26–264 

115TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 115–232 

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG 

ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2018 

JULY 17, 2017.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. ADERHOLT, from the Committee on Appropriations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 3268] 

The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in 

explanation of the accompanying bill making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and 

Related Agencies for fiscal year 2018. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Title I—Agricultural Programs ............................................................................... 4 

Title II—Farm Production and Conservation Programs ...................................... 39 

Title III—Rural Development Programs ............................................................... 46 

Title IV—Domestic Food Programs ........................................................................ 56 

Title V—Foreign Assistance and Related Programs ............................................. 61 

Title VI—Related Agencies and Food and Drug Administration ......................... 64 

Title VII—General Provisions ................................................................................. 80 

OVERVIEW 

The Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee has jurisdiction over the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), except for the Forest Service, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), and the Farm Credit Administration (FCA). The Subcommittee’s responsibility covers a vast and 

diverse group of agencies responsible for such things as promoting 

2 

the production of a plentiful food supply; assisting farmers and 

ranchers across the country with sound production practices; improving the quality of life and vitality of communities in rural 

America; assisting indigent populations in the U.S. and abroad 

with basic nutritional needs; research and development in agriculture to improve productivity and stability; overseeing commodity 

markets that provide confidence for businesses, traders, investors, 

and the public; supporting a safe food supply; and safe and effective drugs and medical devices. The activities of these agencies impact every American every day of the year. 

The funding levels provided in this appropriations bill continue 

to demonstrate how seriously this Committee takes its responsibility to fund the highest priority programs and activities while 

helping to address the nation’s debt, deficit, and economic challenges. 

The Committee does not include funding to begin new programs 

and, except where specifically noted, does not provide additional 

funding for pay increases. The Committee identifies savings of almost $1,000,000,000 at USDA and reins in regulatory overreach at 

the FDA, USDA, and CFTC. 

OVERSIGHT AND HEARINGS

Consistent with the Committee on Appropriations Oversight 

Plan, as approved and transmitted to the Committee on Oversight 

and Government Reform and the Committee on House Administration in January of 2017, the Subcommittee began the fiscal year 

2018 process committed to maintaining the Committee’s focus on 

comprehensive oversight of federal discretionary spending under 

the Subcommittee’s jurisdiction. In order to thoroughly review the 

President’s budget request for fiscal year 2018 and examine how 

funds appropriated in previous years had been managed, the Subcommittee held six hearings for the agencies and programs of the 

USDA, the FDA, CFTC and the FCA. The hearings included: 

USDA Inspector General—February 15, 2017 

Farm Credit Administration—February 28, 2017 

Member Day—March 9, 2017 

Secretary of Agriculture—May 24, 2017 

Food and Drug Administration—May 25, 2017 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission—June 8, 2017 

As stewards of the taxpayer’s dollar, the Subcommittee is responsible for ensuring that the funds under its jurisdiction are wisely 

invested and properly used. As such, the Subcommittee established 

four objectives to guide its hearings, oversight activities, and the 

development of its bill and report recommendations for fiscal year 

2018. These objectives include evaluating and accounting for taxpayer dollars to guarantee efficiency and accountability; investing 

in rural infrastructure as a catalyst for growth; ensuring support 

for American farmers, ranchers, and producers; and protecting the 

health of people, plants, and animals. 

Through its oversight activities, the Subcommittee can accomplish its goal of improving the management of agencies and programs by identifying and reducing waste, fraud, and abuse. It is 

joined in this effort by USDA’s Inspector General, CFTC’s Inspector 

General, and the Inspector General’s Office of the Department of 

Health and Human Services. During the hearing with USDA’s OfVerDate Sep 11 2014 13:29 Jul 18, 2017 Jkt 026262 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR232.XXX HR232
3 

fice of the Inspector General (OIG), the Subcommittee focused on 

USDA financial statements, improper payments, and how well 

USDA’s agencies are managing their programs. 

For the first time since 1998, the Farm Credit Administration 

testified before the Agriculture Subcommittee. The Subcommittee 

discussed FCA’s role in providing access to credit, the critical safety 

net for our nation’s producers, and the state of the American farm 

economy. 

The Subcommittee questioned the Secretary of Agriculture about 

spending reductions included in USDA’s budget request that are 

proposed for some of USDA’s most popular and successful programs, such as Rural Development loan and grant programs and 

food aid programs. The Subcommittee also discussed USDA’s proposal to reorganize several mission areas and create an Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs as directed by the 

2014 Farm Bill. 

When the Subcommittee heard from the FDA, it focused on preventing burdensome regulations for producers and the American 

people, in addition to ongoing discussions of how the FDA is implementing the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), addressing 

opioid abuse, and regulation of tobacco products. The FDA regulates over 20 percent of every consumer dollar spent on products 

in the U.S., and so the Subcommittee reminded the FDA to be 

aware of the comprehensive economic impact of their regulatory decisions. 

While examining CFTC’s budget request, the Subcommittee acknowledged the submission provided by the President for a funding 

level of $250,000,000. The Subcommittee reviewed how federal 

labor laws and collective bargaining agreements can create a coercive deficiency requiring an Act of Congress to avoid furloughs or 

terminations at the agency. Finally, the Subcommittee continued 

its oversight into policy issues including a scheduled, automatic reduction of the Swap Dealer de Minimis level. 

Because the Subcommittee knows that it cannot fulfill all requests for funding, it focuses on those areas that are most effective, 

broadly supported, and capable of delivering positive outcomes and 

a substantial return on investment. The Subcommittee will monitor 

the issues identified by its constituents and other stakeholders, 

those issues discussed at the hearings, and other high priority matters relevant to the management of USDA, FDA, CFTC, and FCA. 

The Subcommittee will maintain its oversight efforts throughout 

the 115th Congress to ensure taxpayer dollars are wisely and prudently used on behalf of the American people. 

4 

TITLE I 

AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS 

PROCESSING, RESEARCH AND MARKETING

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $44,555,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... 42,064,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 21,703,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥22,852,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥20,361,000 

The following table reflects the amount provided by the Committee for each office and activity: 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

FY 2017 

Enacted 

FY 2018 

Estimate 

Committee 

Provision 

Office of the Secretary ........................................................................................................ $5,051 $4,859 $4,850 

Office of Tribal Relations ................................................................................................... 502 501 501 

Assistant to the Secretary for Rural Development ............................................................. – – – – – – 800 

Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Coordination ............................................... 1,496 1,448 1,448 

Office of Advocacy and Outreach ....................................................................................... 1,209 1,171 1,171 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration ......................................................... 804 802 800 

Departmental Administration .............................................................................................. 24,124 22,501 2,781 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations ......................................... 3,869 3,521 3,091 

Office of Communications .................................................................................................. 7,500 7,261 6,261 

Total ........................................................................................................................... $44,555 $42,064 $21,703 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Secretary, the Committee provides an appropriation of $21,703,000. The Committee recommendation includes the following offices under the Office of the Secretary: immediate Office of the Secretary; Office of Tribal Relations; Assistant 

to the Secretary for Rural Development; Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Coordination; Office of Advocacy and Outreach; 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration; Departmental 

Administration; Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional 

Relations; and Office of Communications. 

Pay Cost.—The Committee does not include requested funding 

for a civilian pay increase across the Department. Should the President provide a civilian pay increase for fiscal year 2018, it is assumed that the cost of such a pay increase will be absorbed within 

existing appropriations for fiscal year 2018. 

Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) Obligations and Commitments.—The Secretary is directed to notify the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate in writing 15 days prior to 

the obligation or commitment of any emergency funds from the 

CCC. 

CCC Report.—The Committee directs the Secretary to provide a 

report on November 15, 2017, and May 16, 2018, on planned uses 

5 

of funding under the authorities of Section 4 and Section 11 of the 

CCC Charter Act. 

Crop Biotechnology & Biotech Ingredients.—Public and private 

sector scientists knowledgeable in genetic engineering, toxicology, 

chemistry, nutrition, and other scientific areas have carefully evaluated and assessed the safety of genetically engineered plants, 

food, and food ingredients and have determined that such products 

are safe for human and animal consumption. The Committee directs USDA to continue coordination efforts with the FDA to provide education and outreach to the public on the safety and benefits of crop biotechnology and food and animal feed ingredients derived from biotechnology. 

Nutrition Research Coordination.—The Committee seeks to bring 

more transparency and coordination to nutrition research and evaluation projects conducted by the Department. The Secretary is directed to ensure both the Research, Education, and Economics 

(REE) and the Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services mission 

areas coordinate and finalize the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) 

Research and Evaluation Plan submitted in fiscal year 2018 to prevent duplication of efforts and resources. The plan submitted for 

fiscal year 2018 shall include a brief description of the projects 

FNS expects to pursue and whether or not it was mandated by law. 

Section 731 of the bill states that FNS shall not receive any 

funding for new research and evaluation projects in fiscal year 

2018 until the Committees on Appropriations of the House and 

Senate receive the fiscal year 2018 Research and Evaluation Plan 

that has been developed in coordination with REE. In submitting 

the fiscal year 2019 budget justification, FNS is directed to provide 

its Research and Evaluation Plan simultaneously with its budget 

request. There is an expectation that this process will be followed 

in the future. 

Improper Payments, Unachieved Savings, and Financial Management.—The Committee remains concerned with USDA’s overall 

management of crucial financial issues that result in savings, efficiencies, and transparency for taxpayers. USDA has not complied 

with improper payment requirements for five consecutive years. 

Progress has been made in the area of financial statement accuracy 

and reporting, but work remains. OIG has also identified in open 

recommendations $724,000,000 in unachieved savings at USDA. 

Congressional Relations Allocation Notification.—Within 30 days 

of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall notify the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate on the allocation 

of the funds provided to the Assistant Secretary for Congressional 

Relations by USDA agency, along with an explanation for the agency-by-agency distribution of the funds. 

State Office Co-location.—The Committee continues to direct that 

any reallocation of resources related to the co-location of state offices scheduled for fiscal year 2018 and subsequent years is subject 

to the Committee’s reprogramming procedures required under law. 

Administrative Provision.—The Committee directs the Secretary 

to advise the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate, through the Office of Budget and Program Analysis (OBPA), 

of the status of all reports requested of the Department in this bill 

at the time of submission of the fiscal year 2019 budget request 

6 

and monthly thereafter. All correspondence related to the directives 

in this bill must be addressed to the Committee on Appropriations. 

Loan and Grant Programs.—The Committee directs the Department, through OBPA, to provide quarterly reports to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate on the status of 

obligations and funds availability for the loan and grant programs 

provided in this bill. 

The Committee further directs that if an estimate of loan activity 

for any program funded in Titles II and III of this bill indicates 

that a limitation on authority to make commitments for a fiscal 

year will be reached before the end of that fiscal year, or in any 

event when 75 percent of the authority to make commitments has 

been utilized, the Secretary shall promptly notify the Committees 

on Appropriations of the House and Senate through OBPA. 

Communication from USDA.—Members of the Committee must 

be informed of the activities, pending and proposed actions, and expenditures made by USDA and its respective agencies so that Congress can determine whether laws and programs are being implemented and carried out in accordance with the intent of Congress. 

A collaborative working relationship between the Committee and 

the agencies is necessary to ensure efficient and effective implementation of Congress’ funding decisions. USDA is directed to ensure that the Committee is notified of major changes to existing 

policies and any significant developments in its operations prior to 

providing non-governmental stakeholders such information. 

Grant Notifications.—Section 722 of the bill requires the Secretary to notify the Committees on Appropriations of the House 

and Senate three business days in advance of the announcement of 

discretionary grant allocations or contract awards totaling 

$1,000,000 or more. The Committee also directs USDA to provide 

quarterly reports on all discretionary grant awards totaling less 

than $1,000,000. The Committee expects these deadlines to be met. 

Decentralized Rent and Homeland Security.—In fiscal year 2015, 

the Committee provided the Department with the authority to decentralize rent from the General Services Administration (GSA) 

and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The previous 

Administration requested this authority ‘‘as part of USDA’s implementation of the former President’s ‘Freeze the Federal Footprint’ 

initiative’’ and to encourage efficiencies across the Department at 

individual agencies. The Secretary is directed to build upon these 

efforts to find savings within the total estimated costs for fiscal 

year 2018. If USDA does not find ways to reduce its physical footprint or the cost of its existing footprint, such increased costs will 

need to be absorbed by the agency to the detriment of the core missions of these agencies. 

Real Property.—The Committee directs the Department to review 

their real property portfolio and develop an action plan which 

prioritizes actions for the disposal of excess or underutilized property. Recognizing challenges to property disposal exist, the Department is encouraged to partner with Congress to explore ways to 

improve and expedite the property disposition process. 

FSMA Implementation and Interagency Coordination.—The Committee provides level funding for the National Institute for Food 

and Agriculture (NIFA) to be the sole agency providing education 

and technical assistance for farmers in implementing new requireVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:47 Jul 18, 2017 Jkt 026264 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR232.XXX HR232
7 

ments resulting from FSMA. The Committee commends NIFA’s extension programs for the relationship they have built with our nation’s producers, and hopes that they will continue to build this 

trust through FSMA implementation. The Secretary is directed to 

work with the Commissioner of the FDA to ensure that there is no 

duplication of efforts and resources for FSMA education and training at the farm level. 

Design-Build.—The Committee encourages the Department to 

use the design-build method of project delivery when appropriate. 

Flexibility in Loan and Loan Guarantee Levels.—The bill includes language to exceed by up to 25 percent the limitation on 

loan and loan guarantee levels without budget authority upon written notification to the Committees on Appropriations of the House 

and Senate. 

Rural Poverty.—The Department has statutory authorities and 

programs designed to help break the multi-generational trap of 

poverty in rural counties. The Committee recognizes that USDA 

may utilize existing programs and funding within RD and FNS in 

order to assist families, create jobs, and develop a path towards 

independence and self-sufficiency. Other existing resources such as 

the extension service and public universities can be used for coordination and outreach activities. As of June 2017, the Committee has 

not received the detailed plan required to be submitted by the Secretary which would detail all funding resources and bundled services to combat rural poverty. 

Urban Agriculture, Vertical Farming, Aquaponics, and Non-Traditional Agriculture.—The Committee acknowledges the need for 

an expanded USDA role in support of the emerging industries of 

vertical farming, urban agriculture, aquaponics, and alternative 

forms of agriculture in American cities and surrounding communities. Support from the Department is needed for producers who 

often have different needs than traditional agricultural producers. 

These non-traditional methods of agricultural production have the 

potential to reduce the use of water and pesticides, improve yields 

for particular crops, serve lower income populations, and provide 

year round crops at the local level. USDA should consider intramural and extramural research where the Department and its 

stakeholders can work towards advancing technologies in this field. 

Therefore, the Committee directs USDA to evaluate current needs 

in this field, compare the needs with current or planned activities, 

and deliver a report explaining how to further advance urban agriculture, vertical farming, aquaponics and other forms of non-traditional agriculture. 

Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs.— 

The Committee supports the newly established Under Secretary for 

Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs as required by the 2014 

Farm Bill and subsequent Agriculture Appropriations Acts. The 

focus of this office should be not only the promotion and sales of 

American agricultural products but also trade enforcement and related activities, which will help level the playing field for U.S. agricultural interests in international markets. 

Smart Energy Management Systems.—The Committee encourages the Department to evaluate emerging energy management 

technologies that could assist in creating more reliable and resilient energy infrastructure for farming operations. Opportunities to 

8 

improve smart energy management systems, including battery life, 

have a multitude of benefits including reducing operating costs and 

extending the life of the system while assisting utility companies 

by increasing the resiliency of the grid and reducing the need for 

peak power. 

Agroterrorism.—The United States enjoys a safe, plentiful, and 

inexpensive food supply. The Committee views domestic food production as a priority for national security. The Committee is concerned with the growing threats posed by agroterrorism, which is 

the deliberate introduction of an animal or plant disease for the 

purpose of generating fear, causing economic losses, or undermining social stability. The dangers to our food production posed 

from foreign terrorist organizations are real. The Committee directs the Secretary to explore the Department’s laboratory and response capacity to address the reality of agroterrorism, and how 

national response plans can better incorporate agroterrorism. The 

Committee encourages the Secretary to coordinate with DHS, HHS, 

intelligence agencies, Interior, EPA, and other agencies to improve 

response plans, conduct vulnerability assessments, and expand 

monitoring and surveillance for agroterrorism. The Committee also 

encourages the Secretary to focus on bolstering tracking systems 

for agricultural products, laboratory networks, and border inspection training. 

Native American Foods.—Native American tribes suffer among 

the highest rates of diabetes in the United States. Traditional Native American diets have been shown to be culturally relevant and 

protective against metabolic diseases such as diabetes. The Food 

Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) has increased the variety of traditional foods offered in the program. The 

Committee directs USDA to develop programs in conjunction with 

Indian Tribal Organizations to restore food ecosystems and revive 

traditional foods based on dietary preferences of Native American 

populations. USDA shall continue to collaborate with FDPIR agencies on recommendations for food package changes, including the 

addition of traditional foods. 

Rural Broadband.—The Committee directs the Department to 

continue coordinating with Federal Communications Commission, 

National Telecommunications and Information Administration and 

other related federal agencies to ensure that policies tied to one 

federal program do not undermine the objectives and functionality 

of another. The Committee encourages USDA to continue working 

with the rural communications industry to identify and pursue 

ways to continue broadband deployment and adoption. 

The Committee directs the Department to prepare a report in 

collaboration with the Federal Communications Commission and 

Department of Commerce detailing areas of responsibility towards 

addressing rural broadband issues. The report shall include, but 

not be limited to, how the programs work complimentarily to one 

another; how they address broadband issues in unserved and underserved areas, including tribal lands; identify barriers to infrastructure investment in rural areas and tribal lands; data speeds 

which fixed, wireless and mobile broadband users in rural areas 

and tribal lands experience; and cost estimates to increase speeds 

to 25 mbps in unserved communities and communities currently 

being served by speeds less than 25 mbps. The report shall be subVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:47 Jul 18, 2017 Jkt 026264 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR232.XXX HR232
9 

mitted to the Committee within 180 days of enactment of this Act. 

This information will help to provide lawmakers with a more complete understanding of connectivity issues in rural America as the 

Committee considers future funding for broadband to bridge the 

digital divide. 

Cotton Ginning Cost Share Program.—The Committee supports 

the establishment of a Cotton Ginning Cost Share Program for the 

2016 cotton crop. The Committee recognizes the significant challenges cotton producers continue to face. If the Secretary establishes such a program, the Committee encourages the Secretary 

provide such assistance beginning with the 2016 cotton crop and on 

an ongoing basis, consistent with 7 U.S.C. 1308(b). 

Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) 

Plan.—The Committee recognizes that access to broadband is crucial for better health, educational, and economic opportunities and 

appreciates the plan being developed for increasing access to education in STEM fields through the Distance Learning and Telemedicine program. The Committee directs the Assistant to the Secretary for Rural Development to begin implementing the initial 

phases of this plan no later than six months after the enactment 

of this Act. 

Technology Enhancements of Ambulances and Medical Facilities.—The Committee continues to support Distance Learning, 

Telemedicine, and Broadband program grants that assist rural 

communities in connecting to the rest of the world and overcoming 

the effects of remoteness and low population density. The Committee urges the Assistant to the Secretary for Rural Development 

to continue implementing the grants used to upgrade the equipment and facilities of ambulances and other emergency transportation vehicles and medical facilities, such as hospital and community health centers, providing such technical assistance as may be 

needed. 

Agriculture Buildings and Facilities.—The Committee does not 

provide funding for the Agriculture Buildings and Facilities account. The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations 

Act, 2015 provided the Department the authority to establish the 

Nonrecurring Expense Fund to invest in and modernize the Department’s facilities infrastructure. The Committee urges the Department to utilize this authority to address physical infrastructure 

needs. 

Performance Measures.—The Committee directs USDA agencies 

funded by this Act to comply with title 31 of the United States 

Code, including the development of their organizational priority 

goals and outcomes such as performance outcome measures, output 

measures, efficiency measures, and customer service measures. 

EXECUTIVE OPERATIONS

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ECONOMIST

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $18,917,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... 17,211,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 16,777,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥2,140,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥434,000 

10 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Chief Economist (OCE), the Committee provides an appropriation of $16,777,000. 

Drought Resilience.—The Committee is concerned about the extent and severity of the drought in the U.S. and recognizes the importance of understanding and being prepared for drought. The 

Committee encourages the OCE to continue research and work 

with partners on drought resilience efforts to better address the serious threat posed by drought in the U.S. 

Policy Research.—The Committee includes $4,000,000 for policy 

research under 7 U.S.C. 3155 for entities with existing institutional 

capacity, including staff, databases, models, and long-term, welldocumented experience, to conduct complex economic and baseline 

analysis for the benefit of USDA, the Congressional Budget Office, 

and the Congress. 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $13,399,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... 14,716,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 13,399,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥1,317,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of Hearings and Appeals, the Committee provides 

an appropriation of $13,399,000. 

OFFICE OF BUDGET AND PROGRAM ANALYSIS

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $9,525,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... 9,093,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 9,093,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥432,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of Budget and Program Analysis, the Committee 

provides an appropriation of $9,093,000. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $49,538,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... 58,950,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 49,538,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥9,412,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Chief Information Officer (CIO), the Committee provides an appropriation of $49,538,000. This includes 

$33,000,000 for cybersecurity activities, including support of the 

Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation program. 

IT Purchases and Oversight.—The Committee directs the CIO to 

comply with the spirit and letter of the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act and incorporate its principles into 

11 

future planning and current oversight of IT activities across the 

Department and the performance plan required in H. Rpt. 113– 

468. 

Digital Workspace.—The Committee recognizes that the use of 

digital workspace technologies can increase user productivity, enhance cybersecurity, and allow workforce flexibility. The Committee encourages the Department to explore a broad ecosystem 

support of multi-factor authentication solutions to strengthen the 

Department’s cybersecurity posture. This should include strategies 

and programs that reduce the total life cycle costs of traditional 

legacy workspace infrastructure. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $8,028,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... 5,836,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 5,836,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥2,192,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (CFO), the Committee provides an appropriation of $5,836,000. 

Digital Accountability and Transparency Act (DATA).—The Committee supports the work of the CFO to bring the Department into 

compliance with the DATA. 

Shared Costs Report.—While the Committee notes that the Department did not find any increased costs in its Shared Costs Programs per the report required by the 2015 Appropriations Act, the 

Department also did not identify any savings. The Committee continues to direct the production of the report required in Public Law 

113–235 and directs the agency to identify areas of savings and efficiencies. 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $901,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... 896,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 800,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥101,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥96,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, the 

Committee provides an appropriation of $800,000. 

OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $24,206,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... 23,304,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 23,304,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥902,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

12 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of Civil Rights, the Committee provides an appropriation of $23,304,000. 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $3,633,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... 3,503,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 3,503,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥130,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Hazardous Materials Management, the Committee provides 

an appropriation of $3,503,000. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $98,208,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... 92,689,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 95,628,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥2,580,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. +2,939,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of Inspector General, the Committee provides an 

appropriation of $95,628,000. This amount does not include funding 

for staff buyouts or reductions in investigations and audits. 

Investigations.—The Committee encourages the Inspector General to continue its current investigations in a timely manner and 

engage in feedback from all stakeholders and affected parties to ensure that limited resources are provided to those most in need. 

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $44,697,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... 42,970,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 42,970,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥1,727,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the General Counsel, the Committee provides 

an appropriation of $42,970,000. 

OFFICE OF ETHICS

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $4,136,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... 3,538,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 3,945,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥191,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. +407,000 

13 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of Ethics, the Committee provides an appropria- tion of $3,945,000. 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND

ECONOMICS

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $893,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... 891,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 800,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥93,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥91,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, 

and Economics, the Committee provides an appropriation of 

$800,000. 

Coffee Plant Health.—The Committee appreciates ARS and 

NIFA’s work to address existing and emerging challenges to coffee 

production in the United States and commends the agency’s work 

with research partners and coffee grower groups. The Committee 

encourages ARS, NIFA, and its partners to maintain support for 

coffee plant health research. 

Food Safety and Defense Technology Research.—The Committee 

remains concerned that global competition and the demand for increased productivity, efficiency, and profitability could put food 

safety and security at risk. The ability to rapidly, accurately, and 

cost effectively detect pathogens or contaminants in the food supply 

chain is critical to protecting the United States from food-borne illnesses and exploitation. The Committee directs USDA to invest in 

the research and development of novel bio-detection technologies 

and the implementation of mobile bio-detection platforms. The Department should consider technologies currently in use or under 

development in other fields, such as medicine or homeland security, 

to determine whether the technology can meet the needs in high 

volume food production or mobile food defense monitoring. 

Fusarium Mycotoxins.—The Committee recognizes that Fusarium mycotoxins are harmful to several components of the poultry 

industry, negatively affect catfish, horses, and swine, and are toxic 

to humans. Due to the endophytic habit of Fusarium verticillioides, 

it is also prevalent in corn and wheat, which are major ingredients 

in animal feed. Therefore, the Committee urges USDA to support 

research programs studying the endophytic habits and genetic variability of Fusarium mycotoxins to develop an intervention plan to 

prevent harm to humans and animals. 

Indirect Costs.—The Committee is concerned that USDA research programs are inconsistent in the amount of overhead 

charges which can be paid to cooperating institutions. The Committee directs REE to submit a report within 60 days of enactment 

of this Act on current policies related to such indirect costs by account and by program. 

Leveraging Plant Genome Information.—The Committee recognizes the potential impact that variable weather, environments, 

and production systems can have on the yield and quantity of 

maize and the need for greater prediction of plant performance 

14 

under variable growing conditions. The Committee encourages 

USDA to support research that leverages plant genomic information with phenotypic and environmental data through an interdisciplinary framework, resulting in an understanding of plant 

processes that affect productivity and the ability to predict plant 

performance. 

Office of Pest Management Policy.—The Committee commends 

the Office of Pest Management Policy for its work providing the 

Department, federal agencies, producers, and other interested 

stakeholders scientifically sound analysis of pest management 

issues important to agriculture, especially methyl bromide transition, pesticide resistance management, and the development of 

antimicrobials to combat citrus greening. The Committee encourages the Under Secretary to better utilize this office and directs 

ARS to continue to support its vital work. 

Pollinators and Colony Health Research.—The Committee recognizes that Colony Collapse Disorder and related colony health 

issues are a significant concern to beekeepers, honey producers, 

farmers, researchers, policymakers, and the public. It appreciates 

USDA’s logical, scientifically based approach to studying these 

issues and directs the Department to continue to focus on the challenges facing pollinators. 

Potato Research.—The Committee supports research efforts to 

combat crop-threatening pest and disease pressures, including the 

potato cyst nematode. The Committee also recognizes the importance of research initiatives to identify and improve desired traits 

for new potato varieties and directs the Department to continue 

working with universities, industry and potato growers on these 

projects. 

Poultry Technology Research.—The Committee understands that 

the U.S. poultry industry is the most efficient in the world. However, with expected global growth in demand and competition, technological advances in broiler production are critical to increasing 

production and profitability. The Committee supports cooperative 

research that contributes to increased efficiencies in housing, 

equipment, energy and environmental controls tailored to meet the 

long-term needs of the industry. 

Screening Technologies.—The Committee encourages the development of technologies that will provide rapid, portable, and facile 

screening of food fish species at port sites and wholesale and retail 

centers. 

Vector Control.—The Committee encourages USDA to support research, including the work done through the Biotechnology Risk 

Assessment Research Grants program, to develop innovative vector 

control technologies targeted to combatting Zika-carrying Aedes 

aegypti mosquitos. The Committee is aware that vaccine development takes time, pesticide use has a variety of limitations, and 

human health effects and treatment will be a challenge for years 

to come. Therefore, the Committee urges USDA to utilize pest management programs and partner organizations to conduct research 

to develop and test effective repellents, create new molecular pesticide technologies that prevent mosquitoes from reproducing, and 

explore natural product remedies to deter pests. 

15 

ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $86,757,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... 76,690,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 76,788,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥9,969,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. +98,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Economic Research Service (ERS), the Committee pro- vides an appropriation of $76,788,000. The Committee does not 

concur with the request to reduce funding for the increasing 

drought resilience survey. 

Breastfeeding.—The Committee recognizes the benefits of human 

milk in the first year of life as well as the economic impacts of 

breastfeeding rates on healthcare costs. The Committee directs 

ERS to update its 2001 Jon Weimer study of the economic benefits 

of breastfeeding and make it publicly accessible within 12 months 

of enactment of this Act. The updated study should assess the impact of clinically recommended breastfeeding rates on economic outcomes and healthcare systems including, but not be limited to, the 

impact on direct and indirect costs, including preventable deaths, 

preventable medical conditions, and lost workplace productivity. 

Evidence-Based Policymaking.—As part of the bipartisan effort to 

improve government capacity for evidence-based policymaking, the 

Committee encourages ERS to explore ways to assist rural communities in using data and evidence to address local challenges. In 

particular, ERS should examine ways in which local governments 

in rural communities could access the research and data expertise 

of public land-grant universities to help communities address local 

needs and priorities. 

Food Waste.—Food waste is a major problem in the United 

States. In 2014, ERS released a study on food waste at the consumer and retail levels which found that 430 billion pounds of food 

were not eaten in the U.S. in 2010. However, there is a lack of data 

relating to on-farm food loss and what that means in terms of lost 

income and marketing opportunities for farmers. Such information 

could help to create new markets for cosmetically imperfect food, 

value-added products, or other business opportunities for farmers. 

The Committee directs ERS to conduct a study that describes the 

quantity and types of produce wasted on farms, barriers to recovering that produce, and new market opportunities to increase recovery and farmers’ income. 

NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS SERVICE

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $171,239,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... 185,677,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 183,781,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... +12,542,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥1,896,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), the Committee provides an appropriation of $183,781,000, of which 

$63,350,000 is for the Census of Agriculture. 

16 

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $1,170,235,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... 993,144,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 1,132,625,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥37,610,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. +139,481,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Salaries and Expenses of the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), the Committee provides an appropriation of $1,132,625,000. 

While the Committee does not concur with all of the proposed decreases for fiscal year 2018, the Committee encourages ARS to reallocate resources for research that have been determined by the 

ARS as mature or where research objectives have been accomplished to other high priority research areas. The Committee does 

not concur with the budget request regarding the termination of 

extramural research. 

Agricultural Research Facilities.—The Committee does not concur with the proposed closure of 17 research facilities in the budget 

request and is concerned about the continued trend towards reductions in on-the-ground agricultural research through proposed cutbacks and consolidations without a clear plan to ensure that research reflects local needs and growing conditions. However, the 

Committee recognizes the need to increase efficiencies and streamline operations, particularly as research matures and objectives are 

met. 

The Committee directs ARS to provide a report that comprehensively evaluates its current and future research initiatives and facility capabilities. The evaluation should include, but not be limited 

to, prioritization of research being conducted at each facility, costs 

of facility operations and maintenance, facility condition including 

deferred maintenance needs, scientists’ availability to conduct research, associated costs and long-term savings of closing a specific 

facility, economic impact of closure on the existing community, relocation costs and other effects on employees. In conducting this evaluation, ARS shall include input from interested stakeholders, including ARS scientists and other scientists. Future budget requests 

with proposals to close research facilities should include this information to ensure considerations of consolidation do not jeopardize 

long-term research objectives. 

Animal Research.—The Committee expects the Department to 

keep the Committee informed on the progress of establishing adequate policies, procedures, and processes of oversight of animal research at the USMARC as recommended by the USDA Office of the 

Inspector General in the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center Review issued in September 2016. The Committee also requests updates related to ongoing APHIS inspections and any findings at 

ARS research facilities conducting animal research. 

Aerial Application Research.—The Committee recognizes the importance of the ARS Aerial Application Technology Program. The 

program conducts innovative research making aerial applications 

more efficient, effective, and precise. Research for aerial application 

serves the public good as a vital tool for the future, as agriculture 

17 

strives to meet the food, fiber, and bio-energy demands of a growing population. 

Alfalfa Research.—The Committee supports research into alfalfa 

seed and forage systems, which hold the potential to maximize crop 

yields, increase milk production, and improve genetics. 

ARS Field Stations.—The Committee recognizes the successful 

utilization of authorities granted in previous annual appropriations 

Acts to further cooperation between industry and the ARS Canal 

Point, Florida Sugarcane Field Station. However, the Committee is 

concerned that this partnership is jeopardized by requirements 

that are outside the scope of the functionality of the facilities. The 

Committee directs ARS to resolve these issues, thus allowing this 

model partnership to continue. Additionally, the Committee recognizes Florida’s importance as a sentinel state in studying invasive 

pests and diseases. With new species entering ports every week, it 

is critical that ARS devote attention to the need for research facilities to study these threats. 

Aquaculture Industry Coordination.—Nearly half the seafood 

consumed across the world is the result of aquaculture, and the 

aquaculture industry is a critical and growing part of the U.S. 

economy. However, less than one percent of worldwide production 

comes from U.S. producers. In January 2016, the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Services issued a final rule to open the federal waters in the Gulf of 

Mexico to development of aquaculture. The Committee is concerned 

that vital seedstock required to implement this initiative will be 

sourced from foreign aquaculture producers. The Committee encourages the agency to support and protect the U.S. aquaculture 

industry by working collaboratively with U.S. aquaculture producers and research institutions that specialize in the development 

of aquaculture technologies. 

Aquatic Animal Health.—The Committee supports ARS’ work 

with land-grant universities and other federal partners to develop 

solutions to aquatic animal pathogens including Aeromonas in catfish and viral hemorrhagic septicemia in finfish. ARS is encouraged 

to collaborate with industry stakeholders on the development of potential vaccines and therapeutants. 

Blueberry and Cranberry Research.—The Committee directs ARS 

to continue researching the cultural needs of blueberries and cranberries including genetic improvements to increase genetic diversity and improve resistance to various disease and insects. 

Cereal Rust Research.—The Committee remains concerned about 

cereal rust diseases and supports research towards developing resistance genes against cereal rust races, including resistance to 

new cereal rust varieties and identifying when and how new cereal 

rust races emerge. 

Citrus Greening Disease Research.—The Committee commends 

ARS’ research efforts on citrus greening disease and encourages the 

agency to continue working to develop methods to reduce transmission and enhance immunity in citrus trees and to work with industry, universities, growers, and other partners to develop effective control mechanisms. The Committee also encourages ARS to 

coordinate its efforts with the Huanglongbing Multi-Agency Coordination (HLB MAC) group. 

18 

Co-Location of Researchers.—The Committee encourages ARS to 

develop a plan to maximize its investments in plant science facilities and research by taking advantage of the synergies and efficiencies realized through the co-location of USDA researchers in 

state-of-the-art facilities with university and other stakeholders. 

Cotton Ginning.—The Committee recognizes the importance of 

pollution abatement, improving fiber quality, ginning efficiency, 

cotton seed and other byproducts, and remains committed to expanding research in cotton ginning and innovation by existing laboratories. 

Floriculture and Nursery Research Initiative (FNRI).—The Committee values the importance of floral and horticultural industry as 

floriculture and nursery crops are the third-largest domestic crop 

in value, outranked only by corn and soybeans. The FNRI is focused on addressing and solving the industry’s challenges and 

needs. The Committee provides $500,000 above the fiscal year 2017 

funding level to expand research capacity. 

Forest Products Research.—The forest products sector is an important part of the U.S. economy. The Committee supports research on wood quality, forest product evaluation standards and 

valuation techniques, and ARS’ continuing work with the Forest 

Products Laboratory. 

Germplasm Enhancement of Maize.—The Committee supports 

the germplasm enhancement of maize project and encourages continued cooperation between ARS and industry. 

Greenhouse Technology Research.—The Committee recognizes the 

importance of advancing greenhouse technology and exploring its 

capabilities to address the energy and water challenges inherent in 

four-season production systems, beginning in food insecure communities across the country. The Committee encourages ARS to work 

with the Department of Energy (DOE) for greenhouse technology 

research that explores how to integrate ongoing research projects 

at the various DOE National Labs to develop affordable, 

deployable, and energy- and water-efficient food production platforms for undernourished regions of the country. By working together, ARS and DOE can bring their respective strengths and resources to designing the most desirable, low-cost, and efficient production system. The Committee also encourages ARS to work with 

DOE in researching novel solutions for lowering energy costs for 

greenhouse operations while optimizing plant growth and morphology. 

Hops Research.—The Committee recognizes that the U.S. hops 

industry has experienced unprecedented expansion due to the 

brewing industry’s economic growth over the past decade. To sustain this growth, new varieties of hops are needed to prevent disease and expand production throughout the country. The Committee provides $1,000,000 for hops-related research. 

Horticultural Research and Education.—The Committee recognizes the U.S. National Arboretum as a prominent research body 

staffed with highly skilled and dedicated scientists with a history 

of scientific discovery in environmental horticulture. The Committee encourages continued support of the Arboretum as its research and academic programs not only work towards developing 

new approaches in detecting and treating plant disease, but also 

the ability to connect people with plants in a unique and serene enVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:47 Jul 18, 2017 Jkt 026264 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR232.XXX HR232
19 

vironment that enhances the public understanding of agricultural 

plant sciences. 

Human Nutrition Research.—There is strong evidence that nutrition plays a vital role in how a person ages, particularly its significance for preventative health care and degenerative and age-related diseases. Research is needed to address the needs of the rapidly growing number of older Americans. The Committee encourages ARS to continue research relating to the effect of nutrition on 

aging. 

Livestock Protection.—The Committee recognizes the challenges 

caused by infectious disease problems arising from wildlife-domestic animal agriculture interactions, particularly between domestic 

sheep and wild bighorn sheep. Researchers have recently produced 

an experimental vaccine to protect bighorn populations from disease, but much work is still required. The Committee encourages 

ARS to pursue work to determine the role of domestic sheep in 

causing die-offs of bighorn sheep from respiratory disease and develop methods to reduce transmission and enhance immunity in domestic and bighorn sheep. 

Lower Mississippi River Basin.—The Committee recognizes the 

groundwater problems in the Lower Mississippi River Basin and 

encourages ARS, in collaboration with university research, extension scientists and local stakeholders, to identify gaps in water 

management research and focus efforts on the development of conservation and irrigation techniques to reduce water usage in agriculture production while maintaining crop quality and yield. 

National Agricultural Library.—The Committee encourages ARS 

to maintain a focus on agricultural-related legal issues within the 

National Agricultural Library. The Committee notes that as the agriculture sector faces increasing financial stress, there is a necessity that agriculture-related legal issues be addressed on an increasingly frequent basis. Further, agriculture-related legal issues 

are increasingly complex, and the impact of these legal issues continues to broaden in scope. The Committee recommends that the 

National Agricultural Library play an important role in assisting 

all stakeholders with understanding these issues. 

Nutrient Runoff Reduction Programs.—The Committee encourages ARS to study the long-term effectiveness of voluntary nutrient 

runoff reduction programs and policy options that could reduce soil, 

chemical and nutrient runoff. 

Porcine Virus Research.—The Committee is aware of ongoing research to identify mechanisms of viral pathogenesis, transmission, 

and immunity to porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDv) and encourages ARS to continue its efforts to identify the genetic 

virulence factors of PEDv, identify a protective immune response, 

including transmission of maternal antibodies through the milk, 

and evaluate new vaccine platforms for the development of improved PEDv vaccines. 

Pulse Health Initiative.—The Committee is aware of the need to 

investigate the ability of pulse crops, such as dry beans, dry peas, 

lentils, and chickpeas, to provide solutions to critical health issues 

and to improve the sustainability and environmental benefits of 

using pulse crops in cropping rotations. The Committee encourages 

ARS to continue its work on these important issues. 

20 

Safe and Abundant Water Supply.—The Committee supports 

technological development to address key agricultural water resource issues across the U.S. to support agricultural production. 

Sage Grouse.—The Committee is aware that listing the greater 

sage grouse as endangered under the Endangered Species Act has 

the potential to negatively affect rural communities in the eleven 

states that have sage brush ecosystems. The Committee encourages 

ARS to work with its partners on sage brush and related rangeland 

research that will help preserve the greater sage grouse and the 

other species that rely on the sage brush ecosystem. 

Sclerotinia Initiative.—The Committee is aware of the importance of controlling Sclerotinia in sunflowers, soybeans, canola, edible beans, peanuts, peas, lentils, and chickpeas and encourages 

ARS to continue its support of this initiative. 

Small Grain Genomics.—The Committee supports research on 

small grain genomics to address national genomic and breeding 

needs for U.S. crops to keep small grains and feed as viable crops 

and continue their substantial contributions to the agricultural 

economy. 

Sorghum in Agriculture.—The Committee recognizes the growing 

significance of sorghum in agriculture due to water conservation 

traits and increased utilization. However, the sugarcane aphid 

(Melanaphis sacchari), a new and devastating invasive pest, is an 

existential threat to the sorghum industry. Funding is included to 

pursue research into the discovery of genetically conferred pest resistance, evaluate gene flow and advance the durability and sustainability of fitness traits in sorghum. 

U.S. Sheep Experiment Station (USSES).—The Committee recognizes the unique and valuable contributions the USSES makes toward increasing the production efficiency of sheep and improving 

sustainable rangeland ecosystems. The Committee also recognizes 

a unique opportunity to expand other research initiatives. The 

Committee encourages ARS to work with various stakeholders regarding efforts to propose mission improvements for the USSES. 

The Committee encourages ARS to hire the two vacant positions at 

USSES to help maintain important rangeland research. 

U.S. Wheat and Barley Scab (USWBS).—The Committee recognizes the importance of the research carried out through the ARS 

U.S. Wheat and Barley Scab Initiative. Fusarium head blight is a 

major threat to agriculture, inflicting substantial yield and quality 

losses throughout the U.S. 

Wheat Falling Numbers Test Research.—The Committee recognizes the emerging crisis surrounding wheat starch degradation, as 

detected by the Hagberg-Perten Falling Numbers Test, and encourages ARS to continue researching the accuracy of the test and the 

environmental, storage, and genetic conditions leading to this quality loss. 

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $99,600,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... – – – 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 60,000,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥39,600,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. +60,000,000 

21 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Agricultural Research Service, Buildings and Facilities, the 

Committee provides an appropriation of $60,000,000 for priorities 

identified in the USDA ARS Capital Investment Strategy, April 

2012. 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE

RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $849,518,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... 769,613,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 830,402,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥19,116,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. +60,789,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Research and Education Activities, the Committee provides 

an appropriation of $830,402,000. 

Agricultural Research Enhancement Awards.—The Committee 

continues to direct that not less than 15 percent of the competitive 

research grant funds be used for USDA’s agriculture research enhancement awards program, including USDA–EPSCoR, in accordance with 7 U.S.C. 450i. 

Bioactives and Prebiotics Used in Animal Production.—The Committee supports enhanced research efforts to advance the development of alternatives to sub-therapeutic doses of antibiotics used in 

animal production. The Committee encourages NIFA to examine 

nutritional alternatives and feed additives containing bioactives 

and prebiotics that may lead to reduced antibiotic use and boost 

immune responses in livestock. 

Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2019.—The Committee appreciates NIFA’s efforts to provide additional information in its budget 

requests over the past four years. For the fiscal year 2019 budget 

request, the Committee is particularly interested in the request for 

the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) and requests 

that the agency provide greater detail on the levels proposed to be 

allocated to and the expected publication date, scope, and allocation 

level for each request for awards to be published under each priority area specified in section 2(b)(2) of the Competitive, Special, 

and Facilities Research Grant Act (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)(2)). 

Citrus Disease Research Program.—The 2014 Farm Bill established the Emergency Citrus Disease Research and Extension Program, which is intended to discover and develop tools for early detection, control, and eradication of diseases and pests that threaten 

domestic citrus production and processing, and provided 

$25,000,000 per year in mandatory funding for the program 

through the Specialty Crop Research Initiative. The Committee believes research projects funded under this authority should be 

prioritized based on the critical threat of citrus greening and encourages NIFA, to the maximum extent practicable, to follow the 

recommendations of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, 

and Education Advisory Board’s citrus disease subcommittee and to 

collaborate with the HLB MAC group. 

22 

Crop Degradation.—The Committee is aware of crop degradation 

issues harming agricultural producers. For example, starch degradation in Pacific Northwest soft white wheat crops led to significant value losses for producers in late 2016. The Committee encourages NIFA to conduct research through AFRI into soft white 

wheat crop quality loss to mitigate its impact on producers. 

Increasing Diversity in Agricultural Career Fields.—The Committee is concerned with the low numbers of African Americans 

working in agricultural career fields such as farming, ranching, 

producing, IT, science, and finance. The Committee encourages 

NIFA to develop a working group that includes leadership from the 

1860, 1890, and 1994 institutions within the land grant university 

system to develop an actionable plan aimed at increasing the number of minorities entering into the agricultural workforce. The 

Committee also recommends that the plan include strengthening 

agricultural education at the University level and creating partnerships for feeder programs into graduate studies to foster the career 

potential pipeline. 

Livestock and Poultry Waste Research.—The Committee recognizes the benefits of improved methods of managing animal waste 

in livestock and poultry production and encourages NIFA to support research and development of innovative technologies, particularly those that are operationally and economically feasible and 

have a high probability of widespread implementation. The Committee directs NIFA to submit a report on what steps it can take 

to work with other federal agencies to develop a comprehensive approach to all value chains related to manure management to include energy production, energy credits, nutrient credits, and mineral supplements, taking into consideration the full range of livestock production to include cattle, poultry, and swine. 

Minor Crop Pest Management.—The Committee recognizes that 

data collection efforts are needed to maintain and develop the tools 

needed to assure adequate vector control and protect public health. 

In addition, the Committee supports continuation of the IR–4 Public Heath Pesticide Program through the Deployed Warfighter Protection Program to provide critical assistance for supporting vector 

control, including regulatory and other support needed to maintain 

public health. 

