88–076 

113TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 113–468 

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG 

ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2015 

JUNE 4, 2014.—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 VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 4800] 

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 2015. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

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

Title II—Conservation Programs ........................................................................... 34 

Title III—Rural Development Programs ............................................................... 36 

Title IV—Domestic Food Programs ........................................................................ 44 

Title V—Foreign Assistance and Related Programs ............................................. 52 

Title VI—Related Agencies and Food and Drug Administration ......................... 54 

Title VII—General Provisions ................................................................................. 66 

OVERVIEW 

The fiscal year 2015 discretionary spending in this bill totals 

$20,880,000,000, which is at the same level as the fiscal year 2014 

enacted level and an increase of $457,226,000 above the budget request. While the total discretionary funding provided in the bill appears significantly higher than the President’s budget request, the 

budget request included several untenable and unsupported proVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:08 Jun 05, 2014 Jkt 088076 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR468.XXX HR468

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

posals to reduce spending knowing that the reductions would not 

be accepted by most Members of Congress on a bipartisan basis. 

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 

controlling spending to help 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 in January 2013, the Subcommittee began the fiscal year 2015 

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 2015 and examine how 

funds appropriated in previous years had been managed, the Subcommittee held 10 hearings for the mission areas, agencies, and 

programs of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Food 

and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The hearings included: 

USDA Inspector General—March 5, 2014 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission—March 6, 2014 

Secretary of Agriculture—March 14, 2014 

USDA Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services—March 25, 

2014 

USDA Research, Education, and Economics—March 26, 2014 

Food and Drug Administration—March 27, 2014 

USDA Marketing and Regulatory Programs—April 2, 2014 

USDA Food Safety—April 3, 2014 

USDA Rural Development—April 4, 2014 

USDA Field Agencies—April 8, 2014 

As stewards of the taxpayer’s dollar, the Subcommittee is responsible for ensuring the funds under its jurisdiction are wisely invested and properly used. As such, the Subcommittee established 

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

development of its bill and report recommendations for fiscal year 

2015. These objectives include robust oversight, ensuring the appropriate level of regulation to protect producers and the public, 

and ensuring funding is targeted to vital programs. 

Through its oversight activities, the Subcommittee can help identify and reduce waste, fraud, and abuse. It is joined in this effort 

by USDA’s Inspector General. During the hearing with the Inspector General, the Subcommittee focused on USDA information technology systems, fraud in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program (SNAP) and how well USDA’s agencies are managing 

their programs. 

The Subcommittee continued its discussion on SNAP and the 

other nutrition programs when it heard from USDA’s Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services mission area. When it convened to review CFTC’s budget request, the Subcommittee continued to promote sound investment in information technology and program 

management. The Subcommittee made clear that it does not tolVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:08 Jun 05, 2014 Jkt 088076 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR468.XXX HR468

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

erate fraud or abuse in any program, knowing that fraud undermines support for all programs. 

The second objective of ensuring the appropriate level of regulation to protect producers and the public was the focus of the hearings with the Secretary of Agriculture, the Commissioner of FDA, 

and USDA’s Food Safety mission area. The Subcommittee was particularly interested in USDA’s plans to implement the recently enacted 2014 farm bill and how FDA is implementing the Food Safety 

Modernization Act (FSMA). FDA’s decisions regarding prescription 

drug approvals also received scrutiny, as well as the Food Safety 

and Inspection Service’s plans for using modern science and improving public health. 

The Subcommittee also discussed implementation of the 2014 

farm bill during its hearing with USDA’s field agencies, including 

the Farm Service Agency, Risk Management Agency, Foreign Agricultural Service, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

The third objective is to ensure funding is targeted to vital programs. Because the Subcommittee knows that it cannot fulfill all 

requests for funding, it focuses on those that are most effective and 

broadly supported and those that address imminent threats, such 

as citrus greening and the virulent viruses affecting the swine industry. In particular, agriculture’s priority programs and needs 

were covered in the hearings on USDA’s marketing, regulatory, research, and rural development programs. 

The Subcommittee will monitor the issues identified and discussed at the hearings, as well as others relevant to the management of USDA, FDA, CFTC, and the Farm Credit Administration 

and will maintain its oversight efforts throughout the 113th Congress to ensure taxpayer dollars are wisely and prudently used on 

behalf of the American people. 

TITLE I 

AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS 

PRODUCTION, PROCESSING, AND MARKETING

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $43,778,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 46,816,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 41,284,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥2,494,000 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥5,532,000 

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

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

FY 2014 

enacted 

FY 2015 

estimate 

Committee 

provision 

Office of the Secretary ........................................................................................................ $5,051 $5,086 $5,051 

Office of Tribal Relations ................................................................................................... 498 502 498 

Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Coordination ............................................... 1,496 1,507 1,507 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY—Continued 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

FY 2014 

enacted 

FY 2015 

estimate 

Committee 

provision 

Office of Advocacy and Outreach ....................................................................................... 1,209 1,217 1,209 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration ......................................................... 804 809 804 

Departmental Administration .............................................................................................. 22,786 25,661 22,811 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations ......................................... 3,869 3,897 3,869 

Office of Communications .................................................................................................. 8,065 8,137 5,535 

Total ....................................................................................................................... $43,778 $46,816 $41,284 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Secretary, the Committee provides an appropriation of $41,284,000. The Committee recommendation includes the following offices under the Office of the Secretary: Office 

of the Secretary; Office of Tribal Relations; Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Coordination; Office of Advocacy and Outreach; Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration; Departmental Administration; Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations; and Office of Communications. 

Pay Cost.—The Committee does not include requested funding 

for a civilian pay increase across the Department. 

Improper Payments.—The Office of the Inspector General recently reported that USDA’s agencies and offices have made 

progress toward improving their processes to identify, report, and 

reduce improper payments. However, USDA estimated it made 

$6,200,000,000 in improper payments in fiscal year 2013. The Committee finds this unacceptable and strongly encourages the Secretary to make a concerted effort to significantly reduce USDA’s 

improper payments in fiscal year 2015. 

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

report on November 15, 2014, and May 16, 2015, on planned uses 

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

Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act. 

Notification.—Within 30 days from the enactment of this Act, the 

Secretary shall notify the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the allocation of the funds provided to the Assistant 

Secretary for Congressional Relations by USDA agency, along with 

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

State Office Collocation.—The Committee continues to direct that 

any reallocation of resources related to the collocation of state offices scheduled for fiscal year 2015 and subsequent years is subject 

to the Committee’s reprogramming procedures required under law. 

Administrative Provision.—The Committee directs the Secretary 

to advise the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress, through the Office of Budget and Program Analysis, of the 

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

time of submission of the fiscal year 2016 budget and monthly 

thereafter. The Committee reminds the Secretary that all correspondence related to the directives in this bill must be addressed 

to the Committee on Appropriations. 

Loan and Grant Programs.—The Committee directs the Department, through the Office of Budget and Program Analysis, to provide quarterly reports to the Committees on Appropriations of the 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

House of Representatives and the Senate on the status of obligations and funds availability for the loan and grant programs provided in this bill. 

The Committee further directs that if an estimate of loan activity 

for any program funded in Titles I 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 

whenever 75 percent of the authority to make commitments has 

been utilized, the Secretary shall promptly notify the Committees 

in writing, through the Office of Budget and Program Analysis. 

Need for Better Communication from USDA.—As part of the 

Committee’s oversight responsibilities, the 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. The Committee should not have to require reports and 

briefings to receive information and data pertinent to its jurisdiction. In addition to the reporting and approval requirements stated 

in this report and accompanying bill, the Department is advised to 

increase both the timing and frequency of communication on major 

policy and spending activities so that Congress may conduct its 

oversight responsibilities as expected by U.S. taxpayers. 

GSA Rent and DHS Security Expenses.—In accordance with the 

Committee’s statement in H. Rpt. 113–116, as well as the shift of 

expenses within the fiscal year 2015 budget proposal, the funding 

levels in this bill reflect the estimated costs included in the budget 

request so that agencies will now begin to manage and pay their 

own respective rent and security expenses. The Committee reiterates its continued concern for the increasing costs of rent and related operations, especially at a time when staffing levels are decreasing and such costs limit an agency’s ability to apply limited 

resources to the highest priorities and core responsibilities. Any future requests for increases to rent and security costs will need to 

be accompanied by detailed justifications. 

Emerging Livestock Diseases.—The Committee is concerned 

about the growing incidence of the porcine epidemic diarrhea virus 

and swine delta coronavirus and strongly encourages USDA to utilize its research, extension, and animal health resources in partnership with pork producers, related industries, and land-grant universities to quickly develop and deploy effective control and management tools. 

Food Safety Collaboration at USDA.—The Committee is pleased 

with USDA’s recent announcement in May 2014 of a collaborative 

effort between the Food Safety and Inspection Service and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to provide a more comprehensive, multidisciplinary approach to address foodborne health 

hazards potentially associated with meat and poultry products. The 

collaborative effort represents progress towards improving communications and sharing of information between the agencies to uncover root causes of foodborne illnesses and the practices that can 

mitigate food safety issues. The Committee commends USDA for 

taking such actions and directs USDA to keep the Committee apprised of the results of the collaborative efforts in addressing food 

safety. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

Design-Build.—The Committee encourages the Department to 

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

Invasive Species.—The Committee recognizes the threats posed 

by invasive plant species and the need to protect, restore, and enhance native plants, including those that are endangered or threatened. The Committee encourages the Agricultural Research Service 

(ARS), the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and 

the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) to support 

the research, education, and conservation of native plants. 

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

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

Houses of Congress. 

Scientific Integrity.—Pursuant to the President’s 2009 memorandum and as directed by the Office of Science and Technology 

Policy, USDA adopted a scientific integrity policy in 2011. It appears to conform to the President’s directive by requiring the use 

of information based upon well-established scientific processes, including peer review where appropriate, making the Department’s 

scientific findings and conclusions publicly available, and ensuring 

a mechanism is in place to resolve disputes regarding scientific 

processes or the integrity of scientific information. The Committee 

directs the Secretary to ensure all USDA agencies are complying 

with the policy and using it as a requirement in their policy and 

regulatory decisions. 

EXECUTIVE OPERATIONS

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ECONOMIST

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $16,777,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 16,854,000 

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

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥77,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Chief Economist, the Committee provides an 

appropriation of $16,777,000. 

Drought Resilience.—The Committee recognizes the importance 

of understanding and being prepared for drought and encourages 

the Office of the Chief Economist to continue to work with partners 

on drought-related issues. 

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

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

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

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

and the Congress. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

NATIONAL APPEALS DIVISION

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $12,841,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 13,430,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 13,317,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... +476,000 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥113,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the National Appeals Division, the Committee provides an 

appropriation of $13,317,000. 

OFFICE OF BUDGET AND PROGRAM ANALYSIS

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $9,064,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 10,292,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 9,392,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... +328,000 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥900,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of Budget and Program Analysis, the Committee 

provides an appropriation of $9,392,000. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $44,031,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 45,199,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 45,025,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... +994,000 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥174,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Chief Information Officer, the Committee 

provides an appropriation of $45,025,000. This includes 

$22,000,000 for cybersecurity activities. 

IT Purchase Approvals.—Recognizing that some agencies require 

more oversight and monitoring than others, the Committee provides the Office of the Chief Information Officer flexibility to set 

thresholds for approval of agency IT expenditures. As such, the 

Committee directs the Chief Information Officer to develop a plan 

that reflects the unique situation of each agency while allowing the 

Office of the Chief Information Officer to continue to exercise prudent judgment and provide expert advice regarding the expenditure 

of taxpayer resources on IT investments. The Committee expects 

the plan will be updated as needed, but not less than every two 

years, and directs the office to submit the plan to the Committees 

on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress for review prior to 

implementation. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $6,213,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 6,080,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 6,028,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥185,000 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥52,000 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the Committee provides an appropriation of $6,028,000. 

Assessments.—The Committee remains concerned that the assessments the Department charges its agencies for governmentand department-wide activities continue to escalate. Since these assessments are borne by the agencies, and Congress did not specifically provide increases to the agencies for these costs, most of the 

funding for the increase has come at the expense of programs. The 

Committee continues to direct the Office of the Chief Financial Officer to scrutinize the need for each activity, to consider its benefit 

to the mission of each agency, and to limit spending wherever possible, especially in regards to assessments for the creative media 

and broadcast center; promotional, voluntary activities; and activities not specifically authorized by Congress. 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $893,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 898,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 898,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... +5,000 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

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

Committee provides an appropriation of $898,000. 

OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $21,400,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 24,236,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 24,070,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... +2,670,000 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥166,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of Civil Rights, the Committee provides an appropriation of $24,070,000. 

AGRICULTURE BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

2014 appropriation ................................................................. $233,000,000 

2015 budget estimate ............................................................. 64,825,000 

1Provided in the bill ............................................................... 54,825,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation .......................................................... ¥178,175,000 

2015 budget estimate ...................................................... ¥10,000,000 1Funding for Rental Payments and Building Security is funded from Agency accounts in FY 2015. 

For Agriculture Buildings and Facilities, the Committee provides 

an appropriation of $54,825,000. 

Report on Headquarters Modernization.—The Committee directs 

the Department within 60 days of enactment of this Act to provide 

a comprehensive report on headquarters modernization efforts, beginning with the initial plan developed in 1995 and continuing 

through project completion. The report should include amounts appropriated and obligated by fiscal year and estimates for future fisVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:08 Jun 05, 2014 Jkt 088076 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR468.XXX HR468

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 

cal years. Each fiscal year should include a percentage showing 

completion of the projects and projected completion for future years 

by building and phase. The report should include a narrative describing challenges faced in completing the project and variations 

from estimated costs. 

The following table represents the Committee’s specific recommendations for this account: 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

2014 

enacted 

2015 budget 

request 

Committee 

provisions 

Rental Payments ..................................................................................................... $164,470 – – – – – – 

Department of Homeland Security.

Building Security ..................................................................................................... 13,800 – – – – – – 

Building Operations ................................................................................................ 54,730 $64,825 $54,825 

Total ............................................................................................................... $233,000 $64,825 $54,825 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $3,592,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 3,600,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 3,600,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... +8,000 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Hazardous Materials Management, the Committee provides 

an appropriation of $3,600,000. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $89,902,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 97,240,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 97,020,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... +7,118,000 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥220,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of Inspector General (OIG), the Committee provides an appropriation of $97,020,000. This includes requested 

funding to support the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. 

Anti-Fraud Efforts.—The Committee appreciates OIG’s continued 

efforts to raise public awareness of successful Federal investigations of fraud. Such efforts are intended to deter participants from 

engaging in the misuse of taxpayer dollars and to maintain a high 

level of integrity in all of USDA’s programs. The Committee encourages OIG to continue its efforts to work with all of USDA’s 

agencies to deter fraud, waste, and abuse in the Department’s programs. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $41,202,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 47,567,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 44,383,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... +3,181,000 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥3,184,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the General Counsel, the Committee provides an appropriation of $44,383,000. 

OFFICE OF ETHICS

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $3,440,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 3,867,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 3,440,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥427,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of Ethics, the Committee provides an appropriation of $3,440,000. 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND

ECONOMICS

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $893,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 898,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 898,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... +5,000 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

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

and Economics, the Committee provides an appropriation of 

$898,000. 

Brown Marmorated Stink Bug.—The Committee appreciates the 

continuing work of ARS and NIFA regarding the Brown 

Marmorated Stink Bug. This pest is causing significant damage to 

agricultural crops, particularly the apple crop in the mid-Atlantic 

States, and has spread to more than 41 States and the District of 

Columbia. The Committee encourages ARS and NIFA to work collaboratively with APHIS and state partners to identify and implement appropriate controls. 

Emerging Livestock Diseases.—The Committee is concerned 

about the growing incidence of the porcine epidemic diarrhea virus 

and swine delta coronavirus and their potential effect on pork producers and consumers. The Committee strongly encourages USDA 

to more effectively utilize the resources of its in-house research capabilities and to work with other USDA agencies, land-grant universities, and other research partners as well as pork producers 

and related industries to quickly develop, approve, and disseminate 

effective control and management tools. 

Lyme Disease Research.—The Committee recognizes the importance of the ongoing research efforts of ARS and NIFA regarding 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
11 

tick-borne illnesses. As the agency continues to build upon its research efforts to protect humans and livestock from tick-borne illnesses, the Committee encourages ARS, in conjunction with other 

agencies, to maintain its efforts and consider both the human and 

economic impacts of Lyme disease on communities in the United 

States. 

Office of Pest Management Policy.—The Committee commends 

the Office of Pest Management Policy for its work providing the 

Department, other Federal agencies, producers, and other interested stakeholders scientifically sound analysis of pest management issues important to agriculture, especially methyl bromide 

transition, pesticide resistance management, and the development 

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

ARS to continue to support its vital work. 

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

issues are a significant concern to beekeepers, honey producers, 

farmers, researchers, policymakers, and the public and appreciates 

USDA’s logical, scientifically based approach to studying these 

issues and supports its proposed research plans for fiscal year 

2015. The Committee directs the Department to continue to focus 

on the challenges facing pollinators. 

Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research.—The Committee 

is concerned about the Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research created by the 2014 farm bill and reports that the Department intends to obligate $200,000,000 in mandatory funds to the 

Foundation by the end of the fiscal year but before the Foundation 

has been established and any matching funds have been received 

as required by law. The Committee directs USDA not to expend 

any funds except those related to the appointment of members of 

the board and the preparation of by-laws, conflict of interest policies, and standards of conduct until the Committee receives and 

approves these documents. The Committee directs USDA to report 

to it no later than January 1, 2015. 

ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $78,058,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 83,446,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 85,784,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... +7,726,000 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. +2,338,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Economic Research Service, the Committee provides an appropriation of $85,784,000. 

NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS SERVICE

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $161,206,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 178,999,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 169,371,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... +8,165,000 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥9,628,000 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
12 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the Committee 

provides an appropriation of $169,371,000, of which $47,842,000 is 

for the Census of Agriculture. 

The Committee provides $2,000,000 as requested to expand beekeeper surveys. 

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $1,122,482,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 1,104,403,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 1,120,253,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥2,229,000 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. +15,850,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Salaries and Expenses of the Agricultural Research Service, the Committee provides an appropriation of $1,120,253,000. 

The Committee does not concur with the agency’s proposed closures and redirections of research programs and provides sufficient 

funding for ARS to maintain existing investments. 

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 increase yields 

and milk production and improve genetics. 

Aquatic Animal Health.—The Committee supports ARS’s work 

with land-grant universities and other Federal partners to develop 

solutions to aquatic animal pathogens in the marine, freshwater, 

and aquaculture environments and encourages the agency to continue its efforts in this area. 

Cheat Grass Eradication.—The Committee encourages ARS to 

continue research on cheat grass eradication, control, and the reduction of fuel loads, including late-season grazing techniques, and 

to work with the NRCS on this effort. 

Citrus Greening Disease Research.—The Committee commends 

ARS’s 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 Multi-Agency Coordination group. 

Coffee Plant Health.—The Committee appreciates ARS’s work to 

address existing and emerging challenges to coffee production in 

the United States and commends the agency’s work through its Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center with the University of Hawaii and coffee grower groups. The Committee encourages ARS and 

its partners to maintain support for coffee plant health research 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
13 

and requests a report on ARS’s current and planned activities on 

this issue within 90 days of enactment of this Act. 

Domestic and Bighorn Sheep.—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. The Committee encourages 

ARS to 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. 

Emerging Cereal Rust Diseases.—The Committee continues to be 

concerned about emerging cereal rust diseases, particularly Ug99, 

and the threat they pose to domestic and world food supplies. The 

Committee encourages ARS to continue its work on these diseases, 

including the development of Ug99-resistant wheat varieties. 

Food Pathogen Detection.—The Committee notes the advances in 

the detection of dangerous pathogens in the food supply and encourages ARS to continue research to increase the efficiency and 

cost-effectiveness of new technologies. 

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’s continuing work with the Forest 

Products Laboratory. 

FOV Race 4 Cotton Research.—The Committee recognizes the serious threat that fusarium oxysporum f. sp. Vasinfectum (FOV), 

particularly the strain FOV Race 4, poses to the U.S. cotton industry. The Committee encourages ARS to continue research efforts to 

combat FOV Race 4 and to work with industry and other partners 

to develop effective control measures to eradicate this disease and 

prevent its spread nationwide. 

Horticultural Research and Education.—The Committee recognizes the importance of the U.S. National Arboretum and its role 

as a center of discovery and education, as well as a destination for 

more than half a million visitors every year. The Committee encourages the agency to continue to support the Arboretum. 

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 disease. 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. 

Lower Mississippi River Basin.—The Committee recognizes the 

groundwater problems in the Lower Mississippi River Basin and 

encourages ARS to continue research to quantify how appropriate 

use of conservation practices and technology affect water quantity. 

National Agricultural Library.—The Committee requests that 

ARS maintain a focus on agriculture-related legal issues within the 

National Agricultural Library. The Committee recognizes agriculture-related legal issues are being litigated on an increasingly 

frequent basis, the complexity and scope of these legal issues continues to broaden, and that the National Agricultural Library plays 

an important role in assisting all stakeholders with understanding 

these issues. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
14 

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 provides $1,000,000 to strengthen efforts to identify the genetic 

virulence factors of PEDv, identify a protective immune response 

including transmission of maternal antibodies through the milk, 

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

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

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

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

and to improve the sustainability of crop rotations by improving 

the nitrogen-fixing abilities of pulse crops. The Committee encourages ARS to continue its work on these important issues. 

Research on Sediments.—The Committee recognizes the importance of finding solutions to the problems associated with soil erosion, including erosion and sedimentation in stream channels and 

the loss of nutrients and agricultural chemicals from farm fields. 

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. 

Wild Rice Research.—Wild rice is the only cereal grain native to 

North America, but it is still in its infancy as a domesticated crop. 

Wild germplasm and previously developed varieties have been lost. 

The Committee urges ARS to consider molecular characterization 

of wild rice to prevent future losses and maximize the potential for 

this crop. 

Cooperative Agreements.—The Committee encourages ARS to 

work with university partners to ensure long-term maintenance 

and infrastructure needs can be addressed within current permit 

and lease arrangements. 

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. – – – 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... $155,000,000 

Provided in the bill: ............................................................................ 155,000,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... +155,000,000 

2015 estimate .............................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For ARS Buildings and Facilities, the Committee provides an appropriation of $155,000,000 for priorities identified in the USDA 

Agricultural Research Service Capital Investment Strategy, April 

2012. 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE

RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $772,559,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 837,747,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 774,465,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... +1,906,000 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥63,282,000 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
15 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Research and Education Activities, the Committee provides 

an appropriation of $774,465,000. 

Agricultural Research Enhancement Awards.—The Committee 

continues to direct that not less than 10 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. 

Biomass and Water Quality Research at 1890 Institutions.—The 

Committee encourages NIFA to support funding to explore new 

technologies for the development of renewable power and fuels 

from biomass and agricultural residues and to develop new approaches to water quality. 

Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2016.—The Committee appreciates NIFA’s efforts to provide additional information in its budget 

requests over the past two years. For the fiscal year 2016 budget 

request, the Committee is particularly interested in the request for 

the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative and requests that the 

agency provide greater detail on the levels proposed to be allocated 

to and the expected publication date, scope, and allocation level for 

each request for awards to be published under each priority area 

specified in section 2(b)(2) of the Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)(2)). 

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

domestic citrus production and processing, and provided 

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

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

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

recommendations of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, 

and Education Advisory Board’s citrus disease subcommittee and to 

collaborate with the Huanglongbing Multi-Agency Coordination 

group. 

Classical Plant Breeding.—The Committee is aware of the need 

for classical plant breeding and encourages NIFA to invest in research to improve genetic resources and cultivars for the benefit of 

U.S. producers, seed companies, processors, and consumers. This 

research should focus on breeding improved germplasm and varieties with higher yields, improved disease and pest resistance, and 

resilience to weather extremes. Additionally, methods and tools 

should be developed to enable classical breeders to choose better 

breeding parents and speed up variety development. 

Industrial Hemp Research.—The Committee encourages NIFA to 

work with the eligible research institutions and state departments 

of agriculture, as authorized by Sec. 7606 of P.L. 113–79, to conduct research on industrial hemp. 

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, particuVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:08 Jun 05, 2014 Jkt 088076 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR468.XXX HR468

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
16 

larly those that are operationally and economically feasible and 

have a high probability of widespread implementation. 

Research at Historically Black Colleges and Universities.—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 directs NIFA to encourage partnerships among universities and industry. 

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 Agricultural Act of 2014. 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 amount provided by the Committee: 

RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Program/Activity Authorization 2014 

enacted 

2015 

estimate 

Committee 

provision 

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

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

Research at 1890 Institutions (Evans-Allen Program).7 U.S.C. 3222 ........................... 52,485 52,485 52,485 

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

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

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

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

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

Capacity Building for Non Land-Grant Colleges of 

Agriculture.

7 U.S.C. 3319i .......................... 4,500 – – – – – – 

Grants for Insular Areas ............................................. 7 U.S.C. 3222b–2, 3363 and 

3362 

1,800 1,800 2,000 

Agriculture and Food Research Initiative ................... 7 U.S.C. 450i(b) ....................... 316,409 325,000 325,000 

Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment ........................ 7 U.S.C. 3151a ......................... 4,790 4,790 5,000 

Food and Agriculture Resiliency Program for Military 

Veterans.

7 U.S.C. 2662(e) ....................... – – – 2,500 – – – 

Continuing Animal Health and Disease Research 

Program.

7 U.S.C. 3195 ........................... 4,000 – – – 5,000 

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

Critical Agricultural Materials Act ............................. 7 U.S.C. 178 et seq. ................ 1,081 – – – – – – 

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

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

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

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

and 5832 

22,667 22,667 22,667 

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

Sun Grant Program ..................................................... 7 U.S.C. 8114 ........................... 2,500 – – – – – –

Alfalfa and Forage Research Program ....................... 7 U.S.C. 5925 ........................... 1,350 – – – – – – 

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

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

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

Potato Research ................................................. ................................................... 1,350 – – – – – – 

Forest Products Research .................................. ................................................... 1,350 – – – – – – 

Total, Special Research Grants .................... ................................................... 4,105 1,405 1,405 

Innovation Institutes ................................................... ................................................... – – – 75,000 – – – 

Necessary Expenses of Research and Education Activities: 

Grants Management Systems ............................ ................................................... 7,830 9,830 7,830 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
17 

RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES—Continued 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Program/Activity Authorization 2014 

enacted 

2015 

estimate 

Committee 

provision 

Federal Administration—Other Necessary Expenses.................................................... 6,303 5,746 6,303 

GSA Rent and DHS Security Expenses .............. ................................................... – – – 5,960 6,311 

Total, Necessary Expenses ............................ ................................................... 14,133 21,536 20,444 

Total, Research and Education Activities.................................................... $772,559 $837,747 $774,465 

NATIVE AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS ENDOWMENT FUND

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. ($11,880,000) 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... (11,880,000) 

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

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund, the 

Committee provides $11,880,000. 

The Committee notes that the endowment fund has a cost of 

$5,000,000 for fiscal year 2015. 

EXTENSION ACTIVITIES

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $469,191,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 468,968,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 467,339,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥1,852,000 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥1,629,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Extension Activities, the Committee provides an appropria- tion of $467,339,000. 

The following table reflects the amount provided by the Committee: 

EXTENSION ACTIVITIES 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Program/Activity Authorization FY 2014 

enacted 

FY 2015 

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 $300,000 $300,000 

Extension Services at 1890 Institutions .................... 7 U.S.C. 3221 ........................... 43,920 43,920 43,920 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Food Safety Outreach Program ................................... 7 U.S.C. 7625 ........................... – – – 2,500 2,500 

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

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

Farm Safety and Youth Farm Safety Education 

Programs.

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


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
18 

EXTENSION ACTIVITIES—Continued 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Program/Activity Authorization FY 2014 

enacted 

FY 2015 

estimate 

Committee 

provision 

New Technologies for Agricultural Extension .... ................................................... 1,550 1,750 1,750 

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

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

Total, Section 3(d) .................................... ................................................... 85,528 85,728 85,728 

Necessary Expenses of Extension Activities: 

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

Federal Administration—Other Necessary Expenses for Extension Activities.................................................... 7,805 8,584 5,305 

Total, Necessary Expenses ............................ ................................................... 8,357 8,584 5,305 

Total, Extension Activities ........................ ................................................... $469,191 $468,968 $467,339 

INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $35,317,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 28,821,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 32,000,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥3,317,000 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. +3,179,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Integrated Activities, the Committee provides an appropriation of $32,000,000. The following table reflects the amount provided by the Committee. 

INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Program/Activity Authorization FY 2014 

enacted 

FY 2015 

estimate 

Committee 

provision 

Water Quality Program ............................................. 7 U.S.C. 7626 ................. $4,500 $– – – $– – – 

Methyl Bromide Transition Program ......................... 7 U.S.C. 7626 ................. 1,996 – – – 2,000 

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

Regional Rural Development Centers ...................... 7 U.S.C. 450i(c) .............. 998 998 1,000 

Food and Agriculture Defense Initiative .................. 7 U.S.C. 3351 ................. 6,680 6,680 7,000 

Crop Protection/Pest Management Program ............ 7 U.S.C. 7626, 7 U.S.C. 

450i(c), and 7 U.S.C. 

343(d) 

17,143 17,143 18,000 

Total, Integrated Activities .............................. ......................................... $35,317 $28,821 $32,000 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR MARKETING AND

REGULATORY PROGRAMS

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $893,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 898,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 898,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... +$5,000 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
19 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

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

$898,000. 

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $821,721,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 834,341,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 867,505,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... +45,784,000 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. +33,164,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Salaries 

and Expenses, the Committee provides an appropriation of 

$867,505,000. 

Included in this funding level are increases of $42,567,000 for the 

cost of GSA rent and for security expenses reimbursed to the Department of Homeland Security; an increase of $2,000,000 for Overseas Technical and Trade Operations activities in order to 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; an increase of 

$500,000 for the National Veterinary Stockpile to assist in the supply of critical veterinary countermeasures that would be used for 

emergency preparedness and response efforts in the event of an intentional or unintentional introduction of an animal disease into 

the U.S. market; and an increase of $5,000,000 for the Citrus 

Health Response Program to help address the damaging effects of 

citrus greening disease. Also, the recommended funding level includes an increase of $3,500,000 to address the devastating effects 

of porcine epidemic diarrhea virus. Within this total, $1,000,000 is 

for Veterinary Diagnostics in support of the National Animal 

Health Laboratory Network, and $2,500,000 is for the Swine 

Health line item. 

The following table reflects the amounts provided by the Committee: 

Committee 

provision 

Animal Health Technical Services .................................................................................................................. $35,339,000 

Aquatic Animal Health ................................................................................................................................... 2,253,000 

Avian Health ................................................................................................................................................... 52,340,000 

Cattle Health .................................................................................................................................................. 92,500,000 

Equine, Cervid, and Small Ruminant Health ................................................................................................ 19,500,000 

National Veterinary Stockpile ......................................................................................................................... 4,222,000 

Swine Health .................................................................................................................................................. 24,750,000 

Veterinary Biologics ........................................................................................................................................ 16,417,000 

Veterinary Diagnostics .................................................................................................................................... 32,540,000 

Zoonotic Disease Management ...................................................................................................................... 9,523,000 

Subtotal, Animal Health ........................................................................................................................ 289,384,000 

Agricultural Quarantine Inspection (Appropriated) ........................................................................................ 26,900,000 

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


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
20 

Committee 

provision 

Field Crop & Rangeland Ecosystem Pests ..................................................................................................... 8,826,000 

Pest Detection ................................................................................................................................................ 27,446,000 

Plant Protection Methods Development ......................................................................................................... 24,549,000 

Specialty Crop Pests ...................................................................................................................................... 156,500,000 

Tree & Wood Pests ......................................................................................................................................... 47,417,000 

Subtotal, Plant Health ........................................................................................................................... 303,158,000 

Wildlife Damage Management ....................................................................................................................... 87,428,000 

Wildlife Services Methods Development ......................................................................................................... 18,856,000 

Subtotal, Wildlife Services .................................................................................................................... 106,284,000 

Animal & Plant Health Regulatory Enforcement ........................................................................................... 16,224,000 

Biotechnology Regulatory Services ................................................................................................................. 18,135,000 

Subtotal, Regulatory Services ............................................................................................................... 34,359,000 

Contingency Fund ........................................................................................................................................... 470,000 

Emergency Preparedness & Response ........................................................................................................... 16,966,000 

Subtotal, Safeguarding and Emergency Preparedness ......................................................................... 17,436,000 

Agriculture Import/Export ............................................................................................................................... 14,099,000 

Overseas Technical and Trade Operations .................................................................................................... 22,114,000 

Subtotal, Safe Trade & International Technical Assistance ................................................................. 36,213,000 

Animal Welfare ............................................................................................................................................... 28,010,000 

Horse Protection ............................................................................................................................................. 697,000 

Subtotal, Animal Welfare ...................................................................................................................... 28,707,000 

APHIS Information Technology Infrastructure ................................................................................................ 4,251,000 

Physical/Operational Security ......................................................................................................................... 5,146,000 

GSA Rental and DHS Security Payments ....................................................................................................... 42,567,000 

Subtotal, Agency Management .............................................................................................................. 51,964,000 

Total, Salaries & Expenses .......................................................................................................... $867,505,000 

Animal Welfare.—The bill funds the Animal Welfare program at 

$28,010,000 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. 

Aquatic Animal Health.—Nearly half of the seafood consumed 

across the world is the product of aquaculture. In addition, the 

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

economy. Unfortunately, the monitoring of aquatic animal health 

issues is not adequate to meet the needs of a growing industry. For 

example, the shrimp and catfish aquaculture industries are losing 

revenue due to the lack of tracking and monitoring of aquatic animal pathogens. These losses could have been prevented if the 

pathogens had been promptly identified and effective treatments or 

prevention procedures were developed and available. The Committee encourages the agency to support and protect this important 

industry. Collaborative efforts among the agency, industry, and 

other Federal and state partners are essential to improving preparedness, surveillance, and response capabilities, as well as reducing the likelihood of disease spread. 

Biotechnology Regulatory Services.—The Committee continues to 

be concerned about the time it takes the agency to review biotechnology product petitions for regulatory determination. USDA’s 

data showed that it took, on average, almost 900 days for eight 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
21 

products to be approved in 2013 despite the agency’s recent efforts 

to improve the review process. In addition, the backlog of petitions 

still remains. The Committee encourages the agency to continue to 

find ways to improve the permit review process and to reduce the 

number of petitions awaiting determination. The Committee provides the requested funding necessary to ensure regulatory decisions can be made in a more timely and predictable manner. 

Brown Marmorated Stink Bug.—The Committee is aware of the 

growing threat to fruits, vegetables, other crops, and ornamentals 

throughout the mid-Atlantic region from the Brown Marmorated 

Stink Bug. It has been found in more than 41 States and the District of Columbia. The Committee directs APHIS to treat this pest 

as a priority and to continue to assist ARS, NIFA, and state partners with biological control technology once such tools are available. 

