26–254 PDF 

Calendar No. 177 

115TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 115–131 

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG 

ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2018 

JULY 20, 2017—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. HOEVEN, from the Committee on Appropriations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 1603] 

The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 1603) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 

Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal 

year ending September 30, 2018, and for other purposes, reports favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass. 

New obligational authority 

Total of bill as reported to the Senate ....................$145,922,507,000 

Amount of 2017 appropriations ............................... 153,907,888,000 

Amount of 2018 budget estimate ............................ 141,054,866,000 

Bill as recommended to Senate compared to— 

2017 appropriations .......................................... ¥7,985,381,000 

2018 budget estimate ........................................ ∂4,867,641,000 
(2) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Breakdown by Title ................................................................................................. 4 

Overview and Summary of the Bill ........................................................................ 5 

Reports to Congress ................................................................................................. 6 

Title I: 

Agricultural Programs: 

Production, Processing, and Marketing: 

Office of the Secretary ....................................................................... 7 

Executive Operations ......................................................................... 10 

Office of Hearings and Appeals ......................................................... 11 

Office of the Chief Information Officer ............................................. 12 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer ................................................. 12 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights ........................... 13 

Office of Civil Rights .......................................................................... 13 

Agriculture Buildings and Facilities ................................................ 14 

Hazardous Materials Management .................................................. 14 

Office of Inspector General ................................................................ 14 

Office of the General Counsel ........................................................... 15 

Office of Ethics ................................................................................... 15 

Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics .............................................................................................. 16 

Economic Research Service ............................................................... 16 

National Agricultural Statistics Service .......................................... 17 

Agricultural Research Service ........................................................... 25 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture ..................................... 26 

Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs ............................................................................................... 34 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service .................................. 34 

Agricultural Marketing Service ........................................................ 41 

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration ............ 44 

Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety ................................. 45 

Food Safety and Inspection Service .................................................. 45 

Title II: 

Farm Production and Conservation: 

Office of the Under Secretary for Farm Production and Conservation ...................................................................................................... 48 

Farm Service Agency ................................................................................ 49 

Risk Management Agency ........................................................................ 53 

Natural Resources Conservation Service ................................................ 53 

Corporations: 

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund ............................................. 56 

Commodity Credit Corporation Fund ...................................................... 56 

Title III: 

Rural Development Programs: 

Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development ........................... 59 

Rural Housing Service .............................................................................. 60 

Rural Community Facilities Program Account ....................................... 65 

Rural Business—Cooperative Service ...................................................... 66 

Rural Utilities Service .............................................................................. 70 

Title IV: 

Domestic Food Programs: 

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

Services ................................................................................................... 74 

Food and Nutrition Service ...................................................................... 75 
Page

3 

Title V: 

Foreign Assistance and Related Programs: 

Office of the Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural 

Affairs ..................................................................................................... 83 

Foreign Agricultural Service .................................................................... 83 

Title VI: 

Related Agency and Food and Drug Administration: 

Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration ..................................................................................................... 87 

Independent Agency: Farm Credit Administration ................................ 99 

Title VII: General Provisions .................................................................................. 101 

Program, Project, and Activity ............................................................................... 104 

Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI of the Standing Rules of the 

Senate ................................................................................................................... 104 

Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the 

Senate ................................................................................................................... 105 

Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the 

Senate ................................................................................................................... 106 

Budgetary Impact of Bill ......................................................................................... 118 

Comparative Statement of Budget Authority ........................................................ 119 
(4) 

BREAKDOWN BY TITLE 

The amounts of obligational authority for each of the seven titles 

are shown in the following table. A detailed tabulation, showing 

comparisons, appears at the end of this report. Recommendations 

for individual appropriation items, projects and activities are carried in this report under the appropriate item headings. 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2017 

enacted 

Committee 

recommendation 

Title I: Agricultural programs ..................................................................................... 6,730,384 6,707,123 

Title II: Farm Production and Conservation programs ............................................... 32,684,861 28,454,876 

Title III: Rural economic and community development programs ............................. 2,937,153 2,753,752 

Title IV: Domestic food programs ............................................................................... 108,111,345 104,730,801 

Title V: Foreign assistance and related programs ..................................................... 1,872,883 2,013,693 

Title VI: Related agencies and Food and Drug Administration ................................. 2,771,166 2,772,166 

Title VII: General provisions ........................................................................................ ¥1,199,904 ¥1,509,904 

Total, new budget (obligational) authority ................................................... 153,907,888 145,922,507 
(5) 

OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY OF THE BILL 

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

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

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

and inspection activities; domestic food assistance programs; rural 

housing, economic and community development, and telecommunication and electrification assistance; and various export and international activities of the USDA. 

The bill also provides funding for the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] and allows the use of collected fees for administrative 

expenses of the Farm Credit Administration [FCA]. 

The discretionary programs and activities of USDA and FDA 

that are supported by this bill include high priority responsibilities 

entrusted to the Federal Government and its partners to protect 

human health and safety, contribute to economic recovery, and 

achieve policy objectives strongly supported by the American people. The ability to provide for these measures is made difficult by 

growing pressure on available levels of discretionary spending as a 

consequence of the overall public debate on Federal spending, revenues, and size of the Federal debt. 

Too often, the USDA programs funded by this bill are confused 

with farm subsidies and other mandatory spending more properly 

associated with multi-year farm bills. In contrast, this bill provides 

annual funding for programs familiar to all Americans such as protecting food safety through the Food Safety and Inspection Service 

and the Food and Drug Administration, which also plays a vital 

role in maintaining the safety of the Nation’s blood supply and 

availability of safe and effective medical products and other components of our health system. This bill also provides funding to fight 

against the introduction and spread of noxious or infectious and 

often invasive pests and disease that threaten our plant and animal health environments, as well as funding for many other missions of dire importance to the American people. 

In the context of overall pressures on spending and the competing priorities that the Committee faces, this bill as reported provides the proper amount of emphasis on agricultural, rural development, and other programs and activities funded by the bill. It is 

consistent with the subcommittee’s allocation for fiscal year 2018. 

All accounts in the bill have been closely examined to ensure 

that an appropriate level of funding is provided to carry out the 

programs of USDA, FDA, and FCA. Details on each of the accounts, the funding level, and the Committee’s justifications for the 

funding levels are included in the report. 
6 

REPORTS TO CONGRESS 

The Committee has, throughout this report, requested agencies 

to provide studies and reports on various issues. The Committee 

utilizes these reports to evaluate program performance and make 

decisions on future appropriations. The Committee directs that all 

studies and reports be provided to the Committee as electronic documents in an agreed upon format within 120 days after the date 

of enactment, unless an alternative submission schedule is specifically stated in the report request. 
(7) 

TITLE I 

AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS 

PRODUCTION, PROCESSING, AND MARKETING

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $44,555,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 42,064,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 48,355,000 

The Secretary of Agriculture, assisted by the Deputy Secretary, 

Under Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries, Chief Information Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and members of their immediate 

staffs, directs and coordinates the work of the Department. This includes developing policy, maintaining relationships with agricultural organizations and others in the development of farm programs, and maintaining liaison with the Executive Office of the 

President and Members of Congress on all matters pertaining to 

agricultural policy. 

The general authority of the Secretary to supervise and control 

the work of the Department is contained in the Organic Act (7 

U.S.C. 2201–2202). The delegation of regulatory functions to Department employees and authorization of appropriations to carry 

out these functions is contained in 7 U.S.C. 450c–450g. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $48,355,000 for 

the Office of the Secretary. The Committee recommendation includes the following accounts under the Office of the Secretary: Office of the Secretary; Office of Tribal Relations; Office of Homeland 

Security and Emergency Coordination; Office of Advocacy and Outreach; Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration; Departmental Administration; Office of Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations; and Office of Communications. The following table 

reflects the amount provided by the Committee for each office and 

activity: 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2017 enacted Fiscal year 2018 

budget request 

Committee recommendation 

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

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

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

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

Office of Advocacy and Outreach .................................................. 1,209 1,171 4,209 

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

Departmental Administration ......................................................... 24,124 22,501 24,124 
8 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2017 enacted Fiscal year 2018 

budget request 

Committee recommendation 

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

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

Total .................................................................................. 44,555 42,064 48,355 

2050 Global Food Production.—The Committee understands that, 

in order to meet the world’s forecasted population of over 9 billion 

in 2050, global food production must be 60 percent higher than in 

2014. While several Federal agencies and departments are involved 

in addressing food and nutrition security and challenges of today 

and the future, the Committee is concerned that the integrated approach required to achieve the necessary levels of domestic and 

global food production and food and nutrition security does not currently exist. Therefore, the Committee encourages the Secretary to 

take a leadership role in working with other relevant departments 

and agencies in establishing a Federal interagency task force to 

meet the food and nutrition challenges of 2050, and to align domestic and global programs related to food production and food and nutrition security to meet these challenges. 

Century Farms.—The Committee encourages the Secretary to 

create a program to recognize farms that have been in operation 

for 100 years and encourages the establishment of a National Century Farms Designation. 

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. 

Drought Relief.—The Committee directs USDA to provide quarterly reports to the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations detailing USDA’s efforts to provide drought relief to States 

where all or the majority of counties are declared to be in a 

drought disaster, as well as any unmet needs or backlogs for USDA 

drought relief programs. The Committee encourages USDA to consider providing drought relief by opening CP ineligible acres to 

emergency grazing and haying, at the discretion of the Secretary, 

after the conclusion of the primary nesting season for D2 and higher intensity drought areas. The Committee further encourages 

USDA to allocate additional staff and other appropriate resources 

to drought stricken areas to provide support to local staff to address the backlog and expedite relief for producers. 

Imported Beef.—The Committee is encouraged by the Secretary 

of Agriculture’s recent decision to protect American consumers and 

ranchers by halting imports of all raw intact beef products from 

Brazil. The Committee, however, remains concerned about the 

long-term safety of imported meat products from Brazil following 

the recent bribery scandal and the reports on the unacceptable 

level of physical examination failures of raw intact beef. Therefore, 

the Committee directs the Secretary to report to the Committee 

within 60 days of enactment on the status of the Department’s ac-
9 

tions regarding meat imports from Brazil from the period March 

18, 2017 to the present. Specifically, the Secretary shall identify 1) 

the results of any onsite trips taken by USDA personnel to Brazil 

since March 18, 2017 2) when the next comprehensive audit of the 

Brazilian meat inspection system will be conducted 3) the results 

of the intensified re-inspection regime at our ports-of-entry on Brazilian meat products still accepted, including failure rates broken 

down by meat product 4) a detailed explanation of benchmarks that 

Brazil will be required to meet to resume exporting raw intact beef 

to the United States. 

Livestock Crossing.—The Committee is concerned with the ongoing problem of the crossing of livestock from Mexico into the U.S. 

without proper inspection, which creates risk of disease and loss of 

forage for U.S. ranchers in the Southwest border region. The Committee directs the agency, in consultation with other Federal and 

State agencies, to develop a plan of action to better prevent and reduce unauthorized international crossing of livestock on the Southwest border. 

Multi-Agency Transparency.—The Committee expresses support 

for increasing transparency within all agencies of the Department 

of Agriculture. The agencies are encouraged to disclose costs associated with analyses required by the National Environmental Policy 

Act. 

National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility [NBAF].—Upon its completion, NBAF will serve as the Nation’s primary research facility 

to counter foreign animal diseases and will enable the phase out 

of the Plum Island Animal Disease Center [PIADC]. As such, it is 

critical to develop a robust plan that ensures a qualified workforce, 

assesses the transition of existing research and development [R&D] 

efforts, and considers any new capabilities that may be necessary 

for future operations at NBAF. While the Department of Homeland 

Security [DHS] is responsible for the PIADC facilities, the R&D, 

diagnostics, and educational activities continue to be managed by 

USDA. Similarly, while there is consensus that DHS should retain 

responsibility for completing construction of NBAF, the Committee 

understands, based on current mission requirements, virtually all 

of the R&D activities will be under USDA auspices. Therefore, the 

Committee encourages DHS and USDA to work together on a plan 

for the future operation of NBAF, including consideration of the appropriate agency to manage the facility. 

Outreach to Socially Disadvantaged and Veteran Farmers and 

Ranchers.—The Committee supports the efforts of the Office of Advocacy and Outreach to increase the accessibility of USDA programs to underserved constituents, and notes that $10,000,000 in 

mandatory funds is available to assist socially disadvantaged and 

veteran farmers and ranchers in owning and operating farms and 

ranches to meet the growing need for financial, production, management, and other assistance to those communities and address 

workforce shortages. Additionally, the Committee recommendation 

includes an increase of $3,000,000 in discretionary funding for 

these activities. 

Resource Conservation and Development Councils.—Since 1964, 

the Resource Conservation and Development [RC&D] Councils 

have worked at the grassroots level with local leaders to plan, de-
10 

velop, and carry out programs for land and water conservation and 

management. The Committee encourages the Secretary to consider 

the maximum practical use of RC&D Councils, where such RC&D 

Councils meet agency performance requirements, in the delivery of 

USDA programs and services. 

State Rural Development Councils.—The Committee recognizes 

the successful work of State Rural Development Councils [SRDCs) 

and their role in advancing rural America and promoting strength 

and prosperity across the country, and urges the Secretary to provide resources to help improve and expand the impact of SRDCs. 

Wheat Grading.—The Committee is concerned about unfair 

wheat grading practices that negatively affects American wheat 

growers that export to Canada. Current Canadian wheat grading 

law automatically downgrades America wheat to the lowest quality 

designation regardless of the type or quality of the wheat. In the 

United States, however, our grading system provides a fair examination for wheat imported from Canada. This discrepancy needs to 

be addressed to ensure our wheat growers are being treated fairly. 

Therefore, the Committee urges the Secretary of Agriculture to 

work with the Department of Commerce and the United States 

Trade Representative to prioritize initiating conversations with the 

Canadian Government to address trade inequities resulting from 

Canada’s current wheat grading practices. 

Zoonotic Disease Collaboration.—The Committee believes that 

complex problems affecting the health of humans, animals, and the 

environment are best solved through important communication, cooperation, and collaboration across disciplines, sectors, between 

agencies, and between other appropriate domestic and international actors. The Committee requests a report detailing existing 

collaborative efforts between FDA, USDA, and other agencies to 

prevent and respond to zoonotic disease outbreaks in animals and 

humans; a proposed framework to improve these efforts; and specific activities requested to achieve the proposed framework. 

EXECUTIVE OPERATIONS

Executive operations were established as a result of the reorganization of the Department to provide a support team for USDA 

policy officials and selected department-wide services. Activities 

under the executive operations include the Office of the Chief Economist, the National Appeals Division, and the Office of Budget and 

Program Analysis. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ECONOMIST

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $18,917,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 17,211,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 16,917,000 

The Office of the Chief Economist advises the Secretary of Agriculture on the economic implications of Department policies and 

programs. The Office serves as the single focal point for the Nation’s economic intelligence and analysis, risk assessment, and costbenefit analysis related to domestic and international food and agriculture issues, provides policy direction for renewable energy development, conducts analyses of climate change impacts on agri-
11 

culture and forestry, and is responsible for coordination and review 

of all commodity and aggregate agricultural and food-related data 

used to develop outlook and situation material within the Department. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $16,917,000 for 

the Office of the Chief Economist. 

Policy Research.—The Committee recommendation includes 

$4,000,000 for policy research under 7 U.S.C. 3155 for entities with 

existing institutional capacity to conduct complex economic and policy analysis and a lengthy and well-documented record of conducting policy analysis for the benefit of the Department of Agriculture, the Congressional Budget Office, or the Congress. To maximize resources, the Committee expects the Department to focus efforts on entities that have developed models, databases, and staff 

necessary to conduct in-depth analysis of impacts of agriculture or 

rural development policy proposals on rural communities, farmers, 

agribusiness, taxpayers, and consumers. 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $13,399,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 14,716,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 13,399,000 

The Office of Hearings and Appeals conducts administrative 

hearings and reviews of adverse program decisions made by the 

Rural Development mission area, the Farm Service Agency, the 

Risk Management Agency, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $13,399,000 for 

the Office of Hearings and Appeals. 

OFFICE OF BUDGET AND PROGRAM ANALYSIS

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $9,525,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 9,093,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 9,525,000 

The Office of Budget and Program Analysis provides direction 

and administration of the Department’s budgetary functions including development, presentation, and execution of the budget; reviews program and legislative proposals for program, budget, and 

related implications; analyzes program and resource issues and alternatives, and prepares summaries of pertinent data to aid the 

Secretary and departmental policy officials and agency program 

managers in the decisionmaking process; and provides departmentwide coordination for and participation in the presentation of budget-related matters to the committees of the Congress, the media, 

and interested public. The Office also provides department-wide coordination of the preparation and processing of regulations and legislative programs and reports. 
12 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $9,525,000 for 

the Office of Budget and Program Analysis. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $49,538,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 58,950,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 58,950,000 

The Office of the Chief Information Officer was established in 

August 1996 (40 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), pursuant to the ClingerCohen Act of 1996, which required the establishment of a Chief Information Officer for major Federal agencies. This Office provides 

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

investment activities in support of USDA program delivery, and is 

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

technology investments are economical and effective, coordinates 

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

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

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

City, Missouri and Washington, DC. Direct ADP operational services are also provided to the Office of the Secretary, the Office of 

the General Counsel, the Office of Communications, the Office of 

the Chief Financial Officer, and Departmental Management. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $58,950,000 for 

the Office of the Chief Information Officer. 

Software Licenses.—The Committee encourages the Department’s 

Chief Information Officer to perform periodic automated inventories of software licenses in use across the Department. The Department should compare those usage numbers to its purchased licenses and seek to increase efficiency wherever it identifies discrepancies. The Department is to consider using this information to obtain department-wide acquisitions as opposed to component-specific 

purchases of licenses. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $8,028,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 5,836,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 8,028,000 

The Office of the Chief Financial Officer is responsible for the 

dual roles of Chief Financial Management Policy Officer and Chief 

Financial Management Advisor to the Secretary and mission area 

heads. The Office provides leadership for all financial management, 

accounting, travel, Federal assistance, and strategic planning per-
13 

formance measurement activities within the Department. The Office is also responsible for the management and operation of the 

National Finance Center and the Departmental Working Capital 

Fund. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $8,028,000 for 

the Office of the Chief Financial Officer. 

National Finance Center.—The Committee supports the replacement and acquisition of capital equipment, including equipment for 

the resumption, improvement and implementation of financial 

management systems, information technology, and other systems of 

the National Finance Center as a result of the recent tornado and 

related weather damage to Center operations and equipment. 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $901,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 896,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 901,000 

The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights provides 

oversight of civil rights and related functions. This includes coordination of the administration of civil rights laws and regulations for 

employees of the Department of Agriculture and participants in 

programs of the Department, and ensuring compliance with civil 

rights laws. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $901,000 for the 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights. 

OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $24,206,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 23,304,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 24,206,000 

The Office of Civil Rights provides overall leadership responsibility for all department-wide civil rights activities. These activities 

include employment opportunity as well as program nondiscrimination policy development, analysis, coordination, and compliance. 

The Office is responsible for providing leadership in facilitating the 

fair and equitable treatment of USDA employees, and for monitoring program activities to ensure that all USDA programs are delivered in a nondiscriminatory manner. The Office’s outreach functions provide leadership, coordination, facilitation, and expertise to 

internal and external partners to ensure equal and timely access 

to USDA programs for all constituents, with emphasis on the underserved, through information sharing, technical assistance, and 

training. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $24,206,000 for 

the Office of Civil Rights. 
14 

AGRICULTURE BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $84,189,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 62,145,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 67,293,000 

Department headquarters presently operates in a two-building, 

Government-owned complex in downtown Washington, DC, the 

George Washington Carver Center in Beltsville, Maryland, and in 

leased buildings in the metropolitan Washington, DC, area. Under 

an arrangement with the General Services Administration, USDA 

operates, maintains, and repairs these facilities, in lieu of rental 

payments. For the last several years the Department has implemented a strategic space plan to locate staff more efficiently, renovate its buildings, and eliminate safety hazards, particularly in 

the Agriculture South Building. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $67,293,000 for 

Agriculture Buildings and Facilities. 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $3,633,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 3,503,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,633,000 

Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Department has the responsibility to meet the same 

standards regarding the storage and disposition of hazardous materials as private businesses. The Department is required to contain, 

cleanup, monitor, and inspect for hazardous materials in areas 

under the Department’s jurisdiction. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,633,000 for 

Hazardous Materials Management. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $98,208,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 92,689,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 98,208,000 

The Office of Inspector General [OIG] was established October 

12, 1978, by the Inspector General Act of 1978 (Public Law 95– 

452). This act expanded and provided specific authorities for the activities of OIG which had previously been carried out under the 

general authorities of the Secretary of Agriculture. 

The Office is administered by an inspector general who reports 

directly to the Secretary of Agriculture. Functions and responsibilities of this Office include direction and control of audit and investigative activities within the Department, formulation of audit and 

investigative policies and procedures regarding Department programs and operations, and analysis and coordination of programrelated audit and investigation activities performed by other Department agencies. 
15 

The activities of this Office are designed to assure compliance 

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

means for prompt corrective action where deviations have occurred. 

The scope of audit and investigative activities is large and includes 

administrative, program, and criminal matters. These activities are 

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $98,208,000 for 

the Office of Inspector General. The recommendation also includes 

funding for OIG to address violations of section 26 of the Animal 

Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2156) and to coordinate with State and local 

law enforcement personnel in this effort. 

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $44,697,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 42,970,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 44,697,000 

The Office of the General Counsel provides all legal advice, counsel, and services to the Secretary and to all agencies, offices, and 

corporations of the Department. The Office represents the Department in administrative proceedings; nonlitigation debt collection 

proceedings; State water rights adjudications; proceedings before 

the Environmental Protection Agency, Interstate Commerce Commission, Federal Maritime Administration, and International Trade 

Commission; and, in conjunction with the Department of Justice, in 

judicial proceedings and litigation. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $44,697,000 for 

the Office of the General Counsel. 

OFFICE OF ETHICS

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $4,136,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 3,538,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,136,000 

The Office of Ethics is the centralized and consolidated office implementing USDA’s ethics program throughout the Department. 

The Office provides ethics services to all employees at the Department concerning advice, training, and guidance about compliance 

with conflict of interest and impartiality rules. This includes complying with the requirements of the Stop Trading on Congressional 

Knowledge Act, Public Law 112–105 (the STOCK Act), and the Office of Government Ethics regulatory requirements (5 CFR parts 

2634 through 2641). 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,136,000 for 

the Office of Ethics. 
16 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND

ECONOMICS

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $893,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 891,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 893,000 

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

Economics provides direction and coordination in carrying out the 

laws enacted by the Congress for food and agricultural research, 

education, extension, and economic and statistical information. The 

Office has oversight and management responsibilities for the Agricultural Research Service; National Institute of Food and Agriculture; Economic Research Service; and National Agricultural Statistics Service. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $893,000 for the 

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

Industrial Hemp.—The Committee is aware of statements made 

by the Department acknowledging the eligibility of researchers participating in industrial hemp pilot programs as defined by Section 

7606 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 to compete for Federal funds 

awarded by the Department. The Committee directs the Department to work with and inform stakeholders of this eligibility and 

to support industrial hemp research as authorized by Section 7606 

of the Agricultural Act of 2014. 

ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $86,757,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 76,690,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 86,757,000 

The Economic Research Service [ERS] provides economic and 

other social science research and analysis for public and private decisions on agriculture, food, the environment, and rural America. 

The information that ERS produces is for use by the general public 

and to help the executive and legislative branches develop, administer, and evaluate agricultural and rural policies and programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $86,757,000 for 

the Economic Research Service. 

Breastfeeding Study.—The Committee recognizes the important 

role of the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children [WIC] in encouraging breastfeeding. 

Breastfeeding can be an important preventive measure in infant 

and maternal health, and WIC offers multiple services and supports to mothers to help achieve optimal breastfeeding. As Congress looks for ways to reduce Federal healthcare spending, it is 

important to understand the preventive impact of breastfeeding 

and WIC’s initiatives within broader healthcare spending. The 

Committee requests within 12 months an updated study from the 

ERS on the economic benefits of breastfeeding, including its potential cost-savings for Medicaid and the WIC program. 
17 

Feed Costs.—The Committee maintains funding provided in fiscal 

year 2017 for ERS to expand its current feed cost components surveys nationally. 

Low Density Polyethylene.—The use of Low Density Polyethylene 

[LDPE] as an agricultural aid on farms is common practice but as 

a single use material represents a negative impact on the environment. The Committee encourages ERS to conduct research into the 

viability of creating collection networks and potential markets for 

agricultural LDPE. 

Organic Data Analysis.—The organic industry has grown at a 

tremendous rate over the past several years, and accurate data for 

the production, pricing and marketing of organic products is essential. Therefore, the Committee encourages ERS to continue and expand the efforts relating to organic data analysis. 

NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS SERVICE

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $171,239,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 185,677,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 191,717,000 

The National Agricultural Statistics Service [NASS] administers 

the Department’s program of collecting and publishing current national, State, and county agricultural statistics. These statistics 

provide accurate and timely projections of current agricultural production and measures of the economic and environmental welfare 

of the agricultural sector which are essential for making effective 

policy, production, and marketing decisions. NASS also furnishes 

statistical services to other USDA and Federal agencies in support 

of their missions, and provides consulting, technical assistance, and 

training to developing countries. 

NASS is also responsible for administration of the Census of Agriculture, which is taken every 5 years and provides comprehensive 

data on the agricultural economy including: data on the number of 

farms, land use, production expenses, farm product values, value of 

land and buildings, farm size and characteristics of farm operators, 

market value of agricultural production sold, acreage of major 

crops, inventory of livestock and poultry, and farm irrigation practices. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $191,717,000 for 

the National Agricultural Statistics Service. 

Alfalfa Prices.—The Committee is concerned that the National 

Agricultural Statistics Service monthly Agricultural Prices Report 

only lists the average price received by agricultural producers for 

alfalfa sold, with no further breakdown of alfalfa hay that meets 

the higher quality standards required for dairy feed (graded as premium or better, or the equivalent). The Committee directs the National Agricultural Statistics Service to calculate and report in the 

monthly Agricultural Prices Report on the average price of premium or better alfalfa sold in the United States. 

Barley Estimates.—Barley acreage and production estimates provide critical data to maltster, brewer, distiller, food, and feed endusers in domestic and export markets to make procurement deci-
18 

sions and investment plans; and by policy makers in developing 

and implementing agricultural programs. The Committee directs 

NASS to reinstate acreage and production estimates for barley in 

States that were discontinued in 2016. 

Chemical Use Data Series.—The Committee believes that the 

Chemical Use Data Series provides timely, valuable information on 

fertilizer and chemical use data on major field crops and selected 

specialty crops. The Committee encourages the National Agricultural Statistics Service to continue funding the collection and analysis of chemical use data as well as practices such as integrated 

pest management. The Committee supports the National Agricultural Statistics Service’s effort to resume collecting Fruit Chemical 

Use data and Vegetable Chemical Use data in alternating years 

and also directs the continuation of this practice to ensure equal 

access to Federal statistics. 

Organic Data Collection.—The Committee believes the Organic 

Production Survey is essential to the growth of the organic industry, and should be conducted on a regular basis to properly assess 

the characteristics, trends, and changes in the sector. The Committee expects NASS to incorporate funding for an annual organic 

production survey into its internal budgeting process, and report to 

the Committee on the cost estimate for such survey. 

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

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

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 993,144,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,182,435,000 

The Agricultural Research Service [ARS] is responsible for conducting basic, applied, and developmental research through its 

major program areas of New Products/Product Quality/Value 

Added; Livestock/Crop Production; Food Safety; Livestock/Crop Protection; Human Nutrition; and Environmental Stewardship. The 

research applies to a wide range of goals; commodities; natural resources; fields of science; and geographic, climatic, and environmental conditions. 

ARS is also responsible for the Abraham Lincoln National Agricultural Library which provides agricultural information and library services through traditional library functions and modern 

electronic dissemination to agencies of the USDA, public and private organizations, and individuals. 

As the USDA’s in-house agricultural research unit, ARS has 

major responsibilities for conducting and leading the national agricultural research effort. It provides initiative and leadership in five 

areas: research on broad regional and national problems, research 

to support Federal action and regulatory agencies, expertise to 

meet national emergencies, research support for international programs, and scientific resources to the executive branch and Congress. 

The mission of ARS research is to develop and transfer solutions 

to agricultural problems of high national priority and provide information access and dissemination to ensure high-quality, safe food 

and other agricultural products; assess the nutritional needs of 
19 

Americans; sustain a competitive agricultural economy; enhance 

the natural resource base and the environment; and provide economic opportunities for rural citizens, communities, and society as 

a whole. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,182,435,000 

for salaries and expenses of the Agricultural Research Service. The 

Committee does not concur with the President’s budget request regarding the termination of research programs and laboratory closures. The Committee expects extramural research to be funded at 

no less than the fiscal year 2017 levels. 

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 

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

Agricultural Genomics.—The Committee provides no less than 

the fiscal year 2017 level for agricultural genomic research to expand the knowledge of public and private sector entities and persons concerning genomes for species of importance to the food and 

agriculture sectors in order to maximize the return on the investment in genomics of agriculturally important species. 

Agroforestry.—Agroforestry can provide on-farm financial and environmental benefits while also addressing the regional and national-scale issues of clean water, wildlife habitat, and hypoxia. 

Agroforesters manage trees with crops, livestock, and pasture to 

combine the best of both agriculture and forestry. Recognizing the 

importance of agroforestry to farm practices and the environment, 

the Committee recommendation includes no less than the fiscal 

year 2017 level to develop integrated strategies to manage multifunctional agricultural landscapes that combine trees with agricultural and horticultural crops, forages and grazing livestock for optimal economic, environmental, and natural resources benefits. 

Alfalfa Research.—The Committee notes that research into alfalfa seed and alfalfa forage systems holds the potential to increase 

yields, increase milk production, and improve genetics, and the 

Committee recommendation includes an increase of $1,000,000 to 

support research focused on alfalfa improvement. Research should 

focus on using tools to accelerate and enhance existing breeding 

programs focused on improving yield and quality parameters; developing innovative harvesting and utilization systems; developing 

new markets for co-products; and quantifying environmental benefits from alfalfa-based systems. 

Antimicrobial Research and Development.—The Committee 

strongly supports enhanced research efforts to advance the development of alternatives to antibiotics used in animal production. The 

Committee encourages ARS to examine the role of nutritional alternatives/feed additives containing bioactives and prebiotics that may 

lead to reduced antibiotic use and boost immune responses in livestock. The Committee requests that ARS provide an update on this 

effort in its fiscal year 2019 budget request. 
20 

Aquaculture Seedstock.—The Committee is concerned that vital 

seedstock to support the development of aquaculture in Federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico will be sourced from foreign aquaculture 

producers. Domestic on-land recirculating aquaculture systems and 

offshore aquaculture are highly capable of producing seedstock to 

support new industries including broodstock acquisition and care, 

spawning, and larval culture techniques. Therefore, 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. 

Atlantic Salmon Breeding Program.—The Committee directs 

ARS to continue its Atlantic salmon breeding and domestication 

work. The Committee notes that domestic salmon farms are required to only use strains of salmon that are of North American origin and that these strains need substantial breeding improvement 

in order to be competitive with strains currently used by foreign 

producers. The Committee notes that the current ARS Atlantic 

salmon breeding program lacks a geneticist and supports efforts by 

the Department to address this need. 

Citrus Greening Disease Research.—The Committee commends 

ARS on its research efforts on citrus greening disease and encourages the agency to continue working to develop methods to reduce 

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

coordinate its efforts with the HuanglongbiAng Multi-Agency Coordination [HLB–MAC] group. 

Coffee Germplasm.—The Committee directs ARS to issue a report 

and recommendations on the feasibility of including coffee in the 

National Clonal Germplasm Repository within 90 days of enactment of this Act. 

Cotton Ginning.—The Committee recognizes the importance of 

pollution abatement, improving fiber quality, ginning efficiency, 

cotton seed and other byproducts, and provides an additional 

$500,000 to expand research in cotton ginning and innovation by 

existing laboratories. 

Cover Crops Research and Outreach.—The Committee recognizes 

the importance of developing profitable and practicable cover crop 

options for use in dairy, grain, and vegetable production systems, 

including for use in no-till organic systems and as forages. Therefore, the Committee recommendation includes no less than the fiscal year 2017 level for ARS to support research with the purposes 

of improving measures of soil health and resiliency, varietal development, optimizing dairy forage species combinations, timing and 

strategies for cover crop seeding and termination, forage integration into organic dairy systems, and mitigation of environmental 

and extreme rainfall impacts on water quality and soil security for 

diverse cover crop systems. 

Cranberry Research.—The Committee recognizes the need for advancements in water conservation, pest control, disease reduction, 

and fruit quality improvements in cranberry production. The Committee recommendation includes no less than the fiscal year 2017 

level for the improvement of cranberry yields, pest management, 
21 

disease management, and water resource management by developing fields devoted to cranberry research and collection and storage of samples for analysis in appropriate existing laboratory facilities. The Committee acknowledges that the sale or encumbrance of 

real property by a non-Federal entity may be necessary to advance 

the aforementioned purposes and may be considered an originally 

authorized purpose under the current governing regulations at the 

awarding agency’s discretion. 

Emerging Cereal Rust Diseases.—The Committee is aware that 

emerging cereal rust diseases are a threat to domestic and world 

food supplies. Therefore, the Department should continue to dedicate funding to speed efforts to combat cereal rust disease, including development of Ug99-resistant wheat varieties. 

Floriculture and Nursery Research.—The Committee recognizes 

the economic importance of the floriculture and nursery sector of 

agriculture and the industry’s need for continued innovation. The 

Committee encourages ARS to support academic and Federal researchers to pursue efforts in crop protection, breeding, mechanization and other areas through USDA’s Floriculture and Nursery Research Initiative to secure a more efficient and productive floriculture and nursery industry. 

