★ 30–184 

115TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 115–706 

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG 

ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2019 

MAY 24, 2018.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. ADERHOLT, from the Committee on Appropriations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY AND ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 5961] 

The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in 

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

Related Agencies for fiscal year 2019. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Title I—Agricultural Programs ............................................................................... 3 

Title II—Farm Production and Conservation Programs ...................................... 38 

Title III—Rural Development Programs ............................................................... 45 

Title IV—Domestic Food Programs ........................................................................ 54 

Title V—Foreign Assistance and Related Programs ............................................. 60 

Title VI—Related Agencies and Food and Drug Administration ......................... 63 

Title VII—General Provisions ................................................................................. 81 

OVERVIEW 

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

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

diverse group of agencies responsible for such things as promoting 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

2 

the production of a plentiful food supply; assisting farmers and 

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

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

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

markets that provide confidence for businesses, traders, investors, 

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

The fiscal year 2019 discretionary spending in this bill totals $23,273,000,000, which is $14,000,000 above the fiscal year 2018 

enacted level and $6,238,830,000 above the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2019. 

The funding levels provided in this appropriations bill continue 

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

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

OVERSIGHT AND HEARINGS

Consistent with the Committee on Appropriations Oversight 

Plan, as approved and transmitted to the Committee on Oversight 

and Government Reform and the Committee on House Administration at the beginning of the 115th Congress, the Subcommittee 

began the fiscal year 2019 process committed to maintaining the 

Committee’s focus on comprehensive oversight of federal discretionary spending under the Subcommittee’s jurisdiction. In order to 

thoroughly review the President’s budget request for fiscal year 

2019 and examine how funds appropriated in previous years had 

been managed, the Subcommittee held five hearings for the agencies and programs of the USDA, the FDA, and the CFTC. The 

hearings included: 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission—March 7, 2018 

USDA Inspector General—March 15, 2018 

Food and Drug Administration—April 17, 2018 

Secretary of Agriculture—April 18, 2018 

Member Day—April 25, 2018 

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

invested and properly used. As such, the Subcommittee established 

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

development of its bill and report recommendations for fiscal year 

2019. These objectives include bolstering prosperity and economic 

well-being in rural America and the farm economy; conducting fair 

and transparent oversight of agency activities and public resources; 

promoting economic growth through effective and efficient regulation and minimization of regulatory overreach; and protecting the 

health and safety of people, plants, and animals. 

Through its oversight activities, the Subcommittee can improve 

the management of agencies and programs by identifying and reducing waste, fraud, and abuse. It is joined in this effort by USDA’s 

Inspector General, CFTC’s Inspector General, and the Inspector 

General’s Office of the Department of Health and Human Services. 

During the hearing with USDA’s Office of the Inspector General 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

3 

(OIG), the Subcommittee focused on USDA financial statements, 

improper payments, and how well USDA’s agencies are managing 

their programs. 

The Subcommittee questioned the Secretary of Agriculture about 

spending reductions included in USDA’s budget request that are 

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

food aid programs. The Subcommittee also highlighted recent rural 

infrastructure investments in the FY18 Consolidated Appropriation 

Act and the implementation of disaster programs in the supplemental appropriation package following the 2017 hurricanes and 

wildfires. 

When the Subcommittee heard from the FDA, it discussed the 

historic increases in the agency’s appropriations and the significant 

increases in the President’s FY 2019 budget request. The Subcommittee also discussed recent regulatory changes affecting the 

food, drug, healthcare, and tobacco industries. The FDA regulates 

over 20 percent of every consumer dollar spent on products in the 

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

the comprehensive economic impact of their regulatory decisions. 

While examining CFTC’s budget request, the Subcommittee discussed the requested funding level of $281,500,000, which includes 

a $31,500,000 user fee proposal that was submitted without legislative text. The Subcommittee reviewed the size of the swaps market 

and how this affects measures of systemic risk. Finally, the Subcommittee continued its oversight into policy issues including a discussion about inter-affiliate swap transactions. 

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

broadly supported, and capable of delivering positive outcomes and 

a substantial return on investment. The Subcommittee will monitor 

the issues identified by its constituents and other stakeholders, 

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

The Subcommittee will maintain its oversight efforts throughout 

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

In this report, the term ‘‘the Committees’’ refers to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 

Senate. 

TITLE I 

AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS 

PROCESSING, RESEARCH AND MARKETING

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $46,532,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... 42,498,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 39,287,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥7,245,000 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥3,211,000 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

4 

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

FY 2018 

enacted 

FY 2019 

estimate 

Committee 

provision 

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

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

Office of Homeland Security ............................................................................................... 1,496 1,448 1,496 

Office of Partnerships and Public Engagement ................................................................. 4,711 1,672 4,711 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration ......................................................... 804 875 875 

Departmental Administration .............................................................................................. 22,301 22,501 16,301 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations ......................................... 3,869 3,091 3,750 

Office of Communications .................................................................................................. 7,500 7,261 6,303 

Total, Office of the Secretary .................................................................................... $46,532 $42,498 $39,287 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Secretary, the Committee provides an ap- propriation of $39,287,000. The Committee recommendation includes the following offices under the Office of the Secretary: immediate Office of the Secretary; Assistant to the Secretary for Rural 

Development; Office of Homeland Security; Office of Partnerships 

and Public Engagement; Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration; Departmental Administration; Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Congressional Relations; and Office of Communications. 

Pay Cost.—The Committee does not include funding for a civilian 

pay increase across the Department. Should the President provide 

a civilian pay increase for fiscal year 2019, it is assumed that the 

cost of such a pay increase will be absorbed within existing appropriations for fiscal year 2019. 

Behavioral Health.—The most recent report from the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention found rates of suicide among farmers are the highest of any occupation in the United States. Our 

farmers and individuals working in agriculture feed and sustain 

the world. The Committee encourages the USDA to provide a report to Congress regarding actions the Department has taken to 

address high rates of suicide among farmers. Further, the Committee encourages USDA to work in partnership with HHS to train 

employees at the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline to address 

farmer-specific mental health care to those working in agriculture 

who call into the Lifeline. 

Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) Obligations and Commitments.—The Secretary is directed to notify the Committees in writing 15 days prior to the obligation or commitment of any emergency funds from the CCC. 

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

report on November 15, 2018, and May 17, 2019, on planned uses 

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

CCC Charter Act. 

Crop Biotechnology & Biotech Ingredients.—Public and private 

sector scientists knowledgeable in genetic engineering, toxicology, 

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

food, and food ingredients and have determined that such products 

are safe for human and animal consumption. The Committee directs USDA to continue coordination efforts with the FDA to protkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

5 

vide education and outreach to the public on the safety and benefits of crop biotechnology and food and animal feed ingredients derived from biotechnology. 

Data Analytics.—The Department’s ability to manage and modernize information technology systems will allow USDA to more effectively and efficiently serve its customers and employees. Integrating data and sharing a common data and IT platform will enable the Department to provide more timely and accurate information to customers, citizens, and employees. Therefore, the Committee encourages the Department to leverage existing analytics 

infrastructure which will enable data-driven strategic decisions and 

improved customer experiences. 

Disaster Assistance Flexibility.—In fiscal years 2017 and 2018, 

the Committee provided the Secretary with significant flexibility to 

provide assistance to producers suffering crop losses. The Committee notes that significant losses have occurred for blueberries, 

peaches, and dairy producers in calendar year 2017. The Committee encourages the Secretary to engage directly with stakeholders to resolve these issues. 

Nutrition Research Coordination.—The Committee seeks to bring 

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

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

mission areas coordinate and finalize the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) Research and Evaluation Plan submitted in fiscal year 

2019 to prevent duplication of efforts and resources. The plan submitted for fiscal year 2019 shall include a brief description of the 

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

Section 737 of the bill states that FNS shall not receive any 

funding for new research and evaluation projects in fiscal year 

2019 until the Committees on Appropriations receive the fiscal year 

2019 Research and Evaluation Plan that has been developed in coordination with REE. In submitting the fiscal year 2020 budget justification, FNS is directed to provide its Research and Evaluation 

Plan simultaneously with its budget request. There is an expectation that this process will be followed in the future. 

Congressional Relations Allocation Notification.—Within 30 days 

of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall notify the Committees on the allocation of the funds provided to the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations by USDA agency, along with an 

explanation for the agency-by-agency distribution of the funds. 

Administrative Provision.—The Committee directs the Secretary 

to advise the Committees, through the Office of Budget and Program Analysis (OBPA), of the status of all reports requested of the 

Department in this bill at the time of submission of the fiscal year 

2020 budget request and monthly thereafter. All correspondence related to the directives in this bill must be addressed to the Committees. 

Status of House and Senate Report Language.—USDA is directed 

to include a status of all House and Senate Agriculture Appropriations Report language in its fiscal year 2020 Explanatory Notes in 

the same form and type of response as that provided by the Food 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

6 

and Drug Administration within their 2019 Congressional Justification. 

Loan and Grant Programs.—The Committee directs the Department, through OBPA, to provide quarterly reports to the Committees on the status of obligations and funds availability for the loan 

and grant programs provided in this bill. 

The Committee further directs that if an estimate of loan activity 

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

that a limitation on authority to make commitments for a fiscal 

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

event when 75 percent of the authority to make commitments has 

been utilized, the Secretary shall promptly notify the Committees 

through OBPA. 

Communication from USDA.—Members of the Committee must 

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

A collaborative working relationship between the Committee and 

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

policies and any significant developments in its operations prior to 

providing non-governmental stakeholders such information. 

Design-Build.—The Committee encourages the Department to 

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

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

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

Rural Poverty.—The Department has statutory authorities and 

programs designed to help break the multi-generational trap of 

poverty in rural counties. The Committee recognizes that USDA 

may utilize existing programs and funding within RD and FNS in 

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

independence and self-sufficiency. Other existing resources such as 

the extension service and public universities can be used for coordination and outreach activities. As of May 2018, the Committee has 

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

Seniors Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program.—The Committee 

encourages USDA to improve eligible participants’ awareness of the 

Seniors Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program through education and 

outreach efforts. 

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

an expanded USDA role in support of the emerging industries of 

vertical farming, urban agriculture, aquaponics, and alternative 

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

often have different needs than traditional agricultural producers. 

These non-traditional methods of agricultural production have the 

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

for particular crops, serve lower income populations, and provide 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

7 

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

stakeholders can work towards advancing technologies in this field. 

Therefore, the Committee directs USDA to evaluate current needs 

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

and deliver a report within 60 days of enactment of this Act explaining how to further advance urban agriculture, vertical farming, aquaponics and other forms of non-traditional agriculture. 

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

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

the deliberate introduction of an animal or plant disease for the 

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

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

national response plans can better incorporate agroterrorism. The 

Committee encourages the Secretary to coordinate with DHS, HHS, 

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

response plans, conduct vulnerability assessments, and expand 

monitoring and surveillance for agroterrorism. The Committee also 

encourages the Secretary to focus on bolstering tracking systems 

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

Native American Foods.—Native American tribes suffer among 

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

protective against metabolic diseases such as diabetes. The Food 

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

Committee directs USDA to develop programs in conjunction with 

Indian Tribal Organizations to restore food ecosystems and revive 

traditional foods based on dietary preferences of Native American 

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

of further increasing the amount and variety of traditional and locally or regionally grown food items offered through the program. 

Native Plant Use Preference.—In undertaking a land management activity on Federal lands under the jurisdiction of the USDA, 

including maintenance and restoration in response to degradation 

caused by human activity or natural events (such as fire, flood, or 

infestation), the Committee directs that it be the policy of the 

USDA that preference shall be made to the extent practicable for 

the use of locally adapted native plant materials. 

Pilot Programs.—USDA implements numerous pilot programs, 

some of which have long surpassed the intended length of operation. When creating a pilot program, the intent is to test a new 

program for a specific amount of time and then determine whether 

or not the pilot has achieved the desired outcome. Those pilots with 

merit should be considered for broader implementation, and those 

without should end. The Secretary is directed to provide a report 

to the Committees and make it publicly available on the Department’s website detailing the number and type of pilot programs 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

8 

currently active within each agency during fiscal year 2018, how 

long each pilot has been operational, and a recommendation on 

which pilots have proven successful and which have not. 

National Finance Center (NFC).—The Committee awaits the submission of the cost-benefit analysis related to NFC as directed by 

P.L. 115–141. 

Rural Broadband.—The Committee understands and supports 

the significant interest and need of providing access to high-speed 

broadband infrastructure and services to rural portions of the 

United States. The Committee will continue to provide resources 

for broadband deployment, however it is important for Departments to avoid efforts that could duplicate existing networks built 

by private investment or those built leveraging and utilizing other 

federal programs. While it is current RUS policy to avoid duplication when financing communication infrastructure, the Committee 

recognizes that there are other federal programs that share similar 

broadband deployment expertise. In order to ensure that continued 

federal broadband investments are used as efficiently as possible, 

the Committee directs the Secretary of Agriculture to coordinate 

with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the National Telecommunications Information Administration (NTIA) to 

ensure wherever possible that broadband loans and grants issued 

under the pilot program are being targeted to areas that are currently unserved. In particular, the Committee directs USDA to utilize the NTIA’s assessment of the current state of broadband access 

nationwide, which includes the identification of existing infrastructure, gaps, and opportunities for more efficient deployment. In implementing a strategy for broadband deployment to unserved communities, the Committee directs the Department to explore utilizing all technologies, including but not limited to, fiber, cable 

modem, fixed wireless, and television white space as a means of 

building sustainable rural infrastructure for the modern economy. 

The Bill includes funding for broadband deployment through the 

Broadband Loan program, Community Connect grant program, 

Distance Learning and Telemedicine program and an additional 

$550,000,000 for a broadband pilot program. 

Veteran and Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers.—In 

addition to $10,000,000 in mandatory funding available to assist 

socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers and ranchers, the Bill 

includes an additional $3,000,000 in discretionary funding for these 

activities. 

Performance Measures.—The Committee directs USDA agencies 

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

Code, including the development of their organizational priority 

goals and outcomes such as performance outcome measures, output 

measures, efficiency measures, and customer service measures. 

Food Waste.—The Committee urges the Department of Agriculture in collaboration with other Federal agencies, including the 

Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration, to raise consumer awareness surrounding food waste. In 

the event that a Food Loss and Waste Reduction Liaison is established, the Committee encourages USDA to fund the position to 

support and promote Federal programs to measure and reduce the 

incidence of food loss and waste and increase food recovery. 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

9 

Alleviation of H–2A program regulatory burdens.—In order to reduce the burden to employers of communicating across multiple 

agencies with disparate processes and overlapping missions, the 

Committee directs the Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation 

with the Secretary of Labor, Director of United States Citizenship 

and Immigration Services, and Secretary of State, and in cooperation with U.S. Digital Services, to oversee the establishment and 

operation of a cloud-based, online platform through which agricultural employers will complete the H–2A petition and certification 

process. Such a platform shall handle employer input of all information required for the processing and adjudication of an H–2A petition and the certification process; provide secure, authenticated, 

and authorized agency analyst interactions; and provide transparency throughout the process to employers regarding the status 

of their petitions. 

EXECUTIVE OPERATIONS

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ECONOMIST

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $19,786,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... 19,487,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 21,286,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... +1,500,000 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. +1,799,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Chief Economist (OCE), the Committee provides an appropriation of $21,286,000. 

Trade Support.—The Committee provides an increase of 

$500,000 for economic and policy analysis in support of key U.S. 

multilateral and bilateral trade initiatives. 

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

Committee encourages the OCE to continue research and work 

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

Policy Research.—The Committee includes $5,000,000, an increase of $1,000,000, for policy research under 7 U.S.C. 3155 for 

entities with existing institutional capacity, including staff, databases, models, and long-term, well-documented experience, to conduct complex economic and baseline analysis for the benefit of 

USDA, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Congress. 

Office of Pest Management Policy.—The Committee commends 

the Office of Pest Management Policy for its work providing the 

Department, federal agencies, producers, and other interested 

stakeholders scientifically sound analysis of pest management 

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

antimicrobials to combat citrus greening. 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

10 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $15,222,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... 14,183,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 14,972,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥250,000 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. +789,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of Hearings and Appeals, the Committee provides 

an appropriation of $14,972,000. 

OFFICE OF BUDGET AND PROGRAM ANALYSIS

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $9,525,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... 8,631,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 9,525,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. +894,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of Budget and Program Analysis, the Committee 

provides an appropriation of $9,525,000. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $58,950,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... 62,524,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 58,950,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥3,574,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Chief Information Officer (CIO), the Committee provides an appropriation of $58,950,000. This includes 

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

Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation program. 

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

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

future planning and current oversight of IT activities across the 

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

468. 

Micro-Segmentation of Networks.—The Committee recognizes 

that the use of digital workspace technologies can increase user 

productivity, enhance cybersecurity, and allow workforce flexibility. 

The Committee encourages the Department to explore a broad ecosystem support of multi-factor authentication solutions to strengthen the Department’s cybersecurity posture. This should include 

strategies and programs that reduce the total life cycle costs of traditional legacy workspace infrastructure. 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

11 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $6,028,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... 5,536,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 5,741,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥287,000 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. +205,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (CFO), the Committee provides an appropriation of $5,741,000. 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $901,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... 800,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 901,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. +101,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

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

Committee provides an appropriation of $901,000. 

OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $24,206,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... 22,345,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 24,206,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. +1,861,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of Civil Rights, the Committee provides an appropriation of $24,206,000. 

AGRICULTURE BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $64,414,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... 58,330,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 62,250,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥2,164,000 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. +3,920,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Agriculture Buildings and Facilities, the Committee provides 

an appropriation of $62,250,000. 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

12 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $3,503,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... 3,463,000 

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

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. +40,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Hazardous Materials Management, the Committee provides 

an appropriation of $3,503,000. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $98,208,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... 87,436,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 98,208,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. +10,772,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of Inspector General, the Committee provides an 

appropriation of $98,208,000. This amount does not include funding 

for staff buyouts or reductions in investigations and audits. 

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $44,546,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... 41,717,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 44,846,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... +300,000 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. +3,129,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the General Counsel, the Committee provides 

an appropriation of $44,846,000. 

International Trade Agreements.—The Committee recognizes the 

significant increase in demand for the OGC’s services in international trade agreements. The Committee directs USDA to add 

additional support to OGC in current and future international 

trade activities. 

OFFICE OF ETHICS

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $4,136,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... 2,897,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 4,136,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. +1,239,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of Ethics, the Committee provides an appropriation of $4,136,000. 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

13 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND

ECONOMICS

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $800,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... 800,000 

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

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

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

and Economics, the Committee provides an appropriation of 

$800,000. 

Coffee Plant Health.—The Committee appreciates ARS and 

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

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

with research partners and coffee grower groups. The Committee 

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

coffee plant health research. 

Food Safety and Defense Technology Research.—The Committee 

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

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

cost effectively detect pathogens or contaminants in the food supply 

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

the research and development of novel bio-detection technologies 

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

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

to determine whether the technology can meet the needs in high 

volume food production or mobile food defense monitoring. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

prevent harm to humans and animals. 

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

and production systems can have on the yield and quantity of 

maize and the need for greater prediction of plant performance 

under variable growing conditions. The Committee encourages 

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

processes that affect productivity and the ability to predict plant 

performance. 

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

issues are a significant concern to beekeepers, honey producers, 

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

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

14 

USDA’s logical, scientifically based approach to studying these 

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

Potato Research.—The Committee supports research efforts to 

combat crop-threatening pest and disease pressures, including the 

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

for new potato varieties and directs the Department to continue 

working with universities, industry and potato growers on these 

projects. 

Poultry Technology Research.—The Committee understands that 

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

production and profitability. The Committee supports cooperative 

research that contributes to increased efficiencies in housing, 

equipment, energy and environmental controls tailored to meet the 

long-term needs of the industry. 

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

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

centers. 

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

Assessment Research Grants program, to develop innovative vector 

control technologies targeted to combatting Zika-carrying Aedes 

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

human health effects and treatment will be a challenge for years 

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

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

explore natural product remedies to deter pests. 

ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $86,757,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... 45,000,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 86,757,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. +41,757,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Economic Research Service (ERS), the Committee provides an appropriation of $86,757,000. The Committee does not 

concur with the request to significantly eliminate ERS’ research activities. 

Breastfeeding.—The Committee awaits ERS’ update to its 2001 

Jon Weimer study of the economic benefits of breastfeeding. 

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

improve government capacity for evidence-based policymaking, the 

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

particular, ERS should examine ways in which local governments 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

15 

in rural communities could access the research and data expertise 

of public land-grant universities to help communities address local 

needs and priorities. 

NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS SERVICE

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $191,717,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... 165,000,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 173,717,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥18,000,000 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. +8,717,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), the Committee provides an appropriation of $173,717,000, of which 

$45,350,000 is for the Census of Agriculture. 

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $1,202,766,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... 1,018,991,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 1,259,916,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... +57,150,000 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. +240,925,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Salaries and Expenses of the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), the Committee provides an appropriation of $1,259,916,000. 

While the Committee does not concur with all of the proposed decreases for fiscal year 2019, the Committee encourages ARS to reallocate resources for research that have been determined by the 

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

not concur with the budget request regarding the termination of 

extramural research. 

Agricultural Research Facilities.—The Committee does not concur with the proposed closure of 20 research facilities in the budget 

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

National Bio and Agro Defense Facility (NBAF).—The Committee 

provides resources for planning and start-up costs associated with 

the preparation for the transition of NBAF from the Department 

of Homeland Security (DHS) to the Department of Agriculture. 

While the Committee concurs that NBAF activities more closely 

align with the USDA mission area, there remain concerns on the 

projected operational and maintenance costs and research funding 

needs associated with the NBAF facility. The Committee expects 

ARS to responsibly plan for the facility operations and under no 

circumstance enable the transition of NBAF to undermine ARS’ 

ability to fully address its mission and leave the four national program areas (nutrition, food safety and quality; animal production 

and protection; crop production and protection; and natural retkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

16 

sources and sustainable agricultural systems) vulnerable to potential funding reductions due to the funding needs of NBAF. The 

Committee directs ARS to continue supporting the four national 

program research areas towards developing solutions to agricultural problems of the highest national priority. The Committee directs ARS, in collaboration with other USDA agencies and in consultation with the DHS, to report to Congress within 120 days of 

enactment with an estimate of the funding needed for each of fiscal 

years 2019–2023 to support: operational costs and maintenance; 

workforce needs and recruitment efforts; equipment; and research 

start-up costs. The report should also include strategic research 

goals based on NBAF’s enhanced capabilities and plans for stakeholder engagement. The Committee strongly encourages USDA to 

explore cost-effective mechanisms for public-private partnerships 

with the academic research community and industry that will leverage federal investments in NBAF. 

Animal Research.—The Committee continues to request updates 

related to ongoing APHIS inspections and any findings at ARS research facilities conducting animal research. 

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

program conducts innovative research making aerial applications 

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

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

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

Alfalfa Research.—The Committee supports research into alfalfa 

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

yields, increase milk production, and improve genetics. 

ARS Field Stations.—The Committee recognizes the successful 

utilization of authorities granted in previous annual appropriations 

Acts to further cooperation between industry and the ARS Canal 

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

concerned that this partnership is jeopardized by requirements 

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

Committee directs ARS to resolve these issues, thus allowing this 

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

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

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

Aquaculture Industry Coordination.—Nearly half the seafood 

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

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

economy. However, less than one percent of worldwide production 

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

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

Mexico to development of aquaculture. The Committee is concerned 

that vital seedstock required to implement this initiative will be 

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

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

of aquaculture technologies. 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

17 

Aquatic Animal Health.—The Committee supports ARS’ work 

with land-grant universities and other federal partners to develop 

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

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

Blueberry and Cranberry Research.—The Committee is supportive of the multi-university cranberry and blueberry research 

programs operated in partnership with the ARS, and provides an 

additional $1,000,000 in funding for the purchase of equipment and 

the hiring of additional scientists to meet research needs in disease 

prevention, pesticide reduction, and water conservation. 

Cereal Rust Research.—The Committee remains concerned about 

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

new cereal rust varieties and identifying when and how new cereal 

rust races emerge. 

Citrus Greening Disease Research.—The Committee commends 

ARS’ research efforts on citrus greening disease and encourages the 

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

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

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

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

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

Cotton Ginning.—The Committee recognizes the importance of 

pollution abatement, improving fiber quality, ginning efficiency, 

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

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

floriculture and nursery crops are the third-largest domestic crop 

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

needs. 

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

valuation techniques, and ARS’ continuing work with the Forest 

Products Laboratory. 

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 oats, which will enhance the value of oats 

and provide benefits to producers and consumers. The Committee 

provides an increase of $1,000,000 to research oat germplasm, 

genomics, phonemics, disease resistance, and enhanced yield. 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

18 

Germplasm Enhancement of Maize.—The Committee supports 

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

Greenhouse Technology Research.—The Committee recognizes the 

importance of advancing greenhouse technology and exploring its 

capabilities to address the energy and water challenges inherent in 

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

with the Department of Energy (DOE) for greenhouse technology 

research that explores how to integrate ongoing research projects 

at the various DOE National Labs to develop affordable, 

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

High Performance Computing Support.—The Committee provides an additional $1,250,000 to expand high performance computing 

capability to address scientific need and requires ARS to continue 

to collaborate with partners with the technical capacity and scientific synergy to provide cost-effective high performance computing support. 

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

industry has experienced unprecedented expansion due to the 

brewing industry’s economic growth over the past decade. To sustain this growth, new varieties of hops are needed to prevent disease and expand production throughout the country. The Committee encourages ARS continued efforts on hops research. 

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

staffed with highly skilled and dedicated scientists with a history 

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

new approaches in detecting and treating plant disease, but also 

the ability to connect people with plants in a unique and serene environment that enhances the public understanding of agricultural 

plant sciences. 

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

aging. 

Livestock Protection.—The Committee recognizes the challenges 

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

sheep and wild bighorn sheep. Researchers have recently produced 

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

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

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

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

19 

Long-Term Agro-ecosystem Research.—The Committee provides an additional $1,000,000 above fiscal year 2018 for the Long-Term 

Agro-ecosystem Research (LTAR) network. 

Lower Mississippi River Basin.—The Committee recognizes the 

groundwater problems in the Lower Mississippi River Basin and 

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

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

Marine 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 

a steady supply of marine fish seedstock to support new offshore 

and aquaculture industries. This includes broodstock acquisition 

and care, spawning, larval culture techniques, and juvenile rearing. 

The Committee provides $2,000,000 for the development effort of 

aquaculture technology that will ensure a steady supply of warm 

water marine fish seedstock for economic growth of the U.S. aquaculture industry. 

National Agricultural Library.—The Committee encourages ARS 

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

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

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

National Agricultural Library play an important role in assisting 

all stakeholders with understanding these issues. 

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

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

virulence factors of PEDv, identify a protective immune response, 

including transmission of maternal antibodies through the milk, 

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

Postharvest Dairy Research.—The Committee recognizes the importance of developing solutions to address agricultural postharvest 

inefficiencies to conserve limited resources and feed a growing population. The Committee encourages the development of postharvest 

technologies that decrease waste and improve resource use of protein, fat, and sugar in dairy processing. 

Potato Collaborative Research.—The Committee encourages ARS 

to continue to cooperate with the potato industry in conducting 

competitive research that responds directly to priorities identified 

and verified by the potato industry and engages both ARS, university and industry researchers in the research effort. 

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

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

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

and to improve the sustainability and environmental benefits of 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

20 

using pulse crops in cropping rotations. The Committee encourages 

ARS to continue its work on these important issues. 

Roseau Cane.—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 

scale insect pest infestation that is destroying Roseau cane in the 

Mississippi River’s Delta region along the Gulf of Mexico. 

Safe and Abundant Water Supply.—The Committee supports 

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

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

sage grouse as endangered under the Endangered Species Act has 

the potential to negatively affect rural communities in the eleven 

states that have sage brush ecosystems. The Committee encourages 

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

research that will help preserve the greater sage grouse and the 

other species that rely on the sage brush ecosystem. 

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

ARS to continue its support of this initiative. 

Small Grain Genomics.—The Committee supports research on 

small grain genomics to address national genomic and breeding 

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

and continue their substantial contributions to the agricultural 

economy. 

Sorghum in Agriculture.—The Committee recognizes the growing 

significance of sorghum in agriculture due to water conservation 

traits and increased utilization. However, the sugarcane aphid 

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

existential threat to the sorghum industry. Funding is included to 

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

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

sustainable rangeland ecosystems. The Committee also recognizes 

a unique opportunity to expand other research initiatives. The 

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

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

USWBS Initiative. Fusarium head blight is a major threat to agriculture, inflicting substantial yield and quality losses throughout 

the U.S. 

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

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

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

Whitefly.—The Committee recognizes that whiteflies are an 

emerging pest as a result of developing resistance to many pesticides making chemical control difficult and climate variability retkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

21 

sulting in warmer winters and lower seasonal die off. The Committee remains concerned with the whitefly, Bemisia tabaci, epidemic which is severely impacting vegetable and cotton production 

in the Southeast United States. In FY 2018, the Committee directed ARS and NIFA, in cooperation with land grant universities 

located in impacted states to develop and submit a plan of action 

to address the whitefly problem. 

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $140,600,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... – – – 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 136,000,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥4,600,000 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. +136,000,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Agricultural Research Service, Buildings and Facilities, the Committee provides an appropriation of $136,000,000 for priorities 

identified in the updated USDA ARS Capital Investment Strategy. 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE

RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $887,171,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... 794,479,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 920,012,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... +32,841,000 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. +125,533,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Research and Education Activities, the Committee provides an appropriation of $920,012,000. 

Agricultural Research Enhancement Awards.—The Committee 

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

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

Animal Feed Pathogen.—The Committee is concerned that very 

little data exists on the level of pathogen in animal feed, nor the 

impact of those pathogen and the feed itself might have on the ultimate pathogen levels in food animals as they enter the human food 

system. The Committee encourages a comprehensive research effort 

to identify and address risk factors of foodborne pathogens in food 

animals, what roles feedstuffs have in the level of risk, and what 

processes might be introduced to reduce or eliminate pathogens in 

feedstuff. 

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

animal production. The Committee encourages NIFA to examine 

nutritional alternatives and feed additives containing bioactives 

and prebiotics that may lead to reduced antibiotic use and boost 

immune responses in livestock. 

Centers of Excellence.—In 2015, on the occasion of the 125th anniversary of the Second Morrill Act of 1890, USDA announced the 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

22 

establishment of three Ranches and Forest Landowners in high 

poverty areas, establish a virtual center to support the science, 

technology, engineering, agriculture, and mathematics (STEAM) 

pipeline of students to meet future workforce needs; and satisfy the 

nation’s need in the areas of international engagement and global 

food security. The Committee believes that these Centers were an 

important and necessary commitment to the 1890 Universities and 

requests that the USDA in collaboration with the USDA–1890 

Taskforce prepare a report for Congress within 90 days of enactment on how we can permanently establish these Centers and 

make them sustainable and fully functional. The Committee provides an additional $5,000,000 for the Centers for Excellence with 

Research at 1890 Institutions (Evans-Allen Program). 

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. 

Crop Degradation.—The Committee is aware of crop degradation 

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

wheat crop quality loss to mitigate its impact on producers. 

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

working in agricultural career fields such as farming, ranching, 

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

NIFA to develop a working group that includes leadership from the 

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

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

Committee also recommends that the plan include strengthening 

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

potential pipeline. 

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

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

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

to work with other federal agencies to develop a comprehensive approach to all value chains related to manure management to include energy production, energy credits, nutrient credits, and mintkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

23 

eral supplements, taking into consideration the full range of livestock production to include cattle, poultry, and swine. 

Minor Crop Pest Management.—The Committee recognizes that 

data collection efforts are needed to maintain and develop the tools 

needed to assure adequate vector control and protect public health. 

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

control, including regulatory and other support needed to maintain 

public health. 

Mitigation of Foodborne Pathogens.—The Committee encourages 

USDA to continue the development of interventions that decrease 

the presence of Salmonella in the food supply, including working 

with the livestock and poultry sector to further develop on-farm 

intervention strategies. 

NIFA Program Authorities and Consolidation Report.—The Committee notes that the FY18 Consolidated Appropriations Act and 

report contains fifty appropriated lines covering the entirety of the 

agricultural research, education and extension realm. In addition, 

NIFA administers the Specialty Crop Research Initiative and Beginning Farmers and Ranchers Program. The Committee is concerned that some of these programs are duplicative or can be executed under the broad authorities of the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative, Evans-Allen Program, 1890’s Extension, and 

Hatch and Smith-Lever Acts. In addition, the Committee notes that 

USDA’s annual budget submission routinely proposes the elimination of many of the smaller NIFA programs. Accordingly, the 

Committee directs NIFA to provide a report by September 30, 2019 

that details the authority under which each funded NIFA program 

is administered and whether that program (its goals or priorities), 

or the challenges each program is intended to address, can be 

achieved under the authorities of the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative, Evans-Allen Program, 1890’s Extension, and 

Hatch and Smith-Lever Acts or other appropriate programs. 

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

research grant program, AFRI funding should be reflective of the 

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

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

including how the agency will ensure organic research conducted 

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

Committee within 60 days of enactment of this Act. 

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

continue to support biotechnology by promoting research at the 

land-grant colleges and universities, including the Historically 

Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions, 

and directs NIFA to encourage partnerships among universities 

and industry. 

Water Quality.—The Committee encourages USDA to research 

alternatives to land application of animal manures in areas where 

over-application is harming fresh water drinking supplies. The 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

24 

Committee also urges USDA to identify alternative collection and 

processing options to remove toxic elements and yield usable material. 

Zoonotic Disease Research.—The eradication of zoonotic livestock 

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

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

The following table reflects the amounts provided by the Committee: 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE—RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Program/activity Authorization 2018 

enacted 

2019 

estimate 

Committee 

provision 

Hatch Act .................................................................... 7 U.S.C. 361a–i ........................ $243,701 $243,238 $259,000 

McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Act ................. 16 U.S.C. 582a through a–7 ... 33,961 28,867 36,000 

Research at 1890 Institutions (Evans-Allen Program).7 U.S.C. 3222 ........................... 54,185 53,817 60,000 

Payments to the 1994 Institutions ............................ 7 U.S.C. 301 note ..................... 3,439 3,416 3,439 

Education Grants for 1890 Institutions ..................... 7 U.S.C. 3152(b) ...................... 19,336 19,205 19,336 

Education Grants for Hispanic-Serving Institutions .. 7 U.S.C. 3241 ........................... 9,219 9,156 9,219 

Education Grants for Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions.7 U.S.C. 3156 ........................... 3,194 3,172 3,172 

Research Grants for 1994 Institutions ...................... 7 U.S.C. 301 note ..................... 3,801 1,789 3,801 

Capacity Building for Non Land-Grant Colleges of 

Agriculture.

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

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

3363.

2,000 1,986 2,000 

Agriculture and Food Research Initiative ................... 7 U.S.C. 450i(b) ....................... 400,000 375,000 415,000 

Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment ........................ 7 U.S.C. 3151a ......................... 8,000 4,991 8,000 

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

Continuing Animal Health and Disease Research 

Program.

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

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

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

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

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

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

and 5832.

35,000 19,009 30,000 

Farm Business Management ...................................... 7 U.S.C. 5925f .......................... 2,000 – – – 2,000 

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

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

Minor Crop Pest Management (IR–4) ........................ 7 U.S.C. 450i(c) ........................ 11,913 11,832 11,913 

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

Global Change/UV Monitoring ........................... ................................................... 1,405 – – – 1,400 

Potato Research ................................................. 7 U.S.C. 450i(c) ........................ 2,500 – – – 2,500 

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

Total, Special Research Grants ................ ................................................... 5,255 – – – 5,250 

Necessary Expenses of Research and Education Activities: 

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

GSA Rent and DHS Security Expenses .............. ................................................... – – – – – – – – – 

Federal Administration—Other Necessary Expenses.................................................... 11,862 11,577 11,577 

Total, Necessary Expenses ........................ ................................................... 19,692 19,001 19,407 

Total, Research and Education Activities.................................................... $887,171 $794,479 $920,012 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

25 

NATIVE AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS ENDOWMENT FUND

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. ($11,880,000) 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... (11,857,000) 

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

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. +23,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund, the 

Committee provides $11,880,000. 

EXTENSION ACTIVITIES

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $483,626,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... 450,185,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 495,626,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... +12,000,000 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. +45,441,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Extension Activities, the Committee provides an appropria- tion of $495,626,000. 

Rural Health and Safety Education Programs.—The opioid abuse 

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

and the Committee supports all efforts to address this problem 

through improved health and safety education and outreach. The 

Committee provides $3,000,000 for Rural Health and Safety Education Programs to combat opioid abuse in rural communities. 

The following table reflects the amounts provided by the Committee: 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE—EXTENSION ACTIVITIES 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Program/activity Authorization FY 2018 

enacted 

FY 2019 

estimate 

Committee 

provision 

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

Cooperative Extension.

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

208(c) of P.L. 93–471.

$300,000 $299,430 $315,000 

Extension Services at 1890 Institutions .................... 7 U.S.C. 3221 ........................... 45,620 45,310 45,620 

Extension Services at 1994 Institutions .................... 7 U.S.C. 343(b)(3) .................... 6,446 4,416 6,446 

Facility Improvements at 1890 Institutions ............... 7 U.S.C. 3222b ......................... 19,730 19,596 19,730 

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

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

Food Animal Residue Avoidance Database Program 7 U.S.C. 7642 ........................... 2,500 1,242 2,500 

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

Food Safety Outreach Program ................................... 7 U.S.C. 7625 ........................... 7,000 4,966 5,000 

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

Food and Nutrition Education ........................... ................................................... 67,934 55,100 67,934 

Farm Safety and Youth Farm Safety Education 

Programs.

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

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

Children, Youth, and Families at Risk .............. ................................................... 8,395 8,338 8,395 

Federally Recognized Tribes Extension Program ................................................... 3,039 3,018 3,039 

Total, Section 3(d) .................................... ................................................... 85,528 66,456 85,528 

Necessary Expenses of Extension Activities: 

Agriculture in the K–12 Classroom ................... 7 U.S.C. 3152(j) ....................... 552 548 552 

Federal Administration—Other Necessary Expenses for Extension Activities.................................................... 7,790 8,221 7,790 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

26 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE—EXTENSION ACTIVITIES—Continued 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Program/activity Authorization FY 2018 

enacted 

FY 2019 

estimate 

Committee 

provision 

Total, Necessary Expenses ........................ ................................................... 8,342 8,769 8,342 

Total, Extension Activities ............... ................................................... $483,626 $450,185 $495,626 

INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $37,000,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... 13,037,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 37,000,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. +23,963,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Integrated Activities, the Committee provides an appropriation of $37,000,000. 

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

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

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

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

health officials; and evidence of stakeholder support and engagement. 