Organic Agriculture.—The Committee encourages USDA to ensure that the needs of the U.S. organic sector are more fully addressed through AFRI. As USDA’s flagship competitive agricultural 

research grant program, AFRI funding should be reflective of the 

needs of all aspects of U.S. agriculture, including organic. The 

Committee directs USDA to develop a plan for meeting this goal, 

including how the agency will ensure organic research conducted 

through AFRI is not duplicative of research conducted with mandatory funds through the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative and other research programs, and report back to the 

Committee within 60 days of enactment of this Act. 

Research at Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions.—The Committee encourages NIFA to 

continue to support biotechnology by promoting research at the 

land-grant colleges and universities, including the Historically 

Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions, 

23 

and directs NIFA to encourage partnerships among universities 

and industry. 

Water Quality.—The Committee encourages USDA to research 

alternatives to land application of animal manures in areas where 

over-application is harming fresh water drinking supplies. The 

Committee also urges USDA to identify alternative collection and 

processing options to remove toxic elements and yield usable material. 

Zoonotic Disease Research.—The eradication of zoonotic livestock 

diseases has been a priority of federal and state animal health officials, as was reflected in the 2014 Farm Bill. The Committee recognizes the need for this research and encourages NIFA to support 

the development of improved management tools for zoonotic livestock diseases that have significant wildlife reservoirs. 

The following table reflects the amounts provided by the Committee: 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND ARICULTURE

RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Program/Activity Authorization 2017 Enacted 

2018 Estimate Committee 

Provision 

Hatch Act .................................................................... 7 U.S.C. 361a–i ........................ $243,701 $243,238 $243,701 

McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Act ................. 16 U.S.C. 582a through a–7 ... 33,961 28,867 33,961 

Research at 1890 Institutions (Evans-Allen Program).7 U.S.C. 3222 ........................... 54,185 54,082 54,185 

Payments to the 1994 Institutions ............................ 7 U.S.C. 301 note ..................... 3,439 3,432 3,439 

Education Grants for 1890 Institutions ..................... 7 U.S.C. 3152(b) ...................... 19,336 19,299 19,336 

Education Grants for Hispanic-Serving Institutions .. 7 U.S.C. 3241 ........................... 9,219 9,202 9,219 

Education Grants for Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions.7 U.S.C. 3156 ........................... 3,194 3,188 3,194 

Research Grants for 1994 Institutions ...................... 7 U.S.C. 301 note ..................... 1,801 1,798 1,801 

Capacity Building for Non Land-Grant Colleges of 

Agriculture.

7 U.S.C. 3319i .......................... 5,000 – – – – – – 

Grants for Insular Areas ............................................. 7 U.S.C. 3222b–2, 3362 and 

3363.

2,000 1,996 1,800 

Agriculture and Food Research Initiative ................... 7 U.S.C. 450i(b) ....................... 375,000 349,335 375,000 

Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment ........................ 7 U.S.C. 3151a ......................... 6,500 4,991 6,500 

Veterinary Services Grant Program ............................ 7 U.S.C. 3151b ......................... 2,500 – – – 2,500 

Continuing Animal Health and Disease Research 

Program.

7 U.S.C. 3195 ........................... 4,000 – – – 4,000 

Supplemental and Alternative Crops ......................... 7 U.S.C. 3319d ......................... 825 – – – – – – 

Multicultural Scholars, Graduate Fellowship and Institution Challenge Grants.7 U.S.C. 3152(b) ...................... 9,000 – – – 9,000 

Secondary and 2-year Post-Secondary Education ...... 7 U.S.C. 3152(j) ....................... 900 – – – 900 

Aquaculture Centers ................................................... 7 U.S.C. 3322 ........................... 4,000 – – – 4,000

Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education ..... 7 U.S.C. 5811, 5812, 5831, 

and 5832.

27,000 19,009 24,667 

Farm Business Management ...................................... 7 U.S.C. 5925f .......................... 1,450 – – – – – – 

Sun Grant Program ..................................................... 7 U.S.C. 8114 ........................... 3,000 – – – – – –

Alfalfa and Forage Research Program ....................... 7 U.S.C. 5925 ........................... 2,250 – – – – – – 

Minor Crop Pest Management (IR–4) ........................ 7 U.S.C. 450i(c) ........................ 11,913 11,890 11,913 

Special Research Grants: 7 U.S.C. 450i(c) ........................ ................ ................ ................

Global Change/UV Monitoring ................................ ................................................... 1,405 – – – – – –

Potato Research ..................................................... 7 U.S.C. 450i(c) ........................ 2,250 – – – 2,000 

Aquaculture Research ............................................ 7 U.S.C. 450i(c) ........................ 1,350 – – – – – – 

Total, Special Research Grants ................ ................................................... 5,005 – – – 2,000 

Necessary Expenses of Research and Education Activities: 

Grants Management Systems ............................ ................................................... 7,830 7,424 7,424 

GSA Rent and DHS Security Expenses .............. ................................................... 5,960 – – – – – – 

24 

RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES—Continued 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Program/Activity Authorization 2017 Enacted 

2018 Estimate Committee 

Provision 

Federal Administration—Other Necessary Expenses.................................................... 6,549 11,862 11,862 

Total, Necessary Expenses ........................ ................................................... 20,339 19,286 19,286 

Total, Research and Education Activities.................................................... $849,518 $769,613 $830,402 

NATIVE AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS ENDOWMENT FUND

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. ($11,880,000) 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... (11,857,000) 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. (11,880,000) 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. +23,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund, the 

Committee provides $11,880,000. 

EXTENSION ACTIVITIES

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $477,391,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... 462,890,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 475,876,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥1,515,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. +12,986,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Extension Activities, the Committee provides an appropriation of $475,876,000. 

Rural Health and Safety Education Programs.—The opioid abuse 

epidemic is one of the greatest threats facing rural America today, 

and the Committee supports all efforts to address this problem 

through improved health and safety education and outreach. The 

Committee provides $1,500,000 for Rural Health and Safety Education Programs to combat opioid abuse in rural communities. 

The following table reflects the amounts provided by the Committee: 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE

EXTENSION ACTIVITIES 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Program/Activity Authorization FY 2017 

Enacted 

FY 2018 

Estimate 

Committee 

Provision 

Smith-Lever Act, Section 3(b) and (c) programs and 

Cooperative Extension.

7 U.S.C. 343(b) and (c) and 

208(c) of P.L. 93–471.

$300,000 $299,430 $300,000 

Extension Services at 1890 Institutions .................... 7 U.S.C. 3221 ........................... 45,620 45,533 45,620 

Extension Services at 1994 Institutions .................... 7 U.S.C. 343(b)(3) .................... 4,446 4,438 4,446 

Facility Improvements at 1890 Institutions ............... 7 U.S.C. 3222b ......................... 19,730 19,693 19,730 

Renewable Resources Extension Act .......................... 16 U.S.C. 1671 et. seq. ........... 4,060 – – – 4,060 

Rural Health and Safety Education Programs ........... 7 U.S.C. 2662(i) ....................... 3,000 – – – 1,500 

Food Animal Residue Avoidance Database Program 7 U.S.C. 7642 ........................... 1,250 1,248 1,250 

Women and Minorities in STEM Fields ....................... 7 U.S.C. 5925 ........................... 400 – – – 400 

25 

EXTENSION ACTIVITIES—Continued 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Program/Activity Authorization FY 2017 

Enacted 

FY 2018 

Estimate 

Committee 

Provision 

Food Safety Outreach Program ................................... 7 U.S.C. 7625 ........................... 5,000 4,990 5,000 

Smith-Lever Act, Section 3(d): ................................... 7 U.S.C. 343(d) ........................ ................ ................ ................

Food and Nutrition Education ........................... ................................................... 67,934 67,805 67,934 

Farm Safety and Youth Farm Safety Education 

Programs.

................................................... 4,610 – – – 4,610 

New Technologies for Agricultural Extension .... ................................................... 1,550 – – – 1,550 

Children, Youth, and Families at Risk .............. ................................................... 8,395 8,379 8,395 

Federally Recognized Tribes Extension Program ................................................... 3,039 3,033 3,039 

Total, Section 3(d) .................................... ................................................... 85,528 79,217 85,528 

Necessary Expenses of Extension Activities: 

Agriculture in the K–12 Classroom ................... 7 U.S.C. 3152(j) ....................... 552 551 552 

Federal Administration—Other Necessary Expenses for Extension Activities.................................................... 7,805 7,790 7,790 

Total, Necessary Expenses ........................ ................................................... 8,357 8,341 8,342 

Total, Extension Activities ............... ................................................... $477,391 $462,890 $475,876 

INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $36,000,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... 20,276,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 35,000,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥1,000,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. +14,724,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Integrated Activities, the Committee provides an appropriation of $35,000,000. 

Food and Agriculture Defense Initiative.—The Committee supports the critical contributions that labs within the National Animal Health Laboratory Network (NAHLN), including those located 

at Colleges of Veterinary Medicine, make in responding to emerging threats to American agriculture. When expanding the network, 

the Committee encourages NIFA to take into consideration laboratories which would enhance the capacity for surveillance, monitoring, and response; the concentration of human and animal populations that are directly at risk; geography, ecology, and climate; 

evidence of active collaboration with, and support of, state animal 

health officials; and evidence of stakeholder support and engagement. 

The following table reflects the amounts provided by the Committee: 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE

INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Program/Activity Authorization FY 2017 

Enacted 

FY 2018 

Estimate 

Committee 

Provision 

Methyl Bromide Transition Program ........................... 7 U.S.C. 7626 ........................... $2,000 $– – – $2,000 

Organic Transition Program ....................................... 7 U.S.C. 7626 ........................... 4,000 – – – 4,000 

Regional Rural Development Centers ......................... 7 U.S.C. 450i(c) ........................ 2,000 – – – 1,000 

26 

INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES—Continued 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Program/Activity Authorization FY 2017 

Enacted 

FY 2018 

Estimate 

Committee 

Provision 

Food and Agriculture Defense Initiative ..................... 7 U.S.C. 3351 ........................... 8,000 5,684 8,000 

Crop Protection/Pest Management Program .............. 7 U.S.C. 7626 ........................... 20,000 14,592 20,000 

Total, Integrated Activities ................................ ................................................... $36,000 $20,276 $35,000 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR MARKETING AND

REGULATORY PROGRAMS

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $901,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... 891,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 800,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥101,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥91,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, the Committee provides an appropriation of 

$800,000. 

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $946,212,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... 810,000,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 906,400,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥39,812,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. +96,400,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Salaries 

and Expenses, the Committee provides an appropriation of 

$906,400,000. 

The Committee maintains the fiscal year 2017 funding levels for 

Avian Health at $55,340,000; Cattle Health at $91,500,000; National Veterinary Stockpile at $5,725,000; Cotton Pests at 

$11,520,000; Wildlife Damage Management at $103,375,000, Wildlife Services Methods Development at $18,855,000, Overseas Technical and Trade Operations at $22,115,000, and Animal Welfare at 

$28,810,000. 

Within the amount included for Specialty Crop Pests, the Committee includes $59,500,000 for fruit fly exclusion and detection; 

$55,830,000 for citrus health, including $2,000,000 for the 

Huanglongbing Multi-Agency Coordination efforts; $19,100,000 for 

the glassy-winged sharpshooter; $6,318,000 for the pale cyst nematode; $6,621,000 for the light brown apple moth; and, $5,000,000 

for the European grapevine moth. 

The following table reflects the amounts provided by the Committee: 

27 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Committee Provision 

Animal Health Technical Services .................................................................................................................. $35,250 

Aquatic Animal Health ................................................................................................................................... 2,250 

Avian Health ................................................................................................................................................... 55,340 

Cattle Health .................................................................................................................................................. 91,500 

Equine, Cervid, and Small Ruminant Health ................................................................................................ 19,500 

National Veterinary Stockpile ......................................................................................................................... 5,725 

Swine Health .................................................................................................................................................. 24,700 

Veterinary Biologics ........................................................................................................................................ 16,300 

Veterinary Diagnostics .................................................................................................................................... 36,970 

Zoonotic Disease Management ...................................................................................................................... 14,500 

Subtotal, Animal Health ........................................................................................................................ 302,035 

Agricultural Quarantine Inspection (Appropriated) ........................................................................................ 27,800 

Cotton Pests ................................................................................................................................................... 11,520 

Field Crop & Rangeland Ecosystem Pests ..................................................................................................... 8,800 

Pest Detection ................................................................................................................................................ 27,300 

Plant Protection Methods Development ......................................................................................................... 20,630 

Specialty Crop Pests ...................................................................................................................................... 160,000 

Tree & Wood Pests ......................................................................................................................................... 38,000 

Subtotal, Plant Health ........................................................................................................................... 294,050 

Wildlife Damage Management ....................................................................................................................... 103,375 

Wildlife Services Methods Development ......................................................................................................... 18,855 

Subtotal, Wildlife Services .................................................................................................................... 122,230 

Animal & Plant Health Regulatory Enforcement ........................................................................................... 16,190 

Biotechnology Regulatory Services ................................................................................................................. 18,500 

Subtotal, Regulatory Services ............................................................................................................... 34,690 

Contingency Fund ........................................................................................................................................... 450 

Emergency Preparedness & Response ........................................................................................................... 36,500 

Subtotal, Safeguarding and Emergency Preparedness ......................................................................... 36,950 

Agriculture Import/Export ............................................................................................................................... 15,070 

Overseas Technical and Trade Operations .................................................................................................... 22,115 

Subtotal, Safe Trade & International Technical Assistance ................................................................. 37,185 

Animal Welfare ............................................................................................................................................... 28,810 

Horse Protection ............................................................................................................................................. 700 

Subtotal, Animal Welfare ...................................................................................................................... 29,510 

APHIS Information Technology Infrastructure ................................................................................................ 4,200 

Physical/Operational Security ......................................................................................................................... 5,100 

GSA Rental and DHS Security Payments ....................................................................................................... 40,450 

Subtotal, Agency Management .............................................................................................................. 49,750 

Total, Salaries & Expenses ............................................................................................................... $906,400 

Animal Welfare.—The bill provides $28,810,000 for the Animal 

Welfare program in order to ensure that minimum standards of 

care and treatment are provided for certain animals bred for commercial sale, used in research, transported commercially, or exhibited to the public. The Committee maintains the fiscal year 2017 

increase of $400,000, of which a majority of funds can be used to 

support the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between 

APHIS and ARS. The MOU is necessary for ARS to utilize the 

skills and expertise of APHIS’ animal care staff and to help ARS 

ensure high standards of care for animals used in ARS funded research. At a minimum, the MOU should verify that ARS is adhering to its own standards and guidelines for research practices as 

required by the Humane Animal Care and Use policy, a policy that 

is closely aligned with the Animal Welfare Act (AWA); ensure that 

28 

every ARS location engaging in research and testing on vertebrate 

animals has a fully functioning Institutional Animal Care and Use 

Committee (IACUC) in place; and ensure that each IACUC produces a semi-annual report with a description of and the reasons 

for any major deviations from the requirements outlined in ARS 

policy. 

Animal Welfare Inspection Records.—On February 3, 2017, 

USDA restricted the public’s access to the search tool for the Animal Care Inspection System in order to conduct a comprehensive 

review of the information on its website. Such an action limited the 

public’s review of inspection reports, research facility annual reports, and lists of persons licensed and registered under the AWA, 

as well as lists of persons licensed by USDA-certified horse industry organizations and associations to inspect horses for compliance 

with the Horse Protection Act (HPA). While the Committee recognizes the need to strike a balance between the privacy rights and 

personal identifiable information of regulated entities and the 

public’s need to know if regulated parties or institutions are complying with federal law, USDA must utilize the resources provided 

in this bill to promptly finish reviewing the information on its 

website, restore all legally permissible records previously removed, 

and resume posting on the USDA website. The online searchable 

database should allow analysis and comparison of data and include 

all inspection reports, annual reports, and other documents related 

to enforcement of the HPA and the AWA. 

Antimicrobial Resistance.—The Committee continues to support 

funding to collect additional data that will inform policy related to 

the appropriate antibiotic use in all settings across agriculture and 

clinical medicine. The Committee provides funds for on-farm surveillance and data collection to enhance the understanding of onfarm levels of antibiotic use and the impact on antimicrobial resistance levels. The information collected should clearly delineate between antibiotics used for food-producing and companion animals. 

Further, to avoid duplication with existing programs like the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System, the Committee 

expects surveys regarding on-farm usage to be limited to collecting 

information about the antibiotics used and should not be utilized 

for other regulatory purposes. In designing these surveys, the Committee expects the agency to work primarily with end-users of antibiotics and veterinarians providing care to the animals. APHIS will 

collect this information through its statistical unit under the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act, 

which will guarantee that all information collected is protected 

from distribution in a manner that could identify an individual respondent for the full time the data is in existence. This information 

is needed for use in the larger National Strategy for Combatting 

Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria with other federal partners. 

Aquatic Animal Health.—The Southeastern United States is a 

center for aquatic biodiversity, supporting hundreds of native species that occur nowhere else on Earth. It also is home to the vast 

majority of the pond-based aquaculture operations. The Southeast 

is the only region in the country that lacks a multi-state/regional 

aquatic animal health plan. The Committee is aware of multiple 

pathogenic outbreaks both in wild waters and commercial ponds. 

Sick, abnormal, lesioned, or dead fish cause alarm among local citiVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:47 Jul 18, 2017 Jkt 026264 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR232.XXX HR232
29 

zens and sport fishers, lessen desire to go fishing and buy fishing 

licenses, raise doubts about clean water, discourage consumers 

from buying seafood, and tarnish the image of a tourism destination, thereby affecting local and regional economies. The Committee directs APHIS to work collaboratively with ARS, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, 

state resource managers, aquatic disease diagnostic labs, and academic institutions to develop a regional aquatic animal health plan 

including appropriate monitoring and detection. 

Cattle Health.—The Committee is aware of and concerned about 

the recent spread of Cattle Fever Ticks outside the quarantine 

area. The Committee requests that APHIS submit a report on its 

plans and efforts to control the spread of these ticks within 90 days 

of the date of enactment of this Act. 

Cervid Health.—Funding is provided in the bill for the national, 

voluntary Herd Certification Program (HCP) and regulations for 

the interstate movement of farmed or captive deer, elk, and moose. 

The cervid industry continues to participate in the agency’s HCP, 

which supports the domestic and international marketability of 

U.S. cervid herds. Funds are to be used for a combination of surveillance, research, and indemnification for culling herds where 

Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) infection has been found. Currently the only reliable test is a brain biopsy. The agency is encouraged to utilize resources to help speed up the development of a live 

test for CWD that would greatly decrease the need for indemnity. 

The Committee encourages APHIS to maintain its commitment to 

the HCP and the cervid industry, and directs the agency to spend 

no less than $3,500,000 for cervid health activities. Within the 

funds provided, the agency should give consideration to indemnity 

payments if warranted. 

Citrus Health Response Program (CHRP).—CHRP is a national 

program for the pest and disease exclusion and eradication activities including those associated with HLB and its vector the Asian 

Citrus Psyllid. The survival of the citrus industry in the U.S. is dependent on this funding, which supports efforts in citrus-producing 

states to research, survey, and combat both the pest and the disease. In addition to the funds provided in this account, the Committee encourages APHIS to utilize the funds available in the Plant 

Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention Programs 

account to the greatest extent possible in an attempt to sustain the 

economic viability of the citrus industry. 

Cost Sharing with States and Other Cooperators.—The Committee directs APHIS to maximize the use of cost-sharing agreements or matching requirements with states, territories, producers, 

foreign governments, non-governmental organizations, and any 

other recipient of services in order to reduce the cost burden on the 

agency. 

Cotton Pests.—The Committee encourages APHIS and the cotton 

industry to make every effort to ensure the boll weevil does not reinfest areas of the U.S. where it has been successfully eradicated. 

The Boll Weevil Eradication Program, an outstanding example of 

a public-private partnership, has successfully eradicated the boll 

weevil from all U.S. cotton-producing regions except for the extreme lower parts of Texas in the Lower Rio Grande Valley (LRGV) 

bordering Tamaulipas, Mexico. Growers in the LRGV, with assistVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:47 Jul 18, 2017 Jkt 026264 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR232.XXX HR232
30 

ance from APHIS and the support of the entire industry, continue 

to conduct an active program to eradicate the boll weevil. The 

LRGV serves as the barrier between boll weevil infested areas of 

Mexico and boll weevil-free areas of the United States. 

Emergency Outbreaks.—The Committee continues to include specific language relating to the availability of funds to address emergencies related to the arrest and eradication of contagious or infectious diseases or pests of animals, poultry or plants. The Committee expects the Secretary to continue to use the authority provided in this bill to transfer funds from the CCC for the arrest and 

eradication of animal and plant pests and diseases that threaten 

American agriculture. By providing funds in this account, the Committee is enhancing, not replacing, the use of CCC funding for 

emergency outbreaks. 

Export Certification.—The Committee recognizes personnel constraints placed on Ports of Entry, particularly those on the U.S.- 

Mexico Border, with regard to sanitary/phytosanitary certifications 

for exported goods. In the best interest of cross-border trade and 

agribusiness, any lack of certified personnel for certification purposes should be addressed by seeking cooperation between agencies, whether in the form of an MOU or through the certification 

process, authorizing additional hours for existing agents to facilitate the crossing and trade of perishable goods per USDA and DHS 

rules. The Committee believes that dual certification or inspection 

capabilities for shared staff, many of whom have prior experience 

with the partner agency, will more efficiently facilitate increased 

trade and commerce. 

Feral Swine Management.—Feral swine are found in at least 41 

states and have an estimated population of more than 5,000,000. 

These invasive species cause more than $1,500,000,000 in damages 

and control costs in the United States each year, with at least 

$800,000,000 of this due to direct damage to agriculture. The Committee believes this damage assessment far underestimates the 

level of damage when considering the impact to the environment, 

native species, habitat, historic sites, and residential and commercial areas. The Committee supports APHIS’ National Feral Swine 

Damage Management Program, which involves feral swine activities in the areas of research, development, education, outreach, and 

coordination. The Committee urges APHIS to spend no less than 

the amount provided in fiscal year 2017 and directs APHIS to use 

these funds to support its existing cooperative service agreement 

process, which identifies and develops unmet needs for feral swine 

control nationwide. 

Foreign Market Access Requests.—Increasingly, U.S. agriculture 

is facing non-tariff trade barriers, which are limiting the ability for 

U.S. agriculture to open and maintain access to key export markets. The Committee directs APHIS to review and update the list 

of foreign market access requests submitted by U.S. producers, producer groups, companies and/or non-government agencies. All efforts should be made to assign the appropriate agency resources to 

opening and maintaining access to foreign markets for U.S. products. By December 1, 2017, the agency should provide an update 

to the Committee on the number of foreign market access requests 

that have been successfully granted for U.S. agriculture; export volumes; the number of foreign market access requests that have been 

31 

granted for imports to the U.S. marketplace; and the number of 

outstanding requests and the length of time each request has been 

pending before the agency. The agency should identify the limitations in achieving and maintaining foreign market access for U.S. 

agriculture. 

Foreign Zoonotic Disease Response.—The Committee recognizes 

and commends APHIS for its efforts to address the challenges associated with eradicating foreign zoonotic diseases such as HPAI and 

FMD in a timely manner. In order to reduce the spread of disease 

outbreaks in the future, the Committee directs APHIS to use existing funds to undertake a review of existing protocols for foreign 

zoonotic disease eradication, including stamping-out policies, and to 

develop a strategy that improves agency, state and local, and industry responsiveness. This plan should take into consideration existing technology limitations, adverse weather, lack of water, and 

other issues that may hinder APHIS’ eradication efforts in the 

event of future outbreaks. Furthermore, APHIS should consider 

funds available to states through the current cooperative agreements for surveillance testing and backyard flock surveillance; 

grant or cost share opportunities for farmers to give them the ability to enhance biosecurity measures at their operations; the need 

for veterinarian positions in states for biosecurity activities; and 

needs to address the unavailability of vaccine for FMD. 

Grapevine Import Regulations.—The Committee urges APHIS to 

update its import regulations for grapevines. The current regulatory review process and requirements for pathogen screening of 

imports are expensive, cumbersome and time-consuming. Complying without the use of available technology can take in excess 

of thirteen years to complete. APHIS should issue new regulations 

that dramatically shorten the review timeline by using new technology and prioritize the approval of new grape varieties suited for 

colder, harsher climates. 

Horse Protection Act.—The Committee has continually encouraged APHIS to work more closely with stakeholders pursuant to 

the HPA. Specifically, the agency has been directed to provide 

greater and more consistent transparency, to work more closely 

with stakeholders on rules and regulations, and to move away from 

the subjective nature of current inspection methods in favor of objective measurements. While the Committee recognizes some 

progress, the agency must work in good faith to address the Committee’s requests, which are intended to further the dual goals of 

the HPA to care for animals engaged in the trade and promote the 

industry in a safe manner. The Committee has become aware that 

APHIS intends to modify regulations associated with the HPA 

through rule-making actions and notes that any substantive 

changes to the statute or its intent should be made by Congress 

through the legislative process. 

Huanglongbing Emergency Response.—The Committee maintains 

the increased funding levels for HLB emergency response within 

the Specialty Crop Pests line item. The Committee encourages 

APHIS to allocate sufficient resources in order to continue vital 

management, control, and associated activities to address citrus 

greening. The disease, for which there is no cure, has caused a reduction in citrus production by over 60 percent since 2007 in Florida alone. All citrus producing counties in Texas are under quarVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:47 Jul 18, 2017 Jkt 026264 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR232.XXX HR232
32 

antine, and California has found the Asian Citrus Psyllid, the vector of the disease, in some backyard trees but not in the commercial groves to date. The spread of this disease has called the future 

of the domestic citrus industry into question, costing thousands of 

jobs and millions of dollars in lost revenue. In addition, the agency 

is encouraged to support priorities and strategies identified by the 

HLB MAC group to benefit the citrus industry. The agency should 

appropriately allocate resources based on critical need and maximum effect to the citrus industry. The Committee provides $2,000,000 for citrus health to support 

priorities and strategies identified by the HLB MAC group. The 

MAC is focused on short-term solutions to help the citrus industry, 

and the cooperative nature of federal, state, and industry representatives in this group is expected to result in the development 

of tools and techniques to address this devastating disease. The 

MAC has been an effective resource in helping growers explore new 

possible solutions. The agency should appropriately allocate resources based on critical need and maximum impact to the citrus 

industry. These citrus health activities directly protect citrus production on approximately 765,000 acres in the United States worth 

more than $3,300,000,000 for the 2014–2015 growing season. 

Light Brown Apple Moth.—The Committee encourages APHIS to 

engage state and international regulatory bodies to deregulate the 

light brown apple moth. The Committee is concerned that if APHIS 

simply withdraws federal regulation without the necessary work 

with other regulatory officials, APHIS will shift, not reduce, the 

regulatory burden. Should APHIS withdraw the federal order for 

the light brown apple moth, it must take steps to reduce the overall burden on growers. The Committee maintains flat funding for 

the light brown apple moth to support the second phase of the 

Joint Forward Plan and urges the Department to develop initiatives for permanent, ongoing departmental regulatory partnerships 

while continuing to engage stakeholders and trading partners 

throughout North America. 

National Animal Health Laboratory Network.—The laboratories 

within the NAHLN network are on the frontline for detection of 

newly identified and reemerging animal diseases. NAHLN laboratories provide a critical contribution to animal and public health. 

The bill provides funding for NAHLN through both APHIS and 

NIFA at approximately $12,000,000 and $4,300,000, respectively, 

resulting in a total investment of $16,300,000 for fiscal year 2018. 

NAHLN laboratories were invaluable during the 2015 outbreak of 

HPAI, which significantly increased testing needs. At the same 

time, NAHLN laboratories must also continue testing for other animal diseases of concern. 

Orobanche Ramosa.—The Committee recognizes that APHIS’ efforts to eradicate Orobanche ramosa, also known as branched 

broomrape, in Texas were not completely successful and has resulted in its reemergence as a threat to agriculture. As such, the 

Committee encourages APHIS to work with the appropriate Congressional Committees, along with states and local stakeholders to 

formulate and execute a plan, which will permanently eradicate the 

branched broomrape. 

Overseas Trade and SPS Disputes.—Funds for the Overseas 

Technical and Trade Operations account should help resolve saniVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:47 Jul 18, 2017 Jkt 026264 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR232.XXX HR232
33 

tary and phytosanitary trade issues that could result in the opening of new markets and retaining and expanding existing market 

access for U.S. agricultural products. 

Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention Program.—The Committee believes that the increase of $12,500,000 

for this program in fiscal year 2018 should dedicate new resources 

to the clean plant network, citrus health, and tree and wood pest 

surveillance. 

Predator Control Device Review.—The Committee encourages 

APHIS Wildlife Services to review the M–44 devices to ensure the 

program is safely operated by qualified and trained professionals 

that minimize non-target species while effectively protecting livestock and poultry from predators. APHIS is also encouraged to 

evaluate alternative methods to determine if there are adequate 

substitutes based on livestock protection and overall safety. 

Potato Cyst Nematode Eradication.—The Committee includes 

funding to maintain resources for the potato cyst nematode eradication program at the fiscal year 2017 level in order to continue 

with successful efforts to eradicate this pest. If left untreated, this 

pest could spread, affecting other crops. 

Regional Biosecurity Plans.—The Secretary of Agriculture shall 

submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate, at the time the President’s budget for fiscal year 2019 is submitted under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, a report describing the steps USDA has taken to implement the Regional Biosecurity Plan for Micronesia and Hawaii, as developed 

jointly by the Department and other federal and non-federal entities. The report shall include an update on previous and upcoming 

implementation activities, including estimates of additional funding 

to be used or needed for planned activities. 

Vaccine for Foot-and-Mouth Disease.—FMD is a highly contagious viral disease eradicated from the U.S. in 1929, but it is still 

a threat since countries around the globe continue grappling with 

the disease. This disease could cause billions of dollars in damage 

to the economy if unchecked. APHIS has publicly stated that the 

FMD vaccine bank is insufficient to deal with a large scale FMD 

outbreak in the U.S. and that a larger vaccine bank is needed. 

APHIS has also noted that expanding the current FMD vaccine 

supply is an expensive investment. Having sufficient quantities of 

vaccine readily available and deployable to control an FMD outbreak would appear to be a critical part of the USDA APHIS mission. Rapid control of FMD protects the security of the U.S. food 

supply, limiting the economic damage from livestock losses due to 

the disease, and also shortens disruptions to trade and commerce 

that would occur as long as FMD goes uncontrolled due to a lack 

of vaccine. The Committee is concerned that this potential vaccine 

shortage could result in the compromised management of an FMD 

outbreak in the United States. In order that the Committee can 

better understand the budget implications required to address this 

vaccine shortage, APHIS is directed to report to the Committees on 

Appropriations of the House and Senate within 90 days of enactment of this Act on contingency plans to develop an expanded vaccine bank and the estimated funding necessary for implementation 

and maintenance. 

34 

Wildlife Damage Management.—While receiving support from cooperators to conduct wildlife management operations, special emphasis should be placed on those areas such as oral rabies vaccination, livestock protection, predator damage management for avian 

predators such as the blackbird and raven in Western states and 

cormorants in the south, and other such activities that will reduce 

or eliminate threats to agricultural industries. The Committee expects APHIS to provide no less than $28,000,000 for the national 

rabies control and surveillance efforts. No less than $250,000 

should be available for the agency to support the use of fixed-wing 

aircraft to reduce blackbird depredation in the Northern Great 

Plains. 

Of particular concern is the continued and repeat depredation by 

wolves and packs in the Pacific Northwest. In certain states where 

state management plans require state agencies to utilize lethal control of wolves, it is important these actions are taken to protect 

livestock. As experts in the field of managing predators to prevent 

depredation, USDA has valuable knowledge, tools and resources 

that can assist states in managing the federally reintroduced 

wolves. The Committee directs USDA to prioritize and complete the 

documentation and processes needed to allow them to assist states 

and local livestock producers with managing this situation. 

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE

MARKETING SERVICES

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $84,933,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... 77,462,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 77,573,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥7,360,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. +111,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Marketing Services of the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), the Committee provides an appropriation of $77,573,000. 

The Committee maintains the fiscal year 2017 funding level for the 

National Organic Program. 

Acer Access.—AMS oversees more than 20 research and promotion boards that empower producers and agribusinesses to pool 

their own resources to develop and strengthen markets and conduct research and promotion activities. The Committee encourages 

AMS to meet with the maple syrup industry, upon their request, 

to discuss the steps in creating a Research and Promotion Program, 

similar to the process other sectors of the agriculture industry have 

undertaken. 

Organic Fraud.—The organic industry is valued at approxi- mately $50,000,000,000 with significant premiums being paid for 

organic crops, foods, and products. When consumers pay these premiums, there needs to be certainty that domestic and imported 

products meet all of the required organic standards. The Committee is concerned about reports of fraud in the organic program, 

especially among imports. The Committee is aware that the OIG is 

finishing an audit to understand how AMS evaluates the equivalency of foreign countries’ organic processes, and both AMS and 

OIG continue to investigate instances of foreign and domestic 

35 

fraud. AMS is directed to provide the Committee with timely updates on the investigation of allegations of fraud in organic markets, as well as the results and recommendations of the OIG’s 

audit of organic equivalency agreements. 

Rural Infrastructure.—Inadequate market access is a critical barrier to economic growth in rural and agricultural communities. The 

fiscal year 2017 Consolidated Appropriations Act provided 

$1,000,000 for the Transportation Services Division to continue 

working with other federal, state and local agencies, as well as producers and those involved in all sectors of agricultural transportation, to address rural infrastructure needs to ensure producers 

have domestic and international market access. The Committee 

urges AMS to make public the results of the research and agricultural transportation workshops so that stakeholders, policymakers, 

and transportation planners can address rural infrastructure deficiencies. 

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

2017 limitation .................................................................................... ($61,227,000) 

2018 budget limitation ....................................................................... (60,982,000) 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. (61,227,000) 

Comparison: 

2017 limitation ............................................................................ – – – 

2018 budget limitation ................................................................ +245,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

The Committee provides a limitation of $61,227,000 on Administrative Expenses of the Agricultural Marketing Service. 

FUNDS FOR STRENGTHENING MARKETS, INCOME, AND SUPPLY

(SECTION 32)

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. ($20,705,000) 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... (20,489,000) 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. (20,705,000) 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. +216,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Marketing Agreements and Orders Program, the Com- mittee provides a transfer from Section 32 funds of $20,705,000. 

The following table reflects the status of this fund for fiscal years 

2017 and 2018: 

ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD FISCAL YEARS 2017–2018 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

FY 2017 Enacted Committee Provi- sion 

Appropriation (30% of Customs Receipts) ............................................................................. $10,929,840 $10,370,878 

Less Transfers: 

Food & Nutrition Service ................................................................................................ ¥9,503,998 ¥8,872,010 

Commerce Department ................................................................................................... ¥145,175 ¥154,868 

Total, Transfers .......................................................................................................... ¥9,649,173 ¥9,026,878 

Prior Year Appropriation Available, Start of Year ................................................................... 166,333 125,000 

36 

ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD FISCAL YEARS 2017– 

2018—Continued 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

FY 2017 Enacted Committee Provi- sion 

Transfer of Prior Year Funds to FNS (F&V) ............................................................................. ¥125,000 ¥125,000 

Budget Authority, Farm Bill: ........................................................................................... 1,322,000 1,344,000 

Rescission of Current Year Funds ........................................................................................... ¥231,374 ¥263,393 

Appropriations Temporarily Reduced—Sequestration ............................................................. ¥79,626 ¥77,352 

Unavailable for Obligations (F&V Transfer to FNS) ................................................................ ¥125,000 ¥125,000 

Budget Authority, Appropriations Act: ............................................................................ 886,000 878,255 

Less Obligations: 

Child Nutrition Programs (Entitlement Commodities) ................................................... 465,000 465,000 

State Option Contract ..................................................................................................... 5,000 5,000 

Removal of Defective Commodities ................................................................................ 2,500 2,500 

Emergency Surplus Removal .......................................................................................... 0 0 

Disaster Relief ................................................................................................................ 5,000 5,000 

Additional Fruits, Vegetables, and Nuts Purchases ...................................................... 206,000 206,000 

Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program ............................................................................... 43,000 47,000 

Estimated Future Needs ................................................................................................. 103,355 91,197 

Total, Commodity Procurement .................................................................................. 829,855 821,697 

Administrative Funds: 

Commodity Purchase Support ............................................................................... 35,440 35,853 

Marketing Agreements and Orders ........................................................................ 20,705 20,705 

Total, Administrative Funds .............................................................................. 56,145 56,558 

Total Obligations ............................................................................................... 886,000 878,255 

Unobligated Balance, End of Year .......................................................................................... 0 0 

Unavailable for Obligations (F&V Transfer to FNS) ................................................................ 125,000 125,000 

Total, End of Year Balances .......................................................................................... $125,000 $125,000 

PAYMENTS TO STATES AND POSSESSIONS

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $1,235,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... 1,109,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 1,109,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥126,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Payments to States and Possessions, the Committee provides 

an appropriation of $1,109,000. 

GRAIN INSPECTION, PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ADMINISTRATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $43,482,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... 42,975,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 42,888,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥594,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥87,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, the Committee provides $42,888,000. 

37 

LIMITATION ON INSPECTION AND WEIGHING SERVICES EXPENSES

2017 limitation .................................................................................... ($55,000,000) 

2018 budget limitation ....................................................................... (60,000,000) 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. (60,000,000) 

Comparison: 

2017 limitation ............................................................................ +5,000,000 

2018 budget limitation ................................................................ – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

The Committee includes a limitation on inspection and weighing services expenses of $60,000,000. The Committee does not concur 

with the agency’s proposal to remove the limitation on inspection 

and weighing services expenses. The agency has sufficient carryover balances in this account for these activities. Additionally, the 

bill includes authority to exceed by 10 percent the limitation on inspection and weighing services with notification to the Committees 

on Appropriations of the House and Senate. 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD SAFETY

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $819,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... 814,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 800,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥19,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥14,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, the Committee provides an appropriation of $800,000. 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $1,032,062,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... 1,038,069,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 1,038,069,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... +6,007,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), the Committee provides an appropriation of $1,038,069,000. 

The following table reflects the Committee’s recommendations for 

fiscal year 2018: 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Recommendation 

Federal Inspection ............................................................................................................................................ $921,762 

Public Health Data Communication Infrastructure System ............................................................................. 34,580 

International Food Safety and Inspection ........................................................................................................ 16,487 

State Food Safety and Inspection .................................................................................................................... 61,568 

Codex Alimentarius ........................................................................................................................................... 3,672 

Total, Food Safety and Inspection Service .............................................................................................. $1,038,069 

Brazilian Beef.—Due to the very high level of health, sanitation 

and animal health problems in Brazilian beef exports found by 

38 

FSIS inspectors, USDA suspended all imports of fresh beef from 

Brazil. The Committee applauds this action. However, given news 

reports about the severity of the corruption among Brazilian health 

and industry officials, the Committee directs USDA to conduct a 

full review of Brazil’s food safety equivalency determination for all 

products that are eligible to be exported to the United States, including raw beef. That review shall be completed within 180 days 

of enactment of this Act and a report shall be provided to the Committee and posted on the Department’s website. 

Humane Methods of Slaughter.—FSIS shall ensure that inspectors hired with funding previously specified for enforcement under 

the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act focus their attention on 

overseeing compliance with humane handling rules for live animals 

as they arrive and are offloaded and handled in pens, chutes, and 

stunning areas, and that all inspectors receive robust national 

training, including on the Regulatory Essentials, Humane Animal 

Tracking System, and Public Health Information System. 

Poultry from the People’s Republic of China.—Prior to finalizing 

any rule allowing poultry raised and slaughtered in the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC) into the United States, the Secretary shall 

provide a report to the Committee, and post the report on the FSIS 

website, as to all measures that that USDA will take to ensure 

that: (1) the PRC will provide continuous inspection with government inspection personnel in all poultry plants exporting to the 

U.S., including carcass-by-carcass inspection in slaughter facilities; 

(2) the PRC will publicly report all animal disease outbreaks affecting poultry in a timely fashion; and (3) the PRC will publicly disclose all recalls of poultry products in a timely fashion. 

Public Health Veterinarians.—The Committee is concerned about 

the persistent vacancy rate for public health veterinarians (PHVs) 

within FSIS. The Committee directs the Department to continue 

FSIS’ new incentive programs for PHVs and report the results no 

later than March 2018. Additionally, the Committee directs USDA 

to work with other federal agencies to explore the authority needed 

and how special salary rates may be implemented in the recruitment and retention of PHVs. 

Siluriformes Inspection.—Since implementing the Siluriformes 

inspection program, FSIS has conducted numerous inspections and 

has prevented more than 423 tons of adulterated or ineligible product from entering the U.S. food supply. FSIS has exceeded the 

number of inspections and findings by the FDA that previously had 

jurisdiction over the program. Given these results, the Committee 

does not concur with the President’s budget request to transfer this 

responsibility back to FDA. FSIS is protecting the public health, 

and the Committee expects the agency to continue with full compliance by September 1, 2017. 

39 

TITLE II 

FARM PRODUCTION AND CONSERVATION PROGRAMS 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FARM PRODUCTION AND

CONSERVATION

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $901,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... 896,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 875,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥26,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥21,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Farm Production and 

Conservation, the Committee provides an appropriation of 

$875,000. 

Reorganization.—The Committee is supportive of the Secretary’s 

reorganization of the farm production and conservation mission 

areas under one Under Secretary and expects this position to 

equally focus on each mission. The Committee directs the Under 

Secretary to provide briefings during fiscal year 2017 on preliminary strategies and plans for the reorganization related to the consolidation, co-location, relocation, and closure of field offices and 

staff; and the development and combination of information technology systems, specifically farm program modernization. 

FARM SERVICE AGENCY

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriation Transfer from 

Program Accounts Total, FSA S&E 

2017 appropriation ......................................................................... $1,206,110,000 ($309,610,000) ($1,515,720,000) 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................... 1,130,163,000 (297,888,000) (1,428,051,000) 

Provided in the bill ......................................................................... 1,166,317,000 (297,888,000) (1,464,205,000) 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ................................................................ ¥39,793,000 ¥11,722,000 ¥(51,515,000) 

2018 budget estimate ........................................................... +$36,154,000 $– – – +($36,154,000) 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Salaries and Expenses of the Farm Service Agency (FSA), 

the Committee provides an appropriation of $1,166,317,000 and 

transfers of $297,888,000, for a total program level of 

$1,464,205,000. 

The Committee does not: 1) provide the one-time FY 2017 increases of $6,000,000; 2) accept reductions in non-federal full time 

employees (FTE); 3) accept savings from farm program modernization; and 4) accept any reduction in FTE for international commodity operations and food aid programs including Food for Peace 

Title II and the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education 

Program. 

The Committee does: (1) accept savings from FTE attrition; (2) 

provide funding for CCC audit readiness; (3) accept savings from 

federal and non-federal operating expenses; (4) direct farm program 

40 

modernization savings to be used for other IT purposes proposed 

and as determined by the Secretary; and (5) accept IT operation 

maintenance and imaging savings. 

The Committee notes that the Department has the authority to 

include state organic program fees and transitional certification 

fees from programs established under the Organic Foods and Production Act of 1990 when administering the program under 7 

U.S.C. 6523. 

CLEAR Initiative.—The Committee is encouraged by FSA’s announcement of the new Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) initiative, the Clean Lakes, Estuaries, and Rivers (CLEAR) initiative, 

which creates a funding mechanism for the installation of saturated buffers and denitrifying bioreactors (NRCS Standard Codes 

604 and 605, respectively) into CRP buffers (CP 21 & CP 22). The 

CLEAR announcement established policy to incentivize and allow 

the installation of bioreactors into new, existing, and re-enrolled 

CRP buffers. However, saturated buffers were only allowed in new 

and re-enrolled CRP buffers. The Committee understands this has 

limited the ability of stakeholders to install saturated buffers into 

CRP without penalty. The Committee recommends FSA look into 

changing the CLEAR guidelines to allow the installation of saturated buffers in new, re-enrolled and existing CRP contracts to 

allow FSA cost-shared installation of saturated buffers, and to examine allowing for installation of saturated buffers through nonfederal programs and initiatives without penalty to landowners. 

Emergency Conservation Program (ECP).—The Committee encourages USDA to continue providing updates of funding needs for 

ECP, especially in the aftermath of drought, wildfires, and other 

natural disasters. The Committee encourages FSA to be flexible in 

meeting new challenges as it was during recent wildfire outbreaks 

when it allowed grazing on CRP lands. 

Oriental Fruit Fly.—The Committee strongly urges FSA to make 

funds available to those farmers who were negatively impacted by 

an Oriental Fruit Fly quarantine from October 2015 through February 2016. The farmers, who were unable to bring their crop to 

market, sustained devastating losses, although the quarantine was 

necessary and successful in eradicating the Oriental Fruit Fly pest. 

Because crop insurance and other similar programs do not apply in 

instances of a state or federally declared quarantine, the impacted 

farmers are in need of relief. The Committee believes it is within 

FSA’s purview to make funds available to the impacted farmers. 

STATE MEDIATION GRANTS

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $3,904,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... 3,398,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 3,398,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥506,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For State Mediation Grants, the Committee provides an appropriation of $3,398,000. 

41 

GRASSROOTS SOURCE WATER PROTECTION PROGRAM

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $6,500,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... – – – 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 6,000,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥500,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. +6,000,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Grassroots Source Water Protection Program, the Com- mittee provides an appropriation of $6,000,000. 

DAIRY INDEMNITY PROGRAM

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. 1 $500,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... 1 500,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 1 500,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 1 Current indefinite appropriation. 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Dairy Indemnity Program, the Committee provides an 

appropriation of such sums as may be necessary (estimated to be 

$500,000 in the President’s fiscal year 2018 budget request). 

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

ESTIMATED LOAN LEVELS

2017 loan level .................................................................................... $8,002,576,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... 6,953,884,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 7,163,884,000 

Comparison: 

2017 loan level ............................................................................. ¥838,692,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. +210,000,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund program account, the Committee provides a loan level of $7,163,884,000. 

Farm Loans.—The Committee encourages FSA to continue providing updates on the estimates of demand for farm loan programs. 

The Committee also encourages the retention and fulfillment of 

farm loan program officer positions to facilitate an orderly processing of applications and prevent administrative backlogs. 

The following table reflects the loan levels for the Agricultural 

Credit Insurance Fund program account: 

AGRICULTURE CREDIT PROGRAMS—LOAN LEVELS 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

FY 2017 Enacted FY 2018 Estimate Committee Provision 

Farm Loan Programs 

Farm Ownership: 

Direct ................................................................. $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 

Unsubsidized Guaranteed ................................. 2,750,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 

42 

AGRICULTURE CREDIT PROGRAMS—LOAN LEVELS—Continued 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

FY 2017 Enacted FY 2018 Estimate Committee Provision 

Farm Operating: 

Direct ................................................................. 1,530,000 1,304,851 1,304,851 

Unsubsidized Guaranteed ................................. 1,960,000 1,393,423 1,593,423 

Emergency Loans .............................................. 22,576 25,610 25,610 

Indian Tribe Land Acquisition Loans ................ 20,000 20,000 20,000 

Conservation Loans: 

Unsubsidized Guaranteed ................................. 150,000 150,000 150,000 

Indian Highly Fractionated Land ...................... 10,000 – – – 10,000 

Boll Weevil Eradication ..................................... 60,000 60,000 60,000 

Total ......................................................... $8,002,576 $6,953,884 $7,163,884 

ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Direct Loan Subsidy Guaranteed 

Loan Subsidy 

Administrative 

Expenses 

2017 appropriation ..................................................................................... $65,178 $20,972 $317,068

2018 budget estimate ................................................................................ 52,716 15,467 305,291 

Provided in the bill ..................................................................................... 52,716 15,467 305,291 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ............................................................................ ¥12,462 ¥5,505 ¥11,777 

2018 budget estimate ....................................................................... $– – – $– – – $– – – 

The following table reflects the costs of loan programs under 

credit reform: 

AGRICULTURE CREDIT PROGRAMS—SUBSIDIES AND GRANTS 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

FY 2017 

Enacted 

FY 2018 

Estimate 

Committee 

Provision 

Farm Loan Subsidies 

Farm Operating: 

Direct ............................................................................................... $65,178 $52,716 $52,716 

Unsubsidized Guaranteed ............................................................... 20,972 15,467 17,687 

Emergency Loans ............................................................................ 1,262 1,260 1,260 

Indian Highly Fractionated Land .................................................... 2,550 – – – 2,272 

Total ................................................................................................ 89,962 69,443 73,935 

ACIF Expenses: 

Salaries and Expenses ............................................................................. 306,998 297,386 297,386 

Administrative Expenses .......................................................................... 10,070 7,905 7,905 

Total, ACIF Expenses ....................................................................... $317,068 $305,291 $305,291 

RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $74,829,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... 1 55,000,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 1 55,000,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥19,829,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 1Does not include $20,000,000 from mandatory funding. 

43 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Risk Management Agency, the Committee provides an 

appropriation of $55,000,000. 

The Committee supports the President’s Budget Request to use 

fees for operating expenses and to maintain program integrity. The 

Committee advises the agency to provide updates during fiscal year 

2017 on the program impact from this proposal. 

NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE

CONSERVATION OPERATIONS

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $864,474,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... 766,000,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 858,911,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥5,563,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. +92,911,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Conservation Operations, the Committee provides an appro- priation of $858,911,000. The Committee provides $9,300,000 for the Snow Survey and Water Forecasting Program; $9,400,000 for the Plant Materials 

Centers; and $80,000,000 for the Soil Surveys Program. The Committee provides $760,211,000 for Conservation Technical Assistance 

and includes the requested increase for the Conservation Delivery 

Streamlining Initiative. 

Agricultural Conservation Easement Program.—Due to the 

unique ecological needs of each state, the Committee encourages 

NRCS to work with state and local partners to address these needs 

and to ensure the priority needs and projects in each state, such 

as those that are leveraged by public and private resources, are addressed. 

Cheat Grass Eradication.—The Committee encourages NRCS to 

continue to assist farmers and ranchers to eradicate, control, and 

reduce the fuel loads associated with cheat grass and to collaborate 

with ARS, as appropriate, on research related to cheat grass. 

Community Colleges.—The Committee encourages NRCS to collaborate with our nation’s community colleges for the advancement 

of agriculture and the adoption of technology and conservation 

practices among producers and landowners. NRCS should target 

specific funds to highlight the special contributions that community 

colleges can provide in terms of technical assistance, demonstration, and applied research that is available through their agriculture programs. 

Floodplain Buyouts.—The Committee commends the successful 

efforts of NRCS with voluntary floodplain homeowner buyout 

projects. The Committee encourages the NRCS to continue collaborative efforts with participating towns and counties to mitigate unintended consequences resulting from buyouts, such as utility cost 

increases for homeowners in these regions. 

Harmful Algal Blooms.—The Committee supports NRCS’ ongoing 

work to prevent soil erosion leading to harmful algal blooms 

through the introduction of cover crops and encourages continued 

targeting of watersheds where harmful algal blooms pose a threat. 

44 

Herbicide Resistance.—The Committee reminds NRCS of the 

challenges many producers are facing due to the spread of herbicide-resistant weeds and encourages it to ensure agency staff, partners, and producers are aware of conservation practice standards, 

conservation activity plans to address herbicide-resistant weeds, 

and financial assistance available through conservation programs 

to assist producers in their efforts to control these weeds. 

Irrigation Agriculture.—The recent drought in the Southeast 

brought to light the need for greater irrigation in regions that have 

not previously had widespread irrigation systems. The Committee 

reiterates its support for irrigation agriculture and encourages 

NRCS to leverage all possible funding streams to support the expansion of irrigation infrastructure in rural America. The Committee also notes that it has not received the report required by H. 

Rpt. 114–531 and directs NRCS to submit this report. 

Locally Led Conservation.—The Committee recognizes that locally led conservation is the foundation of the nation’s highly successful legacy of conservation and encourages NRCS to work with 

state, tribal, local, and other partners on voluntary stewardship 

projects that preserve working agricultural lands while protecting 

watersheds and wildlife habitat. 

Milkweed.—The Committee is concerned about the rapid decline 

in milkweed for monarch butterfly habitat. The Committee encourages NRCS consider the increased benefits of restoring milkweed 

for monarch habitat in fiscal year 2018. 

National Marine Sanctuaries.—The Committee urges the agency 

to continue the collaborative agreement with the Office of National 

Marine Sanctuaries to address sources of agricultural runoff, such 

as sediments, nitrates, and pesticides. 

Regional Conservation Partnership Program.—The Committee 

commends NRCS for the success of RCPP, through which NRCS 

provides assistance to producers through partnership agreements, 

program contracts, or easement agreements. These programs allow 

for diverse and innovative conservation projects which leverage 

both public and private funding. The Committee encourages NRCS 

to consider the needs of organic farmers, who implement a wide variety of creative methods to improve water quality and enhance the 

environment, while implementing RCPP. 

Resource Conservation and Development Councils (RC&Ds).—The 

Committee recognizes RC&Ds have been valuable partners in conservation and encourages NRCS to continue working with local 

councils, as appropriate, to ensure conservation programs meet 

local resource needs. 

Sage Grouse Initiative.—The Committee supports NRCS’ sage 

grouse conservation efforts. Through the initiative, NRCS provides 

technical and financial assistance to help landowners conserve sage 

grouse habitat on their land. The initiative is an integral part of 

efforts by federal agencies, several western states, and private 

landowners to help preclude the listing of the sage grouse as an endangered species. 

45 

WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION OPERATIONS

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $150,000,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... – – – 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 40,000,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥110,000,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. +40,000,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations, the Com- mittee provides an appropriation of $40,000,000. 

WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROGRAM

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $12,000,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... – – – 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 10,000,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥2,000,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. +10,000,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Watershed Rehabilitation Program, the Committee pro- vides an appropriation of $10,000,000. 

CORPORATIONS 

High-Hazard Dams.—Within the funds provided for the Watershed Rehabilitation Program, the Committee provides $5,000,000 

for the repair and rehabilitation of high-hazard dams which pose 

a threat to human life and safety, in particular those in rural 

states which have had recent floods that resulted in fatalities. 

FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION FUND

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. 1 $8,667,000,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... 1 8,245,000,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 1 8,245,000,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥422,000,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 1 Current indefinite appropriation. 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund, the Committee provides an appropriation of such sums as may be necessary 

(estimated to be $8,245,000,000 in the President’s fiscal year 2018 

budget request). 

COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION FUND

REIMBURSEMENT FOR NET REALIZED LOSSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

2017 appropriation ..................................................................... 1 $21,290,712,000 

2018 budget estimate ................................................................. 1 17,483,000,000 

Provided in the bill ..................................................................... 1 17,483,000,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation .............................................................. ¥3,807,712,000 

2018 budget estimate .......................................................... – – – 1 Current indefinite appropriation. 

46 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Reimbursement for Net Realized Losses to the Commodity 

Credit Corporation, the Committee provides such sums as may be 

necessary to reimburse for net realized losses sustained but not 

previously reimbursed (estimated to be $17,483,000,000 in the 

President’s fiscal year 2018 budget request). 

Cotton.—The Committee encourages the Commodity Credit Corporation to use some of the funding available for Section 5 of the 

authorizing Act (15 U.S.C. 714) and Section 32 of the Agricultural 

Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 612c) provided in FY 2017 and available 

in FY 2018 to be used for purposes of providing assistance to the 

cotton sector. The Committee further encourages the Department 

to explore and act upon other ways to assist the sector, including 

through ginning cost-share programs, other methods allowable by 

law, and as a result of the study directed in the fiscal year 2017 

appropriations Act. The Committee further supports the inclusion 

of cottonseed as an oilseed. 

HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT

(LIMITATION ON EXPENSES)

2017 limitation .................................................................................... ($5,000,000) 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... (5,000,000) 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. (5,000,000) 

Comparison: 

2017 limitation ............................................................................ – – – 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Hazardous Waste Management, the Committee provides a 

limitation of $5,000,000. 

TITLE III 

RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 

RURAL DEVELOPMENT SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

FY 2017 Enacted FY 2018 

Estimate 

Committee 

Provision 

Appropriations ............................................................................................. $225,835,000 $186,076,000 $220,835,000 

Transfer from: 

Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account ............................. 412,254,000 244,249,000 401,300,000 

Rural Community Facilities Program Account ................................... – – – 147,591,000 – – – 

Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account .............................. 4,468,000 – – – 4,230,000 

Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loan Program Account .............................................................................................. 33,270,000 38,027,000 30,750,000 

Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program ............. – – – 8,057,000 – – – 

Total, RD Salaries and Expenses ............................................. $675,827,000 $624,000,000 $657,115,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Salaries and Expenses of the Rural Development mission 

area, the Committee provides an appropriation of $220,835,000. 

47 

RURAL HOUSING SERVICE

RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Loan Level Subsidy Level Administrative 

Expenses 

2017 Appropriation ......................................................................... $25,335,133 $89,302 $412,254 

2018 Budget Estimate .................................................................... 24,260,000 – – – 244,249 

Provided in the Bill ......................................................................... 25,217,398 49,515 401,300 

Comparison: 

2017 Appropriation ................................................................ ¥117,735 ¥39,787 ¥10,954 

2018 Budget Estimate ........................................................... +$957,398 +$49,515 +$157,051 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Housing Insurance Fund program account, the 

Committee provides a loan level of $25,217,398,000. 

Section 502 Intermediary Pilot Program.—The bill directs the 

Secretary to continue and expand the pilot program for packaging 

section 502 direct loans. The pilot requires not less than ten nonprofit organizations to prepare and review applications for single 

family loans, saving federal funds and staff time. The Committee 

expects the Rural Housing Service to expeditiously implement this 

program. 

Section 514 Housing.—The Committee recognizes changes in the 

agricultural labor market and the effect of these changes on farm 

housing utilization. However, any changes to eligibility for farm 

housing must not displace any farm worker who is a United States 

citizen or a person legally admitted to the United States. Eligibility 

changes would only apply to situations where housing units are 

currently unoccupied or underutilized. 

Rural Definition.—Communities need transparency and deserve 

to understand the criteria that are evaluated when determining eligibility for RHS programs. The Committee directs RHS to submit 

a report listing the criteria used to define ‘‘rural in character’’ in 

determining program eligibility. 

The following table reflects the loan levels for the Rural Housing 

Insurance Fund program account: 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

FY 2017 

Enacted 

FY 2018 

Estimate 

Committee 

Provision 

Rural Housing Insurance Fund Loans: 

Single Family Housing (sec. 502): 

Direct ......................................................................................... $1,000,000 $– – – $900,000 

Unsubsidized Guaranteed ......................................................... 24,000,000 24,000,000 24,000,000 

Housing Repair (sec. 504) ................................................................. 26,278 – – – 24,000 

Rental Housing (sec. 515) ................................................................. 35,000 – – – 28,398 

Multi-family Guaranteed (sec. 538) .................................................. 230,000 250,000 230,000 

Site Development Loans .................................................................... 5,000 – – – 5,000 

Credit Sales of Acquired Property ..................................................... 10,000 10,000 10,000 

Self-help Housing Land Development Fund ...................................... 5,000 – – – 5,000 

Farm Labor Housing .......................................................................... 23,855 – – – 15,000 

Total, Loan Authorization .......................................................... $25,335,133 $24,260,000 $25,217,398 

48 

The following table reflects the costs of loan programs under 

credit reform: 

ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

FY 2017 

Enacted 

FY 2018 

Estimate 

Committee 

Provision 

Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account (Loan Subsidies and Grants): 

Single Family Housing (sec. 502): 

Direct ................................................................................................................. $67,700 $– – – $34,650 

Housing Repair (sec. 504) ......................................................................................... 3,663 – – – 2,959 

Rental Housing (sec. 515) ......................................................................................... 10,360 – – – 7,472 

Farm Labor Housing .................................................................................................. 7,051 – – – 4,008 

Site Development (sec. 524) ..................................................................................... 111 – – – 58 

Self-Help Land (sec. 523) ......................................................................................... 417 – – – 368

Total, Loan Subsidies ....................................................................................... 89,302 – – – 49,515

Farm Labor Housing Grants ...................................................................................... 8,336 – – – 6,000 

RHIF Expenses: 

Administrative Expenses ................................................................................... $412,254 $244,249 $401,300 

RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $1,405,033,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... 1,345,293,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 1,345,293,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥59,740,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rental Assistance Program, the Committee provides a 

program level of $1,345,293,000. 

MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVITALIZATION PROGRAM ACCOUNT

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $41,400,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... 20,000,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 35,000,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥6,400,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. +15,000,000 

For the Multifamily Housing Revitalization Program Account, 

the Committee provides an appropriation of $35,000,000, including 

$20,000,000 for the rural housing voucher program. 

MUTUAL AND SELF HELP HOUSING GRANTS

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $30,000,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... – – – 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 25,000,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥5,000,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. +25,000,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Mutual and Self-Help Housing Grants, the Committee provides an appropriation of $25,000,000. 

49 

RURAL COMMUNITY FACILITIES PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $47,100,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... 147,591,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 4,849,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥42,251,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥142,742,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Community Facilities Program Account, the Com- mittee provides an appropriation of $4,849,000. 

The Committee provides funding for Community Facility grants 

in the Rural Economic Infrastructure account. 

The Committee continues to take the Rural Development administrative expense transfer from the Rural Housing Insurance Fund 

(RHIF) and does not accept the proposed transfer from the Rural 

Community Facilities program account. 

Power Plus.—The Committee encourages USDA to give consideration to Community Facility investments in coal communities that 

have been negatively impacted by changes in the coal industry and 

power sector. 

The following table provides the Committee’s recommendations 

as compared to the budget request: 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

FY 2017 Enacted FY 2018 Estimate Committee Provision 

Loan Levels: 

Community Facility Direct Loans ..................................... ($2,600,000) ($3,000,000) ($2,600,000) 

Community Facility Guaranteed Loans ............................ (148,305) (– – –) (148,305) 

Subsidy and Grants: 

Community Facility Guaranteed Loans ............................ 3,322 – – – 4,849 

Community Facility Grants .............................................. 30,000 – – – – – – 

Rural Community Development Initiative ........................ 4,000 – – – – – – 

Economic Impact Initiative .............................................. 5,778 – – – – – – 

Tribal College Grants ....................................................... 4,000 – – – – – – 

Administrative Expense Transfer ..................................... – – – 147,591 – – – 

Total, Rural Community Facilities Program Subsidy and Grants .................................................. $47,100 $147,591 $4,849 

RURAL BUSINESS-COOPERATIVE SERVICE

RURAL BUSINESS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $65,319,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... – – – 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 58,251,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥7,068,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. +58,251,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Business Program Account, the Committee pro- vides an appropriation of $58,251,000. 

The Committee provides resources to operate programs under the 

Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS). RBS programs comVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:47 Jul 18, 2017 Jkt 026264 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR232.XXX HR232
50 

plement lending activities of the private sector by promoting economic prosperity in rural communities through improved access to 

capital and economic development on a regional scale. 

The following table provides the Committee’s recommendations 

as compared to the budget request: 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

FY 2017 Enacted FY 2018 Estimated Committee Provision 

Loan Level: 

Business and Industry Guaranteed Loans ...................... ($919,765) $– – – ($819,000) 

Subsidy and Grants: 

Business and Industry Guaranteed Loans ...................... 35,319 – – – 33,251 

Rural Business Development Grants ............................... 24,000 – – – 20,000 

Delta Regional Authority/Appalachian Regional Commission ........................................................................ 6,000 – – – 5,000 

Total, Rural Business Program Subsidy and 

Grants ................................................................. $65,319 $– – – $58,251 

The following programs are included in the bill for the Rural 

Business Program account: $500,000 for rural transportation technical assistance and $4,000,000 for Federally Recognized Native 

American Tribes, of which $250,000 is for transportation technical 

assistance. The Committee notes that the 2014 Farm Bill consolidated the Rural Business Opportunity and Rural Business Enterprise grant programs. 

Rural Business Development Grants.—The Committee understands the important role that rural business development grants 

have in supporting the development or expansion of businesses in 

rural areas. 

INTERMEDIARY RELENDING PROGRAM FUND ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Loan Level Subsidy Level Administrative 

Expenses 

2017 Appropriation ................................................................... $18,889 $5,476 $4,468 

2018 Budget Estimate .............................................................. – – – – – – – – – 

Provided in the Bill ................................................................... 17,500 4,041 4,230 

Comparison: 

2017 Appropriation .......................................................... ¥1,389 ¥1,435 ¥238 

2018 Budget Estimate ..................................................... +$17,500 +$4,041 +$4,230 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Intermediary Relending Program Fund Account, the 

Committee provides for a loan level of $17,500,000. 

For the loan subsidy, the Committee provides an appropriation 

of $4,041,000. In addition, the Committee provides $4,230,000 for 

administrative expenses. 

51 

RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

Loan Level 

2017 Appropriation ........................................................................................................................................... $42,213,000 

2018 Budget Estimate ..................................................................................................................................... – – – 

Provided in the Bill .......................................................................................................................................... 33,077,000 

Comparison: 

2017 Appropriation .................................................................................................................................. ¥9,136,000 

2018 Budget Estimate ............................................................................................................................ +$33,077,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS 

For the Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account, 

the Committee provides for a loan level of $33,077,000. 

Review and Selection Process.—The Committee recognizes that 

demand for the Rural Economic Development Loan and Grant Program remains high. The Committee encourages the Rural Business-Cooperative Service to award funds on a first-come first-serve 

basis, after taking all other eligibility requirements into account, 

and not the prioritization system utilized in fiscal year 2016. The 

Committee supports utilizing a first-come first-serve award system 

as the most expeditious means to award funds to eligible projects. 

RURAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $26,550,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... – – – 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 21,000,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥5,550,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. +21,000,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Rural Cooperative Development Grants, the Committee provides an appropriation of $21,000,000. This total includes 

$2,500,000 for a cooperative agreement for the Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas program and $10,000,000 for the 

value-added agricultural product market development grant program. 

The Committee notes that the 2014 Farm Bill provided mandatory funding for value-added agricultural product market development grants. 

RURAL ENERGY FOR AMERICA PROGRAM

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $352,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... – – – 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 291,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥61,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. +291,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Energy for America Program, the Committee provides a loan level of $7,520,000 and an appropriation of $291,000 

for the loan subsidy to make loans as authorized by section 9007 

of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 

8107). 

52 

The Committee notes that the 2014 Farm Bill provides mandatory funding for this program. 

RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE

RURAL WATER AND WASTE DISPOSAL PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $571,190,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... – – – 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 472,700,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥98,490,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. +472,700,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program Account, the Committee provides an appropriation of $472,700,000. Rural areas 

continue to face immense needs and challenges in attaining safe 

and clean water, and the USDA Water and Waste Disposal program provides targeted and coordinated support for these communities and is essential for the delivery of safe, dependable and affordable water and wastewater to rural America. The Committee 

believes this program is complimentary, not duplicative of other 

federal programs and critical in supporting quality of life, economic 

development and health to rural communities. 

Water Supplies for Very Small Communities.—The Committee is 

aware of concerns that Rural Utilities Service (RUS) grant programs do not adequately help small, disadvantaged, and severely 

disadvantaged communities access the funding and expertise necessary to develop sustainable water supplies or otherwise improve 

their wastewater systems, and it directs the agency to focus its efforts to assist these communities with predevelopment planning to 

help them address their water supply needs. 

Carryover Balances for AK, HI, and Colonias Grants.—The Committee is aware of carryover balances of unobligated funds provided 

in prior year appropriations for Water and Waste Disposal grants 

for Alaskan villages, Native American Tribes, Hawaiian Homelands, and the Colonias. The Committee urges the Department to 

work with state, local and tribal organization stakeholders to provide assistance via water and waste disposal grant programs as 

long as such assistance was requested by the respective groups in 

the year in which the funds were appropriated. The Department 

has flexibility to shift these prior year funds among the four areas 

through a reprogramming of funds. Further, the Committee provides flexibility in fiscal year 2018 to move funds to other water 

and waste disposal priorities in order to reduce the backlog of related needs nationwide. 

Open and Free Competition Policy.—The Committee supports the 

Department’s underlying adherence to free and open competition 

on water and waste projects as contained in 7 CFR 1780.70(b) and 

(d). The Committee supports efforts to eliminate arbitrary actions 

in the procurement process but is concerned that the Department 

is undermining the ability of local communities and the engineer 

of record to design water and wastewater projects in the manner 

that best serves the unique needs and considerations of local comVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:47 Jul 18, 2017 Jkt 026264 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR232.XXX HR232
53 

munities. In particular, the Committee is concerned about the May 

17, 2012, memorandum and the implementation of pipe materials. 

The Committee believes that the Department must apply its policy 

uniformly to all building materials but is concerned with the Department requirements that would unnecessarily delay projects by 

including onerous approval processes. Communities and professional engineers are different and specify the pipe materials that 

best suit the needs of their community and project. These communities and engineers, therefore make different determinations depending on what is suited for a given community, including the existence of applicable federal, state, or local ordinances or standard 

specifications. The Committee encourages the Department to defer 

to the engineer of record in the selection of materials that meet nationally recognized standards, including pipe, absent extraordinary 

circumstances demonstrating arbitrary action. 

Domestic Preference.—The bill includes language specifying that 

RUS’ Rural Water and Waste Disposal program account that 

projects utilizing iron and steel shall use iron and steel products 

produced in the United States. RUS shall apply the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s definition of public water systems while implementing the domestic preference provision. 

RUS Contracting.—The Committee encourages RUS to review 

construction contract procedures to identify means to more efficiently build and expand critical power and communications infrastructure across rural America. Specifically, the Committee is interested in Form 773 contracts and benefits or detriments towards 

increasing the limit of the contracts to $1,000,000 and enabling 

subcontracting opportunities under the contracts. The Committee is 

also interested in any changes to bonding requirements should the 

contract limit be increased and what, if any, controls are lost when 

executing a minor construction project over the RUS Form 515 that 

is currently utilized for projects over $250,000. 

Unserved and Underserved Rural Communities.—The Committee 

recognizes there are unserved or underserved rural areas within 

the U.S. that lack the technical, financial, or managerial capacity 

to adequately operate, maintain or provide safe and affordable 

water and wastewater service necessary to protect and enhance the 

public health and economic vitality of their communities. It is 

noted that many contiguous and local utilities located outside the 

unserved or underserved service area have the capacity to provide 

sustainable, essential water and wastewater services to these 

areas. The Committee directs the Secretary to explore the potential 

of providing financial and other incentives to the local or contiguous utilities that have the demonstrated capacity and ability to 

provide essential water and waste water services to these unserved 

or underserved communities. The Secretary shall provide a report 

to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate with 

findings and recommendations within 180 days of enactment of this 

Act. 

The following table provides the Committee’s recommendations 

as compared to the budget request: 

54 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

FY 2017 Enacted FY 2018 Estimate Committee Provision 

Loan Levels: 

Water and Waste Direct Loans ........................................ ($1,200,000) $– – – ($1,200,000) 

Water and Waste Guaranteed Loans ............................... (50,000) – – – (50,000) 

Subsidy and Grants: 

Direct Subsidy .................................................................. 52,080 – – – 25,680 

Guaranteed Subsidy ......................................................... 240 – – – 230 

Water and Waste Revolving Fund ................................... 1,000 – – – 1,000 

Water Well System Grants ............................................... 993 – – – 993 

Grants for the Colonias and AK/HI .................................. 64,000 – – – 45,000 

Water and Waste Technical Assistance Grants .............. 20,000 – – – 20,000 

Circuit Rider Program ...................................................... 16,897 – – – 16,897 

Solid Waste Management Grants .................................... 4,000 – – – 4,000 

High Energy Cost Grants ................................................. 10,000 – – – – – – 

Water and Waste Disposal Grants .................................. 391,980 – – – 358,900 

306A(i)(2) Grants ............................................................. 10,000 – – – – – – 

Total, Subsidies and Grants ................................... $571,190 $– – – $472,700 

RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS LOANS

PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Loan Level Subsidy Level Administrative 

Expenses 

2017 Appropriation ................................................................... $6,940,000 $3,071 $33,270 

2018 Budget Estimate .............................................................. 6,190,000 863 38,027 

Provided in the Bill ................................................................... 6,940,000 863 30,750 

Comparison: 

2017 Appropriation .......................................................... – – – ¥2,208 ¥2,520 

2018 Budget Estimate ..................................................... +$750,000 $– – – ¥$7,277 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program Account, the Committee provides a loan level of 

$6,940,000,000. In addition, the Committee provides $30,750,000 

for administrative expenses. 

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

[Dollars in Thousands] 

FY 2017 Enacted FY 2018 Estimate Committee Provision 

Loan Authorizations: 

Electric: 

Direct, FFB .............................................................. $5,500,000 $5,500,000 $5,500,000 

Guaranteed Underwriting ........................................ 750,000 – – – 750,000 

Subtotal ................................................................... 6,250,000 5,500,000 6,250,000 

Telecommunications: 

Direct, Treasury Rate ....................................................... 345,000 345,000 345,000 

Direct, FFB ....................................................................... 345,000 345,000 345,000 

Total, Loan Authorizations ...................................... $6,940,000 $6,190,000 $6,940,000 

55 

BROADBAND PROGRAM

[Dollars in Thousands] 

FY 2017 Enacted FY 2018 Estimate Committee Provision 

Broadband Program: 

Loan Authorization ........................................................... $27,043 $26,991 $26,991 

Loan Subsidy .................................................................... 4,500 4,521 4,521 

Grants .............................................................................. 34,500 – – – – – – 

Distance Learning and Telemedicine: 

Grants .............................................................................. 26,600 – – – – – – 

Total, Loan Subsidy and Grants ............................. $65,600 $4,521 $4,521 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Broadband Program, the Committee provides an appropriation of $4,521,000. 

The Committee has provided appropriations for the Distance 

Learning, Telemedicine and Community Connect program under 

the Rural Economic Infrastructure account. 

Broadband Loan Program Priorities.—The Committee recognizes 

the advantages of extending broadband services, including the economic development opportunities and improved health care services that broadband technology provides. Funding provided for the 

broadband loan program is intended to promote availability in 

those areas where there is not otherwise a business case for private 

investment in a broadband network. The Committee directs RUS 

to focus expenditures on projects that bring broadband service to 

underserved households and areas. 

Tribal Communities.—The Committee notes that tribal communities continue to struggle with gaining access to broadband service. The Committee encourages the Secretary to provide a report 

that identifies the specific challenges Indian Tribal Organizations 

(ITOs) have in gaining access to broadband service and provide a 

plan for addressing these challenges, including how the Community 

Connect program can assist ITOs. 

RURAL ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $– – – 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... 161,893,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 122,692,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... +122,692,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥39,201,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Economic Infrastructure Account, the Committee 

provides an appropriation of $122,692,000. 

The Rural Economic Infrastructure Account uses the existing 

grant authorities under the Rural Housing Assistance Grant accounts, Rural Community Facilities Program account, and Distance 

Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program account, providing the Department with flexibility to maximize economic impact. The bill includes language requiring at least 15 percent of resources be allocated to each program area within the account. 

56 

TITLE IV 

DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD, NUTRITION, AND

CONSUMER SERVICES

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $814,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... 809,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 800,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥14,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥9,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and 

Consumer Services, the Committee provides an appropriation of 

$800,000. 

Public Release of Information.—The Committee directs FNS to 

continue making all policy documents related to the WIC program 

(including, but not limited to, instructions, memoranda, guidance, 

and questions and answers) available to the public on the Internet 

within one week of their release to WIC state administrators. 

Program Eligibility.—The Committee directs FNS to work with 

states to ensure full compliance with the law mandating that every 

WIC and SNAP participant meet all program eligibility requirements. FNS is also directed to ensure these programs are not being 

promoted to ineligible individuals, which would increase program 

costs. 

Fruit and Vegetable Consumption.—The Committee continues to 

urge FNS to recognize in relevant agency publications and regulations related to all federal nutrition programs, including nutrition 

education programs and child nutrition programs, the nutritional 

benefits provided by all forms of fruits, vegetables, and beans, 

whether canned, dried, fresh, or frozen. 

FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE

CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $22,793,982,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... 24,256,266,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 24,280,944,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... +1,486,962,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. +24,678,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Child Nutrition Programs, the Committee provides 

$24,280,944,000, which includes $25,000,000 for school meals 

equipment grants. School districts across the country continue to 

be in need of equipment to serve healthy meals; therefore, the 

Committee continues this program. 

Afterschool Programs.—The Committee supports the efforts of 

approved food sites to serve students nutritious meals through the 

Summer Food Service Program and the Child and Adult Care Food 

Program. FNS is directed to provide a report on the options and 

57 

costs for serving at-risk, low income children with snacks or meals 

beyond the current limit of two meals per day that is established 

for these programs. 

School Meals.—The Committee remains concerned about the 

challenges and costs that local schools face in implementing the 

various regulations from the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 

2010. In order to provide schools with the certainty and flexibility 

they need for the 2018–2019 school year, the Committee continues 

to extend the whole grain waiver provision to those school food authorities demonstrating a hardship in implementing the whole 

grain standards. Schools will not be required to meet the Target 2 

levels for sodium and will remain compliant if they meet Target 1. 

Further, schools will have flexibility in serving low-fat flavored 

milk. 

The Secretary is taking positive steps to provide greater flexibility and restore local control in serving healthy meals. The Committee directs USDA to continue to provide flexibilities to implement the requirements under Subsection (p) of section 12 of the 

Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act so that local authorities can make decisions on school lunch pricing. The Committee encourages the Department to find additional ways to provide schools 

with school lunch pricing flexibility and other long-term certainty 

in implementing the school meals programs. 

Training and Technical Assistance.—The Committee is aware of 

the need for training of school nutrition personnel that focuses on 

school food service meal preparation and workforce development. 

Within available funds for Team Nutrition, the Committee encourages the Department to allow non-regulatory allied professional associations to assist in training school food service professionals. 

Unpaid School Lunch Fees.—The Committee is concerned with 

reports that some students with unpaid school lunch fees are treated unfairly and being publicly embarrassed. The Committee directs 

the Secretary to issue recommended standards schools may adopt 

to address the issue of shaming school children for unpaid school 

lunch fees, including standards that protect children from public 

embarrassment; that strongly encourage all communications about 

unpaid school lunch fees be directed at the parent or guardian, not 

the child; and that encourage schools to take additional steps to 

work with families falling behind in their school lunch fees. 

The following table reflects the Committee recommendations for 

the child nutrition programs: 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Child Nutrition Programs: 

School Lunch Program .......................................................................................................................... $13,010,053 

School Breakfast Program ..................................................................................................................... 4,775,629 

Child and Adult Care Food Program ..................................................................................................... 3,919,384 

Summer Food Service Program ............................................................................................................. 639,789 

Special Milk Program ............................................................................................................................ 8,759 

State Administrative Expenses .............................................................................................................. 299,139 

Commodity Procurement ........................................................................................................................ 1,489,349 

Food Safety Education ........................................................................................................................... 2,864 

Coordinated Review ............................................................................................................................... 10,000 

Computer Support and Processing ....................................................................................................... 11,880 

Training and Technical Assistance ....................................................................................................... 13,578 

CNP Studies and Evaluations ............................................................................................................... 21,251 

CN Payment Accuracy ........................................................................................................................... 10,858 

Farm to School Team ............................................................................................................................ 3,407 

58 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Team Nutrition ....................................................................................................................................... 15,504 

Healthier U.S. Schools Challenge .......................................................................................................... 1,500 

School Meals Equipment Grants ........................................................................................................... 25,000 

Summer EBT Demonstration ................................................................................................................. 23,000 

Total .............................................................................................................................................. $24,280,944 

SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS, 

AND CHILDREN (WIC)

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $6,350,000,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... 6,150,000,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 6,150,000,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥200,000,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, the Committee provides an appropriation of 

$6,150,000,000. The Committee provides for continuation of the 

breastfeeding peer counselor program and infrastructure. 

USDA data shows that WIC participation rates have decreased 

steadily since fiscal year 2010. The President’s budget request includes a projection of an average monthly participation rate of 7.2 

million women, infants, and children for fiscal year 2018. Birth 

rates also remain at an all-time low according to the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 

USDA is estimating recovery and carryover funds to be higher 

than average. Furthermore, the Secretary has a sufficient WIC contingency reserve fund as a safety net to meet unexpected demand. 

With lower participation rates, higher carryover funds, and an 

ample reserve fund, the Committee provides funding that will ensure all eligible participants will be served. The Committee will 

continue to monitor WIC participation, carryover funds, and food 

costs and take additional action as necessary to ensure that funding provided in fiscal year 2018 remains sufficient to serve all eligible applicants. 

WIC Eligibility of Multivitamins.—H. Rpt. 114–531 encouraged 

FNS to prepare a report assessing the inclusion of vitamins eligible 

for purchase as part of the supplemental foods under the WIC program. FNS is directed to complete this report by the required due 

date. 

Zika Outreach and Education.—The Committee is supportive of 

ensuring pregnant women are educated on the various methods for 

preventing exposure to the Zika virus during pregnancy. The Committee directs the Department, in consultation with the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention, to either continue or expand its 

education and outreach efforts through the WIC program to provide pregnant women with the information they need to prevent 

Zika. 

59 

SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $78,480,694,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... 73,612,500,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 73,609,950,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥4,870,744,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥2,550,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the Committee provides $73,609,950,000. The total amount includes 

$3,000,000,000 for a contingency reserve to be used only in the 

amount necessary. 

Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) Equipment.—The Committee is 

aware that some farmers markets and farmers selling directly to 

consumers are interested in EBT equipment that operates for a variety of federal nutrition programs. FNS is encouraged to assist 

farmers markets and direct-selling farmers in obtaining EBT 

equipment that allows participation in both SNAP and WIC. 

Nutrition Education.—The Committee encourages FNS to work 

with states to fund projects that collaborate with local farmers, 

farmer’s markets and community based childhood obesity programs 

in carrying out SNAP nutrition education programs. These nutrition education projects should include fitness and behavioral 

health. 

Recruitment Activities.—The Committee continues to direct 

USDA to ensure that Section 4018 of the 2014 Farm Bill is implemented and enforced in a manner consistent with the statute 

which prohibits USDA from conducting recruitment activities, advertising the program, or entering into agreements with foreign 

governments to promote SNAP benefits. The Committee continues 

to direct USDA to enforce this provision to ensure that state agencies are not reimbursed for such activities consistent with the statute. 

SNAP Employment and Training Report.—Not later than 12 

months after enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a 

report to the Committees on Appropriations and Agriculture of 

both Houses of Congress reviewing state SNAP Employment and 

Training programs and services that are specifically designed to 

address barriers to work for ex-offenders, including the number 

served or estimated to be served, the types of services provided, 

and outcome measures such as completion rates and increased 

earnings, if available. 

The following table reflects the Committee recommendations for 

SNAP: 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Account: 

Benefits ................................................................................................................................................. $62,639,315 

Contingency Reserve ............................................................................................................................. 3,000,000 

Administrative Costs: 

State Administrative Costs ................................................................................................................... 4,483,411 

Nutrition Education and Obesity Prevention Grant Program ................................................................ 421,000

Employment and Training ..................................................................................................................... 476,706 

Mandatory Other Program Costs ........................................................................................................... 183,880 

60 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Discretionary Other Program Costs ....................................................................................................... 998 

Administrative Subtotal ................................................................................................................ 5,565,995 

Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico (NAP) ................................................................................................... 1,928,995 

American Samoa ............................................................................................................................................ 7,747 

Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations ....................................................................................... 153,000 

TEFAP Commodities ........................................................................................................................................ 288,750 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands .......................................................................................... 12,148 

Community Food Project ................................................................................................................................. 9,000 

Program Access .............................................................................................................................................. 5,000 

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................. 2,404,640 

Total .............................................................................................................................................. $73,609,950 

COMMODITY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $315,139,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... 293,591,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 317,139,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... +2,000,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. +23,548,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

The Committee provides an appropriation of $317,139,000 for the 

Commodity Assistance Program. The recommended funding level 

for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program is $238,120,000. 

The Committee recommendation continues to provide $18,548,000 for the Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program as this 

program provides WIC participants with access to fresh fruits and 

vegetables. The Committee has included $59,401,000 for administrative funding for The Emergency Food Assistance Program 

(TEFAP). For the Food Donations Programs, the Committee provides an appropriation of $1,070,000 for Pacific Island Assistance. 

TEFAP Handling and Distribution Costs.—In addition to grant 

funds supporting commodity handling and distribution costs, the 

bill permits states to use up to 10 percent of the funds provided 

for purchasing TEFAP commodities to help with the costs of storing, transporting, and distributing commodities. The Committee expects state agencies to consult with their emergency feeding organizations on the need for the conversion of such funds. 

NUTRITION PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $170,716,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... 148,541,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 148,541,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥22,175,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Nutrition Programs Administration, the Committee provides 

$148,541,000. This amount includes $2,000,000 to continue the 

Congressional Hunger Center Fellows Program, which has been inVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:47 Jul 18, 2017 Jkt 026264 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR232.XXX HR232
61 

strumental in developing leaders in combatting domestic and global 

hunger. 

TITLE V 

FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND FOREIGN

AGRICULTURAL AFFAIRS

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $– – – 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... – – – 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 875,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... +875,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. +875,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs, the Committee provides an appropriation of 

$875,000. The 2014 Farm Bill required that an Under Secretary for 

Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs be established. The office 

was recently proposed by the Secretary after the submission of the 

President’s budget proposal and did not receive funding in the prior 

year or the budget. 

Interagency Cooperation.—The Committee encourages the Under 

Secretary to be cognizant and steadfast in raising trade enforcement issues related to the agricultural policies of foreign nations in 

cooperation with the Under Secretary for Farm Production and 

Conservation, the U.S. Trade Representative, and the Department 

of Commerce. The Committee further encourages the Under Secretary to prioritize trade issues related to biotechnology and minimizing trade disruptions from avian influenza outbreaks by pursuing localization policies. 

Low-Level Presence Trade Policies.—The Committee directs the 

Under Secretary to work with the U.S. Trade Representative and 

other relevant agencies to develop low-level presence policies that 

allow for uninterrupted trade practices in agricultural, biotech, and 

food arenas, specifically related to sanitary and phyto-sanitary 

issues. These policies should be risk-based and attempt to minimize 

disruptions to trade. 

Potable Water.—The Committee encourages the use of recently 

developed potable water technologies in development and long-term 

sustainability projects. 

FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriation Transfer from Export 

Loan Account Total 

2017 appropriation ................................................................... $196,571,000 $6,074,000 $202,645,000 

2018 budget estimate .............................................................. 188,167,000 6,382,000 194,549,000 

Provided in the bill ................................................................... 195,268,000 6,382,000 201,650,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation .......................................................... ¥1,303,000 +308,000 ¥995,000 

2018 budget estimate ..................................................... +$7,101,000 $– – – +$7,101,000 

62 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Foreign Agricultural Service, the Committee provides an 

appropriation of $195,268,000 and transfer of $6,382,000, for a 

total appropriation of $201,650,000. 

The Committee provides increases in funding for International 

Cooperative Administrative Support Services and $2,000,000 above 

estimated amounts for the Country Strategy Support Fund. The 

Committee accepts reductions in funding for Capital Security Cost 

Sharing, headquarters savings, and reductions in FTE not to exceed $2,000,000. 

Farmer-to-Farmer.—The Committee directs that USDA evaluate 

the John Ogonowski and Doug Bereuter Farmer-to-Farmer program and develop strategies that will allow the program to be fully 

integrated and enhanced. Farmer-to-Farmer is an effective model 

of partnership that can leverage volunteer labor for technical assistance and capacity building and should be an integral part of the 

Global Food Security Strategy. 

International Program Proposals.—The Committee does not accept the legislative proposal to eliminate mandatory marketing export promotion programs or any staffing reductions due to the 

planned elimination of the McGovern-Dole International Food for 

Education Program. The Committee supports expanding export 

promotion program activities in preparation for needed bilateral 

trade agreements. 

U.S.-Central America, Mexico Cooperation.—The Committee directs the agency to work with its counterparts in Central America 

and Mexico to develop an agricultural working group improving the 

efficiency of the inspection process, the trade supply chain, and 

transportation costs, among other issues. In addition, the agency 

shall use existing programs for academic exchanges in agriculture 

related fields of study in this region. The agency shall brief the 

Committee within 180 days of the date of enactment on current efforts in these areas. 

FOOD FOR PEACE TITLE I DIRECT CREDIT AND FOOD FOR PROGRESS

PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $149,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... 149,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 149,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For administrative expenses to carry out the credit program of 

Food for Peace Title I, Food for Peace Act, and the Food for 

Progress Act, the Committee provides an appropriation of $149,000. 

63 

FOOD FOR PEACE TITLE II GRANTS

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $1,466,000,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... – – – 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 1,400,000,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥66,000,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. +1,400,000,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Food for Peace Title II grants, the Committee provides 

$1,400,000,000, of which $350,000,000 is for non-emergency assistance. The bill requires Congressional notification for waiving the 

non-emergency assistance level set forth in the Food for Peace Act 

(FFPA) to meet emergency needs. 

Food for Peace Title II Budget Proposal.—The Committee supports the intent, facets, and structure of the FFPA. These include 

1) requiring the purchase of U.S. commodities; 2) requiring the use 

of U.S.-flagged, maritime ships and sailors to ship commodities; 

and 3) the use of FFP funds to meet the non-emergency funding 

set-aside for development projects. The FFPA embodies the spirit 

of the President’s Executive Order to ‘‘Buy American, Hire American’’ while simultaneously lending a hand to those in need and 

furthering national security objectives. The Committee supports 

the use of the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust to meet additional 

emergency food aid needs and will judiciously consider reimbursements to the Trust in future fiscal years following its use. 

Central American Food Assistance.—The Committee directs the 

Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development to 

continue briefing the Committee on its efforts, including the 

amount and type of food aid, in Central America. 

MCGOVERN-DOLE INTERNATIONAL FOOD FOR EDUCATION AND CHILD

NUTRITION PROGRAM GRANTS

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $201,626,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... – – – 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 201,626,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. +201,626,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child 

Nutrition Program Grants, the Committee provides an appropriation of $201,626,000. 

McGovern-Dole Budget Proposal.—The Committee continues to 

support the McGovern-Dole program. The program serves a unique 

purpose and population, and it requires the purchase and hire of 

American commodities and maritime assets to feed people in need 

overseas. The program’s most recent audit, performed over five 

years ago, identified weaknesses in monitoring and evaluation controls. These issues have been addressed and a 2016 GAO report 

(16–861R) found that USDA addressed and required the majority 

of the leading practices for monitoring and evaluation policies, consistent with other international affairs agencies. 

64 

COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION EXPORT (LOANS)

CREDIT GUARANTEE PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $8,537,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... 6,735,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 6,735,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥1,802,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For administrative expenses of the Commodity Credit Corporation Export Loans Credit Guarantee Program Account, the Committee provides an appropriation of $6,735,000. 

TITLE VI 

RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG 

ADMINISTRATION 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Appropriation User Fees Total, FDA 

S&E 

2017 Appropriation ................................................................................................. $2,759,378 $1,895,711 $4,655,089 

2018 Budget Estimate ............................................................................................ 1,819,718 3,164,392 4,984,110 

Provided in the Bill ................................................................................................. 2,759,378 2,386,567 5,145,945 

Comparison: 

2017 Appropriation ........................................................................................ – – – +490,856 +490,856 

2018 Budget Estimate ................................................................................... +$939,660 ¥$777,825 +$161,835 

The Committee provides an appropriation of $2,759,378,000 in 

new budget authority for the FDA. In addition, the Committee recommends the following user fee amounts: $937,434,000—prescription drugs; $193,291,000—medical devices; $493,600,000—human 

generic drugs; $54,000,000—biosimilar biologicals; $24,142,000— 

animal drugs; $12,100,000—animal generic drugs; and 

$672,000,000—tobacco products. The combination of new budget 

authority and definite user fees provides the FDA with a total discretionary salaries and expenses level of $5,145,945,000. This total 

does not include permanent, indefinite user fees for the Mammography Quality Standards Act; Color Certification; Export Certification; Priority Review Vouchers for Pediatric Disease; Food and 

Feed Recall; Food Reinspection; Voluntary Qualified Importer Program; the Third Party Auditor Program; Outsourcing Facility; and 

Medical Countermeasure Priority Review Vouchers. 

The Committee recommendation does not include proposed user 

fee increases for Export Certification, Food Facility Registration 

and Inspection, Food Import, International Courier, Cosmetics, or 

Food Contact Notification. 

The Committee does not include funding for a civilian pay increase across the agency. Should the President provide a civilian 

65 

pay increase for fiscal year 2018, it is assumed that the cost of such 

a pay increase will be absorbed within existing appropriations for 

fiscal year 2018. 

The Committee recommendation maintains fiscal year 2017 funding levels for the medical countermeasures initiative. 

Nothing in this section relating to compounding shall be construed to compromise patient safety. 

Food Safety Modernization Act Funding.—The Committee continues to support the food safety activities related to FSMA. Congress has provided more than $300,000,000 in FDA’s base appropriation for FSMA since fiscal year 2011. The Committee directs 

FDA to continue their outreach and education efforts to inform the 

regulated industries how they come into compliance with the 

FSMA foundational regulations. As previously noted, it is the intent of Congress for FDA to ensure an even playing field in the application of FSMA regulations as it relates to both domestic and 

imported producers, processors, and manufacturers of food and animal feed. Also, the Committee believes that FSMA implementation 

places additional requirements on state governments and private 

stakeholders, and therefore urges the FDA to provide sufficient resources to state education and inspection programs to address 

these needs. 

Medical Product Safety Funding.—The Committee expects FDA 

to maintain the increased funding levels provided by Congress in 

the past three years for the Precision Medicine Initiative; animal 

drug and medical device review; over-the-counter sunscreen ingredient review; The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act implementation; the Combating Antibiotic Resistant 

Bacteria (CARB) initiative; Pharmacy Compounding; and Counterfeit Drug enforcement. 

Proposed Reductions.—While there is no change in the overall discretionary funding level, the Committee accepts $2,000,000 in 

savings within the Office of the Commissioner. 

Animal Drug Compounding.—The Committee has been concerned that the FDA’s proposed draft Guidance for Industry (GFI) 

for animal drug compounding (#230) would apply certain human 

drug compounding requirements to animal drug compounding. 

There also is concern that some state regulatory agencies are implementing the guidance even though it is not finalized. The Committee appreciates that in the FY 2018 budget request FDA stated, 

‘‘In the draft guidance, FDA is not proposing to apply sections 503A 

or 503B of the FDCA to the compounding of animal drugs from 

bulk drug substances.’’ FDA further explains how some of the concepts may be appropriate for animal drugs as well as human drugs. 

Within 30 days of enactment of this Act, the Committee directs 

FDA to communicate to state regulatory agencies that the guidance 

is still in draft form. The Committee expects that any final guidance on animal drug compounding will only reference statutory 

provisions that specifically relate to veterinary practices and will 

not exceed statutory authority. 

Antibiotics.—The Committee urges the FDA to work to foster the 

development of new antibiotics by supporting greater collaboration 

between industry and the FDA around adaptive clinical trials and 

labeling changes. Robust drug development will be needed to ensure patients are protected from bacterial resistance. 

66 

Biosimilars.—The Committee recognizes that biosimilars offer an 

important opportunity for expanding the market and reducing costs 

for patients. The Committee urges the FDA to partner with external stakeholders including patient organizations on educating patients and professionals about biosimilars, with a focus on populations for which approved biosimilars are indicated. 

Centers of Excellence.—The Committee is encouraged by the ongoing research and collaboration underway at the Centers of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation (CERSI) program. The 

Committee believes that these programs will help the agency improve public health, address scientific challenges presented by revolutions in medical product development, and improve food safety 

and quality. The Committee commends the agency for launching 

this program in 2011 and expanding it in 2014. For this reason, the 

Committee believes that the agency should continue to invest in 

the existing four locations in the CERSI network at their original 

funding level to ensure their efficacy and to capitalize on existing 

studies. 

Continuous Manufacturing Initiative.—Of the $60,000,000 made 

available to the FDA in the 21st Century Cures Act for fiscal year 

2018, FDA is directed to obligate $10,000,000 to create a Continuous Manufacturing Initiative and award grants to institutions of 

higher education and nonprofit organizations for the purpose of 

studying and recommending improvements to the process of continuous manufacturing of drugs and biological products similar innovative monitoring and control techniques. The Committee expects 

the FDA to partner with existing entities with demonstrated capacity and experience on advanced manufacturing technologies to 

lower pharmaceutical costs and where limited federal funds will be 

matched by non-federal resources. 

Critical Path Institute.—Innovation in the development of new 

medicines and other therapies can be enhanced by enabling FDA 

to focus on specific program areas such as those outlined in FDA’s 

Critical Path Initiative and their Regulatory Science objectives. 

These types of programs which FDA often accomplishes through 

public-private partnerships expand the knowledge base for those 

developing medical products and those conducting regulatory review. The Committee provides an increase of $400,000 in support 

of this initiative. 

Crop Biotechnology & Biotech Ingredients.—Plants, food, and 

food ingredients developed using genetic engineering were introduced into the U.S. food supply in the 1990s. Public and private 

sector scientists knowledgeable in genetic engineering, toxicology, 

chemistry, nutrition, and other scientific areas have carefully evaluated and assessed the safety of these products and have determined that such products are safe for human and animal consumption. The Committee provides $1,500,000 for USDA and the FDA 

to continue efforts to educate the public on the safety and benefits 

of crop biotechnology and food and animal feed ingredients derived 

from biotechnology. 

Dairy Labeling Requirements.—The Committee is aware of the 

concerns with labeling certain foods and beverages as a dairy product when the product is plant-based rather than derived from animals. The Committee directs the FDA to develop a standard of 

identity for dairy products based upon the dairy product terms deVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:47 Jul 18, 2017 Jkt 026264 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR232.XXX HR232
67 

scribed in parts 131, 133, and 135 of subchapter B of chapter I of 

title 21, Code of Federal Regulations within 180 days from the date 

of enactment of this Act. The FDA should issue guidance to industry on how to implement the standard of identity, including how 

this standard will be enforced. 

Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy.—The Committee is encouraged 

by FDA’s recent approvals of therapies to treat Duchenne Muscular 

Dystrophy and is aware of the authorities within the 21st Century 

Cures Act that clarify the agency’s ability to allow sponsors of targeted rare disease therapies to use data from previously approved 

applications. The Committee is aware of the relevance of this policy 

to Duchenne and other rare disease therapy development and of 

the agency’s work to implement the law. The Committee requests 

an update on these efforts within 180 days of enactment of this 

Act, including a description of any challenges or impediments faced 

by the agency in implementing these new authorities. 

Expedited Programs.—The Committee directs the FDA to exercise its current law authorities, as provided under the FDA Safety 

and Innovation Act (FDASIA) and the 21st Century Cures Act, 

when reviewing new drug applications for patients with 100 percent fatal and debilitating diseases. FDASIA expanded FDA’s authorities and strengthened the agency’s focus on accelerating the 

approval of drugs that treat unmet medical needs, prioritizing the 

patient perspective in evaluating new drugs and treatments and 

providing reviewers with flexibility when evaluating drugs for a 

life-threatening illness. 

FDA Partnerships under FSMA.—The purpose of FSMA is to reform the nation’s food safety laws to ensure a safe public food supply. As FDA continues implementation of FSMA, the Committee 

encourages FDA to work in partnership with existing government 

food safety programs through MOUs to verify compliance with 

FSMA to rules once they are finalized as a way to eliminate duplication of activities under the law. In addition, the Committee continues to provide $5,000,000 for the Food Safety Outreach Program 

under NIFA and expects that NIFA will serve as the sole agency 

providing food safety training, education, outreach, and technical 

assistance at the farm level. 

Federal Employee Conduct.—Public service is a public trust that 

requires federal employees to place ethical principles above private 

gain. Federal employees are reminded that they shall not advance 

a personal agenda or give preferential treatment to any outside organization or individual within the government programs which 

they administer. Information that is received by the employee, including information from other employees, offices, or Congress 

should be handled in a professional and confidential manner in accordance with Code of Federal Regulations regarding the basic obligation of public service (5 CFR 2635.101). 

Feminine Hygiene Cosmetics.—The Committee is concerned about 

the use of unsafe colorants by manufacturers of feminine hygiene 

cosmetic products. The Committee strongly encourages the FDA to 

issue appropriate guidance on the use of colorants in such products, 

and expects a prompt final response to the citizen petition submitted by Women’s Voices for the Earth on August 18, 2015. 

Fish Decomposition Standards and Testing.—The Committee is 

concerned with particular methods FDA utilizes for seafood inspecVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:47 Jul 18, 2017 Jkt 026264 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR232.XXX HR232
68 

tions. While food safety remains the top priority, the methodology 

used to determine whether any size shipment receives a pass or rejection for seafood needs clarification. The Committee directs the 

FDA to provide a report to the Committee on the process and criteria used to reject seafood import shipments. In addition, FDA 

should inform the Committee on the scientific tools available to the 

agency in determining decomposition and what field-deployable, 

technology-based tools may still be developed to minimize the current subjectivity in the decomposition decision-making process. The 

Committee provides $2,800,000 to support intramural work and extramural collaborations necessary to begin developing the appropriate lab methods to detect evidence of seafood decomposition. 

Food Contact Notification User Fees.—The funds made available 

by this Act include sufficient monies to fund the FDA’s Food Contact Notification Program and shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of 21 U.S.C. 348(h)(5)(A). The Committee recommendation does not include proposed user fees. 

Foreign High Risk Verifications.—The bill maintains the fiscal 

year 2017 funding level of $7,500,000 for the FDA’s Office of Global 

Regulatory Operations and Policy to enhance the compliance of foreign manufacturers and exporters of food, medical devices and 

pharmaceuticals through the use of business date and on-premises 

site verification. 

Genomic Editing.—The Committee understands the potential 

benefits to society in the genetic modification of living organisms. 

However, researchers do not yet fully understand all the possible 

side effects of editing the genes of a human embryo. Editing of the 

human germ line may involve serious and unquantifiable safety 

and ethical issues. Federal and non-federal organizations such as 

the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Medicine continue to understand the potential risks of genome editing 

and a broader public discussion of the societal and ethical implications of this technique is still ongoing. In accordance with the current policy at the National Institutes of Health, the Committee includes bill language that places a prohibition on the FDA’s use of 

funds involving the genetic modification of a human embryo. The 

Committee continues to support a wide range of innovations in biomedical research, but will do so in a fashion that reflects well-established scientific and ethical principles. 

Grape Varietals.—The Committee is aware that the FDA has excluded certain produce that is rarely consumed raw from having to 

comply with the FSMA Produce Safety Final Rule entitled ‘‘Standards for Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for 

Human Consumption.’’ There is concern that the FDA has not been 

able to distinguish between grape varietals that are consumed raw 

and those that are grown, harvested and used for wine and further 

processing. The Committee directs the FDA to initiate a process 

within 30 days of enactment of this Act that makes a distinction 

between grape varietals so that wine grape varietals may be included on the list of produce that is rarely consumed raw. 

Harm Reduction.—It is the Committee recommendation that the 

FDA consider the benefits of harm reduction as part of evaluations 

under the Deeming regulations for tobacco products. 

Hereditary Angioedema Research.—The Committee is concerned 

that FDA’s funding of studies regarding the Evaluation of 

69 

Thromboembolic Events Following C1-Inhibitor Therapy may cause 

access issues for patient communities that have safely used C1-Inhibitor for many years to treat life-threatening conditions, including hereditary angioedema. FDA is encouraged to clarify its intentions for this area of inquiry to the Committee within 90 days. 

Human Drug Compounding—Permissible ‘‘Office Use’’.—The 

Committee continues to believe that patient access to the right 

drug at the right time is of utmost importance. In instances where 

a commercially manufactured drug is not appropriate for a patient 

for a specific reason, a compounded drug may be the difference between life and death. Since passage of the Drug Quality and Security Act (DQSA) of 2013, the Committee has had concerns that the 

FDA interpreted provisions of Section 503A of the FDCA in a manner that might jeopardize the availability of compounded medications for ‘‘office use’’. The practice of ‘‘office use’’ occurs when a 

compounder will compound a batch of drugs in anticipation of receiving patient-specific prescriptions at a later time. It may also be 

the case of a doctor in his or her office maintaining compounded 

drugs on site because it is unsafe or impractical to issue a traditional prescription. This practice is authorized in the vast majority 

of states and was intended to be allowable under DQSA. The Committee directed the FDA to issue a Final Guidance that provides 

for ‘‘office-use’’ compounding of drugs, in appropriate circumstances 

as well as including drugs compounded in anticipation of a prescription for an identified individual patient. Such ‘‘anticipatory’’ 

compounded drugs is based on the history of previous valid compound prescription orders, and on an established history between 

prescriber, patient and compounder. Despite clear directives in previous reports accompanying FDA’s appropriations bills for the 

agency to finalize guidance that authorizes office-use compounding, 

in December of 2016, the FDA finalized a Guidance for Industry 

(GFI) entitled ‘‘Prescription Requirement Under Section 503A of 

the FDCA,’’ which expressly prohibits office-use compounding. The 

Committee directs the FDA to rescind this GFI and issue a proposed rule, subject to the notice and comment provisions in the Administrative Procedure Act. The proposed rule should be consistent 

with Congressional intent as stated in both Appropriations Reports 

and the DQSA, and that also allows for office-use compounding as 

authorized by state law. In the proposed rule, FDA should lay out 

the means by which office use is permissible while addressing such 

critical safety matters, such as maintaining controls on quantity 

and safety issues such as those related to office stock shelf life. 

Lastly, FDA’s clarification on the line between traditional 

compounding and outsourced compounding will support state regulators, outsourcing facilities, and traditional compounders in their 

efforts to ensure that patients have access to safe compounded 

drugs while reducing the risks associated with sterile drugs produced in bulk. 

Human Drug Compounding—Draft MOU.—The Committee is 

also very concerned with the draft MOU issued February 13, 2015, 

entitled ‘‘Draft Memorandum of Understanding Addressing Certain 

Distributions of Compounded Human Drug Products Between the 

State of ( ) and the Food and Drug Administration’’ as it applied 

to Section 503A of the FDCA. The proposed MOU would complicate 

patient and prescriber access to compounded medications, and may 

70 

have a deleterious effect on small pharmacies. Under the draft 

MOU, the FDA attempts to describe ‘‘distribution’’ as occurring 

when ‘‘a compounded human drug product has left the facility in 

which the drug was compounded.’’ In the DQSA, Congress only allowed the FDA to regulate ‘‘distribution.’’ But the MOU appears to 

exceed the authority granted in the statute by redefining ‘‘distribution’’ in a manner that includes dispensing—something unprecedented. This overreach could generate exactly the kind of costly 

and confusing litigation that Congress intended to avoid when it 

amended and reinstated Section 503A. The Committee expects 

that, when a final MOU is proposed as a model agreement for the 

states to consider, that distribution and dispensing are treated as 

the different and separate activities that they actually are. 

Human Drug Compounding—Compound Pharmacist on Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee.—The Committee is concerned that the Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee 

(PCAC) established under the DQSA does not adequately represent 

the interests and needs of providers and patients who use and depend on compounded medications. The Committee expects that, at 

the earliest possible date, whether filling open positions or replacing existing members, the FDA shall appoint voting members with 

recent, actual, and diverse experience in the preparation, prescribing, and use of compounded medications. 

Infant Formula.—The Committee requests a report on what processes and controls are in place to monitor the water used in the 

manufacture of liquid infant formula, including what steps FDA 

takes to work with the Environmental Protection Agency as part 

of their regulatory responsibility for the primary drinking water 

used in infant formula. 

In Silico Clinical Trials.—In Silico clinical trials use computer 

models and simulations to develop and assess devices and drugs, 

including their potential risk to the public, before being tested in 

live clinical trials. Advanced computer modeling can also be used 

to predict how a drug or device will behave when deployed in the 

general population, thereby protecting the public from the unintended consequences of side effects and drug interactions. In Silico 

trials protect public health, advance personalized treatment, and 

can be executed quickly and for a fraction of the cost of a full scale 

live trial. By understanding the impact a drug or device will have 

on the human body immediately and over time, as well as within 

different populations, millions of dollars in development costs can 

be saved. A mere ten percent improvement in predicting failures 

before a clinical trial could save $100,000,000 in development costs 

per drug. As such, the Committee directs the FDA to expand its 

use of in silico clinical models through a pilot project aimed at creation of a full human in silico model able to test drugs and devices 

across the entire body, including long-term effects and among distinct populations. If necessary to enact this project, the FDA shall 

issue a unified guidance to allow the model to be used to test both 

drugs and devices. The Committee requests a written report outlining the FDA’s plans for development of the model within 120 

days of enactment of this act. 

Laboratory Developed Tests.—The FDA’s draft guidance issued 

on October 3, 2014, titled ‘‘Framework for Regulatory Oversight of 

Laboratory Developed Tests’’ (LDTs), puts forth a proposed reguVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:47 Jul 18, 2017 Jkt 026264 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR232.XXX HR232
71 

latory framework that is a significant shift in the way LDTs are 

regulated. Such a shift deserves input from the public, and Congress has been working with stakeholders, constituencies, and the 

FDA to find common ground on regulating LDTs. The FDA’s guidance circumvents the normal rulemaking process and changes expectations for patients, doctors, and laboratories for the first time 

since the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments Act was 

passed in 1988. The Committee maintains its position that FDA 

should suspend further efforts to finalize the LDT guidance and 

continue working with Congress to pass legislation that addresses 

a new pathway for regulation of LDTs in a transparent manner. 

Laboratories Near High Volume Ports.—The Committee directs 

the FDA to submit a report within 90 days of enactment of this Act 

on the potential for implementing pilot programs which will allow 

for public-private partnerships at high volume ports of entry in an 

effort to increase the number of FDA-certified public or private labs 

located near major ports of entry to provide services on weekends 

and holidays, reduce the risk of food borne illnesses, and enhance 

the capacity of local officials in dealing with foodborne threats. 

Local Port Cooperation.—The Committee directs the FDA to 

work with local governments at high volume ports of entry to explore activities which reduce the risk of food borne illnesses and 

enhance the capacity of local officials in dealing with food borne 

threats and report back to the Committee within 90 days of enactment of this Act on its efforts. 

Mammography Exam Reports.—More than five years ago, in November 2011, the National Mammography Quality Assurance Advisory Committee approved a change to the mammogram patient report and physician report to include information regarding an individual’s breast density. This process has not been completed. The 

Committee again urges the FDA to implement this change in an 

expedited manner and must report to Congress on the status of 

this change no more than 60 days from the enactment of this Act. 

Medical Countermeasures.—The Committee directs that not less 

than $24,552,000 shall be available for the FDA’s Medical Countermeasures Initiative. This total is in addition to the unobligated 

funds remaining to support the FDA’s emergency response to Zika, 

Ebola, and related disease outbreaks. 

Medical Gas Rulemaking.—The Committee is concerned that the 

FDA has not initiated a rulemaking on medical air labeling, adverse event reporting, or the numerous longstanding medical gas 

regulatory issues identified at the December 6, 2013 public meeting. While Section 1112 of Food and Drug Administration Safety 

and Innovation Act (FDASIA) required the Secretary to make a determination on whether to propose new regulations for medical 

gases, the fiscal year 2017 appropriations Act required the Secretary to issue new regulations by July 15, 2017. Congress has 

twice enacted laws on this issue and expects the FDA to reach a 

consensus with industry by incorporating general concerns, either 

through reference or principle-based regulation, into regulation at 

the discretion of the agency. FDA’s role as a regulator is to vet and 

propose regulations, especially when directed to do so by Congress. 

Resources have been provided to the FDA through discretionary 

appropriations and user fees to accomplish its mission. FDA is directed to convene with stakeholders in a public meeting on the regVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:47 Jul 18, 2017 Jkt 026264 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR232.XXX HR232
72 

ulation of medical gases, provide a written report to Congress including a description of the section of the Code of Federal Regulations that will be updated no later than December 31, 2017 and 

issue the final regulations required by Public Law 115–31 no later 

than July 15, 2018. 

Medical Product Shipment Delays.—The Committee acknowledges FDA’s vital responsibility to conduct risk-based screening of 

imported products under its jurisdiction at ports and distribution 

hubs across the country. However, any delay of critically important 

medical products places risks to patients and can unnecessarily disrupt medical services. The Committee directs FDA to examine 

trends in possible delays of medical product shipments, report back 

to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate 

within 90 days of enactment, and, if necessary, allocate existing resources to adequately staff centralized points of entry for imported, 

time-sensitive medical products so that commerce and critical medical care is not unduly delayed. The Committee provides the agency 

with an increase of $300,000 to help expedite the clearance of these 

products. 

Menu Labeling.—The FDA extended the compliance date for 

menu labeling requirements until May 7, 2018, stating that, ‘‘This 

extension allows for further consideration of what opportunities 

there may be to reduce costs and enhance the flexibility of these 

requirements beyond those reflected in the final rule.’’ In providing 

flexibility, the Committee urges FDA to consider provisions of H.R. 

772 as well as other proposals that reduce burden and add flexibility for businesses to implement the rule and provide consumers 

with certain nutrition information. FDA should ensure that businesses are protected from regulatory enforcement from federal, 

state, municipal or other oversight agencies until after a potential 

revised rule is promulgated and effective. 

Natural Definition.—The Committee commends the FDA for taking the first step towards defining the term ‘‘natural’’ and regulating its use on food labeling by requesting public comment on a 

number of relevant questions in a November 2015 Federal Register 

notice. The Committee directs FDA to provide a report within 60 

days of enactment of this Act on the actions and timeframe for defining ‘‘natural’’ so that there is a uniform national standard for 

the labeling claims and consumers and food producers have certainty about the meaning of the term. 

New Technologies to Promote Food Safety.—The Committee encourages the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and 

Medicine to conduct a study on new technologies to promote microbiological food safety and prevent foodborne illnesses. The study 

should review methods that have been developed but not implemented, are in development, or have been proposed but not well developed. The study also should identify any regulatory, economic, 

or other barriers to implementing technologies. The review should 

encompass methods that could be applied on farms and feedlots, in 

feed- and food-production and processing facilities, restaurants and 

supermarkets, and elsewhere in the food supply chain. The various 

methods should be applicable to meat and poultry products, dairy 

foods, seafood, plant products, processed and packaged foods, and 

other foods. 

73 

Nutrient Value of Fish during Pregnancy.—The Committee understands the FDA and EPA issued final advice regarding fish consumption in January 2017 as a follow up to draft advice issued in 

June 2014. The Committee directs the FDA to incorporate the specific nutrient value of fish consumption in pregnancy on the FDA 

website ‘‘Eating Fish: What Pregnant Women and Parents Should 

Know.’’ The information on the nutrient value of fish should focus 

on the specific benefits of seafood consumption for pregnancy and 

fetal development. The Committee requests a report within 120 

days of enactment of this Act on the FDA’s plan to add information 

on the nutrient value of fish and to develop a plan to assess the 

efficacy of this change on women’s dietary choices related to seafood consumption, particularly during pregnancy. This update 

should be published on the current FDA fish advice website and in 

other materials developed by the FDA. 

Nutrition Facts Label.—On June 13, 2017, the FDA announced 

that it would extend the compliance date for the final rule entitled 

‘‘Food Labeling: Revision of the Nutrition and Supplemental Facts 

Labels’’ and that details of the extension would be provided 

through a Federal Register notice at a later time. Food manufacturers are facing different compliance dates with multiple food labeling changes, such as those required under the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard (Pub. L. 114–216). The Committee encourages the Commissioner of FDA and the Secretary of 

USDA to harmonize the labeling compliance dates to allow food 

manufacturers to update labels after clear guidance has been provided and in a manner that is cost effective and avoids consumer 

confusion. 

The Committee also notes that the FDA has not issued final 

guidance regarding the definition of dietary fiber and labeling of 

added sugars. The Committee encourages the FDA to issue these 

final guidance documents and provide sufficient time for food manufacturers to comply. 

Office of Cosmetics and Colors.—The Committee recommendation 

includes not less than $11,700,000 for cosmetics activities, including not less than $7,200,000 for the Office of Colors and Cosmetics 

(OCAC). Funding provided for OCAC is for direct support of the operation, staffing, compliance, research and international activities 

performed by this office. The Committee welcomes FDA’s support 

of the Cosmetic Ingredient Review and FDA’s participation in that 

program as an ex officio member, as well as the FDA efforts in 

maintaining the Voluntary Cosmetic Reporting Program and the 

CFSAN Adverse Event Reporting System (CAERS). The Committee 

appreciated OCAC’s willingness to engage with China in May 2016 

for a cosmetics regulatory dialogue. In light of China’s interaction 

with U.S.-based manufacturers and consumers, the Committee directs FDA to seek ways to continually enhance engagement with 

Chinese regulators on cosmetic technical and regulatory issues. The 

Committee directs FDA to promote international regulatory harmonization in cosmetic products by continued support to the International Cooperation on Cosmetics Regulation (ICCR) initiative, 

participation in ISO Technical Committee 217—Cosmetics and supporting trade through other bilateral and multilateral trade agreements. 

74 

Olive Oil.—In H. Rept. 114–531, the Committee directed FDA to 

sample imported olive oil products for potential adulteration or 

misbranding and report to Congress. The Committee commends 

FDA in its response for committing to developing better methods 

to detect adulteration of olive oil and to increasing monitoring of 

the marketplace for adulterated olive oil products. However, in 

FDA’s report to Congress, the agency’s findings were based on a 

survey of olive oil products conducted in 2014. The Committee directs FDA to update its 2014 survey and report on its findings 

within 180 days of enactment of this Act. 

Oncology Clinical Trials.—The Committee recognizes the value of 

clinical trials in the development of innovative procedures, 

diagnostics, and drugs to prevent, detect, and treat cancer. The 

Committee understands that the percentage of cancer patients who 

participate in oncology clinical trials remains low, especially among 

minorities and those socioeconomically disadvantaged, and barriers 

to participation include ancillary financial costs, such as travel and 

lodging expenses. Many clinical sites and sponsors of clinical trials 

are wary of working with independent third parties to provide even 

ancillary financial support given current guidance warning against 

anticipated financial benefits that may create ‘‘coercion or undue 

influence’’ to research participants under 21 CFR 50.20. The Committee believes that the reimbursement of ancillary costs by independent third parties does not constitute coercion or undue influence and instead helps improve access to cancer clinical trials. As 

noted in FDA’s draft guidance entitled ‘‘Informed Consent Information Sheet: Guidance for IRBs, Clinical Investigators, and Sponsors,’’ the FDA considers payment to clinical trial subjects to be 

compensation for ‘‘expenses and inconveniences’’ and not a benefit 

of participation. Therefore, the Committee encourages the FDA to 

develop more precise guidance regarding the meaning of ‘‘coercion 

or undue influence’’ as it relates to the reimbursement of ancillary 

expenses to research participants under 21 CFR 50.20 in finalizing 

the draft guidance on informed consent content and the informed 

consent process (‘‘Informed Consent Information Sheet: Guidance 

for IRBs, Clinical Investigators, and Sponsors’’’) so as to increase 

enrollment, retention, minority participation, and equitable access 

to oncology clinical trials. 

Opioid Abuse.—The abuse, misuse, and diversion of opioid painkillers has precipitated an epidemic in the United States. The CDC 

indicates that one American loses his or her battle with addiction 

every twenty minutes. For years, the Committee has encouraged 

the FDA to utilize the full breadth of its regulatory authority to address this challenge. The Committee is pleased that, with the 

Opioids Action Plan and Opioid Policy Steering Committee, the 

FDA has acknowledged that the agency shoulders some responsibility for turning the tide of abuse. The FDA’s recent regulatory 

changes related to scheduling and labeling of opioids are positive 

developments, as are efforts to encourage the development of 

abuse-deterrent formulations (ADF) and new evidence-based medication-assisted therapies (MAT). The use of opioids as first-line 

therapies for any form of pain has led to over-prescribing, and the 

CDC has made clear that clinicians should consider opioid therapy 

only if expected benefits for both pain and function are anticipated 

to outweigh the risks to the patient. With respect to prescribing 

75 

patterns, the Committee supports efforts to incentivize ADF use by 

clinicians and to increase the number of prescribers who receive 

training on pain management and safe prescribing of opioid drugs 

in order to decrease inappropriate opioid prescribing. The Committee notes that treatment is not a ‘‘one size, fits all’’ enterprise 

and that every patient’s treatment regimen should be tailored by 

his or her doctor to his or her unique needs. The federal government, therefore, should be promoting the full suite of available 

treatment options, including abstinence-based models and nonopioid medications, rather than picking winners and losers. The 

Committee supports efforts at the FDA and elsewhere to develop 

MATs that improve the efficacy of daily administration, are resistant to diversion and misuse, and/or help patients on a path to recovery. Finally, the Committee has been supportive of naloxone distribution among trained licensed healthcare professionals and 

emergency responders. When considering the appropriateness of 

providing naloxone over-the-counter, the Committee directs the 

FDA to ensure that the administration of naloxone serves as a 

point of intervention to spur an honest conversation between the 

patient and his doctor about addiction and treatment. 

Packaged Ice.—The Committee recognizes that packaged ice is 

produced in the U.S., traded internationally, and consumed as both 

a packaged food and a food ingredient. The FDA has had a citizen 

petition regarding a proposed standard of identity for packaged ice 

for a significant and unacceptable length of time and is directed to 

provide quarterly status reports to the Committee on this effort 

until the agency responds to the petition. Further, the Conference 

for Food Protection recently reviewed issues related to commercial 

ice machines in the retail environment and found that research is 

needed to identify the type of microbial growth and locations of 

concern within these machines. Therefore, the FDA is directed to 

study the issue more carefully and establish a cleaning and sanitizing frequency standard for commercial ice machines. 

Pediatric Devices.—The Committee directs the agency to spend 

no less than $6,000,000, the same level provided in fiscal year 

2017, for the development of pediatric medical devices through the 

Pediatric Device Consortia. The program funds consortia to assist 

innovators in developing medical and surgical devices designed for 

the unique needs of children that often go unmet by devices currently available on the market. 

Performance Measures.—The Committee directs FDA to comply 

with title 31 of the United States Code, including the development 

of their organizational priority goals and outcomes such as performance outcome measures, output measures, efficiency measures, 

and customer service measures. 

Pet Food Imports.—As of December 31, 2015, the FDA had received approximately 5,200 complaints of illness related to consumption of chicken, duck, or sweet potato jerky treats, nearly all 

of which are imported from China. The reports involve more than 

6,200 dogs, 26 cats, three humans and include more than 1,140 canine deaths. These incidents date back to 2007. The Committee requests that the FDA provide it with a timeline of all activities associated with the investigation into the pet illnesses associated with 

these products, including any import alerts and import refusals, 

within 60 days of the enactment of this Act. In addition, the ComVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:47 Jul 18, 2017 Jkt 026264 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR232.XXX HR232
76 

mittee requests that the agency provide it with semi-annual reports on the status of the investigation into these illnesses beginning in July 2017 and continuing until the issue has been resolved. 

Premium Cigars.—The Committee includes statutory language 

exempting premium and traditional large cigars, in keeping with 

FDA’s intent under Option 2 of its proposed rule ‘‘Deeming Tobacco 

Products To Be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

Act, as Amended by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco 

Control Act (TCA); Regulations on the Sale and Distribution of Tobacco Products and Required Warning Statements for Tobacco 

Products’’ (Docket No. FDA–2014–N–0189). The Committee notes 

that premium cigars are shown to be distinct from other tobacco 

products in their effects on youth initiation, the frequency of their 

use by youth and young adults, and other such behavioral and economic factors. Lastly, a large number of participants in this unique 

business are small and very small operations that might not be 

able to maintain jobs and a physical presence in the United States 

due to the financial impact of this pending regulatory burden. 

Given that there is very little mention of cigars throughout the 

TCA, it is clear Congress did not intend to focus on the unique subset of premium cigars. 

Prescription Drug Labeling Inserts.—The Committee is aware of 

FDA’s previous proposal that would subvert repeatedly expressed 

Congressional intent by permitting the distribution of prescription 

drugs without printed prescribing information on or within the 

packages from which such drugs are to be dispensed. The FDA intends to replace such printed labeling with an electronic labeling 

system for the majority of prescription drugs. On several occasions 

Congress has expressly declined to provide the FDA the necessary 

statutory authority to implement this change. As recently as 2012, 

Congress commissioned a GAO report (GAO–13–592) discussing 

this issue. The GAO report concluded that such a change could adversely impact public health. Thus, the Committee is very concerned that the FDA is moving to promulgate a regulation that 

would generally eliminate printed prescribing information inserts 

for prescription drugs. Therefore, the Committee has included a 

provision prohibiting the FDA from utilizing any funds to propose 

or otherwise promulgate any rule that requires or permits any prescription drug or biologic products to be distributed without printed 

prescribing information on or within the packaging from which 

such products are to be dispensed, unless such actions are expressly provided by an amendment to the FDCA. 

Product Standards.—The Committee is concerned about the feasibility of achieving a 1 parts per million level for Nnitrosonornicotine levels as established in the proposed product 

standard rule dated January 23, 2017 (82 Fed. Reg. 8004). The 

Committee encourages FDA to work with stakeholders involved in 

the production and growth of these products to determine reasonable level while fulfilling its statutory mission to protect public 

health. 

Radiation Safety.—The Committee urges the agency to review 

and update its current regulations on fluoroscopy radiation safety. 

The current regulations do not adequately address all available options to protect surgical and interventional health care personnel 

and patients from radiation exposure. The FDA should issue new 

77 

regulations that include the use of sterile, disposable, lead-free 

shields to protect against radiation exposure. 

Spent Grains.—The Committee recognizes that the FDA took 

into consideration public comments and revised some of its proposed regulations on spent grains used for animal food. Processors 

already complying with FDA human food safety requirements 

would not need to implement additional preventive controls when 

supplying a by-product like wet spent grains for animal food. However, further processing a by-product for use as animal food such 

as drying spent grains, would require additional compliance under 

the proposed rule. The FDA has said that potential hazards associated with spent grains are minimal and steps to prevent contamination are likely already in place. The Committee includes bill language to ensure dry and wet spent grains used for animal food are 

regulated equally. 

Staffing at Land Ports of Entry.—The Committee is concerned 

that USDA, FDA, and Customs and Border Protection are relying 

on historical data in determining their staffing models at Land 

Ports of Entry. Recent reports on agricultural imports show steep 

increases in the future, especially along the Southwest border and 

South Texas in particular. It is the sense of the Committee that 

these agencies should be utilizing forward-looking data for their 

staffig models to ensure we have the appropriate workforce available in the future to inspect and certify this growth in agricultural 

imports as efficiently, safely, and expeditiously as possible. 

State Inspections.—The Committee is aware of the December 

2011 OIG report that outlined vulnerabilities in the agency’s oversight of non-FDA food inspections and the agency’s intention to further rely on state inspections. The Committee understands that 

both the federal government and states share authority and responsibility for domestic food facilities and that the FDA will continue to contract with the states to conduct inspections on its behalf, which is critical to performing its mission in an efficient and 

effective manner. The agency must assure it has strong federal inspection standards that are met by both federal investigators and 

state inspectors. The FDA must continue its progress in improving 

federal oversight and monitoring of state inspection programs, reviewing and strengthening internal directives and processes, and 

identifying new methods to improve oversight capabilities. 

The Committee is aware of the FDA’s continuing progress to 

modernize existing IT systems and infrastructure, allowing for the 

secure and efficient exchange of data between the FDA and the 

states, in addition to efforts to add capabilities supporting mobile 

inspection applications. The FDA should continue work with state 

partners toward promoting data standards and developing shared 

database schemas to facilitate secure electronic information sharing. 

Sunscreen Ingredients.—The Committee is significantly concerned that despite the increase in incidence of skin cancer in the 

United States, the Surgeon General’s 2014 Call to Action to Prevent Skin Cancer, unanimous passage of the Sunscreen Innovation 

Act (SIA) in Congress and the support of the Cancer Moonshot Initiative in the 21st Century Cures Act to prevent and cure cancer, 

the FDA has still not approved a new OTC sunscreen ingredient 

through the process created by the SIA. While the FDA published 

78 

the final guidance in November 2016 entitled ‘‘Nonprescription 

Sunscreen Drug Products—Safety and Effectiveness Data’’, there is 

still confusion in how the regulated industry can comply with 

FDA’s current approach to the toxicological risk assessment. The 

Committee directs the FDA to work with stakeholders and help 

manufacturers understand what they need to do to achieve approval for sunscreen products in order to lower the risk of skin cancer to the 5 million Americans that will be diagnosed with the condition this year. The funding level for the FDA includes the 

$700,000 originally provided in fiscal year 2016 to help address the 

critical public health threat resulting from no new sunscreen ingredients being available to the public. 

Tobacco Product User Fees.—The Committee directs the FDA to 

submit a report on the planned expenditure and obligation of user 

fees for the current fiscal year within 60 days of enactment of this 

Act. The report shall include the amount of carryover and unobligated balances from the prior fiscal year and planned obligations 

and expenditures for the current fiscal year based upon the total 

of the new and existing amounts available. The report shall identify the type and amount of activities, contracts, and objectives to 

be implemented, including but not limited to public education campaigns, scientific research, communications, and product application processing and review for the current and prior fiscal year. 

The report shall also include a status of submitted, pending, and 

approved tobacco product applications per each regulatory pathway 

and class as defined by the Tobacco Control Act, and subsequent 

regulations, for the past three fiscal years and planned for the current fiscal year. 

User Fee Collections/Obligations.—The Committee continues to 

be concerned about the financial management of the FDA’s user fee 

programs. At the end of fiscal year 2016, FDA had a carryover balance of $1,710,000,000. Of this amount, the PDUFA account 

showed a balance of nearly $844 million and the GDUFA account 

showed a balance of $342 million. Such balances indicate that FDA 

has additional resources for hiring more review staff and support 

for the review of innovator and generic drugs—pharmaceuticals 

that have the potential to save lives, enhance the quality of life for 

patients, and lower the cost of healthcare. The Committee directs 

that not later than 30 days after enactment of this Act, and each 

month thereafter through the months covered by this Act, the Commissioner submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the 

House and Senate a report on user fees collected for each user fee 

program included in the Act. The report shall also include monthly 

obligations incurred against such fee collections. The report shall 

include a distinct categorization of the user fee balances that are 

being carried forward into fiscal year 2018 for each user fee account as well as a detailed explanation of what accounts for the 

balance and what the balance will be used for. 

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $11,788,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... 8,771,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 8,771,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥3,017,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

79 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Buildings and Facilities of the Food and Drug Administration, the Committee provides $8,771,000. 

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

2017 appropriation ............................................................................. $250,000,000 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... 250,000,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 248,000,000 

Comparison: 

2017 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥2,000,000 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥2,000,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Committee provides an appropriation of $248,000,000, of which $49,000,000 is 

for the purchase of IT and $2,700,000 is for the Inspector General. 

Overhead for the Inspector General shall not exceed $350,000. 

Agency Direction.—The Committee supports the Commission’s efforts to proactively engage in new areas of market activity, including the financial technology sector. The Committee also supports 

the use of resources for robust cost-benefit analysis in the Office of 

the Chief Economist. 

Budgetary Reduction.—The Committee’s allocation is reduced 

from FY 2017 in line with the reductions to nearly every agency 

in the bill. The Commission is not exempt. In addition, the Committee notes the growth in administrative management and support functions under level funding. This includes an eighteen percent increase in contractors and thirteen percent growth in FTE, 

during an eight percent decrease in overall staffing. The Commission is directed to examine overhead costs and find efficiencies 

where feasible. The Committee directs CFTC to prioritize resources 

in the Division of Enforcement, Market Oversight, Swap Dealer 

and Intermediary oversight, and other areas critical to market integrity. 

Collective Bargaining Agreements.—The bill includes language 

allowing the CFTC Chairman to adjust personnel compensation 

and benefits upon a determination that a collective bargaining 

agreement could result in the furlough or reduction-in-force (RIF) 

of employees. This language is the result of numerous attempts by 

the Commission to impose a coercive deficiency upon Congress by 

threatening furloughs or RIFs or by furloughing its own employees. 

The Chairman is directed to provide regular updates to the Committee regarding the status of union negotiations. The Commission 

is further directed to avoid any negotiation or financial situation 

that would impose such a deficiency upon Congress. 

Internal Risk Management Transactions.—The Committee supports efforts to provide regulatory relief on transactions between 

inter-affiliated parties and counterparties. These affiliated entities 

include majority interest of one party by a counterparty or when 

both parties to a transaction have a majority interest by a third 

party. This relief includes requiring the use of variation margin 

and centralized risk management practices. The Committee encourages the Commission to engage on this issue with stakeholders. 

80 

Swap Dealer de Minimis.—Within 60 days of enactment of this 

Act, the Committee directs the Commission to promulgate a rulemaking setting the Swap Dealer de Minimis threshold at not less 

than $8,000,000,000. 

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

2017 limitation .................................................................................... ($68,600,000) 

2018 budget estimate ......................................................................... (72,600,000) 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. (68,600,000) 

Comparison: 

2017 limitation ............................................................................ – – – 

2018 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥4,000,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For a limitation on the expenses of the Farm Credit Administration (FCA), the Committee provides $68,600,000. 

Farm Economy.—FCA is encouraged to explore and leverage its 

existing partnership with USDA in providing access to credit during the current downturn in the farm and rural economy. FCA is 

directed to ensure that Farm Credit System institutions and associations operate within existing authorities. In addition, FCA is encouraged to review and report back to the Committee within 60 

days of enactment of this Act on establishing new procedures for 

public-private partnerships to support rural community facilities. 

TITLE VII 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

(INCLUDING RESCISSIONS AND TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

The General Provisions contained in the accompanying bill for 

fiscal year 2018 are fundamentally the same as those included in 

last year’s appropriations bill. 

The following general provisions are included in the bill: 

Section 701: Limitation on the purchase of passenger motor vehicles. 

Section 702: Transfer authority regarding the Working Capital 

Fund. 

Section 703: Limitation on certain obligations. 

Section 704: Indirect cost rates for cooperative agreements with 

nonprofit institutions. 

Section 705: Disbursement of rural development loans. 

Section 706: Authority of the Chief Information Officer relating 

to new IT systems. 

Section 707: Availability of mandatory conservation program 

funding. 

Section 708: Rural Utility Service borrower eligibility. 

Section 709: Rescission of certain unobligated balances. 

Section 710: Prohibition on first-class airline travel. 

Section 711: Use of funds authorized by the Commodity Credit 

Corporation Charter Act. 

Section 712: Funding for advisory committees. 

Section 713: Indirect costs for competitive agricultural research 

grants. 

81 

Section 714: Limitation on certain funds. 

Section 715: Limitation on certain funds. 

Section 716: Language on user fee proposals without offsets. 

Section 717: Language on reprogramming. 

Section 718: Language on fees for the business and industry 

guaranteed loan program. 

Section 719: Language on questions for the record. 

Section 720: Language regarding prepackaged news stories. 

Section 721: Language on prohibition on paid details in excess of 

60 days. 

Section 722: Language regarding grant notifications. 

Section 723: Language regarding spending plans. 

Section 724: Language on controls over humanitarian food assistance. 

Section 725: Language regarding Single Family Housing Direct 

Loan Program. 

Section 726: Language regarding USDA loan programs. 

Section 727: Transfer authority regarding the Working Capital 

Fund. 

Section 728: Language regarding purchases made through Child 

Nutrition Programs. 

Section 729: Language regarding potable water supplies. 

Section 730: Language regarding research programs. 

Section 731: Language regarding nutrition research. 

Section 732: Language regarding housing loan programs. 

Section 733: Language regarding consumer information. 

Section 734: Language regarding tissue regulation. 

Section 735: Language regarding animal feed. 

Section 736: Language regarding APHIS regulation. 

Section 737: Language regarding animal research. 

Section 738: Language regarding FDA regulation. 

Section 739: Language regarding rural housing lender fees. 

Section 740: Language regarding IT systems. 

Section 741: Language regarding a rescission of funds. 

Section 742: Language regarding domestic preference. 

Section 743: Language regarding child nutrition programs. 

Section 744: Language regarding persistent poverty. 

Section 745: Language regarding community eligibility. 

Section 746: Language regarding lobbying. 

Section 747: Language regarding SNAP regulations. 

Section 748: Language regarding FDA regulation. 

Section 749: Language regarding housing programs. 

Section 750: Language regarding a rescission of funds. 

Section 751: Language regarding CFTC regulation. 

Section 752: Language regarding FDA regulation. 

Section 753: Language regarding FDA regulation. 

Section 754: Language regarding FSIS regulation. 

Section 755: Language regarding the Commodity Credit Corporation. 

Section 756: Language regarding the National Ocean Policy. 

Section 757: Language regarding the 21st Century Cures Act. 

Section 758: Language regarding citrus greening. 

Section 759: Language regarding healthy food financing. 

Section 760: Language regarding CFTC regulation. 

82 

Section 761: Language regarding the Spending Reduction Account. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS 

83 


Insert graphic folio 97 here 115232.001

FULL COMMITTEE VOTES 

Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives, the results of 

each roll call vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with the names of those voting for and 

those voting against, are printed below: 

ROLL CALL NO, 1 

Date: July 12,2017 

Measure: Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 

Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 2018 

Motion by: Mrs. Lowey 

Description of Motion: To strike a provision to establish a new predicate date for tobacco products, 

restrictions on the sale of such products, and to promulgate regulations for tobacco product standards. 

Results: Defeated 22 yeas to 30 nays 

Members Voting Yea 

Mr. Aguilar 

Mr. Cartwright 

Ms. Clark 

Ms. DeLauro 

Mr. Dent 

Ms. Kaptur 

Mr. Kilmer 

Ms. Lee 

Mrs. Lowey 

Ms. McCollum 

Ms. Meng 

Ms. Pingree 

Mr. Pocan 

Mr. Price 

Mr. Quigley 

Ms. Roybal-Allard 

Mr. Ruppersberger 

Mr. Ryan 

Mr. Serrano 

Mr. Stewart 

Mr. Visclosky 

Ms. Wasserman Schultz 

Members Voting Nay 

Mr. Aderholt 

Mr.Amodei 

Mr. Bishop 

Mr. Calvert 

Mr. Carter 

Mr. Cole 

Mr. Cuellar 

Mr. Culberson 

Mr. Diaz-Balart 

Mr. Fleischmann 

Mr. Fortenberry 

Mr. Frelinghuysen 

Ms. Granger 

Mr. Graves 

Dr. Harris 

Ms. Herrera Beutler 

Mr. Jenkins 

Mr. Joyce 

Mr. Moolenaar 

Mr. Newhouse 

Mr. Palazzo 

Mrs. Roby 

Mr. Rogers 

Mr. Rooney 

Mr. Simpson 

Mr. Taylor 

Mr. Valadao 

Mr. Womack 

Mr. Yoder 

Mr. Young 
84 


Insert graphic folio 98 here 115232.002

FULL COMMITTEE VOTES 

Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives, the results of 

each roll call vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with the names of those voting for and 

those voting against, are printed below: 

ROLL CALL NO. 2 

Date: July 12, 2017 

Measure: Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 

Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 2018 

Motion by: Ms. Roybal-Allard 

Description of Motion: To prohibit the use of funds for certain horse inspection activities. 

Results: Defeated 25 yeas to 27 nays 

Members Voting Yea 

Mr. Aguilar 

Mr. Bishop 

Mr. Cartwright 

Ms. Clark 

Ms. DeLauro 

Mr. Dent 

Mr. Joyce 

Ms.Kaptur 

Mr. Kilmer 

Ms. Lee 

Mrs. Lowey 

Ms. McCollum 

Ms. Meng 

Ms. Pingree 

Mr.Pocan 

Mr. Price 

Mr. Quigley 

Mr. Rooney 

Ms. Roybal-Allard 

Mr. Ruppersberger 

Mr. Ryan 

Mr. Serrano 

Mr. VisclOSkY 

Ms. Wasserman Schultz 

Mr. Yoder 

Members Voting Nay 

Mr. Aderholt 

Mr.Amodei 

Mr. Calvert 

Mr. Carter 

Mr. Cole 

Mr. Cuellar 

Mr. Culberson 

Mr. Diaz-Balart 

Mr. Fleischmann 

Mr. Fortenberry 

Mr. Frelinghuysen 

Ms. Granger 

Mr. Graves 

Dr. Harris 

Ms. Herrera Beutler 

Mr. Jenkins 

Mr. Moolenaar 

Mr. Newhouse 

Mr. Palazzo 

Mrs. Roby 

Mr. Rogers 

Mr. Simpson 

Mr. Stewart 

Mr. Taylor 

Mr. Valadao 

Mr. Womack 

Mr. Young 
85 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is a statement of general performance goals and objectives for which this measure authorizes funding: 

The Committee on Appropriations considers program performance, including a program’s success in developing and attaining 

outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing funding recommendations. 

RESCISSIONS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following lists the rescissions of unexpended 

balances included in the accompanying bill: 

Program or Activity Amount 

USDA Cushion of Credit ................................................................................................................................. $196,000,000 

USDA AMS (prior year balances) .................................................................................................................... 263,000,000 

USDA FNS (prior year balances) .................................................................................................................... 600,000,000 

USDA Rural Energy Savings Program ............................................................................................................ 8,000,000 

TRANSFERS OF FUNDS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following list includes the transfers of unexpended balances included in the accompanying bill: 

1. Departmental Administration.—The bill requires reimbursement for expenses related to certain hearings. 

2. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations.— 

The bill allows a portion of the funds appropriated to the Office of 

the Assistant Secretary to be transferred to agencies. 

3. Hazardous Materials Management.—The bill allows the funds 

appropriated to the Department for hazardous materials management to be transferred to agencies of the Department as required. 

4. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.—Authority is included to enable the Secretary of Agriculture to transfer from other 

appropriations or funds of the Department such sums as may be 

necessary to combat emergency outbreaks of certain diseases of 

animals, plants, and poultry. 

5. Funds for Strengthening Markets, Income, and Supply.—The 

bill limits the transfer of section 32 funds to purposes specified in 

the bill. 

6. Farm Service Agency Salaries and Expenses.—The bill provides that funds provided to other accounts in the agency may be 

merged with the salaries and expenses account of the Farm Service 

Agency. 

7. Dairy Indemnity Program.—The bill authorizes the transfer of 

funds to the Commodity Credit Corporation, by reference. 

8. Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account.—The 

bill provides funds to be transferred to the Farm Service Agency. 

9. Commodity Credit Corporation.—The bill includes language allowing certain funds to be transferred to the Foreign Agricultural 

Service for information resource management activities. 

86 

10. Rural Development Salaries and Expenses.—The bill provides 

that prior year balances from certain accounts shall be transferred 

to and merged with this account. 

11. Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account, Intermediary Relending Program Fund Account, and Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Program Account.—The bill provides 

funds in this account shall be transferred to the salaries and expenses of Rural Development. 

12. Child Nutrition Programs.—The bill includes authority to 

transfer section 32 funds to these programs. 

13. Foreign Agricultural Service, Salaries and Expenses.—The 

bill allows for the transfer of funds from the Commodity Credit 

Corporation Export Loan Program Account. 

14. Food for Peace Title I Direct Credit and Food for Progress 

Program Account.—The bill allows funds to be transferred to the 

Farm Service Agency, Salaries and Expenses account. The bill also 

provides that funds made available for the cost of title I agreements and for title I ocean freight differential may be used interchangeably. 

15. Commodity Credit Corporation Export Loans Program.—The 

bill provides for transfer of funds to the Foreign Agricultural Service and to the Farm Service Agency for overhead expenses associated with credit reform. 

16. Food and Drug Administration, Salaries and Expenses.—The 

bill allows funds to be transferred among activities. 

17. General Provisions.—The bill allows unobligated balances of 

discretionary funds to be transferred to the Working Capital Fund. 

DISCLOSURE OF EARMARKS AND CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED

SPENDING ITEMS

Neither the bill nor this report contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in 

clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

COMPLIANCE WITH RULE XIII, CL. 3(e) (RAMSEYER RULE) 

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italics, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman: 

COMPLIANCE WITH RULE XIII, CL. 3(e) (RAMSEYER RULE) 

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italics, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

RICHARD B. RUSSELL NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH ACT 

* * * * * * * 

87 

NUTRITIONAL AND OTHER PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

SEC. 9. (a)(1)(A) Lunches served by schools participating in the 

school lunch program under this Act shall meet minimum nutritional requirements prescribed by the Secretary on the basis of 

tested nutritional research, except that the minimum nutritional 

requirements— 

(i) shall not be construed to prohibit the substitution of foods 

to accommodate the medical or other special dietary needs of 

individual students; and 

(ii) shall, at a minimum, be based on the weekly average of 

the nutrient content of school lunches. 

(B) The Secretary shall provide technical assistance and training, 

including technical assistance and training in the preparation of 

lower-fat versions of foods commonly used in the school lunch program under this Act, to schools participating in the school lunch 

program to assist the schools in complying with the nutritional requirements prescribed by the Secretary pursuant to subparagraph 

(A) and in providing appropriate meals to children with medically 

certified special dietary needs. The Secretary shall provide additional technical assistance to schools that are having difficulty 

maintaining compliance with the requirements. 

(2) FLUID MILK.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—Lunches served by schools participating in the school lunch program under this Act— 

(i) shall offer students a variety of fluid milk. Such 

milk shall be consistent with the most recent Dietary 

Guidelines for Americans published under section 301 

of the National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5341); 

(ii) may offer students flavored and unflavored fluid 

milk and lactose-free fluid milk; and 

(iii) shall provide a substitute for fluid milk for students whose disability restricts their diet, on receipt of 

a written statement from a licensed physician that 

identifies the disability that restricts the student’s diet 

and that specifies the substitute for fluid milk. 

(B) SUBSTITUTES.— 

(i) STANDARDS FOR SUBSTITUTION.—A school may 

substitute for the fluid milk provided under subparagraph (A), a nondairy beverage that is nutritionally 

equivalent to fluid milk and meets nutritional standards established by the Secretary (which shall, among 

other requirements to be determined by the Secretary, 

include fortification of calcium, protein, vitamin A, and 

vitamin D to levels found in cow’s milk) for students 

who cannot consume fluid milk because of a medical 

or other special dietary need other than a disability 

described in subparagraph (A)(iii). 

(ii) NOTICE.—The substitutions may be made if the 

school notifies the State agency that the school is implementing a variation allowed under this subparagraph, and if the substitution is requested by written 

statement of a medical authority or by a student’s parent or legal guardian that identifies the medical or 

88 

other special dietary need that restricts the student’s 

diet, except that the school shall not be required to 

provide beverages other than beverages the school has 

identified as acceptable substitutes. 

(iii) EXCESS EXPENSES BORNE BY SCHOOL FOOD AUTHORITY.—Expenses incurred in providing substitutions under this subparagraph that are in excess of 

expenses covered by reimbursements under this Act 

shall be paid by the school food authority. 

(C) RESTRICTIONS ON SALE OF MILK PROHIBITED.—A 

school that participates in the school lunch program under 

this Act shall not directly or indirectly restrict the sale or 

marketing of fluid milk products by the school (or by a person approved by the school) at any time or any place— 

(i) on the school premises; or 

(ii) at any school-sponsored event. 

(3) Students in senior high schools that participate in the school 

lunch program under this Act (and, when approved by the local 

school district or nonprofit private schools, students in any other 

grade level) shall not be required to accept offered foods they do not 

intend to consume, and any such failure to accept offered foods 

shall not affect the full charge to the student for a lunch meeting 

the requirements of this subsection or the amount of payments 

made under this Act to any such school for such lunch. 

(4) PROVISION OF INFORMATION.— 

(A) GUIDANCE.—Prior to the beginning of the school year 

beginning July 2004, the Secretary shall issue guidance to 

States and school food authorities to increase the consumption of foods and food ingredients that are recommended 

for increased serving consumption in the most recent Dietary Guidelines for Americans published under section 301 

of the National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research 

Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5341). 

(B) RULES.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall promulgate 

rules, based on the most recent Dietary Guidelines for 

Americans, that reflect specific recommendations, expressed in serving recommendations, for increased consumption of foods and food ingredients offered in school 

nutrition programs under this Act and the Child Nutrition 

Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq.). 

(C) PROCUREMENT AND PROCESSING OF FOOD SERVICE

PRODUCTS AND COMMODITIES.—The Secretary shall— 

(i) identify, develop, and disseminate to State departments of agriculture and education, school food 

authorities, local educational agencies, and local processing entities, model product specifications and practices for foods offered in school nutrition programs 

under this Act and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 

U.S.C. 1771 et seq.) to ensure that the foods reflect the 

most recent Dietary Guidelines for Americans published under section 301 of the National Nutrition 

Monitoring and Related Research Act of 1990 (7 

U.S.C. 5341); 

89 

(ii) not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 

of this subparagraph— 

(I) carry out a study to analyze the quantity and 

quality of nutritional information available to 

school food authorities about food service products 

and commodities; and 

(II) submit to Congress a report on the results 

of the study that contains such legislative recommendations as the Secretary considers necessary to ensure that school food authorities have 

access to the nutritional information needed for 

menu planning and compliance assessments; and 

(iii) to the maximum extent practicable, in purchasing and processing commodities for use in school 

nutrition programs under this Act and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq.), purchase 

the widest variety of healthful foods that reflect the 

most recent Dietary Guidelines for Americans. 

(5) WATER.—Schools participating in the school lunch program under this Act shall make available to children free of 

charge, as nutritionally appropriate, potable water for consumption in the place where meals are served during meal 

service. 

(b)(1)(A) Not later than June 1 of each fiscal year, the Secretary 

shall prescribe income guidelines for determining eligibility for free 

and reduced price lunches during the 12-month period beginning 

July 1 of such fiscal year and ending June 30 of the following fiscal 

year. The income guidelines for determining eligibility for free 

lunches shall be 130 percent of the applicable family size income 

levels contained in the nonfarm income poverty guidelines prescribed by the Office of Management and Budget, as adjusted annually in accordance with subparagraph (B). The income guidelines 

for determining eligibility for reduced price lunches for any school 

year shall be 185 percent of the applicable family size income levels 

contained in the nonfarm income poverty guidelines prescribed by 

the Office of Management and Budget, as adjusted annually in accordance with subparagraph (B). The Office of Management and 

Budget guidelines shall be revised at annual intervals, or at any 

shorter interval deemed feasible and desirable. 

(B) The revision required by subparagraph (A) of this paragraph 

shall be made by multiplying— 

(i) the official poverty line (as defined by the Office of Management and Budget); by 

(ii) the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index during the annual or other interval immediately preceding the 

time at which the adjustment is made. 

Revisions under this subparagraph shall be made not more than 30 

days after the date on which the consumer price index data required to compute the adjustment becomes available. 

(2)(A) Following the determination by the Secretary under paragraph (1) of this subsection of the income eligibility guidelines for 

each school year, each State educational agency shall announce the 

income eligibility guidelines, by family size, to be used by schools 

in the State in making determinations of eligibility for free and reduced price lunches. Local school authorities shall, each year, pubVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:47 Jul 18, 2017 Jkt 026264 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR232.XXX HR232
90 

licly announce the income eligibility guidelines for free and reduced 

price lunches on or before the opening of school. 

(B) APPLICATIONS AND DESCRIPTIVE MATERIAL.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—Applications for free and reduced price 

lunches, in such form as the Secretary may prescribe or 

approve, and any descriptive material, shall be distributed 

to the parents or guardians of children in attendance at 

the school, and shall contain only the family size income 

levels for reduced price meal eligibility with the explanation that households with incomes less than or equal to 

these values would be eligible for free or reduced price 

lunches. 

(ii) INCOME ELIGIBILITY GUIDELINES.—Forms and descriptive material distributed in accordance with clause (i) 

may not contain the income eligibility guidelines for free 

lunches. 

(iii) CONTENTS OF DESCRIPTIVE MATERIAL.— 

(I) IN GENERAL.—Descriptive material distributed in 

accordance with clause (i) shall contain a notification 

that— 

(aa) participants in the programs listed in subclause (II) may be eligible for free or reduced price 

meals; and 

(bb) documentation may be requested for 

verification of eligibility for free or reduced price 

meals. 

(II) PROGRAMS.—The programs referred to in subclause (I)(aa) are— 

(aa) the special supplemental nutrition program 

for women, infants, and children established by 

section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 

U.S.C. 1786); 

(bb) the supplemental nutrition assistance program established under the Food and Nutrition 

Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.); 

(cc) the food distribution program on Indian reservations established under section 4(b) of the 

Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2013(b)); 

and 

(dd) a State program funded under the program 

of block grants to States for temporary assistance 

for needy families established under part A of title 

IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et 

seq.). 

(3) HOUSEHOLD APPLICATIONS.— 

(A) DEFINITION OF HOUSEHOLD APPLICATION.—In this 

paragraph, the term ‘‘household application’’ means an application for a child of a household to receive free or reduced price school lunches under this Act, or free or reduced price school breakfasts under the Child Nutrition 

Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq.), for which an eligibility determination is made other than under paragraph 

(4) or (5). 

(B) ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION.— 

91 

(i) IN GENERAL.—An eligibility determination shall 

be made on the basis of a complete household application executed by an adult member of the household or 

in accordance with guidance issued by the Secretary. 

(ii) ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES AND APPLICATIONS.—A 

household application may be executed using an electronic signature if— 

(I) the application is submitted electronically; 

and 

(II) the electronic application filing system 

meets confidentiality standards established by the 

Secretary. 

(C) CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—The household application shall 

identify the names of each child in the household for 

whom meal benefits are requested. 

(ii) SEPARATE APPLICATIONS.—A State educational 

agency or local educational agency may not request a 

separate application for each child in the household 

that attends schools under the same local educational 

agency. 

(D) VERIFICATION OF SAMPLE.— 

(i) DEFINITIONS.—In this subparagraph: 

(I) ERROR PRONE APPLICATION.—The term ‘‘error 

prone application’’ means an approved household 

application that— 

(aa) indicates monthly income that is within 

$100, or an annual income that is within 

$1,200, of the income eligibility limitation for 

free or reduced price meals; or 

(bb) in lieu of the criteria established under 

item (aa), meets criteria established by the 

Secretary. 

(II) NON-RESPONSE RATE.—The term ‘‘non-response rate’’ means (in accordance with guidelines 

established by the Secretary) the percentage of approved household applications for which 

verification information has not been obtained by 

a local educational agency after attempted 

verification under subparagraphs (F) and (G). 

(ii) VERIFICATION OF SAMPLE.—Each school year, a 

local educational agency shall verify eligibility of the 

children in a sample of household applications approved for the school year by the local educational 

agency, as determined by the Secretary in accordance 

with this subsection. 

(iii) SAMPLE SIZE.—Except as otherwise provided in 

this paragraph, the sample for a local educational 

agency for a school year shall equal the lesser of— 

(I) 3 percent of all applications approved by the 

local educational agency for the school year, as of 

October 1 of the school year, selected from error 

prone applications; or 

92 

(II) 3,000 error prone applications approved by 

the local educational agency for the school year, as 

of October 1 of the school year. 

(iv) ALTERNATIVE SAMPLE SIZE.— 

(I) IN GENERAL.—If the conditions described in 

subclause (IV) are met, the verification sample 

size for a local educational agency shall be the 

sample size described in subclause (II) or (III), as 

determined by the local educational agency. 

(II) 3,000/3 PERCENT OPTION.—The sample size 

described in this subclause shall be the lesser of 

3,000, or 3 percent of, applications selected at random from applications approved by the local educational agency for the school year, as of October 

1 of the school year. 

(III) 1,000/1 PERCENT PLUS OPTION.— 

(aa) IN GENERAL.—The sample size described in this subclause shall be the sum of— 

(AA) the lesser of 1,000, or 1 percent of, 

all applications approved by the local educational agency for the school year, as of 

October 1 of the school year, selected 

from error prone applications; and 

(BB) the lesser of 500, or 1⁄2 of 1 percent of, applications approved by the local 

educational agency for the school year, as 

of October 1 of the school year, that provide a case number (in lieu of income information) showing participation in a program described in item (bb) selected from 

those approved applications that provide 

a case number (in lieu of income information) verifying the participation. 

(bb) PROGRAMS.—The programs described in 

this item are— 

(AA) the supplemental nutrition assistance program established under the Food 

and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 

et seq.); 

(BB) the food distribution program on 

Indian reservations established under 

section 4(b) of the Food and Nutrition Act 

of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2013(b)); and 

(CC) a State program funded under the 

program of block grants to States for temporary assistance for needy families established under part A of title IV of the 

Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 

that the Secretary determines complies 

with standards established by the Secretary that ensure that the standards 

under the State program are comparable 

to or more restrictive than those in effect 

on June 1, 1995. 

93 

(IV) CONDITIONS.—The conditions referred to in 

subclause (I) shall be met for a local educational 

agency for a school year if— 

(aa) the nonresponse rate for the local educational agency for the preceding school year 

is less than 20 percent; or 

(bb) the local educational agency has more 

than 20,000 children approved by application 

by the local educational agency as eligible for 

free or reduced price meals for the school 

year, as of October 1 of the school year, and— 

(AA) the nonresponse rate for the preceding school year is at least 10 percent 

below the nonresponse rate for the second 

preceding school year; or 

(BB) in the case of the school year beginning July 2005, the local educational 

agency attempts to verify all approved 

household applications selected for 

verification through use of public agency 

records from at least 2 of the programs or 

sources of information described in subparagraph (F)(i). 

(v) ADDITIONAL SELECTED APPLICATIONS.—A sample 

for a local educational agency for a school year under 

clauses (iii) and (iv)(III)(AA) shall include the number 

of additional randomly selected approved household 

applications that are required to comply with the sample size requirements in those clauses. 

(E) PRELIMINARY REVIEW.— 

(i) REVIEW FOR ACCURACY.— 

(I) IN GENERAL.—Prior to conducting any other 

verification activity for approved household applications selected for verification, the local educational agency shall ensure that the initial eligibility determination for each approved household 

application is reviewed for accuracy by an individual other than the individual making the initial eligibility determination, unless otherwise determined by the Secretary. 

(II) WAIVER.—The requirements of subclause (I) 

shall be waived for a local educational agency if 

the local educational agency is using a technologybased solution that demonstrates a high level of 

accuracy, to the satisfaction of the Secretary, in 

processing an initial eligibility determination in 

accordance with the income eligibility guidelines 

of the school lunch program. 

(ii) CORRECT ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION.—If the review indicates that the initial eligibility determination 

is correct, the local educational agency shall verify the 

approved household application. 

(iii) INCORRECT ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION.—If the 

review indicates that the initial eligibility determinaVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:47 Jul 18, 2017 Jkt 026264 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR232.XXX HR232
94 

tion is incorrect, the local educational agency shall (as 

determined by the Secretary)— 

(I) correct the eligibility status of the household; 

(II) notify the household of the change; 

(III) in any case in which the review indicates 

that the household is not eligible for free or reduced-price meals, notify the household of the reason for the ineligibility and that the household 

may reapply with income documentation for free 

or reduced-price meals; and 

(IV) in any case in which the review indicates 

that the household is eligible for free or reducedprice meals, verify the approved household application. 

(F) DIRECT VERIFICATION.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—Subject to clauses (ii) and (iii), to 

verify eligibility for free or reduced price meals for approved household applications selected for verification, 

the local educational agency may (in accordance with 

criteria established by the Secretary) first obtain and 

use income and program participation information 

from a public agency administering— 

(I) the supplemental nutrition assistance program established under the Food and Nutrition 

Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.); 

(II) the food distribution program on Indian reservations established under section 4(b) of the 

Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2013(b)); 

(III) the temporary assistance for needy families 

program funded under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

(IV) the State medicaid program under title XIX 

of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.); 

or 

(V) a similar income-tested program or other 

source of information, as determined by the Secretary. 

(ii) FREE MEALS.—Public agency records that may be 

obtained and used under clause (i) to verify eligibility 

for free meals for approved household applications selected for verification shall include the most recent 

available information (other than information reflecting program participation or income before the 180- 

day period ending on the date of application for free 

meals) that is relied on to administer— 

(I) a program or source of information described 

in clause (i) (other than clause (i)(IV)); or 

(II) the State plan for medical assistance under 

title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

1396 et seq.) in— 

(aa) a State in which the income eligibility 

limit applied under section 1902(l)(2)(C) of 

that Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(l)(2)(C)) is not more 

than 133 percent of the official poverty line 

95 

described in section 1902(l)(2)(A) of that Act 

(42 U.S.C. 1396a(l)(2)(A)); or 

(bb) a State that otherwise identifies households that have income that is not more than 

133 percent of the official poverty line described in section 1902(l)(2)(A) of that Act (42 

U.S.C. 1396a(l)(2)(A)). 

(iii) REDUCED PRICE MEALS.—Public agency records 

that may be obtained and used under clause (i) to 

verify eligibility for reduced price meals for approved 

household applications selected for verification shall 

include the most recent available information (other 

than information reflecting program participation or 

income before the 180-day period ending on the date 

of application for reduced price meals) that is relied on 

to administer— 

(I) a program or source of information described 

in clause (i) (other than clause (i)(IV)); or 

(II) the State plan for medical assistance under 

title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

1396 et seq.) in— 

(aa) a State in which the income eligibility 

limit applied under section 1902(l)(2)(C) of 

that Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(l)(2)(C)) is not more 

than 185 percent of the official poverty line 

described in section 1902(l)(2)(A) of that Act 

(42 U.S.C. 1396a(l)(2)(A)); or 

(bb) a State that otherwise identifies households that have income that is not more than 

185 percent of the official poverty line described in section 1902(l)(2)(A) of that Act (42 

U.S.C. 1396a(l)(2)(A)). 

(iv) EVALUATION.—Not later than 3 years after the 

date of enactment of this subparagraph, the Secretary 

shall complete an evaluation of— 

(I) the effectiveness of direct verification carried 

out under this subparagraph in decreasing the 

portion of the verification sample that must be 

verified under subparagraph (G) while ensuring 

that adequate verification information is obtained; 

and 

(II) the feasibility of direct verification by State 

agencies and local educational agencies. 

(v) EXPANDED USE OF DIRECT VERIFICATION.—If the 

Secretary determines that direct verification significantly decreases the portion of the verification sample 

that must be verified under subparagraph (G), while 

ensuring that adequate verification information is obtained, and can be conducted by most State agencies 

and local educational agencies, the Secretary may require a State agency or local educational agency to implement direct verification through 1 or more of the 

programs described in clause (i), as determined by the 

Secretary, unless the State agency or local educational 

agency demonstrates (under criteria established by the 

96 

Secretary) that the State agency or local educational 

agency lacks the capacity to conduct, or is unable to 

implement, direct verification. 

(G) HOUSEHOLD VERIFICATION.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—If an approved household application is not verified through the use of public agency 

records, a local educational agency shall provide to the 

household written notice that— 

(I) the approved household application has been 

selected for verification; and 

(II) the household is required to submit 

verification information to confirm eligibility for 

free or reduced price meals. 

(ii) PHONE NUMBER.—The written notice in clause (i) 

shall include a toll-free phone number that parents 

and legal guardians in households selected for 

verification can call for assistance with the verification 

process. 

(iii) FOLLOWUP ACTIVITIES.—If a household does not 

respond to a verification request, a local educational 

agency shall make at least 1 attempt to obtain the 

necessary verification from the household in accordance with guidelines and regulations promulgated by 

the Secretary. 

(iv) CONTRACT AUTHORITY FOR SCHOOL FOOD AUTHORITIES.—A local educational agency may contract 

(under standards established by the Secretary) with a 

third party to assist the local educational agency in 

carrying out clause (iii). 

(H) VERIFICATION DEADLINE.— 

(i) GENERAL DEADLINE.— 

(I) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subclause (II), not 

later than November 15 of each school year, a 

local educational agency shall complete the 

verification activities required for the school year 

(including followup activities). 

(II) EXTENSION.—Under criteria established by 

the Secretary, a State may extend the deadline established under subclause (I) for a school year for 

a local educational agency to December 15 of the 

school year. 

(ii) ELIGIBILITY CHANGES.—Based on the verification 

activities, the local educational agency shall make appropriate modifications to the eligibility determinations made for household applications in accordance 

with criteria established by the Secretary. 

(I) LOCAL CONDITIONS.—In the case of a natural disaster, 

civil disorder, strike, or other local condition (as determined by the Secretary), the Secretary may substitute alternatives for— 

(i) the sample size and sample selection criteria established under subparagraph (D); and 

(ii) the verification deadline established under subparagraph (H). 

97 

(J) INDIVIDUAL REVIEW.—In accordance with criteria established by the Secretary, the local educational agency 

may, on individual review— 

(i) decline to verify no more than 5 percent of approved household applications selected under subparagraph (D); and 

(ii) replace the approved household applications with 

other approved household applications to be verified. 

(K) FEASIBILITY STUDY.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a 

study of the feasibility of using computer technology 

(including data mining) to reduce— 

(I) overcertification errors in the school lunch 

program under this Act; 

(II) waste, fraud, and abuse in connection with 

this paragraph; and 

(III) errors, waste, fraud, and abuse in other nutrition programs, as determined to be appropriate 

by the Secretary. 

(ii) REPORT.—Not later than 180 days after the date 

of enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall 

submit to the Committee on Education and the Workforce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the 

Senate a report describing— 

(I) the results of the feasibility study conducted 

under this subsection; 

(II) how a computer system using technology described in clause (i) could be implemented; 

(III) a plan for implementation; and 

(IV) proposed legislation, if necessary, to implement the system. 

(4) DIRECT CERTIFICATION FOR CHILDREN IN SUPPLEMENTAL

NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM HOUSEHOLDS.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subparagraph (D), each 

State agency shall enter into an agreement with the State 

agency conducting eligibility determinations for the supplemental nutrition assistance program established under 

the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.). 

(B) PROCEDURES.—Subject to paragraph (6), the agreement shall establish procedures under which a child who 

is a member of a household receiving assistance under the 

supplemental nutrition assistance program shall be certified as eligible for free lunches under this Act and free 

breakfasts under the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 

U.S.C. 1771 et seq.), without further application. 

(C) CERTIFICATION.—Subject to paragraph (6), under the 

agreement, the local educational agency conducting eligibility determinations for a school lunch program under 

this Act and a school breakfast program under the Child 

Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq.) shall certify 

a child who is a member of a household receiving assistance under the supplemental nutrition assistance program 

as eligible for free lunches under this Act and free breakVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:47 Jul 18, 2017 Jkt 026264 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR232.XXX HR232
98 

fasts under the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 

1771 et seq.), without further application. 

(D) APPLICABILITY.—This paragraph applies to— 

(i) in the case of the school year beginning July 

2006, a school district that had an enrollment of 

25,000 students or more in the preceding school year; 

(ii) in the case of the school year beginning July 

2007, a school district that had an enrollment of 

10,000 students or more in the preceding school year; 

and 

(iii) in the case of the school year beginning July 

2008 and each subsequent school year, each local educational agency. 

(E) PERFORMANCE AWARDS.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—Effective for each of the school 

years beginning July 1, 2011, July 1, 2012, and July 

1, 2013, the Secretary shall offer performance awards 

to States to encourage the States to ensure that all 

children eligible for direct certification under this 

paragraph are certified in accordance with this paragraph. 

(ii) REQUIREMENTS.—For each school year described 

in clause (i), the Secretary shall— 

(I) consider State data from the prior school 

year, including estimates contained in the report 

required under section 4301 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (42 U.S.C. 

1758a); and 

(II) make performance awards to not more than 

15 States that demonstrate, as determined by the 

Secretary— 

(aa) outstanding performance; and 

(bb) substantial improvement. 

(iii) USE OF FUNDS.—A State agency that receives a 

performance award under clause (i)— 

(I) shall treat the funds as program income; and 

(II) may transfer the funds to school food authorities for use in carrying out the program. 

(iv) FUNDING.— (I) IN GENERAL.—On October 1, 2011, and each 

subsequent October 1 through October 1, 2013, 

out of any funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the Secretary of the Treasury shall 

transfer to the Secretary— 

(aa) $2,000,000 to carry out clause 

(ii)(II)(aa); and 

(bb) $2,000,000 to carry out clause 

(ii)(II)(bb). 

(II) RECEIPT AND ACCEPTANCE.—The Secretary 

shall be entitled to receive, shall accept, and shall 

use to carry out this clause the funds transferred 

under subclause (I), without further appropriation. 

(v) PAYMENTS NOT SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW.—A 

determination by the Secretary whether, and in what 

99 

amount, to make a performance award under this subparagraph shall not be subject to administrative or judicial review. 

(F) CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT PLANS.— (i) DEFINITION OF REQUIRED PERCENTAGE.—In this 

subparagraph, the term ‘‘required percentage’’ 

means— 

(I) for the school year beginning July 1, 2011, 80 

percent; 

(II) for the school year beginning July 1, 2012, 

90 percent; and 

(III) for the school year beginning July 1, 2013, 

and each school year thereafter, 95 percent. 

(ii) REQUIREMENTS.—Each school year, the Secretary 

shall— 

(I) identify, using data from the prior year, including estimates contained in the report required 

under section 4301 of the Food, Conservation, and 

Energy Act of 2008 (42 U.S.C. 1758a), States that 

directly certify less than the required percentage 

of the total number of children in the State who 

are eligible for direct certification under this paragraph; 

(II) require the States identified under subclause (I) to implement a continuous improvement 

plan to fully meet the requirements of this paragraph, which shall include a plan to improve direct certification for the following school year; and 

(III) assist the States identified under subclause 

(I) to develop and implement a continuous improvement plan in accordance with subclause (II). 

(iii) FAILURE TO MEET PERFORMANCE STANDARD.— 

(I) IN GENERAL.—A State that is required to develop and implement a continuous improvement 

plan under clause (ii)(II) shall be required to submit the continuous improvement plan to the Secretary, for the approval of the Secretary. 

(II) REQUIREMENTS.—At a minimum, a continuous improvement plan under subclause (I) shall 

include— 

(aa) specific measures that the State will 

use to identify more children who are eligible 

for direct certification, including improvements or modifications to technology, information systems, or databases; 

(bb) a timeline for the State to implement 

those measures; and 

(cc) goals for the State to improve direct 

certification results. 

(G) WITHOUT FURTHER APPLICATION.— (i) IN GENERAL.—In this paragraph, the term ‘‘without further application’’ means that no action is required by the household of the child. 

(ii) CLARIFICATION.—A requirement that a household 

return a letter notifying the household of eligibility for 

100 

direct certification or eligibility for free school meals 

does not meet the requirements of clause (i). 

(5) DISCRETIONARY CERTIFICATION.—Subject to paragraph (6), 

any local educational agency may certify any child as eligible 

for free lunches or breakfasts, without further application, by 

directly communicating with the appropriate State or local 

agency to obtain documentation of the status of the child as— 

(A) a member of a family that is receiving assistance 

under the temporary assistance for needy families program 

funded under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act 

(42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) that the Secretary determines complies with standards established by the Secretary that ensure that the standards under the State program are comparable to or more restrictive than those in effect on June 

1, 1995; 

(B) a homeless child or youth (defined as 1 of the individuals described in section 725(2) of the McKinney-Vento 

Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11434a(2)); 

(C) served by the runaway and homeless youth grant 

program established under the Runaway and Homeless 

Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5701 et seq.); 

(D) a migratory child (as defined in section 1309 of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 

U.S.C. 6399)); or 

(E)(i) a foster child whose care and placement is the responsibility of an agency that administers a State plan 

under part B or E of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 

U.S.C. 621 et seq.); or 

(ii) a foster child who a court has placed with a caretaker household. 

(6) USE OR DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The use or disclosure of any information obtained from an application for free or reduced price 

meals, or from a State or local agency referred to in paragraph (3)(F), (4), or (5), shall be limited to— 

(i) a person directly connected with the administration or enforcement of this Act or the Child Nutrition 

Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq.) (including a regulation promulgated under either Act); 

(ii) a person directly connected with the administration or enforcement of— 

(I) a Federal education program; 

(II) a State health or education program administered by the State or local educational agency 

(other than a program carried out under title XIX 

or XXI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 

et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 1397aa et seq.)); or 

(III) a Federal, State, or local means-tested nutrition program with eligibility standards comparable to the school lunch program under this 

Act; 

(iii)(I) the Comptroller General of the United States 

for audit and examination authorized by any other 

provision of law; and 

101 

(II) notwithstanding any other provision of law, a 

Federal, State, or local law enforcement official for the 

purpose of investigating an alleged violation of any 

program covered by this paragraph or paragraph 

(3)(F), (4), or (5); 

(iv) a person directly connected with the administration of the State medicaid program under title XIX of 

the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) or the 

State children’s health insurance program under title 

XXI of that Act (42 U.S.C. 1397aa et seq.) solely for 

the purposes of— 

(I) identifying children eligible for benefits 

under, and enrolling children in, those programs, 

except that this subclause shall apply only to the 

extent that the State and the local educational 

agency or school food authority so elect; and 

(II) verifying the eligibility of children for programs under this Act or the Child Nutrition Act 

of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq.); and 

(v) a third party contractor described in paragraph 

(3)(G)(iv). 

(B) LIMITATION ON INFORMATION PROVIDED.—Information 

provided under clause (ii) or (v) of subparagraph (A) shall 

be limited to the income eligibility status of the child for 

whom application for free or reduced price meal benefits is 

made or for whom eligibility information is provided under 

paragraph (3)(F), (4), or (5), unless the consent of the parent or guardian of the child for whom application for benefits was made is obtained. 

(C) CRIMINAL PENALTY.—A person described in subparagraph (A) who publishes, divulges, discloses, or makes 

known in any manner, or to any extent not authorized by 

Federal law (including a regulation), any information obtained under this subsection shall be fined not more than 

$1,000 or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both. 

(D) REQUIREMENTS FOR WAIVER OF CONFIDENTIALITY.—A 

State that elects to exercise the option described in subparagraph (A)(iv)(I) shall ensure that any local educational 

agency or school food authority acting in accordance with 

that option— 

(i) has a written agreement with 1 or more State or 

local agencies administering health programs for children under titles XIX and XXI of the Social Security 

Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq. and 1397aa et seq.) that 

requires the health agencies to use the information obtained under subparagraph (A) to seek to enroll children in those health programs; and 

(ii)(I) notifies each household, the information of 

which shall be disclosed under subparagraph (A), that 

the information disclosed will be used only to enroll 

children in health programs referred to in subparagraph (A)(iv); and 

(II) provides each parent or guardian of a child in 

the household with an opportunity to elect not to have 

the information disclosed. 

102 

(E) USE OF DISCLOSED INFORMATION.—A person to which 

information is disclosed under subparagraph (A)(iv)(I) 

shall use or disclose the information only as necessary for 

the purpose of enrolling children in health programs referred to in subparagraph (A)(iv). 

(7) FREE AND REDUCED PRICE POLICY STATEMENT.— (A) IN GENERAL.—After the initial submission, a local 

educational agency shall not be required to submit a free 

and reduced price policy statement to a State educational 

agency under this Act unless there is a substantive change 

in the free and reduced price policy of the local educational 

agency. 

(B) ROUTINE CHANGE.—A routine change in the policy of 

a local educational agency (such as an annual adjustment 

of the income eligibility guidelines for free and reduced 

price meals) shall not be sufficient cause for requiring the 

local educational agency to submit a policy statement. 

(8) COMMUNICATIONS.— (A) IN GENERAL.—Any communication with a household 

under this subsection or subsection (d) shall be in an understandable and uniform format and, to the maximum extent practicable, in a language that parents and legal 

guardians can understand. 

(B) ELECTRONIC AVAILABILITY.—In addition to the distribution of applications and descriptive material in paper 

form as provided for in this paragraph, the applications 

and material may be made available electronically via the 

Internet. 

(9) ELIGIBILITY FOR FREE AND REDUCED PRICE LUNCHES.— 

(A) FREE LUNCHES.—Any child who is a member of a 

household whose income, at the time the application is 

submitted, is at an annual rate which does not exceed the 

applicable family size income level of the income eligibility 

guidelines for free lunches, as determined under paragraph (1), shall be served a free lunch. 

(B) REDUCED PRICE LUNCHES.— (i) IN GENERAL.—Any child who is a member of a 

household whose income, at the time the application is 

submitted, is at an annual rate greater than the applicable family size income level of the income eligibility 

guidelines for free lunches, as determined under paragraph (1), but less than or equal to the applicable family size income level of the income eligibility guidelines 

for reduced price lunches, as determined under paragraph (1), shall be served a reduced price lunch. 

(ii) MAXIMUM PRICE.—The price charged for a reduced price lunch shall not exceed 40 cents. 

(C) DURATION.—Except as otherwise specified in paragraph (3)(E), (3)(H)(ii), and section 11(a), eligibility for free 

or reduced price meals for any school year shall remain in 

effect— 

(i) beginning on the date of eligibility approval for 

the current school year; and 

(ii) ending on a date during the subsequent school 

year determined by the Secretary. 

103 

(10) No physical segregation of or other discrimination against 

any child eligible for a free lunch or a reduced price lunch under 

this subsection shall be made by the school nor shall there be any 

overt identification of any child by special tokens or tickets, announced or published list of names, or by other means. 

(11) Any child who has a parent or guardian who (A) is responsible for the principal support of such child and (B) is unemployed 

shall be served a free or reduced price lunch, respectively, during 

any period (i) in which such child’s parent or guardian continues 

to be unemployed and (ii) the income of the child’s parents or 

guardians during such period of unemployment falls within the income eligibility criteria for free lunches or reduced price lunches, 

respectively, based on the current rate of income of such parents 

or guardians. Local educational agencies shall publicly announce 

that such children are eligible for free or reduced price lunch, and 

shall make determinations with respect to the status of any parent 

or guardian of any child under clauses (A) and (B) of the preceding 

sentence on the basis of a statement executed in such form as the 

Secretary may prescribe by such parent or guardian. No physical 

segregation of, or other discrimination against, any child eligible 

for a free or reduced price lunch under this paragraph shall be 

made by the school nor shall there be any overt identification of 

any such child by special tokens or tickets, announced or published 

lists of names, or by any other means. 

(12)(A) A child shall be considered automatically eligible for a 

free lunch and breakfast under this Act and the Child Nutrition 

Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq.), respectively, without further 

application or eligibility determination, if the child is— 

(i) a member of a household receiving assistance under the 

supplemental nutrition assistance program authorized under 

the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.); 

(ii) a member of a family (under the State program funded 

under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

601 et seq.)) that the Secretary determines complies with 

standards established by the Secretary that ensure that the 

standards under the State program are comparable to or more 

restrictive than those in effect on June 1, 1995; 

(iii) enrolled as a participant in a Head Start program authorized under the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.), on 

the basis of a determination that the child meets the eligibility 

criteria prescribed under section 645(a)(1)(B) of the Head Start 

Act (42 U.S.C. 9840(a)(1)(B)); 

(iv) a homeless child or youth (defined as 1 of the individuals described in section 725(2) of the McKinney-Vento 

Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11434a(2))); 

(v) served by the runaway and homeless youth grant 

program established under the Runaway and Homeless 

Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5701 et seq.); 

(vi) a migratory child (as defined in section 1309 of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 

U.S.C. 6399)); or 

(vii)(I) a foster child whose care and placement is the responsibility of an agency that administers a State plan 

under part B or E of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 

U.S.C. 621 et seq.); or 

104 

(II) a foster child who a court has placed with a 

caretaker household. 

(B) Proof of receipt of supplemental nutrition assistance program 

benefits or assistance under the State program funded under part 

A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) that 

the Secretary determines complies with standards established by 

the Secretary that ensure that the standards under the State program are comparable to or more restrictive than those in effect on 

June 1, 1995, or of enrollment or participation in a Head Start program on the basis described in subparagraph (A)(iii), shall be sufficient to satisfy any verification requirement imposed under this 

subsection. 

(13) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN MILITARY HOUSING ALLOWANCES.—The amount of a basic allowance provided under section 403 of title 37, United States Code, on behalf of a member 

of a uniformed service for housing that is acquired or constructed under subchapter IV of chapter 169 of title 10, United 

States Code, or any related provision of law, shall not be considered to be income for the purpose of determining the eligibility of a child who is a member of the household of the member of a uniformed service for free or reduced price lunches 

under this Act. 

(14) COMBAT PAY.— 

(A) DEFINITION OF COMBAT PAY.—In this paragraph, the 

term ‘‘combat pay’’ means any additional payment under 

chapter 5 of title 37, United States Code, or otherwise designated by the Secretary to be appropriate for exclusion 

under this paragraph, that is received by or from a member of the United States Armed Forces deployed to a designated combat zone, if the additional pay— 

(i) is the result of deployment to or service in a combat zone; and 

(ii) was not received immediately prior to serving in 

a combat zone. 

(B) EXCLUSION.—Combat pay shall not be considered to 

be income for the purpose of determining the eligibility for 

free or reduced price meals of a child who is a member of 

the household of a member of the United States Armed 

Forces. 

(15) DIRECT CERTIFICATION FOR CHILDREN RECEIVING MEDICAID BENEFITS.— 

(A) DEFINITIONS.—In this paragraph: 

(i) ELIGIBLE CHILD.—The term ‘‘eligible child’’ means 

a child— 

(I)(aa) who is eligible for and receiving medical 

assistance under the Medicaid program; and 

(bb) who is a member of a family with an income as measured by the Medicaid program before 

the application of any expense, block, or other income disregard, that does not exceed 133 percent 

of the poverty line (as defined in section 673(2) of 

the Community Services Block Grant Act (42 

U.S.C. 9902(2), including any revision required by 

such section)) applicable to a family of the size 

105 

used for purposes of determining eligibility for the 

Medicaid program; or 

(II) who is a member of a household (as that 

term is defined in section 245.2 of title 7, Code of 

Federal Regulations (or successor regulations) 

with a child described in subclause (I). 

(ii) MEDICAID PROGRAM.—The term ‘‘Medicaid program’’ means the program of medical assistance established under title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 

U.S.C. 1396 et seq.). 

(B) DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, acting through the 

Administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service and 

in cooperation with selected State agencies, shall conduct a demonstration project in selected local educational agencies to determine whether direct certification of eligible children is an effective method of certifying children for free lunches and breakfasts under 

section 9(b)(1)(A) of this Act and section 4(e)(1)(A) of 

the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 

1773(e)(1)(A)). 

(ii) SCOPE OF PROJECT.—The Secretary shall carry 

out the demonstration project under this subparagraph— 

(I) for the school year beginning July 1, 2012, in 

selected local educational agencies that collectively serve 2.5 percent of students certified for 

free and reduced price meals nationwide, based on 

the most recent available data; 

(II) for the school year beginning July 1, 2013, 

in selected local educational agencies that collectively serve 5 percent of students certified for free 

and reduced price meals nationwide, based on the 

most recent available data; and 

(III) for the school year beginning July 1, 2014, 

and each subsequent school year, in selected local 

educational agencies that collectively serve 10 percent of students certified for free and reduced 

price meals nationwide, based on the most recent 

available data. 

(iii) PURPOSES OF THE PROJECT.—At a minimum, the 

purposes of the demonstration project shall be— 

(I) to determine the potential of direct certification with the Medicaid program to reach children who are eligible for free meals but not certified to receive the meals; 

(II) to determine the potential of direct certification with the Medicaid program to directly certify children who are enrolled for free meals based 

on a household application; and 

(III) to provide an estimate of the effect on Federal costs and on participation in the school lunch 

program under this Act and the school breakfast 

program established by section 4 of the Child NuVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:47 Jul 18, 2017 Jkt 026264 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR232.XXX HR232
106 

trition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773) of direct certification with the Medicaid program. 

(iv) COST ESTIMATE.—For each of 2 school years of 

the demonstration project, the Secretary shall estimate the cost of the direct certification of eligible children for free school meals through data derived from— 

(I) the school meal programs authorized under 

this Act and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 

U.S.C. 1771 et seq.); 

(II) the Medicaid program; and 

(III) interviews with a statistically representative sample of households. 

(C) AGREEMENT.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—Not later than July 1 of the first 

school year during which a State agency will participate in the demonstration project, the State agency 

shall enter into an agreement with the 1 or more State 

agencies conducting eligibility determinations for the 

Medicaid program. 

(ii) WITHOUT FURTHER APPLICATION.—Subject to 

paragraph (6), the agreement described in subparagraph (D) shall establish procedures under which an 

eligible child shall be certified for free lunches under 

this Act and free breakfasts under section 4 of the 

Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773), without 

further application (as defined in paragraph (4)(G)). 

(D) CERTIFICATION.—For the school year beginning on 

July 1, 2012, and each subsequent school year, subject to 

paragraph (6), the local educational agencies participating 

in the demonstration project shall certify an eligible child 

as eligible for free lunches under this Act and free breakfasts under the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 

1771 et seq.), without further application (as defined in 

paragraph (4)(G)). 

(E) SITE SELECTION.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—To be eligible to participate in the 

demonstration project under this subsection, a State 

agency shall submit to the Secretary an application at 

such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may require. 

(ii) CONSIDERATIONS.—In selecting States and local 

educational agencies for participation in the demonstration project, the Secretary may take into consideration such factors as the Secretary considers to be 

appropriate, which may include— 

(I) the rate of direct certification; 

(II) the share of individuals who are eligible for 

benefits under the supplemental nutrition assistance program established under the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) who participate in the program, as determined by the Secretary; 

(III) the income eligibility limit for the Medicaid 

program; 

107 

(IV) the feasibility of matching data between 

local educational agencies and the Medicaid program; 

(V) the socioeconomic profile of the State or 

local educational agencies; and 

(VI) the willingness of the State and local educational agencies to comply with the requirements 

of the demonstration project. 

(F) ACCESS TO DATA.—For purposes of conducting the 

demonstration project under this paragraph, the Secretary 

shall have access to— 

(i) educational and other records of State and local 

educational and other agencies and institutions receiving funding or providing benefits for 1 or more programs authorized under this Act or the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq.); and 

(ii) income and program participation information 

from public agencies administering the Medicaid program. 

(G) REPORT TO CONGRESS.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—Not later than October 1, 2014, the 

Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Education 

and Labor of the House of Representatives and the 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of 

the Senate, an interim report that describes the results of the demonstration project required under this 

paragraph. 

(ii) FINAL REPORT.—Not later than October 1, 2015, 

the Secretary shall submit a final report to the committees described in clause (i). 

(H) FUNDING.— (i) IN GENERAL.—On October 1, 2010, out of any 

funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the 

Secretary of the Treasury shall transfer to the Secretary to carry out subparagraph (G) $5,000,000, to remain available until expended. 

(ii) RECEIPT AND ACCEPTANCE.—The Secretary shall 

be entitled to receive, shall accept, and shall use to 

carry out subparagraph (G) the funds transferred 

under clause (i), without further appropriation. 

(c) School lunch programs under this Act shall be operated on a 

nonprofit basis. Commodities purchased under the authority of section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935, may be donated by the Secretary to schools, in accordance with the needs as determined by 

local school authorities, for utilization in the school lunch program 

under this Act as well as to other schools carrying out nonprofit 

school lunch programs and institutions authorized to receive such 

commodities. The requirements of this section relating to the service of meals without cost or at a reduced cost shall apply to the 

lunch program of any school utilizing commodities donated under 

any provision of law. 

(d)(1) The Secretary shall require as a condition of eligibility for 

receipt of free or reduced price lunches that the member of the 

household who executes the application furnish the last 4 digits of 

the social security account number of the parent or guardian who 

108 

is the primary wage earner responsible for the care of the child for 

whom the application is made, or that of another appropriate adult 

member of the child’s household, as determined by the Secretary. 

(2) No member of a household may be provided a free or reduced 

price lunch under this Act unless— 

(A) appropriate documentation relating to the income of such 

household (as prescribed by the Secretary) has been provided 

to the appropriate local educational agency so that the local 

educational agency may calculate the total income of such 

household; 

(B) documentation showing that the household is participating in the supplemental nutrition assistance program under 

the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 has been provided to the 

appropriate local educational agency; 

(C) documentation has been provided to the appropriate local 

educational agency showing that the family is receiving assistance under the State program funded under part A of title IV 

of the Social Security Act that the Secretary determines complies with standards established by the Secretary that ensure 

that the standards under the State program are comparable to 

or more restrictive than those in effect on June 1, 1995; 

(D) documentation has been provided to the appropriate local 

educational agency showing that the child meets the criteria 

specified in clauses (iv) or (v) of subsection (b)(12)(A); 

(E) documentation has been provided to the appropriate local 

educational agency showing the status of the child as a migratory child (as defined in section 1309 of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6399)); 

(F)(i) documentation has been provided to the appropriate 

local educational agency showing the status of the child as a 

foster child whose care and placement is the responsibility of 

an agency that administers a State plan under part B or E of 

title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 621 et seq.); or 

(ii) documentation has been provided to the appropriate 

local educational agency showing the status of the child as 

a foster child who a court has placed with a caretaker 

household; or 

(G) documentation has been provided to the appropriate local 

educational agency showing the status of the child as an eligible child (as defined in subsection (b)(15)(A)). 

(e) A school or school food authority participating in a program 

under this Act may not contract with a food service company to 

provide a la carte food service unless the company agrees to offer 

free, reduced price, and full-price reimbursable meals to all eligible 

children. 

(f) NUTRITIONAL REQUIREMENTS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Schools that are participating in the school 

lunch program or school breakfast program shall serve lunches 

and breakfasts that— 

(A) are consistent with the goals of the most recent Dietary Guidelines for Americans published under section 301 

of the National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research 

Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5341); and 

(B) consider the nutrient needs of children who may be 

at risk for inadequate food intake and food insecurity. 

109 

(2) To assist schools in meeting the requirements of this subsection, the Secretary— 

(A) shall— 

(i) develop, and provide to schools, standardized recipes, 

menu cycles, and food product specification and preparation techniques; and 

(ii) provide to schools information regarding nutrient 

standard menu planning, assisted nutrient standard menu 

planning, and food-based menu systems; and 

(B) may provide to schools information regarding other approaches, as determined by the Secretary. 

(3) USE OF ANY REASONABLE APPROACH.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—A school food service authority may use 

any reasonable approach, within guidelines established by the 

Secretary in a timely manner, to meet the requirements of this 

subsection, including— 

(i) using the school nutrition meal pattern in effect for 

the 1994–1995 school year; and 

(ii) using any of the approaches described in paragraph 

(3). 

(B) NUTRIENT ANALYSIS.—The Secretary may not require a 

school to conduct or use a nutrient analysis to meet the requirements of this subsection. 

(4) WAIVER OF REQUIREMENT FOR WEIGHTED AVERAGES FOR

NUTRIENT ANALYSIS.—During the period ending on September 

30, 2010, the Secretary shall not require the use of weighted 

averages for nutrient analysis of menu items and foods offered 

or served as part of a meal offered or served under the school 

lunch program under this Act or the school breakfast program 

under section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 

1773). 

(g) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall provide a notification to Congress that 

justifies the need for production records required under section 

210.10(b) of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, and describes how 

the Secretary has reduced paperwork relating to the school lunch 

and school breakfast programs. 

(h) FOOD SAFETY.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—A school participating in the school lunch 

program under this Act or the school breakfast program under 

section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773) 

shall— 

(A) at least twice during each school year, obtain a food 

safety inspection conducted by a State or local governmental agency responsible for food safety inspections; 

(B) post in a publicly visible location a report on the 

most recent inspection conducted under subparagraph (A); 

and 

(C) on request, provide a copy of the report to a member 

of the public. 

(2) STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT INSPECTIONS.—Nothing in 

paragraph (1) prevents any State or local government from 

adopting or enforcing any requirement for more frequent food 

safety inspections of schools. 

110 

(3) AUDITS AND REPORTS BY STATES.—For fiscal year ø2017¿ 

2018, each State shall annually— 

(A) audit food safety inspections of schools conducted 

under paragraphs (1) and (2); and 

(B) submit to the Secretary a report of the results of the 

audit. 

(4) AUDIT BY THE SECRETARY.—For fiscal year ø2017¿ 2018, 

the Secretary shall annually audit State reports of food safety 

inspections of schools submitted under paragraph (3). 

(5) SCHOOL FOOD SAFETY PROGRAM.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—Each school food authority shall implement a school food safety program, in the preparation and 

service of each meal served to children, that complies with 

any hazard analysis and critical control point system established by the Secretary. 

(B) APPLICABILITY.—Subparagraph (A) shall apply to any 

facility or part of a facility in which food is stored, prepared, or served for the purposes of the school nutrition 

programs under this Act or section 4 of the Child Nutrition 

Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773). 

(i) SINGLE PERMANENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN STATE AGENCY AND

SCHOOL FOOD AUTHORITY; COMMON CLAIMS FORM.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—If a single State agency administers any 

combination of the school lunch program under this Act, the 

school breakfast program under section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773), the summer food service program for children under section 13 of this Act, or the child and 

adult care food program under section 17 of this Act, the agency shall— 

(A) require each school food authority to submit to the 

State agency a single agreement with respect to the operation by the authority of the programs administered by the 

State agency; and 

(B) use a common claims form with respect to meals and 

supplements served under the programs administered by 

the State agency. 

(2) ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT.—The agreement described in 

paragraph (1)(A) shall be a permanent agreement that may be 

amended as necessary. 

(j) PURCHASES OF LOCALLY PRODUCED FOODS.—The Secretary 

shall— 

(1) encourage institutions receiving funds under this Act and 

the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq.) to purchase unprocessed agricultural products, both locally grown 

and locally raised, to the maximum extent practicable and appropriate; 

(2) advise institutions participating in a program described 

in paragraph (1) of the policy described in that paragraph and 

paragraph (3) and post information concerning the policy on 

the website maintained by the Secretary; and 

(3) allow institutions receiving funds under this Act and the 

Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq.), including 

the Department of Defense Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, to use a geographic preference for the procurement of 

111 

unprocessed agricultural products, both locally grown and locally raised. 

(k) INFORMATION ON THE SCHOOL NUTRITION ENVIRONMENT.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall— 

(A) establish requirements for local educational agencies 

participating in the school lunch program under this Act 

and the school breakfast program established by section 4 

of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773) to report information about the school nutrition environment, 

for all schools under the jurisdiction of the local educational agencies, to the Secretary and to the public in the 

State on a periodic basis; and 

(B) provide training and technical assistance to States 

and local educational agencies on the assessment and reporting of the school nutrition environment, including the 

use of any assessment materials developed by the Secretary. 

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—In establishing the requirements for reporting on the school nutrition environment under paragraph 

(1), the Secretary shall— 

(A) include information pertaining to food safety inspections, local wellness policies, meal program participation, 

the nutritional quality of program meals, and other information as determined by the Secretary; and 

(B) ensure that information is made available to the 

public by local educational agencies in an accessible, easily 

understood manner in accordance with guidelines established by the Secretary. 

(3) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection such sums 

as are necessary for each of fiscal years 2011 through 2015. 

(l) FOOD DONATION PROGRAM.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Each school and local educational agency 

participating in the school lunch program under this Act may 

donate any food not consumed under such program to eligible 

local food banks or charitable organizations. 

(2) GUIDANCE.— (A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date 

of the enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall develop and publish guidance to schools and local educational agencies participating in the school lunch program 

under this Act to assist such schools and local educational 

agencies in donating food under this subsection. 

(B) UPDATES.—The Secretary shall update such guidance 

as necessary. 

(3) LIABILITY.—Any school or local educational agency making donations pursuant to this subsection shall be exempt from 

civil and criminal liability to the extent provided under the Bill 

Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act (42 U.S.C. 1791). 

(4) DEFINITION.—In this subsection, the term ‘‘eligible local 

food banks or charitable organizations’’ means any food bank 

or charitable organization which is exempt from tax under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 

501(c)(3)). 

* * * * * * * 

112 

SEC. 26. INFORMATION CLEARINGHOUSE. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall enter into a contract with 

a nongovernmental organization described in subsection (b) to establish and maintain a clearinghouse to provide information to 

nongovernmental groups located throughout the United States that 

assist low-income individuals or communities regarding food assistance, self-help activities to aid individuals in becoming self-reliant, 

and other activities that empower low-income individuals or communities to improve the lives of low-income individuals and reduce 

reliance on Federal, State, or local governmental agencies for food 

or other assistance. 

(b) NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION.—The nongovernmental 

organization referred to in subsection (a) shall be selected on a 

competitive basis and shall— 

(1) be experienced in the gathering of first-hand information 

in all the States through onsite visits to grassroots organizations in each State that fight hunger and poverty or that assist 

individuals in becoming self-reliant; 

(2) be experienced in the establishment of a clearinghouse 

similar to the clearinghouse described in subsection (a); 

(3) agree to contribute in-kind resources towards the establishment and maintenance of the clearinghouse and agree to 

provide clearinghouse information, free of charge, to the Secretary, States, counties, cities, antihunger groups, and grassroots organizations that assist individuals in becoming self-sufficient and self-reliant; 

(4) be sponsored by an organization, or be an organization, 

that— 

(A) has helped combat hunger for at least 10 years; 

(B) is committed to reinvesting in the United States; and 

(C) is knowledgeable regarding Federal nutrition programs; 

(5) be experienced in communicating the purpose of the 

clearinghouse through the media, including the radio and print 

media, and be able to provide access to the clearinghouse information through computer or telecommunications technology, as 

well as through the mails; and 

(6) be able to provide examples, advice, and guidance to 

States, counties, cities, communities, antihunger groups, and 

local organizations regarding means of assisting individuals 

and communities to reduce reliance on government programs, 

reduce hunger, improve nutrition, and otherwise assist low-income individuals and communities become more self-sufficient. 

(c) AUDITS.—The Secretary shall establish fair and reasonable 

auditing procedures regarding the expenditures of funds to carry 

out this section. 

(d) FUNDING.—Out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise 

appropriated, the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay to the Secretary to provide to the organization selected under this section, to 

establish and maintain the information clearinghouse, $200,000 for 

each of fiscal years 1995 and 1996, $150,000 for fiscal year 1997, 

$100,000 for fiscal year 1998, $166,000 for each of fiscal years 1999 

through 2004, and $250,000 for each of fiscal years ø2010 through 

2017¿ 2010 through 2018. The Secretary shall be entitled to receive 

113 

the funds and shall accept the funds, without further appropriation. 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 514 OF THE HOUSING ACT OF 1949 

INSURANCE OF LOANS FOR THE PROVISION OF HOUSING AND RELATED

FACILITIES FOR DOMESTIC FARM LABOR

SEC. 514. (a) The Secretary is authorized to insure and make 

commitments to insure loans made by lenders other than the 

United States to the owner of any farm or any association of farmers for the purpose of providing housing and related facilities for 

domestic farm labor, or to any Indian tribe for such purpose, or to 

any State (or political subdivision thereof), or any broad-based public or private nonprofit organization, or any limited partnership in 

which the general partner is a nonprofit entity, or any nonprofit organization of farm workers incorporated within the State for the 

purpose of providing housing and related facilities for domestic 

farm labor any place within the State where a need exists. All such 

loans shall be made in accordance with terms and conditions substantially identical with those specified in section 502, except 

that— 

(1) no such loan shall be insured in an amount in excess of 

the value of the farm involved less any prior liens in the case 

of a loan to an individual owner of a farm, or the total estimated value of the structures and facilities with respect to 

which the loan is made in the case of any other loan; 

(2) no such loan shall be insured if it bears interest at a rate 

in excess of 1 per centum per annum; 

(3) out of interest payments by the borrower the Secretary 

shall retain a charge in an amount not less than one-half of 

1 per centum per annum of the unpaid principal balance of the 

loan; 

(4) the insurance contracts and agreements with respect to 

any loan may contain provisions for servicing the loan by the 

Secretary or by the lender, and for the purchase by the Secretary of the loan if it is not in default, on such terms and conditions as the Secretary may prescribe; and 

(5) the Secretary may take mortgages creating a lien running to the United States for the benefit of the insurance fund 

referred to in subsection (b) notwithstanding the fact that the 

note may be held by the lender or his assignee. 

(b) The Secretary shall utilize the insurance fund created by section 11 of the Bankhead Jones Farm Tenant Act (7 U.S.C. 1005a) 

and the provisions of section 13 (a), (b), and (c) of such Act (7 

U.S.C. 1005c (a), (b), and (c)) to discharge obligations under insurance contracts made pursuant to this section, and 

(1) the Secretary may utilize the insurance fund to pay 

taxes, insurance, prior liens, and other expenses to protect the 

security for loans which have been insured hereunder and to 

acquire such security property at foreclosure sales or otherwise; 

114 

(2) the notes and security therefor acquired by the Secretary 

under insurance contracts made pursuant to this section shall 

become a part of the insurance fund. Loans insured under this 

section may be held in the fund and collected in accordance 

with their terms or may be sold and reinsured. All proceeds 

from such collections, including the liquidation of security and 

the proceeds of sales, shall become a part of the insurance 

fund; and 

(3) of the charges retained by the Secretary out of interest 

payments by the borrower, amounts not less than one-half of 

1 per centum per annum of the unpaid principal balance of the 

loan shall be deposited in and become a part of the insurance 

fund. The remainder of such charges shall be deposited in the 

Treasury of the United States and shall be available for administrative expenses of the Farmers Home Administration, to be 

transferred annually to and become merged with any appropriation for such expenses. 

(c) Any contract of insurance executed by the Secretary under 

this section shall be an obligation of the United States and incontestable except for fraud or misrepresentation of which the holder 

of the contract has actual knowledge. 

(e) Amounts made available pursuant to section 513 of this Act 

shall be available for administrative expenses incurred under this 

section. 

(f) As used in this section— 

(1) the term ‘‘housing’’ means (A) new structures (including 

household furnishings) suitable for dwelling use by domestic 

farm labor, and (B) existing structures (including household 

furnishings) which can be made suitable for dwelling use by 

domestic farm labor by rehabilitation, alteration, conversion, or 

improvements; 

(2) the term ‘‘related facilities’’ means (A) new stuctures (including household furnishings) suitable for use as dining halls, 

community rooms or buildings, or infirmaries, or for other essential services facilities, (B) existing structures (including 

household furnishings) which can be made suitable for the 

above uses by rehabilitation, alteration, conversion, or improvement and (C) necessary for an adequate site; and 

(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, the handling of agricultural or 

aquacultural commodities in the unprocessed stage, or the 

processing of agricultural or aquacultural commodities, without 

respect to the source of employment, except that— 

(A) such person shall be a citizen of the United States, 

or a person legally admitted for permanent residence, or a 

person legally admitted to the United States and authorized to work in agriculture; 

(B) such term includes any person (and the family of 

such person) who is retired or disabled, but who was domestic farm labor at the time of retirement or becoming 

disabled; and 

(C) in applying this paragraph with respect to vacant 

units in farm labor housing, the Secretary shall make 

115 

units available for occupancy in the following order of priority: 

(i) to active farm laborers (and their families); 

(ii) to retired or disabled farm laborers (and their 

families) who were active in the local farm labor market at the time of retiring or becoming disabled; and 

(iii) to other retired or disabled farm laborers (and 

their families). 

(g) The Secretary may waive the interest rate limitation contained in subsection (a)(2) and the requirement of section 501(c)(3) 

in any case in which the Secretary determines that qualified public 

or private nonprofit sponsors are not currently available and are 

not likely to become available within a reasonable period of time 

and such waiver is necessary to permit farmers to provide housing 

and related facilities for migrant domestic farm laborers, except 

that the benefits resulting from such waiver shall accrue to the 

tenants, and the interest rate on a loan insured under this section 

and for which the Secretary permits such waiver shall be no less 

than one-eighth of 1 per centum above the average interest rate on 

notes or other obligations which are issued under section 511 and 

have maturities comparable to such a loan. 

(h) In making available assistance in any area under this section 

or section 516, the Secretary shall— 

(1) in determining the need for the assistance, take into consideration the housing needs only of domestic farm labor, including migrant farmworkers, in the area; and 

(2) in determining whether to provide such assistance, make 

such determination without regard to the extent or nature of 

other housing needs in the area. 

(i) Housing and related facilities constructed with loans under 

this section may be used for tenants eligible for occupancy under 

section 515 if the Secretary determines that— 

(1) there is no longer a need in the area for farm labor housing; or 

(2) the need for such housing in the area has diminished to 

the extent that the purpose of the loan, providing housing for 

domestic farm labor, can no longer be met. 

COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT 

* * * * * * * 

[Section 760 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 

Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 

2018 provides: ‘‘[t]he provisions of sections 202 and 320 of H.R. 

238, One Hundred Fifteenth Congress (the ‘Commodity End-User 

Relief Act’), as passed by the House of Representatives on January 

12, 2017, are hereby enacted into law’’. The following provisions reflect the proposed amendments from the version of H.R. 238, One 

Hundred Fifteenth Congress, as passed the House of Representatives on January 12, 2017.] 

SEC. 1a. DEFINITIONS. 

As used in this Act: 

116 

(1) ALTERNATIVE TRADING SYSTEM.—The term ‘‘alternative 

trading system’’ means an organization, association, or group 

of persons that— 

(A) is registered as a broker or dealer pursuant to section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (except 

paragraph (11) thereof); 

(B) performs the functions commonly performed by an 

exchange (as defined in section 3(a)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934); 

(C) does not— 

(i) set rules governing the conduct of subscribers 

other than the conduct of such subscribers’ trading on 

the alternative trading system; or 

(ii) discipline subscribers other than by exclusion 

from trading; and 

(D) is exempt from the definition of the term ‘‘exchange’’ 

under such section 3(a)(1) by rule or regulation of the Securities and Exchange Commission on terms that require 

compliance with regulations of its trading functions. 

(2) APPROPRIATE FEDERAL BANKING AGENCY.—The term ‘‘appropriate Federal banking agency’’— 

(A) has the meaning given the term in section 3 of the 

Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813); 

(B) means the Board in the case of a noninsured State 

bank; and 

(C) is the Farm Credit Administration for farm credit 

system institutions. 

(3) ASSOCIATED PERSON OF A SECURITY-BASED SWAP DEALER

OR MAJOR SECURITY-BASED SWAP PARTICIPANT.—The term ‘‘associated person of a security-based swap dealer or major security-based swap participant’’ has the meaning given the term 

in section 3(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 

U.S.C. 78c(a)). 

(4) ASSOCIATED PERSON OF A SWAP DEALER OR MAJOR SWAP

PARTICIPANT.— (A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘associated person of a swap 

dealer or major swap participant’’ means a person who is 

associated with a swap dealer or major swap participant 

as a partner, officer, employee, or agent (or any person occupying a similar status or performing similar functions), 

in any capacity that involves— 

(i) the solicitation or acceptance of swaps; or 

(ii) the supervision of any person or persons so engaged. 

(B) EXCLUSION.—Other than for purposes of section 

4s(b)(6), the term ‘‘associated person of a swap dealer or 

major swap participant’’ does not include any person associated with a swap dealer or major swap participant the 

functions of which are solely clerical or ministerial. 

(5) BOARD.—The term ‘‘Board’’ means the Board of Governors 

of the Federal Reserve System. 

(6) BOARD OF TRADE.—The term ‘‘board of trade’’ means any 

organized exchange or other trading facility. 

(7) CLEARED SWAP.—The term ‘‘cleared swap’’ means any 

swap that is, directly or indirectly, submitted to and cleared by 

117 

a derivatives clearing organization registered with the Commission. 

(8) COMMISSION.—The term ‘‘Commission’’ means the Commodity Futures Trading Commission established under section 

2(a)(2). 

(9) COMMODITY.—The term ‘‘commodity’’ means wheat, cotton, rice, corn, oats, barley, rye, flaxseed, grain sorghums, mill 

feeds, butter, eggs, Solanum tuberosum (Irish potatoes), wool, 

wool tops, fats and oils (including lard, tallow, cottonseed oil, 

peanut oil, soybean oil, and all other fats and oils), cottonseed 

meal, cottonseed, peanuts, soybeans, soybean meal, livestock, 

livestock products, and frozen concentrated orange juice, and 

all other goods and articles, except onions (as provided by the 

first section of Public Law 85–839 (7 U.S.C. 13–1)) and motion 

picture box office receipts (or any index, measure, value, or 

data related to such receipts), and all services, rights, and interests (except motion picture box office receipts, or any index, 

measure, value or data related to such receipts) in which contracts for future delivery are presently or in the future dealt 

in. 

(10) COMMODITY POOL.— (A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘commodity pool’’ means any 

investment trust, syndicate, or similar form of enterprise 

operated for the purpose of trading in commodity interests, 

including any— 

(i) commodity for future delivery, security futures 

product, or swap; 

(ii) agreement, contract, or transaction described in 

section 2(c)(2)(C)(i) or section 2(c)(2)(D)(i); 

(iii) commodity option authorized under section 4c; 

or 

(iv) leverage transaction authorized under section 

19. 

(B) FURTHER DEFINITION.—The Commission, by rule or 

regulation, may include within, or exclude from, the term 

‘‘commodity pool’’ any investment trust, syndicate, or similar form of enterprise if the Commission determines that 

the rule or regulation will effectuate the purposes of this 

Act. 

(11) COMMODITY POOL OPERATOR.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘commodity pool operator’’ 

means any person— 

(i) engaged in a business that is of the nature of a 

commodity pool, investment trust, syndicate, or similar form of enterprise, and who, in connection therewith, solicits, accepts, or receives from others, funds, 

securities, or property, either directly or through capital contributions, the sale of stock or other forms of 

securities, or otherwise, for the purpose of trading in 

commodity interests, including any— 

(I) commodity for future delivery, security futures product, or swap; 

(II) agreement, contract, or transaction described in section 2(c)(2)(C)(i) or section 

2(c)(2)(D)(i); 

118 

(III) commodity option authorized under section 

4c; or 

(IV) leverage transaction authorized under section 19; or 

(ii) who is registered with the Commission as a commodity pool operator. 

(B) FURTHER DEFINITION.—The Commission, by rule or 

regulation, may include within, or exclude from, the term 

‘‘commodity pool operator’’ any person engaged in a business that is of the nature of a commodity pool, investment 

trust, syndicate, or similar form of enterprise if the Commission determines that the rule or regulation will effectuate the purposes of this Act. 

(12) COMMODITY TRADING ADVISOR.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise provided in this 

paragraph, the term ‘‘commodity trading advisor’’ means 

any person who— 

(i) for compensation or profit, engages in the business of advising others, either directly or through publications, writings, or electronic media, as to the value 

of or the advisability of trading in— 

(I) any contract of sale of a commodity for future 

delivery, security futures product, or swap; 

(II) any agreement, contract, or transaction described in section 2(c)(2)(C)(i) or section 

2(c)(2)(D)(i) 

(III) any commodity option authorized under 

section 4c; or 

(IV) any leverage transaction authorized under 

section 19; 

(ii) for compensation or profit, and as part of a regular business, issues or promulgates analyses or reports concerning any of the activities referred to in 

clause (i); 

(iii) is registered with the Commission as a commodity trading advisor; or 

(iv) the Commission, by rule or regulation, may include if the Commission determines that the rule or 

regulation will effectuate the purposes of this Act. 

(B) EXCLUSIONS.—Subject to subparagraph (C), the term 

‘‘commodity trading advisor’’ does not include— 

(i) any bank or trust company or any person acting 

as an employee thereof; 

(ii) any news reporter, news columnist, or news editor of the print or electronic media, or any lawyer, accountant, or teacher; 

(iii) any floor broker or futures commission merchant; 

(iv) the publisher or producer of any print or electronic data of general and regular dissemination, including its employees; 

(v) the fiduciary of any defined benefit plan that is 

subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security 

Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.); 

119 

(vi) any contract market or derivatives transaction 

execution facility; and 

(vii) such other persons not within the intent of this 

paragraph as the Commission may specify by rule, 

regulation, or order. 

(C) INCIDENTAL SERVICES.—Subparagraph (B) shall 

apply only if the furnishing of such services by persons referred to in subparagraph (B) is solely incidental to the 

conduct of their business or profession. 

(D) ADVISORS.—The Commission, by rule or regulation, 

may include within the term ‘‘commodity trading advisor’’, 

any person advising as to the value of commodities or 

issuing reports or analyses concerning commodities if the 

Commission determines that the rule or regulation will effectuate the purposes of this paragraph. 

(13) CONTRACT OF SALE.—The term ‘‘contract of sale’’ includes sales, agreements of sale, and agreements to sell. 

(14) COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION OF PRODUCERS.—The term 

‘‘cooperative association of producers’’ means any cooperative 

association, corporate, or otherwise, not less than 75 percent in 

good faith owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by producers of agricultural products and otherwise complying with 

the Act of February 18, 1922 (42 Stat. 388, chapter 57; 7 

U.S.C. 291 and 292), including any organization acting for a 

group of such associations and owned or controlled by such associations, except that business done for or with the United 

States, or any agency thereof, shall not be considered either 

member or nonmember business in determining the compliance 

of any such association with this Act. 

(15) DERIVATIVES CLEARING ORGANIZATION.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘derivatives clearing organization’’ means a clearinghouse, clearing association, clearing corporation, or similar entity, facility, system, or organization that, with respect to an agreement, contract, or 

transaction— 

(i) enables each party to the agreement, contract, or 

transaction to substitute, through novation or otherwise, the credit of the derivatives clearing organization for the credit of the parties; 

(ii) arranges or provides, on a multilateral basis, for 

the settlement or netting of obligations resulting from 

such agreements, contracts, or transactions executed 

by participants in the derivatives clearing organization; or 

(iii) otherwise provides clearing services or arrangements that mutualize or transfer among participants 

in the derivatives clearing organization the credit risk 

arising from such agreements, contracts, or transactions executed by the participants. 

(B) EXCLUSIONS.—The term ‘‘derivatives clearing organization’’ does not include an entity, facility, system, or organization solely because it arranges or provides for— 

(i) settlement, netting, or novation of obligations resulting from agreements, contracts, or transactions, on 

a bilateral basis and without a central counterparty; 

120 

(ii) settlement or netting of cash payments through 

an interbank payment system; or 

(iii) settlement, netting, or novation of obligations 

resulting from a sale of a commodity in a transaction 

in the spot market for the commodity. 

(16) ELECTRONIC TRADING FACILITY.—The term ‘‘electronic 

trading facility’’ means a trading facility that— 

(A) operates by means of an electronic or telecommunications network; and 

(B) maintains an automated audit trail of bids, offers, 

and the matching of orders or the execution of transactions 

on the facility. 

(17) ELIGIBLE COMMERCIAL ENTITY.—The term ‘‘eligible commercial entity’’ means, with respect to an agreement, contract 

or transaction in a commodity— 

(A) an eligible contract participant described in clause 

(i), (ii), (v), (vii), (viii), or (ix) of paragraph (18)(A) that, in 

connection with its business— 

(i) has a demonstrable ability, directly or through 

separate contractual arrangements, to make or take 

delivery of the underlying commodity; 

(ii) incurs risks, in addition to price risk, related to 

the commodity; or 

(iii) is a dealer that regularly provides risk management or hedging services to, or engages in marketmaking activities with, the foregoing entities involving 

transactions to purchase or sell the commodity or derivative agreements, contracts, or transactions in the 

commodity; 

(B) an eligible contract participant, other than a natural 

person or an instrumentality, department, or agency of a 

State or local governmental entity, that— 

(i) regularly enters into transactions to purchase or 

sell the commodity or derivative agreements, contracts, or transactions in the commodity; and 

(ii) either— 

(I) in the case of a collective investment vehicle 

whose participants include persons other than— 

(aa) qualified eligible persons, as defined in 

Commission rule 4.7(a) (17 CFR 4.7(a)); 

(bb) accredited investors, as defined in Regulation D of the Securities and Exchange 

Commission under the Securities Act of 1933 

(17 CFR 230.501(a)), with total assets of 

$2,000,000; or 

(cc) qualified purchasers, as defined in section 2(a)(51)(A) of the Investment Company 

Act of 1940; 

in each case as in effect on the date of the enactment of the Commodity Futures Modernization 

Act of 2000, has, or is one of a group of vehicles 

under common control or management having in 

the aggregate, $1,000,000,000 in total assets; or 

(II) in the case of other persons, has, or is one 

of a group of persons under common control or 

121 

management having in the aggregate, 

$100,000,000 in total assets; or 

(C) such other persons as the Commission shall determine appropriate and shall designate by rule, regulation, 

or order. 

(18) ELIGIBLE CONTRACT PARTICIPANT.—The term ‘‘eligible 

contract participant’’ means— 

(A) acting for its own account— 

(i) a financial institution; 

(ii) an insurance company that is regulated by a 

State, or that is regulated by a foreign government 

and is subject to comparable regulation as determined 

by the Commission, including a regulated subsidiary 

or affiliate of such an insurance company; 

(iii) an investment company subject to regulation 

under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 

80a–1 et seq.) or a foreign person performing a similar 

role or function subject as such to foreign regulation 

(regardless of whether each investor in the investment 

company or the foreign person is itself an eligible contract participant); 

(iv) a commodity pool that— (I) has total assets exceeding $5,000,000; and 

(II) is formed and operated by a person subject 

to regulation under this Act or a foreign person 

performing a similar role or function subject as 

such to foreign regulation (regardless of whether 

each investor in the commodity pool or the foreign 

person is itself an eligible contract participant) 

provided, however, that for purposes of section 

2(c)(2)(B)(vi) and section 2(c)(2)(C)(vii), the term 

‘‘eligible contract participant’’ shall not include a 

commodity pool in which any participant is not 

otherwise an eligible contract participant; 

(v) a corporation, partnership, proprietorship, organization, trust, or other entity— 

(I) that has total assets exceeding $10,000,000; 

(II) the obligations of which under an agreement, contract, or transaction are guaranteed or 

otherwise supported by a letter of credit or 

keepwell, support, or other agreement by an entity described in subclause (I), in clause (i), (ii), (iii), 

(iv), or (vii), or in subparagraph (C); or 

(III) that— 

(aa) has a net worth exceeding $1,000,000; 

and 

(bb) enters into an agreement, contract, or 

transaction in connection with the conduct of 

the entity’s business or to manage the risk associated with an asset or liability owned or incurred or reasonably likely to be owned or incurred by the entity in the conduct of the entity’s business; 

(vi) an employee benefit plan subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 

122 

U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), a governmental employee benefit 

plan, or a foreign person performing a similar role or 

function subject as such to foreign regulation— (I) that has total assets exceeding $5,000,000; or 

(II) the investment decisions of which are made 

by— 

(aa) an investment adviser or commodity 

trading advisor subject to regulation under 

the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 

U.S.C. 80b–1 et seq.) or this Act; 

(bb) a foreign person performing a similar 

role or function subject as such to foreign regulation; 

(cc) a financial institution; or 

(dd) an insurance company described in 

clause (ii), or a regulated subsidiary or affiliate of such an insurance company; 

(vii)(I) a governmental entity (including the United 

States, a State, or a foreign government) or political 

subdivision of a governmental entity; 

(II) a multinational or supranational government entity; or 

(III) an instrumentality, agency, or department of 

an entity described in subclause (I) or (II); 

except that such term does not include an entity, instrumentality, agency, or department referred to in 

subclause (I) or (III) of this clause unless (aa) the entity, instrumentality, agency, or department is a person 

described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of paragraph (17)(A); 

(bb) the entity, instrumentality, agency, or department 

owns and invests on a discretionary basis $50,000,000 

or more in investments; or (cc) the agreement, contract, or transaction is offered by, and entered into 

with, an entity that is listed in any of subclauses (I) 

through (VI) of section 2(c)(2)(B)(ii); 

(viii)(I) a broker or dealer subject to regulation 

under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 

78a et seq.) or a foreign person performing a similar 

role or function subject as such to foreign regulation, 

except that, if the broker or dealer or foreign person 

is a natural person or proprietorship, the broker or 

dealer or foreign person shall not be considered to be 

an eligible contract participant unless the broker or 

dealer or foreign person also meets the requirements 

of clause (v) or (xi); 

(II) an associated person of a registered broker or 

dealer concerning the financial or securities activities 

of which the registered person makes and keeps 

records under section 15C(b) or 17(h) of the Securities 

Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o–5(b), 78q(h)); 

(III) an investment bank holding company (as defined in section 17(i) of the Securities Exchange Act of 

1934 (15 U.S.C. 78q(i)); 

(ix) a futures commission merchant subject to regulation under this Act or a foreign person performing a 

123 

similar role or function subject as such to foreign regulation, except that, if the futures commission merchant 

or foreign person is a natural person or proprietorship, 

the futures commission merchant or foreign person 

shall not be considered to be an eligible contract participant unless the futures commission merchant or 

foreign person also meets the requirements of clause 

(v) or (xi); 

(x) a floor broker or floor trader subject to regulation 

under this Act in connection with any transaction that 

takes place on or through the facilities of a registered 

entity (other than an electronic trading facility with 

respect to a significant price discovery contract) or an 

exempt board of trade, or any affiliate thereof, on 

which such person regularly trades; or 

(xi) an individual who has amounts invested on a 

discretionary basis, the aggregate of which is in excess 

of— 

(I) $10,000,000; or 

(II) $5,000,000 and who enters into the agreement, contract, or transaction in order to manage 

the risk associated with an asset owned or liability incurred, or reasonably likely to be owned or 

incurred, by the individual; 

(B)(i) a person described in clause (i), (ii), (iv), (v), (viii), 

(ix), or (x) of subparagraph (A) or in subparagraph (C), acting as broker or performing an equivalent agency function 

on behalf of another person described in subparagraph (A) 

or (C); or 

(ii) an investment adviser subject to regulation under 

the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, a commodity trading 

advisor subject to regulation under this Act, a foreign person performing a similar role or function subject as such 

to foreign regulation, or a person described in clause (i), 

(ii), (iv), (v), (viii), (ix), or (x) of subparagraph (A) or in subparagraph (C), in any such case acting as investment manager or fiduciary (but excluding a person acting as broker 

or performing an equivalent agency function) for another 

person described in subparagraph (A) or (C) and who is authorized by such person to commit such person to the 

transaction; or 

(C) any other person that the Commission determines to 

be eligible in light of the financial or other qualifications 

of the person. 

(19) EXCLUDED COMMODITY.—The term ‘‘excluded commodity’’ means— 

(i) an interest rate, exchange rate, currency, security, security index, credit risk or measure, debt or equity instrument, index or measure of inflation, or 

other macroeconomic index or measure; 

(ii) any other rate, differential, index, or measure of 

economic or commercial risk, return, or value that is— 

124 

(I) not based in substantial part on the value of 

a narrow group of commodities not described in 

clause (i); or 

(II) based solely on one or more commodities 

that have no cash market; 

(iii) any economic or commercial index based on 

prices, rates, values, or levels that are not within the 

control of any party to the relevant contract, agreement, or transaction; or 

(iv) an occurrence, extent of an occurrence, or contingency (other than a change in the price, rate, value, 

or level of a commodity not described in clause (i)) that 

is— 

(I) beyond the control of the parties to the relevant contract, agreement, or transaction; and 

(II) associated with a financial, commercial, or 

economic consequence. 

(20) EXEMPT COMMODITY.—The term ‘‘exempt commodity’’ 

means a commodity that is not an excluded commodity or an 

agricultural commodity. 

(21) FINANCIAL INSTITUTION.—The term ‘‘financial institution’’ means— 

(A) a corporation operating under the fifth undesignated 

paragraph of section 25 of the Federal Reserve Act (12 

U.S.C. 603), commonly known as ‘‘an agreement corporation’’; 

(B) a corporation organized under section 25A of the 

Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 611 et seq.), commonly 

known as an ‘‘Edge Act corporation’’; 

(C) an institution that is regulated by the Farm Credit 

Administration; 

(D) a Federal credit union or State credit union (as defined in section 101 of the Federal Credit Union Act (12 

U.S.C. 1752)); 

(E) a depository institution (as defined in section 3 of the 

Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813)); 

(F) a foreign bank or a branch or agency of a foreign 

bank (each as defined in section 1(b) of the International 

Banking Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3101(b))); 

(G) any financial holding company (as defined in section 

2 of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956); 

(H) a trust company; or 

(I) a similarly regulated subsidiary or affiliate of an entity described in any of subparagraphs (A) through (H). 

(22) FLOOR BROKER.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘floor broker’’ means any 

person— 

(i) who, in or surrounding any pit, ring, post, or 

other place provided by a contract market for the 

meeting of persons similarly engaged, shall purchase 

or sell for any other person— 

(I) any commodity for future delivery, security 

futures product, or swap; or 

(II) any commodity option authorized under section 4c; or 

125 

(ii) who is registered with the Commission as a floor 

broker. 

(B) FURTHER DEFINITION.—The Commission, by rule or 

regulation, may include within, or exclude from, the term 

‘‘floor broker’’ any person in or surrounding any pit, ring, 

post, or other place provided by a contract market for the 

meeting of persons similarly engaged who trades for any 

other person if the Commission determines that the rule 

or regulation will effectuate the purposes of this Act. 

(23) FLOOR TRADER.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘floor trader’’ means any 

person— 

(i) who, in or surrounding any pit, ring, post, or 

other place provided by a contract market for the 

meeting of persons similarly engaged, purchases, or 

sells solely for such person’s own account— 

(I) any commodity for future delivery, security 

futures product, or swap; or 

(II) any commodity option authorized under section 4c; or 

(ii) who is registered with the Commission as a floor 

trader. 

(B) FURTHER DEFINITION.—The Commission, by rule or 

regulation, may include within, or exclude from, the term 

‘‘floor trader’’ any person in or surrounding any pit, ring, 

post, or other place provided by a contract market for the 

meeting of persons similarly engaged who trades solely for 

such person’s own account if the Commission determines 

that the rule or regulation will effectuate the purposes of 

this Act. 

(24) FOREIGN EXCHANGE FORWARD.—The term ‘‘foreign exchange forward’’ means a transaction that solely involves the 

exchange of 2 different currencies on a specific future date at 

a fixed rate agreed upon on the inception of the contract covering the exchange. 

(25) FOREIGN EXCHANGE SWAP.—The term ‘‘foreign exchange 

swap’’ means a transaction that solely involves— 

(A) an exchange of 2 different currencies on a specific 

date at a fixed rate that is agreed upon on the inception 

of the contract covering the exchange; and 

(B) a reverse exchange of the 2 currencies described in 

subparagraph (A) at a later date and at a fixed rate that 

is agreed upon on the inception of the contract covering 

the exchange. 

(26) FOREIGN FUTURES AUTHORITY.—The term ‘‘foreign futures authority’’ means any foreign government, or any department, agency, governmental body, or regulatory organization 

empowered by a foreign government to administer or enforce 

a law, rule, or regulation as it relates to a futures or options 

matter, or any department or agency of a political subdivision 

of a foreign government empowered to administer or enforce a 

law, rule, or regulation as it relates to a futures or options 

matter. 

126 

(27) FUTURE DELIVERY.—The term ‘‘future delivery’’ does not 

include any sale of any cash commodity for deferred shipment 

or delivery. 

(28) FUTURES COMMISSION MERCHANT.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘futures commission merchant’’ means an individual, association, partnership, corporation, or trust— 

(i) that— 

(I) is— 

(aa) engaged in soliciting or in accepting orders for— 

(AA) the purchase or sale of a commodity for future delivery; 

(BB) a security futures product; 

(CC) a swap; 

(DD) any agreement, contract, or transaction described in section 2(c)(2)(C)(i) or 

section 2(c)(2)(D)(i); 

(EE) any commodity option authorized 

under section 4c; or 

(FF) any leverage transaction authorized under section 19; or 

(bb) acting as a counterparty in any agreement, contract, or transaction described in 

section 2(c)(2)(C)(i) or section 2(c)(2)(D)(i); and 

(II) in or in connection with the activities described in items (aa) or (bb) of subclause (I), accepts any money, securities, or property (or extends credit in lieu thereof) to margin, guarantee, 

or secure any trades or contracts that result or 

may result therefrom; or 

(ii) that is registered with the Commission as a futures commission merchant. 

(B) FURTHER DEFINITION.—The Commission, by rule or 

regulation, may include within, or exclude from, the term 

‘‘futures commission merchant’’ any person who engages in 

soliciting or accepting orders for, or acting as a 

counterparty in, any agreement, contract, or transaction 

subject to this Act, and who accepts any money, securities, 

or property (or extends credit in lieu thereof) to margin, 

guarantee, or secure any trades or contracts that result or 

may result therefrom, if the Commission determines that 

the rule or regulation will effectuate the purposes of this 

Act. 

(29) HYBRID INSTRUMENT.—The term ‘‘hybrid instrument’’ 

means a security having one or more payments indexed to the 

value, level, or rate of, or providing for the delivery of, one or 

more commodities. 

(30) INTERSTATE COMMERCE.—The term ‘‘interstate commerce’’ means commerce— 

(A) between any State, territory, or possession, or the 

District of Columbia, and any place outside thereof; or 

(B) between points within the same State, territory, or 

possession, or the District of Columbia, but through any 

127 

place outside thereof, or within any territory or possession, 

or the District of Columbia. 

(31) INTRODUCING BROKER.— (A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘introducing broker’’ means 

any person (except an individual who elects to be and is 

registered as an associated person of a futures commission 

merchant)— 

(i) who— 

(I) is engaged in soliciting or in accepting orders 

for— 

(aa) the purchase or sale of any commodity 

for future delivery, security futures product, 

or swap; 

(bb) any agreement, contract, or transaction 

described in section 2(c)(2)(C)(i) or section 

2(c)(2)(D)(i); 

(cc) any commodity option authorized under 

section 4c; or 

(dd) any leverage transaction authorized 

under section 19; and 

(II) does not accept any money, securities, or 

property (or extend credit in lieu thereof) to margin, guarantee, or secure any trades or contracts 

that result or may result therefrom; or 

(ii) who is registered with the Commission as an introducing broker. 

(B) FURTHER DEFINITION.—The Commission, by rule or 

regulation, may include within, or exclude from, the term 

‘‘introducing broker’’ any person who engages in soliciting 

or accepting orders for any agreement, contract, or transaction subject to this Act, and who does not accept any 

money, securities, or property (or extend credit in lieu 

thereof) to margin, guarantee, or secure any trades or contracts that result or may result therefrom, if the Commission determines that the rule or regulation will effectuate 

the purposes of this Act. 

(32) MAJOR SECURITY-BASED SWAP PARTICIPANT.—The term 

‘‘major security-based swap participant’’ has the meaning given 

the term in section 3(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

(15 U.S.C. 78c(a)). 

(33) MAJOR SWAP PARTICIPANT.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘major swap participant’’ 

means any person who is not a swap dealer, and— 

(i) maintains a substantial position in swaps for any 

of the major swap categories as determined by the 

Commission, excluding— 

(I) positions held for hedging or mitigating commercial risk; and 

(II) positions maintained by any employee benefit plan (or any contract held by such a plan) as 

defined in paragraphs (3) and (32) of section 3 of 

the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 

1974 (29 U.S.C. 1002) for the primary purpose of 

hedging or mitigating any risk directly associated 

with the operation of the plan; 

128 

(ii) whose outstanding swaps create substantial 

counterparty exposure that could have serious adverse 

effects on the financial stability of the United States 

banking system or financial markets; or 

(iii)(I) is a financial entity that is highly leveraged 

relative to the amount of capital it holds and that is 

not subject to capital requirements established by an 

appropriate Federal banking agency; and 

(II) maintains a substantial position in outstanding 

swaps in any major swap category as determined by 

the Commission. 

(B) DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL POSITION.—For purposes 

of subparagraph (A), the Commission shall define by rule 

or regulation the term ‘‘substantial position’’ at the threshold that the Commission determines to be prudent for the 

effective monitoring, management, and oversight of entities that are systemically important or can significantly 

impact the financial system of the United States. In setting the definition under this subparagraph, the Commission shall consider the person’s relative position in 

uncleared as opposed to cleared swaps and may take into 

consideration the value and quality of collateral held 

against counterparty exposures. 

(C) SCOPE OF DESIGNATION.—For purposes of subparagraph (A), a person may be designated as a major swap 

participant for 1 or more categories of swaps without being 

classified as a major swap participant for all classes of 

swaps. 

(D) EXCLUSIONS.—The definition under this paragraph 

shall not include an entity whose primary business is providing financing, and uses derivatives for the purpose of 

hedging underlying commercial risks related to interest 

rate and foreign currency exposures, 90 percent or more of 

which arise from financing that facilitates the purchase or 

lease of products, 90 percent or more of which are manufactured by the parent company or another subsidiary of 

the parent company. 

(34) MEMBER OF A REGISTERED ENTITY; MEMBER OF A DERIVA- TIVES TRANSACTION EXECUTION FACILITY.—The term ‘‘member’’ 

means, with respect to a registered entity or derivatives transaction execution facility, an individual, association, partnership, corporation, or trust— 

(A) owning or holding membership in, or admitted to 

membership representation on, the registered entity or derivatives transaction execution facility; or 

(B) having trading privileges on the registered entity or 

derivatives transaction execution facility. 

A participant in an alternative trading system that is designated as a contract market pursuant to section 5f is deemed 

a member of the contract market for purposes of transactions 

in security futures products through the contract market. 

(35) NARROW-BASED SECURITY INDEX.— (A) The term ‘‘narrow-based security index’’ means an 

index— 

(i) that has 9 or fewer component securities; 

129 

(ii) in which a component security comprises more 

than 30 percent of the index’s weighting; 

(iii) in which the five highest weighted component 

securities in the aggregate comprise more than 60 percent of the index’s weighting; or 

(iv) in which the lowest weighted component securities comprising, in the aggregate, 25 percent of the 

index’s weighting have an aggregate dollar value of 

average daily trading volume of less than $50,000,000 

(or in the case of an index with 15 or more component 

securities, $30,000,000), except that if there are two or 

more securities with equal weighting that could be included in the calculation of the lowest weighted component securities comprising, in the aggregate, 25 percent of the index’s weighting, such securities shall be 

ranked from lowest to highest dollar value of average 

daily trading volume and shall be included in the calculation based on their ranking starting with the lowest ranked security. 

(B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), an index is not 

a narrow-based security index if— 

(i)(I) it has at least 9 component securities; 

(II) no component security comprises more than 30 

percent of the index’s weighting; and 

(III) each component security is— 

(aa) registered pursuant to section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 

(bb) one of 750 securities with the largest market capitalization; and 

(cc) one of 675 securities with the largest dollar 

value of average daily trading volume; 

(ii) a board of trade was designated as a contract 

market by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission with respect to a contract of sale for future delivery on the index, before the date of the enactment of 

the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000; 

(iii)(I) a contract of sale for future delivery on the 

index traded on a designated contract market or registered derivatives transaction execution facility for at 

least 30 days as a contract of sale for future delivery 

on an index that was not a narrow-based security 

index; and 

(II) it has been a narrow-based security index for no 

more than 45 business days over 3 consecutive calendar months; 

(iv) a contract of sale for future delivery on the 

index is traded on or subject to the rules of a foreign 

board of trade and meets such requirements as are 

jointly established by rule or regulation by the Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission; 

(v) no more than 18 months have passed since the 

date of the enactment of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 and— 

(I) it is traded on or subject to the rules of a foreign board of trade; 

130 

(II) the offer and sale in the United States of a 

contract of sale for future delivery on the index 

was authorized before the date of the enactment 

of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 

2000; and 

(III) the conditions of such authorization continue to be met; or 

(vi) a contract of sale for future delivery on the 

index is traded on or subject to the rules of a board 

of trade and meets such requirements as are jointly 

established by rule, regulation, or order by the Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

(C) Within 1 year after the date of the enactment of the 

Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, the Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission 

jointly shall adopt rules or regulations that set forth the 

requirements under subparagraph (B)(iv). 

(D) An index that is a narrow-based security index solely 

because it was a narrow-based security index for more 

than 45 business days over 3 consecutive calendar months 

pursuant to clause (iii) of subparagraph (B) shall not be a 

narrow-based security index for the 3 following calendar 

months. 

(E) For purposes of subparagraphs (A) and (B)— 

(i) the dollar value of average daily trading volume 

and the market capitalization shall be calculated as of 

the preceding 6 full calendar months; and 

(ii) the Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission shall, by rule or regulation, jointly 

specify the method to be used to determine market 

capitalization and dollar value of average daily trading 

volume. 

(36) OPTION.—The term ‘‘option’’ means an agreement, contract, or transaction that is of the character of, or is commonly 

known to the trade as, an ‘‘option’’, ‘‘privilege’’, ‘‘indemnity’’, 

‘‘bid’’, ‘‘offer’’, ‘‘put’’, ‘‘call’’, ‘‘advance guaranty’’, or ‘‘decline 

guaranty’’. 

(37) ORGANIZED EXCHANGE.—The term ‘‘organized exchange’’ 

means a trading facility that— 

(A) permits trading— 

(i) by or on behalf of a person that is not an eligible 

contract participant; or 

(ii) by persons other than on a principal-to-principal 

basis; or 

(B) has adopted (directly or through another nongovernmental entity) rules that— 

(i) govern the conduct of participants, other than 

rules that govern the submission of orders or execution of transactions on the trading facility; and 

(ii) include disciplinary sanctions other than the exclusion of participants from trading. 

(38) PERSON.—The term ‘‘person’’ imports the plural or singular, and includes individuals, associations, partnerships, corporations, and trusts. 

131 

(39) PRUDENTIAL REGULATOR.—The term ‘‘prudential regulator’’ means— 

(A) the Board in the case of a swap dealer, major swap 

participant, security-based swap dealer, or major securitybased swap participant that is— 

(i) a State-chartered bank that is a member of the 

Federal Reserve System; 

(ii) a State-chartered branch or agency of a foreign 

bank; 

(iii) any foreign bank which does not operate an insured branch; 

(iv) any organization operating under section 25A of 

the Federal Reserve Act or having an agreement with 

the Board under section 225 of the Federal Reserve 

Act; 

(v) any bank holding company (as defined in section 

2 of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1965 (12 U.S.C. 

1841)), any foreign bank (as defined in section 1(b)(7) 

of the International Banking Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 

3101(b)(7)) that is treated as a bank holding company 

under section 8(a) of the International Banking Act of 

1978 (12 U.S.C. 3106(a)), and any subsidiary of such 

a company or foreign bank (other than a subsidiary 

that is described in subparagraph (A) or (B) or that is 

required to be registered with the Commission as a 

swap dealer or major swap participant under this Act 

or with the Securities and Exchange Commission as a 

security-based swap dealer or major security-based 

swap participant); 

(vi) after the transfer date (as defined in section 311 

of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 

Protection Act), any savings and loan holding company 

(as defined in section 10 of the Home Owners’ Loan 

Act (12 U.S.C. 1467a)) and any subsidiary of such 

company (other than a subsidiary that is described in 

subparagraph (A) or (B) or that is required to be registered as a swap dealer or major swap participant 

with the Commission under this Act or with the Securities and Exchange Commission as a security-based 

swap dealer or major security-based swap participant); 

or 

(vii) any organization operating under section 25A of 

the Federal Reserve Act (12U.S.C. 611 et seq.) or having an agreement with the Board under section 25 of 

the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

(B) the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency in the 

case of a swap dealer, major swap participant, securitybased swap dealer, or major security-based swap participant that is— 

(i) a national bank; 

(ii) a federally chartered branch or agency of a foreign bank; or 

(iii) any Federal savings association; 

(C) the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in the 

case of a swap dealer, major swap participant, securityVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:47 Jul 18, 2017 Jkt 026264 PO 00000 Frm 00131 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR232.XXX HR232
132 

based swap dealer, or major security-based swap participant that is— 

(i) a State-chartered bank that is not a member of 

the Federal Reserve System; or 

(ii) any State savings association; 

(D) the Farm Credit Administration, in the case of a 

swap dealer, major swap participant, security-based swap 

dealer, or major security-based swap participant that is an 

institution chartered under the Farm Credit Act of 1971 

(12 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.); and 

(E) the Federal Housing Finance Agency in the case of 

a swap dealer, major swap participant, security-based 

swap dealer, or major security-based swap participant that 

is a regulated entity (as such term is defined in section 

1303 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety 

and Soundness Act of 1992). 

(40) REGISTERED ENTITY.—The term ‘‘registered entity’’ 

means— 

(A) a board of trade designated as a contract market 

under section 5; 

(B) a derivatives clearing organization registered under 

section 5b; 

(C) a board of trade designated as a contract market 

under section 5f; 

(D) a swap execution facility registered under section 5h; 

(E) a swap data repository registered under section 21; 

and 

(F) with respect to a contract that the Commission determines is a significant price discovery contract, any electronic trading facility on which the contract is executed or 

traded. 

(41) SECURITY.—The term ‘‘security’’ means a security as defined in section 2(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 

77b(a)(1)) or section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Exchange Act of 

1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(10)). 

(42) SECURITY-BASED SWAP.—The term ‘‘security-based swap’’ 

has the meaning given the term in section 3(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)). 

(43) SECURITY-BASED SWAP DEALER.—The term ‘‘securitybased swap dealer’’ has the meaning given the term in section 

3(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)). 

(44) SECURITY FUTURE.—The term ‘‘security future’’ means a 

contract of sale for future delivery of a single security or of a 

narrow-based security index, including any interest therein or 

based on the value thereof, except an exempted security under 

section 3(a)(12) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as in effect on the date of the enactment of the Futures Trading Act 

of 1982 (other than any municipal security as defined in section 3(a)(29) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as in effect 

on the date of the enactment of the Futures Trading Act of 

1982). The term ‘‘security future’’ does not include any agreement, contract, or transaction excluded from this Act under 

section 2(c), 2(d), 2(f), or 2(g) of this Act (as in effect on the 

date of the enactment of the Commodity Futures ModernizaVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:47 Jul 18, 2017 Jkt 026264 PO 00000 Frm 00132 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR232.XXX HR232
133 

tion Act of 2000) or title IV of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. 

(45) SECURITY FUTURES PRODUCT.—The term ‘‘security futures product’’ means a security future or any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege on any security future. 

(46) SIGNIFICANT PRICE DISCOVERY CONTRACT.—The term 

‘‘significant price discovery contract’’ means an agreement, contract, or transaction subject to section 2(h)(5). 

(47) SWAP.— (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subparagraph 

(B), the term ‘‘swap’’ means any agreement, contract, or 

transaction— 

(i) that is a put, call, cap, floor, collar, or similar option of any kind that is for the purchase or sale, or 

based on the value, of 1 or more interest or other 

rates, currencies, commodities, securities, instruments 

of indebtedness, indices, quantitative measures, or 

other financial or economic interests or property of 

any kind; 

(ii) that provides for any purchase, sale, payment, or 

delivery (other than a dividend on an equity security) 

that is dependent on the occurrence, nonoccurrence, or 

the extent of the occurrence of an event or contingency 

associated with a potential financial, economic, or commercial consequence; 

(iii) that provides on an executory basis for the exchange, on a fixed or contingent basis, of 1 or more 

payments based on the value or level of 1 or more interest or other rates, currencies, commodities, securities, instruments of indebtedness, indices, quantitative 

measures, or other financial or economic interests or 

property of any kind, or any interest therein or based 

on the value thereof, and that transfers, as between 

the parties to the transaction, in whole or in part, the 

financial risk associated with a future change in any 

such value or level without also conveying a current or 

future direct or indirect ownership interest in an asset 

(including any enterprise or investment pool) or liability that incorporates the financial risk so transferred, 

including any agreement, contract, or transaction commonly known as— 

(I) an interest rate swap; 

(II) a rate floor; 

(III) a rate cap; 

(IV) a rate collar; 

(V) a cross-currency rate swap; 

(VI) a basis swap; 

(VII) a currency swap; 

(VIII) a foreign exchange swap; 

(IX) a total return swap; 

(X) an equity index swap; 

(XI) an equity swap; 

(XII) a debt index swap; 

(XIII) a debt swap; 

(XIV) a credit spread; 

134 

(XV) a credit default swap; 

(XVI) a credit swap; 

(XVII) a weather swap; 

(XVIII) an energy swap; 

(XIX) a metal swap; 

(XX) an agricultural swap; 

(XXI) an emissions swap; and 

(XXII) a commodity swap; 

(iv) that is an agreement, contract, or transaction 

that is, or in the future becomes, commonly known to 

the trade as a swap; 

(v) including any security-based swap agreement 

which meets the definition of ‘‘swap agreement’’ as defined in section 206A of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act 

(15 U.S.C. 78c note) of which a material term is based 

on the price, yield, value, or volatility of any security 

or any group or index of securities, or any interest 

therein; or 

(vi) that is any combination or permutation of, or option on, any agreement, contract, or transaction described in any of clauses (i) through (v). 

(B) EXCLUSIONS.—The term ‘‘swap’’ does not include— 

(i) any contract of sale of a commodity for future delivery (or option on such a contract), leverage contract 

authorized under section 19, security futures product, 

or agreement, contract, or transaction described in section 2(c)(2)(C)(i) or section 2(c)(2)(D)(i); 

(ii) any sale of a nonfinancial commodity or security 

for deferred shipment or delivery, so long as the transaction is intended to be physically settled; 

(iii) any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege on 

any security, certificate of deposit, or group or index of 

securities, including any interest therein or based on 

the value thereof, that is subject to— 

(I) the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et 

seq.); and 

(II) the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 

U.S.C. 78a et seq.); 

(iv) any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege relating to a foreign currency entered into on a national securities exchange registered pursuant to section 6(a) of 

the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78f(a)); 

(v) any agreement, contract, or transaction providing 

for the purchase or sale of 1 or more securities on a 

fixed basis that is subject to— 

(I) the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et 

seq.); and 

(II) the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 

U.S.C. 78a et seq.); 

(vi) any agreement, contract, or transaction providing for the purchase or sale of 1 or more securities 

on a contingent basis that is subject to the Securities 

Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.) and the Securities 

Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.), unless 

the agreement, contract, or transaction predicates the 

135 

purchase or sale on the occurrence of a bona fide contingency that might reasonably be expected to affect or 

be affected by the creditworthiness of a party other 

than a party to the agreement, contract, or transaction; 

(vii) any note, bond, or evidence of indebtedness that 

is a security, as defined in section 2(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77b(a)(1)); 

(viii) any agreement, contract, or transaction that 

is— 

(I) based on a security; and 

(II) entered into directly or through an underwriter (as defined in section 2(a)(11) of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77b(a)(11)) by the 

issuer of such security for the purposes of raising 

capital, unless the agreement, contract, or transaction is entered into to manage a risk associated 

with capital raising; 

(ix) any agreement, contract, or transaction a 

counterparty of which is a Federal Reserve bank, the 

Federal Government, or a Federal agency that is expressly backed by the full faith and credit of the 

United States; and 

(x) any security-based swap, other than a securitybased swap as described in subparagraph (D). 

(C) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION REGARDING MASTER AGREE- MENTS.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in clause (ii), 

the term ‘‘swap’’ includes a master agreement that 

provides for an agreement, contract, or transaction 

that is a swap under subparagraph (A), together with 

each supplement to any master agreement, without regard to whether the master agreement contains an 

agreement, contract, or transaction that is not a swap 

pursuant to subparagraph (A). 

(ii) EXCEPTION.—For purposes of clause (i), the master agreement shall be considered to be a swap only 

with respect to each agreement, contract, or transaction covered by the master agreement that is a swap 

pursuant to subparagraph (A). 

(D) MIXED SWAP.—The term ‘‘security-based swap’’ includes any agreement, contract, or transaction that is as 

described in section 3(a)(68)(A) of the Securities Exchange 

Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(68)(A)) and also is based on 

the value of 1 or more interest or other rates, currencies, 

commodities, instruments of indebtedness, indices, quantitative measures, other financial or economic interest or 

property of any kind (other than a single security or a narrow-based security index), or the occurrence, non-occurrence, or the extent of the occurrence of an event or contingency associated with a potential financial, economic, or 

commercial consequence (other than an event described in 

subparagraph (A)(iii)). 

(E) TREATMENT OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE SWAPS AND FORWARDS.— 

136 

(i) IN GENERAL.—Foreign exchange swaps and foreign exchange forwards shall be considered swaps 

under this paragraph unless the Secretary makes a 

written determination under section 1b that either foreign exchange swaps or foreign exchange forwards or 

both— 

(I) should be not be regulated as swaps under 

this Act; and 

(II) are not structured to evade the Dodd-Frank 

Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act 

in violation of any rule promulgated by the Commission pursuant to section 721(c) of that Act. 

(ii) CONGRESSIONAL NOTICE; EFFECTIVENESS.—The 

Secretary shall submit any written determination 

under clause (i) to the appropriate committees of Congress, including the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate and the Committee on 

Agriculture of the House of Representatives. Any such 

written determination by the Secretary shall not be effective until it is submitted to the appropriate committees of Congress. 

(iii) REPORTING.—Notwithstanding a written determination by the Secretary under clause (i), all foreign 

exchange swaps and foreign exchange forwards shall 

be reported to either a swap data repository, or, if 

there is no swap data repository that would accept 

such swaps or forwards, to the Commission pursuant 

to section 4r within such time period as the Commission may by rule or regulation prescribe. 

(iv) BUSINESS STANDARDS.—Notwithstanding a written determination by the Secretary pursuant to clause 

(i), any party to a foreign exchange swap or forward 

that is a swap dealer or major swap participant shall 

conform to the business conduct standards contained 

in section 4s(h). 

(v) SECRETARY.—For purposes of this subparagraph, 

the term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary of the 

Treasury. 

(F) EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN FOREIGN EXCHANGE SWAPS

AND FORWARDS.— 

(i) REGISTERED ENTITIES.—Any foreign exchange 

swap and any foreign exchange forward that is listed 

and traded on or subject to the rules of a designated 

contract market or a swap execution facility, or that is 

cleared by a derivatives clearing organization, shall 

not be exempt from any provision of this Act or 

amendments made by the Wall Street Transparency 

and Accountability Act of 2010 prohibiting fraud or 

manipulation. 

(ii) RETAIL TRANSACTIONS.—Nothing in subparagraph (E) shall affect, or be construed to affect, the applicability of this Act or the jurisdiction of the Commission with respect to agreements, contracts, or 

transactions in foreign currency pursuant to section 

2(c)(2). 

137 

(G) TREATMENT OF TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN AFFILI- ATES.— 

(i) EXEMPTION FROM SWAP RULES.—An agreement, 

contract, or transaction described in subparagraphs (A) 

through (F) shall not be regulated as a swap under 

this Act if all of the following apply with respect to the 

agreement, contract, or transaction: 

(I) AFFILIATION.—One counterparty, directly or 

indirectly, holds a majority ownership interest in 

the other counterparty, or a third party, directly or 

indirectly, holds a majority ownership interest in 

both counterparties. 

(II) FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.—The affiliated 

counterparty that holds the majority interest in the 

other counterparty or the third party that, directly 

or indirectly, holds the majority interests in both 

affiliated counterparties, reports its financial statements on a consolidated basis under generally accepted accounting principles or International Financial Reporting Standards, or other similar 

standards, and the financial statements include 

the financial results of the majority-owned affiliated counterparty or counterparties. 

(ii) REPORTING REQUIREMENT.—If at least one 

counterparty to an agreement, contract, or transaction 

that meets the requirements of clause (i) is a swap 

dealer or major swap participant, that counterparty 

shall report the agreement, contract, or transaction 

pursuant to section 4r, within such time period as the 

Commission may by rule or regulation prescribe— 

(I) to a swap data repository; or 

(II) if there is no swap data repository that 

would accept the agreement, contract or transaction, to the Commission. 

(iii) RISK MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENT.—If at least 

one counterparty to an agreement, contract, or transaction that meets the requirements of clause (i) is a 

swap dealer or major swap participant, the agreement, 

contract, or transaction shall be subject to a centralized 

risk management program pursuant to section 4s(j) 

that is reasonably designed to monitor and to manage 

the risks associated with the agreement, contract, or 

transaction. 

(iv) VARIATION MARGIN REQUIREMENT.—Affiliated 

counterparties to an agreement, contract, or transaction 

that meets the requirements of clause (i) shall exchange 

variation margin to the extent prescribed under any 

rule promulgated by the Commission or any prudential 

regulator pursuant to section 4s(e). 

(v) ANTI-EVASION REQUIREMENT.—An agreement, 

contract, or transaction that meets the requirements of 

clause (i) shall not be structured to evade the DoddFrank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection 

Act in violation of any rule promulgated by the Commission pursuant to section 721(c) of such Act. 

138 

(48) SWAP DATA REPOSITORY.—The term ‘‘swap data repository’’ means any person that collects and maintains information or records with respect to transactions or positions in, or 

the terms and conditions of, swaps entered into by third parties for the purpose of providing a centralized recordkeeping facility for swaps. 

(49) SWAP DEALER.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘swap dealer’’ means any 

person who— 

(i) holds itself out as a dealer in swaps; 

(ii) makes a market in swaps; 

(iii) regularly enters into swaps with counterparties 

as an ordinary course of business for its own account; 

or 

(iv) engages in any activity causing the person to be 

commonly known in the trade as a dealer or market 

maker in swaps, 

provided however, in no event shall an insured depository 

institution be considered to be a swap dealer to the extent 

it offers to enter into a swap with a customer in connection 

with originating a loan with that customer. 

(B) INCLUSION.—A person may be designated as a swap 

dealer for a single type or single class or category of swap 

or activities and considered not to be a swap dealer for 

other types, classes, or categories of swaps or activities. 

(C) EXCEPTION.—The term ‘‘swap dealer’’ does not include a person that enters into swaps for such person’s 

own account, either individually or in a fiduciary capacity, 

but not as a part of a regular business. 

(D) DE MINIMIS EXCEPTION.—The Commission shall exempt from designation as a swap dealer an entity that engages in a de minimis quantity of swap dealing in connection with transactions with or on behalf of its customers. 

The Commission shall promulgate regulations to establish 

factors with respect to the making of this determination to 

exempt. 

(50) SWAP EXECUTION FACILITY.—The term ‘‘swap execution 

facility’’ means a trading system or platform in which multiple 

participants have the ability to execute or trade swaps by accepting bids and offers made by multiple participants in the facility or system, through any means of interstate commerce, including any trading facility, that— 

(A) facilitates the execution of swaps between persons; 

and 

(B) is not a designated contract market. 

(51) TRADING FACILITY.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘trading facility’’ means a 

person or group of persons that constitutes, maintains, or 

provides a physical or electronic facility or system in which 

multiple participants have the ability to execute or trade 

agreements, contracts, or transactions— 

(i) by accepting bids or offers made by other participants that are open to multiple partipants in the facility or system; or 

139 

(ii) through the interaction of multiple bids or multiple offers within a system with a pre-determined 

non-discretionary automated trade matching and execution algorithm. 

(B) EXCLUSIONS.—The term ‘‘trading facility’’ does not 

include— 

(i) a person or group of persons solely because the 

person or group of persons constitutes, maintains, or 

provides an electronic facility or system that enables 

participants to negotiate the terms of and enter into 

bilateral transactions as a result of communications 

exchanged by the parties and not from interaction of 

multiple bids and multiple offers within a predetermined, nondiscretionary automated trade matching 

and execution algorithm; 

(ii) a government securities dealer or government securities broker, to the extent that the dealer or broker 

executes or trades agreements, contracts, or transactions in government securities, or assists persons in 

communicating about, negotiating, entering into, executing, or trading an agreement, contract, or transaction in government securities (as the terms ‘‘government securities dealer’’, ‘‘government securities 

broker’’, and ‘‘government securities’’ are defined in 

section 3(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 

U.S.C. 78c(a))); or 

(iii) facilities on which bids and offers, and acceptances of bids and offers effected on the facility, are not 

binding. 

Any person, group of persons, dealer, broker, or facility described in clause (i) or (ii) is excluded from the meaning of 

the term ‘‘trading facility’’ for the purposes of this Act 

without any prior specific approval, certification, or other 

action by the Commission. 

(C) SPECIAL RULE.—A person or group of persons that 

would not otherwise constitute a trading facility shall not 

be considered to be a trading facility solely as a result of 

the submission to a derivatives clearing organization of 

transactions executed on or through the person or group of 

persons. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 15. CONSIDERATION OF COSTS AND BENEFITS AND ANTITRUST 

LAWS. 

(a) COSTS AND BENEFITS.— 

ø(1) IN GENERAL.—Before promulgating a regulation under 

this Act or issuing an order (except as provided in paragraph 

(3)), the Commission shall consider the costs and benefits of 

the action of the Commission. 

ø(2) CONSIDERATIONS.—The costs and benefits of the proposed Commission action shall be evaluated in light of— 

ø(A) considerations of protection of market participants 

and the public; 

ø(B) considerations of the efficiency, competitiveness, 

and financial integrity of futures markets; 

140 

ø(C) considerations of price discovery; 

ø(D) considerations of sound risk management practices; 

and 

ø(E) other public interest considerations.¿ 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Before promulgating a regulation under 

this Act or issuing an order (except as provided in paragraph 

(3)), the Commission, through the Office of the Chief Economist, 

shall assess and publish in the regulation or order the costs 

and benefits, both qualitative and quantitative, of the proposed 

regulation or order, and the proposed regulation or order shall 

state its statutory justification. 

(2) CONSIDERATIONS.—In making a reasoned determination 

of the costs and the benefits, the Commission shall evaluate— 

(A) considerations of protection of market participants 

and the public; 

(B) considerations of the efficiency, competitiveness, and 

financial integrity of futures and swaps markets; 

(C) considerations of the impact on market liquidity in 

the futures and swaps markets; 

(D) considerations of price discovery; 

(E) considerations of sound risk management practices; 

(F) available alternatives to direct regulation; 

(G) the degree and nature of the risks posed by various 

activities within the scope of its jurisdiction; 

(H) the costs of complying with the proposed regulation 

or order by all regulated entities, including a methodology 

for quantifying the costs (recognizing that some costs are 

difficult to quantify); 

(I) whether the proposed regulation or order is inconsistent, incompatible, or duplicative of other Federal regulations or orders; 

(J) the cost to the Commission of implementing the proposed regulation or order by the Commission staff, including a methodology for quantifying the costs; 

(K) whether, in choosing among alternative regulatory 

approaches, those approaches maximize net benefits (including potential economic and other benefits, distributive 

impacts, and equity); and 

(L) other public interest considerations. 

(3) APPLICABILITY.—This subsection does not apply to the following actions of the Commission: 

(A) An order that initiates, is part of, or is the result of 

an adjudicatory or investigative process of the Commission. 

(B) An emergency action. 

(C) A finding of fact regarding compliance with a requirement of the Commission. 

(4) JUDICIAL REVIEW.—Notwithstanding section 24(d), a court 

shall affirm a Commission assessment of costs and benefits 

under this subsection, unless the court finds the assessment to 

be an abuse of discretion. 

(b) ANTITRUST LAWS.—The Commission shall take into consideration the public interest to be protected by the antitrust laws and 

endeavor to take the least anticompetitive means of achieving the 

objectives of this Act, as well as the policies and purposes of this 

141 

Act, in issuing any order or adopting any Commission rule or regulation (including any exemption under section 4(c) or 4c(b)), or in 

requiring or approving any bylaw, rule, or regulation of a contract 

market or registered futures association established pursuant to 

section 17 of this Act. 

* * * * * * * 

CHANGES IN THE APPLICATION OF EXISTING LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(A) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the following statements are submitted 

describing the effect of provisions in the accompanying bill that directly or indirectly change the application of existing law. 

The bill includes a number of provisions which place limitations 

on the use of funds in the bill or change existing limitations and 

which might, under some circumstances, be construed as changing 

the application of existing law: 

1. Office of the Secretary.—Language is included to limit the 

amount of funds for official reception and representation expenses, 

as determined by the Secretary. 

2. Departmental Administration.—Language is included to reimburse the agency for travel expenses incident to the holding of 

hearings. 

3. Agricultural Research Service.—Language is included that allows the Agricultural Research Service to grant easements at the 

Beltsville, MD, agricultural research center and to grant easements 

at any facility for the construction of a research facility for use by 

the agency. 

4. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.—A provision carried in the bill since fiscal year 1973 regarding state matching 

funds has been continued to assure more effective operation of the 

brucellosis control program through state cost sharing, with resulting savings to the Federal budget. 

Language is included to allow APHIS to recoup expenses incurred from providing technical assistance goods, or services to 

non-APHIS personnel, and to allow transfers of funds for agricultural emergencies. 

Language is included to limit the amount of funds for representational allowances. 

5. Agricultural Marketing Service, Limitation on Administrative 

Expenses.—The bill includes language to allow AMS to exceed the 

limitation on administrative expenses by 10 percent with notification to the Appropriations Committees. This allows flexibility in 

case crop size is understated and/or other uncontrollable events 

occur. 

6. Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, Inspection and Weighing Services.—The bill includes authority to exceed the limitation on inspection and weighing services by 10 percent with notification to the Appropriations Committees. This allows for flexibility if export activities require additional supervision 

and oversight, or other uncontrollable factors occur. 

7. Dairy Indemnity Program.—Language is included by reference 

that allows the Secretary to utilize the services of the Commodity 

Credit Corporation for the purpose of making dairy indemnity payments. 

142 

8. Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account.—Language is included that deems the pink bollworm a boll weevil for 

the purposes of administering the boll weevil loan program. 

9. Risk Management Agency.—Language is included to limit the 

amount of funds for official reception and representation expenses. 

10. Commodity Credit Corporation Fund.—Language is included 

to provide for the reimbursement appropriation. Language is also 

included to allow certain funds transferred from the Commodity 

Credit Corporation to be used for information resource management. In addition, language is included which limits the amount of 

funds that can be spent on operation and maintenance costs of 

CCC hazardous waste sites. 

11. Natural Resources Conservation Service.—Conservation Operations.—Language which has been included in the bill since 1938 

prohibits construction of buildings on land not owned by the government, although construction on land owned by states and counties is permitted as authorized by law. 

12. Rural Development Salaries and Expenses.—Language is included to allow funds to be used for advertising and promotional 

activities and to limit the amount of funds to provide modest nonmonetary awards to non-USDA employees. 

13. Rental Assistance Program.—Language is included which provides that agreements entered into during the current fiscal year 

be funded for a one-year period. Language also is included to renew 

contracts once during any 12-month period. 

14. Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, 

and Children (WIC).—Language is included to purchase infant formula except in accordance with law and pay for activities that are 

not fully reimbursed by other departments or agencies unless authorized by law. 

15. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.—Language is 

included to enter into contracts and employ staff to conduct studies, evaluations, or to conduct activities related to program integrity. 

16. Foreign Agricultural Service.—Language carried since 1979 

enables this agency to use funds received by an advance or by reimbursement to carry out its activities involving international development and technical cooperation. Language is included to limit 

the amount of funds for official reception and representation expenses. 

17. Commodity Futures Trading Commission.—Language is included to limit the amount of funds for official reception and representation expenses. Language is also included to allow the Chairman of the Commission to adjust compensation and benefits if furloughs may result from collective bargaining agreements and language that allows the Commission to record prior year lease obligations to correct a violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act. 

18. Farm Credit Administration.—The bill includes authority to 

exceed the limitation on assessments by 10 percent with notification to the Appropriations Committees. 

19. General Provisions.—Section 704: This provision provides 

that none of the funds in this Act may be made available to pay 

indirect costs charged against competitive agricultural research, 

education, or extension grants awarded by the National Institute 

of Food and Agriculture in excess of 10 percent of total direct costs. 

143 

Section 705: This provision allows funds made available in the 

current fiscal year for the Rural Development Loan Fund program 

account; the Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans 

program account; and the Rural Housing Insurance Fund program 

account to remain available until expended to disburse obligations. 

Section 706: Language is included that requires approval of the 

Chief Information Officer and the concurrence of the Executive Information Technology Investment Review Board for acquisition of 

new information technology systems or significant upgrades, and 

that prohibits the transfer of funds to the Office of the Chief Information Officer without the notification of the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress. 

Section 707: Language is included regarding the availability of 

funds for certain conservation programs. 

Section 708: Language is included regarding certain Rural Utilities Service Programs. 

Section 709: Language is included that allows unobligated balances of the Farm Service Agency and Rural Development mission 

areas to be used for information technology purposes. 

Section 710: Language is included regarding the prohibition of 

first-class travel by the employees of agencies funded in this Act. 

Section 711: Language is included regarding the funds of the 

Commodity Credit Corporation. 

Section 712 Language is included that limits the amount of 

spending for USDA Advisory Committees. 

Section 713: Language is included regarding indirect costs for 

grants. 

Section 714: Language regarding certain limitations of mandatory programs. 

Section 715: Language regarding certain limitations of mandatory programs. 

Section 716: Language is included that prohibits funds from 

being used to prepare a budget submission to Congress that assumes reductions from the previous year’s budget due to user fee 

proposals unless the submission also identifies spending reductions 

which should occur if the user fees are not enacted. 

Section 717: Language is included that requires certain reprogramming procedures of funds provided in Appropriations Acts. 

Section 718: Language is included regarding fees for the business 

and industry guaranteed loan program. 

Section 719: This provision prohibits the Department of Agriculture or the Food and Drug Administration from transmitting or 

making available to any non-Department of Agriculture or non-Department of Health and Human Services employee questions or responses to questions that are a result of information requested for 

the appropriations hearing process. 

Section 720: Language regarding prepackaged news stories. 

Section 721: This provision prohibits any employee of the Department of Agriculture from being detailed or assigned to any other 

agency or office of the Department for more than 60 days unless 

the individual’s employing agency or office is fully reimbursed by 

the receiving agency or office for the salary and expenses of the employee for the period of assignment. 

Section 722: Language is included Congressional notification of 

grant awards. 

144 

Section 723: Language is included requiring spending plans for 

each agency funded by the Act. 

Section 724: Language is included regarding the use funds for 

humanitarian food assistance programs. 

Section 725: Language is included regarding the Single Family 

Housing Direct Loan Program. 

Section 726: Language is included on certain USDA loan programs. 

Section 727: Language is included regarding the Working Capital 

Fund. 

Section 728: Language is included regarding purchases made 

through child nutrition programs. 

Section 729: Language is included regarding an emergency rural 

development program. 

Section 730: Language is included regarding the Agriculture and 

Food Research Institute. 

Section 731: Language is included regarding interagency coordination of nutrition research. 

Section 732: Language is included regarding rural loan programs. 

Section 733: Language is included regarding disclosure of information for pharmaceuticals. 

Section 734: Language is included regarding FDA biologics review. 

Section 735: Language is included regarding spent grains for animal feed. 

Section 736: Language is included regarding APHIS regulations. 

Section 737: Language is included regarding APHIS regulations. 

Section 738: Language is included regarding partially hydrogenated oils. 

Section 739: Language is included regarding the Rural Housing 

Service. 

Section 740: Language is included regarding federal IT regulations. 

Section 741: Language is included regarding a rescission of 

funds. 

Section 742: Language is included regarding domestic preference. 

Section 743: Language is included regarding child nutrition programs. 

Section 744: Language is included regarding rural poverty programs. 

Section 745: Language is included regarding eligibility for Rural 

Development Programs. 

Section 746: Language is included regarding lobbying by federal 

employees. 

Section 747: Language is included regarding SNAP regulations. 

Section 748: Language is included regarding FDA regulation. 

Section 749: Language is included regarding housing programs. 

Section 750: Language is included regarding a rescission of 

funds. 

Section 751: Language is included regarding CFTC regulation. 

Section 752: Language is included regarding FDA regulation. 

Section 753: Language is included regarding FDA regulation. 

Section 754: Language is included regarding FSIS regulation. 

145 

Section 755: Language is included regarding the Commodity 

Credit Corporation. 

Section 756: Language is included regarding the National Ocean 

Policy. 

Section 757: Language is included regarding the 21st Century 

Cures Act. 

Section 758: Language is included regarding citrus greening. 

Section 759: Language is included regarding the Healthy Food 

Financing Initiative. 

Section 760: Language is included regarding CFTC regulation. 

Section 761: Spending Reduction Account. 

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(B) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the following table lists the appropriations in the accompanying bill which are not authorized by law for 

the period concerned: 

Agency/Program Last Year of Author- ization Authorization Level 

Appropriation in Last Year of Authoriza- tion 

Appropriations in This Bill 

CFTC ............................................... 2013 Such sums 205,000,000 248,000,000 

Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program 2015 Such sums 16,548,000 18,548,000 

State Administrative Expenses ...... 2015 Such sums 263,686,000 299,139,000 

Summer Food Service Program ...... 2015 Such sums 495,521,000 639,789,000 

WIC ................................................. 2015 Such sums 6,623,000,000 6,150,000,000 

Multi-Family Revitalization Program .......................................... 2016 Such sums 41,400,000 35,000,000 

Broadband Telecommunications 

Grants ........................................ 2016 Such sums 34,500,000 1 – – – 

1 Funding is included in the Rural Economic Infrastructure Grant account. 

COMPARISON WITH THE BUDGET RESOLUTION

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives and section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974, the following table compares the levels of new 

budget authority provided in the bill with the appropriate allocation under section 302(b) of the Budget Act: 

[In millions of dollars] 

302(b) Allocation This Bill 

Budget 

Authority Outlays Budget Authority Outlays 

Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations to its subcommittees: Subcommittee on 

Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies: 

Mandatory .............................................................. 110,691 99,326 110,691 1 99,326 

Discretionary .......................................................... 20,001 21,750 20,001 21,464 

1 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

FIVE YEAR OUTLAY PROJECTIONS

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII and section 308(a)(1)(B) of 

the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the following table contains 

five-year projections associated with the budget authority provided 

in the accompanying bill as provided to the Committee by the Congressional Budget Office: 

146 

[In millions of dollars] 

302(b) Allocation This Bill 

Budget 

Authority Outlays Budget Authority Outlays 

Projection of outlays associated with the recommendation: 

2018 ...................................................................... n.a n.a n.a 12 104,664 

2019 ...................................................................... n.a n.a n.a 5,229 

2020 ...................................................................... n.a n.a n.a 469 

2021 ...................................................................... n.a n.a n.a 453 

2022 and future years .......................................... n.a n.a n.a 263 

1 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

2 Excludes outlays from amounts provided pursuant to sections 1001–1004 of the 21st Century Cures Act (P.L. 114–255). 

ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII and section 308(a)(1)(C) of 

the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Congressional Budget 

Office has provided the following estimates of the amounts of financial assistance to State and local governments is as follows: 

[In millions of dollars] 

302(b) Allocation This Bill 

Budget 

Authority Outlays Budget Authority Outlays 

Financial assistance to State and local governments 

for 2018 ..................................................................... n.a n.a 40,149 1 32,405 

1 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

PROGRAM DUPLICATION

No provision of this bill establishes or reauthorizes a program of 

the Federal Government known to be duplicative of another Federal program, a program that was included in any report from the 

GAO to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111 139, or 

a program related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. 

DIRECTED RULE MAKING

Pursuant to section 3(i) of H. Res. 5 (115th Congress), the bill includes the following directed rule makings: 

(1) Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, retailer 

standards (in section 747 of Title VII) 

(2) Food and Drug Administration, product labeling (in section 753 of Title VII) 

(3) Food Safety Inspection Service, poultry products (in section 754 of Title VII). 


Insert offset folio 174 here 115232.003

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR 2017 

AND BUDGET REQUESTS AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR 2018 

(Amounts in thousands) 

TITLE I - AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS 

Processing, Research, and Marketing 

Office of the Secretary 

Office of the Secretary .............................. . 

Office of Tribal Relations ........................... . 

Assistant to the Secretary for Rural Development ..... . 

Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Coordination 

Office of Advocacy and Outreach ...................... . 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration .. 

Departmental Administration .......................... . 

---

Subtotal, Departmental Administration .......... . 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional 

Relations .......................................... . 

Office of Communications ............................. . 

FY 2017 

Enacted 

5,051 

502 

1,496 

1 ,209 

804 

24,124 

FY 2018 

Request 

4,859 

501 

1 ,448 

1 . 171 

802 

22,501 

Bill 

4,850 

501 

800 

1 ,448 

1 . 171 

800 

2,781 --~-~ w-- -------------- --------------

24,928 23,303 3,581 

3,869 3,521 3,091 

7,500 7,261 6,261 

Bill vs. B

Enacted 

-201 

-1 

+800 

-48 

-38 

-4 

-21,343 -

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

-21,347 

-778 

-1,239 

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

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

Total, Office of the Secretary ................. . 44,555 42,064 21,703 -22,852 

Insert offset folio 175 here 115232.004

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR 2017 

AND BUDGET REQUESTS AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR 201B 

(Amounts in thousands) 

Executive Operations 

Office of the Chief Economist .................... . Office of Hearings and Appeals ................... . Office of Budget and Program Analysis ............ . 

Subtotal, Executive Operations ................. . 

Office of the Chief Information Officer .............. . Office of the Chief Financial Officer ................ . Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights ... . Office of Ci vi 1 Rights ............................... . 

Building and Facilities 

Agriculture Buildings and Facilities ............. . 

Hazardous materials management ....................... . 

Office of Inspector General .......................... . 

Office of the General Counsel ........................ . Office of Ethics ..................................... . 

Total, Departmental Administration ............. . 

Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, 

and Economics ...................................... . 

Economic Research Service ............................ . 

National Agricultural Statistics Service ............. . 

Census of Agriculture ............................ . 

FY 2017 

Enacted 

18' 917 

13,399 

9,525 

41,841 49,538 

8,028 

901 

24,206 

84' 189 

3,633 

98,208 

44,697 

4,136 

403,932 

893 

86,757 

171,239 

(42' 177) 

FY 2018 

Request 17,211 

14 '716 

9,093 

41,020 

58,950 

5,836 

896 

23,304 

62' 145 

3,503 

92,689 

42,970 

3,538 

376,915 

891 

76,690 

185,677 

(63,900) 

Bi 11 

16,777 13,399 

9,093 

39,269 

49,538 

5,836 

800 

23,304 

3,503 

95,628 

42,970 

3,945 

286,496 

800 

76,788 

183,781 

(63,350) 

Bill vs. 

Enacted 

-2,140 

-432 

-2,572 -2' 192 

-101 -902 

-84,189 

-130 

-2,580 

-1,727 

-191 

-117,436 

-93 

-9,969 

+12,542 

(+21 '173) 

B

-

-

Insert offset folio 176 here 115232.005

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR 2017 

AND BUDGET REQUESTS AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR 2018 

(Amounts in thousands) 

Agricultural Research Service: 

Salaries and expenses ............................ . 