Food Systems.—The Committee directs ARS to work with a landgrant institution to establish a Food Systems Center that will address how local, regional and global food systems can provide nutritious and culturally appropriate food, regardless of individual life 

circumstances. 

Forage Production Systems.—The Committee recommendation includes no less than the fiscal year 2017 level to develop management practices that improve the production efficiency of grazing operations in temperate pastures. 

Forest Products.—The Committee recognizes the important role 

of the forests products sector to the U.S. economy. The need to create new and improved value-added products and renewable energy 

from our Nation’s wood supply is critical to the sustainability of the 

national economy. The Committee recommendation includes no less 

than the fiscal year 2017 level to support research on wood quality 

improvement and improvement in forest products evaluation standards and valuation techniques. ARS shall conduct this research in 

consultation with the Forest Products Laboratory. 

Fruit Fly and Exotic Pest Control.—Within 90 days of enactment 

of this Act, the Committee directs ARS to study and make recommendations on the feasibility of additional support to prevent 

the spread of fruit flies and other exotic pests to the U.S. mainland 

from the tropical Pacific. 

Genetic Oat Research.—The Committee recognizes the potential 

genetic oat research has to improve disease resistance (especially 

rusts and viruses), genetics, increase yields, and develop crop rotation systems that include oat, which will enhance the value of oats 

and provide benefits to producers and consumers. The Committee 

encourages ARS to expand existing research focused on oat improvement. 

Genomes to Fields.—The Committee recommendation includes no 

less than the fiscal year 2017 level to expand the Germplasm Enhancement of Maize [GEM] project to complement the existing 
22 

USDA maize germplasm programs and support the emerging largescale public sector effort to investigate the interaction of maize genome variation and environments, known as the Genomes to Fields 

project. 

High Performance Computing Support.—The Committee provides $1,000,000 to expand high performance computing capability to address scientific needs and directs ARS to collaborate with appropriate partners with the technical capacity and scientific synergy to 

provide cost-effective high performance computing support. 

Human Nutrition Research.—The Committee remains concerned 

about the high rates of obesity in this country, and believes that 

research into human nutrition is important to help prevent childhood obesity and the medical issues obesity brings. The Committee 

recommendation includes no less than the fiscal year 2017 level to 

expand research regarding the growth, health promotion, diet, immune function, and disease prevention of the developing child. 

National Agricultural Library.—The Committee strongly encourages the Agricultural Research Service to maintain its focus on agriculture-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, agricultural-related legal issues are increasingly complex 

and the impact of these legal issues continues to broaden in scope. 

Therefore, the Committee recommendation includes an increase of 

$2,000,000 above the fiscal year 2017 enacted level for the National 

Agricultural Library to expand the Agricultural Law Information 

Partnership. 

National Apple Rootstock Breeding Program.—The Committee 

recognizes the importance of the National Apple Rootstock Breeding Program, which provides virus-free rootstock to apple growers 

throughout the Nation. Therefore, the Committee recommendation 

includes no less than the fiscal year 2017 level to support the ARS 

National Apple Rootstock Breeding Program. 

National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility Workforce Development.— 

The Committee notes that significant resources have been invested 

in the new National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility [NBAF] and is 

concerned about the potential shortage of qualified scientists, including DVM-PhDs, when the facility opens in 2022. The Committee recommendation includes no less than the fiscal year 2017 

level for ARS to develop the necessary mechanisms to ensure a viable and qualified scientific workforce is available, and to implement 

a program to recruit and train scientists, and other technical positions, focused on pathology, virology, immunology, entomology, epidemiology, microbiology, and computational biology for productive 

USDA careers at NBAF. 

Nutrient Density Profile.—The ARS is directed to update the nutrient profile and nutrient density characterization of pure maple 

syrup. 

Nutrition Research and Aging.—Food and nutrition play a central role in U.S. health, environment, and economic development. 

In fact, diet-related disease has become America’s largest single 

cause of premature death and disability. More research is needed 

to address the needs of all Americans, with a particular focus on 
23 

the elderly, the fastest growing segment of the population. Therefore, the Agricultural Research Service is encouraged to prioritize 

human nutrition research to explore the relationship between nutrition, physical activity, and healthy and active aging. 

Office of Pest Management Policy.—The Committee recognizes 

the critical role that the Office of Pest Management Policy [OPMP] 

plays in fulfilling USDA’s statutory role in the interagency consultative process under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act. The importance of OPMP’s mission has increased 

commensurately with the increased actions undertaken by EPA, 

and the Committee provides no less than the fiscal year 2017 level 

for OPMP to fulfill its obligations on behalf of USDA. 

Pear Genetics and Genomics.—The Committee recognizes that research into pear genetics and genomics is needed to identify genetic 

sources of pest resistance and to contribute to improved, size-controlling rootstocks to enhance orchard efficiency, and to otherwise 

improve cultivated pear research. The Committee recommendation 

includes an increase of $500,000 to support research into pear genetics and genomics. 

Poultry Research.—The Committee recognizes the important role 

of the poultry sector to the U.S. economy. The Committee provides 

no less than the fiscal year 2017 funding level to expand the research capacity for poultry production and health. 

Rangeland Research.—The Committee recognizes the demonstrated potential for cooperative partnerships to address complex 

sagebrush steppe ecosystem challenges in the Great Basin region. 

The Committee recommendation includes $1,000,000 for ARS to 

support a regional, multi-institutional cooperative partnership to 

advance collaborative science-based conservation research, extension, and education to address time-sensitive and shared rangeland 

challenges affecting sustainable agricultural productivity, rural 

communities, and wildlife habitats. 

Research Assistance.—The Committee encourages the Agricultural Research Service to provide direct, place-based assistance to 

1862 Institutions in States that do not have Agricultural Research 

Service facilities to address the research priorities of such States, 

such as invasive plant species and insects that cause significant 

impacts to agriculture, aquaculture, and communities in such 

States and to assist in the development of specialty and horticultural crops to increase food security and expand marketing opportunities for small farmers. 

Research Facilities.—The Committee directs ARS to work cooperatively with land-grant universities to better utilize available 

state-of-the-art laboratory space to effectively address important 

agricultural research issues, including obstacles to increasing food 

production. These challenges include diseases which affect the 

blueberry, potato, apple, and marine finfish aquaculture production. The Committee again directs ARS to study ways in which the 

Federal labs could be better utilized, in cooperation with land-grant 

universities, to explore new scientific opportunities that benefit the 

Nation’s food and agriculture system, and to submit a report with 

recommendations to the Committee by January 30, 2018. The report should include information on the current utilization of ARS 
24 

facilities by universities and other cooperators, as well as the extent in which ARS is housed in cooperator facilities. 

Roseau Cane.—The Committee is concerned with the invasive 

species scale insect pest that is destroying Roseau cane in the Mississippi River’s Delta region along the Gulf of Mexico. An estimated 

225,000 acres of wetlands in the Delta have been affected with the 

die-off, and Roseau cane is important in maintaining a healthy 

marsh and preventing erosion. The Committee directs ARS to work 

with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [APHIS] and 

stakeholders to develop an integrated management program for 

control of the Roseau cane scale insect pest infestation. 

Sage Steppe Restoration Science.—The Committee includes no 

less than the fiscal year 2017 level for ARS to advance sagebrush 

habitat restoration science in the Northern Great Basin including 

cooperative research, testing and deploying precision restoration 

methods to restore habitat impacted by significant disturbance 

such as wildfire and invasive species. 

Sclerotinia.—The Committee is aware of the economic importance of controlling sclerotinia, which affects sunflowers, soybeans, 

canola, edible beans, peas, and lentils and encourages ARS to continue both core research and cooperative projects of the National 

Sclerotinia Initiative. 

Shellfish Research.—The Committee encourages the Agricultural 

Research Service to increase its investment in partnerships with 

research institutions on research to improve shellfish survival and 

growth rates and to classify and preserve natural genetic variation. 

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

detected by the Hagberg-Perten Falling Numbers [FN] Test. The 

Committee recommendation includes an increase of $1,000,000 to 

research the accuracy of the FN test, and better understand environmental, storage, and genetic conditions leading to this quality 

loss. 

Small Grains Genomic Initiative.—The Committee supports research on barley and wheat high throughput genomics and 

phenotyping and recognizes its importance in improving crop traits 

and developing new cultivars. The Committee recommendation includes no less than the fiscal year 2017 level to support the Small 

Grains Genomic Initiative. 

Sorghum Genetic Database.—The Committee recognizes the importance of phenotyping and genotyping that allows breeders to understand which genes are responsible for improvements in pest resistance, drought tolerance, and yield. The Committee recommends 

an increase of no less than the fiscal year 2017 level to further facilitate the partnership between ARS and the Department of Energy on sorghum genome mapping—particularly the creation of an 

easily-accessed database to house the information generated from 

the ongoing genetic sequencing research which will facilitate further crop development efforts, especially in combating the sugarcane aphid, a new and devastating invasive pest. 

Sustainable Water Use Research.—The alluvial plain within the 

Lower Mississippi River Basin is one of most productive agricultural regions in the United States. The Committee remains concerned with the unsustainable use of water in the Alluvial Aquifer 
25 

as a result of increasing water withdrawals and stagnant recharging. The Committee provides an increase of $1,000,000 for research to improve the recharge capabilities of the Alluvial Aquifer 

and to develop new conservation and irrigation techniques to reduce water usage in agriculture production. 

Tropical and Subtropical Research.—Research on Tropical and 

Subtropical crops is critical as the presence of and destruction by 

invasive pests such as fruit flies, coffee berry borer, felted macadamia nut coccid, and plant viruses and funguses increase and 

threaten crop security in the Pacific and Insular Areas, and the 

Committee encourages ARS to support this research. 

UAS Precision Agriculture Applications.—The Committee provides an additional $3,000,000 to expand efforts utilizing unmanned aerial systems [UAS] in crop production operations and to 

address the challenges associated with data capture, transfer and 

analysis. 

U.S. Wheat and Barley Scab Initiative [USWBSI].—The Committee recognizes that fusarium head blight is a major threat to agriculture, inflicting substantial yield and quality losses throughout 

the U.S. The Committee supports research carried out through the 

USWBSI. The Committee recommendation includes no less than 

the fiscal year 2017 level to conduct further research on reducing 

the impact of fusarium head blight on wheat and barley. 

Warmwater Aquaculture.—The Committee provides and additional $1,200,000 to facilitate the advancement of technologies that 

improve the efficiency, profitability and sustainability of 

warmwater aquaculture production. 

Wheat and Sorghum Research.—The Committee recognizes the 

potential impact heat and drought can have on the yield and quality of wheat and sorghum and the need for new cultivars to adapt 

to changing climatic conditions. In addition, sorghum crops have 

been particularly hit hard by the invasive sugarcane aphid and 

new resistant cultivars are needed. The Committee provides no less 

than the fiscal year 2017 level for research to improve the productivity and quality of wheat and sorghum during uncertain growing 

seasons resulting from extended droughts and increased temperatures. Within this increase, funding is included to initiate gene flow 

research to advance the durability and sustainability of fitness 

traits in sorghum. 

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $99,600,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee does not recommend an appropriation for Agricultural Research Service, Buildings and Facilities. 
26 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE

Section 7511(f)(2) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 

2008 amends the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 

1994 (7 U.S.C. 6971) by establishing an agency to be known as the 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture [NIFA]. The Secretary 

transferred to the Director of NIFA, effective October 1, 2009, all 

authorities administered by the Administrator of the Cooperative 

State, Research, Education and Extension Service. The mission is 

to work with university partners and customers to advance research, extension, and higher education in the food and agricultural sciences and related environmental and human sciences to 

benefit people, communities, and the Nation. 

RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $849,518,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 769,613,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 854,871,000 

Research and Education programs administered by NIFA are 

USDA’s principal entre ́e to the university system of the United 

States for the purpose of conducting agricultural research and education programs as authorized by the Hatch Act of 1887, as amended (7 U.S.C. 361a–361i); the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry 

Act of 1962, as amended (16 U.S.C. 582a et seq.); the Competitive, 

Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 

450i); the National Agricultural, Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as amended (7 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.); the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 301 

note); the Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Reform 

Act of 1998 (Public Law 105–185), as amended; the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–624); 

the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Public Law 

107–171); and the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 

(Public Law 110–246). Through these authorities, USDA participates with State and other cooperators to encourage and assist the 

State institutions in the conduct of agricultural research and education through the State Agricultural Experiment Stations of the 

50 States and the territories; by approved Schools of Forestry; the 

1890 Land-Grant Institutions and Tuskegee University and West 

Virginia State University; 1994 Land-Grant Institutions; by Colleges of Veterinary Medicine; and other eligible institutions. The 

appropriated funds provide Federal support for research and education programs at these institutions. 

The research and education programs participate in a nationwide 

system of agricultural research program planning and coordination 

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

the agricultural industry of America. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $854,871,000 for 

research and education activities of the National Institute of Food 

and Agriculture. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations for research and education activities: 
27 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE—RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Program/Activity Authorization Committee recommendation 

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

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

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

Payments to the 1994 Institutions ..................................................... 534(a)(1) of Public Law 103–382 .. 3,439 

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

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

Education Grants for Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving 

Institutions.

7 U.S.C. 3156 .................................. 3,194 

Research Grants for 1994 Institutions ............................................... 536 of Public Law 103–382 ........... 3,801 

Capacity Building for Non Land-Grant Colleges of Agriculture ......... 7 U.S.C. 3319i ................................. 5,000 

Resident Instruction and Distance Education Grants for Insular 

Areas.

7 U.S.C. 3362 and 3363 ................. 2,000 

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

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

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

Continuing Animal Health and Disease Research Program ............... 7 U.S.C. 3195 .................................. 4,000 

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

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

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

Aquaculture Centers ............................................................................ 7 U.S.C. 3322 .................................. 5,000 

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

5832.

30,000 

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

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

Improved Pest Control: 

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

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

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

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

Potato Research ......................................................................... .......................................................... 2,250 

Aquaculture Research ................................................................ .......................................................... 1,350 

Total, Special Research Grants ........................................ .......................................................... 5,005 

Necessary Expenses of Research and Education Activities: 

Grants Management System ...................................................... .......................................................... 7,830 

Federal Administration—Other Necessary Expenses for Research and Education Activities........................................................... 11,862 

Total, Necessary Expenses ................................................ .......................................................... 19,692 

Total, Research and Education Activities ......................... .......................................................... 854,871 

Agriculture and Food Research Initiative.—The Committee recommendation includes $375,000,000 for the Agriculture and Food 

Research Initiative [AFRI]. 

Section 7406 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 

specifies priority areas with the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative [AFRI], including an emphasis on conventional (classical) 

plant and animal breeding. The Committee notes the importance of 

this requirement to provide farmers nationwide with greater access 

to cultivars that are locally and regionally adapted to their soils, 

climates and farming systems. Because of the agency’s lack of 

progress in prioritizing this effort, the Committee urges the agency 

to make regionally adapted, publicly held cultivar development a 

distinct funding priority within AFRI for fiscal year 2018, and directs the agency to report its progress in meeting this goal. 
28 

Agricultural Research Enhancement Awards.—The Committee 

remains determined to see that quality research and enhanced 

human resources development in the agricultural and related 

sciences be a nationwide commitment. Therefore, the Committee 

continues its direction that not less than 15 percent of the competitive research grant funds be used for USDA’s agricultural research 

enhancement awards program, including USDA–EPSCoR. 

Agriculture Technology.—The Committee encourages USDA to 

support research and development of agricultural robotics, particularly to increase yields in vertically stacked farming production. 

Agroecosystems Research.—Section 7406 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 specifies priority areas for the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative [AFRI], including an emphasis on the fundamental structures and functions of ecosystems, the 

biological and physical bases of sustainable production systems, 

minimizing soil and water losses, and biological diversity. The intended goal of this section is ecologically-based management of production systems that generates ecosystem services with benefits to 

farmers, rural and urban communities, and the environment. 

Therefore, the Committee strongly urges making agroecosystems 

research, including explicit integration of social, economic and environmental dimensions, with direct routes to implementation, as an 

increased priority for funding within the AFRI program. 

Alfalfa and Forage Research.—The Committee notes that research into alfalfa seed and alfalfa forage systems holds the potential to increase yields, increase milk production, and improve genetics. The Committee recommendation includes $2,250,000 to support 

research into the improvement of yields, water conservation, creation of new uses, and the development of new storage and harvest 

systems. 

Aquaculture Disease Research.—The Committee encourages 

USDA to support aquaculture disease and vaccine research, including research on coldwater aquaculture vaccines. There is currently 

no national facility for pathogen testing. Research into finfish vaccines and pathogens has the potential to accelerate the growth of 

sustainable U.S. aquaculture, reduce the trade deficit attributable 

to imported seafood, and reduce the pressure on overfished species. 

Aquaculture Research.—The Committee recognizes the importance of the domestic aquaculture industry to the U.S. economy. 

The Committee recommendation includes $1,350,000 for aquaculture research to address issues related to genetics, disease, systems, and economics. 

Aquaponics Workforce Development.—As aquaculture, aquaponics 

and related industries continue to grow as significant economic 

drivers and food producers, the need for training to develop an informed and competent workforce becomes critical. The Committee 

encourages USDA to consider developing a program to create national standards for these disciplines across the Nation, and to provide workforce training for jobs in the aquaculture and aquaculture 

related industries. 

Brucellosis Research.—Federal and State animal health officials 

have made eradicating livestock disease with significant reservoirs 

a national animal health priority. This need was reflected in the 

Agricultural Act of 2014, which made the research and develop-
29 

ment of surveillance methods, vaccines, vaccination delivery systems or diagnostics tests a priority research area under the Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act particularly for 

bovine brucellosis and bovine tuberculosis. The Committee recognizes the need for this research and encourages the agency to make 

competitive grants available to study improved management tools 

for zoonotic livestock diseases with significant wildlife reservoirs. 

Cereal Crop Research.—Research on cereal crops has historically 

been conducted by USDA and public universities, and the Committee recognizes the importance of continuing investment in cereal crop research. The Committee strongly encourages USDA to 

provide funding for cereal crop research in the areas of genetic and 

genomic research, plant pest research, and improved production 

systems. 

Childhood Obesity.—The Committee encourages USDA to support innovative efforts to address the unique challenges faced in 

addressing obesity among children and youth in urban, minority 

low-income populations through a combination of family education 

and clinical studies. 

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. 

Community College Centers of Excellence in Agribusiness Workforce Training.—The Committee encourages NIFA to designate 

Community College Centers of Excellence in Agribusiness Workforce Training, to include a limited number of 2-year community 

and technical colleges with a demonstrated capability to provide 

training and education for Agribusiness. The Centers of Excellence 

will seek to develop model programs in Agribusiness and promote 

economic development. 

Countering Seafood Fraud.—The Committee remains concerned 

about countering economic fraud and improving food safety of the 

U.S. food supply. The Committee is concerned that adequate technology is not yet available to provide for appropriate sampling of 

the food supply. The Committee believes NIFA should conduct research to develop technologies that will provide rapid, portable and 

facile screening of fish species at port sites, wholesale, and retail 

centers. 

Diversification in Agriculture.—The Committee recognizes the 

rapid evolution of U.S. agriculture, including the diversification of 

practices, markets, and technologies as farms transition to one generation from another, and encourages NIFA to prioritize investments that deliver hands-on technical education in diversified agriculture and food systems. 
30 

Food Safety.—The Committee recommends that NIFA prioritize 

research on funding for new food safety technologies relating to the 

Nation’s meat supply that helps researchers, producers, and manufacturers. 

Food Safety and Defense Technology.—The Committee is concerned that insufficient progress is being made in the development 

of detection technology in the food safety sector. The ability to rapidly, accurately, and cost effectively detect pathogens or contaminants throughout the food supply chain is critical to protecting the 

United States from food-borne illnesses and malicious acts. As 

such, the Committee encourages NIFA to increase research of novel 

biodetection technologies and the implementation of mobile biodetection platforms in real-world conditions. 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 either high volume food production or mobile food defense monitoring. 

Lowbush Blueberries.—The Committee directs NIFA to work 

with research institutions to develop and refine predictive models 

and monitoring technologies for native and invasive pests for incorporation into integrated pest management programs for naturally 

seeded, native berry crops to increase the margin of food safety and 

product quality. 

Oak Mites.—The Committee directs NIFA to study the recent infestation of oak mites and focus on suppression and eradication 

possibilities. 

Organic Research.—USDA’s National Organic Standards Board 

[NOSB] has identified key organic research priorities, many of 

which would help to address challenges that have limited the 

growth in organic production in this country. The Committee encourages NIFA to give strong consideration to the NOSB organic 

research priorities when crafting the fiscal year 2018 RFAs for 

AFRI and the Organic Transition Program. 

Protein Functionality.—The Committee encourages USDA to support research projects that characterize protein from crop plants 

such as chickpeas, sorghum, lentils, fava beans, lupin, rice, oats, 

mushrooms, and water lentils to assess their suitability for use in 

food products. The Committee is particularly interested in research 

projects involving plants that can be easily cultivated in the U.S. 

and that are sustainably grown and produced (in terms of factors 

such as water usage or fertilizer and pesticide requirements). 

Regional Research Priorities.—The Committee encourages NIFA 

to consider providing funding within AFRI to assist with State and 

regional research priorities, with USDA oversight and review. 

Seafood.—The Committee encourages USDA, in partnership with 

universities with established domestic shrimp farming programs, to 

support the development of a domestic industry that will help ensure the safety and quality of the Nation’s seafood supply, promote 

environmentally sustainable aquaculture, create new opportunities 

for U.S. agriculture, and forge new markets for U.S. grain and oilseed products and technology services. 

Soil Remediation Research.—Lead contamination of soil is an urgent problem in both rural and urban areas of the country. The 

Committee notes that phytotechnology, using plants to remove con-
31 

taminants from soil, has been used to remediate soils contaminated 

with heavy metals such as zinc, cadmium, selenium, nickel and 

lead, but that technical barriers to more widespread adoption of 

this technology exist. Therefore, the Committee encourages USDA 

to support innovative efforts to improve phytoremediation technologies. 

Specialty Crop Research Initiative.—The Committee emphasizes 

the important role of the Specialty Crop Research Initiative in addressing the critical needs of the specialty crop industry through 

research and extension activities, and encourages NIFA to 

prioritize proposals for and enhance its overall commitment to 

identifying and addressing threats to pollinators from pests and 

diseases. 

Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education.—The Committee is strongly supportive of the SARE program and directs 

USDA to ensure that research, education and extension activities 

carried out within SARE remain intact. 

Unmanned Aerial Systems in Agriculture.—The Committee encourages USDA to support regional institutes focused on the development of Unmanned Aerial Systems [UAS] and fostering new innovations in agriculture and cybersecurity. UAS is a tool to obtain 

data in a wide variety of application areas including energy, agriculture, power infrastructure, and transportation, all critical to 

rural States. The Committee encourages NIFA to support the research, development, and expansion of the use of UAS and high 

performance computing. 

Veterinary Corps.—Veterinarians fulfilling the terms of a contract under USDA’s Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program, authorized by the National Veterinary Medical Services Act, 

shall be members of the National Veterinary Medical Services 

Corps and members who have fulfilled the terms of their contract 

shall be alumni of the Corps. 

Zoonotic Disease Research.—Federal and State animal health officials have made eradicating livestock diseases with significant 

wildlife reservoirs a national animal health priority. This need is 

reflected in the Agricultural Act of 2014 which made the research 

and development of surveillance methods, vaccines, vaccination delivery systems or diagnostic tests a priority research area under 

the Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act particularly for bovine brucellosis and bovine tuberculosis. The Committee recognizes the need for this research and encourages the 

agency to make competitive grants available to study improved 

management tools for zoonotic livestock diseases with significant 

wildlife reservoirs. 

NATIVE AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS ENDOWMENT FUND

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $11,880,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 11,880,000 

The Native American Institutions Endowment Fund authorized 

by Public Law 103–382, the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act, provides an endowment for the 1994 land-grant institutions (34 tribally controlled colleges). This program will enhance 

educational opportunity for Native Americans by building edu-
32 

cational capacity at these institutions in the areas of student recruitment and retention, curricula development, faculty preparation, instruction delivery systems, and scientific instrumentation 

for teaching. Income funds are also available for facility renovation, 

repair, construction, and maintenance. On the termination of each 

fiscal year, the Secretary shall withdraw the income from the endowment fund for the fiscal year, and after making adjustments for 

the cost of administering the endowment fund, distribute the adjusted income as follows: 60 percent of the adjusted income from 

these funds shall be distributed among the 1994 land-grant institutions on a pro rata basis, the proportionate share being based on 

the Indian student count; and 40 percent of the adjusted income 

shall be distributed in equal shares to the 1994 land-grant institutions. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $11,880,000 for 

the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund. 

EXTENSION ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $477,391,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 462,890,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 481,376,000 

Cooperative extension work was established by the Smith-Lever 

Act of May 8, 1914, as amended. The Department of Agriculture is 

authorized to provide, through the land-grant colleges, cooperative 

extension work that consists of the development of practical applications of research knowledge and the giving of instruction and 

practical demonstrations of existing or improved practices or technologies in agriculture and related subjects, and to encourage the 

application of such information by demonstrations, publications, 

through 4–H clubs, and other means to persons not in attendance 

or resident at the colleges. 

To fulfill the requirements of the Smith-Lever Act, State and 

county extension offices in each State, the District of Columbia, 

Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the 

Northern Marianas, and Micronesia conduct educational programs 

to improve American agriculture and strengthen the Nation’s families and communities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $481,376,000 for 

extension activities of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations for extension activities: 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE—EXTENSION ACTIVITIES 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Program/Activity Authorization Committee 

recommendation 

Smith-Lever Act, Section 3(b) and (c) and Cooperative Extension ... 7 U.S.C. 343(b) and (c) and 208(c) 

of Public Law 93–471.

300,000 
33 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE—EXTENSION ACTIVITIES—Continued 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Program/Activity Authorization Committee recommendation 

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

Extension Services at 1994 Institutions ............................................. 7 U.S.C. 343(b)(3) ........................... 6,446 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Smith-LeverAct, Section 3(d): 

Food and Nutrition Education .................................................... 7 U.S.C. 343(d) ............................... 67,934 

Farm Safety and Youth Farm Safety Education Programs ....... 7 U.S.C. 343(d) ............................... 4,610 

New Technologies for Agricultural Extension ............................. 7 U.S.C. 343(d) ............................... 1,550 

Children, Youth, and Families at Risk ...................................... 7 U.S.C. 343(d) ............................... 8,395 

Federally Recognized Tribes Extension Program ........................ 7 U.S.C. 343(d) ............................... 3,039 

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

Necessary Expenses of Research and Education Activities: 

Agriculture in the K–12 Classroom ........................................... .......................................................... 552 

Federal Administration—Other Necessary Expenses for Research and Education Activities........................................................... 7,790 

Total, Necessary Expenses ................................................ .......................................................... 8,342 

Total, Extension Activities ................................................. .......................................................... 481,376 

INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $36,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 20,276,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 37,000,000 

Section 406, as amended, of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 authorizes an integrated 

research, education, and extension competitive grants program. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $37,000,000 for 

integrated activities of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations for integrated activities: 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE—INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Program/Activity Authorization Committee 

recommendation 

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

Organic Transition Program ................................................................ 7 U.S.C. 7626 .................................. 5,000 

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

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

Crop Protection/Pest Management ...................................................... 7 U.S.C. 343(d) ............................... 20,000 

Total, Integrated Activities .................................................... .......................................................... 37,000 

Food and Agriculture Defense Initiative.—The Committee supports the important work being done through the publicly funded 

diagnostic laboratory network and encourages NIFA to prioritize 
34 

funding to strengthen animal health diagnostic laboratories taking 

into consideration the degree to which the capacity for surveillance, 

monitoring, response, and capacity is enhanced; the concentration 

of human and animal populations that are directly at risk; trade, 

tourism, and cultural considerations; geography, ecology, and climate; evidence of active collaboration with, and support of, the 

State animal health officials; those States with highest risk for the 

introduction of foreign and emerging pests and diseases; and evidence of stakeholder support and engagement. 

Potato Research.—To minimize the application of pesticides and 

to maximize the yield and quality of harvested potatoes, the Committee directs the Secretary to support pest management programs 

in potato growing States. Such programs help scientists track potential pest outbreaks and provide growers and industry professionals with current information on specific and timely treatments. 

Additionally, the programs help identify serious diseases, such as 

late blight disease, in their early stages, allowing for preventive 

measures to be put into place quickly to avoid crop losses. 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR MARKETING AND

REGULATORY PROGRAMS

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $901,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 891,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 901,000 

The Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory 

Programs provides direction and coordination in carrying out laws 

with respect to the Department’s marketing, grading, and standardization activities related to grain; competitive marketing practices of livestock, marketing orders, and various programs; veterinary services; and plant protection and quarantine. The Office has 

oversight and management responsibilities for the Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service; Agricultural Marketing Service; 

and Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $901,000 for the 

Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs. 

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $946,212,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 810,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 953,212,000 

The Secretary of Agriculture established the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service [APHIS] on April 2, 1972, under the authority of reorganization plan No. 2 of 1953, and other authorities. 

The major objectives of APHIS are to protect the animal and plant 

resources of the Nation from diseases and pests. These objectives 

are carried out under the major areas of activity, as follows: 

Safeguarding and Emergency Preparedness/Response.—The 

agency monitors plant and animal health worldwide, and sets im-
35 

port polices to prevent the introduction of foreign plant and animal 

pests and diseases. Domestically, the agency works cooperatively to 

conduct plant and animal health monitoring programs, pursue 

eradication, or limit the spread of the threat. The agency also conducts diagnostic laboratory activities that support disease prevention, detection, control, and eradication programs. In addition, the 

agency protects agriculture from detrimental animal predators, and 

through its regulatory structure helps advance genetic research 

while protecting against the release of harmful organisms. 

Safe Trade and International Technical Assistance.—The agency 

helps resolve technical trade issues to ensure the smooth and safe 

movement of agricultural commodities into and out of the United 

States. The agency negotiates animal and plant health certification 

requirements and assists U.S. exporters meet foreign regulatory 

demands. In addition, the agency assists developing countries in 

improving their safeguarding systems, to protect the United States 

from emerging plant and animal pests and diseases. 

Animal Care.—The agency conducts regulatory activities that ensure the humane care and treatment of animals and horses as the 

Animal Welfare and Horse Protection Acts require. These activities 

include inspection of certain establishments that handle animals 

intended for research, exhibition, and as pets, and monitoring certain horse shows. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $953,212,000 for 

salaries and expenses of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service. 

The following table reflects the Committee’s specific recommendations for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service: 

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2017 enacted Fiscal year 2018 

budget request 

Committee recommendation 

Safeguarding and International Technical Assistance: 

Animal Health Technical Services .............................................. 37,857 35,272 37,857 

Aquatic Animal Health ................................................................ 2,253 2,249 2,253 

Avian Health ............................................................................... 55,340 55,235 55,340 

Cattle Health ............................................................................... 91,500 91,326 91,500 

Equine, Cervid and Small Ruminant Health .............................. 20,000 19,463 20,000 

National Veterinary Stockpile ...................................................... 5,723 3,965 5,723 

Swine Health ............................................................................... 24,800 24,753 24,800 

Veterinary Biologics .................................................................... 16,417 16,386 16,417 

Veterinary Diagnostics ................................................................ 39,540 36,471 39,540 

Zoonotic Disease Management ................................................... 16,523 9,505 16,523 

Subtotal, Animal Health ......................................................... 309,953 294,625 309,953 

Agricultural Quarantine Inspection (Appropriated) .................... 29,330 27,847 29,330 

Cotton Pests ................................................................................ 11,520 7,000 11,520 

Field Crop & Rangeland Ecosystems Pests ............................... 8,826 8,809 8,826 

Pest Detection ............................................................................. 27,446 27,394 27,446 

Plant Protection Methods Development ...................................... 20,686 20,647 20,686 

Specialty Crop Pests ................................................................... 166,500 148,033 166,500 

Tree & Wood Pests ...................................................................... 54,000 30,000 56,000 
36 

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2017 enacted Fiscal year 2018 

budget request 

Committee recommendation 

Subtotal, Plant Health ............................................................ 318,308 269,730 320,308 

Wildlife Damage Management .................................................... 103,376 56,331 108,376 

Wildlife Services Methods Development ..................................... 18,856 18,820 18,856 

Subtotal, Wildlife Services ..................................................... 122,232 75,151 127,232 

Animal & Plant Health Regulatory Enforcement ........................ 16,224 16,193 16,224 

Biotechnology Regulatory Services ............................................. 18,875 18,839 18,875 

Subtotal, Regulatory Services ................................................ 35,099 35,032 35,099 

Contingency Fund ....................................................................... 470 469 470 

Emergency Preparedness & Response ........................................ 40,966 16,934 40,966 

Subtotal, Emergency Management ......................................... 41,436 17,403 41,436 

Subtotal, Safeguarding and Emergency Preparedness/Response ................................................................................ 827,028 691,941 827,028 

Safe Trade and International Technical Assistance: 

Agriculture Import/Export ............................................................ 15,599 15,070 15,599 

Overseas Technical & Trade Operations .................................... 22,114 22,072 22,114 

Subtotal, Safe Trade .............................................................. 37,713 37,142 37,713 

Animal Welfare: 

Animal Welfare ............................................................................ 28,810 28,356 28,810 

Horse Protection .......................................................................... 697 696 697 

Subtotal, Animal Welfare ....................................................... 29,507 29,052 29,507 

Agency Management: 

APHIS Information Technology Infrastructure ............................. 4,251 4,243 4,251 

Physical/Operational Security ..................................................... 5,146 5,136 5,146 

Rent and DHS security payments ............................................... 42,567 42,486 42,567 

Subtotal, Agency Management ............................................... 51,964 51,865 51,964 

Total, Direct Appropriation ..................................................... 946,212 810,000 953,212 

Agricultural Quarantine Inspection.—The Committee recognizes 

that prevention of infestations of pests and diseases is much more 

cost effective than subsequent control or eradication. This is an important Federal responsibility and the Committee provides 

$29,330,000 for the agricultural quarantine inspections [AQI] function, including pre-departure and interline inspections. 