Cervid Health.—Data from 2007 indicate that the cervid industry 

in the United States accounts for 5,600 deer farms and 1,900 elk 

farms, has an economic value of $894,000,000, and supports nearly 

30,000 jobs. This industry continues to participate in the agency’s 

national, voluntary herd certification program (HCP) that supports 

the domestic and international marketability of U.S. cervid herds. 

The Committee encourages APHIS to maintain its commitment to 

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

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

funds provided, the agency should give consideration to indemnity 

payments if warranted. 

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

effort to protect the U.S. industry from the ravages of invasive 

pests and diseases. These funds are designed to partner with state 

departments of agriculture and industry groups to address the 

challenges of citrus pests and diseases. In addition to the funds 

provided in this account, the Committee encourages APHIS to utilize the funds available in the newly consolidated 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 is concerned that every effort be 

made by APHIS and the cotton industry to ensure the boll weevil 

does not re-infest areas of the United States where it has been successfully eradicated. The Boll Weevil Eradication Program (BWEP), 

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. The Department is directed to work with the U.S. cotton inVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:08 Jun 05, 2014 Jkt 088076 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR468.XXX HR468

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
22 

dustry to develop a plan of action to protect the United States from 

re-infestation and to report its findings to the Committee not less 

than 120 days after enactment of this Act. 

Designated Qualified Person Program.—The Committee directs 

APHIS to maintain transparency and consistency in the enforcement of the Horse Protection Act when dealing with the regulated 

industry. 

Emerging Plant Pests.—The Committee expects the Secretary to 

continue to use the authority provided in this bill to transfer funds 

from the Commodity Credit Corporation (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.—The Committee is aware of the growing economic and ecological damage caused by feral swine across 

the United States. Conservative estimates indicate feral swine are 

present in 44 States, and agricultural losses and control efforts cost 

$1,500,000,000 annually. The Committee continues to support the 

agency’s national feral swine management program and provides 

the FY 2014 enacted funding level to continue activities aimed at 

reducing the damage caused by these invasive pests. 

Huanglongbing Emergency Response.—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 

the removal of 200,000 acres of citrus in Florida and has affected 

Texas. In addition, the agency is encouraged to support priorities 

and strategies identified by the Huanglongbing Multi-Agency Coordination group which will benefit the citrus industry. The agency 

should appropriately allocate resources based on critical need and 

maximum effect to the citrus industry. 

Phytopthora ramorum.—The Committee expects APHIS to continue its efforts to manage P. ramorum while minimizing disruption to the interstate movement of plant materials and commercial 

trade. The agency should use an appropriate portion of funds from 

the Specialty Crop Pests account to expeditiously implement the review of the Federal Order governing shipment of plant materials 

from quarantined and regulated counties as well as to continue its 

review of the efficacy of the pre-notification requirements for western nurseries. APHIS also should continue efforts to partner with 

the regulated States to develop new best management practices regarding P. ramorum during the effective period of the Order. 

Potato Cyst Nematode Eradication.—The Committee includes 

funding to maintain resources for the potato cyst nematode eradication program at the fiscal year 2014 level in order to continue 

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

pest could spread, affecting other crops. 

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, and other 

such activities that will reduce or eliminate threats to agricultural 

industries. The Committee expects APHIS to fund national rabies 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
23 

control and surveillance efforts at the same levels expended in fiscal years 2011 and 2012. 

Conehead Termite.—The Committee is concerned about the 

threat the recently introduced conehead termite poses to agricultural crops, trees and shrubs, wood and paper products, as well as 

homes and other structures. Fortunately, the geographic scope of 

this invasive species is still limited. However, without expeditious 

action the conehead termite will gain a foothold, spread throughout 

the country, and have a significant economic impact. Therefore, the 

Committee directs APHIS to make it a priority to provide States 

that the conehead termite has invaded with the technical assistance needed to develop, implement, and administer an effective 

eradication program. 

Customs and Border Protection and USDA Inspection.—International trade is a vital part of the Nation’s economy. However, the 

discrepancy between USDA and Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) handling of inbound goods transportation has led to confusion and increased risk for multiple parties. The Committee directs 

USDA to report to the Appropriations Committees of the House 

and Senate within 90 days of enactment of this Act on how USDA 

and CBP processes can be streamlined and how liability standards 

can be brought in sync for cargo that is released to a warehouse, 

released to a buyer in the United States, or exported to a foreign 

country. 

Agricultural Quarantine and Inspection (AQI).—The Committee 

is aware of the proposed rules regarding adjustment to fees for AQI 

services and overtime reimbursement rates. The proposed rule related to AQI services includes the increase of some existing fees 

and the establishment of several new fees that will affect a wide 

variety of industries, including pest treatment providers, international and domestic shippers, and importers. Many of these services are not currently subject to a fee and strong evidence was not 

presented in the proposed rule to support the need for these new 

fees. The agency should exercise due diligence in determining the 

comprehensive impacts of these new fees on the related industries, 

especially given the coupling effect of the increased overtime reimbursement rates. The Committee encourages the agency to fully 

analyze these impacts, including extending the public comment period and consulting with stakeholders to allow ample time for those 

impacted by the fees to provide input. 

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $3,175,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 3,175,000 

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

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Buildings and 

Facilities, the Committee provides an appropriation of $3,175,000. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
24 

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE

MARKETING SERVICES

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $79,914,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 82,963,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 81,192,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... +1,278,000 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥1,771,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Marketing Services of the Agricultural Marketing Service, 

the Committee provides an appropriation of $81,192,000. 

The Committee recommendation provides funding equivalent to 

the fiscal year 2014 level for the National Organic Program as well 

as the Pesticide Data Program. The Committee notes that the Agricultural Act of 2014 provides mandatory funding for the Specialty 

Crop Block Grant program and the Organic Production and Market 

Data Initiative. 

Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (COOL).—The Committee 

is aware that the governments of Canada and Mexico have challenged a final rule published in the Federal Register on May 24, 

2013, (78 Fed. Reg. 31367) claiming that it violates the United 

States’ international trade obligations in cases WT/DS384 and WT/ 

DS386, which are pending before a compliance panel of the World 

Trade Organization (WTO). It is estimated that U.S. exports to the 

two countries will suffer an economic impact of approximately 

$2,000,000,000 in retaliatory actions should the final adjudication 

of this matter by the WTO determine the COOL requirements are 

inconsistent with U.S. international trade obligations under the 

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade annexed to the WTO 

agreement, the WTO agreement, or the Agreement on Technical 

Barriers to Trade referred to in section 101(d)(5) of the Uruguay 

Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3511(d)(5)). Additionally, the 

USDA Chief Economist noted at a House Agriculture Committee 

hearing on April 30, 2014, that USDA has found that COOL has 

little impact on consumer meat choices based on survey data. 

The Committee directs USDA not to implement or enforce the 

COOL final rule should the WTO issue a final ruling against the 

United States. Furthermore, the Secretary is directed to promptly 

issue a notice in the Federal Register announcing that the COOL 

rule is suspended until further notice if the final ruling is against 

the United States. 

Organic Integrity.—The Committee is aware of concerns about 

recent administrative and procedural changes implemented by the 

National Organic Program regarding the procedures used to review 

the use of synthetic materials allowed for continued use in organic 

products. The Committee notes the importance of respecting the 

role of public comments in these review procedures, and encourages 

the agency to ensure continued, robust stakeholder participation in 

the National List ‘‘sunset’’ process. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
25 

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

2014 limitation .................................................................................... ($60,435,000) 

2015 budget limitation ....................................................................... (60,709,000) 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. (60,709,000) 

Comparison: 

2014 limitation ............................................................................ +274,000 

2015 budget limitation ................................................................ – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

The Committee provides a limitation of $60,709,000 on Administrative Expenses of the Agricultural Marketing Service. 

FUNDS FOR STRENGTHENING MARKETS, INCOME, AND SUPPLY

(SECTION 32)

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. ($20,056,000) 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... (20,317,000) 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. (20,056,000) 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥261,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Marketing Agreements and Orders Program, the Committee provides a transfer from section 32 funds of $20,056,000. 

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

2014 and 2015: 

ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD FISCAL YEARS 2014–2015 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

FY 2014 

enacted 

FY 2015 

estimate 

Appropriation (30% of Customs Receipts) ............................................................................. $9,211,183 9,714,923 

Less Transfers: 

Food and Nutrition Service ............................................................................................. ¥8,011,569 ¥8,299,923 

Commerce Department ................................................................................................... ¥130,144 ¥131,000 

Total, Transfers ...................................................................................................... ¥8,141,713 ¥8,430,923 

Prior Year Appropriation Available, Start of the Year ............................................................ 313,530 119,000 

Prior Year Collections and Recoveries .................................................................................... – – – – – – 

Unavailable for Obligations (recoveries & offsetting collections) .......................................... – – – – – – 

Transfer of Prior Year Funds to FNS (Fruit & Vegetable) ....................................................... ¥117,000 ¥119,000 

Budget Authority: ............................................................................................................ 1,266,000 1,284,000 

Rescission of Current Year Funds ........................................................................................... ¥189,000 ¥121,000 

Appropriations Reduced 7.2 Percent by Sequestration ........................................................... ¥79,703 – – – 

Appropriations Reduced 7.3 Percent by Sequestration ........................................................... – – – ¥82,000 

Unavailable for Obligations (Fruit & Vegetable transfer to FNS) .......................................... ¥119,000 ¥122,000 

Available for Obligation: ................................................................................................. 878,297 959,000 

Less Obligations: 

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

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

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

Emergency Surplus Removal .......................................................................................... 196,900 – – – 

Small Business Support ................................................................................................. – – – – – – 

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

Additional Fruits, Vegetables, and Nuts Purchases ...................................................... 29,100 206,000 

Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program ............................................................................... 41,000 40,000 

Estimated Future Needs ................................................................................................. 79,119 180,734 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
26 

ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD FISCAL YEARS 2014– 

2015—Continued 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

FY 2014 

enacted 

FY 2015 

estimate 

Total, Commodity Procurement .............................................................................. 823,619 904,234 

Administrative Funds: 

Commodity Purchase Support ............................................................................... 34,622 34,710 

Marketing Agreements and Orders ........................................................................ 20,056 20,056 

Total, Administrative Funds .............................................................................. 54,678 54,766 

Total Obligations ............................................................................................................ 878,297 959,000 

Unobligated Balance, End of Year .......................................................................................... – – – – – – 

Unavailable for Obligations (Fruit and Vegetable transfer to FNS) ....................................... 119,000 122,000 

Balances, Collections and Recoveries Not Available .............................................................. – – – – – – 

Total End of Year Balances .................................................................................. $119,000 $122,000 

PAYMENTS TO STATES AND POSSESSIONS

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $1,363,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 1,235,000 

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

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥128,000 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Payments to States and Possessions, the Committee provides an appropriation of $1,235,000. 

GRAIN INSPECTION, PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ADMINISTRATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $40,261,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 44,017,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 43,722,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... +3,461,000 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥295,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administra- tion, the Committee provides $43,722,000. 

LIMITATION ON INSPECTION AND WEIGHING SERVICES EXPENSES

2014 limitation .................................................................................... ($50,000,000) 

2015 budget limitation ....................................................................... (50,000,000) 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. (50,000,000) 

Comparison: 

2014 limitation ............................................................................ – – – 

2015 budget limitation ................................................................ – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

The Committee includes a limitation on inspection and weighing 

services expenses of $50,000,000. The bill includes authority to exceed by 10 percent the limitation on inspection and weighing services with notification to the Committees on Appropriations of both 

Houses of Congress. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
27 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD SAFETY

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $811,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 816,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 816,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... +5,000 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, the Committee provides an appropriation of $816,000. 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $1,010,689,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 1,001,402,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 1,005,189,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥5,500,000 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. +3,787,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), the Committee provides an appropriation of $1,005,189,000. 

The following table reflects the Committee’s recommendations for 

fiscal year 2015: 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Recommendation 

Federal inspection ............................................................................................................................................ $889,356 

Public health data communication infrastructure system .............................................................................. 34,580 

International food safety and inspection ......................................................................................................... 16,589 

State food safety and inspection ..................................................................................................................... 60,905 

Codex alimentarius ........................................................................................................................................... 3,759 

Total, Food Safety and Inspection Service .............................................................................................. $1,005,189 

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. 

Buffalo/Bison Inspection.—The Committee urges FSIS to enhance its work with Tribes to set up voluntary, fee-for-service programs for the slaughter of Tribally-raised buffalo and bison. In 

doing so, FSIS should work with the InterTribal Buffalo Council 

and make the Council aware of opportunities such as mobile 

slaughter and trade associations that may be able to assist them 

in qualifying for inspection and beginning their operations. 

Water Conserving Technologies.—The Committee supports the 

agency’s efforts to encourage innovation and modernization at 

slaughter and processing establishments. The Committee is aware 

of technologies that allow hand-washing facilities to be immediately 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
28 

activated and deactivated in a hands-free manner. In order to encourage water conservation and reduce cross-contamination, the 

Committee directs FSIS to utilize water-conserving technologies 

and pursue implementation as soon as practicable. 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FARM AND FOREIGN

AGRICULTURAL SERVICES

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $893,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 898,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 898,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... +5,000 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services, the Committee provides an appropriation of 

$898,000. 

The Committee is concerned about waste, fraud, and abuse in 

programs administered by the Farm Service Agency (FSA) and the 

Risk Management Agency (RMA). Therefore, the Secretary is directed to certify that any newly approved payment, loan, grant, 

subsidy, or insurance claim from a program administered by FSA 

or RMA does not include individuals or entities that have been permanently debarred from participating in USDA programs. 

Farm Bill Implementation.—The Committee is aware that the 

Agricultural Act of 2014 provided $100,000,000 in mandatory funds 

for FSA to implement title I of the Act. The Committee directs the 

Secretary to provide a detailed plan by October 1, 2014, on how 

this funding will be utilized. At a minimum, the plan should include information on any interagency agreements or contracts with 

the private sector and other non-Federal entities; the purpose, 

amounts, and dates of estimated obligations; and the number of 

part-time, temporary, or related staff hired to assist with implementation. On October 1, 2014, and every quarter thereafter until 

the funds are expended, the Committee directs the Secretary to 

provide a status report on the obligations and outlays and expects 

that the Committee will be notified if there are any significant deviations from the plan. The Committee reminds the Secretary that 

funding is not available to hire new full-time equivalent staff at 

FSA. As such, this funding should not be used for that purpose. 

FARM SERVICE AGENCY

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriation Transfer from program 

accounts Total, FSA S&E 

2014 appropriation ............................................................. $1,177,926,000 ($310,087,000) ($1,488,013,000) 

2015 budget estimate ........................................................ 1,139,323,000 (309,880,000) (1,449,203,000) 

Provided in the bill ............................................................. 1,205,068,000 (309,880,000) (1,514,948,000) 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation .................................................... +27,142,000 ¥207,000 (+26,935,000) 

2015 budget estimate ............................................... +65,745,000 – – – (+65,745,000) 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
29 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Salaries and Expenses of the Farm Service Agency, the Committee provides an appropriation of $1,205,068,000 and transfers of 

$309,880,000 for a total program level of $1,514,948,000. 

FSA Budget Request.—The Committee does not support the proposals in the budget submission that include significant funding 

shifts with no justification and basis to support them. The Committee is displeased with the agency’s budget request as there is 

no rationale for the proposed changes. The request proposed a reduction in costly headquarters and state office staff personnel while 

shifting the costs to hire the same number of personnel in the field 

while simultaneously decreasing 815 non-Federal staff years. No 

clear plan of how these actions would be implemented in a timely 

manner in order to sustain the significant reductions was provided 

in the justification, and no evidence of the impact of such actions 

was offered to the Committee to form a reasonable opinion on the 

matter. The Committee would like to remind the agency that submitting such budget requests is a waste of taxpayer resources. The 

Committee encourages the agency to develop more meaningful 

budget requests in the future. The Committee supports more efficient policies, practices, and operations in the delivery of farm programs across the country, but it will require the appropriate supporting data and documentation to form a corresponding decision. 

Proposal to Close County Offices.—The President’s fiscal year 

2015 budget proposed to close or consolidate an estimated 250 FSA 

county offices and reduce the non-federal staff years by roughly 815 

full time equivalents as part of an effort to modernize the Department’s farm program delivery system. The Committee supports 

greater efficiency in the management of limited Federal tax dollars 

and supports the consolidation of locations or activities when there 

is a strong case for such a proposal. However, the President’s budget proposal is both flawed and untimely. Department officials have 

shown great difficulty in explaining the justification for this proposal when questioned by this Committee and other oversight committees. Secondly, in order to maintain quality service within a 

reasonable timeframe, the Department should have the requisite 

infrastructure and support in place before moving offices into a 

‘‘model service center’’ location. The Department has failed to demonstrate that the information technology systems are mature 

enough to support this concept. Thirdly, preparing for a consolidation of offices while county employees continue implementation of 

the 2014 farm bill is ill-timed. Lastly, the ability to deliver farm 

programs to stakeholders is contingent upon an analysis on the 

needs of a particular county office or offices within a particular region. Therefore, in addition to the requirements mandated by the 

2008 farm bill for office closures, the Department is directed to conduct, complete, and submit an evaluation of workload assessments 

for proposed office closures to the Committees on Appropriations of 

the House of Representatives and the Senate prior to the closure 

of any FSA county offices. 