The following table reflects the amounts provided by the Committee. 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE—INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Program/activity Authorization FY 2018 

enacted 

FY 2019 

estimate 

Committee 

provision 

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

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

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

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

Crop Protection/Pest Management Program .............. 7 U.S.C. 7626 ........................... 20,000 13,037 20,000 

Total, Integrated Activities ................................ ................................................... $37,000 $13,037 $37,000 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR MARKETING AND

REGULATORY PROGRAMS

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $901,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... 800,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 901,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. +101,000 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

27 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

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

$901,000. 

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $981,893,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... 739,151,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 998,353,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... +16,460,000 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. +259,202,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Salaries 

and Expenses, the Committee provides an appropriation of 

$998,353,000. 

The Committee provides increases for the following programs: $500,000 for Equine, Cervid, and Small Ruminant Health; 

$7,620,000 for Veterinary Diagnostics; $100,000 for Field Crop and 

Rangeland Ecosystems Pests; $10,843,000 for Specialty Crop Pests; 

and $2,000,000 for Overseas Technical and Trade Operations. 

Within the amount included for Specialty Crop Pests, the Com- mittee includes $63,640,000 for fruit fly exclusion and detection; 

$61,000,000 for citrus health, including $3,000,000 for the 

Huanglongbing Multi-Agency Coordination efforts; $21,000,000 for 

the glassy-winged sharpshooter; $6,318,000 for the pale cyst nematode; $6,500,000 for the light brown apple moth; $6,600,000 for the 

European grapevine moth; and $15,000,000 for spotted lanternfly. 

The following table reflects the amounts provided by the Committee: 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Committee provision 

Animal Health Technical Services .................................................................................................................. $37,857 

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

Avian Health ................................................................................................................................................... 62,840 

Cattle Health .................................................................................................................................................. 96,500 

Equine, Cervid, and Small Ruminant Health ................................................................................................ 20,500 

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

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

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

Veterinary Diagnostics .................................................................................................................................... 47,160 

Zoonotic Disease Management ...................................................................................................................... 16,523 

Subtotal, Animal Health ........................................................................................................................ 330,575

Agricultural Quarantine Inspection (Appropriated) ........................................................................................ 31,330 

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

Field Crop & Rangeland Ecosystem Pests ..................................................................................................... 9,426 

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

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

Specialty Crop Pests ...................................................................................................................................... 189,013 

Tree & Wood Pests ......................................................................................................................................... 54,000 

Subtotal, Plant Health ........................................................................................................................... 343,421 

Wildlife Damage Management ....................................................................................................................... 108,376 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

28 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Committee provision 

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

Subtotal, Wildlife Services .................................................................................................................... 127,232 

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

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

Subtotal, Regulatory Services ............................................................................................................... 35,063 

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

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

Subtotal, Safeguarding and Emergency Preparedness ......................................................................... 41,436 

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

Overseas Technical and Trade Operations .................................................................................................... 24,115 

Subtotal, Safe Trade & International Technical Assistance ................................................................. 39,714 

Animal Welfare ............................................................................................................................................... 30,810 

Horse Protection ............................................................................................................................................. 705 

Subtotal, Animal Welfare ...................................................................................................................... 31,515 

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

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

GSA Rental and DHS Security Payments ....................................................................................................... 40,000 

Subtotal, Agency Management .............................................................................................................. 49,397 

Total, Salaries & Expenses .......................................................................................................... $998,353 

Animal Welfare.—The bill provides $30,810,000 for the Animal 

Welfare program in order to ensure that minimum standards of 

care and treatment are provided for certain animals bred for commercial sale, used in research, transported commercially, or exhibited to the public. The Committee maintains the FY18 Consolidated Appropriation Act increase of $2,000,000, of which a majority 

of funds can be used to support the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between APHIS and ARS. The MOU enables 

APHIS to conduct annual compliance inspections of ARS facilities 

to ensure close alignment with regulations and standards of the 

Animal Welfare Act (AWA). 

Animal Welfare Inspection Records.—USDA ceased posting 

searchable records in February 2017 for the Animal Care Inspection System pending a comprehensive review of the information on 

its website. The Department has not acted in full on the results of 

that review nor provided sufficient rationale to withhold inspection 

information. APHIS is directed to utilize the resources provided in 

this bill to resume posting all records where legally permissible and 

provide searchable records without delay. 

Avian Health.—The Committee continues to provide $7,500,000 

in the Avian Health line to help pay poultry growers and integrators for losses due to low pathogenic avian influenza. 

Antimicrobial Resistance.—The Committee continues to support 

funding to collect additional data that will inform policy related to 

the appropriate antibiotic use in all settings across agriculture and 

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

Further, to avoid duplication with existing programs like the Natkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

29 

tional Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS), the 

Committee expects surveys regarding on-farm usage to be limited 

to collecting information about the antibiotics used and should not 

be utilized for other regulatory purposes. In designing these surveys, the Committee expects the agency to work primarily with 

end-users of antibiotics and veterinarians providing care to the animals. The Agency is reminded that any information collected onfarm should be done through the National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) under the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act to guarantee that all information collected is protected from release or distribution in a manner 

that could identify an individual respondent for the full time that 

the data is in existence. The Committee does not support the collection of any on-farm antibiotic use data, including biological sampling, or studies for resistance information unless stakeholder confidentiality is absolutely guaranteed and data security is strictly 

guarded. 

Aquatic Animal Health.—The Southeastern United States is a 

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

majority of the pond-based aquaculture operations. The Southeast 

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

aquatic animal health plan. The Committee is aware of multiple 

pathogenic outbreaks both in wild waters and commercial ponds. 

Sick, abnormal, lesioned, or dead fish cause alarm among local citizens and sport fishers, lessen desire to go fishing and buy fishing 

licenses, raise doubts about clean water, discourage consumers 

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

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

including appropriate monitoring and detection. 

Cattle Fever Tick.—The Committee continues to provide 

$5,000,000 for all activities under the Cattle Fever Tick Eradication Program (CFTEP) related to eradication of fever ticks for 

livestock and wildlife hosts including but not limited to research, 

data management, infrastructure, and treatment. 

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

voluntary Herd Certification Program (HCP) and regulations for 

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

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

which supports the domestic and international marketability of 

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

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

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

The Committee encourages APHIS to maintain its commitment to 

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

no less than $4,000,000 for cervid health activities. Within the 

funds provided, the agency should give consideration to indemnity 

payments if warranted. 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

30 

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

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

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

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

Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention Programs 

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

economic viability of the citrus industry. 

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

foreign governments, non-governmental organizations, and any 

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

agency. 

Cotton Pests.—The Committee encourages APHIS and the cotton 

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

The Boll Weevil Eradication Program, an outstanding example of 

a public-private partnership, has successfully eradicated the boll 

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

bordering Tamaulipas, Mexico. Growers in the LRGV, with assistance from APHIS and the support of the entire industry, continue 

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

LRGV serves as the barrier between boll weevil infested areas of 

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

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

eradication of animal and plant pests and diseases that threaten 

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

emergency outbreaks. 

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

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

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

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

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

level of damage when considering the impact to the environment, 

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

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

coordination. The Committee urges APHIS to spend no less than 

the amount provided in the FY18 Consolidated Appropriations Act 

and directs APHIS to use these funds to support its existing cooperative service agreement process, which identifies and develops 

unmet needs for feral swine control nationwide. 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

31 

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

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

greater and more consistent transparency, to work more closely 

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

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

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

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

industry in a safe manner. The Committee reminds APHIS that 

any substantive changes to the statute or its intent should be made 

by Congress through the legislative process. 

Huanglongbing Emergency Response.—The Committee maintains 

the increased funding levels for HLB emergency response within 

the Specialty Crop Pests line item. The Committee encourages 

APHIS to allocate sufficient resources in order to continue vital 

management, control, and associated activities to address citrus 

greening. The disease, for which there is no cure, has caused a reduction in citrus production by over 60 percent since 2007 in Florida alone. All citrus producing counties in Texas are under quarantine, and California has found the Asian Citrus Psyllid, the vector of the disease, in some backyard trees but not in the commercial groves to date. The spread of this disease has called the future 

of the domestic citrus industry into question, costing thousands of 

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

is encouraged to support priorities and strategies identified by the 

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

appropriately allocate resources based on critical need and maximum effect to the citrus industry. The Committee provides $3,000,000 from within the total for citrus health to support priorities and strategies identified by the 

HLB MAC group. The MAC is focused on short-term solutions to 

help the citrus industry, and the cooperative nature of federal, 

state, and industry representatives in this group is expected to result in the development of tools and techniques to address this devastating disease. The MAC has been an effective resource in helping growers explore new possible solutions. The agency should appropriately allocate resources based on critical need and maximum 

impact to the citrus industry. These citrus health activities directly 

protect citrus production on approximately 711,000 acres in the 

United States worth more than $3,439,000,000 for the 2016–2017 

growing season. 

In and Out Bound Market Access Report.—This Administration is 

focused on trade deficits and the imbalance U.S. trade agreements 

have created for U.S. workers. As trade negotiations and WTO decisions take years to show results, APHIS has the most influence 

on day-to-day market expansion for U.S. agriculture. U.S. commodities face a long list of barriers to trade in the form of 

phytosanitary, pesticide residue levels, and inspection. APHIS 

works hard to resolve non-tariff and phytosanitary trade barriers 

that can cost U.S. producers millions of dollars in lost exports. The 

U.S. is an attractive market for foreign suppliers and granting foreign market access to the U.S. is a key to trade relations and lower 

consumer prices. While expanding market access for U.S. protkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

32 

ducers, the committee wants to ensure the U.S. is not unfairly creating an imbalance of foreign imports in the domestic market. To 

understand the cumulative gains and losses U.S. agriculture has 

had with USDA’s policy decisions, the Committee directs APHIS to 

provide a report of the last three years on U.S. out-bound and foreign in-bound agricultural market access. The report should include the date access was granted and the in-bound and out-bound 

volumes shipped by country and commodity. 

Light Brown Apple Moth.— The Committee encourages APHIS to 

engage state and international regulatory bodies to deregulate the 

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

simply withdraws federal regulation without the necessary work 

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

regulatory burden. Should APHIS withdraw the federal order for 

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

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

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

while continuing to engage stakeholders and trading partners 

throughout North America. 

National Animal Health Laboratory Network.—The laboratories 

within the NAHLN network are on the frontline for detection of 

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

The bill provides funding for NAHLN through both APHIS and 

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

resulting in a total investment of no less than $16,300,000 for fiscal 

year 2019. NAHLN laboratories were invaluable during the 2015 

outbreak of HPAI, which significantly increased testing needs. At 

the same time, NAHLN laboratories must also continue testing for 

other animal diseases of concern. 

On-farm Data Collection.—The Committee supports efforts to address potential gaps in farm-specific antimicrobial resistance data. 

At the same time, the Agency is reminded that any information collected on-farm should be done through the National Animal Health 

Monitoring System (NAHMS) under the Confidential Information 

Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act to guarantee that all information collected is protected from release or distribution in a manner that could identify an individual respondent for the full time 

that the data is in existence. The Committee does not support the 

collection of any on-farm antibiotic use data, including biological 

sampling, or studies for resistance information unless stakeholder 

confidentiality is absolutely guaranteed and data security is strictly 

guarded. 

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

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

Committee encourages that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service works with the appropriate Congressional Committees, 

along with states and local stakeholders to formulate and execute 

a plan, which will permanently eradicate the branched broomrape. 

Overseas Trade and SPS Disputes.—An increase of $2,000,000 is 

provided for the Overseas Technical and Trade Operations account 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

33 

should help resolve sanitary and phytosanitary trade issues that 

could result in the opening of new markets and retaining and expanding existing market access for U.S. agricultural products. 

Potato Cyst Nematode Eradication.—The Committee includes 

funding to maintain resources for the potato cyst nematode eradication program at the FY18 Consolidated Appropriations Act level 

in order to continue with successful efforts to eradicate this pest. 

If left untreated, this pest could spread, affecting other crops. 

Regional Biosecurity Plans.—The Secretary of Agriculture shall 

submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate, at the time the President’s budget for fiscal year 2020 is submitted under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, a report describing the steps USDA has taken to implement the Regional Biosecurity Plan for Micronesia and Hawaii, as developed 

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

implementation activities, including estimates of additional funding 

to be used or needed for planned activities. 

Roseau Cane.—The Committee continues to have strong concerns 

with the invasive pest destroying roseau cane in much of the lower 

Mississippi River Delta and provides $600,000 within the Field 

Crop and Rangeland Ecosystems Pest line for related control and 

eradication activities. The Roseau cane is a reed which serves as 

a critical means of preventing erosion of sensitive wetlands in the 

region. 

Spotted Lanternfly.—The Committee is concerned about the recent Spotted Lanternfly outbreak and provides no less than 

$15,000,000 within the Specialty Crop line item. This pest is native 

to southeast Asia, and is considered an invasive species. The Spotted Lanternfly has impacted 13 counties in eastern and southeastern Pennsylvania as well as surrounding states in the Mid-Atlantic states. The pest has already inflicted significant financial 

losses on agricultural producers and homeowners. Additionally, 

this pest has the potential to become a serious national and 

transnational trade issue as well. The Committee directs the 

APHIS to further examine efforts to combat this species. 

Vaccine for Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD).—FMD is a highly 

contagious viral disease eradicated from the U.S. in 1929, but it is 

still a threat since countries around the globe continue grappling 

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

damage to the economy if unchecked. APHIS has publicly stated 

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

FMD outbreak in the U.S., and that a larger vaccine bank is needed. APHIS has also noted that expanding the current FMD vaccine 

supply is an expensive investment. Having sufficient quantities of 

vaccine readily available and deployable to control an FMD outbreak would appear to be a critical part of the APHIS mission. 

Rapid control of FMD protects the security of the U.S. food supply, 

limiting the economic damage from livestock losses due to the disease, and also shortens disruptions to trade and commerce that 

would occur as long as FMD goes uncontrolled due to a lack of vaccine. The Committee is concerned that this potential vaccine shortage could result in the compromised management of an FMD outbreak in the United States. In order that the Committee can better 

understand the budget implications required to address this vactkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

34 

cine shortage, APHIS is directed to report to the Committees within 90 days of enactment of this Act on contingency plans to develop 

an expanded vaccine bank and the estimated funding necessary for 

implementation and maintenance. 

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

predators such as the blackbird and raven in Western states and 

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

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

rabies management, surveillance, and eradication efforts. No less 

than $250,000 is provided for the agency to reduce blackbird depredation in the Northern Great Plains. 

Of particular concern is the continued and repeat depredation by 

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

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

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

depredation, USDA has valuable knowledge, tools and resources 

that can assist states in managing the federally reintroduced 

wolves. The Committee directs USDA to prioritize and complete the 

documentation and processes needed to allow them to assist states 

and local livestock producers with managing this situation. 

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $3,175,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... 2,852,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 3,175,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. +323,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Buildings and Facilities of the Animal and Plant Health In- spection Service, the Committee provides $3,175,000. 

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE

MARKETING SERVICES

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $151,595,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... 118,617,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 153,095,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... +1,500,000 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. +34,478,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Marketing Services of the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), the Committee provides an appropriation of $153,095,000. 

This amount includes an increase of $2,000,000 for the continued 

implementation of the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure 

Standard. 

Grading Services.—A lack of access to USDA graders for poultry 

and meat processing is disruptive to economic growth and development in rural communities. The Committee urges AMS to reevalutkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

35 

ate its work with States and institutions of higher education to 

more adequately distribute graders to underserved rural communities. 

National Organic Program (NOP).—There continues to be concern about fraud in the organic program, especially among imports. 

Therefore, the Committee provides an increase of $1,500,000 for 

the NOP to strengthen enforcement of organic labeling. The Committee notes that an additional $3,000,000 was provided for the 

NOP in the FY18 Consolidated Appropriations Act to focus on robust fraud detection and oversight within the program. AMS is directed to continue providing the Committee with timely updates on 

investigations of fraud in organic markets. 

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

Committee provides $1,000,000 for the Transportation Services Division to continue working with other federal, state, and local agencies, as well as producers and those involved in all sectors of agriculture to address rural infrastructure needs. 

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

2018 limitation .................................................................................... ($61,227,000) 

2019 budget limitation ....................................................................... (60,982,000) 

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

Comparison: 

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

2019 budget limitation ................................................................ +245,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

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

FUNDS FOR STRENGTHENING MARKETS, INCOME, AND SUPPLY

(SECTION 32)

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. ($20,705,000) 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... (20,489,000) 

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

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. +216,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

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

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

2018 and 2019: 

ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD FISCAL YEARS 2018–2019 

[Dollars in thousands] 

FY 2018 enacted Committee provision 

Appropriation (30% of Customs Receipts) ................................................................. $10,370,878 $10,624,198

Less Transfers: 

Food & Nutrition Service ........................................................................... ¥8,872,010 ¥9,092,218 

Commerce Department .............................................................................. ¥154,868 ¥157,980 

Total, Transfers ........................................................................ ¥9,026,878 ¥9,250,198 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

36 

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

2019—Continued 

[Dollars in thousands] 

FY 2018 enacted Committee provision 

Prior Year Appropriation Available, Start of Year ....................................................... 125,000 – – – 

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

Budget Authority, Farm Bill ....................................................................... 1,344,000 1,374,000 

Rescission of Current Year Funds ............................................................................... – – – – – – 

Appropriations Temporarily Reduced—Sequestration ................................................. ¥77,418 ¥74,400 

Unavailable for Obligations (F&V Transfer to FNS) .................................................... – – – – – – 

Budget Authority, Appropriations Act ........................................................ 1,266,582 1,299,600 

Less Obligations: 

Child Nutrition Programs (Entitlement Commodities) .............................. 465,000 485,000 

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

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

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

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

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

Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program .......................................................... 172,000 174,000 

Estimated Future Needs ............................................................................ 354,524 365,542 

Total, Commodity Procurement ................................................ 1,210,024 1,243,042 

Administrative Funds: 

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

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

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

Total Obligations ....................................................................................... 1,266,582 1,299,600 

PAYMENTS TO STATES AND POSSESSIONS

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $1,235,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... 1,109,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 1,235,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. +126,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Payments to States and Possessions, the Committee provides 

an appropriation of $1,235,000. 

LIMITATION ON INSPECTION AND WEIGHING SERVICES EXPENSES

2018 limitation .................................................................................... ($55,000,000) 

2019 budget limitation ....................................................................... (80,000,000) 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. (55,000,000) 

Comparison: 

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

2019 budget limitation ................................................................ ¥25,000,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

The Committee includes a limitation on inspection and weighing 

services expenses of $55,000,000. 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

37 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD SAFETY

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $800,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... 800,000 

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

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

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

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $1,056,844,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... 1,032,273,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 1,049,344,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥7,500,000 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. +17,071,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), the Committee provides an appropriation of $1,049,344,000. 

The following table reflects the Committee’s recommendations for 

fiscal year 2019: 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Recommendation 

Federal Inspection ............................................................................................................................................ $936,324 

Public Health Data Communication Infrastructure System ............................................................................. 34,580 

International Food Safety and Inspection ........................................................................................................ 16,758 

State Food Safety and Inspection .................................................................................................................... 61,682 

Total, Food Safety and Inspection Service .............................................................................................. $1,049,344 

Humane Methods of Slaughter.—FSIS shall ensure that inspectors hired with funding previously specified for enforcement under 

the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act focus their attention on 

overseeing compliance with humane handling rules for live animals 

as they arrive and are offloaded and handled in pens, chutes, and 

stunning areas, and that all inspectors receive robust national 

training, including on the Regulatory Essentials, Humane Animal 

Tracking System, and Public Health Information System. 

Siluriformes Inspection.—Since implementing the Siluriformes 

inspection program, FSIS has conducted numerous inspections and 

has prevented more than 1.4 million pounds of adulterated or ineligible product from entering the U.S. food supply. FSIS has exceeded the number of inspections and findings by the FDA that previously had jurisdiction over the program. Given these results, the 

Committee continues to fully fund Siluriformes inspection activities 

and expects FSIS to comply with the provisions in the FY18 Consolidated Appropriations Act in determining equivalency for all 

countries wishing to continue exporting product to the United 

States. 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

38 

TITLE II 

FARM PRODUCTION AND CONSERVATION PROGRAMS 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FARM PRODUCTION AND

CONSERVATION

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $901,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... 875,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 901,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. +26,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Farm Production and 

Conservation (FPAC), the Committee provides an appropriation of 

$901,000. 

Reorganization.—The Committee is supportive of the Secretary’s 

reorganization of the FPAC mission area, as reflected in the FY18 

Consolidated Appropriations Act. The Committee directs the Under 

Secretary to provide briefings during fiscal year 2018 on preliminary strategies and plans for the reorganization related to the consolidation, co-location, relocation, and closure of field offices and 

staff; progress made on the development and implementation of the 

FPAC Business Center; and the development and combination of 

information technology systems, specifically farm program modernization. 

FARM PRODUCTION AND CONSERVATION BUSINESS CENTER

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $1,028,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... 196,402,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 115,402,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... +114,374,000 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥81,000,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Farm Production and Conservation Business Center, the 

Committee provides an appropriation of $115,402,000. 

FARM SERVICE AGENCY

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriation Transfer from program accounts Total, FSA S&E 

2018 appropriation ................................................................... $1,202,146,000 ($317,610,000) ($1,519,756,000) 

2019 budget estimate .............................................................. 920,490,000 (266,913,000) (1,187,403,000) 

Provided in the Bill ................................................................... 1,095,769,000 (304,722,000) (1,400,491,000) 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation .......................................................... ¥106,377,000 ¥12,888,000 ¥(119,265,000) 

2019 budget estimate ..................................................... +$175,279,000 +$37,809,000 +($213,088,000) 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

39 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Salaries and Expenses of the Farm Service Agency (FSA), 

the Committee provides an appropriation of $1,095,769,000 and 

transfers of $304,722,000, for a total program level of 

$1,400,491,000. 

The Committee provides for the Secretary’s reorganization of the 

FPAC mission area by moving funding for FSA’s administrative activities to the FPAC Business Center. The Committee provides an 

increase for the FPAC information portal. 

Tree Assistance Program.— The Committee recognizes that The 

Agricultural Act of 2014 authorized the Tree Assistance Program 

(TAP) to provide financial assistance to eligible orchardists and 

nursery tree growers to replant or rehabilitate eligible trees, 

bushes, and vines lost by natural disasters. To be considered eligible for the TAP program, trees, bushes, or vines must have suffered 

more than a 15 percent mortality loss in a stand due to a natural 

disaster. This 15 percent mortality test per stand prevents many 

growers from being considered for the program. The FY18 Consolidated Appropriations Act provided a pilot program that lowered the 

mortality rate to 7.5 percent for pecan trees. The Committee supports finding a more reasonable morality rate for all trees, bushes, 

and vines under the TAP. 

Foreign Land Ownership.—The Committee directs the Department to provide a report that analyzes the impact (in conjunction 

with other USDA agencies) of foreign persons acquiring, transferring, and holding agricultural land on family farms and rural communities. 

Verification of Eligibility.—To further improve agency controls 

that help prevent payments to participants whose incomes exceed 

eligibility limits, the Committee encourages, to the maximum extent practicable, FSA to implement a process to verify that accountants’ and attorneys’ statements accurately reflect participants’ incomes as reported on income tax returns and supporting documentation or other equivalent documents. 

FSA Workflow Management.—The Secretary is directed to fill vacant employee positions across FSA due to the current hiring freeze 

and attrition to ensure full customer service at county offices as 

provided through adequate funding levels in the current and prior 

fiscal years. Any changes to the FSA county office structure shall 

be done in consultation with the Committees on Appropriations 

and based upon a workflow analysis with objective criteria of producer and county employee needs and convenience. 

STATE MEDIATION GRANTS

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $3,904,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... 3,228,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 3,228,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥676,000 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For State Mediation Grants, the Committee provides an appropriation of $3,228,000. 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

40 

GRASSROOTS SOURCE WATER PROTECTION PROGRAM

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $6,500,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... – – – 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 6,500,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. +6,500,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Grassroots Source Water Protection Program, the Committee provides an appropriation of $6,500,000. 

DAIRY INDEMNITY PROGRAM

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. 1 $500,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... 1 500,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 1 500,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 1 Current indefinite appropriation. 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Dairy Indemnity Program, the Committee provides an 

appropriation of such sums as may be necessary (estimated to be 

$500,000 in the President’s fiscal year 2019 budget request). 

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

ESTIMATED LOAN LEVELS

2018 loan level .................................................................................... $8,005,610,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... 7,617,668,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 7,987,668,000 

Comparison: 

2018 loan level ............................................................................. ¥17,942,000 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. +370,000,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund program account, the 

Committee provides a loan level of $7,987,668,000. 

The Committee provides a transfer of $16,081,000 to the FPAC 

Business Center account for administrative expenses and provides 

$11,600,000 available until September 30, 2020 for the hiring of 

additional farm loan officers to meet borrower demand and the 

servicing of loans. 

Foreign Recipients of Farm Loans.—The Committee directs the 

Department to track guaranteed and direct loan applications for 

farm real estate loans for foreign held land. 

The following table reflects the loan levels for the Agricultural 

Credit Insurance Fund program account: 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

41 

AGRICULTURE CREDIT PROGRAMS—LOAN LEVELS 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

FY 2018 

enacted 

FY 2019 

estimate 

Committee 

provision 

Farm Loan Programs 

Farm Ownership: 

Direct ................................................................. $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 

Unsubsidized Guaranteed ................................. 2,750,000 2,750,000 2,750,000 

Farm Operating: 

Direct ................................................................. 1,530,000 1,500,000 1,530,000 

Unsubsidized Guaranteed ................................. 1,960,000 1,600,000 1,960,000 

Emergency Loans ....................................................... 25,610 37,668 37,668 

Indian Tribe Land Acquisition Loans ......................... 20,000 20,000 20,000 

Conservation Loans: 

Unsubsidized Guaranteed ................................. 150,000 150,000 150,000 

Indian Highly Fractionated Land ............................... 10,000 – – – 10,000 

Boll Weevil Eradication .............................................. 60,000 60,000 30,000 

Total .................................................................. $8,005,610 $7,617,668 $7,987,668 

ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Direct loan subsidy Guaranteed loan 

subsidy 

Administrative 

expenses 

2018 appropriation ......................................................................... $61,812 $21,756 $325,068 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................... 58,500 17,280 292,587 

Provided in the Bill ......................................................................... 59,670 21,168 328,268 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ................................................................ ¥2,142 ¥588 +3,200 

2019 budget estimate ........................................................... +$1,170 +$3,888 +$35,681 

The following table reflects the costs of loan programs under 

credit reform: 

AGRICULTURE CREDIT PROGRAMS—SUBSIDIES AND GRANTS 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

FY 2018 

enacted 

FY 2019 

estimate 

Committee 

provision 

Farm Loan Subsidies 

Farm Operating: 

Direct ............................................................................................... $61,812 $58,500 $59,670 

Unsubsidized Guaranteed ............................................................... 21,756 17,280 21,168 

Emergency Loans ..................................................................................... 1,260 1,567 1,567 

Indian Highly Fractionated Land ............................................................. 2,272 – – – 2,134 

Total ................................................................................................ 87,100 77,347 84,539 

ACIF Expenses: 

Salaries and Expenses ............................................................................. 314,998 266,436 302,117 

Administrative Expenses .......................................................................... 10,070 10,070 10,070 

FPAC Business Center Salaries and Expenses ........................................ – – – 16,081 16,081 

Total, ACIF Expenses ....................................................................... $325,068 $292,587 $328,268 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

42 

RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $74,829,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... 1 37,942,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 75,419,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... +590,000 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. +37,477,000 1Does not include $20,000,000 from mandatory funding. 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Risk Management Agency, the Committee provides an appropriation of $75,419,000. 

Tribal Crop Insurance.—The Committee directs the Department 

to conduct a study on the applicability of current crop insurance 

programs, guidance documents, and outreach to tribal producers. 

NATURAL RESOURCES SERVICE

CONSERVATION OPERATIONS

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $874,107,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... 669,033,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 890,293,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... +16,186,000 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. +221,260,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Conservation Operations, the Committee provides an appro- priation of $890,293,000. The Committee provides $9,400,000 for the Snow Survey and Water Forecasting Program; $9,481,000 for the Plant Materials 

Centers; and $80,500,000 for the Soil Surveys Program. The Committee provides $790,912,000 for Conservation Technical Assistance. The Committee provides an increase of nearly $16,500,000 for 

Conservation Technical Assistance, including the $5,000,000 requested in the President’s Budget for information technology investments to focus on improved customer service. 

Agricultural Conservation Easement Program.—Due to the 

unique ecological needs of each state, the Committee encourages 

NRCS to work with state and local partners to address these needs 

and to ensure the priority needs and projects in each state, such 

as those that are leveraged by public and private resources, are addressed. 

Cheat Grass Eradication.—The Committee encourages NRCS to 

continue to assist farmers and ranchers to eradicate, control, and 

reduce the fuel loads associated with cheat grass and to collaborate 

with ARS, as appropriate, on research related to cheat grass. 

Community Colleges.—The Committee encourages NRCS to collaborate with our nation’s community colleges for the advancement 

of agriculture and the adoption of technology and conservation 

practices among producers and landowners. NRCS should target 

specific funds to highlight the special contributions that community 

colleges can provide in terms of technical assistance, demonstration, and applied research that is available through their agriculture programs. 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

43 

Floodplain Buyouts.—The Committee commends the successful 

efforts of NRCS with voluntary floodplain homeowner buyout 

projects. The Committee encourages the NRCS to continue collaborative efforts with participating towns and counties to mitigate unintended consequences resulting from buyouts, such as utility cost 

increases for homeowners in these regions. 

Harmful Algal Blooms.—The Committee supports NRCS’ ongoing 

work to prevent soil erosion leading to harmful algal blooms 

through the introduction of cover crops and encourages continued 

targeting of watersheds where harmful algal blooms pose a threat. 

Herbicide Resistance.—The Committee reminds NRCS of the 

challenges many producers are facing due to the spread of herbicide-resistant weeds and encourages it to ensure agency staff, partners, and producers are aware of conservation practice standards, 

conservation activity plans to address herbicide-resistant weeds, 

and financial assistance available through conservation programs 

to assist producers in their efforts to control these weeds. 

Locally Led Conservation.—The Committee recognizes that locally led conservation is the foundation of the nation’s highly successful legacy of conservation and encourages NRCS to work with 

state, tribal, local, and other partners on voluntary stewardship 

projects that preserve working agricultural lands while protecting 

watersheds and wildlife habitat. The Committee also directs NRCS 

to provide flexibility to State Conservation Officers in determining 

human resource needs. 

Milkweed.—The Committee is concerned about the rapid decline 

in milkweed for monarch butterfly habitat. The Committee encourages NRCS to consider the increased benefits of restoring milkweed 

for monarch habitat in fiscal year 2019. 

National Marine Sanctuaries.—The Committee urges the agency 

to continue the collaborative agreement with the Office of National 

Marine Sanctuaries to address sources of agricultural runoff, such 

as sediments, nitrates, and pesticides. 

Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP).—The Committee commends NRCS for the success of RCPP, through which 

NRCS provides assistance to producers through partnership agreements, program contracts, or easement agreements. These programs allow for diverse and innovative conservation projects which 

leverage both public and private funding. The Committee encourages NRCS to consider the needs of organic farmers, who implement a wide variety of creative methods to improve water quality 

and enhance the environment, while implementing RCPP. 

Resource Conservation and Development Councils (RC&Ds).—The 

Committee recognizes RC&Ds have been valuable partners in conservation and encourages NRCS to continue working with local 

councils, as appropriate, to ensure conservation programs meet 

local resource needs. 

Sage Grouse Initiative.—The Committee supports NRCS’ sage 

grouse conservation efforts. Through the initiative, NRCS provides 

technical and financial assistance to help landowners conserve sage 

grouse habitat on their land. The initiative is an integral part of 

efforts by federal agencies, several western states, and private 

landowners to help preclude the listing of the sage grouse as an endangered species. 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

44 

Sustainable Water Use.—Increasing water demand has raised 

concerns about the sustainability of agricultural water resources in 

the United States. The Committee believes sustainable water resources research focused on crop drought resistance, watershed 

modelling and developing efficient sensor-based irrigation systems 

will help to mitigate the effects of increases in demand. The Committee encourages the Department to work with academia in these 

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

WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION OPERATIONS

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $150,000,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... – – – 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 150,000,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. +150,000,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations, the Committee provides an appropriation of $150,000,000. 

WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROGRAM

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $10,000,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... – – – 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 10,000,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. +10,000,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Watershed Rehabilitation Program, the Committee provides an appropriation of $10,000,000. 

CORPORATIONS 

FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION FUND

2018 appropriation ......................................................................... 1 $8,913,000,000 

2019 budget estimate ..................................................................... 1 8,687,000,000 

Provided in the bill ......................................................................... 1 8,687,000,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation .................................................................. ¥226,000,000 

2019 budget estimate .............................................................. – – – 1 Current indefinite appropriation. 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund, the Committee provides an appropriation of such sums as may be necessary 

(estimated to be $8,687,000,000 in the President’s fiscal year 2019 

budget request). 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

45 

COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION FUND

REIMBURSEMENT FOR NET REALIZED LOSSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

2018 appropriation ..................................................................... 1 $14,284,847,000 

2019 budget estimate ................................................................. 1 15,410,000,000 

Provided in the bill ..................................................................... 1 15,410,000,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation .............................................................. +1,125,153,000 

2019 budget estimate .......................................................... – – – 1 Current indefinite appropriation. 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Reimbursement for Net Realized Losses to the Commodity 

Credit Corporation, the Committee provides such sums as may be 

necessary to reimburse for net realized losses sustained but not 

previously reimbursed (estimated to be $15,410,000,000 in the 

President’s fiscal year 2019 budget request). 

HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT

(LIMITATION ON EXPENSES)

2018 limitation .................................................................................... ($5,000,000) 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... (5,000,000) 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. (5,000,000) 

Comparison: 

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

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Hazardous Waste Management, the Committee provides a 

limitation of $5,000,000. 

TITLE III 

RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 

RURAL DEVELOPMENT SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

FY 2018 enacted FY 2019 estimate Committee provision 

Appropriations ........................................................................... $230,835,000 $156,054,000 $236,835,000

Transfer from: 

Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account ........... 412,254,000 244,249,000 412,254,000 

Rural Community Facilities Program Account ................. – – – 147,591,000 – – – 

Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account ............ 4,468,000 – – – 4,468,000 

Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loan Program Account .............................................................. 33,270,000 38,027,000 33,270,000 

Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program ............................................................................ – – – 8,057,000 – – – 

Rural Water and Waste Program ..................................... – – – 18,149,000 – – – 

Total, RD Salaries and Expenses ........................... $680,827,000 $612,127,000 $686,827,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Salaries and Expenses of the Rural Development mission 

area, the Committee provides an appropriation of $236,835,000. 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

46 

The Committee provides $6,000,000 for information technology 

modernization needed for Rural Development systems. 

RURAL HOUSING SERVICE

RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Loan level Subsidy level Administrative 

expenses 

2018 Appropriation ................................................................... $25,441,855 $63,126 $412,254 

2019 Budget Estimate .............................................................. 24,260,000 – – – 244,249 

Provided in the Bill ................................................................... 25,345,500 69,362 412,254 

Comparison: 

2018 Appropriation .......................................................... ¥96,355 +6,236 – – – 

2019 Budget Estimate ..................................................... +$1,085,500 +$69,362 +$168,005 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Housing Insurance Fund program account, the 

Committee provides a loan level of $25,345,500,000. 

Rural Definition.—Communities need transparency and deserve 

to understand the criteria that are evaluated when determining eligibility for Rural Housing Service (RHS) programs. The Committee 

directs RHS to submit a report listing the criteria used to define 

‘‘rural in character’’ in determining program eligibility. 

The following table reflects the loan levels for the Rural Housing 

Insurance Fund program account: 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

FY 2018 

enacted 

FY 2019 

estimate 

Committee 

provision 

Rural Housing Insurance Fund Loans: 

Single Family Housing (sec. 502): 

Direct ............................................................................. $1,100,000 $– – – $1,000,000 

Unsubsidized Guaranteed ............................................. 24,000,000 24,000,000 24,000,000 

Housing Repair (sec. 504) ..................................................... 28,000 – – – 28,000 

Rental Housing (sec. 515) ..................................................... 40,000 – – – 40,000 

Multi-family Guaranteed (sec. 538) ...................................... 230,000 250,000 230,000 

Site Development Loans ........................................................ 5,000 – – – 5,000 

Credit Sales of Acquired Property ......................................... 10,000 10,000 10,000 

Self-help Housing Land Development Fund .......................... 5,000 – – – 5,000 

Farm Labor Housing .............................................................. 23,855 – – – 27,500 

Total, Loan Authorization .............................................. $25,441,855 $24,260,000 $25,345,500 

The following table reflects the costs of loan programs under 

credit reform: 

ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

FY 2018 

enacted 

FY 2019 

estimate 

Committee 

provision 

Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account (Loan Subsidies and 

Grants): 

Single Family Housing (sec. 502): 

Direct ............................................................................................... $42,350 – – – $49,000 

Housing Repair (sec. 504) ....................................................................... 3,452 – – – 3,418 

Rental Housing (sec. 515) ....................................................................... 10,524 – – – 9,484 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

47 

ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS—Continued 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

FY 2018 

enacted 

FY 2019 

estimate 

Committee 

provision 

Farm Labor Housing ................................................................................ 6,374 – – – 6,853 

Site Development (sec. 524) ................................................................... 58 – – – 176 

Self-Help Land (sec. 523) ....................................................................... 368 – – – 431 

Total, Loan Subsidies ..................................................................... 63,126 – – – 69,362 

Farm Labor Housing Grants .................................................................... 8,336 – – – 10,000 

RHIF Expenses: 

Administrative Expenses ................................................................. $412,254 $244,249 $412,254 

RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $1,345,293,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... 1,331,400,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 1,331,400,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥13,893,000 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rental Assistance Program, the Committee provides a program level of $1,331,400,000. 

MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVITALIZATION PROGRAM ACCOUNT

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $47,000,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... 20,000,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 53,000,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... +6,000,000 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. +33,000,000 

For the Multifamily Housing Revitalization Program Account, the Committee provides an appropriation of $53,000,000, including 

$28,000,000 for the rural housing voucher program. 

The Committee does not accept the proposal to move the voucher 

and multifamily housing revitalization programs; however, the 

Committee wishes to further consider this proposal for future 

years. 

MUTUAL AND SELF-HELP HOUSING GRANTS

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $30,000,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... – – – 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 30,000,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. +30,000,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Mutual and Self-Help Housing program, the Committee 

provides an appropriation of $30,000,000. 

RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GRANTS

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $40,000,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... – – – 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 45,000,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... +5,000,000 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. +45,000,000 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

48 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Housing Assistance Grants program, the Committee provides an appropriation of $45,000,000, including 

$15,000,000 for rural housing preservation grants. 