The Committee is concerned that new fee regulations under the 

AQI program may not be equitable to small commercial aircraft. 

The Committee directs the Secretary to review AQI user fees to ensure they are in line with the costs of delivering AQI services, ,and 

to review both the equity of user fees among smaller regional jets 

compared to larger transpacific aircraft, and a pro-rated fee based 

on aircraft size. The Committee directs the Secretary to report on 

these findings to this Committee within 90 days of enactment of 

this Act. 

Animal Disease Traceability.—The Committee is concerned with 

APHIS’ consideration of expanding the Animal Disease Traceability 
37 

[ADT] program related to requiring identification of beef cattle 

younger than 18 months of age or feeder cattle. While the committee supports the agency’s mission to conduct animal disease 

tracing, the mandatory identification and tracing of feeder cattle 

would be costly. Prior to implementation of any new changes to the 

ADT program related to feeder cattle, the committee directs the 

Secretary to submit a report detailing the cost and benefits to all 

pertinent stakeholders, including but not limited to, livestock markets, livestock producers, meatpackers, and livestock dealers, of 

any proposed program changes. The report shall consider costs of 

tagging and reading tags such as labor, facilities, and speed of commerce. 

Bee Pests.—The Committee remains concerned with declining bee 

populations and the tragic implications for pollination of U.S. agriculture. The Committee directs the agency to continue priority 

work with other Federal and State agencies and the public to manage, suppress, and eradicate varroa mites, small hive beetles, and 

other pests and diseases contributing to colony collapse disorder. 

Cattle Fever Ticks.—The Committee appreciates the commitment 

by APHIS, including recent additional funding, to respond to the 

most recent outbreak of cattle fever ticks. The Committee encourages the agency to maintain this focus and provide adequate funding for all activities under the Cattle Fever Tick Eradication Program [CFTEP]; heighten efforts to coordinate the response with the 

Department of Interior on national wildlife refuges; and provide 

sufficient funding for research and scientific tools to be developed 

that concentrate on the following: new systematic cattle fever tick 

treatment products with longer treatment intervals for cattle; new 

cattle fever tick treatment products for wildlife, especially nilgai 

antelope; and new or improved cattle fever tick preventative therapies, such as vaccines, for both cattle and wildlife hosts. 

Ceratocystis Disease.—The Secretary is directed to continue the 

study of Ceratocystis in the United States and implement actions 

and recommendations for response and management in the report 

mandated by this Committee in fiscal year 2017. 

Chronic Wasting Disease.—The Committee provides no less than 

$3,500,000 for cervid health activities. Within the funds provided, 

APHIS should give consideration to indemnity payments if warranted. 

Citrus Health Response Program [CHRP].—CHRP is a national 

effort to maintain a viable citrus industry within the United States, 

maintain producer’s continued access to export markets, and safeguard citrus producing states against a variety of invasive pests 

and diseases. These funds are designed to partner with state departments of agriculture and industry groups to address the challenges of citrus pests and diseases. 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. 

Coconut Rhinoceros Beetle.—The Secretary is directed to continue 

efforts to control and eradicate the coconut rhinoceros beetle in the 

Pacific to prevent the spread of the beetle to the U.S. mainland, 
38 

and may, if appropriate, provide additional surge funding to match 

Department of Defense spending for this purpose. 

Feral Swine Management.—The Committee recognizes the importance of the National Feral Swine Damage Management Program 

in reducing adverse ecological and economic impacts caused by 

feral swine. The Committee provides no less than the fiscal year 

2017 level in support of APHIS efforts to decrease these invasive 

pests’ damage and risk to agriculture, natural resources, and property. 

Huanglongbing Emergency Response.—The Committee maintains 

the increased funding levels for Huanglongbing Emergency Response within the Specialty Crop Pests line item included in fiscal 

year 2017. 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 quarantine, and California has detected the disease in some backyard trees in the Los Angeles basin. 

The spread of this disease has called the domestic citrus industry’s 

future into question, costing thousands of jobs and millions in lost 

revenue and increased production costs per acre. In addition, the 

agency is encouraged to support priorities and strategies identified 

by the Huanglongbing Multi-Agency Coordination [HLB–MAC] 

Group which will benefit the citrus industry. The agency should appropriately allocate resources based on critical need and maximum 

effect to the citrus industry. The Committee maintains the 

$2,000,000 increase from fiscal year 2017 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. 

Helping growers explore new possible solutions, the MAC has been 

an effective resource. 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 $11,000,000,000 in total. 

Huanglongbing Multi-Agency Coordination [HLB–MAC] Group.— 

The Committee recognizes the significant economic impact of this 

disease on the citrus industry, which is especially acute in Florida 

and a growing concern in both Texas and California. The Committee also understands that growers are requesting the right to 

try treatments that have begun to show success in early stages of 

testing. The Committee encourages the HLB–MAC group to explore 

and identify new methods to expedite the delivery of promising 

treatments directly to growers. Finally, the Committee expects any 

funds which are redirected from existing HLB–MAC projects be 

repurposed to other priority HLB–MAC projects that are showing 

promising results to ensure these critical funds remain committed 

to help facilitate the design and implementation of the rapid delivery pathway to growers. 
39 

Invasive Tree Pests.—The Committee recognizes that the forests 

products industry and family forest owners are under increasing 

threat from a growing number of invasive forest pests. It is essential that APHIS carry out a comprehensive program to counter the 

spread of invasive species and work towards complete eradication 

of the Asian long-horned beetle. The Secretary is directed to report 

to the Committee regarding the steps being taken to eradicate the 

Asian long-horned beetle and spotted lanternfly and to minimize 

the spread of other pests such as the polyphagous and Kuroshio 

shot hole borers. 

National Bio and Agro-Defense Human Capital Development.— 

The Committee notes that significant resources have been invested 

in the new National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility [NBAF] and is 

concerned about projected staffing shortages of qualified veterinary 

diagnosticians and scientists for the NBAF, which is slated for full 

operation in 2022. The Committee provides $3,000,000 to APHIS to 

ensure necessary steps are taken to develop a qualified workforce 

that are subject matter experts in foreign, emerging and zoonotic 

diseases capable of developing, validating and conducting needed 

diagnostics, performing epidemiologic studies, and completing 

bioinformatics analyses. 

Pacific Ants Prevention Plan.—The Secretary is encouraged to 

lead the revision of the Pacific Ants Prevention Plan, in collaboration with U.S. and international partners. The plan should include: 

research; the development of technologies and methodologies for 

prevention, eradication, and control of invasive ants; and the collaborative implementation of projects to prevent, monitor, and control invasive ants in affected Pacific Islands. 

Peer-Reviewed Accreditation.—The Committee notes APHIS’s collaboration with accrediting organizations in the establishment and 

operation of the Zoo and Aquarium Hazards Preparedness, Response and Recovery Fusion Center. The Center’s role in facilitating and enhancing collaboration between the emergency management community and the greater managed wildlife community 

will assist in emergency preparedness and response for a wide 

range of circumstances including natural disasters and animal disease outbreaks. This effort is commended and is expected and encouraged to continue. 

Regional Biosecurity Plan for Micronesia and Hawaii.—The Secretary is directed to submit a report to this Committee on USDA 

activities to implement the Regional Biosecurity Plan for Micronesia and Hawaii [RBP]. The report shall include an update on 

agencies’ activities to date to implement the RBP, and agencies’ 

planned activities for further implementation. 

Roseau Cane.—The Committee is concerned with the invasive 

species scale insect pest that is destroying Roseau cane in the Mississippi River’s Delta region along the Gulf of Mexico. An estimated 

225,000 acres of wetlands in the Delta have been affected with the 

die-off, and Roseau cane is important in maintaining a healthy 

marsh and preventing erosion. The Committee directs APHIS to 

work with the Agricultural Research Service [ARS] and stakeholders to develop an integrated management program for control 

of the Roseau cane scale insect pest infestation. 
40 

Sudden Oak Death.—APHIS protects natural resources and 

nursery stock production and trade by limiting the spread of 

Phytopthora ramorum, which causes sudden oak death, from quarantine areas and affected nurseries through implementation of best 

management practices and regulatory activities. Affected interstate-shipping nurseries include those in the quarantine area and 

those outside the quarantine area that have tested positive in the 

last 3 years. These nurseries must meet annual certification survey 

and sampling requirements to prevent the movement of potentially 

infested material. For these efforts, the Committee provides APHIS 

no less than the fiscal year 2017 level of funding. 

West Nile Virus.—The Committee remains concerned with the 

threats to human and animal health posed by West Nile virus and 

recognizes that a critical strategy for addressing these threats is 

necessary to prevent the infection and transmission by known vectors, including farm-raised alligators. The Committee encourages 

APHIS to further investigate West Nile virus and other infectious 

diseases affecting farm raised alligators and develop treatments 

and methods to prevent infection and transmission. 

Wildlife Damage Management.—APHIS is responsible for providing Federal leadership in managing problems caused by wildlife. 

The Committee provides $108,376,000 for wildlife damage control 

to maintain priority initiatives, including preventing the transport 

of invasive snakes and other harmful species. 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. 

The Committee maintains support for assistance to aquaculture 

producers to help mitigate wildlife depredation, particularly as it 

pertains to fish-eating and disease-carrying birds. The Committee 

provides no less than the fiscal year 2017 level for damage management efforts and the development of methods to assist producers in 

combatting the persistent threat and economic hardship caused by 

cormorants, pelicans, and other birds. 

The Committee recognizes the importance of the National Feral 

Swine Damage Management Program in reducing adverse ecological and economic impacts caused by feral swine. The Committee 

provides an additional $5,000,000 in support of APHIS efforts to 

decrease these invasive pests’ damage and risk to agriculture, natural resources, and property. 

The Committee provides $28,000,000 for the National Rabies 

Management Program to fortify existing barriers and advance prevention and eradication efforts. 

Given the shared and complementary goals of Wildlife Damage 

Management and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services to 

sustainably integrate wildlife into natural habitats while protecting 

livestock, the Secretary is directed to coordinate with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Services on innovative strategies to provide predator 

management and reduce predator-livestock conflict. The Secretary 

is further directed to report to this Committee on how the two 

agencies can work together to improve wildlife management. 

Wildlife Services Education and Training.—The Committee is 

aware of the wide range of hazardous procedures and materials utilized by APHIS personnel in the conduct of daily duties. In addi-
41 

tion, a recent comprehensive study noted the critical need to provide standardized safety training, certification, and database management for tracking, to ensure the safest working environment 

possible. As such, the Committee provides $2,000,000 within Wildlife Damage Management to maintain a National Training Academy focused on those areas of greatest concern such as pyrotechnics, firearms, hazardous materials, immobilization and euthanasia 

drugs, pesticides, animal care and handling, land vehicles, 

watercraft, and zoonotic diseases. 

Wildlife Services Methods Development.—The Committee appreciates the important work done by the National Wildlife Research 

Center and its affiliated field locations to resolve problems caused 

by the interaction of wild animals and society. The Committee provides $18,875,000 to ensure continued development of technical 

and scientific information on wildlife damage management. 

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $3,175,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 2,852,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,175,000 

The APHIS appropriation for ‘‘Buildings and Facilities’’ funds 

major nonrecurring construction projects in support of specific program activities and recurring construction, alterations, preventive 

maintenance, and repairs of existing APHIS facilities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommendation includes an appropriation of 

$3,175,000 for buildings and facilities of the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. This funding is necessary to allow 

APHIS to maintain existing facilities, and perform critically needed 

repairs to and replacements of building components, such as heating, ventilation and air-conditioning on a prioritized basis at 

APHIS facilities. The Committee notes that due to the environmentally sensitive nature of many APHIS facilities, closure of a facility could result if APHIS is unable to complete the required repairs. 

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE

MARKETING SERVICES

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $84,933,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 77,462,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 88,933,000 

The Agricultural Marketing Service [AMS] was established by 

the Secretary of Agriculture on April 2, 1972. AMS carries out programs authorized by more than 50 different statutory authorities, 

the primary ones being the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 

U.S.C. 1621–1627, 1635–1638); the U.S. Cotton Standards Act (7 

U.S.C. 51–65); the Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act (7 U.S.C. 

471–476); the Tobacco Inspection Act (7 U.S.C. 511–511q); the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (7 U.S.C. 499a–499t); the 

Egg Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 1031–1056); and section 32 

of the Act of 1935 (Public Law 74–320, 7 U.S.C. 612c). 
42 

Programs administered by this agency include the market news 

services, standardization, grading, classing, shell egg surveillance 

services, transportation services, wholesale farmers and alternative 

market development, grant payments to States for marketing activities, the Federal administration of marketing agreements and 

orders, commodity purchases, Perishable Agricultural Commodities 

Act, the Plant Variety Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 2321 et seq.), and 

market protection and promotion activities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $88,933,000 for 

Marketing Services of the Agricultural Marketing Service. 

National Organic Program.—The Committee provides 

$12,094,000 for the National Organic Program [NOP], an increase 

of $3,000,000. A healthy market for organic products requires a 

clear market distinction backed by a trusted, verified and enforced 

claim. The Committee recognizes that the NOP, which enforces the 

organic regulations and ensures they evolve to keep pace with consumer expectations is essential. The Committee strongly encourages USDA to focus resources for NOP on robust oversight of domestic and international operations that carry the USDA organic 

seal in light of recent news reports that have shed light on inadequate enforcement of the standards. 

Public Meeting Transcripts.—The Committee is concerned by the 

Department’s proposal to replace meeting transcripts for the National Organic Standards Board public meeting with meeting summaries. The Committee directs the Secretary to continue to produce 

National Organic Standards Board public meeting transcripts. 

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Limitation, 2017 ..................................................................................... $61,227,000 

Budget limitation, 2018 ......................................................................... 60,982,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 60,982,000 

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Public Law 97– 

35) initiated a system of user fees for the cost of grading and 

classing cotton, and tobacco. These activities, authorized under the 

U.S. Cotton Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 51 et seq.), the Tobacco Inspection Act (7 U.S.C. 511 et seq.), and other provisions of law are 

designed to facilitate commerce and protect participants in the industry. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends a limitation of $60,982,000 on administrative expenses of the Agricultural Marketing Service. 

FUNDS FOR STRENGTHENING MARKETS, INCOME, AND SUPPLY

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $20,705,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 20,489,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 20,489,000 

Under section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935, (7 U.S.C. 612c), 

an amount equal to 30 percent of customs receipts collected during 

each preceding calendar year and unused balances are available for 

encouraging the domestic consumption and exportation of agricul-
43 

tural commodities. An amount equal to 30 percent of receipts collected on fishery products is transferred to the Department of Commerce. Additional transfers to the child nutrition programs of the 

Food and Nutrition Service have been provided in recent appropriations Acts. 

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

2017–2018: 

ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD— 

FISCAL YEARS 2017–2018 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2017 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2018 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendation 

Appropriation (30% of Customs Receipts) ................................... 10,929,841 10,370,877 10,370,877 

Less Transfers: 

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

Commerce Department ......................................................... ¥145,175 ¥154,867 ¥154,867 

Total, Transfers ................................................................ ¥9,649,173 ¥9,026,877 ¥9,026,877 

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

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

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

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

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

Unavailable for Obligations (Fruit and Veg transfer to FNS) ....... ¥125,000 ¥125,000 ¥125,000 

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

Less Obligations: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Estimated Future Needs ....................................................... 103,355 91,413 91,413 

Total, Commodity Procurement ........................................ 829,855 821,913 821,913 

Administrative Funds: 

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

Marketing Agreements and Orders ....................................... 20,705 20,489 20,489 

Total, Administrative Funds ............................................. 56,145 56,342 56,342 

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

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

Unavailable for Obligations (Fruit and Veg transfer to FNS) ....... 125,000 125,000 125,000 

Balances, Collections and Recoveries Not Available .................... ............................ ............................ ............................

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends a transfer from section 32 funds of 

$20,489,000 for the formulation and administration of marketing 

agreements and orders. 

Section 32 Authorities.—Under the authority described in clause 

3 of 7 U.S.C. 612c, the Secretary is able to direct funds from the 
44 

section 32 account to increase the purchasing power of producers. 

This practice has been used on various occasions to provide direct 

assistance to producers when market forces or natural conditions 

adversely affect the financial condition of farmers and ranchers. 

The Committee notes the importance of the ability of the Secretary 

to utilize this authority, but believes that communication between 

the Department and the Congress should be improved when this 

practice is used. Therefore, the Committee directs the Secretary to 

provide notification to the Appropriations Committee in advance of 

any public announcement or release of section 32 funds under the 

specific authorities cited above. 

PAYMENTS TO STATES AND POSSESSIONS

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $1,235,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 1,109,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,235,000 

The Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program [FSMIP] is 

authorized by section 204(b) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 

1946 and is also funded from appropriations. Matching grants are 

awarded on a competitive basis to State marketing agencies to 

identify and test market alternative farm commodities, determine 

methods of providing more reliable market information, and develop better commodity grading standards. This program has made 

possible many types of projects, such as electronic marketing and 

agricultural product diversification. Current projects are focused on 

the improvement of marketing efficiency and effectiveness, and 

seeking new outlets for existing farm produced commodities. The 

legislation grants the U.S. Department of Agriculture authority to 

establish cooperative agreements with State departments of agriculture or similar State agencies to improve the efficiency of the 

agricultural marketing chain. The States perform the work or contract it to others, and must contribute at least one-half of the cost 

of the projects. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,235,000 for 

Payments to States and Possessions for Federal-State marketing 

projects and activities. 

GRAIN INSPECTION, PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ADMINISTRATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $43,482,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 42,975,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 43,482,000 

The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration 

[GIPSA] was established pursuant to the Secretary’s 1994 reorganization. Grain inspection and weighing programs are carried out 

under the U.S. Grain Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 71 et seq.) and other 

programs under the authority of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 

1946, including the inspection and grading of rice and grain-related 

products; conducting official weighing and grain inspection activities; and grading dry beans and peas, and processed grain products. Under the Packers and Stockyards Act (7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.), 
45 

assurance of the financial integrity of the livestock, meat, and poultry markets is provided. The Administration monitors competition 

in order to protect producers, consumers, and industry from deceptive and fraudulent practices which affect meat and poultry prices. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $43,482,000 for 

salaries and expenses of the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration. 

LIMITATION ON INSPECTION AND WEIGHING SERVICES EXPENSES

Limitation, 2017 ..................................................................................... $55,000,000 

Budget limitation, 2018 ......................................................................... 60,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 57,500,000 

The agency provides an official grain inspection and weighing 

system under the U.S. Grain Standards Act [USGSA], and official 

inspection of rice and grain-related products under the Agricultural 

Marketing Act [AMA] of 1946. The USGSA was amended in 1981 

to require the collection of user fees to fund the costs associated 

with the operation, supervision, and administration of Federal 

grain inspection and weighing activities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends a limitation of $57,500,000 on inspection and weighing services expenses. 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD SAFETY

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $819,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 814,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 819,000 

The Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety provides direction and coordination in carrying out the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to the Department’s inspection of meat, poultry, 

and processed egg products. The Office has oversight and management responsibilities for the Food Safety and Inspection Service. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $819,000 for the 

Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety. 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE

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

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

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,038,069,000 

The major objectives of the Food Safety and Inspection Service 

are to assure that meat and poultry products are wholesome, unadulterated, and properly labeled and packaged, as required by the 

Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and the Poultry 

Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.); and to provide continuous in-plant inspection to egg processing plants under the Egg 

Products Inspection Act. 
46 

The Food Safety and Inspection Service was established on June 

17, 1981, by Secretary’s Memorandum No. 1000–1, issued pursuant 

to Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953. 

The inspection program of the Food Safety and Inspection Service provides in-plant inspection of all domestic plants preparing 

meat, poultry or egg products for sale or distribution; reviews foreign inspection systems and establishments that prepare meat or 

poultry products for export to the United States; and provides technical and financial assistance to States which maintain meat and 

poultry inspection programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,038,069,000 

for the Food Safety and Inspection Service [FSIS]. The Committee 

provides an increase of $5,500,000, for FSIS to fully implement 

Siluriformes fish and fish product inspection. 

Breed Claim Standards.—FSIS is directed to conduct a study to 

(1) evaluate the current processes for the labeling of 100 percent 

pure breed claim standards for livestock products within the relevant agencies of the Department; and (2) identify instances of conflicting 100 percent pure breed claim standards for livestock. This 

report shall be completed within 90 days after enactment. 

Game Birds.—The Committee directs the FSIS to provide a report on the impact of defining games birds, such as quail, as 

amendable in Federal code in regard to inspection. 

Humane Slaughter.—The Committee directs FSIS to continue to 

provide annual reports to the Committee on the implementation of 

objective scoring methods undertaken by FSIS to enforce the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. 

The Committee also directs FSIS to ensure that personnel hired 

with funding previously provided specifically for Humane Methods 

of Slaughter Act enforcement 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 training. 

Inspections.—The Committee directs FSIS to complete equivalence determinations for all countries wishing to continue exporting 

Siluriformes to the United States not later than March 1, 2018, 

and directs FSIS to complete equivalence determinations on a 

country-by-country basis based on volume of catfish exports to the 

Unites States. 

The following table represents the Committee’s specific recommendations for the Food Safety and Inspection Service as compared to the fiscal year 2017 and budget request levels: 
47 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE SALARIES AND EXPENSES 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2017 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2018 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendation 

Food safety inspection: 

Federal .............................................................................................. 915,755 921,762 921,762 

State .................................................................................................. 61,568 61,568 61,568 

International ...................................................................................... 16,487 16,487 16,487 

Codex Alimentarius ........................................................................... 3,672 3,672 3,672 

PHDCIS .............................................................................................. 34,580 34,580 34,580 

Total .............................................................................................. 1,032,062 1,038,069 1,038,069 
(48) 

TITLE II 

FARM PRODUCTION AND CONSERVATION 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FARM PRODUCTION AND

CONSERVATION

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $901,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 896,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 901,000 

The Office of the Under Secretary for Farm Production and Conservation provides direction and coordination in carrying out the 

laws enacted by the Congress with respect to the Department’s 

commodity programs, farm loans, disaster assistance, crop insurance, natural resources conservation and environment programs, 

and some energy programs. The Office has oversight and management responsibilities for the Farm Service Agency (including the 

Commodity Credit Corporation), Risk Management Agency, and the 

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $901,000 for the 

Office of the Under Secretary for Farm Production and Conservation. 

Deputy Under Secretary for Conservation.—The Committee recognizes that NRCS, FSA, and RMA each play an important role in 

helping farmers, ranchers, and foresters manage risk and build the 

resilience of their operations. Additionally, better coordination and 

data sharing between the three agencies can limit inefficiencies, 

improve conservation outcomes, and enhance USDA’s ability to 

serve its customers. The Committee therefore encourages the Secretary to establish a Deputy Under Secretary for Conservation 

under the Farm Production and Conservation Mission Area to facilitate such coordination and ensure that each of the three agencies is supporting the conservation objectives of the producers that 

they serve. 

Emergency Response.—The Committee directs USDA to produce 

a report outlining the average and longest length of time it takes 

USDA to provide reimbursement under the following emergency assistance programs: crop insurance; Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program [NAP]; Livestock Indemnity Program [LIP]; Livestock Forage Disaster Program [LFP]; Emergency Assistance for 

Livestock, Honey Bees, and Farm-Raised Fish Program [ELAP]; 

Tree Assistance Program [TAP]; Emergency Conservation Program; 

and Emergency Forest Restoration Program [EFRP]. USDA is also 

directed to include in the report any barriers to implementing a 

more efficient reimbursement process and recommendations to the 

Committee on potential improvements. 
49 

FARM SERVICE AGENCY

The Farm Service Agency [FSA] was established October 13, 

1994, pursuant to the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, Public Law 103– 

354. The FSA administers a variety of activities, such as the commodity price support and production adjustment programs financed 

by the Commodity Credit Corporation; the Conservation Reserve 

Program [CRP]; the Emergency Conservation Program; the Commodity Operation Programs including the warehouse examination 

function; farm ownership, farm operating, emergency disaster, and 

other loan programs; and the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance 

Program [NAP], which provides crop loss protection for growers of 

many crops for which crop insurance is not available. In addition, 

FSA currently provides certain administrative support services to 

the Foreign Agricultural Service [FAS] and to the Risk Management Agency [RMA]. 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

[In thousands of dollars] 

Appropriations Transfers from 

program accounts 

Total, FSA, 

salaries and 

expenses 

Appropriations, 2017 ........................................................................... 1,206,110 309,610 1,515,720 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................ 1,130,163 297,888 1,428,051 

Committee recommendation ................................................................ 1,212,116 309,610 1,521,726 

The account Salaries and Expenses, Farm Service Agency, funds 

the administrative expenses of program administration and other 

functions assigned to FSA. The funds consist of appropriations and 

transfers from the CCC export credit guarantees, Food for Peace 

loans, and Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund program accounts, 

and miscellaneous advances from other sources. All administrative 

funds used by FSA are consolidated into one account. The consolidation provides clarity and better management and control of 

funds, and facilitates accounting, fiscal, and budgetary work by 

eliminating the necessity for making individual allocations and allotments and maintaining and recording obligations and expenditures under numerous separate accounts. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,521,726,000 

for salaries and expenses of the Farm Service Agency, including a 

direct appropriation of $1,212,116,000. The Committee supports the 

mission of FSA and the important services that they provide across 

the country; therefore, the Committee does not accept the full decrease for information technology as proposed in the budget. The 

Committee provides $16,100,000 for CCC audit readiness, an increase of $6,850,000 for reports and analytics for field operations, 

and an increase of $2,918,000 for Bridges to Opportunity. 

Continuous Conservation Reserve Program.—The Secretary is 

strongly encouraged to, within the total acreage made available for 

enrollment in the conservation reserve program and without reducing the periodic availability of general signup, enroll, to the maximum extent practicable, acreage for activities included in the 
50 

State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement practice or other similar administratively established wetland and habitat practices that benefit priority fish and wildlife species identified in State, regional, 

and national conservation initiatives with a priority for initiatives 

that provide large blocks of cover ideal for wildlife nesting. 

Information Technology.—The Committee remains dedicated to 

ensuring FSA has reliable and functioning IT systems because it 

is critical that farmers and ranchers have access to the tools they 

need to succeed. The Committee has invested significant taxpayer 

dollars to modernize outdated systems and continues to provide resources above the budget request. The Committee continues statutory language that allows funds for IT to be obligated only after the 

Secretary meets certain reporting requirements. The Committee 

has reviewed the third-party IT analysis and expects the agency to 

follow the recommendations where applicable. 

National Agriculture Imagery Program.—The Committee recommends that funding shall be allocated to purchase imagery products to meet programmatic requirements. 

STATE MEDIATION GRANTS

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $3,904,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 3,398,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,904,000 

This program is authorized under title V of the Agricultural 

Credit Act of 1987 (7 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.). Originally designed to 

address agricultural credit disputes, the program was expanded by 

the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture 

Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–354) to include other 

agricultural issues such as wetland determinations, conservation 

compliance, rural water loan programs, grazing on National Forest 

System lands, and pesticides. Grants are made to States whose mediation programs have been certified by the FSA. Grants will be 

solely for operation and administration of the State’s agricultural 

mediation program. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,904,000 for 

State Mediation Grants. 

GRASSROOTS SOURCE WATER PROTECTION PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $6,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 6,500,000 

This program is intended to assist in the protection of groundwater through State rural water associations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,500,000 for 

Grassroots Source Water Protection. 
51 

DAIRY INDEMNITY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $500,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 500,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 500,000 

Under the program, the Department makes indemnification payments to dairy farmers and manufacturers of dairy products who, 

through no fault of their own, suffer income losses because they are 

directed to remove their milk from commercial markets due to contamination of their products by registered pesticides. The program 

also authorizes indemnity payments to dairy farmers for losses resulting from the removal of cows or dairy products from the market 

due to nuclear radiation or fallout. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of such sums as 

may be necessary, estimated in fiscal year 2018 to be $500,000, for 

indemnity payments to dairy farmers. 

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

The Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account is 

used to provide direct and guaranteed farm ownership, farm operating, conservation, Indian highly fractioned land, and emergency 

loans to individuals, as well as the following types of loans to associations: irrigation and drainage, grazing, Indian tribe land acquisition, and boll weevil eradication. 

FSA is also authorized to provide financial assistance to borrowers by guaranteeing loans made by private lenders having a 

contract of guarantee from FSA as approved by the Secretary of 

Agriculture and to establish Beginning Farmer and Rancher Individual Development grant accounts. 

The following programs are financed through this fund: 

Boll Weevil Eradication Loans.—Made to assist foundations in financing the operations of the boll weevil eradication programs provided to farmers. 

Credit Sales of Acquired Property.—Property is sold out of inventory and is made available to an eligible buyer by providing FSA 

loans. 

Emergency Loans.—Made to producers to aid recovery from production and physical losses due to drought, flooding, other natural 

disasters, or quarantine. The loans may be used to: restore or replace essential property; pay all or part of production costs associated with the disaster year; pay essential family living expenses; 

reorganize the farming operation; and refinance certain debts. 

Farm Operating Loans.—Provide short-to-intermediate term production or chattel credit to farmers who cannot obtain credit elsewhere, to improve their farm and home operations, and to develop 

or maintain a reasonable standard of living. The term of the loan 

varies from 1 to 7 years. 

Farm Ownership Loans.—Made to borrowers who cannot obtain 

credit elsewhere to restructure their debts, improve or purchase 

farms, refinance nonfarm enterprises which supplement but do not 

supplant farm income, or make additions to farms. Loans are made 

for 40 years or less. 
52 

Indian Tribe Land Acquisition Loans.—Made to any Indian tribe 

recognized by the Secretary of the Interior or tribal corporation established pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act (Public Law 

93–638) which does not have adequate uncommitted funds to acquire lands or interest in lands within the tribe’s reservation or 

Alaskan Indian community, as determined by the Secretary of the 

Interior, for use of the tribe or the corporation or the members 

thereof. 

Indian Highly Fractionated Land Loans.—Made to Indian tribal 

members to purchase highly fractionated lands, as authorized by 

the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends a total loan level of $8,005,610,000 

for programs within the Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account. 

Loan Programs.—The Committee continues to support FSA loan 

programs that ensure farmers and ranchers have access to credit 

to maintain and improve their operations. The Committee is aware 

of the heightened operating loan activity in fiscal year 2017 and 

notes the statutory authority allowing program level increases that 

do not require additional budget authority. The Committee will 

continue to monitor program demand in the coming months and directs FSA to provide timely estimates for future needs. 

The following table reflects the program levels for farm credit 

programs administered by the Farm Service Agency recommended 

by the Committee, as compared to the fiscal year 2017 and the 

budget request levels: 

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT PROGRAMS—LOAN LEVELS 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2017 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2018 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendation 

Farm Ownership: 

Direct ........................................................................................... 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 

Guaranteed .................................................................................. 2,750,000 2,500,000 2,750,000 

Farm Operating: 

Direct ........................................................................................... 1,530,000 1,304,851 1,530,000 

Guaranteed unsubsidized ........................................................... 1,960,000 1,393,423 1,960,000 

Emergency Loans ................................................................................. 22,576 25,610 22,581 

Indian Tribe Land Acquisition ............................................................. 20,000 20,000 20,000 

Conservation Loans: 

Guaranteed .................................................................................. 150,000 150,000 150,000 

Indian Highly Fractionated Land Loans .............................................. 10,000 .......................... 10,000 

Boll Weevil Eradication ........................................................................ 60,000 60,000 60,000 

The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the program 

account. Appropriations to this account are used to cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct loans obligated and 

loan guarantees committed, as well as for administrative expenses. 

The following table reflects the cost of programs under credit reform: 
53 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2017 enacted Fiscal year 2018 

budget request 

Committee recommendation 

Farm Operating: 

Direct ........................................................................................... 65,178 52,716 61,812 

Guaranteed unsubsidized ........................................................... 20,972 15,467 21,756 

Emergency Loans ................................................................................. 1,262 1,260 1,111 

Indian Highly Fractionated Land Loans .............................................. 2,550 .......................... 2,272 

RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $74,829,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 55,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 74,829,000 

The Risk Management Agency performs administrative functions 

relative to the Federal crop insurance program that is authorized 

by the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508), as amended by 

the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 [ARPA], Public Law 

106–224, and the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Public Law 113–79). 

ARPA authorized significant changes in the crop insurance program. This act provides higher government subsidies for producer 

premiums to make coverage more affordable; expands research and 

development for new insurance products and under-served areas 

through contracts with the private sector; and tightens compliance. 

Functional areas of risk management are: research and development; insurance services; and compliance, whose functions include 

policy formulation and procedures and regulations development. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $74,829,000 for 

the Risk Management Agency. 

The Committee recognizes that there are many research priorities that competitive funding may be used to address, including 

the feasibility of insurance programs to cover business interruption 

due to integrator bankruptcy and catastrophic loss in the poultry 

industry. The Committee encourages RMA to support research into 

these priorities. 

NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE

The Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] was established pursuant to Public Law 103–354, the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6962). The NRCS 

works with conservation districts, watershed groups, and Federal 

and State agencies to bring about physical adjustments in land use 

that will conserve soil and water resources, provide for agricultural 

production on a sustained basis, and reduce flood damage and sedimentation. 