MIDAS.—The Committee has strong concerns regarding the 

delays and potential cost overruns associated with the Modernize 

and Innovate the Delivery of Agricultural Systems (MIDAS) program. As designed, the system is supposed to improve the delivery 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
30 

of FSA farm program benefits and services through re-engineered 

business processes and the adoption of enhanced and modernized 

information technology. While FSA made some initial progress in 

2013 with the release of the Farm Records and Business Partner 

functionality, little progress is evident or expected for fiscal year 

2014. Over a year ago, FSA notified the Committee that the agency 

was in the process of reviewing the timeline for the next phases 

and future rollouts of the project via a re-baseline process. The purpose of the re-baseline project was to align the project scope with 

the most recent schedule and projected available funding. Congress 

has appropriated nearly $400,000,000 to support the modernization 

of a farm program delivery system. The total lifecycle costs of this 

program continue to grow beyond the initial estimates and will continue to grow if the Department fails to manage this project in a 

far more efficient manner. FSA must continue to proceed with 

plans for the original functionality that would build existing farm 

program applications into an integrated system that delivers increased efficiency and security and not continue down a path of 

siloed applications that fail to improve upon the capabilities originally promised to the Nation’s farmers and ranchers. The Committee directs USDA to provide quarterly briefings in writing and 

in person to both the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations starting on October 1, 2014. 

STATE MEDIATION GRANTS

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $3,782,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 3,404,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 3,404,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥378,000 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For State Mediation Grants, the Committee provides an appropriation of $3,404,000. 

GRASSROOTS SOURCE WATER PROTECTION PROGRAM

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $5,526,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... – – – 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 2,500,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥3,026,000 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. +2,500,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Grassroots Source Water Protection Program, the Committee provides an appropriation of $2,500,000. The Committee 

notes that the Agricultural Act of 2014 provided $5,000,000 in 

mandatory funds for this program. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
31 

DAIRY INDEMNITY PROGRAM

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. 1 $250,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 1 500,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 1 500,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... +250,000 

2015 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 2015 budget request). 

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

ESTIMATED LOAN LEVELS

2014 loan level .................................................................................... $5,527,278,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 6,402,114,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 6,402,114,000 

Comparison: 

2014 loan level ............................................................................. +874,836,000 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund program account, the 

Committee provides a loan level of $6,402,114,000. 

The following table reflects the loan levels for the Agricultural 

Credit Insurance Fund program account: 

AGRICULTURE CREDIT PROGRAMS—LOAN LEVELS 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

FY 2014 

level 

FY 2015 

estimate 

Committee 

provisions 

Farm loan programs 

Farm ownership: 

Direct ............................................................................................... $575,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 

Unsubsidized Guaranteed ............................................................... 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 

Farm operating: 

Direct ............................................................................................... 1,195,620 1,252,004 1,252,004 

Unsubsidized Guaranteed ............................................................... 1,500,000 1,393,443 1,393,443 

Emergency loans ...................................................................................... 34,658 34,667 34,667 

Indian tribe land acquisition loans ......................................................... 2,000 2,000 2,000 

Conservation loans: 

Unsubsidized Guaranteed ............................................................... 150,000 150,000 150,000 

Indian highly fractionated land ............................................................... 10,000 10,000 10,000 

Boll weevil eradication ............................................................................ 60,000 60,000 60,000 

Total ................................................................................................ $5,527,278 $6,402,114 $6,402,114 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
32 

ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS 

Direct loan 

subsidy 

Guaranteed 

loan 

subsidy 

Grants Administrative 

expenses 

2014 appropriation .................................................... $71,714,000 $18,300,000 – – – $314,719,000 

2015 budget estimate ............................................... 63,957,000 14,770,000 $2,500,000 314,918,000 

Provided in the bill .................................................... 63,957,000 14,770,000 – – – 314,918,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ........................................... ¥7,757,000 ¥3,530,000 – – – +199,000 

2015 budget estimate ...................................... – – – – – – ¥2,500,000 – – – 

The following table reflects the costs of loan programs under 

credit reform: 

AGRICULTURE CREDIT PROGRAMS—SUBSIDIES AND GRANTS 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

FY 2014 

enacted 

FY 2015 

estimate 

Committee 

provisions 

Farm loan subsidies: 

Farm ownership: 

Direct ............................................................................................... $4,428 – – – – – – 

Farm operating: 

Direct ............................................................................................... 65,520 $63,101 $63,101 

Unsubsidized Guaranteed ............................................................... 18,300 14,770 14,770 

Emergency loans ...................................................................................... 1,698 856 856 

Indian highly fractionated land ............................................................... 68 – – – – – – 

Individual development accounts ............................................................ – – – 2,500 – – – 

Total ................................................................................................ 90,014 81,227 78,727 

ACIF expenses: 

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................. 306,998 306,998 306,998 

Administrative expenses .......................................................................... 7,721 7,920 7,920 

Total, ACIF expenses ....................................................................... $314,719 $314,918 $314,918 

RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $71,496,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 76,779,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 77,094,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... +5,598,000 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. +315,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISION

For the Risk Management Agency, the Committee provides an 

appropriation of $77,094,000. 

Quarantine Endorsement Pilot Project.—The Committee supports 

RMA’s current quarantine endorsement pilot project for avocado 

and citrus growers in California and seeks input on the expansion 

of this pilot to other specialty crop growers throughout the United 

States, provided that any insurance product offered is actuarially 

sound. The Committee directs RMA to report to the Committees on 

Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 

within 90 days of enactment of this Act on the cost, benefits, and 

challenges of expanding the pilot program. 

Timely Communication of Changes in Coverage.—Crop insurance 

represents a key risk management tool for agricultural producers 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
33 

around the country and any changes to their insurance policies can 

have an immediate impact on critical financial and business decisions. The Committee understands that RMA will implement 

changes in an effort to reduce the loss ratios in the crop insurance 

industry, but it is concerned by the timeliness and the manner in 

which RMA notifies purchasers of changes to crop insurance coverage. The Committee expects RMA will address this issue and ensure effective and efficient administration of the crop insurance 

program. 

Standard Reinsurance Agreement.—The Committee is aware of 

concerns that the Standard Reinsurance Agreement (SRA) currently in effect has caused disparate treatment of crop insurance 

agents depending on the crop(s) they service and expects that as 

the Department begins the process of renegotiating the SRA it will 

address this inequality. 

CORPORATIONS 

FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION FUND

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. 1 $9,502,944,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 1 8,666,022,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 1 8,666,022,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥836,922,000 

2015 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 $8,666,022,000 in the President’s fiscal year 2015 

budget request). 

COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION FUND

REIMBURSEMENT FOR NET REALIZED LOSSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

2014 appropriation ................................................................. 1 $12,538,880,000 

2015 budget estimate ............................................................. 1 9,067,281,000 

Provided in the bill ................................................................. 1 9,067,281,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation .......................................................... ¥3,471,599,000 

2015 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 $9,067,281,000 in the President’s fiscal year 2015 budget request). 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
34 

HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT

(LIMITATION ON EXPENSES)

2014 limitation .................................................................................... ($5,000,000) 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... (5,000,000) 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. (5,000,000) 

Comparison: 

2014 limitation ............................................................................ – – – 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For CCC Hazardous Waste Management, the Committee provides a limitation of $5,000,000. 

TITLE II 

CONSERVATION PROGRAMS 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR NATURAL RESOURCES AND

ENVIRONMENT

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $893,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 898,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 898,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... +5,000 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and 

Environment, the Committee provides an appropriation of 

$898,000. 

NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE

CONSERVATION OPERATIONS

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $812,939,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 814,772,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 843,053,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... +30,114,000 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. +28,281,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Conservation Operations, the Committee provides an appropriation of $843,053,000. 

The Committee provides $9,100,000 for the Snow Survey and 

Water Forecasting Program; $9,200,000 for the Plant Materials 

Centers; and $78,000,000 for the Soil Surveys Program. The Committee provides $746,753,000 for conservation technical assistance 

and directs NRCS to continue to invest in the Conservation Effects 

Assessment Project (CEAP). The Committee provides an increase of 

$1,500,000 for the Conservation Delivery Streamlining Initiative 

(CDSI). The Committee is pleased with the results of CEAP and 

the agency’s efforts to modernize the delivery of conservation programs and services through CDSI and encourages the continuation 

of these efforts. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
35 

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, as appropriate. 

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. 

Conservation Practice Standards.—The Committee is aware that 

NRCS has been pressured to modify its conservation practice 

standards in certain circumstances for purposes not related to the 

conservation of farm and ranch land. The Committee recognizes 

that conservation practice standards are science-based, undergo a 

thorough technical review, are open to the public for notice and 

comment, and reflect the best available knowledge on how to 

achieve the identified conservation and environmental objective. 

The Committee directs NRCS to maintain its long-standing process 

for developing and updating its conservation practice standards. 

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 

and conservation activity plans to address herbicide-resistant 

weeds, and that financial assistance through certain conservation 

programs is available 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. 

National Marine Sanctuaries.—The Committee urges the agency 

to continue the collaborative agreement with the Office of National 

Marine Sanctuaries to address agricultural sources of runoff, such 

as sediments, nitrates, and pesticides. 

Resource Conservation and Development Councils.—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’s 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. 

Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Plan.—The Committee directs NRCS to establish a long-term, multi-year plan to 

guide needed investments in watershed surveys and planning and 

watershed operations as authorized under the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, P.L. 83–566. The plan should estabVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:08 Jun 05, 2014 Jkt 088076 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR468.XXX HR468

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
36 

lish a process for setting and ranking watershed operations and 

flood prevention priorities, reflecting the agency’s mission, goals, 

and requirements; consideration of existing investment in planning, infrastructure, and land treatment; and future needs for investment to improve watershed condition or prevent or mitigate 

watershed impairments. The plan should also include estimated 

funding requirements. As the agency develops the plan, the Committee encourages it to provide interested parties an opportunity to 

provide input. The agency is directed to develop the plan and report to Congress within 90 days after enactment of this Act. 

WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROGRAM

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $12,000,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... – – – 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 25,000,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... +13,000,000 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. +25,000,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Watershed Rehabilitation Program, the Committee provides an appropriation of $25,000,000. 

TITLE III 

RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $893,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 898,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 898,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... +5,000 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development, the 

Committee provides an appropriation of $898,000. 

Program Consolidation.—The Committee does not concur with 

the proposal to consolidate Rural Development’s (RD) business and 

economic development programs into the Rural Business and Cooperative Grants Program. 

Resource Conservation and Development Councils.—The Committee recognizes RC&Ds have been valuable partners in rural economic development and encourages RD to continue working with 

local councils, as appropriate, to address local economic development needs. 

Reporting Requirements.—The Committee reminds Rural Development that any action that relocates an office or employees and 

reorganizes offices, programs, or activities must be reported to the 

Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate as required 

by law. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
37 

RURAL DEVELOPMENT SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

FY 2014 

level 

FY 2015 

estimate 

Committee 

provisions 

Appropriations ........................................................................... $203,424,000 $225,101,000 $224,201,000

Transfer from: 

Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account ........... 415,100,000 397,296,000 415,100,000 

Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account ............ 4,439,000 4,249,000 4,439,000 

Healthy Foods, HNI ........................................................... – – – 750,000 – – – 

Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loan Program Account .............................................................. 34,478,000 33,000,000 34,478,000 

Total, RD Salaries and Expenses ........................... $657,441,000 $660,396,000 $678,218,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Salaries and Expenses of the Rural Development mission 

area, the Committee provides an appropriation of $224,201,000. 

This includes $15,000,000 for the Comprehensive Loan Accounting System. 

RURAL HOUSING SERVICE

RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Loan level Subsidy level Administrative expenses 

2014 appropriation ..................................... $25,148,567,000 $38,968,000 $415,100,000 

2015 budget estimate ................................ 24,603,565,000 47,748,000 397,296,000 

Provided in the bill ..................................... 25,290,648,000 98,020,000 415,100,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ............................ +142,081,000 +59,052,000 – – – 

2015 budget estimate ....................... +687,083,000 +50,272,000 +17,804,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Housing Insurance Fund program account, the 

Committee provides a loan level of $25,290,648,000. 

Housing Program Eligibility.—The Committee directs the Rural 

Housing Service (RHS) to provide a report within 60 days of enactment of this Act on its implementation of the three-part test to determine a community’s eligibility to participate in rural housing 

programs as required by the Housing Act of 1949, as amended. The 

report should include information on the factors the agency uses to 

determine whether a community is ‘‘rural in character’’ and when 

a ‘‘serious lack of mortgage credit exists’’. The report also should 

include a history of the agency’s actions using this three-part test 

since the 2000 U.S. Census and its implementation of the changes 

made by the Agricultural Act of 2014. 

Risk Management.—USDA’s Rural Development mission area 

manages about 1.2 million loans that have a value of 

$200,000,000,000; $130,000,000,000 of this is in the rural housing 

and community facility portfolio. Given the size of the Federal investment in rural housing programs, the Committee believes RHS 

should actively monitor and manage this portfolio to mitigate risk. 

As such, the Committee directs RHS to provide a report within 30 

days of enactment of this Act on the risk in its portfolio and how 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
38 

it is managed. The Committee further directs the agency to expeditiously create and fill a position of Chief Risk Officer whose responsibility it will be to manage and mitigate the agency’s financial 

risk. 

Section 502 Intermediary Pilot Program.—The bill directs the 

Secretary to continue and expand the pilot program for packaging 

section 502 direct loans. The pilot allows non-profit organizations 

to prepare and review applications for single family loans, saving 

Federal funds and staff time. The Committee expects RHS to expeditiously implement this program. 

The following table reflects the loan levels for the Rural Housing 

Insurance Fund program account: 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

FY 2014 

level 

FY 2015 

estimate 

Committee 

provisions 

Rural Housing Insurance Fund Loans: 

Single family housing (sec 502): 

Direct ............................................................................................... $900,000 $360,000 $1,042,276 

Unsubsidized guaranteed ............................................................... 24,000,000 24,000,000 24,000,000 

Housing repair (sec 504) ......................................................................... 26,280 26,279 26,372 

Rental housing (sec 515) ........................................................................ 28,432 28,432 28,398 

Multi-family guaranteed (sec 538) ......................................................... 150,000 150,000 150,000 

Site development loans ........................................................................... 5,000 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 23,854 23,602 

Total, Loan authorization ................................................................ $25,148,567 $24,603,565 $25,290,648 

The following table reflects the costs of loan programs under 

credit reform: 

ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

FY 2014 

level 

FY 2015 

estimate 

Committee 

provision 

Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account (loan subsidies and grants): 

Single family housing (sec 502): 

Direct ..................................................................................................... $24,480 $26,568 $76,920 

Housing repair (sec 504) ............................................................................... 2,176 3,687 3,700 

Rental housing (sec 515) .............................................................................. 6,656 9,812 9,800 

Farm labor housing ....................................................................................... 5,656 7,681 7,600 

Total, Loan subsidies ..................................................................................... 38,968 47,748 98,020 

Farm labor housing grants ............................................................................ 8,336 8,336 8,336 

RHIF expenses: 

Administrative expenses ....................................................................... $415,100 $397,296 $415,100 

RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $1,110,000,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 1,088,500,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 1,088,500,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥21,500,000 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rental Assistance Program, the Committee provides a program level of $1,088,500,000. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
39 

The Committee appreciates USDA’s proposals to address challenges within the Rental Assistance Program and provides authority to limit the second renewal of contracts during the same 12- 

month period. 

MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVITALIZATION PROGRAM ACCOUNT

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $32,575,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 28,000,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 28,000,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥4,575,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... – – – 

For the Multifamily Housing Revitalization Program Account, 

the Committee provides an appropriation of $28,000,000, including 

$8,000,000 for the rural housing voucher program. 

MUTUAL AND SELF-HELP HOUSING GRANTS

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $25,000,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 10,000,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 30,000,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... +5,000,000 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. +20,000,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Mutual and Self-Help Housing Grants, the Committee provides an appropriation of $30,000,000. 

RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GRANTS

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $32,239,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 25,000,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 27,000,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥5,239,000 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. +2,000,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Housing Assistance Grants program, the Committee provides an appropriation of $27,000,000. 

RURAL COMMUNITY FACILITIES PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $32,520,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 21,000,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 30,500,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥2,020,000 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. +9,500,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Community Facilities Program Account, the Committee provides an appropriation of $30,500,000. 

The following table provides the Committee’s recommendations 

as compared to the budget request: 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
40 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

FY 2014 

level 

FY 2015 

estimated 

Committee 

provisions 

Loan levels: 

Community facility direct loans ...................................... ($2,200,000) ($2,200,000) ($2,200,000) 

Community facility guaranteed loans ............................. (59,543) (– – –) (73,222) 

Subsidy and grants: 

Community facility guaranteed loans ............................. 3,775 – – – 3,500 

Community facility grants ............................................... 13,000 17,000 13,000 

Rural Community Development Initiative ........................ 5,967 – – – 5,000 

Economic Impact Initiative .............................................. 5,778 – – – 5,000 

Tribal college grants ........................................................ 4,000 4,000 4,000 

Total, Rural Community Facilities Program subsidy and 

grants .......................................................................... $32,520 $21,000 $30,500 

The following is included in bill language for the Rural Community Facilities Program: $5,000,000 is for the Rural Community Development Initiative. 

RURAL BUSINESS-COOPERATIVE SERVICE

RURAL BUSINESS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $96,539,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 30,190,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 65,000,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥31,539,000 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. +34,810,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Business Program Account, the Committee pro- vides an appropriation of $65,000,000. 

