. The total also includes
$150,000 for the State of Colorado and $150,000 for the State
of Alaska to monitor chronic wasting disease.
The Committee is aware of confirmed reports that CWD has
spread into Northeastern States and recommends $150,000 for
control of this disease in the State of Vermont.
Emerging Plant Pests.--The Committee recommends
$103,452,000 for emerging plant pests. Within this total, the
Committee recommends $24,079,000 for glassy-winged
sharpshooter/Pierce's disease; $37,371,000 for citrus disease
management; $16,890,000 for the Asian longhorn beetle program
including activities in New York and New Jersey, and which also
includes $2,470,000 for activities in the State of Illinois,
including the City of Chicago; $4,055,000 for sudden oak death;
$16,293,000 for the emerald ash borer which includes $1,975,000
for Michigan and $1,500,000 for Illinois. The Committee expects
the Secretary to make funds available from the CCC for
activities related to these and other plant pests in fiscal
year 2007, as necessary.
The Committee recognizes the serious impact of Citrus
Canker in Florida, particularly given the emergency situation
due to the spread of the disease caused by recent hurricanes,
and encourages and applauds efforts to address this devastating
disease.
The Committee is aware that APHIS has a compensation
program in place for wheat producers, grain handlers, and
facilities that karnal bunt impacts. However, the compensation
provided for handlers and facilities does not adequately
represent the costs these facilities incur when they receive
deliveries of karnal bunt-infected wheat. This inadequate
compensation has led to many facilities refusing to participate
in activities to prevent the spread of karnal bunt in the
United States. Due to the serious threat that karnal bunt poses
to U.S. wheat production and exports, the Committee expects
APHIS to work with the grain handling industry to develop an
adequate compensation plan.
The Committee notes that APHIS signed a cooperative
agreement with the Washington State Department of Agriculture
to survey and eradicate the citrus longhorned beetle. The
Committee recognizes that the citrus longhorned beetle presents
a severe threat to hardwood trees and tree fruit crops, and
urges APHIS to direct the resources necessary to eradicate the
citrus longhorned beetle.
Grasshopper.--The Committee recommends $5,565,000 for the
current grasshopper program. Within this total, no less than
$1,000,000 shall be for grasshopper and Mormon cricket
activities in the State of Utah to prepare necessary
environmental documents and continue control measures. The
total also includes $150,000 for grasshopper and Mormon cricket
activities in the State of Nevada, including survey, control,
and eradication of crickets.
Imported Fire Ant.--The Committee recommends $2,140,000 for
the imported fire ant account to continue sharing
responsibility with the States to conduct detection and nursery
surveys; compliance monitoring; enforcement for quarantine of
nursery stock; and production, field release, and evaluation of
promising control agents. Within this total, the Committee also
recommends the fiscal year 2006 level for control activities in
the State of Tennessee and the State of New Mexico.
Johne's Disease.--The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for
Johne's disease to expand the Agency's efforts to coordinate
State certification programs for herd-testing, and to provide
assistance to States to develop herd management plans that
comply with APHIS's national standards for certification. The
Committee expects APHIS to work with the Agricultural Research
Service to coordinate activities to research and develop an
effective diagnostic test for Johne's disease with appropriate
field validation and methods development.
Low Pathogenic Avian Influenza.--The Committee recommends
$13,745,000 for detection, control and eradication of Low
Pathogenic Avian Influenza [LPAI]. The Committee notes that in
fiscal year 2006, $12,000,000 in financial assistance was
provided to indemnify poultry producers that experienced losses
due to avian influenza. The Committee also notes that this
funding has not been obligated and will be available for fiscal
year 2007.
The Committee notes that APHIS has combated LPAI through
both depopulation and vaccination, depending on individual
circumstances. An emergency vaccination protocol was used most
successfully after an outbreak on a farm in Connecticut. The
Committee urges APHIS to utilize available funds to indemnify
producers for costs and losses previously incurred in a
successful pilot eradication program.
The Committee is concerned that APHIS has failed to
indemnify California turkey producers who destroyed their
flocks due to a 2002 outbreak of LPAI. Further, despite
language in the Committee's fiscal year 2006 Agriculture
Appropriations Report that required APHIS to provide a report
on this matter within 90 days of enactment, to date no such
report has been received. Therefore, the Committee expects
APHIS to transmit this report immediately. Further, the
Committee notes that the Department has adequate authority and
funding to allow indemnification to these producers as it has
for producers in similar situations, and expects APHIS to
provide compensation expeditiously.
Noxious Weeds.--The Committee recommends $1,815,000 for the
noxious weeds account. Within this total, the Committee
includes $275,000 for the Nez Perce Bio-Control Center to
increase the availability and distribution of biological
control organisms used in an integrated weed management system.
The total also includes $297,000 for an invasive species
program to prevent the spread of cogongrass in Mississippi, and
requests that the Agency take necessary steps to address this
invasive weed as a regional infestation problem.
The Committee directs that within funds available for State
cooperative agreements, $50,000 shall be for a weed management
program with the State of Nevada.
Tuberculosis.--The Committee recommends $14,973,000 for the
tuberculosis program which includes $5,096,000 for activities
in Michigan. The Committee is concerned about the potential
threats that wildlife poses for transmitting tuberculosis to
domestic livestock and directs the Agency to increase technical
and operational assistance to Michigan producers to prevent or
reduce the transmission of tuberculosis between wildlife and
cattle. The Committee also encourages the Agency to continue
its research for developing methods to minimize the interaction
between wildlife and livestock.
The Committee is aware of an outbreak of bovine
tuberculosis in New Mexico. In response, a memorandum of
understanding has been executed between USDA and the State. The
Committee urges the Secretary to use authorities and resources
of the Department to provide testing, monitoring, surveillance,
and other services, as needed, toward the control and
eradication of this disease.
Wildlife Services Operations.--The Committee recommends
$78,692,000 for Wildlife Service Operations activities. The
Committee does not concur with the budget request to reduce
funding in the wildlife services operations account to allow
cooperators to assume a larger share of the costs associated
with preventing and reducing wildlife damage. The Committee
provides funding to continue cooperating with States to conduct
wildlife management programs such as livestock protection,
migratory bird damage to crops, invasive species damage,
property damage, human health and safety, and threatened and
endangered species protection.
The Committee's recommendations with respect to specific
areas funded within the total for wildlife services activities
are as follows:
The Committee notes the success of the oral rabies
vaccination program and recommends $25,094,000 for rabies
control activities. Within this total, the Committee recommends
$100,000 for activities in Broward County, Florida and $200,000
in Suffolk County, New York. The Committee expects a portion of
the program increase to be available for rabies activities in
the Appalachian region and to further progress already made
along the Appalachian Ridge to control this disease.
The Committee recommends $400,000 to control coyotes in the
State of West Virginia.
The Committee recommends $4,428,000 to continue to
implement recommendations of the Aviation Safety Review
Committee.
The Committee recommends an increase of $182,000 for remote
diagnostic and wildlife disease surveillance activities with
North Dakota State University and Dickinson State University.
The Committee recommends $1,213,000 for integrated
predation management activities in Minnesota, Wisconsin,
Michigan, Arizona, and New Mexico, no less than $174,000 shall
be available for activities in Arizona and New Mexico. A
portion of the funding shall be made available to assist
livestock producers who are interested in the proper use of
non-lethal alternatives and best management practices in order
to fully ensure that all such methods are exhausted before any
lethal control occurs.
The Committee recommends $11,500,000 to continue wildlife
control activities in Western States.
The Committee recommends $1,337,000 for the Tri-state
predator control program for livestock operators in Montana,
Idaho, and Wyoming. The Committee directs that $100,000 of the
funds provided to Idaho be allocated to the Idaho State
Department of Agriculture. Due to the increase in federally
listed endangered species, the States' operations accounts for
wildlife services have suffered financially.
The Committee recommends $619,000 for a cooperative
agreement with the University of Georgia, Auburn University,
and the Wildlife Services Operations in the State of Georgia to
address the fluctuations in game bird and predator species
resulting from recent changes in land use throughout the
southeastern United States.
The Committee recommends $400,000 for the operation of the
State Wildlife Services office in Hawaii to provide on-site
coordination of prevention and control activities in Hawaii and
the American Pacific. The Committee directs that this increase
be for enhanced coqui frog control activities. The Committee
also recommends an increase of $950,000 for activities in
Hawaii and Guam related to the brown tree snake.
The Committee recommends $742,000 for wildlife service
operations with the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and
Parks to meet the growing demands of controlling predatory,
nuisance, and diseased animals.
The Committee recommends an increase of $100,000 above the
fiscal year 2006 level for beaver management and control in the
State of Mississippi. The Committee expects the Agency to make
the fiscal year 2007 level of funding available to all counties
in the State. The Committee commends the Agency's assistance in
cooperative relationships with local and Federal partners to
reduce beaver damage to cropland and forests. The Committee
also recommends $223,000 for the State of Wisconsin and
$300,000 for the State of North Carolina for beaver control
activities.
The Committee recommends the fiscal year 2006 level for the
National Wildlife Research Center, North Dakota Field Station,
for blackbird damage reduction methods development on
sunflowers. In addition, the Committee directs the Wildlife
Services to continue its ongoing cattail control and other
dispersal measures to help reduce blackbird damage in North and
South Dakota. The Committee also recommends $134,000 for
blackbird management efforts in Louisiana. The Committee also
recommends $170,000 for blackbird management efforts in the
State of Kansas.
The Committee recommends the fiscal year 2006 level for
goose control in the State of New York.
The Committee also recommends the fiscal year 2006 funding
level for the Jack Berryman Institute in the State of Utah.
The Committee recommends $247,000 to continue State
operations in New Hampshire and $300,000 to continue State
operations in Kentucky.
The Committee recommends $200,000 for the livestock
protection program in the State of Pennsylvania.
The Committee recommends $200,000 to assist in the
management of cormorants in the Lake Champlain Basin. The
Committee also recommends $298,000 for cormorant control in the
State of Michigan. The Committee also recommends the fiscal
year 2006 level for Delta States operations to control
cormorants.
Animal Care
Animal Welfare.--The Committee recommends $19,142,000 for
the Animal Care Unit for enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act.
The Committee does not assume collections from unauthorized
animal welfare inspection user fees, as proposed in the
President's budget.
Scientific and Technical Services
Veterinary Diagnostics.--The Committee recommends
$23,649,000 for the veterinary diagnostics account for fiscal
year 2007. The Committee includes $200,000 for continued
activities in the State of Louisiana. The Committee also
recommends $750,000 for the National Agriculture Biosecurity
Center in the State of Kansas.
Wildlife Services Methods Development.--The Committee
recommends $20,924,000 for wildlife services methods
development. The Committee recommends the fiscal year 2006
level to continue existing research efforts at the National
Wildlife Research Center field station located in the State of
Mississippi.
The Committee also recommends the fiscal year 2006 funding
level to continue the existing program at the Jack Berryman
Institute for addressing wildlife damage management issues,
including wildlife disease threats and wildlife economics, and
facilitating a cooperative relationship with the Mississippi
Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station. The Committee
emphasizes the importance of close collaboration between the
Jack Berryman Institute and the National Wildlife Research
Center.
Avian Influenza.--The Committee recommends $3,200,000 for
avian influenza to assess the risk of virulent subtypes of
avian influenza. This funding increase will also allow USDA to
conduct research for improving environmental sample diagnostics
and evaluate the risk associated with feral swine.
The Committee recommends continued funding at the fiscal
year 2006 level for the cooperative agreement with the Hawaii
Agriculture Research Center for rodent control only in active
agricultural areas.
Sericea Lespedeza.--The Committee recognizes both the
importance of sericea lespedeza as a field crop in the
Southeastern United States and the environmental challenges
sericea lespedeza poses to ecosystems in tallgrass prairielands
in the Great Plains region. The Committee recommends that APHIS
provide Federal field crop designations for sericea lespedeza
on a regional basis so that conservation programs in tallgrass
prairie regions where sericea lespedeza is an invasive species
can partner with USDA to find economically and ecologically
appropriate controls.
The Committee recommends $515,000 for the National Wildlife
Research Station located in the State of Texas for activities
related to emerging infectious diseases associated with
wildlife populations and human health.
The Committee recommends the fiscal year 2006 funding level
for ongoing activities at the Utah Predator Research Station.
In complying with the Committee's directives, the Committee
expects APHIS not to redirect support for programs and
activities without prior notification to and approval by the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in accordance
with the reprogramming procedures specified in the Act. Unless
otherwise directed, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service shall implement appropriations by programs, projects,
and activities as specified by the Appropriations Committees.
Unspecified reductions necessary to carry out the provisions of
this Act are to be implemented in accordance with the
definitions contained in the Program, project, and activity
section of this report.
BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $4,946,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 6,431,000
House allowance......................................... 5,946,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,946,000
The APHIS appropriation for ``Buildings and Facilities''
funds major nonrecurring construction projects in support of
specific program activities and recurring construction,
alterations, preventive maintenance, and repairs of existing
APHIS facilities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,946,000 for
buildings and facilities of the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service.
Agricultural Marketing Service
MARKETING SERVICES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $74,622,000
Budget estimate, 2007\1\................................ 81,498,000
House allowance......................................... 77,269,000
Committee recommendation................................ 71,170,000
\1\The budget estimate does not include proposed user fees in the amount
of $2,212,000.
The Agricultural Marketing Service [AMS] was established by
the Secretary of Agriculture on April 2, 1972. AMS carries out
programs authorized by more than 50 different statutory
authorities, the primary ones being the Agricultural Marketing
Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627); the U.S. Cotton Standards Act
(7 U.S.C. 51-65); the Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act (7
U.S.C. 471-476); the Tobacco Inspection Act (7 U.S.C. 511-
511q); the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (7 U.S.C.
499a-499s); the Egg Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 1031-
1056); and section 32 (15 U.S.C. 713c).
Programs administered by this Agency include the market
news services, payments to States for marketing activities, the
Plant Variety Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 2321 et seq.), the
Federal administration of marketing agreements and orders,
standardization, grading, classing, and shell egg surveillance
services, transportation services, wholesale farmers and
alternative market development, commodity purchases, Perishable
Agricultural Commodities Act (7 U.S.C. 499a-499b), and market
protection and promotion activities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $71,170,000
for marketing services of the Agricultural Marketing Service.
Alaska Grown Program.--The State of Alaska has developed
the Alaska Grown Program to promote the sale of Alaskan
products in both military and civilian markets. The Committee
fully supports this program and expects the Department to give
full consideration to funding applications submitted for the
Alaska Grown Program, which includes Alaska agricultural
products and seafood harvested in the State. The Alaska Grown
Program should coordinate with other regional marketing
entities such as the Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation
and the Lower Kuskokwim Economic Development Council.
The Committee encourages the Department to make grants to
local communities in Alaska and Alaska regional marketing
organizations to promote wild salmon.
Grading.--The Committee recommends $100,000 to establish a
farm-raised catfish grading system.
Horticulture Marketing.--The Committee is aware of an
innovative urban horticulture planning, development, and
marketing project in the State of Illinois. The Committee
encourages the Department to provide appropriate technical and
financial assistance to the Windy City Harvest initiative.
Organics.--The Committee recommends $3,130,000 for the
National Organic Program [NOP]. Of this amount, $500,000 is for
continuation of the National Organic Cost Share Certification
Program. The Committee is encouraged that AMS has hired an
Executive Director for the National Organic Standards Board
[NOSB], as well as a new Director for the National Organic
Program. The Committee also notes that the audits performed by
the American National Standards Institute in 2004 and by the
USDA Office of Inspector General in 2005 made strong
recommendations about changes needed in the administration of
the NOP. The Committee expects AMS to take the necessary
actions to comply with these recommendations, and to provide a
written report to the Committee within 120 days of enactment of
this Act regarding the process in implementing these
recommendations. In addition, the Committee is aware of
complaints that NOP has received regarding potential violations
of the organic standards, and would like to receive updates on
the progress of AMS in investigating and responding to these
complaints. The Committee also expects the NOP to work closely
with the NOSB to implement the Peer Review Panel requirements
of the Organic Foods Production Act and USDA's organic
regulations. The Committee also encourages AMS to continue
collection of organic price information.
Pesticide Data Program [PDP].--The Committee recommends
$15,296,000 for the Pesticide Data Program. The Committee
recognizes the importance of the Pesticide Data Program [PDP]
to collect reliable, scientific-based pesticide residue data
that benefits consumers, food processors, crop protection,
pesticide producers, and farmers. The PDP is of particular
importance since the passage of the Food Quality Protection Act
(7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.), which requires thorough re-evaluation
of agricultural pesticides and tolerances for uses on
individual crops. The PDP is an effective tool to maintain the
availability of critical products which allow the production of
safe and affordable foods. The Committee also recommends
$2,939,000 for the Pesticide Recordkeeping Program.
LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
Limitation, 2006........................................ $65,667,000
Budget limitation, 2007................................. 62,211,000
House allowance......................................... 62,211,000
Committee recommendation................................ 62,211,000
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Public Law
97-35) initiated a system of user fees for the cost of grading
and classing cotton, tobacco, naval stores, and for warehouse
examination. These activities, authorized under the U.S. Cotton
Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 51 et seq.), the Tobacco Inspection Act
(7 U.S.C. 511 et seq.), the Naval Stores Act (7 U.S.C. 91 et
seq.), the U.S. Warehouse Act (7 U.S.C. 241 et seq.), and other
provisions of law are designed to facilitate commerce and to
protect participants in the industry.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a limitation of $62,211,000 on
administrative expenses of the Agricultural Marketing Service.
FUNDS FOR STRENGTHENING MARKETS, INCOME, AND SUPPLY
(SECTION 32)
MARKETING AGREEMENTS AND ORDERS
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $16,055,000
Budget estimate, 2007\1\................................ 4,106,000
House allowance......................................... 16,425,000
Committee recommendation................................ 16,425,000
\1\The budget estimate does not include proposed user fees in the amount
of $12,000,000.
Under section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935, (7 U.S.C.
612c), an amount equal to 30 percent of customs receipts
collected during each preceding calendar year and unused
balances are available for encouraging the domestic consumption
and exportation of agricultural commodities. An amount equal to
30 percent of receipts collected on fishery products is
transferred to the Department of Commerce. Additional transfers
to the child nutrition programs of the Food and Nutrition
Service have been provided in recent appropriations Acts.
The following table reflects the status of this fund for
fiscal years 2005-2007:
ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD--FISCAL YEARS 2005-2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2005 Fiscal year 2006 Fiscal year 2007
estimate estimate estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation (30 percent of Customs Receipts)............ $6,052,035,538 $6,481,777,400 $7,029,269,054
Rescission............................................ -163,000,000 -37,601,000 ................
Supplemental Appropriation............................ 90,000,000 ................ ................
Less Transfers:
Food and Nutrition Service............................ -5,152,962,000 -5,187,621,000 -5,731,073,000
Commerce Department................................... -77,538,934 -79,284,400 -82,817,054
-----------------------------------------------------
Total, Transfers.................................... -5,230,500,934 -5,266,905,400 -5,813,890,054
=====================================================
Budget Authority.......................................... 748,534,604 1,177,271,000 1,215,379,000
Unobligated Balance Available, Start of Year.............. 408,050,706 286,159,865 ................
Recoveries of Prior Year Obligations...................... 25,073,881 50,000,000 ................
-----------------------------------------------------
Available for Obligation............................ 1,181,659,191 1,513,430,865 1,215,379,000
=====================================================
Less Obligations:
Commodity Procurement:
Child Nutrition Programs (Entitlement Commod- 399,481,824 465,000,000 465,000,000
ities)...........................................
State Option Contract............................. 134,160 5,000,000 5,000,000
Removal of Defective Commodities.................. 100,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
Emergency Surplus Removal......................... 150,072,903 107,500,000 ................
Direct Payments................................... 278,763,000 650,000,000 ................
Disaster Relief................................... 40,597,491 34,402,509 ................
Estimated Future Needs............................ ................ 202,981,356 416,325,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Total, Commodity Procurement.................... 869,149,378 1,465,883,865 887,325,000
=====================================================
Administrative Funds:
Commodity Purchase Support............................ 10,847,906 31,492,000 11,629,000
Marketing Agreements and Orders....................... 15,502,042 16,055,000 16,425,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Total, Administrative Funds......................... 26,349,948 47,547,000 28,054,000
=====================================================
Total Obligations......................................... 895,499,326 1,513,430,865 915,379,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Unobligated Balance Available, End of Year................ 286,159,865 ................ 300,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a transfer from section 32 funds
of $16,425,000 for the formulation and administration of
marketing agreements and orders.
Commodity Purchases.--The Committee encourages USDA to use
all existing authorities under the section 32 program through
emergency surplus removal and other commodity purchases,
including fruit and vegetable purchases, as mandated in the
2002 Farm bill.
The Committee is aware that section 10603 of Public Law
107-171, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002,
mandates that the Secretary must use a minimum of $200,000,000
each fiscal year to purchase fruits, vegetables and other
specialty food crops. The Committee reminds USDA of the
language included in section 53 of the conference report
accompanying this law and expects that these purchases will be
made according to Congressional intent.
The Committee is aware that farmed salmon imports from
Chile, Norway, and other countries have undercut the market for
wild Alaska salmon and have created a domestic surplus of wild
pink salmon. The Committee encourages the Department to use all
existing authorities under the section 32 program to purchase
surplus domestic salmon and stabilize the domestic salmon
industry.
The Committee is aware that red raspberry imports from
Chile have displaced domestic red raspberry producers,
particularly in Washington State, and have created a domestic
surplus. The Committee encourages the Department to use all
existing authorities under the section 32 program and other
programs to purchase surplus domestic red raspberries.
The Committee is aware that USDA has used its purchasing
authorities in past years to help stabilize market conditions
for cranberry production. As such, the Committee urges USDA to
ensure that Federal cranberry purchases in fiscal year 2007
remain at least at current levels.
Section 32 Authorities.--Under the authority described in
clause 3 of 7 U.S.C. 612c, the Secretary is able to direct
funds from the section 32 account to increase the purchasing
power of producers. This practice has been used on various
occasions to provide direct assistance to producers when market
forces or natural conditions adversely affect the financial
condition of farmers and ranchers. The Committee notes the
importance in the ability of the Secretary to utilize this
authority, but believes that communication between the
Department and the Congress should be improved when this
practice is used. Therefore, the Committee directs the
Secretary to provide notification to the Appropriations
Committee in advance of any public announcement or release of
section 32 funds under the specific authorities cited above.
Support of Local Agriculture in Massachusetts.--The
Committee encourages the Secretary to provide technical and
financial assistance to the Community in Support of Local
Agriculture in Massachusetts to promote sustainable activities.
PAYMENTS TO STATES AND POSSESSIONS
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $3,809,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 1,334,000
House allowance......................................... 1,334,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,834,000
The Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program [FSMIP] is
authorized by section 204(b) of the Agricultural Marketing Act
of 1946 and is also funded from appropriations. Payments are
made to State marketing agencies to: identify and test market
alternative farm commodities; determine methods of providing
more reliable market information, and develop better commodity
grading standards. This program has made possible many types of
projects, such as electronic marketing and agricultural product
diversification. Current projects are focused on the
improvement of marketing efficiency and effectiveness, and
seeking new outlets for existing farm produced commodities. The
legislation grants the U.S. Department of Agriculture authority
to establish cooperative agreements with State departments of
agriculture or similar State agencies to improve the efficiency
of the agricultural marketing chain. The States perform the
work or contract it to others, and must contribute at least
one-half of the cost of the projects.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,834,000 for
payments to States and possessions for Federal-State marketing
projects and activities. The Committee directs that $2,500,000
be provided to the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade
and Consumer Protection for the development of specialty
markets.
The Committee encourages the Department to work with the
Pride of New York Program and the New York Farm Viability
Institute to support cooperative marketing partnerships between
growers, processors and retailers that will increase consumer
awareness of food products grown and made in New York and
address barriers to profitability confronting farm businesses
in the State.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $38,059,000
Budget estimate, 2007\1\................................ 21,844,000
House allowance......................................... 39,737,000
Committee recommendation................................ 38,737,000
\1\The budget estimate does not include proposed user fees in the amount
of $19,663,000.
The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
[GIPSA] was established pursuant to the Secretary's 1994
reorganization. Grain inspection and weighing programs are
carried out under the U.S. Grain Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 71 et
seq.) and other programs under the authority of the
Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, including the inspection
and grading of rice and grain-related products; conducting
official weighing and grain inspection activities; and grading
dry beans and peas, and processed grain products. Under the
Packers and Stockyards Act (7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.), assurance of
the financial integrity of the livestock, meat, and poultry
markets is provided. The administration monitors competition in
order to protect producers, consumers, and industry from
deceptive and fraudulent practices which affect meat and
poultry prices.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $38,737,000
for salaries and expenses of the Grain Inspection, Packers and
Stockyards Administration.
Marketing of Grain.--The Committee understands that GIPSA
is assessing how to facilitate the efficient marketing of grain
by augmenting, not supplanting, existing market mechanisms. The
Committee encourages the Department to continue the cooperative
relationship with the Iowa Corn Growers Association and the
Illinois Corn Growers Association, and recommends $500,000 for
an ongoing study of process verification systems and protocols.
LIMITATION ON INSPECTION AND WEIGHING SERVICES EXPENSES
Limitation, 2006........................................ $42,463,000
Budget limitation, 2007................................. 42,463,000
House allowance......................................... 42,463,000
Committee recommendation................................ 42,463,000
The Agency provides an official grain inspection and
weighing system under the U.S. Grain Standards Act [USGSA], and
official inspection of rice and grain-related products under
the Agricultural Marketing Act [AMA] of 1946. The USGSA was
amended in 1981 to require the collection of user fees to fund
the costs associated with the operation, supervision, and
administration of Federal grain inspection and weighing
activities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a limitation of $42,463,000 on
inspection and weighing services expenses.
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $596,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 696,000
House allowance......................................... 656,000
Committee recommendation................................ 607,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety provides
direction and coordination in carrying out the laws enacted by
the Congress with respect to the Department's inspection of
meat, poultry, and egg products. The Office has oversight and
management responsibilities for the Food Safety and Inspection
Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $607,000 for
the Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety.
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $829,378,000
Budget estimate, 2007\1\................................ 757,470,000
House allowance......................................... 853,249,000
Committee recommendation................................ 865,905,000
\1\The budget estimate does not include proposed user fees in the
amount of $105,435,000.
The major objectives of the Food Safety and Inspection
Service are to assure that meat and poultry products are
wholesome, unadulterated, and properly labeled and packaged, as
required by the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et
seq.); and to provide continuous in-plant inspection to egg
processing plants under the Egg Products Inspection Act.
The Food Safety and Inspection Service was established on
June 17, 1981, by Secretary's Memorandum No. 1000-1, issued
pursuant to Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953.
The inspection program of the Food Safety and Inspection
Service provides continuous in-plant inspection of all domestic
plants preparing meat, poultry or egg products for sale or
distribution; reviews foreign inspection systems and
establishments that prepare meat or poultry products for export
to the United States; and provides technical and financial
assistance to States which maintain meat and poultry inspection
programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $865,905,000
for the Food Safety and Inspection Service.
The Committee recommendation includes the following
increases: $16,625,000 for cost-of-living adjustments;
$2,600,000 for risk-based inspection; $15,816,000 for food and
agricultural defense; $600,000 to link FSIS systems into
Department of Homeland Security Customs and Border Protection
systems; and $1,886,000 to support FSIS enhancement of
inspector communication systems and information technology
updates.
Baseline Studies.--The Committee directs that no less than
$2,000,000 be used for baseline studies. The Committee is aware
that FSIS intends to update microbiology data through new
nationwide baseline studies of raw beef, pork, chicken, turkey,
and ground products, targeting the prevalence and levels of
select foodborne pathogens and microorganism as indicators of
process control.
Codex Alimentarius.--Codex Alimentarius is critical for the
protection of consumer health globally and facilitating
international trade. Therefore, the Committee recommends
$3,029,000 exclusively for the activities of the U.S. Codex
office including international outreach and education.
Humane Slaughter.--The Committee recommends $3,000,000 for
maintenance of the Humane Animal Tracking System [HATS]. The
Committee has provided $7,000,000 total in fiscal years 2005
and 2006 for this system. Of this funding, the Committee
understands that $1,500,000 has been used to procure the
software necessary to integrate HATS and FSIS public health
data. The remaining $5,500,000 will be used for computer
hardware, training, and professional services to develop the
integrated reporting system. As part of the Agency's public
health data communications infrastructure, this reporting tool
will allow inspection program personnel in the District offices
and headquarters to analyze HATS data together with other food
safety verification data, thereby providing the Agency with a
powerful management control tool for improved and consistent
enforcement of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act [HMSA] and
its public health responsibilities. The Committee is pleased
that FSIS intends to have all 2,300 slaughter plants that have
daily FSIS inspection connected to this system by the end of
fiscal year 2006. The Committee further encourages FSIS to
include funding for maintenance of this system in its budget
request in future years.
The Committee recommends the amount requested in the budget
to maintain the 63 full time equivalent positions which have
been increased for this purpose above the fiscal year 2002
level. The Committee strongly feels that a portion of that FTE
increase should be used to allow additional FSIS personnel to
continue to work cooperatively with the existing District
Veterinary Medical Specialists [DVMS], whose duties are
specifically tied to HMSA enforcement, in order to increase the
number of facility visits by FSIS personnel with special
expertise in HMSA enforcement, and to allow each DVMS better
opportunities to visit facilities in other FSIS districts to
enhance communication and problem solving among all districts.
Operations Maintenance.--The Committee notes that FSIS'
overall budget is approximately 80 percent salaries and
benefits. The fiscal year 2007 budget request includes an
increase of $16,625,000 to cover an anticipated pay increase of
2.2 percent, which the Committee recommends. However, the
Committee also notes that FSIS routinely absorbs additional pay
and benefit costs that are not requested in the budget.
Therefore, the Committee directs FSIS to use recommended
programmatic funding increases to support current activities
and staff levels before entering into new agreements or
engaging in new activities.
Reprogramming Authority.--The Committee recommendation
includes a general provision, section 713, that requires 15 day
advance notification of any reprogramming of funds for
activities, programs, or projects in excess of $500,000 or 10
percent, whichever is less. This provision is the same as
section 717 of Public Law 109-97 which provided fiscal year
2006 funding for FSIS. The Committee is concerned that FSIS
violated this notification requirement in fiscal year 2006 when
it announced in April 2006 that it planned to reduce State
inspection funding without prior notification of the Committee.
Therefore, the Committee directs FSIS to provide the Committee
on Appropriations notification of changes to funding
allocations prior to any changes being enacted.
The following table represents the Committee's specific
recommendations for the Food Safety and Inspection Service as
compared to the fiscal year 2006 and budget request levels:
FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Fiscal year 2007 budget Committee
2006 enacted request\1\ recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food safety inspection:
Federal..................................................... 745,720 777,189 777,189
State....................................................... 53,252 56,557 56,557
International............................................... 19,355 20,780 20,780
Codex Alimentarius.............................................. 2,972 3,029 3,029
FAIM............................................................ 8,079 5,350 8,350
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 829,378 862,905 865,905
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\This amount includes proposed user fees in the amount of $105,435,000.
Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural
Services
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $629,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 737,000
House allowance......................................... 691,000
Committee recommendation................................ 640,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign
Agricultural Services provides direction and coordination in
carrying out the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to
the Department's international affairs (except for foreign
economics development) and commodity programs. The Office has
oversight and management responsibilities for the Farm Service
Agency, including the Commodity Credit Corporation, Risk
Management Agency, and the Foreign Agricultural Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $640,000 for
the Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign
Agricultural Services.
Dry Milk Exports.--The Committee continues to urge the
Secretary to work with representatives of the dairy industry
and appropriate non-governmental organizations to increase the
amount of fortified dry milk exported under humanitarian
assistance programs.
Export Credit.--The Committee supports the General Sales
Manager [GSM] export credit program, including the
implementation of effective regional GSM programs, and expects
USDA to fully utilize this program to expand markets for U.S.
agricultural goods. The Committee expects USDA to set risk-
based fees to cover, and not exceed, long-term operating costs
and losses of the program. USDA should be flexible and
implement adjustments to risk-based fees as necessary to ensure
program effectiveness and enhance the competitiveness of U.S.
exports. The Committee expects that USDA will seek input from
the private sector when evaluating country risk. The Committee
believes fee schedules and country risk determinations should
be reviewed regularly and modified in response to material
changes in country risk conditions.
Food Security Commodity Reserve.--The Committee urges USDA
to manage the Food Security Commodity Reserve effectively to
meet international food aid commitments of the United States,
including supplementing Public Law 480 title II funds to meet
emergency food needs.
Farm Service Agency
The Farm Service Agency [FSA] was established October 3,
1994, pursuant to the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and
Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, Public
Law 103-354. The FSA administers a variety of activities, such
as the commodity price support and production adjustment
programs financed by the Commodity Credit Corporation; the
Conservation Reserve Program [CRP]; the Emergency Conservation
Program; the Commodity Operation Programs including the
warehouse examination function; farm ownership, farm operating,
emergency disaster, and other loan programs; and the Noninsured
Crop Disaster Assistance Program [NAP], which provides crop
loss protection for growers of many crops for which crop
insurance is not available. In addition, FSA currently provides
certain administrative support services to the Foreign
Agricultural Service [FAS] and to the Risk Management Agency
[RMA].