CONSERVATION OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $864,474,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 766,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 874,107,000 

Conservation operations are authorized by Public Law 74–46 (16 

U.S.C. 590a–590f). Activities include: 
54 

Conservation Technical Assistance provides assistance to district 

cooperators and other land users in the planning and application 

of conservation treatments to control erosion and improve the 

quantity and quality of soil resources, improve and conserve water, 

enhance fish and wildlife habitat, conserve energy, improve woodland, pasture and range conditions, and reduce upstream flooding; 

all to protect and enhance the natural resource base. 

Resource appraisal and program development ensures that programs administered by the Secretary of Agriculture for the conservation of soil, water, and related resources shall respond to the 

Nation’s long-term needs. 

Plant Materials Centers assemble, test, and encourage increased 

use of plant species which show promise for use in the treatment 

of conservation problem areas. 

Snow Survey and Water Forecasting provides estimates of annual water availability from high mountain snow packs and relates 

to summer stream flow in the Western States and Alaska. Information is used by agriculture, industry, and cities in estimating future 

water supplies. 

Soil Surveys inventory the Nation’s basic soil resources and determine land capabilities and conservation treatment needs. Soil 

survey publications include interpretations useful to cooperators, 

other Federal agencies, State, and local organizations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $874,107,000 for 

Conservation Operations. The Committee recommendation includes 

$768,844,000 for Conservation Technical Assistance, $80,802,000 

for Soil Surveys, $9,380,000 for Snow Survey and Water Forecasting, and $9,481,000 for Plant Materials Centers. 

Acre-for-Acre Wetlands Mitigation.—The Secretary is encouraged 

to use mitigation with the conversion of a natural wetland and 

equivalent wetlands functions at a ratio not to exceed a ratio of 1- 

to-1 acreage. 

Agricultural Conservation Easement Program.—The Committee 

notes that no other Federal program exists to protect the long-term 

viability of the Nation’s food supply by preventing conversion of 

productive working farmlands to non-agricultural uses. The Committee is concerned by the excessive delays in completing Agricultural Conservation Easement Program easements, and directs the 

Department to move additional real estate functions in-house to 

improve the quality and speed of completion of valuations and appraisals for projects. In addition, the Committee is troubled by a 

one-size-fits-all national approach to deed terms for ACEP easements, and encourages the Department address regional needs and 

work with partners to give farmers the ability to anticipate, adapt 

to, and address the changing needs of the farm economy. 

Agricultural Management Assistance.—In carrying out the programs under section 524(b) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act, the 

Secretary is encouraged to establish multi-year pilot projects to 

provide financial and technical assistance to farms regulated under 

FSMA Produce Safety Rule, for capital improvements required to 

comply with the rule and otherwise enhance food safety practices 
55 

at the production level. Payment limits and other provisions of the 

AMA program will apply. 

Regional Conservation Partnership Program.—The Committee is 

concerned that the Natural Resources Conservation Service is not 

operating the Regional Conservation Partnership Program with a 

consistent standard for reimbursing certain technical assistance 

costs. The Committee believes that NRCS should clarify that travel 

to and from participating farms and ranches by a partner to deliver 

technical services is generally eligible for reimbursement as a technical assistance cost under RCPP. Therefore, the Committee encourages the NRCS to use the same technical assistance reimbursement standard for RCPP as they do for other NRCS conservation 

programs, in order to properly facilitate this important program. 

Salton Sea.—The Committee encourages NRCS to closely coordinate with the Army Corps of Engineers and the State of California 

on efforts to restore the Salton Sea in order to expedite project 

planning and implementation. NRCS is directed to brief the Committee not later than 90 days after enactment of this Act on its current and planned efforts to help restore the Salton Sea. 

Technical Assistance.—The Committee directs NRCS to maintain 

a record of total technical assistance dollars for the past 3 years 

and annually in the future, and provide the data to the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry. This report should differentiate 

mandatory and discretionary allocations. 

WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $150,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 150,000,000 

The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public Law 

566, 83d Cong.) (16 U.S.C. 1000–1005, 1007–1009) provides for cooperation between the Federal Government and the States and 

their political subdivisions in a program to prevent erosion, floodwater, and sediment damages in the watersheds or rivers and 

streams and to further the conservation, development, utilization, 

and disposal of water, and to further the conservation and proper 

utilization of land in authorized watersheds. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $150,000,000 for 

the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Program. 

The Committee recognizes the critical challenges facing rural 

water resource management and protection and supports needed 

investments in watershed operations. These Federal-State-local 

partnerships are uniquely positioned to identify critical watershed 

protection and flood prevention needs in rural communities and implement projects that deliver multiple streams of benefits for 

homes, businesses, and transportation infrastructure and natural 

resources. In selecting projects for funding, the Committee expects 

the Agency to balance the needs of addressing the project backlog, 

remediation of existing structures, and new projects. 
56 

WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $12,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

The watershed rehabilitation program account provides for technical and financial assistance to carry out rehabilitation of structural measures, in accordance with section 14 of the Watershed 

Protection and Flood Prevention Act, approved August 4, 1954 (16 

U.S.C. 1012, U.S.C. 1001, et seq.), as amended by section 313 of 

Public Law 106–472, November 9, 2000, and by section 2803 of 

Public Law 110–246. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee does not recommend an appropriation for the 

Watershed Rehabilitation Program. 

CORPORATIONS 

FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION FUND

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $8,667,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 8,245,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 8,245,000,000 

The Federal Crop Insurance Act, as amended by the Federal 

Crop Insurance Reform Act of 1994, authorizes the payment of expenses which may include indemnity payments, loss adjustment, 

delivery expenses, program-related research and development, 

startup costs for implementing this legislation such as studies, pilot 

projects, data processing improvements, public outreach, and related tasks and functions. 

All program costs, except for Federal salaries and expenses, are 

mandatory expenditures subject to appropriation. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of such sums as 

may be necessary, estimated to be $8,245,000,000 in fiscal year 

2018 for the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund. 

COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION FUND

The Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC] is a wholly owned 

Government corporation created in 1933 to stabilize, support, and 

protect farm income and prices; to help maintain balanced and adequate supplies of agricultural commodities, including products, 

foods, feeds, and fibers; and to help in the orderly distribution of 

these commodities. CCC was originally incorporated under a Delaware charter and was reincorporated June 30, 1948, as a Federal 

corporation within the Department of Agriculture by the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act, approved June 29, 1948 (15 

U.S.C. 714). 

The Commodity Credit Corporation engages in buying, selling, 

lending, and other activities with respect to agricultural commodities, their products, food, feed, and fibers. Its purposes include stabilizing, supporting, and protecting farm income and prices; main-
57 

taining the balance and adequate supplies of selected commodities; 

and facilitating the orderly distribution of such commodities. In addition, the Corporation makes available materials and facilities required in connection with the storage and distribution of such commodities. The Corporation also disburses funds for sharing of costs 

with producers for the establishment of approved conservation 

practices on environmentally sensitive land and subsequent rental 

payments for such land for the duration of Conservation Reserve 

Program contracts. 

Corporation activities are primarily governed by the following 

statutes: the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (Public 

Law 80–806), as amended; the Agricultural Act of 1949 (Public Law 

81–439), as amended (1949 Act); the Agricultural Adjustment Act 

of 1938 (Public Law 75–430), as amended (the 1938 Act); the Food 

Security Act of 1985 (Public Law 99–198), as amended (1985 Act); 

the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110– 

246); and the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Public Law 113–79). 

Management of the Corporation is vested in a board of directors, 

subject to the general supervision and direction of the Secretary of 

Agriculture, who is an ex officio director and chairman of the 

board. The board consists of seven members, in addition to the Secretary, who are appointed by the President of the United States 

with the advice and consent of the Senate. Officers of the Corporation are designated according to their positions in the Department 

of Agriculture. 

The activities of the Corporation are carried out mainly by the 

personnel and through the facilities of the Farm Service Agency 

[FSA] and the Farm Service Agency State and county committees. 

The Foreign Agricultural Service, the General Sales Manager, 

other agencies and offices of the Department, and commercial 

agents are also used to carry out certain aspects of the Corporation’s activities. 

Under Public Law 87–155 (15 U.S.C. 713a–11, 713a–12), annual 

appropriations are authorized for each fiscal year, commencing 

with fiscal year 1961. These appropriations are to reimburse the 

Corporation for net realized losses. 

REIMBURSEMENT FOR NET REALIZED LOSSES

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $21,290,712,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 17,483,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 17,483,000,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of such sums as 

may be necessary, estimated in fiscal year 2018 to be 

$17,483,000,000, for the payment to reimburse the Commodity 

Credit Corporation for net realized losses. 

CRP Wetland Restoration and Wildlife Enhancement.—The Committee notes that agricultural commodity crops, if left unharvested, 

may help reduce degradation of wetlands and improve sediment 

trapping, surface and ground water supply, erosion control, and 

wildlife habitat while providing winter food for waterfowl and other 

wildlife. The Committee directs the Commodity Credit Corporation, 

within 60 days of enactment, to amend its program policies and 
58 

guidelines for CRP conservation practices CP23 and CP23A, to provide that current and future participants are permitted to plant— 

but not harvest—agricultural commodity crops as wildlife food plots 

on up to 10 percent of the enrolled land to enhance waterfowl and 

upland bird food and habitat. 

HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT

Limitation, 2017 ..................................................................................... $5,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 5,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,000,000 

The Commodity Credit Corporation’s [CCC] hazardous waste 

management program is intended to ensure compliance with the 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) and the Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). The CCC funds operations and maintenance costs as well as site investigation and 

cleanup expenses. Investigative and cleanup costs associated with 

the management of CCC hazardous waste are also paid from 

USDA’s hazardous waste management appropriation. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends a limitation of $5,000,000 for the 

Commodity Credit Corporation’s hazardous waste management 

program. 
(59) 

TITLE III 

RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 

The Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–354) abolished 

the Farmers Home Administration, Rural Development Administration, and Rural Electrification Administration and replaced 

those agencies with the Rural Housing and Community Development Service, (currently, the Rural Housing Service), Rural Business and Cooperative Development Service (currently, the Rural 

Business—Cooperative Service), and Rural Utilities Service and 

placed them under the oversight of the Under Secretary for Rural 

Economic and Community Development, (currently, Rural Development). These agencies deliver a variety of programs through a network of State and field offices. 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $896,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 891,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 896,000 

The Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development provides direction and coordination in carrying out laws with respect 

to the Department’s rural economic and community development 

activities. The Office has oversight and management responsibilities for the Rural Housing Service, Rural Business—Cooperative 

Service, and the Rural Utilities Service. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $896,000 for the 

Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development. 

Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels.—The Committee is 

concerned with the interim rule proposed by the Department under 

the Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels program (section 

9005 of the Energy title of the farm bill, Public Law 113–79), which 

is intended to promote the development of different qualifying advanced fuel categories. The Committee is concerned that the allocation formula for distribution of section 9005 funds among the qualified fuel categories is inequitable, disproportionate, and inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the section 9005 program. 

The Committee urges the Department to administer the section 

9005 program in a way that is fuel and technology-neutral. Consistent with these objectives, the Committee directs USDA to propose amendments to the interim rule to ensure that any final rule 

to implement section 9005 provides for a more equitable and proportional allocation of funding among the qualified advanced 

biofuels and the energy pathways they represent. 
60 

RURAL DEVELOPMENT SALARIES AND EXPENSES 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2017 enacted Fiscal year 2018 

budget request 

Committee recommendation 

Appropriation ........................................................................................ 225,835 186,076 225,835 

Transfer from: 

Rural Housing Insurance Fund Loan Program Account ............. 412,254 244,249 412,254 

Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Program Account ....................................................................................... 33,270 38,027 33,270 

Rural Development Loan Program Account ................................ 4,468 .......................... 4,468 

Community Facilities Program Account ...................................... .......................... 147,591 ..........................

Distance Learning, Telemedicine and Broadband Program Account ....................................................................................... .......................... 8,057 ..........................

Total, Rural Development salaries and expenses .................. 675,827 624,000 675,827 

These funds are used to administer the loan and grant programs 

of the Rural Utilities Service, the Rural Housing Service, and the 

Rural Business—Cooperative Service, including reviewing applications, making and collecting loans and providing technical assistance and guidance to borrowers; and to assist in extending other 

Federal programs to people in rural areas. 

Under credit reform, administrative costs associated with loan 

programs are appropriated to the program accounts. Appropriations to the salaries and expenses account will be for costs associated with grant programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $675,827,000 for salaries and expenses of Rural Development. 

RURAL HOUSING SERVICE

The Rural Housing Service [RHS] was established under the 

Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, dated October 13, 1994. 

RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2017 (budget authority) ............................................. $509,892,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 (budget authority) ........................................... 244,249,000 

Committee recommendation (budget authority) ................................. 478,338,000 

This fund was established in 1965 (Public Law 89–117) pursuant 

to section 517 of title V of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 

517(d)), as amended. This fund may be used to insure or guarantee 

rural housing loans for single-family homes, rental and cooperative 

housing, farm labor housing, and rural housing sites. Rural housing loans are made to construct, improve, alter, repair, or replace 

dwellings and essential farm service buildings that are modest in 

size, design, and cost. Rental housing insured loans are made to individuals, corporations, associations, trusts, or partnerships to provide low-cost rental housing and related facilities in rural areas. 

These loans are repayable in terms up to 30 years. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $478,338,000 for 

the Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account [RHIF]. 
61 

The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–508) established the RHIF program account. Appropriations to this account will be used to cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated 

with the direct loans obligated and loan guarantees committed in 

2018, as well as for administrative expenses. The following table 

presents the loan subsidy levels as compared to the 2017 levels and 

the 2018 budget request: 

RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2017 enacted Fiscal year 2018 

budget request 

Committee recommendation 

Loan Levels: 

Single-Family Housing (sec. 502): 

Direct .................................................................................. 1,000,000 .......................... 1,000,000 

Guaranteed ......................................................................... 24,000,000 24,000,000 24,000,000 

Housing repair (sec. 504) ........................................................... 26,278 .......................... 26,278 

Direct rental housing (sec. 515) ................................................ 35,000 .......................... 35,000 

Guaranteed rental housing (sec. 538) ....................................... 230,000 250,000 230,000 

Site development loans (sec. 524) ............................................. 5,000 .......................... 5,000 

Credit sales of acquired property ............................................... 10,000 10,000 10,000 

Self help land development loans (sec. 523) ............................ 5,000 .......................... 5,000 

Farm labor housing loans (sec. 514) ......................................... 23,855 .......................... 23,855 

Total, loan levels .................................................................... 25,335,133 24,260,000 25,335,133 

Loan Subsidies and Grants: 

Single-Family Housing (sec. 502): 

Direct .................................................................................. 67,700 .......................... 38,500

Housing repair (sec. 504) ........................................................... 3,663 .......................... 3,240 

Direct rental housing (sec. 515) ................................................ 10,360 .......................... 9,209 

Site development (sec. 524) ....................................................... 111 .......................... 58 

Self help land development (sec. 523) ...................................... 417 .......................... 368 

Farm labor housing loans (sec. 514) ......................................... 7,051 .......................... 6,374 

Farm labor housing grants (sec. 516) ....................................... 8,336 .......................... 8,336 

Total, loan subsidies and grants ........................................... 97,638 .......................... 66,085 

Administrative expenses ...................................................................... 412,254 244,249 412,254 

Total, loan subsidies and administrative expenses .............. 509,892 244,249 478,338 

Energy Efficiency.—The Committee recognizes opportunities to 

reduce costs for rural housing and save taxpayer money by embracing energy efficiency standards in rural housing, with measures 

such as air sealing, and installing insulation, window films, and 

roofs. 

Maturing Mortgages.—The Committee is very concerned about 

the alarming number of multi-family housing mortgages scheduled 

to mature in the next few years. As these mortgages mature, 

projects and units will be removed from USDA’s affordable rural 

housing program, placing very low income rural residents in jeopardy of untenable rent increases and possible eviction. In spite of 

numerous requests from the Committee, the Department has failed 

to identify and develop potential solutions to this looming crisis. 

The Secretary is directed to engage affordable housing advocates, 

project owners, tenants, and others as practicable, to find acceptable and effective long term solutions that will retain projects in 
62 

the affordable rural housing program. The need for affordable rural 

housing is too great to allow the program to expire. 

RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $1,405,033,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 1,345,293,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,345,293,000 

Rental assistance is authorized under section 521(a)(2) of the 

Housing Act of 1949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1490a). The objective 

of the program is to reduce rents paid by low-income families living 

in Rural Housing Service financed rental projects and farm labor 

housing projects. Under this program, low-income tenants will contribute the higher of: (1) 30 percent of monthly adjusted income; (2) 

10 percent of monthly income; or (3) designated housing payments 

from a welfare agency. 

Payments from the fund are made to the project owner for the 

difference between the tenant’s payment and the approved rental 

rate established for the unit. 

The program is administered in tandem with the Rural Housing 

Service section 515 rural rental housing program and the farm 

labor loan and grant programs. Priority is given to existing projects 

for units occupied by rent over-burdened low-income families and 

projects experiencing financial difficulties beyond the control of the 

owner. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,345,293,000 

for the Rental Assistance Program. 

MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING REVITALIZATION PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $41,400,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 20,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 41,400,000 

The Rural Housing Voucher Program was authorized under the 

Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1940r) to assist very low income 

families and individuals who reside in rental housing in rural 

areas. Housing vouchers may be provided to residents of rental 

housing projects financed by section 515 loans that have been prepaid after September 30, 2005. Voucher amounts reflect the difference between comparable market rents and tenant-paid rent 

prior to loan prepayment. Vouchers allow tenants to remain in existing projects or move to other rental housing. 

The Multi-family Housing Revitalization Program includes funding for housing vouchers and a demonstration program for the 

preservation and revitalization of affordable multi-family housing 

projects. Rural Development’s multi-family housing portfolio faces 

dual pressures for loan prepayments and repair/rehabilitation 

stemming from inadequate reserves resulting in deferred property 

maintenance. 

Provision of affordable rental housing can be accomplished more 

economically by revitalizing existing housing stock rather than 

funding new construction. The Multi-family Housing Revitalization 

Program includes revitalization tools for maintenance of existing 
63 

units and vouchers to protect tenants in those projects that prepay. 

Flexibility is provided to allow Rural Development to utilize funding to meet the most urgent local needs for tenant protection and 

project revitalization. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $41,400,000 for 

the Multi-family Housing Revitalization Program, including 

$19,400,000 for vouchers and $22,000,000 for a housing preservation demonstration program. 

MUTUAL AND SELF-HELP HOUSING GRANTS

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $30,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 30,000,000 

The Mutual and Self-Help Housing Grants Program is authorized by title V of the Housing Act of 1949. Grants are made to local 

organizations to promote the development of mutual or self-help 

programs under which groups of usually 6 to 10 families build their 

own homes by mutually exchanging labor. Funds may be used to 

pay the cost of construction supervisors who work with families in 

the construction of their homes and for administrative expenses of 

the organizations providing the self-help assistance. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $30,000,000 for 

Mutual and Self-Help Housing Grants. 

RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GRANTS

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $33,701,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 33,701,000 

The Rural Housing Assistance Grants Program consolidates 

funding for rural housing grant programs. This consolidation of 

housing grant funding provides greater flexibility to tailor financial 

assistance to applicant needs. 

Very Low-Income Housing Repair Grants.—The Very Low-Income 

Housing Repair Grants Program is authorized under section 504 of 

title V of the Housing Act of 1949. The rural housing repair grant 

program is carried out by making grants to very low-income families to make necessary repairs to their homes in order to make 

such dwellings safe and sanitary, and remove hazards to the health 

of the occupants, their families, or the community. 

These grants may be made to cover the cost of improvements or 

additions, such as repairing roofs, providing toilet facilities, providing a convenient and sanitary water supply, supplying screens, 

repairing or providing structural supports or making similar repairs, additions, or improvements, including all preliminary and installation costs in obtaining central water and sewer service. A 

grant can be made in combination with a section 504 very low-income housing repair loan. 

No assistance can be extended to any one individual in the form 

of a loan, grant, or combined loans and grants in excess of $27,500, 
64 

and grant assistance is limited to persons, or families headed by 

persons who are 62 years of age or older. 

Supervisory and Technical Assistance Grants.—Supervisory and 

technical assistance grants are made to public and private nonprofit organizations for packaging loan applications for housing assistance under sections 502, 504, 514/516, 515, and 533 of the 

Housing Act of 1949. The assistance is directed to very low-income 

families in underserved areas where at least 20 percent of the population is below the poverty level and at least 10 percent or more 

of the population resides in substandard housing. In fiscal year 

1994 a Homebuyer Education Program was implemented under 

this authority. This program provides low-income individuals and 

families education and counseling on obtaining and/or maintaining 

occupancy of adequate housing and supervised credit assistance to 

become successful homeowners. 

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

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

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

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

Requests for compensation for construction defects must be made 

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

Rural Housing Preservation Grants.—Rural housing preservation 

grants (section 533) of the Housing and Urban-Rural Recovery Act 

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

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $33,701,000 for 

the Rural Housing Assistance Grants Program. 

The following table compares the grant program levels recommended by the Committee to the fiscal year 2017 levels and the 

budget request: 

RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GRANTS 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2017 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2018 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendation 

Very low-income housing repair grants .............................................. 28,701 .......................... 28,701 

Housing preservation grants ............................................................... 5,000 .......................... 5,000

Total ........................................................................................ 33,701 .......................... 33,701 

The Committee recommends that the Rural Housing Service 

prioritize funding for communities with unique weather patterns in 

need of replacing antiquated heating systems with more efficient 

technologies. 
65 

RURAL COMMUNITY FACILITIES PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $47,100,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 48,628,000 

Community facility loans were created by the Rural Development 

Act of 1972 (7 U.S.C. 1926 et seq.) to finance a variety of rural 

community facilities. Loans are made to organizations, including 

certain Indian tribes and corporations not operated for profit and 

public and quasi-public agencies, to construct, enlarge, extend, or 

otherwise improve community facilities providing essential services 

to rural residents. Such facilities include those providing or supporting overall community development, such as fire and rescue 

services, healthcare, transportation, traffic control, and community, 

social, cultural, and recreational benefits. Loans are made for facilities which primarily serve rural residents of open country and 

rural towns and villages of not more than 20,000 people. 

Healthcare, fire and rescue facilities, and educational facilities are 

the priorities of the program and receive the majority of available 

funds. 

The Community Facility Grant Program authorized in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public Law 

104–127), is used in conjunction with the existing direct and guaranteed loan programs for the development of community facilities, 

such as hospitals, fire stations, and community centers. Grants are 

targeted to the lowest income communities. Communities that have 

lower population and income levels receive a higher cost-share contribution through these grants, to a maximum contribution of 75 

percent of the cost of developing the facility. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $48,628,000 for 

the Rural Community Facilities Program Account. 

The following table provides the Committee’s recommendations, 

as compared to the fiscal year 2017 and budget request levels: 

RURAL COMMUNITY FACILITIES PROGRAM ACCOUNT 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2017 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2018 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendation 

Loan levels: 

Community facilities direct loans .............................................. 2,600,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 

Community facilities guaranteed loans ..................................... 148,305 .......................... 148,305 

Total loan levels ..................................................................... 2,748,305 3,000,000 3,148,305 

Budget authority: 

Community facilities guaranteed loans ..................................... 3,322 .......................... 4,850 

Community facilities grants ....................................................... 30,000 .......................... 30,000 

Economic initiative grants .......................................................... 5,778 .......................... 5,778 

Rural community development initiative .................................... 4,000 .......................... 4,000 

Tribal college grants ................................................................... 4,000 .......................... 4,000 

Total budget authority ............................................................ 47,100 .......................... 48,628 
66 

RURAL BUSINESS—COOPERATIVE SERVICE

The Rural Business—Cooperative Service [RBS] was established 

by Public Law 103–354, Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, dated October 

13, 1994. Its programs were previously administered by the Rural 

Development Administration, the Rural Electrification Administration, and the Agricultural Cooperative Service. 

RURAL BUSINESS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $65,319,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 64,342,000 

The Rural Business and Industry Loan Program was created by 

the Rural Development Act of 1972, and finances a variety of rural 

industrial development loans. Loans are made for rural industrialization and rural community facilities under Rural Development 

Act amendments to the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 

Act (7 U.S.C. 1932 et seq.) authorities. Business and industrial 

loans are made to public, private, or cooperative organizations organized for profit, to certain Indian tribes, or to individuals for the 

purpose of improving, developing or financing business, industry, 

and employment or improving the economic and environmental climate in rural areas. Such purposes include financing business and 

industrial acquisition, construction, enlargement, repair or modernization, financing the purchase and development of land, easements, rights-of-way, buildings, payment of startup costs, and supplying working capital. 

Rural business development grants were authorized by the Agricultural Act of 2014 and can be made to governmental and nonprofit entities, and Indian tribes. Up to 10 percent of appropriated 

funds may be used to: identify and analyze business opportunities; 

identify, train, and provide technical assistance to existing or prospective rural entrepreneurs and managers; assist in the establishment of new rural businesses and the maintenance of existing businesses; conduct economic development planning, coordination and 

leadership development; and establish centers for training, technology, and trade. The balance of appropriated funding may be 

used for projects that support the development of business enterprises that finance or facilitate: the development of small and 

emerging private business enterprise; the establishment, expansion, and operation of rural distance learning networks; the development of rural learning programs; and the provision of technical 

assistance and training to rural communities for the purpose of improving passenger transportation. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $64,342,000 for 

the Rural Business Program Account. 

The following table provides the Committee’s recommendations, 

as compared to the fiscal year 2017 and budget request levels: 
67 

RURAL BUSINESS PROGRAM ACCOUNT 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2017 enacted Fiscal year 2018 

budget request 

Committee recommendation 

Loan levels: 

Business and industry guaranteed loans loan levels ................ 919,765 .......................... 919,765 

Budget authority: 

Business and industry guaranteed loans .................................. 35,319 .......................... 37,342 

Rural business development grants ........................................... 24,000 .......................... 24,000 

Delta Regional Authority grants ................................................. 6,000 .......................... 3,000 

Total budget authority ............................................................ 65,319 .......................... 64,342 

Regional Food Hubs.—The Committee encourages USDA to partner with States and other interested partners to build and refurbish food hub and food distribution centers that serve rural farmers 

but are located in urban areas through programs like the Business 

and Industry guaranteed loan program. 

Rural Business Development Grants.—Rural coastal economies 

have often been economically disadvantaged by the loss of natural 

resource-related jobs and have been the first rural communities to 

feel the negative effects of a changing climate. As these rural coastal communities continue to have agriculture-related economic opportunity such as value-added seafood processing as well as new 

opportunities, the use of Rural Business Development grants may 

be prioritized in rural coastal communities to support innovation 

and job growth within all sectors, including for related infrastructure. Particular priority should be given in the case of public-private partnerships and cross-jurisdictional efforts. 

Rural Business Program Account.—The Committee recommends 

$500,000 for transportation technical assistance. The Committee directs that of the $4,000,000 recommended for 

grants to benefit Federally Recognized Native American Tribes, 

$250,000 shall be used to implement an American Indian and Alaska Native passenger transportation development and assistance 

initiative. 

INTERMEDIARY RELENDING PROGRAM FUND

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2017 enacted Fiscal year 2018 

budget request 

Committee recommendation 

Estimated loan level ...................................................................... 18,889 ............................ 18,889 

Direct loan subsidy ........................................................................ 5,476 ............................ 4,361 

Administrative expenses ................................................................ 4,468 ............................ 4,468 

Total, loan subsidies and administrative expenses ........ 9,944 ............................ 8,829 

The rural development intermediary relending loan program was 

originally authorized by the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 

(Public Law 88–452). The making of rural development loans by 

the Department of Agriculture was reauthorized by Public Law 

113–79, the Agricultural Act of 2014. 

Loans are made to intermediary borrowers (small investment 

groups) who in turn will reloan the funds to rural businesses, community development corporations, private nonprofit organizations, 

public agencies, et cetera, for the purpose of improving business, 
68 

industry, community facilities, and employment opportunities and 

diversification of the economy in rural areas. 

The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the program 

account. Appropriations to this account will be used to cover the 

lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct loans obligated in 

2018, as well as for administrative expenses. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $8,829,000 for 

the Intermediary Relending Program Fund. 

RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

[In thousands of dollars] 

Estimated loan 

level 

Fiscal year 2017 level ........................................................................................................................................ 42,213 

Fiscal year 2018 request ................................................................................................................................... ..........................

Committee recommendation .............................................................................................................................. 42,213 

The Rural Economic Development Loans program was established by the Reconciliation Act of December 1987 (Public Law 

100–203), which amended the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (Act 

of May 20, 1936), by establishing a new section 313. This section 

of the Rural Electrification Act (7 U.S.C. 901) established a cushion 

of credit payment program and created the rural economic development subaccount. The Administrator of RUS is authorized under 

the act to utilize funds in this program to provide zero interest 

loans to electric and telecommunications borrowers for the purpose 

of promoting rural economic development and job creation projects, 

including funding for feasibility studies, startup costs, and other 

reasonable expenses for the purpose of fostering rural economic development. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a loan program level of $42,213,000, 

to be funded from earnings on the Cushion of Credit and fees on 

guaranteed underwriting loans made pursuant to section 313A of 

the Rural Electrification Act of 1936. 

RURAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $26,550,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 26,550,000 

Rural cooperative development grants are authorized under section 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, 

as amended. Grants are made to fund the establishment and operation of centers for rural cooperative development with their primary purpose being the improvement of economic conditions in 

rural areas. Grants may be made to nonprofit institutions or institutions of higher education. Grants may be used to pay up to 75 

percent of the cost of the project and associated administrative 

costs. The applicant must contribute at least 25 percent from nonFederal sources, except 1994 institutions, which only need to pro-
69 

vide 5 percent. Grants are competitive and are awarded based on 

specific selection criteria. 

Cooperative research agreements are authorized by 7 U.S.C. 

2204b. The funds are used for cooperative research agreements, 

primarily with colleges and universities, on critical operational, organizational, and structural issues facing cooperatives. 

Cooperative agreements are authorized under 7 U.S.C. 2201 to 

any qualified State departments of agriculture, university, and 

other State entity to conduct research that will strengthen and enhance the operations of agricultural marketing cooperatives in 

rural areas. 

The Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas [ATTRA] 

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

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

environmentally friendly and lower production costs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $26,550,000 for 

Rural Cooperative Development Grants. 

Of the funds recommended, $2,750,000 is for the Appropriate 

Technology Transfer for Rural Areas program. 

The Committee has included language in the bill that not more 

than $3,000,000 shall be made available to cooperatives or associations of cooperatives whose primary focus is to provide assistance 

to small, minority producers. 

Value Added.—The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for 

value-added agricultural product market development grants. Of 

this amount, the Secretary is directed to make $1,000,000 for Agriculture Innovation Center funding available as grants to States authorized to host, and that have previously hosted a USDA Agriculture Innovation Center and where the State continues to demonstrate support, and provide non-Federal grant funding to producers developing, producing, and marketing value-added agricultural and food products. 

RURAL ENERGY FOR AMERICA PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $352,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 293,000 

The Rural Energy for America Program is authorized under section 9007 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 

(7 U.S.C. 8107). This program may fund energy audits, direct 

loans, loan guarantees, and grants to farmers, ranchers, and small 

rural businesses for the purchase of renewable energy systems and 

for energy efficiency improvements. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $293,000 for the 

Rural Energy for America Program. 

The following table provides the Committee’s recommendation as 

compared to the fiscal year 2017 and budget request levels: 
70 

RURAL ENERGY FOR AMERICA PROGRAM 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2017 enacted Fiscal year 2018 

budget request 

Committee recommendation 

Estimated loan level .................................................................................. 7,576 ........................ 7,576 

Guaranteed loan subsidy ........................................................................... 352 ........................ 293 

Energy Efficiency Coordination.—The Committee directs increased coordination and cooperation among USDA agencies and 

offices to better utilize the energy efficiency and renewable energy 

programs available through the Rural Energy for America program. Additionally, no later than 120 days after enactment of this 

Act, USDA is directed to submit a report to the Committee detailing how the agencies make information about its energy programs 

accessible to rural communities and how funds are being leveraged 

for energy efficiency investments in rural areas. 

RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE

The Rural Utilities Service [RUS] was established under the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–354), October 13, 1994. 

RUS administers the electric and telephone programs of the former 

Rural Electrification Administration and the water and waste programs of the former Rural Development Administration. 

RURAL WATER AND WASTE DISPOSAL PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $571,190,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 550,383,000 

The water and waste disposal program is authorized by sections 

306, 306A, 309A, 306C, 306D, 306E, and 310B of the Consolidated 

Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1921 et seq., as amended). This program makes loans for water and waste development 

costs. Development loans are made to associations, including corporations operating on a nonprofit basis, municipalities and similar 

organizations, generally designated as public or quasi-public agencies, that propose projects for the development, storage, treatment, 

purification, and distribution of domestic water or the collection, 

treatment, or disposal of waste in rural areas. Such grants may not 

exceed 75 percent of the development cost of the projects and can 

supplement other funds borrowed or furnished by applicants to pay 

development costs. 

The solid waste grant program is authorized under section 

310B(b) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act. 

Grants are made to public bodies and private nonprofit organizations to provide technical assistance to local and regional governments for the purpose of reducing or eliminating pollution of water 

resources and for improving the planning and management of solid 

waste disposal facilities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $550,383,000 for 

the Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program Account. 
71 

The Committee recommends $66,500,000 for water and waste 

disposal systems grants for Native Americans, including Native 

Alaskans, and the Colonias. The Committee recognizes the special 

needs and problems for delivery of basic services to these populations, and encourages the Secretary to distribute these funds in 

line with the fiscal year 2014 distribution, to the degree practicable. In addition, the Committee makes up to $18,000,000 available for the circuit rider program. 