The Committee encourages USDA to consider utilizing resources 

to address families or individuals that have straight-pipe septic 

systems or an individual sewage treatment system that fail to meet 

state or federal requirements. 

RURAL COMMUNITY FACILITIES PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $48,627,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... 147,591,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 43,778,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥4,849,000 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥103,813,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Community Facilities Program Account, the Committee provides an appropriation of $43,778,000. 

The Committee continues to take the Rural Development administrative expense transfer from the Rural Housing Insurance Fund 

(RHIF) and does not accept the proposed transfer from the Rural 

Community Facilities program account. 

Power Plus.—The Committee encourages USDA to give consideration to Community Facility investments in coal communities that 

have been negatively impacted by changes in the coal industry and 

power sector. 

The following table provides the Committee’s recommendations 

as compared to the budget request: 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

FY 2018 

enacted 

FY 2019 

estimate 

Committee 

provision 

Loan Levels: 

Community Facility Direct Loans ............................... ($2,800,000) ($3,500,000) ($2,800,000) 

Community Facility Guaranteed Loans ...................... (148,287) – – – (200,000) 

Subsidy and Grants: 

Community Facility Guaranteed Loans ...................... 4,849 – – – – – – 

Community Facility Grants ........................................ 30,000 – – – 30,000 

Rural Community Development Initiative .................. 4,000 – – – 4,000 

Economic Impact Initiative ........................................ 5,778 – – – 5,778 

Tribal College Grants ................................................. 4,000 – – – 4,000 

Administrative Expense Transfer ............................... – – – 147,591 – – – 

Total, Rural Community Facilities Program 

Subsidy and Grants ...................................... $48,627 $147,591 $43,778 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

49 

RURAL BUSINESS–COOPERATIVE SERVICE

RURAL BUSINESS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $77,342,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... – – – 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 67,215,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥10,127,000 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. +67,215,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Business Program Account, the Committee provides an appropriation of $67,215,000. 

The Committee provides resources to operate programs under the 

Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS). RBS programs complement lending activities of the private sector by promoting economic prosperity in rural communities through improved access to 

capital and economic development on a regional scale. 

The following table provides the Committee’s recommendations 

as compared to the budget request: 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

FY 2018 

enacted 

FY 2019 

estimate 

Committee 

provision 

Loan Level: 

Business and Industry Guaranteed Loans .............................................. ($919,765) – – – ($950,000) 

Subsidy and Grants: 

Business and Industry Guaranteed Loans .............................................. 37,342 – – – 28,215 

Rural Business Development Grants ....................................................... 34,000 – – – 34,000 

Delta Regional Authority/Appalachian Regional Commission ................. 6,000 – – – 5,000 

Total, Rural Business Program Subsidy and Grants ..................... $77,342 $– – – $67,215 

The following programs are included in the bill for the Rural 

Business Program account: $500,000 for rural transportation technical assistance and $4,000,000 for Federally Recognized Native 

American Tribes, of which $250,000 is for transportation technical 

assistance. 

INTERMEDIARY RELENDING PROGRAM FUND ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Loan level Subsidy level Administrative 

expenses 

2018 Appropriation ................................................................... $18,889 $4,361 $4,468 

2019 Budget Estimate .............................................................. – – – – – – – – – 

Provided in the Bill ................................................................... 20,000 4,402 4,468 

Comparison: 

2018 Appropriation .......................................................... +1,111 +41 – – – 

2019 Budget Estimate ..................................................... +$20,000 +$4,402 +$4,468 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Intermediary Relending Program Fund Account, the Committee provides for a loan level of $20,000,000. 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

50 

For the loan subsidy, the Committee provides an appropriation of $4,402,000. In addition, the Committee provides $4,468,000 for 

administrative expenses. 

RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

Loan level 

2018 Appropriation ........................................................................................................................................... $45,000,000 

2019 Budget Estimate ..................................................................................................................................... – – – 

Provided in the Bill .......................................................................................................................................... 50,000,000 

Comparison: 

2018 Appropriation .................................................................................................................................. +5,000,000 

2019 Budget Estimate ............................................................................................................................ +$50,000,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account, 

the Committee provides for a loan level of $50,000,000. 

Review and Selection Process.—The Committee recognizes that 

demand for the Rural Economic Development Loan and Grant Program remains high. The Committee encourages the Rural Business-Cooperative Service to award funds on a first-come first-serve 

basis, after taking all other eligibility requirements into account, 

and not the prioritization system utilized in fiscal year 2016. The 

Committee supports utilizing a first-come, first-serve award system 

as the most expeditious means to award funds to eligible projects. 

RURAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $27,550,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... – – – 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 27,550,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. +27,550,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Rural Cooperative Development Grants, the Committee provides an appropriation of $27,550,000. This total includes 

$2,750,000 for a cooperative agreement for the Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas program and $16,000,000 for the 

value-added agricultural product market development grant program. 

RURAL ENERGY FOR AMERICA PROGRAM

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $293,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... – – – 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 334,500 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... +41,500 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. +334,500 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Energy for America Program, the Committee provides a loan level of $7,500,000 and an appropriation of $334,500 

for the loan subsidy to make loans as authorized by section 9007 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

51 

of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 

8107). 

RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE

RURAL WATER AND WASTE DISPOSAL PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $560,263,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... – – – 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 637,690,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... +77,427,000 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. +637,690,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program Account, the Committee provides an appropriation of $637,690,000. Rural areas 

continue to face immense needs and challenges in attaining safe 

and clean water, and the USDA Water and Waste Disposal program provides targeted and coordinated support for these communities and is essential for the delivery of safe, dependable and affordable water and wastewater to rural America. The Committee 

believes this program is complementary, not duplicative of other 

federal programs and critical in supporting quality of life, economic 

development and health to rural communities. 

Water Supplies for Very Small Communities.—The Committee is 

aware of concerns that RUS grant programs do not adequately help 

small, disadvantaged, and severely disadvantaged communities access the funding and expertise necessary to develop sustainable 

water supplies or otherwise improve their wastewater systems, and 

it directs the agency to focus its efforts to assist these communities 

with predevelopment planning to help them address their water 

supply needs. 

Carryover Balances for AK, HI, and Colonias Grants.—The Committee urges the Department to prioritize projects based on need 

and project readiness and reminds the Department to utilize reprogramming flexibilities as a way to allocate funds in a more efficient and expeditious manner. 

Open and Free Competition Policy.—The Committee supports the 

Department’s underlying adherence to free and open competition 

on water and waste projects as contained in 7 CFR 1780.70(b) and 

(d). The Committee supports efforts to eliminate arbitrary actions 

in the procurement process but is concerned that the Department 

is undermining the ability of local communities and the engineer 

of record to design water and wastewater projects in the manner 

that best serves the unique needs and considerations of local communities. In particular, the Committee is concerned about the May 

17, 2012, memorandum and the implementation of pipe materials. 

The Committee believes that the Department must apply its policy 

uniformly to all building materials but is concerned with the Department requirements that would unnecessarily delay projects by 

including onerous approval processes. Communities and professional engineers are different and specify the pipe materials that 

best suit the needs of their community and project. These communities and engineers, therefore make different determinations detkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

52 

pending on what is suited for a given community, including the existence of applicable federal, state, or local ordinances or standard 

specifications. The Committee directs the Department to defer to 

the engineer of record in the design and choice of materials and 

other technical specifications that meet nationally recognized 

standards absent extraordinary circumstances demonstrating arbitrary action. 

Domestic Preference.—The bill includes language specifying that 

RUS’ Rural Water and Waste Disposal program account that 

projects utilizing iron and steel shall use iron and steel products 

produced in the United States. RUS shall apply the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s definition of public water systems while implementing the domestic preference provision. 

Sewage Management.—The Committee supports the development 

of a multi-faceted solution to the epidemic of raw sewage discharge 

in rural communities. 

Minimum Broadband Speed.—The Committee directs the Department to continue requiring applicants to provide a minimum 

broadband speed that is twenty-five (25) megabits downstream and 

(3) megabits upstream to every customer in the proposed funded 

service area for all broadband loan and grant programs. 

The following table provides the Committee’s recommendations 

as compared to the budget request: 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

FY 2018 enacted FY 2019 estimate Committee provision 

Loan Levels: 

Water and Waste Direct Loans .................................. ($1,200,000) (1,200,000) ($1,400,000) 

Water and Waste Guaranteed Loans ......................... (50,000) – – – (50,000) 

Subsidy and Grants: 

Direct Subsidy ............................................................ 2,040 – – – – – – 

Guaranteed Subsidy ................................................... 230 – – – 190 

Water and Waste Revolving Fund ............................. 1,000 – – – 1,000 

Water Well System Grants ......................................... 993 – – – 1,500 

Grants for the Colonias and AK/HI ............................ 68,000 – – – 65,000 

Water and Waste Technical Assistance Grants ........ 40,000 – – – 22,000 

Circuit Rider Program ................................................ 19,000 – – – 19,000 

Solid Waste Management Grants .............................. 4,000 – – – 4,000 

High Energy Cost Grants ........................................... 10,000 – – – 10,000 

Water and Waste Disposal Grants ............................ 400,000 – – – 500,000 

306A(i)(2) Grants ....................................................... 15,000 – – – 15,000 

Total, Subsidies and Grants ............................. $560,263 $– – – $637,690 

RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS LOANS PROGRAM

ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Loan level Subsidy level Administrative 

expenses 

2018 Appropriation ........................................................................................... $6,940,000 $863 $33,270 

2019 Budget Estimate ...................................................................................... 6,190,000 863 38,027 

Provided in the Bill ........................................................................................... 6,940,000 1,125 33,270 

Comparison: 

2018 Appropriation .................................................................................. – – – +262 – – – 

2019 Budget Estimate ............................................................................. +$750,000 +$262 ¥$4,757 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

53 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program Account, the Committee provides a loan level of 

$6,940,000,000. In addition, the Committee provides $33,270,000 

for administrative expenses. 

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

[Dollars in Thousands] 

FY 2018 

enacted 

FY 2019 

estimate 

Committee 

provision 

Loan Authorizations: 

Electric: 

Direct, FFB ............................................................................................... $5,500,000 $5,500,000 $5,500,000 

Guaranteed Underwriting ......................................................................... 750,000 – – – 750,000 

Subtotal ........................................................................................... 6,250,000 5,500,000 6,250,000 

Telecommunications: 

Direct, Treasury Rate ............................................................................... 345,000 172,600 465,000 

Direct, FFB ............................................................................................... 345,000 517,400 225,000 

Total, Loan Authorizations .............................................................. $6,940,000 $6,190,000 $6,940,000 

BROADBAND PROGRAM

[Dollars in Thousands] 

FY 2018 

enacted 

FY 2019 

estimate 

Committee 

provision 

Broadband Program: 

Loan Authorization ................................................................................... $29,851 $23,149 $29,851 

Loan Subsidy ............................................................................................ 5,000 4,521 5,830 

Grants ...................................................................................................... 30,000 30,000 30,000 

Distance Learning and Telemedicine: 

Grants ...................................................................................................... 32,000 23,600 35,000 

Total, Loan Subsidy and Grants ..................................................... $67,000 $58,121 $70,830 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Broadband Program, the Committee provides an appropriation of $5,829,900 for a loan authorization level of $29,851,000. 

Healthcare and Education Options.—The Committee continues to 

support Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband program 

grants that assist rural communities in connecting to the rest of 

the world and overcoming health disparities that effect that population. The Committee urges the Assistant to the Secretary for 

Rural Development to continue implementing grants that support 

technology upgrades that provide additional healthcare access and 

education through the use of telemedicine and expanded services in 

community health centers through partnerships with hub medical 

centers. 

Tribal Communities.—The Committee notes that tribal communities continue to struggle with gaining access to broadband service. The Committee encourages the Secretary to provide a report 

that identifies the specific challenges Indian Tribal Organizations 

(ITOs) have in gaining access to broadband service and provide a 

plan for addressing these challenges, including how the Community 

Connect program can assist ITOs. 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

54 

TITLE IV 

DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD, NUTRITION, AND

CONSUMER SERVICES

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $800,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... 800,000 

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

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

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

Consumer Services, the Committee provides an appropriation of 

$800,000. 

Public Release of Information.—The Committee directs FNS to 

continue making all policy documents related to the WIC program 

(including, but not limited to, instructions, memoranda, guidance, 

and questions and answers) available to the public on the Internet 

within one week of their release to WIC state administrators. 

Program Eligibility.—The Committee directs FNS to work with 

states to ensure full compliance with the law mandating that every 

WIC and SNAP participant meet all program eligibility requirements. FNS is also directed to ensure these programs are not being 

promoted to ineligible individuals, which would increase program 

costs. 

Program Integrity Efforts.—The Committee appreciates the creation of a new FNS Chief Integrity Officer position to coordinate 

program integrity efforts across federal nutrition programs while 

ensuring assistance is available for all eligible participants. In addressing waste, fraud and abuse, the Committee encourages the 

Department to utilize advanced analytics techniques to protect the 

integrity of FNS programs. 

Innovative Technologies.—The marketplace continues to develop 

innovative technologies, such as third-party mobile applications, 

which can assist nutrition program participants in managing their 

benefits. The Committee encourages USDA to ensure that these 

new technologies have a secure system in place to protect personal 

account information, do not access or use information for commercial marketing purposes, and that participants have consistent access to their account information regardless of the means in which 

they choose to access it. 

FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE 

CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS

INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $24,254,139,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... 23,146,940,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 23,183,512,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥1,070,627,000 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. +36,572,000 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

55 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Child Nutrition Programs, the Committee provides 

$23,183,512,000, which includes $30,000,000 for school meals 

equipment grants and $28,000,000 for the Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) for Children Demonstration. The Committee 

directs USDA to expand the Summer EBT program into new States 

and areas. 

Financial Management Tools.—School food authorities would 

benefit from consolidating financial reports that are required in 7 

CFR 210.19(a)(1). The tools that are available to help schools meet 

this requirement can be cumbersome. The Committee directs FNS 

to provide guidance within 60 days of enactment of this Act on the 

content of an alternative financial tool that schools may have in 

place for the purpose of providing the required financial management documentation. 

Innovation in School Meals.—The Committee is aware that there 

are many new, innovative, healthy products available that meet 

the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast 

Program (SBP) nutrition standards, but current policies do not 

allow schools to get credit for serving such products unless the food 

component is in its recognizable form. The Committee recognizes 

that USDA has published a Request for Information regarding the 

crediting of foods for schools meals and commends these efforts. 

While USDA continues their process of updating the crediting system, the Committee directs USDA to issue guidance, for the 2018– 

2019 school year, to allow innovative products made from fruits, 

vegetables, or legumes, that meet nutrition standards for the food 

component, but are presented in a form different than the naturally occurring and visibly recognizable form, to be credited and 

served in the NSLP and SBP. 

School Meals.—The Secretary has taken positive steps to provide 

greater flexibility and restore local control in serving healthy 

meals. The Committee urges the Secretary to review the regulations on school meals, including school meal patterns such as the 

requirements around serving dairy products, and smart snacks in 

schools that will ensure the regulations do not cost schools additional funding, maximizes participation, and maintains healthy requirements in schools. As a part of this review the Secretary shall 

look at research that is based on student-age individuals and shall 

consult with local stakeholders, including school superintendents, 

school board members, school leaders, and school food service personnel. 

Food waste also remains a concern in the school meals program. 

Schools should have the ability to serve leftover compliant foods in 

a quick, timely manner in accordance with food safety requirements. The Committee urges USDA to consider implementing flexibilities in allowing schools to utilize these foods in a more efficient 

manner. 

School Breakfast Commodities.—Under current regulations, vegetables may be substituted to meet the fruit requirement in the 

breakfast meal pattern as long as schools offer non-starchy vegetables first. To provide students with more vegetable options at 

breakfast, the Secretary should allow any variety of vegetable to be 

served in the school breakfast program, without such restrictions. 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

56 

The Committee directs USDA to implement this policy change for 

the 2018–2019 school year. 

Summer Food Service Program (SFSP).—OIG has been conducting an audit of the SFSP, publishing several interim reports 

describing food safety issues at some SFSP sponsor sites. The 

OIG’s March 2018 audit report titled ‘FNS Controls over Summer 

Food Service Program’ found that FNS needs to strengthen its 

monitoring and oversight procedures of the States, improve its assessment of risk for improper payments, and reassess FNS’ authority to grant nationwide waivers of SFSP regulations through policy 

memoranda. FNS generally concurred with all of OIG’s findings 

and recommendations. The Committee directs FNS to provide a report describing how the agency will take corrective actions. 

Unpaid School Lunch Fees.—The Committee is concerned with 

reports that some students with unpaid school lunch fees are treated unfairly and being publicly embarrassed. The Committee directs 

the Secretary to issue recommended standards schools may adopt 

to address the issue of shaming school children for unpaid school 

lunch fees, including standards that protect children from public 

embarrassment; that strongly encourage all communications about 

unpaid school lunch fees be directed at the parent or guardian, not 

the child; and that encourage schools to take additional steps to 

work with families falling behind in their school lunch fees. 

The following table reflects the Committee recommendations for 

the child nutrition programs: 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Child Nutrition Programs: 

School Lunch Program .................................................................................. $11,713,000 

School Breakfast Program ............................................................................ 5,081,770 

Child and Adult Care Food Program ........................................................... 3,933,393 

Summer Food Service Program .................................................................... 519,461 

Special Milk Program .................................................................................... 8,777 

State Administrative Expenses .................................................................... 302,906 

Commodity Procurement ............................................................................... 1,473,874 

Food Safety Education .................................................................................. 2,929 

Coordinated Review ....................................................................................... 10,000 

Computer Support and Processing ............................................................... 12,124 

Training and Technical Assistance .............................................................. 13,935 

CNP Studies and Evaluations ...................................................................... 21,639 

CN Payment Accuracy .................................................................................. 11,203 

Farm to School Team .................................................................................... 3,497 

Team Nutrition .............................................................................................. 15,504 

Healthier U.S. Schools Challenge ................................................................ 1,500 

School Meals Equipment Grants .................................................................. 30,000 

Summer EBT Demonstration ....................................................................... 28,000 

Total ........................................................................................................ $23,183,512 

SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS, 

AND CHILDREN (WIC)

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $6,175,000,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... 5,750,000,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 6,000,000,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥175,000,000 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. +250,000,000 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

57 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, the Committee provides an appropriation of 

$6,000,000,000. The Committee provides for continuation of the 

breastfeeding peer counselor program and infrastructure. The Committee encourages FNS to support innovative technologies that can 

improve rural and urban participants’ access to lactation consultants particularly outside of normal WIC clinic business hours. 

USDA data shows that WIC participation rates have decreased 

steadily since fiscal year 2010. The President’s budget request includes a projection of an average monthly participation rate of 6.9 

million women, infants, and children for fiscal year 2019, yet rates 

are currently averaging 7 million participants per month. 

USDA is estimating recovery and carryover funds to be higher 

than average. Furthermore, the Secretary has a sufficient WIC contingency reserve fund as a safety net to meet unexpected demand. 

With lower participation rates, higher carryover funds, and an 

ample reserve fund, the Committee provides funding that will ensure all eligible participants will be served. The Committee will 

continue to monitor WIC participation, carryover funds, and food 

costs and take additional action as necessary to ensure that funding provided in fiscal year 2019 remains sufficient to serve all eligible applicants. 

Zika Outreach and Education.—The Committee is supportive of 

ensuring pregnant women are educated on the various methods for 

preventing exposure to the Zika virus during pregnancy. The Committee directs the Department, in consultation with the CDC, to either continue or expand its education and outreach efforts through 

the WIC program to provide pregnant women with the information 

they need to prevent Zika. 

SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $74,013,499,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... 73,218,276,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 73,219,274,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥794,225,000 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. +998,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the Committee provides $73,219,274,000. The total amount includes 

$3,000,000,000 for a contingency reserve to be used only in the 

amount necessary. 

Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) Equipment.—The Committee is 

aware that some farmers markets and farmers selling directly to 

consumers are interested in EBT equipment that operates for a variety of federal nutrition programs. FNS is encouraged to assist 

farmers markets and direct-selling farmers in obtaining EBT 

equipment that allows participation in both SNAP and WIC. Additionally, FNS is encouraged to allow non-profit organizations operating multiple farmers markets to use one EBT device at multiple 

approved market locations. 

Household Certification Periods.—The Committee recognizes the 

certification period structure in the SNAP program attempts to baltkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

58 

ance administration effort with sufficient program integrity. States 

are granted significant flexibility in determining certification 

lengths and reporting requirements for certain households. Current 

regulation at 7 CFR 273.10(f)(3) requires that households with ‘‘unstable circumstances such as households with zero net income’’ 

should have certification periods ‘‘consistent with their circumstances.’’ There is concern that some households (excluding 

those with an elderly or disabled individual) reporting zero net income may have lengthy certification periods without a review to 

verify their income status. The Committee directs USDA to review 

the state practice of assigning lengthy certification periods of 6 

months to a year to households with zero net income or that fit the 

‘‘unstable circumstances’’ category described in regulation. The review and report should explore whether assigning lengthy certification periods is related to higher rates of inappropriate eligibility 

and overpayments. 

Recruitment Activities.—The Committee continues to direct 

USDA to ensure that Section 4018 of the 2014 Farm Bill is implemented and enforced in a manner consistent with the statute 

which prohibits USDA from conducting recruitment activities, advertising the program, or entering into agreements with foreign 

governments to promote SNAP benefits. The Committee continues 

to direct USDA to enforce this provision to ensure that state agencies are not reimbursed for such activities consistent with the statute. 

SNAP Employment and Training (E&T) Program.—The Committee supports efforts to assist SNAP participants in moving to 

self-sufficiency through meaningful employment opportunities. 

There is interest in clarifying the policy that would allow States to 

voluntarily choose whether or not to screen those who participate 

in the SNAP E&T program for drug use if the job they are training 

for would require a drug test. Such drug screening would not be 

used to determine eligibility to receive SNAP assistance, per the 

underlying statute. The Committee directs USDA to clarify the 

proper role of drug screening in SNAP E&T programs by issuing 

guidance within 60 days of enactment of this Act that is consistent 

with the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008. 

SNAP Report.—Not later than 12 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations estimating the impact that using the 

low-cost food plan would have on reducing hunger among SNAP 

participants. 

The following table reflects the Committee recommendations for 

SNAP: 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Account: 

Benefits ................................................................................................................................................... $62,065,748 

Contingency Reserve ............................................................................................................................... 3,000,000 

Administrative Costs: 

State Administrative Costs ..................................................................................................................... 4,604,463 

Nutrition Education and Obesity Prevention Grant Program .................................................................. 428,000 

Employment and Training ....................................................................................................................... 486,607 

Mandatory Other Program Costs ............................................................................................................. 190,504 

Discretionary Other Program Costs ......................................................................................................... 998 

Administrative Subtotal .................................................................................................................. 5,710,572 

Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico (NAP) ............................................................................................ 1,961,927 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

59 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

American Samoa ..................................................................................................................................... 7,879 

Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations ................................................................................ 153,000 

TEFAP Commodities ................................................................................................................................. 294,000 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands ................................................................................... 12,148 

Community Food Project .......................................................................................................................... 9,000 

Program Access ....................................................................................................................................... 5,000 

Subtotal .......................................................................................................................................... 2,442,954 

Total ....................................................................................................................................... $73,219,274 

COMMODITY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $322,139,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... 55,471,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 306,910,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥15,229,000 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. +251,439,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

The Committee provides an appropriation of $306,910,000 for the 

Commodity Assistance Program. The recommended funding level 

for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program is $222,891,000 to 

continue this critical program serving the elderly. The amount provided fully funds expected caseload. 

The Committee recommendation continues to provide 

$18,548,000 for the Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program and 

$64,401,000 for administrative funding for The Emergency Food 

Assistance Program (TEFAP). For the Food Donations Programs, 

the Committee provides an appropriation of $1,070,000 for Pacific 

Island Assistance. 

TEFAP Handling and Distribution Costs.—In addition to grant 

funds supporting commodity handling and distribution costs, the 

bill permits states to use up to 15 percent of the funds provided 

for purchasing TEFAP commodities to help with the costs of storing, transporting, and distributing commodities. The Committee expects state agencies to consult with their emergency feeding organizations on the need for the conversion of such funds. 

NUTRITION PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $153,841,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... 160,838,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 162,838,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... +8,997,000 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. +2,000,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Nutrition Programs Administration, the Committee provides 

$162,838,000, including $2,000,000 to continue the Congressional 

Hunger Center Fellows Program. 

Dietary Guidelines for Americans.—The Committee applauds the 

leadership of USDA in implementing recommendations from the 

National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine’s 

(NASEM) report entitled ‘Redesigning the Process for Establishing 

the Dietary Guidelines for Americans’ issued September 2017. The 

Committee directs USDA to continue a transparent process in fortkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

60 

mulating the 2020 Guidelines that stays within the scope of the 

law. USDA is strongly encouraged to use a more rigorous scientific 

process, by prioritizing randomized controlled clinical trials such as 

what was recommended by the NASEM report, and to manage conflicts of interests in establishing a balanced Advisory Committee. 

USDA is encouraged to include recommendations in the DGA that 

is based on more rigorous science. Furthermore, the 2020 Guidelines shall, to the extent practicable, include information and dietary patterns designed to help people suffering from metabolic diseases such as obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. 

TITLE V 

FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND FOREIGN

AGRICULTURAL AFFAIRS

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $875,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... 875,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 875,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs, the Committee provides an appropriation of 

$875,000. 

OFFICE OF CODEX ALIMENTARIUS

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $3,796,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... 3,796,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 3,796,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of Codex Alimentarius, the Committee provides an 

appropriation of $3,796,000. 

FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriation Transfer from export 

loan account Total 

2018 appropriation ................................................................... $199,666,000 $6,382,000 $206,048,000 

2019 budget estimate .............................................................. 193,085,000 6,717,000 199,802,000 

Provided in the bill ................................................................... 204,138,000 6,717,000 210,855,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation .......................................................... +4,472,000 +335 +4,807,000 

2019 budget estimate ..................................................... +$11,053,000 $– – – +$11,053,000 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

61 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Foreign Agricultural Service, the Committee provides an 

appropriation of $204,138,000 and transfer of $6,717,000, for a 

total appropriation of $210,855,000. 

The Committee provides increases in funding for International 

Cooperative Administrative Support Services, Capital Security Cost 

Sharing, Locally Employed Staff, monitoring and enforcement of 

trade agreements, and $3,000,000 above estimated amounts for the 

Country Strategy Support Fund. The Committee accepts reductions 

in FTE from attrition not to exceed $10,322,000. The Committee 

supports the establishment of the Interagency Trade Policy Committee. 

Farmer-to-Farmer.—The Global Food Security Strategy presents 

an integrated whole-of-government approach to food security, with 

the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in the lead 

on coordinating efforts between federal agencies, multilateral organizations, and other governments. The Committee appreciates the 

leadership role of the USDA in global food security and its valueadded contributions related to capacity building, basic and applied 

research programs, and the promotion of science-based policies and 

regulations that expand agricultural markets and trade. The Committee directs that USDA enhance the John Ogonowski and Doug 

Bereuter Farmer-to-Farmer program by expanding the role of the 

agricultural officer in Target Countries, determined in accordance 

with the Global Food Security Act. The agricultural officer shall 

have or shall be provided with training to enhance the important 

role of the USAID and USDA in achieving food security in Target 

Countries. The Committee also directs that the USDA agriculture 

officer in the expanded role collaborate with the Farmer-to-Farmer 

program staff and the USAID staff working on food security programs, and with land grant universities and agricultural extension 

services active in the Target Countries to seek to leverage their expertise in achieving the food security goals of Farmer-to-Farmer. 

U.S.-Central America, Mexico Cooperation.—The Committee directs the agency to work with its counterparts in Central America 

and Mexico to develop an agricultural working group improving the 

efficiency of the inspection process, the trade supply chain, and 

transportation costs, among other issues. In addition, the agency 

shall use existing programs for academic exchanges in agriculture 

related fields of study in this region. The agency shall brief the 

Committee within 180 days of the date of enactment on current efforts in these areas. 

FOOD FOR PEACE TITLE I DIRECT CREDIT AND FOOD FOR PROGRESS

PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $149,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... 142,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 142,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥7,000 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

62 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For administrative expenses to carry out the credit program of 

Food for Peace Title I, Food for Peace Act, and the Food for 

Progress Act, the Committee provides an appropriation of $142,000. 

The Committee provides a one-time increase to the Food for 

Progress Program account, as authorized, of $35,000,000 to restore 

funding reductions in previous years and meet increased program 

demand. 

FOOD FOR PEACE TITLE II GRANTS

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $1,600,000,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... – – – 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 1,500,000,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥100,000,000 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. +1,500,000,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Food for Peace Title II grants, the Committee provides 

$1,500,000,000, of which $350,000,000 is for non-emergency assistance. 

Central American Food Assistance.—The Committee directs the 

Administrator of the USAID to continue briefing the Committee on 

its efforts, including the amount and type of food aid, in Central 

America. The Agency shall report on the implementation plan for 

measures within 90 days of enactment of the Act. 

Food for Peace Title II.—As the causes of food insecurity differ 

widely between communities, countries, and regions, it is important 

that U.S.-funded food assistance programs be able to implement solutions to food insecurity and undernutrition. U.S.-sourced commodities will remain a core component of humanitarian relief. The 

committee supports the continued funding of U.S. food assistance 

programs. Given the level and scale of complex international humanitarian disasters, and the fact that population needs and contexts differ widely among crises, the Committee recognizes the 

proper forums for debate of these programs remains the Congressional authorization process. 

MCGOVERN-DOLE INTERNATIONAL FOOD FOR EDUCATION AND CHILD

NUTRITION PROGRAM GRANTS

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $207,626,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... – – – 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 207,626,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. +207,626,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child 

Nutrition Program Grants, the Committee provides an appropriation of $207,626,000. 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

63 

COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION EXPORT (LOANS)

CREDIT GUARANTEE PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $8,845,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... 7,052,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 9,180,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... +335,000 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. +2,128,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For administrative expenses of the Commodity Credit Corporation Export Loans Credit Guarantee Program Account, the Committee provides an appropriation of $9,180,000. 

TITLE VI 

RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG 

ADMINISTRATION 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Appropriation User fees Total, FDA S&E 

2018 Appropriation ........................................................................................... $2,800,078 $2,337,963 $5,138,041 

2019 Budget Estimate ...................................................................................... 3,171,920 2,460,221 5,632,141 

Provided in the Bill ........................................................................................... 3,107,789 2,460,221 5,568,010 

Comparison: 

2018 Appropriation .................................................................................. +307,711 +122,258 +429,969 

2019 Budget Estimate ............................................................................. ¥$64,131 – – – ¥$64,131 

The Committee provides an appropriation of $3,107,789,000 in 

new budget authority for the FDA. In addition, the Committee recommends the following user fee amounts: $960,568,000—prescription drugs; $196,668,000—medical devices; $501,396,000—human 

generic drugs; $40,922,000—biosimilar biologicals; $30,331,000— 

animal drugs; $18,336,000—animal generic drugs; and 

$712,000,000—tobacco products. The combination of new budget 

authority and definite user fees provides the FDA with a total discretionary salaries and expenses level of $5,568,010,000. This total 

does not include permanent, indefinite user fees for: the Mammography Quality Standards Act; Export Certification; Priority Review 

Vouchers for Pediatric Disease; Food and Feed Recall; Food Reinspection; Voluntary Qualified Importer Program; the Third Party 

Auditor Program; and Outsourcing Facilities. 

The Committee recommendation includes a net increase of 

$307,711,000, including increases for the following programs or initiatives: $30,000,000 to assist FDA confront the opioid crisis; 

$38,500,000 to Promote Domestic Manufacturing; $12,000,000 for a 

New Domestic Drug Industry; $12,000,000 for MedTech Manufacturing; $60,000,000 for New Medical Data Enterprise; $40,000,000 

for the Growth and Transformation of Digital Health; $50,000,000 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

64 

for New Platform for Drug Development, including a $5,000,000 increase for FDA’s Oncology Center for Excellence; $27,000,000 for 

Modernizing Generic Drug Development and Review; and 

$20,000,000 for Investment and Innovation for Rare Diseases. The 

$30,000,000 provided to combat the opioid epidemic is in addition 

to the $94,000,000 included in the fiscal year 2018 Consolidated 

Appropriations Act. 

The Committee’s recommendation of an increase in excess of 

$300,000,000 for medical product safety is intended to support the 

advancement of medical innovation and competition as well as 

make investments in regulatory science that can reduce uncertainty for innovators, spur investment in new industries, provide 

principles for the safe and effective development of new technologies, and most importantly, improve the safety and effectiveness of medicine to the patient and consumer. Of particular interest to the Committee, is the opportunity for FDA to facilitate advancements in the manufacturing of safe and effective therapeutics, including continuous manufacturing of drugs and biological 

products. The expected outcomes of these initiatives include lower 

healthcare costs; the development of new industries with an increase in U.S.-based jobs; improved treatment and diagnostic options for patients; and manufacturing advances that are lower cost, 

higher quality, and more predictable. 

The Committee recommendation does not include proposed user 

fee increases for Export Certification and Over-the-Counter Monograph until such fees are authorized in law. 

The Committee does not include funding for a civilian pay increase across the agency. Should the President provide a civilian 

pay increase for fiscal year 2019, it is assumed that the cost of such 

a pay increase will be absorbed within existing appropriations for 

fiscal year 2019. 

The Committee recommendation maintains FY 2018 Consolidated Appropriation Act funding levels for the medical countermeasures initiative. 

Food Safety and the Food Safety Modernization Act Funding.— 

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report in 

January of this year entitled ‘‘Food Safety and Nutrition: FDA Can 

Build on Existing Efforts to Measure Progress and Implement Key 

Activities.’’ The report documents spending and shows a steady increase in spending for food safety due in part to Congressional 

spending increases. FDA has spent over a billion dollars a year 

since 2011. With increases of $36 million in FY 2017 and $10.5 million in FY 2018, FDA will likely spend $9.5 billion on food safety 

over these eight years. A majority of this spending relates to activities surrounding the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) development and implementation activities. 

With this level of funding on the Federal side and billions more 

invested by the private sector, Congress and the American people 

need to see results in terms of reduced illnesses, hospitalizations 

and deaths. The Committee directs FDA to provide information to 

the public via reports and on its website as it relates to the link 

between FSMA activities and performance measures, especially as 

outcome measures support reductions in foodborne illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths. 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

65 

Also, the Committee directs FDA to continue their outreach and 

education efforts to inform the regulated industries how they come 

into compliance with the FSMA foundational regulations. As previously noted, it is the intent of Congress for FDA to ensure an 

even playing field in the application of FSMA regulations as it relates to both domestic and imported producers, processors, and 

manufacturers of food and animal feed. Lastly, the Committee believes that FSMA implementation places additional requirements 

on state governments and private stakeholders, and therefore urges 

the FDA to provide sufficient resources to state education and inspection programs to address these needs. 

Medical Product Safety Funding.—The Committee directs FDA to 

maintain the increased funding levels provided by Congress in the 

past four years for the Precision Medicine Initiative; animal drug 

and medical device review; over-the-counter sunscreen ingredient 

review; the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation 

Act implementation; the Combating Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria 

(CARB) initiative; Pharmacy Compounding; Counterfeit Drug enforcement; Critical Path Initiative; and medical product shipment 

delays. 

Proposed Reductions.—The Committee does not accept proposed 

funding reductions for: Foreign High Risk Inspections; the funds 

made available to the Health and Human Services’ Inspector General for its audit and oversight work involving the FDA; the 

produce safety cooperative agreement funds with states; the Critical Path Initiative; and compounding bulk drug substances. 

Aircraft Galley and Lavatory Sanitation.—The Committee directs 

the GAO to conduct a study of FDA’s oversight and inspection of 

aircraft galleys and lavatories. The study shall include the following: (1) a review of incidents in which problems with aircraft 

lavatories and galleys have resulted in unsanitary conditions that 

have affected passengers; (2) the extent to which the FDA has incorporated risk-based approaches to improve the effectiveness and 

efficiency of aircraft galley and lavatory oversight and inspection 

practices; (3) the extent to which FDA’s oversight and inspection 

practices conform to its guidance; (4) a review of costs to aircraft 

operators associated with delays in FDA inspections; and (5) recommendations to improve FDA’s oversight and inspection of aircraft lavatories and galleys to improve the effectiveness and efficiency for both the agency and aircraft operators. The Committee 

directs GAO to issue a report to the Committees within 270 days 

of enactment of this Act. 

Antimicrobial Drug Use.—In recent years, FDA has expanded 

antimicrobial drug sales and distribution reporting under Section 

105 of the Animal Drug User Fee Amendments of 2008 (ADUFA 

105) in an effort to further enhance the Agency’s understanding of 

antimicrobial drug use in food-producing animals. The Committee 

firmly believes that efforts to combat antimicrobial resistance must 

take into consideration animal health and welfare, which in turn 

affect human health and food safety. The Committee supports the 

collection and reporting of accurate and validated data of antimicrobial drug use for food-producing animals, but is concerned 

with the accuracy of current ADUFA 105 reporting which equates 

antimicrobial sales and distribution data to actual antimicrobial 

use data. Sales data used to estimate antimicrobial use has been 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

66 

shown to be extremely inaccurate and ADUFA reporting must promote public understanding in a meaningful and accurate way. 

Therefore, the Committee encourages the Agency to seek alternative methods to better identify and reduce inappropriate antimicrobial drug uses rather than benchmarking against preconceived reduction goals using enhanced sales data. 

The Committee recognizes that not all antimicrobial drugs used 

in animal agriculture are involved in the potential for developing 

resistance mechanisms relevant to animal or human health. Consequently, the agency is encouraged to develop a reporting format 

for the ADUFA annual summary report that incorporates the antibiotic class of ionophores into a separate section of the report and 

clearly designates their status as not currently used in human 

medicine and not relevant to the development of antimicrobial resistance mechanisms. 

Cancer Immunotherapy Clinical Trials.—The Committee is 

aware of the remarkable promise of cancer immunotherapy and encouraged by the FDA’s recent approval of new treatments that harness this approach to fighting cancer. More than 1,500 immuno-oncology clinical trials are in some stage of development. As more patients turn to immune-based treatments, and more clinical trials 

are conducted to evaluate them, understanding how to recognize 

and manage the side effects of cancer immunotherapies will become 

increasingly important. Currently, however, standard parameters 

for reporting cancer immunotherapy-related adverse events in clinical trials are lacking, and this makes comparisons and management across studies challenging. The Committee, therefore, urges 

the FDA to work with the research community and the pharmaceutical industry to develop standardized templates for reporting 

toxicities in cancer immunotherapy clinical trials. 

Comprehensive Tobacco Framework.—The Committee commends 

the FDA for its 2017 comprehensive plan for tobacco and nicotine 

regulation to protect public health and create more predictability in 

tobacco regulation via the consideration of reduced-risk products. 

FDA must balance the needs of current adult smokers with the 

risks of attracting new youth to the marketplace. As FDA moves 

forward, the Committee directs the agency to consider foundational 

regulations and guidance for its new rulemakings, including for the 

Substantial Equivalence (SE) and Pre-market Tobacco Application 

(PMTA) pathways. These rulemakings should reflect a minimum of 

24 months for compliance and additional flexibility and assistance 

for small tobacco product manufacturers. Clear definitions of terms 

and requirements for submission to FDA, including those for same 

characteristics and questions related to public health, will help to 

provide certainty and limit excessive speculation in the process. A 

foundational approach to rulemaking and guidance should also rely 

on product standards, reference products for the SE pathway, performance standards for FDA in certifying reports and applications, 

and the acceptance of identical specifications in SE reports. In providing transparency, FDA should consider the quarterly release of 

Center for Tobacco Products reviewer guides. Finally, FDA should 

consider the expedited or privileged review of quantity and packaging changes that do not affect the core characteristics of products 

in the PMTA process. 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

67 

Continuous Manufacturing Initiative.—The Committee provides $10,000,000 of the funding authorized under the 21st Century 

Cures Act for the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration for a Continuous Manufacturing Initiative and to award grants 

to institutions of higher education and nonprofit organizations for 

the purpose of studying and recommending improvements to the 

process of continuous manufacturing of drugs and biological products and similar innovative monitoring and control techniques. The 

Committee expects the FDA to partner with existing non-profit entities with demonstrated capacity and experience on advanced 

manufacturing technologies to lower pharmaceutical costs and 

where limited federal funds will be matched by non-federal resources. 

Critical Path Institute.—Innovation in the development of new 

medicines and other therapies can be enhanced by enabling FDA 

to focus on specific program areas such as those outlined in FDA’s 

Critical Path Initiative and their Regulatory Science objectives. 

These types of programs which FDA often accomplishes through 

public-private partnerships expand the knowledge base for those 

developing medical products and those conducting regulatory review. The Committee maintains the $400,000 increase provided in 

the FY18 Consolidated Appropriation Act in support of this initiative. 

Crop Biotechnology & Biotech Ingredients.—Plants, food, and 

food ingredients developed using genetic engineering were introduced into the U.S. food supply in the 1990s. Public and private 

sector scientists knowledgeable in genetic engineering, toxicology, 

chemistry, nutrition, and other scientific areas have carefully evaluated and assessed the safety of these products and have determined that such products are safe for human and animal consumption. The Committee provides $3,000,000 for USDA and the FDA 

to continue efforts to educate the public on the safety and benefits 

of crop biotechnology and food and animal feed ingredients derived 

from biotechnology. 

Cybersecurity in Medical Devices.—The Committee believes that 

the FDA should address potential cybersecurity vulnerabilities in 

medical devices in general, but especially as the Internet of Things 

becomes more prevalent in healthcare. The Committee directs the 

FDA to report back within 120 days on the agency’s plans to understand the ongoing cybersecurity challenges of medical devices and 

outline a pathway forward. The plan should describe potential solutions and list compensating controls such as continuous inventory, 

log monitoring, data protection, micro segmentation, and patching 

on legacy devices to prevent cyber threats from spreading across 

hospital systems. The Committee encourages the FDA to seek industry collaboration to uncover the extent of the vulnerabilities and 

threats with a representative pathway to solving this critical issue. 

Dairy Labeling Requirements.—The Committee is aware of the 

concerns with labeling certain foods and beverages as a dairy product when the product is plant-based rather than derived from animals. The Committee directs the FDA to develop a standard of 

identity for dairy products based upon the dairy product terms described in parts 131, 133, and 135 of subchapter B of chapter I of 

title 21, Code of Federal Regulations within 180 days from the date 

of enactment of this Act. The FDA should issue guidance to industkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

68 

try on how to implement the standard of identity, including how 

this standard will be enforced. 

Dietary Supplements.—More than half of Americans take at least 

one dietary supplement each day, with use particularly prevalent 

among older persons and in children. While dietary supplements 

enter the market under the assumption that they are safe, the 

FDA has evidence of some products that are contaminated, either 

intentionally or unintentionally, with inherently unsafe ingredients, including active pharmaceutical ingredients. These products 

violate the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act 

(DSHEA) and pose potential risks to consumers. The Committee 

applauds FDA’s inspection of and enforcement actions against 

manufacturers with dietary supplement products that contain ingredients that are potentially harmful or otherwise noncompliant 

with the law. The Committee has been pleased with the interagency collaborations and urges FDA to continue working with the 

Department of Justice to remove illegal dietary supplements from 

the market. Therefore, it directs FDA to increased resources toward 

enforcement of DSHEA, including inspection and enforcement activities. In addition, the Committee directs FDA to submit a report 

no later than 180 days after enactment of this Act, that includes 

the number of enforcement actions FDA brought against dietary 

supplement manufacturers and marketers, as well as manufacturers and marketers of products claiming to be dietary supplements, 

the number of dietary supplement good manufacturing practice inspections FDA conducted in 2017 and the number of FTEs dedicated to dietary supplement inspections and the number of serious 

adverse events that were reported to FDA from 2015 to 2017. 

Drug Compounding Draft MOU.—The Committee appreciates 

the recognition by FDA of the flaws contained in recent announcement of the agency’s intention to withdraw its draft MOU originally issued on February 13, 2015, entitled ‘‘Draft Memorandum of 

Understanding Addressing Certain Distributions of Compounded 

Human Drug Products Between the State of ( ) and the Food and 

Drug Administration’’ as it applied to Section 503A of the FDCA. 

In issuing a new draft MOU, FDA indicates it will not place a hard 

percentage limit on distributions of compounded medication across 

state lines, but will instead institute enhanced reporting requirements for states that agree to sign the MOU. The Committee is 

concerned that FDA still intends to place requirements on states 

and their boards of pharmacy that will result in many states refusing to sign an MOU. If this happens, the hard cap of 5 percent contained in 503A on distributions across state lines would apply. The 

Committee expects that, when the new draft MOU is proposed as 

a model agreement for the states to consider, that FDA will clarify 

the distinction between distribution and dispensing activities. Finally, any new draft MOU should be open for comment given the 

significance of this provision to patient access to medications from 

the pharmacy of their choice. 

Drug Compounding for Animals.—The Committee appreciates 

FDA withdrawing its proposed draft Guidance for Industry (GFI) 

for animal drug compounding (#230). The Commissioner has indicated that new guidance will be issued later this year. Congress 

passed the Drug Quality and Security Act (DQSA), which re-enacted section 503A regarding pharmacy compounding that had pretkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

69 

viously been declared unconstitutional. Section 503A and a new 

Section 503B are explicitly limited to compounding for humans. In 

GFI #230, which has been withdrawn, FDA attempted to apply 

many of the provisions from Section 503A and 503B to animal drug 

compounding without the support of statutory authority. This was 

an unprecedented intrusion into the state regulated practice of veterinary medicine and pharmacy. 

Drug Compounding Implementation Framework and Office Use 

Compounding.—The Committee is aware that many provisions of 

the DQSA and the re-enactment of Section 503A have been implemented through more than 20 agency guidance documents instead 

of the formal notice and comment rulemaking process as required 

by the underlying statutes and the Administrative Procedure Act. 

The Committee has previously expressed concerns about this 

framework. The Committee continues to express its disapproval of 

the GFI issued in December 2016 entitled Prescription Requirement Under Section 503A of the FDCA due to FDA’s further involvement with legitimate state licensed pharmacy practice. While 

the compounding of limited quantities before receipt of a prescription is legal under Section 503A(a)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, 

and Cosmetic Act, the agency has clearly and unequivocally prohibited office-use compounding. The Committee encourages FDA to either prescribe a pathway for limited, safe, and controlled office-use, 

or hold a public meeting so that FDA can clearly explain to the respective stakeholders the legal rationale for disallowing office-use. 

The Committee is also aware of a January 2018 Memorandum 

issued by the Associate Attorney General that prohibits the DOJ 

from using civil enforcement authority to convert agency guidance 

documents into binding rules. Within 90 days of enactment of this 

Act, the Committee directs FDA to explain how the agency will implement any applicable changes in its use of guidances to ensure 

consistency with this policy due to the fact that these guidances 

serve as the underpinning of enforcement activity for both Section 

503A and Section 503B of the FDCA. 

Drug Compounding Pharmacist on Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee.—The Committee is concerned that the Pharmacy 

Compounding Advisory Committee (PCAC) established under the 

DQSA does not adequately represent the interests and needs of 

providers and patients who use and depend on compounded medications. Compounding is often practiced in community settings. It 

is therefore vital that voting members of PCAC have a thorough 

understanding of compounding in a community setting in order to 

appropriately advise FDA. The Committee expects that, at the earliest possible date, whether filling open positions or replacing existing members, the FDA shall appoint voting members with recent, 

actual, and diverse experience in the preparation, pre-scribing, and 

use of compounded medications. 

Drug Compounding Under State-Licensed Pharmacies.—According to FDA, the agency changed its compounding inspection practices beginning on August 1, 2016 so that a Federal inspection 

makes a preliminary determination if a state licensed pharmacy 

operating under the inspection standards adopted by state law or 

regulation appears to produce pharmaceuticals in accordance with 

the conditions of 503A. The agency will also address any matters 

related to insanitary conditions. If those conditions are met, includtkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

70 

ing conditions surrounding a prescription, the Committee believes 

that FDA should be interpreting Section 503A of the FDCA to 

allow the compounding of product under the standards contained 

in the United States Pharmacopeia Convention (USP) for sterile 

and non-sterile pharmaceutical compounding or other applicable 

pharmacy inspection standards adopted by state law or regulation. 

The Committee reminds the FDA that these particular 

compounding pharmacies are not drug manufacturers, but rather, 

are state licensed and regulated health care providers that are inspected by state boards of pharmacy pursuant to state laws and 

regulations that establish sterility and other standards for the 

pharmacies operating within their states. The Committee is also 

concerned that FDA is publishing the 483 inspection records of 

pharmacies on its website while not simultaneously publishing the 

same information for other manufacturing concerns. FDA is directed to use the same level of transparency for the findings of all 

inspection activities. 

Drug Supply Chain Quality and Security.—The Committee is 

aware that the FDA continues to make progress in implementing 

the provisions of the DQSA; Title II—Drug Supply Chain Security 

Act while ensuring the quality and safety of pharmaceutical products and medicines. FDA’s recommendations will help drive down 

costs related to wastage and counterfeit drugs as they develop policies to implement barcoding technology to track medicines manufactured overseas as well as within the United States. 

Current standards related to anti-counterfeiting measures as 

documented by NIH and the International Organization of Standardization (ISO), highlight the need to incorporate both ‘‘overt’’ features for authentication of medicines such as barcoding and ‘‘covert’’ measures which add additional layers of anti-counterfeiting 

protection. ‘‘Covert’’ measures include techniques such as chemical 

markers and RFID tags. Furthermore, temperature chemical markers can be programmed to reflect the effective temperature range 

for medicines which will provide additional quality assurance that 

the medicines have not been exposed to temperature extremes during transportation throughout the cold-chain process. If implementation of DQSA recommends only barcoding technology to track 

medicines at the product level, then standards to ensure authentication and quality of medicines will be several years behind 

standard practice for anti-counterfeiting measures world-wide. The 

Committee strongly urges FDA to incorporate multi-layering authentication and anti-counterfeiting techniques in addition to 

barcoding technology as they develop their policies in implementing 

DQSA. The Committee directs FDA to provide a report addressing 

the benefits and costs of incorporating multi-layering and covert 

technologies with barcoding technology meeting the provisions of 

the DQSA for pharmaceutical products within 90 days of the enactment of this act. 

Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy.—The Committee is encouraged 

by FDA’s recent approvals of therapies to treat Duchenne Muscular 

Dystrophy and is aware of the authorities within the 21st Century 

Cures Act that clarify the agency’s ability to allow sponsors of targeted rare disease therapies to use data from previously approved 

applications. The Committee is aware of the relevance of this policy 

to Duchenne and other rare disease therapy development and of 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

71 

the agency’s work to implement the law. The Committee requests 

an update on these efforts within 180 days of enactment of this 

Act, including a description of any challenges or impediments faced 

by the agency in implementing these new authorities 

E.U.-Banned Color Additives Used in Food.—The Committee requests a report detailing which color additives used in food have 

not been approved for use within the E.U. but are permitted to be 

sold for consumption in the U.S. The report should also list, if 

known, the primary reasons why the E.U. has banned any such additives. 

FDA Partnerships Under FSMA.—The purpose of FSMA is to reform the nation’s food safety laws to ensure a safe public food supply. As FDA continues implementation of FSMA, the Committee 

encourages FDA to work in partnership with existing government 

food safety programs through MOUs to verify compliance with 

FSMA to rules once they are finalized as a way to eliminate duplication of activities under the law. In addition, the Committee continues to provide $5,000,000 for the Food Safety Outreach Program 

under NIFA and expects that NIFA will serve as the sole agency 

providing food safety training, education, outreach, and technical 

assistance at the farm level. 

Federal Employee Conduct.—Public service is a public trust that 

requires federal employees to place ethical principles above private 

gain. Federal employees are reminded that they shall not advance 

a personal agenda or give preferential treatment to any outside organization or individual within the government programs which 

they administer. Information that is received by the employee, including information from other employees, offices, or Congress 

should be handled in a professional and confidential manner in accordance with Code of Federal Regulations regarding the basic obligation of public service (5 CFR 2635.101). 

Food Contact Notification User Fees.—The funds made available 

by this Act shall include sufficient monies to fund the Food and 

Drug Administration’s Food Contact Notification Program and 

shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of 21 U.S.C. 

348(h)(5)(A). 

Food Date Labeling.—The Committee recognizes that the lack of 

food date labeling standardization has resulted in significant consumer confusion. Because food manufacturers use a variety of food 

date labeling phrases, such as ‘‘freshest by’’ or ‘‘use by,’’ consumers 

frequently throw out food that is wholesome and safe, which contributes to the country’s food waste problem. The Committee encourages FDA and USDA to provide outreach and guidance to food 

manufacturers and retailers on food date labeling. 

Foreign High Risk Inspection.—The Committee directs FDA to 

spend no less than the $7,500,000 provided in the FY 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act for foreign high-risk inspections, will 

allow FDA’s Office of Regulatory Affairs to continue efforts to develop and utilize a targeted, risk-based, and efficient inspection 

model that incorporates commercially available information, including onsite facility verification, about all foreign food, drug, device 

and tobacco establishments for the purpose of regulatory compliance and surveillance of manufacturing quality management practices. FDA is directed to provide the Committees with an update 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

72 

on these efforts, including estimated efficiencies and concerns and 

plans to continue or expand this effort in the future. 

Genomic Editing.—The Committee understands the potential 

benefits to society in the genetic modification of living organisms. 

However, researchers do not yet fully understand all the possible 

side effects of editing the genes of a human embryo. Editing of the 

human germ line may involve serious and unquantifiable safety 

and ethical issues. Federal and non-federal organizations such as 

the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Medicine continue to understand the potential risks of genome editing 

and a broader public discussion of the societal and ethical implications of this technique is still ongoing. In accordance with the current policy at the National Institutes of Health, the Committee includes bill language that places a prohibition on the FDA’s use of 

funds involving the genetic modification of a human embryo. The 

Committee continues to support a wide range of innovations in biomedical research, but will do so in a fashion that reflects well-established scientific and ethical principles. 

Labeling of Feminine Hygiene Products.—The Committee is concerned by the lack of ingredient labeling requirements on menstrual hygiene products and strongly encourages the FDA to require menstrual hygiene products sold in the U.S. to list ingredients on the package. 

Laboratory Developed Tests.—The FDA’s draft guidance issued 

on October 3, 2014, titled ‘‘Framework for Regulatory Oversight of 

Laboratory Developed Tests’’ (LDTs), puts forth a proposed regulatory framework that is a significant shift in the way LDTs are 

regulated. Such a shift deserves input from the public, and Congress has been working with stakeholders, constituencies, and the 

FDA to find common ground on regulating LDTs. The FDA’s guidance circumvents the normal rulemaking process and changes expectations for patients, doctors, and laboratories for the first time 

since the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments Act was 

passed in 1988. The Committee maintains its position that FDA 

should suspend further efforts to finalize the LDT guidance and 

continue working with Congress to pass legislation that addresses 

a new pathway for regulation of LDTs in a transparent manner. 

Listeria Monocytogenes.—The Committee is aware that FDA is in 

the process of finalizing guidance regarding Listeria monocytogenes 

(Lm). Reducing incidents of listeriosis is an important health goal, 

and the Committee supports efforts to accomplish this objective. 

The Committee directs FDA to consider all risk assessments before 

finalizing the guidance and policy on Lm is risk-based and reflects 

good and achievable industry practice. 

Local Port Cooperation.—The Committee directs the FDA to 

work with local governments at high volume ports of entry to explore activities which reduce the risk of food borne illnesses and 

enhance the capacity of local officials in dealing with food borne 

threats and report back to the Committee within 90 days of enactment of this Act on its efforts. 

Mammography Exam Reports.—In November 2011, the National 

Mammography Quality Assurance Advisory Committee approved a 

change to the mammogram patient report and physician report to 

include information regarding an individual’s breast density, yet 

this process has not been completed. The Committee continues to 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

73 

urge the FDA to implement this change in an expedited manner 

and report to the Committees on the status of this change no more 

than 60 days from the enactment of this Act. 

Medical Gas Rulemaking.—Medical gases have been used safely 

to treat medical conditions for over 100 years. In 2012, Congress 

enacted the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation 

Act (FDASIA; P.L. 112–144) requiring the FDA to review its regulations applying to pharmaceutical drugs and issue final regulations for medical gases not later July 9, 2016. When FDA missed 

the FDASIA statutory timeline, Congress included language in the 

FY 2017 Omnibus (P.L. 115–31) reinforcing this requirement. Following enactment of the FY 2017 Omnibus, FDA initiated the process of revising its regulations for medical gases, but substantial 

work remains to be done. FDA is urged to complete this work by 

March 2019. 

Medical Product Shipment Delays.—The Committee acknowledges FDA’s vital responsibility to conduct risk-based screening of 

imported products under its jurisdiction at ports and distribution 

hubs across the country. However, any delay of critically important 

medical products places risks to patients and can unnecessarily disrupt medical services. The Committee directs FDA to examine 

trends in possible delays of medical product shipments, and provide 

a report to the Committees within 90 days of enactment, and, if 

necessary, allocate existing resources to adequately staff centralized points of entry for imported, time-sensitive medical products 

so that commerce and critical medical care is not unduly delayed. 

The Committee maintains the $300,000 increase provided in the 

FY 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act to help expedite the 

clearance of these products. 

Menu Labeling.—The Committee urges FDA to consider opportunities to reduce the burden and add flexibility for businesses to implement the Menu Labeling rule and provide consumers with certain nutrition information. 

Naloxone to Treat Over-usage of Opioids.—United States public 

health agencies have appropriately highlighted the risk of overdose 

from doses of opioids greater than 90 morphine milligram equivalents (MME) per day. Also concerning are the hundreds of millions 

of prescriptions each year of immediate release (IR) lower MME 

opioids such as hydrocodone and oxycodone. These opioids are commonly associated with abuse and are a common pathway to addiction and also present a risk of overdose. Some states have begun 

to limit the prescribing of these IR opioids. An additional consideration might be to assess the benefit of co-prescribing naloxone with 

IR and extended release (ER) opioids. Prescribers including dentists and other primary care providers have an opportunity to become more attuned to the risks of all opioids through the consideration of co-prescribing naloxone with each opioid prescription. The 

Committee requests the FDA develop a strategy to test this hypothesis and assess the benefit for enacting such a policy as a national strategy. 

Nutrient Value of Fish During Pregnancy.—The Committee is 

concerned that the FDA in concert with the EPA in issuance of updated advice in January 2017 regarding fish consumption, continues to miss an opportunity to promote the positive benefit of 

seafood consumption during pregnancy. The Committee directs the 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

74 

FDA to incorporate the specific nutrient value of fish consumption 

in pregnancy on the FDA website ‘‘Eating Fish: What Pregnant 

Women and Parents Should Know.’’ This update should also be incorporated within other materials developed by the FDA. The information on the nutrient value of fish should focus on the specific 

benefits of seafood consumption for pregnancy and fetal development. In addition, the Committee requests an update to the requirements made within the FY 2018 Consolidated Appropriation 

Act report directive which focused on the FDA’s plan to add information on the nutrient value of fish and to develop a plan to assess 

the efficacy of this change on women’s dietary choices related to 

seafood consumption, particularly during pregnancy. 

Olive Oil Standards of Identity.—Because of the substantial interest in and consumption of olive oil throughout the United States, 

driven in part by the significant scientifically-confirmed health benefits of these oils, and the fact that the United States has become 

a globally-important producer of olive oils, especially extra virgin 

olive oil, the Committee directs the FDA to establish a separate 

U.S. Standard of Identity for different grades of olive it (e.g. refined, virgin and extra virgin) and pomace oils. 

The Committee is particularly concerned with the number of different oil state standards for olive oils in the U.S. Because the 

health benefits of olive oil vary by grade, it is important to establish a uniform set of the standards to better inform and protect 

consumers. Extra virgin olive oil is the highest quality of olive oil 

and provides the greatest health benefits for consumers. The FDA 

is directed to consult and meet with domestic extra virgin olive oil 

representatives and olive oil representatives in developing a 

science-based Standard of Identity for extra virgin olive oil and 

olive oil, respectively, best suited to ensure the integrity of these 

products for U.S. consumers. 

Opioid Abuse.—The abuse, misuse, and diversion of opioid painkillers continue to drive an epidemic in the United States. The 

CDC indicates that one American loses his or her battle with addiction every twelve and a half minutes. The Committee continues to 

be pleased that, with the Opioids Action Plan, Opioid Policy Steering Committee, and several significant regulatory actions, the FDA 

is doing its part to help stem the tide of abuse. In order to reduce 

the risk of addiction, the Committee urges the agency to adopt labeling changes for the DEA schedule 2 (CII) opioids that explicitly 

advise that the less addictive and less dangerous schedule 3 (CIII) 

opioids should be used before resorting to a CII opioid. The use of 

opioids as first-line therapies for any form of pain has led to overprescribing, and the CDC has made clear that clinicians should 

consider opioid therapy only if expected benefits for both pain and 

function are anticipated to outweigh the risks to the patient. The 

Committee encourages the FDA to support the development of alternative and non-addictive alternatives to opioid analgesics, and 

when opioids are medically necessary, will continue to incentivize 

development and use of abuse-deterrent formulations. The Committee notes that every patient’s treatment regimen should be tailored by his or her doctor to his or her unique needs. The federal 

government, therefore, should promote the full suite of available 

treatment options, including abstinence-based models and nonopioid medications. Finally, the Committee continues to be suptkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

75 

portive of naloxone distribution among trained, licensed healthcare 

professionals and emergency responders. When considering the appropriateness of providing naloxone over-the-counter, the Committee directs the FDA to ensure that the administration of 

naloxone serves as a point of intervention to spur an honest conversation between the patient and his doctor about addiction and 

treatment. 

Opioid Data Warehouse & Analytics.—The opioid crisis affects 

everyone, from those taking prescribed medications for acute, intractable, or chronic pain and unwittingly becoming addicted, to 

family members suffering alongside the patients/addicts. The Commissioner has stated that addressing the nation’s opioids crisis is 

his highest priority. However, according to President Trump’s Commission on Combatting Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis, FDA 

does not have separate and distinct FY 2018 funding to promote 

the use of data as scientific evidence to support changes in key regulations, such as provider education, Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) authorities, and treatment therapies. Evidence-based public health decisions can reverse harmful trends in 

opioid abuse and overdoses rampant in our communities. As such, 

the Committee provides $20,000,000 to collect disparate data to 

create a large-scale data warehouse and perform data analytics to 

better assess vulnerability points in the population, anticipate 

changes in the crisis, and target regulatory changes required. 

Patient Experience in Drug Reviews.—The Committee is aware 

the FDA is implementing policies to promote public access to information about how patient experience information factored into the 

review of approved products. The Committee supports this step forward and encourages FDA to continue refining the instrument and 

ways to improve its visibility. The Committee also requests that 

FDA consider ways to include patient-experience information in 

relevant labeling and accompanying documentation to inform patient/provider decision making and payer determinations. 

Patient Safety and Adverse Events related to Attorney Advertisements.—The Committee directs the FDA to explore adverse event 

reports linked to attorney or lead generators advertisements for 

anticoagulant, antiplatelet, blood pressure medications, antihyperglycemic agents used to anage HbA1c in type 2 diabetes or 

antipsychotic products. The agency is directed to share their results 

with the FTC and submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations within 120 days of enactment. The Committee also directs 

FDA and the FTC to collaborate to address patient safety concerns 

presented by attorney and lead generators advertisements using 

their respective authorities and expertise. 

Performance Measures.—The Committee directs FDA to comply 

with title 31 of the United States Code, including the development 

of their organizational priority goals and outcomes such as performance outcome measures, output measures, efficiency measures, 

and customer service measures. 

Pet Food Imports.—As of December 31, 2015, the FDA had received approximately 5,200 complaints of illness related to consumption of chicken, duck, or sweet potato jerky treats, nearly all 

of which are imported from China. The reports involve more than 

6,200 dogs, 26 cats, three humans and include more than 1,140 canine deaths. These incidents date back to 2007. The Committee retkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

76 

quests that the FDA provide a timeline of all activities associated 

with the investigation into the pet illnesses associated with these 

products, including any import alerts and import refusals, within 

60 days of the enactment of this Act. In addition, the Committee 

requests that the agency provide semi-annual reports on the status 

of the investigation into these illnesses beginning in July 2017 and 

continuing until the issue has been resolved. 

Prescription Drug Labeling Inserts.—The Committee is aware of 

FDA’s previous proposal that would subvert repeatedly expressed 

Congressional intent by permitting the distribution of prescription 

drugs without printed prescribing information on or within the 

packages from which such drugs are to be dispensed. The FDA intends to replace such printed labeling with an electronic labeling 

system for the majority of prescription drugs. On several occasions, 

Congress has expressly declined to provide the FDA the necessary 

statutory authority to implement this change. As recently as 2012, 

Congress commissioned a GAO report (GAO–13–592) discussing 

this issue. The GAO report concluded that such a change could adversely impact public health. Thus, the Committee is very concerned that the FDA is moving to promulgate a regulation that 

would generally eliminate printed prescribing information inserts 

for prescription drugs. Therefore, the Committee has included a 

provision prohibiting the FDA from utilizing any funds to propose 

or otherwise promulgate any rule that requires or permits any prescription drug or biologic products to be distributed without printed 

prescribing information on or within the packaging from which 

such products are to be dispensed, unless such actions are expressly provided by an amendment to the FDCA. 

Prescription Drugs and Safe Medication Disposal.—The Committee is aware of the FDA review of policies and recommendations 

for the safe disposal of unused medications. This is an important 

part of comprehensive efforts to reduce the diversion of prescription 

drugs, including opioids, in the home, health care delivery settings, 

and other locations. The Committee is aware of advanced technologies, including drug deactivation bags developed with NIH support, which may be effective options for improving safe disposal 

and encourages the FDA to include these options in the ongoing 

FDA initiative. 

Standard of Identity Activities for Foods.—Of the amount provided for CFSAN, the Committee requires an increase of 

$3,000,000 for the Office of Nutrition and Food Labeling to 

prioritize efforts regarding standards of identity and related product labeling. 

Sunscreen Ingredients.—The Committee remains significantly 

concerned that the FDA has not approved a new over-the-counter 

(OTC) sunscreen ingredient since the 1990s despite increased skin 

cancer rates in the United States, the Surgeon General’s 2014 Call 

to Action to Prevent Skin Cancer, unanimous passage of the Sunscreen Innovation Act (SIA) in Congress and having a number of 

ingredients pending approval for more than 15 years. The Committee directs the FDA to continue to work with sponsors to reach 

a path forward on a testing regimen for sunscreen ingredients that 

is consistent with current scientific standards, has a proven track 

record with sunscreen ingredients, and appropriately balances the 

benefit of additional skin cancer prevention tools. 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

77 

Stem Cell Treatment and Storage.—As the agency refines its 

comprehensive regenerative medicine policy framework, the Committee directs the FDA to brief the Committees within 30 days of 

enactment on how FDA regulates human stem cell harvesting compared to how the agency regulates the treatment and storage of 

human blood. 

Syringe Sterility.—The Committee is pleased that the FDA has 

finalized guidance addressing the repackaging and compounding of 

biologics, a critical step toward ensuring that patients receive safe 

drugs. It remains concerned, however, that while the guidance establishes procedures to ensure the sterility and stability of the drug 

itself, it does little to address the sterility of the delivery mechanism of the drug or the packaging in which the drug will be delivered to the patient. This is particularly concerning for biologics 

that are injected into a closed system, such as the spine or the eye, 

where infection cannot easily be fought by the immune system. 

Therefore, as the FDA revisits the development of Good Manufacturing Practices for compounded drugs, the Committee strongly encourages the adoption of guidelines that mimic regulations governing the sterility of the container and packaging of sterile 

injectable biologics that currently apply to biologics manufacturers. 

For example, at 21 C.F.R. 200.50, the FDA requires that ‘‘containers of ophthalmic preparations be sterile’’ and ‘‘packaged so as 

to maintain sterility until the package is opened.’’ While there is 

always a risk of adverse outcomes when drugs are repackaged or 

compounded, that risk is significantly increased when those drugs 

are biologics, and therefore, all necessary precautions should be 

taken by the FDA to reduce those risks. 

Tobacco Product Enforcement.—The Committee is concerned with 

the rise of new Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS) attracting new youth smokers in record numbers. This demographic 

shift places at risk the innovation of harm reducing technology that 

has the potential to benefit the greater public health. The Committee directs FDA to increase investigations and enforcement actions against entities that market tobacco products to youth. The 

Committee requests FDA provide a detailed report of its enforcement efforts in this area, including: data on the number of suspected new or modified vapor products introduced after August 8, 

2016; data on any and all enforcement actions taken with respect 

to new or modified vapor products introduced into the market after 

August 8, 2016; the agency’s plan going forward to enforce the Act 

as to new or modified products entering the market after August 

8, 2016; and the resource allocation (personnel and dollars spent) 

to ensure new or modified vapor products are not entering the marketplace without proper authorization. The Committee requests 

this information 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Tobacco Product Standards.—The Committee is concerned about 

the feasibility of achieving a 1 parts per million level for Nnitrosonornicotine levels as established in the proposed product 

standard rule dated January 23, 2017 (82 Fed. Reg. 8004). The 

Committee encourages FDA to work with stakeholders involved in 

the production and growth of these products to determine a reasonable level while fulfilling its statutory mission to protect public 

health. 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

78 

Tobacco Product User Fees.—The Committee directs the FDA to 

submit a report to the Committees and made publicly available online on the planned expenditure and obligation of user fees for the 

current fiscal year within 60 days of enactment of this Act. The report shall include the amount of carryover and unobligated balances from the prior fiscal year and planned obligations and expenditures for the current fiscal year based upon the total of the 

new and existing amounts available. The report shall identify the 

type and amount of activities, contracts, and objectives to be implemented, including but not limited to public education campaigns, 

scientific research, communications, and product application processing and review for the current and prior fiscal year. The report 

shall also include a status of submitted, pending, and approved tobacco product applications per each regulatory pathway and class 

as defined by the Tobacco Control Act, and subsequent regulations, 

for the past three fiscal years and planned for the current fiscal 

year. 

Virtual clinical trials.—Novel digital technologies are facilitating 

the use of virtual clinical trials. By reducing geographical barriers, 

these trials can allow populations historically underrepresented in 

clinical research, such as the elderly and those living in rural areas 

or with limited mobility, to participate in clinical research. Through 

the use of telemedicine, connected sensors, patient engagement applications and direct data capture tools, virtual trials are conducted 

geographically near the patient. Reducing or eliminating on-site 

visits has the potential to increase patient convenience and lower 

study costs, while the implementation of new technologies is expected to increase data quality. The Committee recommends that 

the impacted Centers at FDA actively collaborate to advance and 

expand the use of virtual trials and the acceptance of the data generated from these trials. The FDA shall provide an annual report 

of their activities to advance digital technologies and the impact on 

patient access to clinical trials. 

Drug Efficiency Study Implementation (DESI) Process.—While 

the Committee agrees with FDA’s goal of ensuring all drugs have 

current approvals, the Committee is concerned that the DESI process can at times lead to the unnecessary removal of important 

drugs from the marketplace. The Committee encourages the FDA 

to reexamine the process for DESI manufacturers as these companies are working through the FDA process for obtaining an approved new drug application or abbreviated new drug application. 

CVM Guidance Documents.—The FDA Center for Veterinary 

Medicine (CVM) recently updated its list of guidance topics to include possible new topics for consideration as well as revisions to 

existing FDA–CVM guidance documents. The Committee encourages FDA to seek input from relevant industry stakeholders and 

appropriate scientific experts who can assist FDA in the development of and any revisions to guidance documents. 

In Silico Clinical Trials.—The Committee appreciates FDA’s continued support for and use of modeling and simulation in clinical 

trials, as well as its establishment of an affiliation agreement with 

an academic institution with expertise in this field. This partnership allows the development of personalized medical interventions, 

optimizes the regulatory process with in silico clinical trials and 

bridges gaps in the current regulatory infrastructure. The Comtkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

79 

mittee urges FDA to formalize this important function in improving 

outcomes and reducing costs inherent to drug and device discovery. 

Dietary Fiber Sources.—While FDA has issued final guidance on 

dietary fiber, it has not provided final guidance on intrinsic and intact fiber sources nor has the Agency finalized its conclusions on 

the status of pending fiber ingredients. Additionally, FDA has not 

finalized its proposed compliance date extension. This lack of regulatory clarity is causing significant confusion and market disruptions. Therefore, FDA shall allow up to three years after final conclusions on the pending fiber ingredients to allow sufficient time for 

food manufacturers to comply. 

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $11,788,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... 11,788,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 11,788,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Buildings and Facilities of the Food and Drug Administration, the Committee provides $11,788,000. 

FDA INNOVATION ACCOUNT, CURES ACT

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $60,000,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... 70,000,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 70,000,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... +10,000,000 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the FDA Innovation Account as authorized in the 21st Century Cures Act, the Committee provides an appropriation of 

$70,000,000. 

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

2018 appropriation ............................................................................. $249,000,000 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... 281,500,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 255,000,000 

Comparison: 

2018 appropriation ...................................................................... +6,000,000 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥26,500,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the 

Committee provides an appropriation of $255,000,000, of which 

$50,000,000 is for the purchase of IT and $3,000,000 is for the Inspector General. Overhead for the Inspector General shall not exceed $350,000. The Committee provides a funding increase for the 

LabCFTC initiative, cybersecurity, and clearinghouse examinations. 

Cross-Border Harmonization.—The Committee strongly encourages the CFTC to work with the Securities and Exchange Commistkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

80 

sion (SEC) to harmonize the definition of a ‘‘US person’’ and exempt non-US regulated funds from any definition. Currently, the 

definition of a ‘‘US person’’ differs between the two agencies, which 

can result in operational challenges and potentially different regulatory treatment of entities transacting in otherwise similar instruments. Global firms face significant costs and burdens if the 

CFTC’s and SEC’s regulatory approaches produce different outcomes regarding whether an entity or transaction would be subject 

to the Dodd-Frank Act. Derivatives transactions for swaps and security-based swaps that are traded typically by the same trading 

desk or desks should not be analyzed differently. The Committee 

urges these agencies to work together in an expeditious manner toward a consistent definition of ‘‘US person’’. 

Virtual Currency Monitoring.—The advent of virtual currency 

markets has presented several new challenges for the Commission 

in its efforts to carry out its mission. Each virtual currency derivatives contract ties its price in some way, through various settlement processes, to the price of the virtual currency on the cash 

market. This underlying cash market is relatively nascent, and the 

exchanges operating in the cash market remain largely unregulated with the Commission having only limited statutory authority 

over the cash market. Those features of the underlying cash markets have led some U.S. regulators to express concern about the potential for fraud and manipulation in the cash and futures markets; and other risks that fall within the purview of the Commission, such as risks to centralized counterparty clearing organizations. Therefore, the Committee encourages the Commission’s ongoing efforts, in coordination with other financial regulators like the 

Securities and Exchange Commission, to monitor virtual currencies, such as Bitcoin futures contracts and the underlying cash 

markets to which these futures contracts are settled; and to detect, 

investigate, and prosecute fraud and manipulation in these markets. 

Swap Dealer de Minimis.—The Committee directs the Commission to continue to resolve the Swap Dealer de Minimis threshold 

and provide relief to derivatives end-users. 

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

2018 limitation .................................................................................... ($70,600,000) 

2019 budget estimate ......................................................................... (74,600,000) 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. (74,600,000) 

Comparison: 

2018 limitation ............................................................................ +4,000,000 

2019 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For a limitation on the expenses of the Farm Credit Administration (FCA), the Committee provides $74,600,000. 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

81 

TITLE VII 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

(INCLUDING RESCISSIONS AND TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

The General Provisions contained in the accompanying bill for 

fiscal year 2019 are fundamentally the same as those included in 

last year’s appropriations bill. 

The following general provisions are included in the bill: 

Section 701: Limitation on the purchase of passenger motor vehicles. 

Section 702: Transfer authority regarding the Working Capital 

Fund. 

Section 703: Limitation on certain obligations. 

Section 704: Indirect cost rates for cooperative agreements with 

nonprofit institutions. 

Section 705: Disbursement of rural development loans. 

Section 706: Authority of the Chief Information Officer relating 

to new IT systems. 

Section 707: Language regarding crop programs. 

Section 708: Rural Utility Service borrower eligibility. 

Section 709: Limitation on certain I.T. funds. 

Section 710: Prohibition on first-class airline travel. 

Section 711: Use of funds authorized by the Commodity Credit 

Corporation Charter Act. 

Section 712: Funding for advisory committees. 

Section 713: Indirect costs for competitive agricultural research 

grants. 

Section 714: Language regarding IT systems regulations. 

Section 715: Language on Section 32 activities. 

Section 716: Language on user fee proposals without offsets. 

Section 717: Language on reprogramming. 

Section 718: Language on fees for the business and industry 

guaranteed loan program. 

Section 719: Language on questions for the record. 

Section 720: Language regarding prepackaged news stories. 

Section 721: Language on prohibition on paid details in excess of 

60 days. 

Section 722: Language regarding spending plans. 

Section 723: Language on certain unobligated balances. 

Section 724: Language regarding Single Family Housing Direct 

Loan Program. 

Section 725: Language regarding USDA loan programs. 

Section 726: Transfer authority regarding the Working Capital 

Fund. 

Section 727: Language regarding purchases made through Child 

Nutrition Programs. 

Section 728: Language regarding water and waste disposal sanitation loans. 

Section 729: Language regarding research programs. 

Section 730: Language regarding housing loan programs. 

Section 731: Language regarding consumer information. 

Section 732: Language regarding genetic modification. 

Section 733: Language regarding beverage production process. 

Section 734: Language regarding emergency food aid. 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

82 

Section 735: Language regarding Rural Utility Service. 

Section 736: Language regarding meat and poultry regulation. 

Section 737: Language regarding research and evaluation plan. 

Section 738: Language regarding the Commodity Exchange Act. 

Section 739: Language regarding audits. 

Section 740: Language regarding FDA regulations. 

Section 741: Language regarding animal research. 

Section 742: Language regarding the Food Security Act. 

Section 743: Language regarding domestic preference. 

Section 744: Language regarding community eligibility. 

Section 745: Language regarding lobbying. 

Section 746: Language regarding office operations. 

Section 747: Language regarding housing programs. 

Section 748: Language regarding child nutrition programs. 

Section 749: Language regarding community eligibility. 

Section 750: Language regarding community eligibility. 

Section 751: Language regarding poultry products. 

Section 752: Language regarding FDA regulation. 

Section 753: Language regarding fund access. 

Section 754: Language regarding the citrus greening. 

Section 755: Language regarding the FDA regulation. 

Section 756: Language regarding geographic areas. 

Section 757: Language regarding child nutrition. 

Section 758: Language regarding the veteran farming. 

Section 759: Language regarding broadband expansion. 

Section 760: Language regarding cost-benefit analysis. 

Section 761: Language regarding biomass crop assistance program. 

Section 762: Language regarding FDA regulation. 

Section 763: Language regarding dietary guidelines. 

Section 764: Language regarding food labeling. 

Section 765: Language regarding the availability of funds. 

Section 766: Language regarding genetically engineered labeling. 

Section 767: Language regarding the school breakfast program. 

Section 768: Language regarding the SNAP program. 

Section 769: Language regarding premium cigars. 

Section 770: Language regarding cigars. 

Section 771: Language regarding the Federal Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act. 

Section 772: Language regarding tobacco product standards. 

Section 773: Language regarding the labeling of tobacco products. 

Section 774: Language regarding tobacco regulation. 

Section 775: Language regarding age verification of tobacco purchases. 

Section 776: Language regarding a report. 

Section 777: Language regarding a report. 

Section 778: Language regarding the spending reduction account. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

83 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE


Insert graphic folio 020 HR706.001
84 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE


Insert graphic folio 21 HR706.002
85 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE


Insert graphic folio 22 HR706.003
86 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE


Insert graphic folio 23 HR706.004
87 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is a statement of general performance goals and objectives for which this measure authorizes funding: 

The Committee on Appropriations considers program performance, including a program’s success in developing and attaining 

outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing funding recommendations. 

RESCISSIONS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following lists the rescissions of unexpended 

balances included in the accompanying bill: 

Program or activity Amount 

USDA Cushion of Credit ................................................................................................................................. $50,000,000 

USDA FNS (prior year balances) .................................................................................................................... $300,000,000 

TRANSFERS OF FUNDS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following list includes the transfers of unexpended balances included in the accompanying bill: 

1. Departmental Administration.—The bill requires reimbursement for expenses related to certain hearings. 

2. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations.— 

The bill allows a portion of the funds appropriated to the Office of 

the Assistant Secretary to be transferred to agencies. 

3. Hazardous Materials Management.—The bill allows the funds 

appropriated to the Department for hazardous materials management to be transferred to agencies of the Department as required. 

4. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.—Authority is included to enable the Secretary of Agriculture to transfer from other 

appropriations or funds of the Department such sums as may be 

necessary to combat emergency outbreaks of certain diseases of 

animals, plants, and poultry. 

5. Funds for Strengthening Markets, Income, and Supply.—The 

bill limits the transfer of section 32 funds to purposes specified in 

the bill. 

6. Farm Service Agency Salaries and Expenses.—The bill provides that funds provided to other accounts in the agency may be 

merged with the salaries and expenses account of the Farm Service 

Agency. 

7. Dairy Indemnity Program.—The bill authorizes the transfer of 

funds to the Commodity Credit Corporation, by reference. 

8. Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account.—The 

bill provides funds to be transferred to the Farm Service Agency. 

9. Commodity Credit Corporation.—The bill includes language allowing certain funds to be transferred to the Foreign Agricultural 

Service for information resource management activities. 

10. Rural Development Salaries and Expenses.—The bill provides 

that prior year balances from certain accounts shall be transferred 

to and merged with this account. 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

88 

11. Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account, Intermediary Relending Program Fund Account, and Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Program Account.—The bill provides 

funds in this account shall be transferred to the salaries and expenses of Rural Development. 

12. Child Nutrition Programs.—The bill includes authority to 

transfer section 32 funds to these programs. 

13. Foreign Agricultural Service, Salaries and Expenses.—The 

bill allows for the transfer of funds from the Commodity Credit 

Corporation Export Loan Program Account. 

14. Food for Peace Title I Direct Credit and Food for Progress 

Program Account.—The bill allows funds to be transferred to the 

Farm Service Agency, Salaries and Expenses account. The bill also 

provides that funds made available for the cost of title I agreements and for title I ocean freight differential may be used interchangeably. 

15. Commodity Credit Corporation Export Loans Program.—The 

bill provides for transfer of funds to the Foreign Agricultural Service and to the Farm Service Agency for overhead expenses associated with credit reform. 

16. Food and Drug Administration, Salaries and Expenses.—The 

bill allows funds to be transferred among activities. 

17. General Provisions.—The bill allows unobligated balances of 

discretionary funds to be transferred to the Working Capital Fund. 

DISCLOSURE OF EARMARKS AND CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED

SPENDING ITEMS

Neither the bill nor this report contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in 

clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

COMPLIANCE WITH RULE XIII, CL. 3(e) (RAMSEYER RULE) 

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

RICHARD B. RUSSELL NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH ACT 

* * * * * * * 

NUTRITIONAL AND OTHER PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

SEC. 9. (a)(1)(A) Lunches served by schools participating in the 

school lunch program under this Act shall meet minimum nutritional requirements prescribed by the Secretary on the basis of 

tested nutritional research, except that the minimum nutritional 

requirements— 

(i) shall not be construed to prohibit the substitution of 

foods to accommodate the medical or other special dietary 

needs of individual students; and 

(ii) shall, at a minimum, be based on the weekly average 

of the nutrient content of school lunches. 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

89 

(B) The Secretary shall provide technical assistance and training, including technical assistance and training in the preparation 

of lower-fat versions of foods commonly used in the school lunch 

program under this Act, to schools participating in the school lunch 

program to assist the schools in complying with the nutritional requirements prescribed by the Secretary pursuant to subparagraph 

(A) and in providing appropriate meals to children with medically 

certified special dietary needs. The Secretary shall provide additional technical assistance to schools that are having difficulty 

maintaining compliance with the requirements. 

(2) FLUID MILK.— (A) IN GENERAL.—Lunches served by schools participating in the school lunch program under this Act— 

(i) shall offer students a variety of fluid milk. 

Such milk shall be consistent with the most recent Dietary Guidelines for Americans published under section 301 of the National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5341); 

(ii) may offer students flavored and unflavored 

fluid milk and lactose-free fluid milk; and 

(iii) shall provide a substitute for fluid milk for 

students whose disability restricts their diet, on receipt of a written statement from a licensed physician 

that identifies the disability that restricts the student’s diet and that specifies the substitute for fluid 

milk. 

(B) SUBSTITUTES.— (i) STANDARDS FOR SUBSTITUTION.—A school may 

substitute for the fluid milk provided under subparagraph (A), a nondairy beverage that is nutritionally 

equivalent to fluid milk and meets nutritional standards established by the Secretary (which shall, among 

other requirements to be determined by the Secretary, 

include fortification of calcium, protein, vitamin A, and 

vitamin D to levels found in cow’s milk) for students 

who cannot consume fluid milk because of a medical 

or other special dietary need other than a disability 

described in subparagraph (A)(iii). 

(ii) NOTICE.—The substitutions may be made if 

the school notifies the State agency that the school is 

implementing a variation allowed under this subparagraph, and if the substitution is requested by written 

statement of a medical authority or by a student’s parent or legal guardian that identifies the medical or 

other special dietary need that restricts the student’s 

diet, except that the school shall not be required to 

provide beverages other than beverages the school has 

identified as acceptable substitutes. 

(iii) EXCESS EXPENSES BORNE BY SCHOOL FOOD AU- THORITY.—Expenses incurred in providing substitutions under this subparagraph that are in excess of 

expenses covered by reimbursements under this Act 

shall be paid by the school food authority. 

(C) RESTRICTIONS ON SALE OF MILK PROHIBITED.—A 

school that participates in the school lunch program under 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

90 

this Act shall not directly or indirectly restrict the sale or 

marketing of fluid milk products by the school (or by a person approved by the school) at any time or any place— 

(i) on the school premises; or 

(ii) at any school-sponsored event. 

(3) Students in senior high schools that participate in the 

school lunch program under this Act (and, when approved by the 

local school district or nonprofit private schools, students in any 

other grade level) shall not be required to accept offered foods they 

do not intend to consume, and any such failure to accept offered 

foods shall not affect the full charge to the student for a lunch 

meeting the requirements of this subsection or the amount of payments made under this Act to any such school for such lunch. 

(4) PROVISION OF INFORMATION.— 

(A) GUIDANCE.—Prior to the beginning of the school 

year beginning July 2004, the Secretary shall issue guidance to States and school food authorities to increase the 

consumption of foods and food ingredients that are recommended for increased serving consumption in the most 

recent Dietary Guidelines for Americans published under 

section 301 of the National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5341). 

(B) RULES.—Not later than 2 years after the date of 

enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall promulgate rules, based on the most recent Dietary Guidelines for 

Americans, that reflect specific recommendations, expressed in serving recommendations, for increased consumption of foods and food ingredients offered in school 

nutrition programs under this Act and the Child Nutrition 

Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq.). 

(C) PROCUREMENT AND PROCESSING OF FOOD SERVICE

PRODUCTS AND COMMODITIES.—The Secretary shall— 

(i) identify, develop, and disseminate to State departments of agriculture and education, school food 

authorities, local educational agencies, and local processing entities, model product specifications and practices for foods offered in school nutrition programs 

under this Act and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 

U.S.C. 1771 et seq.) to ensure that the foods reflect the 

most recent Dietary Guidelines for Americans published under section 301 of the National Nutrition 

Monitoring and Related Research Act of 1990 (7 

U.S.C. 5341); 

(ii) not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this subparagraph— 

(I) carry out a study to analyze the quantity 

and quality of nutritional information available to 

school food authorities about food service products 

and commodities; and 

(II) submit to Congress a report on the results 

of the study that contains such legislative recommendations as the Secretary considers necessary to ensure that school food authorities have 

access to the nutritional information needed for 

menu planning and compliance assessments; and 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

91 

(iii) to the maximum extent practicable, in purchasing and processing commodities for use in school 

nutrition programs under this Act and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq.), purchase 

the widest variety of healthful foods that reflect the 

most recent Dietary Guidelines for Americans. 

(5) WATER.—Schools participating in the school lunch program under this Act shall make available to children free of 

charge, as nutritionally appropriate, potable water for consumption in the place where meals are served during meal 

service. 

(b)(1)(A) Not later than June 1 of each fiscal year, the Secretary shall prescribe income guidelines for determining eligibility 

for free and reduced price lunches during the 12-month period beginning July 1 of such fiscal year and ending June 30 of the following fiscal year. The income guidelines for determining eligibility 

for free lunches shall be 130 percent of the applicable family size 

income levels contained in the nonfarm income poverty guidelines 

prescribed by the Office of Management and Budget, as adjusted 

annually in accordance with subparagraph (B). The income guidelines for determining eligibility for reduced price lunches for any 

school year shall be 185 percent of the applicable family size income levels contained in the nonfarm income poverty guidelines 

prescribed by the Office of Management and Budget, as adjusted 

annually in accordance with subparagraph (B). The Office of Management and Budget guidelines shall be revised at annual intervals, or at any shorter interval deemed feasible and desirable. 

(B) The revision required by subparagraph (A) of this paragraph shall be made by multiplying— 

(i) the official poverty line (as defined by the Office of Management and Budget); by 

(ii) the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index 

during the annual or other interval immediately preceding the 

time at which the adjustment is made. 

Revisions under this subparagraph shall be made not more than 30 

days after the date on which the consumer price index data required to compute the adjustment becomes available. 

(2)(A) Following the determination by the Secretary under 

paragraph (1) of this subsection of the income eligibility guidelines 

for each school year, each State educational agency shall announce 

the income eligibility guidelines, by family size, to be used by 

schools in the State in making determinations of eligibility for free 

and reduced price lunches. Local school authorities shall, each 

year, publicly announce the income eligibility guidelines for free 

and reduced price lunches on or before the opening of school. 

(B) APPLICATIONS AND DESCRIPTIVE MATERIAL.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—Applications for free and reduced 

price lunches, in such form as the Secretary may prescribe 

or approve, and any descriptive material, shall be distributed to the parents or guardians of children in attendance 

at the school, and shall contain only the family size income 

levels for reduced price meal eligibility with the explanation that households with incomes less than or equal to 

these values would be eligible for free or reduced price 

lunches. 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

92 

(ii) INCOME ELIGIBILITY GUIDELINES.—Forms and descriptive material distributed in accordance with clause (i) 

may not contain the income eligibility guidelines for free 

lunches. 

(iii) CONTENTS OF DESCRIPTIVE MATERIAL.— (I) IN GENERAL.—Descriptive material distributed 

in accordance with clause (i) shall contain a notification that— 

(aa) participants in the programs listed in 

subclause (II) may be eligible for free or reduced 

price meals; and 

(bb) documentation may be requested for 

verification of eligibility for free or reduced price 

meals. 

(II) PROGRAMS.—The programs referred to in subclause (I)(aa) are— 

(aa) the special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children established 

by section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 

(42 U.S.C. 1786); 

(bb) the supplemental nutrition assistance 

program established under the Food and Nutrition 

Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.); 

(cc) the food distribution program on Indian 

reservations established under section 4(b) of the 

Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2013(b)); 

and 

(dd) a State program funded under the program of block grants to States for temporary assistance for needy families established under part 

A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

601 et seq.). 

(3) HOUSEHOLD APPLICATIONS.— (A) DEFINITION OF HOUSEHOLD APPLICATION.—In this 

paragraph, the term ‘‘household application’’ means an application for a child of a household to receive free or reduced price school lunches under this Act, or free or reduced price school breakfasts under the Child Nutrition 

Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq.), for which an eligibility determination is made other than under paragraph 

(4) or (5). 

(B) ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—An eligibility determination shall 

be made on the basis of a complete household application executed by an adult member of the household or 

in accordance with guidance issued by the Secretary. 

(ii) ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES AND APPLICATIONS.— 

A household application may be executed using an 

electronic signature if— 

(I) the application is submitted electronically; 

and 

(II) the electronic application filing system 

meets confidentiality standards established by the 

Secretary. 

(C) CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD.— 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

93 

(i) IN GENERAL.—The household application shall 

identify the names of each child in the household for 

whom meal benefits are requested. 

(ii) SEPARATE APPLICATIONS.—A State educational 

agency or local educational agency may not request a 

separate application for each child in the household 

that attends schools under the same local educational 

agency. 

(D) VERIFICATION OF SAMPLE.— (i) DEFINITIONS.—In this subparagraph: 

(I) ERROR PRONE APPLICATION.—The term 

‘‘error prone application’’ means an approved 

household application that— 

(aa) indicates monthly income that is within $100, or an annual income that is 

within $1,200, of the income eligibility limitation for free or reduced price meals; or 

(bb) in lieu of the criteria established 

under item (aa), meets criteria established by 

the Secretary. 

(II) NON-RESPONSE RATE.—The term ‘‘non-response rate’’ means (in accordance with guidelines 

established by the Secretary) the percentage of approved household applications for which 

verification information has not been obtained by 

a local educational agency after attempted 

verification under subparagraphs (F) and (G). 

(ii) VERIFICATION OF SAMPLE.—Each school year, a 

local educational agency shall verify eligibility of the 

children in a sample of household applications approved for the school year by the local educational 

agency, as determined by the Secretary in accordance 

with this subsection. 

(iii) SAMPLE SIZE.—Except as otherwise provided 

in this paragraph, the sample for a local educational 

agency for a school year shall equal the lesser of— 

(I) 3 percent of all applications approved by 

the local educational agency for the school year, as 

of October 1 of the school year, selected from error 

prone applications; or 

(II) 3,000 error prone applications approved 

by the local educational agency for the school 

year, as of October 1 of the school year. 

(iv) ALTERNATIVE SAMPLE SIZE.— 

(I) IN GENERAL.—If the conditions described in 

subclause (IV) are met, the verification sample 

size for a local educational agency shall be the 

sample size described in subclause (II) or (III), as 

determined by the local educational agency. 

(II) 3,000/3 PERCENT OPTION.—The sample 

size described in this subclause shall be the lesser 

of 3,000, or 3 percent of, applications selected at 

random from applications approved by the local 

educational agency for the school year, as of October 1 of the school year. 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

94 

(III) 1,000/1 PERCENT PLUS OPTION.— (aa) IN GENERAL.—The sample size described in this subclause shall be the sum of— 

(AA) the lesser of 1,000, or 1 percent 

of, all applications approved by the local 

educational agency for the school year, as 

of October 1 of the school year, selected 

from error prone applications; and 

(BB) the lesser of 500, or 1⁄2 of 1 percent of, applications approved by the local 

educational agency for the school year, as 

of October 1 of the school year, that provide a case number (in lieu of income information) showing participation in a program described in item (bb) selected from 

those approved applications that provide 

a case number (in lieu of income information) verifying the participation. 

(bb) PROGRAMS.—The programs described 

in this item are— 

(AA) the supplemental nutrition assistance program established under the 

Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 

2011 et seq.); 

(BB) the food distribution program on 

Indian reservations established under 

section 4(b) of the Food and Nutrition Act 

of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2013(b)); and 

(CC) a State program funded under 

the program of block grants to States for 

temporary assistance for needy families 

established under part A of title IV of the 

Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 

that the Secretary determines complies 

with standards established by the Secretary that ensure that the standards 

under the State program are comparable 

to or more restrictive than those in effect 

on June 1, 1995. 

(IV) CONDITIONS.—The conditions referred to 

in subclause (I) shall be met for a local educational agency for a school year if— 

(aa) the nonresponse rate for the local 

educational agency for the preceding school 

year is less than 20 percent; or 

(bb) the local educational agency has 

more than 20,000 children approved by application by the local educational agency as eligible for free or reduced price meals for the 

school year, as of October 1 of the school year, 

and— 

(AA) the nonresponse rate for the 

preceding school year is at least 10 percent below the nonresponse rate for the 

second preceding school year; or 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

95 

(BB) in the case of the school year beginning July 2005, the local educational 

agency attempts to verify all approved 

household applications selected for 

verification through use of public agency 

records from at least 2 of the programs or 

sources of information described in subparagraph (F)(i). 

(v) ADDITIONAL SELECTED APPLICATIONS.—A sample for a local educational agency for a school year 

under clauses (iii) and (iv)(III)(AA) shall include the 

number of additional randomly selected approved 

household applications that are required to comply 

with the sample size requirements in those clauses. 

(E) PRELIMINARY REVIEW.— 

(i) REVIEW FOR ACCURACY.— 

(I) IN GENERAL.—Prior to conducting any 

other verification activity for approved household 

applications selected for verification, the local educational agency shall ensure that the initial eligibility determination for each approved household 

application is reviewed for accuracy by an individual other than the individual making the initial eligibility determination, unless otherwise determined by the Secretary. 

(II) WAIVER.—The requirements of subclause 

(I) shall be waived for a local educational agency 

if the local educational agency is using a technology-based solution that demonstrates a high 

level of accuracy, to the satisfaction of the Secretary, in processing an initial eligibility determination in accordance with the income eligibility 

guidelines of the school lunch program. 

(ii) CORRECT ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION.—If the 

review indicates that the initial eligibility determination is correct, the local educational agency shall verify 

the approved household application. 

(iii) INCORRECT ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION.—If 

the review indicates that the initial eligibility determination is incorrect, the local educational agency 

shall (as determined by the Secretary)— 

(I) correct the eligibility status of the household; 

(II) notify the household of the change; 

(III) in any case in which the review indicates 

that the household is not eligible for free or reduced-price meals, notify the household of the reason for the ineligibility and that the household 

may reapply with income documentation for free 

or reduced-price meals; and 

(IV) in any case in which the review indicates 

that the household is eligible for free or reducedprice meals, verify the approved household application. 

(F) DIRECT VERIFICATION.— 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

96 

(i) IN GENERAL.—Subject to clauses (ii) and (iii), to 

verify eligibility for free or reduced price meals for approved household applications selected for verification, 

the local educational agency may (in accordance with 

criteria established by the Secretary) first obtain and 

use income and program participation information 

from a public agency administering— 

(I) the supplemental nutrition assistance program established under the Food and Nutrition 

Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.); 

(II) the food distribution program on Indian 

reservations established under section 4(b) of the 

Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2013(b)); 

(III) the temporary assistance for needy families program funded under part A of title IV of the 

Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

(IV) the State medicaid program under title 

XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et 

seq.); or 

(V) a similar income-tested program or other 

source of information, as determined by the Secretary. 

(ii) FREE MEALS.—Public agency records that may 

be obtained and used under clause (i) to verify eligibility for free meals for approved household applications selected for verification shall include the most recent available information (other than information reflecting program participation or income before the 

180-day period ending on the date of application for 

free meals) that is relied on to administer— 

(I) a program or source of information described in clause (i) (other than clause (i)(IV)); or 

(II) the State plan for medical assistance 

under title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 

U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) in— 

(aa) a State in which the income eligibility limit applied under section 1902(l)(2)(C) 

of that Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(l)(2)(C)) is not 

more than 133 percent of the official poverty 

line described in section 1902(l)(2)(A) of that 

Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(l)(2)(A)); or 

(bb) a State that otherwise identifies 

households that have income that is not more 

than 133 percent of the official poverty line 

described in section 1902(l)(2)(A) of that Act 

(42 U.S.C. 1396a(l)(2)(A)). 

(iii) REDUCED PRICE MEALS.—Public agency 

records that may be obtained and used under clause 

(i) to verify eligibility for reduced price meals for approved household applications selected for verification 

shall include the most recent available information 

(other than information reflecting program participation or income before the 180-day period ending on the 

date of application for reduced price meals) that is relied on to administer— 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

97 

(I) a program or source of information described in clause (i) (other than clause (i)(IV)); or 

(II) the State plan for medical assistance 

under title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 

U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) in— 

(aa) a State in which the income eligibility limit applied under section 1902(l)(2)(C) 

of that Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(l)(2)(C)) is not 

more than 185 percent of the official poverty 

line described in section 1902(l)(2)(A) of that 

Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(l)(2)(A)); or 

(bb) a State that otherwise identifies 

households that have income that is not more 

than 185 percent of the official poverty line 

described in section 1902(l)(2)(A) of that Act 

(42 U.S.C. 1396a(l)(2)(A)). 

(iv) EVALUATION.—Not later than 3 years after the 

date of enactment of this subparagraph, the Secretary 

shall complete an evaluation of— 

(I) the effectiveness of direct verification carried out under this subparagraph in decreasing 

the portion of the verification sample that must be 

verified under subparagraph (G) while ensuring 

that adequate verification information is obtained; 

and 

(II) the feasibility of direct verification by 

State agencies and local educational agencies. 

(v) EXPANDED USE OF DIRECT VERIFICATION.—If 

the Secretary determines that direct verification significantly decreases the portion of the verification 

sample that must be verified under subparagraph (G), 

while ensuring that adequate verification information 

is obtained, and can be conducted by most State agencies and local educational agencies, the Secretary may 

require a State agency or local educational agency to 

implement direct verification through 1 or more of the 

programs described in clause (i), as determined by the 

Secretary, unless the State agency or local educational 

agency demonstrates (under criteria established by the 

Secretary) that the State agency or local educational 

agency lacks the capacity to conduct, or is unable to 

implement, direct verification. 

(G) HOUSEHOLD VERIFICATION.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—If an approved household application is not verified through the use of public agency 

records, a local educational agency shall provide to the 

household written notice that— 

(I) the approved household application has 

been selected for verification; and 

(II) the household is required to submit 

verification information to confirm eligibility for 

free or reduced price meals. 

(ii) PHONE NUMBER.—The written notice in clause 

(i) shall include a toll-free phone number that parents 

and legal guardians in households selected for 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

98 

verification can call for assistance with the verification 

process. 

(iii) FOLLOWUP ACTIVITIES.—If a household does 

not respond to a verification request, a local educational agency shall make at least 1 attempt to obtain the necessary verification from the household in 

accordance with guidelines and regulations promulgated by the Secretary. 

(iv) CONTRACT AUTHORITY FOR SCHOOL FOOD AU- THORITIES.—A local educational agency may contract 

(under standards established by the Secretary) with a 

third party to assist the local educational agency in 

carrying out clause (iii). 

(H) VERIFICATION DEADLINE.— 

(i) GENERAL DEADLINE.— 

(I) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subclause (II), not 

later than November 15 of each school year, a 

local educational agency shall complete the 

verification activities required for the school year 

(including followup activities). 

(II) EXTENSION.—Under criteria established 

by the Secretary, a State may extend the deadline 

established under subclause (I) for a school year 

for a local educational agency to December 15 of 

the school year. 

(ii) ELIGIBILITY CHANGES.—Based on the 

verification activities, the local educational agency 

shall make appropriate modifications to the eligibility 

determinations made for household applications in accordance with criteria established by the Secretary. 

(I) LOCAL CONDITIONS.—In the case of a natural disaster, civil disorder, strike, or other local condition (as determined by the Secretary), the Secretary may substitute 

alternatives for— 

(i) the sample size and sample selection criteria 

established under subparagraph (D); and 

(ii) the verification deadline established under 

subparagraph (H). 

(J) INDIVIDUAL REVIEW.—In accordance with criteria 

established by the Secretary, the local educational agency 

may, on individual review— 

(i) decline to verify no more than 5 percent of approved household applications selected under subparagraph (D); and 

(ii) replace the approved household applications 

with other approved household applications to be 

verified. 

(K) FEASIBILITY STUDY.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a 

study of the feasibility of using computer technology 

(including data mining) to reduce— 

(I) overcertification errors in the school lunch 

program under this Act; 

(II) waste, fraud, and abuse in connection 

with this paragraph; and 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

99 

(III) errors, waste, fraud, and abuse in other 

nutrition programs, as determined to be appropriate by the Secretary. 

(ii) REPORT.—Not later than 180 days after the 

date of enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary 

shall submit to the Committee on Education and the 

Workforce of the House of Representatives and the 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of 

the Senate a report describing— 

(I) the results of the feasibility study conducted under this subsection; 

(II) how a computer system using technology 

described in clause (i) could be implemented; 

(III) a plan for implementation; and 

(IV) proposed legislation, if necessary, to implement the system. 

(4) DIRECT CERTIFICATION FOR CHILDREN IN SUPPLEMENTAL

NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM HOUSEHOLDS.— (A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subparagraph (D), each 

State agency shall enter into an agreement with the State 

agency conducting eligibility determinations for the supplemental nutrition assistance program established under 

the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.). 

(B) PROCEDURES.—Subject to paragraph (6), the agreement shall establish procedures under which a child who 

is a member of a household receiving assistance under the 

supplemental nutrition assistance program shall be certified as eligible for free lunches under this Act and free 

breakfasts under the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 

U.S.C. 1771 et seq.), without further application. 

(C) CERTIFICATION.—Subject to paragraph (6), under 

the agreement, the local educational agency conducting eligibility determinations for a school lunch program under 

this Act and a school breakfast program under the Child 

Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq.) shall certify 

a child who is a member of a household receiving assistance under the supplemental nutrition assistance program 

as eligible for free lunches under this Act and free breakfasts under the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 

1771 et seq.), without further application. 

(D) APPLICABILITY.—This paragraph applies to— 

(i) in the case of the school year beginning July 

2006, a school district that had an enrollment of 

25,000 students or more in the preceding school year; 

(ii) in the case of the school year beginning July 

2007, a school district that had an enrollment of 

10,000 students or more in the preceding school year; 

and 

(iii) in the case of the school year beginning July 

2008 and each subsequent school year, each local educational agency. 

(E) PERFORMANCE AWARDS.— (i) IN GENERAL.—Effective for each of the school 

years beginning July 1, 2011, July 1, 2012, and July 

1, 2013, the Secretary shall offer performance awards 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

100 

to States to encourage the States to ensure that all 

children eligible for direct certification under this 

paragraph are certified in accordance with this paragraph. 

(ii) REQUIREMENTS.—For each school year described in clause (i), the Secretary shall— 

(I) consider State data from the prior school 

year, including estimates contained in the report 

required under section 4301 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (42 U.S.C. 

1758a); and 

(II) make performance awards to not more 

than 15 States that demonstrate, as determined 

by the Secretary— 

(aa) outstanding performance; and 

(bb) substantial improvement. 

(iii) USE OF FUNDS.—A State agency that receives 

a performance award under clause (i)— 

(I) shall treat the funds as program income; 

and 

(II) may transfer the funds to school food authorities for use in carrying out the program. 

(iv) FUNDING.— 

(I) IN GENERAL.—On October 1, 2011, and 

each subsequent October 1 through October 1, 

2013, out of any funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the Secretary of the Treasury 

shall transfer to the Secretary— 

(aa) $2,000,000 to carry out clause 

(ii)(II)(aa); and 

(bb) $2,000,000 to carry out clause 

(ii)(II)(bb). 

(II) RECEIPT AND ACCEPTANCE.—The Secretary 

shall be entitled to receive, shall accept, and shall 

use to carry out this clause the funds transferred 

under subclause (I), without further appropriation. 

(v) PAYMENTS NOT SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW.— 

A determination by the Secretary whether, and in 

what amount, to make a performance award under 

this subparagraph shall not be subject to administrative or judicial review. 

(F) CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT PLANS.— 

(i) DEFINITION OF REQUIRED PERCENTAGE.—In this 

subparagraph, the term ‘‘required percentage’’ 

means— 

(I) for the school year beginning July 1, 2011, 

80 percent; 

(II) for the school year beginning July 1, 2012, 

90 percent; and 

(III) for the school year beginning July 1, 

2013, and each school year thereafter, 95 percent. 

(ii) REQUIREMENTS.—Each school year, the Secretary shall— 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

101 

(I) identify, using data from the prior year, including estimates contained in the report required 

under section 4301 of the Food, Conservation, and 

Energy Act of 2008 (42 U.S.C. 1758a), States that 

directly certify less than the required percentage 

of the total number of children in the State who 

are eligible for direct certification under this paragraph; 

(II) require the States identified under subclause (I) to implement a continuous improvement 

plan to fully meet the requirements of this paragraph, which shall include a plan to improve direct certification for the following school year; and 

(III) assist the States identified under subclause (I) to develop and implement a continuous 

improvement plan in accordance with subclause 

(II). 

(iii) FAILURE TO MEET PERFORMANCE STANDARD.— 

(I) IN GENERAL.—A State that is required to 

develop and implement a continuous improvement 

plan under clause (ii)(II) shall be required to submit the continuous improvement plan to the Secretary, for the approval of the Secretary. 

(II) REQUIREMENTS.—At a minimum, a continuous improvement plan under subclause (I) shall 

include— 

(aa) specific measures that the State will 

use to identify more children who are eligible 

for direct certification, including improvements or modifications to technology, information systems, or databases; 

(bb) a timeline for the State to implement 

those measures; and 

(cc) goals for the State to improve direct 

certification results. 

(G) WITHOUT FURTHER APPLICATION.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—In this paragraph, the term 

‘‘without further application’’ means that no action is 

required by the household of the child. 

(ii) CLARIFICATION.—A requirement that a household return a letter notifying the household of eligibility for direct certification or eligibility for free school 

meals does not meet the requirements of clause (i). 

(5) DISCRETIONARY CERTIFICATION.—Subject to paragraph 

(6), any local educational agency may certify any child as eligible for free lunches or breakfasts, without further application, 

by directly communicating with the appropriate State or local 

agency to obtain documentation of the status of the child as— 

(A) a member of a family that is receiving assistance 

under the temporary assistance for needy families program 

funded under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act 

(42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) that the Secretary determines complies with standards established by the Secretary that ensure that the standards under the State program are comtkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

102 

parable to or more restrictive than those in effect on June 

1, 1995; 

(B) a homeless child or youth (defined as 1 of the individuals described in section 725(2) of the McKinney-Vento 

Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11434a(2)); 

(C) served by the runaway and homeless youth grant 

program established under the Runaway and Homeless 

Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5701 et seq.); 

(D) a migratory child (as defined in section 1309 of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 

U.S.C. 6399)); or 

(E)(i) a foster child whose care and placement is the 

responsibility of an agency that administers a State plan 

under part B or E of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 

U.S.C. 621 et seq.); or 

(ii) a foster child who a court has placed with a caretaker household. 

(6) USE OR DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION.— (A) IN GENERAL.—The use or disclosure of any information obtained from an application for free or reduced 

price meals, or from a State or local agency referred to in 

paragraph (3)(F), (4), or (5), shall be limited to— 

(i) a person directly connected with the administration or enforcement of this Act or the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq.) (including a 

regulation promulgated under either Act); 

(ii) a person directly connected with the administration or enforcement of— 

(I) a Federal education program; 

(II) a State health or education program administered by the State or local educational agency (other than a program carried out under title 

XIX or XXI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

1396 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 1397aa et seq.)); or 

(III) a Federal, State, or local means-tested 

nutrition program with eligibility standards comparable to the school lunch program under this 

Act; 

(iii)(I) the Comptroller General of the United 

States for audit and examination authorized by any 

other provision of law; and 

(II) notwithstanding any other provision of law, a 

Federal, State, or local law enforcement official for the 

purpose of investigating an alleged violation of any 

program covered by this paragraph or paragraph 

(3)(F), (4), or (5); 

(iv) a person directly connected with the administration of the State medicaid program under title XIX 

of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) or 

the State children’s health insurance program under 

title XXI of that Act (42 U.S.C. 1397aa et seq.) solely 

for the purposes of— 

(I) identifying children eligible for benefits 

under, and enrolling children in, those programs, 

except that this subclause shall apply only to the 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

103 

extent that the State and the local educational 

agency or school food authority so elect; and 

(II) verifying the eligibility of children for programs under this Act or the Child Nutrition Act 

of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq.); and 

(v) a third party contractor described in paragraph 

(3)(G)(iv). 

(B) LIMITATION ON INFORMATION PROVIDED.—Information provided under clause (ii) or (v) of subparagraph (A) 

shall be limited to the income eligibility status of the child 

for whom application for free or reduced price meal benefits is made or for whom eligibility information is provided 

under paragraph (3)(F), (4), or (5), unless the consent of 

the parent or guardian of the child for whom application 

for benefits was made is obtained. 

(C) CRIMINAL PENALTY.—A person described in subparagraph (A) who publishes, divulges, discloses, or makes 

known in any manner, or to any extent not authorized by 

Federal law (including a regulation), any information obtained under this subsection shall be fined not more than 

$1,000 or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both. 

(D) REQUIREMENTS FOR WAIVER OF CONFIDENTIALITY.— A State that elects to exercise the option described in subparagraph (A)(iv)(I) shall ensure that any local educational 

agency or school food authority acting in accordance with 

that option— 

(i) has a written agreement with 1 or more State 

or local agencies administering health programs for 

children under titles XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq. and 1397aa et seq.) 

that requires the health agencies to use the information obtained under subparagraph (A) to seek to enroll 

children in those health programs; and 

(ii)(I) notifies each household, the information of 

which shall be disclosed under subparagraph (A), that 

the information disclosed will be used only to enroll 

children in health programs referred to in subparagraph (A)(iv); and 

(II) provides each parent or guardian of a child in 

the household with an opportunity to elect not to have 

the information disclosed. 

(E) USE OF DISCLOSED INFORMATION.—A person to 

which information is disclosed under subparagraph 

(A)(iv)(I) shall use or disclose the information only as necessary for the purpose of enrolling children in health programs referred to in subparagraph (A)(iv). 

(7) FREE AND REDUCED PRICE POLICY STATEMENT.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—After the initial submission, a local 

educational agency shall not be required to submit a free 

and reduced price policy statement to a State educational 

agency under this Act unless there is a substantive change 

in the free and reduced price policy of the local educational 

agency. 

(B) ROUTINE CHANGE.—A routine change in the policy 

of a local educational agency (such as an annual adjusttkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

104 

ment of the income eligibility guidelines for free and reduced price meals) shall not be sufficient cause for requiring the local educational agency to submit a policy statement. 

(8) COMMUNICATIONS.— (A) IN GENERAL.—Any communication with a household under this subsection or subsection (d) shall be in an 

understandable and uniform format and, to the maximum 

extent practicable, in a language that parents and legal 

guardians can understand. 

(B) ELECTRONIC AVAILABILITY.—In addition to the distribution of applications and descriptive material in paper 

form as provided for in this paragraph, the applications 

and material may be made available electronically via the 

Internet. 

(9) ELIGIBILITY FOR FREE AND REDUCED PRICE LUNCHES.— 

(A) FREE LUNCHES.—Any child who is a member of a 

household whose income, at the time the application is 

submitted, is at an annual rate which does not exceed the 

applicable family size income level of the income eligibility 

guidelines for free lunches, as determined under paragraph (1), shall be served a free lunch. 

(B) REDUCED PRICE LUNCHES.— (i) IN GENERAL.—Any child who is a member of a 

household whose income, at the time the application is 

submitted, is at an annual rate greater than the applicable family size income level of the income eligibility 

guidelines for free lunches, as determined under paragraph (1), but less than or equal to the applicable family size income level of the income eligibility guidelines 

for reduced price lunches, as determined under paragraph (1), shall be served a reduced price lunch. 

(ii) MAXIMUM PRICE.—The price charged for a reduced price lunch shall not exceed 40 cents. 

(C) DURATION.—Except as otherwise specified in paragraph (3)(E), (3)(H)(ii), and section 11(a), eligibility for free 

or reduced price meals for any school year shall remain in 

effect— 

(i) beginning on the date of eligibility approval for 

the current school year; and 

(ii) ending on a date during the subsequent school 

year determined by the Secretary. 

(10) No physical segregation of or other discrimination against 

any child eligible for a free lunch or a reduced price lunch under 

this subsection shall be made by the school nor shall there be any 

overt identification of any child by special tokens or tickets, announced or published list of names, or by other means. 

(11) Any child who has a parent or guardian who (A) is responsible for the principal support of such child and (B) is unemployed 

shall be served a free or reduced price lunch, respectively, during 

any period (i) in which such child’s parent or guardian continues 

to be unemployed and (ii) the income of the child’s parents or 

guardians during such period of unemployment falls within the income eligibility criteria for free lunches or reduced price lunches, 

respectively, based on the current rate of income of such parents 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

105 

or guardians. Local educational agencies shall publicly announce 

that such children are eligible for free or reduced price lunch, and 

shall make determinations with respect to the status of any parent 

or guardian of any child under clauses (A) and (B) of the preceding 

sentence on the basis of a statement executed in such form as the 

Secretary may prescribe by such parent or guardian. No physical 

segregation of, or other discrimination against, any child eligible 

for a free or reduced price lunch under this paragraph shall be 

made by the school nor shall there be any overt identification of 

any such child by special tokens or tickets, announced or published 

lists of names, or by any other means. 

(12)(A) A child shall be considered automatically eligible for a 

free lunch and breakfast under this Act and the Child Nutrition 

Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq.), respectively, without further 

application or eligibility determination, if the child is— 

(i) a member of a household receiving assistance under the 

supplemental nutrition assistance program authorized under 

the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.); 

(ii) a member of a family (under the State program funded 

under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

601 et seq.)) that the Secretary determines complies with 

standards established by the Secretary that ensure that the 

standards under the State program are comparable to or more 

restrictive than those in effect on June 1, 1995; 

(iii) enrolled as a participant in a Head Start program authorized under the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.), on 

the basis of a determination that the child meets the eligibility 

criteria prescribed under section 645(a)(1)(B) of the Head Start 

Act (42 U.S.C. 9840(a)(1)(B)); 

(iv) a homeless child or youth (defined as 1 of the individuals described in section 725(2) of the McKinney-Vento 

Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11434a(2))); 

(v) served by the runaway and homeless youth grant 

program established under the Runaway and Homeless 

Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5701 et seq.); 

(vi) a migratory child (as defined in section 1309 of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 

U.S.C. 6399)); or 

(vii)(I) a foster child whose care and placement is the 

responsibility of an agency that administers a State plan 

under part B or E of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 

U.S.C. 621 et seq.); or 

(II) a foster child who a court has placed with a 

caretaker household. 

(B) Proof of receipt of supplemental nutrition assistance program benefits or assistance under the State program funded under 

part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 

that the Secretary determines complies with standards established 

by the Secretary that ensure that the standards under the State 

program are comparable to or more restrictive than those in effect 

on June 1, 1995, or of enrollment or participation in a Head Start 

program on the basis described in subparagraph (A)(iii), shall be 

sufficient to satisfy any verification requirement imposed under 

this subsection. 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

106 

(13) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN MILITARY HOUSING ALLOW- ANCES.—The amount of a basic allowance provided under section 403 of title 37, United States Code, on behalf of a member 

of a uniformed service for housing that is acquired or constructed under subchapter IV of chapter 169 of title 10, United 

States Code, or any related provision of law, shall not be considered to be income for the purpose of determining the eligibility of a child who is a member of the household of the member of a uniformed service for free or reduced price lunches 

under this Act. 

(14) COMBAT PAY.— (A) DEFINITION OF COMBAT PAY.—In this paragraph, 

the term ‘‘combat pay’’ means any additional payment 

under chapter 5 of title 37, United States Code, or otherwise designated by the Secretary to be appropriate for exclusion under this paragraph, that is received by or from 

a member of the United States Armed Forces deployed to 

a designated combat zone, if the additional pay— 

(i) is the result of deployment to or service in a 

combat zone; and 

(ii) was not received immediately prior to serving 

in a combat zone. 

(B) EXCLUSION.—Combat pay shall not be considered 

to be income for the purpose of determining the eligibility 

for free or reduced price meals of a child who is a member 

of the household of a member of the United States Armed 

Forces. 

(15) DIRECT CERTIFICATION FOR CHILDREN RECEIVING MEDICAID BENEFITS.— 

(A) DEFINITIONS.—In this paragraph: 

(i) ELIGIBLE CHILD.—The term ‘‘eligible child’’ 

means a child— 

(I)(aa) who is eligible for and receiving medical assistance under the Medicaid program; and 

(bb) who is a member of a family with an income as measured by the Medicaid program before 

the application of any expense, block, or other income disregard, that does not exceed 133 percent 

of the poverty line (as defined in section 673(2) of 

the Community Services Block Grant Act (42 

U.S.C. 9902(2), including any revision required by 

such section)) applicable to a family of the size 

used for purposes of determining eligibility for the 

Medicaid program; or 

(II) who is a member of a household (as that 

term is defined in section 245.2 of title 7, Code of 

Federal Regulations (or successor regulations) 

with a child described in subclause (I). 

(ii) MEDICAID PROGRAM.—The term ‘‘Medicaid program’’ means the program of medical assistance established under title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 

U.S.C. 1396 et seq.). 

(B) DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, acting through 

the Administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

107 

and in cooperation with selected State agencies, shall 

conduct a demonstration project in selected local educational agencies to determine whether direct certification of eligible children is an effective method of certifying children for free lunches and breakfasts under 

section 9(b)(1)(A) of this Act and section 4(e)(1)(A) of 

the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 

1773(e)(1)(A)). 

(ii) SCOPE OF PROJECT.—The Secretary shall carry 

out the demonstration project under this subparagraph— 

(I) for the school year beginning July 1, 2012, 

in selected local educational agencies that collectively serve 2.5 percent of students certified for 

free and reduced price meals nationwide, based on 

the most recent available data; 

(II) for the school year beginning July 1, 2013, 

in selected local educational agencies that collectively serve 5 percent of students certified for free 

and reduced price meals nationwide, based on the 

most recent available data; and 

(III) for the school year beginning July 1, 

2014, and each subsequent school year, in selected 

local educational agencies that collectively serve 

10 percent of students certified for free and reduced price meals nationwide, based on the most 

recent available data. 

(iii) PURPOSES OF THE PROJECT.—At a minimum, 

the purposes of the demonstration project shall be— 

(I) to determine the potential of direct certification with the Medicaid program to reach children who are eligible for free meals but not certified to receive the meals; 

(II) to determine the potential of direct certification with the Medicaid program to directly certify children who are enrolled for free meals based 

on a household application; and 

(III) to provide an estimate of the effect on 

Federal costs and on participation in the school 

lunch program under this Act and the school 

breakfast program established by section 4 of the 

Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773) of direct certification with the Medicaid program. 

(iv) COST ESTIMATE.—For each of 2 school years of 

the demonstration project, the Secretary shall estimate the cost of the direct certification of eligible children for free school meals through data derived from— 

(I) the school meal programs authorized under 

this Act and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 

U.S.C. 1771 et seq.); 

(II) the Medicaid program; and 

(III) interviews with a statistically representative sample of households. 

(C) AGREEMENT.— 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

108 

(i) IN GENERAL.—Not later than July 1 of the first 

school year during which a State agency will participate in the demonstration project, the State agency 

shall enter into an agreement with the 1 or more State 

agencies conducting eligibility determinations for the 

Medicaid program. 

(ii) WITHOUT FURTHER APPLICATION.—Subject to 

paragraph (6), the agreement described in subparagraph (D) shall establish procedures under which an 

eligible child shall be certified for free lunches under 

this Act and free breakfasts under section 4 of the 

Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773), without 

further application (as defined in paragraph (4)(G)). 

(D) CERTIFICATION.—For the school year beginning on 

July 1, 2012, and each subsequent school year, subject to 

paragraph (6), the local educational agencies participating 

in the demonstration project shall certify an eligible child 

as eligible for free lunches under this Act and free breakfasts under the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 

1771 et seq.), without further application (as defined in 

paragraph (4)(G)). 

(E) SITE SELECTION.— (i) IN GENERAL.—To be eligible to participate in 

the demonstration project under this subsection, a 

State agency shall submit to the Secretary an application at such time, in such manner, and containing 

such information as the Secretary may require. 

(ii) CONSIDERATIONS.—In selecting States and 

local educational agencies for participation in the demonstration project, the Secretary may take into consideration such factors as the Secretary considers to be 

appropriate, which may include— 

(I) the rate of direct certification; 

(II) the share of individuals who are eligible 

for benefits under the supplemental nutrition assistance program established under the Food and 

Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) who 

participate in the program, as determined by the 

Secretary; 

(III) the income eligibility limit for the Medicaid program; 

(IV) the feasibility of matching data between 

local educational agencies and the Medicaid program; 

(V) the socioeconomic profile of the State or 

local educational agencies; and 

(VI) the willingness of the State and local 

educational agencies to comply with the requirements of the demonstration project. 

(F) ACCESS TO DATA.—For purposes of conducting the 

demonstration project under this paragraph, the Secretary 

shall have access to— 

(i) educational and other records of State and local 

educational and other agencies and institutions receiving funding or providing benefits for 1 or more protkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

109 

grams authorized under this Act or the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq.); and 

(ii) income and program participation information 

from public agencies administering the Medicaid program. 

(G) REPORT TO CONGRESS.— (i) IN GENERAL.—Not later than October 1, 2014, 

the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Education and Labor of the House of Representatives and 

the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

of the Senate, an interim report that describes the results of the demonstration project required under this 

paragraph. 

(ii) FINAL REPORT.—Not later than October 1, 

2015, the Secretary shall submit a final report to the 

committees described in clause (i). 

(H) FUNDING.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—On October 1, 2010, out of any 

funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the 

Secretary of the Treasury shall transfer to the Secretary to carry out subparagraph (G) $5,000,000, to remain available until expended. 

(ii) RECEIPT AND ACCEPTANCE.—The Secretary 

shall be entitled to receive, shall accept, and shall use 

to carry out subparagraph (G) the funds transferred 

under clause (i), without further appropriation. 

(c) School lunch programs under this Act shall be operated on 

a nonprofit basis. Commodities purchased under the authority of 

section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935, may be donated by the 

Secretary to schools, in accordance with the needs as determined 

by local school authorities, for utilization in the school lunch program under this Act as well as to other schools carrying out nonprofit school lunch programs and institutions authorized to receive 

such commodities. The requirements of this section relating to the 

service of meals without cost or at a reduced cost shall apply to the 

lunch program of any school utilizing commodities donated under 

any provision of law. 

(d)(1) The Secretary shall require as a condition of eligibility 

for receipt of free or reduced price lunches that the member of the 

household who executes the application furnish the last 4 digits of 

the social security account number of the parent or guardian who 

is the primary wage earner responsible for the care of the child for 

whom the application is made, or that of another appropriate adult 

member of the child’s household, as determined by the Secretary. 

(2) No member of a household may be provided a free or reduced price lunch under this Act unless— 

(A) appropriate documentation relating to the income of 

such household (as prescribed by the Secretary) has been provided to the appropriate local educational agency so that the 

local educational agency may calculate the total income of such 

household; 

(B) documentation showing that the household is participating in the supplemental nutrition assistance program under 

the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 has been provided to the 

appropriate local educational agency; 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

110 

(C) documentation has been provided to the appropriate 

local educational agency showing that the family is receiving 

assistance under the State program funded under part A of 

title IV of the Social Security Act that the Secretary determines complies with standards established by the Secretary 

that ensure that the standards under the State program are 

comparable to or more restrictive than those in effect on June 

1, 1995; 

(D) documentation has been provided to the appropriate 

local educational agency showing that the child meets the criteria specified in clauses (iv) or (v) of subsection (b)(12)(A); 

(E) documentation has been provided to the appropriate 

local educational agency showing the status of the child as a 

migratory child (as defined in section 1309 of the Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6399)); 

(F)(i) documentation has been provided to the appropriate 

local educational agency showing the status of the child as a 

foster child whose care and placement is the responsibility of 

an agency that administers a State plan under part B or E of 

title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 621 et seq.); or 

(ii) documentation has been provided to the appropriate local educational agency showing the status of the 

child as a foster child who a court has placed with a caretaker household; or 

(G) documentation has been provided to the appropriate 

local educational agency showing the status of the child as an 

eligible child (as defined in subsection (b)(15)(A)). 

(e) A school or school food authority participating in a program 

under this Act may not contract with a food service company to 

provide a la carte food service unless the company agrees to offer 

free, reduced price, and full-price reimbursable meals to all eligible 

children. 

(f) NUTRITIONAL REQUIREMENTS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Schools that are participating in the 

school lunch program or school breakfast program shall serve 

lunches and breakfasts that— 

(A) are consistent with the goals of the most recent Dietary Guidelines for Americans published under section 

301 of the National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5341); and 

(B) consider the nutrient needs of children who may be 

at risk for inadequate food intake and food insecurity. 

(2) To assist schools in meeting the requirements of this subsection, the Secretary— 

(A) shall— 

(i) develop, and provide to schools, standardized recipes, menu cycles, and food product specification and preparation techniques; and 

(ii) provide to schools information regarding nutrient 

standard menu planning, assisted nutrient standard menu 

planning, and food-based menu systems; and 

(B) may provide to schools information regarding other approaches, as determined by the Secretary. 

(3) USE OF ANY REASONABLE APPROACH.— 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

111 

(A) IN GENERAL.—A school food service authority may use 

any reasonable approach, within guidelines established by the 

Secretary in a timely manner, to meet the requirements of this 

subsection, including— 

(i) using the school nutrition meal pattern in effect for 

the 1994–1995 school year; and 

(ii) using any of the approaches described in paragraph (3). 

(B) NUTRIENT ANALYSIS.—The Secretary may not require a 

school to conduct or use a nutrient analysis to meet the requirements of this subsection. 

(4) WAIVER OF REQUIREMENT FOR WEIGHTED AVERAGES FOR

NUTRIENT ANALYSIS.—During the period ending on September 

30, 2010, the Secretary shall not require the use of weighted 

averages for nutrient analysis of menu items and foods offered 

or served as part of a meal offered or served under the school 

lunch program under this Act or the school breakfast program 

under section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 

1773). 

(g) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 

subsection, the Secretary shall provide a notification to Congress 

that justifies the need for production records required under section 

210.10(b) of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, and describes how 

the Secretary has reduced paperwork relating to the school lunch 

and school breakfast programs. 

(h) FOOD SAFETY.— (1) IN GENERAL.—A school participating in the school lunch 

program under this Act or the school breakfast program under 

section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773) 

shall— 

(A) at least twice during each school year, obtain a 

food safety inspection conducted by a State or local governmental agency responsible for food safety inspections; 

(B) post in a publicly visible location a report on the 

most recent inspection conducted under subparagraph (A); 

and 

(C) on request, provide a copy of the report to a member of the public. 

(2) STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT INSPECTIONS.—Nothing 

in paragraph (1) prevents any State or local government from 

adopting or enforcing any requirement for more frequent food 

safety inspections of schools. 

(3) AUDITS AND REPORTS BY STATES.—For fiscal year 

ø2018¿ 2019, each State shall annually— 

(A) audit food safety inspections of schools conducted 

under paragraphs (1) and (2); and 

(B) submit to the Secretary a report of the results of 

the audit. 

(4) AUDIT BY THE SECRETARY.—For fiscal year ø2018¿ 

2019, the Secretary shall annually audit State reports of food 

safety inspections of schools submitted under paragraph (3). 

(5) SCHOOL FOOD SAFETY PROGRAM.— (A) IN GENERAL.—Each school food authority shall implement a school food safety program, in the preparation 

and service of each meal served to children, that complies 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

112 

with any hazard analysis and critical control point system 

established by the Secretary. 

(B) APPLICABILITY.—Subparagraph (A) shall apply to 

any facility or part of a facility in which food is stored, prepared, or served for the purposes of the school nutrition 

programs under this Act or section 4 of the Child Nutrition 

Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773). 

(i) SINGLE PERMANENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN STATE AGENCY

AND SCHOOL FOOD AUTHORITY; COMMON CLAIMS FORM.— (1) IN GENERAL.—If a single State agency administers any 

combination of the school lunch program under this Act, the 

school breakfast program under section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773), the summer food service program for children under section 13 of this Act, or the child and 

adult care food program under section 17 of this Act, the agency shall— 

(A) require each school food authority to submit to the 

State agency a single agreement with respect to the operation by the authority of the programs administered by the 

State agency; and 

(B) use a common claims form with respect to meals 

and supplements served under the programs administered 

by the State agency. 

(2) ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT.—The agreement described 

in paragraph (1)(A) shall be a permanent agreement that may 

be amended as necessary. 

(j) PURCHASES OF LOCALLY PRODUCED FOODS.—The Secretary 

shall— 

(1) encourage institutions receiving funds under this Act 

and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq.) 

to purchase unprocessed agricultural products, both locally 

grown and locally raised, to the maximum extent practicable 

and appropriate; 

(2) advise institutions participating in a program described 

in paragraph (1) of the policy described in that paragraph and 

paragraph (3) and post information concerning the policy on 

the website maintained by the Secretary; and 

(3) allow institutions receiving funds under this Act and 

the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq.), including the Department of Defense Fresh Fruit and Vegetable 

Program, to use a geographic preference for the procurement 

of unprocessed agricultural products, both locally grown and locally raised. 

(k) INFORMATION ON THE SCHOOL NUTRITION ENVIRONMENT.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall— 

(A) establish requirements for local educational agencies participating in the school lunch program under this 

Act and the school breakfast program established by section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773) 

to report information about the school nutrition environment, for all schools under the jurisdiction of the local educational agencies, to the Secretary and to the public in the 

State on a periodic basis; and 

(B) provide training and technical assistance to States 

and local educational agencies on the assessment and retkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

113 

porting of the school nutrition environment, including the 

use of any assessment materials developed by the Secretary. 

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—In establishing the requirements for 

reporting on the school nutrition environment under paragraph 

(1), the Secretary shall— 

(A) include information pertaining to food safety inspections, local wellness policies, meal program participation, the nutritional quality of program meals, and other 

information as determined by the Secretary; and 

(B) ensure that information is made available to the 

public by local educational agencies in an accessible, easily 

understood manner in accordance with guidelines established by the Secretary. 

(3) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection such sums 

as are necessary for each of fiscal years 2011 through 2015. 

(l) FOOD DONATION PROGRAM.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Each school and local educational agency 

participating in the school lunch program under this Act may 

donate any food not consumed under such program to eligible 

local food banks or charitable organizations. 

(2) GUIDANCE.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the 

date of the enactment of this subsection, the Secretary 

shall develop and publish guidance to schools and local 

educational agencies participating in the school lunch program under this Act to assist such schools and local educational agencies in donating food under this subsection. 

(B) UPDATES.—The Secretary shall update such guidance as necessary. 

(3) LIABILITY.—Any school or local educational agency 

making donations pursuant to this subsection shall be exempt 

from civil and criminal liability to the extent provided under 

the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act (42 

U.S.C. 1791). 

(4) DEFINITION.—In this subsection, the term ‘‘eligible local 

food banks or charitable organizations’’ means any food bank 

or charitable organization which is exempt from tax under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 

501(c)(3)). 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 26. INFORMATION CLEARINGHOUSE. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall enter into a contract 

with a nongovernmental organization described in subsection (b) to 

establish and maintain a clearinghouse to provide information to 

nongovernmental groups located throughout the United States that 

assist low-income individuals or communities regarding food assistance, self-help activities to aid individuals in becoming self-reliant, 

and other activities that empower low-income individuals or communities to improve the lives of low-income individuals and reduce 

reliance on Federal, State, or local governmental agencies for food 

or other assistance. 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

114 

(b) NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION.—The nongovernmental 

organization referred to in subsection (a) shall be selected on a 

competitive basis and shall— 

(1) be experienced in the gathering of first-hand information in all the States through onsite visits to grassroots organizations in each State that fight hunger and poverty or that assist individuals in becoming self-reliant; 

(2) be experienced in the establishment of a clearinghouse 

similar to the clearinghouse described in subsection (a); 

(3) agree to contribute in-kind resources towards the establishment and maintenance of the clearinghouse and agree to 

provide clearinghouse information, free of charge, to the Secretary, States, counties, cities, antihunger groups, and grassroots organizations that assist individuals in becoming self-sufficient and self-reliant; 

(4) be sponsored by an organization, or be an organization, 

that— 

(A) has helped combat hunger for at least 10 years; 

(B) is committed to reinvesting in the United States; 

and 

(C) is knowledgeable regarding Federal nutrition programs; 

(5) be experienced in communicating the purpose of the 

clearinghouse through the media, including the radio and print 

media, and be able to provide access to the clearinghouse information through computer or telecommunications technology, as 

well as through the mails; and 

(6) be able to provide examples, advice, and guidance to 

States, counties, cities, communities, antihunger groups, and 

local organizations regarding means of assisting individuals 

and communities to reduce reliance on government programs, 

reduce hunger, improve nutrition, and otherwise assist low-income individuals and communities become more self-sufficient. 

(c) AUDITS.—The Secretary shall establish fair and reasonable 

auditing procedures regarding the expenditures of funds to carry 

out this section. 

(d) FUNDING.—Out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay to the 

Secretary to provide to the organization selected under this section, 

to establish and maintain the information clearinghouse, $200,000 

for each of fiscal years 1995 and 1996, $150,000 for fiscal year 

1997, $100,000 for fiscal year 1998, $166,000 for each of fiscal 

years 1999 through 2004, and $250,000 for each of fiscal years 

ø2010 through 2018¿ 2010 through 2019. The Secretary shall be 

entitled to receive the funds and shall accept the funds, without 

further appropriation. 

* * * * * * * 

COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 4s. REGISTRATION AND REGULATION OF SWAP DEALERS AND 

MAJOR SWAP PARTICIPANTS. 

(a) REGISTRATION.— 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

115 

(1) SWAP DEALERS.—It shall be unlawful for any person to 

act as a swap dealer unless the person is registered as a swap 

dealer with the Commission. 

(2) MAJOR SWAP PARTICIPANTS.—It shall be unlawful for 

any person to act as a major swap participant unless the person is registered as a major swap participant with the Commission. 

(b) REQUIREMENTS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—A person shall register as a swap dealer 

or major swap participant by filing a registration application 

with the Commission. 

(2) CONTENTS.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The application shall be made in 

such form and manner as prescribed by the Commission, 

and shall contain such information, as the Commission 

considers necessary concerning the business in which the 

applicant is or will be engaged. 

(B) CONTINUAL REPORTING.—A person that is registered as a swap dealer or major swap participant shall 

continue to submit to the Commission reports that contain 

such information pertaining to the business of the person 

as the Commission may require. 

(3) EXPIRATION.—Each registration under this section shall 

expire at such time as the Commission may prescribe by rule 

or regulation. 

(4) RULES.—Except as provided in subsections (d) and (e), 

the Commission may prescribe rules applicable to swap dealers 

and major swap participants, including rules that limit the activities of swap dealers and major swap participants. 

(5) TRANSITION.—Rules under this section shall provide for 

the registration of swap dealers and major swap participants 

not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the Wall 

Street Transparency and Accountability Act of 2010. 

(6) STATUTORY DISQUALIFICATION.—Except to the extent 

otherwise specifically provided by rule, regulation, or order, it 

shall be unlawful for a swap dealer or a major swap participant to permit any person associated with a swap dealer or a 

major swap participant who is subject to a statutory disqualification to effect or be involved in effecting swaps on behalf of 

the swap dealer or major swap participant, if the swap dealer 

or major swap participant knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, of the statutory disqualification. 

(c) DUAL REGISTRATION.— 

(1) SWAP DEALER.—Any person that is required to be registered as a swap dealer under this section shall register with 

the Commission regardless of whether the person also is a depository institution or is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission as a security-based swap dealer. 

(2) MAJOR SWAP PARTICIPANT.—Any person that is required 

to be registered as a major swap participant under this section 

shall register with the Commission regardless of whether the 

person also is a depository institution or is registered with the 

Securities and Exchange Commission as a major security-based 

swap participant. 

(d) RULEMAKINGS.— 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

116 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Commission shall adopt rules for 

persons that are registered as swap dealers or major swap participants under this section. 

(2) EXCEPTION FOR PRUDENTIAL REQUIREMENTS.— (A) IN GENERAL.—The Commission may not prescribe 

rules imposing prudential requirements on swap dealers or 

major swap participants for which there is a prudential 

regulator. 

(B) APPLICABILITY.—Subparagraph (A) does not limit 

the authority of the Commission to prescribe rules as directed under this section. 

(e) CAPITAL AND MARGIN REQUIREMENTS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.— 

(A) SWAP DEALERS AND MAJOR SWAP PARTICIPANTS

THAT ARE BANKS.—Each registered swap dealer and major 

swap participant for which there is a prudential regulator 

shall meet such minimum capital requirements and minimum initial and variation margin requirements as the 

prudential regulator shall by rule or regulation prescribe 

under paragraph (2)(A). 

(B) SWAP DEALERS AND MAJOR SWAP PARTICIPANTS

THAT ARE NOT BANKS.—Each registered swap dealer and 

major swap participant for which there is not a prudential 

regulator shall meet such minimum capital requirements 

and minimum initial and variation margin requirements 

as the Commission shall by rule or regulation prescribe 

under paragraph (2)(B). 

(2) RULES.— (A) SWAP DEALERS AND MAJOR SWAP PARTICIPANTS

THAT ARE BANKS.—The prudential regulators, in consultation with the Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission, shall jointly adopt rules for swap 

dealers and major swap participants, with respect to their 

activities as a swap dealer or major swap participant, for 

which there is a prudential regulator imposing— 

(i) capital requirements; and 

(ii) both initial and variation margin requirements 

on all swaps that are not cleared by a registered derivatives clearing organization. 

(B) SWAP DEALERS AND MAJOR SWAP PARTICIPANTS

THAT ARE NOT BANKS.—The Commission shall adopt rules 

for swap dealers and major swap participants, with respect 

to their activities as a swap dealer or major swap participant, for which there is not a prudential regulator imposing— 

(i) capital requirements; and 

(ii) both initial and variation margin requirements 

on all swaps that are not cleared by a registered derivatives clearing organization. 

(C) CAPITAL.—In setting capital requirements for a 

person that is designated as a swap dealer or a major 

swap participant for a single type or single class or category of swap or activities, the prudential regulator and 

the Commission shall take into account the risks associated with other types of swaps or classes of swaps or cattkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

117 

egories of swaps engaged in and the other activities conducted by that person that are not otherwise subject to 

regulation applicable to that person by virtue of the status 

of the person as a swap dealer or a major swap participant. 

(3) STANDARDS FOR CAPITAL AND MARGIN.— (A) IN GENERAL.—To offset the greater risk to the 

swap dealer or major swap participant and the financial 

system arising from the use of swaps that are not cleared, 

the requirements imposed under paragraph (2) shall— 

(i) help ensure the safety and soundness of the 

swap dealer or major swap participant; and 

(ii) be appropriate for the risk associated with the 

non-cleared swaps held as a swap dealer or major 

swap participant. 

(B) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—Nothing in this section shall 

limit, or be construed to limit, the authority— 

(I) of the Commission to set financial responsibility rules for a futures commission merchant 

or introducing broker registered pursuant to section 4f(a) (except for section 4f(a)(3)) in accordance 

with section 4f(b); or 

(II) of the Securities and Exchange Commission to set financial responsibility rules for a 

broker or dealer registered pursuant to section 

15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 

U.S.C. 78o(b)) (except for section 15(b)(11) of that 

Act (15 U.S.C. 78o(b)(11)) in accordance with section 15(c)(3) of the Securities Exchange Act of 

1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o(c)(3)). 

(ii) FUTURES COMMISSION MERCHANTS AND OTHER

DEALERS.—A futures commission merchant, introducing broker, broker, or dealer shall maintain sufficient capital to comply with the stricter of any applicable capital requirements to which such futures commission merchant, introducing broker, broker, or dealer is subject to under this Act or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.). 

(C) MARGIN REQUIREMENTS.—In prescribing margin requirements under this subsection, the prudential regulator 

with respect to swap dealers and major swap participants 

for which it is the prudential regulator and the Commission with respect to swap dealers and major swap participants for which there is no prudential regulator shall permit the use of noncash collateral, as the regulator or the 

Commission determines to be consistent with— 

(i) preserving the financial integrity of markets 

trading swaps; and 

(ii) preserving the stability of the United States financial system. 

(D) COMPARABILITY OF CAPITAL AND MARGIN REQUIRE- MENTS.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—The prudential regulators, the 

Commission, and the Securities and Exchange Comtkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

118 

mission shall periodically (but not less frequently than 

annually) consult on minimum capital requirements 

and minimum initial and variation margin requirements. 

(ii) COMPARABILITY.—The entities described in 

clause (i) shall, to the maximum extent practicable, establish and maintain comparable minimum capital requirements and minimum initial and variation margin 

requirements, including the use of non cash collateral, 

for— 

(I) swap dealers; and 

(II) major swap participants. 

(4) APPLICABILITY WITH RESPECT TO COUNTERPARTIES.—(A) 

The requirements of paragraphs (2)(A)(ii) and (2)(B)(ii), including the initial and variation margin requirements imposed by 

rules adopted pursuant to paragraphs (2)(A)(ii) and (2)(B)(ii), 

shall not apply to a swap in which a counterparty qualifies for 

an exception under section 2(h)(7)(A), or an exemption issued 

under section 4(c)(1) from the requirements of section 

2(h)(1)(A) for cooperative entities as defined in such exemption, 

or satisfies the criteria in section 2(h)(7)(D). 

(B) The initial margin requirements imposed by rules 

adopted pursuant to paragraphs (2)(A)(ii) and (2)(B)(ii) 

shall not apply to any swap in which— 

(i) one counterparty is a person in which the other 

counterparty, directly or indirectly, holds a majority 

ownership interest; or 

(ii) a third party, directly or indirectly, holds a 

majority ownership interest in both counterparties. 

(f) REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Each registered swap dealer and major 

swap participant— 

(A) shall make such reports as are required by the 

Commission by rule or regulation regarding the transactions and positions and financial condition of the registered swap dealer or major swap participant; 

(B)(i) for which there is a prudential regulator, shall 

keep books and records of all activities related to the business as a swap dealer or major swap participant in such 

form and manner and for such period as may be prescribed 

by the Commission by rule or regulation; and 

(ii) for which there is no prudential regulator, shall 

keep books and records in such form and manner and for 

such period as may be prescribed by the Commission by 

rule or regulation; 

(C) shall keep books and records described in subparagraph (B) open to inspection and examination by any representative of the Commission; and 

(D) shall keep any such books and records relating to 

swaps defined in section 1a(47)(A)(v) open to inspection 

and examination by the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

(2) RULES.—The Commission shall adopt rules governing 

reporting and recordkeeping for swap dealers and major swap 

participants. 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

119 

(g) DAILY TRADING RECORDS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Each registered swap dealer and major 

swap participant shall maintain daily trading records of the 

swaps of the registered swap dealer and major swap participant and all related records (including related cash or forward 

transactions) and recorded communications, including electronic mail, instant messages, and recordings of telephone 

calls, for such period as may be required by the Commission 

by rule or regulation. 

(2) INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS.—The daily trading 

records shall include such information as the Commission shall 

require by rule or regulation. 

(3) COUNTERPARTY RECORDS.—Each registered swap dealer 

and major swap participant shall maintain daily trading 

records for each counterparty in a manner and form that is 

identifiable with each swap transaction. 

(4) AUDIT TRAIL.—Each registered swap dealer and major 

swap participant shall maintain a complete audit trail for conducting comprehensive and accurate trade reconstructions. 

(5) RULES.—The Commission shall adopt rules governing 

daily trading records for swap dealers and major swap participants. 

(h) BUSINESS CONDUCT STANDARDS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Each registered swap dealer and major 

swap participant shall conform with such business conduct 

standards as prescribed in paragraph (3) and as may be prescribed by the Commission by rule or regulation that relate 

to— 

(A) fraud, manipulation, and other abusive practices 

involving swaps (including swaps that are offered but not 

entered into); 

(B) diligent supervision of the business of the registered swap dealer and major swap participant; 

(C) adherence to all applicable position limits; and 

(D) such other matters as the Commission determines 

to be appropriate. 

(2) RESPONSIBILITIES WITH RESPECT TO SPECIAL ENTITIES.— (A) ADVISING SPECIAL ENTITIES.—A swap dealer or 

major swap participant that acts as an advisor to a special 

entity regarding a swap shall comply with the requirements of subparagraph (4) with respect to such Special Entity. 

(B) ENTERING OF SWAPS WITH RESPECT TO SPECIAL ENTITIES.—A swap dealer that enters into or offers to enter 

into swap with a Special Entity shall comply with the requirements of subparagraph (5) with respect to such Special Entity. 

(C) SPECIAL ENTITY DEFINED.—For purposes of this 

subsection, the term ‘‘special entity’’ means— 

(i) a Federal agency; 

(ii) a State, State agency, city, county, municipality, or other political subdivision of a State; 

(iii) any employee benefit plan, as defined in section 3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security 

Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1002); 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

120 

(iv) any governmental plan, as defined in section 

3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 

1974 (29 U.S.C. 1002); or 

(v) any endowment, including an endowment that 

is an organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the 

Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 

(3) BUSINESS CONDUCT REQUIREMENTS.—Business conduct 

requirements adopted by the Commission shall— 

(A) establish a duty for a swap dealer or major swap 

participant to verify that any counterparty meets the eligibility standards for an eligible contract participant; 

(B) require disclosure by the swap dealer or major 

swap participant to any counterparty to the transaction 

(other than a swap dealer, major swap participant, security-based swap dealer, or major security-based swap participant) of— 

(i) information about the material risks and characteristics of the swap; 

(ii) any material incentives or conflicts of interest 

that the swap dealer or major swap participant may 

have in connection with the swap; and 

(iii)(I) for cleared swaps, upon the request of the 

counterparty, receipt of the daily mark of the transaction from the appropriate derivatives clearing organization; and 

(II) for uncleared swaps, receipt of the daily mark 

of the transaction from the swap dealer or the major 

swap participant; 

(C) establish a duty for a swap dealer or major swap 

participant to communicate in a fair and balanced manner 

based on principles of fair dealing and good faith; and 

(D) establish such other standards and requirements 

as the Commission may determine are appropriate in the 

public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise 

in furtherance of the purposes of this Act. 

(4) SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SWAP DEALERS ACTING AS

ADVISORS.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—It shall be unlawful for a swap dealer or major swap participant— 

(i) to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud any Special Entity or prospective customer who 

is a Special Entity; 

(ii) to engage in any transaction, practice, or 

course of business that operates as a fraud or deceit 

on any Special Entity or prospective customer who is 

a Special Entity; or 

(iii) to engage in any act, practice, or course of 

business that is fraudulent, deceptive or manipulative. 

(B) DUTY.—Any swap dealer that acts as an advisor to 

a Special Entity shall have a duty to act in the best interests of the Special Entity. 

(C) REASONABLE EFFORTS.—Any swap dealer that acts 

as an advisor to a Special Entity shall make reasonable efforts to obtain such information as is necessary to make a 

reasonable determination that any swap recommended by 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

121 

the swap dealer is in the best interests of the Special Entity, including information relating to— 

(i) the financial status of the Special Entity; 

(ii) the tax status of the Special Entity; 

(iii) the investment or financing objectives of the 

Special Entity; and 

(iv) any other information that the Commission 

may prescribe by rule or regulation. 

(5) SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SWAP DEALERS AS

COUNTERPARTIES TO SPECIAL ENTITIES.— 

(A) Any swap dealer or major swap participant that offers to enter or enters into a swap with a Special Entity 

shall— 

(i) comply with any duty established by the Commission for a swap dealer or major swap participant, 

with respect to a counterparty that is an eligible contract participant within the meaning of subclause (I) 

or (II) of clause (vii) of section 1a(18) of this Act, that 

requires the swap dealer or major swap participant to 

have a reasonable basis to believe that the 

counterparty that is a Special Entity has an independent representative that— 

(I) has sufficient knowledge to evaluate the 

transaction and risks; 

(II) is not subject to a statutory disqualification; 

(III) is independent of the swap dealer or 

major swap participant; 

(IV) undertakes a duty to act in the best interests of the counterparty it represents; 

(V) makes appropriate disclosures; 

(VI) will provide written representations to 

the Special Entity regarding fair pricing and the 

appropriateness of the transaction; and 

(VII) in the case of employee benefit plans 

subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security act of 1974, is a fiduciary as defined in section 

3 of that Act (29 U.S.C. 1002); and 

(ii) before the initiation of the transaction, disclose 

to the Special Entity in writing the capacity in which 

the swap dealer is acting; and 

(B) the Commission may establish such other standards and requirements as the Commission may determine 

are appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of 

investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of 

this Act. 

(6) RULES.—The Commission shall prescribe rules under 

this subsection governing business conduct standards for swap 

dealers and major swap participants. 

(7) APPLICABILITY.—This section shall not apply with respect to a transaction that is— 

(A) initiated by a Special Entity on an exchange or 

swap execution facility; and 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

122 

(B) one in which the swap dealer or major swap participant does not know the identity of the counterparty to the 

transaction. 

(i) DOCUMENTATION STANDARDS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Each registered swap dealer and major 

swap participant shall conform with such standards as may be 

prescribed by the Commission by rule or regulation that relate 

to timely and accurate confirmation, processing, netting, documentation, and valuation of all swaps. 

(2) RULES.—The Commission shall adopt rules governing 

documentation standards for swap dealers and major swap 

participants. 

(j) DUTIES.—Each registered swap dealer and major swap participant at all times shall comply with the following requirements: 

(1) MONITORING OF TRADING.—The swap dealer or major 

swap participant shall monitor its trading in swaps to prevent 

violations of applicable position limits. 

(2) RISK MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES.—The swap dealer or 

major swap participant shall establish robust and professional 

risk management systems adequate for managing the day-today business of the swap dealer or major swap participant. 

(3) DISCLOSURE OF GENERAL INFORMATION.—The swap 

dealer or major swap participant shall disclose to the Commission and to the prudential regulator for the swap dealer or 

major swap participant, as applicable, information concerning— 

(A) terms and conditions of its swaps; 

(B) swap trading operations, mechanisms, and practices; 

(C) financial integrity protections relating to swaps; 

and 

(D) other information relevant to its trading in swaps. 

(4) ABILITY TO OBTAIN INFORMATION.—The swap dealer or 

major swap participant shall— 

(A) establish and enforce internal systems and procedures to obtain any necessary information to perform any 

of the functions described in this section; and 

(B) provide the information to the Commission and to 

the prudential regulator for the swap dealer or major swap 

participant, as applicable, on request. 

(5) CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.—The swap dealer and major 

swap participant shall implement conflict-of-interest systems 

and procedures that— 

(A) establish structural and institutional safeguards to 

ensure that the activities of any person within the firm relating to research or analysis of the price or market for 

any commodity or swap or acting in a role of providing 

clearing activities or making determinations as to accepting clearing customers are separated by appropriate informational partitions within the firm from the review, pressure, or oversight of persons whose involvement in pricing, 

trading, or clearing activities might potentially bias their 

judgment or supervision and contravene the core principles 

of open access and the business conduct standards described in this Act; and 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

123 

(B) address such other issues as the Commission determines to be appropriate. 

(6) ANTITRUST CONSIDERATIONS.—Unless necessary or appropriate to achieve the purposes of this Act, a swap dealer or 

major swap participant shall not— 

(A) adopt any process or take any action that results 

in any unreasonable restraint of trade; or 

(B) impose any material anticompetitive burden on 

trading or clearing. 

(7) RULES.—The Commission shall prescribe rules under 

this subsection governing duties of swap dealers and major 

swap participants. 

(k) DESIGNATION OF CHIEF COMPLIANCE OFFICER.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Each swap dealer and major swap participant shall designate an individual to serve as a chief compliance officer. 

(2) DUTIES.—The chief compliance officer shall— 

(A) report directly to the board or to the senior officer 

of the swap dealer or major swap participant; 

(B) review the compliance of the swap dealer or major 

swap participant with respect to the swap dealer and 

major swap participant requirements described in this section; 

(C) in consultation with the board of directors, a body 

performing a function similar to the board, or the senior 

officer of the organization, resolve any conflicts of interest 

that may arise; 

(D) be responsible for administering each policy and 

procedure that is required to be established pursuant to 

this section; 

(E) ensure compliance with this Act (including regulations) relating to swaps, including each rule prescribed by 

the Commission under this section; 

(F) establish procedures for the remediation of noncompliance issues identified by the chief compliance officer 

through any— 

(i) compliance office review; 

(ii) look-back; 

(iii) internal or external audit finding; 

(iv) self-reported error; or 

(v) validated complaint; and 

(G) establish and follow appropriate procedures for the 

handling, management response, remediation, retesting, 

and closing of noncompliance issues. 

(3) ANNUAL REPORTS.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—In accordance with rules prescribed 

by the Commission, the chief compliance officer shall annually prepare and sign a report that contains a description of— 

(i) the compliance of the swap dealer or major 

swap participant with respect to this Act (including 

regulations); and 

(ii) each policy and procedure of the swap dealer 

or major swap participant of the chief compliance offitkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

124 

cer (including the code of ethics and conflict of interest 

policies). 

(B) REQUIREMENTS.—A compliance report under subparagraph (A) shall— 

(i) accompany each appropriate financial report of 

the swap dealer or major swap participant that is required to be furnished to the Commission pursuant to 

this section; and 

(ii) include a certification that, under penalty of 

law, the compliance report is accurate and complete. 

(l) SEGREGATION REQUIREMENTS.— (1) SEGREGATION OF ASSETS HELD AS COLLATERAL IN

UNCLEARED SWAP TRANSACTIONS.— 

(A) NOTIFICATION.—A swap dealer or major swap participant shall be required to notify the counterparty of the 

swap dealer or major swap participant at the beginning of 

a swap transaction that the counterparty has the right to 

require segregation of the funds or other property supplied 

to margin, guarantee, or secure the obligations of the 

counterparty. 

(B) SEGREGATION AND MAINTENANCE OF FUNDS.—At 

the request of a counterparty to a swap that provides 

funds or other property to a swap dealer or major swap 

participant to margin, guarantee, or secure the obligations 

of the counterparty, the swap dealer or major swap participant shall— 

(i) segregate the funds or other property for the 

benefit of the counterparty; and 

(ii) in accordance with such rules and regulations 

as the Commission may promulgate, maintain the 

funds or other property in a segregated account separate from the assets and other interests of the swap 

dealer or major swap participant. 

(2) APPLICABILITY.—The requirements described in paragraph (1) shall— 

(A) apply only to a swap between a counterparty and 

a swap dealer or major swap participant that is not submitted for clearing to a derivatives clearing organization; 

and 

(B)(i) not apply to variation margin payments; or 

(ii) not preclude any commercial arrangement regarding— 

(I) the investment of segregated funds or other 

property that may only be invested in such investments as the Commission may permit by rule or regulation; and 

(II) the related allocation of gains and losses resulting from any investment of the segregated funds 

or other property. 

(3) USE OF INDEPENDENT THIRD-PARTY CUSTODIANS.—The 

segregated account described in paragraph (1) shall be— 

(A) carried by an independent third-party custodian; 

and 

(B) designated as a segregated account for and on behalf of the counterparty. 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

125 

(4) REPORTING REQUIREMENT.—If the counterparty does 

not choose to require segregation of the funds or other property 

supplied to margin, guarantee, or secure the obligations of the 

counterparty, the swap dealer or major swap participant shall 

report to the counterparty of the swap dealer or major swap 

participant on a quarterly basis that the back office procedures 

of the swap dealer or major swap participant relating to margin and collateral requirements are in compliance with the 

agreement of the counterparties. 

* * * * * * * 

FOOD AND NUTRITION ACT OF 2008 

* * * * * * * 

APPROVAL OF RETAIL FOOD STORES AND WHOLESALE FOOD CONCERNS

SEC. 9. (a)(1) Regulations issued pursuant to this Act shall provide for the submission of applications for approval by retail food 

stores and wholesale food concerns which desire to be authorized 

to accept and redeem benefits under the supplemental nutrition assistance program and for the approval of those applicants whose 

participation will effectuate the purposes of the supplemental nutrition assistance program. In determining the qualifications of applicants, there shall be considered among such other factors as may 

be appropriate, the following: (A) the nature and extent of the food 

business conducted by the applicant; (B) the volume of benefit 

transactions which may reasonably be expected to be conducted by 

the applicant food store or wholesale food concern; (C) whether the 

applicant is located in an area with significantly limited access to 

food; and (D) the business integrity and reputation of the applicant. 

Approval of an applicant shall be evidenced by the issuance to such 

applicant of a nontransferable certificate of approval. No retail food 

store or wholesale food concern of a type determined by the Secretary, based on factors that include size, location, and type of 

items sold, shall be approved to be authorized or reauthorized for 

participation in the supplemental nutrition assistance program unless an authorized employee of the Department of Agriculture, a 

designee of the Secretary, or, if practicable, an official of the State 

or local government designated by the Secretary has visited the 

store or concern for the purpose of determining whether the store 

or concern should be approved or reauthorized, as appropriate. 

(2) The Secretary shall issue regulations providing for— 

(A) the periodic reauthorization of retail food stores and 

wholesale food concerns; and 

(B) periodic notice to participating retail food stores and 

wholesale food concerns of the definitions of ‘‘retail food store’’, 

‘‘staple foods’’, ‘‘eligible foods’’, and ‘‘perishable foods’’. 

(3) AUTHORIZATION PERIODS.—The Secretary shall establish 

specific time periods during which authorization to accept and redeem benefits shall be valid under the supplemental nutrition assistance program. 

(b)(1) No wholesale food concern may be authorized to accept 

and redeem benefits unless the Secretary determines that its participation is required for the effective and efficient operation of the 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

126 

supplemental nutrition assistance program. No co-located wholesale-retail food concern may be authorized to accept and redeem 

benefits as a retail food store, unless (A) the concern does a substantial level of retail food business, or (B) the Secretary determines that failure to authorize such a food concern as a retail food 

store would cause hardship to households that receive supplemental nutrition assistance program benefits. In addition, no firm 

may be authorized to accept and redeem benefits as both a retail 

food store and as a wholesale food concern at the same time. 

(2)(A) A buyer or transferee (other than a bona fide buyer or 

transferee) of a retail food store or wholesale food concern that has 

been disqualified under section 12(a) may not accept or redeem 

benefits until the Secretary receives full payment of any penalty 

imposed on such store or concern. 

(B) A buyer or transferee may not, as a result of the sale or 

transfer of such store or concern, be required to furnish a bond 

under section 12(d). 

(c) Regulations issued pursuant to this Act shall require an applicant retail food store or wholesale food concern to submit information, which may include relevant income and sales tax filing 

documents, purchase invoices, or program-related records, which 

will permit a determination to be made as to whether such applicant qualifies, or continues to qualify, for approval under the provisions of this Act or the regulations issued pursuant to this Act. The 

regulations may require retail food stores and wholesale food concerns to provide written authorization for the Secretary to verify all 

relevant tax filings with appropriate agencies and to obtain corroborating documentation from other sources so that the accuracy 

of information provided by the stores and concerns may be verified. 

Regulations issued pursuant to this Act shall provide for safeguards which limit the use or disclosure of information obtained 

under the authority granted by this subsection to purposes directly 

connected with administration and enforcement of the provisions of 

this Act or the regulations issued pursuant to this Act, except that 

such information may be disclosed to any used by Federal law enforcement and investigative agencies and law enforcement and investigative agencies of a State government for the purposes of administering or enforcing this Act or any other Federal or State law 

and the regulations issued under this Act or such law, and State 

agencies that administer the special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants and children, authorized under section 17 

of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, for purposes of administering 

the provisions of that Act and the regulations issued under that 

Act. Any person who publishes, divulges, discloses, or makes 

known in any manner or to any extent not authorized by Federal 

law (including a regulation) any information obtained under this 

subsection shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not 

more than 1 year, or both. The regulations shall establish the criteria to be used by the Secretary to determine whether the information is needed. The regulations shall not prohibit the audit and 

examination of such information by the Comptroller General of the 

United States authorized by any other provision of law. 

(d) Any retail food store or wholesale food concern which has 

failed upon application to receive approval to participate in the 

supplemental nutrition assistance program may obtain a hearing 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

127 

on such refusal as provided in section 14 of this Act. A retail food 

store or wholesale food concern that is denied approval to accept 

and redeem benefits because the store or concern does not meet criteria for approval established by the Secretary may not, for at least 

6 months, submit a new application to participate in the program. 

The Secretary may establish a longer time period under the preceding sentence, including permanent disqualification, that reflects 

the severity of the basis of the denial. 

(e) Approved retail food stores shall display a sign providing 

information on how persons may report abuses they have observed 

in the operation of the supplemental nutrition assistance program. 

(f) In those areas in which the Secretary, in consultation with 

the Inspector General of the Department of Agriculture, finds evidence that the operation of house-to-house trade routes damages 

the program’s integrity, the Secretary shall limit the participation 

of house-to-house trade routes to those routes that are reasonably 

necessary to provide adequate access to households. 

(g) EBT SERVICE REQUIREMENT.—An approved retail food store 

shall provide adequate EBT service as described in section 

7(h)(3)(B). 

(h) PRIVATE ESTABLISHMENTS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), no private establishment that contracts with a State agency to offer meals 

at concessional prices as described in paragraphs (3), (4), and 

(9) of section 3(k) may be authorized to accept and redeem benefits unless the Secretary determines that the participation of 

the private establishment is required to meet a documented 

need in accordance with section 11(e)(25). 

(2) EXISTING CONTRACTS.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—If, on the day before the date of enactment of this subsection, a State has entered into a contract with a private establishment described in paragraph 

(1) and the Secretary has not determined that the participation of the private establishment is necessary to meet a 

documented need in accordance with section 11(e)(25), the 

Secretary shall allow the operation of the private establishment to continue without that determination of need 

for a period not to exceed 180 days from the date on which 

the Secretary establishes determination criteria, by regulation, under section 11(e)(25). 

(B) JUSTIFICATION.—If the Secretary determines to terminate a contract with a private establishment that is in 

effect on the date of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall provide justification to the State in which the 

private establishment is located for that termination. 

(3) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 90 days after 

September 30, 2014, and 90 days after the last day of each fiscal year thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and the 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate a report on the effectiveness of a program under this subsection using any information received from States under section 11(e)(25) as well as any other information the Secretary 

may have relating to the manner in which benefits are used. 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

128 

(i) NONDISCLOSURE.—Any supplemental nutrition assistance 

program transaction data that contains information specific to a retail food store, a retail food store location, a person, or other entity 

shall be exempt from the disclosure requirements of section 552(a) 

of title 5 of the United States Code pursuant to section 552(b)(3) of 

title 5 of the United States Code. 

* * * * * * * 

NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, EXTENSION, 

AND TEACHING POLICY ACT OF 1977 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE XIV—NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, 

EXTENSION, AND TEACHING POLICY ACT OF 1977 

* * * * * * * 

Subtitle G—1890 Land-Grant College Funding 

SEC. 1444. EXTENSION AT 1890 LAND-GRANT COLLEGES, INCLUDING 

TUSKEGEE UNIVERSITY. 

(a) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—There are hereby authorized to be appropriated annually such sums as Congress may determine necessary to support continuing agricultural and forestry extension at colleges eligible to receive funds under the Act of August 30, 1890 (26 Stat. 417–419, as amended; 7 U.S.C. 321–326 

and 328), including Tuskegee University (hereinafter in this 

section referred to as ‘‘eligible institutions’’). 

(2) MINIMUM AMOUNT.—Beginning with fiscal year 2003, 

there shall be appropriated under this section for each fiscal 

year an amount that is not less than 20 percent of the total 

appropriations for such year under the Act of May 8, 1914 (7 

U.S.C. 341 et seq.), and related acts pertaining to cooperative 

extension work at the land-grant institutions identified in the 

Act of May 8, 1914 (38 Stat. 372, chapter 79; 7 U.S.C. 341 et 

seq.), except that for the purpose of this calculation, the total 

appropriations shall not include amounts made available under 

section 3(d) of that Act (7 U.S.C. 343(d)). 

(3) USES.—Funds appropriated under this section shall be 

used for expenses of conducting extension programs and activities, and for contributing to the retirement of employees subject to the provisions of the Act of March 4, 1940 (54 Stat. 30– 

40, as amended; 7 U.S.C. 331). 

(4) CARRYOVER.—øNo more than¿ For fiscal years ending 

on or before September 30, 2018, no more than 20 per centum 

of the funds received øby an institution¿ by an eligible institution under this section in any fiscal year may be carried forward to the succeeding fiscal year. For fiscal years beginning 

on or after October 1, 2018, the limitation specified in the preceding sentence shall not apply and 100 percent of such funds 

may be carried forward to the succeeding fiscal year. 

(b) Beginning with the fiscal year ending September 30, 1979— 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

129 

(1) any funds annually appropriated under this section up 

to the amount appropriated for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1978, pursuant to section 3(d) of the Act of May 8, 

1914, as amended, for eligible institutions, shall be allocated 

among the eligible institutions in the same proportion as funds 

appropriated under section 3(d) of the Act of May 8, 1914, as 

amended, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1978, are allocated among the eligible institutions; and 

(2) any funds appropriated annually under this section in 

excess of an amount equal to the amount appropriated under 

section 3(d) of the Act of May 8, 1914, for the fiscal year ending 

September 30, 1978, for eligible institutions, shall be distributed as follows: 

(A) A sum equal to 4 per centum of the total amount 

appropriated each fiscal year under this section shall be 

allotted to the National Institute of Food and Agriculture 

of the Department of Agriculture for administrative, technical, and other services, and for coordinating the extension work of the Department of Agriculture and the several States. 

(B) Of the remainder, 20 per centum shall be allotted 

among the eligible institutions in equal proportions; 40 per 

centum shall be allotted among the eligible institutions in 

the proportion that the rural population of the State in 

which each eligible institution is located bears to the total 

rural population of all the States in which eligible institutions are located, as determined by the last preceding decennial census current at the time each such additional 

sum is first appropriated; and the balance shall be allotted 

amount the eligible institutions in the proportion that the 

farm population of the State in which each eligible institution is located bears to the total farm population of all the 

States in which the eligible institutions are located, as determined by the last preceding decennial census current at 

the time each such additional sum is first appropriated. 

In computing the distribution of funds allocated under paragraph 

(2) of this subsection, the allotments to Tuskegee University and 

Alabama Agricultural and Mechanical University shall be determined as if each institution were in a separate State. 

(c) The State director of the cooperative extension service and 

the extension administrator at the eligible institution in each State 

where an eligible institution is located shall jointly develop, by mutual agreement, a comprehensive program of extension for such 

State to be submitted for approval by the Secretary within one year 

after the date of enactment of this title and each five years thereafter. 

(d) ASCERTAINMENT OF ENTITLEMENT TO FUNDS; TIME AND

MANNER OF PAYMENT; STATE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS; PLANS OF

WORK.— (1) ASCERTAINMENT OF ENTITLEMENT.—On or about the 

first day of October in each year after enactment of this title, 

the Secretary shall ascertain whether each eligible institution 

is entitled to receive its share of the annual appropriation for 

extension work under this section and the amount which it is 

entitled to receive. Before the funds herein provided shall betkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

130 

come available to any eligible institution for any fiscal year, 

plans for the work to be carried out under this section shall be 

submitted, as part of the State plan of work, and approved by 

the Secretary. 

(2) TIME AND MANNER OF PAYMENT; RELATED REPORTS.— 

The amount to which an eligible institution is entitled shall be 

paid in equal quarterly payments on or about October 1, January 1, April 1, and July 1 of each year to the treasurer or other 

officer of the eligible institution duly authorized to receive such 

payments and such officer shall be required to report to the 

Secretary on or about the first day of December of each year 

a detailed statement of the amount so received during the previous fiscal year and its disbursement, on forms prescribed by 

the Secretary. 

(3) REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO PLAN OF WORK.—Each plan 

of work for an eligible institution required under this section 

shall contain descriptions of the following: 

(A) The critical short-term, intermediate, and longterm agricultural issues in the State in which the eligible 

institution is located and the current and planned extension programs and projects targeted to address the issues. 

(B) The process established to consult with extension 

users regarding the identification of critical agricultural 

issues in the State and the development of extension programs and projects targeted to address the issues. 

(C) The efforts made to identify and collaborate with 

other colleges and universities within the State, and within other States, that have a unique capacity to address the 

identified agricultural issues in the State and the extent of 

current and emerging efforts (including regional extension 

efforts) to work with those other institutions. 

(D) The manner in which research and extension, including research and extension activities funded other 

than through formula funds, will cooperate to address the 

critical issues in the State, including the activities to be 

carried out separately, the activities to be carried out sequentially, and the activities to be carried out jointly. 

(E) The education and outreach programs already underway to convey currently available research results that 

are pertinent to a critical agricultural issue, including efforts to encourage multicounty cooperation in the dissemination of research results. 

(4) EXTENSION PROTOCOLS.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall develop protocols to be used to evaluate the success of multistate, multiinstitutional, and multidisciplinary extension activities 

and joint research and extension activities in addressing 

critical agricultural issues identified in the plans of work 

submitted under this section. 

(B) CONSULTATION.—The Secretary shall develop the 

protocols in consultation with the Advisory Board and 

land-grant colleges and universities. 

(5) TREATMENT OF PLANS OF WORK FOR OTHER PURPOSES.— 

To the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary shall contkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

131 

sider a plan of work submitted under this section to satisfy 

other appropriate Federal reporting requirements. 

(e) If any portion of the moneys received by any eligible institution for the support and maintenance of extension work as provided 

in this section shall by any action or contingency be diminished or 

lost or be misapplied, it shall be replaced by such institution and 

until so replaced no subsequent appropriation shall be apportioned 

or paid to such institution. No portion of such moneys shall be applied, directly or indirectly, to the purchase, erection, preservation, 

or repair of any building or buildings, or the purchase or rental of 

land, or in college course teaching, lectures in college, or any other 

purpose not specified in this section. It shall be the duty of such 

institution, annually, on or about the first day of January, to make 

to the Governor of the State in which it is located a full and detailed report of its operations in extension work, including a detailed statement of receipts and expenditures from all sources for 

this purpose, a copy of which report shall be sent to the Secretary. 

(f) To the extent that the official mail consists of correspondence, bulletins, and reports for furtherance of the purposes of this 

section, it shall be transmitted in the mails of the United States. 

Such items may be mailed from a principal place of business of 

each eligible institution or from an established subunit of such institution. 

* * * * * * * 

FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER IX—TOBACCO PRODUCTS 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 905. ANNUAL REGISTRATION. 

(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

(1) MANUFACTURE, PREPARATION, COMPOUNDING, OR PROCESSING.—The term ‘‘manufacture, preparation, compounding, 

or processing’’ shall include repackaging or otherwise changing 

the container, wrapper, or labeling of any tobacco product 

package in furtherance of the distribution of the tobacco product from the original place of manufacture to the person who 

makes final delivery or sale to the ultimate consumer or user. 

(2) NAME.—The term ‘‘name’’ shall include in the case of 

a partnership the name of each partner and, in the case of a 

corporation, the name of each corporate officer and director, 

and the State of incorporation. 

(b) REGISTRATION BY OWNERS AND OPERATORS.—On or before 

December 31 of each year, every person who owns or operates any 

establishment in any State engaged in the manufacture, preparation, compounding, or processing of a tobacco product or tobacco 

products shall register with the Secretary the name, places of business, and all such establishments of that person. If enactment of 

the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act occurs in 

the second half of the calendar year, the Secretary shall designate 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

132 

a date no later than 6 months into the subsequent calendar year 

by which registration pursuant to this subsection shall occur. 

(c) REGISTRATION BY NEW OWNERS AND OPERATORS.—Every 

person upon first engaging in the manufacture, preparation, 

compounding, or processing of a tobacco product or tobacco products in any establishment owned or operated in any State by that 

person shall immediately register with the Secretary that person’s 

name, place of business, and such establishment. 

(d) REGISTRATION OF ADDED ESTABLISHMENTS.—Every person 

required to register under subsection (b) or (c) shall immediately 

register with the Secretary any additional establishment which 

that person owns or operates in any State and in which that person 

begins the manufacture, preparation, compounding, or processing 

of a tobacco product or tobacco products. 

(e) UNIFORM PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM.—The Secretary 

may by regulation prescribe a uniform system for the identification 

of tobacco products and may require that persons who are required 

to list such tobacco products under subsection (i) shall list such tobacco products in accordance with such system. 

(f) PUBLIC ACCESS TO REGISTRATION INFORMATION.—The Secretary shall make available for inspection, to any person so requesting, any registration filed under this section. 

(g) BIENNIAL INSPECTION OF REGISTERED ESTABLISHMENTS.— Every establishment registered with the Secretary under this section shall be subject to inspection under section 704 or subsection 

(h), and every such establishment engaged in the manufacture, 

compounding, or processing of a tobacco product or tobacco products shall be so inspected by 1 or more officers or employees duly 

designated by the Secretary at least once in the 2-year period beginning with the date of registration of such establishment under 

this section and at least once in every successive 2-year period 

thereafter. 

(h) REGISTRATION BY FOREIGN ESTABLISHMENTS.—Any establishment within any foreign country engaged in the manufacture, 

preparation, compounding, or processing of a tobacco product or tobacco products, shall register under this section under regulations 

promulgated by the Secretary. Such regulations shall require such 

establishment to provide the information required by subsection (i) 

and shall include provisions for registration of any such establishment upon condition that adequate and effective means are available, by arrangement with the government of such foreign country 

or otherwise, to enable the Secretary to determine from time to 

time whether tobacco products manufactured, prepared, compounded, or processed in such establishment, if imported or offered 

for import into the United States, shall be refused admission on 

any of the grounds set forth in section 801(a). 

(i) REGISTRATION INFORMATION.— 

(1) PRODUCT LIST.—Every person who registers with the 

Secretary under subsection (b), (c), (d), or (h) shall, at the time 

of registration under any such subsection, file with the Secretary a list of all tobacco products which are being manufactured, prepared, compounded, or processed by that person for 

commercial distribution and which have not been included in 

any list of tobacco products filed by that person with the Secretary under this paragraph or paragraph (2) before such time 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

133 

of registration. Such list shall be prepared in such form and 

manner as the Secretary may prescribe and shall be accompanied by— 

(A) in the case of a tobacco product contained in the 

applicable list with respect to which a tobacco product 

standard has been established under section 907 or which 

is subject to section 910, a reference to the authority for 

the marketing of such tobacco product and a copy of all labeling for such tobacco product; 

(B) in the case of any other tobacco product contained 

in an applicable list, a copy of all consumer information 

and other labeling for such tobacco product, a representative sampling of advertisements for such tobacco product, 

and, upon request made by the Secretary for good cause, 

a copy of all advertisements for a particular tobacco product; and 

(C) if the registrant filing a list has determined that 

a tobacco product contained in such list is not subject to 

a tobacco product standard established under section 907, 

a brief statement of the basis upon which the registrant 

made such determination if the Secretary requests such a 

statement with respect to that particular tobacco product. 

(2) CONSULTATION WITH RESPECT TO FORMS.—The Secretary shall consult with the Secretary of the Treasury in developing the forms to be used for registration under this section to minimize the burden on those persons required to register with both the Secretary and the Tax and Trade Bureau 

of the Department of the Treasury. 

(3) BIANNUAL REPORT OF ANY CHANGE IN PRODUCT LIST.— 

Each person who registers with the Secretary under this section shall report to the Secretary once during the month of 

June of each year and once during the month of December of 

each year the following: 

(A) A list of each tobacco product introduced by the 

registrant for commercial distribution which has not been 

included in any list previously filed by that person with 

the Secretary under this subparagraph or paragraph (1). A 

list under this subparagraph shall list a tobacco product by 

its established name and shall be accompanied by the 

other information required by paragraph (1). 

(B) If since the date the registrant last made a report 

under this paragraph that person has discontinued the 

manufacture, preparation, compounding, or processing for 

commercial distribution of a tobacco product included in a 

list filed under subparagraph (A) or paragraph (1), notice 

of such discontinuance, the date of such discontinuance, 

and the identity of its established name. 

(C) If since the date the registrant reported under subparagraph (B) a notice of discontinuance that person has 

resumed the manufacture, preparation, compounding, or 

processing for commercial distribution of the tobacco product with respect to which such notice of discontinuance 

was reported, notice of such resumption, the date of such 

resumption, the identity of such tobacco product by established name, and other information required by paragraph 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

134 

(1), unless the registrant has previously reported such resumption to the Secretary under this subparagraph. 

(D) Any material change in any information previously 

submitted under this paragraph or paragraph (1). 

(j) REPORT PRECEDING INTRODUCTION OF CERTAIN SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT PRODUCTS INTO INTERSTATE COMMERCE.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Each person who is required to register 

under this section and who proposes to begin the introduction 

or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce for commercial distribution of a tobacco product intended for human 

use that was not commercially marketed (other than for test 

marketing) in the United States as of February 15, 2007, shall, 

at least 90 days prior to making such introduction or delivery, 

report to the Secretary (in such form and manner as the Secretary shall prescribe)— 

(A) the basis for such person’s determination that— 

(i) the tobacco product is substantially equivalent, 

within the meaning of section 910, to a tobacco product commercially marketed (other than for test marketing) in the United States as of February 15, 2007, 

or to a tobacco product subject to an order that the Secretary has issued to such person under subsection 

(c)(1)(A)(i) of section 910, or to a tobacco product that 

the Secretary has previously determined, pursuant to 

subsection (a)(3) of section 910, is substantially equivalent and that is in compliance with the requirements 

of this Act; or 

(ii) the tobacco product is modified within the 

meaning of paragraph (3), the modifications are to a 

product that is commercially marketed and in compliance with the requirements of this Act, and all of the 

modifications are covered by exemptions granted by 

the Secretary pursuant to paragraph (3); and 

(B) action taken by such person to comply with the requirements under section 907 that are applicable to the tobacco product. 

(2) APPLICATION TO CERTAIN POST-FEBRUARY 15, 2007, PRODUCTS.—A report under this subsection for a tobacco product 

that was first introduced or delivered for introduction into 

interstate commerce for commercial distribution in the United 

States after February 15, 2007, and prior to the date that is 

21 months after the date of enactment of the Family Smoking 

Prevention and Tobacco Control Act shall be submitted to the 

Secretary not later than 21 months after such date of enactment. 

(3) EXEMPTIONS.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may exempt from the 

requirements of this subsection relating to the demonstration that a tobacco product is substantially equivalent 

within the meaning of section 910, tobacco products that 

are modified by adding or deleting a tobacco additive, or 

increasing or decreasing the quantity of an existing tobacco additive, if the Secretary determines that— 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

135 

(i) such modification would be a minor modification of a tobacco product that can be sold under this 

Act; 

(ii) a report under this subsection is not necessary 

to ensure that permitting the tobacco product to be 

marketed would be appropriate for protection of the 

public health; and 

(iii) an exemption is otherwise appropriate. 

(B) REGULATIONS.—Not later than 15 months after the 

date of enactment of the Family Smoking Prevention and 

Tobacco Control Act, the Secretary shall issue regulations 

to implement this paragraph. 

SEC. 906. GENERAL PROVISIONS RESPECTING CONTROL OF TOBACCO 

PRODUCTS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Any requirement established by or under 

section 902, 903, 905, or 909 applicable to a tobacco product shall 

apply to such tobacco product until the applicability of the requirement to the tobacco product has been changed by action taken 

under section 907, section 910, section 911, or subsection (d) of this 

section, and any requirement established by or under section 902, 

903, 905, or 909 which is inconsistent with a requirement imposed 

on such tobacco product under section 907, section 910, section 911, 

or subsection (d) of this section shall not apply to such tobacco 

product. 

(b) INFORMATION ON PUBLIC ACCESS AND COMMENT.—Each notice of proposed rulemaking or other notification under section 907, 

908, 909, 910, or 911 or under this section, any other notice which 

is published in the Federal Register with respect to any other action taken under any such section and which states the reasons for 

such action, and each publication of findings required to be made 

in connection with rulemaking under any such section shall set 

forth— 

(1) the manner in which interested persons may examine 

data and other information on which the notice or findings is 

based; and 

(2) the period within which interested persons may present 

their comments on the notice or findings (including the need 

therefore) orally or in writing, which period shall be at least 

60 days but may not exceed 90 days unless the time is extended by the Secretary by a notice published in the Federal 

Register stating good cause therefore. 

(c) LIMITED CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION.—Any information reported to or otherwise obtained by the Secretary or the Secretary’s representative under section 903, 904, 907, 908, 909, 910, 

911, or 704, or under subsection (e) or (f) of this section, which is 

exempt from disclosure under subsection (a) of section 552 of title 

5, United States Code, by reason of subsection (b)(4) of that section 

shall be considered confidential and shall not be disclosed, except 

that the information may be disclosed to other officers or employees 

concerned with carrying out this chapter, or when relevant in any 

proceeding under this chapter. 

(d) RESTRICTIONS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may by regulation require 

restrictions on the sale and distribution of a tobacco product, 

including restrictions on the access to, and the advertising and 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

136 

promotion of, the tobacco product, if the Secretary determines 

that such regulation would be appropriate for the protection of 

the public health. The Secretary may by regulation impose restrictions on the advertising and promotion of a tobacco product consistent with and to full extent permitted by the first 

amendment to the Constitution. The finding as to whether 

such regulation would be appropriate for the protection of the 

public health shall be determined with respect to the risks and 

benefits to the population as a whole, including users and 

nonusers of the tobacco product, and taking into account— 

(A) the increased or decreased likelihood that existing 

users of tobacco products will stop using such products; 

and 

(B) the increased or decreased likelihood that those 

who do not use tobacco products will start using such products. 

No such regulation may require that the sale or distribution of 

a tobacco product be limited to the written or oral authorization of a practitioner licensed by law to prescribe medical products. 

(2) LABEL STATEMENTS.—The label of a tobacco product 

shall bear such appropriate statements of the restrictions required by a regulation under subsection (a) as the Secretary 

may in such regulation prescribe. 

(3) LIMITATIONS.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—No restrictions under paragraph (1) 

may— 

(i) prohibit the sale of any tobacco product in faceto-face transactions by a specific category of retail outlets; or 

(ii) establish a minimum age of sale of tobacco 

products to any person older than 18 years of age. 

(B) MATCHBOOKS.—For purposes of any regulations 

issued by the Secretary, matchbooks of conventional size 

containing not more than 20 paper matches, and which are 

customarily given away for free with the purchase of tobacco products, shall be considered as adult-written publications which shall be permitted to contain advertising. 

Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, if the Secretary 

finds that such treatment of matchbooks is not appropriate 

for the protection of the public health, the Secretary may 

determine by regulation that matchbooks shall not be considered adult-written publications. 

ø(4) REMOTE SALES.— 

ø(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall— 

ø(i) within 18 months after the date of enactment 

of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, promulgate regulations regarding the sale 

and distribution of tobacco products that occur 

through means other than a direct, face-to-face exchange between a retailer and a consumer in order to 

prevent the sale and distribution of tobacco products 

to individuals who have not attained the minimum 

age established by applicable law for the purchase of 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

137 

such products, including requirements for age 

verification; and 

ø(ii) within 2 years after such date of enactment, 

issue regulations to address the promotion and marketing of tobacco products that are sold or distributed 

through means other than a direct, face-to-face exchange between a retailer and a consumer in order to 

protect individuals who have not attained the minimum age established by applicable law for the purchase of such products. 

ø(B) RELATION TO OTHER AUTHORITY.—Nothing in this 

paragraph limits the authority of the Secretary to take additional actions under the other paragraphs of this subsection.¿ 

(4) AGE VERIFICATION FOR REMOTE SALES.—A delivery seller of vapor products— 

(A) shall not sell, deliver, or cause to be delivered any 

vapor products to a person under the minimum age required for the legal sale or purchase of vapor products, as 

determined by the applicable law at the place of delivery; 

and 

(B) shall not accept a delivery sale order from a person 

without— 

(i) obtaining the full name, birth date, and residential address of that person; and 

(ii) verifying the information provided in clause (i), 

through the use of a commercially available database 

or aggregate of databases, consisting primarily of data 

from government sources, that are regularly used by 

government and businesses for the purpose of age and 

identity verification and authentication, to ensure that 

the purchaser is at least the minimum age required for 

the legal sale or purchase of vapor products, as determined by the applicable law at the place of delivery. 

(C) LIMITATION.—No database being used for age and 

identity verification under subparagraph (B)(ii) shall be in 

the possession or under the control of the delivery seller, or 

be subject to any changes or supplementation by the delivery seller. 

(D) DEFINITIONS.—In this paragraph: 

(i) The term ‘‘delivery sale’’ means a sale of vapor 

products in which— 

(I) the consumer submits the order for the sale 

by means of a telephone or other method of voice 

transmission, the mails, or the Internet or other 

online service, or the seller is otherwise not in the 

physical presence of the buyer when the request for 

purchase or order is made; or 

(II) the vapor products are delivered to the 

buyer by common carrier, private delivery service, 

or other method of remote delivery, or the seller is 

not in the physical presence of the buyer when the 

buyer obtains possession of the vapor products. 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

138 

(ii) The term ‘‘delivery seller’’ means a person who 

makes a delivery sale, or provides an online marketplace to facilitate a delivery sale. 

(iii) The term ‘‘online marketplace’’ means an online portal or other digital or similar platform that facilitates the sale of products to consumers, through retail sale, auction, or similar transactions. 

(e) GOOD MANUFACTURING PRACTICE REQUIREMENTS.— (1) METHODS, FACILITIES, AND CONTROLS TO CONFORM.— (A) IN GENERAL.—In applying manufacturing restrictions to tobacco, the Secretary shall, in accordance with 

subparagraph (B), prescribe regulations (which may differ 

based on the type of tobacco product involved) requiring 

that the methods used in, and the facilities and controls 

used for, the manufacture, preproduction design validation 

(including a process to assess the performance of a tobacco 

product), packing, and storage of a tobacco product conform to current good manufacturing practice, or hazard 

analysis and critical control point methodology, as prescribed in such regulations to assure that the public health 

is protected and that the tobacco product is in compliance 

with this chapter. Such regulations may provide for the 

testing of raw tobacco for pesticide chemical residues regardless of whether a tolerance for such chemical residues 

has been established. 

(B) REQUIREMENTS.—The Secretary shall— 

(i) before promulgating any regulation under subparagraph (A), afford the Tobacco Products Scientific 

Advisory Committee an opportunity to submit recommendations with respect to the regulation proposed 

to be promulgated; 

(ii) before promulgating any regulation under subparagraph (A), afford opportunity for an oral hearing; 

(iii) provide the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee a reasonable time to make its recommendation with respect to proposed regulations 

under subparagraph (A); 

(iv) in establishing the effective date of a regulation promulgated under this subsection, take into account the differences in the manner in which the different types of tobacco products have historically been 

produced, the financial resources of the different tobacco product manufacturers, and the state of their existing manufacturing facilities, and shall provide for a 

reasonable period of time for such manufacturers to 

conform to good manufacturing practices; and 

(v) not require any small tobacco product manufacturer to comply with a regulation under subparagraph (A) for at least 4 years following the effective 

date established by the Secretary for such regulation. 

(2) EXEMPTIONS; VARIANCES.— (A) PETITION.—Any person subject to any requirement 

prescribed under paragraph (1) may petition the Secretary 

for a permanent or temporary exemption or variance from 

such requirement. Such a petition shall be submitted to 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

139 

the Secretary in such form and manner as the Secretary 

shall prescribe and shall— 

(i) in the case of a petition for an exemption from 

a requirement, set forth the basis for the petitioner’s 

determination that compliance with the requirement is 

not required to assure that the tobacco product will be 

in compliance with this chapter; 

(ii) in the case of a petition for a variance from a 

requirement, set forth the methods proposed to be 

used in, and the facilities and controls proposed to be 

used for, the manufacture, packing, and storage of the 

tobacco product in lieu of the methods, facilities, and 

controls prescribed by the requirement; and 

(iii) contain such other information as the Secretary shall prescribe. 

(B) REFERRAL TO THE TOBACCO PRODUCTS SCIENTIFIC

ADVISORY COMMITTEE.—The Secretary may refer to the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee any petition 

submitted under subparagraph (A). The Tobacco Products 

Scientific Advisory Committee shall report its recommendations to the Secretary with respect to a petition 

referred to it within 60 days after the date of the petition’s 

referral. Within 60 days after— 

(i) the date the petition was submitted to the Secretary under subparagraph (A); or 

(ii) the day after the petition was referred to the 

Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee, 

whichever occurs later, the Secretary shall by order either 

deny the petition or approve it. 

(C) APPROVAL.—The Secretary may approve— 

(i) a petition for an exemption for a tobacco product from a requirement if the Secretary determines 

that compliance with such requirement is not required 

to assure that the tobacco product will be in compliance with this chapter; and 

(ii) a petition for a variance for a tobacco product 

from a requirement if the Secretary determines that 

the methods to be used in, and the facilities and controls to be used for, the manufacture, packing, and 

storage of the tobacco product in lieu of the methods, 

facilities, and controls prescribed by the requirement 

are sufficient to assure that the tobacco product will 

be in compliance with this chapter. 

(D) CONDITIONS.—An order of the Secretary approving 

a petition for a variance shall prescribe such conditions respecting the methods used in, and the facilities and controls used for, the manufacture, packing, and storage of 

the tobacco product to be granted the variance under the 

petition as may be necessary to assure that the tobacco 

product will be in compliance with this chapter. 

(E) HEARING.—After the issuance of an order under 

subparagraph (B) respecting a petition, the petitioner shall 

have an opportunity for an informal hearing on such order. 

(3) COMPLIANCE.—Compliance with requirements under 

this subsection shall not be required before the end of the 3- 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

140 

year period following the date of enactment of the Family 

Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. 

(f) RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.—The Secretary may enter 

into contracts for research, testing, and demonstrations respecting 

tobacco products and may obtain tobacco products for research, 

testing, and demonstration purposes. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 910. APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF CERTAIN TOBACCO PRODUCTS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.— 

(1) NEW TOBACCO PRODUCT DEFINED.—For purposes of this 

section the term ‘‘new tobacco product’’ means— 

(A) any tobacco product (including those products in 

test markets) that was not commercially marketed in the 

United States as of February 15, 2007; or 

(B) any modification (including a change in design, 

any component, any part, or any constituent, including a 

smoke constituent, or in the content, delivery or form of 

nicotine, or any other additive or ingredient) of a tobacco 

product where the modified product was commercially 

marketed in the United States after February 15, 2007. 

(2) PREMARKET REVIEW REQUIRED.— 

(A) NEW PRODUCTS.—An order under subsection 

(c)(1)(A)(i) for a new tobacco product is required unless— 

(i) the manufacturer has submitted a report under 

section 905(j); and the Secretary has issued an order 

that the tobacco product— 

(I) is substantially equivalent to a tobacco 

product commercially marketed (other than for 

test marketing) in the United States as of February 15, 2007, or to a tobacco product subject to 

an order that the Secretary has issued to such person under subsection (c)(1)(A)(i); and 

(II) is in compliance with the requirements of 

this Act; or 

(ii) the tobacco product is exempt from the requirements of section 905(j) pursuant to a regulation 

issued under section 905(j)(3). 

(B) APPLICATION TO CERTAIN POST-FEBRUARY 15, 2007, 

PRODUCTS.—Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to a tobacco 

product— 

(i) that was first introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce for commercial distribution in the United States after February 15, 2007, 

and prior to the date that is 21 months after the date 

of enactment of the Family Smoking Prevention and 

Tobacco Control Act; and 

(ii) for which a report was submitted under section 905(j) within such 21-month period, 

except that subparagraph (A) shall apply to the tobacco 

product if the Secretary issues an order that the tobacco 

product is not substantially equivalent. 

(3) SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT DEFINED.— 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

141 

(A) IN GENERAL.—In this section and section 905(j), 

the term ‘‘substantially equivalent’’ or ‘‘substantial equivalence’’ means, with respect to the tobacco product being 

compared to the predicate tobacco product, that the Secretary by order has found that the tobacco product— 

(i) has the same characteristics as the predicate 

tobacco product; or 

(ii) has different characteristics and the information submitted contains information, including clinical 

data if deemed necessary by the Secretary, that demonstrates that it is not appropriate to regulate the 

product under this section because the product does 

not raise different questions of public health. 

(B) CHARACTERISTICS.—In subparagraph (A), the term 

‘‘characteristics’’ means the materials, ingredients, design, 

composition, heating source, or other features of a tobacco 

product. 

(C) LIMITATION.—A tobacco product may not be found 

to be substantially equivalent to a predicate tobacco product that has been removed from the market at the initiative of the Secretary or that has been determined by a judicial order to be misbranded or adulterated. 

(4) HEALTH INFORMATION.— (A) SUMMARY.—As part of a submission under section 

905(j) respecting a tobacco product, the person required to 

file a premarket notification under such section shall provide an adequate summary of any health information related to the tobacco product or state that such information 

will be made available upon request by any person. 

(B) REQUIRED INFORMATION.—Any summary under 

subparagraph (A) respecting a tobacco product shall contain detailed information regarding data concerning adverse health effects and shall be made available to the 

public by the Secretary within 30 days of the issuance of 

a determination that such tobacco product is substantially 

equivalent to another tobacco product. 

(b) APPLICATION.— (1) CONTENTS.—An application under this section shall 

contain— 

(A) full reports of all information, published or known 

to, or which should reasonably be known to, the applicant, 

concerning investigations which have been made to show 

the health risks of such tobacco product and whether such 

tobacco product presents less risk than other tobacco products; 

(B) a full statement of the components, ingredients, 

additives, and properties, and of the principle or principles 

of operation, of such tobacco product; 

(C) a full description of the methods used in, and the 

facilities and controls used for, the manufacture, processing, and, when relevant, packing and installation of, 

such tobacco product; 

(D) an identifying reference to any tobacco product 

standard under section 907 which would be applicable to 

any aspect of such tobacco product, and either adequate intkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

142 

formation to show that such aspect of such tobacco product 

fully meets such tobacco product standard or adequate information to justify any deviation from such standard; 

(E) such samples of such tobacco product and of components thereof as the Secretary may reasonably require; 

(F) specimens of the labeling proposed to be used for 

such tobacco product; and 

(G) such other information relevant to the subject matter of the application as the Secretary may require. 

(2) REFERRAL TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY

COMMITTEE.—Upon receipt of an application meeting the requirements set forth in paragraph (1), the Secretary— 

(A) may, on the Secretary’s own initiative; or 

(B) may, upon the request of an applicant, 

refer such application to the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee for reference and for submission (within such 

period as the Secretary may establish) of a report and recommendation respecting the application, together with all underlying data and the reasons or basis for the recommendation. 

(c) ACTION ON APPLICATION.— 

(1) DEADLINE.— (A) IN GENERAL.—As promptly as possible, but in no 

event later than 180 days after the receipt of an application under subsection (b), the Secretary, after considering 

the report and recommendation submitted under subsection (b)(2), shall— 

(i) issue an order that the new product may be introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate 

commerce if the Secretary finds that none of the 

grounds specified in paragraph (2) of this subsection 

applies; or 

(ii) issue an order that the new product may not 

be introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce if the Secretary finds (and sets forth 

the basis for such finding as part of or accompanying 

such denial) that 1 or more grounds for denial specified in paragraph (2) of this subsection apply. 

(B) RESTRICTIONS ON SALE AND DISTRIBUTION.—An 

order under subparagraph (A)(i) may require that the sale 

and distribution of the tobacco product be restricted but 

only to the extent that the sale and distribution of a tobacco product may be restricted under a regulation under 

section 906(d). 

(2) DENIAL OF APPLICATION.—The Secretary shall deny an 

application submitted under subsection (b) if, upon the basis of 

the information submitted to the Secretary as part of the application and any other information before the Secretary with respect to such tobacco product, the Secretary finds that— 

(A) there is a lack of a showing that permitting such 

tobacco product to be marketed would be appropriate for 

the protection of the public health; 

(B) the methods used in, or the facilities or controls 

used for, the manufacture, processing, or packing of such 

tobacco product do not conform to the requirements of section 906(e); 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

143 

(C) based on a fair evaluation of all material facts, the 

proposed labeling is false or misleading in any particular; 

or 

(D) such tobacco product is not shown to conform in all 

respects to a tobacco product standard in effect under section 907, and there is a lack of adequate information to 

justify the deviation from such standard. 

(3) DENIAL INFORMATION.—Any denial of an application 

shall, insofar as the Secretary determines to be practicable, be 

accompanied by a statement informing the applicant of the 

measures required to remove such application from deniable 

form (which measures may include further research by the applicant in accordance with 1 or more protocols prescribed by 

the Secretary). 

(4) BASIS FOR FINDING.—For purposes of this section, the 

finding as to whether the marketing of a tobacco product for 

which an application has been submitted is appropriate for the 

protection of the public health shall be determined with respect 

to the risks and benefits to the population as a whole, including users and nonusers of the tobacco product, and taking into 

account— 

(A) the increased or decreased likelihood that existing 

users of tobacco products will stop using such products; 

and 

(B) the increased or decreased likelihood that those 

who do not use tobacco products will start using such products. 

(5) BASIS FOR ACTION.— (A) INVESTIGATIONS.—For purposes of paragraph 

(2)(A), whether permitting a tobacco product to be marketed would be appropriate for the protection of the public 

health shall, when appropriate, be determined on the basis 

of well-controlled investigations, which may include 1 or 

more clinical investigations by experts qualified by training and experience to evaluate the tobacco product. 

(B) OTHER EVIDENCE.—If the Secretary determines 

that there exists valid scientific evidence (other than evidence derived from investigations described in subparagraph (A)) which is sufficient to evaluate the tobacco product, the Secretary may authorize that the determination 

for purposes of paragraph (2)(A) be made on the basis of 

such evidence. 

(d) WITHDRAWAL AND TEMPORARY SUSPENSION.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall, upon obtaining, 

where appropriate, advice on scientific matters from the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee, and after due 

notice and opportunity for informal hearing for a tobacco product for which an order was issued under subsection (c)(1)(A)(i), 

issue an order withdrawing the order if the Secretary finds— 

(A) that the continued marketing of such tobacco product no longer is appropriate for the protection of the public 

health; 

(B) that the application contained or was accompanied 

by an untrue statement of a material fact; 

(C) that the applicant— 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

144 

(i) has failed to establish a system for maintaining 

records, or has repeatedly or deliberately failed to 

maintain records or to make reports, required by an 

applicable regulation under section 909; 

(ii) has refused to permit access to, or copying or 

verification of, such records as required by section 704; 

or 

(iii) has not complied with the requirements of 

section 905; 

(D) on the basis of new information before the Secretary with respect to such tobacco product, evaluated together with the evidence before the Secretary when the application was reviewed, that the methods used in, or the 

facilities and controls used for, the manufacture, processing, packing, or installation of such tobacco product do 

not conform with the requirements of section 906(e) and 

were not brought into conformity with such requirements 

within a reasonable time after receipt of written notice 

from the Secretary of nonconformity; 

(E) on the basis of new information before the Secretary, evaluated together with the evidence before the 

Secretary when the application was reviewed, that the labeling of such tobacco product, based on a fair evaluation 

of all material facts, is false or misleading in any particular and was not corrected within a reasonable time 

after receipt of written notice from the Secretary of such 

fact; or 

(F) on the basis of new information before the Secretary, evaluated together with the evidence before the 

Secretary when such order was issued, that such tobacco 

product is not shown to conform in all respects to a tobacco 

product standard which is in effect under section 907, compliance with which was a condition to the issuance of an 

order relating to the application, and that there is a lack 

of adequate information to justify the deviation from such 

standard. 

(2) APPEAL.—The holder of an application subject to an 

order issued under paragraph (1) withdrawing an order issued 

pursuant to subsection (c)(1)(A)(i) may, by petition filed on or 

before the 30th day after the date upon which such holder receives notice of such withdrawal, obtain review thereof in accordance with section 912. 

(3) TEMPORARY SUSPENSION.—If, after providing an opportunity for an informal hearing, the Secretary determines there 

is reasonable probability that the continuation of distribution 

of a tobacco product under an order would cause serious, adverse health consequences or death, that is greater than ordinarily caused by tobacco products on the market, the Secretary 

shall by order temporarily suspend the authority of the manufacturer to market the product. If the Secretary issues such an 

order, the Secretary shall proceed expeditiously under paragraph (1) to withdraw such application. 

(e) SERVICE OF ORDER.—An order issued by the Secretary 

under this section shall be served— 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

145 

(1) in person by any officer or employee of the department 

designated by the Secretary; or 

(2) by mailing the order by registered mail or certified mail 

addressed to the applicant at the applicant’s last known address in the records of the Secretary. 

(f) RECORDS.— (1) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.—In the case of any tobacco 

product for which an order issued pursuant to subsection 

(c)(1)(A)(i) for an application filed under subsection (b) is in effect, the applicant shall establish and maintain such records, 

and make such reports to the Secretary, as the Secretary may 

by regulation, or by order with respect to such application, prescribe on the basis of a finding that such records and reports 

are necessary in order to enable the Secretary to determine, or 

facilitate a determination of, whether there is or may be 

grounds for withdrawing or temporarily suspending such order. 

(2) ACCESS TO RECORDS.—Each person required under this 

section to maintain records, and each person in charge of custody thereof, shall, upon request of an officer or employee designated by the Secretary, permit such officer or employee at all 

reasonable times to have access to and copy and verify such 

records. 

(g) INVESTIGATIONAL TOBACCO PRODUCT EXEMPTION FOR INVESTIGATIONAL USE.—The Secretary may exempt tobacco products intended for investigational use from the provisions of this chapter 

under such conditions as the Secretary may by regulation prescribe. 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 1043 OF THE PRO-CHILDREN ACT OF 1994 

SEC. 1043. NONSMOKING POLICY FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES. 

(a) PROHIBITION.—After the date of the enactment of this Act, 

no person shall permit øsmoking¿ smoking or use of vapor products 

within any indoor facility owned or leased or contracted for and utilized by such person for provision of routine or regular kindergarten, elementary, or secondary education or library services to 

children. 

(b) ADDITIONAL PROHIBITION.—After the date of the enactment 

of this Act, no person shall permit øsmoking¿ smoking or use of 

vapor products within any indoor facility (or portion thereof) owned 

or leased or contracted for by such person for the provision by such 

person of regular or routine health care or day care or early childhood development (Head Start) services to children or for the use 

of the employees of such person who provides such services, except 

that this subsection shall not apply to— 

(1) any portion of such facility that is used for inpatient 

hospital treatment of individuals dependent on, or addicted to, 

drugs or alcohol; and 

(2) any private residence. 

(c) FEDERAL AGENCIES.— 

(1) KINDERGARTEN, ELEMENTARY, OR SECONDARY EDUCATION OR LIBRARY SERVICES.—After the date of the enactment 

of this Act, no Federal agency shall permit øsmoking¿ smoking 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

146 

or use of vapor products within any indoor facility in the 

United States operated by such agency, directly or by contract, 

to provide routine or regular kindergarten, elementary, or secondary education or library services to children. 

(2) HEALTH OR DAY CARE OR EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOP- MENT SERVICES.—After the date of the enactment of this Act, 

no Federal agency shall permit øsmoking¿ smoking or use of 

vapor products within any indoor facility (or portion thereof) 

operated by such agency, directly or by contract, to provide 

routine or regular health or day care or early childhood development (Head Start) services to children, except that this paragraph shall not apply to— 

(A) any portion of such facility that is used for inpatient hospital treatment of individuals dependent on, or 

addicted to, drugs or alcohol; and 

(B) any private residence. 

(3) APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS.—The provisions of paragraph (2) shall also apply to the provision of such routine or 

regular kindergarten, elementary or secondary education or library services in the facilities described in paragraph (2) not 

subject to paragraph (1). 

(d) NOTICE.—The prohibitions in subsections (a) through (c) 

shall be incorporated by publication of a notice in the Federal Register by the Secretary (in consultation with the heads of other affected agencies) and by such agency heads in funding arrangements involving the provision of children’s services administered by 

such heads. Such prohibitions shall be effective 90 days after such 

notice is published, or 270 days after the date of the enactment of 

this Act, whichever occurs first. 

(e) SPECIAL WAIVER.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—On receipt of an application, the head of 

the Federal agency may grant a special waiver to a person described in subsection (a) who employs individuals who are 

members of a labor organization and provide children’s services 

pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement that— 

(A) took effect before the date of the enactment of this 

Act; and 

(B) includes provisions relating to øsmoking¿ smoking 

or vapor product privileges that are in violation of the requirements of this section. 

(2) TERMINATION OF WAIVER.—A special waiver granted 

under this subsection shall terminate on the earlier of— 

(A) the first expiration date (after the date of the enactment of this Act) of the collective bargaining agreement 

containing the provisions relating to øsmoking¿ smoking or 

vapor product privileges; or 

(B) the date that is 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

(f) CIVIL PENALTIES.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Any failure to comply with a prohibition 

in this section shall be a violation of this section and any person subject to such prohibition who commits such violation 

may be liable to the United States for a civil penalty in an 

amount not to exceed $1,000 for each violation, or may be subject to an administrative compliance order, or both, as detertkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

147 

mined by the Secretary. Each day a violation continues shall 

constitute a separate violation. In the case of any civil penalty 

under this section, the total amount shall not exceed the 

amount of Federal funds received by such person for the fiscal 

year in which the continuing violations occurred. For the purpose of the prohibition in subsection (c), the term ‘‘person’’ 

shall mean the head of the applicable Federal agency or the 

contractor of such agency providing the services to children. 

(2) ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING.—A civil penalty may be 

assessed in a written notice, or an administrative compliance 

order may be issued, by the Secretary only after an opportunity for a hearing in accordance with section 554 of title 5. 

Before making such assessment or issuing such order, or both, 

the Secretary shall give written notice thereof to such person 

by certified mail with return receipt and provide therein an opportunity to request in writing not later than 30 days after the 

date of receipt of such notice such hearing. The notice shall 

reasonably describe the violation and be accompanied with the 

procedures for such hearing and a simple form to request such 

hearing if such person desires to use such form. If a hearing 

is requested, the Secretary shall establish by such certified notice the time and place for such hearing which should be located, to the greatest extent possible, at a location convenient 

to such person. The Secretary (or the Secretary’s designee) and 

such person may consult to arrange a suitable date and location where appropriate. 

(3) CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING PENALTY OR ORDER.—In determining the amount of the civil penalty or the nature of the 

administrative compliance order, the Secretary shall take into 

account, as appropriate— 

(A) the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of 

the violation; 

(B) with respect to the violator, any good faith efforts 

to comply, the importance of achieving early and permanent compliance, the ability to pay or comply, the effect of 

the penalty or order on the ability to continue operation, 

any prior history of the same kind of violation, the degree 

of culpability, and any demonstration of willingness to 

comply with the prohibitions of this section in a timely 

manner; and 

(C) such other matters as justice may require. 

(4) MODIFICATION.—The Secretary may, as appropriate, 

compromise, modify, or remit, with or without conditions, any 

civil penalty or administrative compliance order. In the case of 

a civil penalty, the amount, as finally determined by the Secretary or agreed upon in compromise, may be deducted from 

any sums that the United States or its agencies or instrumentalities owes to the person against whom the penalty is assessed. 

(5) PETITION FOR REVIEW.—Any person aggrieved by a penalty assessed or an order issued, or both, by the Secretary 

under this section may file a petition for judicial review thereof 

with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit or for any other circuit in which the person resides or transacts business. Such person shall provide a copy 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

148 

thereof to the Secretary or the Secretary’s designee. The petition shall be filed within 30 days after the Secretary’s assessment or order, or both, are final and have been provided to 

such person by certified mail. The Secretary shall promptly 

provide to the court a certified copy of the transcript of any 

hearing held under this section and a copy of the notice or 

order. 

(6) FAILURE TO COMPLY.—If a person fails to pay an assessment of a civil penalty or comply with an order, after either or 

both are final under this section, or after a court under paragraph (5) has entered a final judgment in favor of the Secretary, the Attorney General, at the request of the Secretary, 

shall recover the amount of the civil penalty (plus interest at 

then currently prevailing rates from the day either or both are 

final) or enforce the order in an action brought in the appropriate district court of the United States. In such action, the 

validity and appropriateness of the penalty or order or the 

amount of the penalty shall not be subject to review. 

CHANGES IN THE APPLICATION OF EXISTING LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(A) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the following statements are submitted 

describing the effect of provisions in the accompanying bill that directly or indirectly change the application of existing law. 

The bill includes a number of provisions which place limitations 

on the use of funds in the bill or change existing limitations and 

which might, under some circumstances, be construed as changing 

the application of existing law: 

1. Office of the Secretary.—Language is included to limit the 

amount of funds for official reception and representation expenses, 

as determined by the Secretary. 

2. Departmental Administration.—Language is included to reimburse the agency for travel expenses incident to the holding of 

hearings. 

3. Agricultural Research Service.—Language is included that allows the Agricultural Research Service to grant easements at the 

Beltsville, MD, agricultural research center and to grant easements 

at any facility for the construction of a research facility for use by 

the agency. 

4. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.—A provision carried in the bill since fiscal year 1973 regarding state matching 

funds has been continued to assure more effective operation of the 

brucellosis control program through state cost sharing, with resulting savings to the Federal budget. 

Language is included to allow APHIS to recoup expenses incurred from providing technical assistance goods, or services to 

non-APHIS personnel, and to allow transfers of funds for agricultural emergencies. 

Language is included to limit the amount of funds for representational allowances. 

5. Agricultural Marketing Service, Limitation on Administrative 

Expenses.—The bill includes language to allow AMS to exceed the 

limitation on administrative expenses by 10 percent with notification to the Appropriations Committees. This allows flexibility in 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

149 

case crop size is understated and/or other uncontrollable events 

occur. 

6. Agricultural Marketing Service Inspection and Weighing Services.—The bill includes authority to exceed the limitation on inspection and weighing services by 10 percent with notification to the 

Appropriations Committees. This allows for flexibility if export activities require additional supervision and oversight, or other uncontrollable factors occur. 

7. Dairy Indemnity Program.—Language is included by reference 

that allows the Secretary to utilize the services of the Commodity 

Credit Corporation for the purpose of making dairy indemnity payments. 

8. Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account.—Language is included that deems the pink bollworm a boll weevil for 

the purposes of administering the boll weevil loan program. 

9. Risk Management Agency.—Language is included to limit the 

amount of funds for official reception and representation expenses. 

10. Commodity Credit Corporation Fund.—Language is included 

to provide for the reimbursement appropriation. Language is also 

included to allow certain funds transferred from the Commodity 

Credit Corporation to be used for information resource management. In addition, language is included which limits the amount of 

funds that can be spent on operation and maintenance costs of 

CCC hazardous waste sites. 

11. Natural Resources Conservation Service.—Conservation Operations.—Language which has been included in the bill since 1938 

prohibits construction of buildings on land not owned by the government, although construction on land owned by states and counties is permitted as authorized by law. 

12. Rural Development Salaries and Expenses.—Language is included to allow funds to be used for advertising and promotional 

activities and to limit the amount of funds to provide modest nonmonetary awards to non-USDA employees. 

13. Rental Assistance Program.—Language is included which provides that agreements entered into during the current fiscal year 

be funded for a one-year period. Language also is included to renew 

contracts once during any 12-month period. 

14. Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, 

and Children (WIC).—Language is included to purchase infant formula except in accordance with law and pay for activities that are 

not fully reimbursed by other departments or agencies unless authorized by law. 

15. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.—Language is 

included to enter into contracts and employ staff to conduct studies, evaluations, or to conduct activities related to program integrity. 

16. Foreign Agricultural Service.—Language carried since 1979 

enables this agency to use funds received by an advance or by reimbursement to carry out its activities involving international development and technical cooperation. Language is included to limit 

the amount of funds for official reception and representation expenses. 

17. Commodity Futures Trading Commission.—Language is included to limit the amount of funds for official reception and representation expenses. Language that allows the Commission to 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

150 

record prior year lease obligations to correct a violation of the AntiDeficiency Act. 

18. Farm Credit Administration.—The bill includes authority to 

exceed the limitation on assessments by 10 percent with notification to the Appropriations Committees. 

19. Office of Codex Alimentarius.—Language is included to limit 

the amount of funds for official reception and representation expenses. 

20. General Provisions.— Section 704: This provision provides that none of the funds in 

this Act may be made available to pay indirect costs charged 

against competitive agricultural research, education, or extension 

grants awarded by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture 

in excess of 10 percent of total direct costs. 

Section 705: This provision allows funds made available in the 

current fiscal year for the Rural Development Loan Fund program 

account; the Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans 

program account; and the Rural Housing Insurance Fund program 

account to remain available until expended to disburse obligations. 

Section 706: Language is included that requires approval of the 

Chief Information Officer and the concurrence of the Executive Information Technology Investment Review Board for acquisition of 

new information technology systems or significant upgrades, and 

that prohibits the transfer of funds to the Office of the Chief Information Officer without the notification of the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress. 

Section 707: Language is included regarding the availability of 

funds for certain conservation programs. 

Section 708: Language is included regarding certain Rural Utilities Service Programs. 

Section 709: Language is included that allows unobligated balances of the Farm Service Agency and Rural Development mission 

areas to be used for information technology purposes. 

Section 710: Language is included regarding the prohibition of 

first-class travel by the employees of agencies funded in this Act. 

Section 711: Language is included regarding the funds of the 

Commodity Credit Corporation. 

Section 712: Language is included that limits the amount of 

spending for USDA Advisory Committees. 

Section 713: Language is included regarding indirect costs for 

grants. 

Section 714: Language regarding IT systems regulation. 

Section 715: Language regarding Section 32 activities. 

Section 716: Language is included that prohibits funds from 

being used to prepare a budget submission to Congress that assumes reductions from the previous year’s budget due to user fee 

proposals unless the submission also identifies spending reductions 

which should occur if the user fees are not enacted. 

Section 717: Language is included that requires certain reprogramming procedures of funds provided in Appropriations Acts. 

Section 718: Language is included regarding fees for the business 

and industry guaranteed loan program. 

Section 719: This provision prohibits the Department of Agriculture or the Food and Drug Administration from transmitting or 

making available to any non-Department of Agriculture or non-Detkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

151 

partment of Health and Human Services employee questions or responses to questions that are a result of information requested for 

the appropriations hearing process. 

Section 720: Language regarding prepackaged news stories. 

Section 721: This provision prohibits any employee of the Department of Agriculture from being detailed or assigned to any other 

agency or office of the Department for more than 60 days unless 

the individual’s employing agency or office is fully reimbursed by 

the receiving agency or office for the salary and expenses of the employee for the period of assignment. 

Section 722: Language requiring spending plans. 

Section 723: Language regarding certain unobligated balances. 

Section 724: Language is included regarding the Single Family 

Housing Direct Loan Program. 

Section 725: Language is included on certain USDA loan programs. 

Section 726: Language is included regarding the Working Capital 

Fund. 

Section 727: Language is included regarding purchases made 

through child nutrition programs. 

Section 728: Language is included regarding water and waste 

disposal sanitation loans. 

Section 729: Language is included regarding the Agriculture and 

Food Research Institute. 

Section 730: Language is included regarding rural loan programs. 

Section 731: Language is included regarding disclosure of information for pharmaceuticals. 

Section 732: Language regarding genetic modification. 

Section 733: Language regarding beverage production process. 

Section 734: Language regarding emergency food aid. 

Section 735: Language regarding Rural Utility Service. 

Section 736: Language regarding meat and poultry regulation. 

Section 737: Language regarding research and evaluation plan. 

Section 738: Language regarding the Commodity Exchange Act. 

Section 739: Language regarding audits. 

Section 740: Language regarding FDA regulations. 

Section 741: Language regarding animal research. 

Section 742: Language regarding the Food Security Act. 

Section 743: Language regarding domestic preference. 

Section 744: Language regarding community eligibility. 

Section 745: Language regarding lobbying. 

Section 746: Language regarding office operations. 

Section 747: Language regarding housing programs. 

Section 748: Language regarding child nutrition programs. 

Section 749: Language regarding community eligibility. 

Section 750: Language regarding community eligibility. 

Section 751: Language regarding poultry products. 

Section 752: Language regarding FDA regulation. 

Section 753: Language regarding fund access. 

Section 754: Language regarding the citrus greening. 

Section 755: Language regarding the FDA regulation. 

Section 756: Language regarding geographic areas. 

Section 757: Language regarding child nutrition. 

Section 758: Language regarding the veteran farming. 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

152 

Section 759: Language regarding broadband expansion. 

Section 760: Language regarding cost-benefit analysis. 

Section 761: Language regarding biomass crop assistance program. 

Section 762: Language regarding FDA regulation. 

Section 763: Language regarding dietary guidelines. 

Section 764: Language regarding food labeling. 

Section 765: Language regarding the availability of funds. 

Section 766: Language regarding genetically engineered labeling. 

Section 767: Language regarding the school breakfast program. 

Section 768: Language regarding the SNAP program. 

Section 769: Language regarding premium cigars. 

Section 770: Language regarding cigars. 

Section 771: Language regarding the Federal Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act. 

Section 772: Language regarding tobacco product standards. 

Section 773: Language regarding the labeling of tobacco products. 

Section 774: Language regarding tobacco regulation. 

Section 775: Language regarding age verification of tobacco purchases. 

Section 776: Language regarding a report. 

Section 777: Language regarding a report. 

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(B) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the following table lists the appropriations in the accompanying bill which are not authorized by law for 

the period concerned: 

Agency/program Last year of 

authorization 

Authorization level 

Appropriation in 

last year of 

authorization 

Appropriations in this bill 

CFTC ............................................................................... 2013 Such sums 205,000,000 255,000,000 

Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program ............................... 2015 Such sums 16,548,000 18,548,000 

State Administrative Expenses ...................................... 2015 Such sums 263,686,000 302,906,000 

Summer Food Service Program ...................................... 2015 Such sums 495,521,000 519,461,000 

WIC ................................................................................. 2015 Such sums 6,623,000,000 6,000,000,000 

Multi-Family Revitalization Program ............................. 2016 Such sums 41,400,000 53,000,000 

Broadband Telecommunications Grants ........................ 2016 Such sums 34,500,000 30,000,000 

COMPARISON WITH THE BUDGET RESOLUTION

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives and section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974, the following table compares the levels of new 

budget authority provided in the bill with the appropriate allocation under section 302(b) of the Budget Act: 

[In millions of dollars] 

302(b) Allocation This bill 

Budget 

authority Outlays Budget authority Outlays 

Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations to its subcommittees: Subcommittee on 

Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies. 

Mandatory .............................................................. 0 0 40,695 1 35,345 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

153 

[In millions of dollars] 

302(b) Allocation This bill 

Budget 

authority Outlays Budget authority Outlays 

Discretionary ......................................................... 0 0 23,242 24,677 

1 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

FIVE-YEAR OUTLAY PROJECTIONS

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII and section 308(a)(1)(B) of 

the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the following table contains 

five-year projections associated with the budget authority provided 

in the accompanying bill as provided to the Committee by the Congressional Budget Office: 

[In millions of dollars] 

302(b) Allocation This bill 

Budget 

authority Outlays Budget authority Outlays 

Projection of outlays associated with the recommendation: 

2019 ...................................................................... n.a n.a n.a 1 41,393 

2020 ...................................................................... n.a n.a n.a 6,159 

2021 ...................................................................... n.a n.a n.a 1,399 

2022 ...................................................................... n.a n.a n.a 745 

2023 and future years .......................................... n.a n.a n.a 466 

1 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII and section 308(a)(1)(C) of 

the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Congressional Budget 

Office has provided the following estimates of the amounts of financial assistance to State and local governments is as follows: 

[In millions of dollars] 

302(b) Allocation This bill 

Budget 

authority Outlays Budget authority Outlays 

Financial assistance to State and local governments 

for 2018 ..................................................................... n.a n.a 40,171 1 24,463 

1 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

PROGRAM DUPLICATION

No provision of this bill establishes or reauthorizes a program of 

the Federal Government known to be duplicative of another Federal program, a program that was included in any report from the 

GAO to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111–139, or 

a program related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. 

DIRECTED RULE MAKING

Pursuant to section 3(i) of H. Res. 5 (115th Congress), the bill includes the following directed rule makings: 

Sec. 727 (SNAP) 

Sec. 736 (FSIS) 

Sec. 751 (FSIS) 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

154 

Sec. 772 (FDA) 

Sec. 773 (FDA). 

TABLE OF FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS

The following table provides the amounts recommended by the 

Committee compared with the budget estimates by account. 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

155 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE


Insert offset folio 093 here 28036.001
156 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE


Insert offset folio 1 here 28036.012
157 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE


Insert offset folio 2 here 28036.022
158 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE


Insert offset folio 3 here 28036.023
159 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE


Insert offset folio 4 here 28036.024
160 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE


Insert offset folio 5 here 28036.025
161 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE


Insert offset folio 6 here 28036.026
162 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE


Insert offset folio 7 here 28036.027
163 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE


Insert offset folio 8 here 28036.028
164 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE


Insert offset folio 094 here 28036.002
165 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE


Insert offset folio 095 here 28036.003
166 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE


Insert offset folio 096 here 28036.004
167 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE


Insert offset folio 097 here 28036.005
168 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE


Insert offset folio 098 here 28036.006
169 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE


Insert offset folio 099 here 28036.007
170 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE


Insert offset folio 0100 here 28036.008
171 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE


Insert offset folio 0101 here 28036.009
172 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE


Insert offset folio 0102 here 28036.010
173 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE


Insert offset folio 0103 here 28036.011
174 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE


Insert offset folio 0105 here 28036.013
175 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE


Insert offset folio 0106 here 28036.014
176 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE


Insert offset folio 0107 here 28036.015
177 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE


Insert offset folio 0108 here 28036.016
178 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE


Insert offset folio 0109 here 28036.017
179 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE


Insert offset folio 0110 here 28036.018
180 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE


Insert offset folio 0111 here 28036.019
181 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE


Insert offset folio 0112 here 28036.020
182 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE


Insert offset folio 0113 here 28036.021
(183) 

MINORITY VIEWS OF THE HON. NITA LOWEY AND THE 

HON. SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR. 

The FY2019 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill would provide a slight increase of $14 million above the 2018 enacted level. 

With this funding level, the bill addresses many of our priorities, 

such as domestic nutrition and rural development programs. We 

also appreciate the committee’s adoption of Rep. Lee’s amendment 

to increase funding for the Healthy Food Financing Initiative by $1 

million. 

However, we are very disappointed that the bill is $216 million 

short of the 2018 level in the Food for Peace program and that 

there was no increase for the McGovern-Dole International Food 

for Education and Child Nutrition Program. 

Another deep disappointment is the tiny increase for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) after the Commission’s budget was held flat for three years and then cut in 2018. 

This is why Mr. Bishop offered an amendment in full committee to 

increase the agency’s funding level to $267 million. We regret that 

the amendment was not adopted. 

The CFTC needs more money. A recent article in the Wall Street 

Journal described how CFTC is seeking to borrow economists and 

cyber-security experts from other agencies and how it cannot synchronize its market data with other federal regulators because it 

cannot afford the necessary technology. This is absurd. 

We also regret the Committee’s failure to adopt Rep. RoybalAllard’s amendment to prohibit the inspection of horses for slaughter for human food. There are far more humane ways to deal with 

unwanted horses, and the past experience in this country of 

slaughtering horses for human food was, frankly, a disaster. 

We are puzzled as to why the Committee rejected Rep. DeLauro’s 

amendment to strike new language in the bill that would permanently give the Department of Agriculture regulatory responsibility 

over ‘‘cultured meat,’’ which is produced from the cells of animals, 

rather than from slaughter. There is no need to make this decision 

now as such products are not commercially available. Determining 

how and by whom such a product may be regulated is far beyond 

the scope of a single appropriations bill. 

We appreciate the WIC funding in the bill, which we believe is 

sufficient to meet the need in 2019, based on current estimates. We 

do want to note that it would be wise, in the 2019 funding bill, to 

increase the reserve fund, which is currently at $150 million, while 

monthly expenditures in the program are expected to average more 

than $450 million in 2019. Even modest changes in participation 

or food costs could quickly exhaust the reserve fund and leave lowincome mothers and children without access to the nutrition they 

need. 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

184 

As the legislative process continues, we will do our best to address the concerns described here. However, Democrats’ largest 

concern is the entire budget outlook and how other government 

agencies will be shortchanged. 

The Bipartisan Budget Act enacted earlier this year provided relief from unworkable discretionary spending caps. The agreement 

was supposed to provide the country with stability following a year 

of shutdowns, last-minute veto threats, and general uncertainty in 

government. That stability lasted long enough for Congress to pass 

a bipartisan Omnibus appropriations bill for FY 2018 and then Republican chaos reigned again. The President threatened to veto the 

bill, unhappy with Congress’ large investments in programs to help 

low- and middle-income Americans and rejection of his campaignpromised border wall. 

Even after the President backed off his threat and signed the 

bill, the Administration and Republican leadership in Congress, 

many of whom voted for the Bipartisan Budget Act and the Omnibus, have continued to attempt to undo those bipartisan agreements. Now, the majority is seeking to pass a rescissions bill to 

undo funding and mollify an angry President. We have been told 

by OMB Director Mick Mulvaney that this is the first of many rescission packages meant to bring spending in line with the President’s priorities, ignoring Congressional action that dismissed the 

President’s FY 2017 and FY 2018 draconian budget requets. 

In addition to the unacceptable rescissions proposals, the majority’s lack of transparency with regards to how it will allocate the 

FY 2019 discretionary budget also endangers future bipartisan 

compromise. The majority has abandoned longstanding committee 

practice to provide the Members and the public with a budget blueprint for domestic spending, known as 302(b) allocations. Members 

are forced to vote on bills without the full picture on the impact 

of each bill on other bills, like those that invest in education, job 

training and creation, health care, consumer protection, and other 

top priorities for American families. Democrats can only be left to 

assume that the majority is siphoning money from bills at the end 

of the process that are important to economic growth and the safety, security, and well-being of our families. 

NITA M. LOWEY. 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR. 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

(185) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF THE HON. NITA M. LOWEY 

I am very concerned by the inclusion of the Cole-Bishop amendment, which would significantly weaken FDA’s authority to regulate tobacco products. The Tobacco Control Act (TCA), which 

passed Congress with broad bipartisan support, provided FDA with 

the authority to review new tobacco products. Since enactment, tobacco products including e-cigarettes and flavored cigars have 

made significant gains in popularity, particularly among youth. 

According to the CDC, e-cigarette use among teens has risen tenfold in the past decade, rising to 16% of teens in 2015, an estimated three million American teens. E-cigarettes are now more 

popular among teens than traditional cigarettes. In addition, high 

school boys now smoke cigars at a higher rate than cigarettes. 

Every day, about 2,700 kids will try a cigar for the first time. Cigars have serious health consequences including cancer of the 

mouth, throat, and lung. Congress should do all it can to prevent 

youth access and ensure FDA has the authority to regulate tobacco 

products, not create additional loopholes for tobacco companies to 

exploit to get Americans hooked. 

That is why I am particularly troubled by the Cole-Bishop 

amendment, which would remove FDA authority over so-called premium cigars, including machine made cigars sold for as little as 

$1.00; grandfather in many of the candy-flavored cigars and 

cigarillos that came onto the market after flavored cigarettes were 

banned in 2009; make it easier—not harder—for e-cigarettes including JUUL to make it to market without premarket review; create a new, artificial deadline for review which could jeopardize 

FDA’s legal and regulatory cases against the tobacco industry; and 

impose weaker warning labels on tobacco products rather than the 

carefully studied warning labels FDA has approved and will enforce later this year. 

And while I appreciate the effort to reduce youth access, in particular ensuring that e-cigarettes would be prohibited in child care 

centers, schools, and other smoke free locations that receive federal 

funds, many actions intended to address youth access in this 

amendment are duplicative of existing FDA actions and enforcement authorities. In short, the benefits are vastly outweighed by 

the harm. 

This amendment provides false comfort to those concerned about 

youth access. It is a major re-write of the Tobacco Control Act, presented before the Committee without the consideration of the authorizers, the public health community, or thorough discussions 

with FDA. An new actions on youth access should be in addition 

to, not in place of, current FDA review standards. 

Major public health groups, including the American Cancer Society, American Thoracic Society, American Lung Association, American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, and the 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE

186 

Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids have opposed any effort to weaken 

or delay FDA’s authority to regulate all tobacco products, including 

cigars and e-cigarettes. 

The American people trust FDA to evaluate the data and make 

unbiased decisions about product safety. The Fiscal Year 2019 Agriculture Appropriations bill should not politicize the science or 

take aim at the FDA’s ability to regulate tobacco products under 

the TCA. 

NITA M. LOWEY. 

Æ 

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with HOUSE