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfers from Total, FSA,
Appropriations program salaries and
accounts expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2006......................................... 1,019,700 306,551 1,326,251
Budget estimate, 2007........................................ 1,091,359 319,294 1,410,653
House allowance.............................................. 1,053,760 310,335 1,364,095
Committee recommendation..................................... 1,151,779 319,294 1,471,073
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The account ``Salaries and expenses, Farm Service Agency,''
funds the administrative expenses of program administration and
other functions assigned to FSA. The funds consist of
appropriations and transfers from the CCC export credit
guarantees, Public Law 480 loans, and agricultural credit
insurance fund program accounts, and miscellaneous advances
from other sources. All administrative funds used by FSA are
consolidated into one account. The consolidation provides
clarity and better management and control of funds, and
facilitates accounting, fiscal, and budgetary work by
eliminating the necessity for making individual allocations and
allotments and maintaining and recording obligations and
expenditures under numerous separate accounts.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,151,779,000
for salaries and expenses of the Farm Service Agency. The
Committee recommendation includes $64,702,000 for Common
Computing Environment activities.
Indian Credit Outreach.--The Committee is aware of the
successful partnership between the Farm Service Agency and the
National Tribal Development Association [NTDA]. This
partnership focuses on reducing defaults and deficiencies in
Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund loan programs. The Committee
strongly encourages FSA to continue this cooperative agreement
with NTDA at current levels.
National Agriculture Imagery Program.--The Committee
recommends $2,000,000 for the enhancement and management of the
agriculture imagery catalog repositories and data warehouses at
the USDA Aerial Photography Field Office for mirrored data
storage hardware and software, including content addressable
storage, and integrated software which guarantees authenticity
over time and provides scalability to meet future requirements.
The Committee recommends that funds be allocated to
purchase high resolution satellite imagery data or products to
meet programmatic requirements. The acquisition of high
resolution satellite imagery will also encourage the
development of second generation imagery satellites, which is
key to preparing our Nation's agricultural economy to keep pace
with 21st century technological innovation.
STATE MEDIATION GRANTS
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $4,208,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 4,208,000
House allowance......................................... 4,208,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,208,000
This program is authorized under title V of the
Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 (7 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.).
Originally designed to address agricultural credit disputes,
the program was expanded by the Federal Crop Insurance Reform
and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994
(Public Law 103-354) to include other agricultural issues such
as wetland determinations, conservation compliance, rural water
loan programs, grazing on National Forest System lands, and
pesticides. The authorization for this program was extended
through fiscal year 2010 by Public Law 109-17. Grants are made
to States whose mediation programs have been certified by the
Farm Service Agency [FSA]. Grants will be solely for operation
and administration of the State's agricultural mediation
program.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,208,000 for
State Mediation Grants.
GRASSROOTS SOURCE WATER PROTECTION PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $3,713,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................................
House allowance......................................... 3,713,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,713,000
This program is authorized under section 2502 of Public Law
107-171. It is intended to assist in the protection of
groundwater through State rural water associations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,713,000 for
Grassroots Source Water Protection.
DAIRY INDEMNITY PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $100,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 100,000
House allowance......................................... 100,000
Committee recommendation................................ 100,000
Under the program, the Department makes indemnification
payments to dairy farmers and manufacturers of dairy products
who, through no fault of their own, suffer losses because they
are directed to remove their milk from commercial markets due
to contamination of their products by registered pesticides.
The program also authorizes indemnity payments to dairy farmers
for losses resulting from the removal of cows or dairy products
from the market due to nuclear radiation or fallout. The
authorization for this program was extended through fiscal year
2007 by Public Law 107-171.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $100,000 for
the Dairy Indemnity Program.
AGRICULTURAL CREDIT INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
The Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account is
used to provide direct and guaranteed farm ownership, farm
operating, and emergency loans to individuals, as well as the
following types of loans to associations: irrigation and
drainage, grazing, Indian tribe land acquisition, and boll
weevil eradication.
FSA is also authorized to provide financial assistance to
borrowers by guaranteeing loans made by private lenders having
a contract of guarantee from FSA as approved by the Secretary
of Agriculture.
The following programs are financed through this fund:
Boll Weevil Eradication Loans.--Made to assist foundations
in financing the operations of the boll weevil eradication
programs provided to farmers.
Credit Sales of Acquired Property.--Property is sold out of
inventory and is made available to an eligible buyer by
providing FSA loans.
Emergency Loans.--Made to producers to aid recovery from
production and physical losses due to drought, flooding, other
natural disasters, or quarantine. The loans may be used to:
restore or replace essential property; pay all or part of
production costs associated with the disaster year; pay
essential family living expenses; reorganize the farming
operation; and refinance certain debts.
Farm Operating Loans.--Provide short-to-intermediate term
production or chattel credit to farmers who cannot obtain
credit elsewhere, to improve their farm and home operations,
and to develop or maintain a reasonable standard of living. The
term of the loan varies from 1 to 7 years.
Farm Ownership Loans.--Made to borrowers who cannot obtain
credit elsewhere to restructure their debts, improve or
purchase farms, refinance nonfarm enterprises which supplement
but do not supplant farm income, or make additions to farms.
Loans are made for 40 years or less.
Indian Tribe Land Acquisition Loans.--Made to any Indian
tribe recognized by the Secretary of the Interior or tribal
corporation established pursuant to the Indian Reorganization
Act (Public Law 93-638) which does not have adequate
uncommitted funds to acquire lands or interest in lands within
the tribe's reservation or Alaskan Indian community, as
determined by the Secretary of the Interior, for use of the
tribe or the corporation or the members thereof.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a total loan level of
$3,427,470,000 for programs within the Agricultural Credit
Insurance Fund Program Account.
Emergency Loan Program.--The Committee recommends no new
budget authority for the emergency loan program. Currently,
this loan program has over $133,000,000 available for eligible
producers. Based on historical loan activity, this amount
should meet all needs for emergency loans in this fiscal year.
The following table reflects the program levels for farm
credit programs administered by the Farm Service Agency
recommended by the Committee, as compared to the fiscal year
2006 and the budget request levels:
AGRICULTURAL CREDIT PROGRAMS--LOAN LEVELS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Committee
2006 enacted 2007 budget recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farm ownership:
Direct................................................... 205,918 222,750 222,750
Guaranteed............................................... 1,386,000 1,200,000 1,200,000
Farm operating:
Direct................................................... 643,500 643,500 643,500
Guaranteed unsubsidized.................................. 1,138,500 1,025,610 1,025,610
Guaranteed subsidized.................................... 271,886 272,250 272,250
Indian tribe land acquisition................................ 2,000 3,960 3,960
Boll weevil eradication...................................... 100,000 59,400 59,400
--------------------------------------------------
Total, farm loans...................................... 3,747,804 3,427,470 3,427,470
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOAN SUBSIDIES AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidies Administrative expenses
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Guaranteed Transfer to Total ACIF
Direct loan loan Total Appropriations FSA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2006........... 74,652 75,136 149,788 7,920 301,545 309,465
Budget estimate, 2007.......... 86,525 27,387 113,912 7,920 311,737 319,657
House allowance................ 86,525 62,781 149,306 7,920 307,338 315,258
Committee recommendation....... 86,525 59,708 146,233 7,920 311,737 319,657
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the
program account. Appropriations to this account are used to
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct
loans obligated and loan guarantees committed, as well as for
administrative expenses.
The following table reflects the cost of loan programs
under credit reform:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
2006 enacted 2007 budget recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:
Farm ownership:
Direct............................................... 10,544 9,333 9,333
Guaranteed........................................... 6,653 ............... 6,960
Farm operating:
Direct............................................... 64,028 75,225 75,225
Guaranteed unsubsidized.............................. 34,497 2,667 25,332
Guaranteed subsidized................................ 33,986 24,720 27,416
Indian tribe land acquisition............................ 80 838 838
Boll weevil eradication.................................. ............... 1,129 1,129
--------------------------------------------------
Total, loan subsidies................................ 149,788 113,912 146,233
ACIF expenses................................................ 309,465 319,657 319,657
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Risk Management Agency
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $76,278,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 80,797,000
House allowance......................................... 77,197,000
Committee recommendation................................ 78,477,000
The Risk Management Agency performs administrative
functions relative to the Federal crop insurance program that
is authorized by the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C.
1508), as amended by the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of
2000 [ARPA], Public Law 106-224, and the Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002, Public Law 107-171.
ARPA authorized significant changes in the crop insurance
program. This Act provides higher government subsidies for
producer premiums to make coverage more affordable; expands
research and development for new insurance products and under-
served areas through contracts with the private sector; and
tightens compliance. Functional areas of risk management are:
research and development; insurance services; and compliance,
whose functions include policy formulation and procedures and
regulations development.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $78,477,000
for the Risk Management Agency.
Data Mining.--The Committee includes bill language allowing
up to $3,600,000 of the unobligated funds of the Federal Crop
Insurance Corporation Fund to be used for program integrity
purposes.
CORPORATIONS
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund
Appropriations, 2006\1\................................. $3,159,379,000
Budget estimate, 2007\1\................................ 4,131,035,000
House allowance\1\...................................... 4,131,035,000
Committee recommendation\1\............................. 4,131,035,000
\1\Current estimate. Such sums as may be necessary, to remain available
until expended, are provided.
The Federal Crop Insurance Act, as amended by the Federal
Crop Insurance Reform Act of 1994, authorizes the payment of
expenses which may include indemnity payments, loss adjustment,
delivery expenses, program-related research and development,
startup costs for implementing this legislation such as
studies, pilot projects, data processing improvements, public
outreach, and related tasks and functions.
All program costs, except for Federal salaries and
expenses, are mandatory expenditures subject to appropriation.
Producers of insurable crops are eligible to receive a
basic level of protection against catastrophic losses, which
cover 50 percent of the normal yield at 55 percent of the
expected price. The only cost to the producer is an
administrative fee of $100 per crop per policy.
The Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 [ARPA] amended
the Federal Crop Insurance Act to strengthen the safety net for
agricultural producers by providing greater access to more
affordable risk management tools and improved protection from
production and income loss, and to improve the efficiency and
integrity of the Federal crop insurance program. ARPA allows
for the improvement of basic crop insurance products by
implementing higher premium subsidies to make buy-up coverage
more affordable for producers; make adjustments in actual
production history guarantees; and revise the administrative
fees for catastrophic [CAT] coverage. More crops and
commodities have become insurable through pilot programs
effective with the 2001 crop year.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of such sums as
may be necessary, estimated to be $4,131,035,000 for the
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund.
Commodity Credit Corporation Fund
The Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC] is a wholly owned
Government corporation created in 1933 to stabilize, support,
and protect farm income and prices; to help maintain balanced
and adequate supplies of agricultural commodities, including
products, foods, feeds, and fibers; and to help in the orderly
distribution of these commodities. CCC was originally
incorporated under a Delaware charter and was reincorporated
June 30, 1948, as a Federal corporation within the Department
of Agriculture by the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act,
approved June 29, 1948 (15 U.S.C. 714).
The Commodity Credit Corporation engages in buying,
selling, lending, and other activities with respect to
agricultural commodities, their products, food, feed, and
fibers. Its purposes include stabilizing, supporting, and
protecting farm income and prices; maintaining the balance and
adequate supplies of selected commodities; and facilitating the
orderly distribution of such commodities. In addition, the
Corporation makes available materials and facilities required
in connection with the storage and distribution of such
commodities. The Corporation also disburses funds for sharing
of costs with producers for the establishment of approved
conservation practices on environmentally sensitive land and
subsequent rental payments for such land for the duration of
Conservation Reserve Program contracts.
Corporation activities are primarily governed by the
following statutes: the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter
Act (Public Law 80-806), as amended; the Agricultural Act of
1949 (Public Law 81-439), as amended (1949 Act); the
Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (Public Law 75-430), as
amended (the 1938 Act); the Food Security Act of 1985 (Public
Law 99-198), as amended (1985 Act); and the Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-171) (2002 Act),
enacted May 13, 2002.
Under the 2002 Act, the Secretary is required to offer a
program of direct and counter-cyclical payments and extend
nonrecourse marketing assistance loans and loan deficiency
payments for contract commodities (soybeans, wheat, corn, grain
sorghum, barley, oats, upland cotton, rice, other oilseeds, and
peanuts). The 2002 Act also provides for marketing loans for
wool, mohair, honey, small chickpeas, lentils and dry peas. A
national Milk Income Loss Contract [MILC] program was
established by the 2002 Act, providing that producers enter
into contracts extending through September 30, 2005. The
authorization of the MILC program has been extended through
August 2007 by Public Law 109-171. A milk price support program
is also provided to support the price of milk via purchases of
butter, cheese, and nonfat dry milk. The rate of support is
$9.90 per hundredweight.
The 2002 Act directs the Secretary to operate the sugar
program at no cost to the U.S. Treasury by avoiding sugar loan
forfeitures in the nonrecourse loan program. The nonrecourse
loan program is reauthorized through fiscal year 2007 at 18
cents per pound for raw cane sugar and 22.9 cents per pound for
refined beet sugar.
In the conservation area, the 2002 Act extends and expands
the conservation reserve program [CRP], the wetlands reserve
program [WRP], the environmental quality incentives program
[EQIP], the farmland protection program [FPP], and the wildlife
habitat incentive program [WHIP]. Each of these programs is
funded through the CCC.
The 2002 Act also authorizes and provides CCC funding for
other conservation programs, including the conservation
security program and the grassland reserve program.
Management of the Corporation is vested in a board of
directors, subject to the general supervision and direction of
the Secretary of Agriculture, who is an ex-officio director and
chairman of the board. The board consists of seven members, in
addition to the Secretary, who are appointed by the President
of the United States with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Officers of the Corporation are designated according to their
positions in the Department of Agriculture.
The activities of the Corporation are carried out mainly by
the personnel and through the facilities of the Farm Service
Agency [FSA] and the Farm Service Agency State and county
committees. The Foreign Agricultural Service, the General Sales
Manager, other agencies and offices of the Department, and
commercial agents are also used to carry out certain aspects of
the Corporation's activities.
The Corporation's capital stock of $100,000,000 is held by
the United States. Under present law, up to $30,000,000,000 may
be borrowed from the U.S. Treasury, from private lending
agencies, and from others at any one time. The Corporation
reserves a sufficient amount of its borrowing authority to
purchase at any time all notes and other obligations evidencing
loans made by such agencies and others. All bonds, notes,
debentures, and similar obligations issued by the Corporation
are subject to approval by the Secretary of the Treasury.
Under Public Law 87-155 (15 U.S.C. 713a-11, 713a-12),
annual appropriations are authorized for each fiscal year,
commencing with fiscal year 1961. These appropriations are to
reimburse the Corporation for net realized losses.
REIMBURSEMENT FOR NET REALIZED LOSSES
Appropriations, 2006\1\................................. $25,690,000,000
Budget estimate, 2007\1\................................ 19,740,000,000
House allowance\1\...................................... 19,740,000,000
Committee recommendation\1\............................. 19,740,000,000
\1\Current estimate. Such sums as may be necessary are provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of such sums as
may be necessary, estimated in fiscal year 2007 to be
$19,740,000,000 for the payment to reimburse the Commodity
Credit Corporation for net realized losses.
CCC Inventories.--The Committee is aware that certain CCC
surplus commodities have been used to supplement various
programs, including support for domestic nutrition assistance.
In those instances where surplus nonfat dry milk stocks have
been used, information relating to the amount available and the
quality of those stocks is important for program planning. The
Committee directs the Department to provide monthly reports to
the Committee regarding ending monthly stocks of nonfat dry
milk. This report should include the amount of nonfat dry milk
in stock at the end of each month; the quality of those stocks,
including the quantity suitable for human consumption; detailed
information on how the nonfat dry milk was distributed during
the month; and the plans for distribution during the next
month.
The Committee directs the USDA through the Commodity Credit
Corporation to provide, as stocks become available, 15 million
pounds of nonfat dry milk unsuitable for human consumption, to
the U.S. farm-raised catfish industry for evaluation as a
catfish feed ingredient. This product shall be provided at
prices and terms consistent with existing programs supporting
other U.S. agricultural industries.
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
Limitation, 2006........................................ $5,000,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 5,000,000
House allowance......................................... 5,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,000,000
The Commodity Credit Corporation's [CCC] hazardous waste
management program is intended to ensure compliance with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). The CCC
funds operations and maintenance costs as well as site
investigation and cleanup expenses. Investigative and cleanup
costs associated with the management of CCC hazardous waste are
also paid from USDA's hazardous waste management appropriation.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a limitation of $5,000,000 for
Commodity Credit Corporation hazardous waste management.
FARM STORAGE FACILITY LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
Appropriations, 2006....................................................
Budget estimate, 2007................................... $4,560,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 4,560,000
The Farm Storage Facility Loan Program [FSFL], originally
established in 1949, was discontinued in the early 1980's
pending adequate capacity, and re-established in fiscal year
2000 to address current storage space shortages. Federal
Government subsidy costs supporting this program are estimated
pursuant to the Federal Credit Reform Act [FCRA] of 1990
(Public Law 101-508, sec. 13201, et seq.) (2 U.S.C. 661, et
seq.). The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002
directed the CCC to establish a Sugar Storage Facility Loan
Program to provide financing for domestic processors to
construct and improve sugar storage and handling facilities.
Administrative expenses for this program ($4,329,000 in fiscal
year 2006) have been included in the Salaries and Expenses
account of the Farm Service Agency [FSA], which administers the
program. Following OMB guidance (Circular A-11), FSA recently
moved these expenses to the FSFL account to comply with FCRA
section 504(g) direction that all funding for an agency's
administration of a direct loan or loan guarantee program shall
be displayed as distinct and separately identified subaccounts
within the same budget account as the program's cost (2 U.S.C.
661c).
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,560,000 for
administration of the Farm Storage Facility Loan Program.
TITLE II
CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $737,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 957,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 752,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment provides direction and coordination in carrying out
the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to natural
resources and the environment. The Office has oversight and
management responsibilities for the Natural Resources
Conservation Service and the Forest Service [NRCS].
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $752,000 for
the Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment.
Atlantic Salmon Recovery.--The Committee supports the goals
of the Penobscot River Restoration Project in the State of
Maine. This project will restore over 500 miles of river
habitat utilized by Atlantic salmon and 10 other species of
native sea-run fish. The Committee strongly encourages the NRCS
to improve migratory fish habitat in this watershed, including
the removal of impediments to passage, by utilizing all
appropriate funding sources.
Colorado River Salinity.--The Committee is aware of
continuing problems of water resource management in Western
States, especially those States experiencing rapid growth in
water demand, and urges the Secretary to dedicate adequate
financial and technical assistance for on-farm measures to
control Colorado River salinity, especially in the Price-San
Rafael area of Utah.
Devils Lake.--The Committee is aware that Devils Lake in
the State of North Dakota is now more than 25 feet higher than
it was in 1993. The Committee encourages the NRCS, with the
cooperation of the FSA, to assist locally-coordinated flood
response and water management activities. NRCS and FSA should
continue to utilize conservation programs in providing water
holding, storage, and other innovative solutions as necessary
measures in watershed management.
Klamath Basin.--The Committee recognizes that funds
provided under this Act to Klamath Basin farmers and ranchers
will go primarily to meet site-specific conservation goals.
However, the Committee intends that on-farm conservation
activities will be consistent with the broader goals for
environmental restoration and the recovery of Endangered
Species Act--listed species in the Klamath Basin, and enhance
the stability of operations for the Federal reclamation
project.
Wetlands Reserve Program.--The Committee strongly
encourages the NRCS to establish a demonstration pilot program
utilizing rapid growth reforestation technology.
Wetlands Reserve Program Assessments.--In February 2006,
the Secretary announced a change in the Wetlands Reserve
Program that would take into account the value of recreational
and similar uses in determining the appraised value of
easements offered under this program. The Committee directs the
Secretary to minimize the effect this change will have in
regard to geographical participation in the Wetlands Reserve
Program and report to the Committee within 120 days of
enactment of this Act on the impact this policy change may have
on utilization of this program in all regions of the country
and the steps taken to minimize such change.
Natural Resources Conservation Service
The Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] was
established pursuant to Public Law 103-354, the Department of
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6962). The
NRCS works with conservation districts, watershed groups, and
Federal and State agencies to bring about physical adjustments
in land use that will conserve soil and water resources,
provide for agricultural production on a sustained basis, and
reduce flood damage and sedimentation.
conservation operations
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $831,124,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 744,877,000
House allowance......................................... 791,498,000
Committee recommendation................................ 835,331,000
Conservation operations are authorized by Public Law 74-46
(16 U.S.C. 590a-590f). Activities include:
Conservation Technical Assistance.--Provides assistance to
district cooperators and other land users in the planning and
application of conservation treatments to control erosion and
improve the quantity and quality of soil resources, improve and
conserve water, enhance fish and wildlife habitat, conserve
energy, improve woodland, pasture and range conditions, and
reduce upstream flooding; all to protect and enhance the
natural resource base.
Inventory and monitoring provides soil, water, and related
resource data for land conservation, use, and development;
guidance of community development; identification of prime
agricultural producing areas that should be protected;
environmental quality protection; and for the issuance of
periodic inventory reports of resource conditions.
Resource appraisal and program development ensures that
programs administered by the Secretary of Agriculture for the
conservation of soil, water, and related resources shall
respond to the Nation's long-term needs.
Plant Materials Centers.--Assembles, tests, and encourages
increased use of plant species which show promise for use in
the treatment of conservation problem areas.
Snow Survey and Water Forecasting.--Provides estimates of
annual water availability from high mountain snow packs and
relates to summer stream flow in the Western States and Alaska.
Information is used by agriculture, industry, and cities in
estimating future water supplies.
Soil Surveys.--Inventories the Nation's basic soil
resources and determines land capabilities and conservation
treatment needs. Soil survey publications include
interpretations useful to cooperators, other Federal agencies,
State, and local organizations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $835,331,000
for Conservation Operations. The Committee recommendation
includes $18,717,000 for Common Computing Environment
activities.
For fiscal year 2007, the Committee recommends funding, as
specified below, for new and ongoing conservation activities.
Amounts recommended by the Committee for specific conservation
measures shall be in addition to levels otherwise made
available to States.
Projects identified in House Report 109-255, the conference
report accompanying H.R. 2744, an Act making appropriations for
agriculture, rural development, food and drug administration,
and related agencies programs for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, that were directed
to be funded in fiscal year 2006 are not funded in fiscal year
2007, unless specifically mentioned herein.
Agricultural Development and Resource Conservation.--The
Committee recommendation includes $911,000 to expand the
agricultural development and resource conservation program
currently serving the Island of Molokai. These funds are to be
shared equally among Hawaii, Oahu, Maui, and Kauai Counties in
the State of Hawaii.
Agricultural Waste Remediation.--The Committee
recommendation includes $292,000 to continue agricultural waste
remediation in the Lake Pontchartrain Basin of Louisiana.
Alabama Association of Conservation Districts.--The
Committee recommendation includes $99,000 for a cooperative
agreement with the Alabama Association of Conservation
Districts.
Alaska Association of Conservation Districts.--The
Committee recommendation includes $1,473,000 for a cooperative
agreement with the Alaska Association of Conservation
Districts. The cooperative agreement shall limit administrative
expenses to no more than 10 percent of the appropriated funds.
Alluvial Floodplain Conservation.--The Committee
recommendation includes $743,000 for alluvial floodplain
conservation in the State of Mississippi.
Altamaha River Basin Water Quality.--The Committee
recommendation includes $99,000 for a cooperative agreement
with Georgia Southern University for the Altamaha River Basin
water quality project.
Appalachian Small Farmer Outreach.--The Committee
recommendation includes $851,000 to continue the Appalachian
small farmer outreach program in the State of West Virginia.
Big Sandy Tri-State Watershed.--The Committee
recommendation includes $200,000 for the Big Sandy Tri-State
Watershed inventory and analysis for McDowell, Mingo, and Logan
Counties in West Virginia.
Carson City Erosion Control.--The Committee recommendation
includes $450,000 for the Carson City erosion control project
in the State of Nevada.
Certified Environmental Management Systems.--The Committee
recommendation includes $428,000 to continue the Certified
Environmental Management Systems for Agriculture in cooperation
with the Iowa Soybean Association.
Chesapeake Bay.--The Committee supports continuing
activities of the Chesapeake Bay Program and urges the agency
to provide ongoing support to provide technical assistance to
farmers and local governments throughout the Bay Watershed.
Coastal Urban Wetland Restoration.--The Committee
recommendation includes $500,000 for restoration activities
associated with coastal urban wetlands in Louisiana.
Cold Region Plant Materials and Seeds.--The Committee
recommendation includes $297,000 to obtain and evaluate plant
materials and seeds native to regions north of 52 degrees north
latitude and equivalent vegetated regions in the southern
hemisphere. The Committee directs the agency to continue
working in conjunction with the Alaska Division of Agriculture.
Conservation Education.--The Committee recommendation
includes $442,000 for a cooperative agreement between the
Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and
the Alabama Wildlife Federation for conservation education in
Millbrook, Alabama.
Conservation Land Internship.--The Committee recommendation
includes $119,000 for the conservation land internship program
in the State of Wisconsin.
Conservation Planning, Florida.--The Committee
recommendation includes $347,000 to provide expedited
conservation planning of the Lake Okeechobee Watershed project
in the State of Florida. The Committee expects the agency to
work in cooperation with the Florida Department of Agriculture
and Consumer Services.
Conservation Planning, Massachusetts and Wisconsin.--The
Committee recommendation includes $594,000 to continue
conservation planning related to cranberry production in the
States of Massachusetts and Wisconsin.
Conservation Practices and Agricultural Diversification.--
The Committee recommendation includes $495,000 for a
cooperative agreement with Tufts University to conduct pilot
programs in the State of Connecticut to improve conservation
practices and enhance the diversification of agricultural
production in the area.
Conservation Technology Transfer.--The Committee
recommendation includes $297,000 for a cooperative agreement
with the University of Wisconsin for the conservation
technology transfer project.
Dairy Waste Management.--The Committee expects the NRCS to
work in conjunction with the Agricultural Research Service
Dairy Forage Laboratory in Madison, Wisconsin, regarding dairy
waste management and in the development of a working
arrangement regarding planned expansion of the Dairy Forage
Laboratory activities at Marshfield, Wisconsin, and the
establishment of a NRCS Waste Management Institute at that
location.
Delta Conservation Demonstration.--The Committee
recommendation includes $1,375,000 for the Delta Conservation
Demonstration Center in Washington County, Mississippi.
Delta Water Resources Study.--The Committee recommendation
includes $687,000 to continue the delta water resources study
in the State of Mississippi.
Devils Lake Water Utilization.--The Committee
recommendation includes $347,000 for a cooperative agreement
with the North Central Planning Council to continue the Devils
Lake water utilization test project in the State of North
Dakota to determine to what extent excess water from Devils
Lake can be used to irrigate land for beneficial use.
Driftless Area Conservation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $260,000 for conservation in the Driftless area in the
States of Wisconsin and Minnesota.
Environmental Compliance.--The Committee recommendation
includes $250,000 for a cooperative agreement with the
Wisconsin Dairy Business Association to help livestock
producers comply with recently enacted livestock siting
requirements. Technical assistance provided through this
agreement will help producers interested in practices that
minimize odor, manage waste, and address smart-growth planning
concerns.
Farm Viability.--The Committee recommendation includes
$297,000 to continue a pilot farm viability program project in
the State of Vermont.
Flint Hills of Kansas.--The Committee supports the
preservation of the last tallgrass prairie in North America,
most of which is located in the Flint Hills region of Kansas.
The Committee recognizes that the tallgrass prairie provides
rich ranching lands, open spaces, and habitat for a diverse
assemblage of plants and animals. The Committee urges the
agency to give consideration to the use of all appropriate
funding sources for projects in Kansas that will preserve and
protect this unique area.
Geographic Information System Center of Excellence.--The
Committee recommendation includes $4,455,000 for the geographic
information system center of excellence at West Virginia
University.
Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission.--The
Committee recommendation includes $3,663,000 for a cooperative
agreement with the Georgia Soil and Water Conservation
Commission.
Grazing Land Conservation, Wisconsin.--The Committee
recommendation includes $941,000 for grazing land conservation
activities in the State of Wisconsin.
Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative.--The Committee
recommendation includes $27,255,000 for the grazing lands
conservation initiative. The Committee expects that NRCS
continue fiscal year 2006 levels to manage and prevent the
spread of invasive species. The Committee encourages the agency
to make western range lands a priority when allocating funding.
Great Lakes Basin Soil and Erosion Control.--The Committee
recommendation includes $2,475,000 for the Great Lakes Basin
program for soil and erosion control.
Green River Water Quality and Biological Diversity.--The
Committee recommendation includes $392,000 for a cooperative
agreement with Western Kentucky University to monitor water
quality and biological diversity of the Green River and
surrounding watersheds.
Hardwood Forest Restoration.--The Committee recommendation
includes $396,000 for hardwood forest restoration through the
Operation Oak program.
Hazardous Fuels.--The Committee recommendation includes
$200,000 for activities related to hazardous fuels reduction in
Nevada.
High Plains Aquifer.--The Committee recognizes that the
High Plains aquifer, with the Ogallala aquifer as its most
important component, lies beneath eight States and is the
primary source of water for all reported uses in western
Kansas. The Committee is aware that the aquifer is depleting at
alarming rates and absent conservation efforts could be dry
within two decades. The Committee urges the agency to give
consideration to the use of ground and surface water funding
for projects in Kansas that will conserve this aquifer.
Illinois River Agricultural Water Conservation.--The
Committee recommendation includes $240,000 for the Illinois
River Agricultural Water Conservation Project in the State of
Illinois, in conjunction with Ducks Unlimited.
Illinois River Watershed.--The Committee recommendation
includes $173,000 to assist in planning and operations in the
Illinois River watershed.
Invasive Species, Hawaii.--The Committee continues to be
concerned about the serious threat to Hawaiian pastures and
forest watersheds resulting from the introduction of invasive
species, such as gorse and miconia, and encourages the NRCS to
work with the Hawaii Department of Agriculture and the Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service to develop holistic
approaches to controlling and eradicating these invasive alien
pests and to provide funding as appropriate.
Kentucky Association of Conservation Districts.--The
Committee recommendation includes $990,000 for a cooperative
agreement with the Kentucky Association of Conservation
Districts.
Lake Erie Wetlands Conservation Corridors.--The Committee
recommendation includes $124,000 for the Lake Erie wetlands
conservation corridors project in the State of Ohio.
Land Use Change.--The Committee recommendation includes
$1,178,000 for a study to characterize the on-site
consequences, estimate off-site impacts, and develop strategies
to facilitate land use change while preserving critical natural
resources. The agency is directed to work in cooperation with
Clemson University.
Loess Hills Soil Erosion.--The Committee recommendation
includes $1,188,000 to address soil erosion in the Loess Hills
area in the State of Iowa.
Long Island Sound Watershed Initiative.--The Committee
recommendation includes $198,000 for the Long Island Sound
watershed initiative in the State of New York.
Mississippi Conservation Initiative.--The Committee
recommendation includes $9,900,000 for the Mississippi
Conservation Initiative.
Mississippi River Alluvial Floodplain.--The Committee
directs the agency to maintain a national priority area pilot
program under the guidelines of the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program in the alluvial floodplain of the
Mississippi River.
Molokai Agriculture Development and Resource
Conservation.--The Committee recommendation includes $230,000
to continue the agriculture development and resources
conservation program on the Island of Molokai, Hawaii.
Montana Association of Conservation Districts.--The
Committee recommendation includes $250,000 for a cooperative
agreement with the Montana Association of Conservation
Districts.
Narragansett Bay.--The Committee recommendation includes
$150,000 for nitrate control in watersheds affecting the
Narragansett Bay in Rhode Island.
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.--The Committee
recommendation includes $2,970,000 to maintain a partnership
between USDA and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
Native Plant Materials Commercialization.--The Committee
recommendation includes $297,000 for commercialization of
native plant materials in the State of Alaska.
Native Vegetation Utilization.--The Committee
recommendation includes $442,000 for a cooperative agreement
with the University of Northern Iowa.
Natural Resource Inventory, Alaska.--The Committee
recommendation includes $495,000 to continue Natural Resource
Inventory pilot activity development in Alaska. The agency
shall provide the Committee with a report detailing its
progress on these activities.
Nitrogen Removal.--The Committee recommendation includes
$1,188,000 for a cooperative agreement with the Sand County
Foundation in the State of Wisconsin to carry out an expanded
nitrogen removal test project.
Nutrient Application and Water Quality.--The Committee
recommendation includes $158,000 to conduct nitrogen soil tests
and plant-available nitrogen tests, and to demonstrate poultry
litter and wood composting in an effort to improve farmers'
economic returns and minimize potential water quality
conditions resulting from excess application of nutrients from
manure and fertilizers on West Virginia's cropland.