The following table provides the Committee’s recommendations, 

as compared to the fiscal year 2017 and budget request levels: 

RURAL WATER AND WASTE DISPOSAL PROGRAM ACCOUNT 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2017 enacted Fiscal year 2018 

budget request 

Committee recommendation 

Loan levels: 

Water and waste disposal direct loans ............................... 1,200,000 ............................ 1,200,000 

Water and waste disposal guaranteed loans ...................... 50,000 ............................ 50,000 

Total loan levels ............................................................... 1,250,000 ............................ 1,250,000

Budget authority: 

Water and waste disposal direct loans ............................... 52,080 ............................ 25,680 

Water and waste disposal guaranteed loans ...................... 240 ............................ 230 

Water and waste disposal grants ........................................ 391,980 ............................ 393,980 

Solid waste management grants ......................................... 4,000 ............................ 4,000 

Water well systems grants ................................................... 993 ............................ 993 

Colonias and AK/HI/Native American grants ........................ 64,000 ............................ 66,500 

Water and waste water revolving funds .............................. 1,000 ............................ 1,000 

High energy cost grants ....................................................... 10,000 ............................ 10,000 

Circuit rider ........................................................................... 16,897 ............................ 18,000 

Emergency community water assistance grants .................. 10,000 ............................ 10,000 

Technical assistance grants ................................................. 20,000 ............................ 20,000 

Total, budget authority ..................................................... 571,190 ............................ 550,383 

RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS LOANS PROGRAM

ACCOUNT

The Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901 et seq.) provides the statutory authority for the electric and telecommunications programs. 

The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–508) established the program account. An appropriation to this account 

will be used to cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the 

direct loans obligated and loan guarantees committed in fiscal year 

2018, as well as for administrative expenses. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The following table reflects the Committee’s recommendation for 

the Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program 

Account, the loan subsidy and administrative expenses, as compared to the fiscal year 2017 and budget request levels: 
72 

RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2017 enacted Fiscal year 2018 

budget request 

Committee recommendation 

Loan authorizations: 

Electric: 

Direct FFB .......................................................................... 5,500,000 5,500,000 5,500,000 

Guaranteed underwriting ................................................... 750,000 .......................... 750,000 

Telecommunications: 

Direct, Treasury Rate ......................................................... 345,000 345,000 345,000 

Direct, FFB ......................................................................... 345,000 345,000 345,000 

Total loan authorization ......................................................... 6,940,000 6,190,000 6,940,000 

Total budget authority ............................................................ 3,071 863 863 

DISTANCE LEARNING, TELEMEDICINE, AND BROADBAND PROGRAM LOANS AND GRANTS 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2017 enacted Fiscal year 2018 

budget request 

Committee recommendation 

Loan and grant levels: 

Distance learning and Telemedicine Program: 

Grants ................................................................................ 26,600 .......................... 26,600 

Broadband program: 

Treasury rate loans ..................................................................... 27,043 26,991 27,043 

Treasury rate loans budget authority ......................................... 4,500 4,521 4,530 

Grants ......................................................................................... 34,500 .......................... 30,000 

Total DLT and Broadband Program level ............................... 88,143 26,991 83,643 

Total DLT and Broadband Budget authority .......................... 65,600 4,521 61,130 

The Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program is 

authorized by the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act 

of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 950aaa et seq.), as amended by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public Law 104– 

127). This program provides incentives to improve the quality of 

phone services, to provide access to advanced telecommunications 

services and computer networks, and to improve rural opportunities. 

This program provides the facilities and equipment to link rural 

education and medical facilities with more urban centers and other 

facilities providing rural residents access to better healthcare 

through technology and increasing educational opportunities for 

rural students. These funds are available for loans and grants. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $61,130,000 for 

the Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program. 

Funds recommended for the RUS broadband program are intended 

to promote broadband availability in those areas where there is not 

otherwise a business case for private investment in a broadband 

network. The Committee encourages RUS to focus expenditures on 

projects that bring broadband service to currently unserved households. 
73 

The Committee is concerned about the longstanding, unmet 

health needs in the Mississippi River Delta. The Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 to address critical healthcare 

needs in the region, as authorized by section 379G of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act. 

Broadband Grants.—Of the funds recommended, $30,000,000 in 

grants shall be made available to support broadband transmission 

for rural areas. 

Broadband Infrastructure.—The Committee notes that it is the 

policy of RUS to avoid duplication of efforts when financing telecommunications infrastructure via its programs; however, the Committee is concerned that this policy does not extend to the deployment of broadband-capable infrastructure. In order to prevent duplication of services, the Committee directs RUS to implement 

operational changes and report back to the Committee on administrative efforts to eliminate duplicative or over building of 

broadband technology. 

Multi-Strand Fiber Optic Cable.—The Committee recommends 

that, within these funds, the Secretary explore a pilot grant program to demonstrate the use of multi-strand fiber optic cable that 

exist as part of electrical transmission infrastructure to provide 

state-of-the-art broadband services to currently underserved rural 

schools and medical centers within a mile of the existing cable. 

RURAL ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE ACCOUNT 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2017 enacted Fiscal year 2018 

budget request 

Committee recommendation 

Rural Economic Infrastructure Grants ....................................................... ........................ $161,893 ........................

The Rural Economic Infrastructure grant program represents a 

proposal to merge five existing grants programs: very low income 

housing repair grants; housing preservation grants; rural community facilities grants; distance learning and telemedicine grants; 

and broadband grants. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommendation does not include funding for 

Rural Economic Infrastructure grants but continues to fund each 

component grant program individually. 
(74) 

TITLE IV 

DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD, NUTRITION AND

CONSUMER SERVICES

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $814,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 809,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 814,000 

The Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services provides direction and coordination in carrying out 

the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to the Department’s 

nutrition assistance activities. The Office has oversight and management responsibilities for the Food and Nutrition Service. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $814,000 for the 

Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer 

Services. 

Food and Agriculture Service Learning Program.—Recognizing 

the widespread need for children and schools to access food and agriculture education, the Committee encourages USDA to provide 

funding, through existing resources, for the Food and Agriculture 

Service Learning Program, authorized under section 4209 of the 

Agricultural Act of 2014. 

Food Security in Frontier Communities.—The Committee appreciates the intent of the Food and Nutrition Service to focus on implementing locally-designed initiatives to increase food security in 

frontier communities within its area of responsibility. Helping 

these communities to adapt to changing growing conditions and 

subsistence food availability and to develop the capacity to grow 

more food locally will improve their tenuous food security and provide opportunities for economic development in extremely low-income regions. The Committee therefore strongly encourages the 

Food and Nutrition Service to finalize plans to work with relevant 

stakeholders to develop and implement the plans that were initiated in the past year. 

Interagency Partnerships.—The Committee commends USDA for 

its work to support access to combating hunger and eliminating 

barriers to healthy food access through innovative interagency 

partnerships. The Committee encourages USDA to continue these 

partnerships, particularly the new Summer VISTA partnership 

program. 

Nutrition Program Efficiency.—The Committee encourages the 

Secretary to focus process and technology improvement grants 

within the Food and Nutrition Service [FNS] to expand public-pri-
75 

vate partnerships to increase food security in a cost-efficient and 

accountable manner. 

School Meals.—The Committee is concerned with practices in 

some school districts that unintentionally shame students with unpaid school meal fees. The Committee encourages the Food and Nutrition Service to work with stakeholders, including parents, guardians, and school food service professionals to move towards a solution to avoid embarrassment and shaming of school children for unpaid school meal fees. 

FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE

The Food and Nutrition Service represents an organizational effort to eliminate hunger and malnutrition in this country. Nutrition assistance programs provide access to a nutritionally adequate 

diet for families and persons with low incomes and encourage better eating patterns among the Nation’s children. These programs 

include: 

Child Nutrition Programs.—The National School Lunch and 

School Breakfast, Summer Food Service, and Child and Adult Care 

Food programs provide funding to the States, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Guam for use in serving nutritious lunches and breakfasts to children attending schools of high 

school grades and under, to children of preschool age in child care 

centers, and to children in other institutions in order to improve 

the health and well-being of the Nation’s children, and broaden the 

markets for agricultural food commodities. Through the Special 

Milk Program, assistance is provided to the States for making reimbursement payments to eligible schools and child care institutions which institute or expand milk service in order to increase 

the consumption of fluid milk by children. Funds for this program 

are provided by direct appropriation and transfer from section 32. 

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, 

and Children [WIC].—This program safeguards the health of pregnant, postpartum, and breast-feeding women, infants, and children 

up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk because of inadequate nutrition and income by providing supplemental foods. The delivery of 

supplemental foods may be done through health clinics, vouchers 

redeemable at retail food stores, or other approved methods which 

a cooperating State health agency may select. Funds for this program are provided by direct appropriation. 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.—This program 

seeks to improve nutritional standards of needy persons and families. Assistance is provided to eligible households to enable them to 

obtain a better diet by increasing their food purchasing capability, 

usually by furnishing benefits in the form of electronic access to 

funds. The program also includes Nutrition Assistance to Puerto 

Rico. 

The program also includes the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, which provides nutritious agricultural commodities to low-income persons living on or near Indian reservations 

who choose not to participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. 

Commodity Assistance Program [CAP].—This program provides 

funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program [CSFP], 
76 

the Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program, Disaster Assistance, Pacific Island Assistance, and administrative expenses for TEFAP. 

CSFP provides supplemental foods to low-income elderly persons 

age 60 and over. 

TEFAP provides commodities and grant funds to State agencies 

to assist in the cost of storage and distribution of donated commodities. 

Nutritious agricultural commodities are provided to residents of 

the Federated States of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands. Cash 

assistance is provided to distributing agencies to assist them in 

meeting administrative expenses incurred. It also provides funding 

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

for this program are provided by direct appropriation. 

Nutrition Programs Administration.—Most salaries and Federal 

operating expenses of the Food and Nutrition Service are funded 

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

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

for advancing and coordinating nutrition promotion and education 

policy to improve the health of all Americans. 

CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $22,793,982,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 24,256,266,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 24,296,505,000 

The Child Nutrition Programs, authorized by the Richard B. 

Russell National School Lunch Act (Public Law 79–396) and the 

Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (Public Law 89–642), provide Federal 

assistance to State agencies in the form of cash and commodities 

for use in preparing and serving nutritious meals to children while 

they are attending school, residing in service institutions, or participating in other organized activities away from home. The purpose of these programs is to help maintain the health and proper 

physical development of America’s children. Milk is provided to 

children either free or at a low cost, depending on their family income level. FNS provides cash subsidies to States for administering 

the programs and directly administers the program in the States 

which choose not to do so. Grants are also made for nutritional 

training and surveys and for State administrative expenses. Under 

current law, most of these payments are made on the basis of reimbursement rates established by law and applied to lunches and 

breakfasts actually served by the States. The reimbursement rates 

are adjusted annually to reflect changes in the Consumer Price 

Index for food away from home. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $24,296,505,000 for the Child Nutrition Programs. 

Child and Adult Care Food Program.—The Committee notes that 

the Child and Adult Care Food Program [CACFP] is an important 

source of funding for nutrition for children in early childhood education and care programs. Therefore, the Committee is concerned 

that complexity of CACFP requirements creates tremendous ad-
77 

ministrative challenges for the child care homes, centers, and agencies that are responsible for delivering these essential benefits to 

children. The Secretary shall examine the recommendations set 

forth by the Child and Adult Care Food Program Paperwork Reduction Work Group’s 2015 report to Congress, and submit to the 

Committee, no later than 60 days after enactment of this Act, an 

evaluation of all the recommendations, including which actions to 

streamline administrative processes and remove barriers to participation the Secretary has the authority to change, without compromising the measures taken to protect program integrity. The Committee directs the Secretary to work with States to encourage implementation of recommendations contained in the Child and Adult 

Care Food Program Paperwork Reduction Work Group’s 2015 report to Congress that would make monitoring and reporting processes more effective at improving CACFP participation and performance in all eligible child and adult care centers and facilities. 

Crediting System for Nutrition Programs.—The Committee recognizes that the current crediting system used by Food and Nutrition 

Service in administering the school lunch program and the School 

Breakfast Program is in need of reform. The crediting system has 

historically provided significant service to school food authorities 

and suppliers to the National School Lunch and the School Breakfast Program. However, the program has not been updated to keep 

pace with innovation in the marketplace. New products that provide additional nutrition to program participants have entered the 

marketplace but school food authorities are not receiving proper 

crediting due to the fact that the system is outdated. For example, 

Greek yogurt receives the same protein crediting as other products 

with less protein. Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall review the system of crediting 

and submit to the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Education and the Workforce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on 

Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate a report that describes the results of the review. 

School Meals Procurement.—The Committee directs the Food and 

Nutrition Service to ensure that school food authorities abide by 

Section 12(n) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, 

42 USC 1760(n), when purchasing seafood or seafood products for 

the school meals programs. The Committee also encourages the 

Food and Nutrition Service to use the funding available for training and technical assistance for school food authorities in procurement practices. 

Summer Food Service Program.—The Committee recognizes that 

in many rural and frontier areas of the country where homes are 

widely scattered, children and youth are unable to access congregate feeding sites that participate in the Summer Food Service 

Program and that existing mobile food delivery efforts are not able 

to meet the need. The Committee supports the Food and Nutrition 

Service allowing State Agencies to enable Summer Food Service 

Program service institutions that serve such areas where eligible 

children and youth have barriers to access or limited access to a 

congregate feeding site to use their customary reimbursement payments to develop and implement innovative methods to deliver or 
78 

otherwise make available foods to eligible children and youth by 

non-congregate means or in non-congregate settings. 

The Committee’s recommendation provides for the following annual rates for the child nutrition programs. 

TOTAL OBLIGATIONAL AUTHORITY 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Child nutrition programs Fiscal year 2018 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendation 

School Lunch Program ........................................................................................................ 13,010,053 13,010,053 

School Breakfast Program .................................................................................................. 4,775,629 4,775,629 

Child and Adult Care Food Program .................................................................................. 3,919,384 3,919,384 

Summer Food Service Program ........................................................................................... 639,789 639,789 

Special Milk Program .......................................................................................................... 8,759 8,759 

State Administrative Expenses ........................................................................................... 299,139 299,139 

Commodity Procurement ..................................................................................................... 1,489,349 1,489,349 

Team Nutrition/HUSSC/CMS ................................................................................................ 16,972 17,004 

Food Safety Education ........................................................................................................ 2,880 2,880 

Coordinated Review ............................................................................................................ 10,000 10,000 

Computer Support ............................................................................................................... 11,921 11,921 

Training and Technical Assistance .................................................................................... 13,702 23,137 

CNP Studies and Evaluation .............................................................................................. 21,277 21,277 

Farm to School Team .......................................................................................................... 3,439 4,168 

Payment Accuracy ............................................................................................................... 11,016 11,016 

School Meal Equipment Grants .......................................................................................... .......................... 30,000 

Summer EBT Demonstration ............................................................................................... 22,957 23,000 

The Committee expects FNS to utilize the National Food Service 

Management Institute to carry out the food safety education program. 

SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS, 

AND CHILDREN [WIC]

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $6,350,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 6,150,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 6,350,000,000 

The special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, 

and children [WIC] is authorized by section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966. Its purpose is to safeguard the health of pregnant, 

breast-feeding and postpartum women and infants, and children up 

to age 5 who are at nutritional risk because of inadequate nutrition 

and inadequate income. 

The WIC program food packages are designed to provide foods 

which studies have demonstrated are lacking in the diets of the 

WIC program target population. The authorized supplemental 

foods are iron-fortified breakfast cereal, fruit or vegetable juice 

which contains vitamin C, dry beans, peas, and peanut butter. 

There are three general types of delivery systems for WIC foods: 

(1) retail purchase in which participants obtain supplemental foods 

through retail stores; (2) home delivery systems in which food is 

delivered to the participant’s home; and (3) direct distribution systems in which participants pick up food from a distribution outlet. 

The food is free of charge to all participants. 
79 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,350,000,000 

for the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, 

and Children [WIC]. 

The Committee recommendation fully funds estimated WIC participation in fiscal year 2018. The Committee recommendation includes $80,000,000 for breastfeeding support initiatives and 

$14,000,000 for infrastructure. 

WIC Food Package.—The Committee appreciates the work of the 

National Academies of Science to review and make recommendations for updating the WIC food packages to reflect current science 

and cultural factors. The Committee notes, however, that while all 

revised packages now allow some fish, the amounts remain low 

compared to the recommendations of authoritative agencies such as 

the World Health Organization and in some cases, sporadic. The 

Committee strongly encourages the Department to prioritize the 

health and cultural benefits of fish consumption as regulations are 

revised to implement the NAS recommendations and to increase 

the amount of healthful fish above the amounts recommended by 

the NAS. The Committee also strongly encourages the Department 

to allow States to prioritize fish over legumes and peanut butter to 

respond to the cultural preferences of WIC participants in States 

like Alaska. 

WIC Food Package Recommendation.—The Committee supports 

the important public health role WIC plays in assuring healthy 

pregnancies and birth outcomes, and growing healthy young children ready to learn when they enter school through quality nutrition education and prescribed foods. The Committee encourages the 

Secretary to review and implement the recommendations, where 

appropriate, established in the January 2017 National Academies 

of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report, Review of WIC Food 

Packages: Improving Balance and Choice: Final Report. The recommendations are in accordance with the regular review of the 

Food Packages provided for under the Healthy, Hunger Free Kids 

Act of 2010. 

SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $78,480,694,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 73,612,500,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 73,612,502,000 

The Food Stamp Program was reauthorized through fiscal year 

2012 and renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 

[SNAP] in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. The 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program attempts to alleviate 

hunger and malnutrition among low-income persons by increasing 

their food purchasing power. Eligible households receive SNAP 

benefits with which they can purchase food through regular retail 

stores. 

Other programs funded through SNAP include Nutrition Assistance to Puerto Rico and American Samoa, the Food Distribution 

Program on Indian Reservations, the Emergency Food Assistance 

Program, and the Community Food Projects program. 
80 

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is currently in 

operation in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, and Guam. Participating households receive food benefits, 

the value of which is determined by household size and income. 

The cost of the benefits is paid by the Federal Government. As required by law, the Food and Nutrition Service annually revises 

household benefit allotments to reflect changes in the cost of the 

thrifty food plan. 

Administrative Costs.—All direct and indirect administrative 

costs incurred for certification of households, issuance of benefits, 

quality control, outreach, and fair hearing efforts are shared by the 

Federal Government and the States on a 50–50 basis. 

State Antifraud Activities.—Under the provisions of the Food and 

Nutrition Act of 2008, States are eligible to be reimbursed for 50 

percent of the costs of their fraud investigations and prosecutions. 

States are required to implement an employment and training 

program for the purpose of assisting members of households participating in SNAP in gaining skills, training, or experience that 

will increase their ability to obtain regular employment. The Department of Agriculture has implemented a grant program to 

States to assist them in providing employment and training services. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $73,612,502,000 

for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Of the amount 

recommended, $3,000,000,000 is made available as a contingency 

reserve. 

State SNAP Implementation.—The Committee is concerned about 

implementation of the SNAP program in certain states where 

states are failing to meet the required deadlines for processing applications. USDA is encouraged to work closely with States to remedy program deficiency and be aggressive in combating any falsification of SNAP implementation data. 

COMMODITY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $315,139,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 293,591,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 317,139,000 

The Commodity Assistance Program includes funding for the 

Commodity Supplemental Food Program and funding to pay expenses associated with the storage and distribution of commodities 

through The Emergency Food Assistance Program. 

The Commodity Supplemental Food Program [CSFP].—Authorized by section 4(a) of the Agricultural and Consumer Protection 

Act of 1973 (7 U.S.C. 612c note), as amended in 1981 by Public 

Law 97–98 and in 2014 by Public Law 113–79, this program provides supplemental food to low-income senior citizens and in some 

cases low-income infants and children up to age six, low-income 

pregnant and postpartum women. The Agricultural Act of 2014 discontinued the admission of new pregnant and postpartum women 

and children into the program. Those already in the program can 

continue to receive assistance until they are no longer eligible. 
81 

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

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

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

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

participants may receive all commodities except iron-fortified infant 

formula and rice cereal. 

The Emergency Food Assistance Program [TEFAP].—Authorized 

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

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

low-income people through prepared meals served on site and 

through the distribution of commodities to low-income households 

for home consumption. The commodities are provided by USDA to 

State agencies for distribution through State-established networks. 

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

to those in need. 

Funds are administered by FNS through grants to State agencies 

which operate commodity distribution programs. Allocation of the 

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

unemployment rate and the number of persons with income below 

the poverty level. 

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

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

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

participants and local farmers by increasing the awareness and use 

of farmers’ markets by low-income households. 

Pacific Island and Disaster Assistance.—This program provides 

funding for assistance to the nuclear-affected islands in the form of 

commodities and administrative funds. It also provides funding for 

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $317,139,000 for 

the Commodity Assistance Program. The Committee continues to 

encourage the Department to distribute Commodity Assistance Program funds equitably among the States, based on an assessment 

of the needs and priorities of each State and the State’s preference 

to receive commodity allocations through each of the programs 

funded under this account. 

Commodity Supplemental Food Program.—The Committee recommends $238,120,000 for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program. This amount fully funds participation in fiscal year 2018. 

Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program.—The Committee is aware 

that the Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program provides fresh fruits 

and vegetables to low-income mothers and children, benefiting not 

only WIC participants, but local farmers as well. Therefore, the 

Committee recommends $18,548,000 for the Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program and directs the Secretary to obligate these funds 

within 45 days. 
82 

The Emergency Food Assistance Program.—The Agricultural Act of 2014 provides $288,750,000 for TEFAP commodities to be purchased with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program funds. 

The Committee recommendation includes $59,401,000 for TEFAP 

transportation, storage, and program integrity. In addition, the 

Committee recommendation grants the Secretary authority to 

transfer up to an additional 10 percent from TEFAP commodities 

for this purpose and urges the Secretary to use this authority. 

The Committee encourages the Secretary to identify opportunities for increasing the supply of TEFAP commodities in the coming 

fiscal year through bonus and specialty crop purchases. The Department shall make available to the States domestically produced 

catfish fillets for distribution to local agencies. 

NUTRITION PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $170,716,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 148,541,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 153,841,000 

The Nutrition Programs Administration appropriation provides 

for most of the Federal operating expenses of the Food and Nutrition Service, which includes the Child Nutrition Programs; Special 

Milk Program; Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for 

Women, Infants, and Children [WIC]; Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico; the Commodity Assistance Program, including the Commodity Supplemental Food Program and the Emergency Food Assistance Program; and Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program and Pacific Island 

and Disaster Assistance. 

The major objective of Nutrition Programs Administration is to 

efficiently and effectively carry out the nutrition assistance programs mandated by law. This is to be accomplished by the following: (1) giving clear and consistent guidance and supervision to 

State agencies and other cooperators; (2) assisting the States and 

other cooperators by providing program, managerial, financial, and 

other advice and expertise; (3) measuring, reviewing, and analyzing 

the progress being made toward achieving program objectives; and 

(4) carrying out regular staff support functions. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $153,841,000 for 

Nutrition Programs Administration. The Committee recommendation includes $1,825,000 for decentralized rent and security payments. 
(83) 

TITLE V 

FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND FOREIGN

AGRICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. $875,000 

The Office of the Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs provides direction and coordination in carrying out the 

laws enacted by the Congress with respect to the Department’s 

international affairs (except for foreign economic development). The 

Office has oversight and management responsibilities for the Foreign Agricultural Service. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriations of $875,000 for 

the Office of the Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs. 

Food Chain Systems.—The Committee is aware that the lack of 

comprehensive cold food chain systems is one of the main causes 

of food loss and results in a significant percentage of food spoilage 

from farm-to-market. Preventing food loss and implementing a robust cold food chain results in substantial benefits such as increased nutrition, a safer food supply, greater economic opportunity, and increased resilience. In order to maximize the benefit 

investment in the agricultural productivity of the developing world, 

the Committee encourages the Department to give strong consideration to the use of cold chain technologies and include the development of appropriate cooling technologies in programs, policies, and 

strategic plans aimed at hunger prevention and food security in developing agricultural markets. 

FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

[In thousands of dollars] 

Appropriations Transfers from 

loan accounts Total 

Appropriations, 2017 ........................................................................... 196,571 6,074 202,645 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................ 188,167 6,382 194,549 

Committee recommendation ................................................................ 197,506 6,074 203,580 

The Foreign Agricultural Service [FAS] was established March 

10, 1953, by Secretary’s Memorandum No. 1320, supplement 1. 

Public Law 83–690, approved August 28, 1954, transferred the ag-
84 

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

The mission of FAS overseas is to represent U.S. agricultural interests, to promote export of domestic farm products, improve world 

trade conditions, and report on agricultural production and trade 

in foreign countries. FAS staff are stationed at 98 offices around 

the world where they provide expertise in agricultural economics 

and marketing, as well as provide attache ́ services. 

FAS carries out several export assistance programs to counter 

the adverse effects of unfair trade practices by competitors on U.S. 

agricultural trade. The Market Access Program [MAP] conducts 

both generic and brand-identified promotional programs in conjunction with nonprofit agricultural associations and private firms financed through reimbursable CCC payments. 

The General Sales Manager was established pursuant to section 

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

U.S.C. 714–714p. The funds allocated to the General Sales Manager are used for conducting the following programs: (1) CCC Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM–102), including facilities financing guarantees; (2) Food for Peace; (3) section 416b Overseas 

Donations Program; (4) Market Access Program; and (5) programs 

authorized by the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act including barter, export sales of most CCC-owned commodities, export payments, and other programs as assigned to encourage and 

enhance the export of U.S. agricultural commodities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $203,580,000 for the Foreign Agricultural Service, including a direct appropriation of $197,506,000. 

Borlaug Fellows Program.—The Committee recommendation includes $3,500,000 for the Borlaug International Agricultural 

Science and Technology Fellows Program. This program provides 

training for international scientists and policymakers from selected 

developing countries. The fellows work closely with U.S. specialists 

in their fields of expertise and apply that knowledge in their home 

countries. The Committee recognizes the importance of this program in helping developing countries strengthen their agricultural 

practices and food security. 

Cochran Fellowship Program.—The Committee recommendation 

includes $6,500,000 for the Cochran Fellowship Program. The Committee encourages the Secretary to continue to provide additional 

support for the program through the Commodity Credit Corporation Emerging Markets Program. 

Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program.—The Committee expects the FAS to fund the Foreign Market Development 

Cooperator Program. 

Market Access Program.—The Committee continues the full mandatory funding for the Market Access Program and expects the Department to administer the program as authorized in 7 U.S.C. 

5623, without changing the eligibility requirements for participation of cooperative organizations, small businesses, trade associations, and other entities. 
85 

FOOD FOR PEACE TITLE I DIRECT CREDIT AND FOOD FOR PROGRESS

PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $149,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 149,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 149,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $149,000 for administrative expenses to continue servicing existing Food for Peace 

title I agreements. 

FOOD FOR PEACE TITLE II GRANTS

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $1,466,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,600,000,000 

Commodities Supplied in Connection With Dispositions Abroad 

(Title II) (7 U.S.C. 1721–1726).—Commodities are supplied without 

cost through foreign governments to combat malnutrition and to 

meet famine and other emergency requirements. Commodities are 

also supplied for nonemergencies through public and private agencies, including intergovernmental organizations. The Commodity 

Credit Corporation pays ocean freight on shipments under this 

title, and may also pay overland transportation costs to a landlocked country, as well as internal distribution costs in emergency 

situations. The funds appropriated for title II are made available 

to private voluntary organizations and cooperatives to assist these 

organizations in meeting administrative and related costs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,600,000,000 

for Food for Peace title II grants. 

McGOVERN-DOLE INTERNATIONAL FOOD FOR EDUCATION AND CHILD

NUTRITION PROGRAM GRANTS

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $201,626,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 206,626,000 

The McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child 

Nutrition Program helps support education, child development, and 

food security for some of the world’s poorest children. The program 

provides for donations of U.S. agricultural products, as well as financial and technical assistance, for school feeding and maternal 

and child nutrition projects in low-income, food-deficit countries 

that are committed to universal education. Commodities made 

available for donation through agreements with private voluntary 

organizations, cooperatives, intergovernmental organizations, and 

foreign governments may be donated for direct feeding or for local 

sale to generate proceeds to support school feeding and nutrition 

projects. 
86 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $206,626,000 for 

the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program. 

Local and Regional Procurement.—The Committee provides an 

appropriation of $15,000,000 for efforts to build long-term agriculture sustainability and establish a local investment in school 

feeding programs. With direct U.S. commodity contributions, 

projects supported by the McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program have significantly improved the attendance, nourishment, 

and learning capacity of school-aged children in low-income countries throughout the impoverished world. New funding authorities 

would enable school feeding programs to proactively transition 

from direct commodity assistance to locally source agriculture products. The Committee directs the Secretary to conduct the Local and 

Regional Food Aid Procurement Project Program in accordance 

with the priorities of the McGovern-Dole International Food for 

Education and Child Nutrition Program. 

COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION EXPORT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT (EXPORT CREDIT 

PROGRAMS AND GSM–102) 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Guaranteed loan 

levels 

Administrative 

expenses 

Appropriations, 2017 .......................................................................................................... 5,500,000 8,537 

Budget estimate, 2018 ....................................................................................................... 5,500,000 6,735 

Committee recommendation ............................................................................................... 5,500,000 8,537 

In 1980, the Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC] instituted the 

Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM–102) under its charter authority. With this program, CCC guarantees, for a fee, payments 

due U.S. exporters under deferred payment sales contracts (up to 

36 months) for defaults due to commercial as well as noncommercial risks. The risk to CCC extends from the date of export to the 

end of the deferred payment period covered in the export sales contract and covers only that portion of the payments agreed to in the 

assurance agreement. Operation of this program is based on criteria which will assure that it is used only where it is determined 

that it will develop new market opportunities and maintain and expand existing world markets for U.S. agricultural commodities. The 

program encourages U.S. financial institutions to provide financing 

to those areas where the institutions would be unwilling to provide 

financing in the absence of the CCC guarantees. CCC also provides 

facilities financing guarantees. 

The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 establishes the program 

account. The subsidy costs of the CCC export guarantee programs 

are exempt from the requirement of advance appropriations of 

budget authority according to section 504(c)(2) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, Public Law 101–508. Appropriations to this 

account will be used for administrative expenses. 
(87) 

TITLE VI 

RELATED AGENCY AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

The Food and Drug Administration [FDA] is a scientific regulatory agency whose mission is to promote and protect the public 

health and safety of Americans. FDA’s work is a blend of science 

and law. The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 

2007 [FDAAA] (Public Law 110–85) reaffirmed the responsibilities 

of the FDA: to ensure safe and effective products reach the market 

in a timely way, and to monitor products for continued safety while 

they are in use. In addition, FDA is entrusted with two critical 

functions in the Nation’s war on terrorism: preventing willful contamination of all regulated products, including food, and improving 

the availability of medications to prevent or treat injuries caused 

by biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agents. 

The FDA Foods program has the primary responsibility for assuring that the food supply, quality of foods, food ingredients and 

dietary supplements are safe, sanitary, nutritious, wholesome, and 

honestly labeled, and that cosmetic products are safe and properly 

labeled. The variety and complexity of the food supply has grown 

dramatically while new and more complex safety issues, such as 

emerging microbial pathogens, natural toxins, and technological innovations in production and processing, have developed. This program plays a major role in keeping the United States food supply 

among the safest in the world. 

In January 2011, the Food Safety Modernization Act was signed 

into law. This law enables FDA to better protect public health by 

strengthening the food safety system. It enables FDA to focus more 

on preventing food safety and feed problems rather than relying 

primarily on reacting to problems after they occur. The law also 

provides FDA with new enforcement authorities designed to 

achieve higher rates of compliance with prevention- and risk-based 

food and feed safety standards and to better respond to and contain 

problems when they do occur. The law also gives FDA important 

new tools to hold imported food and feed to the same standards as 

domestic food and feed and directs FDA to build an integrated national food safety system in partnership with State and local authorities. 

The FDA Drugs programs are comprised of four separate areas, 

Human Drugs, Animal Drugs, Medical Devices and Biologics. FDA 

is responsible for the lifecycle of products, including premarket review and postmarket surveillance of human and animal drugs, 

medical devices and biological products to ensure their safety and 

effectiveness. For Human Drugs this includes assuring that all 
88 

drug products used for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of 

disease are safe and effective. Additional procedures include the review of investigational new drug applications; evaluation of market 

applications for new and generic drugs, labeling and composition of 

prescription and over-the-counter drugs; monitoring the quality and 

safety of products manufactured in, or imported into, the United 

States; and, regulating the advertising and promotion of prescription drugs. The Animal Drugs and Feeds Program ensures only 

safe and effective veterinary drugs, intended for the treatment and/ 

or prevention of diseases in animals and the improved production 

of food-producing animals, are approved for marketing. 

The FDA Biologics program assures that blood and blood products, blood test kits, vaccines, and therapeutics are pure, potent, 

safe, effective, and properly labeled. The program inspects blood 

banks and blood processors, licenses and inspects firms collecting 

human source plasma, evaluates and licenses biologics manufacturing firms and products; lot releases licensed products; and monitors adverse events associated with vaccine immunization, blood 

products, and other biologics. 

The FDA Devices and Radiological program ensures the safety 

and effectiveness of medical devices and eliminates unnecessary 

human exposure to manmade radiation from medical, occupational, 

and consumer products. In addition, the program enforces quality 

standards under the Mammography Quality Standards Act (Public 

Law 108–365). Medical devices include thousands of products from 

thermometers and contact lenses to heart pacemakers, hearing 

aids, and MRIs. Radiological products include items such as microwave ovens and video display terminals. 