Buildings and facilities ......................... . 

Total, Agricultural Research Service ........... . 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture: 

Research and education activities ................ . 

Native American Institutions Endowment Fund ...... . 

Extension activities ............................. . 

Integrated activities ............................ . 

Total, National Institute of Food 

and Agriculture ............................ . 

Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and 

Regulatory Programs ................................ . 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service: 

Salaries and expenses ............................ . 

Buildings and facilities ......................... . 

Total, Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service ...................................... . 

Agricultural Marketing Service: 

Marketing Services ........................... . 

Standardization activities (user fees) ...... . 

FY 2017 

Enacted 

1 '170' 235 

99,600 

1,269,835 

849,518 

(11 ,880) 

477,391 

36,000 

1,362,909 

901 

946,212 

3,175 

949,387 

84,933 

(65,000) 

FY 2018 

Request 

993,144 

993' 144 769,613 

(11 ,857) 

462,890 

20,276 

1,252,779 

891 

810,000 

2,852 

812,852 

77,462 

Bill 

1,132,625 

60,000 

1,192,625 

830,402 

(11 ,880) 

475,876 

35,000 

1,341,278 

800 

906,400 906,400 

77,573 

(65,000) 

Bi 11 vs. 

Enacted 

-37,610 

-39,600 

-77' 210 -19' 116 

-1 '515 

-1,000 

-21 ,631 

-101 

-39,812 

-3,175 

-42,987 

-7,360 

B

+1

+

+1

++++

+

+

(+

Insert offset folio 177 here 115232.006

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR 2017 

AND BUDGET REQUESTS AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR 2018 

(Amounts in thousands) 

(Limitation on administrative expenses, from fees 

collected) ..................................... . 

Funds for strengthening markets, income, and 

supply (Section 32): 

Permanent, Section 32 .......................... . 

Marketing agreements and orders (transfer 

from section 32) ......................... . 

Payments to States and Possessions ............... . 

Total, Agricultural Marketing Service program ... 

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards 

Administration: 

Salaries and expenses ............................ . 

Limitation on inspection and weighing services ... . 

Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety ........ . 

Food Safety and Inspection Service ................... . 

Lab accreditation fees ........................... . 

Total, Processing, Research, and Marketing ..... . 

Total, Title I, Agricultural Programs .......... . 

(By transfer) .............................. . 

(Loan authorization) ....................... . 

(Limitation on administrative expenses) .... . 

FY 2017 

Enacted 

(61 ,227) 

1,322,000 

(20,705) 

1 ,235 

FY 2018 

Request 

(60,982) 

1 '344 '000 

(20 '489) 

1,109 

Bill 

(61,227) 

1 ,344, 000 

(20,705) 

1 '109 

Bill vs. B

Enacted 

--- 

+22,000 

--- 

-126 ~~-- ~-------- -~------------ -------------- -------------- -------

1 '469 '395 1,483,553 1 ,483,909 +14,514 

43,482 42,975 42,888 -594 

(55,000) (60,000) (60,000) (+5,000) 

819 814 800 -19 

1,032,062 1,038,069 1,038,069 +6,007 

(1 ,000) (1 ,000) (1 ,000) 

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

6,730,384 6,204,268 6,493,407 -236,977 +2

=~============ 

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

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

6,730,384 

(20,705) 

(116,227) 

6,204,268 

(20,489) 

(120,982) 

6,493,407 

(20,705) 

(121 ,227) 

-236,977 

(+5,000) 

+2

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

Insert offset folio 178 here 115232.007

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR 2017 

AND BUDGET REQUESTS AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR 2018 

(Amounts in thousands) 

TITLE II - Farm Production and 

Conservation Programs 

Farm Production Programs 

Office of the Under Secretary for Farm Production and 

Conservation ............................... . 

Farm Service Agency: 

Salaries and expenses ............................ . 

(Transfer from Food for Peace (P.L. 480)) ........ . (Transfer from export loans) .................... . (Transfer from ACIF) ............................. . 

Subtotal, transfers from program accounts ..... 

Total, Salaries and expenses ............... . 

State mediation grants ........................... . 

Grassroots source water protection program ....... . 

Dairy indemnity program .......................... . 

Subtotal, Farm Service Agency .................. . 

FY 2017 

Enacted 

901 

1 '206' 110 

(149) 

(2,463) 

(306,998) 

---

(309,610) 

FY 2018 

Request 

896 

1 '130' 163 

(149) 

(353) 

(297,386) 

Bi 11 

875 

1 '166 '317 

(149) (353) 

(297,386) 

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

(297,888) (297,888) 

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

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

(1 ,515, 720) 

3,904 6,500 

500 

1 '217' 014 

(1,428,051) 

3,398 

500 

1,134,061 

(1 ,464,205) 

3,398 6,000 

500 

1,176,215 

Bi 11 VS. 

Enacted 

-26 

-39,793 

( -2' 110) 

(-9,612) 

( -11 '722) 

(-51 ,515) 

-506 -500 

-40,799 

B

+

(+

+

Insert offset folio 179 here 115232.008

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR 2017 

AND BUDGET REQUESTS AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR 2018 

(Amounts in thousands) 

Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund (ACIF) Program 

Account: 

loan authorizations: 

Farm ownership loans: 

Direct ............................... · 

Guaranteed ........................... . 

Subtotal ........................... . 

Farm operating loans: 

Direct ............................... . 

Unsubsidized guaranteed .............. . 

Subtotal ........................... . 

Emergency loans ........................... 

Indian tribe land acquisition loans ....... 

Conservation loans: 

Guaranteed ............................ 

Indian Highly Fractionated land Loans ..... 

Boll weevil eradication loans ............. 

FY 2017 

Enacted 

( 1 '500' 000) 

(2,750,000) 

(4,250,000) 

(1 ,530,000) 

(1,960,000) (3,490,000) 

(22,576) (20,000) 

(150,000) 

(10 '000) 

(60,000) 

FY 2018 

Request 

( 1 ' 500 '000) 

(2,500,000) (4,000,000) ( 1 ' 304 '851 ) 

(1 ,393,423) 

(2,698,274) 

(25,610) (20,000) 

( 150 ,000) 

---

(60,000) 

Bi 11 

(1 ,500,000) 

(2,500,000) (4,000,000) 

(1 ,304,851) (1 ,593,423) 

(2,898,274) 

(25,610) (20,000) 

( 150' 000) 

(10 ,000) (60,000) 

Bill vs. 

Enacted 

(-250,000) 

(-250,000) 

(-225,149) 

(-366,577) 

( -591 '726) 

(+3,034) 

---

B

(+2

(+2

(+

___ .,. __ 

---

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

Total, Loan authorizations .............. (8,002,576) (6,953,884) ( 7' 163 '884) (-838,692) (+2

Insert offset folio 180 here 115232.009

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET {OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR 2017 

AND BUDGET REQUESTS AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR 2018 

{Amounts in thousands) 

Loan subsidies: 

Farm operating loans: 

Direct ............................... . 

Unsubsidized guaranteed .............. . 

FY 2017 

Enacted 

65,178 

20,972 

FY 2018 

Request 

52,716 

15,467 

Bill 

52,716 

17,687 

Bi 11 VS. B

Enacted 

-12.462 

-3,285 

----~~--~-~---

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

Subtotal ........................... . 

Emergency Loans .......................... . 

Indian Highly Fractionated Land Loans .... . 

Total. Loan subsidies and grants ....... . 

ACIF administrative expenses: 

Salaries and Expenses {transfer to FSA) .. . 

Administrative expenses .................. . 

Total. ACIF expenses ................... . 

Total. Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund .. . 

{Loan authorization) ................... . 

Total, Farm Service Agency ................. . 

86,150 

1 ,262 

2,550 

89,962 

306,998 

10,070 

68,183 

1,260 

69,443 

297,386 

7,905 

70,403 

1 ,260 

2,272 

73,935 

297,386 

7,905 

-15,747 

-2 

-278 

-16,027 

-9,612 

-2. 165 

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

317,068 305,291 305,291 -11.777 

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

407,030 374,734 379,226 -27,804 

{8,002,576) (6,953,884) (7 ,163,884) ( -838. 692) 

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

1,624,945 1,509,691 1,556,316 -68,629 

{+2

+

Insert offset folio 181 here 115232.010

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR 2017 

AND BUDGET REQUESTS AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR 2018 

(Amounts in thousands) 

Risk Management Agency: 

RMA Salaries and Expenses ........................ . 

Subtotal, Risk Management Agency ........... . 

Total, Farm Production Programs ................ . 

Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources 

and Environment .................................. . 

Natural Resources Conservation Service: 

Private Lands Conservation Operations ............ . 

Farm Security and Rural Investment program 

(transfer authority) ......................... . 

FY 2017 

Enacted 

74,829 

74,829 

1,699,774 

901 

864,474 

FY 2018 

Request 

55,000 

55,000 

1 '564' 691 

896 

766,000 

(985,000) 

Bi 11 

55,000 

55,000 

1,611,316 

858,911 

---

Bill vs. B

Enacted 

-19,829 

-19,829 

-88,458 +

-901 

-5,563 +

--- (-9

~-*·---~ ----- -- --~--~----- -------------- -------------- -------

Total, Conservation operations ............ . 864,474 766,000 858,911 -5,563 +

Watershed flood and prevention operations ........ . 150,000 --- 40,000 -110,000 +

Watershed rehabilitation program ................. . 12,000 --- 10,000 -2,000 +

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

Total, Natural Resources Conservation Service ... 1,026,474 766,000 908,911 -117,563 +

Insert offset folio 182 here 115232.011

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR 2017 

AND BUDGET REQUESTS AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR 2018 

(Amounts in thousands) 

Corporations 

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation: 

Federal crop insurance corporation fund .......... . 

Commodity Credit Corporation Fund: 

Reimbursement for net realized losses ............ . 

Hazardous waste management (limitation on 

expenses) ...................................... . 

FY 2017 

Enacted 

8,667,000 

21,290,712 

(5,000) 

FY 2018 

Request 

8,245,000 

17,483,000 

(5,000) 

Bill 

8,245,000 

17,483,000 

(5,000) 

Bill vs. B

Enacted 

-422,000 

-3,807,712 

-------------- -------------- - --------- -"-- -w

Total, Corporations ............................ . 29,957,712 25,728,000 25,728,000 -4,229,712 

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

Total, Title II, Farm Production and 

Conservation Programs ........................ . 32 '684, 861 28,059,587 28,248,227 -4,436,634 +1

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

TITLE III - RURAL DEVELOPMENT 

Insert offset folio 183 here 115232.012

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR 2017 

AND BUDGET REQUESTS AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR 2018 

(Amounts in thousands) 

Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development ... 

Rural Development: 

Rural development expenses: 

Sa 1 aries and expenses ........................ . 

(Transfer from RHIF) ......................... . 

(Transfer from RCFP) ......................... . 

(Transfer from RDLFP) ........................ . 

(Transfer from RETLP) ........................ . 

(Transfer from DLTBP) ........................ . 

Subtotal, Transfers from program accounts. 

Total, Rural development expenses .......... . 

Rural Housing Service: 

Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account: 

Loan authorizations: 

Single family direct (Sec. 502) .......... . 

Unsubsidized guaranteed .............. . 

Subtotal, Single family ............ . 

FY 2017 

Enacted 

896 

225,835 

(412,254) 

(4,468) 

(33,270) 

(449,992) 

(675,827) 

(1,000,000) 

(24,000,000) 

(25,000,000) 

FY 2018 

Request 

891 

186,076 

(244,249) 

(147 ,591) 

(38,027) 

(8,057) 

(437,924) 

(624,000) 

(24,000,000) 

(24,000,000) 

Bill 

220,835 

(401,300) 

{4,230) 

(30,750) 

( 436' 280) 

(657' 115) 

(900,000) 

(24,000,000) 

(24,900,000) 

Bill vs. 

Enacted 

-896 

-5,000 

( -10' 954) 

( -238) 

(-2,520) 

( -13, 712) 

(-18, 712) 

( 100,000) 

(-100,000) 

B

+

(+1

(-1

(

(+

{+

(+9

Insert offset folio 184 here 115232.013

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR 2017 

AND BUDGET REQUESTS AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR 2018 

(Amounts in thousands) 

Housing repair (Sec. 504) ................ . 

Rental housing (Sec. 515) ................ . 

Multi-family housing guarantees (Sec. 538) 

Site development loans (Sec. 524) ........ . 

Single family housing credit sales ....... . 

Self-help housing land development housng 

1 oans (Sec. 523) ....................... . 

Farm Labor Housing (Sec.514) ............. . 

Total, Loan authorizations ............. . 

Loan subsidies: 

Single Family Direct (Sec. 502) .......... . 

Housing repair (Sec. 504) ................ . Rental housing (Sec. 515) ............... .. 

Farm labor housing (Sec.514) ............. . 

Self-Help Land Devleopment Housing Loans 

(Sec.523) .............................. . 

Site Development Loans (Sec.524) ......... . 

Total, Loan subsidies .................. . 

Farm labor housing grants .................... . 

RHIF administrative expenses (transfer to RD). 

Total, Rural Housing Insurance Fund program. 

(Loan authorization) ................... . 

FY 2017 

Enacted 

(26,278) 

(35' 000) 

(230,000) 

(5,000) 

(10,000) 

(5,000) 

(23,855) 

(25 '335' 133) 

67,700 

3,663 

10' 360 

7,051 

417 

111 

89,302 

8,336 

412,254 

509,892 

(25,335,133) 

FY 2018 

Request 

(250,000) 

(10,000) 

(24,260,000) 

244,249 244,249 

(24,260,000) 

Bi 11 

(24,000) (28,398) 

(230,000) 

(5,000) 

(1 0' 000) 

(5,000) 

(15,000) 

(25,217,398) 

34,650 

2,959 

7,472 

4,008 

368 

58 

49,515 

6,000 

401,300 456,815 

(25,217,398) 

Bi 11 vs. 

Enacted 

(-2,278) (-6,602) 

( -8,855) 

( -117' 735) 

-33,050 

-704 

-2,888 -3,043 

-49 -53 

-39,787 

-2,336 

-10,954 -53,077 

(-117,735) 

B

(+(+( -

(

(

(+

(+9

+

+

+1+2

(+9

Insert offset folio 185 here 115232.014

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR 2017 

AND BUDGET REQUESTS AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR 2018 

(Amounts in thousands) 

Rental assistance program: 

Rental assistance (Sec. 521) ................. . 

Multi-Family Housing Revitalization Program Account: 

Rural housing voucher program .................... . 

Multi-family housing revitalization program ...... . 

FY 2D17 

Enacted 

1,405,033 

19,400 

22,000 

FY 2018 

Request 

1,345,293 

20,000 

---

Bill 

1,345,293 

20,000 

15,000 

Bi 11 VS. B

Enacted 

-59,740 

+600 

-7,000 +

---

___ ,. ______________ ,. _____ 

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

Total, Multi-family housing revitalization .. 41,400 20,000 35,000 -6,400 +

Mutual and self-help housing grants .............. . 30,000 --- 25,000 -5,000 +

Rural housing assistance grants .................. . 33,701 --- --- -33 ,701 

Rural community facilities program account: 

Loan authorizations: 

Community facility: 

Direct ............................... . (2,600,000) (3,000,000) (2,600,000) --- (-4

Guaranteed ........... , ............... . (148,305) --- (148' 305) --- (+1

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

__________ ,. ___ 

-----

Total, loan authorizations ............. . (2,748,305) (3,000,000) (2' 748' 305) --- (-2

Loan subsidies and grants: 

Community facility: 

Guaranteed ......................... , .. 3,322 --- 4,849 +1 ,527 

Grants ............................... . 30,000 -- --- -30,000 

Insert offset folio 186 here 115232.015

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR 2017 

AND BUDGET REQUESTS AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR 2018 

(Amounts in thousands) 

Rural community development initiative ... . 

Economic impact initiative grants ........ . 

Tribal college grants .................... . 

RCFP administrative expenses (transfer to RD). 

Total, RCFP Loan subsidies and grants ... 

Subtotal, grants and payments .............. . 

Total, Rural Housing Service ................... . 

(loan authorization) ....................... . 

Rural Business--Cooperative Service: 

Rural Business Program Account: 

(Guaranteed business and industry loans) ..... . 

loan subsidies and grants: 

Guaranteed business and industry subsidy .. 

Rural business development grants ..... Delta Regional Authority and 

Appalachian Regional Commission ..... 

FY 2017 

Enacted 

4,000 

5,778 

4,000 

47,100 

110' 801 

2,067,126 

(28,083,438) 

(919,765) 

35,319 

24,000 

6,000 

FY 2018 

Request 

147,591 147,591 147,591 

1 '757 ,133 

(27,260,000) 

-

-

---------

Bill 

4,849 

29,849 

1,866,957 

(27,965,703) 

(819,000) 

33,251 

20,000 

5,000 

Bill vs. 

Enacted 

-4,000 

-5,778 -4,000 

-42,251 -80,952 

-200,169 

( -117. 735) 

(-100,765) 

-2,068 

-4,000 -1,000 

B

-1

-1

-1

+1

(+7(+8

++

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

_______ 

Total, RBP loan subsidies and grants ....... . 

Intermediary Relending Program Fund Account: 

(loan authorization) ......................... . 

Loan subsidy ................................. . 

Administrative expenses (transfer to RD) ..... . 

Total, IRP Fund ....................... ······ 

65,319 

(18,889) 

5,476 

4,468 

9,944 

--- 58,251 

(17,500) 

4,041 

4,230 

8,271 

-7,068 

( -1 ,389) 

-1,435 

-238 

-1,673 

+

(+

Insert offset folio 187 here 115232.016

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR 2017 

AND BUDGET REQUESTS AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR 2018 

(Amounts in thousands) 

Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account: 

(Loan authorization) ......................... . 

Limit cushion of credit interest spending .... . 

(Rescission) ............................. . 

Rural Cooperative Development Grants: 

Cooperative development ...................... . 

Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural 

Areas ...................................... . 

Grants to assist minority producers .......... . 

Value-added agricultural product market 

development ................................ . 

FY 2017 

Enacted 

(42,213) 

(132,000) 

-132,000 

5,800 

2,750 

3,000 

15,000 

FY 2018 

Request 

---

(176,000) 

-176,000 

---

---

------

Bill 

(33,077) 

( 196 ,000) 

-196,000 

5,500 

2,500 

3,000 

10,000 

Bill VS. B

Enacted 

( -9' 136) (+

(+64,000) (+

-64,000 -

-300 

-250 

--- 

-5,000 +

_____ 

MM---·-------- -------------- -------

Total, Rural Cooperative development grants. 

Rural Energy for America Program 

(loan authorization) ......................... . 

Loan subsidy and grants ...................... . 

Total, Rural Energy for America Program ..... 

Total, Rural Business-Cooperative Service ...... . 

(loan authorization) ....................... . 

26,550 --- 21 ,000 -5,550 +

(7,576) --- (7,520) (-56) (

352 --- 291 -61 

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

352 

-29,835 

(988,443) 

---

-176,000 

291 

-108,187 

(877' 097) 

-61 

-78,352 

( -111 '346) 

+

(+8

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

Insert offset folio 188 here 115232.017

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR 2017 

AND BUDGET REQUESTS AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR 2018 

(Amounts in thousands) 

Rural Utilities Service: 

Rural water and waste disposal program account: 

Loan authorizations: 

Di rect ................................... . 

Guaranteed ............................... . 

Total, Loan authorization .............. . 

Loan subsidies and grants: 

Direct subsidy ........................... . 

Guaranteed subsidy ....................... . 

Water and waste revolving fund ........... . 

Water well system grants ................. . 

Colonias and AK/HI grants ................ . 

Water and waste technical assistance ..... . 

Circuit rider program .................... . 

Solid waste management grants ............ . 

High energy cost grants .................. . 

Water and waste disposal grants .......... . 

306A(i) (2) grants ....................... . 

Total, Loan subsidies and grants ....... . 

FY 2017 

Enacted 

(1 ,200,000) 

(50,000) 

1,250,000 

52,080 

240 

1 '000 

993 

64,000 

20,000 

16,897 

4,000 

10,000 

391,980 

10,000 

571 '190 

FY 2018 

Request Bill 

( 1 '200' 000) 

(50,000) 

1 ,250,000 

25,680 

230 

1,000 

993 

45,000 

20,000 

16,897 

4,000 

358,900 

472,700 

Bill vs. 

Enacted 

-26,400 

-10 

-19,000 

-10,000 

-33,080 

-10,000 

-98,490 

B

(+1,2

(+

+1,2

+

+

+

+

+3

+4

Insert offset folio 189 here 115232.018

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR 2017 

AND BUDGET REQUESTS AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR 2018 

(Amounts in thousands) 

Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans 

Program Account: 

Loan authorizations: 

Electric: 

Direct, FFB .......................... . 

Guaranteed underwriting .............. . 

Subtotal, Electric ................. . 

Telecommunications: 

Direct, Treasury rate ................ . 

Direct, FFB, . , , ..... , .......... , ..... . 

Subtotal, Telecommunications ....... . 

Total, Loan authorizations .............. 

Loan Subsidy: 

Telecommunications Direct, Treasury 

Rate ................................ 

Total, Loan subsidies ............... 

RETLP administrative expenses (transfer to RD) 

Total, Rural Electrification and 

Telecommunications Loans Program Account. 

(Loan authorization) ................... . 

FY 2017 

Enacted 

(5,500,000) 

(750,000) 

(6,250,000) 

(345,000) 

(345,000) 

(690,000) 

FY 2018 

Request 

(5,500,000) 

(5,500,000) 

(345,000) 

(345,000) 

(690,000) 

Bi 11 

(5,500,000) 

(750,000) 

(6,250,000) 

(345,000) 

(345,000) 

(690,000) 

Bill vs. 

Enacted 

B

(+7

(+7

-~---- ------- ----------- ---------- ---

--~-----------

-------

(6,940,000) ( 6 ' 190 ' 000) (6,940,000) --- (+7

3,071 863 863 -2,208 

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

3,071 863 863 -2,208 

33,270 38,027 30,750 -2,520 

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

36' 341 

(6,940,000) 

38,890 

( 6 ' 1 90 ' 000) 

31 '613 

(6,940,000) 

-4,728 

(+7

Insert offset folio 190 here 115232.019

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR 2017 

AND BUDGET REQUESTS AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR 2018 

(Amounts in thousands) 

Broadband Program: 

Loan authorizations: 

Broadband telecommunications ............. . 

Total, Loan authorizations ............. . 

Loan subsidies and grants: 

Distance learning and telemedicine: 

Grants ............................... . 

Broadband telecommunications: 

Direct ............................... . 

Grants ............................... . 

FY 2017 

Enacted 

(27,043) 

FY 2018 

Request 

(26,991) 

Bi 11 

(26,991) 

--

~----------

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

---~---------

(27 ,043) (26,991) (26,991) 

26,600 --- ---

4,500 4,521 4,521 

34,500 --- ---

Bill vs. B

Enacted 

(-52) 

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

(-52) 

-26,600 

+21 

-34,500 

---

---------

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

____________ .. _ 

--- ---

Total, Loan subsidies and grants ....... . 

DLTBP administrative expenses (transfer to RD) 

Total, Rural Utilities Service ................. . 

(loan authorization) ....................... . 

Rural Economic Infrastructure Grants ................ . 

Total, Title III, Rural Development Programs ... . 

(By transfer) .............................. . 

(Loan authorization) ....................... . 

65,600 

673,131 

(8,217,043) 

2,937,153 

(449,992) 

(37,288,924) 

4,521 4,521 -61,079 

8,057 

51,468 508,834 -164,297 +4

(6,216,991) (8,216,991) (-52) (+2,0

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

161 ,893 122,692 +122,692 -

1,981,461 2,611,131 -326,022 +6

(437,924) (436 ,280) (-13,712) ( 

(33,476,991) (37,059,791) ( -229, 133) (+3,5

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

Insert offset folio 191 here 115232.020

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR 2017 

AND BUDGET REQUESTS AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR 2018 

(Amounts in thousands) 

TITLE IV - DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS 

Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and 

Consumer Services .................................. . 

Food and Nutrition Service: 

Child nutrition programs ........................ . 

School breakfast program equipment grants .... . 

Demonstration projects (Summer EBT) .......... . 

Total, Child nutrition programs ............ . 

Special supplemental nutrition program for women, 

infants, and children (WIC) .................... . 

Supplemental nutrition assistance program: 

(Food stamp program) ........................... . 

Reserve ...................................... . 

FDPIR nutrition education services ........... . 

Total, Food stamp program .................. . 

Fi seal year 2017 ......................... . 

FY 2017 

Enacted 

814 

22,745,982 

25,000 

23,000 

22,793,982 

6,350,000 

75,479,696 

3,000,000 

998 

FY 2018 

Request 

809 

24,233,309 

22,957 

24,256,266 

6' 150,000 

70,611,504 

3,000,000 

996 

Bi 11 

800 

24,232,944 

25,000 

23,000 

24,280,944 

6.150. 000 

70,608,952 

3,000,000 

998 

--N- --------- -------------- ----- --------

78,480,694 73,612,500 73,609,950 

(78,480,694) (73,612,500) (73,609,950) 

Bill vs. 

Enacted 

-14 

+1 ,486,962 

+1 ,486,962 

-200,000 

-4,870,744 

-4,870,744 

(-4,870,744) 

B

+

+

( 

Insert offset folio 192 here 115232.021

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR 2017 

AND BUDGET REQUESTS AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR 2018 

(Amounts in thousands) 

Commodity assistance program: 

Commodity supplemental food program .......... . 

Farmers market nutrition program ............. . 

Emergency food assistance program ............ . 

Pacific island and disaster assistance ....... . 

Total, Commodity assistance program ........ . 

Nutrition programs administration ................ . 

Total, Food and Nutrition Service .............. . 

FY 2017 ................................ . 

Total, Title IV, Domestic Food Programs ........ . 

FY 2017 ................................ . 

FY 2017 

Enacted 

236' 120 

18' 548 

59,401 

1 ,070 

FY 2018 

Request 

238 '120 

---

54,401 

1 ,070 

Bill vs. B

Bi 11 Enacted 

238' 120 +2,000 

18,548 --- +

59,401 --- 

1,070 

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

315,139 293,591 317,139 +2,000 +

170,716 148,541 148,541 -22,175 

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

108' 110' 531 104,460,898 104,506,574 -3,603,957 +

( 1 08' 11 0' 531 ) (104,460,898) (104,506,574) (- 3 '603' 957) (+

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

1 08 ' 111 ' 345 104' 461 ,707 104,507,374 -3,603,971 +

(108,110,531) (104,460,898) (104' 506 '574) (-3,603,957) (+

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

Insert offset folio 193 here 115232.022

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR 2017 

AND BUDGET REQUESTS AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR 2018 

(Amounts in thousands) 

TITLE V - FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS 

Office of the Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign 

Agricultural Affairs ............................... . 

Foreign Agricultural Service 

Salaries and expenses ................................ . 

(Transfer from export loans) ..................... . 

Total, Salaries and expenses ................... . 

Food for Peace Title I Direct Credit and Food for 

Progress Program Account, Administrative Expenses 

Farm Service Agency, Salaries and expenses 

(transfer to FSA) .............................. . 

Food for Peace Title II Grants: 

Expenses.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 

FY 2017 

Enacted 

196,571 

(6,074) 

202,645 

149 

1 ,466,000 

FY 2018 

Request 

188,167 

(6,382) 

194,549 

149 

Bill 

875 

195,268 

(6,382) 

201 ,650 

149 

1,400,000 

Bi 11 vs. 

Enacted 

+875 

-1 '303 

(+308) 

-995 

-66,000 

B

+1,4

Insert offset folio 194 here 115232.023

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR 2017 

AND BUDGET REQUESTS AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR 2018 

(Amounts in thousands) 

Commodity Credit Corporation Export Loans 

Program Account (administrative expenses}: 

Salaries and expenses (Export Loans}: 

Foreign Agriculture Service, S&E (transfer to 

FAS} ....................................... . 

Farm Service Agency S&E (transfer to FSA) .... . 

Total, CCC Export Loans Program Account ........ . 

McGovern-Dole International Food for Education 

and Child Nutrition program grants .......... . 

FY 2017 

Enacted 

6,074 

2,463 

8,537 

201,626 

FY 2018 

Request 

6,382 

353 

6,735 

Bill 

6,382 

353 

6,735 

201 ,626 

Bill vs. 

Enacted 

+308 

-2,110 

-1,802 

B

+2

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

Total, Title V, Foreign Assistance and Related 

Programs ..................................... . 

(By transfer) .............................. . 

1,872,883 

(6,074) 

195,051 

(6,382) 

1,804,653 

(6,382) 

-68,230 

(+308) 

+1,6

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

Insert offset folio 195 here 115232.024

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR 2017 

AND BUDGET REQUESTS AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR 2018 

(Amounts in thousands) 

TITLE VI - RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND 

DRUG ADMINISTRATION 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

Food and Drug Administration 

Salaries and expenses, direct appropriation .......... . Prescription drug user fees ...................... . 

Medical device user fees.............. .. .. .. .. . .. 

Human generic drug user fees .................... . 

Biosimilar biological products user fees ........ . 

Animal drug user fees ............................ . 

Animal generic drug user fees ................... . 

Tobacco product user fees ....................... . 

FY 2017 

Enacted 

2,759,378 

(754,524) 

(126,083) 

(323,011) 

(22,079) 

(23,673) 

(11,341) 

(635,000) 

FY 2018 

Request 

1,819,718 

( 1 . 262 . 1 82) 

(439,001) 

(615,746) 

(86,736) 

(70,252) 

(18 ,475) 

(672,000) 

Bill 

2,759,378 

(937,434) 

(193,291) 

(493,600) 

(54,000) 

(24, 142) 

(12,100) 

(672,000) 

Bill vs. 

Enacted 

(+182,910) 

(+67,208) 

(+170,589) 

(+31,921) 

(+469) 

(+759) 

(+37,000) 

-~-~---~------

----

.. -------'"' ----- ----~- - ----------- --

Subtotal, user fees, enacted and definite ...... . (1 ,895, 711) (3' 164. 392) (2,386,567) (+490,856) 

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

______ .. __ .,. ___________ 

-

Subtotal (including user fees) ................. . (4,655,089) ( 4 . 984 . 11 0) ( 5 . 145. 945) (+490,856) 

B

+9

( -3

( -2

( -1

( -

( -

( 

( -7

(+1

Insert offset folio 196 here 115232.025

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR 2017 

AND BUDGET REQUESTS AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR 2018 

(Amounts in thousands) 

Mammography user fees ............................ . 

Export and color certification user fees ......... . 

Food and Feed Recall user fees ................... . Food Reinspect ion fees ........................... . 

Voluntary qualified importer program fees ........ . 

Pharmacy compounding fees (CBO estimate) ......... . 

Priority review vouchers (PRV) pediatric disease .. 

Third party auditor .............................. . 

Subtotal, FDA user fees. Subtotal, FDA (including user fees) .......... . 

Buildings and facilities ............................. . 

Total, FDA (w/user fees, including proposals) .. . Total, FDA (w/enacted user fees only) .......... . Total, FDA (excluding user fees) ............... . 

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 1/ .............. . 

Farm Credit Administration (limitation on 

administrative expenses) ........................... . 

Total, Title VI, Related Agencies and Food and 

Drug Administration .......................... . 

FY 2017 

Enacted 

(20,522) (14,378) 

(1 ,434) 

(6,414) 

(5,300) 

(1 ,370) 

(7,686) 

(1 ,400) 

FY 2018 

Request 

(21,000) 

(15' 000) 

(1 ,000) 

(6,000) (5,000) (1,000) 

(8,000) 

(1 ,000) 

Bill 

(21 ,000) 

(15' 000) 

(1 ,000) 

(6,000) (5,000) 

(1 ,000) 

(8,000) 

(1 ,000) 

Bill vs. B

Enacted 

(+478) 

(+622) ( -434) ( -414) 

( -300) 

( -370) (+314) 

( -400) 

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

(1 ,954,215) (3,222,392) (2 '444' 567) (+490,352) ( -7

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

(4,713,593) ( 5 ' 042 ' 11 0) (5,203,945) (+490,352) (+1

11 '788 8, 771 8,771 -3' 017 

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

_.,. ____________ 

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

(4,725,381) (5,050,881) (5,212,716) (+487,335) (+1(4,725,381) (5,050,881) (5,212,716) (+487,335) (+1

2,771,166 1,828,489 2' 768' 149 -3,017 +9

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

250,000 250,000 248,000 -2,000 

(68,600) (72,600) (68,600) ( 

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

3 '021 '166 2,078,489 3 '016' 149 -5,017 +9

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

Insert offset folio 197 here 115232.026

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR 2017 

AND BUDGET REQUESTS AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR 2018 

(Amounts in thousands) 

TITLE VII · GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Limit Dam Rehab (Sec.714(1)) ......................... . 

Limit Environmental Quality Incentives Program 

(Sec. 714(2)) ....................................... . 

Limit Rural Energy for America Program (Sec. 714 (2)) 

{rescission) ....................................... . 

Limit Biomass Crop Assistance Program {Sec.714(3)) ... . 

Limit Biorefinery Assistance (Sec.714(4)) ............ . 

Limit Ag Management Assistance (Sec. 714 (5)) ........ . 

Limit Biorefinery Assistance (Sec. 714 (4)) 

(cancellation) ..................................... . 

RESP (rescission) ................................... . 

Limit fruit and vegetable program (Sec.715) .......... . 

Section 32 (Sec. 715) (rescission) .................... . 

APHIS B&F- Fruit Fly Rearing (Sec. 743) ............. . 

WIC (rescission) (Sec. 745) .......................... . 

CBO adjustment to WIC (rescission) (CBO 

re-estimate of Request) ........................ . 

Subtotal, WIC (rescission) (CBO re-estimate of 

Request) ................................... . 

TEFAP (Sec. 748) ..................................... . 

Ebola/Zika Funding (Sec. 752) ........................ . 

Citrus Greening (Sec. 757) ........................... . 

RD balances (Sec. 758) (rescission) ................. . 

Healthy Food Financing Initiative .................... . 

RD unobligated balances (rescission) ................. . 

ARS B&F unobligated balances (rescission) ............ . 

Hardwood Trees (Reforestation Pilot Program) ......... . 

FY 2017 

Enacted 

-54,000 

-179,000 

-20,000 

-20,000 

-2,000 

-125,000 

-231,000 

47,000 

-850,000 

( -850' 000) 

19,000 

10,000 

5,500 

-3,951 

1,000 

600 

FY 2018 

Request 

-55,000 

-209,000 

-20,000 

-9,000 

-175,000 

-125,000 -263,000 

-1,000,000 

500,000 

( -500,000} 

-108,000 

-211,697 

Bill 

-55,000 -46,000 -21,000 

-175,000 

-9,000 

---

-8,000 

-125' 000 

-263,000 

. 

--

-600,000 

(-600,000) 

5,500 

-.-

1 ,000 

Bill vs. B

Enacted 

-1 ,000 

+179,000 +2

-46,000 -

-1,000 

-155,000 -1

-7,000 

--- +1

-8,000 

. -. 

-32,000 -47,000 

+250,000 +4

-5

(+250,000) (-1

-19,000 

-10' 000 

--- 

+3,951 

--- 

+1

+2

-600 

Insert offset folio 198 here 115232.027

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR 2017 

ANO BUDGET REQUESTS AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR 201B 

(Amounts in thousands) 

Water Bank program .................................. . 

Geographic Disadvantaged farmers .................... . 

Emergency Conservation Program ....................... . 

Food for Peace ....................................... . 

Rural Energy Savings Program ......................... . 

Maturing mortgage pi 1 ot .............................. . 

FSA ARC pilot ........................................ . 

NIFA Military Veteran Grants ......................... . 

Electric Loan Refinancing ............................ . 

STEM Program ......................................... . 

FY 2017 

Enacted 

4,000 

1 '996 

28,651 

134,000 

8,000 

1 ,000 

5,000 

5,000 

13,800 

500 

FY 2018 

Request Bill 

Bill vs. 

Enacted 

-4,000 

-1,996 

-28,651 

-134' 000 

-8,000 

1,000 

·5,000 

-5,000 

·13,800 

·500 

B

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

Total, Title VII, General Provisions ........... . -1,199,904 -1,675,697 ·1 ,295,500 -95,596 +3

Grand tot a 1 .................................... . 154,157,888 141,304,866 145,385,441 -8,772,447 +4,0

Appropriations fiscal year 2017 ............ . (155,374,839) (142,738,563) (146' 498' 441) (-8,876,398) (+3,7

Disaster re 1 i ef ........................... . --- -- -- . -. 

Rescissions ................................ . (-1 ,216,951) (-1 ,433,697) ( -1 '113,000) (+103,951) (+3

Advance appropriations, FY 2017 ............ . --. --- -- --- 

(By transfer) .................................. . (786,381) (762,683) (761,255) ( -25, 126) (

(Loan authorization) ........................... . (45,291,500) (40,430,875) (44,223,675) (-1 ,067 ,825) (+3,7

(Limitation on administrative expenses) ........ . (189,827) (198 '582) (194,827) (+5,000) 

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

Insert offset folio 199 here 115232.028

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR 2017 

AND BUDGET REQUESTS AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR 2018 

(Amounts in thousands) 

RECAPITULATION 

Title I - Agricultural programs ..................... .. 

Mandatory ........................................ . 

Discretionary .................................... . 

Title II - Farm Production and Conservation Programs .. 

Mandatory ........................................ . 

Discretionary .................................... . 

Title III - Rural development (discretionary) ........ . 

Title IV- Domestic food programs ................... . 

Mandatory ........................................ . 

Discretionary .................................... . 

Title V - Foreign assistance and related programs 

(discretionary) .................................... . 

Title VI - Related agencies and Food and Drug 

Administration (discretionary) .................... . 

Title VII -General provisions (discretionary) ....... . 

FY 2017 

Enacted 

6,730,384 

(1 ,322,000) 

(5,408,384) 

32,684,861 

29,958,212 

2,726,649 

2 '937' 153 

1 08 ' 111 ' 345 

(101 ,226,676) 

(6,884,669) 

1,872,883 

3 '021 '166 

-1 '199' 904 

FY 2018 

Request 

6,204,268 

(1 ,344,000) 

(4,860,268) 

28,059,587 

25,728,500 

2,331,087 

1,981,461 

104' 461 ,707 

(97,845,809) 

(6,615,898) 

195,051 

2,078,489 

-1,675,697 

Bill 

6,493,407 

(1 ,344,000) 

(5' 149 '407) 

28,248,227 

25,728,500 

2,519,727 

2,611,131 

104,507,374 

(97,842,894) 

(6,664,480) 

1,804,653 

3' 016' 149 

-1,295,500 

Bill vs. B

Enacted 

-236,977 +2

(+22,000) 

(-258,977) (+2

-4,436,634 +1

-4,229,712 

-206,922 +1

-326,022 +6

-3,603,971 +

(-3,383,782) ( 

( -220' 189) (+

-68,230 +1 ,6

-5,017 +9

-95,596 +3

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

Total ......................................... . 

Note: In FY17, the Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission was enacted on the Financial Services 

and General Government Appropriations Act, 2017. 

This amount is included for comparability purposes 

as the Agriculture Subcommittee carries this 

funding. 

186,842,749 169,364,453 173,633,668 -13,209,081 +4,2

============== ============== ============== ============== =======
(173) 

VIEWS OF THE HON. NITA LOWEY AND THE HON. SANFORD 

D. BISHOP, JR. 

The FY2018 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill is 5% ($1.13 

billion) below the 2017 enacted level. The low allocation makes it 

difficult to fully meet the needs of our nation. 

First, we are appreciative of the collaborative relationship with 

the Chairman that allowed us to address many of our priorities in 

markup, such as restoring funding for the McGovern-Dole Food for 

Education Program to the 2017 level, providing funding for the 

Healthy Food Financing Initiative, providing a $200 million increase for farm operating guaranteed loans, increasing diversity in 

agriculture career fields, addressing healthcare access issues in 

rural America, and making important improvements to language in 

the bill related to the importation of poultry products from China. 

We are disappointed the bill does not maintain the 2017 level of 

$1.6 billion for Food for Peace, especially now when the need 

around the world is so great. 

We deeply regret the Committee’s failure to adopt Rep. RoybalAllard’s amendment to prohibit the inspection of horses for slaughter for human food. There are far better and more humane ways 

to deal with unwanted horses, and the past experience in this country of slaughtering horses for human food was, frankly, a disaster. 

The Committee’s unprecedented and ill-advised bill language, allowing the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) alone to determine if furloughs or reductions in force 

might result from a collective bargaining agreement and then adjust the schedule of pay and benefits any way he chooses, was also 

disappointing. Specifically, we are concerned this language could be 

expanded beyond the CFTC to employees at other financial regulatory agencies, as well as other agencies whose collective bargaining rights could be put at risk, including federal air traffic controllers. 

The report states the ‘‘language is the result of numerous attempts by the Commission to impose a coercive deficiency upon 

Congress by threatening furloughs or RIFs.’’ The suggestion that 

the Commission or its staff threatened or misled the Committee is 

deeply offensive. 

It should not go unnoticed that the Commission’s budget has been held at a mere $250 million since fiscal year 2015, and this 

bill recommends an even lower funding level. With the implementation of new enforcement tools, coupled with the expanded oversight jurisdiction, it is evident that the CFTC is severely underfunded. In order to keep pace with the technological advancements 

in commodity trading, we strongly urge the majority to fund this 

agency at the higher level it needs to achieve its mission in protecting U.S. customers. 

174 

We are disappointed that the bill included bill language locking 

in the swap dealer de minimis level at $8 billion. An appropriations 

bill is not the appropriate place to deal with this issue, and this 

is the fifth consecutive year in which the Committee has interjected 

itself into this matter. 

As the legislative process continues, we will do our best to address the concerns described here. But without a larger discussion 

of the Federal budget it will be nearly impossible to pass an Agriculture appropriations bill for FY 2018 into law. The inadequacy of 

this bill’s allocation can only be fixed if Democrats and Republicans 

negotiate new caps for spending that do not slash the investments 

needed in this bill and others to grow the economy. Unfortunately, 

to date, Republicans are choosing to close ranks around a partisan 

effort to cut programs depended on by millions of Americans even 

though they know it will lead to another forced crisis to keep the 

government open. Democrats stand ready to work with Republicans 

on appropriations bills that invest in the American people. 

NITA M. LOWEY. 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR. 

(175) 

1 ‘‘Joint Letter to Congress Opposing Tobacco Riders.’’ American Academy of Family Physicians, et al. 17 November 2016. http://www.aafp.org/dam/AAFP/documents/advocacy/prevention/tobacco/LT-Congress-Tobacco-111716.pdf. 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF THE HON. NITA M. LOWEY 

I am very concerned with the inclusion of Section 752 and Section 753 in the FY 2018 Agriculture Appropriations bill. The Tobacco Control Act (TCA), which passed Congress with broad bipartisan support, provided FDA with the tools to review new tobacco 

products. Since enactment, tobacco products including e-cigarettes 

and flavored cigars have made significant gains in popularity, particularly among youth. 

According to the CDC, e-cigarette use among teens has risen tenfold in the past decade, rising to 16% of teens in 2015, an estimated three million American teens. E-Cigarettes are now more 

popular among teens than traditional cigarettes. 

And yet, the FY 2018 Agriculture Appropriations bill would put 

the tobacco companies in the driver’s seat, exempting so-called premium cigars from the regulatory structure of the TCA and allowing 

thousands of e-cigarette products to remain on the market without 

scientific review. 

I am particularly concerned by inclusion of Section 753 and offered an amendment to strike it from the underlying bill. Under 

Section 753, the predicate date for review for new tobacco products 

would be delayed, allowing future tobacco products which are substantially similar to those on the market since 2009 to be sold to 

the public without FDA premarket review. As a result, FDA would 

not be able to put the genie back in the bottle, unable to regulate, 

or even know what is in, e-cigarette products, forever. 

In addition, new language would allow for an alternative review 

process, outside of the one passed by Congress in the TCA, which 

would create unnecessary delays and open the door for even more 

tobacco products to come on the market without FDA review. 

Under this weakened alternative, it would be harder for FDA to 

address tobacco companies’ use of kid-friendly flavors, such as 

Gummy Bears, Swedish Fish, and approximately 7,000 other flavors. The FDA is already preparing to address flavors and could do 

so much faster if this rider was not included. 

Proponents of Section 753 on the Appropriations Committee 

maintain that e-cigarettes can help smokers quit based on anecdotal evidence. However, the American Medical Association and 12 

other medical societies have determined that ‘‘currently available 

data do not support the use of e-cigarette products as a smoking 

cessation strategy.’’ 1

On the date following the markup, the American Thoracic Society 

(ATS) wrote to the Chairman and Ranking Members of the House 

and Senate Appropriations Committee, stating concern that proponents of Section 753 cite the sole—and questionable—report, by 

176 

the Royal College of Physicians (RCP), that suggests vaping products support smoking cessation. The letter stated: 

The ATS is also concerned that Congress and the Administration will use the absence of definitive data on ecigarettes and the questionable findings of the RCP report 

as justification for relaxing regulations on e-cigarettes and 

other novel tobacco products. Any such relaxation would be 

a significant policy mistake and will put the health and 

well-being of our nation, particularly our youth, at needless risk. 

Section 752 and 753 are a Trojan horse, allowing the tobacco industry to gain an advantage so it can continue to sell deadly products that lead to almost half a million deaths each year. 

The American people trust FDA to evaluate the data and make 

unbiased decisions about product safety. Congress certainly lacks 

the expertise to make such an assessment. The Fiscal Year 2018 

Agriculture Appropriations bill should not politicize the science and 

take aim at the FDA’s ability to regulate tobacco products under 

the Tobacco Control Act. 

NITA M. LOWEY. 

Æ