Nutrient Management, Arkansas.--The Committee
recommendation includes $223,000 for the Ozark nutrient
management project in the State of Arkansas.
Nutrient Management, Mississippi.--The Committee
recommendation includes $884,000 for cattle and nutrient
management in stream crossings in cooperation with Mississippi
Association of Conservation Districts.
On Farm Management Systems Evaluation Network.--The
Committee recommendation includes $248,000 for assistance for
an On Farm Management Systems Evaluation Network.
Phosphorous Application.--The Committee recommendation
includes $446,000 to address concerns with the application of
phosphorous on agricultural lands in the State of North
Carolina.
Phosphorus Loading in Lake Champlain.--The Committee
recommendation includes $297,000 for the testing of emerging
alternative technology in the State of Vermont to reduce
phosphorus loading in Lake Champlain.
Pioneer Farm.--The Committee recommendation includes
$297,000 for a cooperative agreement with the University of
Wisconsin-Platteville for the Pioneer Farm project.
Pioneers in Conservation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $200,000 for a cooperative agreement with the
Washington State Conservation Commission to carry out the Puget
Sound Pioneers in Conservation program.
Plant Materials Centers.--The Committee recommendation
includes $10,678,000 for NRCS plant material centers.
Potomac and Ohio River Basins Soil Nutrient
Characterization.--The Committee recommendation includes
$297,000 to continue the expansion of the Potomac and Ohio
River Basins Soil Nutrient Project to include Jefferson,
Berkeley, and Greenbrier Counties. This funding will enable the
NRCS, in cooperation with West Virginia University, Appalachian
Small Farming Research Center, and the Natural Soil Survey
Laboratory in Lincoln, Nebraska, to identify and characterize
phosphorous movement in soils, to determine appropriate
transportation, the holding capacity, and the management of
phosphorous. This information is critical in helping
Appalachian farmers deal with nutrient loading issues and in
protecting the Chesapeake Bay from eutrophication and the Ohio
River, Mississippi River, and Gulf of Mexico from depletion of
life-sustaining oxygen.
Potomac River Tributary Program.--The Committee
recommendation includes $250,000 to NRCS to assist agricultural
producers in the Potomac Highlands to develop comprehensive
nutrient management plans to address water quality issues in
the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
Range Revegetation.--The Committee recommendation includes
$495,000 for range revegetation at Fort Hood in the State of
Texas.
Resource and Regulatory Compliance.--The Committee
recommendation includes $198,000 for the continued development
of comprehensive resource and regulatory compliance tools in
the State of Idaho.
Riparian Restoration.--The Committee recommendation
includes $532,000 to carry out riparian restoration activities
along the Rio Grande, Canadian, and Pecos Rivers in the State
of New Mexico.
Sage Grouse.--The Committee encourages the Secretary to
utilize no less than $5,000,000 from all appropriate funding
sources to support sage grouse habitat conservation in States
within the current range of the greater sage grouse.
Sharkey Soils.--The Committee directs the agency to work
with soil scientists at regional land-grant universities to
continue the pilot project in Washington, Sharkey and Yazoo
Counties, Mississippi, to determine the proper classification
and taxonomic characteristics of Sharkey soils.
Small Farm Outreach and Water Management Center.--The
Committee recommendation includes $124,000 for a cooperative
agreement with the Small Farm Outreach and Water Management
Center at the University of Arkansas-Pine Bluff.
Snow Survey and Water Supply Forecasting.--The Committee
recommendation includes $10,698,000 for snow survey and water
supply forecasting.
Soil Erosion and Water Quality.--The Committee
recommendation includes $190,000 for a cooperative agreement
with Alcorn State University for the analysis of soil erosion
and water quality in the State of Mississippi.
Soil Productivity and Water Quality.--The Committee
recommendation includes $990,000 to address soil productivity
and water quality issues in the State of New Jersey.
Soil Survey.--The Committee recommendation includes
$89,291,000 for nationwide soil surveys.
Soil Surveys, Kentucky.--The Committee recommendation
includes $2,970,000 to provide technical assistance for the
Kentucky Soil Erosion Control/Soil Survey Program.
Soil Surveys, Rhode Island.--The Committee recommendation
includes $99,000 to continue soil surveys in the State of Rhode
Island.
Soil Surveys, Wyoming.--The Committee recommendation
includes $297,000 to continue soil surveys in the State of
Wyoming.
Tribal Conservation.--The Committee recommendation includes
$297,000 for a cooperative agreement with the Wisconsin Tribal
Conservation Advisory Committee for conservation and
sustainable agricultural activities.
Union-Lincoln Parish Regional Water Conservation.--The
Committee recommendation includes $124,000 for the Union-
Lincoln Parish regional water conservation project in the State
of Louisiana.
Utah Conservation Initiative.--The Committee recommendation
includes $4,950,000 to continue the Utah Conservation
Initiative.
Vegetation Manipulation Study.--The Committee
recommendation includes $792,000 for a cooperative agreement
with Utah State University to examine the effect of vegetation
manipulation on water yields and other watershed functions.
Water Conservation and Efficient Irrigation, California.--
The Committee recommendation includes $198,000 for a water
conservation and efficient irrigation project with the
Municipal Water District of Orange County, California.
Water Conservation and Efficient Irrigation, Idaho.--The
Committee recommendation includes $250,000 for a cooperative
agreement with the Little Wood River Irrigation District in the
State of Idaho.
Water Conservation.--The Committee recommendation includes
$500,000 for a cooperative agreement with the Central Colorado
Water Conservancy District in the State of Colorado.
Water Conveyance Efficiency.--The Committee recommendation
includes $2,970,000 to improve water conveyance efficiency
through the Washington Fields project in the State of Utah.
Water Quality Best Management Practices.--The Committee
recommendation includes $396,000 for a study on the
effectiveness of agriculture and forestry best management
practices on water quality. The Committee directs the agency to
work in cooperation with Louisiana State University.
Water Quality, Utah.--The Committee recommendation includes
$297,000 to improve water quality through the Utah confined
animal feed operation/animal feeding operation pilot project.
Watershed Management, Iowa.--The Committee recommendation
includes $543,000 for watershed management and demonstration
projects in cooperation with the National Pork Producers
Council and Iowa Soybean Association.
Wildlife Habitat Improvement.--The Committee recommendation
includes $240,000 for wildlife habitat improvement through the
Energy for Wildlife program in the State of Illinois.
Wildlife Habitat Management Institute.--The Committee
recommendation includes $2,970,000 for the Wildlife Habitat
Management Institute [WHMI]. The Committee recognizes the
unique attributes and contributions made by the WHMI toward
wildlife conservation goals of the Nation. As such, the
Committee encourages the NRCS to continue a competitive grants
process with a goal of leveraging innovative habitat
conservation efforts on private lands.
Wildlife Management on Private Lands.--The Committee
recommendation includes $198,000 for a cooperative agreement
with Alaska Village Initiatives for a private lands wildlife
management program in the State of Alaska.
WATERSHED SURVEYS AND PLANNING
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $6,022,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................................
House allowance......................................... 6,022,000
Committee recommendation................................ 6,022,000
The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, Public
Law 83-566, August 4, 1954, provided for the establishment of
the Small Watershed Program (16 U.S.C. 1001-1008), and section
6 of the act provided for the establishment of the River Basin
Surveys and Investigation Program (16 U.S.C. 1006-1009). A
separate appropriation funded the two programs until fiscal
year 1996 when they were combined into a single appropriation,
watershed surveys and planning.
River basin activities provide for cooperation with other
Federal, State, and local agencies in making investigations and
surveys of the watersheds of rivers and other waterways as a
basis for the development of coordinated programs. Reports of
the investigations and surveys are prepared to serve as a guide
for the development of agricultural, rural, and upstream
watershed aspects of water and related land resources, and as a
basis for coordination of this development with downstream and
other phases of water development.
Watershed planning activities provide for cooperation
between the Federal Government and the States and their
political subdivisions in a program of watershed planning.
Watershed plans form the basis for installing works of
improvement for floodwater retardation, erosion control, and
reduction of sedimentation in the watersheds of rivers and
streams and to further the conservation, development,
utilization, and disposal of water. The work of the Department
in watershed planning consists of assisting local organizations
to develop their watershed work plan by making investigations
and surveys in response to requests made by sponsoring local
organizations. These plans describe the soil erosion, water
management, and sedimentation problems in a watershed and works
of improvement proposed to alleviate these problems. Plans also
include estimated benefits and costs, cost-sharing and
operating and maintenance arrangements, and other appropriate
information necessary to justify Federal assistance for
carrying out the plan.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,022,000 for
Watershed Surveys and Planning.
The Committee is concerned that additional watershed
surveys and planning work is being initiated at a time when
ongoing planning is not being completed in a timely manner, and
the backlog for watershed project implementation and
construction continues to mount. As such, the Committee does
not recommend funding for any new planning starts. The
Committee directs the Chief of NRCS to evaluate and rank
existing planning efforts currently underway in order to fund
and complete the most promising projects, based upon merit, and
notify the Committee of the selected watershed projects.
watershed and flood prevention operations
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $74,250,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................................
House allowance......................................... 40,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 62,070,000
The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public
Law 566, 83d Cong.) (16 U.S.C. 1001-1005, 1007-1009) provides
for cooperation between the Federal Government and the States
and their political subdivisions in a program to prevent
erosion, floodwater, and sediment damages in the watersheds or
rivers and streams and to further the conservation,
development, utilization, and disposal of water.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service has general
responsibility for administration of activities, which include
cooperation with local sponsors, State, and other public
agencies in the installation of planned works of improvement to
reduce erosion, floodwater, and sediment damage; conserve,
develop, utilize, and dispose of water; plan and install works
of improvement for flood prevention, including the development
of recreational facilities and the improvement of fish and
wildlife habitat; and loans to local organizations to help
finance the local share of the cost of carrying out planned
watershed and flood prevention works of improvement.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $62,070,000
for Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations.
Arkabutla Watershed.--The Committee recommendation includes
funding for NRCS to stabilize stream banks in the Arkabutla
watershed in the State of Mississippi.
Coal Creek.--The Committee recommendation includes funding
for NRCS to complete the Coal Creek project in the State of
Utah.
Hawaii Watershed Projects.--The Committee recommendation
includes funding for NRCS to complete the next phase of the
Lahaina Watershed, Lower Hamakua Ditch Watershed, Manoa
Watershed, Upcountry Maui Watershed, and Wailuku-Alenaio
Watershed projects in the State of Hawaii.
Iowa Watershed Projects.--The Committee recommendation
includes funding for NRCS to complete the next phase of the 12-
Mile Creek, A&T; Longbranch, Bear Creek, East Fork of Grand
River, Hacklebarney, Little River, Little Sioux River, Mill
Creek, Mill-Pacauyne, Mosquito of Harrison, Soap Creek,
Troublesome Creek, Turkey Creek, West Fork of Big Creek, and
West Tarkio Creek projects in the State of Iowa.
Little Red River.--The Committee recommendation includes
funding for NRCS to complete the next phase of the Little Red
River irrigation project in the State of Arkansas.
Little Whitestick Watershed.--The Committee recommendation
includes funding for NRCS to complete the Little Whitestick
watershed project in the State of West Virginia.
Long Beach Watershed.--The Committee recommendation
includes funding for NRCS to make channel improvements in the
Long Beach Watershed, Canal 2-3, Harrison County, Mississippi.
Lost River.--The Committee recommendation includes funding
for NRCS to complete the next phase of the Lost River watershed
project in the State of West Virginia.
Matanuska River.--The Committee recommendation includes
funding for NRCS to complete the next phase of the Matanuska
River erosion control project in the State of Alaska.
Missouri Watershed Projects.--The Committee recommendation
includes funding for NRCS to complete the next phase of the Big
Creek-Hurricane Creek, East Locust Creek, Little Otter Creek,
and West Fork of Big Creek projects in the State of Missouri.
Pine Barren Watershed.--The Committee recommendation
includes funding to NRCS to complete the next phase of the Pine
Barren watershed project in the State of Alabama.
Potomac Headwaters.--The Committee recommendation includes
funding for NRCS to complete the next phase of the Potomac
Headwaters land treatment project in the State of West
Virginia.
Town Creek Watershed.--The Committee recommendation
includes funding for NRCS to complete the next phase of the
Town Creek watershed project, Lee County, Mississippi.
Upper Deckers Creek.--The Committee recommendation includes
funding for NRCS to continue the next phase of the Upper
Deckers Creek watershed project in the State of West Virginia.
Upper Tallahatchie Watershed.--The Committee recommendation
includes funding for NRCS for channel grade control in the
Upper Tallahatchie watershed, Union and Tippah Counties,
Mississippi.
Upper Tygart.--The Committee recommendation includes
funding for NRCS to continue the next phase of the Upper Tygart
project in the State of West Virginia.
West Branch DuPage River Watershed.--The Committee
recommendation includes funding for NRCS to complete the next
phase of the West Branch DuPage River watershed project in the
State of Illinois.
Yadkin County 5-D project.--The Committee recommendation
includes funding for NRCS to initiate the next phase of the
Yadkin County 5-D project in the State of North Carolina.
WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $31,245,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 15,300,000
House allowance......................................... 31,245,000
Committee recommendation................................ 31,245,000
The watershed rehabilitation program account provides for
technical and financial assistance to carry out rehabilitation
of structural measures, in accordance with section 14 of the
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, approved August
4, 1954 (16 U.S.C. 1012, U.S.C. 1001, et seq.), as amended by
section 313 of Public Law 106-472, November 9, 2000, and by
section 2505 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of
2002 (Public Law 107-171).
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $31,245,000
for the Watershed Rehabilitation Program.
The Committee directs that funding under this program be
provided for rehabilitation of structures determined to be of
high priority need in order to protect property and ensure
public safety.
resource conservation and development
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $50,787,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 25,933,000
House allowance......................................... 50,787,000
Committee recommendation................................ 50,787,000
The Natural Resources Conservation Service has general
responsibility under provisions of section 102, title I of the
Food and Agriculture Act of 1962 (7 U.S.C. 1010 et seq.), for
developing overall work plans for resource conservation and
development projects in cooperation with local sponsors; to
help develop local programs of land conservation and
utilization; to assist local groups and individuals in carrying
out such plans and programs; to conduct surveys and
investigations relating to the conditions and factors affecting
such work on private lands; and to make loans to project
sponsors for conservation and development purposes and to
individual operators for establishing soil and water
conservation practices.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $50,787,000
for Resource Conservation and Development.
HEALTHY FORESTS RESERVE PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2006\1\................................. $2,475,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 2,475,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 5,000,000
\1\In fiscal year 2006, funding was provided through section 771 of
Public Law 109-97.
The healthy forests reserve program [HFRP] was authorized
by title V of Public Law 108-148 (16 U.S.C. 6571-6578). The
purpose of the HFRP is to restore and enhance forest ecosystems
to promote the recovery of threatened and endangered species;
to improve biodiversity; and to enhance carbon sequestration.
The program operates on a voluntary basis with private
landowners utilizing cost-share agreements or easements of
varying duration. The Federal Government assists participating
landowners with the cost of the approved conservation
practices.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,000,000 for
the Healthy Forest Reserve Program.
TITLE III
RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
The Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-354)
abolished the Farmers Home Administration, Rural Development
Administration, and Rural Electrification Administration and
replaced those agencies with the Rural Housing and Community
Development Service, (currently, the Rural Housing Service),
Rural Business and Cooperative Development Service (currently,
the Rural Business-Cooperative Service), and Rural Utilities
Service and placed them under the oversight of the Under
Secretary for Rural Economic and Community Development,
(currently, Rural Development). These agencies deliver a
variety of programs through a network of State, district, and
county offices.
Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $629,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 823,000
House allowance......................................... 692,000
Committee recommendation................................ 640,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development
provides direction and coordination in carrying out the laws
enacted by the Congress with respect to the Department's rural
economic and community development activities. The Office has
oversight and management responsibilities for the Rural Housing
Service, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, and the Rural
Utilities Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $640,000 for
the Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development.
Broadband Service.--The Committee is concerned that
significant portions of rural America remain without broadband
service, thus limiting economic opportunity in those areas. The
Committee directs that RUS revise its rules and procedures to
reduce the burdensome application process and make the program
requirements more reasonable, particularly in regard to cash-
on-hand requirements.
Denali Commission.--The Committee has included a general
provision which recommends $750,000 for the Denali Commission
to address deficiencies in solid waste management in the State
of Alaska. The Committee directs the Commission to work with
the State of Alaska to develop a legal framework for a solid
waste management authority that can become self-sustaining and
is authorized to establish a revolving loan fund to support
solid waste projects.
Interoperable Emergency Communication Equipment.--The
Committee notes that the community facilities program provides
funding for essential services for rural residents to address
the public health, safety, and emergency needs of small rural
communities. The Committee encourages the Secretary to give
priority consideration to funding requests made for
interoperable emergency communications equipment to further
enhance these efforts.
National Rural Development Partnership [NRDP].--The
Committee is aware the Department has previously provided
funding for the National Rural Development Partnership [NRDP].
The NRDP, and its associated State Rural Development Councils,
provide technical support and guidance for rural development at
the State and local level. The Committee encourages the
Department to continue support for this important organization
from within available funds.
Renewable Energy.--The Committee strongly encourages the
Department to continue to extend support to agricultural
producers and cooperatives, especially rural small businesses
and small agricultural producers for the development of
renewable fuels from the full range of its business lending and
investment programs.
Rural-Business Cooperative Service.--The Committee
recommends continued staffing and operations of the Rural
Business-Cooperative Service office in Hilo, Hawaii to address
the increasing demand for marketing and purchasing cooperatives
by an expanding diversified agriculture sector in Hawaii.
Stationary Fuel Cells.--The Committee is aware of the
potential economic and environmental benefits of using ethanol
as a feedstock to power fuel cells, and encourages the
Secretary to establish new criteria for the Biomass Research
and Development Program authorized by Public Law 106-224 (7
U.S.C. 7624 note) for competitive solicitations to initiate a
demonstration program for such purposes.
Technical Assistance.--The Committee recognizes that
Eastern Oregon University and the communities of Tchula,
Mississippi and Libby, Montana have requested technical and
programmatic assistance for housing, business,
telecommunication, and other essential community needs. The
Committee expects the Secretary to provide additional
resources, and encourages the use of available national reserve
funds.
Rural Community Advancement Program
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $694,922,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 600,762,000
House allowance......................................... 704,893,000
Committee recommendation................................ 714,958,000
The Rural Community Advancement Program [RCAP], authorized
by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996
(Public Law 104-127), consolidates funding for the following
programs: direct and guaranteed water and waste disposal loans,
water and waste disposal grants, emergency community water
assistance grants, solid waste management grants, direct and
guaranteed community facility loans, community facility grants,
direct and guaranteed business and industry loans, rural
business enterprise grants, and rural business opportunity
grants. This proposal is in accordance with the provisions set
forth in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of
1996, Public Law 104-127. Consolidating funding for these 12
rural development loan and grant programs under RCAP provides
greater flexibility to tailor financial assistance to applicant
needs.
With the exception of the 10 percent in the ``National
office reserve'' account, funding is allocated to rural
development State directors for their priority setting on a
State-by-State basis. State directors are authorized to
transfer not more than 25 percent of the amount in the account
that is allocated for the State for the fiscal year to any
other account in which amounts are allocated for the State for
the fiscal year, with up to 10 percent of funds allowed to be
reallocated nationwide.
Community facility loans were created by the Rural
Development Act of 1972 (7 U.S.C. 1926 et seq.) to finance a
variety of rural community facilities. Loans are made to
organizations, including certain Indian tribes and corporations
not operated for profit and public and quasipublic agencies, to
construct, enlarge, extend, or otherwise improve community
facilities providing essential services to rural residents.
Such facilities include those providing or supporting overall
community development, such as fire and rescue services, health
care, transportation, traffic control, and community, social,
cultural, and recreational benefits. Loans are made for
facilities which primarily serve rural residents of open
country and rural towns and villages of not more than 20,000
people. Health care and fire and rescue facilities are the
priorities of the program and receive the majority of available
funds.
The Community Facility Grant Program authorized in the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public
Law 104-127), is used in conjunction with the existing direct
and guaranteed loan programs for the development of community
facilities, such as hospitals, fire stations, and community
centers. Grants are targeted to the lowest income communities.
Communities that have lower population and income levels
receive a higher cost-share contribution through these grants,
to a maximum contribution of 75 percent of the cost of
developing the facility.
The Rural Business and Industry Loans Program was created
by the Rural Development Act of 1972, and finances a variety of
rural industrial development loans. Loans are made for rural
industrialization and rural community facilities under Rural
Development Act amendments to the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932 et seq.) authorities. Business
and industrial loans are made to public, private, or
cooperative organizations organized for profit, to certain
Indian tribes, or to individuals for the purpose of improving,
developing or financing business, industry, and employment or
improving the economic and environmental climate in rural
areas. Such purposes include financing business and industrial
acquisition, construction, enlargement, repair or
modernization, financing the purchase and development of land,
easements, rights-of-way, buildings, payment of startup costs,
and supplying working capital. Industrial development loans may
be made in any area that is not within the outer boundary of
any city having a population of 50,000 or more and its
immediately adjacent urbanized and urbanizing areas with a
population density of more than 100 persons per square mile.
Special consideration for such loans is given to rural areas
and cities having a population of less than 25,000.
Rural business enterprise grants were authorized by the
Rural Development Act of 1972. Grants are made to public bodies
and nonprofit organizations to facilitate development of small
and emerging business enterprises in rural areas, including the
acquisition and development of land; the construction of
buildings, plants, equipment, access streets and roads, parking
areas, and utility extensions; refinancing fees; technical
assistance; and startup operating costs and working capital.
Rural business opportunity grants are authorized under
section 306(a)(11) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act, as amended. Grants may be made to public
bodies and private nonprofit community development corporations
or entities. Grants are made to identify and analyze business
opportunities that will use local rural economic and human
resources; to identify, train, and provide technical assistance
to rural entrepreneurs and managers; to establish business
support centers; to conduct economic development planning and
coordination, and leadership development; and to establish
centers for training, technology, and trade that will provide
training to rural businesses in the utilization of interactive
communications technologies.
The water and waste disposal program is authorized by
sections 306, 306A, 309A, 306C, 306D, and 310B of the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1921 et
seq., as amended). This program makes loans for water and waste
development costs. Development loans are made to associations,
including corporations operating on a nonprofit basis,
municipalities and similar organizations, generally designated
as public or quasipublic agencies, that propose projects for
the development, storage, treatment, purification, and
distribution of domestic water or the collection, treatment, or
disposal of waste in rural areas. Such grants may not exceed 75
percent of the development cost of the projects and can
supplement other funds borrowed or furnished by applicants to
pay development costs.
The solid waste grant program is authorized under section
310B(b) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act.
Grants are made to public bodies and private nonprofit
organizations to provide technical assistance to local and
regional governments for the purpose of reducing or eliminating
pollution of water resources and for improving the planning and
management of solid waste disposal facilities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $714,958,000
for the Rural Community Advancement Program.
Subsidy Costs.--The Committee notes that the subsidy costs
for many programs in the Rural Community Advancement Program
have increased substantially. However, even with budgetary
constraints, the Committee has recommended adequate funding for
these national and regional programs.
The following table provides the Committee's
recommendations, as compared to the fiscal year 2006 and budget
request levels:
RURAL COMMUNITY ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM
[Budget authority in thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------------ Committee
2006 2007 budget recommendation
appropriation request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Community:
Community facility direct loan........................ 9,950 19,038 19,038
Community facility guaranteed loan.................... 748 7,609 7,609
Community facility grants............................. 16,830 16,830 16,830
Economic impact initiative grants..................... 17,820 ................ 21,000
High energy costs grants.............................. 25,740 ................ 26,000
Rural community development initiative................ 6,287 ................ 6,287
Tribal college grants................................. 4,419 ................ 5,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, community................................. 81,794 43,477 101,764
=====================================================
Business:
Business and industry guaranteed loan subsidies....... 43,779 43,164 43,164
Rural business enterprise grants...................... 39,600 ................ 39,600
Rural business opportunity grants..................... 2,970 ................ 2,970
Delta Regional Authority.............................. 1,980 ................ 2,500
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, business.................................. 88,329 43,164 88,234
=====================================================
Utilities:
Water and waste disposal direct loan subsidies........ 68,409 164,736 80,000
Water and waste disposal grants....................... 437,748 345,920 440,000
Solid waste management grants......................... 3,465 3,465 3,465
Emergency community water assistance grants........... 13,692 ................ ................
Well system grants.................................... 990 ................ 1,000
Water and wastewater revolving funds.................. 495 ................ 495
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, utilities................................. 524,799 514,121 524,960
=====================================================
Total, loan subsidies and grants.................... 694,922 600,762 714,958
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Community Advancement Program.--The Committee
recommends $500,000 for transportation technical assistance.
The Committee directs the Department to continue the Rural
Economic Area Partnership [REAP] initiative.
The Committee directs that of the $26,000,000 recommended
for loans and grants to benefit Federally Recognized Native
American Tribes, $250,000 be used to implement an American
Indian and Alaska Native passenger transportation development
and assistance initiative.
Consideration to applications.--The Committee is aware of
and encourages the Department to give consideration to
applications relating to community facilities for the
following: Armstrong County Planning & Development--Kittanning
Campus Reuse, Pennsylvania; Bergland Township Community/Senior
Center and Fire Truck Garage, Michigan; Bladen County Agri-
Industrial Expo Center, North Carolina; Central Kentucky
Agriculture and Exposition Center, Kentucky; Central Michigan
University Center for Children with Low-Incidence Disabilities;
City of Bastrop--Multi-purpose Tech Center, Louisiana; City of
Munising Fire and Police Building, Michigan; City of Opelousas
Community Improvements, Louisiana; Claiborne Parish Fire
District No. 3 Central Fire Station, Louisiana; East Feliciana
Parish Police Jury's Council on Aging Program, Louisiana;
Esmeralda Rural School Fire Prevention, Nevada; Japonski Island
Infrastructure Project, Alaska; Lafourche Regional Agricultural
Center, Louisiana; Lamar Dixon Agricultural Community Center,
Ascension Parish, Louisiana; Larose Civic Center Waterproofing
Project, Louisiana; Mackinac Straits Hospital and Health
Center, St. Ignace, Michigan; Northern Utah 800 MHz Radio
System Expansion; Northwest Commission--Multi-Region Wireless
Infrastructure Project, Pennsylvania; Rapides Parish Police
Jury Weirs & Pumps, Louisiana; Rural Education Transportation
Demonstration Project, Nevada; School Wellness and Nutrition
Facilities Upgrades, Vermont; St. Ignace Fire Department Fire
Station, Michigan; St. Mary Parish--Water Infrastructure,
Louisiana; The Wakefield Memorial Community Building
Foundation, Michigan; Town of Fort Edward Community Health Care
Center, New York; and the Yolo County--Clarksburg Fire Station,
California.
Economic Impact Initiative Grants.--The Committee includes
statutory language to provide $21,000,000 for the Rural
Community Facilities Grant Program for areas of extreme
unemployment or severe economic depression.
High Energy Cost Grants.--The Committee includes statutory
language to provide $26,000,000 for the Rural Community
Advancement Program for communities with extremely high energy
costs which is to be administered by the Rural Utilities
Service. The Committee directs that these funds shall be
transferred within 30 days of enactment of this Act.
Rural Business Opportunity Grants [RBOG].--The Committee
encourages the Department to give consideration to applications
for rural business opportunity grants for the following:
Accelerating Micro-Enterprise Development, Louisiana; Gadsden
County Rural Business Initiative, Florida; Lenawee Chamber
Economic Diversification Strategic Modeling for Micropolitan
Communities Project, Michigan; Made by American Indian
Marketing Outreach and Economic Development Program, Montana;
Northwest Agriculture Business Center, Washington; Northwest
Commission--Multi-Region Wireless Infrastructure Project,
Pennsylvania; Northwest Michigan Council of Governments Rural
Rail Freight Assessment; Rhode Island Farmways Agritourism
Program; San Luis Valley Sustainable Environment and Economic
Development Park, Colorado; and the Chippewa Cree Tribal
Ethanol & Wheat Gluten Facility, Montana.
Rural Business Enterprise Grants [RBEG].--The Committee is
also aware of and encourages the Department to give
consideration to applications for rural business enterprise
grants for the following: Agriculture Innovation and Energy
Development Program, Montana; Calaveras County--Healthy Impact
Product Solutions [CHIPS], California; Grambling Catfish
Revitalization Program, Louisiana; Maryland Agricultural and
Resource-Based Industry Development Corporation; Rhode Island
Farmways Agritourism Program; Rural Michigan Technology Center,
Michigan; Saint Mary Parish Industrial Park and Business
Incubator, Louisiana; and the Women in Technology in Wisconsin
and Hawaii.
Business and Industry Guaranteed Loans [B&I;].--The
Committee encourages the Department to give consideration to
applications for business and industry loans for the following:
Agrium Blue Sky Project, Alaska; Lake Providence Dry-Mill
Ethanol Plant, Louisiana.
Water and Waste Disposal Loans and Grants.--The Committee
is aware of and encourages the Department to consider
applications for water and waste disposal loans and grants for
the following projects: Alamo Navajo, New Mexico; Baton Rouge
Water Well, Louisiana; Cameron Parish--Water Infrastructure,
Louisiana; Canyon Improvement and Service District Water
Project, Wyoming; Chaparral, New Mexico; Charter Township of
Breitung Water Infrastructure Project, Michigan; City of Big
Bear Lake Water Development--Lake Williams Interconnect,
California; City of Coburg Waste Water Project, Oregon; City of
Grambling Wastewater Collection, Louisiana; City of Greenwood--
Water System, Louisiana; City of Perkins Water/Sewer System
Upgrades, Oklahoma; City of Portsmouth Clarifiers Replacement
Project, Ohio; City of Richwood--Water System, Louisiana;
Cochiti Pueblo, New Mexico; Company Canal Pump Station Project,
Louisiana; Eagle Harbor Water System Infrastructure Replacement
Project, Michigan; Eunice Water Upgrades, New Mexico; Gogebic
Range Water Authority Ironwood Township Water System
Improvements, Michigan; Germfask Township Water System
Extension, Michigan; Hamilton County Rural Utilities
Improvements, Florida; Hobbs Water Treatment Plant, New Mexico;
Hull and Griggsville Water Projects, Illinois; Jal Water
Upgrades, New Mexico; Kenockee Township Avoca Innovative Waste
Water Treatment System, Michigan; Lake County Full Circle,
California; Lovington Utility Improvements, New Mexico;
Mendocino County Integrated Water Resources Management Plan,
California; Milagro, New Mexico; Montana Vista, New Mexico;
Navajo Mountain Water System, Utah; Owenton Raw Water Intake
Project, Kentucky; Ozark Mountain Regional Public Water
Authority, Arkansas; Plumas County Chester Storm Drain
Improvements, California; Ramah Navajo, New Mexico; Red Rock
Rural Water Wastewater Facility, New Mexico; San Ildefonso
Pueblo, New Mexico; SE Washington County Water Project
Arkansas; Three Rivers Wet Weather Demonstration Program,
Pennsylvania; Vaughn, Water System Improvements, New Mexico;
Village of Downsville Wastewater Treatment, Louisiana; and the
Village of Emmett Waste Water Collection and Treatment System,
Michigan.
The Committee includes statutory language to make up to
$25,000,000 in water and waste disposal loans and grants
available for village safe water for the development of water
systems for rural communities and native villages in Alaska. In
addition, the Committee is aware of and encourages the
Department to consider applications to the national program
from small, regional hub villages in Alaska with a populations
less than 5,000 which are not able to compete for village safe
water funding; $25,000,000 for water and waste systems for the
Colonias along the United States-Mexico border; and $26,000,000
for water and waste disposal systems for Federally Recognized
Native American Tribes. In addition, the Committee makes up to
$13,750,000 available for the circuit rider program.
The Committee directs the Department to use a portion of
the funds recommended for the Alaska Village Safe Water Program
for the preparation or completion of comprehensive community
plans by rural communities in Alaska. No more than 5 percent of
the total amount of the grant may be made available for this
purpose and the amount allocated shall not exceed $35,000 per
eligible Alaska community.
The Committee encourages the RUS to increase its efforts
towards the use of innovative and alternative methods of
collecting and treating waste water in very small communities.
Many technologies exist that lower both construction and
operating costs, allowing the RUS to further benefit
communities which in many cases have no central waste
treatment. The RUS should consider supporting State and
regional efforts to promote such alternative efforts as well as
individual projects.
Individually Owned Household Water Well Program.--The
Committee recommends $1,000,000 to continue the Individually
Owned Household Water Well Program as authorized in section
6012 of Public Law 107-171. The Committee encourages the
Department to give consideration to the Wellcare Model Project
in the State of Georgia.
Water and Waste Technical Assistance Training Grants.--The
Committee recommends a significant increase in the technical
assistance account for water and waste systems and expects the
Secretary to provide an increase in grant funding to the
National Drinking Water Clearinghouse. The Committee is aware
of and encourages the Department to consider applications from
the Alaska Village Safe Water Program to provide statewide
training in water and waste systems operation and maintenance.