FDA’s National Center for Toxicological Research in Jefferson, 

Arkansas, serves as a specialized resource, conducting peer-review 

scientific research that provides the basis for FDA to make sound 

science-based regulatory decisions through its premarket review 

and postmarket surveillance. The research is designed to define 

and understand the biological mechanisms of action underlying the 

toxicity of products and lead to developing methods to improve assessment of human exposure, susceptibility and risk of those products regulated by FDA. 

In 2009, Congress granted FDA new authority to regulate the 

manufacture, distribution, and marketing of tobacco products. FDA 

exercises this responsibility by protecting the public health from 

the health effects of tobacco, setting scientific standards and standards for tobacco product review, conducting compliance activities to 

enforce its authority over tobacco, and conducting public education 

and outreach about the health effects of tobacco products. 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

[In thousands of dollars] 

Appropriation User fees Total 

Appropriations, 2017 ....................................................................................... 2,759,378 1,895,711 4,655,089 

Budget estimate, 2018 .................................................................................... 1,819,718 3,164,392 4,984,110 

Committee recommendation ............................................................................ 2,760,378 2,386,567 5,146,945 
89 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,760,378,000 

for FDA salaries and expenses. The Committee also recommends 

$2,386,567,000 in definite user fees, including: $937,434,000 in Prescription Drug User Fee Act user fee collections; $193,291,000 in 

Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act user fee collections; and $24,142,000 in Animal Drug User Fee Act user fee collections; $12,100,000 in Animal Generic Drug User Fee Act user fee 

collections; $672,000,000 in Tobacco Product user fee collections; 

$493,600,000 in Generic Drug User Fee Act user fee collections; 

and $54,000,000 in Biosimilar User Fee Act user fee collections. 

The Committee also recommends $58,960,000 in permanent, indefinite user fees, including: $5,300,000 in Voluntary Qualified Importer Program collections; $1,434,000 in food and feed recall collections; $6,414,000 in food reinspection collections; $20,522,000 in 

Mammography Quality Standards Act fee collections; $10,062,000 

in color certification collections; $7,686,000 in Pediatric Disease 

Priority Review Voucher collections; $1,400,000 in third-party auditor collections; $1,446,000 in outsourcing facility collections; and 

$4,696,000 in export and certification fees, as assumed in the President’s budget. The Committee recommendation includes bill language which prohibits FDA from developing, establishing, or operating any program of user fees authorized by 31 U.S.C. 9701. 

The Committee recommendation does not include proposed user 

fees for food facility registration and inspection, food import, food 

contact substance notification, cosmetics, and international courier 

imports. None of these user fee proposals have been authorized by 

Congress. The Committee will continue to monitor any action by 

the appropriate authorizing Committees regarding these proposed 

user fees. 

The Committee expects FDA to continue all projects, activities, 

laboratories, and programs as included in fiscal year 2017 unless 

otherwise specified. The Committee does not support the proposed 

$3,120,000 reduction to the National Center for Toxicological Research. The Committee accepts the budget proposal to eliminate 

funding for consumer education and outreach regarding agricultural biotechnology. 

The Committee recommendation includes an increase of $500,000 

to the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research and $500,000 to 

the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition to review Botanical Drug and Dietary Supplement interactions. 

The following table reflects the Committee’s recommendations, as 

compared to the fiscal year 2017 and budget request levels: 

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION SALARIES AND EXPENSES 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2017 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2018 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendation 

Centers and related field activities: 

Foods ........................................................................................... 1,025,503 910,428 1,026,003 

Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition [CFSAN] ..... 310,994 277,643 308,494 

Field Activities ................................................................... 714,509 632,785 717,509 

Human Drugs .............................................................................. 492,203 179,139 492,703 

Center for Drug Evaluation and Research [CDER] ........... 355,996 94,353 356,496 
90 

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION SALARIES AND EXPENSES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2017 enacted Fiscal year 2018 

budget request 

Committee recommendation 

Field Activities ................................................................... 136,207 84,786 136,207 

Biologics ...................................................................................... 215,443 95,893 215,443 

Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research [CBER] ..... 174,052 61,398 174,052 

Field Activities ................................................................... 41,391 34,495 41,391 

Animal Drugs .............................................................................. 162,852 107,606 162,852 

Center for Veterinary Medicine [CVM] ............................... 98,205 49,117 98,205 

Field Activities ................................................................... 64,647 58,489 64,647 

Medical and radiological devices ............................................... 329,764 140,069 329,764 

Center for Devices and Radiological Health ..................... 246,319 73,842 246,319 

Field Activities ................................................................... 83,445 66,227 83,445 

National Center for Toxicological Research ................................ 63,331 60,211 63,331 

Other Activities .................................................................................... 185,087 125,432 185,087 

Rent and related activities .................................................................. 114,987 72,450 114,987 

Rental Payments to GSA ...................................................................... 170,208 128,490 170,208 

Total, FDA salaries and expenses, new budget authority ..... 2,759,378 1,819,718 2,760,378 

Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients.—The Committee is concerned 

that the FDA has not yet approved a list of active pharmaceutical 

ingredients [APIs] for use by compounding pharmacists pursuant to 

the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [FDCA]. Within 90 days 

of the enactment of this act, the FDA is directed to provide a 

timeline for when the remaining substances will be considered, and 

in the meantime re-consider its policy with regard to enforcement 

of the bulk drug substances provisions under section 503A. 

Added Sugar Labeling.—The Committee is concerned about potential consumer confusion over the new FDA nutritional labeling 

requirements for added sugar for single ingredient products like 

maple syrup and honey, where sugar is naturally occurring in the 

product rather than added to the product. The Committee is aware 

that the FDA has had discussions with maple and honey producers 

regarding their concerns that the labeling requirement as currently 

drafted could mislead consumers to think that sugar has been 

added to a pure single-ingredient maple or honey product. The 

Committee directs the FDA to report to the Committee on its efforts to implement regulations and provide clarity to the maple 

syrup and honey industries on the labeling of the sugar content of 

their packaged products and avoiding consumer confusion. 

Atypical Actives.—The Committee requests that the FDA provide 

an update on how it regulates ‘‘atypical actives.’’ 

Autoantibody Qualification.—The appearance of certain islet 

autoantibodies in the serum of individuals increases the chance of 

developing type 1 diabetes at some point in the future. Therefore 

the Committee encourages the FDA to work with the Type 1 diabetes community on the assessment of potential diabetes biomarkers 

related to islet autoimmunity, which might help inform the design 

of clinical studies. 

Botanical Dietary Supplements Research.—The Committee appreciates the work CFSAN has done to ensure the safety of botanical 

dietary supplements. Existing work to develop authentication and 

identification tools for evaluation of botanical supplements is promising, and the Committee directs the Center to invest further in 

this important research. 
91 

Botanical Drug and Drug Interactions.—The Committee commends CDER for its work to ensure that botanical drugs available 

to the public are safe and effective. However, little is known about 

potential drug interactions caused by botanical drugs, and given 

the recent publication of the Botanical Drug Development Guidance for Industry, the Committee is concerned that this will likely 

catalyze additional applications for approval of botanical drugs. 

Therefore, the Committee directs the FDA to invest in this research by working with its Center of Excellence network partners 

with expertise in developing analytical methods and reference 

standards for botanical formulations. 

Caloric Content.—The Committee is concerned that the FDA Nutrition Facts Label final rule does not include specific requirements 

for certain carbohydrates that may have insignificant or no caloric 

content. Consumers generally rely on the caloric information provided on food and beverage labels. The Committee is aware that 

the FDA is working to provide additional information for food manufacturers clarifying how certain carbohydrates, as appropriate, 

that may have insignificant or no caloric content should be labeled. 

The Committee urges the FDA to provide clarity to food manufacturers on the labeling of such carbohydrates, as appropriate. 

Center for Safety and Nutrition Centers of Excellence.—The Committee is aware of the important contribution of the FDA Center 

for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition’s Centers of Excellence 

[COEs] program in supporting critical basic research as well as facilitating the implementation of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act. The Committee encourages the Agency to continue to fully 

utilize the COEs to accomplish these goals, and instructs that it 

enhance its level of support for FDA Food Safety Modernization Act 

activities. 

Centers of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation.—The 

Committee is encouraged by the ongoing research and collaboration 

underway at the Centers of Excellence in Regulatory Science and 

Innovation 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 locations in the CERSI 

network at their original funding level for a period of at least 5 

years to ensure their efficacy and to capitalize on existing studies. 

Cotton Ginning.—The Committee is concerned about the impact 

of the ‘‘Current Good Manufacturing Practice, Hazard Analysis, 

and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Food for Animals’’ final 

rule (80 FR 56170; September 17, 2015) on the cotton industry. The 

Committee notes post-harvest activity of ginning cotton does not 

transform the resulting cottonseed into a ‘‘processed food,’’ and 

thus, cottonseed should fall within the definition of a ‘‘raw agricultural commodity’’ for purposes of rules promulgated pursuant to 

the FSMA. In addition, the Committee is concerned about the rationale for the definitions of ‘‘primary production farm’’ and ‘‘secondary activities farm’’ and how these definitions factor into the determination of operations either being exempt from or covered by 
92 

certain requirements of the final rule. Therefore, the Committee directs the FDA to provide outreach and technical assistance to cotton ginning operations to assist them in complying with the final 

rule or subsequent guidance documents. 

Dietary Fiber.—The Committee is concerned that the FDA has 

not issued final guidance regarding the definition of dietary fiber, 

and encourages the FDA to issue these final guidance documents 

and provide sufficient time for food manufacturers to comply. 

Dietary Ingredients Guidance.—The Committee encourages FDA 

to meet with representatives of the supplement industry as well as 

consumer groups and to review all comments received regarding 

the ‘‘Dietary Supplements: New Dietary Ingredient [NDI] Notifications and Related Issues’’ guidance. 

Donor Milk Supply.—The Committee recognizes the growing use 

of donor human milk for newborns, including premature infants at 

risk for conditions such as necrotizing enterocolitis. The Committee 

directs the FDA to provide a report no later than 12 months after 

enactment of this Act on its efforts to implement regulations to 

help assure a safe and stable human milk supply and prevent contaminated milk from reaching vulnerable infants. The report shall 

include information on specific safeguards related to the collection, 

processing, testing, and distribution of donor human milk and 

products derived from human milk. The report shall also include 

FDA’s assessment of the possibility of reclassifying donor human 

milk and products derived from human milk as exempt infant formula. 

Drug Shortages.—The committee requests that the FDA report 

on how it works with manufacturers to facilitate timely communication to the field on the availability of drugs application reviews 

and facility inspections during times of or risk of critical drug 

shortages. 

Drug Vial Sizes.—Senate Report 114–259 directed the FDA to 

provide a report to Congress within 180 days of enactment of the 

fiscal 2017 Appropriations Act with recommendations on ‘‘how the 

FDA may assist in addressing concerns about appropriate vial sizes 

and fill volumes from a safety perspective, to ensure that patients 

are receiving the appropriate care.’’ The Committee expects the 

FDA to comply with this directive. 

Duschenne 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 developments and of 

the agency’s work to implement the law, and we request an update 

on these efforts within 180 days of enactment. 

Fatal and Debilitating Diseases.—The Committee directs the 

FDA to exercise its current law authorities, as provided under the 

FDA Safety and Innovation Act and the 21st Century Cures Act, 

when reviewing new drug applications for patients with 100 percent fatal and debilitating diseases. The Committee further encourages the FDA to afford patients, caregivers and treating physicians 

the opportunity to participate in the drug review process. 
93 

Food Contact Notification User Fees.—The Committee recommendation does not include proposed user fees. 

Food Safety Mission.—The Committee directs the FDA Foods 

Program to report to the Committee all activities and resources 

spent on nutrition-related activities for the Center for Food Safety 

and Applied Nutrition [CFSAN], associated field offices [ORA], and 

support components. 

Food Safety Modernization Act.—The Committee is aware that 

some states that have entered into cooperative agreements under 

the State Produce Implementation Cooperative Agreement Program 

to provide education, outreach, and technical assistance are considering changing the state agency responsible for implementing these 

agreements. The Food and Drug Administration is directed to work 

with any state that designates a new implementing agency to ensure it can continue to receive funding under existing cooperative 

agreements without delay or loss of funding. 

Foreign High Risk Inspections.—The Committee has provided robust funding for this initiative over the last several years and directs the FDA to provide an update on these efforts, including estimated efficiencies and concerns, and plans to continue or expand 

this effort in the future. 

FSMA & Strategic Partnerships.—The Committee notes FDA’s 

public hearing regarding reliance on ‘‘Strategic Partnerships to Enhance the Safety of Imported Foods.’’ In particular, the Committee 

recommends that FDA give serious consideration to suggestions 

made during the hearing to place greater reliance on private-sector 

third party auditors to help FDA implement FSMA. The Committee 

supports the FDA’s recognition that strategic partnerships with existing government food safety programs and accredited private-sector third party auditing/certification organizations can help achieve 

cost efficiencies for Agency programs and encourages the Agency to 

continue its dialogue with such organizations. 

FSMA Clarification for Small Farms.—The Committee directs 

the FDA to provide further clarification to small farms on the requirements for compliance with the Food Safety Modernization Act, 

including information on the qualified exemptions available to 

small and very small farms and the actions required to achieve 

compliance under these exemptions. The Committee also urges the 

Food and Drug Administration to communicate with (including 

through appropriate guidance) and offer technical assistance to assist small farms with compliance. 

Glass Contamination of Injectable Drugs.—In 2011, FDA issued 

the Advisory to Drug Manufacturers: Formation of Glass Lamellae 

in Certain Injectable Drugs, which noted that drugs containing 

glass fragments have the potential to cause embolic, thrombotic, 

and other vascular events when administered intravenously, and 

when administered subcutaneously, could lead to the development 

of foreign body granuloma, local injection site reactions, and increased immunogenicity. The Committee understands that the 

FDA has initiated studies concerning glass products for injectable 

products; however the Committee is concerned about the threat of 

glass quality issues to public health. The Committee directs the 

FDA to evaluate the Agency’s study data and any other appropriate 
94 

available data and report back to the Committee within 90 days on 

the appropriate action needed to address the issue. 

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 did not 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 consider any relevant 

distinctions between grape varietals, including grape varietals from 

different regions, that may provide additional flexibility to wine 

grape growers in demonstrating a product is eligible for exemption 

or exclusion from the produce safety regulation, including through 

listing as a produce that is rarely consumed raw. 

Human Drug Review Committee.—The Committee strongly encourages the FDA to fully utilize its authorities under 18 U.S.C. 

208(b)(3) to include no less than two members with an expertise in 

the indication for which the drug is meant to treat on each Advisory Committee when that Committee is reviewing a drug that has 

been designated as an Orphan Drug. 

Improving Diversity in Clinical Trials and Safety Studies.—The 

Committee supports FDA’s efforts, including the FDASIA 907 Action Plan, to promote inclusion of racially and ethnically diverse 

populations into clinical trials. The Committee encourages FDA to 

address the specific lack of racial and ethnic diversity in genomewide association studies, precision medicine studies, and post-market surveillance safety monitoring for drugs, biological products, 

and devices. The Committee further encourages FDA to also include data for Hispanics in the Clinical Trials Drug Snapshots, including stating when no data is available based on the study design 

of the clinical trial. The Committee also directs FDA’s to help ensure that public-facing resources are available in Spanish, including Medwatch reporting forms and online portal, and consumer information materials. 

Improving Import Review.—The Committee directs the FDA to 

submit a report within 180 days of enactment of this Act on how 

FDA is monitoring the impact of the reorganization under Program 

Alignment, and if such reorganization has improved the consistency of facility inspections. 

In Silico Clinical Trials.—The Committee appreciates FDA’s interest in in silico medicine and directs the Office of the Chief Scientist to enter into an affiliation agreement with an academic institution with expertise in physiological modeling for the purpose of 

bridging the gaps between genetics and clinical practice with in 

silico clinical trials, allowing the development of personalized medicine and optimizing the regulatory process, pursuant to the goals 

set forth in the Critical Path Initiative. 

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 de-
95 

termination on whether to propose new regulations for medical 

gases, the 2017 Consolidated 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 into regulations, either through incorporation by reference or principlebased regulation. 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 regulation of medical gases and provide a written report to Congress 

including a description of the sections 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 No: 115–31 no 

later than July 15, 2018. 

Misleading Maple Marketing.—The Committee is concerned 

about the explosion of products marketed using the word maple 

and related iconography, which intentionally misleads consumers 

who perceive the use of the word maple and related iconography 

to mean that a food product contains some measurable quantity of 

maple syrup to flavor or sweeten the product, which consumers 

identify as a characterizing ingredient. The Committee directs the 

FDA to perform a detailed analysis of consumer perception of foods 

marketed with the word maple or related iconography. 

National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System.—The 

Committee recommendation includes $10,800,000 for the National 

Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System, equal to the level provided in fiscal year 2017. 

Olive Oil.—The Committee supports ongoing monitoring by FDA 

of the olive oil market to determine if it is adulterated with seed 

oil. The Committee also encourages FDA to respond to a 2012 citizen petition requesting a standard of identity for olive oil and olive 

pomace oil. 

Opioids.—The Committee is deeply concerned about the opioid 

abuse epidemic that took the lives of more than 33,000 Americans 

in 2015. As the agency that oversees the approval of these drugs, 

the FDA has a responsibility to consider the public health impact 

of opioid misuse, abuse, diversion and overdose death. The Committee supports FDA’s commitment to addressing this crisis 

through all available authorities, and encourages them to work 

with other Federal Agencies in their efforts. 

The Committee continues its directive for FDA to refer any new 

drug application for an opioid submitted under section 505(b) of the 

Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to an advisory committee for 

their recommendations prior to approval, unless the FDA finds that 

holding such advisory committee is not in the interest of protecting 

and promoting the public health. 

The Committee notes that the vast majority of patients prescribed opioids are dispensed a substantially larger amount of pills 

than what is effective for pain management, and that 8 percent of 

patients who receive a week’s supply of opioids continue to use 

them 1 year later. Additionally, despite promotion of abuse deterrent varieties of opioid medication, FDA has itself recognized that 
96 

these drugs are still misunderstood as being abuse-proof by prescribers. Therefore, the Committee believes that it is imperative 

that FDA, consistent with its own Advisory Committee recommendations, take any and all steps necessary to require continuing medical education, aligned with the most recent Center for 

Disease Control and Prevention’s Guidelines for Prescribing 

Opioids for Chronic Pain, for providers who write opioid prescriptions, including through the Risk Evaluations and Mitigation Strategy. The Committee directs FDA to establish authoritative opioid 

labeling guidelines that align prescribing and dispensing volumes 

with the lowest number of pills needed to be effective for pain management. Additionally, the Committee believes that FDA should develop messaging to mitigate the risk that healthcare practitioners 

will confuse the term ‘‘abuse-deterrent’’ for ‘‘abuse-proof’’. 

The Committee is also concerned that the Drug Enforcement Administration’s approved annual aggregate production quota for 

opioids, which are established through engagement with the FDA, 

have increased dramatically in the last two decades. The Committee directs the FDA to account for changes in the currently accepted medical use of opioids and the downstream public health impact when informing DEA’s quota-setting process, and provide public justification for any future recommended changes to the DEA’s 

aggregate production quote for opioids. 

Opioid Policy Steering Committee.—The Committee strongly supports the Commissioner’s efforts to establish the Opioid Policy 

Steering Committee to establish methods to curb our opioid crisis 

in part by adequately considering the potential risk of abuse and 

misuse as part of the FDA’s drug approval process of prescription 

opioids. The Committee encourages the FDA to work with private 

stakeholders and researchers in this process. The Committee requests for an update on the Steering Committee’s progress within 

90 days, including any legislative action necessary to achieve the 

Steering Committee’s goals. 

Orphan Products Development.—The Committee is encouraged 

by the Office of Orphan Products Development and recognizes the 

importance of the work being supported by Orphan Product Grants. 

The Committee requests for the FDA to provide a review of the indication for which the drug is intended to treat and for the number 

of pediatric clinical trials that have received a grant since fiscal 

year 2015. 

OTC Switch.—The Committee is concerned that there is a significant amount of time between an FDA approval of a switch of 

a drug from prescription to over-the-counter and when such switch 

is enforced. Allowing the prescription products of FDA-switched 

OTC drugs to remain on the market has led to physician and consumer confusion as inaccurate assumptions are made that the 

product requires a prescription, as well as additional costs due to 

unnecessary physician visits and prescriptions. The Committee requests the FDA for an update on their progress and timeline for 

a final determination regarding the outstanding prescription products and to comment on a process for improving these timelines 

moving forward. 
97 

Oversight Activities.—The Committee recommendation includes 

$1,500,000 for the HHS Office of Inspector General specifically for 

oversight of FDA activities. 

Patient Experience.—The Committee is appreciative of the steps 

the FDA has taken to implement Subtitle A of Title III within the 

21st Century Cures Act to better incorporate patient experience in 

the drug development and approval processes. The Committee is 

aware of provisions enacted via the 21st Century Cures Act to provide for greater transparency on how FDA is using patient experience and related data to inform regulatory reviews, and to issue 

updated guidance to inform developers of patient-focused drug developments tools. The Committee requests a status report from 

FDA on implementation of these provisions including any challenges or impediments being faced. 

Pediatric Cancer Drug Approvals.—The Committee is encouraged 

by the enactment of the RACE for Children Act as part of the reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Authorization Act. 

RACE for Children could improve the treatment options for children battling cancer and close the divide between adult and pediatric oncology therapies. The Committee encourages the FDA to 

fully implement the provisions specific to the lists of molecular targets and FDA guidance on pediatric study plans under the Pediatric Research Equity Act and the Best Pharmaceutical Practices 

for Children Act. 

Pediatric Device Consortia Grants.—The Committee is pleased 

that the nine FDA-funded Pediatric Device Consortia have assisted 

in the development of more than 650 proposed pediatric medical 

devices since its inception in 2009, as well as promoting job-growth 

in the healthcare sector, and as such, continues to support this critical effort. 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. The Committee recommendation includes no 

less than the fiscal year 2017 funding level for Pediatric Device 

Consortia Grants. 

Rare Disease Therapies.—The Committee is encouraged by FDA’s 

recent approvals of therapies to treat rare diseases, like Duchenne 

Muscular Dystrophy, and is aware of the authorities within Section 

3012 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 rare disease therapy development 

and of the agency’s work to implement the law, and we request an 

update on these efforts within 180 days of enactment. 

Seafood Advisory.—The Committee is concerned that the FDA 

published final seafood advice for pregnant and nursing women on 

January 18, 2017, without going through necessary interagency review, consumer focus group testing, or the opportunity for the public to comment on the scientific peer review. Therefore, the Committee directs the FDA to review its final seafood advice and to 

make such technical corrections as are necessary to ensure the advice is consistent with the FDA’s scientific review of the net effects 

of seafood consumption. In addition, the Committee directs the 
98 

FDA to follow the Administration’s review process prior to publishing the updated seafood advice. 

Sunscreen Labeling Regulations.—The Committee remains significantly concerned that the FDA has not approved a new overthe-counter [OTC] sunscreen ingredient since the 1990s, despite 

having a number of ingredients pending approval for more than a 

decade. After the U.S. Surgeon General issued ‘‘A Call to Action to 

Prevent Skin Cancer,’’ which concluded that nearly 5 million people 

are treated annually for all skin cancers at a cost of approximately 

$8.1 billion per year, Congress passed the Sunscreen Innovation 

Act of 2014 to improve the process by which the FDA reviews sunscreen ingredients and to require the FDA to finalize an effective 

sunscreen monograph within 5 years. The Committee directs the 

FDA to work with stakeholders to develop a testing regimen, consistent with current scientific standards, that appropriately balances the benefit of additional skin cancer prevention tools versus 

the risk of skin cancer within 90 days of enactment. The Committee also directs FDA to maintain funding for agency efforts to 

clear this backlog of sunscreen applications. 

In addition, the Committee is disappointed that FDA has not yet 

finalized a rule limiting the maximum Sun Protection Factor [SPF] 

to ‘‘50’’ or ‘‘50+’’ as directed by the fiscal year 2017 Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, and as such the Committee directs FDA to finalize the rule immediately. The Committee is also disappointed 

that FDA failed to issue a proposed rule to establish testing and 

labeling standards for sunscreen sprays and directs FDA to do so 

immediately. 

Vibrio.—The Committee is aware of the public health challenge 

related to the naturally occurring bacteria called Vibrio 

parahaemolyticus that can accumulate in shellfish and believes 

that more scientific research is necessary to develop proper controls 

that will reduce the risk to consumers and sustain a healthy domestic shellfish industry. The Committee encourages the Food and 

Drug Administration [FDA] to increase funding for research into 

Vibrio illnesses associated with the consumption of raw molluscan 

shellfish, improve risk assessment models, and develop improved 

rapid detection methods for virulent Vibrio strains. 

White Oak Expansion.—The Committee is aware of the need for 

FDA facilities to accommodate an anticipated expanded workforce 

due to broader missions related to food safety and other mandates 

in legislation over the last few years. Due to the challenging fiscal 

environment, the Committee encourages the FDA and GSA to consider innovative financing options to allow for the space allocation 

required. In particular, the Committee directs the FDA and GSA 

to consider partnership opportunities with non-Federal Government entities that provide reasonable cost options that will enable 

the FDA to maintain very close proximity to its campus headquarters in White Oak, including space contiguous to the White 

Oak campus. 

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $11,788,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 8,771,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 11,788,000 
99 

FDA maintains offices and staff in 49 States and in the District 

of Columbia and Puerto Rico, including field laboratories and specialized facilities, as well as the National Center for Toxicological 

Research complex. Repairs, modifications, improvements, and construction to FDA headquarters and field facilities must be made to 

preserve the properties, ensure employee safety, meet changing 

program requirements, and permit the agency to keep its laboratory methods up to date. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $11,788,000 for 

FDA buildings and facilities. This funding shall be used to upgrade 

FDA facilities and laboratories which are currently below public 

safety standards and incapable of performing agency requirements. 

INDEPENDENT AGENCY 

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $68,600,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 72,600,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 69,000,000 

The Farm Credit Administration [FCA] is the independent agency in the executive branch of the Government responsible for the 

examination and regulation of the banks, associations, and other 

institutions of the Farm Credit System. 

Activities of the Farm Credit Administration include the planning and execution of examinations of Farm Credit System institutions and the preparation of examination reports. FCA also promulgates regulations, establishes standards, enforces rules and regulations, and approves certain actions of the institutions. 

The administration and the institutions under its jurisdiction 

now operate under authorities contained in the Farm Credit Act of 

1971, Public Law 92–181, effective December 10, 1971. Public Law 

99–205, effective December 23, 1985, restructured FCA and gave 

the agency regulatory authorities and enforcement powers. 

The act provides for the farmer-owned cooperative system to 

make sound, adequate, and constructive credit available to farmers 

and ranchers and their cooperatives, rural residences, and associations and other entities upon which farming operations are dependent, and to modernize existing farm credit law to meet current and 

future rural credit needs. 

The Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 authorized the formation of 

the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation [FAMC] to operate 

a secondary market for agricultural and rural housing mortgages. 

The Farm Credit Administration, under section 8.11 of the Farm 

Credit Act of 1971, as amended, is assigned the responsibility of 

regulating this entity and assuring its safe and sound operation. 

Expenses of the Farm Credit Administration are paid by assessments collected from the Farm Credit System institutions and by 

assessments to the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation. 
100 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends a limitation of $69,000,000 on administrative expenses of the Farm Credit Administration. 
(101) 

TITLE VII 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

The Committee recommends the following provisions: 

Section 701. This section makes funds available for the purchase, 

replacement, and hire of passenger motor vehicles. 

Section 702. This section gives the Secretary of Agriculture authority to transfer unobligated balances to the Working Capital 

Fund and clarifies longstanding practices associated with the Fund. 

Section 703. This section limits the funding provided in the bill 

to 1 year, unless otherwise specified. 

Section 704. This section limits negotiated indirect costs on cooperative agreements between the Department of Agriculture and 

nonprofit organizations to 10 percent. 

Section 705. This section makes appropriations to the Department of Agriculture for the cost of direct guaranteed loans available until expended to disperse obligations for certain Rural Development programs. 

Section 706. This section prohibits the purchase of new information technology equipment in excess of $25,000 without the prior 

approval of the Chief Information Officer. 

Section 707. This section makes funds for certain conservation 

programs available until expended to disburse certain obligations 

made in the current fiscal year. 

Section 708. This section makes certain former Rural Utilities 

Service borrowers eligible for the Rural Economic Development 

loan and grant program. 

Section 709. This section provides funds for Rural Development 

and the Farm Service Agency information technology expenses. 

Section 710. This section includes language regarding first-class 

travel. 

Section 711. This section includes language regarding the Commodity Credit Corporation. 

Section 712. This section makes funds available for the expenses 

and activities of certain advisory committees, panels, commissions, 

and task forces at the Department of Agriculture. 

Section 713. This section includes language regarding the limitation on direct costs for grants awarded by the National Institute of 

Food and Agriculture. 

Section 714. This section includes language regarding the availability of funds for certain Department of Agriculture programs. 

Section 715. This section includes language regarding the availability of funds for certain Department of Agriculture programs. 

Section 716. This section prohibits the use of funds for user fee 

proposals that fail to provide sufficient budget impact information. 

Section 717. This section prohibits the reprogramming of funds for programs, projects, or activities in excess of $500,000 or 10 per-
102 

cent, whichever is less without the prior notification of the Committee on Appropriations. 

Section 718. This section includes language for the establishment 

of a fee under the business and industry loan program. 

Section 719. This section prohibits the Department of Agriculture 

and the Department of Health and Human Services from transmitting questions or responses as a result of the appropriations hearing process to non-Department employees. 

Section 720. This section includes language regarding prepackaged news. 

Section 721. This section requires Department of Agriculture 

agencies to provide reimbursement to other Department of Agriculture agencies for employees detailed for longer than 60 days. 

Section 722. This section includes language regarding industrial 

hemp. 

Section 723. This section includes language regarding spending 

plans. 

Section 724. This section provides funding for the Geographically 

Disadvantaged Farmers Program. 

Section 725. This section includes language regarding section 502 

single family direct loans. 

Section 726. This section includes language regarding loans and 

loan guarantees. 

Section 727. This section includes language regarding credit card 

refunds. 

Section 728. This section includes language regarding commodity 

programs. 

Section 729. This section includes language regarding conservation. 

Section 730. This section includes language regarding the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative. 

Section 731. This section includes language regarding the Rural 

Utilities Service. 

Section 732. This section includes language regarding the Rural 

Housing Service. 

Section 733. This section includes language regarding disclosure 

of information for pharmaceuticals. 

Section 734. This section includes language regarding research 

exemptions. 

Section 735. This section includes language regarding dried spent 

grain products. 

Section 736. This section includes language regarding the Conservation Reserve Program. 

Section 737. This section includes language regarding the Water 

Bank Program. 

Section 738. This section includes language regarding partially 

hydrogenated oils. 

Section 739. This section provides funding for a pilot program 

through the National Institute of Food and Agriculture. 

Section 740. This section includes language regarding reporting 

requirements. 

Section 741. This section includes a rescission of funds. 

Section 742. This section includes language regarding Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones. 
103 

Section 743. This section includes language regarding the Rural 

Housing Service. 

Section 744. This section includes funding for the Healthy Food 

Financing Initiative. 

Section 745. This section provides funding for a pilot program 

through the Rural Housing Service. 

Section 746. This section provides funding for a pilot program 

through the Farm Service Agency. 

Section 747. This section includes language regarding the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. 

Section 748. This section provides funding to carry out a program 

for hardwood trees. 

Section 749. This section provides funding for a pilot program 

through the Food and Nutrition Service. 

Section 750. This section includes language regarding computer 

networks. 

Section 751. This section includes language regarding the Food 

and Drug Administration. 

Section 752. This section includes language regarding a Working 

Capital Fund. 

Section 753. This section provides funding for the Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service. 

Section 754. This section includes language regarding watersheds. 

Section 755. This section includes language regarding rural development. 

Section 756. This section includes language regarding drought relief. 

Section 757. This section includes language regarding genetically 

engineered salmon. 

Section 758. This section includes language regarding the use of 

funds for certain horse inspection activities. 
(104) 

PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY 

During fiscal year 2018, for purposes of the Balanced Budget and 

Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99–177) or the 

Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Reaffirmation Act 

of 1987 (Public Law 100–119), the following information provides 

the definition of the term ‘‘program, project, and activity’’ for departments and agencies under the jurisdiction of the Agriculture, 

Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 

Agencies Subcommittee. The term ‘‘program, project, and activity’’ 

shall include the most specific level of budget items identified in 

the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2018, and the accompanying Senate Report. 

If a sequestration order is necessary, in implementing the Presidential order, departments and agencies shall apply any percentage 

reduction required for fiscal year 2018 pursuant to the provisions 

of Public Law 99–177 or Public Law 100–119 to all items specified 

in the explanatory notes submitted to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate in support of the fiscal year 2018 

budget estimates, as amended, for such departments and agencies, 

as modified by congressional action, and in addition: 

For the Agricultural Research Service the definition shall include 

specific research locations as identified in the explanatory notes. 

For the Natural Resources Conservation Service the definition 

shall include individual flood prevention projects as identified in 

the explanatory notes and individual operational watershed 

projects as summarized in the notes. 

For the Farm Service Agency the definition shall include individual, regional, State, district, and county offices. 

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports accompanying general appropriations bills identify each recommended 

amendment which proposes an item of appropriation which is not 

made to carry out the provisions of an existing law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously passed by the Senate during that session. 

The Committee is filing an original bill, which is not covered 

under this rule, but reports this information in the spirit of full disclosure. 