The following table provides the Committee’s recommendations 

as compared to the budget request: 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

FY 2014 

level 

FY 2015 

estimated 

Committee 

provision 

Loan level: 

Business and industry guaranteed loans ....................... ($958,097) ($590,802) ($880,626) 

Subsidy and grants: 

Business and industry guaranteed loans ....................... 66,971 30,190 45,000 

Rural business enterprise grants .................................... 24,318 – – – 20,000 

Rural business opportunity grants .................................. 2,250 – – – – – – 

Delta regional authority ................................................... 3,000 – – – – – – 

Total, Rural Business Program subsidy and grants ....... $96,539 $30,190 $65,000 

The following programs are included in bill language for the Rural Business Program account: $500,000 for rural transportation 

technical assistance; and $4,000,000 for Federally Recognized Native American Tribes, of which $250,000 is for transportation technical assistance. The Committee notes that the 2014 farm bill consolidated the Rural Business Opportunity and Rural Business Enterprise grant programs. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
41 

INTERMEDIARY RELENDING PROGRAM FUND ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Loan level Subsidy 

level 

Administrative 

expenses 

2014 appropriation ............................................................. $18,889,000 $4,082,000 $4,439,000 

2015 budget estimate ........................................................ 10,013,000 3,084,000 4,249,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................. 16,234,000 5,000,000 4,439,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation .................................................... ¥2,655,000 +918,000 – – – 

2015 budget estimate ............................................... +6,221,000 +1,916,000 +190,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Intermediary Relending Program Fund Account, the 

Committee provides for a loan level of $16,234,000. 

For the loan subsidy, the Committee provides an appropriation 

of $5,000,000. In addition, the Committee provides $4,439,000 for 

administrative expenses. 

RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

Loan level 

2014 appropriation ........................................................................................................................................... $33,077,000 

2015 budget estimate ...................................................................................................................................... 59,456,000 

Provided in the bill .......................................................................................................................................... 59,456,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation .................................................................................................................................. +26,379,000 

2015 budget estimate ............................................................................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account, 

the Committee provides for a loan level of $59,456,000. 

RURAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $26,050,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 16,087,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 22,050,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥4,000,000 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. +5,963,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Rural Cooperative Development Grants, the Committee provides an appropriation of $22,050,000. 

The total includes $2,500,000 for a cooperative agreement for the 

Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas program and 

$10,750,000 for the value-added agricultural product market development grant program. 

The Committee notes that the 2014 farm bill provided 

$63,000,000 in mandatory funding for value-added agricultural 

product market development grants. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
42 

RURAL ENERGY FOR AMERICA PROGRAM

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $3,500,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 10,000,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 3,500,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥6,500,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Energy for America Program, the Committee provides a loan level of $33,081,000 and an appropriation of 

$3,500,000 for the loan subsidy to make loans as authorized by section 9007 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 

(7 U.S.C. 8107). 

The Committee notes that the 2014 farm bill provides 

$50,000,000 in mandatory funding for this program in fiscal year 

2015. 

RURAL BUSINESS INVESTMENT PROGRAM ACCOUNT

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. – – – 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... $6,000,000 

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

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... +4,000,000 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥2,000,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Business Investment Program Account, the Committee provides an appropriation of $4,000,000, which will support 

$39,254,000 in loans. 

RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE

RURAL WATER AND WASTE DISPOSAL PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $462,371,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 304,000,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 466,893,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... +4,522,000 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. +162,893,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program Account, the 

Committee provides an appropriation of $466,893,000. 

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 water systems and directs the agency to focus its efforts to assist these communities 

with predevelopment planning to help them address their water 

supply needs. 

The following table provides the Committee’s recommendations 

as compared to the budget request: 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
43 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

FY 2014 

Level 

FY 2015 

level 

Committee 

provisions 

Loan levels: 

Water and waste direct loans ......................................... ($1,200,000) ($1,200,000) ($1,200,000) 

Water and waste guaranteed loans ................................ (50,000) – – – (84,746) 

Direct Loans authorized by P.L. 83–566 ......................... (40,000) – – – – – – 

Subsidy and Grants: 

Guaranteed Subsidy ......................................................... 355 – – – 500 

Water and Waste Revolving Fund ................................... 1,000 – – – 1,000 

Water Well System Grants ............................................... 993 – – – 993 

Grants for the Colonias and AK/HI .................................. 66,500 36,480 66,500 

Water and Waste Technical Assistance Grants .............. 19,000 9,120 19,000 

Circuit Rider Program ...................................................... 15,000 7,600 15,000 

Solid Waste Management Grants .................................... 4,000 4,000 4,000 

High Energy Cost Grants ................................................. 10,000 – – – – – – 

Water and Waste Disposal Grants .................................. 345,523 246,800 359,900 

Total Subsidies and Grants .................................... $462,371 $304,000 $466,893 

RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS

LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Loan level Subsidy level Administrative expenses 

2014 appropriation ............................................................. $6,190,000,000 – – – $34,478,000 

2015 budget estimate ........................................................ 5,345,000,000 – – – 33,000,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................. 6,190,000,000 – – – 34,478,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation .................................................... – – – – – – – – – 

2015 budget estimate ............................................... +845,000,000 – – – +1,478,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program Account, the Committee provides a loan level of 

$6,190,000,000. In addition, the Committee provides $34,478,000 

for administrative expenses. 

The Committee does not concur with the proposal to limit the use 

of rural electrification loans and instead directs USDA to work 

with borrowers to finance the most reliable and cost-effective electricity source that meets their needs. 

The Committee is concerned about the RUS Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, published February 2, 2014, regarding its environmental policies and procedures and directs the agency to report to 

the Committee by September 1, 2014, regarding the proposal’s potential to increase workload and decrease effectiveness of its programs. 

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


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
44 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

FY 2014 

enacted 

FY 2015 

estimate 

Committee 

provisions 

Loan authorizations: 

Electric: 

Direct, FFB ....................................................................... $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 

Guaranteed underwriting ................................................. 500,000 – – – 500,000 

Subtotal ............................................................................ 5,500,000 5,000,000 5,500,000 

Telecommunications: 

Direct, Treasury rate ........................................................ 690,000 345,000 690,000 

Total, Loan authorizations ...................................... $6,190,000 $5,345,000 $6,190,000 

DISTANCE LEARNING, TELEMEDICINE, AND BROADBAND PROGRAM

FY 2014 

enacted 

FY 2015 

estimate 

Committee 

provisions 

Broadband Program: 

Loan authorization ..................................................... $34,483,000 $44,238,000 $24,077,000 

Loan subsidy .............................................................. 4,500,000 8,268,000 4,500,000 

Grants ........................................................................ 10,372,000 20,372,000 10,372,000 

Distance learning and telemedicine: 

Grants ........................................................................ 24,323,000 24,950,000 20,000,000 

Total, Loan subsidy and grants ....................... $39,195,000 $53,590,000 $34,872,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Pro- gram, the Committee provides an appropriation of $34,872,000, 

which includes $20,000,000 for distance learning and telemedicine 

grants. 

Broadband Loan Program Priorities.—Funding provided for the 

broadband program is intended to promote broadband availability 

in those areas where there is not otherwise a business case for private investment in a broadband network. The Committee directs 

RUS to focus expenditures on projects that bring broadband service 

to currently unserved households. 

TITLE IV 

DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD, NUTRITION, AND

CONSUMER SERVICES

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $811,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 816,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 816,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... +5,000 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

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

Consumer Services, the Committee provides an appropriation of 

$816,000. The Committee expects USDA to continue implementation of section 743 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014 

(P.L. 113–76). 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
45 

The Committee remains concerned about the lack of communication and delay by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) in completing requested reports. Reports requested by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, as well as information regarding 

FNS programs, are an important part of the Committees’ oversight 

responsibilities. The directives and issues that are specified in the 

House, Senate, or conference report are very important to the Committee, and dates are mandatory. FNS is expected to keep the 

Committee apprised of activities and issues, especially those mentioned in Committee reports. FNS is reminded that the Committee 

reserves the right to call before it any agency that does not submit 

reports on time. 

FNS is directed to provide the Committees on Appropriations of 

the House and Senate the FNS Research and Evaluation Plan each 

fiscal year when this report is available. 

The Committee directs FNS to continue making all policy documents related to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for 

Women, Infants, and Children (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 state WIC administrators. 

The Committee directs FNS to work with States to ensure full 

compliance with the law that all WIC and SNAP participants meet 

all program eligibility requirements. FNS also is directed to ensure 

these programs are not being promoted to ineligible individuals, 

which would increase program costs. 

The Dietary Guidelines for Americans emphasize that Americans 

should consume more fruits and vegetables in all of their forms. In 

order to maximize the value of the benefits nutrition program participants receive, the Committee urges FNS to recognize in relevant 

agency publications related to all Federal nutrition programs, including nutrition education programs, the nutritional benefits provided by all forms of fruits, vegetables, and beans, whether canned, 

dried, fresh, or frozen. 

Impact of the Affordable Care Act on SNAP and WIC.—The Committee is aware that FNS is examining how the Affordable Care 

Act (ACA) will impact and possibly increase enrollment for SNAP 

and WIC. The ACA expands eligibility for Medicaid and it is expected that this will lead to an increase in SNAP and WIC applications. The Committee directs FNS to provide an update, including 

all white papers and memos, on both of these projects within 30 

days of enactment of this Act. As these projects continue, FNS is 

directed to keep the Committee apprised of any additional reports 

and provide the Committees on Appropriations of the House and 

Senate with the final results of these studies. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
46 

FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE

CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $19,287,957,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 20,537,000,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 20,523,795,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... +1,235,838,000 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥13,205,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Child Nutrition Programs, the Committee provides $20,523,795,000. Included in this total is $25,000,000 for school 

meals equipment grants and $27,000,000 for summer electronic 

benefit transfer (EBT) pilot projects. In carrying out summer EBT 

projects, the Committee encourages FNS to select populations in 

both rural and urban areas that have not been piloted. 

School Meals.—The Committee is concerned about the challenges 

and costs that local schools face in implementing the various regulations from the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. Schools 

from across the Nation have expressed concern with increased food 

costs and plate waste coupled with decreased participation in the 

National School Lunch Program (NSLP), all of which is resulting 

in at least half of all school food authorities to experience a decline 

in revenue. A February 27, 2014, GAO report found that student 

participation in the NSLP declined by 1.2 million students from 

school year 2010–11 through school year 2012–13. Additional meal 

requirements are scheduled to be implemented in the 2014–15 

school year as well as the ‘‘Smart Snacks in School’’ interim final 

rule. 

To address the concerns of local schools, the FY 2014 conference 

report directed the Secretary to establish a waiver process for 

schools incurring costs to provide more time to comply with some 

of these regulations. On March 14, 2014, the Secretary responded 

he did not have the statutory authority to grant such waivers. 

Therefore, the Committee includes bill language that provides 

schools with flexibility by allowing schools experiencing a financial 

loss for at least a six-month period to seek a waiver from compliance with the final regulations. The Committee directs USDA to 

implement this provision in a timely and streamlined manner. 

Schools receiving a waiver under this provision shall, at a minimum, implement the nutrition standards in effect prior to the final 

rule issued on January 26, 2012. The bill language does not provide 

for a change in reimbursement rates and only applies to the 2014– 

15 school year. 

As schools seek to implement the school meal standards, the 

Committee encourages USDA to consider ways to assist schools 

with technical assistance and training, including the services of 

not-for-profit culinary institutions, to provide healthy, cost-effective 

foods that students will eat. 

The Committee recognizes the importance of cultural and regional differences in food items served in the NSLP and the School 

Breakfast Program (SBP). Numerous food products are undergoing 

reformulation to meet the new nutrition standards. Some that have 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
47 

been developed are not widely available, do not have the proper 

stability or consistency to be served on school lunch lines, and are 

not palatable when compared to traditional and regional foods. The 

Committee encourages FNS to issue guidance within 90 days of enactment of this Act to school food authorities that provides alternative options in regards to culturally and regionally diverse food 

products served in the NSLP and SBP. 

Furthermore, the Committee is aware of concerns with the requirements in the proposed rule published in the Federal Register 

on February 4, 2014, ‘‘Professional Standards for State and Local 

School Nutrition Programs Personnel.’’ The Committee notes that 

the proposed standards could create economic hardship and adverse effects on workforce capacity issues, which are better addressed by local school districts. The Committee strongly encourages FNS to work with stakeholders to ensure any professional 

standards do not result in unintended consequences for local 

schools. 

Lastly, the Committee directs USDA to submit a report within 

60 days of enactment of this Act that describes whether or not all 

of the food sold in all USDA cafeterias and vending machines in 

the Washington, D.C., National Capital Area meet the same nutrition standards as those required for the NSLP, SBP, and the 

‘‘Smart Snack’’ rule. 

Prioritization of Monitoring and Compliance Reviews.—The Committee directs the Secretary to allow States to vary the frequency 

of monitoring and compliance reviews of each school food authority 

based on past school performance, with no cycle extending more 

than five years as granted in the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act 

of 2010. 

Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program.—The Committee recognizes 

that Section 4214 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 provided 

$5,000,000 for the pilot project for canned, frozen, or dried fruits 

and vegetables, in addition to funds made available for the Fresh 

Fruit and Vegetable Program. The Committee directs USDA to implement the pilot at the beginning of the 2014–15 school year so 

that children in selected schools will have access to all forms of 

fruits and vegetables for the duration of the school year. This will 

ensure the full effects of the pilot program can be evaluated in a 

timely manner to comply with the January 1, 2015, statutory deadline for an interim report. The Committee encourages the Secretary 

to select States for participation that are geographically diverse, 

face barriers to accessing fresh fruits and vegetables, and have a 

large number of students eligible for free and reduced price meals. 

The following table reflects the Committee recommendations for 

the child nutrition programs: 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Child Nutrition Programs: School lunch program ............................................................. $11,369,079 

School breakfast program ....................................................... 3,904,967 

Child and adult care food program ........................................ 3,149,700 

Summer food service program ................................................ 492,738 

Special milk program .............................................................. 10,350 

State administrative expenses ............................................... 264,016 

Commodity procurement ........................................................ 1,199,797 

Food safety education ............................................................. 2,709 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
48 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Coordinated review ................................................................. 10,000 

Computer support and processing ......................................... 11,226 

CACFP training and technical assistance ............................. 8,095 

CNP Studies and Evaluations ................................................ 20,074 

CN Payment Accuracy ............................................................ 9,789 

Farm to School Tactical Team ............................................... 2,251 

Team Nutrition ........................................................................ 15,504 

Healthier US School Challenge .............................................. 1,500 

School Meals Equipment Grants ........................................... 25,000 

Summer EBT Demonstration ................................................. 27,000 

Total .................................................................................. $20,523,795 

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

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $6,715,841,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 6,823,000,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 6,623,000,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥92,841,000 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥200,000,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), the Committee provides an appropriation of $6,623,000,000. 

The Committee received a revised estimate from USDA showing that $6,623,000,000 would serve all eligible participants in fiscal 

year 2015. The decrease from the President’s budget request is 

based upon several important factors. First, USDA has decreased 

the estimated average monthly participation rate from 8.6 million 

women, infants, and children to 8.5 million. Birth rates continue to 

be at a record low according to the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention. Second, USDA is projecting that more funding will be 

available through recovery and carryover funds than originally estimated. Furthermore, the Secretary has $125,000,000 in the WIC 

contingency reserve fund as a safety net to meet unexpected demand. With lower participation rates, higher carryover funds, and 

a sufficient reserve fund, USDA has revised the estimate to better 

reflect actual program needs. 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 2015 is sufficient to serve all eligible applicants. 

The Committee provides for continuation of the breastfeeding 

peer counselor program, infrastructure, and investments in management information systems within the total amount provided in 

the bill. The Committee also provides $25,000,000 for States to continue transitioning from paper checks and vouchers to an EBT system. EBT is a proven, effective tool in combatting waste, fraud, and 

abuse, and all WIC state agencies are mandated to have an EBT 

system in place by October 1, 2020. 

Income Eligibility Standards.—The Committee recognizes that in 

response to the February 2013 GAO report, ‘‘WIC Program: Improved Oversight of Income Eligibility Determination Needed,’’ 

USDA issued income eligibility guidance to all state agencies in 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
49 

April 2013. The Committee directs USDA to submit a report within 

60 days of enactment of this Act on the policies, procedures, training, and technical assistance it has provided to state WIC agencies 

on income eligibility determination and verification. The report 

shall include information on the extent to which all state WIC 

agencies have complied with the use of a standard set of income 

eligibility and verification criteria. 

Cost Management within WIC State Agencies.—The Committee 

supports USDA’s efforts to rein in the cost of WIC food items while 

ensuring nutritional value and food choices for participants. As 

state agencies consider options for cost containment, the Committee directs FNS to closely monitor this process to ensure there 

are no unintended consequences for participants, vendors, or product manufacturers. 

Fraudulent Activities.—The Committee is aware that some individuals are selling WIC benefits or WIC-purchased infant formula 

or food items on social media sites and by other means, which is 

a violation of Federal WIC regulations. The Committee notes FNS 

issued a policy memo in February 2012 describing these fraudulent 

activities as a program violation. The Committee directs FNS to 

provide a report within 60 days of enactment of this Act describing 

how this policy is enforced and how many state agencies have 

issued claims and sanctions against participants for committing 

these activities. 

Eligible Foods.—The Committee includes bill language to ensure 

that all varieties of fresh, whole, or cut vegetables, except for vegetables with added sugars, fats, or oils are eligible for purchase 

through the WIC program. 

SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $82,169,945,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 84,256,387,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 82,251,138,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... +81,193,000 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥2,005,249,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the 

Committee provides $82,251,138,000. The total amount includes 

$3,000,000,000 for a contingency reserve to be used only in the 

amount necessary. 

Fraud, Waste, and Abuse.—The Committee has repeatedly directed USDA to permanently debar retailers and participants from 

the program if found guilty of fraud and abuse. However, a July 

2013 OIG audit report identified 586 store owners that were allowed to continue participating in SNAP at other locations after 

being permanently disqualified. These ineligible store owners redeemed millions of dollars in SNAP benefits. The Committee directs FNS to enforce the regulations to ensure ineligible retailers 

and participants will be permanently disqualified from the program 

and directs FNS to report within 60 days of enactment of this Act 

on how the agency has addressed the deficiencies found by the OIG 

audit. 