The Committee encourages the Department to provide
technical assistance to the Alachua County Critical Rural
Services Initiative (Florida).
Solid Waste Management Grants.--The Committee recommends
$3,465,000 for grants for solid waste management.
The Committee expects the Department to consider only those
applications judged meritorious when subjected to the
established review process.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2006 2007 budget recommendation
appropriation request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation................................................ 162,979 170,741 176,522
Transfer from:
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Loan Program Account........ 450,261 455,776 455,776
Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans 38,396 39,600 39,600
Program Account.........................................
Rural Telephone Bank Program Account..................... 2,475 ............... ...............
Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account.............. 4,745 4,950 4,950
--------------------------------------------------
Total, RD salaries and expenses........................ 658,856 671,067 676,848
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These funds are used to administer the loan and grant
programs of the Rural Utilities Service, the Rural Housing
Service, and the Rural Business--Cooperative Service, including
reviewing applications, making and collecting loans and
providing technical assistance and guidance to borrowers; and
to assist in extending other Federal programs to people in
rural areas.
Under credit reform, administrative costs associated with
loan programs are appropriated to the program accounts.
Appropriations to the salaries and expenses account will be for
costs associated with grant programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $676,848,000
for salaries and expenses of Rural Development. The Committee
recommendation includes $5,781,000 for Common Computing
Environment activities.
Inherent Function of Government.--The Committee expects
that none of the funds recommended for Rural Development,
Salaries and Expenses should be used to enter into or renew a
contract for any activity that is best suited as an inherent
function of Government, without prior approval from the
Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate. Such
activities may include, but are not limited to, any function
that affects eligibility determination, disbursement,
collection or accounting for Government subsidies provided
under any of the direct or guaranteed loan programs of the
Rural Development mission area or the Farm Service Agency.
Rural Housing Service
The Rural Housing Service [RHS] was established under
Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Act of 1994, dated October 13, 1994.
The mission of the Service is to improve the quality of
life in rural America by assisting rural residents and
communities in obtaining adequate and affordable housing and
access to needed community facilities. The goals and objectives
of the Service are: (1) facilitate the economic revitalization
of rural areas by providing direct and indirect economic
benefits to individual borrowers, families, and rural
communities; (2) assure that benefits are communicated to all
program eligible customers with special outreach efforts to
target resources to underserved, impoverished, or economically
declining rural areas; (3) lower the cost of programs while
retaining the benefits by redesigning more effective programs
that work in partnership with State and local governments and
the private sector; and (4) leverage the economic benefits
through the use of low-cost credit programs, especially
guaranteed loans.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a loan and grant level of
$5,516,238,000 for the Rural Housing Service.
Section 515/Multifamily Housing Revitalization Program.--
The Committee recommends $28,000,000 to continue the
Department's efforts to address the preservation of the section
515 portfolio through financial options to project owners,
including vouchers. The Committee provided funding and this
authority in two separate accounts in fiscal year 2006. The
Committee recommends $10,000,000 for rural housing vouchers,
$3,000,000 for the multi-family revolving loan demonstration
program, and $15,000,000 to restructure existing section 515
loans. The Committee provides statutory language to allow the
Secretary to transfer funding between the programs to meet
existing need. The Committee recognizes that the Department has
authorizing language currently under consideration by Congress
and provides the Secretary, upon enactment, the authority to
transfer funds made available under this heading to carry out
such legislation with prior approval of the Committee on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.
The Committee recommends $100,000,000 for the section 515
program and encourages the Secretary to give priority in
awarding new construction 515 financing to eligible communities
that have projects that have been accepted for prepayment and
where the housing market reflects a continued need for
affordable low-income rental housing.
Housing Set-asides and Partnerships.--The Committee
encourages the Department to continue to set-aside funds within
rural housing programs to support self-help housing, home
ownership partnerships, housing preservation and State rental
assistance, and other related activities that facilitate the
development of housing in rural areas.
The following table presents loan and grant program levels
recommended by the Committee, as compared to the fiscal year
2006 levels and the 2007 budget request:
LOAN AND GRANT LEVELS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------------- Committee
2006 2007 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account loan levels:
Single family housing (sec. 502):
Direct.................................................. 1,129,391 1,237,498 1,129,391
Unsubsidized guaranteed................................. 3,644,224 3,564,238 3,644,223
Housing repair (sec. 504)................................... 34,652 36,382 34,652
Multifamily housing guarantees (sec. 538)................... 99,000 197,997 100,000
Rental housing (sec. 515)................................... 99,000 .............. 100,000
Site loans (sec. 524)....................................... 5,000 5,045 5,000
Credit sales of acquired property........................... 11,485 11,482 11,482
Self-help housing land development fund..................... 4,998 4,980 4,980
-----------------------------------------------
Total, RHIF............................................... 5,027,750 5,057,622 5,029,728
===============================================
Farm Labor Program:
Farm labor housing loan level............................... 38,117 41,580 35,000
Farm labor housing grants................................... 13,860 13,860 13,860
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Farm Labor Program................................. 51,977 55,440 48,860
===============================================
Grants and payments:
Rural housing voucher program............................... 15,840 .............. ..............
Multifamily housing preservation............................ 8,910 .............. ..............
Multifamily Housing Revitalization Program.................. .............. 74,250 28,000
Mutual and self-help housing................................ 33,660 37,620 33,660
Rental assistance........................................... 646,571 486,320 335,400
Rural housing assistance grants [RHAG]...................... 43,536 40,590 40,590
-----------------------------------------------
Total, rural housing grants and payments.................. 748,517 638,780 437,650
===============================================
Total, RHS loans and grants............................... 5,828,244 5,751,842 5,516,238
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
This fund was established in 1965 (Public Law 89-117)
pursuant to section 517 of title V of the Housing Act of 1949
(42 U.S.C. 517(d)), as amended. This fund may be used to insure
or guarantee rural housing loans for single-family homes,
rental and cooperative housing, and rural housing sites. Rural
housing loans are made to construct, improve, alter, repair, or
replace dwellings and essential farm service buildings that are
modest in size, design, and cost. Rental housing insured loans
are made to individuals, corporations, associations, trusts, or
partnerships to provide moderate-cost rental housing and
related facilities for elderly persons in rural areas. These
loans are repayable in not to exceed 30 years. Loan programs
are limited to rural areas, which include towns, villages, and
other places of not more than 10,000 population, which are not
part of an urban area. Loans may also be made in areas with a
population in excess of 10,000, but less than 20,000, if the
area is not included in a standard metropolitan statistical
area and has a serious lack of mortgage credit for low- and
moderate-income borrowers.
An increased priority should be placed on long term
rehabilitation needs within the existing multi-family housing
portfolio including increased equity loan activity and
financial and technical assistance support for acquisition of
existing projects.
LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-508)
established the program account. Appropriations to this account
will be used to cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated
with the direct loans obligated and loan guarantees committed
in 2007, as well as for administrative expenses. The following
table presents the loan subsidy levels as compared to the 2006
levels and the 2007 budget request:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2006 level 2007 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:
Single family (sec. 502):
Direct............................................... 128,638 124,121 113,278
Unsubsidized guaranteed.............................. 40,491 7,772 42,641
Housing repair (sec. 504)................................ 10,136 10,751 10,240
Multi-family housing guarantees (sec. 538)............... 5,366 15,325 7,740
Rental housing (sec. 515)................................ 45,421 ............... 45,880
Site loans (sec. 524)\1\................................. ............... ............... ...............
Credit sales of acquired property........................ 674 720 720
Multifamily housing preservation......................... 8,910 ............... ...............
Self-help housing land development fund.................. 51 123 123
--------------------------------------------------
Total, loan subsidies.................................. 239,687 158,812 220,622
==================================================
Administrative expenses...................................... 450,261 455,776 455,776
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Negative subsidy rates for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 are calculated for this program.
RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $646,571,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 486,320,000
House allowance......................................... 335,400,000
Committee recommendation................................ 335,400,000
The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42
U.S.C. 1490a) established a rural rental assistance program to
be administered through the rural housing loans program. The
objective of the program is to reduce rents paid by low-income
families living in Rural Housing Service financed rental
projects and farm labor housing projects. Under this program,
low-income tenants will contribute the higher of: (1) 30
percent of monthly adjusted income; (2) 10 percent of monthly
income; or (3) designated housing payments from a welfare
agency.
Payments from the fund are made to the project owner for
the difference between the tenant's payment and the approved
rental rate established for the unit.
The program is administered in tandem with Rural Housing
Service section 515 rural rental and cooperative housing
programs and the farm labor loan and grant programs. Priority
is given to existing projects for units occupied by rent over
burdened low-income families and projects experiencing
financial difficulties beyond the control of the owner; any
remaining authority will be used for projects receiving new
construction commitments under sections 514, 515, or 516 for
very low-income families with certain limitations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $335,400,000
for the Rental Assistance Program.
Rental Assistance.--The Committee provides funding to meet
the needs of expiring and new rental assistance contracts for
section 515 and 514/516 multi-family housing projects. The
Committee includes statutory language requiring that contracts
renewed or entered into shall be for a one-year period. The
Committee also includes statutory language regarding the use of
rental assistance in section 514/516 projects.
RURAL HOUSING VOUCHER PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $15,840,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation\1\.............................................
\1\Funding for this program is provided under the Multifamily Housing
Revitalization Program Account.
MUTUAL AND SELF-HELP HOUSING GRANTS
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $33,660,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 37,620,000
House allowance......................................... 37,620,000
Committee recommendation................................ 33,660,000
This grant program is authorized by title V of the Housing
Act of 1949. Grants are made to local organizations to promote
the development of mutual or self-help programs under which
groups of usually 6 to 10 families build their own homes by
mutually exchanging labor. Funds may be used to pay the cost of
construction supervisors who will work with families in the
construction of their homes and for administrative expenses of
the organizations providing the self-help assistance.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $33,660,000
for Mutual and Self-help Housing Grants.
The Committee encourages the Department to give
consideration to a grant application from the Livingston Self-
help Housing Program in Montana.
rural housing assistance grants
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $43,536,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 40,590,000
House allowance......................................... 40,590,000
Committee recommendation................................ 40,590,000
This program consolidates funding for rural housing grant
programs. This consolidation of housing grant funding provides
greater flexibility to tailor financial assistance to applicant
needs.
Very Low-income Housing Repair Grants.--The Very Low-Income
Housing Repair Grants Program is authorized under section 504
of title V of the Housing Act of 1949. The rural housing repair
grant program is carried out by making grants to very low-
income families to make necessary repairs to their homes in
order to make such dwellings safe and sanitary, and remove
hazards to the health of the occupants, their families, or the
community.
These grants may be made to cover the cost of improvements
or additions, such as repairing roofs, providing toilet
facilities, providing a convenient and sanitary water supply,
supplying screens, repairing or providing structural supports
or making similar repairs, additions, or improvements,
including all preliminary and installation costs in obtaining
central water and sewer service. A grant can be made in
combination with a section 504 very low-income housing repair
loan.
No assistance can be extended to any one individual in the
form of a loan, grant, or combined loans and grants in excess
of $27,500, and grant assistance is limited to persons, or
families headed by persons who are 62 years of age or older.
Supervisory and Technical Assistance Grants.--Supervisory
and technical assistance grants are made to public and private
nonprofit organizations for packaging loan applications for
housing assistance under sections 502, 504, 514/516, 515, and
533 of the Housing Act of 1949. The assistance is directed to
very low-income families in underserved areas where at least 20
percent of the population is below the poverty level and at
least 10 percent or more of the population resides in
substandard housing. In fiscal year 1994 a Homebuyer Education
Program was implemented under this authority. This program
provides low-income individuals and families education and
counseling on obtaining and/or maintaining occupancy of
adequate housing and supervised credit assistance to become
successful homeowners.
Compensation for Construction Defects.--Compensation for
construction defects provides funds for grants to eligible
section 502 borrowers to correct structural defects, or to pay
claims of owners arising from such defects on a newly
constructed dwelling purchased with RHS financial assistance.
Claims are not paid until provisions under the builder's
warranty have been fully pursued. Requests for compensation for
construction defects must be made by the owner of the property
within 18 months after the date financial assistance was
granted.
Rural Housing Preservation Grants.--Rural housing
preservation grants (section 522) of the Housing and Urban-
Rural Recovery Act of 1983 (42 U.S.C. 1490m) authorizes the
Rural Housing Service to administer a program of home repair
directed at low- and very low-income people.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $40,590,000
for the Rural Housing Assistance Grants Program.
The following table compares the grant program levels
recommended by the Committee to the fiscal year 2006 levels and
the budget request:
RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GRANTS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2006 level 2007 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very low-income housing repair grants........................ 29,700 29,700 29,700
Supervisory and technical assistance......................... 990 990 990
Rural housing preservation grants............................ 9,900 9,900 9,900
Multi-family housing preservation............................ 2,946 ............... ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 43,536 40,590 40,590
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FARM LABOR PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidy
Loan level level Grants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2006.................. 38,117 16,996 13,860
Budget estimate, 2007................. 41,580 19,938 13,860
Committee recommendation.............. 35,000 16,783 13,860
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The direct farm labor housing loan program is authorized
under section 514 and the rural housing for domestic farm labor
housing grant program is authorized under section 516 of the
Housing Act of 1949, as amended. The loans, grants, and
contracts are made to public and private nonprofit
organizations for low-rent housing and related facilities for
domestic farm labor. Grant assistance may not exceed 90 percent
of the cost of a project. Loans and grants may be used for
construction of new structures, site acquisition and
development, rehabilitation of existing structures, and
purchase of furnishings and equipment for dwellings, dining
halls, community rooms, and infirmaries.
Under credit reform, administrative costs associated with
loan programs are appropriated to the program accounts.
Appropriations to the salaries and expenses account will be for
costs associated with grant programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $30,643,000
for the cost of Direct Farm Labor Housing Loans and Grants.
Rural Business--Cooperative Service
The Rural Business--Cooperative Service [RBS] was
established by Public Law 103-354, Federal Crop Insurance
Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of
1994, dated October 13, 1994. Its programs were previously
administered by the Rural Development Administration, the Rural
Electrification Administration, and the Agricultural
Cooperative Service.
The mission of the Rural Business-Cooperative Service is to
enhance the quality of life for all rural residents by
assisting new and existing cooperatives and other businesses
through partnership with rural communities. The goals and
objectives are to: (1) promote a stable business environment in
rural America through financial assistance, sound business
planning, technical assistance, appropriate research,
education, and information; (2) support environmentally
sensitive economic growth that meets the needs of the entire
community; and (3) assure that the Service benefits are
available to all segments of the rural community, with emphasis
on those most in need.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2006 level 2007 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated loan level......................................... 33,870 33,925 33,925
Direct loan subsidy.......................................... 14,571 14,951 14,951
Administrative expenses...................................... 4,745 4,950 4,950
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rural development (intermediary relending) loan program
was originally authorized by the Economic Opportunity Act of
1964 (Public Law 88-452). The making of rural development loans
by the Department of Agriculture was reauthorized by Public Law
99-425, the Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1986.
Loans are made to intermediary borrowers (this is, small
investment groups) who in turn will reloan the funds to rural
businesses, community development corporations, private
nonprofit organizations, public agencies, et cetera, for the
purpose of improving business, industry, community facilities,
and employment opportunities and diversification of the economy
in rural areas.
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the
program account. Appropriations to this account will be used to
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct
loans obligated in 2004, as well as for administrative
expenses.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $33,925,000
for Rural Development (intermediary relending) loans.
RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2006 level 2007 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated loan level......................................... 24,752 34,652 34,652
Direct loan subsidy\1\....................................... 4,943 7,568 7,568
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Offset by a rescission from interest on the cushion of credit payments as authorized by section 313 of the
Rural Electrification Act of 1936.
The rural economic development loans program was
established by the Reconciliation Act of December 1987 (Public
Law 100-203), which amended the Rural Electrification Act of
1936 (Act of May 20, 1936), by establishing a new section 313.
This section of the Rural Electrification Act (7 U.S.C. 901)
established a cushion of credits payment program and created
the rural economic development subaccount. The Administrator of
RUS is authorized under the act to utilize funds in this
program to provide zero interest loans to electric and
telecommunications borrowers for the purpose of promoting rural
economic development and job creation projects, including
funding for feasibility studies, startup costs, and other
reasonable expenses for the purpose of fostering rural economic
development.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a direct loan subsidy
appropriation of $7,568,000 for Rural Economic Development
Loans. As proposed in the budget, the $7,568,000 recommended is
derived by transfer from interest on the cushion of credit
payments.
RURAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $29,193,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 27,225,000
House allowance......................................... 9,913,000
Committee recommendation................................ 29,500,000
Rural cooperative development grants are authorized under
section 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act, as amended. Grants are made to fund the establishment and
operation centers for rural cooperative development with their
primary purpose being the improvement of economic conditions in
rural areas. Grants may be made to nonprofit institutions or
institutions of higher education. Grants may be used to pay up
to 75 percent of the cost of the project and associated
administrative costs. The applicant must contribute at least 25
percent from non-Federal sources, except 1994 institutions,
which only need to provide 5 percent. Grants are competitive
and are awarded based on specific selection criteria.
Cooperative research agreements are authorized by 7 U.S.C.
2204b. The funds are used for cooperative research agreements,
primarily with colleges and universities, on critical
operational, organizational, and structural issues facing
cooperatives.
Cooperative agreements are authorized under 7 U.S.C. 2201
to any qualified State departments of agriculture, university,
and other State entity to conduct research that will strengthen
and enhance the operations of agricultural marketing
cooperatives in rural areas.
The Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas [ATTRA]
program was first authorized by the Food Security Act of 1985.
The program provides information and technical assistance to
agricultural producers to adopt sustainable agricultural
practices that are environmentally friendly and lower
production costs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $29,500,000
for Rural Cooperative Development Grants.
Of the funds recommended, $2,500,000 is for the Appropriate
Technology Transfer for Rural Areas program through a
cooperative agreement with the National Center for Appropriate
Technology.
The Committee recommends $500,000 for a research agreement
on the economic impact of cooperatives to be conducted by a
qualified academic institution.
The Committee has included language in the bill that not
more than $1,500,000 shall be made available to cooperatives or
associations of cooperatives whose primary focus is to provide
assistance to small, minority producers.
Value Added.--The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for
value-added agricultural product market development grants and
encourages the Department to give consideration to applications
for the following: Iowa Agriculture Innovations Center;
Penobscot Bay Commercial Kitchen, Maine; Rhode Island Farmways
Agritourism Program; Rhode Island Grown Agricultural Product
Development; Upper Valley--Oil Extrusion Processor, Maine; and
the York County Food Business Incubator, Maine.
RURAL EMPOWERMENT ZONES AND ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES GRANTS
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $11,088,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................................
House allowance......................................... 11,088,000
Committee recommendation................................ 10,000,000
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $10,000,000
for Rural Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities Grants
which includes $1,000,000 for Round III.
Outmigration.--The Committee is concerned that rural
empowerment zones, particularly zones selected because of
outmigration, are having a difficult time successfully
competing for USDA Rural Development programs due primarily to
the fact that many programs are tied to household income
levels. Often, household income levels have very little to do
with the reasons for outmigration. Economic development efforts
in these zones cannot advance without additional funding from
competitive grant programs to supplement the funding that the
Committee has earmarked for the zones for the last several
years. USDA is directed to provide a report to the Committee
with suggestions on how to revise competitive grant-making
criteria to take into consideration outmigration when making
awards to rural empowerment zones.
Renewable Energy Program
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $22,770,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 10,163,000
House allowance......................................... 20,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 25,000,000
Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements
is authorized under 7 U.S.C. 8106. This program may provide
direct loans, loan guarantees, and grants to farmers, ranchers,
and small rural businesses for the purchase of renewable energy
systems and for energy efficiency improvements.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $25,000,000
for the Renewable Energy Program.
Consideration to applications.--The Committee encourages
the Department to give consideration to applications for loans
and grants for the renewable energy program for the following:
Ag Utilization Research Institute, Minnesota; Baker County
Integrated Wood Utilization Center, Oregon; Borough of
Lewistown--Wastewater Bio-solids Anaerobic Digestion Project,
Pennsylvania; Cellulose/Biomass to Ethanol Pilot Project,
Center for Rural Life Stewardship, Utah; City of Connell Energy
Independence Initiative, Washington; Kauai Bagasse to Ethanol
Project, Hawaii; and the Stationary Fuel Cell Demonstration
Project, South Dakota.
Rural Utilities Service
The Rural Utilities Service [RUS] was established under the
Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-354), October 13,
1994. RUS administers the electric and telephone programs of
the former Rural Electrification Administration and the water
and waste programs of the former Rural Development
Administration.
The mission of the RUS is to serve a leading role in
improving the quality of life in rural America by administering
its electric, telecommunications, and water and waste programs
in a service oriented, forward looking, and financially
responsible manner. All three programs have the common goal of
modernizing and revitalizing rural communities. RUS provides
funding and support service for utilities serving rural areas.
The public-private partnerships established by RUS and local
utilities assist rural communities in modernizing local
infrastructure. RUS programs are also characterized by the
substantial amount of private investment which is leveraged by
the public funds invested into infrastructure and technology,
resulting in the creation of new sources of employment.
RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
The Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901 et
seq.) provides the statutory authority for the electric and
telecommunications programs.
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-508)
established the program account. An appropriation to this
account will be used to cover the lifetime subsidy costs
associated with the direct loans obligated and loan guarantees
committed in 2004, as well as for administrative expenses.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The following table reflects the Committee's recommendation
for the rural electrification and telecommunications loans
program account, the loan subsidy and administrative expenses,
as compared to the fiscal year 2006 and budget request levels:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2006 level 2007 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan authorizations:
Electric:
Direct, 5 percent.................................... 99,000 99,018 99,000
Direct, Muni......................................... 99,000 39,602 99,000
Direct, FFB.......................................... 2,600,000 3,000,000 5,000,000
Direct, Treasury rate................................ 990,000 700,000 990,000
Guaranteed........................................... 99,000 ............... 99,000
Guaranteed, Underwriting............................. 1,500,000 ............... 1,500,000
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................... 5,387,000 3,838,620 7,787,000
==================================================
Telecommunications:
Direct, 5 percent.................................... 145,000 143,513 143,513
Direct, Treasury rate................................ 419,760 246,666 419,760
Direct, FFB.......................................... 125,000 299,000 299,000
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................... 689,760 689,179 862,273
--------------------------------------------------
Total, loan authorizations......................... 6,076,760 4,527,799 8,649,273
==================================================
Loan Subsidies:
Electric:
Direct, 5 percent.................................... 911 2,119 2,119
Direct, Muni......................................... 5,000 598 1,495
Direct, FFB.......................................... ............... ............... ...............
Direct, Treasury rate................................ 99 ............... ...............
Guaranteed........................................... 89 ............... 89
Guaranteed, Underwriting............................. ............... ............... ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................... 6,099 2,717 3,703
==================================================
Telecommunications:
Direct, 5 percent.................................... ............... 531 531
Direct, Treasury rate................................ 210 74 126
Direct, FFB.......................................... ............... ............... ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................... 210 605 657
--------------------------------------------------
Total, loan subsidies.............................. 6,309 3,322 4,360
==================================================
Administrative expenses...................................... 38,396 39,600 39,600
--------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural Electrification and Telecommunications 44,705 42,922 43,960
Loans Programs Account................................
==================================================
(Loan authorization)............................... 6,076,760 4,527,799 8,649,273
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consideration to applications.--The Committee strongly
encourages the Rural Utilities Service to evaluate and give
priority consideration to any proposal submitted which would
connect a community in the State of Alaska to the Black Bear
Hydropower Grid.
DISTANCE LEARNING, TELEMEDICINE, AND BROADBAND PROGRAM
LOANS AND GRANT LEVELS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2006 level 2007 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan and Grant Levels:
Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program:
Direct loans......................................... 24,750 ............... ...............
Grants............................................... 29,700 24,750 30,000
Broadband Program:
Direct loans......................................... ............... 29,699 ...............
Treasury rate loans.................................. 495,000 297,023 500,000
Guaranteed loans..................................... ............... 29,697 ...............
Grants............................................... 8,910 ............... 10,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total, DLTB grants and loan authorizations......... 558,360 381,169 540,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISTANCE LEARNING, TELEMEDICINE, AND BROADBAND PROGRAM
LOANS AND GRANTS
[Budget authority In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2006 level 2007 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program:
Direct loan subsidies.................................... 371 ............... ...............
Grants................................................... 29,700 24,750 30,000
Broadband Program:
Direct loan subsidies.................................... ............... 3,065 ...............
Treasury subsidies....................................... 10,643 6,386 10,750
Guaranteed subsidies..................................... ............... 1,375 ...............
Grants................................................... 8,910 ............... 10,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total, grants and loan subsidies....................... 49,624 35,576 50,750
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program
is authorized by the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade
Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 950aaa et seq.), as amended by the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public
Law 104-127). This program provides incentives to improve the
quality of phone services, to provide access to advanced
telecommunications services and computer networks, and to
improve rural opportunities.
This program provides the facilities and equipment to link
rural education and medical facilities with more urban centers
and other facilities providing rural residents access to better
health care through technology and increasing educational
opportunities for rural students. These funds are available for
loans and grants.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $50,750,000
for the Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program.
Of this amount, the Committee has recommended $5,000,000 for
public broadcasting systems grants to allow noncommercial
educational television broadcast stations that serve rural
areas to convert from analog to digital operations.
Broadband Grants.--In addition, of the funds recommended,
$10,000,000 in grants shall be made available to support
broadband transmission and local dial-up Internet services for
rural areas. The Department should continue to provide
financial support in addition to the Distance Learning,
Telemedicine, and Broadband grant and loan accounts.
Consideration to applications.--The Committee is aware of
and encourages the Department to give consideration to the
following applications for grants and loans: Agricultural
Broadband Testbed, Ohio; Day Kimball Hospital Geriatric
Telemedicine Network, Putnam, Connecticut; North Country
Connectivity Initiative, New Hampshire; Northern Michigan
University Operation UP Link, Michigan; Southeastern Oklahoma
State University Learning Center Project, Oklahoma; Southern
University eCenter for Rural Health Research and Services,
Louisiana; and the Telehealth Access and Infrastructure,
Colorado.
Remote Telemedicine Services.--The Committee is aware of
and encourages the Secretary to support the utilization of
remote telemedicine services capable of transmitting medical
information in both real-time and stored scenarios for
diagnosis, medical monitoring, and emergency purposes.
Furthermore, the Committee recognizes the need for integration
and interoperability of real-time remote mobile medical
technology with other devices, systems, and services which
together offer increased capabilities, functionality, and
levels of care.
TITLE IV
DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $593,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 732,000
House allowance......................................... 652,000
Committee recommendation................................ 604,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and
Consumer Services provides direction and coordination in
carrying out the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to
the Department's food and consumer activities. The Office has
oversight and management responsibilities for the Food and
Nutrition Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $604,000 for
the Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and
Consumer Services.
Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Recovery.--The Committee is
aware of efforts by groups such as Farm Share in Florida, and
Farmers Against Hunger in New Jersey, whose mission is to
collect and distribute fresh fruits and vegetables from local
farms to organizations and social service agencies dedicated to
helping feed people. The Committee believes these activities
are an innovative and important tool in the fight against
hunger, and strongly encourages USDA to support their efforts.
Nutrition Information.--The Committee is aware of the work
of national groups such as the Hispanic Communications Network,
as well as local groups such as the Children's Hunger Alliance
in Ohio, to address the growing prevalence of obesity among our
Nation's children by providing culturally and age appropriate
nutrition materials to children and adults alike. The Committee
supports the efforts of groups such as these, and strongly
encourages USDA to work with them, including providing
financial support, to assist in their efforts.
Food and Nutrition Service
The Food and Nutrition Service represents an organizational
effort to eliminate hunger and malnutrition in this country.
Nutrition assistance programs provide access to a nutritionally
adequate diet for families and persons with low incomes and
encourage better eating patterns among the Nation's children.
These programs include:
Child Nutrition Programs.--The National School Lunch and
School Breakfast, Summer Food Service, and Child and Adult Care
Food programs provide funding to the States, Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Guam for use in serving
nutritious lunches and breakfasts to children attending schools
of high school grades and under, to children of preschool age
in child care centers, and to children in other institutions in
order to improve the health and well-being of the Nation's
children, and broaden the markets for agricultural food
commodities. Through the Special Milk Program, assistance is
provided to the States for making reimbursement payments to
eligible schools and child care institutions which institute or
expand milk service in order to increase the consumption of
fluid milk by children. Funds for this program are provided by
direct appropriation and transfer from section 32.
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants,
and Children [WIC].--This program safeguards the health of
pregnant, post partum, and breast-feeding women, infants, and
children up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk because of
inadequate nutrition and income by providing supplemental
foods. The delivery of supplemental foods may be done through
health clinics, vouchers redeemable at retail food stores, or
other approved methods which a cooperating State health agency
may select. Funds for this program are provided by direct
appropriation.
Food Stamp Program.--This program seeks to improve
nutritional standards of needy persons and families. Assistance
is provided to eligible households to enable them to obtain a
better diet by increasing their food purchasing capability,
usually by furnishing benefits in the form of electronic access
to funds. The program also includes Nutrition Assistance to
Puerto Rico. The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002
(Public Law 107-171) authorizes block grants for Nutrition
Assistance to Puerto Rico and American Samoa, which provide
broad flexibility in establishing nutrition assistance programs
specifically tailored to the needs of their low-income
households.
The program also includes the Food Distribution Program on
Indian Reservations, which provides nutritious agricultural
commodities to low-income persons living on or near Indian
reservations who choose not to participate in the Food Stamp
Program.
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, Public
Law 107-171, enacted May 13, 2002, provides that $140,000,000
from funds appropriated in the Food Stamp account be used to
purchase commodities for The Emergency Food Assistance Program
[TEFAP].
Commodity Assistance Program [CAP].--This program provides
funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program [CSFP], the
Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, Disaster Assistance, Pacific
Island Assistance, and administrative expenses for TEFAP.
CSFP provides supplemental foods to infants and children up
to age 6, and to pregnant, post partum, and breast-feeding
women with low incomes, and who reside in approved project
areas. In addition, this program operates commodity
distribution projects directed at low-income elderly persons.
TEFAP provides commodities and grant funds to State
agencies to assist in the cost of storage and distribution of
donated commodities. The Soup Kitchen/Food Bank Program was
absorbed into TEFAP under the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-193), by
an amendment to section 201A of the Emergency Food Assistance
Act.
Nutritious agricultural commodities are provided to
residents of the Federated States of Micronesia and the
Marshall Islands. Cash assistance is provided to distributing
agencies to assist them in meeting administrative expenses
incurred. It also provides funding for use in non-
Presidentially declared disasters, and for FNS' administrative
costs in connection with relief for all disasters. Funds for
this program are provided by direct appropriation.
Nutrition Programs Administration.--Most salaries and
Federal operating expenses of the Food and Nutrition Service
are funded from this account. Also included is the Center for
Nutrition Policy and Promotion [CNPP] which oversees
improvements in and revisions to the food guidance systems, and
serves as the focal point for advancing and coordinating
nutrition promotion and education policy to improve the health
of all Americans.
child nutrition programs
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 32 Contingency
Appropriation transfers reserve Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2006................................... 7,473,208 5,187,621 ............ 12,660,829
Budget estimate, 2007.................................. 7,763,200 5,582,287 300,000 13,645,487
House allowance........................................ 7,610,897 5,734,590 ............ 13,345,487
Committee recommendation............................... 7,623,414 5,731,073 300,000 13,654,487
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Child Nutrition Programs, authorized by the Richard B.
Russell National School Lunch Act (Public Law 79-396) and the
Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-642), provide
Federal assistance to State agencies in the form of cash and
commodities for use in preparing and serving nutritious meals
to children while they are attending school, residing in
service institutions, or participating in other organized
activities away from home. The purpose of these programs is to
help maintain the health and proper physical development of
America's children. Milk is provided to children either free or
at a low cost, depending on their family income level. FNS
provides cash subsidies to States for administering the
programs and directly administers the program in the States
which choose not to do so. Grants are also made for nutritional
training and surveys and for State administrative expenses.
Under current law, most of these payments are made on the basis
of reimbursement rates established by law and applied to
lunches and breakfasts actually served by the States. The
reimbursement rates are adjusted annually to reflect changes in
the Consumer Price Index for food away from home.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$7,923,414,000, plus transfers from section 32 of
$5,731,073,000, for a total of $13,654,487,000 for the Child
Nutrition Programs. This amount includes a contingency reserve
of $300,000,000 as requested in the budget.
The Committee's recommendation provides for the following
annual rates for the child nutrition programs.