The Committee recommends funding for the following programs 

or activities which currently lack authorization for fiscal year 2018: 

Child Nutrition Program State Administrative Expenses 

Farmers Market Nutrition Program 

Grain Inspection Service 

Multi-family Housing Revitalization Program 
105 

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants 

and Children 

Summer Food Service Program 

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(c), RULE XXVI OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on July 20, 2017, the 

Committee ordered favorably reported an original bill (S. 1603) 

making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food 

and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the 

fiscal year ending September 30, 2018, and for other purposes, provided, that the bill be subject to amendment and that the bill be 

consistent with the subcommittee funding guidance, and provided 

that the Chairman of the Committee or his designee be authorized 

to offer the substance of the original bill as a Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute to the House companion measure, by a recorded vote of 31–0, a quorum being present. The vote 

was as follows: 

Yeas Nays 

Chairman Cochran 

Mr. McConnell 

Mr. Shelby 

Mr. Alexander 

Ms. Collins 

Ms. Murkowski 

Mr. Graham 

Mr. Blunt 

Mr. Moran 

Mr. Hoeven 

Mr. Boozman 

Mrs. Capito 

Mr. Lankford 

Mr. Daines 

Mr. Kennedy 

Mr. Rubio 

Mr. Leahy 

Mrs. Murray 

Mrs. Feinstein 

Mr. Durbin 

Mr. Reed 

Mr. Tester 

Mr. Udall 

Mrs. Shaheen 

Mr. Merkley 

Mr. Coons 

Mr. Schatz 

Ms. Baldwin 

Mr. Murphy 

Mr. Manchin 

Mr. Van Hollen 
106 

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports on 

a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute or part 

of any statute include ‘‘(a) the text of the statute or part thereof 

which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a comparative print of 

that part of the bill or joint resolution making the amendment and 

of the statute or part thereof proposed to be amended, showing by 

stricken-through type and italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical devices the omissions and insertions which 

would be made by the bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form 

recommended by the committee.’’ 

In compliance with this rule, changes in existing law proposed to 

be made by the bill are shown as follows: existing law to be omitted 

is enclosed in black brackets; new matter is printed in italic; and 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman. 

TITLE 7—AGRICULTURE 

CHAPTER 36—CROP INSURANCE

SUBCHAPTER I—FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE

§ 1508b. Stacked Income Protection Plan for producers of 

upland cotton 

(a) Availability 

* * * * * * * 

(e) Relation to other coverages 

The Stacked Income Protection Plan is in addition to all other 

coverages available to producers of upland cotton. 

(f) LIMITATION.—Effective beginning with the 2018 crop year, a 

farm shall not be eligible for the Stacked Income Protection Plan for 

a crop year for which the farm is enrolled in coverage for cottonseed 

under— 

(1) price loss coverage under section 1116 of the Agricultural 

Act of 2014 (7 U.S.C. 9016); or 

(2) agriculture risk coverage under section 1117 of that Act (7 

U.S.C. 9017). 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 58—ERODIBLE LAND AND WETLAND CONSERVATION

AND RESERVE PROGRAM

SUBCHAPTER V—FUNDING AND ADMINISTRATION

§ 3844. Administrative requirements for conservation programs 

(a) Incentives for certain farmers and ranchers and Indian 

tribes 

* * * * * * * 

(l) Funding for Indian tribes 
107 

In carrying out the conservation stewardship program under subpart B of part II of subchapter IV and the environmental quality 

incentives program under part IV of subchapter IV, the Secretary 

may enter into alternative funding arrangements with Indian 

tribes if the Secretary determines that the goals and objectives of 

the programs will be met by such arrangements, and that statutory 

limitations regarding contracts with individual producers will not 

be exceeded by any tribal member. 

(m) EXEMPTION FROM CERTAIN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.— 

(1) DEFINITION OF EXEMPTED PRODUCER.—In this subsection, 

the term ‘‘exempted producer’’ means a producer or landowner 

eligible to participate in any conservation program administered by the Secretary. 

(2) EXEMPTION.—Notwithstanding the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Public Law 109– 

282; 31 U.S.C. 6101 note), the requirements of parts 25 and 170 

of title 2, Code of Federal Regulations (and any successor regulations), shall not apply with respect to assistance received by 

an exempted producer from the Secretary, acting through the 

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 98—DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE REORGANIZATION

SUBCHAPTER III—RURAL ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT

§ 6941. Under Secretary of Agriculture for Rural Development 

(a) Authorization 

The Secretary øis authorized to¿ shall establish in the Department the position of Under Secretary of Agriculture for Rural Development. 

(b) Confirmation required 

øIf the Secretary establishes the position of Under Secretary of 

Agriculture for Rural Development authorized under subsection (a), 

the Under Secretary¿ The Under Secretary of Agriculture for Rural 

Development shall be appointed by the President, by and with the 

advice and consent of the Senate. 

* * * * * * * 

ø(d) Succession 

Any official who is serving as Under Secretary of Agriculture for 

Small Community and Rural Development on October 13, 1994, 

and who was appointed by the President, by and with the advice 

and consent of the Senate, shall not be required to be reappointed 

under subsection (b) to the successor position authorized under 

subsection (a) if the Secretary establishes the position, and the official occupies the new position, within 180 days after October 13, 

1994 (or such later date set by the Secretary if litigation delays 

rapid succession).¿ 

ø(e)¿ (d) Loan approval authority 
108 

Approval authority for loans and loan guarantees in connection 

with the electric and telephone loan and loan guarantee programs 

authorized by the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901 

et seq.) shall not be transferred to, or conditioned on review of, a 

State director or other employee whose primary duty is not the review and approval of such loans or the provision of assistance to 

such borrowers. 

* * * * * * * 

SUBCHAPTER IX—MISCELLANEOUS REORGANIZATION PROVISIONS

§ 7014. Termination of authority 

(b) Functions 

Subsection (a) shall not affect: 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(8) The authority of the Secretary to carry out amendments 

made to this chapter by the Agricultural Act of 2014. 

(9) The authority of the Secretary to establish in the Department the position of Under Secretary of Agriculture for Rural 

Development under section 231. 

TITLE 16—CONSERVATION 

CHAPTER 18—WATERSHED PROTECTION AND FLOOD PREVENTION

§ 1002. Definitions 

For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms shall mean: 

The ‘‘Secretary’’—the Secretary of Agriculture of the United 

States. 

‘‘Works of improvement’’—any undertaking for— 

(1) flood prevention (including structural and land treatment measures), 

(2) the conservation, development, utilization, and disposal of water, or 

(3) the conservation and proper utilization of land, 

in watershed or subwatershed area not exceeding two hundred and fifty thousand acres and not including any single 

structure which provides more than twelve thousand five 

hundred acre-feet of floodwater detention capacity, and 

more than twenty-five thousand acre-feet of total capacity. 

No appropriation shall be made for any plan involving an 

estimated Federal contribution to construction costs in excess of ø$5,000,000¿ $25,000,000, or which includes any 

structure which provides more than twenty-five hundred 

acre-feet of total capacity unless such plan has been approved by resolutions adopted by the appropriate committees of the Senate and House of Representatives: Provided, 

That in the case of any plan involving no single structure 

providing more than 4,000 acre-feet of total capacity the 

appropriate committees shall be the Committee on Agri-
109 

culture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate and the 

Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives 

and in the case of any plan involving any single structure 

of more than 4,000 acre-feet of total capacity the appropriate committees shall be the Committee on Environment 

and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on 

Public Works and Transportation of the House of Representatives, respectively. Each project must contain benefits directly related to agriculture, including rural communities, that account for at least 20 percent of the total benefits of the project. A number of such subwatersheds when 

they are component parts of a larger watershed may be 

planned together when the local sponsoring organizations 

so desire. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 1005. Works of improvement 

(1) Engineering and other services; reimbursement; advances 

* * * * * * * 

(3) Transmission of certain plans to Congress 

Whenever the estimated Federal contribution to the construction cost of works of improvement in the plan for any watershed or subwatershed area shall exceed ø$5,000,000¿ 

$25,000,000 or the works of improvement include any structure 

having a total capacity in excess of twenty-five hundred acrefeet, the Secretary shall transmit a copy of the plan and the 

justification therefor to the Congress through the President. 

(4) Transmission of certain plans and recommendations to 

Congress 

Any plans for works of improvement involving an estimated 

Federal contribution to construction costs in excess of 

ø$5,000,000¿ $25,000,000 or including any structure having a 

total capacity in excess of twenty-five hundred acre-feet (a) 

which includes works of improvement for reclamation or irrigation, or which affects public or other lands or wildlife under the 

jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior, (b) which includes 

Federal assistance for goodwater detention structures, (c) 

which includes features which may affect the public health, or 

(d) which includes measures for control or abatement of water 

pollution, shall be submitted to the Secretary of the Interior, 

the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of Health and Human 

Services, or the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 

Agency, respectively, for his views and recommendations at 

least thirty days prior to transmission of the plan to the Congress through the President. The views and recommendations 

of the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of the Army, the 

Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, if received by 

the Secretary prior to the expiration of the above thirty-day pe-
110 

riod, shall accompany the plan transmitted by the Secretary to 

the Congress through the President. 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 58—ERODIBLE LAND AND WETLAND CONSERVATION

AND RESERVE PROGRAM

SUBCHAPTER IV—AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION

PROGRAM

PART IV—ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INCENTIVES PROGRAM

§ 3839aa–2. Establishment and administration 

ø(a) Establishment 

During each of the 2002 through 2018 fiscal years, the Secretary 

shall provide payments to producers that enter into contracts with 

the Secretary under the program.¿ 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—During each of the 2002 through 2019 fiscal years, the Secretary shall provide payments to producers that 

enter into contracts with the Secretary under the program. 

* * * * * * * 

SUBCHAPTER V—FUNDING AND ADMINISTRATION

§ 3841. Commodity Credit Corporation 

(a) Annual funding 

For each of fiscal years 2014 through ø2018¿ 2018 (and fiscal 

year 2019 in the case of the program specified in paragraph (5)), the 

Secretary shall use the funds, facilities, and authorities of the Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out the following programs 

under this chapter (including the provision of technical assistance): 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(5) The environmental quality incentives program under part 

IV of subchapter IV, using, to the maximum extent practicable— 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(E) $1,750,000,000 for øfiscal year 2018¿ each of fiscal 

years 2018 through 2019. 

(b) Availability of funds 

Amounts made available by subsection (a) for fiscal years 2014 

through ø2018¿ 2018 (and fiscal year 2019 in the case of the program specified in subsection (a)(5)) shall be used by the Secretary 

to carry out the programs specified in such subsection and shall remain available until expended. 
111 

TITLE 42—THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE 

CHAPTER 13—SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAMS

§ 1758. Program requirements 

(a) Nutritional requirements 

* * * * * * * 

(h) Food safety 

(1) In general 

* * * * * * * 

(3) Audits and reports by States 

øFor fiscal year 2017¿ For fiscal year 2018, each State shall 

annually— 

* * * * * * * 

(4) Audit by the Secretary 

øFor fiscal year 2017¿ For fiscal year 2018, the Secretary shall 

annually audit State reports of food safety inspections of schools 

submitted under paragraph (3). 

* * * * * * * 

§ 1769g. Information clearinghouse 

(a) In general 

* * * * * * * 

(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 the 

funds and shall accept the funds, without further appropriation. 

AGRICULTURE ACT OF 2014, PUBLIC LAW 113–79 

TITLE I—COMMODITIES 

Subtitle A—Repeals and Reforms 

PART II—COMMODITY POLICY

SEC. 1111. DEFINITIONS. 

In this subtitle and subtitle B: 

(1) ACTUAL CROP REVENUE.—* * * 

* * * * * * * 

(6) COVERED COMMODITY.—øThe term¿ (A) IN GENERAL.—The 

term ‘‘covered commodity’’ means wheat, oats, and barley (including wheat, oats, and barley used for haying and grazing), 
112 

corn, grain sorghum, long grain rice, medium grain rice, pulse 

crops, soybeans, other oilseeds, and peanuts. 

(B) INCLUSION.—Effective beginning with the 2018 crop 

year, the term ‘‘covered commodity’’ includes cottonseed. 

* * * * * * * 

(18) REFERENCE PRICE.—The term ‘‘reference price’’, with respect to a covered commodity for a crop year, means the following: 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(N) For large chickpeas, $21.54 per hundredweight. 

(O) For cottonseed, $15.00 per hundredweight. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 1113. PAYMENT YIELDS. 

(b) PAYMENT YIELDS FOR DESIGNATED OILSEEDS.— 

(1) DETERMINATION OF AVERAGE YIELD.—* * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) USE OF COUNTY AVERAGE YIELD.—If the yield per planted 

acre for a crop of a designated oilseed for a farm for any of the 

1998 through 2001 crop years was less than 75 percent of the 

county yield for that designated oilseed, the Secretary shall assign a yield for that crop year equal to 75 percent of the county 

yield for the purpose of determining the average under paragraph (1). 

(4) PAYMENT YIELD FOR COTTONSEED.— 

(A) PAYMENT YIELD.—Subject to subparagraph (B), the 

payment yield for a farm for cottonseed shall be equal to 

1.4 times the payment yield for upland cotton for the farm 

established under section 1104(e)(3) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8714(e)(3)) (as in effect on February 6, 2014). 

(B) UPDATE.—At the sole discretion of the owner of a 

farm, the owner of a farm shall have a 1-time opportunity 

to update the payment yield described in subparagraph (A) 

in accordance with subsection (d). 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 1114. PAYMENT ACRES. 

(b) TREATMENT OF GENERIC BASE ACRES.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—* * * 

(2) ATTRIBUTION.—With respect to a farm containing generic 

base acres, for the purpose of applying øparagraphs (1)(B) and 

(2)(B)¿ paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a), generic base 

acres on the farm are attributed to a covered commodity in the 

following manner: 

* * * * * * * 

(3) TREATED AS ADDITIONAL ACREAGE.—When generic base 

acres are planted to a covered commodity or acreage planted 

to a covered commodity is attributed to generic base acres, the 
113 

generic base acres are in addition to other base acres on the 

farm. 

(4) COTTONSEED.—Effective for the 2018 crop year and each 

crop year thereafter, the Secretary shall allocate generic base 

acres for producers on a farm as follows: 

(A) In the case of a farm on which no covered commodities (including cottonseed) were planted or were prevented 

from being planted at any time during each of the 2009 

through 2016 crop years, generic base acres shall be allocated to unassigned crop base for which no payments may 

be made under section 1116 or 1117. 

(B) In the case of a farm not described in subparagraph 

(A), generic base acres shall be allocated— 

(i) to cottonseed base acres in a quantity equal to the 

greater of— 

(I) subject to subparagraph (C), 80 percent of the 

generic base acres on the farm; and 

(II) the average number of cottonseed acres 

planted or prevented from being planted on the 

farm during each of the 2009 through 2012 crop 

years (not to exceed the total generic base acres on 

the farm); or 

(ii) to base acres for covered commodities (including 

cottonseed), by applying subparagraphs (B), (D), (E), 

and (F) of section 1112(a)(3). 

(C) In the case of a farm on which generic base acres are 

allocated under subparagraph (B)(i)(I), the remaining 20 

percent of generic base acres shall be allocated to unassigned crop base for which no payments may be made 

under section 1116 or 1117. 

* * * * * * * 

(e) EFFECT OF PLANTING FRUITS AND VEGETABLES.— 

(1) REDUCTION REQUIRED.—* * * 

* * * * * * * 

(4) REDUCTION EXCEPTIONS.—* * * 

(A) * * * 

(B) in any region in which there is a history of doublecropping covered commodities with crops referred to in 

paragraph (1) and such crops were so double-cropped on 

the base acres, as determined by the Secretary. 

(f) UNASSIGNED CROP BASE.—The Secretary shall maintain information on generic base acres on a farm allocated as unassigned 

crop base under subparagraphs (A) and (C) of subsection (b)(4). 

SEC. 1115. PRODUCER ELECTION. 

(a) ELECTION REQUIRED.—øFor¿ Except as provided in subsection 

(g), for the 2014 through 2018 crop years, all of the producers on 

a farm shall make a 1-time, irrevocable election to obtain— 

* * * * * * * 
114 

(f) PROHIBITION ON RECONSTITUTION.—The Secretary shall ensure that producers on a farm do not reconstitute the farm to void 

or change an election or selection made under this section. 

(g) SPECIAL ELECTION.—In the case of a farm on which generic 

base acres are attributed to cottonseed or on which generic base 

acres are allocated to cottonseed, the producers on the farm shall be 

given the opportunity to make a new 1-time election under subsection (a) for the 2018 crop year and each crop year thereafter to 

reflect the designation of cottonseed as a covered commodity under 

section 1111(6)(B). 

* * * * * * * 

Subtitle B—Marketing Loans 

SEC. 1202. LOAN RATES FOR NONRECOURSE MARKETING ASSISTANCE 

LOANS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—* * * 

* * * * * * * 

(b) SINGLE COUNTY LOAN RATE FOR OTHER OILSEEDS.—The Secretary shall establish a single loan rate in each county for each 

kind of other oilseeds described in subsection (a)(11). 

(c) COTTONSEED.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of section 1116(b)(2) and 

paragraphs (1)(B)(ii) and (2)(A)(ii)(II) of section 1117(b), the 

loan rate for cottonseed shall be equal to $8.00 per hundredweight. 

(2) EFFECT.—Nothing in this subsection authorizes any nonrecourse marketing assistance loan under this subtitle for cottonseed. 

* * * * * * * 

Subtitle C—Sugar 

PART I—MARGIN PROTECTION PROGRAM FOR DAIRY PRODUCERS

SEC. 1401. DEFINITIONS. 

In this part and part III: 

(1) ACTUAL DAIRY PRODUCTION MARGIN.—* * * 

(2) ALL-MILK PRICE.—* * * 

(3) AVERAGE FEED COST.—* * * 

ø(4) CONSECUTIVE 2-MONTH PERIOD.—The term ‘‘consecutive 

2-month period’’ refers to the 2-month period consisting of the 

months of January and February, March and April, May and 

June, July and August, September and October, or November 

and December, respectively.¿ 

ø(5)¿ (4) DAIRY OPERATION.—* * * 

ø(6)¿ (5) MARGIN PROTECTOIN PROGRAM.—* * * 

ø(7)¿ (6) MARGIN PROTECTION PROGRAM PAYMENT.—* * * 

ø(8)¿ (7) PARTICIPATING DAIRY OPERATION.—* * * 

ø(9)¿ (8) PRODUCTION HISTORY.—* * * 
115 

ø(10)¿ (9) SECRETARY.—* * * 

ø(11)¿ (10) UNITED STATES.—* * * 

SEC. 1402. CALCULATION OF AVERAGE FEED COST AND ACTUAL 

DAIRY PRODUCTION MARGINS. 

(b) CALCULATION OF ACTUAL DAIRY PRODUCTION MARGIN.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—For use in the margin protection program, 

the Secretary shall calculate the actual dairy production margin for each øconsecutive 2-month period¿ month by subtracting— 

(A) the average feed cost for that øconsecutive 2-month 

period¿ month, determined in accordance with subsection 

(a); from 

(B) the all-milk price for that øconsecutive 2-month period¿ month. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 1404. PARTICIPATION OF DAIRY OPERATIONS IN MARGIN PROTECTION PROGRAM. 

(b) REGISTRATION PROCESS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall specify the manner 

and form by which a participating dairy operation may register 

to participate in the margin protection program, including the 

establishment of a date each coverage year by which a dairy operation shall register for the coverage year. 

(2) ELECTION.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—For the 2019 through 2023 coverage 

years, a dairy operation may make an irrevocable election 

to participate in the margin protection program. 

(B) COVERAGE YEARS.—A dairy operation that elects to 

participate in the margin protection program under subparagraph (A) shall participate in the margin protection 

program for the coverage year for which the participating 

dairy operation elects to participate and each subsequent 

coverage year through coverage year 2023. 

ø(2)¿ (3) TREATMENT OF MULTIPRODUCER DAIRY OPERATIONS.—If a participating dairy operation is operated by more 

than 1 dairy producer, all of the dairy producers of the participating dairy operation shall be treated as a single dairy operation for purposes of participating in the margin protection 

program. 

ø(3)¿ (4) TREATMENT OF PRODUCERS WITH MULTIPLE DAIRY

OPERATIONS.—If a dairy producer operates 2 or more dairy operations, each dairy operation of the producer shall separately 

register to participate in the margin protection program. 

(c) ANNUAL ADMINISTRATIVE FEE.— 

(1) ADMINISTRATIVE FEE REQUIRED.—* * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) USE OF FEES.—The Secretary shall use administrative 

fees collected under this subsection to cover administrative 

costs incurred to carry out the margin protection program. 
116 

(4) EXEMPTION.—A limited resource, beginning, veteran, or 

socially disadvantaged farmer, as defined by the Secretary, 

shall be exempt from the administrative fee under this subsection. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 1405. PRODUCTION HISTORY OF PARTICIPATING DAIRY OPERATIONS. 

(a) PRODUCTION HISTORY.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—* * * 

(2) ADJUSTMENT.—In subsequent years, the Secretary shall 

adjust the production history of a participating dairy operation 

determined under paragraph (1) to reflect any increase in the 

national average milk production. 

(3) CONTINUED APPLICABILITY OF BASE PRODUCTION HISTORY.—A production history established for a dairy operation 

under paragraph (1) shall be the base production history for the 

dairy operation in subsequent years (as adjusted under paragraph (2)). 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 1406. MARGIN PROTECTION PAYMENTS. 

(a) COVERAGE LEVEL THRESHOLD AND COVERAGE PERCENTAGE.— 

For purposes of receiving margin protection payments for a øconsecutive 2-month period¿ month, a participating dairy operation 

shall annually elect— 

(1) a coverage level threshold that is equal to $4.00, $4.50, 

$5.00, $5.50, $6.00, $6.50, $7.00, $7.50, or $8.00; and 

(2) a percentage of coverage, in 5-percent increments, beginning with 25 percent and not exceeding 90 percent of the production history of the participating dairy operation. 

(b) PAYMENT THRESHOLD.—A participating dairy operation shall 

receive a margin protection payment whenever the average actual 

dairy production margin for a øconsecutive 2-month period¿ month 

is less than the coverage level threshold selected by the participating dairy operation. 

(c) AMOUNT OF MARGIN PROTECTION PAYMENT.—The margin protection payment for the participating dairy operation shall be determined as follows: 

(1) The Secretary shall calculate the amount by which the 

coverage level threshold selected by the participating dairy operation exceeds the average actual dairy production margin for 

the øconsecutive 2-month period¿ month. 

(2) The amount determined under paragraph (1) shall be 

multiplied by— 

(A) the coverage percentage selected by the participating 

dairy operation; and 

(B) the production history of the participating dairy operation divided by ø6¿ 12. 
117 

SEC. 1407. PREMIUMS FOR MARGIN PROTECTION PROGRAM. 

(b) øPREMIUM PER HUNDREDWEIGHT FOR FIRST 4 MILLION

POUNDS OF PRODUCTION¿ TIER I: PREMIUM PER HUNDREDWEIGHT

FOR FIRST 5,000,000 POUNDS OF PRODUCTION.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—For the first ø4,000,000¿ 5,000,000 pounds 

of milk marketings included in the production history of a participating dairy operation, the premium per hundredweight for 

each coverage level is specified in the table contained in paragraph (2). 

(2) PRODUCER PREMIUMS.—Except as provided in paragraph 

(3), the following annual premiums apply: 

Coverage Level Premium per Cwt. 

$4.00 None 

$4.50 ø$0.010¿ None 

$5.00 ø$0.025¿ None 

$5.50 ø$0.040¿ $0.009 

$6.00 ø$0.055¿ $0.017 

$6.50 ø$0.090¿ $0.043 

$7.00 ø$0.217¿ $0.068 

$7.50 ø$0.300¿ $0.094 

$8.00 ø$0.475¿ $0.153 

* * * * * * * 

(c) øPREMIUM PER HUNDREDWEIGHT FOR PRODUCTION IN EXCESS

OF 4 MILLION POUNDS¿ TIER II: PREMIUM PER HUNDREDWEIGHT

FOR PRODUCTION IN EXCESS OF 5,000,000 POUNDS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—For milk marketings in excess of 

ø4,000,000¿ 5,000,000 pounds included in the production history of a participating dairy operation, the premium per hundredweight for each coverage level is specified in the table contained in paragraph (2). 

* * * * * * * 

(e) PREMIUM OBLIGATIONS.— 

(1) PRO-RATION OF PREMIUM FOR NEW PARTICIPANTS.—* * * 

(2) LEGAL OBLIGATION.—A participating dairy operation in 

the margin protection program øfor a calendar year shall be legally obligated to pay the applicable premium for that calendar 

year¿ shall be legally obligated to pay the applicable premium 

elected by the participating dairy operation for the coverage 

year, except that the Secretary may waive that obligation, 

under terms and conditions determined by the Secretary, for 

any participating dairy operation in the case of death, retirement, permanent dissolution of a participating dairy operation, 

or other circumstances as the Secretary considers appropriate 

to ensure the integrity of the program. 
118 

BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL 

PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 

308(A), PUBLIC LAW 93–344, AS AMENDED 

[In millions of dollars] 

Budget authority Outlays 

Committee 

guidance 1

Amount 

in bill 

Committee 

guidance 1

Amount 

in bill 

Comparison of amounts in the bill with the subcommittee 

allocation for 2018: Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural 

Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies: 

Mandatory .................................................................... 111,509 111,509 100,005 2 100,005 

Discretionary ................................................................ 20,525 20,525 21,621 2 21,621 

Security ............................................................... ...................... ...................... ...................... NA 

Nonsecurity ......................................................... 20,525 20,525 NA NA 

Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation: 

2018 ............................................................................. ...................... ...................... ...................... 3 104,859 

2019 ............................................................................. ...................... ...................... ...................... 5,659 

2020 ............................................................................. ...................... ...................... ...................... 1,282 

2021 ............................................................................. ...................... ...................... ...................... 565 

2022 and future years ................................................ ...................... ...................... ...................... 1,062 

Financial assistance to State and local governments for 

2018 ................................................................................. NA 40,438 NA 3 32,440 

1 There is no section 302(a) allocation to the Committee on Appropriations for fiscal year 2018. 

2 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

3 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

NA: Not applicable. 

NOTE.—Pursuant to section 1002(b)(3)(B) of the 21st Century Cures Act (Public Law 114–255), $60,000,000 in budget authority and the 

resulting outlays do not count for the purposes of estimates under the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 or the 

Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. 
119 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2017 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2017 

appropriation Budget estimate 

TITLE I—AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS 

Processing, Research, and Marketing 

Office of the Secretary 

Office of the Secretary ......................................................................................................................................................... 5,051 4,859 5,051 .......................... ∂192 Office of Tribal Relations ..................................................................................................................................................... 502 501 502 .......................... ∂1 Assistant to the Secretary for Rural Development .............................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... 800 ∂800 ∂800 Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Coordination ................................................................................................. 1,496 1,448 1,496 .......................... ∂48 Office of Advocacy and Outreach ........................................................................................................................................ 1,209 1,171 4,209 ∂3,000 ∂3,038 Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration .......................................................................................................... 804 802 804 .......................... ∂2 Departmental Administration ............................................................................................................................................... 24,124 22,501 24,124 .......................... ∂1,623 

Subtotal, Departmental Administration .................................................................................................................. 24,928 23,303 24,928 .......................... ∂1,625 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations ........................................................................................... 3,869 3,521 3,869 .......................... ∂348 Office of Communications .................................................................................................................................................... 7,500 7,261 7,500 .......................... ∂239 

Total, Office of the Secretary ................................................................................................................................. 44,555 42,064 48,355 ∂3,800 ∂6,291 

Executive Operations: 

Office of the Chief Economist ..................................................................................................................................... 18,917 17,211 16,917 ¥2,000 ¥294 Office of Hearings and Appeals .................................................................................................................................. 13,399 14,716 13,399 .......................... ¥1,317 Office of Budget and Program Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 9,525 9,093 9,525 .......................... ∂432 

Subtotal, Executive Operations ............................................................................................................................... 41,841 41,020 39,841 ¥2,000 ¥1,179 

Office of the Chief Information Officer ................................................................................................................................ 49,538 58,950 58,950 ∂9,412 ..........................Office of the Chief Financial Officer ................................................................................................................................... 8,028 5,836 8,028 .......................... ∂2,192 Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights ............................................................................................................... 901 896 901 .......................... ∂5 Office of Civil Rights ........................................................................................................................................................... 24,206 23,304 24,206 .......................... ∂902 Building and Facilities Agriculture Buildings and Facilities .............................................................................................. 84,189 62,145 67,293 ¥16,896 ∂5,148 
120 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2017 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2017 

appropriation Budget estimate 

Hazardous materials management ...................................................................................................................................... 3,633 3,503 3,633 .......................... ∂130 Office of Inspector General .................................................................................................................................................. 98,208 92,689 98,208 .......................... ∂5,519 Office of the General Counsel .............................................................................................................................................. 44,697 42,970 44,697 .......................... ∂1,727 Office of Ethics .................................................................................................................................................................... 4,136 3,538 4,136 .......................... ∂598 

Total, Departmental Administration ....................................................................................................................... 403,932 376,915 398,248 ¥5,684 ∂21,333 

Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics ............................................................................ 893 891 893 .......................... ∂2 Economic Research Service .................................................................................................................................................. 86,757 76,690 86,757 .......................... ∂10,067 National Agricultural Statistics Service ............................................................................................................................... 171,239 185,677 191,717 ∂20,478 ∂6,040 

Census of Agriculture .................................................................................................................................................. (42,177 ) (63,900 ) (63,350 ) (∂21,173 ) (¥550 ) 

Agricultural Research Service: 

Salaries and expenses ................................................................................................................................................ 1,170,235 993,144 1,182,435 ∂12,200 ∂189,291 Buildings and facilities ............................................................................................................................................... 99,600 .......................... .......................... ¥99,600 ..........................

Total, Agricultural Research Service ...................................................................................................................... 1,269,835 993,144 1,182,435 ¥87,400 ∂189,291 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture: 

Research and education activities ............................................................................................................................. 849,518 769,613 854,871 ∂5,353 ∂85,258 Native American Institutions Endowment Fund .......................................................................................................... (11,880 ) (11,857 ) (11,880 ) .......................... (∂23 ) Extension activities ..................................................................................................................................................... 477,391 462,890 481,376 ∂3,985 ∂18,486 Integrated activities .................................................................................................................................................... 36,000 20,276 37,000 ∂1,000 ∂16,724 

Total, National Institute of Food and Agriculture .................................................................................................. 1,362,909 1,252,779 1,373,247 ∂10,338 ∂120,468 

Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs ............................................................................. 901 891 901 .......................... ∂10 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service: 

Salaries and expenses ................................................................................................................................................ 946,212 810,000 953,212 ∂7,000 ∂143,212 
121 

Buildings and facilities ............................................................................................................................................... 3,175 2,852 3,175 .......................... ∂323 

Total, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ............................................................................................... 949,387 812,852 956,387 ∂7,000 ∂143,535 

Agricultural Marketing Service: 

Marketing Services ...................................................................................................................................................... 84,933 77,462 88,933 ∂4,000 ∂11,471 

Standardization activities (user fees) ................................................................................................................ (65,000 ) .......................... (65,000 ) .......................... (∂65,000 ) 

(Limitation on administrative expenses, from fees collected) ................................................................................... (61,227 ) (60,982 ) (60,982 ) (¥245 ) ..........................Funds for strengthening markets, income, and supply (Section 32): 

Permanent, Section 32 ....................................................................................................................................... 1,322,000 1,344,000 1,344,000 ∂22,000 ..........................

Marketing agreements and orders (transfer from section 32) ................................................................ (20,705 ) (20,489 ) (20,489 ) (¥216 ) ..........................

Payments to States and Possessions ......................................................................................................................... 1,235 1,109 1,235 .......................... ∂126 

Total, Agricultural Marketing Service program ...................................................................................................... 1,469,395 1,483,553 1,495,150 ∂25,755 ∂11,597 

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration: 

Salaries and expenses ................................................................................................................................................ 43,482 42,975 43,482 .......................... ∂507 Limitation on inspection and weighing services ........................................................................................................ (55,000 ) (60,000 ) (57,500 ) (∂2,500 ) (¥2,500 ) 

Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety ..................................................................................................................... 819 814 819 .......................... ∂5 Food Safety and Inspection Service ..................................................................................................................................... 1,032,062 1,038,069 1,038,069 ∂6,007 ..........................

Lab accreditation fees ................................................................................................................................................ (1,000 ) (1,000 ) (1,000 ) .......................... ..........................