The Committee directs FNS to report within 60 days of enactment of this Act on the compliance of state agencies in the use of 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
50 

the National Directory of New Hires and an immigration 

verification system as required by the Agricultural Act of 2014. The 

Committee notes additional funding has been provided for FNS to 

fight trafficking and fraud and directs FNS to keep the Committee 

apprised as fraud prevention provisions are implemented. 

Recruitment Activities.—The Committee directs USDA to ensure 

Section 4018 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 is implemented and 

enforced in a manner consistent with the statute which prohibits 

USDA from conducting recruitment activities, advertising the program, and from entering into agreements with foreign governments 

to promote SNAP benefits. The Committee directs USDA to enforce 

this provision to ensure state agencies are not reimbursed for similar activities consistent with the statute. 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.—The Committee is aware of the interest in transitioning the Commonwealth 

of the Northern Mariana Islands into SNAP. The FY 2014 House 

report, as well as the Agricultural Act of 2014, directed the Secretary to conduct a feasibility study on establishing a SNAP program in the Northern Mariana Islands. The Committee expects 

USDA to complete this study in accordance with the statutory 

deadlines established in the Agricultural Act of 2014. 

The following table reflects the Committee recommendations for 

SNAP: 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Account: 

Benefits .................................................................................... $71,503,411 

Contingency Reserve ............................................................... 3,000,000 

Administrative Costs: 

State Administrative Costs .................................................... 4,118,995 

Nutrition Education and Obesity Prevention Grant Program ...................................................................................... 407,000 

Employment and Training ..................................................... 447,227 

Mandatory Other Program Costs ........................................... 174,743 

Discretionary Other Program Costs ...................................... 998 

Administrative Subtotal .................................................. 5,148,964 

Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico (NAP) ................................. 1,930,128 

American Samoa ............................................................................. 7,752 

Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations .................... 119,736 

TEFAP Commodities ...................................................................... 324,000 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands ....................... 12,148 

Community Food Project ............................................................... 9,000 

E&T Work Pilot .............................................................................. 190,000 

Pilots and Demonstration .............................................................. 1,000 

Program Access ............................................................................... 5,000 

Subtotal ............................................................................. 2,598,764 

Total ........................................................................... $82,251,138 

COMMODITY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $269,701,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 275,701,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 275,701,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... +6,000,000 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
51 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

The Committee provides an appropriation of $275,701,000 for the 

Commodity Assistance Program. The recommended funding level 

for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program is $208,682,000. 

The Committee recommendation includes $16,548,000 for the 

Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program. 

The Committee has included $49,401,000 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 the 

grant funds to support commodity handling and distribution costs, 

the bill permits States to use up to 10 percent of the funds provided for purchasing TEFAP commodities to help with the costs of 

storing, transporting, and distributing commodities. The Committee expects state agencies to consult with their emergency feeding organizations on the need for the conversion of such funds. 

NUTRITION PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $141,348,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 155,000,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 150,824,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... +9,467,000 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥4,176,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Nutrition Programs Administration, the Committee provides 

$150,824,000. 

The Committee does not provide funding for the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion to develop Federal dietary guidance 

for infants and children from birth to 24 months of age or to promote the Dietary Guidelines for Americans or MyPlate. The nutrition education services provided through WIC, along with other 

Federal nutrition education programs, are available to assist with 

the dietary and nutritional needs of infants and children. The Committee also notes that USDA does significant advertising of the Dietary Guidelines, MyPlate, and other resources to promote 

healthier lifestyles. These efforts are combined with the ‘‘Let’s 

Move!’’ campaign and use of this information by the public and private sectors. 

Dietary Guidelines.—The Committee is concerned that the advisory committee for the 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans is 

considering issues outside of the nutritional focus of the panel. Specifically, the advisory committee is showing an interest in incorporating sustainability, climate change, and other environmental 

factors and production practices into their criteria for establishing 

the next dietary recommendations, which is clearly outside of the 

scope of the panel. The Committee directs the Secretary to ensure 

that the advisory committee focuses only on nutrient and dietary 

recommendations based upon sound nutrition science and not pursue an environmental agenda. Should environmental or production 

factors be included in the panel’s recommendations to USDA and 

the Department of Health and Human Services, the Committee exVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:08 Jun 05, 2014 Jkt 088076 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR468.XXX HR468

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
52 

pects the Secretary to reject their inclusion in the final 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. 

TITLE V 

FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS 

FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriation Transfer from export 

loan account Total 

2014 appropriation ................................................................... $177,863,000 $6,394,000 $184,257,000 

2015 budget estimate .............................................................. 182,563,000 6,394,000 188,957,000 

Provided in the bill ................................................................... 182,563,000 6,394,000 188,957,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation .......................................................... +4,700,000 – – – +4,700,000 

2015 budget estimate ..................................................... – – – – – – – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Foreign Agricultural Service, the Committee provides an 

appropriation of $182,563,000 and transfer of $6,394,000. 

The Committee does not provide language authorizing the use of 

funds to pay overseas staff during a lapse in appropriations. 

Performance Goals and Budget Justifications.—The Committee 

stresses the need for defining budgetary needs based on performance goals and outcome-based measures, as defined in the April 

2013 report from USDA’s Office of Inspector General. These goals 

should be included in the budget justifications for increases, decreases, and base activities. Furthermore, the Agency’s budget submission includes a major object class breakout overall; however, it 

would be more beneficial for the Committee to have the percentage 

of spending by major budget object class for each program and 

funding source, similar to other USDA agency’s submissions. The 

Committee directs the agency to include these criteria in future 

budget justifications. 

FOOD FOR PEACE TITLE I DIRECT CREDIT AND FOOD FOR PROGRESS

PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING RESCISSIONS AND TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $2,735,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 2,528,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 2,528,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥207,000 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the 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 

$2,528,000. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
53 

FOOD FOR PEACE TITLE II GRANTS

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $1,466,000,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 1,400,000,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 1,466,000,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. +66,000,000 

For Food for Peace Title II grants, the Committee provides 

$1,466,000,000, of which $375,000,000 is for non-emergency assistance. 

Food Aid Funding.—The Committee believes the $66 million reduction in the President’s Budget request for Food for Peace Title 

II is simply a budgetary tactic used to give the appearance of savings. This proposed reduction must be viewed against the backdrop 

of the Administration’s recent request to use the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust fund for the first time in several years to respond 

to emerging food aid crises around the world. For these reasons, 

the Committee provides funding for Title II at current levels. 

Food Aid Reform.—The Committee does not provide the changes 

to the Food for Peace Act requested in the President’s budget. The 

Committee notes that the recently passed 2014 farm bill reformed 

the program and effectively removed the practice of monetization. 

As noted in the President’s Feed the Future initiative, there are 

numerous programs across 10 Federal agencies that allow flexibility by providing a variety of cash assistance, technical assistance, and direct food donation programs. Transforming the Food for 

Peace program into a cash program would be duplicative of other 

programs and counter to the reforms Congress recently enacted in 

the 2014 farm bill. 

GAO Recommendations.—In March 2014, GAO issued a report 

(GAO–14–277) that cites deficiencies in the U.S. Agency for International Development’s (USAID) processes for monitoring and evaluating the prepositioning of food aid. Specifically, GAO recommended that USAID systematically collect and ensure the reliability of data for prepositioned food aid and systematically monitor 

and assess the effectiveness of food aid’s delivery time frames and 

cost. 

Also in March 2014, GAO issued a report (GAO–14–22) that cites 

deficiencies and unwillingness to use a system designed for shipping time and cost data collection called Web Based Supply Chain 

Management (WBSCM). The report also noted USAID’s lack of collection of information on individual food aid shipments. That report 

recommended that USDA and USAID work together to ensure 

USDA receives accurate data and improve WBSCM’s functionality. 

The Committee directs USDA to update the written agreement 

from 1991 with USAID to clearly define roles and responsibilities 

in managing food aid programs. The Committee notes that without 

accurate data and the use of cost-tracking systems the estimation 

of increased beneficiaries due to proposed reforms is difficult to formulate. 

The Committee finds GAO’s recommendations useful and directs 

USDA to report to the Committee within 45 days of enactment of 

this Act on its plans to implement GAO’s recommendations in consultation with USAID. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
54 

MCGOVERN-DOLE INTERNATIONAL FOOD FOR EDUCATION AND CHILD

NUTRITION PROGRAM GRANTS

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $185,126,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 185,126,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 198,126,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... +13,000,000 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. +13,000,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child 

Nutrition Program Grants, the Committee provides an appropriation of $198,126,000. 

COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION EXPORT (LOANS)

CREDIT GUARANTEE PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $6,748,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 6,748,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 6,748,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For administrative expenses of the Commodity Credit Corporation Export Loans Credit Guarantee Program Account, the Committee provides an appropriation of $6,748,000. 

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 

2014 appropriation ............................................................. $2,551,905 $1,794,765 $4,346,670 

2015 budget estimate ........................................................ 2,575,383 1,867,968 4,443,351 

Provided in the bill ............................................................. 2,574,080 1,867,968 4,442,048 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation .................................................... +22,175 +73,203 +95,378 

2015 budget estimate ............................................... ¥1,303 – – – ¥1,303 

The Committee provides an appropriation of $2,574,080,000 in 

new budget authority for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 

In addition, the Committee recommends the following user fee 

amounts: $798,000,000—prescription drugs; $128,282,000—medical 

devices; $312,116,000—human generic drugs; $21,014,000—biosimilar biologicals; $22,464,000—animal drugs; $6,944,000—animal 

generic drugs; $566,000,000—tobacco products; $1,434,000—food 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
55 

and feed recalls; $6,414,000—food reinspection; and, $5,300,000— 

voluntary qualified importers. The combination of new budget 

authority and user fees provides FDA with a total discretionary 

salaries and expenses level of $4,442,048,000. This total does not 

include permanent, indefinite user fees for mammography, pharmacy compounding, export, and color certification estimated at 

$33,356,000. 

The Committee recommendation does not include proposed user 

fees for food facility registration and inspection, food import, international courier, cosmetics, or food contact notification. 

The Committee does not include requested funding for a civilian 

pay increase across the agency. 

The Committee recommendation maintains the fiscal year 2014 

funding levels for the medical countermeasures initiative as well as 

recent increases for import safety. The Committee includes an additional $25,000,000 for food safety activities and $12,000,000 for 

pharmacy compounding activities. The funding provided is to support the food safety activities outlined in the request, such as the 

development of guidance, providing technical assistance to industry 

and technical support to FDA inspectors, as well as training for 

FDA and state inspectors. This investment is to help ensure the 

quality and consistency of inspections within the new FSMA prevention framework. 

FSMA Food Safety Preventative Controls for Human Food 

Rule.—FDA is directed not to implement an interim final or final 

rule regarding food safety plans under the Federal Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) until regulatory requirements 

for supplier verification and testing programs are proposed for public review and comment as well as an economic analysis of the costs 

and benefits associated with the regulatory requirements pursuant 

to the Administrative Procedure Act. 

Given the diversity in the food industry, FSMA was designed to 

be risk-based, flexible, and science-based. A one-size-fits-all approach will not work. Yet, the Committee is very concerned with 

the overly prescriptive regulatory approach that the agency is taking with many of the regulations including the monitoring of preventive controls and verification testing activities. Accordingly, 

FDA shall ensure all FSMA regulations are risk-based, flexible, 

and science-based, and embrace the well-established and recognized standards for food safety already employed through much of 

the industry. 

Need to Manage Priorities.—The Committee is concerned that 

FDA is not taking necessary and required steps to provide agency 

stakeholders adequate input or economic consideration on an expanding list of highly technical regulatory proposals. In addition, 

the agency has provided questionable cost estimates on proposed 

rules, guidance documents, and notices of tentative determination. 

The food supply chain has been forced to provide comment on OMB 

Redline text on important FSMA proposed rules, not formally published in the Federal Register. Moreover, the agency’s dramatic 

shift in how it determines ingredient safety has tremendous potential to expose the Nation’s largest manufacturing sector and the 

agency to costly litigation that may unnecessarily lead to higher 

costs and taxpayer dollars with unknown benefits. At a time when 

the agency is requesting additional appropriations and revenue 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
56 

from user fees, the Committee recommends that the agency not 

overextend itself at the cost to consumer confidence and the Nation’s economic health. 

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 Memorandum of Understandings to 

verify compliance with FSMA to rules once they are finalized as a 

way to eliminate duplication of activities under the law. 

Pharmacy Compounding.—The Committee provides an increase of $12,000,000 for pharmacy compounding activities specified in the 

Drug Quality and Security Act (DQSA). The Committee urges FDA 

to complete inspections of compounding facilities that clearly fall 

within the agency’s jurisdiction and take all necessary enforcement 

actions needed to promote the safety of the drug supply chain. For 

those pharmacies unaffected by DQSA, state boards of pharmacy 

are the proper regulator of state licensed pharmacies and should 

remain so. The Committee will continue to monitor FDA spending 

and oversight over compounding pharmacies to ensure the intent 

of both funding and legislation approved by Congress is observed. 

Menu Labeling.—The Committee remains concerned with FDA’s 

proposed rule to regulate Nutrition Labeling of Standard Menu 

Items at Chain Restaurants. The Committee is further concerned 

that FDA has not properly considered alternatives or appropriately 

measured their impact on affected entities. The Committee continues to urge FDA to adopt the proposed alternative Option 2 definition of similar retail food establishments, which only applies the 

rule to restaurants or retail establishments where the primary and 

majority of business is the selling of food for immediate consumption or the selling of food that is processed or prepared on the 

premises. The Committee directs FDA to complete and submit to 

the Committee a detailed cost-benefit analysis, to be used in the 

final rule’s review by the Office of Management and Budget, including an analysis of the agency’s proposed options for the defining of ‘‘similar retail food establishments’’ that fully incorporates 

the information provided by affected non-restaurant entities and 

determines which option is most compliant with Executive Orders 

12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 (Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review). 

The Committee believes that the agency should take into account 

the increased costs and logistical challenges chain restaurants will 

face in meeting the requirements of the proposed rule. To meet the 

requirements of the law, FDA should consider a clear, conspicuous 

statement of required nutritional information on a prominently displayed poster adjacent to the menu board and nutritional information to be provided in pamphlet form prominently displayed next 

to drive-through menu boards as meeting such requirements. 

Consistent with the intent of Congress to enhance the provision 

of accurate and accessible nutritional information to consumers, 

the Committee urges FDA to modify the respective provisions in 

the proposed rule to permit restaurants and similar retail food establishments to: (1) label the number of calories in a multi-serving 

menu item that is typically divided before presentation to the consumer, by labeling the number of calories in the common unit diviVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:08 Jun 05, 2014 Jkt 088076 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR468.XXX HR468

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
57 

sion of that multi-serving menu item, or by labeling the number of 

servings and number of calories per serving; (2) determine and disclose nutrient content for variable standard menu items that come 

in different flavors, varieties, or combinations using methods that 

will enhance accuracy and accessibility to consumers, including 

ranges, averages, individual labeling of flavors or components, or 

labeling of one preset standard build; and (3) disclose nutrient content using a remote-access menu, such as one available on the 

Internet instead of an in-store menu, in cases where the majority 

of orders are placed by customers who are off-premises. Furthermore, regarding the ‘‘reasonable basis’’ standard applied to restaurants and similar retail food establishments under Section 

403(q)(5)(H)(iv) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the 

Committee urges FDA to accept allowances for variation in nutrient content, such as brought about by variations in serving size, inadvertent human error in formulation of menu items, and variations in ingredients. FDA should not hold restaurants and similar 

retail food establishments liable for such variation in nutrient disclosure. If FDA’s proposed rule has been finalized prior to the 

issuance of this report, the Committee directs FDA to issue guidance within six months of the date of this report to inform regulated industry of the interpretations of the nutrition labeling requirements set forth above. 

Bioethics Committee.—The Committee directs the agency to utilize a bioethics committee within the Department of Health and 

Human Services to review novel cellular and gene therapy matters 

before the Office of Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies. The bioethics committee should be tasked with reviewing scientific and 

bioethical considerations prior to the approval of clinical trials, especially those involving oocyte modifications. FDA is directed to report to the Committee at a minimum of 30 days prior to a final 

agency decision on such matters. 

Imported Pet Food Product Transparency.—As of December 2013, 

FDA has received more than 4,600 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 5,400 dogs, 23 cats, and include more than 900 canine deaths. 

These incidents date back to 2007. The Committee requests that 

FDA provide it with a summary of all activities, including discussion of noteworthy timeframes, associated with the investigation 

into the pet illnesses related to these products within 60 days of 

the enactment of this Act. In addition, the Committee requests that 

the agency provide it with an annual summary report on the status 

of the investigation into these illnesses beginning in April 2014 

until the issue has been resolved. 

Over-the-Counter (OTC) Cold Medicines for Children.—The Committee is concerned that FDA has not issued a proposed rule revising the monograph regulating the labeling of OTC cough and cold 

products for children. The Committee directs the agency to publish 

a proposed rule by June 30, 2014, based on scientific evidence for 

safety and efficacy in pediatric populations and consistent with the 

October 19, 2007, joint recommendations of its Pediatric Advisory 

Committee and Nonprescription Drugs Advisory Committee. While 

the Committee appreciates the agency’s effort to explore possible 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
58 

improvements to the OTC drug monograph process, these efforts 

should not impede the prompt publication of this proposed rule. 

Drug Shortages.—The Committee is aware that shortages of critical drugs persist following the 2012 enactment of the Food and 

Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA). Surveys 

conducted by the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists, the 

American Hospital Association, and the American Society of 

Health-System Pharmacists report persistent shortages of drugs 

used in anesthesia care, oncology, and other services, owing primarily to problems in manufacturing, which impair patient access 

to care and patient experiences in the healthcare system, delay surgical procedures, and possibly increase overall healthcare costs. 