TOTAL OBLIGATIONAL AUTHORITY
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Child nutrition programs 2006 estimate 2007 budget recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
School Lunch Program......................................... 7,421,220 7,760,857 7,760,857
School Breakfast Program..................................... 2,082,855 2,251,275 2,251,275
State administrative expenses................................ 156,061 165,481 165,481
Summer Food Service Program.................................. 290,201 305,897 305,897
Child and Adult Care Food Program............................ 2,156,445 2,272,053 2,272,053
Special Milk Program......................................... 14,998 13,988 13,988
Commodity procurement, processing, and computer support...... 522,708 559,567 559,567
Coordinated review system.................................... 5,231 5,335 5,335
Team nutrition............................................... 10,038 10,027 10,027
Food safety education........................................ 1,001 1,007 1,007
Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program............................ 6,000 ............... 9,000
Contingency reserve.......................................... ............... 300,000 300,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends $10,027,000 for TEAM nutrition.
Included in this amount is $4,000,000 for food service training
grants to States; $1,600,000 for technical assistance
materials; $800,000 for National Food Service Management
Institute cooperative agreements; $400,000 for print and
electronic food service resource systems; and $3,227,000 for
other activities.
The Committee expects FNS to utilize the National Food
Service Management Institute to carry out the food safety
education program.
Farm to Cafeteria.--The Committee is aware of interest in
the Farm to Cafeteria program, which links farms and schools to
bring locally-grown food into the school lunch program. This
program was authorized in the Child Nutrition Reauthorization
Act of 2004. However, no funding was provided then, and funding
has not yet been requested in the administration's budget. The
Committee supports the intent of this program, and strongly
encourages USDA to work to identify funding sources through
which Farm to Cafeteria grants can begin to be made. The
Committee notes growing interest in local procurement among
school food service systems across the country. Local
procurement can help farmers capture a bigger share of food
expenditures and strengthen local food systems. The Committee
encourages the Department to work with school lunch
administrators and local food advocates to identify
opportunities for growth in local procurement, and directs FNS
to study ways to enhance local procurement in school food
service and report back to the Committee within 120 days of
enactment of this act.
Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program.--The Committee
recommends $9,000,000 for expansion of the Fresh Fruit and
Vegetable Pilot Program to all States receiving funding through
Public Law 109-97, as well as Arkansas, California and Georgia.
The Committee understands that there is significant interest in
greater expansion of this program, but notes that this program
was authorized as a pilot program in 2003, and based upon
initial reviews, expansion was authorized in the Child
Nutrition Reauthorization Act of 2004. Funding recommended in
this bill will allow a total of 16 States and three Indian
tribal organizations to participate in this program, and the
Committee does not believe the program should be expanded
further until the full evaluation, required by law to be
completed by December 31, 2008, is complete. At that time, the
Committee would strongly encourage the appropriate authorizing
committees of the House and Senate to determine whether
expansion to all 50 States is appropriate, and if so, to
provide the necessary mandatory funding.
SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS, AND CHILDREN
[WIC]
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $5,204,430,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 5,200,000,000
House allowance......................................... 5,244,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,264,000,000
The special supplemental nutrition program for women,
infants, and children [WIC] is authorized by section 17 of the
Child Nutrition Act of 1966. Its purpose is to safeguard the
health of pregnant, breast-feeding and post partum women and
infants, and children up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk
because of inadequate nutrition and inadequate income. The
budget estimate assumes an average monthly participation of 8.2
million participants at an average food cost of $39.30 per
person per month in fiscal year 2007.
The WIC program food packages are designed to provide foods
which studies have demonstrated are lacking in the diets of the
WIC program target population. The authorized supplemental
foods are iron-fortified breakfast cereal, fruit or vegetable
juice which contains vitamin C, dry beans, peas, and peanut
butter.
There are three general types of delivery systems for WIC
foods: (1) retail purchase in which participants obtain
supplemental foods through retail stores; (2) home delivery
systems in which food is delivered to the participant's home;
and (3) direct distribution systems in which participants pick
up food from a distribution outlet. The food is free of charge
to all participants.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,264,000,000
for the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants,
and Children [WIC].
The Committee recommends no less than $15,000,000 for
breastfeeding support initiatives, and $20,000,000 for State
management information systems.
Estimates.--The Committee recommendation of $5,264,000,000
takes into account several changes from the budget request.
First, The Committee recommendation does not include a
limitation on State nutrition services and administration [NSA]
grants as proposed in the budget. The budget request included a
reduction of $152,000,000 associated with this limitation. The
Committee is concerned that the proposed limitation on NSA
grants is shortsighted and does not take into account the
positive experience the Federal Government has had since a
similar approach was abandoned nineteen years ago. Establishing
a cap on NSA grants will not only reduce essential nutrition
services, but it will also serve as a disincentive for States
to contain food costs which could cost the Federal Government
significantly more over time.
Second, since the budget request was submitted in February
2006, the estimates for food costs and participation are
trending downward. As a result, expected carryover funds from
fiscal year 2006 to 2007 will be higher than estimated and
program needs will be lower in fiscal year 2007 than estimated.
In addition, current estimates show an unobligated balance of
$142,600,000 in the contingency reserve. This amount is
$17,600,000 above the contingency reserve appropriation of
$125,000,000. The Committee recommendation includes a provision
to allow the unobligated balance over $125,000,000 to be used
for program needs.
Third, the Committee recommends an appropriation for the
Commodity Supplemental Food Program [CSFP], which was
eliminated in the budget request. The budget request assumes
increased participation in WIC because of the elimination of
CSFP. Because the Committee recommendation does not eliminate
CSFP, the additional funding included in WIC is no longer
necessary.
The Committee recommendation for WIC is currently estimated
to be sufficient to meet program needs. The Committee will
continue to monitor food costs, participation and carryover
funds, and take additional action as necessary to ensure that
funding provided in fiscal year 2007 is sufficient to serve all
eligible applicants.
Food Package.--In April 2005, the Institute of Medicine
released a report that recommended revisions to the food
package offered to WIC participants. In accordance with the
Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004, the
Department is to issue a final rule within 18 months of the
publication of this report modifying the WIC food package. The
Committee expects the Department to meet the mandated deadline
and directs the Department to move expeditiously in
consultation with stakeholders to finalize the rule.
Health Care Services Referral.--While the Committee
continues to support and encourage State and local agency
efforts to utilize WIC as an important means of participation
referral to other health care services, it also continues to
recognize the constraints that WIC programs are experiencing as
a result of expanding health care priorities and continuing
demand for core WIC program activities. The Committee wishes to
clarify that while WIC plays an important role in screening and
referral to other health care services, it was never the
Committee's intention that WIC should perform aggressive
screening, referral and assessment functions in such a manner
that supplants the responsibilities of other programs, nor was
it the Committee's intention that WIC State and local agencies
should assume the burden of entering into and negotiating
appropriate cost sharing agreements. The Committee again
includes language in the bill to preserve WIC funding for WIC
services authorized by law to ensure that WIC funds are not
used to pay the expenses or to coordinate operations or
activities other than those allowable pursuant to section 17 of
the Child Nutrition Act of 1996, unless fully reimbursed by the
appropriate Federal agency.
food stamp program
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Puerto Rico TEFAP
Expenses Amount in and American commodity CSFP Total
reserve Samoa purchases expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2006........ 36,048,996 3,000,000 1,522,369 140,000 ............ 40,711,365
Budget estimate, 2007....... 33,187,215 3,000,000 1,565,016 140,000 42,000 37,934,231
House allowance............. 33,160,215 3,000,000 1,565,016 140,000 ............ 37,865,231
Committee recommendation.... 33,160,215 3,000,000 1,565,016 140,000 ............ 37,865,231
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Food Stamp Program, authorized by the Food Stamp Act of
1977 (Public Law 88-525), attempts to alleviate hunger and
malnutrition among low-income persons by increasing their food
purchasing power. Eligible households receive food stamp
benefits with which they can purchase food through regular
retail stores. They are thus enabled to obtain a more
nutritious diet than would be possible without food stamp
assistance. The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002,
Public Law 107-171, enacted May 13, 2002, reauthorizes the Food
Stamp Program through fiscal year 2007.
The Food Stamp Program is currently in operation in all 50
States, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.
Participating households receive food benefits, the value of
which is determined by household size and income. The cost of
the benefits is paid by the Federal Government. As required by
law, the Food and Nutrition Service annually revises household
stamp allotments to reflect changes in the cost of the thrifty
food plan.
At the authorized retail store, the recipient presents his
/
/
/
/
/
/
//her card and enters a unique personal identification number
into a terminal that debits the household's account for the
amount of purchases. Federal funds are shifted from the Federal
Reserve to the EBT processor's financial institution so that it
may reimburse the grocer's account for the amount of purchases.
The grocer's account at a designated bank is credited for the
amount of purchases. The associated benefit cost is accounted
for in the same manner as those benefit costs that result from
issuance of coupons.
Nutrition Assistance to Puerto Rico.--The Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002, Public Law 107-171, authorized
block grants for Nutrition Assistance to Puerto Rico and
American Samoa which gives the Commonwealth broad flexibility
to establish a nutrition assistance program that is
specifically tailored to the needs of its low-income
households. However, the Commonwealth must submit its annual
plan of operation to the Secretary for approval. The Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, Public Law 107-171,
enacted May 13, 2002, reauthorizes appropriations through
fiscal year 2007. In addition to the provision of direct
benefits to the needy, a portion of the grant may be used to
fund up to 50 percent of the cost of administering the program.
The grant may also be used to fund projects to improve
agriculture and food distribution in Puerto Rico.
The program also includes the Food Distribution Program on
Indian Reservations which provides nutritious agricultural
commodities to low-income persons living on or near Indian
reservations who choose not to participate in the Food Stamp
Program.
Administrative Costs.--All direct and indirect
administrative costs incurred for certification of households,
issuance of benefits, quality control, outreach, and fair
hearing efforts are shared by the Federal Government and the
States on a 50-50 basis. The Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act of 2002, (Public Law 107-171), substantially revised the
performance requirements for States under the Quality Control
[QC] System. States with poor performance over 2 years face
sanctions. States that demonstrate a high degree of accuracy or
substantial improvement in their degree of accuracy under the
QC system are eligible to share in a $48,000,000 ``bonus fund''
established by Congress to reward States for good performance.
State Antifraud Activities.--Under the provisions of the
Food Stamp Act of 1977, as amended by the Mickey Leland
Childhood Hunger Relief Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-66), States
are eligible to be reimbursed for 50 percent of the costs of
their food stamp fraud investigations and prosecutions.
States are required to implement an employment and training
program for the purpose of assisting members of households
participating in the Food Stamp Program in gaining skills,
training, or experience that will increase their ability to
obtain regular employment. The Department of Agriculture has
implemented a grant program to States to assist them in
providing employment and training services.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$37,865,231,000 for the Food Stamp Program. Of the amount
recommended, $3,000,000,000 is made available as a contingency
reserve. The Committee recommendation includes language that
permits the Food and Nutrition Service to conduct studies and
evaluations consistent with the budget request.
Commodity Supplemental Food Program.--The Committee
recommendation does not include a provision, requested in the
budget, that would provide transitional benefits to Commodity
Supplemental Food Program [CSFP] participants. The Committee
recommends an appropriation for CSFP in the Commodity
Assistance Program which makes the provision in the Food Stamp
Program unnecessary.
Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations.--The
Committee encourages the Secretary to continue the purchase of
bison from producer-owned and Native American owned
cooperatives for the Food Distribution Program on Indian
Reservations. Although funding is not provided specifically for
bison purchase, historically these purchases have been
important for the Native American population both economically
and nutritionally.
Military Pay Exclusion.--The Committee recommendation
includes statutory language to exclude special pay for military
personnel deployed to designated combat areas when determining
food stamp eligibility. This provision will ensure that food
stamp participants will not be eliminated from the program due
to special or supplemental military pay.
commodity assistance program
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $177,572,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 70,370,000
House allowance......................................... 189,370,000
Committee recommendation................................ 179,366,000
The Commodity Assistance Program includes funding for the
Commodity Supplemental Food Program and funding to pay expenses
associated with the storage and distribution of commodities
through The Emergency Food Assistance Program.
The Commodity Supplemental Food Program [CSFP].--Authorized
by section 4(a) of the Agricultural and Consumer Protection Act
of 1973 (7 U.S.C. 612c note), as amended in 1981 by Public Law
97-98, this program provides supplemental food to infants and
children up to age 6, and to pregnant, post partum, and breast-
feeding women who have low incomes, and reside in approved
project areas. In addition, the program operates commodity
distribution projects directed at low-income elderly persons 60
years of age or older.
The foods for CSFP are provided by the Department of
Agriculture for distribution through State agencies. The
authorized commodities include: iron-fortified infant formula,
rice cereal, cheese, canned juice, evaporated milk and/or
nonfat dry milk, canned vegetables or fruits, canned meat or
poultry, egg mix, dehydrated potatoes, farina, and peanut
butter and dry beans. Elderly participants may receive all
commodities except iron-fortified infant formula and rice
cereal.
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (2002
Farm Bill), reauthorizes the program through fiscal year 2007
and establishes a specific administrative funding level for
each caseload slot assigned, adjusted each year for inflation.
The Emergency Food Assistance Program [TEFAP].--Authorized
by the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 7501 et
seq.), as amended, the program provides nutrition assistance to
low-income people through prepared meals served on site and
through the distribution of commodities to low-income
households for home consumption. The commodities are provided
by USDA to State agencies for distribution through State-
established networks. State agencies make the commodities
available to local organizations, such as soup kitchens, food
pantries, food banks, and community action agencies, for their
use in providing nutrition assistance to those in need.
Funds are administered by FNS through grants to State
agencies which operate commodity distribution programs.
Allocation of the funds to States is based on a formula which
considers the States' unemployment rate and the number of
persons with income below the poverty level.
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 permits
State and local agencies to pay costs associated with the
storage and distribution of USDA commodities and commodities
secured from other sources. At the request of the State, these
funds can be used by USDA to purchase additional commodities.
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 increases
funding available for the purchase of TEFAP commodities from
$100,000,000 to $140,000,000. In addition to the commodities
purchased specifically for TEFAP, commodities obtained under
agriculture support and surplus removal programs are donated to
States for distribution through TEFAP.
Pacific Island Assistance.--This program provides funding
for assistance to the nuclear-affected islands in the form of
commodities and administrative funds. It also provides funding
for use in non-Presidentially declared disasters and for FNS'
administrative costs in connection with relief for all
disasters.
Farmers' Market Nutrition Program.--The Farmers' Market
Nutrition Program [FMNP] provides WIC or WIC-eligible
participants with coupons to purchase fresh, nutritious,
unprepared foods, such as fruits and vegetables, from farmers'
markets. This benefits both participants and local farmers by
increasing the awareness and use of farmers' markets by low-
income households.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $179,366,000
for the Commodity Assistance Program. The Committee continues
to encourage the Department to distribute Commodity Assistance
Program funds equitably among the States, based on an
assessment of the needs and priorities of each State and the
State's preference to receive commodity allocations through
each of the programs funded under this account.
Commodity Supplemental Food Program.--The Committee
recommends $108,285,000 for the Commodity Supplemental Food
Program. The Committee encourages the Secretary to utilize all
possible resources (including section 32) to maintain the
higher caseloads provided for States impacted by Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita without altering caseload allocations to other
areas.
Farmers' Market Nutrition Program.--The Committee is aware
that the Farmers' Market Nutrition Program provides fresh
fruits and vegetables to low-income mothers and children,
benefiting not only WIC participants, but local farmers as
well. Therefore, the Committee recommends $20,000,000 for the
Farmers' Market Nutrition Program and directs the Secretary to
obligate these funds within 45 days.
Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program.--The Committee
recognizes the success of the Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition
Program, which is expected to provide fresh fruits and
vegetables to more than 800,000 low-income senior citizens and
benefit almost 19,000 farmers, farmers' markets, roadside
stands and community supported agriculture programs in fiscal
year 2007. The Committee notes that $15,000,000 in funding is
available annually for the program through fiscal year 2007 by
the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002.
The Emergency Food Assistance Program.--The Farm Security
and Rural Investment Act of 2002 provides $140,000,000 for
TEFAP commodities to be purchased with food stamp funds. The
Committee recommends $50,000,000 for TEFAP administrative
funding. In addition, the Committee recommendation grants the
Secretary authority to transfer up to an additional $10,000,000
from TEFAP commodities for this purpose.
nutrition programs administration
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $139,353,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 160,429,000
House allowance......................................... 142,314,000
Committee recommendation................................ 143,114,000
The Nutrition Programs Administration appropriation
provides for most of the Federal operating expenses of the Food
and Nutrition Service, which includes the Child Nutrition
Programs; Special Milk Program; Special Supplemental Nutrition
Program for Women, Infants, and Children [WIC]; Food Stamp
Program; Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico; the Commodity
Assistance Program, including the Commodity Supplemental Food
Program and the Emergency Food Assistance Program; and Farmers'
Market Nutrition Program and Pacific Island Assistance.
The major objective of Nutrition Programs Administration is
to efficiently and effectively carry out the nutrition
assistance programs mandated by law. This is to be accomplished
by the following: (1) giving clear and consistent guidance and
supervision to State agencies and other cooperators; (2)
assisting the States and other cooperators by providing
program, managerial, financial, and other advice and expertise;
(3) measuring, reviewing, and analyzing the progress being made
toward achieving program objectives; and (4) carrying out
regular staff support functions.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $143,114,000
for Nutrition Programs Administration. The Committee
recommendation includes an increase of $2,761,000 for pay and
an increase of $1,000,000 to promote the initiatives requested
in the budget for the Center for Nutrition Policy and
Promotion.
TITLE V
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS
Foreign Agricultural Service
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfers
Appropriations from loan Total
accounts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2006.......... 146,422 3,572 149,994
Budget estimate, 2007......... 157,486 4,985 162,471
House allowance............... 156,486 4,985 161,471
Committee recommendation...... 156,186 4,985 161,171
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Foreign Agricultural Service [FAS] was established
March 10, 1953, by Secretary's Memorandum No. 1320, supplement
1. Public Law 83-690, approved August 28, 1954, transferred the
agricultural attaches from the Department of State to the
Foreign Agricultural Service.
The Agency maintains a worldwide agricultural intelligence
and reporting service to provide U.S. farmers and traders with
information on world agricultural production and trade that
they can use to adjust to changes in world demand for U.S.
agricultural products. This is accomplished through a
continuous program of reporting by 61 posts located throughout
the world covering some 130 countries.
The Foreign Agricultural Service analyzes agricultural
information essential to the assessment of foreign supply and
demand conditions in order to provide estimates of the current
situation and to forecast the export potential for specific
U.S. agricultural commodities. Published economic data about
commodities are combined with attache reports and subjected to
analysis through advanced econometric techniques to generate
these estimates.
In addition, the Service is now using advanced techniques
for identifying, delineating, and assessing the impact of
events which may affect the condition and expected production
of foreign crops of economic importance to the United States.
The crop condition activity relies heavily on computer-aided
analysis of satellite, meteorological, agricultural, and
related data.
The mission of FAS overseas is to represent U.S.
agricultural interests, to promote export of domestic farm
products, improve world trade conditions, and report on
agricultural production and trade in foreign countries. FAS
staff are stationed at 77 offices around the world where they
provide expertise in agricultural economics and marketing, as
well as provide attache services.
The Foreign Agricultural Service works in conjunction with
market development cooperators, trade associations, State
departments of agriculture and their affiliates, and U.S. sales
teams to develop foreign markets for U.S. farm products. FAS
sponsors overseas trade exhibits to promote U.S. agricultural
products, provides information about foreign importers, and
performs a wide range of market development activities.
FAS carries out several export assistance programs to
counter the adverse effects of unfair trade practices by
competitors on U.S. agricultural trade. The Export Enhancement
Program uses CCC-owned commodities as export bonuses to provide
export enhancements to U.S. producers. The Market Access
Program [MAP] conducts both generic and brand-identified
promotional programs in conjunction with nonprofit agricultural
associations and private firms financed through reimbursable
CCC payments.
These programs are supplemented by the Cooperator Program,
a joint FAS-nonprofit private trade and producer association
partnership program developing strategies for U.S. agriculture
export expansion. In addition, GSM credit guarantee programs
play an integral role in the recent progress of American
agriculture in the world marketplace.
The Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.)
includes authority to establish up to 25 agricultural trade
offices. Currently, 16 such offices are in operation at key
foreign trading centers to assist U.S. exporters, trade groups,
and State export marketing officials in trade promotion.
The Service initiates, directs, and coordinates the
Department's formulation of trade policies and programs with
the goal of maintaining and expanding world markets for U.S.
agricultural products. It monitors international compliance
with bilateral and multilateral trade agreements. It identifies
restrictive tariff and trade practices which act as barriers to
the import of U.S. agricultural commodities, then supports
negotiations to remove them. It acts to counter and eliminate
unfair trade practices by other countries that hinder U.S.
agricultural exports to third markets.
FAS also carries out the mission of the former Office of
International Cooperation and Development [OICD] to promote
U.S. agriculture and to advance the agriculture of developing
countries as parts of a complementary global agricultural
system capable of providing ample food and fiber for all
people. To accomplish this mission, FAS applies USDA policies
and U.S. agricultural perspectives in its programs of
international agricultural cooperation and development, and in
its work with foreign countries, international organizations,
U.S. universities and other institutions, agencies of the U.S.
Government, and the U.S. private sector.
The General Sales Manager was established pursuant to
section 5(f) of the charter of the Commodity Credit Corporation
and 15 U.S.C. 714-714p. The funds allocated to the General
Sales Manager are used for conducting the following programs:
(1) CCC Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-102), including
supplier credit guarantees and facilities financing guarantees,
(2) Intermediate Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-103), (3) Public
Law 480, (4) section 416 Overseas Donations Program, (5) Export
Enhancement Program, (6) Market Access Program, and (7)
programs authorized by the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter
Act including barter, export sales of most CCC-owned
commodities, export payments, and other programs as assigned to
encourage and enhance the export of U.S. agricultural
commodities.
A provision in the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriation Act,
2003, Division A of Public Law 108-7, made permanent a
prohibition on the use of agency funds to promote the sale or
export of tobacco or tobacco products.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $156,186,000
for the Foreign Agricultural Service.
Alaska Salmon.--The Committee encourages the Foreign
Agricultural Service to assist the Alaska Seafood Marketing
Institute in marketing Alaska salmon and other seafood to
overseas markets.
Biotechnology.--To promote the export of domestic farm
products and improve world agriculture trade conditions, the
Foreign Agricultural Service must increase its efforts to
improve the understanding among trading partners of the safety
of biotechnology and the thoroughness of the U.S. regulatory
oversight of biotechnology. As trading partners construct
regulatory systems for biotechnology and commodity trade, FAS
is frequently requested to provide experts for the purpose of
educating foreign government officials on the U.S. regulatory
system. If the United States fails to participate in such
discussions, those attempting to limit the access to foreign
markets by U.S. producers will be presented an opportunity to
undermine confidence in the benefits and safety of the
technology while reducing trade opportunities for American
producers. The Committee directs FAS to allocate adequate
funding to meet the needs of our trading partners so that
officials from the Department of Agriculture may, when
requested, educate foreign regulators on the safety of the
technology and the thoroughness of the U.S. regulatory process.
Capital Security Cost Sharing.--The Committee recommends
$2,907,000 for Capital Security Cost Sharing [CSCS], as
proposed in the budget. The Committee funds the fiscal year
2007 CSCS assessment at the level requested by FAS with the
understanding that space assignments made by the Department of
State in newly constructed embassies will meet current and
projected FAS space requirements.
Cochran Fellowship Program.--The Committee recommends
$5,000,000 for the Cochran Fellowship Program. The Committee
encourages the Secretary to continue to provide additional
support for the program through the Commodity Credit
Corporation Emerging Markets Program.
Commodity Forecasting.--The Committee notes the role that
the crop assessment division plays in worldwide commodity
forecasting and the value of this information in maintaining
and improving the U.S. market share in key agricultural
commodities. The Committee recognizes that substantial
investments will be needed to further develop and deploy
advanced forecasting technologies and to maintain the USDA
position as the global commodities forecasting standard.
Currency Exchange Rates.--The Committee continues to
include language in a general provision in the bill, as
requested in the budget, to allow up to $2,000,000 of the
amount appropriated to the FAS to remain available until
expended solely for the purpose of offsetting fluctuations in
international currency exchange rates, subject to
documentation.
Food Aid Quality.--The Committee recommends $700,000 to
implement section 3013 of the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-171) for the Food Aid
Quality Enhancement Project, to improve the quality of food
commodities purchased by the Department of Agriculture for the
government's domestic and foreign food assistance programs.
Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program.--The
Committee expects the FAS to fund the Foreign Market
Development Cooperator Program at no less than the fiscal year
2006 level.
Specialty Crops.--The Committee is aware of FAS activities
to provide technical assistance for the promotion of specialty
crop exports, consistent with section 3205 of the Farm Security
and Rural Investment Act of 2002. The Committee recommends an
increase of $200,000 to support these activities.
Trade Adjustment Act.--The Trade Adjustment Assistance for
Farmers Act [TAAF] (19 U.S.C. 2401 et seq.) requires that
technical assistance be provided to farmers negatively impacted
by imports. This technical assistance is an education program
that helps farmers develop marketing opportunities, increase
production efficiency and seek alternatives to offset losses
created by imports. The Committee directs that from the funds
made available by the Trade Adjustment Act that $3,000,000 be
available to the Digital Center for Risk Management Education
to coordinate an intensive technical assistance program for
farmers using available funds consistent with that Act.
PUBLIC LAW 480 TITLE I PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative
Credit level Loan subsidy expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2006......................................... 74,032 64,390 3,351
Budget estimate, 2007........................................ ............... ............... 2,651
House allowance.............................................. ............... ............... 2,651
Committee recommendation..................................... ............... ............... 2,651
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Law 480 title I authorizes the financing of sales to
developing countries for local currencies and for dollars on
credit terms. Sales for dollars or local currency may be made
to foreign governments. The legislation provides for repayment
terms either in local currencies or U.S. dollars on credit
terms of up to 30 years, with a grace period of up to 5 years.
Local currencies under title I sales agreements may be used
in carrying out activities under section 104 of the
Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (7
U.S.C. 1704), as amended. Activities in the recipient country
for which these local currencies may be used include developing
new markets for U.S. agricultural commodities, paying U.S.
obligations, and supporting agricultural development and
research.
Title I appropriated funds may also be used under the Food
for Progress Act of 1985 to furnish commodities on credit terms
or on a grant basis to assist developing countries and
countries that are emerging democracies that have a commitment
to introduce and expand free enterprise elements in their
agricultural economies.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee does not recommend an appropriation for
Public Law 480, title I. The Committee recommends an
appropriation of $2,651,000 for administrative expenses to
continue servicing existing agreements.
The Committee notes the significant decline in the use of
title I activities over the past number of years at a time when
the demand for title II has substantially increased. While the
Committee does not recommend an appropriation for title I
program subsidies at this time, there does remain available
$75,000,000 in unobligated funds for this purpose. This amount
is nearly $11,000,000 more than the amount appropriated for
title I program subsidies in fiscal year 2006. The Committee
believes these funds, in addition to title I administrative
funds recommended for fiscal year 2007, will be adequate to
meet any title I requirements for the coming year.
The Committee recognizes the successful history of the
Public Law 480 program that has been in place for more than 50
years. As noted above, there are $75,000,000 in unobligated
funds in the title I program and an additional $18,000,000 will
be provided from reimbursements from the Maritime
Administration. The Committee expects the Secretary to use the
available funds, as described above, for title I requirements,
including concessional sales, and report to the Committee
within 120 days of enactment of this Act and quarterly
thereafter on applications for, and commitments and obligations
of these funds.
PUBLIC LAW 480 TITLE I OCEAN FREIGHT DIFFERENTIAL GRANTS
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $11,821,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................................
Ocean Freight Differential Costs in Connection With
Commodity Sales Financed for Local Currencies or U.S. Dollars
(Title I).--The Commodity Credit Corporation pays ocean freight
differential costs on shipments under this title. These costs
are the difference between foreign flag and U.S. flag shipping
costs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee does not recommend an appropriation for
Public Law 480 ocean freight differential costs.
PUBLIC LAW 480 TITLE II GRANTS
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $1,138,500,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 1,218,500,000
House allowance......................................... 1,223,100,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,225,000,000
The Committee recognizes the important mission of the
Public Law 480 Program to combat hunger and malnutrition;
promote broad-based equitable and sustainable development;
expand international trade; develop and expand export markets
for U.S. agricultural commodities; and to foster and encourage
the development of private enterprise and democratic
participation in developing countries. The Committee strongly
supports the continued efficient operation of this important
program.
Commodities Supplied in Connection With Dispositions Abroad
(Title II) (7 U.S.C. 1721-1726).--Commodities are supplied
without cost through foreign governments to combat malnutrition
and to meet famine and other emergency requirements.
Commodities are also supplied for nonemergencies through public
and private agencies, including intergovernmental
organizations. The Commodity Credit Corporation pays ocean
freight on shipments under this title, and may also pay
overland transportation costs to a landlocked country, as well
as internal distribution costs in emergency situations. The
funds appropriated for title II are made available to private
voluntary organizations and cooperatives to assist these
organizations in meeting administrative and related costs.
Commodities Supplied in Connection With Dispositions Abroad
(Title III).--Commodities are supplied without cost to least
developed countries through foreign governments for direct
feeding, development of emergency food reserves, or may be sold
with the proceeds of such sale used by the recipient country
for specific economic development purposes. The Commodity
Credit Corporation may pay ocean freight on shipments under
this title, and may also pay overland transportation costs to a
landlocked country, as well as internal distribution costs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a program level of $1,225,000,000
for title II. The Committee does not agree with the
administration's proposal to shift up to 25 percent of the
Public Law 480 title II program level to USAID to be used for
direct cash purchases of commodities and other purposes as well
as the proposal to lift the requirement that Public Law 480
funds be used to meet sub-minimum tonnage requirements designed
to meet the challenge of chronic world hunger. The Committee is
committed to meeting needs related to emergency food shortages,
long-term food security, and special conditions such as
mitigating the effects of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus and
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome on individuals, households,
and communities.
Feeding Program.--The Committee supports the use of title
II funds in fiscal year 2007 to continue the fiscal year 2006
level of funding for the orphan feeding program in Haiti.
Monetization.--The Committee directs the administration not
to place arbitrary limits on monetization under the Public Law
480 title II program. In food-deficit, import-reliant
countries, monetization stimulates the economy and allows
needed commodities to be provided in the marketplace. Food aid
proposals should be approved based on the merits of the program
plan to promote food security and improve people's lives, not
on the level of monetization.
Non-emergency Assistance.--The Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 increased the level of Public Law 480
title II non-emergency assistance to 1,875,000 metric tons.
Congress provided this level to help address the underlying
causes of hunger in the world, which leads to weakened immune
systems, higher rates of chronic disease and poverty, and the
inability of entire populations to achieve economic and social
independence. The Committee expects that funding for Public Law
480 title II will be used for its intended purpose and not for
ad hoc emergency assistance. In the event of additional
emergency needs, the Committee reminds the Department of the
availability of the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust.
Russian Far East.--The Committee notes the extraordinary
effort made by the people of Alaska through Rotary
International, the Interfaith Council, the Municipality of
Anchorage, and other groups to collect and distribute food and
other assistance to people living in the Russian Far East. The
Committee urges the Administration to work with these entities
to take advantage of their volunteer efforts in feeding people
in the Russian Far East, particularly abandoned children living
in orphanages and hospitals.
MCGOVERN-DOLE INTERNATIONAL FOOD FOR EDUCATION AND CHILD NUTRITION
PROGRAM GRANTS
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $99,000,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 99,000,000
House allowance......................................... 100,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 100,000,000
Authorized in the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of
2002, Public Law 107-171, the McGovern-Dole International Food
for Education and Child Nutrition Program helps support
education, child development, and food security for some of the
world's poorest children. The program provides for donations of
U.S. agricultural products, as well as financial and technical
assistance, for school feeding and maternal and child nutrition
projects in low-income, food-deficit countries that are
committed to universal education. Commodities made available
for donation through agreements with private voluntary
organizations, cooperatives, intergovernmental organizations,
and foreign governments may be donated for direct feeding or
for local sale to generate proceeds to support school feeding
and nutrition projects.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $100,000,000
for the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and
Child Nutrition Program.
COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION EXPORT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
(EXPORT CREDIT PROGRAMS AND GSM-102)
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guaranteed loan Guaranteed loan Administrative
levels\1\ subsidy\1\ expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2006......................................... 3,107,000 128,448 5,227
Budget estimate, 2007........................................ 3,167,000 114,625 5,331
House allowance.............................................. 3,167,000 114,625 5,331
Committee recommendation..................................... 3,167,000 114,625 5,331
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\No appropriation required since export credit authorizations are permanent authority.
In 1980, the Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC] instituted
the Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-102) under its charter
authority. With this program, CCC guarantees, for a fee,
payments due U.S. exporters under deferred payment sales
contracts (up to 36 months) for defaults due to commercial as
well as noncommercial risks. The risk to CCC extends from the
date of export to the end of the deferred payment period
covered in the export sales contract and covers only that
portion of the payments agreed to in the assurance agreement.
Operation of this program is based on criteria which will
assure that it is used only where it is determined that it will
develop new market opportunities and maintain and expand
existing world markets for U.S. agricultural commodities. The
program encourages U.S. financial institutions to provide
financing to those areas where the institutions would be
unwilling to provide financing in the absence of the CCC
guarantees. Other credit activities may also be financed under
the Export Credit Guarantee programs including supplier credit
guarantee, under which CCC guarantees payments due to importers
under short term financing (up to 180 days) that exporters
extend directly to importers for the purchase of U.S.
agricultural products. CCC also provides facilities financing
guarantees.
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 establishes the
program account. The subsidy costs of the CCC export guarantee
programs are exempt from the requirement of advance
appropriations of budget authority according to section
504(c)(2) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, Public Law
101-508. Appropriations to this account will be used for
administrative expenses.
TITLE VI
RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
The Food and Drug Administration [FDA] is a scientific
regulatory agency whose mission is to promote and protect the
public health and safety of Americans. FDA's work is a blending
of science and law. The Food and Drug Administration
Modernization Act of 1997 [FDAMA] (Public Law 105-115)
reaffirmed the responsibilities of the FDA: to ensure safe and
effective products reach the market to a timely way, and to
monitor products for continued safety after they are in use. In
addition, FDA is entrusted with two critical functions in the
Nation's war on terrorism: preventing willful contamination of
all regulated products, including food, and improving the
availability of medications to prevent or treat injuries caused
by biological, chemical or nuclear agents.
The FDA Foods program has the primary responsibility for
assuring that the food supply, quality of foods, food
ingredients and dietary supplements are safe, sanitary,
nutritious, wholesome, and honestly labeled, and that cosmetic
products are safe and properly labeled. The variety and
complexity of the food supply has grown dramatically while new
and more complex safety issues, such as emerging microbial
pathogens, natural toxins, and technological innovations in
production and processing, have developed. This program plays a
major role in keeping the United States food supply among the
safest in the world.
The FDA Drugs programs are comprised of three separate
areas, Human Drugs, Animal Drugs and Biologics. FDA is
responsible for the life cycle of the product, including
premarket review and postmarket surveillance of human, animal
and biological products to ensure their safety and efficacy.
For Human Drugs this includes assuring that all drug products
used for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of disease are
safe and effective. Additional procedures include the review of
investigational new drug applications; evaluation of market
applications for new and generic drugs, labeling and
composition of prescription and over-the-counter drugs;
monitoring the quality and safety of products manufactured in,
or imported into, the United States; and, regulating the
advertising and promotion of prescription drugs. The Animal
Drugs and Feeds Program ensures only safe and beneficial
veterinary drugs, intended for the treatment and/or prevention
of diseases in animals and the improved production of food-
producing animals, are approved for marketing.
The FDA Biologics program assures that blood and blood
products, blood test kits, vaccines, and therapeutics are pure,
potent, safe, effective, and properly labeled. The program
inspects blood banks and blood processors, licenses and
inspects firms collecting human source plasma, evaluates and
licenses biologics manufacturing firms and products; lot
releases licensed products; and monitors adverse events
associated with vaccine immunization.
The FDA Devices and Radiological program ensures the safety
and effectiveness of medical devices and eliminates unnecessary
human exposure to manmade radiation from medical, occupational,
and consumer products. In addition, the program enforces
quality standards under the Mammography Quality Standards Act
(Public Law 108-365). Medical devices include thousands of
products from thermometers and contact lenses to heart
pacemakers, hearing aids, MRIs, microwave ovens, and video
display terminals.
FDA's National Center for Toxicological Research in
Jefferson, Arkansas, serves as a specialized resource,
conducting peer-review scientific research that provides the
basis for FDA to make sound science-based regulatory decisions
through its premarket review and postmarket surveillance. The
research is designed to define and understand the biological
mechanisms of action underlying the toxicity of products and
developing methods to improve assessment of human exposure,
susceptibility and risk of those products regulated by FDA.
salaries and expenses
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammography
Prescription Medical Animal clinics Export and
Appropriation drug user device drug user inspection certification Total
fees user fees fees fees fees
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2006......................................... 1,466,801 305,332 40,300 11,318 17,173 7,640 1,848,564
Budget estimate, 2007........................................ 1,540,399 320,600 43,726 11,604 17,522 8,481 1,942,332
House allowance.............................................. 1,538,452 320,600 43,726 11,604 17,522 8,481 1,937,385
Committee recommendation..................................... 1,565,716 320,600 43,726 11,604 17,522 8,481 1,967,649
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee recommendations
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,565,716,000
for FDA salaries and expenses. The Committee also recommends
$320,600,000 in Prescription Drug User Fee Act user fee
collections, $43,726,000 in Medical Device User Fee and
Modernization Act user fee collections, $11,604,000 in Animal
Drug User Fee Act user fee collections, $17,522,000 in
Mammography Quality Standards Act fee collections, and
$8,481,000 in export and certification fees, as assumed in the
President's budget. The Committee recommendation includes bill
language which prohibits FDA from developing, establishing, or
operating any program of user fees authorized by 31 U.S.C.
9701.
The following table reflects the Committee's
recommendations, as compared to the fiscal year 2006 and budget
request levels:
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2006 enacted 2007 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Centers and related field activities:
Foods.................................................... 438,721 449,687 457,936
--------------------------------------------------
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition [CFSAN]. 153,568 148,363 162,687
Field activities..................................... 285,153 301,324 295,249
==================================================
Human drugs.............................................. 297,716 305,003 315,003
--------------------------------------------------
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research [CDER]....... 217,797 225,209 235,209
Field activities..................................... 79,919 79,794 79,794
==================================================
Biologics................................................ 121,016 150,582 150,582
--------------------------------------------------
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research [CBER].. 95,132 121,806 121,806
Field activities..................................... 25,884 28,776 28,776
==================================================
Animal drugs............................................. 89,581 95,494 95,494
--------------------------------------------------
Center for Veterinary Medicine [CVM]................. 54,739 59,716 59,716
Field activities..................................... 34,842 35,778 35,778
==================================================
Medical and radiological devices......................... 220,564 229,334 230,549
--------------------------------------------------
Center for Devices and Radiological Health [CDRH].... 165,204 170,977 172,192
Field activities..................................... 55,360 58,357 58,357
==================================================
National Center for Toxicological Research [NCTR]........ 40,740 34,240 41,273
==================================================
Other activities............................................. 84,905 88,236 87,056
--------------------------------------------------
Office of the Commissioner............................... 29,353 31,217 31,217
Office of Management..................................... 36,870 37,980 36,800
Office of External Relations............................. 6,804 6,890 6,890
Office of Policy and Planning............................ 5,123 5,394 5,394
Central services......................................... 6,755 6,755 6,755
==================================================
Rent and related activities.................................. 57,155 60,952 60,952
==================================================
Rental payments to GSA....................................... 116,403 126,871 126,871
==================================================
Total, FDA salaries and expenses, new budget authority. 1,466,801 1,540,399 1,565,716
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends the following increases in budget
authority for FDA salaries and expenses activities: $20,267,000
for cost of living adjustments; $5,475,000 for counterterrorism
activities related to food safety; $8,640,000 for increased
medical device and animal drug review; $3,960,000 for drug
safety; $50,490,000 for pandemic influenza preparedness;
$5,940,000 for the critical path initiative; $2,475,000 for
tissue safety; $10,000,000 for generic drug review; $3,797,000
for FDA's consolidation at the White Oak campus; and
$10,468,000 for rental payments to the General Services
Administration. The Committee recommendation also restores
$29,680,000 in base program reductions assumed in the budget
request.
Advisory Committee Member Conflicts of Interest.--The
Committee recommendation includes a general provision regarding
the issuance of conflict of interest waivers for advisory
committee members and new appointments to advisory committees.
The Committee believes that FDA should try to find sufficiently
qualified candidates for its advisory committees with minimal
or no potential conflicts of interest and requests a semi-
annual report on FDA's efforts to find such candidates. In
cases where individuals are appointed that have medium or high
involvement as specified in the FDA Waiver Criteria 2000
document, the Committee requests that FDA provide a rationale
for the appointment, including: the lack of other available
experts; the individual offers considerably more expertise than
other willing candidates; or there are no willing candidates
who have no or low involvement as specified in the FDA Waiver
Criteria 2000 document. In addition, the report should include
information on the number of meetings held and waivers issued
for product specific meetings and meetings about particular
matters of general applicability.
Agricultural Products Food Safety Laboratory.--The
Committee recommends no less than the fiscal year 2006 amount
for the FDA's contract with New Mexico State University's
Physical Sciences Laboratory to operate the Food Technology
Evaluation Laboratory, which conducts evaluation and
development of rapid screening methodologies, technologies, and
instrumentation; and provides technology deployment, modeling,
and data analysis for food safety and product safety, including
advanced risk-based systems for screening and inspection, to
facilitate FDA's regulations and responsibilities in food
safety, product safety, homeland security, bioterrorism, and
other initiatives.
Authorized Generics.--The Committee is aware that
amendments to the Hatch-Waxman Act (Public Law 98-417) provided
180 day marketing exclusivity to a generic drug that
successfully challenges the patent of a name brand
pharmaceutical company, and that the purpose of this
exclusivity was to provide incentives to bring lower cost
generic drugs to the market as quickly as possible. The
Committee has been informed that ``authorized'' generics are
entering the market at the same time as generic drugs, and is
concerned that this practice may have the ultimate effect of
decreasing the number of generic drugs that enter the market,
keeping prices ultimately higher for the consumer. Therefore,
the Committee strongly encourages FDA to work to ensure that
incentives for generic drugs, which are currently written into
law, are protected, and that consumers continue to have access
to safe, effective generic drugs at the earliest possible time.
Base Reductions.--The Committee recommendation restores
$29,680,000 of the $52,277,000 reduction in base funding
proposed in the budget request. During the month of May 2006,
the Committee held a series of briefings to discuss the impact
of the proposed budget reductions on FDA's core mission areas.
As a result of these briefings, the Committee recommendation
restores the proposed reductions for the Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition, field activities related to the foods
program, and the National Center for Toxicological Research.
These program areas would be the most negatively affected if
the reductions are enacted, and as a result of the proposed
reduction, have already initiated hiring freezes, buy-outs, and
other cost saving measures during this fiscal year. The
Committee believes that FDA should not abandon core food safety
and research activities to fund other activities and is deeply
concerned that the Agency took this approach in its fiscal year
2007 budget request.
The funding level in the Committee recommendation will
permit the foods program to continue fiscal year 2006
activities including, but not limited to, facility inspection
(including reinspection), the food contact notification
program, review of food and color additive petitions, active
participation in Codex Alimentarius, the cosmetics program,
export certification, and monitoring for chemical contaminants.
Further, the Committee recommendation will permit the National
Center for Toxicological Research to maintain scientific
expertise and continue important research to support the
Critical Path initiative, biohazard identification, and the
safety of FDA-regulated compounds.
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy.--The Committee recommends
$29,566,000 for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy [BSE]. The
Committee understands that this funding will be used to conduct
yearly inspections of all renderers and feed mills processing
products containing prohibited materials; extend BSE
inspections into targeted segments of industries subject to the
BSE Feed regulation but previously minimally inspected;
validate test methods for the detection of bovine-derived
proteins in animal feed; and continue to conduct research on
Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies in FDA's product
centers.
Budget Justification.--The Committee directs the Agency to
submit the fiscal year 2008 budget request in a format that
follows the same account structure as the fiscal year 2007
budget request unless otherwise approved by the Committee.
Carcinogens.--The Committee believes that the FDA should
conduct consumer testing on the wording and location of the
current warning label on indoor tanning equipment and any
proposed changes to the warning label to ensure that the
appropriate risk information is being conveyed to consumers
using sunbeds and sunlamps. This testing should take into
account that exposure to sunbeds and sunlamps has been
acknowledged as a known human carcinogen. In addition, the
Committee believes it is important to receive public input on
the labeling and any proposed changes and would encourage the
FDA to hold public hearings on the issue. The Committee directs
the FDA to conduct the above actions and to report back to
Congress their findings within 120 days of enactment of this
Act.
Chloramphenicol.--The Committee continues to have serious
concerns regarding seafood safety issues posed by banned
antibiotic contamination in farm-raised shrimp imports. In
addition, the Committee is concerned that the FDA inspects less
than 2 percent of shrimp being imported into the United States.
Therefore, the Committee strongly encourages the FDA to
develop, in cooperation with State testing programs, a program
for increasing the inspection of imported shrimp, possibly
including cold-storage inventories, for banned antibiotics,
including chloramphenicol.
Citizen Petitions.--The Committee notes that the FDA report
received in May 2006 regarding the Agency's citizen petition
improvement efforts stated that the number of citizen petitions
is increasing significantly. In fact, CDER recorded a nearly 50
percent increase in the number of citizen petitions received in
calendar year 2004 over the number received in calendar year
2003. The report also stated that many of these citizen
petitions might reasonably appear to have been filed in an
attempt to delay approval of a generic version of a drug that
is not yet subject to generic competition. The report
reiterated FDA's intention to send petitions that may warrant
an investigation into anti-competitive activities to the
Federal Trade Commission, and the Committee strongly supports
this intention.
In addition, the Committee is aware of the importance of
properly and clearly responding to citizen petitions in a
timely fashion, as these responses may often be required as
part of FDA's legal response to a challenge to a drug approval.
Therefore, the Committee is pleased with the steps FDA has
taken to improve Agency response to citizen petitions,
including earlier and more frequent communication between FDA
offices, increased coordination and faster turnaround goal
times, and organizational changes made within the Office of
Generic Drugs, which has dedicated a group of scientists who
will be responsible for addressing citizen petition processes.
The Committee notes that FDA is currently undertaking an
initial review of its citizen petition improvement efforts, and
directs FDA to report, within 120 days of the enactment of this
Act, on its findings, including any need for additional
funding.
Codex Alimentarius.--Within the total funding available, at
least $2,500,000 is for FDA activities in support of Codex
Alimentarius.
Collaborative Drug Safety Research.-- The Committee
commends FDA for its work in developing the Critical Path
Initiative to foster collaboration with outside researchers and
develop new tools to both promote drug safety and accelerate
the development of innovative new therapies. The Committee
further commends the C-Path Institute, founded by the
University of Arizona, for its innovative research efforts to
develop more efficient tools for medical product development
and drug safety. For this important effort, the Committee
recommends no less than the fiscal year 2006 amount to support
collaborative research with the C-Path Institute and the
University of Utah on cardiovascular biomarkers predictive of
safety and clinical outcomes. The Committee understands the
research would involve identifying candidate genes and proteins
in University of Utah databases, designing and conducting
genomic and proteomic biomarker validation experiments by the
C-Path Institute, the University of Utah, FDA and
manufacturers, determining which biomarkers identify heart
failure patients who are most likely to respond favorably to
drug therapy and those at highest risk of adverse events. The
Committee expects that this research will enhance patient
safety, reduce the number of patients necessary for clinical
testing, and enable manufacturers to accelerate drug
development and bring safer, innovative life-saving drugs to
market more quickly.
Congressional Reports.--The Committee is concerned that, to
date, FDA has transmitted only 5 of the approximately 13
reports requested in the Senate and conference reports
accompanying the fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill. All of
these reports should have been received by May 10, 2006. The
Committee reminds FDA that reports to Congress play an
important role in the Committee's decision making process. The
Committee understands that FDA is aware of these concerns and
has begun implementing a new process for preparing reports. The
Committee directs FDA to take all necessary action to provide
reports in a timely fashion.
Dietary Supplements.--The Committee recommends total
funding of approximately $5,306,000 for the CFSAN Adverse
Events Reporting System [CAERS], of which approximately
$1,500,000 is for dietary supplements. This is $1,000,000 more
than the amount in the budget request.
The Committee is encouraged by FDA's activities to enforce
provisions contained within the Dietary Supplement Health and
Education Act of 1994 [DSHEA] (Public Law 103-417). The
Committee has recommended funding to continue enforcement of
the provisions contained in DSHEA. It is the Committee's intent
that these funds be prioritized by the agency to step up
activities against products that are clearly in violation of
DSHEA. In addition, the Committee is concerned that Current
Good Manufacturing Practice [CGMP] regulations, which have been
under development for some time, have not been issued.
Accordingly, the Committee directs FDA to issue the dietary
supplement CGMP regulations.
FDA has indicated that the ability to identify and analyze
specific components in ingredients, including botanical
ingredients, is an essential component of research and
regulatory programs directed at ensuring the safety and
effectiveness of dietary supplements. The Committee recommends
no less than the fiscal year 2006 amount for review of
botanicals in dietary supplements. This work is being carried
out by FDA in collaboration with the National Center for
Natural Products Research, Oxford, Mississippi.
Expedited filing.--The Committee directs FDA to expedite
and support the filing, review, and final action on new drug
applications or a supplement to a new drug application seeking
approval of a reformulated active ingredient, or combination of
active ingredients, previously approved as safe and effective
that would replace or provide a therapeutic alternative to a
currently marketed drug product that contains an active
ingredient that is the subject of diversion and/or abuse
outside regulated channels of commerce.
Food Labeling.--In a report issued September 28, 2005,
regarding qualified health claims, FDA noted that qualifying
statements on food labels that used only words were confusing
to consumers, and statements presented in a ``report card''
style were somewhat clearer. Further the report stated that
qualifying statements had unexpected effects on consumers'
judgments about the health benefits and overall healthfulness
of the product bearing the claim. The Committee notes that FDA
when approving qualified health claims is required to take into
consideration the effect upon consumers' ability to understand
labeling, and encourages the Agency to continue to do so.
The Committee also notes that as part of FDA's labeling
compliance program, FDA investigators routinely review selected
food labels during regularly scheduled food manufacturer
inspections performed under the agency's food safety compliance
programs. Approximately 28,000 field examinations of domestic
and imported food labels were conducted between October 1, 2005
and December 6, 2005. The Committee believes that State food
and drug officials can help supplement FDA enforcement efforts,
and encourages FDA to consult with the States to leverage the
training and enforcement activities conducted by each entity.
Foodborne Illness.--The Committee is aware of the effective
work of the Partnership for Food Safety Education to provide
information to the general public about simple, commonsense
suggestions regarding safe food preparation and handling.
Currently, the Partnership for Food Safety Education is working
to develop a public education campaign aimed at populations
vulnerable to listeria, including pregnant women and adults
with weakened immune systems. The Committee believes this is a
worthwhile effort, and encourages FDA to continue working with
the Partnership for Food Safety Education in executing this
education campaign. In addition, the Committee encourages the
FDA to provide funding, as appropriate, to support this
collaborative effort.
Generic Drugs.--The Committee recommends $74,663,000 for
the generic drugs program at FDA, of which $39,079,000 is for
the Office of Generic Drugs. This is an increase of $10,000,000
above the budget request. The Committee is aware that generic
drug applications have increased significantly in recent years,
and that this trend is expected to continue. Further, the
Committee understands that the current FDA policy is to review
generic drug applications in the order in which they are
received at the agency, with certain exceptions, such as drug
shortages. The Committee has been informed that FDA is looking
at alternatives to the current policy to better serve
consumers, including giving priority status to generic drugs
that would be the first generic to enter the market upon
approval. On April 26, 2006, FDA published a paper noting that
while the first generic drug to enter the market is normally
priced approximately six percent below its comparative brand
name drug, the second generic drug reduces prices more
significantly, nearly in half. The Committee is supportive of
FDA's efforts to improve its generic drug approval process, and
strongly encourages the agency to take into account this
information when making those decisions. The Committee requests
a report within 120 days of enactment of this Act on any
changes that have been made, or are being proposed, either in
statute or through administrative procedures, for the generic
drug approval process.
Human Drug Compounding.--The Committee acknowledges the
important and increasing role that compounding pharmacists play
in providing health care to consumers. The Committee also
acknowledges the important role the United States Pharmacopeia
[USP] and Pharmacy Compounding Accreditation Board [PCAB] play
in promoting consumer health through activities directed at
promoting quality pharmacy compounding practices and products.
The Committee encourages FDA to work with, including providing
funding if available, USP and PCAB to develop monographs for
commonly prescribed or critically needed compounded
preparations. The Committee encourages USP and PCAB to consult
with compounding pharmacists to identify commonly prescribed or
critically needed compounded preparations for monograph
development and to encourage participation in the PCAB
accreditation program. The Committee makes clear that the
development of monographs will not limit or infringe upon the
current practice of compounding pharmacists in preparing and
dispensing prescriptions, or alter the existing State and
Federal regulatory roles regarding compounding.
Influenza.--The Committee recommendation includes an
increase of $50,490,000 for pandemic influenza preparedness.
Included in this amount is $20,000,000 to annualize the funding
provided in the fiscal year 2006 supplemental and $30,490,000
to enhance FDA's pandemic influenza efforts in fiscal year
2007. In addition, the Committee understands that almost three-
quarters of the way through the fiscal year FDA has obligated
approximately $7,000,000 of the $20,000,000 provided in the
fiscal year 2006 supplemental. Because this funding is
available until September 30, 2007, FDA will be able to utilize
supplemental funding not spent in fiscal year 2006 in addition
to the $50,490,000 included in the Committee recommendation
throughout fiscal year 2007. Including base resources, the
estimated fiscal year 2007 amount available for pandemic
influenza preparedness is in excess of $60,000,000.
Mammography.--The Committee recommends no less than
$10,600,000 in appropriated funds for activities related to the
Mammography Quality Standards Act. Appropriations for this
program fund research grants and various activities to develop
and enforce quality standards for mammography services,
including a Federal advisory committee, accreditation bodies,
inspections of government entities and facilities that provided
50 percent or more mammography screenings with grants provided
through the Center for Disease Control's National Breast and
Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program, issuance and renewal
of certificates, appeal procedures, certification of personnel,
and imposing sanctions for noncompliance.
The Committee is aware that the Institute of Medicine
released a report entitled ``Breast Imaging Quality Standards''
on May 23, 2005. Further, the Committee is aware that the
Government Accountability Office is scheduled to soon release a
report dealing with mammography access and an assessment of
states that act as both accrediting and certifying bodies. The
Committee directs FDA to provide a report within 120 days of
enactment of this Act on how it plans to respond to
recommendations contained in these reports.
Medical Device Application Review.--The Committee
recommendation includes an appropriated amount of $230,549,000
for the Devices and Radiological Health Program. This amount is
sufficient to meet the triggers as defined in the Medical
Device User Fee and Modernization Act (Public Law 107-250) and
the Medical Device User Fee Stabilization Act (Public Law 109-
43). The Committee notes with concern that this is the second
year in a row that the inflation rate assumed in the budget
request is not sufficient to meet the mandated trigger amount.
National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System.--The
Committee supports the work of the National Antimicrobial
Resistance Monitoring System [NARMS] and its collaborative
relationship between FDA, USDA, and the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention. The Committee expects the coordination
of activities among these three areas of government to result
in the most unbiased presentation of timely, accurate data in
the best interest of public health, and encourages FDA to
equally divide research funding among the three branches of the
program.
National Center for Food Safety and Technology.--With the
growing threat of foodborne illness to the public health, the
Committee believes that collaborative research in food safety
should continue among Government, academia, and private
industry. The national model for that collaboration has been
the National Center for Food Safety and Technology [NCFST] in
Summit-Argo, Illinois. The Committee recommends $3,000,000 for
NCFST to continue the important work done there. This funding
should be exclusive of any initiative funds which the FDA may
provide in addition to NCFST.
Office of Women's Health.--The Committee believes that it
is imperative for FDA to pay sufficient attention to gender-
based research, ensuring that products approved by the FDA are
safe and effective for women as well as men. The Committee
notes that in the budget request, the Office of Women's Health
at FDA is funded at not less than $4,000,000 for program
operation and oversight. The Committee encourages FDA to ensure
that the Office of Women's Health is sufficiently funded to
carry out its activities, and to enhance its funding if
necessary.
Operations Maintenance.--The Committee notes that FDA's
overall budget is approximately 60 percent salaries and
benefits. Further, in FDA's field organization, front-line
inspection staff for imports and manufacturing facilities,
salaries and benefits is approximately 80 percent of the
budget. The fiscal year 2007 budget request includes an
increase of $20,267,000 to cover an anticipated pay increase of
2.2 percent, which the Committee recommends. However, the
Committee also notes that FDA routinely absorbs additional pay
and benefit costs that are not requested in the budget.
Therefore, the Committee directs the FDA to use the recommended
programmatic funding increases to support current activities
and staff levels before entering into new agreements or
engaging in new activities.
Orphan Products Grants.--The Committee recommends
$14,696,000 for the Orphan Products Grants Program within the
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
Perchlorate.--The Committee directs the FDA to report to
Congress the results of the 2004 and 2005 perchlorate food
surveys that included over 1,000 samples of milk (including
milk collected at farms), bottled water, fruits, vegetables,
grain products, fish, infant foods, and infant formulas within
120 days after the enactment of this Act. The Committee also
directs FDA to report to Congress the perchlorate results from
the 2006 Total Diet Study of both infant and adult food as soon
as practicable. The Committee believes it is important to
continue to include perchlorate as part of the Total Diet Study
of both infant and adult food in order to determine the need
for risk management strategies.
Personalized Medicine.--The Committee is aware that, with
the completion of the Human Genome Project, pharmaceutical and
biologics research is moving rapidly into an era of
personalized medicine. Developing products that are tailored to
the specific genetic make-up of the individual patient promises
to improve effectiveness, reduce adverse events, and save money
currently wasted on treatment modalities that are less safe and
less effective than desired. Specific targeting of drugs based
on an individual's genotype will create new review issues for
FDA and for industry. In March 2005, the FDA issued guidance
for industry on the agency's current thinking with regard to
pharmacogenomics and on data submission. As the science
matures, FDA will need to regularly review and update its
position. The Committee encourages FDA to work closely with
government, academic, and industry researchers to assure that
its actions serve to bring balance to a field of research that
will ultimately enhance the public's health.
Prescription Drug Monographs.--The Committee is interested
in ensuring that FDA adopts a uniform and transparent system
for regulating pharmaceuticals that have been marketed for a
material extent and for a material amount of time without
documented safety problems and outside of the current new drug
approval process. Last year, the Committee requested a report
on an alternative approach that provides for the uniform and
transparent regulation of these products. To date, the
Committee has not received this report. Therefore, the
Committee directs the FDA to devise an approach that provides
for the uniform and transparent regulation of these drugs. The
Committee encourages the agency to ensure that enforcement
resources are prioritized to address safety and effectiveness
concerns.
Seafood Safety.--The Committee supports the ongoing work of
the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference [ISSC] and its
joint efforts with the FDA and the shellfish industry to
formulate shellfish safety regulations through the National
Shellfish Sanitation Program. The Committee recommends no less
than $200,000 be directed through the Office of Seafood
Inspection to continue these activities and $250,000 be
directed to the ISSC for the Vibrio Vulnificus Education
Program.
The Committee is concerned that FDA has not taken effective
action to address foodborne illness risks from the consumption
of raw shellfish. In particular, the Committee is concerned
that ISSC's proposed steps to reduce the rates of death and
illness due to consumption of Vibrio Vulnificus-contaminated
raw shellfish may not effectively address public health
concerns.
The Committee also continues its concern with the agency's
failure to bring FDA-regulated seafood into compliance with
Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point [HACCP] standards.
However, the Committee is aware that special or unique
circumstances may exist for particular seafood processors.
While ultimate HAACP compliance is not in question, the
Committee is specifically aware of Hawaii's lengthy and
culturally important history of hook-and-line fisheries,
auction markets, and the high consumption of raw tuna and other
pelagic fish in Hawaii, and strongly encourages the Agency to
take into account both the history and the industry's practical
experience in approving a plan that is consistent with healthy
seafood products and national standards for seafood safety.
The Committee has been advised that farmed salmon imported
from overseas is fed feed with chemical additives to change the
color of its flesh or the flesh is artificially dyed. A lawsuit
was filed against national grocery chains alleging they do not
adequately label the fish which are dyed. The Committee directs
the Food and Drug Administration to continue to monitor
information concerning the safety of the use of such additives
and dyes in seafood and to more aggressively enforce the clear
and conspicuous disclosure of such additives and dyes to
consumers on consumer packaging.
In addition, the funding recommended for food safety will
ensure the continuation of food contract inspections in the
State of Alaska. Specifically, it will allow the FDA to renew
its contract with the State of Alaska for inspections of food
and seafood processors operating in Alaska. The contract funds
at least 292 inspections, approximately 272 seafood/HACCP
inspections and 20 other food inspections. The establishments
to be inspected will be mutually agreed upon by FDA and the
State of Alaska.
Standards of Identity.--The Committee is aware of the
ongoing debate surrounding increased importation and use of
milk protein concentrate. The Committee remains concerned with
FDA's current lack of enforcement of standards of identity as
it relates to the potential use of milk protein concentrate in
standardized cheese and the labeling thereof.
Unified Financial Management System.--The Committee
recommendation includes no more than $13,026,000 for the
Unified Financial Management System. Of this amount, $9,720,000
is for development and implementation, and $3,306,000 is for
operations and maintenance. The Committee reminds FDA that
these amounts are subject to the reprogramming requirements
outlined in the general provisions of this Act.
Waste Management Education and Research Consortium.--The
Committee recommends no less than the fiscal year 2006 amount
for the FDA to continue its support for the Waste Management
Education and Research Consortium and its work in food safety
technology verification and education.
buildings and facilities
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $7,920,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 4,950,000
House allowance......................................... 4,950,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,950,000
FDA maintains offices and staff in 49 States and in the
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, including field
laboratories and specialized facilities, as well as the
National Center for Toxicological Research complex. Repairs,
modifications, improvements, and construction to FDA
headquarters and field facilities must be made to preserve the
properties, ensure employee safety, meet changing program
requirements, and permit the Agency to keep its laboratory
methods up to date.
committee recommendations
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,950,000 for
FDA buildings and facilities.
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $97,402,000
Budget estimate, 2007\1\................................................
House allowance......................................... 109,402,000
Committee recommendation................................ 99,502,000
\1\The budget estimate proposed a user fee of $127,000,000.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission [CFTC] was
established as an independent agency by the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 1389; 7 U.S.C. 4a).
The Commission administers the Commodity Exchange Act, 7
U.S.C. section 1, et seq. The 1974 Act brought under Federal
regulation futures trading in all goods, articles, services,
rights, and interests; commodity options trading; and leverage
trading in gold and silver bullion and coins; and otherwise
strengthened the regulation of the commodity futures trading
industry. It established a comprehensive regulatory structure
to oversee the volatile futures trading complex.
The purpose of the Commission is to protect and further the
economic utility of futures and commodity options markets by
encouraging their efficiency, assuring their integrity, and
protecting participants against manipulation, abusive trade
practices, fraud, and deceit. The objective is to enable the
markets to better serve their designated functions of providing
a price discovery mechanism and providing price risk insurance.
In properly serving these functions, the futures and commodity
options markets contribute toward better production and
financial planning, more efficient distribution and
consumption, and more economical marketing.
Programs in support of the overall mission include market
surveillance analysis and research; registration, audits, and
contract markets; enforcement; reparations; proceedings; legal
counsel; agency direction; and administrative support services.
CFTC activities are carried out in Washington, DC; two regional
offices located in Chicago and New York; and smaller offices in
Kansas City, Los Angeles, and Minneapolis.
committee recommendations
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $99,502,000
for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Farm Credit Administration
limitation on administrative expenses
Limitation, 2006........................................ $44,250,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................................
House allowance......................................... 44,250,000
Committee recommendation................................ 44,250,000
The Farm Credit Administration [FCA] is the independent
agency in the executive branch of the Government responsible
for the examination and regulation of the banks, associations,
and other institutions of the Farm Credit System.
Activities of the Farm Credit Administration include the
planning and execution of examinations of Farm Credit System
institutions and the preparation of examination reports. FCA
also establishes standards, enforces rules and regulations, and
approves certain actions of the institutions.
The administration and the institutions under its
jurisdiction now operate under authorities contained in the
Farm Credit Act of 1971, Public Law 92-181, effective December
10, 1971. Public Law 99-205, effective December 23, 1985,
restructured FCA and gave the agency regulatory authorities and
enforcement powers.
The act provides for the farmer-owned cooperative system to
make sound, adequate, and constructive credit available to
farmers and ranchers and their cooperatives, rural residences,
and associations and other entities upon which farming
operations are dependent, and to modernize existing farm credit
law to meet current and future rural credit needs.
The Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 authorized the
formation of the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation
[FAMC] to operate a secondary market for agricultural and rural
housing mortgages. The Farm Credit Administration, under
section 8.11 of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended, is
assigned the responsibility of regulating this entity and
assuring its safe and sound operation.
Expenses of the Farm Credit Administration are paid by
assessments collected from the Farm Credit System institutions
and by assessments to the Federal Agricultural Mortgage
Corporation.
committee recommendations
The Committee recommends a limitation of $44,250,000 on
administrative expenses of the Farm Credit Administration
[FCA]. The Committee recommendation that the limitation does
not apply to expenses associated with receiverships.
TITLE VII
GENERAL PROVISIONS
The Committee recommends the following provisions:
Section 701. This section makes funds available for the
purchase, replacement, and hire of passenger motor vehicles.
Section 702. This section makes funds for certain accounts
within the Department of Agriculture available until expended.
Section 703. This section gives the Secretary of
Agriculture authority to transfer unobligated balances to the
Working Capital Fund.
Section 704. This section limits the funding provided in
the bill to 1 year, unless otherwise specified.
Section 705. This section limits negotiated indirect costs
on cooperative agreements between the Department of Agriculture
and nonprofit organizations to 10 percent.
Section 706. This section limits indirect costs charged to
certain grant awards issued by the Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service to 20 percent of total Federal
funds.
Section 707. This section makes appropriations to the
Department of Agriculture for the cost of direct guaranteed
loans available until expended to disburse obligations for
certain Rural Development programs.
Section 708. This section makes funds available for the
expenses and activities of certain advisory committees, panels,
commissions, and task forces at the Department of Agriculture.
Section 709. This section prohibits the use of funds to
establish an inspection panel at the Department of Agriculture.
Section 710. This section requires Department of
Agriculture agencies to provide reimbursement to other
Department of Agriculture agencies for employees detailed for
longer than 30 days.
Section 711. This section prohibits the Department of
Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services
from transmitting questions or responses as a result of the
appropriations hearing process to non-Department employees.
Section 712. This section prohibits the purchase of new
information technology equipment and equipment in excess of
$25,000 without the prior approval of the Chief Information
Officer.
Section 713. This section prohibits the reprogramming of
funds for programs, projects, or activities in excess of
$500,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less without the prior
notification of the Committee on Appropriations.
Section 714. This section requires the Natural Resources
and Conservation Service to provide financial and technical
assistance for certain projects.
Section 715. This section prohibits the closing of the Food
and Drug Administration's St. Louis, Missouri laboratory.
Section 716. This section provides funding for Bill Emerson
and Mickey Leland Hunger Fellowships.
Section 717. This section provides funding for the National
Sheep Industry Improvement Center.
Section 718. This section permits 30 percent of the funds
available for competitive research grants to be used to carry
out a competitive grants program under section 401 of the
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of
1998.
Section 719. This section prohibits the use of funds for
the dam rehabilitation program.
Section 720. This section provides a funding limitation for
renewable energy systems.
Section 721. This section provides a funding limitation for
the environmental quality incentives program.
Section 722. This section provides a funding limitation for
broadband telecommunications services.
Section 723. This section limits the amount of funding
available to reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for the
release of commodities under the Bill Emerson Humanitarian
Trust.
Section 724. This section provides a funding limitation for
value-added market development grants.
Section 725. This section modifies the guaranteed
underwriting loan program.
Section 726. This section provides funding for the Denali
Commission.
Section 727. This section provides a funding limitation for
the wildlife habitat incentives program.
Section 728. This section provides a funding limitation for
the farmland protection program.
Section 729. This section provides a funding limitation for
the ground and surface water conservation program.
Section 730. This section prohibits the promulgation of a
final rule related to animal and plant health programs.
Section 731. This section makes funds for certain
conservation programs available until expended to disburse
certain obligations made in the current fiscal year. This
section also makes fiscal years 2004-2007 funds for the
Agricultural Management Assistance Program available until
expended to disburse obligations.
Section 732. This section makes certain locations eligible
for certain rural development programs.
Section 733. This section gives the Secretary of
Agriculture the authority to make funding and other assistance
available for damage to non-Federal lands damaged by fires
initiated by the Federal Government, and waives cost-sharing
requirements.
Section 734. This section prohibits the Department of
Agriculture from requiring the recertification of rural Status
for each electric and telecommunications borrower for certain
Rural Utilities Service programs.
Section 735. This section gives the Secretary of
Agriculture authority to use unobligated funds in certain Rural
Utilities Service programs for the purpose of expanding 9-1-1
access.
Section 736. This section provides funding for specialty
crop block grants.
Section 737. This section gives the Secretary of
Agriculture authorization to transfer land to the City of
Elkhart, Kansas.
Section 738. This section expands the Simplified Summer
Food Service Program.
Section 739. This section prohibits the use of funds to
conduct competitive sourcing activities in rural development
and farm loan programs.
Section 740. This section provides a funding limitation for
section 32.
Section 741. This section prohibits funds from being used
to pay the administrative expenses of a State agency that
authorizes new WIC-only vendors. The section also permits the
Secretary of Agriculture to approve new WIC-only vendors under
certain circumstances.
Section 742. This section requires FDA to meet certain
disclosure requirements before advisory committee meeting are
held where waivers are issued for conflicts of interest. The
section also requires FDA to submit a semi-annual report on
conflicts of interest.
Section 743. This section expands eligibility to
agricultural processing workers for the Farm Labor Housing
program.
Section 744. This section directs the Secretary of
Agriculture to administer the Farm and Ranchland Protection
Program in accordance with 7 CFR Part 1491.
Section 745. This section provides that certain locations
shall be considered eligible for certain rural development
programs.
Section 746. This section provides base funding for all
institutions participating in the expanded food nutrition
education program.
Section 747. This section provides funding for the National
Center for Natural Products Research.
Section 748. This section establishes a transfer limit on
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
Section 749. This section provides funding to continue a
tribal housing demonstration project.
Section 750. This section makes certain service areas
eligible for financing through the Rural Utilities Service.
Section 751. This section extends the authorization for an
education grants program to Alaska native serving and Native
Hawaiian serving institutions.
Section 752. This section modifies export credit programs.
Section 753. This section makes commercial fisherman
eligible for certain Farm Service Agency loans.
Section 754. This section extends the authority of the
Secretary of Agriculture to pay storage, handling, and other
associated costs for peanuts.
Section 755. This section facilitates travel related to
licensed sales of agricultural and medical goods to Cuba.
Section 756. This section provides emergency appropriations
for the Veterans Administration.
Section 757. This section expresses a sense of the Senate
regarding U.S. beef exports to Japan.
TITLE VIII
EMERGENCY AGRICULTURAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE
Commodity Credit Corporation Fund
CROP DISASTER ASSISTANCE
The Committee recommends emergency spending of such sums as
are necessary of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation,
estimated in fiscal year 2007 to be $1,016,000,000, to make
emergency financial assistance to producers on a farm that
incurred qualifying losses for the 2005 crop due to damaging
weather or damage that occurred due to Mormon Crickets in
Nevada and other insect infestations in other States. Crop
losses for the 2006 crop lost due to flooding in California,
Hawaii and Vermont that occurred prior to the date of enactment
are also covered.
LIVESTOCK ASSISTANCE
The Committee recommends emergency spending of such sums as
are necessary of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation,
estimated in fiscal year 2007 to be $1,020,000,000 to provide a
Livestock Compensation Program and Livestock Indemnity Payments
for losses during calendar years 2005 and 2006 that occurred
prior to the date of enactment due to a disaster, such as
wildfire losses in Texas and other States, and drought losses
in New Mexico and other States. Only producers in designated
disaster counties are eligible. The Committee recommendation
also includes emergency spending of $13,000,000 for a Ewe Lamb
Replacement and Retention Program.
FLOODED CROP AND GRAZING LAND
The Committee recommends emergency spending of $6,000,000
of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to assist
eligible owners of flooded farmland that has been unable to be
used for the 2 preceding crop years in the Devils Lake basin
and the McHugh, Lake Laretta, and Rose Lake areas of North
Dakota.
SUGAR BEET DISASTER ASSISTANCE
The Committee recommends emergency spending of $24,000,000
of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to assist
sugar beet producers that suffered production and quality
losses in the 2005 crop year.
The Committee recommends emergency spending of $6,000,000
of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to assist an
agricultural transportation cooperative in Hawaii.
BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS HERD INDEMNIFICATION
The Committee recommends emergency spending of $2,000,000
of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to indemnify
producers that suffered losses to herds of cattle due to bovine
tuberculosis during 2005.
REPLINISHEMENT OF SECTION 32
The Committee recommends emergency spending of $100,000,000
of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to make grants
to each State to promote and support specialty crop production.
SUPPLEMENTAL ECONOMIC LOSS PAYMENTS
The Committee recommends emergency spending of such sums as
are necessary of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation,
estimated in fiscal year 2007 to be $1,728,000,000, provides a
supplemental economic loss payment to producers of program
crops and dairy producers.
EMERGENCY WATERSHED PROTECTION PROGRAM
The Committee recommends an emergency appropriation of
$53,600,000 of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to
carry out emergency measures identified by the Chief of the
Natural Resources Conservation Service through the Emergency
Watershed Protection Program.
EMERGENCY CONSERVATION PROGRAM
The Committee recommends an emergency appropriation of
$17,000,000 of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to
carry out emergency measures in New Mexico and other States
that are identified by the Administrator of the Farm Service
Agency through the Emergency Conservation Program.
FUNDING FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL
The Committee recommends an emergency appropriation of
$13,400,000 of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to
hire additional County Farm Service Agency personnel to
expedite the implementation of the programs funded through this
title.
PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY
During fiscal year 2007, for purposes of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law
99-177) or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Reaffirmation Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-119), the following
information provides the definition of the term ``program,
project, and activity'' for departments and agencies under the
jurisdiction of the Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related
Agencies Subcommittee. The term ``program, project, and
activity'' shall include the most specific level of budget
items identified in the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2007, the House and Senate Committee reports, and the
conference report and accompanying joint explanatory statement
of the managers of the committee of conference.
If a sequestration order is necessary, in implementing the
Presidential order, departments and agencies shall apply any
percentage reduction required for fiscal year 2007 pursuant to
the provisions of Public Law 99-177 or Public Law 100-119 to
all items specified in the explanatory notes submitted to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate in support
of the fiscal year 2007 budget estimates, as amended, for such
departments and agencies, as modified by congressional action,
and in addition:
For the Agricultural Research Service the definition shall
include specific research locations as identified in the
explanatory notes and lines of research specifically identified
in the reports of the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees.
For the Natural Resources Conservation Service the
definition shall include individual flood prevention projects
as identified in the explanatory notes and individual
operational watershed projects as summarized in the notes.
For the Farm Service Agency the definition shall include
individual, regional, State, district, and county offices.
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports
accompanying general appropriations bills identify each
recommended amendment which proposes an item of appropriation
which is not made to carry out the provisions of an existing
law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously
passed by the Senate during that session.
The Committee recommends funding for the following programs
which currently lack authorization for fiscal year 2007:
--Commodity Futures Trading Commission;
--Food and Nutrition Service, Child and Adult Care Food
Program;
--Food and Drug Administration, Orphan Product Grants; and
--Food and Drug Administration, Sections 310 and 311 of the
Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness
and Response Act of 2002.
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(C), RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on June 22, 2006,
the Committee ordered reported, en bloc, H.R. 5384, making
appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes, with an
amendment in the nature of a substitute, and H.R. 5521, making
appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes, with an
amendment in the nature of a substitute, with each bill subject
to further amendment and subject to the budget allocation, by a
recorded vote of 28-0, a quorum being present. The vote was as
follows:
Yeas Nays
Chairman Cochran
Mr. Stevens
Mr. Specter
Mr. Domenici
Mr. Bond
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Burns
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Gregg
Mr. Bennett
Mr. Craig
Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. DeWine
Mr. Brownback
Mr. Allard
Mr. Byrd
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Reid
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray
Mr. Dorgan
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Durbin
Mr. Johnson
Ms. Landrieu
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports
on a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute
or part of any statute include ``(a) the text of the statute or
part thereof which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a
comparative print of that part of the bill or joint resolution
making the amendment and of the statute or part thereof
proposed to be amended, showing by stricken-through type and
italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical
devices the omissions and insertions which would be made by the
bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form recommended by
the committee.''
In compliance with this rule, the following changes in
existing law proposed to be made by the bill are shown as
follows: existing law to be omitted is enclosed in black
brackets; new matter is printed in italics; and existing law in
which no change is proposed is shown in roman.
TITLE 7--AGRICULTURE
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 50--AGRICULTURAL CREDIT
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER IV--ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1991. Definitions
(a) As used in this chapter:
(1) The term ``farmer'' includes a person who is
engaged in, or who, with assistance afforded under this
chapter, intends to engage in, fish farming and, in the
case of subtitle B, commercial fishing.
(2) The term ``farming'' shall be deemed to include
fish farming and, in the case of subtitle B, commercial
fishing.
* * * * * * *
(b) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) * * *
(c) Definition of Farm.--In subtitle B, the term ``farm''
includes a commercial fishing enterprise.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 64--AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, EXTENSION, AND TEACHING
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER VII--PROGRAMS FOR HISPANIC, ALASKA NATIVE, AND
NATIVEHAWAIIAN SERVING INSTITUTIONS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 3242. Education grants to Alaska Native serving institutions and
Native Hawaiian serving institutions
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Authorization of appropriations
There are authorized to be appropriated to make grants
under this subsection $10,000,000 in fiscal years 2001 through
[2006] 2011.
* * * * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Authorization of appropriations
There are authorized to be appropriated to make grants
under this subsection $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001
through [2006] 2011.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 87--EXPORT PROMOTION
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER II--AGRICULTURAL EXPORT PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
Part A--Programs
* * * * * * *
SEC. 5622. EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEE PROGRAM
(a) Short-term Credit Guarantees.--
* * * * * * *
[(b) Intermediate-term Credit Guarantees.--Subject to the
provisions of subsection (c) of this section, the Commodity
Credit Corporation may guarantee the repayment of credit made
available by financial institutions in the United States to
finance commercial export sales of agricultural commodities,
including processed agricultural products and high-value
agricultural products, from privately owned stocks on credit
terms that are for not less than a 3-year period nor for more
than a 10-year period in a manner that will directly benefit
United States agricultural producers.]
[(c) Required Determinations.--The Commodity Credit
Corporation shall not guarantee under subsection (b) of this
section the repayment of credit made available to finance an
export sale unless the Secretary determines that such sale
will--
[(1) develop, expand, or maintain the importing
country as a foreign market, on a long-term basis, for
the commercial sale and export of United States
agricultural commodities, without displacing normal
commercial sales;
[(2) improve the capability of the importing
country to purchase and use, on a long-term basis,
United States agricultural commodities; or
[(3) otherwise promote the export of United States
agricultural commodities.
[The reference in paragraphs (1) and (2) to ``on a long-term
basis'' shall not apply in the case of determinations with
respect to sales to the independent states of the former Soviet
Union.]
[(d)] (b) Purpose of Program.--The Commodity Credit
Corporation may use export credit guarantees authorized under
this section--
(1) to increase exports of agricultural
commodities;
(2) to compete against foreign agricultural
exports; and
(3) to assist countries in meeting their food and
fiber needs, particularly--
(A) developing countries; and
(B) countries that are emerging markets
that have committed to carry out, or are
carrying out, policies that promote economic
freedom, private domestic production of food
commodities for domestic consumption, and the
creation and expansion of efficient domestic
markets for the purchase and sale of
agricultural [commodities; and] commodities.
[(4) for such other purposes as the Secretary
determines appropriate, consistent with the provisions
of subsection (c) of this section.]
[(e)] (c) Restrictions on Use of Credit Guarantees.--Export
credit guarantees authorized by this section shall not be used
for foreign aid, foreign policy, or debt rescheduling purposes.
The provisions of the cargo preference laws shall not apply to
export sales with respect to which credit is guaranteed under
this section.
[(f)] (d) Restrictions.--
[(1) In general.--]The Commodity Credit Corporation
shall not make credit guarantees available in
connection with sales of agricultural commodities to
any country that the Secretary determines cannot
adequately service the debt associated with such sale.
[(2) Criteria for determination.--In making the
determination required under paragraph (1) with respect
to credit guarantees under subsection (b) of this
section for a country, the Secretary may consider, in
addition to financial, macroeconomic, and monetary
indicators--
[(A) whether an International Monetary Fund
standby agreement, Paris Club rescheduling
plan, or other economic restructuring plan is
in place with respect to the country;
[(B) whether the country is addressing
issues such as--
[(i) the convertibility of the
currency of the country;
[(ii) adequate legal protection for
foreign investments;
[(iii) the viability of the
financial markets of the country; and
[(iv) adequate legal protection for
the private property rights of citizens
of the country; or
[(C) any other factors that are relevant to
the ability of the country to service the debt
of the country.]
[(g)] (e) Terms.--Export credit guarantees issued pursuant
to this section shall contain such terms and conditions as the
Commodity Credit Corporation determines to be necessary.
[(h)] (f) United States Agricultural Commodities.--The
Commodity Credit Corporation shall finance or guarantee under
this section only United States agricultural commodities.
[(i)] (g) Ineligibility of Financial Institutions.--
(1) In general.--A financial institution shall be
ineligible to receive an assignment of a credit
guarantee issued by the Commodity Credit Corporation
under this section if it is determined by the
Corporation, at the time of the assignment, that such
financial institution--
(A) is the financial institution issuing
the letter of credit or a subsidiary of such
institution; or
(B) is owned or controlled by an entity
that owns or controls that financial
institution issuing the letter of credit.
(2) Third country banks.--The Commodity Credit
Corporation may guarantee under [subsections (a) and
(b)] subsection (a) of this section the repayment of
credit made available to finance an export sale
irrespective of whether the obligor is located in the
country to which the export sale is destined.
[(j)] (h) Conditions for Fish and Processed Fish
Products.--In making available any guarantees of credit under
this section in connection with sales of fish and processed
fish products, the Secretary shall make such guarantees
available under terms and conditions that are comparable to the
terms and conditions that apply to guarantees provided with
respect to sales of other agricultural commodities under this
section.
[(k)] (i) Processed and High-value Products.--
(1) In general.--In issuing export credit
guarantees under this section, the Commodity Credit
Corporation shall, subject to paragraph (2), ensure
that not less than 25 percent for each of fiscal years
1996 and 1997, 30 percent for each of fiscal years 1998
and 1999, and 35 percent for each of fiscal years 2000
through 2007, of the total amount of credit guarantees
issued for a fiscal year is issued to promote the
export of processed or high-value agricultural products
and that the balance is issued to promote the export of
bulk or raw agricultural commodities.
(2) Limitation.--The percentage requirement of
paragraph (1) shall apply for a fiscal year to the
extent that a reduction in the total amount of credit
guarantees issued for the fiscal year is not required
to meet the percentage requirement.
[(l)] (j) Consultation on Agricultural Export Credit
Programs.--The Secretary and the United States Trade
Representative shall consult on a regular basis with the
Committee on Agriculture, and the Committee on International
Relations, of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate on the
status of multilateral negotiations regarding agricultural
export credit programs.
* * * * * * *
Part B--Implementation
* * * * * * *
SEC. 5641. FUNDING LEVELS
* * * * * * *
(a) Direct Credit Programs.--The Commodity Credit
Corporation may make available for each fiscal year such funds
of the Commodity Credit Corporation as it determines necessary
to carry out any direct credit program established under
section 5621 of this title.
(b) Export Credit Guarantee Programs.--
[(1) Export credit guarantees.--]The Commodity
Credit Corporation shall make available for each of
fiscal years 1996 through 2007 not less than
$5,500,000,000 in credit guarantees under [subsections
(a) and (b)] subsection (a) of section 5622 of this
title.
[(2) Limitation on origination fee.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary may not charge an origination fee with
respect to any credit guarantee transaction under
section 5622(a) of this title in excess of an amount
equal to 1 percent of the amount of credit to be
guaranteed under the transaction, except with respect
to an export credit guarantee transaction pursuant to
section 1542(b) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation,
and Trade Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-624; 7 U.S.C.
5622 note).]
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 106--COMMODITY PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER III--PEANUTS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 7957. Marketing assistance loans and loan deficiency
payments for peanuts
(a) Nonrecourse loans available
(1) Availability * * *
* * * * * * *
(6) Payment of peanut storage costs
Effective for the 2002 through [2006] 2007 crops of
peanuts, to ensure proper storage of peanuts for which
a loan is made under this section, the Secretary shall
use the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to
pay storage, handling, and other associated costs. This
authority terminates beginning with the [2007] 2008
crop of peanuts.
* * * * * * *
TITLE 22--FOREIGN RELATIONS AND INTERCOURSE
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 79--TRADE SANCTIONS REFORM AND EXPORT ENHANCEMENT
* * * * * * *
Sec. 7209. Requirements relating to certain travel-related transactions
with Cuba
[(a) Authorization of travel relating to commercial sale of
agricultural commodities
[The Secretary of the Treasury shall promulgate regulations
under which the travel-related transactions listed in
subsection (c) of section 515.560 of title 31, Code of Federal
Regulations, may be authorized on a case-by-case basis by a
specific license for travel to, from, or within Cuba for the
commercial export sale of agricultural commodities pursuant to
the provisions of this chapter.]
(a) Authorization of Travel Relating to Commercial Sales of
Agricultural and Medical Goods.--The Secretary of the Treasury
shall promulgate regulations under which the travel-related
transactions listed in paragraph (c) of section 515.560 of
title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, are authorized by
general license for travel to, from, or within Cuba for the
purpose of conferring, exhibiting, marketing, planning, sales
negotiation, delivery, expediting, facilitating, or servicing
commercial export sale of agricultural and medical goods
pursuant to the provisions of this title.
* * * * * * *
RICHARD B. RUSSELL NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH ACT
* * * * * * *
PILOT PROJECTS
Sec. 18. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) Simplified Summer Food Programs.--
(1) Definition of eligible state.--In this
subsection, the term ``eligible State'' means--
(A) a State participating in the program
under this subsection as of May 1, [2004] 2006;
and
(B) a State in which (based on data
available in [June 2005] May 2006)--
(i) the percentage obtained by
dividing--
(I) the sum of--
(aa) the average
daily number of
children attending the
summer food service
program in the State in
July 2003; and
(bb) the average
daily number of
children receiving free
or reduced price meals
under the school lunch
program in the State in
July 2003; by
(II) the average daily
number of children receiving
free or reduced price meals
under the school lunch program
in the State in March 2003; is
less than
(ii) [75] 78 percent of the
percentage obtained by dividing--
* * * * * * *
HOUSING ACT OF 1949
* * * * * * *
PART X--RURAL HOUSING
* * * * * * *
TITLE V--FARM HOUSING
INSURANCE OF LOANS FOR THE PROVISION OF HOUSING AND RELATED FACILITIES
FOR DOMESTIC FARM LABOR
Sec. 514. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) As used in this section--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) the term ``domestic farm labor'' means any
person (and the family of such person) who receives a
substantial portion of his or her income from primary
production of agricultural or aquacultural commodities
or the handling of such commodities in the unprocessed
stage or the processing of such commodities, without
respect to the source of employment, except that--
* * * * * * *
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000, PUBLIC LAW 106-78
* * * * * * *
TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 759. Education Grants to Alaska Native Serving
Institutions and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions. (a)
Education Grants Program for Alaska Native Serving
Institutions.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to make grants under this
subsection $10,000,000 in fiscal years 2001 through
[2006] 2011.
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to make grants under this
subsection $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001
through [2006] 2011.
BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL
PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS
AMENDED
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget authority Outlays
---------------------------------------------------------
Committee Amount of Committee Amount of
allocation\1\ bill allocation\1\ bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee
allocations to its subcommittees of budget totals for
2007: Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies:
Mandatory......................................... 70,945 70,945 NA 52,946
Discretionary..................................... 18,200 18,200 NA \1\61,942
Projections of outlays associated with the
recommendation:
2007.............................................. .............. ........... .............. \2\61,942
2008.............................................. .............. ........... .............. 10,458
2009.............................................. .............. ........... .............. 845
2010.............................................. .............. ........... .............. 237
2011 and future years............................. .............. ........... .............. 131
Financial assistance to State and local governments NA 25,316 NA 22,934
for 2007............................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\2\Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
NA: Not applicable.
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Committee recommendation compared with (+ or
)
Item 2006 Budget estimate House allowance Committee -----------------------------------------------------
appropriation recommendation 2006
appropriation Budget estimate House allowance
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS
Production, Processing, and Marketing
Office of the Secretary........................................... 5,076 11,540 5,499 10,515 +5,439 -1,025 +5,016
Executive Operations:
Chief Economist............................................... 10,434 11,226 11,226 11,226 +792 ................ ................
National Appeals Division..................................... 14,379 14,795 14,795 14,795 +416 ................ ................
Office of Budget and Program Analysis......................... 8,215 8,479 8,479 8,479 +264 ................ ................
Homeland Security staff....................................... 925 1,114 954 954 +29 -160 ................
Office of the Chief Information Officer....................... 16,297 16,936 16,936 16,936 +639 ................ ................
Common computing environment.............................. 108,971 108,900 38,395 ................ -108,971 -108,900 -38,395
Office of the Chief Financial Officer......................... 5,815 19,931 5,991 11,667 +5,852 -8,264 +5,676
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Executive Operations................................. 165,036 181,381 96,776 64,057 -100,979 -117,324 -32,719
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights................ 813 836 836 836 +23 ................ ................
Office of Civil Rights............................................ 19,908 22,650 22,650 22,650 +2,742 ................ ................
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration.............. 669 773 736 681 +12 -92 -55
Agriculture buildings and facilities and rental payments.......... (185,857) (209,814) (206,669) (209,814) (+23,957) ................ (+3,145)
Payments to GSA............................................... 146,257 155,851 155,851 155,851 +9,594 ................ ................
Building operations and maintenance........................... 39,600 53,963 50,818 53,963 +14,363 ................ +3,145
Hazardous materials management.................................... 11,880 12,020 12,020 12,020 +140 ................ ................
Departmental administration....................................... 22,872 28,302 24,114 24,114 +1,242 -4,188 ................
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations..... 3,783 3,940 3,940 3,830 +47 -110 -110
Office of Communications.......................................... 9,414 9,695 9,695 9,695 +281 ................ ................
Office of the Inspector General................................... 79,533 82,493 82,493 82,493 +2,960 ................ ................
Office of the General Counsel..................................... 38,957 40,647 40,455 40,647 +1,690 ................ +192
Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Econom- 592 694 651 605 +13 -89 -46
ics.............................................................
Economic Research Service......................................... 75,172 82,544 80,963 75,963 +791 -6,581 -5,000
National Agricultural Statistics Service.......................... 139,293 152,584 148,219 148,719 +9,426 -3,865 +500
Census of Agriculture......................................... (28,824) (36,582) (36,582) (36,582) (+7,758) ................ ................
Agricultural Research Service:
Salaries and expenses......................................... 1,123,654 1,001,385 1,057,603 1,127,553 +3,899 +126,168 +69,950
Buildings and facilities...................................... 129,883 8,415 140,000 83,400 -46,483 +74,985 -56,600
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Agricultural Research Service........................ 1,253,537 1,009,800 1,197,603 1,210,953 -42,584 +201,153 +13,350
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service:
Research and education activities............................. 670,081 566,300 651,506 678,089 +8,008 +111,789 +26,583
Native American Institutions Endowment Fund................... (12,000) (11,880) (11,880) (11,880) (-120) ................ ................
Extension activities.......................................... 451,395 430,727 457,042 467,102 +15,707 +36,375 +10,060
Integrated activities......................................... 55,234 19,120 58,379 58,704 +3,470 +39,584 +325
Outreach for socially disadvantaged farmers................... 5,940 6,930 7,030 5,940 ................ -990 -1,090
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 1,182,650 1,023,077 1,173,957 1,209,835 +27,185 +186,758 +35,878
Service....................................................
Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Pro- 717 741 741 731 +14 -10 -10
grams............................................................
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service:
Salaries and expenses......................................... 807,306 945,153 921,616 900,423 +93,117 -44,730 -21,193
Animal welfare (user fees) (leg. proposal) NA............. ................ (8,221) ................ ................ ................ (-8,221) ................
Buildings and facilities...................................... 4,946 6,431 5,946 5,946 +1,000 -485 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service........... 812,252 951,584 927,562 906,369 +94,117 -45,215 -21,193
Agricultural Marketing Service:
Marketing Services............................................ 74,622 81,498 77,269 71,170 -3,452 -10,328 -6,099
Standardization (user fees) (leg. proposal) NA............ ................ (2,212) ................ ................ ................ (-2,212) ................
(Limitation on administrative expenses, from fees collected).. (65,667) (62,211) (62,211) (62,211) (-3,456) ................ ................
Funds for strengthening markets, income, and supply (transfer 16,055 4,106 16,425 16,425 +370 +12,319 ................
from section 32).............................................
Agriculture marketing service standardization (user fees) ................ (12,000) ................ ................ ................ (-12,000) ................
(leg. proposal) NA.......................................
Discretionary appropriations.............................. 20,000 ................ 9,900 10,000 -10,000 +10,000 +100
Payments to states and possessions............................ 3,809 1,334 1,334 3,834 +25 +2,500 +2,500
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Agricultural Marketing Service....................... 114,486 86,938 104,928 101,429 -13,057 +14,491 -3,499
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration:
Salaries and expenses......................................... 38,059 21,844 39,737 38,737 +678 +16,893 -1,000
Grain inspection, packers and stockyards administration ................ (19,663) ................ ................ ................ (-19,663) ................
(user fees) (leg. proposal) NA...........................
Limitation on inspection and weighing services................ (42,463) (42,463) (42,463) (42,463) ................ ................ ................
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety..................... 596 696 656 607 +11 -89 -49
Food Safety and Inspection Service................................ 829,378 757,470 853,249 865,905 +36,527 +108,435 +12,656
Food safety inspection (user fees) (leg. prop) NA............. ................ (105,435) ................ ................ ................ (-105,435) ................
Lab accreditation fees........................................ (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) ................ ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Production, Processing, and Marketing................ 4,990,530 4,692,063 5,034,149 5,041,205 +50,675 +349,142 +7,056
=============================================================================================================================
Farm Assistance Programs
Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural 629 737 691 640 +11 -97 -51
Services.........................................................
Farm Service Agency:
Salaries and expenses......................................... 1,019,700 1,091,359 1,053,760 1,151,779 +132,079 +60,420 +98,019
Loan deficiency payments (user fees) (leg. proposal) NA... ................ (10,000) ................ (10,000) (+10,000) ................ (+10,000)
Conservation reserve program (user fees) (leg. proposal) ................ (25,000) ................ (25,000) (+25,000) ................ (+25,000)
NA.......................................................
(Transfer from export loans).................................. (1,821) (346) (346) (346) (-1,475) ................ ................
(Transfer from Public Law 480)................................ (3,185) (2,651) (2,651) (2,651) (-534) ................ ................
(Transfer from ACIF).......................................... (301,545) (311,737) (307,338) (311,737) (+10,192) ................ (+4,399)
(Transfer from farm storage loan program account)............. ................ (4,560) ................ (4,560) (+4,560) ................ (+4,560)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, transfers from program accounts................... (306,551) (319,294) (310,335) (319,294) (+12,743) ................ (+8,959)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Salaries and expenses................................ (1,326,251) (1,410,653) (1,364,095) (1,471,073) (+144,822) (+60,420) (+106,978)
State mediation grants........................................ 4,208 4,208 4,208 4,208 ................ ................ ................
Grassroot source water protection program..................... 3,713 ................ 3,713 3,713 ................ +3,713 ................
Dairy indemnity program....................................... 100 100 100 100 ................ ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Farm Service Agency............................... 1,027,721 1,095,667 1,061,781 1,159,800 +132,079 +64,133 +98,019
Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account:
Loan authorizations:
Farm ownership loans:
Direct................................................ (205,918) (222,750) (222,750) (222,750) (+16,832) ................ ................
Guaranteed............................................ (1,386,000) (1,200,000) (1,200,000) (1,200,000) (-186,000) ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................ (1,591,918) (1,422,750) (1,422,750) (1,422,750) (-169,168) ................ ................
Farm operating loans:
Direct................................................ (643,500) (643,500) (643,500) (643,500) ................ ................ ................
Unsubsidized guaranteed............................... (1,138,500) (1,025,610) (1,150,000) (1,025,610) (-112,890) ................ (-124,390)
Subsidized guaranteed................................. (271,886) (272,250) (272,254) (272,250) (+364) ................ (-4)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................ (2,053,886) (1,941,360) (2,065,754) (1,941,360) (-112,526) ................ (-124,394)
Indian tribe land acquisition loans....................... (2,000) (3,960) (3,960) (3,960) (+1,960) ................ ................
Boll weevil eradication loans............................. (100,000) (59,400) (59,400) (59,400) (-40,600) ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan authorizations.............................. (3,747,804) (3,427,470) (3,551,864) (3,427,470) (-320,334) ................ (-124,394)
Loan subsidies:
Farm ownership loans:
Direct................................................ 10,544 9,333 9,333 9,333 -1,211 ................ ................
Guaranteed............................................ 6,653 ................ 6,960 6,960 +307 +6,960 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................ 17,197 9,333 16,293 16,293 -904 +6,960 ................
Farm operating loans:
Direct................................................ 64,028 75,225 75,225 75,225 +11,197 ................ ................
Unsubsidized guaranteed............................... 34,497 2,667 28,405 25,332 -9,165 +22,665 -3,073
Subsidized guaranteed................................. 33,986 24,720 27,416 27,416 -6,570 +2,696 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................ 132,511 102,612 131,046 127,973 -4,538 +25,361 -3,073
Indian tribe land acquisition............................. 80 838 838 838 +758 ................ ................
Boll weevil eradication loans............................. ................ 1,129 1,129 1,129 +1,129 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan subsidies................................... 149,788 113,912 149,306 146,233 -3,555 +32,321 -3,073
ACIF expenses:
Salaries and expense (transfer to FSA).................... 301,545 311,737 307,338 311,737 +10,192 ................ +4,399
Administrative expenses................................... 7,920 7,920 7,920 7,920 ................ ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, ACIF expenses.................................... 309,465 319,657 315,258 319,657 +10,192 ................ +4,399
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund............... 459,253 433,569 464,564 465,890 +6,637 +32,321 +1,326
(Loan authorization)................................ (3,747,804) (3,427,470) (3,551,864) (3,427,470) (-320,334) ................ (-124,394)
=============================================================================================================================
Total, Farm Service Agency.............................. 1,486,974 1,529,236 1,526,345 1,625,690 +138,716 +96,454 +99,345
=============================================================================================================================
Risk Management Agency............................................ 76,278 80,797 77,197 78,477 +2,199 -2,320 +1,280
=============================================================================================================================
Total, Farm Assistance Programs............................. 1,563,881 1,610,770 1,604,233 1,704,807 +140,926 +94,037 +100,574
=============================================================================================================================
Corporations
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation:
Federal crop insurance corporation fund....................... 3,159,379 4,131,035 4,131,035 4,131,035 +971,656 ................ ................
Commodity Credit Corporation Fund:
Reimbursement for net realized losses......................... 25,690,000 19,740,000 19,740,000 19,740,000 -5,950,000 ................ ................
Hazardous waste management (limitation on expenses)........... (5,000) (5,000) (5,000) (5,000) ................ ................ ................
Farm Storage Facility Loans Program Account:
Salaries and expenses:
Farm Service Agency (transfer to FSA)..................... ................ 4,560 ................ 4,560 +4,560 ................ +4,560
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Corporations..................................... 28,849,379 23,875,595 23,871,035 23,875,595 -4,973,784 ................ +4,560
=============================================================================================================================
Total, title I, Agricultural Programs................... 35,403,790 30,178,428 30,509,417 30,621,607 -4,782,183 +443,179 +112,190
(By transfer)....................................... (306,551) (319,294) (310,335) (319,294) (+12,743) ................ (+8,959)
(Loan authorization)................................ (3,747,804) (3,427,470) (3,551,864) (3,427,470) (-320,334) ................ (-124,394)
(Limitation on administrative expenses)............. (113,130) (109,674) (109,674) (109,674) (-3,456) ................ ................
=============================================================================================================================
TITLE II--CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environ- 737 957 ................ 752 +15 -205 +752
ment.............................................................
Natural Resources Conservation Service:
Conservation operations....................................... 831,124 744,877 791,498 835,331 +4,207 +90,454 +43,833
Watershed surveys and planning................................ 6,022 ................ 6,022 6,022 ................ +6,022 ................
Watershed and flood prevention operations..................... 74,250 ................ 40,000 62,070 -12,180 +62,070 +22,070
Watershed rehabilitation program.............................. 31,245 15,300 31,245 31,245 ................ +15,945 ................
Resource conservation and development......................... 50,787 25,933 50,787 50,787 ................ +24,854 ................
Healthy forests reserve program............................... ................ 2,475 ................ 5,000 +5,000 +2,525 +5,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Natural Resources Conservation Service............... 993,428 788,585 919,552 990,455 -2,973 +201,870 +70,903
=============================================================================================================================
Total, title II, Conservation Programs...................... 994,165 789,542 919,552 991,207 -2,958 +201,665 +71,655
=============================================================================================================================
TITLE III--RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development............... 629 823 692 640 +11 -183 -52
Rural Development:
Rural community advancement program........................... 694,922 600,762 704,893 714,958 +20,036 +114,196 +10,065
(Transfer out)............................................ (-25,740) ................ ................ (-26,000) (-260) (-26,000) (-26,000)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural community advancement program.............. 694,922 600,762 704,893 714,958 +20,036 +114,196 +10,065
RD expenses:
Salaries and expenses..................................... 162,979 170,741 182,860 176,522 +13,543 +5,781 -6,338
(Transfer from RHIF)...................................... (450,261) (455,776) (430,080) (455,776) (+5,515) ................ (+25,696)
(Transfer from MHRP)...................................... ................ ................ (990) ................ ................ ................ (-990)
(Transfer from RDLFP)..................................... (4,745) (4,950) (4,780) (4,950) (+205) ................ (+170)
(Transfer from RETLP)..................................... (38,396) (39,600) (39,101) (39,600) (+1,204) ................ (+499)
(Transfer from RTB)....................................... (2,475) ................ ................ ................ (-2,475) ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Transfers from program accounts............... (495,877) (500,326) (474,951) (500,326) (+4,449) ................ (+25,375)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, RD expenses...................................... (658,856) (671,067) (657,811) (676,848) (+17,992) (+5,781) (+19,037)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural Development................................ 857,901 771,503 887,753 891,480 +33,579 +119,977 +3,727
=============================================================================================================================
Rural Housing Service:
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account:
Loan authorizations:
Single family direct (sec. 502)....................... (1,129,391) (1,237,498) (1,237,498) (1,129,391) ................ (-108,107) (-108,107)
Unsubsidized guaranteed........................... (3,644,224) (3,564,238) (3,564,238) (3,644,223) (-1) (+79,985) (+79,985)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Single family......................... (4,773,615) (4,801,736) (4,801,736) (4,773,614) (-1) (-28,122) (-28,122)
Housing repair (sec. 504)............................. (34,652) (36,382) (36,382) (34,652) ................ (-1,730) (-1,730)
Rental housing (sec. 515)............................. (99,000) ................ (100,000) (100,000) (+1,000) (+100,000) ................
Site loans (sec. 524)................................. (5,000) (5,045) (5,045) (5,000) ................ (-45) (-45)
Multi-family housing guarantees (sec. 538)............ (99,000) (197,997) (100,000) (100,000) (+1,000) (-97,997) ................
Multi-family housing credit sales..................... (1,485) (1,482) (1,482) (1,482) (-3) ................ ................
Single family housing credit sales.................... (10,000) (10,000) (10,000) (10,000) ................ ................ ................
Self-help housing land develop. (sec. 523)............ (4,998) (4,980) (4,980) (4,980) (-18) ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan authorizations.......................... (5,027,750) (5,057,622) (5,059,625) (5,029,728) (+1,978) (-27,894) (-29,897)
Loan subsidies:
Single family direct (sec. 502)....................... 128,638 124,121 124,121 113,278 -15,360 -10,843 -10,843
Unsubsidized guaranteed........................... 40,491 7,772 7,772 42,641 +2,150 +34,869 +34,869
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Single family......................... 169,129 131,893 131,893 155,919 -13,210 +24,026 +24,026
Housing repair (sec. 504)............................. 10,136 10,751 10,751 10,240 +104 -511 -511
Rental housing (sec. 515)............................. 45,421 ................ 45,670 45,880 +459 +45,880 +210
Multi-family housing guarantees (sec. 538)............ 5,366 15,325 7,740 7,740 +2,374 -7,585 ................
Multi-family housing credit sales..................... 674 672 672 672 -2 ................ ................
Single family housing credit sales.................... ................ 48 48 48 +48 ................ ................
Self-help housing land develop. (sec. 523)............ 51 123 123 123 +72 ................ ................
Multi-family housing preservation..................... 8,910 ................ ................ ................ -8,910 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan subsidies............................... 239,687 158,812 196,897 220,622 -19,065 +61,810 +23,725
RHIF administrative expenses (transfer to RD)............. 450,261 455,776 430,080 455,776 +5,515 ................ +25,696
Rental assistance program:
(Sec. 521)............................................ 638,651 486,320 329,500 329,500 -309,151 -156,820 ................
(Sec. 502(c)(5)(D))................................... 7,920 ................ 5,900 5,900 -2,020 +5,900 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rental assistance program.................... 646,571 486,320 335,400 335,400 -311,171 -150,920 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural Housing Insurance Fund................. 1,336,519 1,100,908 962,377 1,011,798 -324,721 -89,110 +49,421
(Loan authorization)............................ (5,027,750) (5,057,622) (5,059,625) (5,029,728) (+1,978) (-27,894) (-29,897)
=============================================================================================================================
Rural housing voucher program................................. 15,840 ................ ................ ................ -15,840 ................ ................
Multifamily housing revitalization program account............ ................ 74,250 28,000 28,000 +28,000 -46,250 ................
MHRP administrative expenses (transfer to RD)................. ................ ................ 990 ................ ................ ................ -990
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Multifamily housing revitalization................... ................ 74,250 28,990 28,000 +28,000 -46,250 -990
Mutual and self-help housing grants........................... 33,660 37,620 37,620 33,660 ................ -3,960 -3,960
Rural housing assistance grants............................... 43,536 40,590 40,590 40,590 -2,946 ................ ................
Farm labor program account.................................... 30,856 33,798 47,525 30,643 -213 -3,155 -16,882
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, grants and payments............................... 108,052 112,008 125,735 104,893 -3,159 -7,115 -20,842
=============================================================================================================================
Total, Rural Housing Service................................ 1,460,411 1,287,166 1,117,102 1,144,691 -315,720 -142,475 +27,589
(Loan authorization).................................... (5,027,750) (5,057,622) (5,059,625) (5,029,728) (+1,978) (-27,894) (-29,897)
=============================================================================================================================
Rural Business-Cooperative Service:
Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account:
(Loan authorization)...................................... (33,870) (33,925) (33,925) (33,925) (+55) ................ ................
Loan subsidy.............................................. 14,571 14,951 14,951 14,951 +380 ................ ................
Administrative expenses (transfer to RD).................. 4,745 4,950 4,780 4,950 +205 ................ +170
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural Development Loan Fund...................... 19,316 19,901 19,731 19,901 +585 ................ +170
Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account:
(Loan authorization)...................................... (24,752) (34,652) (34,652) (34,652) (+9,900) ................ ................
Direct subsidy............................................ 4,943 7,568 7,568 7,568 +2,625 ................ ................
Rural cooperative development grants.......................... 29,193 27,225 9,913 29,500 +307 +2,275 +19,587
Rural empowerment zones and enterprise communities grants..... 11,088 ................ 11,088 10,000 -1,088 +10,000 -1,088
Renewable energy program...................................... 22,770 10,163 20,000 25,000 +2,230 +14,837 +5,000
=============================================================================================================================
Total, Rural Business-Cooperative Service................... 87,310 64,857 68,300 91,969 +4,659 +27,112 +23,669
(Loan authorization).................................... (58,622) (68,577) (68,577) (68,577) (+9,955) ................ ................
=============================================================================================================================
Rural Utilities Service:
Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program
Account:
Loan authorizations:
Electric:
Direct, 5 percent................................. (99,000) (99,018) (99,018) (99,000) ................ (-18) (-18)
Direct, Municipal rate............................ (99,000) (39,602) (99,000) (99,000) ................ (+59,398) ................
Direct, FFB....................................... (2,600,000) (3,000,000) (3,000,000) (5,000,000) (+2,400,000) (+2,000,000) (+2,000,000)
Direct, Treasury rate............................. (990,000) (700,000) (990,000) (990,000) ................ (+290,000) ................
Guaranteed electric............................... (99,000) ................ ................ (99,000) ................ (+99,000) (+99,000)
Guaranteed underwriting........................... (1,500,000) ................ (500,000) (1,500,000) ................ (+1,500,000) (+1,000,000)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Electric.............................. (5,387,000) (3,838,620) (4,688,018) (7,787,000) (+2,400,000) (+3,948,380) (+3,098,982)
Telecommunications:
Direct, 5 percent................................. (145,000) (143,513) (143,513) (143,513) (-1,487) ................ ................
Direct, Treasury rate............................. (419,760) (246,666) (246,666) (419,760) ................ (+173,094) (+173,094)
Direct, FFB....................................... (125,000) (299,000) (299,000) (299,000) (+174,000) ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Telecommunications.................... (689,760) (689,179) (689,179) (862,273) (+172,513) (+173,094) (+173,094)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan authorizations...................... (6,076,760) (4,527,799) (5,377,197) (8,649,273) (+2,572,513) (+4,121,474) (+3,272,076)
Loan subsidies:
Electric:
Direct, 5 percent................................. 911 2,119 2,119 2,119 +1,208 ................ ................
Direct, Municipal rate............................ 5,000 598 1,495 1,495 -3,505 +897 ................
Guaranteed electric............................... 89 ................ ................ 89 ................ +89 +89
Direct, Treasury rate............................. 99 ................ ................ ................ -99 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Electric.............................. 6,099 2,717 3,614 3,703 -2,396 +986 +89
Telecommunications:
Direct, 5 percent................................. ................ 531 531 531 +531 ................ ................
Direct, Treasury rate............................. 210 74 74 126 -84 +52 +52
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Telecommunications.................... 210 605 605 657 +447 +52 +52
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan subsidies........................... 6,309 3,322 4,219 4,360 -1,949 +1,038 +141
RETLP administrative expenses (transfer to RD).... 38,396 39,600 39,101 39,600 +1,204 ................ +499
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural Electrification and 44,705 42,922 43,320 43,960 -745 +1,038 +640
Telecommunications Loans Program Account.......
(Loan authorization)........................ (6,076,760) (4,527,799) (5,377,197) (8,649,273) (+2,572,513) (+4,121,474) (+3,272,076)
=============================================================================================================================
Rural Telephone Bank Program Account:
RTB administrative expenses (transfer to RD).............. 2,475 ................ ................ ................ -2,475 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural Telephone Bank Program Account............. 2,475 ................ ................ ................ -2,475 ................ ................
High energy costs grants (by transfer)........................ (26,000) ................ ................ (26,000) ................ (+26,000) (+26,000)
Distance learning, telemedicine, and broadband program:
Loan authorizations:
Distance learning and telemedicine.................... (24,750) ................ ................ ................ (-24,750) ................ ................
Broadband telecommunications.......................... (495,000) (356,419) (503,535) (500,000) (+5,000) (+143,581) (-3,535)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan authorizations.......................... (519,750) (356,419) (503,535) (500,000) (-19,750) (+143,581) (-3,535)
Loan subsidies:
Distance learning and telemedicine:
Direct............................................ 371 ................ ................ ................ -371 ................ ................
Grants............................................ 29,700 24,750 24,750 30,000 +300 +5,250 +5,250
Broadband telecommunications:
Direct............................................ 10,643 10,826 10,826 10,750 +107 -76 -76
Grants............................................ 8,910 ................ 8,910 10,000 +1,090 +10,000 +1,090
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan subsidies and grants................ 49,624 35,576 44,486 50,750 +1,126 +15,174 +6,264
=============================================================================================================================
Total, Rural Utilities Service.................. 96,804 78,498 87,806 94,710 -2,094 +16,212 +6,904
(Loan authorization)........................ (6,596,510) (4,884,218) (5,880,732) (9,149,273) (+2,552,763) (+4,265,055) (+3,268,541)
=============================================================================================================================
Total, title III, Rural Economic and Community 2,503,055 2,202,847 2,161,653 2,223,490 -279,565 +20,643 +61,837
Development Programs...........................
(By transfer)............................... (521,877) (500,326) (474,951) (526,326) (+4,449) (+26,000) (+51,375)
(Loan authorization)........................ (11,682,882) (10,010,417) (11,008,934) (14,247,578) (+2,564,696) (+4,237,161) (+3,238,644)
=============================================================================================================================
TITLE IV--DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer 593 732 652 604 +11 -128 -48
Services.........................................................
Food and Nutrition Service:
Child nutrition programs...................................... 7,473,208 7,763,200 7,610,897 7,614,414 +141,206 -148,786 +3,517
Transfer from section 32.................................. 5,187,621 5,582,287 5,734,590 5,731,073 +543,452 +148,786 -3,517
Contingency reserve........................................... ................ 300,000 ................ 300,000 +300,000 ................ +300,000
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Pilot program................... ................ ................ ................ 9,000 +9,000 +9,000 +9,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Child nutrition programs......................... 12,660,829 13,645,487 13,345,487 13,654,487 +993,658 +9,000 +309,000
Special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and 5,204,430 5,200,000 5,244,000 5,264,000 +59,570 +64,000 +20,000
children (WIC)...............................................
Food stamp program:
Expenses.................................................. 36,045,026 33,186,215 33,159,215 33,159,215 -2,885,811 -27,000 ................
Indian reservations (FDPIR)........................... 2,970 ................ ................ ................ -2,970 ................ ................
Armed forces provision.................................... 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 ................ ................ ................
Reserve................................................... 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 ................ ................ ................
Nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico and Samoa............ 1,522,369 1,565,016 1,565,016 1,565,016 +42,647 ................ ................
The emergency food assistance program..................... 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 ................ ................ ................
CSFP transitional benefit................................. ................ 21,000 ................ ................ ................ -21,000 ................
CSFP nutrition education.............................. ................ 2,000 ................ ................ ................ -2,000 ................
CSFP food Stamp expenses.............................. ................ 19,000 ................ ................ ................ -19,000 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Food stamp program........................... 40,711,365 37,934,231 37,865,231 37,865,231 -2,846,134 -69,000 ................
Commodity assistance program.................................. 177,572 70,370 189,370 179,366 +1,794 +108,996 -10,004
Nutrition programs administration............................. 139,353 160,429 142,314 143,114 +3,761 -17,315 +800
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Food and Nutrition Service........................... 58,893,549 57,010,517 56,786,402 57,106,198 -1,787,351 +95,681 +319,796
=============================================================================================================================
Total, title IV, Domestic Food Programs..................... 58,894,142 57,011,249 56,787,054 57,106,802 -1,787,340 +95,553 +319,748
=============================================================================================================================
TITLE V--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS
Foreign Agricultural Service:
Salaries and expenses, direct appropriation................... 146,422 157,486 156,486 156,186 +9,764 -1,300 -300
(Transfer from export loans).................................. (3,406) (4,985) (4,985) (4,985) (+1,579) ................ ................
(Transfer from Public Law 480)................................ (166) ................ ................ ................ (-166) ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Salaries and expenses program level.................. (149,994) (162,471) (161,471) (161,171) (+11,177) (-1,300) (-300)
Public Law 480 Program and Grant Accounts:
Program account:
Loan authorization, direct................................ (74,032) ................ ................ ................ (-74,032) ................ ................
Loan subsidies............................................ 64,390 ................ ................ ................ -64,390 ................ ................
Ocean freight differential grants......................... 11,821 ................ ................ ................ -11,821 ................ ................
Title II--Commodities for disposition abroad:
Program level............................................. (1,138,500) (1,218,500) (1,223,100) (1,225,000) (+86,500) (+6,500) (+1,900)
Appropriation............................................. 1,138,500 1,218,500 1,223,100 1,225,000 +86,500 +6,500 +1,900
Salaries and expenses:
Foreign Agricultural Service (transfer to FAS)............ 166 ................ ................ ................ -166 ................ ................
Farm Service Agency (transfer to FSA)..................... 3,185 2,651 2,651 2,651 -534 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ 3,351 2,651 2,651 2,651 -700 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Public Law 480:
Program level....................................... (1,138,500) (1,218,500) (1,223,100) (1,225,000) (+86,500) (+6,500) (+1,900)
Appropriation....................................... 1,218,062 1,221,151 1,225,751 1,227,651 +9,589 +6,500 +1,900
=============================================================================================================================
CCC Export Loans Program Account (administrative expenses):
Salaries and expenses (Export Loans):
General Sales Manager (transfer to FAS)................... 3,406 4,985 4,985 4,985 +1,579 ................ ................
Farm Service Agency (transfer to FSA)..................... 1,821 346 346 346 -1,475 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, CCC Export Loans Program Account................. 5,227 5,331 5,331 5,331 +104 ................ ................
McGovern-Dole international food for education and child nutrition 99,000 99,000 100,000 100,000 +1,000 +1,000 ................
program grants...................................................
=============================================================================================================================
Total, title V, Foreign Assistance and Related Programs..... 1,468,711 1,482,968 1,487,568 1,489,168 +20,457 +6,200 +1,600
(By transfer)........................................... (3,572) (4,985) (4,985) (4,985) (+1,413) ................ ................
=============================================================================================================================
TITLE VI--RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
Salaries and expenses, direct appropriation....................... 1,466,801 1,540,399 1,538,452 1,565,716 +98,915 +25,317 +27,264
Prescription Drug User Fee Act................................ (305,332) (320,600) (320,600) (320,600) (+15,268) ................ ................
Medical Device User Fee Act................................... (40,300) (43,726) (43,726) (43,726) (+3,426) ................ ................
Animal Drug User Fee Act...................................... (11,318) (11,604) (11,604) (11,604) (+286) ................ ................
Reinspection fees (user fees) (leg. prop) NA.................. ................ (22,000) ................ ................ ................ (-22,000) ................
Food export fees (user fees) (leg. prop) NA................... ................ (3,536) ................ ................ ................ (-3,536) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... (1,823,751) (1,916,329) (1,914,382) (1,941,646) (+117,895) (+25,317) (+27,264)
Mammography clinics user fee (outlay savings)................. (17,173) (17,522) (17,522) (17,522) (+349) ................ ................
Export and color certification................................ (7,640) (8,481) (8,481) (8,481) (+841) ................ ................
Payments to GSA............................................... (134,853) (146,013) (146,013) (146,013) (+11,160) ................ ................
Buildings and facilities.......................................... 7,920 4,950 4,950 4,950 -2,970 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Food and Drug Administration......................... 1,474,721 1,545,349 1,543,402 1,570,666 +95,945 +25,317 +27,264
=============================================================================================================================
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.............................. 97,402 127,000 109,402 99,502 +2,100 -27,498 -9,900
Transaction fees (user fees) (leg. prop) NA................... ................ (127,000) ................ ................ ................ (-127,000) ................
Farm Credit Administration (limitation on administrative expenses) (44,250) ................ (44,250) (44,250) ................ (+44,250) ................
=============================================================================================================================
Total, title VI, Related Agencies and Food and Drug 1,572,123 1,672,349 1,652,804 1,670,168 +98,045 -2,181 +17,364
Administration.............................................
=============================================================================================================================
TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Hunger fellowships (sec. 716)..................................... 2,500 ................ 2,500 2,500 ................ +2,500 ................
National Sheep Industry Improvement Center revolving fund (sec. 1,238 ................ 250 1,000 -238 +1,000 +750
717).............................................................
Denali Commission................................................. 743 ................ ................ 750 +7 +750 +750
Section 32 (rescission) (sec. 740)................................ -37,601 ................ -9,900 -9,900 +27,701 -9,900 ................
Milk processing and packaging facilities.......................... 644 ................ ................ ................ -644 ................ ................
Alaska private lands wildlife management.......................... 198 ................ ................ ................ -198 ................ ................
Livestock Expo Center............................................. 990 ................ ................ ................ -990 ................ ................
Wisconsin Federation of Cooperatives.............................. 2,228 ................ ................ ................ -2,228 ................ ................
WIC contingency reserve (rescission).............................. -32,000 ................ ................ ................ +32,000 ................ ................
Specialty crop grants (sec. 736).................................. 6,930 ................ 15,600 10,000 +3,070 +10,000 -5,600
SFSP Summer food service program.................................. 1,000 ................ ................ ................ -1,000 ................ ................
Healthy Forest Reserve............................................ 2,475 ................ ................ ................ -2,475 ................ ................
Fruit and vegetable pilot program (sec. 738)...................... 6,000 ................ 25,000 ................ -6,000 ................ -25,000
World food prize.................................................. 347 ................ ................ ................ -347 ................ ................
Utah State........................................................ 198 ................ ................ ................ -198 ................ ................
University of Nevada.............................................. 139 ................ ................ ................ -139 ................ ................
Ohio State University............................................. 396 ................ ................ ................ -396 ................ ................
Nueces County..................................................... 495 ................ ................ ................ -495 ................ ................
IRP Choctaw....................................................... 990 ................ ................ 1,000 +10 +1,000 +1,000
High energy cost grants (rescission) (sec. 744)................... ................ -25,265 -25,265 ................ ................ +25,265 +25,265
MILC extension (sec. 752)......................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
National Center for Natural Products Research..................... ................ ................ ................ 4,000 +4,000 +4,000 +4,000
Export credit (rescission)........................................ ................ ................ ................ -12,000 -12,000 -12,000 -12,000
Veterans Administration (emergency)............................... ................ ................ ................ 160,000 +160,000 +160,000 +160,000
=============================================================================================================================
Total, title VII, General provisions........................ -42,090 -25,265 8,185 157,350 +199,440 +182,615 +149,165
=============================================================================================================================
TITLE VIII--EMERGENCY AGRICLTURAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE
Department of Agriculture
Commodity Credit Corparation Fund:
Emergency Agriculture Disaster (emergency).................... ................ ................ ................ 3,999,000 +3,999,000 +3,999,000 +3,999,000
=============================================================================================================================
OTHER APPROPRIATIONS
EMERG. SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPS. FOR DEFENSE, THE GLOBAL WAR ON
TERROR, AND TSUNAMI RELIEF, 2005 (PUBLIC LAW 109-13)
Foreign Agricultural Service:
Public Law 480 Title II Grants (emergency).................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Natural Resources Conservation Service:
Emergency watershed protection program (emergency)............ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Public Law 109-13 (emergency)........................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
=============================================================================================================================
DEMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT TO ADDRESS HURRICANES
IN THE GULF OF MEXICO AND PANDEMIC INFLUENZA, 2006 (PUBLIC LAW 109-
148, DIVISION B)
TITLE I, CHAPTER 1
Department of Agriculture
Executive Operations, Working capital fund (emerg.)............... 35,000 ................ ................ ................ -35,000 ................ ................
Agricultural Research Service
Buildings and facilities (emergency).............................. 9,200 ................ ................ ................ -9,200 ................ ................
Rural Development
Rural community advancement program (emergency)................... 45,000 ................ ................ ................ -45,000 ................ ................
Rural Housing Service
Rural housing insurance fund program (emergency).................. 45,000 ................ ................ ................ -45,000 ................ ................
Rural housing assistance grants (emergency)....................... 20,000 ................ ................ ................ -20,000 ................ ................
Rural Utilities Service
Rural electrification and telecom (emergency)..................... 8,000 ................ ................ ................ -8,000 ................ ................
Food and Nutrition Service
Commodity assistance program (emergency).......................... 4,000 ................ ................ ................ -4,000 ................ ................
The emergency food assistance program (emergency)................. 6,000 ................ ................ ................ -6,000 ................ ................
General Provisions
Emergency conservation program (emergency)........................ 199,800 ................ ................ ................ -199,800 ................ ................
Watershed and flood prevention operations (emergency)............. 300,000 ................ ................ ................ -300,000 ................ ................
Emergency forestry conservation reserve program................... 50,000 ................ ................ ................ -50,000 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Title I, Chapter 1 (emergency)....................... 722,000 ................ ................ ................ -722,000 ................ ................
TITLE II, CHAPTER 1
Department of Agriculture
Office of the Secretary (emergency)............................... 11,350 ................ ................ ................ -11,350 ................ ................
Agricultural Research Service
Salaries and expenses (emergency)................................. 7,000 ................ ................ ................ -7,000 ................ ................
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
Research and educational activities (emergency)................... 1,500 ................ ................ ................ -1,500 ................ ................
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Salaries and expenses (emergency)................................. 71,500 ................ ................ ................ -71,500 ................ ................
Department of Health and Human Services
Salaries and expenses (emergency)................................. 20,000 ................ ................ ................ -20,000 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Title II, Chapter 1 (emergency)...................... 111,350 ................ ................ ................ -111,350 ................ ................
TITLE III, CHAPTER 1
Department of Agriculture
Natural Resources Conservation Service: Conservation Operations -10,000 ................ ................ ................ +10,000 ................ ................
(rescission).....................................................
Rural Utilities Service
Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband direct loan -9,900 ................ ................ ................ +9,900 ................ ................
financing (rescission)...........................................
Food and Nutrition Service: Food Stamp Program (rescission)....... -11,200 ................ ................ ................ +11,200 ................ ................
Foreign Agricultural Service
Public Law 480 Title I Ocean Freight Differential Grants -35,000 ................ ................ ................ +35,000 ................ ................
(rescission).....................................................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Title III, Chapter 1 (rescissions)................... -66,100 ................ ................ ................ +66,100 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Public Law 109-148................................... 767,250 ................ ................ ................ -767,250 ................ ................
Emergency appropriations................................ 833,350 ................ ................ ................ -833,350 ................ ................
(Rescissions)............................................... (-66,100) ................ ................ ................ (+66,100) ................ ................
EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR
AND HURRICANE RELIEF, 2006
Title I--The Golbal War on Terror Supplemental
Department of Agriculture
Foreign Agricultural Service
Public Law 480 Title II Grants(emergency appropriation............ 350,000 ................ ................ ................ -350,000 ................ ................
Title II--Further Hurricane Disaster Relief Recovery
Chapter 1
Department of Agriculture
Executive Operations
Working Capital fund (emergency appropriations)................... 25,000 ................ ................ ................ -25,000 ................ ................
Office of the Inspector General
Salaries and expenses (emergency appropriations).................. 445,000 ................ ................ ................ -445,000 ................ ................
Agricultural Research Service
Salaries and expenses (emergency appropriations).................. 10,000 ................ ................ ................ -10,000 ................ ................
Buildings and facilities (emergency appropriations)............... 20,000 ................ ................ ................ -20,000 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... 30,000 ................ ................ ................ -30,000 ................ ................
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Emergency Watershead Protection Program (emergency appropria- 50,955 ................ ................ ................ -50,955 ................ ................
tions)...........................................................
Rural Development
Salaries and expenses (emergency appropriations).................. 1,000 ................ ................ ................ -1,000 ................ ................
Rural Community Advancement Program (emergency appropriations).... 25,000 ................ ................ ................ -25,000 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... 26,000 ................ ................ ................ -26,000 ................ ................
Title III--Emergency Agricultural Disaster Assistance
Department of Agriculture
Corporations
Commodity Credit Corporation Fund:
Emergency Agricultural Disaster (emergency appropriations).... 409,000 ................ ................ ................ -409,000 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Public Law 109-234................................... 1,335,955 ................ ................ ................ -1,335,955 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Other appropriations................................. 2,103,205 ................ ................ ................ -2,103,205 ................ ................
=============================================================================================================================
Grand total................................................. 102,897,101 93,312,118 93,526,233 98,258,792 -4,638,309 +4,946,674 +4,732,559
Appropriations.......................................... (100,863,497) (93,337,383) (93,561,398) (94,121,692) (-6,741,805) (+784,309) (+560,294)
Emergency Appropriations................................ 2,169,305 ................ ................ 4,159,000 +1,989,695 +4,159,000 +4,159,000
Rescissions............................................. (-135,701) (-25,265) (-35,165) (-21,900) (+113,801) (+3,365) (+13,265)
(By transfer)............................................... (832,000) (824,605) (790,271) (850,605) (+18,605) (+26,000) (+60,334)
(Loan authorization)........................................ (15,504,718) (13,437,887) (14,560,798) (17,675,048) (+2,170,330) (+4,237,161) (+3,114,250)
(Limitation on administrative expenses)..................... (157,380) (109,674) (153,924) (153,924) (-3,456) (+44,250) ................
=============================================================================================================================
RECAPITULATION
Title I--Agricultural programs.................................... 35,403,790 30,178,428 30,509,417 30,621,607 -4,782,183 +443,179 +112,190
Mandatory..................................................... (28,865,534) (23,875,241) (23,887,560) (23,887,560) (-4,977,974) (+12,319) ................
Discretionary................................................. (6,538,256) (6,303,187) (6,621,857) (6,734,047) (+195,791) (+430,860) (+112,190)
Title II--Conservation programs (discretionary)................... 994,165 789,542 919,552 991,207 -2,958 +201,665 +71,655
Title III--Rural economic and community development programs 2,503,055 2,202,847 2,161,653 2,223,490 -279,565 +20,643 +61,837
(discretionary)..................................................
Title IV--Domestic food programs (discretionary).................. 58,894,142 57,011,249 56,787,054 57,106,802 -1,787,340 +95,553 +319,748
Mandatory..................................................... (53,368,224) (51,536,718) (51,209,718) (51,509,718) (-1,858,506) (-27,000) (+300,000)
Discretionary................................................. (5,525,918) (5,474,531) (5,577,336) (5,597,084) (+71,166) (+122,553) (+19,748)
Title V--Foreign assistance and related programs (discretionary).. 1,468,711 1,482,968 1,487,568 1,489,168 +20,457 +6,200 +1,600
Title VI--Related agencies and Food and Drug Administration 1,572,123 1,672,349 1,652,804 1,670,168 +98,045 -2,181 +17,364
(discretionary)..................................................
Title VII--General provisions (discretionary)..................... -42,090 -25,265 8,185 157,350 +199,440 +182,615 +149,165
Title VIII--Emergency Agricultural Disasater Assistance ................ ................ ................ 3,999,000 +3,999,000 +3,999,000 +3,999,000
(discretion- ary)...............................................
Other appropriations (discretionary).............................. 2,103,205 ................ ................ ................ -2,103,205 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 102,897,101 93,312,118 93,526,233 98,258,792 -4,638,309 +4,946,674 +4,732,559
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