Total, Processing, Research, and Marketing .......................................................................................................... 6,730,384 6,204,268 6,707,123 ¥23,261 ∂502,855 Total, Title I, Agricultural Programs ....................................................................................................................... 6,730,384 6,204,268 6,707,123 ¥23,261 ∂502,855 

(By transfer) ................................................................................................................................................... (20,705 ) (20,489 ) (20,489 ) (¥216 ) ..........................(Limitation on administrative expenses) ....................................................................................................... (116,227 ) (120,982 ) (118,482 ) (∂2,255 ) (¥2,500 ) 

TITLE II—FARM PRODUCTION AND CONSERVATION PROGRAMS 

Farm Production Programs 

Office of the Under Secretary for Farm Production and Conservation ............................................................................... 901 896 901 .......................... ∂5 Farm Service Agency: 

Salaries and expenses ................................................................................................................................................ 1,206,110 1,130,163 1,212,116 ∂6,006 ∂81,953 (Transfer from Food for Peace (Public Law 480)) ...................................................................................................... (149 ) (149 ) (149 ) .......................... ..........................(Transfer from export loans) ....................................................................................................................................... (2,463 ) (353 ) (2,463 ) .......................... (∂2,110 ) (Transfer from ACIF) .................................................................................................................................................... (306,998 ) (297,386 ) (306,998 ) .......................... (∂9,612 ) 
122 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2017 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2017 

appropriation Budget estimate 

Subtotal, transfers from program accounts ........................................................................................................... (309,610 ) (297,888 ) (309,610 ) .......................... (∂11,722 ) Total, Salaries and expenses .................................................................................................................................. (1,515,720 ) (1,428,051 ) (1,521,726 ) (∂6,006 ) (∂93,675 ) 

State mediation grants ............................................................................................................................................... 3,904 3,398 3,904 .......................... ∂506 Grassroots source water protection program .............................................................................................................. 6,500 .......................... 6,500 .......................... ∂6,500 Dairy indemnity program ............................................................................................................................................. 500 500 500 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Farm Service Agency ............................................................................................................................... 1,217,014 1,134,061 1,223,020 ∂6,006 ∂88,959 

Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund [ACIF] Program Account: 

Loan authorizations: 

Farm ownership loans: 

Direct ................................................................................................................................................ (1,500,000 ) (1,500,000 ) (1,500,000 ) .......................... ..........................Guaranteed ....................................................................................................................................... (2,750,000 ) (2,500,000 ) (2,750,000 ) .......................... (∂250,000 ) 

Subtotal ........................................................................................................................................ (4,250,000 ) (4,000,000 ) (4,250,000 ) .......................... (∂250,000 ) 

Farm operating loans: 

Direct ................................................................................................................................................ (1,530,000 ) (1,304,851 ) (1,530,000 ) .......................... (∂225,149 ) Unsubsidized guaranteed ................................................................................................................. (1,960,000 ) (1,393,423 ) (1,960,000 ) .......................... (∂566,577 ) 

Subtotal ........................................................................................................................................ (3,490,000 ) (2,698,274 ) (3,490,000 ) .......................... (∂791,726 ) 

Emergency loans ....................................................................................................................................... (22,576 ) (25,610 ) (22,581 ) (∂5 ) (¥3,029 ) Indian tribe land acquisition loans .......................................................................................................... (20,000 ) (20,000 ) (20,000 ) .......................... ..........................Conservation loans: 

Guaranteed ....................................................................................................................................... (150,000 ) (150,000 ) (150,000 ) .......................... ..........................

Indian Highly Fractionated Land Loans .................................................................................................... (10,000 ) .......................... (10,000 ) .......................... (∂10,000 ) Boll weevil eradication loans .................................................................................................................... (60,000 ) (60,000 ) (60,000 ) .......................... ..........................
123 

Total, Loan authorizations .................................................................................................................... (8,002,576 ) (6,953,884 ) (8,002,581 ) (∂5 ) (∂1,048,697 ) 

Loan subsidies: 

Farm operating loans: 

Direct ................................................................................................................................................ 65,178 52,716 61,812 ¥3,366 ∂9,096 Unsubsidized guaranteed ................................................................................................................. 20,972 15,467 21,756 ∂784 ∂6,289 

Subtotal ........................................................................................................................................ 86,150 68,183 83,568 ¥2,582 ∂15,385 

Emergency Loans ....................................................................................................................................... 1,262 1,260 1,111 ¥151 ¥149 Indian Highly Fractionated Land Loans .................................................................................................... 2,550 .......................... 2,272 ¥278 ∂2,272 

Total, Loan subsidies and grants ........................................................................................................ 89,962 69,443 86,951 ¥3,011 ∂17,508 

ACIF administrative expenses: 

Salaries and expenses (transfer to FSA) .................................................................................................. 306,998 297,386 306,998 .......................... ∂9,612 Administrative expenses ............................................................................................................................ 10,070 7,905 10,070 .......................... ∂2,165 

Total, ACIF expenses ............................................................................................................................. 317,068 305,291 317,068 .......................... ∂11,777 Total, Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund ............................................................................................ 407,030 374,734 404,019 ¥3,011 ∂29,285 

(Loan authorization) ......................................................................................................................... (8,002,576 ) (6,953,884 ) (8,002,581 ) (∂5 ) (∂1,048,697 ) 

Total, Farm Service Agency ......................................................................................................... 1,624,945 1,509,691 1,627,940 ∂2,995 ∂118,249 

Risk Management Agency: 

RMA Salaries and expenses ........................................................................................................................................ 74,829 55,000 74,829 .......................... ∂19,829 

Subtotal, Risk Management Agency ....................................................................................................................... 74,829 55,000 74,829 .......................... ∂19,829 Total, Farm Production Programs ........................................................................................................................... 1,699,774 1,564,691 1,702,769 ∂2,995 ∂138,078 

Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment ............................................................................. 901 896 .......................... ¥901 ¥896 Natural Resources Conservation Service: 

Private Lands Conservation Operations ...................................................................................................................... 864,474 766,000 874,107 ∂9,633 ∂108,107 

Transfer .............................................................................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Farm Security and Rural Investment program (transfer authority) .................................................................. .......................... (985,000 ) .......................... .......................... (¥985,000 ) 

Total, Conservation operations ...................................................................................................................... 864,474 766,000 874,107 ∂9,633 ∂108,107 
124 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2017 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2017 

appropriation Budget estimate 

Watershed flood and prevention operations ............................................................................................................... 150,000 .......................... 150,000 .......................... ∂150,000 Watershed rehabilitation program .............................................................................................................................. 12,000 .......................... .......................... ¥12,000 ..........................

Total, Natural Resources Conservation Service ...................................................................................................... 1,026,474 766,000 1,024,107 ¥2,367 ∂258,107 

Corporations 

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation: 

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation fund ................................................................................................................... 8,667,000 8,245,000 8,245,000 ¥422,000 ..........................

Commodity Credit Corporation Fund: 

Reimbursement for net realized losses ...................................................................................................................... 21,290,712 17,483,000 17,483,000 ¥3,807,712 ..........................Hazardous waste management (limitation on expenses) ........................................................................................... (5,000 ) (5,000 ) (5,000 ) .......................... ..........................

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 28,454,876 ¥4,229,985 ∂395,289 

TITLE III—RURAL DEVELOPMENT 

Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development ......................................................................................................... 896 891 896 .......................... ∂5 Rural Development: 

Rural development expenses: 

Salaries and expenses ....................................................................................................................................... 225,835 186,076 225,835 .......................... ∂39,759 (Transfer from RHIF) .......................................................................................................................................... (412,254 ) (244,249 ) (412,254 ) .......................... (∂168,005 ) (Transfer from RCFP) ......................................................................................................................................... .......................... (147,591 ) .......................... .......................... (¥147,591 ) (Transfer from RDLFP) ........................................................................................................................................ (4,468 ) .......................... (4,468 ) .......................... (∂4,468 ) (Transfer from RETLP) ........................................................................................................................................ (33,270 ) (38,027 ) (33,270 ) .......................... (¥4,757 ) (Transfer from DLTBP) ........................................................................................................................................ .......................... (8,057 ) .......................... .......................... (¥8,057 ) 
125 

Subtotal, Transfers from program accounts ................................................................................................. (449,992 ) (437,924 ) (449,992 ) .......................... (∂12,068 ) Total, Rural development expenses ............................................................................................................... (675,827 ) (624,000 ) (675,827 ) .......................... (∂51,827 ) 

Rural Housing Service: 

Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account: 

Loan authorizations: 

Single family direct (Sec. 502) ................................................................................................................. (1,000,000 ) .......................... (1,000,000 ) .......................... (∂1,000,000 ) 

Unsubsidized guaranteed ................................................................................................................. (24,000,000 ) (24,000,000 ) (24,000,000 ) .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Single family ................................................................................................................ (25,000,000 ) (24,000,000 ) (25,000,000 ) .......................... (∂1,000,000 ) 

Housing repair (Sec. 504) ......................................................................................................................... (26,278 ) .......................... (26,278 ) .......................... (∂26,278 ) Rental housing (Sec. 515) ........................................................................................................................ (35,000 ) .......................... (35,000 ) .......................... (∂35,000 ) Multi-family housing guarantees (Sec. 538) ............................................................................................ (230,000 ) (250,000 ) (230,000 ) .......................... (¥20,000 ) Site development loans (Sec. 524) ........................................................................................................... (5,000 ) .......................... (5,000 ) .......................... (∂5,000 ) Single family housing credit sales ........................................................................................................... (10,000 ) (10,000 ) (10,000 ) .......................... ..........................Self-help housing land development housng loans (Sec. 523) ............................................................... (5,000 ) .......................... (5,000 ) .......................... (∂5,000 ) Farm Labor Housing (Sec.514) ................................................................................................................. (23,855 ) .......................... (23,855 ) .......................... (∂23,855 ) 

Total, Loan authorizations .................................................................................................................... (25,335,133 ) (24,260,000 ) (25,335,133 ) .......................... (∂1,075,133 ) 

Loan subsidies: 

Single Family Direct (Sec. 502) ................................................................................................................ 67,700 .......................... 38,500 ¥29,200 ∂38,500 Housing repair (Sec. 504) ......................................................................................................................... 3,663 .......................... 3,240 ¥423 ∂3,240 Rental housing (Sec. 515) ........................................................................................................................ 10,360 .......................... 9,209 ¥1,151 ∂9,209 Farm labor housing (Sec.514) .................................................................................................................. 7,051 .......................... 6,374 ¥677 ∂6,374 Self-Help Land Devleopment Housing Loans (Sec.523) ........................................................................... 417 .......................... 368 ¥49 ∂368 Site Development Loans (Sec.524) ........................................................................................................... 111 .......................... 58 ¥53 ∂58 

Total, Loan subsidies ............................................................................................................................ 89,302 .......................... 57,749 ¥31,553 ∂57,749 

Farm labor housing grants ....................................................................................................................... 8,336 .......................... 8,336 .......................... ∂8,336 RHIF administrative expenses (transfer to RD) ........................................................................................ 412,254 244,249 412,254 .......................... ∂168,005 

Total, Rural Housing Insurance Fund program .................................................................................... 509,892 244,249 478,339 ¥31,553 ∂234,090 

(Loan authorization) ......................................................................................................................... (25,335,133 ) (24,260,000 ) (25,335,133 ) .......................... (∂1,075,133 ) 

Rental assistance program: 

Rental assistance (Sec. 521) ............................................................................................................................. 1,405,033 1,345,293 1,345,293 ¥59,740 ..........................
126 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2017 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2017 

appropriation Budget estimate 

Multi-Family Housing Revitalization Program Account: 

Rural housing voucher program ................................................................................................................................. 19,400 20,000 19,400 .......................... ¥600 Multi-family housing revitalization program .............................................................................................................. 22,000 .......................... 22,000 .......................... ∂22,000 

Total, Multi-family housing revitalization .............................................................................................................. 41,400 20,000 41,400 .......................... ∂21,400 

Mutual and self-help housing grants ......................................................................................................................... 30,000 .......................... 30,000 .......................... ∂30,000 Rural housing assistance grants ................................................................................................................................ 33,701 .......................... 33,701 .......................... ∂33,701 Rural Community Facilities Program Account: 

Loan authorizations: 

Community facility: 

Direct ................................................................................................................................................ (2,600,000 ) (3,000,000 ) (3,000,000 ) (∂400,000 ) ..........................Guaranteed ....................................................................................................................................... (148,305 ) .......................... (148,305 ) .......................... (∂148,305 ) 

Total, Loan authorizations ........................................................................................................... (2,748,305 ) (3,000,000 ) (3,148,305 ) (∂400,000 ) (∂148,305 ) 

Loan subsidies and grants: 

Community facility: 

Guaranteed ....................................................................................................................................... 3,322 .......................... 4,850 ∂1,528 ∂4,850 Grants ............................................................................................................................................... 30,000 .......................... 30,000 .......................... ∂30,000 

Rural community development initiative .................................................................................................. 4,000 .......................... 4,000 .......................... ∂4,000 Economic impact initiative grants ............................................................................................................ 5,778 .......................... 5,778 .......................... ∂5,778 Tribal college grants ................................................................................................................................. 4,000 .......................... 4,000 .......................... ∂4,000 RCFP administrative expenses (transfer to RD) ....................................................................................... .......................... 147,591 .......................... .......................... ¥147,591 

Total, RCFP Loan subsidies and grants ............................................................................................... 47,100 147,591 48,628 ∂1,528 ¥98,963 Subtotal, grants and payments ............................................................................................................ 110,801 147,591 112,329 ∂1,528 ¥35,262 

Total, Rural Housing Service .................................................................................................................................. 2,067,126 1,757,133 1,977,361 ¥89,765 ∂220,228 
127 

(Loan authorization) ....................................................................................................................................... (28,083,438 ) (27,260,000 ) (28,483,438 ) (∂400,000 ) (∂1,223,438 ) 

Rural Business—Cooperative Service: 

Rural Business Program Account: 

(Guaranteed business and industry loans) ....................................................................................................... (919,765 ) .......................... (919,765 ) .......................... (∂919,765 ) Loan subsidies and grants: 

Guaranteed business and industry subsidy ............................................................................................. 35,319 .......................... 37,342 ∂2,023 ∂37,342 

Rural business development grants ................................................................................................ 24,000 .......................... 24,000 .......................... ∂24,000 Delta Regional Authority and Appalachian Regional Commission .................................................. 6,000 .......................... 3,000 ¥3,000 ∂3,000 

Total, RBP loan subsidies and grants ........................................................................................ 65,319 .......................... 64,342 ¥977 ∂64,342 

Intermediary Relending Program Fund Account: 

(Loan authorization) ........................................................................................................................................... (18,889 ) .......................... (18,889 ) .......................... (∂18,889 ) Loan subsidy ...................................................................................................................................................... 5,476 .......................... 4,361 ¥1,115 ∂4,361 Administrative expenses (transfer to RD) .......................................................................................................... 4,468 .......................... 4,468 .......................... ∂4,468 

Total, IRP Fund .............................................................................................................................................. 9,944 .......................... 8,829 ¥1,115 ∂8,829 

Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account: 

(Loan authorization) ........................................................................................................................................... (42,213 ) .......................... (42,213 ) .......................... (∂42,213 ) Limit cushion of credit interest spending ......................................................................................................... (132,000 ) (176,000 ) (196,000 ) (∂64,000 ) (∂20,000 ) 

(Rescission) ............................................................................................................................................... ¥132,000 ¥176,000 ¥196,000 ¥64,000 ¥20,000 

Rural Cooperative Development Grants: 

Cooperative development ................................................................................................................................... 5,800 .......................... 5,800 .......................... ∂5,800 Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas .............................................................................................. 2,750 .......................... 2,750 .......................... ∂2,750 Grants to assist minority producers .................................................................................................................. 3,000 .......................... 3,000 .......................... ∂3,000 Value-added agricultural product market development .................................................................................... 15,000 .......................... 15,000 .......................... ∂15,000 

Total, Rural Cooperative development grants ............................................................................................... 26,550 .......................... 26,550 .......................... ∂26,550 

Rural Energy for America Program (Loan authorization) ........................................................................................... (7,576 ) .......................... (7,576 ) .......................... (∂7,576 ) 

Loan subsidy and grants ................................................................................................................................... 352 .......................... 293 ¥59 ∂293 

Total, Rural Energy for America Program ..................................................................................................... 352 .......................... 293 ¥59 ∂293 

Total, Rural Business-Cooperative Service ............................................................................................................. ¥29,835 ¥176,000 ¥95,986 ¥66,151 ∂80,014 

(Loan authorization) ....................................................................................................................................... (988,443 ) .......................... (988,443 ) .......................... (∂988,443 ) 
128 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2017 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2017 

appropriation Budget estimate 

Rural Utilities Service: 

Rural water and waste disposal program account: 

Loan authorizations: 

Direct ......................................................................................................................................................... (1,200,000 ) .......................... (1,200,000 ) .......................... (∂1,200,000 ) Guaranteed ................................................................................................................................................ (50,000 ) .......................... (50,000 ) .......................... (∂50,000 ) 

Total, Loan authorization ...................................................................................................................... 1,250,000 .......................... 1,250,000 .......................... ∂1,250,000 

Loan subsidies and grants: 

Direct subsidy ............................................................................................................................................ 52,080 .......................... 25,680 ¥26,400 ∂25,680 Guaranteed subsidy ................................................................................................................................... 240 .......................... 230 ¥10 ∂230 Water and waste revolving fund ............................................................................................................... 1,000 .......................... 1,000 .......................... ∂1,000 Water well system grants ......................................................................................................................... 993 .......................... 993 .......................... ∂993 Colonias and AK/HI grants ........................................................................................................................ 64,000 .......................... 66,500 ∂2,500 ∂66,500 Water and waste technical assistance ..................................................................................................... 20,000 .......................... 20,000 .......................... ∂20,000 Circuit rider program ................................................................................................................................ 16,897 .......................... 18,000 ∂1,103 ∂18,000 Solid waste management grants .............................................................................................................. 4,000 .......................... 4,000 .......................... ∂4,000 High energy cost grants ............................................................................................................................ 10,000 .......................... 10,000 .......................... ∂10,000 Water and waste disposal grants ............................................................................................................. 391,980 .......................... 393,980 ∂2,000 ∂393,980 306A(i)(2) grants ....................................................................................................................................... 10,000 .......................... 10,000 .......................... ∂10,000 

Total, Loan subsidies and grants ........................................................................................................ 571,190 .......................... 550,383 ¥20,807 ∂550,383 

Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program Account: 

Loan authorizations: 

Electric: 

Direct, FFB ........................................................................................................................................ (5,500,000 ) (5,500,000 ) (5,500,000 ) .......................... ..........................Guaranteed underwriting .................................................................................................................. (750,000 ) .......................... (750,000 ) .......................... (∂750,000 ) 

Subtotal, Electric ......................................................................................................................... (6,250,000 ) (5,500,000 ) (6,250,000 ) .......................... (∂750,000 ) 
129 

Telecommunications: 

Direct, Treasury rate ......................................................................................................................... (345,000 ) (345,000 ) (345,000 ) .......................... ..........................Direct, FFB ........................................................................................................................................ (345,000 ) (345,000 ) (345,000 ) .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Telecommunications ..................................................................................................... (690,000 ) (690,000 ) (690,000 ) .......................... ..........................Total, Loan authorizations ........................................................................................................... (6,940,000 ) (6,190,000 ) (6,940,000 ) .......................... (∂750,000 ) 

Loan Subsidy: 

Telecommunications Direct, Treasury Rate ...................................................................................... 3,071 863 863 ¥2,208 ..........................

Total, Loan subsidies ................................................................................................................... 3,071 863 863 ¥2,208 ..........................

RETLP administrative expenses (transfer to RD) .............................................................................................. 33,270 38,027 33,270 .......................... ¥4,757 

Total, Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program Account ............................................ 36,341 38,890 34,133 ¥2,208 ¥4,757 

(Loan authorization) ......................................................................................................................... (6,940,000 ) (6,190,000 ) (6,940,000 ) .......................... (∂750,000 ) 

Broadband Program: 

Loan authorizations: 

Broadband telecommunications ................................................................................................................ (27,043 ) (26,991 ) (27,043 ) .......................... (∂52 ) 

Total, Loan authorizations .................................................................................................................... (27,043 ) (26,991 ) (27,043 ) .......................... (∂52 ) 

Loan subsidies and grants: 

Distance learning and telemedicine: 

Grants ............................................................................................................................................... 26,600 .......................... 26,600 .......................... ∂26,600 

Broadband telecommunications: 

Direct ................................................................................................................................................ 4,500 4,521 4,530 ∂30 ∂9 Grants ............................................................................................................................................... 34,500 .......................... 30,000 ¥4,500 ∂30,000 

Total, Loan subsidies and grants ............................................................................................... 65,600 4,521 61,130 ¥4,470 ∂56,609 

DLTBP administrative expenses (transfer to RD) .............................................................................................. .......................... 8,057 .......................... .......................... ¥8,057 

Total, Rural Utilities Service ................................................................................................................................... 673,131 51,468 645,646 ¥27,485 ∂594,178 

(Loan authorization) ....................................................................................................................................... (8,217,043 ) (6,216,991 ) (8,217,043 ) .......................... (∂2,000,052 ) 

Rural Economic Infrastructure Grants ................................................................................................................................. .......................... 161,893 .......................... .......................... ¥161,893 
130 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2017 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2017 

appropriation Budget estimate 

Total, Title III, Rural Development Programs ......................................................................................................... 2,937,153 1,981,461 2,753,752 ¥183,401 ∂772,291 

(By transfer) ................................................................................................................................................... (449,992 ) (437,924 ) (449,992 ) .......................... (∂12,068 ) (Loan authorization) ....................................................................................................................................... (37,288,924 ) (33,476,991 ) (37,688,924 ) (∂400,000 ) (∂4,211,933 ) 

TITLE IV—DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS 

Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services ........................................................................ 814 809 814 .......................... ∂5 Food and Nutrition Service: 

Child nutrition programs ............................................................................................................................................. 22,745,982 24,233,309 24,243,505 ∂1,497,523 ∂10,196 

School breakfast program equipment grants .................................................................................................... 25,000 .......................... 30,000 ∂5,000 ∂30,000 Demonstration projects (Summer EBT) .............................................................................................................. 23,000 22,957 23,000 .......................... ∂43 

Total, Child nutrition programs ..................................................................................................................... 22,793,982 24,256,266 24,296,505 ∂1,502,523 ∂40,239 

Special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children (WIC) ................................................... 6,350,000 6,150,000 6,350,000 .......................... ∂200,000 Supplemental nutrition assistance program: 

(Food stamp program) ....................................................................................................................................... 75,479,696 70,611,504 70,611,504 ¥4,868,192 ..........................

Reserve ...................................................................................................................................................... 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 .......................... ..........................FDPIR nutrition education services ........................................................................................................... 998 996 998 .......................... ∂2 

Total, Food stamp program .................................................................................................................. 78,480,694 73,612,500 73,612,502 ¥4,868,192 ∂2 

Fiscal year 2017 ........................................................................................................................................ (78,480,694 ) (73,612,500 ) (73,612,502 ) (¥4,868,192 ) (∂2 ) 

Commodity Assistance Program: 

Commodity supplemental food program ............................................................................................................ 236,120 238,120 238,120 ∂2,000 ..........................Farmers market nutrition program .................................................................................................................... 18,548 .......................... 18,548 .......................... ∂18,548 Emergency food assistance program ................................................................................................................. 59,401 54,401 59,401 .......................... ∂5,000 Pacific island and disaster assistance ............................................................................................................. 1,070 1,070 1,070 .......................... ..........................
131 

Total, Commodity assistance program .......................................................................................................... 315,139 293,591 317,139 ∂2,000 ∂23,548 

Nutrition programs administration ............................................................................................................................. 170,716 148,541 153,841 ¥16,875 ∂5,300 

Total, Food and Nutrition Service ........................................................................................................................... 108,110,531 104,460,898 104,729,987 ¥3,380,544 ∂269,089 

Fiscal year 2017 ............................................................................................................................... (108,110,531 ) (104,460,898 ) (104,729,987 ) (¥3,380,544 ) (∂269,089 ) 

Total, Title IV, Domestic Food Programs ................................................................................................................ 108,111,345 104,461,707 104,730,801 ¥3,380,544 ∂269,094 

Fiscal year 2017 ............................................................................................................................... (108,110,531 ) (104,460,898 ) (104,729,987 ) (¥3,380,544 ) (∂269,089 ) 

TITLE V—FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS 

Office of the Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs .......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 875 ∂875 ∂875 

Foreign Agricultural Service 

Salaries and expenses ......................................................................................................................................................... 196,571 188,167 197,506 ∂935 ∂9,339 

(Transfer from export loans) ....................................................................................................................................... (6,074 ) (6,382 ) (6,074 ) .......................... (¥308 ) 

Total, Salaries and expenses .................................................................................................................................. 202,645 194,549 203,580 ∂935 ∂9,031 

Food for Peace Title I Direct Credit and Food for Progress Program Account, Administrative Expenses: 

Farm Service Agency, Salaries and expenses (transfer to FSA) ................................................................................ 149 149 149 .......................... ..........................

Food for Peace Title II Grants: 

Expenses ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1,466,000 .......................... 1,600,000 ∂134,000 ∂1,600,000 

Commodity Credit Corporation Export Loans Program Account (administrative expenses): 

Salaries and expenses (Export Loans): 

Foreign Agriculture Service, S&E (transfer to FAS) ........................................................................................... 6,074 6,382 6,074 .......................... ¥308 Farm Service Agency S&E (transfer to FSA) ...................................................................................................... 2,463 353 2,463 .......................... ∂2,110 

Total, CCC Export Loans Program Account ................................................................................................... 8,537 6,735 8,537 .......................... ∂1,802 

McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition program grants ..................................................... 201,626 .......................... 206,626 ∂5,000 ∂206,626 

Total, Title V, Foreign Assistance and Related Programs ..................................................................................... 1,872,883 195,051 2,013,693 ∂140,810 ∂1,818,642 

(By transfer) ................................................................................................................................................... (6,074 ) (6,382 ) (6,074 ) .......................... (¥308 ) 
132 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2017 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2017 

appropriation Budget estimate 

TITLE VI—RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

Food and Drug Administration 

Salaries and expenses, direct appropriation ....................................................................................................................... 2,759,378 1,819,718 2,760,378 ∂1,000 ∂940,660 

Prescription drug user fees ......................................................................................................................................... (754,524 ) (1,262,182 ) (937,434 ) (∂182,910 ) (¥324,748 ) Medical device user fees ............................................................................................................................................ (126,083 ) (439,001 ) (193,291 ) (∂67,208 ) (¥245,710 ) Human generic drug user fees ................................................................................................................................... (323,011 ) (615,746 ) (493,600 ) (∂170,589 ) (¥122,146 ) Biosimilar biological products user fees .................................................................................................................... (22,079 ) (86,736 ) (54,000 ) (∂31,921 ) (¥32,736 ) Animal drug user fees ................................................................................................................................................ (23,673 ) (70,252 ) (24,142 ) (∂469 ) (¥46,110 ) Animal generic drug user fees ................................................................................................................................... (11,341 ) (18,475 ) (12,100 ) (∂759 ) (¥6,375 ) Tobacco product user fees .......................................................................................................................................... (635,000 ) (672,000 ) (672,000 ) (∂37,000 ) ..........................

Subtotal, user fees, enacted and definite ............................................................................................................. (1,895,711 ) (3,164,392 ) (2,386,567 ) (∂490,856 ) (¥777,825 ) Subtotal (including user fees) ................................................................................................................................ (4,655,089 ) (4,984,110 ) (5,146,945 ) (∂491,856 ) (∂162,835 ) 

Mammography user fees ............................................................................................................................................. (20,522 ) (21,000 ) (20,522 ) .......................... (¥478 ) Export and color certification user fees ..................................................................................................................... (14,378 ) (15,000 ) (14,758 ) (∂380 ) (¥242 ) Food and Feed Recall user fees ................................................................................................................................. (1,434 ) (1,000 ) (1,434 ) .......................... (∂434 ) Food Reinspection fees ............................................................................................................................................... (6,414 ) (6,000 ) (6,414 ) .......................... (∂414 ) Voluntary qualified importer program fees ................................................................................................................. (5,300 ) (5,000 ) (5,300 ) .......................... (∂300 ) Pharmacy compounding fees (CBO estimate) ............................................................................................................ (1,370 ) (1,000 ) (1,370 ) .......................... (∂370 ) Priority review vouchers (PRV) pediatric disease ....................................................................................................... (7,686 ) (8,000 ) (7,686 ) .......................... (¥314 ) Third party auditor ...................................................................................................................................................... (1,400 ) (1,000 ) (1,400 ) .......................... (∂400 ) 

Subtotal, FDA user fees .......................................................................................................................................... (1,954,215 ) (3,222,392 ) (2,445,451 ) (∂491,236 ) (¥776,941 ) Subtotal, FDA (including user fees) ....................................................................................................................... (4,713,593 ) (5,042,110 ) (5,205,829 ) (∂492,236 ) (∂163,719 ) 

Buildings and facilities ........................................................................................................................................................ 11,788 8,771 11,788 .......................... ∂3,017 
133 

FDA Innovation account ....................................................................................................................................................... 20,000 60,000 60,000 ∂40,000 ..........................Offset of appropriation pursuant to Section 1002(b)(3)(B) of the 21st Century Cures Act (P.L. 114–255) ..................... ¥20,000 ¥60,000 ¥60,000 ¥40,000 ..........................

Total, FDA (w/user fees, including proposals) ....................................................................................................... (4,725,381 ) (5,050,881 ) (5,217,617 ) (∂492,236 ) (∂166,736 ) Total, FDA (w/enacted user fees only) ................................................................................................................... (4,725,381 ) (5,050,881 ) (5,217,617 ) (∂492,236 ) (∂166,736 ) Total, FDA (excluding user fees) ............................................................................................................................ 2,771,166 1,828,489 2,772,166 ∂1,000 ∂943,677 

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

Farm Credit Administration (limitation on administrative expenses) ................................................................................. (68,600 ) (72,600 ) (69,000 ) (∂400 ) (¥3,600 ) 

Total, Title VI, Related Agencies and Food and Drug Administration ................................................................... 2,771,166 1,828,489 2,772,166 ∂1,000 ∂943,677 

TITLE VII—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Limit Dam Rehab (Sec. 714(1)) ........................................................................................................................................... ¥54,000 ¥55,000 ¥55,000 ¥1,000 ..........................Limit Environmental Quality Incentives Program (Sec. 714(2)) .......................................................................................... ¥179,000 ¥209,000 ¥179,000 .......................... ∂30,000 Limit Biomass Crop Assistance Program (Sec. 714(3)) ...................................................................................................... ¥20,000 ¥20,000 ¥21,000 ¥1,000 ¥1,000 Limit Biorefinery Assistance (Sec. 714(4)) .......................................................................................................................... ¥20,000 .......................... ¥36,000 ¥16,000 ¥36,000 Limit Ag Management Assistance (Sec. 714 (5)) ............................................................................................................... ¥2,000 ¥9,000 .......................... ∂2,000 ∂9,000 Limit Biorefinery Assistance (Sec. 714 (4)) (cancellation) ................................................................................................. .......................... ¥175,000 .......................... .......................... ∂175,000 Limit fruit and vegetable program (Sec. 715) .................................................................................................................... ¥125,000 ¥125,000 ¥125,000 .......................... ..........................Section 32 (Sec. 715) (rescission) ....................................................................................................................................... ¥231,000 ¥263,000 ¥263,000 ¥32,000 ..........................APHIS B&F—Fruit Fly Rearing (Sec. 743) ........................................................................................................................... 47,000 .......................... .......................... ¥47,000 ..........................WIC (rescission) (Sec. 745) .................................................................................................................................................. ¥850,000 ¥500,000 ¥800,000 ∂50,000 ¥300,000 TEFAP (Sec. 748) .................................................................................................................................................................. 19,000 .......................... .......................... ¥19,000 ..........................Ebola/Zika Funding (Sec. 752) ............................................................................................................................................ 10,000 .......................... .......................... ¥10,000 ..........................Citrus Greening (Sec. 757) .................................................................................................................................................. 5,500 .......................... 5,500 .......................... ∂5,500 RD balances (Sec. 758) (rescission) ................................................................................................................................... ¥3,951 .......................... .......................... ∂3,951 ..........................Healthy Food Financing Initiative ........................................................................................................................................ 1,000 .......................... 1,000 .......................... ∂1,000 RD unobligated balances (rescission) ................................................................................................................................. .......................... ¥108,000 .......................... .......................... ∂108,000 ARS B&F unobligated balances (rescission) ....................................................................................................................... .......................... ¥211,697 .......................... .......................... ∂211,697 Hardwood Trees (Reforestation Pilot Program) .................................................................................................................... 600 .......................... 600 .......................... ∂600 Water Bank program ............................................................................................................................................................ 4,000 .......................... 4,000 .......................... ∂4,000 Geographic Disadvantaged farmers ..................................................................................................................................... 1,996 .......................... 1,996 .......................... ∂1,996 Emergency Conservation Program ........................................................................................................................................ 28,651 .......................... .......................... ¥28,651 ..........................Food for Peace ...................................................................................................................................................................... 134,000 .......................... .......................... ¥134,000 ..........................Rural Energy Savings Program ............................................................................................................................................ 8,000 .......................... 8,000 .......................... ∂8,000 Maturing mortgage pilot ...................................................................................................................................................... 1,000 .......................... 1,000 .......................... ∂1,000 FSA ARC pilot ....................................................................................................................................................................... 5,000 .......................... 5,000 .......................... ∂5,000 NIFA Military Veteran Grants ................................................................................................................................................ 5,000 .......................... 5,000 .......................... ∂5,000 
134 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2017 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2017 

appropriation Budget estimate 

Conservation Reserve Program Pilot .................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,000 ∂1,000 ∂1,000 Child Nutrition Training pilot ............................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 2,000 ∂2,000 ∂2,000 Cottonseed Dairy program .................................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥66,000 ¥66,000 ¥66,000 Electric Loan Refinancing .................................................................................................................................................... 13,800 .......................... .......................... ¥13,800 ..........................STEM Program ...................................................................................................................................................................... 500 .......................... .......................... ¥500 ..........................

Total, Title VII, General Provisions ......................................................................................................................... ¥1,199,904 ¥1,675,697 ¥1,509,904 ¥310,000 ∂165,793 Grand total .............................................................................................................................................................. 153,907,888 141,054,866 145,922,507 ¥7,985,381 ∂4,867,641 

Appropriations fiscal year 2017 .................................................................................................................... (155,124,839 ) (142,488,563 ) (147,181,507 ) (¥7,943,332 ) (∂4,692,944 ) Disaster relief ................................................................................................................................................ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Advance appropriations, fiscal year 2017 .................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

(By transfer) ....................................................................................................................................................... (786,381 ) (762,683 ) (786,165 ) (¥216 ) (∂23,482 ) (Loan authorization) ........................................................................................................................................... (45,291,500 ) (40,430,875 ) (45,691,505 ) (∂400,005 ) (∂5,260,630 ) (Limitation on administrative expenses) ........................................................................................................... (189,827 ) (198,582 ) (192,482 ) (∂2,655 ) (¥6,100 ) 

Æ