Therefore, within the funding provided, the Committee directs the 

Commissioner to continue to prioritize the public reporting of manufacturing shortages, and to work with industry to prevent conditions that might lead to drug shortages. 

Seafood Advisory.—The Committee is concerned that after many 

years, FDA has not published updated advice on seafood consumption for pregnant women, mothers, and children. Seafood is an important part of a healthy diet which contains critical vitamins and 

nutrients, such as Omega 3s, which are essential during pregnancy 

to ensure optimal fetal and child development. The Committee directs FDA to publish final advice to pregnant women on seafood 

consumption in conjunction with all applicable parties as directed 

in House Report 112–101 and Senate Report 112–73 by June 30, 

2014. FDA shall issue its final seafood risk benefits assessment at 

the same time as the seafood advice. The seafood advice shall be 

consistent with the latest science and contain a clear and actionable advice that will enable the public, medical, and scientific communities to make informed dietary decisions and recommendations. 

Finally, FDA shall provide a progress report to the Committee 30 

days after the enactment of this Act and every 30 days thereafter 

until the advisory and seafood risk benefits assessment are published. 

ANDA Review Prioritization.—In its Generic Drug User Fee Act 

commitment letter, FDA affirmed that in order to provide more certainty to the generic drug industry, it would expedite the review 

of Paragraph IV applications that become eligible for approval during the review period and other applications that have the potential to be the first generics to market. Within 45 days of enactment 

of this Act, the Committee directs FDA to report to the Committee 

how it has prioritized its abbreviated new drug application review 

process to ensure first generics are approved on the earliest possible date. 

Mammography Quality Assurance Advisory Committee.—The 

Committee urges FDA to quickly follow up the November 2011 

meeting of the National Mammography Quality Assurance Advisory Committee by promptly reviewing the evidence supporting including information related to an individual’s breast density in the 

mammogram lay report and physician report. 

Accelerated Approval.—The Committee is concerned that FDA 

has underutilized the accelerated approval authority codified in 

FDASIA. Congress created this authority to facilitate review and 

approval of drugs to treat patients with rare, life-ending diseases 

that cannot reasonably be pursued through the standard FDA apVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:08 Jun 05, 2014 Jkt 088076 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR468.XXX HR468

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
59 

proval process. The Committee directs FDA to report on the way 

it has used this authority since 2012, its plans to use it in the future, and a justification for using this authority for diseases that 

are not life-ending. 

Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy.—The Committee commends the 

collaboration between FDA and the Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy 

community to advance useful regulatory tools for benefit-risk considerations in this disease population and drug development guidance. The Committee supports the agency’s engagement with the 

patient population for these purposes and to enable the appropriate 

use of regulatory flexibility as provided in FDASIA. 

Special Protocol Assessment Agreements.—The Committee is concerned about questions that have arisen in connection with the rescission of a Special Protocol Assessment Agreement (SPA), including fundamental questions concerning FDA’s adherence to the statutory and regulatory guidelines that apply to the SPA process as 

well as to questions concerning fairness to the sponsors. The Committee would like to reiterate that FDA is expected to adhere to the 

established standard as informed by the Congressional Record and 

the 1997 PDUFA Goals Letter. 

The Committee is aware of FDA’s ability to rescind a SPA agreement reached under section 505(b)(5)(C)(ii) of the Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act only if it demonstrates that ‘‘a substantial scientific 

issue essential to determining the safety or efficacy of the product 

has been identified after the testing has begun.’’ 

This standard is informed by the Congressional Record and the 

1997 PDUFA Goals Letter. The Congressional report explains that 

Congress intended ‘‘that such agreements should be binding on 

both parties’’ except when ‘‘a substantial scientific issue has come 

to light after an agreement has been reached and testing has 

begun, which has a direct bearing on the safety or effectiveness of 

the product.’’ 

The Committee also expects that, as a matter of public policy and 

fundamental fairness to the sponsor, FDA should be accountable 

for continued diligence in identifying issues that bear on the continued enforceability of a SPA agreement and in notifying the sponsor of such issues within a reasonable period of time after FDA becomes aware. 

To ensure agreement over the standard to rescind a SPA, the 

Committee directs FDA to report to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate within 60 days of enactment of this 

Act regarding the standard by which FDA would rescind a SPA. 

Lastly, to ensure agreement over the standard to rescind a SPA, 

the Committee directs FDA to revise and re-issue, after public comment, its existing guidance regarding SPA agreements to clarify 

the agency’s interpretation of the statutory standard regarding 

SPA agreements and the rescission of such agreements. 

Blood Plasma Products.—The Committee notes that the FDA 

Circular of Information for the Use of Human Blood and Blood 

Components states that plasma from different sources has identical 

clinical indications. Plasma from manual donation may be transfused and if not needed for that indication, may be sent for further 

manufacture into biologics such as immunoglobulin, clotting factor 

concentrates, and albumin. However, plasma from automated donation may be transfused but cannot be shipped for further manufacVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:08 Jun 05, 2014 Jkt 088076 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR468.XXX HR468

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
60 

ture until approximately one year after the donation. At that point 

the plasma is too old to be manufactured into other biologics and 

is destroyed and wasted. This seems illogical since there is a shortage of these biologic products in the United States. The Committee 

directs FDA to report back within 60 days of enactment of this Act 

on the scientific or medical justification for the different post-donation manufacturing policies and under what circumstances those 

policies might be adjusted to allow for the more timely use of plasma from automated donations into other biologics. 

Sunscreen Ingredient Review.—The Committee is extremely concerned that another year has passed without FDA completing its 

review of the pending Time and Extent Applications (TEAs) and 

the OTC Monograph rulemakings on sunscreens. Immediate action 

on sunscreens should be a priority since the need for sunscreens is 

evidenced by the nearly one million people that are currently living 

with skin cancer and the fact that melanoma is the fifth leading 

cause of cancer in the U.S. this year. FDA has listed actions related 

to sunscreen as a high priority in the Unified Agenda since 2008. 

While the Committee is encouraged that FDA has issued two 

sunscreen final rules and feedback letters to some sunscreen TEA 

applicants, significantly more work remains to protect Americans 

from developing skin cancer. The Committee directs FDA to complete its review by December 2014 of the remaining safety and effectiveness submissions already submitted for sunscreen active ingredients that have been found eligible for potential inclusion in 

the sunscreen monograph via TEAs and to work expeditiously on 

completing the OTC monograph rulemakings. The Committee is 

also encouraged that FDA is seeking input from stakeholders on 

how to modernize the OTC Drug Review, including the TEA process, and directs FDA to continue to work with stakeholders 

through the process and explore ways to improve the OTC Drug 

Review more broadly. 

Import Clearance Process.—The Secretary, in consultation with 

the Secretary of Homeland Security acting through U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection, should consider reprioritizing existing funding to ensure sufficient FDA personnel are available to clear shipments expeditiously at the time of their arrival at the port of entry 

including outside normal working hours and on holidays. The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security 

acting through U.S. Customs and Border Protection, shall develop 

a Trusted Trader Program designed to allow shipments from highly 

compliant importers to be released with minimal documentation or 

additional information being provided. This program should be designed in a way as to not jeopardize the safety of food and medical 

products under the agency’s jurisdiction. Recognizing that FDA has 

a responsibility to ensure legitimate trade is cleared rapidly and 

that compliant shipments are not unduly detained, the agency will 

provide a report to relevant Committees of Congress on two statistics that measure the effectiveness of its targeting rules twice each 

year, beginning six months after the passage of this measure, and 

again after one year. This report will contain: (1) the number of 

shipments being identified for FDA examination as a percentage of 

all shipments subject to FDA regulatory review, and (2) the number of violative products detained as a percentage of those being 

held. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
61 

Deeming Regulations.—The Committee is encouraged that FDA 

has provided options for a way forward on distinguishing between 

premium cigars and other tobacco products in its recently proposed 

rule ‘‘Deeming Tobacco Products To Be Subject to the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as Amended by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act; Regulations on the Sale and Distribution of Tobacco Products and Required Warning Statements 

for Tobacco Products’’ (Docket No. FDA–2014–N–0189). In particular, the Committee notes that FDA is considering excluding 

premium cigars from the scope of this proposed rule through Option 2. The Committee believes this could be a viable solution, 

given that the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act 

makes little mention of cigars throughout the legislation, and there 

is even less evidence that Congress intended to focus on the unique 

subset of premium cigars. The Committee notes that premium cigars are shown to be distinct from other tobacco products in their 

effects on youth initiation, the frequency of their use by youth and 

young adults, and other such behavioral and economic factors. 

Artificial Pancreas.—The Committee commends FDA for taking 

critical steps in advancing artificial pancreas systems, including its 

recent approval of the threshold suspend system. The Committee 

encourages FDA to continue collaboration with key stakeholders to 

ensure that artificial pancreas systems are further developed, tested, and approved, ensuring timely access to safe and effective systems for patients with type 1 diabetes. 

Natural Claims.—The Committee requests that the Commissioner submit to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses 

of Congress a detailed document describing the agency’s current 

policy with respect to natural claims on food products within 90 

days of enactment of this Act. 

Regulation of Tree Nuts.—The Committee urges FDA to consider 

the exemption of tree nut producers from regulation under section 

419 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act if such tree nuts 

meet the criteria for ‘‘rarely consumed raw’’ and the recipient of the 

produce performs commercial processing that adequately reduces 

pathogens as described in the proposed regulation ‘‘Standards for 

the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for 

Human Consumption; Proposed Rule’’. 

Generic drug labeling.—The Committee is deeply concerned with 

FDA’s proposed rule regarding ‘‘Supplemental Applications Proposing Labeling Changes for Approved Drugs and Biological Products’’ that would change longstanding policy and allow generics to 

alter their label without FDA’s prior approval. Ironically, FDA published this proposed rule after the agency’s recent success in 

launching the Sentinel Initiative. This initiative helps to electronically track the safety of drugs once they reach the market, especially in terms of identifying drug safety communications. 

The Committee is unaware of evidence of a need to change existing regulations. The proposed rule has the potential to threaten 

public health by creating unprecedented patient and provider confusion by having multiple labels for the same product, therefore undermining the longstanding policy of sameness. The Committee 

urges FDA to maintain a system where prescription drug labels on 

the market are FDA-approved, grounded in scientific evidence, and 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
62 

present no opportunity for mismatched dispensing or use information between the name brand drug and the generic version drug. 

Additionally, sufficient evidence is lacking on how FDA derived 

such a low cost estimate for this proposed rule. Under the proposed 

rule, generic and brand manufacturers could assume additional obligations and possible liability, which may drive smaller companies 

from the market, increase the cost of generic medications, and lead 

to additional drug shortages. FDA’s cost impact analysis has not 

accounted for or addressed these or other unintended consequences, 

and further the Committee is concerned about the resources necessary to carry out such a significant policy change. 

FDA must clear up any potential confusion that will likely be 

created in going forward with the currently proposed regulation. 

The agency must also justify the cost of such a regulation that fails 

to provide a net health benefit to consumers and providers. The 

Committee directs the agency to complete a new economic analysis 

of the rule, paying particular attention to the cost of pharmaceutical products, before FDA finalizes the rule and report back to 

the Committee on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress within 90 days of enactment of this Act. 

National Antimicrobial Response Monitoring System (NARMS).— 

The Committee expects FDA to provide funding for the National 

Antimicrobial Response Monitoring System at $7,800,000 and 

urges FDA to consider providing additional funding for this program if warranted. The Committee encourages FDA to utilize 

NARMS as part of the strategy to preserve the effectiveness of 

antibiotics. The agency should continue to use the NARMS data for 

evaluating new food animal antibiotics, guiding policy and regulations on the use of antibiotics, conducting risk assessments, and 

tracking changes in resistance to identify potential human and animal health problems. 

FDA User Fee Collections/Obligations.—The Committee continues to be concerned about the financial management of FDA’s 

user fee programs. The Committee directs that not later than November 1, 2014, and each month thereafter through the months 

covered by this Act, the Commissioner to submit to the Committees 

on Appropriations of the House and the Senate a report on user 

fees collected for each user fee program included in the Act. The 

report shall also include monthly obligations incurred against such 

fee collections. The first report shall include a distinct categorization of the user fee balances that are being carried forward into fiscal year 2015 for each user fee account as well as a detailed explanation of what accounts for the balance and what the balance will 

be used for. 

Finalization of the Veterinary Feed Directive.—The Committee directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to require FDA 

to finalize the Veterinary Feed Directive regulation by December 

2014. 

Food Safety Monitoring.—The Committee notes that the National 

Agriculture and Food Defense Strategy Plan is being finalized as 

required by Section 108 of Public Law 111–353. As research needs 

are identified to carry out this section, the Committee encourages 

FDA to consider funding research that would provide portable and 

technologically advanced testing platforms needed to effectively 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
63 

monitor and protect against intentional adulteration of the food 

supply. 

Cosmetics and Colors.—The Committee directs the Office of Cosmetics and Colors (OCAC) to respond by March 15, 2015, to a citizen petition setting safety levels for trace amounts of lead in cosmetics. The Committee notes that every year since FY 2012, it has 

repeatedly requested that OCAC respond to this petition. The Committee urges OCAC to make this a priority. 

Food and Veterinary Medicine.—The Committee is aware of the 

important support provided to FDA’s food and veterinary medicine 

programs and through its research and program relations with 

their centers of excellence. The Committee encourages FDA to 

maintain an appropriate funding level for both FSMA-related activities and the base work performed by these centers. 

Concerns with Opioid Application Approvals.—The Committee is 

alarmed by a growing trend of prescription drug and opioid abuse. 

The Committee notes that FDA has taken a number of positive 

steps in recent years to address this complex challenge. However, 

the Committee is discouraged by FDA’s 2013 approval of a New 

Drug Application for Zohydro, a high-dose undiluted painkiller containing hydrocodone. While the United States makes up only 4.6 

percent of the world’s population, its residents consume 99 percent 

of the world’s supply of hydrocodone. These drugs are now the most 

widely prescribed painkillers in the U.S., and emergency room visits involving hydrocodone rose from 38,000 in 2004 to more than 

115,000 in 2010. 

Approving this powerful narcotic without any abuse deterrent 

formulation, despite the strong opposition of the relevant FDA expert Advisory Panel, seems counter to the assertion that ‘‘the prevention of prescription opioid abuse is of the highest priority for the 

FDA.’’ The DEA Administrator indicated to the Committee that the 

agency is spending considerable resources to educating agents, diversion investigators, and tactical diversion squads about the approval of this medication that ‘‘frightens us all.’’ In addition to 

strong concerns that the drug is ripe for misuse and addiction, the 

Committee is concerned that approving new applications without 

abuse deterrent properties will stifle innovation in this newly 

emerging field of scientific research. 

The Committee therefore requests that FDA provide a report 

within 60 days of enactment, including a detailed accounting of 

FDA’s methodology for post-market tracking of Zohydro and findings to date. In addition, the Committee encourages FDA to continue its outreach to the medical community and provide data 

about the utilization of REMS-compliant training programs by prescribers. Lastly, the Committee includes bill language that prevents FDA from obligating $20,000,000 of its discretionary funding 

for the Office of the Commissioner unless the agency finalizes the 

draft guidance entitled ‘‘Industry Guidance: Abuse-Deterrent 

Opioids—Evaluation and Labeling’’. If by June 30, 2015, FDA does 

not complete this guidance, the $20,000,000 will be used by the Office of Criminal Investigation to assist in the prevention of opioid 

drug abuse. 

Tobacco Product Smuggling.—The Committee understands that 

nearly one in four packs of cigarettes consumed in Texas is smuggled in from Mexico and more than half of the cigarettes consumed 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
64 

in New York are the result of interstate smuggling operations. In 

addition, an average of one out of every five packs of cigarettes consumed in California, Arizona, and New Mexico are the result of 

smuggling operations. FDA’s regulation over tobacco products provides the agency with unique expertise and intelligence in the area 

of tobacco sales and market dynamics. The Committee recommends 

FDA’s Office of Criminal Investigations assist Federal, state, and 

local agencies in targeting the highest-level criminal tobacco trafficking organizations by gathering intelligence and disseminating 

leads with their partner organizations to help address this illicit 

activity. 

Compassionate Use.—The Committee is concerned with a lack of 

useful data regarding the number of Expanded Access (sometimes 

called compassionate use) requests made on behalf of patients that 

are denied by sponsors of investigational products. In order to obtain an accurate understanding of the scope of this problem, the 

Committee requests that GAO conduct a review of how FDA is 

working with all stakeholders to accelerate the approval of innovative, safe, and effective medicines and how FDA takes into account 

safety and efficacy data from Expanded Access programs. 

Sunscreen Labeling Regulations.—The Committee is pleased that 

FDA finalized regulations establishing significant new labeling and 

testing requirements for products marketed under FDA’s monograph for over-the-counter sunscreen drug products. The Committee directs the FDA to finalize its proposed rule limiting the 

maximum Sun Protection Factor to ’50’ or ’50+’ and issue a proposed rule to establish testing and labeling standards for sunscreen 

sprays. 

Scientific Integrity.—Pursuant to the President’s 2009 memorandum and as directed by the Office of Science and Technology 

Policy, FDA adopted a scientific integrity policy in 2012. It appears 

to conform to the President’s directive by maintaining a firm commitment to science-based, data-driven decision making, facilitating 

the free flow of scientific and technical information, and requiring 

a fair and transparent approach to resolving scientific disputes. 

The Committee directs the Commissioner to ensure all FDA centers 

agencies are complying with the policy and using it to guide their 

policy and regulatory decisions. 

Calorie Display in Vending Machines.—The Committee is also 

concerned with FDA’s proposed rule to regulate Food Labeling and 

Calorie Labeling of Articles of Food in Vending Machines. To meet 

the requirements of the law, FDA should accept a clear, visible display of calories on the front of the package of articles of food sold 

from a vending machine or on the front of the vending machine as 

meeting such requirements. 

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $8,788,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 8,788,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 8,788,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
65 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Buildings and Facilities of the Food and Drug Administration, the Committee provides $8,788,000. 

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

2014 appropriation ............................................................................. $215,000,000 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... 280,000,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 217,578,000 

Comparison: 

2014 appropriation ...................................................................... +2,578,000 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥62,422,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Committee 

provides an appropriation of $217,578,000, of which $52,578,000 is 

for the purchase of information technology and $1,885,000 is for 

the Inspector General. 

Swap Dealer de minimis.—The Committee directs the Commission to provide clarity to market participants by amending CFTC 

regulation 1.3(ggg)(4) to require a rulemaking by the Commission, 

in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, before the 

‘‘phase-in level’’ currently in effect is automatically reduced. 

Pay Cost.—The Committee does not include requested funding 

for a civilian pay increase across the Commission. 

Regulations.—The Committee is concerned about duplicative and 

overreaching regulations that are resource intensive. The Committee includes bill language directing the Commission to submit 

cost-benefit studies of these regulations to the Committees of jurisdiction. 

Five-year Strategic Information Technology Plan.—The Committee notes that the Commission did not submit a five-year, strategic technology investment plan per the directive in H. Rpt. 113– 

166. The Committee directs the Commission to develop the plan. It 

is essential that the Committee know where and how these investments are to be made with the funding provided in this bill per the 

President’s request for information technology. 

Academic Research.—The Committee notes its concern regarding 

the Commission’s reduction of the independent economic research 

by visiting scholars within the Office of Chief Economist (OCE). 

Since December 2012, the Commission has reduced the number of 

economists in the OCE by over 50%, access to equipment used for 

research has become limited, and no new visiting academics have 

joined. It has taken over a year to approve publication of some economic papers, delaying research on issues such as high frequency 

trading. On May 13, 2014, MIT professor and former CFTC Chief 

Economist testified before Congress on high frequency trading. It 

was revealed that his research was held up by the Commission for 

over a year. This raises concern given the Commission’s pending 

rule on high frequency trading and the research program as a 

whole. The Committee will continue to monitor this situation. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
66 

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

2014 limitation .................................................................................... ($62,600,000) 

2015 budget estimate ......................................................................... (65,100,000) 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. (54,000,000) 

Comparison: 

2014 limitation ............................................................................ ¥8,600,000 

2015 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥11,100,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For a limitation on the expenses of the Farm Credit Administra- tion (FCA), the Committee provides $54,000,000. 

This limitation reflects FCA’s approximate average level of obligations over the past 5 years. Authority is provided for FCA to exceed this limitation by up to 10 percent upon notification to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

TITLE VII 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

(INCLUDING RESCISSIONS AND TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

The General Provisions contained in the accompanying bill for 

fiscal year 2015 are fundamentally the same as those included in 

last year’s appropriations bill. 

The following general provisions are included in the bill: 

Section 701: Limitation on the purchase of passenger motor vehicles. 

Section 702: Transfer authority regarding the Working Capital 

Fund. 

Section 703: Limitation on certain obligations. 

Section 704: Indirect cost rates for cooperative agreements with 

nonprofit institutions. 

Section 705: Disbursement of rural development loans. 

Section 706: Authority of the Chief Information Officer relating 

to new IT systems. 

Section 707: Availability of mandatory conservation program 

funding. 

Section 708: Rural Utility Service borrower eligibility. 

Section 709: Rescission of certain unobligated balances. 

Section 710: Availability of agency funds for information technology. 

Section 711: Funding availability for liquid infant formula. 

Section 712: Prohibition on first-class airline travel. 

Section 713: Use of funds authorized by the Commodity Credit 

Corporation Charter Act. 

Section 714: Limitation on funds for commodities under the Bill 

Emerson Humanitarian Trust Act. 

Section 715: Funding for advisory committees. 

Section 716: Indirect costs for competitive agricultural research 

grants. 

Section 717: Limitation on certain funds. 

Section 718: Limitation on certain funds. 

Section 719: Language on user fee proposals without offsets. 

Section 720: Language on reprogramming. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
67 

Section 721: Language on fees for the business and industry 

guaranteed loan program. 

Section 722: Language on questions for the record. 

Section 723: Language regarding prepackaged news stories. 

Section 724: Language on prohibition on paid details in excess of 

30 days. 

Section 725: Language on the mohair program. 

Section 726: Language regarding spending plans. 

Section 727: Language on controls over humanitarian food assistance. 

Section 728: Language regarding Single Family Housing Direct 

Loan Program. 

Section 729: Language regarding USDA loan programs. 

Section 730: Language regarding the Packers and Stockyards 

Act. 

Section 731: Transfer authority regarding the Working Capital 

Fund. 

Section 732: Language regarding the naming of buildings. 

Section 733: Language regarding farm disaster programs. 

Section 734: Language regarding prescription drug approvals. 

Section 735: Language regarding federal felonies. 

Section 736: Language regarding federal tax liability. 

Section 737: Limitation on certain funds. 

Section 738: Language regarding the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children. 

Section 739: Language regarding school meal programs. 

Section 740: Sense of Congress regarding the Extension Service. 

Section 741: Language regarding the use of funds for certain 

horse inspection activities. 

Section 742: Language regarding purchases made through Child 

Nutrition Programs. 

Section 743: Spending Reduction Account. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS 

TRANSFER OF FUNDS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following lists the transfers of unexpended 

balances included in the accompanying bill. 

1. 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. 

2. Departmental Administration.—The bill requires reimbursement for expenses related to certain hearings. 

3. 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. 

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. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
68 

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. Commodity Credit Corporation.—The bill includes language allowing certain funds to be transferred to the Foreign Agricultural 

Service for information resource management activities. 

9. Rural Development Salaries and Expenses.—The bill provides 

that prior year balances from certain accounts shall be transferred 

to and merged with this account. 

10. Rural Community Facilities Program Account, Rural Business Program Account, and Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program Account.—The bill provides that balances from the Rural 

Community Advancement Program may be transferred to and 

merged with these accounts. 

11. Child Nutrition Programs.—The bill includes authority to 

transfer section 32 funds to these programs. 

12. Foreign Agricultural Service Salaries and Expenses.—The bill 

allows for the transfer of funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation Export Loan Program Account. 

13. 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. 

14. 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. 

15. Food and Drug Administration, Salaries and Expenses.—The 

bill allows funds to be transferred among activities. 

16. General Provisions.—The bill allows unobligated balances of 

discretionary funds to be transferred to the Working Capital Fund. 

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 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
69 

at any facility for the construction of a research facility for use by 

the agency. 

4. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.—A provision carried in the bill since fiscal year 1973 regarding state matching 

funds has been continued to assure more effective operation of the 

brucellosis control program through state cost sharing, with resulting savings to the Federal budget. 

Language is included to allow APHIS to recoup expenses incurred from providing technical assistance goods, or services to 

non-APHIS personnel, and to allow transfers of funds for agricultural emergencies. 

Language is included to limit the amount of funds for representational allowances. 

5. Agricultural Marketing Service, Limitation on Administrative 

Expenses.—The bill includes language to allow AMS to exceed the 

limitation on administrative expenses by 10 percent with notification to the Appropriations Committees. This allows flexibility in 

case crop size is understated and/or other uncontrollable events 

occur. 

6. Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, Inspection and Weighing Services.—The bill includes authority to exceed the limitation on inspection and weighing services by 10 percent with notification to the Appropriations Committees. This allows for flexibility if export activities require additional supervision 

and oversight, or other uncontrollable factors occur. 

7. Dairy Indemnity Program.—Language is included by reference 

that allows the Secretary to utilize the services of the Commodity 

Credit Corporation for the purpose of making dairy indemnity payments. 

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. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
70 

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. 

18. Farm Credit Administration.—The bill includes authority to 

exceed the limitation on assessments by 10 percent with notification to the Appropriations Committees. 

19. General Provisions.— 

Section 704: This provision provides that none of the funds in 

this Act may be made available to pay indirect costs charged 

against competitive agricultural research, education, or extension 

grants awarded by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture 

in excess of 10 percent of total direct costs. 

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 710: 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 711: Language is included regarding reconstituted liquid 

concentrate infant formula issuance to WIC participants. 

Section 712: Language is included regarding the prohibition of 

first-class travel by the employees of agencies funded in this Act. 

Section 713: Language is included regarding the use of authorities of the Commodity Credit Corporation. 

Section 715: Language is included that limits the amount of 

spending for USDA Advisory Committees. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
71 

Section 716: Language is included modifying matching requirements for certain research grants. 

Section 717: Language regarding certain limitations. 

Section 718: Language regarding certain limitations. 

Section 719: 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 720: Language is included that requires certain reprogramming procedures of funds provided in Appropriations Acts. 

Section 721: Language is included regarding fees for the business 

and industry guaranteed loan program. 

Section 722: This provision prohibits the Department of Agriculture or the Food and Drug Administration from transmitting or 

making available to any non-Department of Agriculture or non-Department of Health and Human Services employee questions or responses to questions that are a result of information requested for 

the appropriations hearing process. 

Section 723: Language regarding prepackaged news stories. 

Section 724: This provision prohibits any employee of the Department of Agriculture from being detailed or assigned to any other 

agency or office of the Department for more than 30 days unless 

the individual’s employing agency or office is fully reimbursed by 

the receiving agency or office for the salary and expenses of the employee for the period of assignment. 

Section 725: Language is included regarding the mohair program. 

Section 727: Language is included regarding the use funds for 

humanitarian food assistance programs. 

Section 728: Language is included regarding the Single Family 

Housing Direct Loan Program. 

Section 729: Language is included on certain USDA loan programs. 

Section 730: Language is included regarding the Packers and 

Stockyards Act. 

Section 731: Language is included regarding the Working Capital 

Fund. 

Section 733: Language is included on farm disaster programs. 

Section 734: Language is included regarding prescription drug 

approvals. 

Section 735: Language is included regarding federal criminal 

felonies. 

Section 736: Language is included regarding federal tax liability. 

Section 737: Language is included to limit certain funds. 

Section 738: Language is included regarding the WIC food package. 

Section 739: Language is included regarding school meal programs. 

Section 741: Language is included regarding the use of funds for 

certain horse inspection activities. 

Section 742: Language is included regarding purchases made 

through Child Nutrition Programs. 

Section 743: Spending Reduction Account. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
72 

DISCLOSURE OF EARMARKS AND CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED

SPENDING ITEMS

Neither the bill nor the report contains any Congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in 

clause 9 of rule XXI. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
73 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 07 here HR468.028
74 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 08 here HR468.029
75 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 09 here HR468.030
76 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 010 here HR468.031
77 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 011 here HR468.032
78 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 012 here HR468.033
79 

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. 

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 

Government Accountability Office 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

The bill does not direct any rule making. 

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: 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Agency/Program Last Year of 

authorization 

Authorization 

Level 

Appropriations in last 

year of 

authorization 

Appropriations in this 

bill 

Multi-family Housing Revitalization Program .................................................. 9/30/2014 32,575 32,575 28,000 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission ..................................... 9/30/2013 Such sums 215,000 217,578 

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: 

The bill proposes rescissions of $155,000,000 of funds derived 

from interest on the cushion of credit payments under the Rural 

Economic Development Loans Program Account; $50,000,000 from 

the Watershed Rehabilitation Program; $122,000,000 from Section 

32 funds; $13,000,000 from Food for Peace Title I grants; and 

$125,000,000 from the Emergency Livestock Assistance Program. 

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, the Committee notes that the accompanying bill does not propose to repeal or amend a statute or part 

thereof. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
80 

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 

Discretionary .......................................... 20,880 21,848 20,880 1 21,716 

Mandatory .............................................. 114,937 107,310 114,937 1 107,310 

1 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

FIVE-YEAR OUTLAY PROJECTIONS

Pursuant to section 308(a)(1)(B) of the Congressional Budget Act 

of 1974, the following table contains five-year projections prepared 

by the Congressional Budget Office of outlays associated with the 

budget authority provided in the accompanying bill: 

[In millions of dollars] 

Projection of outlays associated with the recommendation: 

2015 .............................................................................................. 1 114,820 

2016 .............................................................................................. 4,578 

2017 .............................................................................................. 922 

2018 .............................................................................................. 242 

2019 and future years ................................................................. ¥888 1 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Pursuant to section 308(a)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act 

of 1974, the amounts of financial assistance to State and local governments is as follows: 

[In millions of dollars] 

Budget Authority ................................................................................ 38,896 

Outlays ................................................................................................ 1 32,826 1 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
81 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 017 HR468.001
82 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 018 HR468.002
83 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 019 HR468.003
84 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 020 HR468.004
85 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 021 HR468.005
86 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 022 HR468.006
87 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 023 HR468.007
88 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 024 HR468.008
89 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 025 HR468.009
90 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 026 HR468.010
91 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 027 HR468.011
92 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 028 HR468.012
93 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 029 HR468.013
94 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 030 HR468.014
95 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 031 HR468.015
96 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 032 HR468.016
97 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 033 HR468.017
98 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 034 HR468.018
99 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 035 HR468.019
100 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 036 HR468.020
101 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 037 HR468.021
102 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 038 HR468.022
103 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 039 HR468.023
104 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 040 HR468.024
105 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 041 HR468.025
106 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 042 HR468.026
107 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 043 HR468.027
(108) 

MINORITY VIEWS OF THE HON. NITA LOWEY AND THE 

HON. SAM FARR 

We voted against reporting the bill from committee because of 

our concerns about several aspects of the measure. 

Among those concerns are two highly objectionable nutrition riders. 

First, we are deeply concerned that the bill would allow school 

food authorities (SFAs) to get waivers from complying with the improved lunch and breakfast nutrition standards in the Healthy, 

Hunger-free Kids Act (HHFKA) if they can show that they are operating at a net loss. 

At the signing ceremony for the HHFKA, President Obama explained the need for the act as follows: 

‘‘At a very basic level, this act is about doing what’s right for 

our children. Right now, across the country, too many kids 

don’t have access to school meals. And often, the food that’s 

being offered isn’t as healthy or as nutritious as it should be. 

That’s part of the reason why one in three children in America 

today are either overweight or obese. 

‘‘And we’re seeing this problem in every part of the country 

in kids from all different backgrounds and all walks of life. As 

a result, doctors are now starting to see conditions like high 

blood pressure, high cholesterol and Type II diabetes in children—these are things that they only used to see in adults. 

And this bill is about reversing that trend and giving our kids 

the healthy futures that they deserve.’’ 

We believe that rather than going backwards and serving children in some schools less healthy meals, we should be encouraging 

USDA to continue giving schools the technical assistance they need 

to meet the standards. We should also be encouraging USDA to 

continue providing flexibility, where warranted, in meeting nutrition standards. 

The approach in this bill, however, is unacceptable. 

Second, we are very troubled by the inclusion of bill language requiring that white potatoes be eligible for purchase in the WIC program. WIC provides supplemental nutrition through specified foods. 

For fruits and vegetables, WIC benefits are provided through 

vouchers and are extremely limited—currently a maximum of $10 

per person per month. 

USDA explained its policy with respect to white potatoes as follows: 

The restriction of white potatoes, as recommended by the 

IOM, is based on data indicating that consumption of starchy 

vegetables meets or exceeds recommended amounts, and food 

intake data showing that white potatoes are the most widely 

used vegetable. Including white potatoes in the WIC food packages would not contribute towards meeting the nutritional 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
109 

needs of the WIC population and would not support the goal 

of expanding the types and varieties of fruits and vegetables 

available to program participants, as recommended by the 

IOM. 

Recognizing the interest in this issue, USDA has said that it 

would start the regular review of the food package that had been 

scheduled for 2015 a year earlier to determine if the exclusion of 

white potatoes is still based on the most current scientific information. 

This is the right approach. Congress has never mandated the inclusion of a specific food item in the WIC food package in the history of the program. If this ill-advised provision were to become 

law, it would set a dangerous precedent for congressional efforts to 

undermine the scientific basis for WIC. 

While funding levels in the bill are, in general, acceptable, there 

are some exceptions. The most notable is the Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission, funded at $217.6 million, which is $62.4 million below the president’s request. As we said last year, the Republican majority must drop the pretense that the Dodd-Frank Wall 

Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act is going to be repealed 

and provide the agency the resources it needs to fulfill its mandate. 

On the positive side, we are pleased that the bill restores Food for Peace (FFP) funding to the 2014 level of $1.466 billion ($66 million over the request) and increases funding for the McGovern-Dole 

program by $13 million over 2014 and the request, to $198.1 million. 

However, we have strong concerns about the exclusion of important reforms that would have furthered the impact of each dollar 

spent on food aid. First, although the 2014 omnibus and the President’s 2015 budget set aside $35 million from the total FFP account for greater flexibility in development assistance, this was not 

included in this bill. The language would allow us to feed up to 

200,000 more people at no extra cost to the taxpayer. Second, we 

would have liked to include the President’s request to allow up to 

25% of the total account to be used for cash-based food assistance 

in emergency situations. That language would allow us to assist 

about 2 million more people around the world at no additional cost. 

We hope that as this bill moves forward, we can include these provisions, promote local capacity development, and assist as many 

people as possible with the dollars we provide. 

While we will do our best to address the problems we have described here as the legislative process moves forward, we do not 

support the bill in its current form. 

NITA M. LOWEY. 

SAM FARR. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS