20–143 PDF 

Calendar No. 474 

114TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 114–259 

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG 

ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2017 

MAY 19, 2016—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. MORAN, from the Committee on Appropriations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 2956] 

The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 2956) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 

Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal 

year ending September 30, 2017, and for other purposes, reports favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass. 

New obligational authority 

Total of bill as reported to the Senate ....................$148,253,346,000 

Amount of 2016 appropriations ............................... 140,965,695,000 

Amount of 2017 budget estimate ............................ 169,876,786,000 

Bill as recommended to Senate compared to— 

2016 appropriations .......................................... ∂7,287,651,000 

2017 budget estimate ........................................ ¥21,623,440,000 
(2) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

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

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

Title I: 

Agricultural Programs: 

Production, Processing, and Marketing: 

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

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

Office of the Chief Information Officer ............................................. 11 

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

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights ........................... 12 

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

Agriculture Buildings and Facilities ................................................ 13 

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

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

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

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

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

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

National Agricultural Statistics Service .......................................... 16 

Agricultural Research Service ........................................................... 22 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture ..................................... 23 

Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs ............................................................................................... 29 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service .................................. 30 

Agricultural Marketing Service ........................................................ 35 

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration ............ 38 

Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety ................................. 39 

Food Safety and Inspection Service .................................................. 39 

Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural 

Services ............................................................................................ 41 

Farm Service Agency ......................................................................... 41 

Risk Management Agency ................................................................. 45 

Corporations: 

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund ...................................... 46 

Commodity Credit Corporation Fund ............................................... 46 

Title II: 

Conservation Programs: 

Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment ........................................................................................................ 49 

Natural Resources Conservation Service ................................................ 49 

Title III: 

Rural Development Programs: 

Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development ........................... 53 

Rural Housing Service .............................................................................. 54 

Rural Community Facilities Program Account ....................................... 59 

Rural Business—Cooperative Service ...................................................... 60 

Rural Utilities Service .............................................................................. 65 

Title IV: 

Domestic Food Programs: 

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

Services ................................................................................................... 69 

Food and Nutrition Service ...................................................................... 69 
Page

3 

Title V: Foreign Assistance and Related Programs: Foreign Agricultural Service .......................................................................................................................... 77 

Title VI: 

Related Agency and Food and Drug Administration: 

Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration ..................................................................................................... 81 

Independent Agency: Farm Credit Administration ................................ 93 

Title VII: General Provisions .................................................................................. 94 

Program, Project, and Activity ............................................................................... 97 

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

Senate ................................................................................................................... 97 

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

Senate ................................................................................................................... 98 

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

Senate ................................................................................................................... 99 

Budgetary Impact of Bill ......................................................................................... 100 

Comparative Statement of Budget Authority ........................................................ 101 
(4) 

BREAKDOWN BY TITLE 

The amounts of obligational authority for each of the seven titles 

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

comparisons, appears at the end of this report. Recommendations 

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

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2016 

enacted 

Committee 

recommendation 

Title I: Agricultural programs ..................................................................................... 23,065,823 30,718,168 

Title II: Conservation programs .................................................................................. 863,754 1,015,375 

Title III: Rural economic and community development programs ............................. 2,770,977 2,836,651 

Title IV: Domestic food programs ............................................................................... 109,796,981 109,721,128 

Title V: Foreign assistance and related programs ..................................................... 1,868,468 2,006,883 

Title VI: Related agencies and Food and Drug Administration ................................. 2,729,596 2,771,766 

Title VII: General provisions ........................................................................................ ¥129,904 ¥816,625 

Total, new budget (obligational) authority ................................................... 140,965,695 148,253,346 
(5) 

OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY OF THE BILL 

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

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

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

and inspection activities; domestic food assistance programs; rural 

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

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

expenses of the Farm Credit Administration [FCA]. 

The discretionary programs and activities of USDA and FDA 

that are supported by this bill include high priority responsibilities 

entrusted to the Federal Government and its partners to protect 

human health and safety, contribute to economic recovery, and 

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

growing pressure on available levels of discretionary spending as a 

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

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

with farm subsidies and other mandatory spending more properly 

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

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

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

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

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

against the introduction and spread of noxious or infectious and 

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

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

consistent with the subcommittee’s allocation for fiscal year 2017. 

All accounts in the bill have been closely examined to ensure 

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

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

funding levels are included in the report. 
6 

REPORTS TO CONGRESS 

The Committee has, throughout this report, requested agencies 

to provide studies and reports on various issues. The Committee 

utilizes these reports to evaluate program performance and make 

decisions on future appropriations. The Committee directs that all 

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

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

TITLE I 

AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS 

PRODUCTION, PROCESSING, AND MARKETING

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $45,555,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 64,403,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 54,150,000 

The Secretary of Agriculture, assisted by the Deputy Secretary, 

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

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

President and Members of Congress on all matters pertaining to 

agricultural policy. 

The general authority of the Secretary to supervise and control 

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

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

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $54,150,000 for 

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

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

reflects the amount provided by the Committee for each office and 

activity: 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2016 enacted Fiscal year 2017 

budget request 

Committee recommendation 

Office of the Secretary ......................................................................... 5,051 10,178 10,178 

Office of Tribal Relations .................................................................... 502 755 505 

Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Coordination ................ 1,496 1,592 1,592 

Office of Advocacy and Outreach ........................................................ 1,209 11,220 4,220 

Office of Assistance Secretary for Administration .............................. 804 807 807 

Departmental Administration ............................................................... 25,124 27,420 25,396 

Office of Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations ................. 3,869 3,919 3,919 
8 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2016 enacted Fiscal year 2017 

budget request 

Committee recommendation 

Office of Communications ................................................................... 7,500 8,512 7,533 

Total ........................................................................................ 45,555 64,403 54,150 

Advertising Transparency.—The Committee is aware that agencies funded through this bill do a variety of different types of advertising. The Committee directs the agencies to clearly state within the text, audio, or video used for advertising or educational purposes, including emails or advertising/posting on the Internet, that 

the communications are printed, published, or produced and disseminated at U.S. taxpayer expense. 

Biobased Products.—The Committee recognizes the opportunity 

that exists for biobased products to be used in food packaging and 

the food service industry. Bioplastics made from renewable resources such as canola can play an important role in this effort. 

The Committee encourages USDA to continue to work with companies bringing these types of products to market under the BioPreferred label. 

Century Farms.—The Committee encourages the Secretary to 

recognize farms that have been in operation for 100 years, with 

prioritization for small, family farms, and encourages the establishment of a National Century Farms Designation. 

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

the obligation or commitment of any emergency funds from the 

CCC. 

Cotton.—The Committee remains committed to ensuring a longterm and sustainable solution to problems facing American cotton 

farmers and commends the Secretary for exploring ways in which 

to provide relief with respect to the 2015 crop year. While the Committee is disappointed that the Secretary declined Congressional 

requests to designate cottonseed as an oilseed under the authority 

granted under the 2014 Farm Bill, the Committee encourages the 

Secretary to continue to work with Congress and industry to find 

a path forward on providing an adequate safety net for cottonseed. 

Drought Relief.—The Committee continues its directive for USDA 

to provide quarterly reports to the Senate and House Committees 

on Appropriations detailing USDA’s efforts to provide drought relief to States where all or the majority of counties are declared to 

be in a drought disaster, as well as any unmet needs or backlogs 

for USDA drought relief programs. 

Multi-Agency Transparency.—The Committee expresses support 

for increasing transparency within all agencies of the Department 

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

Act. 

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

to counter foreign animal diseases and will enable the phase out 
9 

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

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

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

efforts, and considers any new capabilities that may be necessary 

for future operations at NBAF. While the Department of Homeland 

Security [DHS] is responsible for the PIADC facilities, the R&D activities continue to be managed by USDA. Similarly, while DHS is 

responsible for building NBAF, the Committee understands that 

virtually all of the R&D activities will be under USDA auspices. 

Therefore, the Committee encourages DHS and USDA to work together on a plan for the future operation of NBAF, including consideration of the appropriate agency to manage the facility. 

Outreach to Socially Disadvantaged and Veteran Farmers and 

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

mandatory funds is available to assist socially disadvantaged and 

veteran farmers and ranchers in owning and operating farms and 

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

workforce shortages. Additionally, the Committee recommendation 

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

these activities. 

Resource Conservation and Development Councils.—Since 1964, 

the Resource Conservation and Development [RC&D] Councils 

have worked at the grassroots level with local leaders to plan, develop, and carry out programs for land and water conservation and 

management. The Committee encourages the Secretary to consider 

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

Councils meet agency performance requirements, in the delivery of 

USDA programs and services. 

Transitional Tropical and Subtropical Agriculture.—The Department is encouraged to help maintain diversity in commercial agriculture by providing due support for significant-scale tropical and 

subtropical agricultural operations that are in transition due to 

economic hardship. 

Vector Control.—The Department is encouraged to use its technical expertise in pest management to support Federal efforts to 

control Aedes aegypti, the primary vector for Zika, dengue, and 

chikungunya, all of which have now been reported in the United 

States. The Department may extend its technical support to include field trials, if appropriate, in physically isolated locales where 

cases of these diseases have already been reported. 

Veteran Farming Career and Therapeutic Initiatives.—The Committee recognizes that nearly 40 percent of the Nation’s farms are 

operated and owned by farmers over the age of 65, there will be 

a demand for 1 million new farmers over the next 15 years and 

800,000 servicemembers are expected to transition out of the military in the coming years. Nearly half of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans return to rural communities and while many express a desire 

to have careers in farming or ranching, only 2 percent of these 

rural veterans currently work in agriculture. The Committee is encouraged by USDA’s goal to develop and deepen the pipeline that 

will create paths for veterans transitioning from military service to 
10 

careers in agriculture. Funding for the Food and Agriculture Resilience Program for Military Veterans [FARM–Vets] affirms the 

Committee’s commitment to explore career opportunities, promote 

individual and community economic development, as well as, develop initiatives that engage veterans experiencing post-traumatic 

stress and traumatic brain injury with proven and promising agricultural, animal, environmental, and horticultural therapies. With 

as many as one in five veterans who served in Operations Iraqi 

Freedom or Enduring Freedom experiencing post-traumatic stress, 

the Committee urges the Department to seek opportunities that 

converge veteran agribusiness training and access to behavioral 

healthcare. The Committee recommendation provides $5,000,000 

within the Office of the Secretary and $2,500,000 for FARM–Vets 

to advance initiatives and support programs that offer educational 

or vocational training in agriculture, provide behavioral health 

services by licensed providers and create pathways to employment 

in agribusiness. 

EXECUTIVE OPERATIONS

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

policy officials and selected department-wide services. Activities 

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

Program Analysis. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ECONOMIST

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $17,777,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 17,592,000 

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

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

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

of all commodity and aggregate agricultural and food-related data 

used to develop outlook and situation material within the Department. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

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

the Office of the Chief Economist. 

Policy Research.—The Committee recommendation includes 

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

existing institutional capacity to conduct complex economic and policy analysis and a lengthy and well-documented record of conducting policy analysis for the benefit of the Department of Agriculture, the Congressional Budget Office, or the Congress. To maximize resources, the Committee expects the Department to focus efforts on entities that have developed models, databases, and staff 
11 

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

rural development policy proposals on rural communities, farmers, 

agribusiness, taxpayers, and consumers. 

NATIONAL APPEALS DIVISION

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $13,317,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 13,481,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 13,481,000 

The National Appeals Division conducts administrative hearings 

and reviews of adverse program decisions made by the Rural Development mission area, the Farm Service Agency, the Risk Management Agency, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $13,481,000 for 

the National Appeals Division. 

OFFICE OF BUDGET AND PROGRAM ANALYSIS

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $9,392,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 9,525,000 

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

The Office of Budget and Program Analysis provides direction 

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

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

Secretary and departmental policy officials and agency program 

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

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

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

the Office of Budget and Program Analysis. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $44,538,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 65,716,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 49,917,000 

The Office of the Chief Information Officer was established in 

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

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

investment activities in support of USDA program delivery, and is 

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

technology investments are economical and effective, coordinates 
12 

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

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

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

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

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

the Chief Financial Officer, and Departmental Management. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $49,917,000 for 

the Office of the Chief Information Officer. This amount also includes not less than $33,000,000 to support cybersecurity requirements of the Department, which is an increase of $5,000,000 for increased cybersecurity tools to meet the growing demands of cyber 

security threats and known vulnerability risks. 

Software Licenses.—The Committee encourages the Department’s 

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

purchases of licenses. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $6,028,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 9,119,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 8,119,000 

The Office of the Chief Financial Officer is responsible for the 

dual roles of Chief Financial Management Policy Officer and Chief 

Financial Management Advisor to the Secretary and mission area 

heads. The Office provides leadership for all financial management, 

accounting, travel, Federal assistance, and strategic planning performance measurement activities within the Department. The Office is also responsible for the management and operation of the 

National Finance Center and the Departmental Working Capital 

Fund. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $8,119,000 for 

the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, including an increase of 

$2,000,000 for implementation of the Digital Accountability and 

Transparency Reporting Act. 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $898,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 901,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 901,000 
13 

The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights provides 

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

employees of the Department of Agriculture and participants in 

programs of the Department, and ensuring compliance with civil 

rights laws. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

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

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights. 

OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $24,070,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 24,750,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 24,342,000 

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

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

The Office is responsible for providing leadership in facilitating the 

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

internal and external partners to ensure equal and timely access 

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

training. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $24,342,000 for 

the Office of Civil Rights. 

AGRICULTURE BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $64,189,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 84,365,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 74,365,000 

Department headquarters presently operates in a two-building, 

Government-owned complex in downtown Washington, DC, the 

George Washington Carver Center in Beltsville, Maryland, and in 

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

an arrangement with the General Services Administration, USDA 

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

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

the Agriculture South Building. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $74,365,000 for 

Agriculture Buildings and Facilities. 
14 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $3,618,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 3,633,000 

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

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

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

cleanup, monitor, and inspect for hazardous materials in areas 

under the Department’s jurisdiction. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

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

Hazardous Materials Management, including the requested increase for cleanup efforts at high-priority sites that pose the greatest threats to human life and safety. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $95,738,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 100,998,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 99,378,000 

The Office of Inspector General [OIG] was established October 

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

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

general authorities of the Secretary of Agriculture. 

The Office is administered by an inspector general who reports 

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

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

The activities of this Office are designed to assure compliance 

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

means for prompt corrective action where deviations have occurred. 

The scope of audit and investigative activities is large and includes 

administrative, program, and criminal matters. These activities are 

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $99,378,000 for 

the Office of Inspector General. The recommendation also includes 

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

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

law enforcement personnel in this effort. 
15 

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $44,383,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 49,599,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 45,010,000 

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

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

proceedings; State water rights adjudications; proceedings before 

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

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

judicial proceedings and litigation. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $45,010,000 for 

the Office of the General Counsel. 

OFFICE OF ETHICS

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $3,654,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 4,617,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,715,000 

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

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

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

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

2634 through 2641). 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,715,000 for 

the Office of Ethics. 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND

ECONOMICS

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $893,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 901,000 

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

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

Economics provides direction and coordination in carrying out the 

laws enacted by the Congress for food and agricultural research, 

education, extension, and economic and statistical information. The 

Office has oversight and management responsibilities for the Agricultural Research Service; National Institute of Food and Agriculture; Economic Research Service; and National Agricultural Statistics Service. 
16 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

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

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

Industrial Hemp.—The Committee urges the Secretary to clarify 

the Agency’s authority to award Federal funds to research projects 

deemed compliant with Section 7606 of the Agricultural Act of 

2014. 

Pollinators.—The Committee directs the Department to coordinate its research efforts and to institute longitudinal, in-the-field 

studies along major migratory bee routes, and to develop associated 

sensor and analytical technologies to identify the key factors causing honey bee loss. 

ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $85,373,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 91,278,000 

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

The Economic Research Service [ERS] provides economic and 

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

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

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

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

the Economic Research Service. 

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

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

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

NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS SERVICE

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $168,443,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 176,639,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 169,639,000 

The National Agricultural Statistics Service [NASS] administers 

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

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

of the agricultural sector which are essential for making effective 

policy, production, and marketing decisions. NASS also furnishes 

statistical services to other USDA and Federal agencies in support 

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

training to developing countries. 

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

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

farms, land use, production expenses, farm product values, value of 
17 

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

market value of agricultural production sold, acreage of major 

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $169,639,000 for 

the National Agricultural Statistics Service. 

Chemical Use Data Series.—The Committee believes that the 

Chemical Use Data Series provides timely, valuable information on 

fertilizer and chemical use data on major field crops and selected 

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

pest management. The Committee directs the National Agricultural Statistics Service to continue collecting Fruit Chemical Use 

data and Vegetable Chemical Use data in alternating years. 

Organic Data Collection.—The Committee believes the Organic 

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

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

production survey into its internal budgeting process. 

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $1,143,825,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 1,161,340,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,177,938,000 

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

major program areas of New Products/Product Quality/Value 

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

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

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

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

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

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

areas: research on broad regional and national problems, research 

to support Federal action and regulatory agencies, expertise to 

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

The mission of ARS research is to develop and transfer solutions 

to agricultural problems of high national priority and provide information access and dissemination to ensure high-quality, safe food 
18 

and other agricultural products; assess the nutritional needs of 

Americans; sustain a competitive agricultural economy; enhance 

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

a whole. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,177,938,000 

for salaries and expenses of the Agricultural Research Service. The 

Committee does not concur with the President’s budget request regarding the termination of research programs. The Committee expects extramural research to be funded at no less than the fiscal 

year 2016 levels. 

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

program conducts innovative research making aerial applications 

more efficient, effective and precise. Research for aerial application 

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

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

Agricultural Genomics.—The Committee provides $1,500,000 for 

agricultural genomic research to expand the knowledge of public 

and private sector entities and persons concerning genomes for species of importance to the food and agriculture sectors in order to 

maximize the return on the investment in genomics of agriculturally important species. 

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

Agroforesters manage trees with crops, livestock, and pasture to 

combine the best of both agriculture and forestry. Recognizing the 

importance of agroforestry to farm practices and the environment, 

the Committee recommendation includes no less than the fiscal 

year 2016 level to develop integrated strategies to manage multifunctional agricultural landscapes that combine trees with agricultural and horticultural crops, forages and grazing livestock for optimal economic, environmental, and natural resources benefits. 

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

yields, increase milk production, and improve genetics, and encourages ARS to support research focused on alfalfa improvement. Research should focus on using tools to accelerate and enhance existing breeding programs focused on improving yield and quality parameters; developing innovative harvesting and utilization systems; 

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

ARS Field Stations.—The Committee recognizes the successful 

utilization of authorities granted previously in annual appropriations acts to further the cooperation between industry and the 

Canal Point, Florida, Sugarcane Field Station. However, the Committee is concerned that this partnership is jeopardized by requirements that have nothing to do with the functionality of facilities. 

The Committee directs ARS to resolve these issues, thus allowing 

this model partnership to continue. 
19 

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

to enhance classical plant breeding, and encourages ARS 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. 

Cotton Ginning.—The Committee recognizes the importance of 

pollution abatement, improving fiber quality, ginning efficiency, 

cotton seed and other byproducts, and provides an additional 

$1,500,000 to expand research in cotton ginning and innovation by 

existing laboratories. 

Cover Crops Research and Outreach.—The Committee recognizes 

the importance of developing profitable and practicable cover crop 

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

including for use in no-till organic systems and as forages. Therefore, the Committee recommendation includes $750,000 for ARS to 

support research with the purposes of improving measures of soil 

health and resiliency, varietal development, optimizing dairy forage 

species combinations, timing and strategies for cover crop seeding 

and termination, forage integration into organic dairy systems, and 

mitigation of environmental and extreme rainfall impacts on water 

quality and soil security for diverse cover crop systems. 

Emerging Cereal Rust Diseases.—The Committee is aware that 

emerging cereal rust diseases are a threat to domestic and world 

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

Forage Production Systems.—The Committee recommendation includes no less than the fiscal year 2016 level to develop management practices that improve the production efficiency of grazing operations in temperate pastures. 

Forest Products.—The Committee recognizes the important role 

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

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

national economy. The Committee recommendation includes no less 

than the fiscal year 2016 level to support research on wood quality 

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

consultation with the Forest Products Laboratory. 

Genomes to Fields.—The Committee encourages ARS to expand 

the Germplasm Enhancement of Maize [GEM] project and has provided $1,250,000 to complement the existing USDA maize 

germplasm programs and support the emerging large-scale public 

sector effort to investigate the interaction of maize genome variation and environments, known as the Genomes to Fields project. 

Human Nutrition Research.—The Committee remains concerned 

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

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

recommendation includes no less than the fiscal year 2016 level to 
20 

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

Leafy Green Vegetables.—The Committee encourages ARS to support the research and development of leafy green vegetables, including vertically stacked farming production at scale, with improved taste, texture, size, appearance and nutritional content in 

order to increase consumption, particularly by children and adolescents. 

National Agricultural Library.—The Committee encourages the 

Agricultural Research Service to maintain its focus on agriculturerelated legal issues within the National Agricultural Library. The 

Committee notes that as the agriculture sector faces increasing fiscal stress, there is a necessity that agriculture-related legal issues 

be addressed on an increasingly frequent basis. Further, agricultural-related legal issues are increasingly complex and the impact 

of these legal issues continues to broaden in scope. Therefore, the 

Committee recommends that the National Agricultural Library 

maintain the Agricultural Law Information Partnership. 

National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility Workforce Development.— The Committee notes that significant resources have been invested 

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

concerned about the potential shortage of qualified scientists, including DVM-PhDs, when the facility opens in 2022. The Committee recommendation includes $1,000,000 for ARS to develop the 

necessary mechanisms to ensure a viable and qualified scientific 

workforce is available, and to implement a program to recruit and 

train scientists, and other technical positions, focused on pathology, 

virology, immunology, entomology, epidemiology, microbiology, and 

computational biology for productive USDA careers at NBAF. 

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

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

cause of premature death and disability. More research is needed 

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

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

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

Office of Pest Management Policy.—The Committee recognizes 

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

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

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

commensurately with the increased actions undertaken by EPA, 

and the Committee provides $3,000,000 for OPMP to fulfill its obligations on behalf of USDA. 

Poultry Research.—The Committee recognizes the important role 

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

$2,000,000 above the fiscal year 2016 funding level to expand the 

research capacity for poultry production and health. 

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

1862 Institutions in States that do not have Agricultural Research 

Service facilities to address the research priorities of such States, 
21 

such as invasive plant species and insects that cause significant 

impacts to agriculture, aquaculture, and communities in such 

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

Research Facilities.—The Committee notes the delivery of the report pursuant to a provision in the report accompanying the Fiscal 

Year 2016 Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriation Act, 

which directed ARS to submit a report containing recommendations 

to better utilize Federal labs in cooperation with land-grant universities. It is concerning, however, that the report contained no such 

recommendations and many issues regarding the underutilization 

of established labs remain unresolved. The Committee therefore directs ARS, in consultation with land-grant universities and Center 

Directors, to submit a report to the Committee by January 30, 

2017, that includes an assessment of the current utilization of each 

ARS facility, the views of land-grant universities and/or Center Directors, and specific recommendations to better utilize Federal labs 

to explore new scientific opportunities that benefit the Nation’s 

food and agriculture system. 

Safe and Abundant Water Supplies.—The Committee recognizes 

the importance of a coordinated approach to the management of 

water supplies as water demands increase in drought prone areas 

and elsewhere. The Committee recommendation includes an increase of $5,000,000 for research to enhance agricultural production despite increased competition for water resources and declining water availability. 

Sage Steppe Restoration Science.—The Committee includes an increase of $1,000,000 for ARS to advance sagebrush habitat restoration science in the Northern Great Basin including cooperative research, testing and deploying precision restoration methods to restore habitat impacted by significant disturbance such as wildfire 

and invasive species. 

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

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

Sclerotinia Initiative. 

Shellfish Research.—The Committee encourages the Agricultural 

Research Service to increase its investment in partnerships with 

research institutions on research to improve shellfish survival and 

growth rates and to classify and preserve natural genetic variation. 

Small Grains Genomic Initiative.—The Committee recognizes 

that ARS small grains genotypic research provides a critical resource to facilitate the application of genomic information and DNA 

marker technologies to the improvement and breeding of barley 

and wheat, with a current major need to update to next-generation 

genotypic to accelerate marker-assisted breeding. Adequate resources are also needed to enhance barley and wheat quality 

phenotyping, doubled haploid research and small grains genomic 

research, and the Committee supports the Small Grains Genomic 

Initiative. 

Sorghum Genetic Database.—The Committee recognizes the importance of phenotyping and genotyping that allows breeders to un-
22 

derstand which genes are responsible for improvements in drought 

tolerance and yield. The Committee recommends an increase of 

$1,650,000 to further facilitate the partnership between ARS and 

the Department of Energy on sorghum genome mapping—particularly the creation of an easily-accessed database to house the information generated from the ongoing genetic sequencing research 

which will facilitate further crop development efforts. 

Sustainable Water Use Research.—The alluvial plain within the 

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

as a result of increasing water withdrawals and stagnant recharging. The Committee provides an increase of $4,500,000 million for research to improve the recharge capabilities of the Alluvial 

Aquifer and to develop new conservation and irrigation techniques 

to reduce water usage in agriculture production. 

Tropical and Subtropical Research.—Research on Tropical and 

Subtropical crops is critical as the presence of and destruction by 

invasive pests such as fruit flies, coffee berry borer, and plant viruses increase and threaten crop security in the Pacific and Insular 

Areas, and the Committee encourages ARS to support this research. 

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

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

USWBSI. The Committee recommendation includes an additional 

$2,000,000 above the fiscal year 2016 level to conduct further research on reducing the impact of fusarium head blight on wheat 

and barley. 

Wheat and Sorghum Research.—The Committee recognizes the 

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

to changing climatic conditions. The Committee provides an increase of $1,000,000 for research to improve the productivity and 

quality of wheat and sorghum during uncertain growing seasons 

resulting from extended droughts and increased temperatures. 

Within this increase, funding is included to initiate gene flow research to advance the durability and sustainability of fitness traits 

in sorghum. 

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $212,101,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 94,500,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 64,300,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $64,300,000 for 

Agricultural Research Service, Buildings and Facilities. 
23 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE

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

2008 amends the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 

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

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

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

authorities administered by the Administrator of the Cooperative 

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

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

benefit people, communities, and the Nation. 

RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $819,685,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 836,915,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 851,496,000 

Research and Education programs administered by NIFA are 

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

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

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

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

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

note); the Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Reform 

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

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

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

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

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

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

1890 Land-Grant Institutions and Tuskegee University and West 

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

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

The research and education programs participate in a nationwide 

system of agricultural research program planning and coordination 

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

the agricultural industry of America. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $851,496,000 for 

research and education activities of the National Institute of Food 

and Agriculture. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations for research and education activities: 
24 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE—RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Program/Activity Authorization Committee 

recommendation 

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

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

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

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

Education Grants for 1890 Institutions .............................................. 7 U.S.C. 3152(b) ............................. 19.336 

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

Education Grants for Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving 

Institutions.

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

Research Grants for 1994 Institutions ............................................... 536 of Public Law 103–382 ........... 1,801 

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

Resident Instruction and Distance Education Grants for Insular 

Areas.

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

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

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

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

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 

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

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

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

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

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

5832.

27,000 

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

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

Improved Pest Control: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Necessary Expenses of Research and Education Activities: 

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

Federal Administration—Other Necessary Expenses for Research and Education Activities........................................................... 13,487 

Total, Necessary Expenses ................................................ .......................................................... 21,317 

Total, Research and Education Activities ......................... .......................................................... 851,496 

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

Research Initiative [AFRI]. 

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

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

plant and animal breeding. The Committee strongly concurs with 

the intent of this section, and continuing its fiscal year 2016 guidance, encourages the agency to create a distinct funding stream 

within the AFRI program for development of publically available, 

regionally adapted cultivars that are bred specifically to meet 

unique regional soil, climate, and cropping system conditions, for 

the benefit of U.S. producers, seed companies, processors and con-
25 

sumers. The Committee further directs the agency to report its 

progress in meeting this requirement. 

Agricultural Research Enhancement Awards.—The Committee 

remains determined to see that quality research and enhanced 

human resources development in the agricultural and related 

sciences be a nationwide commitment. Therefore, the Committee 

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

enhancement awards program, including USDA–EPSCoR. 

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

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

systems. 

Aquaculture Disease Research.—The Committee encourages 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cereal Crop Research.—Research on cereal crops has historically 

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

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

genomic research, plant pest research, and improved production 

systems. 

Countering Seafood Fraud.—The Committee remains concerned 

about countering economic fraud and improving food safety of the 

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

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

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

centers. 

Food Safety.—The Committee recommends that NIFA prioritize 

research on funding for new food safety technologies relating to the 

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

Lowbush Blueberries.—The Committee directs NIFA to work 

with research institutions to develop and refine predictive models 

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

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

product quality. 
26 

Organic Research.—USDA’s National Organic Standards Board 

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

which would help to address challenges that have limited the 

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

research priorities when crafting the fiscal year 2017 RFAs for 

AFRI and the Organic Transition Program. 

Regional Research Priorities.—The Committee encourages NIFA 

to consider providing funding within AFRI to assist with State and 

regional research priorities, with USDA oversight and review. 

Seafood.—The Committee encourages USDA, in partnership with 

universities with established domestic shrimp farming programs, to 

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

environmentally sustainable aquaculture, create new opportunities 

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

Specialty Crop Research Initiative.—The Committee emphasizes 

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

research and extension activities, and encourages NIFA to 

prioritize proposals for and enhance its overall commitment to 

identifying and addressing threats to pollinators from pests and 

diseases. 

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

USDA to ensure that research, education and extension activities 

carried out within SARE remain intact. 

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

shall be members of the National Veterinary Medical Services 

Corps and members who have fulfilled the terms of their contract 

shall be alumni of the Corps. 

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

wildlife reservoirs a national animal health priority. This need is 

reflected in the Agricultural Act of 2014 which made the research 

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

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

agency to make competitive grants available to study improved 

management tools for zoonotic livestock diseases with significant 

wildlife reservoirs. 

HISPANIC-SERVING AGRICULTURAL COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

ENDOWMENT FUND

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... $10,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 10,000,000 

Section 7129 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, 

provides for the establishment of an endowment fund for the His-
27 

panic-Serving Agricultural Colleges and Universities [HSACU]. The 

Hispanic/Latino community is the fastest-growing sector of the 

American population. This investment in the Hispanic-Serving Agricultural Colleges and Universities is needed to ensure institutions 

can effectively compete for NIFA competitive grants. 

On the termination of each fiscal year, the Secretary shall withdraw the income from the endowment fund for the fiscal year, and 

after making adjustments for the cost of administering the endowment fund, shall distribute the adjusted income as follows: 60 percent of the adjusted income shall be distributed among the Hispanic-Serving Agricultural Colleges and Universities on a pro rata 

basis based on the Hispanic enrollment count of each institution; 

and 40 percent shall be distributed in equal shares to the HispanicServing Agricultural Colleges and Universities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $10,000,000 for 

the Hispanic-Serving Agricultural Colleges and Universities Endowment Fund. 

NATIVE AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS ENDOWMENT FUND

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $11,880,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 11,880,000 

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

The Native American Institutions Endowment Fund authorized 

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

educational opportunity for Native Americans by building educational capacity at these institutions in the areas of student recruitment and retention, curricula development, faculty preparation, instruction delivery systems, and scientific instrumentation 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

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

the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund. 

EXTENSION ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $475,891,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 501,859,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 476,230,000 
28 

Cooperative extension work was established by the Smith-Lever 

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

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

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

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

application of such information by demonstrations, publications, 

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

or resident at the colleges. 

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

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

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

Northern Marianas, and Micronesia conduct educational programs 

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $476,230,000 for 

extension activities of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture. 

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

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE—EXTENSION ACTIVITIES 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Program/Activity Authorization Committee 

recommendation 

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

of Public Law 93–471.

300,000 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Smith-LeverAct, Section 3(d): 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Necessary Expenses of Research and Education Activities: 

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

Federal Administration—Other Necessary Expenses for Research and Education Activities........................................................... 8,144 

Total, Necessary Expenses ................................................ .......................................................... 8,696 

Total, Extension Activities ................................................. .......................................................... 476,230 

INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $30,900,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 35,200,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 36,000,000 
29 

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

research, education, and extension competitive grants program. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $36,000,000 for 

integrated activities of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture. 

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

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE—INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Program/Activity Authorization Committee recommendation 

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

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

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

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

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

Total, Integrated Activities .................................................... .......................................................... 36,000 

Potato Research.—To minimize the application of pesticides and 

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

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

Additionally, the programs help identify serious diseases, such as 

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

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

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR MARKETING AND

REGULATORY PROGRAMS

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $893,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 901,000 

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

The Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory 

Programs provides direction and coordination in carrying out laws 

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

oversight and management responsibilities for the Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service; Agricultural Marketing Service; 

and Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

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

Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs. 
30 

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $894,415,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 901,196,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 939,286,000 

The Secretary of Agriculture established the Animal and Plant 

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

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

resources of the Nation from diseases and pests. These objectives 

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

Safeguarding and Emergency Preparedness/Response.—The 

agency monitors plant and animal health worldwide, and sets import polices to prevent the introduction of foreign plant and animal 

pests and diseases. Domestically, the agency works cooperatively to 

conduct plant and animal health monitoring programs, pursue 

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

agency protects agriculture from detrimental animal predators, and 

through its regulatory structure helps advance genetic research 

while protecting against the release of harmful organisms. 

Safe Trade and International Technical Assistance.—The agency 

helps resolve technical trade issues to ensure the smooth and safe 

movement of agricultural commodities into and out of the United 

States. The agency negotiates animal and plant health certification 

requirements and assists U.S. exporters meet foreign regulatory 

demands. In addition, the agency assists developing countries in 

improving their safeguarding systems, to protect the United States 

from emerging plant and animal pests and diseases. 

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

Animal Welfare and Horse Protection Acts require. These activities 

include inspection of certain establishments that handle animals 

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $939,286,000 for 

salaries and expenses of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service. The Committee does not concur with the proposed program 

reductions to absorb a percentage of statutory pay increases for 

agency employees and provides an additional $7,245,000 to fully 

cover increases in pay. 

The following table reflects the Committee’s specific recommendations for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service: 
31 

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2016 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2017 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendation 

Safeguarding and International Technical Assistance: 

Animal Health Technical Services .............................................. 35,339 36,941 35,438 

Aquatic Animal Health ................................................................ 2,253 2,282 2,287 

Avian Health ............................................................................... 55,340 55,597 55,642 

Cattle Health ............................................................................... 91,500 92,215 92,339 

Equine, Cervid and Small Ruminant Health .............................. 19,500 19,658 19,685 

National Veterinary Stockpile ...................................................... 3,973 5,723 5,723 

Swine Health ............................................................................... 24,800 24,971 25,001 

Veterinary Biologics .................................................................... 16,417 16,560 16,585 

Veterinary Diagnostics ................................................................ 36,540 31,843 39,832 

Zoonotic Disease Management ................................................... 9,523 19,523 14,622 

Subtotal, Animal Health ......................................................... 295,185 305,313 307,154 

Agricultural Quarantine Inspection (Appropriated) .................... 27,900 29,827 29,913 

Cotton Pests ................................................................................ 11,520 8,270 11,520 

Field Crop & Rangeland Ecosystems Pests ............................... 8,826 8,902 8,915 

Pest Detection ............................................................................. 27,446 27,636 27,669 

Plant Protection Methods Development ...................................... 20,686 20,870 20,902 

Specialty Crop Pests ................................................................... 158,000 146,076 158,000 

Tree & Wood Pests ...................................................................... 54,000 45,933 54,000 

Subtotal, Plant Health ............................................................ 308,378 287,514 310,919 

Wildlife Damage Management .................................................... 101,177 85,919 102,085 

Wildlife Services Methods Development ..................................... 18,856 19,070 19,107 

Subtotal, Wildlife Services ..................................................... 120,033 104,989 121,192 

Animal & Plant Health Regulatory Enforcement ........................ 16,224 16,410 16,442 

Biotechnology Regulatory Services ............................................. 18,875 18,996 19,017 

Subtotal, Regulatory Services ................................................ 35,099 35,406 35,459 

Contingency Fund ....................................................................... 470 476 477 

Emergency Preparedness & Response ........................................ 16,966 44,155 44,175 

Subtotal, Emergency Management ......................................... 17,436 44,631 44,652 

Subtotal, Safeguarding and Emergency Preparedness/Response ................................................................................ 776,131 777,853 819,376 

Safe Trade and International Technical Assistance: 

Agriculture Import/Export ............................................................ 15,099 19,751 16,247 

Overseas Technical & Trade Operations .................................... 22,114 22,227 22,247 

Subtotal, Safe Trade .............................................................. 37,213 41,978 38,494 

Animal Welfare: 

Animal Welfare ............................................................................ 28,410 28,696 28,746 

Horse Protection .......................................................................... 697 705 706 

Subtotal, Animal Welfare ....................................................... 29,107 29,401 29,452 

Agency Management: 

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

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

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

Subtotal, Agency Management ............................................... 51,964 51,964 51,964 
32 

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2016 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2017 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendation 

Total, Direct Appropriation ..................................................... 894,415 901,196 939,286 

Agricultural Quarantine Inspection.—The Committee recognizes 

that prevention of infestations of pests and diseases is much more 

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

$29,913,000 for the agricultural quarantine inspections [AQI] function, including pre-departure and interline inspections. 

The Committee directs APHIS to consult with the Transportation 

Security Administration [TSA] and within 120 days of enactment 

prepare a report on the costs, benefits, and any security issues related to consolidating APHIS and TSA inspection stations, and requirements for collocating operations, including changes to statutory authorities and accommodations needed to maintain the integrity of both inspection operations. 

Antibiotic Resistance.—The Committee provides a $5,000,000 increase under Zoonotic Disease Management for data collection, 

sampling, surveillance, testing, and other activities associated with 

antibiotic resistant bacteria. 

Bee Pests.—The Committee remains concerned with declining bee 

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

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

other pests and diseases contributing to colony collapse disorder. 

Bovine Tuberculosis and Brucellosis.—Prior to finalizing the proposed rule on Brucellosis and Bovine Tuberculosis, Update to General Provisions (Docket No. APHIS–2011–0044), the Committee 

urges USDA–APHIS to develop and submit to the Committee a detailed report on the amount of Federal and state funding required 

to carry-out the various provisions of the proposed rule. 

Brucellosis.—The Committee encourages APHIS to work with 

relevant local, State, and Federal agencies to improve communication and utilize sound science to develop effective strategies for 

managing brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone area. 

Ceratocystis Disease.—The Department is directed to study reported recent outbreaks of Ceratocystis in the State of Hawai’i and 

report within 90 days of enactment recommended actions for response and management. 

Chronic Wasting Disease.—The national deer farming industry is 

adapting to a 2012 interim final rule that established a national, 

voluntary herd certification program [HCP] that provides uniform 

herd certification standards and will support the domestic and 

international marketability of U.S. cervid herds. The Committee 

believes the industry requires funding support to ensure that the 

newly implemented chronic wasting disease HCP is successful. 

Therefore, APHIS should spend no less than $3,000,000 for cervid 

health activities. Within the funds provided, APHIS should give 

consideration to indemnity payments if warranted. 
33 

Citrus Imports.—The Committee is aware that APHIS has proposed a rule to allow the importation of lemons from Argentina into 

the United States. The Committee is concerned that the U.S. citrus 

industry is already facing significant threats from introduced diseases and pests and notes that citrus canker and black spot are 

two diseases of ongoing concern affecting Argentina’s citrus production. The Committee therefore directs APHIS to conduct a site visit 

in Argentina this fall in order to complete a comprehensive pest 

and disease risk assessment and provide an opportunity for the 

U.S. citrus industry to review the results of such visits. The Committee is also concerned that the proposed rule could result in an 

economic impact exceeding $100,000,000 annually. If that is demonstrated to be the case based on comments made on the proposed 

rule, the Committee directs APHIS to conduct this rulemaking according to the procedures required for economic significance as referenced in section 6(a)(3)(C) of Executive Order 12866 before finalizing the rule. 

Emergency Preparedness and Response.—The Committee provides an increase of $27,209,000 to implement lessons learned from 

the recent avian influenza outbreak including increasing veterinarians and animal health technicians, health, safety and biosecurity 

officers and developing resources and technologies for the early detection of foreign animal diseases and improved response options. 

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

in reducing adverse ecological and economic impacts caused by 

feral swine. The Committee provides an additional $5,400,000 in 

support of APHIS efforts to decrease these invasive pests’ damage 

and risk to agriculture, natural resources, and property. 

Gypsy Moth Eradication.—The Committee recognizes the importance of supporting eradication and containment of the European 

and Asian gypsy moth in the Western United States. These pests 

pose a considerable threat to both deciduous and conifer forests, 

which are essential to the economic and environmental well-being 

of the region. If moth populations are allowed to establish themselves, it is costly and difficult to eliminate these pests and would 

devastate forests. 

National Animal Health Laboratory Network [NAHLN].—Funding for the NAHLN shall be administered in consultation with the 

NAHLN Coordinating Council. 

National Bio and Agro-Defense Human Capital Development.— 

The Committee notes that significant resources have been invested 

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

concerned about projected staffing shortages of qualified veterinary 

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

operation in 2022. The Committee provides an additional 

$3,000,000 to APHIS to ensure necessary steps are taken to develop a qualified workforce that are subject matter experts in foreign, emerging and zoonotic diseases capable of developing, validating and conducting needed diagnostics, performing epidemiologic studies, and completing bioinformatics analyses. 

Pacific Ants Prevention Plan.—The Committee encourages 

APHIS to work with its partners to revise the Pacific Ants Preven-
34 

tion Plan to effectively combat invasive ants throughout the Pacific 

Region. 

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

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

will assist in emergency preparedness and response for a wide 

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

West Nile Virus.—The Committee remains concerned with the 

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

recognizes that a critical strategy for addressing these threats is 

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

APHIS to further investigate West Nile virus and other infectious 

diseases affecting farm raised alligators and develop treatments 

and methods to prevent infection and transmission. 

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

The Committee provides $102,085,000 for wildlife damage control 

to maintain priority initiatives, including preventing the transport 

of invasive snakes and other harmful species. 

The Committee maintains support for assistance to aquaculture 

producers to help mitigate wildlife depredation, particularly as it 

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

provides an additional $1,000,000 for damage management efforts 

and the development of methods to assist producers in combatting 

the persistent threat and economic hardship caused by cormorants, 

pelicans, and other birds. The Committee provides $26,000,000 for the National Rabies 

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

The Committee is aware of the economic loss sunflower growers 

can incur due to blackbird infestations, and encourages Wildlife 

Services to do further research into the use of bird repellents to 

minimize blackbird depredation. 

Wildlife Services Education and Training.—The Committee is 

aware of the wide range of hazardous procedures and materials utilized by APHIS personnel in the conduct of daily duties. In addition, a recent comprehensive study noted the critical need to provide standardized safety training, certification, and database management for tracking, to ensure the safest working environment 

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

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

watercraft, and zoonotic diseases. 

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

Center and its affiliated field locations to resolve problems caused 
35 

by the interaction of wild animals and society. The Committee provides $19,107,000 to ensure continued development of technical 

and scientific information on wildlife damage management. 

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $3,175,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 3,175,000 

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

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

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

maintenance, and repairs of existing APHIS facilities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommendation includes an appropriation of 

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

Health Inspection Service. This funding is necessary to allow 

APHIS to maintain existing facilities, and perform critically needed 

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

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

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE

MARKETING SERVICES

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $81,223,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 81,933,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 82,933,000 

The Agricultural Marketing Service [AMS] was established by 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Programs administered by this agency include the market news 

services, standardization, grading, classing, shell egg surveillance 

services, transportation services, wholesale farmers and alternative 

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

orders, commodity purchases, Perishable Agricultural Commodities 

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

market protection and promotion activities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $82,933,000 for 

Marketing Services of the Agricultural Marketing Service. 
36 

National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program.—The Committee directs USDA to act to the full extent of its authority in administering the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program, including reimbursing State organic program fees, as well as 

costs associated with transitional certification. 

Organic Data Initiative.—The Committee encourages AMS and 

NASS to coordinate activities related to expanding organic price reporting and organic data collection. 

Organic Livestock Proposed Rule.—The Committee is aware that 

USDA released a proposed rule on April 7, 2016, titled ‘‘National 

Organic Program: Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices.’’ The 

Committee directs the Secretary to ensure that all comments are 

taken into consideration, including those from producers adversely 

impacted by the proposal’s new compliance requirements, when finalizing the proposed rule. 

Sunset Review Process.—The Committee is aware of the National 

Organic Standards Board sunset review process for reviewing substances on the National List. It is important that this process includes sound science and robust stakeholder participation. The 

Committee expects the National Organic Program and USDA to 

fully consider all currently available scientific information during 

the sunset review and rulemaking procedures. 

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Limitation, 2016 ..................................................................................... $60,982,000 

Budget limitation, 2017 ......................................................................... 61,227,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 61,227,000 

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

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

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

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

designed to facilitate commerce and protect participants in the industry. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends a limitation of $61,227,000 on administrative expenses of the Agricultural Marketing Service. 

FUNDS FOR STRENGTHENING MARKETS, INCOME, AND SUPPLY

(SECTION 32)

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $20,489,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 20,705,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 20,705,000 

Under section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935, (7 U.S.C. 612c), 

an amount equal to 30 percent of customs receipts collected during 

each preceding calendar year and unused balances are available for 

encouraging the domestic consumption and exportation of agricultural commodities. An amount equal to 30 percent of receipts collected on fishery products is transferred to the Department of Commerce. Additional transfers to the child nutrition programs of the 

Food and Nutrition Service have been provided in recent appropriations Acts. 
37 

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

2016–2017: 

ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD— 

FISCAL YEARS 2016–2017 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2016 enacted Fiscal year 2017 

budget request 

Committee recommendation 

Appropriation (30% of Customs Receipts) ................................... 10,316,645 10,929,841 10,929,841 

Less Transfers: 

Food and Nutrition Service ................................................... ¥8,969,178 ¥9,462,665 ¥9,462,665 

Commerce Department ......................................................... ¥145,811 ¥145,175 ¥145,175 

Total, Transfers ................................................................ ¥9,114,989 ¥9,607,840 ¥9,607,840 

Prior Year Appropriation Available, Start of Year ......................... 223,344 125,000 125,000 

Transfer of Prior Year Funds to FNS (F&V) ................................... ¥122,000 ¥125,000 ¥125,000 

Budget Authority, Farm Bill ............................................. 1,303,000 1,322,001 1,322,001 

Rescission of Current Year Funds ................................................. ¥215,636 ¥231,443 ¥237,443 

Appropriations Temporarily Reduced - Sequestration ................... ¥77,384 ¥79,557 ¥79,557 

Unavailable for Obligations (Fruit and Veg transfer to FNS) ....... ¥125,000 ¥125,000 ¥125,000 

Budget Authority, Appropriations Act ............................... 884,980 886,000 880,000 

Less Obligations: 

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

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

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

Emergency Surplus Removal ................................................ 118,500 206,000 206,000 

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

Additional Fruits, Vegetables, and Nuts Purchases ............. 107,500 ............................ ............................

Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program ..................................... 40,000 44,000 44,000 

Estimated Future Needs ....................................................... 87,192 102,355 98,355 

Total, Commodity Procurement ........................................ 830,692 829,855 825,855 

Administrative Funds: 

Commodity Purchase Support ............................................... 33,799 35,440 33,440 

Marketing Agreements and Orders ....................................... 20,489 20,705 20,705 

Total, Administrative Funds ............................................. 54,288 56,145 54,145 

Total Obligations .............................................................. 884,980 886,000 880,000 

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

Unavailable for Obligations (Fruit and Veg transfer to FNS) ....... 125,000 125,000 125,000 

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

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends a transfer from section 32 funds of 

$20,705,000 for the formulation and administration of marketing 

agreements and orders. 

Section 32 Authorities.—Under the authority described in clause 

3 of 7 U.S.C. 612c, the Secretary is able to direct funds from the 

section 32 account to increase the purchasing power of producers. 

This practice has been used on various occasions to provide direct 

assistance to producers when market forces or natural conditions 

adversely affect the financial condition of farmers and ranchers. 

The Committee notes the importance of the ability of the Secretary 
38 

to utilize this authority, but believes that communication between 

the Department and the Congress should be improved when this 

practice is used. Therefore, the Committee directs the Secretary to 

provide notification to the Appropriations Committee in advance of 

any public announcement or release of section 32 funds under the 

specific authorities cited above. 

PAYMENTS TO STATES AND POSSESSIONS

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $1,235,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 1,235,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,235,000 

The Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program [FSMIP] is 

authorized by section 204(b) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 

1946 and is also funded from appropriations. Matching grants are 

awarded on a competitive basis to State marketing agencies to 

identify and test market alternative farm commodities, determine 

methods of providing more reliable market information, and develop better commodity grading standards. This program has made 

possible many types of projects, such as electronic marketing and 

agricultural product diversification. Current projects are focused on 

the improvement of marketing efficiency and effectiveness, and 

seeking new outlets for existing farm produced commodities. The 

legislation grants the U.S. Department of Agriculture authority to 

establish cooperative agreements with State departments of agriculture or similar State agencies to improve the efficiency of the 

agricultural marketing chain. The States perform the work or contract it to others, and must contribute at least one-half of the cost 

of the projects. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,235,000 for 

Payments to States and Possessions for Federal-State marketing 

projects and activities. 

GRAIN INSPECTION, PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ADMINISTRATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $43,057,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 43,482,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 43,482,000 

The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration 

[GIPSA] was established pursuant to the Secretary’s 1994 reorganization. Grain inspection and weighing programs are carried out 

under the U.S. Grain Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 71 et seq.) and other 

programs under the authority of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 

1946, including the inspection and grading of rice and grain-related 

products; conducting official weighing and grain inspection activities; and grading dry beans and peas, and processed grain products. Under the Packers and Stockyards Act (7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.), 

assurance of the financial integrity of the livestock, meat, and poultry markets is provided. The Administration monitors competition 

in order to protect producers, consumers, and industry from deceptive and fraudulent practices which affect meat and poultry prices. 
39 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $43,482,000 for 

salaries and expenses of the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration. 

LIMITATION ON INSPECTION AND WEIGHING SERVICES EXPENSES

Limitation, 2016 ..................................................................................... $55,000,000 

Budget limitation, 2017 ......................................................................... 57,500,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 57,500,000 

The agency provides an official grain inspection and weighing 

system under the U.S. Grain Standards Act [USGSA], and official 

inspection of rice and grain-related products under the Agricultural 

Marketing Act [AMA] of 1946. The USGSA was amended in 1981 

to require the collection of user fees to fund the costs associated 

with the operation, supervision, and administration of Federal 

grain inspection and weighing activities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends a limitation of $57,500,000 on inspection and weighing services expenses. 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD SAFETY

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $816,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 819,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 819,000 

The Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety provides direction and coordination in carrying out the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to the Department’s inspection of meat, poultry, 

and processed egg products. The Office has oversight and management responsibilities for the Food Safety and Inspection Service. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $819,000 for the 

Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety. 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $1,014,871,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 1,030,405,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,033,806,000 

The major objectives of the Food Safety and Inspection Service 

are to assure that meat and poultry products are wholesome, unadulterated, and properly labeled and packaged, as required by the 

Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and the Poultry 

Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.); and to provide continuous in-plant inspection to egg processing plants under the Egg 

Products Inspection Act. 

The Food Safety and Inspection Service was established on June 

17, 1981, by Secretary’s Memorandum No. 1000–1, issued pursuant 

to Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953. 

The inspection program of the Food Safety and Inspection Service provides in-plant inspection of all domestic plants preparing 

meat, poultry or egg products for sale or distribution; reviews for-
40 

eign inspection systems and establishments that prepare meat or 

poultry products for export to the United States; and provides technical and financial assistance to States which maintain meat and 

poultry inspection programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,033,806,000 

for the Food Safety and Inspection Service [FSIS]. The Committee 

finds the implementation schedule set forth by FSIS for revised inspections processes unrealistically rapid and provides additional 

funds to accomplish this transition in a more feasible manner. 

Game Birds.—The Committee directs the FSIS to provide a report on the impact of defining games birds, such as quail, as 

amendable in Federal code in regard to inspection. 

Humane Slaughter.—The Committee directs FSIS to continue to 

provide annual reports to the Committee on the implementation of 

objective scoring methods undertaken by FSIS to enforce the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. 

The Committee also directs FSIS to ensure that personnel hired 

with funding previously provided specifically for Humane Methods 

of Slaughter Act enforcement focus their attention on overseeing 

compliance with humane handling rules for live animals as they 

arrive and are offloaded and handled in pens, chutes, and stunning 

areas and that all inspectors receive robust training. 

Inspections.—Adequate import reinspection and foreign country 

equivalence are of great importance to food safety and fair trade. 

Upon the date of enactment of this act, the Committee directs FSIS 

to reinspect all imported Siluriformes fish and fish product shipments, just as all imported meat and poultry products from equivalent countries that export product to the United States are reinspected. The Committee further directs FSIS to complete a determination of equivalence for the Siluriformes inspection program in 

a foreign country exporting Siluriformes fish and fish products to 

the United States not later than 180 days after the end of the 18- 

month transition period described in the preamble of the final rule 

entitled ‘‘Mandatory Inspection of Fish of the Order Siluriformes 

and Products Derived From Such Fish’’ issued on December 2, 2015 

(80 Fed. Reg. 75590 et seq.). 

The following table represents the Committee’s specific recommendations for the Food Safety and Inspection Service as compared to the fiscal year 2016 and budget request levels: 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE SALARIES AND EXPENSES 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2016 enacted Fiscal year 2017 

budget request 

Committee recommendation 

Food safety inspection: 

Federal .............................................................................................. 898,795 914,098 917,499 

State .................................................................................................. 60,976 61,568 61,568 

International ...................................................................................... 16,744 16,487 16,487 

Codex Alimentarius ........................................................................... 3,776 3,672 3,672 

PHDCIS .............................................................................................. 34,580 34,580 34,580 

Total .............................................................................................. 1,014,871 1,030,405 1,033,806 
41 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FARM AND FOREIGN

AGRICULTURAL SERVICES

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $898,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 901,000 

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

The Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services provides direction and coordination in carrying out 

the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to the Department’s 

international affairs (except for foreign economic development), 

commodity programs, farm loans, disaster assistance, crop insurance, and some conservation and energy programs. The Office has 

oversight and management responsibilities for the Farm Service 

Agency (including the Commodity Credit Corporation), Risk Management Agency, and the Foreign Agricultural Service. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

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

Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural 

Services. 

FARM SERVICE AGENCY

The Farm Service Agency [FSA] was established October 13, 

1994, pursuant to the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, Public Law 103– 

354. The FSA administers a variety of activities, such as the commodity price support and production adjustment programs financed 

by the Commodity Credit Corporation; the Conservation Reserve 

Program [CRP]; the Emergency Conservation Program; the Commodity Operation Programs including the warehouse examination 

function; farm ownership, farm operating, emergency disaster, and 

other loan programs; and the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance 

Program [NAP], which provides crop loss protection for growers of 

many crops for which crop insurance is not available. In addition, 

FSA currently provides certain administrative support services to 

the Foreign Agricultural Service [FAS] and to the Risk Management Agency [RMA]. 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

[In thousands of dollars] 

Appropriations Transfers from 

program accounts 

Total, FSA, 

salaries and 

expenses 

Appropriations, 2016 ........................................................................... 1,200,180 309,880 1,510,060 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................ 1,209,751 309,610 1,519,361 

Committee recommendation ................................................................ 1,210,412 309,610 1,520,022 

The account Salaries and Expenses, Farm Service Agency, funds 

the administrative expenses of program administration and other 

functions assigned to FSA. The funds consist of appropriations and 

transfers from the CCC export credit guarantees, Food for Peace 

loans, and Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund program accounts, 

and miscellaneous advances from other sources. All administrative 

funds used by FSA are consolidated into one account. The consoli-
42 

dation provides clarity and better management and control of 

funds, and facilitates accounting, fiscal, and budgetary work by 

eliminating the necessity for making individual allocations and allotments and maintaining and recording obligations and expenditures under numerous separate accounts. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,520,022,000 

for salaries and expenses of the Farm Service Agency, including a 

direct appropriation of $1,210,412,000. The Committee supports the 

mission of FSA and the important services that they provide across 

the country; therefore, the Committee does not accept the full decrease for information technology as proposed in the budget. The 

Committee also provides for pay costs for Federal and non-Federal 

employees, $5,000,000 for personnel and physical security programs across county offices, $2,000,000 for New Beginning and Veteran Farmers and Ranchers, and $90,000 to support a certified 

training program for veteran farmers to be prequalified for FSA Direct Farm Ownership loans as proposed in the budget. 

Continuous Conservation Reserve Program.—The Secretary is 

strongly encouraged to, within the total acreage made available for 

enrollment in the conservation reserve program and without reducing the periodic availability of general signup, enroll, to the maximum extent practicable, acreage for activities included in the 

State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement practice or other similar administratively established wetland and habitat practices that benefit priority fish and wildlife species identified in State, regional, 

and national conservation initiatives with a priority for initiatives 

that provide large blocks of cover ideal for wildlife nesting. 

Information Technology.—The Committee remains dedicated to 

ensuring FSA has reliable and functioning IT systems because it 

is critical that farmers and ranchers have access to the tools they 

need to succeed. The Committee has invested significant taxpayer 

dollars to modernize outdated systems and continues to provide resources above the budget request. The Committee continues statutory language that allows funds for IT to be obligated only after the 

Secretary meets certain reporting requirements. The Committee 

understands a third-party analysis, required in the fiscal year 2016 

bill, will be released soon and looks forward to working with the 

agency on those recommendations. 

National Agriculture Imagery Program.—The Committee recommends that funding shall be allocated to purchase imagery products to meet programmatic requirements. 

STATE MEDIATION GRANTS

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $3,404,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 3,404,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,904,000 

This program is authorized under title V of the Agricultural 

Credit Act of 1987 (7 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.). Originally designed to 

address agricultural credit disputes, the program was expanded by 

the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture 

Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–354) to include other 

agricultural issues such as wetland determinations, conservation 
43 

compliance, rural water loan programs, grazing on National Forest 

System lands, and pesticides. Grants are made to States whose mediation programs have been certified by the FSA. Grants will be 

solely for operation and administration of the State’s agricultural 

mediation program. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,904,000 for 

State Mediation Grants. 

The Committee recognizes the rapidly growing complexity of 

American agriculture and as agriculture practices, markets, and 

technologies continue to evolve, new challenges and potential conflicts arise. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Secretary to review ways that the State Mediation Programs can address new 

issues impacting agricultural producers, including issues involving 

agricultural leases, right-to-farm laws, and family farm transitions. 

GRASSROOTS SOURCE WATER PROTECTION PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $6,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 6,500,000 

This program is intended to assist in the protection of groundwater through State rural water associations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,500,000 for 

Grassroots Source Water Protection. 

DAIRY INDEMNITY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $500,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 500,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 500,000 

Under the program, the Department makes indemnification payments to dairy farmers and manufacturers of dairy products who, 

through no fault of their own, suffer income losses because they are 

directed to remove their milk from commercial markets due to contamination of their products by registered pesticides. The program 

also authorizes indemnity payments to dairy farmers for losses resulting from the removal of cows or dairy products from the market 

due to nuclear radiation or fallout. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of such sums as 

may be necessary, estimated in fiscal year 2017 to be $500,000, for 

indemnity payments to dairy farmers. 

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

The Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account is 

used to provide direct and guaranteed farm ownership, farm operating, conservation, Indian highly fractioned land, and emergency 

loans to individuals, as well as the following types of loans to associations: irrigation and drainage, grazing, Indian tribe land acquisition, and boll weevil eradication. 
44 

FSA is also authorized to provide financial assistance to borrowers by guaranteeing loans made by private lenders having a 

contract of guarantee from FSA as approved by the Secretary of 

Agriculture and to establish Beginning Farmer and Rancher Individual Development grant accounts. 

The following programs are financed through this fund: 

Boll Weevil Eradication Loans.—Made to assist foundations in financing the operations of the boll weevil eradication programs provided to farmers. 

Credit Sales of Acquired Property.—Property is sold out of inventory and is made available to an eligible buyer by providing FSA 

loans. 

Emergency Loans.—Made to producers to aid recovery from production and physical losses due to drought, flooding, other natural 

disasters, or quarantine. The loans may be used to: restore or replace essential property; pay all or part of production costs associated with the disaster year; pay essential family living expenses; 

reorganize the farming operation; and refinance certain debts. 

Farm Operating Loans.—Provide short-to-intermediate term production or chattel credit to farmers who cannot obtain credit elsewhere, to improve their farm and home operations, and to develop 

or maintain a reasonable standard of living. The term of the loan 

varies from 1 to 7 years. 

Farm Ownership Loans.—Made to borrowers who cannot obtain 

credit elsewhere to restructure their debts, improve or purchase 

farms, refinance nonfarm enterprises which supplement but do not 

supplant farm income, or make additions to farms. Loans are made 

for 40 years or less. 

Indian Tribe Land Acquisition Loans.—Made to any Indian tribe 

recognized by the Secretary of the Interior or tribal corporation established pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act (Public Law 

93–638) which does not have adequate uncommitted funds to acquire lands or interest in lands within the tribe’s reservation or 

Alaskan Indian community, as determined by the Secretary of the 

Interior, for use of the tribe or the corporation or the members 

thereof. 

Indian Highly Fractionated Land Loans.—Made to Indian tribal 

members to purchase highly fractionated lands, as authorized by 

the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends a total loan level of $6,655,053,000 

for programs within the Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account. The Committee includes funding to waive application fees for veteran farmers, as proposed in the budget. 

Loan Programs.—The Committee continues to support FSA loan 

programs that ensure farmers and ranchers have access to credit 

to maintain and improve their operations. The Committee is aware 

of the heightened operating loan activity in fiscal year 2016 and 

notes the statutory authority allowing program level increases that 

do not require additional budget authority. The Committee will 

continue to monitor program demand in the coming months and directs FSA to provide timely estimates for future needs. 
45 

The following table reflects the program levels for farm credit 

programs administered by the Farm Service Agency recommended 

by the Committee, as compared to the fiscal year 2016 and the 

budget request levels: 

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT PROGRAMS—LOAN LEVELS 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2016 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2017 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendation 

Farm Ownership: 

Direct ........................................................................................... 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 

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

Farm Operating: 

Direct ........................................................................................... 1,252,004 1,460,047 1,460,047 

Guaranteed unsubsidized ........................................................... 1,393,443 1,432,430 1,432,430 

Emergency Loans ................................................................................. 34,667 22,576 22,576 

Indian Tribe Land Acquisition ............................................................. 2,000 20,000 20,000 

Conservation Loans: 

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

Indian Highly Fractionated Land Loans .............................................. 10,000 10,000 10,000 

Boll Weevil Eradication ........................................................................ 60,000 60,000 60,000 

The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the program 

account. Appropriations to this account are used to cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct loans obligated and 

loan guarantees committed, as well as for administrative expenses. 

The following table reflects the cost of programs under credit reform: 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2016 enacted Fiscal year 2017 

budget request 

Committee recommendation 

Farm Operating: 

Direct ........................................................................................... 53,961 62,198 62,198 

Guaranteed unsubsidized ........................................................... 14,352 15,327 15,327 

Emergency Loans ................................................................................. 1,262 1,262 1,262 

Individual Development Account Grants ............................................. .......................... 1,500 1,500 

Indian Highly Fractionated Land Loans .............................................. .......................... 2,550 2,550 

RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $74,829,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 66,615,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 75,750,000 

The Risk Management Agency performs administrative functions 

relative to the Federal crop insurance program that is authorized 

by the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508), as amended by 

the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 [ARPA], Public Law 

106–224, and the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Public Law 113–79). 

ARPA authorized significant changes in the crop insurance program. This act provides higher government subsidies for producer 

premiums to make coverage more affordable; expands research and 

development for new insurance products and under-served areas 

through contracts with the private sector; and tightens compliance. 

Functional areas of risk management are: research and development; insurance services; and compliance, whose functions include 

policy formulation and procedures and regulations development. 
46 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $75,750,000 for 

the Risk Management Agency. 

The Committee recognizes that there are many research priorities that competitive funding may be used to address, including 

the feasibility of insurance programs to cover business interruption 

due to integrator bankruptcy and catastrophic loss in the poultry 

industry. The Committee encourages RMA to support research into 

these priorities. 

CORPORATIONS 

FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION FUND

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $7,870,934,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 8,849,090,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 8,849,090,000 

The Federal Crop Insurance Act, as amended by the Federal 

Crop Insurance Reform Act of 1994, authorizes the payment of expenses which may include indemnity payments, loss adjustment, 

delivery expenses, program-related research and development, 

startup costs for implementing this legislation such as studies, pilot 

projects, data processing improvements, public outreach, and related tasks and functions. 

All program costs, except for Federal salaries and expenses, are 

mandatory expenditures subject to appropriation. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of such sums as may be necessary, estimated to be $8,849,090,000 in fiscal year 

2017 for the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund. 

COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION FUND

The Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC] is a wholly owned 

Government corporation created in 1933 to stabilize, support, and 

protect farm income and prices; to help maintain balanced and adequate supplies of agricultural commodities, including products, 

foods, feeds, and fibers; and to help in the orderly distribution of 

these commodities. CCC was originally incorporated under a Delaware charter and was reincorporated June 30, 1948, as a Federal 

corporation within the Department of Agriculture by the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act, approved June 29, 1948 (15 

U.S.C. 714). 

The Commodity Credit Corporation engages in buying, selling, 

lending, and other activities with respect to agricultural commodities, their products, food, feed, and fibers. Its purposes include stabilizing, supporting, and protecting farm income and prices; maintaining the balance and adequate supplies of selected commodities; 

and facilitating the orderly distribution of such commodities. In addition, the Corporation makes available materials and facilities required in connection with the storage and distribution of such commodities. The Corporation also disburses funds for sharing of costs 

with producers for the establishment of approved conservation 

practices on environmentally sensitive land and subsequent rental 
47 

payments for such land for the duration of Conservation Reserve 

Program contracts. 

Corporation activities are primarily governed by the following 

statutes: the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (Public 

Law 80–806), as amended; the Agricultural Act of 1949 (Public Law 

81–439), as amended (1949 Act); the Agricultural Adjustment Act 

of 1938 (Public Law 75–430), as amended (the 1938 Act); the Food 

Security Act of 1985 (Public Law 99–198), as amended (1985 Act); 

the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110– 

246); and the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Public Law 113–79). 

Management of the Corporation is vested in a board of directors, 

subject to the general supervision and direction of the Secretary of 

Agriculture, who is an ex officio director and chairman of the 

board. The board consists of seven members, in addition to the Secretary, who are appointed by the President of the United States 

with the advice and consent of the Senate. Officers of the Corporation are designated according to their positions in the Department 

of Agriculture. 

The activities of the Corporation are carried out mainly by the 

personnel and through the facilities of the Farm Service Agency 

[FSA] and the Farm Service Agency State and county committees. 

The Foreign Agricultural Service, the General Sales Manager, 

other agencies and offices of the Department, and commercial 

agents are also used to carry out certain aspects of the Corporation’s activities. 

Under Public Law 87–155 (15 U.S.C. 713a–11, 713a–12), annual 

appropriations are authorized for each fiscal year, commencing 

with fiscal year 1961. These appropriations are to reimburse the 

Corporation for net realized losses. 

REIMBURSEMENT FOR NET REALIZED LOSSES

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $6,871,132,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 13,476,854,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 13,476,854,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of such sums as 

may be necessary, estimated in fiscal year 2017 to be 

$13,476,854,000, for the payment to reimburse the Commodity 

Credit Corporation for net realized losses. 

HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT

Limitation, 2016 ..................................................................................... $5,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 5,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,000,000 

The Commodity Credit Corporation’s [CCC] hazardous waste 

management program is intended to ensure compliance with the 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) and the Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). The CCC funds operations and maintenance costs as well as site investigation and 

cleanup expenses. Investigative and cleanup costs associated with 
48 

the management of CCC hazardous waste are also paid from 

USDA’s hazardous waste management appropriation. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends a limitation of $5,000,000 for the 

Commodity Credit Corporation’s hazardous waste management 

program. 
(49) 

TITLE II 

CONSERVATION PROGRAMS 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR NATURAL RESOURCES AND

ENVIRONMENT

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $898,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 901,000 

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

The Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment provides direction and coordination in carrying out the 

laws enacted by the Congress with respect to natural resources and 

the environment. The Office has oversight and management responsibilities for the Natural Resources Conservation Service and 

the Forest Service. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

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

Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment. 

Innovative Financing for Restoration Projects.—The Committee 

recognizes the challenge of managing millions of acres of land that 

increasingly need forest health restoration treatments to reduce 

wildfire, restore forest ecosystems and provide economic support to 

communities. The Committee further recognizes that Federal funding to address these needs is increasingly constrained. The Under 

Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment, in consultation 

with the Forest Service and National Conservation Resources Service and other affected agencies, is directed to evaluate the feasibility of innovative financing mechanisms that could leverage nonFederal investments in forest health restoration projects on private 

and public lands, and to provide a report on such mechanisms to 

the Committee within 60 days of enactment. Such mechanisms 

could include financing agreements that include contributions from 

entities benefiting from corollary benefits of forest health restoration such as water providers or hydropower electricity providers 

who benefit from increased water flows. 

NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE

The Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] was established pursuant to Public Law 103–354, the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6962). The NRCS 

works with conservation districts, watershed groups, and Federal 

and State agencies to bring about physical adjustments in land use 

that will conserve soil and water resources, provide for agricultural 

production on a sustained basis, and reduce flood damage and sedimentation. 
50 

CONSERVATION OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $850,856,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 860,374,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 864,474,000 

Conservation operations are authorized by Public Law 74–46 (16 

U.S.C. 590a–590f). Activities include: 

Conservation Technical Assistance provides assistance to district 

cooperators and other land users in the planning and application 

of conservation treatments to control erosion and improve the 

quantity and quality of soil resources, improve and conserve water, 

enhance fish and wildlife habitat, conserve energy, improve woodland, pasture and range conditions, and reduce upstream flooding; 

all to protect and enhance the natural resource base. 

Resource appraisal and program development ensures that programs administered by the Secretary of Agriculture for the conservation of soil, water, and related resources shall respond to the 

Nation’s long-term needs. 

Plant Materials Centers assemble, test, and encourage increased 

use of plant species which show promise for use in the treatment 

of conservation problem areas. 

Snow Survey and Water Forecasting provides estimates of annual water availability from high mountain snow packs and relates 

to summer stream flow in the Western States and Alaska. Information is used by agriculture, industry, and cities in estimating future 

water supplies. 

Soil Surveys inventory the Nation’s basic soil resources and determine land capabilities and conservation treatment needs. Soil 

survey publications include interpretations useful to cooperators, 

other Federal agencies, State, and local organizations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $864,474,000 for 

Conservation Operations. The Committee recommendation includes 

$759,211,000 for Conservation Technical Assistance, $80,802,000 

for Soil Surveys, $9,380,000 for Snow Survey and Water Forecasting, and $9,481,000 for Plant Materials Centers. 

Acre-for-Acre Wetlands Mitigation.—The Secretary is encouraged 

to use mitigation with the conversion of a natural wetland and 

equivalent wetlands functions at a ratio not to exceed a ratio of 1- 

to-1 acreage. 

Pollinator Health and Monarch Recovery.—The Committee reiterates its concern for the need to address threats posed to pollinator health, and urges the Department to continue to support the 

Fish and Wildlife Service’s Monarch Conservation Strategy. The 

Committee directs NRCS to leverage resources, relationships and 

partnerships, including with non-governmental organizations that 

are perceived positively by the private land and agriculture communities and that possess experience working directly with agricultural producers and other conservation partners. The Committee 

recommends the Department continue to support monarch conversation on private lands in fiscal year 2017 and expects to see a 

multi-year recovery effort undertaken, focusing on the deployment 

of conservation practices. 
51 

Puget Sound Federal Caucus.—The Committee commends the 

Natural Resources Conservation Service for signing the Puget 

Sound Federal Caucus Memorandum of Understanding on February 28, 2014. The recovery and cleanup of Puget Sound is essential to our Nation’s economy and continued coordination and sharing of expertise among Federal partners is critical to furthering 

current efforts. The Committee directs the Natural Resources Conservation Service to work with its counterparts in the Puget Sound 

Federal Caucus to renew and strengthen the MOU prior to its expiration on March 27, 2017. 

Salinity, Soil Health and Conservation Planning.—The Committee encourages the Natural Resources Conservation Service to 

work in partnership with one or more states, conservation districts, 

and, as appropriate, salinity control associations to investigate and 

address salinity issues to improve soil health and water quality. 

The Committee encourages NRCS to utilize existing programs to 

support producers’ voluntary implementation of conservation practices that directly address salinity control, including soil salinity investigations, producer assistance to implement saline soil reclamation methods, and implementation of soil salinity management systems and soil conservation practices. 

Technical Assistance.—The Committee directs NRCS to maintain 

a record of total technical assistance dollars for the past 3 years 

and annually in the future, and provide the data to the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry. This report should differentiate 

mandatory and discretionary allocations. 

WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. $150,000,000 

The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public Law 

566, 83d Cong.) (16 U.S.C. 1000–1005, 1007–1009) provides for cooperation between the Federal Government and the States and 

their political subdivisions in a program to prevent erosion, floodwater, and sediment damages in the watersheds or rivers and 

streams and to further the conservation, development, utilization, 

and disposal of water, and to further the conservation and proper 

utilization of land in authorized watersheds. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $150,000,000 for 

the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Program. 

The Committee recognizes the critical challenges facing rural 

water resource management and protection and supports needed 

investments in watershed operations that have been absent since 

fiscal year 2010. These Federal-State-local partnerships are 

uniquely positioned to identify critical watershed protection and 

flood prevention needs in rural communities and implement 

projects that deliver multiple streams of benefits for homes, businesses, and transportation infrastructure and natural resources. In 

selecting projects for funding, the Committee expects the Agency to 
52 

balance the needs of addressing the project backlog, remediation of 

existing structures, and new projects. 

WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $12,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... ........................... 

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

The watershed rehabilitation program account provides for technical and financial assistance to carry out rehabilitation of structural measures, in accordance with section 14 of the Watershed 

Protection and Flood Prevention Act, approved August 4, 1954 (16 

U.S.C. 1012, U.S.C. 1001, et seq.), as amended by section 313 of 

Public Law 106–472, November 9, 2000, and by section 2803 of 

Public Law 110–246. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee does not recommend an appropriation for the 

Watershed Rehabilitation Program. 
(53) 

TITLE III 

RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 

The Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–354) abolished 

the Farmers Home Administration, Rural Development Administration, and Rural Electrification Administration and replaced 

those agencies with the Rural Housing and Community Development Service, (currently, the Rural Housing Service), Rural Business and Cooperative Development Service (currently, the Rural 

Business—Cooperative Service), and Rural Utilities Service and 

placed them under the oversight of the Under Secretary for Rural 

Economic and Community Development, (currently, Rural Development). These agencies deliver a variety of programs through a network of State and field offices. 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $893,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 896,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 896,000 

The Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development provides direction and coordination in carrying out laws with respect 

to the Department’s rural economic and community development 

activities. The Office has oversight and management responsibilities for the Rural Housing Service, Rural Business—Cooperative 

Service, and the Rural Utilities Service. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $896,000 for the 

Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development. 

Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels.—The Committee is 

concerned with the interim rule proposed by the Department under 

the Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels program (section 

9005 of the Energy title of the farm bill, Public Law 113–79), which 

is intended to promote the development of different qualifying advanced fuel categories. The Committee is concerned that the allocation formula for distribution of section 9005 funds among the qualified fuel categories is inequitable, disproportionate, and inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the section 9005 program. 

The Committee urges the Department to administer the section 

9005 program in a way that is fuel and technology-neutral. Consistent with these objectives, the Committee directs USDA to propose amendments to the interim rule to ensure that any final rule 

to implement section 9005 provides for a more equitable and proportional allocation of funding among the qualified advanced 

biofuels and the energy pathways they represent. 
54 

RURAL DEVELOPMENT SALARIES AND EXPENSES 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2016 enacted Fiscal year 2017 

budget request 

Committee recommendation 

Appropriation ........................................................................................ 225,835 230,679 226,283 

Transfer from: 

Rural Housing Insurance Fund Loan Program Account ............. 417,854 426,821 417,854 

Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Program Account ....................................................................................... 34,707 36,451 34,707 

Rural Development Loan Program Account ................................ 4,468 4,564 4,468 

Total, Rural Development salaries and expenses .................. 682,864 698,515 683,312 

These funds are used to administer the loan and grant programs 

of the Rural Utilities Service, the Rural Housing Service, and the 

Rural Business—Cooperative Service, including reviewing applications, making and collecting loans and providing technical assistance and guidance to borrowers; and to assist in extending other 

Federal programs to people in rural areas. 

Under credit reform, administrative costs associated with loan 

programs are appropriated to the program accounts. Appropriations to the salaries and expenses account will be for costs associated with grant programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $683,312,000 for salaries and expenses of Rural Development. The Committee maintains the fiscal 

year 2016 funding level for Strikeforce, but no resources are provided for the numerous new initiatives proposed. 

RURAL HOUSING SERVICE

The Rural Housing Service [RHS] was established under the 

Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, dated October 13, 1994. 

RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2016 (budget authority) ............................................. $505,567,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 (budget authority) ........................................... 517,120,000 

Committee recommendation (budget authority) ................................. 510,203,000 

This fund was established in 1965 (Public Law 89–117) pursuant 

to section 517 of title V of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 

517(d)), as amended. This fund may be used to insure or guarantee 

rural housing loans for single-family homes, rental and cooperative 

housing, farm labor housing, and rural housing sites. Rural housing loans are made to construct, improve, alter, repair, or replace 

dwellings and essential farm service buildings that are modest in 

size, design, and cost. Rental housing insured loans are made to individuals, corporations, associations, trusts, or partnerships to provide low-cost rental housing and related facilities in rural areas. 

These loans are repayable in terms up to 30 years. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $510,203,000 for 

the Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account [RHIF]. 
55 

The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–508) established the RHIF program account. Appropriations to this account will be used to cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated 

with the direct loans obligated and loan guarantees committed in 

2017, as well as for administrative expenses. The following table 

presents the loan subsidy levels as compared to the 2016 levels and 

the 2017 budget request: 

RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2016 enacted Fiscal year 2017 

budget request 

Committee recommendation 

Loan Levels: 

Single-Family Housing (sec. 502): 

Direct .................................................................................. 900,000 900,000 900,000 

Guaranteed ......................................................................... 24,000,000 24,000,000 24,000,000 

Housing repair (sec. 504) ........................................................... 26,278 26,277 26,278 

Direct rental housing (sec. 515) ................................................ 28,398 33,074 40,000 

Guaranteed rental housing (sec. 538) ....................................... 150,000 230,000 230,000 

Site development loans (sec. 524) ............................................. 5,000 5,000 5,000 

Credit sales of acquired property ............................................... 10,000 10,000 10,000 

Self help land development loans (sec. 523) ............................ 5,000 5,000 5,000 

Farm labor housing loans (sec. 514) ......................................... 23,855 23,857 23,857 

Total, loan levels .................................................................... 25,148,531 25,233,208 25,240,135 

Loan Subsidies and Grants: 

Single-Family Housing (sec. 502): 

Direct .................................................................................. 60,750 60,930 60,930 

Housing repair (sec. 504) ........................................................... 3,424 3,663 3,663 

Direct rental housing (sec. 515) ................................................ 8,414 9,790 11,840 

Site development (sec. 524) ....................................................... .......................... 111 111 

Self help land development (sec. 523) ...................................... .......................... 417 417 

Farm labor housing loans (sec. 514) ......................................... 6,789 7,052 7,052 

Farm labor housing grants (sec. 516) ....................................... 8,336 8,336 8,336 

Total, loan subsidies and grants ........................................... 87,713 90,299 92,349 

Administrative expenses ...................................................................... 417,854 426,821 417,854 

Total, loan subsidies and administrative expenses .............. 505,567 517,120 510,203 

Energy Efficiency.—The Committee recognizes opportunities to 

reduce costs for rural housing and save taxpayer money by embracing energy efficiency standards in rural housing, with measures 

such as air sealing, and installing insulation, window films, and 

roofs. 

Housing Repair Program.—The Committee commends the Rural 

Housing Service [RHS] for its efforts to reform the Section 504 

Housing Repair program in order to serve more very-low income 

families in need. The Committee directs the RHS to report to the 

Committee within 120 days of enactment on recommendations to 

modernize the program, including updates to loan and grant limits 

which have not kept pace with modern home repair costs. The RHS 

should also include recommendations on how it can flexibly allocate 

Section 504 loans and grants on a need basis. 

Maturing Mortgages.—The Committee is very concerned about 

the alarming number of multi-family housing mortgages scheduled 

to mature in the next few years. As these mortgages mature, 
56 

projects and units will be removed from USDA’s affordable rural 

housing program, placing very low income rural residents in jeopardy of untenable rent increases and possible eviction. In spite of 

numerous requests from the Committee, the Department has failed 

to identify and develop potential solutions to this looming crisis. 

The Secretary is directed to engage affordable housing advocates, 

project owners, tenants, and others as practicable, to find acceptable and effective long term solutions that will retain projects in 

the affordable rural housing program. The need for affordable rural 

housing is too great to allow the program to expire. 

The Committee is providing short-term, stop gap assistance designed to delay the loss of affordable units pending development of 

comprehensive long-term solutions. This assistance has three components: increased direct section 515 loans; regulatory relief from 

onerous, self-imposed requirements; and a pilot project to provide 

technical assistance to facilitate transfers of projects to new owners. Section 515 loans are increased by $11,602,000 to $40,000,000. 

In addition to essential repairs and rehabilitation, this funding is 

to be used for transfers to new owners, and for re-amortizations 

and other servicing actions that will trigger new, extended restricted use agreements retaining the properties in the program. 

Regulatory relief involves allowing non-profit entities and public 

housing authorities to earn rates of return on investment [ROI] 

comparable to other entities, and to allow reimbursement of costs 

associated with asset management fees of up to $7,500 per property 

annually. The Committee also includes $1,000,000 for a pilot program to provide technical assistance to facilitate transfers of properties to non-profits and other new owners. Requirements to transfer these properties are cumbersome and onerous, so dedicated 

technical assistance will smooth and accelerate those transactions. 

RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $1,389,695,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 1,405,033,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,405,033,000 

Rental assistance is authorized under section 521(a)(2) of the 

Housing Act of 1949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1490a). The objective 

of the program is to reduce rents paid by low-income families living 

in Rural Housing Service financed rental projects and farm labor 

housing projects. Under this program, low-income tenants will contribute the higher of: (1) 30 percent of monthly adjusted income; (2) 

10 percent of monthly income; or (3) designated housing payments 

from a welfare agency. 

Payments from the fund are made to the project owner for the 

difference between the tenant’s payment and the approved rental 

rate established for the unit. 

The program is administered in tandem with the Rural Housing 

Service section 515 rural rental housing program and the farm 

labor loan and grant programs. Priority is given to existing projects 

for units occupied by rent over-burdened low-income families and 

projects experiencing financial difficulties beyond the control of the 

owner. 
57 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,405,033,000 

for the Rental Assistance Program. 

Rental Assistance.—The Committee remains very concerned with 

USDA’s ability to estimate accurately the needs to renew expiring 

Rental Assistance [RA] agreements that support very low and low 

income rural households. Crises stemming from inaccurate requests, as happened in fiscal year 2016, that put very-low income 

households in jeopardy of untenable rent increases and possible 

eviction, will not be tolerated. USDA is now relying on a new, 

project-based, forecasting tool to determine future RA needs. The 

Committee directs the Secretary, within 120 days of enactment, to 

perform a detailed analysis of the accuracy of this tool and to report its findings to the Committee. Any inadequacies found in the 

forecasting tool should be reported immediately. 

MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING REVITALIZATION PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $37,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 37,362,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 40,000,000 

The Rural Housing Voucher Program was authorized under the 

Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1940r) to assist very low income 

families and individuals who reside in rental housing in rural 

areas. Housing vouchers may be provided to residents of rental 

housing projects financed by section 515 loans that have been prepaid after September 30, 2005. Voucher amounts reflect the difference between comparable market rents and tenant-paid rent 

prior to loan prepayment. Vouchers allow tenants to remain in existing projects or move to other rental housing. 

The Multi-family Housing Revitalization Program includes funding for housing vouchers and a demonstration program for the 

preservation and revitalization of affordable multi-family housing 

projects. Rural Development’s multi-family housing portfolio faces 

dual pressures for loan prepayments and repair/rehabilitation 

stemming from inadequate reserves resulting in deferred property 

maintenance. 

Provision of affordable rental housing can be accomplished more 

economically by revitalizing existing housing stock rather than 

funding new construction. The Multi-family Housing Revitalization 

Program includes revitalization tools for maintenance of existing 

units and vouchers to protect tenants in those projects that prepay. 

Flexibility is provided to allow Rural Development to utilize funding to meet the most urgent local needs for tenant protection and 

project revitalization. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $40,000,000 for 

the Multi-family Housing Revitalization Program, including 

$18,000,000 for vouchers and $22,000,000 for a housing preservation demonstration program. 
58 

MUTUAL AND SELF-HELP HOUSING GRANTS

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $27,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 18,493,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 27,500,000 

The Mutual and Self-Help Housing Grants Program is authorized by title V of the Housing Act of 1949. Grants are made to local 

organizations to promote the development of mutual or self-help 

programs under which groups of usually 6 to 10 families build their 

own homes by mutually exchanging labor. Funds may be used to 

pay the cost of construction supervisors who work with families in 

the construction of their homes and for administrative expenses of 

the organizations providing the self-help assistance. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $27,500,000 for 

Mutual and Self-Help Housing Grants. 

RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GRANTS

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $32,239,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 28,701,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 32,239,000 

The Rural Housing Assistance Grants Program consolidates 

funding for rural housing grant programs. This consolidation of 

housing grant funding provides greater flexibility to tailor financial 

assistance to applicant needs. 

Very Low-Income Housing Repair Grants.—The Very Low-Income 

Housing Repair Grants Program is authorized under section 504 of 

title V of the Housing Act of 1949. The rural housing repair grant 

program is carried out by making grants to very low-income families to make necessary repairs to their homes in order to make 

such dwellings safe and sanitary, and remove hazards to the health 

of the occupants, their families, or the community. 

These grants may be made to cover the cost of improvements or 

additions, such as repairing roofs, providing toilet facilities, providing a convenient and sanitary water supply, supplying screens, 

repairing or providing structural supports or making similar repairs, additions, or improvements, including all preliminary and installation costs in obtaining central water and sewer service. A 

grant can be made in combination with a section 504 very low-income housing repair loan. 

No assistance can be extended to any one individual in the form 

of a loan, grant, or combined loans and grants in excess of $27,500, 

and grant assistance is limited to persons, or families headed by 

persons who are 62 years of age or older. 

Supervisory and Technical Assistance Grants.—Supervisory and 

technical assistance grants are made to public and private nonprofit organizations for packaging loan applications for housing assistance under sections 502, 504, 514/516, 515, and 533 of the 

Housing Act of 1949. The assistance is directed to very low-income 

families in underserved areas where at least 20 percent of the population is below the poverty level and at least 10 percent or more 

of the population resides in substandard housing. In fiscal year 

1994 a Homebuyer Education Program was implemented under 
59 

this authority. This program provides low-income individuals and 

families education and counseling on obtaining and/or maintaining 

occupancy of adequate housing and supervised credit assistance to 

become successful homeowners. 

Compensation for Construction Defects.—Compensation for construction defects provides funds for grants to eligible section 502 

borrowers to correct structural defects, or to pay claims of owners 

arising from such defects on a newly constructed dwelling purchased with RHS financial assistance. Claims are not paid until 

provisions under the builder’s warranty have been fully pursued. 

Requests for compensation for construction defects must be made 

by the owner of the property within 18 months after the date financial assistance was granted. 

Rural Housing Preservation Grants.—Rural housing preservation 

grants (section 533) of the Housing and Urban-Rural Recovery Act 

of 1983 (42 U.S.C. 1490m) authorizes the Rural Housing Service to 

administer a program of home repair directed at low- and very lowincome people. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $32,239,000 for 

the Rural Housing Assistance Grants Program. 

The following table compares the grant program levels recommended by the Committee to the fiscal year 2016 levels and the 

budget request: 

RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GRANTS 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2016 enacted Fiscal year 2017 

budget request 

Committee recommendation 

Very low-income housing repair grants .............................................. 28,701 28,701 28,701 

Housing preservation grants ............................................................... 3,538 .......................... 3,538

Total ........................................................................................ 32,239 28,701 32,239 

The Committee recommends that the Rural Housing Service 

prioritize funding for communities with unique weather patterns in 

need of replacing antiquated heating systems with more efficient 

technologies. 

RURAL COMMUNITY FACILITIES PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $42,278,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 37,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 42,278,000 

Community facility loans were created by the Rural Development 

Act of 1972 (7 U.S.C. 1926 et seq.) to finance a variety of rural 

community facilities. Loans are made to organizations, including 

certain Indian tribes and corporations not operated for profit and 

public and quasi-public agencies, to construct, enlarge, extend, or 

otherwise improve community facilities providing essential services 

to rural residents. Such facilities include those providing or supporting overall community development, such as fire and rescue 

services, healthcare, transportation, traffic control, and community, 

social, cultural, and recreational benefits. Loans are made for facili-
60 

ties which primarily serve rural residents of open country and 

rural towns and villages of not more than 20,000 people. 

Healthcare, fire and rescue facilities, and educational facilities are 

the priorities of the program and receive the majority of available 

funds. 

The Community Facility Grant Program authorized in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public Law 

104–127), is used in conjunction with the existing direct and guaranteed loan programs for the development of community facilities, 

such as hospitals, fire stations, and community centers. Grants are 

targeted to the lowest income communities. Communities that have 

lower population and income levels receive a higher cost-share contribution through these grants, to a maximum contribution of 75 

percent of the cost of developing the facility. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $42,278,000 for 

the Rural Community Facilities Program Account. 

The following table provides the Committee’s recommendations, 

as compared to the fiscal year 2016 and budget request levels: 

RURAL COMMUNITY FACILITIES PROGRAM ACCOUNT 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2016 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2017 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendation 

Loan levels: 

Community facilities direct loans .............................................. 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 

Community facilities guaranteed loans ..................................... 148,305 .......................... 156,250 

Total loan levels ..................................................................... 2,348,305 2,200,000 2,356,250 

Budget authority: 

Community facilities guaranteed loans ..................................... 3,500 .......................... 3,500 

Community facilities grants ....................................................... 25,000 25,000 25,000 

Economic initiative grants .......................................................... 5,778 .......................... 5,778 

Rural community development initiative .................................... 4,000 4,000 4,000 

Tribal college grants ................................................................... 4,000 8,000 4,000 

Total budget authority ............................................................ 42,278 37,000 42,278 

RURAL BUSINESS—COOPERATIVE SERVICE

The Rural Business—Cooperative Service [RBS] was established 

by Public Law 103–354, Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, dated October 

13, 1994. Its programs were previously administered by the Rural 

Development Administration, the Rural Electrification Administration, and the Agricultural Cooperative Service. 

RURAL BUSINESS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $62,687,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 90,779,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 63,883,000 

The Rural Business and Industry Loan Program was created by 

the Rural Development Act of 1972, and finances a variety of rural 

industrial development loans. Loans are made for rural industrial-
61 

ization and rural community facilities under Rural Development 

Act amendments to the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 

Act (7 U.S.C. 1932 et seq.) authorities. Business and industrial 

loans are made to public, private, or cooperative organizations organized for profit, to certain Indian tribes, or to individuals for the 

purpose of improving, developing or financing business, industry, 

and employment or improving the economic and environmental climate in rural areas. Such purposes include financing business and 

industrial acquisition, construction, enlargement, repair or modernization, financing the purchase and development of land, easements, rights-of-way, buildings, payment of startup costs, and supplying working capital. 

Rural business development grants were authorized by the Agricultural Act of 2014 and can be made to governmental and nonprofit entities, and Indian tribes. Up to 10 percent of appropriated 

funds may be used to: identify and analyze business opportunities; 

identify, train, and provide technical assistance to existing or prospective rural entrepreneurs and managers; assist in the establishment of new rural businesses and the maintenance of existing businesses; conduct economic development planning, coordination and 

leadership development; and establish centers for training, technology, and trade. The balance of appropriated funding may be 

used for projects that support the development of business enterprises that finance or facilitate: the development of small and 

emerging private business enterprise; the establishment, expansion, and operation of rural distance learning networks; the development of rural learning programs; and the provision of technical 

assistance and training to rural communities for the purpose of improving passenger transportation. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $63,883,000 for 

the Rural Business Program Account. 

The following table provides the Committee’s recommendations, 

as compared to the fiscal year 2016 and budget request levels: 

RURAL BUSINESS PROGRAM ACCOUNT 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2016 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2017 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendation 

Loan levels: 

Business and industry guaranteed loans loan levels ................ 919,765 892,244 919,765 

Budget authority: 

Business and industry guaranteed loans .................................. 35,687 35,779 36,883 

Rural business development grants ........................................... 24,000 30,000 24,000 

Delta Regional Authority grants ................................................. 3,000 .......................... 3,000 

Rural child poverty demonstration ............................................. .......................... 25,000 ..........................

Total budget authority ............................................................ 62,687 90,779 63,883 

Rural Business Program Account.—The Committee recommends 

$500,000 for transportation technical assistance. The Committee directs that of the $4,000,000 recommended for 

grants to benefit Federally Recognized Native American Tribes, 

$250,000 shall be used to implement an American Indian and Alas-
62 

ka Native passenger transportation development and assistance 

initiative. 

INTERMEDIARY RELENDING PROGRAM FUND

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2016 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2017 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendation 

Estimated loan level ...................................................................... 18,889 18,889 18,889 

Direct loan subsidy ........................................................................ 5,217 5,476 5,476 

Administrative expenses ................................................................ 4,468 4,564 4,468 

Total, loan subsidies and administrative expenses ........ 9,685 10,040 9,944 

The rural development intermediary relending loan program was 

originally authorized by the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 

(Public Law 88–452). The making of rural development loans by 

the Department of Agriculture was reauthorized by Public Law 

113–79, the Agricultural Act of 2014. 

Loans are made to intermediary borrowers (small investment 

groups) who in turn will reloan the funds to rural businesses, community development corporations, private nonprofit organizations, 

public agencies, et cetera, for the purpose of improving business, 

industry, community facilities, and employment opportunities and 

diversification of the economy in rural areas. 

The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the program 

account. Appropriations to this account will be used to cover the 

lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct loans obligated in 

2017, as well as for administrative expenses. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $9,944,000 for 

the Intermediary Relending Program Fund. 

RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

[In thousands of dollars] 

Estimated loan level 

Fiscal year 2016 level ........................................................................................................................................ 33,077 

Fiscal year 2017 request ................................................................................................................................... 85,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................................................................................................. 33,077 

The Rural Economic Development Loans program was established by the Reconciliation Act of December 1987 (Public Law 

100–203), which amended the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (Act 

of May 20, 1936), by establishing a new section 313. This section 

of the Rural Electrification Act (7 U.S.C. 901) established a cushion 

of credit payment program and created the rural economic development subaccount. The Administrator of RUS is authorized under 

the act to utilize funds in this program to provide zero interest 

loans to electric and telecommunications borrowers for the purpose 

of promoting rural economic development and job creation projects, 

including funding for feasibility studies, startup costs, and other 

reasonable expenses for the purpose of fostering rural economic development. 
63 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a loan program level of $33,077,000, 

to be funded from earnings on the Cushion of Credit and fees on 

guaranteed underwriting loans made pursuant to section 313A of 

the Rural Electrification Act of 1936. 

RURAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $22,050,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 22,250,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 22,300,000 

Rural cooperative development grants are authorized under section 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, 

as amended. Grants are made to fund the establishment and operation of centers for rural cooperative development with their primary purpose being the improvement of economic conditions in 

rural areas. Grants may be made to nonprofit institutions or institutions of higher education. Grants may be used to pay up to 75 

percent of the cost of the project and associated administrative 

costs. The applicant must contribute at least 25 percent from nonFederal sources, except 1994 institutions, which only need to provide 5 percent. Grants are competitive and are awarded based on 

specific selection criteria. 

Cooperative research agreements are authorized by 7 U.S.C. 

2204b. The funds are used for cooperative research agreements, 

primarily with colleges and universities, on critical operational, organizational, and structural issues facing cooperatives. 

Cooperative agreements are authorized under 7 U.S.C. 2201 to 

any qualified State departments of agriculture, university, and 

other State entity to conduct research that will strengthen and enhance the operations of agricultural marketing cooperatives in 

rural areas. 

The Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas [ATTRA] 

program was first authorized by the Food Security Act of 1985. The 

program provides information and technical assistance to agricultural producers to adopt sustainable agricultural practices that are 

environmentally friendly and lower production costs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $22,300,000 for 

Rural Cooperative Development Grants. 

Of the funds recommended, $2,750,000 is for the Appropriate 

Technology Transfer for Rural Areas program. 

The Committee has included language in the bill that not more 

than $3,000,000 shall be made available to cooperatives or associations of cooperatives whose primary focus is to provide assistance 

to small, minority producers. 

Value Added.—The Committee recommends $10,750,000 for 

value-added agricultural product market development grants. 

RURAL MICROENTERPRISE INVESTMENT PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... $4,904,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 
64 

This program, authorized by section 379E of the Consolidated 

Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1981 et seq.), provides 

loans and grants to intermediaries that assist micro-entrepreneurs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommendation does not include funding for the 

Rural Microenterprise Investment Program. 

RURAL ENERGY FOR AMERICA PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $500,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 18,515,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 352,000 

The Rural Energy for America Program is authorized under section 9007 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 

(7 U.S.C. 8107). This program may fund energy audits, direct 

loans, loan guarantees, and grants to farmers, ranchers, and small 

rural businesses for the purchase of renewable energy systems and 

for energy efficiency improvements. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $352,000 for the 

Rural Energy for America Program. 

The following table provides the Committee’s recommendation as 

compared to the fiscal year 2016 and budget request levels: 

RURAL ENERGY FOR AMERICA PROGRAM 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2016 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2017 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendation 

Estimated loan level .................................................................................. 7,576 75,754 7,576 

Guaranteed loan subsidy ........................................................................... 500 3,515 352 

Grants ........................................................................................................ ........................ 15,000 ........................

Energy Efficiency Coordination.—To better utilize the energy efficiency and renewable energy programs available through the Rural 

Energy for America Program, USDA is directed to submit a report 

to the Committee no later than 120 days after enactment of this 

act detailing how the Rural Development agencies make information about its energy programs accessible to rural communities and 

how U.S. funds are being leveraged for energy efficiency investments in rural areas. 

HEALTHY FOOD FINANCING INITIATIVE

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... $1,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,000,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,000,000 for 

the Healthy Food Financing Initiative. 
65 

RURAL BUSINESS INVESTMENT PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... $6,577,000 

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommendation does not include funding for the 

Rural Business Investment Program. 

RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE

The Rural Utilities Service [RUS] was established under the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–354), October 13, 1994. 

RUS administers the electric and telephone programs of the former 

Rural Electrification Administration and the water and waste programs of the former Rural Development Administration. 

RURAL WATER AND WASTE DISPOSAL PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $522,365,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 461,593,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 546,090,000 

The water and waste disposal program is authorized by sections 

306, 306A, 309A, 306C, 306D, 306E, and 310B of the Consolidated 

Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1921 et seq., as amended). This program makes loans for water and waste development 

costs. Development loans are made to associations, including corporations operating on a nonprofit basis, municipalities and similar 

organizations, generally designated as public or quasi-public agencies, that propose projects for the development, storage, treatment, 

purification, and distribution of domestic water or the collection, 

treatment, or disposal of waste in rural areas. Such grants may not 

exceed 75 percent of the development cost of the projects and can 

supplement other funds borrowed or furnished by applicants to pay 

development costs. 

The solid waste grant program is authorized under section 

310B(b) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act. 

Grants are made to public bodies and private nonprofit organizations to provide technical assistance to local and regional governments for the purpose of reducing or eliminating pollution of water 

resources and for improving the planning and management of solid 

waste disposal facilities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $546,090,000 for 

the Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program Account. 

The Committee recommends $66,500,000 for water and waste 

disposal systems grants for Native Americans, including Native 

Alaskans, and the Colonias. The Committee recognizes the special 

needs and problems for delivery of basic services to these populations, and encourages the Secretary to distribute these funds in 

line with the fiscal year 2014 distribution, to the degree prac-
66 

ticable. In addition, the Committee makes up to $16,897,000 available for the circuit rider program. 

The following table provides the Committee’s recommendations, 

as compared to the fiscal year 2016 and budget request levels: 

RURAL WATER AND WASTE DISPOSAL PROGRAM ACCOUNT 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2016 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2017 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendation 

Loan levels: 

Water and waste disposal direct loans ............................... 1,200,000 803,802 1,200,000 

Water and waste disposal guaranteed loans ...................... 50,000 ............................ 50,000 

Total loan levels ............................................................... 1,250,000 803,802 1,250,000 

Budget authority: 

Water and waste disposal direct loans ............................... 31,320 34,885 52,080 

Water and waste disposal guaranteed loans ...................... 275 ............................ 240 

Water and waste disposal grants ........................................ 364,380 350,234 364,380 

Solid waste management grants ......................................... 4,000 1,000 4,000 

Water well systems grants ................................................... 993 500 993 

Colonias and AK/HI/Native American grants ........................ 64,000 42,544 66,500 

Water and waste water revolving funds .............................. 1,000 500 1,000 

High energy cost grants ....................................................... 10,000 ............................ 10,000 

Circuit rider ........................................................................... 16,397 13,000 16,897 

Emergency community water assistance grants .................. 10,000 5,000 10,000 

Technical assistance grants ................................................. 20,000 13,930 20,000 

Total, budget authority ..................................................... 522,365 461,593 546,090 

RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS LOANS PROGRAM

ACCOUNT

The Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901 et seq.) provides the statutory authority for the electric and telecommunications programs. 

The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–508) established the program account. An appropriation to this account 

will be used to cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the 

direct loans obligated and loan guarantees committed in fiscal year 

2017, as well as for administrative expenses. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The following table reflects the Committee’s recommendation for 

the Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program 

Account, the loan subsidy and administrative expenses, as compared to the fiscal year 2016 and budget request levels: 

RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2016 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2017 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendation 

Loan authorizations: 

Electric: 

Direct FFB .......................................................................... 5,500,000 6,500,000 5,500,000 

Guaranteed underwriting ................................................... 750,000 .......................... 750,000 

Telecommunications: 

Direct, Treasury Rate ......................................................... 346,667 345,056 345,000 
67 

RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2016 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2017 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendation 

Direct, Treasury Rate—Modification ................................. .......................... 11,000 ..........................

Direct, FFB ......................................................................... 345,000 345,000 345,000 

Total loan authorization ......................................................... 6,941,667 7,201,056 6,940,000 

Total budget authority ............................................................ 104 14,071 3,071 

Administrative expenses ...................................................................... 34,707 36,451 34,707 

Electric Loan Servicing Flexibility.—The Committee is concerned 

that the RUS may not have available a full range of loan servicing 

tools necessary to service effectively its electric loan portfolio that 

is now approaching $45,000,000,000. Specifically, RUS’s ability to 

refinance existing electric loans is severely limited. This loan portfolio is too important to rural electric cooperatives and their rural 

customers for RUS not to have accessible all of the servicing options that are needed and are typically available to a lender. The 

Secretary is directed to report to the Committee within 60 days of 

enactment on: current restrictions on electric loan refinancing; potential benefits to electric cooperatives and rural customers of refinancing loans; benefits to the program of expanding refinancing 

abilities; expected demands; and estimated costs of electric loan refinancing. 

DISTANCE LEARNING, TELEMEDICINE, AND BROADBAND PROGRAM LOANS AND GRANTS 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2016 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2017 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendation 

Loan and grant levels: 

Distance learning and Telemedicine Program: 

Grants ................................................................................ 22,000 34,950 22,000 

Broadband program: 

Treasury rate loans ..................................................................... 20,576 .......................... 27,043

Treasury rate loans budget authority ......................................... 4,500 .......................... 4,500 

Grants ......................................................................................... 10,372 39,492 10,372 

Total DLT and Broadband Program level ............................... 52,948 74,442 59,415 

Total DLT and Broadband Budget authority .......................... 36,872 74,442 36,872 

The Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program is 

authorized by the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act 

of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 950aaa et seq.), as amended by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public Law 104– 

127). This program provides incentives to improve the quality of 

phone services, to provide access to advanced telecommunications 

services and computer networks, and to improve rural opportunities. 

This program provides the facilities and equipment to link rural 

education and medical facilities with more urban centers and other 

facilities providing rural residents access to better healthcare 
68 

through technology and increasing educational opportunities for 

rural students. These funds are available for loans and grants. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $36,872,000 for 

the Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program. 

Funds recommended for the RUS broadband program are intended 

to promote broadband availability in those areas where there is not 

otherwise a business case for private investment in a broadband 

network. The Committee encourages RUS to focus expenditures on 

projects that bring broadband service to currently unserved households. 

The Committee is concerned about the longstanding, unmet 

health needs in the Mississippi River Delta. The Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 to address critical healthcare 

needs in the region, as authorized by section 379G of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act. 

Broadband Grants.—Of the funds recommended, $10,372,000 in 

grants shall be made available to support broadband transmission 

for rural areas. 

Broadband Program.—Recognizing the positive changes the Agricultural Act of 2014 made to the Rural Broadband Access Loans 

and Loan Guarantees programs, the Committee continues to encourage the Department to implement a comprehensive rural 

broadband strategy including investment in advanced networks 

that will meet the needs of a 21st century economy. However, the 

Committee is concerned that the Department of Agriculture has 

not prioritized funding on cost-effectiveness on a per-household 

basis or on the affordability of the service being provided to consumers as factors in the awards process. The Committee believes 

that the best way to ensure that funds under this program are 

spent to promote affordable broadband availability in those 

unserved and underserved areas, where there is not otherwise a 

business case for private investment, is to prioritize awards that 

reach as many unserved and underserved Americans as possible for 

each dollar spent and to ensure that affordable service is provided 

by award recipients. As such, the Committee directs the Department of Agriculture to develop criteria for the consideration of 

awards under this program that include the cost-effectiveness of 

award proposals on a per-household basis and the affordability of 

broadband service to potential subscribers. 

Community Connect Service Definition.—The Committee is concerned that the Community Connect Program’s Minimum 

Broadband Service benchmark is not in step with current needs 

and industry standards, and the Committee encourages USDA to 

increase the program’s Minimum Broadband Service definition. 

These changes will enable more rural communities that lack adequate broadband service to engage with the Rural Utilities Service 

and will encourage providers to improve their connectivity. 
(69) 

TITLE IV 

DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD, NUTRITION AND

CONSUMER SERVICES

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $811,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 814,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 814,000 

The Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services provides direction and coordination in carrying out 

the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to the Department’s 

nutrition assistance activities. The Office has oversight and management responsibilities for the Food and Nutrition Service. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $814,000 for the 

Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer 

Services. 

Food and Agriculture Service Learning Program.—Recognizing 

the widespread need for children and schools to access food and agriculture education, the Committee encourages USDA to provide 

funding, through existing resources, for the Food and Agriculture 

Service Learning Program, authorized under section 4209 of the 

Agricultural Act of 2014. 

Interagency Partnerships.—The Committee commends USDA for 

its work to support access to combating hunger and eliminating 

barriers to healthy food access through innovative interagency 

partnerships. The Committee encourages USDA to continue these 

partnerships, particularly the new Summer VISTA partnership 

program. 

Nutrition Program Efficiency.—The Committee encourages the 

Secretary to focus process and technology improvement grants 

within the Food and Nutrition Service [FNS] to expand public-private partnerships to increase food security in a cost-efficient and 

accountable manner. 

Potable Water.—The Committee is aware of the statutory requirement to make potable water available to children free of 

charge during meal service. The Committee encourages USDA to 

provide guidance to schools in order to assure this requirement is 

being met and to report back to the Committee on these efforts. 

FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE

The Food and Nutrition Service represents an organizational effort to eliminate hunger and malnutrition in this country. Nutrition assistance programs provide access to a nutritionally adequate 

diet for families and persons with low incomes and encourage bet-
70 

ter eating patterns among the Nation’s children. These programs 

include: 

Child Nutrition Programs.—The National School Lunch and 

School Breakfast, Summer Food Service, and Child and Adult Care 

Food programs provide funding to the States, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Guam for use in serving nutritious lunches and breakfasts to children attending schools of high 

school grades and under, to children of preschool age in child care 

centers, and to children in other institutions in order to improve 

the health and well-being of the Nation’s children, and broaden the 

markets for agricultural food commodities. Through the Special 

Milk Program, assistance is provided to the States for making reimbursement payments to eligible schools and child care institutions which institute or expand milk service in order to increase 

the consumption of fluid milk by children. Funds for this program 

are provided by direct appropriation and transfer from section 32. 

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, 

and Children [WIC].—This program safeguards the health of pregnant, postpartum, and breast-feeding women, infants, and children 

up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk because of inadequate nutrition and income by providing supplemental foods. The delivery of 

supplemental foods may be done through health clinics, vouchers 

redeemable at retail food stores, or other approved methods which 

a cooperating State health agency may select. Funds for this program are provided by direct appropriation. 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.—This program 

seeks to improve nutritional standards of needy persons and families. Assistance is provided to eligible households to enable them to 

obtain a better diet by increasing their food purchasing capability, 

usually by furnishing benefits in the form of electronic access to 

funds. The program also includes Nutrition Assistance to Puerto 

Rico. 

The program also includes the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, which provides nutritious agricultural commodities to low-income persons living on or near Indian reservations 

who choose not to participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. 

Commodity Assistance Program [CAP].—This program provides 

funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program [CSFP], 

the Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program, Disaster Assistance, Pacific Island Assistance, and administrative expenses for TEFAP. 

CSFP provides supplemental foods to low-income elderly persons 

age 60 and over. 

TEFAP provides commodities and grant funds to State agencies 

to assist in the cost of storage and distribution of donated commodities. 

Nutritious agricultural commodities are provided to residents of 

the Federated States of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands. Cash 

assistance is provided to distributing agencies to assist them in 

meeting administrative expenses incurred. It also provides funding 

for use in non-presidentially declared disasters, and for FNS’ administrative costs in connection with relief for all disasters. Funds 

for this program are provided by direct appropriation. 
71 

Nutrition Programs Administration.—Most salaries and Federal 

operating expenses of the Food and Nutrition Service are funded 

from this account. Also included is the Center for Nutrition Policy 

and Promotion [CNPP] which oversees improvements in and revisions to the food guidance systems, and serves as the focal point 

for advancing and coordinating nutrition promotion and education 

policy to improve the health of all Americans. 

CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $22,149,746,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 23,230,733,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 23,201,733,000 

The Child Nutrition Programs, authorized by the Richard B. 

Russell National School Lunch Act (Public Law 79–396) and the 

Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (Public Law 89–642), provide Federal 

assistance to State agencies in the form of cash and commodities 

for use in preparing and serving nutritious meals to children while 

they are attending school, residing in service institutions, or participating in other organized activities away from home. The purpose of these programs is to help maintain the health and proper 

physical development of America’s children. Milk is provided to 

children either free or at a low cost, depending on their family income level. FNS provides cash subsidies to States for administering 

the programs and directly administers the program in the States 

which choose not to do so. Grants are also made for nutritional 

training and surveys and for State administrative expenses. Under 

current law, most of these payments are made on the basis of reimbursement rates established by law and applied to lunches and 

breakfasts actually served by the States. The reimbursement rates 

are adjusted annually to reflect changes in the Consumer Price 

Index for food away from home. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $23,201,733,000 for the Child Nutrition Programs. 

Crediting System for Nutrition Programs.—The Committee recognizes that the current crediting system used by Food and Nutrition 

Service in administering the school lunch program and the School 

Breakfast Program is in need of reform. The crediting system has 

historically provided significant service to school food authorities 

and suppliers to the National School Lunch and the School Breakfast Program. However, the program has not been updated to keep 

pace with innovation in the marketplace. New products that provide additional nutrition to program participants have entered the 

marketplace but school food authorities are not receiving proper 

crediting due to the fact that the system is outdated. For example, 

Greek yogurt receives the same protein crediting as other products 

with less protein. Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall review the system of crediting 

and submit to the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Education and the Workforce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on 

Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate a report that describes the results of the review. 
72 

The Committee’s recommendation provides for the following annual rates for the child nutrition programs. 

TOTAL OBLIGATIONAL AUTHORITY 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Child nutrition programs Fiscal year 2017 

budget request 

Committee recommendation 

School Lunch Program ........................................................................................................ 12,756,627 12,756,627 

School Breakfast Program .................................................................................................. 4,486,347 4,486,347 

Child and Adult Care Food Program .................................................................................. 3,446,278 3,446,278 

Summer Food Service Program ........................................................................................... 628,484 628,484 

Special Milk Program .......................................................................................................... 9,236 9,236 

State Administrative Expenses ........................................................................................... 279,058 279,058 

Commodity Procurement ..................................................................................................... 1,428,089 1,428,089 

Team Nutrition/HUSSC/CMS ................................................................................................ 17,004 17,004 

Food Safety Education ........................................................................................................ 2,897 2,897 

Coordinated Review ............................................................................................................ 10,000 10,000 

Computer Support ............................................................................................................... 11,941 11,941 

CACFP Training and Technical Assistance ......................................................................... 34,129 34,129 

CNP Studies and Evaluation .............................................................................................. 23,328 23,328 

Farm to School Team .......................................................................................................... 4,168 4,168 

Payment Accuracy ............................................................................................................... 11,147 11,147 

School Meal Equipment Grants .......................................................................................... 35,000 30,000 

Summer EBT Demonstration ............................................................................................... 26,000 23,000 

SFSP Non-Congregate Feeding Demonstration ................................................................... 10,000 ..........................

Direct Certification Grants .................................................................................................. 10,000 ..........................

State Exchange Demonstration ........................................................................................... 1,000 ..........................

The Committee expects FNS to utilize the National Food Service 

Management Institute to carry out the food safety education program. 

SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS, 

AND CHILDREN [WIC]

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $6,350,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 6,350,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 6,350,000,000 

The special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, 

and children [WIC] is authorized by section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966. Its purpose is to safeguard the health of pregnant, 

breast-feeding and postpartum women and infants, and children up 

to age 5 who are at nutritional risk because of inadequate nutrition 

and inadequate income. 

The WIC program food packages are designed to provide foods 

which studies have demonstrated are lacking in the diets of the 

WIC program target population. The authorized supplemental 

foods are iron-fortified breakfast cereal, fruit or vegetable juice 

which contains vitamin C, dry beans, peas, and peanut butter. 

There are three general types of delivery systems for WIC foods: 

(1) retail purchase in which participants obtain supplemental foods 

through retail stores; (2) home delivery systems in which food is 

delivered to the participant’s home; and (3) direct distribution systems in which participants pick up food from a distribution outlet. 

The food is free of charge to all participants. 
73 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,350,000,000 

for the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, 

and Children [WIC]. 

The Committee recommendation fully funds estimated WIC participation in fiscal year 2017. The Committee recommendation includes $60,000,000 for breastfeeding support initiatives and 

$13,600,000 for infrastructure. 

WIC Food Package.—The Committee understands the Department continues to work with the Institute of Medicine to make recommendations to update the WIC food packages to reflect current 

science and cultural factors. The Committee maintains its interest 

in the recommendations that will be made regarding the fish species that scientific evidence shows to be low in mercury and are in 

other respects nutritious, including wild salmon, for inclusion in 

WIC Food Packages IV, V, VI, and VII that serve children age 1 

to 4 years and pregnant, postpartum, and breastfeeding women. 

The Committee expects the Department to conduct a thorough and 

efficient review of this question and issue its final report as 

planned in 2017. 

SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $80,849,383,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 81,689,168,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 79,682,168,000 

The Food Stamp Program was reauthorized through fiscal year 

2012 and renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 

[SNAP] in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. The 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program attempts to alleviate 

hunger and malnutrition among low-income persons by increasing 

their food purchasing power. Eligible households receive SNAP 

benefits with which they can purchase food through regular retail 

stores. 

Other programs funded through SNAP include Nutrition Assistance to Puerto Rico and American Samoa, the Food Distribution 

Program on Indian Reservations, the Emergency Food Assistance 

Program, and the Community Food Projects program. 

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is currently in 

operation in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, and Guam. Participating households receive food benefits, 

the value of which is determined by household size and income. 

The cost of the benefits is paid by the Federal Government. As required by law, the Food and Nutrition Service annually revises 

household benefit allotments to reflect changes in the cost of the 

thrifty food plan. 

Administrative Costs.—All direct and indirect administrative 

costs incurred for certification of households, issuance of benefits, 

quality control, outreach, and fair hearing efforts are shared by the 

Federal Government and the States on a 50–50 basis. 

State Antifraud Activities.—Under the provisions of the Food and 

Nutrition Act of 2008, States are eligible to be reimbursed for 50 

percent of the costs of their fraud investigations and prosecutions. 
74 

States are required to implement an employment and training 

program for the purpose of assisting members of households participating in SNAP in gaining skills, training, or experience that 

will increase their ability to obtain regular employment. The Department of Agriculture has implemented a grant program to 

States to assist them in providing employment and training services. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $79,682,168,000 

for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Of the amount 

recommended, $3,000,000,000 is made available as a contingency 

reserve. 

Out-of-State Moves.—The Committee includes bill language to require SNAP participants to report, in a manner prescribed by the 

Secretary, if that participant no longer resides in the State in 

which they are certified. 

State SNAP Implementation.—The Committee is concerned about 

implementation of the SNAP program in certain states where 

states are failing to meet the required deadlines for processing applications. USDA is encouraged to work closely with States to remedy program deficiency and be aggressive in combating any falsification of SNAP implementation data. 

COMMODITY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $296,217,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 313,139,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 313,139,000 

The Commodity Assistance Program includes funding for the 

Commodity Supplemental Food Program and funding to pay expenses associated with the storage and distribution of commodities 

through The Emergency Food Assistance Program. 

The Commodity Supplemental Food Program [CSFP].—Authorized by section 4(a) of the Agricultural and Consumer Protection 

Act of 1973 (7 U.S.C. 612c note), as amended in 1981 by Public 

Law 97–98 and in 2014 by Public Law 113–79, this program provides supplemental food to low-income senior citizens and in some 

cases low-income infants and children up to age six, low-income 

pregnant and postpartum women. The Agricultural Act of 2014 discontinued the admission of new pregnant and postpartum women 

and children into the program. Those already in the program can 

continue to receive assistance until they are no longer eligible. 

The foods for CSFP are provided by the Department of Agriculture for distribution through State agencies. The authorized 

commodities include: iron-fortified infant formula, rice cereal, 

cheese, canned juice, evaporated milk and/or nonfat dry milk, 

canned vegetables or fruits, canned meat or poultry, egg mix, dehydrated potatoes, farina, and peanut butter and dry beans. Elderly 

participants may receive all commodities except iron-fortified infant 

formula and rice cereal. 

The Emergency Food Assistance Program [TEFAP].—Authorized 

by the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 7501 et 

seq.), as amended, the program provides nutrition assistance to 

low-income people through prepared meals served on site and 
75 

through the distribution of commodities to low-income households 

for home consumption. The commodities are provided by USDA to 

State agencies for distribution through State-established networks. 

State agencies make the commodities available to local organizations, such as soup kitchens, food pantries, food banks, and community action agencies, for their use in providing nutrition assistance 

to those in need. 

Funds are administered by FNS through grants to State agencies 

which operate commodity distribution programs. Allocation of the 

funds to States is based on a formula which considers the States’ 

unemployment rate and the number of persons with income below 

the poverty level. 

Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program.—The Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program [FMNP] provides WIC or WIC-eligible participants 

with coupons to purchase fresh, nutritious, unprepared foods, such 

as fruits and vegetables, from farmers’ markets. This benefits both 

participants and local farmers by increasing the awareness and use 

of farmers’ markets by low-income households. 

Pacific Island and Disaster Assistance.—This program provides 

funding for assistance to the nuclear-affected islands in the form of 

commodities and administrative funds. It also provides funding for 

use in non-presidentially declared disasters and for FNS’ administrative costs in connection with relief for all disasters. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $313,139,000 for 

the Commodity Assistance Program. The Committee continues to 

encourage the Department to distribute Commodity Assistance Program funds equitably among the States, based on an assessment 

of the needs and priorities of each State and the State’s preference 

to receive commodity allocations through each of the programs 

funded under this account. 

Commodity Supplemental Food Program.—The Committee recommends $236,120,000 for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program. This amount fully funds participation in fiscal year 2017. 

Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program.—The Committee is aware 

that the Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program provides fresh fruits 

and vegetables to low-income mothers and children, benefiting not 

only WIC participants, but local farmers as well. Therefore, the 

Committee recommends $16,548,000 for the Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program and directs the Secretary to obligate these funds 

within 45 days. 

The Emergency Food Assistance Program.—The Agricultural Act 

of 2014 provides $299,000,000 for TEFAP commodities to be purchased with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program funds. 

The Committee recommendation includes $59,401,000 for TEFAP 

transportation, storage, and program integrity. In addition, the 

Committee recommendation grants the Secretary authority to 

transfer up to an additional 10 percent from TEFAP commodities 

for this purpose and urges the Secretary to use this authority. 

The Committee encourages the Secretary to identify opportunities for increasing the supply of TEFAP commodities in the coming 

fiscal year through bonus and specialty crop purchases. The De-
76 

partment shall make available to the States domestically produced 

catfish fillets for distribution to local agencies. 

NUTRITION PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $150,824,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 179,447,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 173,274,000 

The Nutrition Programs Administration appropriation provides 

for most of the Federal operating expenses of the Food and Nutrition Service, which includes the Child Nutrition Programs; Special 

Milk Program; Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for 

Women, Infants, and Children [WIC]; Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico; the Commodity Assistance Program, including the Commodity Supplemental Food Program and the Emergency Food Assistance Program; and Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program and Pacific Island 

and Disaster Assistance. 

The major objective of Nutrition Programs Administration is to 

efficiently and effectively carry out the nutrition assistance programs mandated by law. This is to be accomplished by the following: (1) giving clear and consistent guidance and supervision to 

State agencies and other cooperators; (2) assisting the States and 

other cooperators by providing program, managerial, financial, and 

other advice and expertise; (3) measuring, reviewing, and analyzing 

the progress being made toward achieving program objectives; and 

(4) carrying out regular staff support functions. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $173,274,000 for 

Nutrition Programs Administration. The Committee recommendation includes $1,000,000 for Phase II of dietary guidance from birth 

to 24 months; $17,700,000 for headquarters renovation or office relocation; and $1,192,000 for GSA Rent/DHS Security Payments. 
(77) 

TITLE V 

FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS 

FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

[In thousands of dollars] 

Appropriations Transfers from 

loan accounts Total 

Appropriations, 2016 ........................................................................... 191,566 6,394 197,960 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................ 196,571 6,074 202,645 

Committee recommendation ................................................................ 196,571 6,074 202,645 

The Foreign Agricultural Service [FAS] was established March 

10, 1953, by Secretary’s Memorandum No. 1320, supplement 1. 

Public Law 83–690, approved August 28, 1954, transferred the agricultural attache ́s from the Department of State to the Foreign Agricultural Service. 

The mission of FAS overseas is to represent U.S. agricultural interests, to promote export of domestic farm products, improve world 

trade conditions, and report on agricultural production and trade 

in foreign countries. FAS staff are stationed at 98 offices around 

the world where they provide expertise in agricultural economics 

and marketing, as well as provide attache ́ services. 

FAS carries out several export assistance programs to counter 

the adverse effects of unfair trade practices by competitors on U.S. 

agricultural trade. The Market Access Program [MAP] conducts 

both generic and brand-identified promotional programs in conjunction with nonprofit agricultural associations and private firms financed through reimbursable CCC payments. 

The General Sales Manager was established pursuant to section 

5(f) of the charter of the Commodity Credit Corporation and 15 

U.S.C. 714–714p. The funds allocated to the General Sales Manager are used for conducting the following programs: (1) CCC Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM–102), including facilities financing guarantees; (2) Food for Peace; (3) section 416b Overseas 

Donations Program; (4) Market Access Program; and (5) programs 

authorized by the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act including barter, export sales of most CCC-owned commodities, export payments, and other programs as assigned to encourage and 

enhance the export of U.S. agricultural commodities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $202,645,000 for the Foreign Agricultural Service, including a direct appropriation of $196,571,000. 

The Committee recommendation includes $1,500,000, as requested 

in the budget, to establish an overseas post in Cuba. 
78 

Borlaug Fellows Program.—The Committee recommendation includes $2,650,000 for the Borlaug International Agricultural 

Science and Technology Fellows Program. This program provides 

training for international scientists and policymakers from selected 

developing countries. The fellows work closely with U.S. specialists 

in their fields of expertise and apply that knowledge in their home 

countries. The Committee recognizes the importance of this program in helping developing countries strengthen their agricultural 

practices and food security. 

Cochran Fellowship Program.—The Committee recommendation 

includes $5,300,000 for the Cochran Fellowship Program. The Committee encourages the Secretary to continue to provide additional 

support for the program through the Commodity Credit Corporation Emerging Markets Program. 

Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program.—The Committee expects the FAS to fund the Foreign Market Development 

Cooperator Program. 

Fortified Poultry-Based Spread.—The Committee notes that the 

use of Fortified Poultry-Based Spread [FPBS] for distribution in 

food aid programs was recently approved. Developed as part of the 

Micronutrient-Fortified Food Aid Products Pilot Program, FPBS 

has been found to reduce school absences due to illness, while improving iron status and vitamins D and B12 levels. Additionally, 

the study demonstrated a larger than expected gain in cognition. 

The Committee encourages USDA and USAID to utilize FPBS in 

future invitations for bids. 

Market Access Program.—The Committee continues the full mandatory funding for the Market Access Program and expects the Department to administer the program as authorized in 7 U.S.C. 

5623, without changing the eligibility requirements for participation of cooperative organizations, small businesses, trade associations, and other entities. 

FOOD FOR PEACE TITLE I DIRECT CREDIT AND FOOD FOR PROGRESS

PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $2,528,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 149,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 149,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $149,000 for administrative expenses to continue servicing existing Food for Peace 

title I agreements. 

FOOD FOR PEACE TITLE II GRANTS

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $1,466,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 1,350,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,600,000,000 

Commodities Supplied in Connection With Dispositions Abroad 

(Title II) (7 U.S.C. 1721–1726).—Commodities are supplied without 

cost through foreign governments to combat malnutrition and to 

meet famine and other emergency requirements. Commodities are 

also supplied for nonemergencies through public and private agen-
79 

cies, including intergovernmental organizations. The Commodity 

Credit Corporation pays ocean freight on shipments under this 

title, and may also pay overland transportation costs to a landlocked country, as well as internal distribution costs in emergency 

situations. The funds appropriated for title II are made available 

to private voluntary organizations and cooperatives to assist these 

organizations in meeting administrative and related costs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,600,000,000 

for Food for Peace title II grants. 

McGOVERN-DOLE INTERNATIONAL FOOD FOR EDUCATION AND CHILD

NUTRITION PROGRAM GRANTS

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $201,626,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 182,045,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 201,626,000 

The McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child 

Nutrition Program helps support education, child development, and 

food security for some of the world’s poorest children. The program 

provides for donations of U.S. agricultural products, as well as financial and technical assistance, for school feeding and maternal 

and child nutrition projects in low-income, food-deficit countries 

that are committed to universal education. Commodities made 

available for donation through agreements with private voluntary 

organizations, cooperatives, intergovernmental organizations, and 

foreign governments may be donated for direct feeding or for local 

sale to generate proceeds to support school feeding and nutrition 

projects. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $201,626,000 for 

the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program. 

Local and Regional Procurement.—The Committee provides an 

appropriation of $10,000,000 for efforts to build long-term agriculture sustainability and establish a local investment in school 

feeding programs. With direct U.S. commodity contributions, 

projects supported by the McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program have significantly improved the attendance, nourishment, 

and learning capacity of school-aged children in low-income countries throughout the impoverished world. New funding authorities 

would enable school feeding programs to proactively transition 

from direct commodity assistance to locally source agriculture products. The Committee directs the Secretary to conduct the Local and 

Regional Food Aid Procurement Project Program in accordance 

with the priorities of the McGovern-Dole International Food for 

Education and Child Nutrition Program. 

LOCAL AND REGIONAL FOOD AID PROCUREMENT PROJECT PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... $15,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 
80 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee does not recommend an appropriation for the 

Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement Project Program, as requested in the budget. The Committee instead provides 

$10,000,000 for this purpose through the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education Program. 

COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION EXPORT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT 

(EXPORT CREDIT PROGRAMS AND GSM–102) 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Guaranteed loan levels Administrative 

expenses 

Appropriations, 2016 .......................................................................................................... 5,500,000 6,748 

Budget estimate, 2017 ....................................................................................................... 5,500,000 8,537 

Committee recommendation ............................................................................................... 5,500,000 8,537 

In 1980, the Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC] instituted the 

Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM–102) under its charter authority. With this program, CCC guarantees, for a fee, payments 

due U.S. exporters under deferred payment sales contracts (up to 

36 months) for defaults due to commercial as well as noncommercial risks. The risk to CCC extends from the date of export to the 

end of the deferred payment period covered in the export sales contract and covers only that portion of the payments agreed to in the 

assurance agreement. Operation of this program is based on criteria which will assure that it is used only where it is determined 

that it will develop new market opportunities and maintain and expand existing world markets for U.S. agricultural commodities. The 

program encourages U.S. financial institutions to provide financing 

to those areas where the institutions would be unwilling to provide 

financing in the absence of the CCC guarantees. CCC also provides 

facilities financing guarantees. 

The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 establishes the program 

account. The subsidy costs of the CCC export guarantee programs 

are exempt from the requirement of advance appropriations of 

budget authority according to section 504(c)(2) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, Public Law 101–508. Appropriations to this 

account will be used for administrative expenses. 
(81) 

TITLE VI 

RELATED AGENCY AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

The Food and Drug Administration [FDA] is a scientific regulatory agency whose mission is to promote and protect the public 

health and safety of Americans. FDA’s work is a blend of science 

and law. The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 

2007 [FDAAA] (Public Law 110–85) reaffirmed the responsibilities 

of the FDA: to ensure safe and effective products reach the market 

in a timely way, and to monitor products for continued safety while 

they are in use. In addition, FDA is entrusted with two critical 

functions in the Nation’s war on terrorism: preventing willful contamination of all regulated products, including food, and improving 

the availability of medications to prevent or treat injuries caused 

by biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agents. 

The FDA Foods program has the primary responsibility for assuring that the food supply, quality of foods, food ingredients and 

dietary supplements are safe, sanitary, nutritious, wholesome, and 

honestly labeled, and that cosmetic products are safe and properly 

labeled. The variety and complexity of the food supply has grown 

dramatically while new and more complex safety issues, such as 

emerging microbial pathogens, natural toxins, and technological innovations in production and processing, have developed. This program plays a major role in keeping the United States food supply 

among the safest in the world. 

In January 2011, the Food Safety Modernization Act was signed 

into law. This law enables FDA to better protect public health by 

strengthening the food safety system. It enables FDA to focus more 

on preventing food safety and feed problems rather than relying 

primarily on reacting to problems after they occur. The law also 

provides FDA with new enforcement authorities designed to 

achieve higher rates of compliance with prevention- and risk-based 

food and feed safety standards and to better respond to and contain 

problems when they do occur. The law also gives FDA important 

new tools to hold imported food and feed to the same standards as 

domestic food and feed and directs FDA to build an integrated national food safety system in partnership with State and local authorities. 

The FDA Drugs programs are comprised of four separate areas, 

Human Drugs, Animal Drugs, Medical Devices and Biologics. FDA 

is responsible for the lifecycle of products, including premarket review and postmarket surveillance of human and animal drugs, 

medical devices and biological products to ensure their safety and 

effectiveness. For Human Drugs this includes assuring that all 
82 

drug products used for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of 

disease are safe and effective. Additional procedures include the review of investigational new drug applications; evaluation of market 

applications for new and generic drugs, labeling and composition of 

prescription and over-the-counter drugs; monitoring the quality and 

safety of products manufactured in, or imported into, the United 

States; and, regulating the advertising and promotion of prescription drugs. The Animal Drugs and Feeds Program ensures only 

safe and effective veterinary drugs, intended for the treatment and/ 

or prevention of diseases in animals and the improved production 

of food-producing animals, are approved for marketing. 

The FDA Biologics program assures that blood and blood products, blood test kits, vaccines, and therapeutics are pure, potent, 

safe, effective, and properly labeled. The program inspects blood 

banks and blood processors, licenses and inspects firms collecting 

human source plasma, evaluates and licenses biologics manufacturing firms and products; lot releases licensed products; and monitors adverse events associated with vaccine immunization, blood 

products, and other biologics. 

The FDA Devices and Radiological program ensures the safety 

and effectiveness of medical devices and eliminates unnecessary 

human exposure to manmade radiation from medical, occupational, 

and consumer products. In addition, the program enforces quality 

standards under the Mammography Quality Standards Act (Public 

Law 108–365). Medical devices include thousands of products from 

thermometers and contact lenses to heart pacemakers, hearing 

aids, and MRIs. Radiological products include items such as microwave ovens and video display terminals. 

FDA’s National Center for Toxicological Research in Jefferson, 

Arkansas, serves as a specialized resource, conducting peer-review 

scientific research that provides the basis for FDA to make sound 

science-based regulatory decisions through its premarket review 

and postmarket surveillance. The research is designed to define 

and understand the biological mechanisms of action underlying the 

toxicity of products and lead to developing methods to improve assessment of human exposure, susceptibility and risk of those products regulated by FDA. 

In 2009, Congress granted FDA new authority to regulate the 

manufacture, distribution, and marketing of tobacco products. FDA 

exercises this responsibility by protecting the public health from 

the health effects of tobacco, setting scientific standards and standards for tobacco product review, conducting compliance activities to 

enforce its authority over tobacco, and conducting public education 

and outreach about the health effects of tobacco products. 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

[In thousands of dollars] 

Appropriation User fees Total 

Appropriations, 2016 ....................................................................................... 2,720,808 1,960,584 4,681,392 

Budget estimate, 2017 .................................................................................... 2,730,924 2,227,302 4,958,226 

Committee recommendation ............................................................................ 2,759,978 2,025,020 4,784,998 
83 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,759,978,000 

for FDA salaries and expenses. The Committee also recommends 

$2,025,020,000 in definite user fees, including: $865,653,000 in Prescription Drug User Fee Act user fee collections; $144,859,000 in 

Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act user fee collections; and $22,977,000 in Animal Drug User Fee Act user fee collections; $10,367,000 in Animal Generic Drug User Fee Act user fee 

collections; $635,000,000 in Tobacco Product user fee collections; 

$324,085,000 in Generic Drug User Fee Act user fee collections; 

and $22,079,000 in Biosimilar User Fee Act user fee collections, as 

assumed in the President’s budget. The Committee also recommends $58,606,000 in permanent, indefinite user fees, including: 

$5,300,000 in Voluntary Qualified Importer Program collections; 

$1,434,000 in food and feed recall collections; $6,414,000 in food reinspection collections; $20,522,000 in Mammography Quality 

Standards Act fee collections; $10,062,000 in color certification collections; $7,686,000 in Pediatric Disease Priority Review Voucher 

collections; $1,400,000 in third-party auditor collections; $1,092,000 

in outsourcing facility collections; and $4,696,000 in export and certification fees, as assumed in the President’s budget. The Committee recommendation includes bill language which prohibits FDA 

from developing, establishing, or operating any program of user 

fees authorized by 31 U.S.C. 9701. 

The Committee recommendation does not include proposed user 

fees for food facility registration and inspection, food import, food 

contact substance notification, cosmetics, and international courier 

imports. None of these user fee proposals have been authorized by 

Congress. The Committee will continue to monitor any action by 

the appropriate authorizing Committees regarding these proposed 

user fees. 

The Committee expects FDA to continue all projects, activities, 

laboratories, and programs as included in fiscal year 2016 unless 

otherwise specified. The Committee accepts $13,016,000 in proposed administrative savings; however the Committee does not 

support the proposed $3,054,000 reduction to the National Center 

for Toxicological Research or the proposed $5,000,000 reduction to 

improving foreign high risk inspections. 

The Committee recommendation includes an increase of 

$40,275,000 for the implementation of FSMA, which is $15,000,000 

more than the budget request. This includes increases of 

$18,762,000 for the National Integrated Food Safety System and 

$21,513,000 for Import Safety. Additionally, the Committee recommendation includes increases of $2,911,000 for animal drug and 

medical device reviews and $2,000,000 for precision medicine, as 

requested in the budget. Increases of $1,000,000 to evaluate biomarkers for drug development, $3,000,000 for improved foreign 

high risk inspections, $2,000,000 for pediatric device review, and 

$1,000,000 for medical device postmarket safety activities are also 

provided. 

The following table reflects the Committee’s recommendations, as 

compared to the fiscal year 2016 and budget request levels: 
84 

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION SALARIES AND EXPENSES 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2016 enacted Fiscal year 2017 

budget request 

Committee recommendation 

Centers and related field activities: 

Foods ........................................................................................... 987,328 1,012,603 1,027,103 

Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition [CFSAN] ..... 303,994 303,994 310,794 

Field Activities ................................................................... 683,334 708,609 716,309 

Human Drugs .............................................................................. 491,503 491,503 492,503 

Center for Drug Evaluation and Research [CDER] ........... 355,296 354,856 356,296 

Field Activities ................................................................... 136,207 136,647 136,207 

Biologics ...................................................................................... 215,443 215,443 215,443 

Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research [CBER] ..... 174,052 174,052 174,052 

Field Activities ................................................................... 41,391 41,391 41,391 

Animal Drugs .............................................................................. 158,652 161,852 161,352 

Center for Veterinary Medicine [CVM] ............................... 94,005 97,205 96,705 

Field Activities ................................................................... 64,647 64,647 64,647 

Medical and radiological devices ............................................... 323,253 325,764 328,764 

Center for Devices and Radiological Health ..................... 240,808 243,319 246,319 

Field Activities ................................................................... 82,445 82,445 82,445 

National Center for Toxicological Research ................................ 63,331 60,277 63,331 

Other Activities .................................................................................... 183,087 178,287 186,287 

Rent and related activities .................................................................. 121,528 114,987 114,987 

Rental Payments to GSA ...................................................................... 176,683 170,208 170,208 

Total, FDA salaries and expenses, new budget authority ..... 2,720,808 2,730,924 2,759,978 

Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients.—The Committee is concerned 

that the FDA has not yet approved a list of active pharmaceutical 

ingredients [APIs] for use by compounding pharmacists pursuant to 

the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [FDCA]. Within 90 days 

of the enactment of this act, the FDA is directed to provide a 

timeline for when the remaining substances will be considered, and 

in the meantime re-consider its policy with regard to enforcement 

of the bulk drug substances provisions under section 503A. 

Artisanal Cheese.—While the Committee appreciates the FDA’s 

willingness to pause enforcement and reevaluate its standard regarding permissible levels of nontoxigenic E. coli in raw milk 

cheese, it remains concerned that this standard was developed in 

the absence of any published data from controlled studies describing either the process or rate of transfer of bacteria from the environment in the plant to the product. Therefore, the Committee directs the FDA to continue working with stakeholders to benefit 

from their expertise about safe cheese-making practices to achieve 

the mutual goal of food safety, and to provide to the Committee on 

Appropriations the results of the ‘‘Surveillance Sampling Program 

for Raw Milk Cheese.’’ 

Atypical Actives.—The Committee requests that the FDA provide 

an update on how it regulates ‘‘atypical actives.’’ 

Biosimilars.—The Committee directs the FDA to provide no later 

than 30 days after enactment an estimated timeline by which the 

agency will finalize pending draft biosimilars guidance documents 

and an estimated timeline by which the agency will issue draft 

guidance on biosimilars topics, including, interchangeability, for 

which the agency has not published draft guidance. 

In addition, the Committee recognizes that biosimilars offer an 

important opportunity for expanding the market and reducing costs 

for patients. The Committee urges the FDA to conduct outreach to 
85 

external stakeholders including patient organizations on educating 

patients and professionals about biosimilars, with a focus on populations for which approved biosimilars are indicated. 

Center for Safety and Nutrition Centers of Excellence.—The Committee is aware of the important contribution of the FDA Center 

for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition’s Centers of Excellence 

[COEs] program in supporting critical basic research as well as facilitating the implementation of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act. The Committee encourages the Agency to continue to fully 

utilize the COEs to accomplish these goals, and instructs that it 

enhance its level of support for FDA Food Safety Modernization Act 

activities. 

Centers of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation.—The 

Committee is encouraged by the ongoing research and collaboration 

underway at the Centers of Excellence in Regulatory Science and 

Innovation program and commends the FDA for launching this program in 2011 and expanding it in 2014. As such, the Committee 

directs the Office of the Commissioner to use at least $2,000,000 

within existing funds to provide additional funding opportunities 

for the existing CERSI Centers to allow for the capitalization of ongoing studies and research. 

Cosmetics.—The Committee provides not less than $11,700,000 

for cosmetics activities, including not less than $7,200,000 for the 

Office of Colors and Cosmetics [OCAC]. Funding for OCAC is for 

the direct support of the operation, staffing, compliance, research 

and international activities performed by this office. 

Cotton Ginning.—The Committee is concerned about the impact 

of the ‘‘Current Good Manufacturing Practice, Hazard Analysis, 

and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Food for Animals’’ final 

rule (80 FR 56170; September 17, 2015) on the cotton industry. The 

Committee notes post-harvest activity of ginning cotton does not 

transform the resulting cottonseed into a ‘‘processed food,’’ and 

thus, cottonseed should fall within the definition of a ‘‘raw agricultural commodity’’ for purposes of rules promulgated pursuant to 

the FSMA. In addition, the Committee is concerned about the rationale for the definitions of ‘‘primary production farm’’ and ‘‘secondary activities farm’’ and how these definitions factor into the determination of operations either being exempt from or covered by 

certain requirements of the final rule. Therefore, the Committee directs the FDA to provide outreach and technical assistance to cotton ginning operations to assist them in complying with the final 

rule or subsequent guidance documents. 

Diabetes.—The Committee applauds the FDA for working with 

the diabetes community on clinical outcomes beyond hemoglobin 

A1c [HbA1c]. While HbA1c remains a fundamental measurement to 

assess the benefit of therapy for diabetes mellitus, regulatory decisions should be reached using the full range of outcomes that are 

important to people with diabetes. The Committee is pleased that 

the FDA will be holding a workshop focused on this topic in 2016 

and encourages the Agency to incorporate the scientific learnings 

from that workshop into their decision-making so that important 

new, safe, and effective medical therapies can be made available to 

people with diabetes. 
86 

In addition, the Committee recognizes that being able to identify 

people at risk of developing type 1 diabetes could provide an opportunity to delay and eventually prevent the disease altogether. The 

appearance of certain islet autoantibodies in the serum of individuals increases the chance of developing type 1 diabetes at some 

point in the future. Therefore the Committee encourages the FDA 

to work with the Type 1 diabetes community on the assessment of 

potential diabetes biomarkers related to islet autoimmunity, which 

might help inform the design of clinical studies. 

Donor Milk Supply.—The Committee is aware of the growing 

commercial human milk industry, and its importance to, in particular, preterm infants. The Committee is also aware that the 

FDA has had discussions with the industry regarding the need for 

adequate safeguards to ensure the safety and nutritional quality of 

the donor human milk supply. The Committee directs FDA to report on its efforts to implement regulations to protect a safe and 

stable human milk supply. 

Drug Shortages.—The Committee requests that the FDA report 

on how it works with manufacturers to facilitate timely communication to the field on the availability of drugs in shortage, as well 

as its processes for the completion of drug application reviews and 

facility inspections during times of or risk of critical drug shortage. 

Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy.—The Committee is encouraged 

that the FDA has the tools, authorities, and latitude necessary to 

review and approve safe and effective treatments for rare diseases, 

such as Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, as efficiently as possible. 

In particular, the Committee is aware that the use of intermediate 

clinical endpoints [ICE] may be an appropriate approach as they 

have been in similar deadly diseases with dire unmet need, such 

as HIV and cancer. 

Drug Vial Sizes.—The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for approving vial sizes and fill volumes for injectable drug 

products before products come to market, in a manner that balances multiple considerations related to safe use and administration of the product. In 2015, the FDA issued guidance documents 

for industry on this matter. Given that many factors play a role in 

FDA’s assessment of vial sizes for injectable drug products, the 

Committee directs the FDA to provide a report to Congress within 

180 days of enactment with recommendations on how the FDA may 

assist in addressing concerns about appropriate vial sizes and fill 

volumes from a safety perspective, to ensure that patients are receiving the appropriate care. 

Experimental Drugs for Terminally-Ill Patients.—The Committee 

directs the FDA to report on efforts to increase patient access to 

experimental drugs for terminally-ill patients. 

FDA Food Mission.—The Committee requests information on 

FDA’s current nutrition activities and resources. 

Food Contact Notification User Fees.—The Committee recommendation does not include proposed user fees. 

Food Packaging.—The Committee encourages FDA to increase 

the involvement of experts in endocrinology as FDA continues to 

evaluate the chemical BPA and similar alternatives such as BPS 

as it relates to health safety of human exposure through food pack-
87 

aging. Evaluations shall include specific focus on the long-term lowdose exposure that these chemicals have on the endocrine system. 

Food Traceability.—The FDA announced two pilot projects on 

September 7, 2011 pursuant to section 204 of the Food Safety Modernization Act, which required pilot projects for improving product 

tracing along the food supply system and establishment of recordkeeping requirements for high-risk foods to help in tracing products. The pilots were conducted by the Institute of Food Technologists, in consultation with industry sectors, USDA, State agencies and consumer groups, and the resulting report was released on 

March 4, 2013. The Committee notes that industry and government 

continue to pursue their traceability goals on separate tracks and 

with little collaboration. The Committee further notes that no report has been issued pursuant to section 204(a) of the act, which 

directs the Secretary to report to Congress on the findings of the 

pilot projects, and the Committee directs the Secretary to issue 

such report. Furthermore, the Committee notes that the Secretary 

has failed to propose a rulemaking to establish the recordkeeping 

requirements as required by section 204(d) of the act. The Committee directs the FDA to collaborate with science-based international and industry-led food traceability initiatives of the type 

recommended by the pilot projects. In addition, the Committee directs the Commissioner to make publicly available information on 

FDA’s efforts to encourage the work of science-based international 

and industry-led food traceability initiatives. 

Foreign High Risk Inspections.—The bill provides an additional $3,000,000 and a total of $8,000,000 for the FDA’s Office of Global 

Regulatory Operations and Policy to enhance the compliance of foreign manufacturers and exporters of food, medical devices and 

pharmaceuticals through on-site verification. 

Human Tissue Models, Including 3D Models.—The Committee is 

aware that bioengineered human tissue models hold the promise of 

improving the drug discovery process by enhancing the ability to 

predict potential safety risks during preclinical testing and post 

market safety of pharmaceutical products, thereby minimizing the 

potential risk of adverse toxicological outcomes to patients during 

clinical trials and post-approval use. The Committee directs the 

Secretary to prepare a report, with input from the Office of Regulatory Science and Innovation and the National Center of Toxicology Research, on how to accelerate adoption of predictive bioengineered human tissue models when used in combination or in 

lieu of animal testing models pre and post market approval. The 

Committee directs the Secretary to report recommendations to the 

House and Senate Appropriations Committees within 180 days of 

enactment of this Act. 

In Silico Clinical Trials.—In Silico clinical trials use computer 

models and simulations to develop and assess devices and drugs, 

including their potential risk to the public, before being tested in 

live clinical trials. Advanced computer modeling can also be used 

to predict how a drug or device will behave when deployed in the 

general population, thereby protecting the public from the unintended consequences of side effects and drug interactions. In Silico 

trials protect public health, advance personalized treatment and 

can be executed quickly and for a fraction of the cost of a full scale 
88 

live trial. The FDA has advocated the use of such systems and utilized them with success in the past. Therefore, the Committee 

strongly encourages the FDA to make greater use of In Silico trials 

for devices and drug therapies before they are released for live clinical trials. 

In Vitro Clinical Trials.—In vitro clinical trials use specimens 

collected from patients to test how a particular cancer or disease 

will react to a specific therapy or combination of therapies. This 

personalized approach to treatment can improve a patient’s quality 

of life by increasing the likelihood that physicians and researchers 

will find the proper combination of drugs uniquely suited to treat 

that individual’s illness. An emerging new scientific methodology, 

In Vitro trials allow researchers to test therapeutics and treatment 

strategies on living human tissues without the risks posed by traditional whole patient clinical trials. Personalized treatment through 

In Vitro trials dismantles the ‘‘one size fits all’’ approach to care 

and enables medical professionals to diagnose and treat patients in 

a more efficient and effective way. Accordingly, the Committee 

strongly encourages the FDA to make greater use of In Vitro clinical trials for Investigational New Drug applications and general 

therapeutic indications, especially as it relates to complicated cancers and other common disease States. 

Listeriosis.—Listeriosis is a serious illness that is usually caused 

by eating food contaminated with the bacterium Listeria 

monocytogenes. The disease primarily affects older adults, pregnant women, newborns, and adults with weakened immune systems. To better understand the risk of listeriosis associated with 

the consumption of certain foods, the FDA has conducted or is conducting risk assessments on ready-to-eat foods, soft ripened 

cheeses, smoked finfish, and retail delicatessens. These risk assessments have been used to protect and enhance the public health. 

The FDA uses risk analysis to ensure that regulatory decisions 

about foods are science-based and transparent. For the first time, 

the consumption of certain frozen vegetables has been linked to a 

multi-state outbreak of listeriosis. Because of this outbreak, the 

need to protect the public health, and to ensure science-based and 

transparent regulatory decisions, the Committee encourages the 

FDA to conduct a quantitative risk assessment of the relative risk 

to public health from foodborne Listeria monocytogenes among frozen vegetables and other frozen foods currently considered not 

ready-to-eat. 

Mammography Quality Standards Act.—The Committee recommendation includes full funding as requested for implementation of the Mammography Quality Standards Act. This program 

sets national quality standards for mammography facilities, equipment, personnel and operating procedures, and has improved the 

quality of mammography and made mammograms a more reliable 

tool to detect breast cancers. 

Medical Devices.—The Committee is concerned about the lack of 

transparency and consistency with the medical device facility inspection process. This often leads to inefficiencies and inconsistencies in the inspection process. The Committee urges the agency 

to work with stakeholders and Congress to improve the facility inspection process. Potential process improvements may include, but 
89 

are not necessarily limited to, more timely and frequent communications related to inspection observations and remediation plans, 

as well as changes to the way medical device Export Certificates 

(e.g., Certificate to Foreign Government, etc.) are affected by FDA 

Observational Findings following a facility inspection. 

Medical Device Performance.—The Committee is aware that each 

year the FDA is required to submit a report to Congress regarding 

performance goals for user fees paid by medical device manufacturers. However, the Committee is concerned that FDA may not be 

providing information about how the FDA is meeting timelines established in law by Congress. The Committee directs the FDA to 

provide a report to the Committee within 90 days of the date of enactment including performance information for statutory timelines 

for medical devices, specifically: the number of de novo requests 

under 513(f)(2) for which FDA has met the 120 day statutory requirement, and the total number of de novo requests submitted; 

the number of requests for classification under 513(g) and the number for which FDA has met the 60 day statutory requirement; and, 

the number of orders for postmarket device surveillance under 522 

for which the FDA has responded within 60 days of receipt of such 

plan. 

Medical Foods.—The Committee urges the FDA to be more active 

in engaging external stakeholders on best practice standards for 

medical foods that are based upon the Generally Recognized as 

Safe [GRAS] status. The Committee requests the FDA work with 

external stakeholders in forming a framework for a distinct regulatory pathway for medical foods that does not encumber its 

progress towards approval for patient use. 

Medical Gases.—The Committee is significantly concerned that 

FDA has not initiated rulemaking, nor listed such rulemaking as 

a priority in the Unified Agenda, to address numerous longstanding regulatory issues for medical gases despite the statutory 

requirement section 1112 in FDASIA (Public Law 112–144) to issue 

a final rulemaking addressing all necessary changes for medical 

gases by July 9, 2016. The Committee disagrees with the FDA report to Congress sent on June 29, 2015, and believes that FDA 

must address medical gas regulatory issues with a new rulemaking 

amending the Federal drug regulations. Therefore, FDA shall issue 

final medical gas regulations as required by FDASIA not later than 

July 9, 2016. If FDA determines that it is a more efficient use of 

resources, it should incorporate by reference a voluntary consensus 

standard by an ANSI-accredited standard development organization as required by the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–113), and the Office of Management and Budget [OMB] Circular A–119. If FDA fails to issue final 

regulations with respect to medical gases by the statutory deadline, 

the Agency shall incorporate by reference voluntary consensus safety and labeling standards developed by an ANSI-accredited standard development organization until such time as the Agency issues 

final regulations consistent with section 1112 of Public Law 112– 

144. 

Nanotechnology.—The Committee recognizes the increased capabilities that FDA has developed to study environment, health, and 

safety of nanomaterials within FDA’s Jefferson Laboratory Cam-
90 

pus, including the National Center for Toxicological Research, and 

its consolidated headquarters at White Oak, Maryland. The Committee expects FDA to continue to support collaborative research 

with universities and industry on the toxicology of nanotechnology 

products and processes in accordance with the National Nanotechnology Initiative Environment, Health, and Safety Research Strategy as updated in October 2011. 

National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System.—The 

Committee recommendation includes $10,800,000 for the National 

Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System, equal to the level provided in fiscal year 2016. 

Olive Oil.—The Committee directs the FDA to take a sampling 

of off-the-shelf olive oil bottles offered for sale to consumers to determine if it is adulterated with seed oil, pursuant to Section 342 

of the FDCA, and report to Congress within 270 days on its findings. 

Opioid Overdose Prevention.—The Committee is very concerned 

about the ongoing prescription opioid abuse epidemic, and is additionally concerned by FDA’s decision in August 2015 to approve 

OxyContin for pain management in children as young as 11 years 

old. As the Agency that oversees the approval of these drugs, the 

FDA has a responsibility to consider the public health impact of 

opioid abuse and overdose death. Therefore, the Committee directs 

FDA to continue implementing its opioids action plan announced in 

February 2016 to take concrete steps toward reducing the impact 

of opioid abuse on American families and communities, and to 

strongly consider the danger of addiction and overdose death associated with prescription opioid medications when approving and 

regulating the manufacturing, marketing and distribution of opioid 

medications. This plan should include policies aimed at reversing 

the epidemic while still providing patients access to effective pain 

relief. Finally, the FDA is directed to refer any new drug application for an opioid submitted under section 505(b) of the Federal 

Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to an advisory committee for their 

recommendations prior to approval, unless the FDA finds that 

holding such advisory committee meeting is not in the interest of 

protecting and promoting public health. 

Oversight Activities.—The Committee recommendation includes 

$1,500,000 for the HHS Office of Inspector General specifically for 

oversight of FDA activities. 

Over-the-Counter Drugs.—The Committee directs the FDA provide a report on the funding levels put to OTC Monograph issues 

for the past 10 years (fiscal year 2006–2016). 

Parallel Review Pilot.—The Committee directs the FDA to report 

on plans to extend the pilot and steps the agency will take to encourage more manufacturers to utilize the pilot, including considerations for manufacturers choosing the 510(k) clearance pathway 

and for novel products deemed covered by CMS but that warrant 

evaluation to ensure the appropriate level of coverage. 

Patient Focused Drug Development Initiative.—The Committee 

applauds FDA’s efforts to engage external and patient stakeholders 

through FDA’s Patient Focused Drug Development initiative which 

includes convening disease-specific public meetings, publication of 

Voice of the Patient reports for each meeting, and welcoming stake-
91 

holders to conduct externally-led Patient Focused Drug Development Meetings. The Committee encourages FDA to continue working with external stakeholders to develop a strategic action plan in 

follow up to these activities. 

Pediatric Device Consortia Grants.—The Committee is pleased 

that the nine FDA-funded Pediatric Device Consortia have assisted 

in the development of more than 650 proposed pediatric medical 

devices since its inception in 2009, as well as promoting job-growth 

in the healthcare sector, and as such, continues to support this critical effort. The program funds consortia to assist innovators in developing medical and surgical devices designed for the unique 

needs of children that often go unmet by devices currently available on the market. The Committee recommendation includes 

$5,000,000 for Pediatric Device Consortia Grants. 

Proprietary Information.—The Committee is concerned with requirements in the Nutrition Facts proposed rule that may cause 

some manufacturers to disclose proprietary records. Therefore, the 

Committee urges the FDA to ensure that steps are imposed to protect the security of trade secrets and commercial confidential information if it is provided to FDA. 

Seafood Advisory.—The Committee directs the FDA ensure that 

pregnant women receive final guidance on nutrition advice for 

what seafood is safe and healthy to consume that is consistent, understandable, and based on the FDA’s latest scientific review of the 

net effects of seafood consumption. 

Shrimp Imports.—The Committee is concerned the FDA continues to detect an alarming amount of imported shrimp raised 

with hormones, antibiotics, or other drugs not approved for use in 

the United States. Therefore, the Committee directs the FDA to 

work with Customs and Border Protection [CBP] to establish a 2- 

year pilot program to better track shrimp imports and inspections 

by port of entry, in order to increase enforcement and improve food 

safety. In addition, the Committee directs the FDA to assist CBP 

to provide details on opportunities for enhancing FDA and CBP coordination on improving the safety of shrimp imports into the U.S., 

initial, both for a briefing required of CBP within 180 days and for 

the overall pilot program report. 

Sodium Guidance.—The Committee is aware that the FDA is 

considering issuing guidance to food manufacturers in order to reduce sodium in various food categories. It is imperative that any 

guidance be issued using the latest sound science. The Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention and the IOM are working together 

to update the Dietary Reference Intake [DRI] report on sodium. 

The FDA is encouraged to issue any voluntary or mandatory guidance based upon an updated DRI report. 

Sunscreen Ingredients.—The Committee is significantly concerned that despite the increase in incidence of skin cancer in the 

United States, and the January 2016 Presidential Memorandum 

creating the White House Cancer Moonshot Task Force to prevent 

and cure cancer, FDA has still not approved a new over-the-counter 

sunscreen ingredient through the process created by the Sunscreen 

Innovation Act [SIA]. The Committee has, for multiple years, directed the FDA to clear the sunscreen backlog, and the agency has 

failed to do so. Therefore, the Committee directs the FDA to in-
92 

clude it its report to Congress required by section 4(c) of the SIA 

by May 26, 2016, an update on how the agency plans to work with 

stakeholders to resolve the science-based concerns raised in public 

comments and describe how the agency is appropriately balancing 

the benefit of additional skin cancer prevention tools versus the hypothetical risk of OTC sunscreens that have been used around the 

world for decades. FDA is further directed to work with stakeholders to come to an agreement on an appropriate, science-based 

testing regimen by June 20, 2016. The Committee recommendation 

maintains the funding increase provided in fiscal year 2016 to address this public health threat. In addition, the Committee directs 

the FDA to finalize a rule limiting the maximum Sun Protection 

Factor [SPF] to ‘‘50’’ or ‘‘50∂’’, which was first proposed in 2011, 

within 90 days of enactment of this Act, and to issue a proposed 

rule to establish testing and labeling standards for sunscreen 

sprays within 90 days of enactment of this act. 

Vibrio.—The Committee is aware of the public health challenge 

related to the naturally occurring bacteria called Vibrio 

parahaemolyticus that can accumulate in shellfish and believes 

that more scientific research is necessary to develop proper controls 

that will reduce the risk to consumers and sustain a healthy domestic shellfish industry. The Committee encourages the Food and 

Drug Administration [FDA] to increase funding for research into 

Vibrio illnesses associated with the consumption of raw molluscan 

shellfish, improve risk assessment models, and develop improved 

rapid detection methods for virulent Vibrio strains. 

White Oak Expansion.—The Committee is aware of the need for 

FDA facilities to accommodate an anticipated expanded workforce 

due to broader missions related to food safety and other mandates 

in legislation over the last few years. Due to the challenging fiscal 

environment, the Committee encourages the FDA and GSA to consider innovative financing options to allow for the space allocation 

required. In particular, the Committee directs the FDA and GSA 

to consider partnership opportunities with non-Federal Government entities that provide reasonable cost options that will enable 

the FDA to maintain very close proximity to its campus headquarters in White Oak, including space contiguous to the White 

Oak campus. 

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $8,788,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 11,788,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 11,788,000 

FDA maintains offices and staff in 49 States and in the District 

of Columbia and Puerto Rico, including field laboratories and specialized facilities, as well as the National Center for Toxicological 

Research complex. Repairs, modifications, improvements, and construction to FDA headquarters and field facilities must be made to 

preserve the properties, ensure employee safety, meet changing 

program requirements, and permit the agency to keep its laboratory methods up to date. 
93 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $11,788,000 for 

FDA buildings and facilities. This funding shall be used to upgrade 

FDA facilities and laboratories which are currently below public 

safety standards and incapable of performing agency requirements. 

INDEPENDENT AGENCY 

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $65,600,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 69,800,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 65,600,000 

The Farm Credit Administration [FCA] is the independent agency in the executive branch of the Government responsible for the 

examination and regulation of the banks, associations, and other 

institutions of the Farm Credit System. 

Activities of the Farm Credit Administration include the planning and execution of examinations of Farm Credit System institutions and the preparation of examination reports. FCA also promulgates regulations, establishes standards, enforces rules and regulations, and approves certain actions of the institutions. 

The administration and the institutions under its jurisdiction 

now operate under authorities contained in the Farm Credit Act of 

1971, Public Law 92–181, effective December 10, 1971. Public Law 

99–205, effective December 23, 1985, restructured FCA and gave 

the agency regulatory authorities and enforcement powers. 

The act provides for the farmer-owned cooperative system to 

make sound, adequate, and constructive credit available to farmers 

and ranchers and their cooperatives, rural residences, and associations and other entities upon which farming operations are dependent, and to modernize existing farm credit law to meet current and 

future rural credit needs. 

The Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 authorized the formation of 

the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation [FAMC] to operate 

a secondary market for agricultural and rural housing mortgages. 

The Farm Credit Administration, under section 8.11 of the Farm 

Credit Act of 1971, as amended, is assigned the responsibility of 

regulating this entity and assuring its safe and sound operation. 

Expenses of the Farm Credit Administration are paid by assessments collected from the Farm Credit System institutions and by 

assessments to the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends a limitation of $65,600,000 on administrative expenses of the Farm Credit Administration. 
(94) 

TITLE VII 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

The Committee recommends the following provisions: 

Section 701. This section makes funds available for the purchase, 

replacement, and hire of passenger motor vehicles. 

Section 702. This section gives the Secretary of Agriculture authority to transfer unobligated balances to the Working Capital 

Fund and clarifies longstanding practices associated with the Fund. 

Section 703. This section limits the funding provided in the bill 

to 1 year, unless otherwise specified. 

Section 704. This section limits negotiated indirect costs on cooperative agreements between the Department of Agriculture and 

nonprofit organizations to 10 percent. 

Section 705. This section makes appropriations to the Department of Agriculture for the cost of direct guaranteed loans available until expended to disburse obligations for certain Rural Development programs. 

Section 706. This section prohibits the purchase of new information technology equipment in excess of $25,000 without the prior 

approval of the Chief Information Officer. 

Section 707. This section makes funds for certain conservation 

programs available until expended to disburse certain obligations 

made in the current fiscal year. 

Section 708. This section makes certain former Rural Utilities 

Service borrowers eligible for the Rural Economic Development 

loan and grant program. 

Section 709. This section provides funds for Rural Development 

and the Farm Service Agency information technology expenses. 

Section 710. This section includes language regarding first-class 

travel. 

Section 711. This section includes language regarding the Commodity Credit Corporation. 

Section 712. This section makes funds available for the expenses 

and activities of certain advisory committees, panels, commissions, 

and task forces at the Department of Agriculture. 

Section 713. This section includes language regarding the limitation on direct costs for grants awarded by the National Institute of 

Food and Agriculture. 

Section 714. This section includes language regarding the availability of funds for certain Department of Agriculture programs. 

Section 715. This section includes language regarding the availability of funds for certain Department of Agriculture programs. 

Section 716. This section prohibits the use of funds for user fee 

proposals that fail to provide sufficient budget impact information. 

Section 717. This section prohibits the reprogramming of funds for programs, projects, or activities in excess of $500,000 or 10 per-
95 

cent, whichever is less without the prior notification of the Committee on Appropriations. 

Section 718. This section includes language for the establishment 

of a fee under the business and industry loan program. 

Section 719. This section prohibits the Department of Agriculture 

and the Department of Health and Human Services from transmitting questions or responses as a result of the appropriations hearing process to non-Department employees. 

Section 720. This section includes language regarding prepackaged news. 

Section 721. This section requires Department of Agriculture 

agencies to provide reimbursement to other Department of Agriculture agencies for employees detailed for longer than 60 days. 

Section 722. This section includes language regarding industrial 

hemp. 

Section 723. This section includes language regarding spending 

plans. 

Section 724. This section provides funding for the Geographically 

Disadvantaged Farmers Program. 

Section 725. This section includes language regarding section 502 

single family direct loans. 

Section 726. This section includes language regarding loans and 

loan guarantees. 

Section 727. This section includes language regarding credit card 

refunds. 

Section 728. This section includes language regarding Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones. 

Section 729. This section includes language regarding the Emergency Community Water Assistance Grant Program. 

Section 730. This section includes language regarding the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative. 

Section 731. This section includes language regarding the Rural 

Utilities Service. 

Section 732. This section provides funding to carry out a program 

for hardwood trees. 

Section 733. This section includes language regarding the Rural 

Housing Service. 

Section 734. This section includes language regarding disclosure 

of information for pharmaceuticals. 

Section 735. This section includes language regarding menu labeling. 

Section 736. This section includes language regarding research 

exemptions. 

Section 737. This section includes language regarding dried spent 

grain products. 

Section 738. This section includes language regarding the Water 

Bank Program. 

Section 739. This section includes language regarding housing 

programs. 

Section 740. This section includes language regarding partially 

hydrogenated oils. 

Section 741. This section includes language regarding the Rural 

Housing Service. 

Section 742. This section includes a rescission of funds. 
96 

Section 743. This section includes a rescission of funds. 

Section 744. This section includes language regarding SNAP 

household reporting requirements. 

Section 745. This section includes a rescission of unobligated balances. 

Section 746. This section includes funding for the Healthy Food 

Financing Initiative. 

Section 747. This section includes language regarding funding information technology activities. 

Section 748. This section includes language regarding funding information technology activities. 

Section 749. This section includes language regarding housing 

programs. 

Section 750. This section includes language regarding agriculture 

research. 

Section 751. This section includes language regarding the Agriculture Risk Coverage Program. 

Section 752. This section includes language regarding the SNAP 

program. 

Section 753. This section includes language regarding crab nomenclature. 

Section 754. This section includes language regarding genetically 

engineered salmon. 

Section 755. This section includes language regarding the use of 

funds for certain horse inspection activities. 
(97) 

PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY 

During fiscal year 2017, for purposes of the Balanced Budget and 

Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99–177) or the 

Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Reaffirmation Act 

of 1987 (Public Law 100–119), the following information provides 

the definition of the term ‘‘program, project, and activity’’ for departments and agencies under the jurisdiction of the Agriculture, 

Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 

Agencies Subcommittee. The term ‘‘program, project, and activity’’ 

shall include the most specific level of budget items identified in 

the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017, and the accompanying Senate Report. 

If a sequestration order is necessary, in implementing the Presidential order, departments and agencies shall apply any percentage 

reduction required for fiscal year 2017 pursuant to the provisions 

of Public Law 99–177 or Public Law 100–119 to all items specified 

in the explanatory notes submitted to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate in support of the fiscal year 2017 

budget estimates, as amended, for such departments and agencies, 

as modified by congressional action, and in addition: 

For the Agricultural Research Service the definition shall include 

specific research locations as identified in the explanatory notes. 

For the Natural Resources Conservation Service the definition 

shall include individual flood prevention projects as identified in 

the explanatory notes and individual operational watershed 

projects as summarized in the notes. 

For the Farm Service Agency the definition shall include individual, regional, State, district, and county offices. 

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports accompanying general appropriations bills identify each recommended 

amendment which proposes an item of appropriation which is not 

made to carry out the provisions of an existing law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously passed by the Senate during that session. 

The Committee is filing an original bill, which is not covered 

under this rule, but reports this information in the spirit of full disclosure. 

The Committee recommends funding for the following programs 

or activities which currently lack authorization for fiscal year 2017: 

Child Nutrition Program State Administrative Expenses 

Farmers Market Nutrition Program 

Grain Inspection Service 

Multi-family Housing Revitalization Program 
98 

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants 

and Children 

Summer Food Service Program 

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(c), RULE XXVI OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on May 19, 2016, the 

Committee ordered favorably reported an original bill (S. 2956) 

making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food 

and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the 

fiscal year ending September 30, 2017, and for other purposes, provided, that the bill be subject to amendment and that the bill be 

consistent with its budget allocation, and provided that the Chairman of the Committee or the Chairman of the Subcommittee reporting the original bill be authorized to offer the substance of the 

original bill as a Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute to the House companion measure, by a recorded vote of 30– 

0, a quorum being present. The vote was as follows: 

Yeas Nays 

Chairman Cochran 

Mr. McConnell 

Mr. Shelby 

Mr. Alexander 

Ms. Collins 

Ms. Murkowski 

Mr. Graham 

Mr. Kirk 

Mr. Blunt 

Mr. Moran 

Mr. Hoeven 

Mr. Boozman 

Mrs. Capito 

Mr. Cassidy 

Mr. Lankford 

Mr. Daines 

Ms. Mikulski 

Mr. Leahy 

Mrs. Murray 

Mrs. Feinstein 

Mr. Durbin 

Mr. Reed 

Mr. Tester 

Mr. Udall 

Mrs. Shaheen 

Mr. Merkley 

Mr. Coons 

Mr. Schatz 

Ms. Baldwin 

Mr. Murphy 
99 

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports on 

a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute or part 

of any statute include ‘‘(a) the text of the statute or part thereof 

which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a comparative print of 

that part of the bill or joint resolution making the amendment and 

of the statute or part thereof proposed to be amended, showing by 

stricken-through type and italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical devices the omissions and insertions which 

would be made by the bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form 

recommended by the committee.’’ 

In compliance with this rule, changes in existing law proposed to 

be made by the bill are shown as follows: existing law to be omitted 

is enclosed in black brackets; new matter is printed in italic; and 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman. 

TITLE 42—THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE 

CHAPTER 1—SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAMS

§ 1769g. Information clearninghouse 

(a) In general 

* * * * * * * 

(d) Funding 

Out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 

the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay to the Secretary to provide 

to the organization selected under this section, to establish and 

maintain the information clearinghouse, $200,000 for each of fiscal 

years 1995 and 1996, $150,000 for fiscal year 1997, $100,000 for 

fiscal year 1998, $166,000 for each of fiscal years 1999 through 

2004, and $250,000 for each of fiscal years ø2010 through 2016¿ 

2010 through 2017. The Secretary shall be entitled to receive the 

funds and shall accept the funds, without further appropriation. 
100 

BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL 

PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 

308(A), PUBLIC LAW 93–344, AS AMENDED 

[In millions of dollars] 

Budget authority Outlays 

Committee 

allocation 

Amount 

in bill 

Committee 

allocation 

Amount 

in bill 

Comparison of amounts in the bill with the subcommittee 

allocation for 2017: Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural 

Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies: 

Mandatory .................................................................... 116,316 116,316 104,824 1 104,824 

Discretionary ................................................................ 21,250 21,250 22,103 1 22,102 

Security ............................................................... ...................... ...................... ...................... NA 

Nonsecurity ......................................................... 21,250 21,250 NA NA 

Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation: 

2017 ............................................................................. ...................... ...................... ...................... 2 112,042 

2018 ............................................................................. ...................... ...................... ...................... 5,146 

2019 ............................................................................. ...................... ...................... ...................... 1,104 

2020 ............................................................................. ...................... ...................... ...................... 425 

2021 and future years ................................................ ...................... ...................... ...................... 328 

Financial assistance to State and local governments for 

2017 ................................................................................. NA 40,600 NA 2 33,574 

1 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

2 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

NA: Not applicable. 
101 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2016 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2016 

appropriation Budget estimate 

TITLE I—AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS 

Production, Processing, and Marketing 

Office of the Secretary 

Office of the Secretary ......................................................................................................................................................... 5,051 10,178 10,178 ∂5,127 ..........................Office of Tribal Relations ..................................................................................................................................................... 502 755 505 ∂3 ¥250 Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Coordination ................................................................................................. 1,496 1,592 1,592 ∂96 ..........................Office of Advocacy and Outreach ........................................................................................................................................ 1,209 11,220 4,220 ∂3,011 ¥7,000 Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration .......................................................................................................... 804 807 807 ∂3 ..........................Departmental Administration ............................................................................................................................................... 25,124 27,420 25,396 ∂272 ¥2,024 

Subtotal, Departmental Administration .................................................................................................................. 25,928 28,227 26,203 ∂275 ¥2,024 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations ........................................................................................... 3,869 3,919 3,919 ∂50 ..........................Office of Communications .................................................................................................................................................... 7,500 8,512 7,533 ∂33 ¥979 

Total, Office of the Secretary ................................................................................................................................. 45,555 64,403 54,150 ∂8,595 ¥10,253 

Executive Operations: 

Office of the Chief Economist ..................................................................................................................................... 17,777 17,592 16,917 ¥860 ¥675 National Appeals Division ........................................................................................................................................... 13,317 13,481 13,481 ∂164 ..........................Office of Budget and Program Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 9,392 9,525 9,525 ∂133 ..........................

Subtotal, Executive Operations ............................................................................................................................... 40,486 40,598 39,923 ¥563 ¥675 

Office of the Chief Information Officer ................................................................................................................................ 44,538 65,716 49,917 ∂5,379 ¥15,799 Office of the Chief Financial Officer ................................................................................................................................... 6,028 9,119 8,119 ∂2,091 ¥1,000 Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights ............................................................................................................... 898 901 901 ∂3 ..........................Office of Civil Rights ........................................................................................................................................................... 24,070 24,750 24,342 ∂272 ¥408 Building and Facilities Agriculture buildings and facilities ............................................................................................... 64,189 84,365 74,365 ∂10,176 ¥10,000 
102 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2016 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2016 

appropriation Budget estimate 

Hazardous materials management ...................................................................................................................................... 3,618 3,633 3,633 ∂15 ..........................Office of Inspector General .................................................................................................................................................. 95,738 100,998 99,378 ∂3,640 ¥1,620 Office of the General Counsel .............................................................................................................................................. 44,383 49,599 45,010 ∂627 ¥4,589 Office of Ethics .................................................................................................................................................................... 3,654 4,617 3,715 ∂61 ¥902 

Total, Departmental Administration ....................................................................................................................... 373,157 448,699 403,453 ∂30,296 ¥45,246 

Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics ............................................................................ 893 901 901 ∂8 ..........................Economic Research Service .................................................................................................................................................. 85,373 91,278 86,757 ∂1,384 ¥4,521 National Agricultural Statistics Service ............................................................................................................................... 168,443 176,639 169,639 ∂1,196 ¥7,000 

Census of Agriculture .................................................................................................................................................. (42,177 ) (42,177 ) (42,177 ) .......................... ..........................

Agricultural Research Service: 

Salaries and expenses ................................................................................................................................................ 1,143,825 1,161,340 1,177,938 ∂34,113 ∂16,598 Buildings and facilities ............................................................................................................................................... 212,101 94,500 64,300 ¥147,801 ¥30,200 

Total, Agricultural Research Service ...................................................................................................................... 1,355,926 1,255,840 1,242,238 ¥113,688 ¥13,602 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture: 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture (Leg. proposal) ....................................................................................... .......................... 1,373,974 .......................... .......................... ¥1,373,974 Research and education activities ............................................................................................................................. 819,685 .......................... 851,496 ∂31,811 ∂851,496 Native American Institutions Endowment Fund .......................................................................................................... (11,880 ) (11,880 ) (11,880 ) .......................... ..........................Hispanic-Serving Agricultural Colleges and Universities Endowment Fund .............................................................. .......................... (10,000 ) (10,000 ) (∂10,000 ) ..........................Extension activities ..................................................................................................................................................... 475,891 .......................... 476,230 ∂339 ∂476,230 Integrated activities .................................................................................................................................................... 30,900 .......................... 36,000 ∂5,100 ∂36,000 

Total, National Institute of Food and Agriculture .................................................................................................. 1,326,476 1,373,974 1,363,726 ∂37,250 ¥10,248 

Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs ............................................................................. 893 901 901 ∂8 ..........................
103 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service: 

Salaries and expenses ................................................................................................................................................ 894,415 901,196 939,286 ∂44,871 ∂38,090 Buildings and facilities ............................................................................................................................................... 3,175 3,175 3,175 .......................... ..........................

Total, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ............................................................................................... 897,590 904,371 942,461 ∂44,871 ∂38,090 

Agricultural Marketing Service: 

Marketing Services ...................................................................................................................................................... 81,223 81,933 82,933 ∂1,710 ∂1,000 

Standardization activities (user fees) ................................................................................................................ (65,000 ) (65,000 ) (65,000 ) .......................... ..........................

(Limitation on administrative expenses, from fees collected) ................................................................................... (60,982 ) (61,227 ) (61,227 ) (∂245 ) ..........................Funds for strengthening markets, income, and supply (Section 32): 

Permanent, Section 32 ....................................................................................................................................... 1,303,000 1,322,001 1,322,001 ∂19,001 ..........................

Marketing agreements and orders (transfer from section 32) ................................................................ (20,489 ) (20,705 ) (20,705 ) (∂216 ) ..........................

Payments to States and Possessions ......................................................................................................................... 1,235 1,235 1,235 .......................... ..........................

Total, Agricultural Marketing Service program ...................................................................................................... 1,446,440 1,466,396 1,467,396 ∂20,956 ∂1,000 

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration: 

Salaries and expenses ................................................................................................................................................ 43,057 43,482 43,482 ∂425 ..........................Limitation on inspection and weighing services ........................................................................................................ (55,000 ) (57,500 ) (57,500 ) (∂2,500 ) ..........................

Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety ..................................................................................................................... 816 819 819 ∂3 ..........................Food Safety and Inspection Service ..................................................................................................................................... 1,014,871 1,030,405 1,033,806 ∂18,935 ∂3,401 

Lab accreditation fees ................................................................................................................................................ (1,000 ) (1,000 ) (1,000 ) .......................... ..........................

Total, Production, Processing, and Marketing ........................................................................................................ 6,652,953 6,732,478 6,694,352 ∂41,399 ¥38,126 

Farm Assistance Programs 

Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services ........................................................................ 898 901 901 ∂3 ..........................Farm Service Agency: 

Salaries and expenses ................................................................................................................................................ 1,200,180 1,209,751 1,210,412 ∂10,232 ∂661 (Transfer from Food for Peace (Public Law 480)) ...................................................................................................... (2,528 ) (149 ) (149 ) (¥2,379 ) ..........................(Transfer from export loans) ....................................................................................................................................... (354 ) (2,463 ) (2,463 ) (∂2,109 ) ..........................(Transfer from ACIF) .................................................................................................................................................... (306,998 ) (306,998 ) (306,998 ) .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, transfers from program accounts ........................................................................................................... (309,880 ) (309,610 ) (309,610 ) (¥270 ) ..........................Total, Salaries and expenses .................................................................................................................................. (1,510,060 ) (1,519,361 ) (1,520,022 ) (∂9,962 ) (∂661 ) 
104 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2016 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2016 

appropriation Budget estimate 

State mediation grants ............................................................................................................................................... 3,404 3,404 3,904 ∂500 ∂500 Grassroots source water protection program .............................................................................................................. 6,500 .......................... 6,500 .......................... ∂6,500 Dairy indemnity program ............................................................................................................................................. 500 500 500 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Farm Service Agency ............................................................................................................................... 1,210,584 1,213,655 1,221,316 ∂10,732 ∂7,661 

Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund [ACIF] Program Account: 

Loan authorizations: 

Farm ownership loans: 

Direct ................................................................................................................................................ (1,500,000 ) (1,500,000 ) (1,500,000 ) .......................... ..........................Guaranteed ....................................................................................................................................... (2,000,000 ) (2,000,000 ) (2,000,000 ) .......................... ..........................

Subtotal ........................................................................................................................................ (3,500,000 ) (3,500,000 ) (3,500,000 ) .......................... ..........................

Farm operating loans: 

Direct ................................................................................................................................................ (1,252,004 ) (1,460,047 ) (1,460,047 ) (∂208,043 ) ..........................Unsubsidized guaranteed ................................................................................................................. (1,393,443 ) (1,432,430 ) (1,432,430 ) (∂38,987 ) ..........................

Subtotal ........................................................................................................................................ (2,645,447 ) (2,892,477 ) (2,892,477 ) (∂247,030 ) ..........................

Emergency loans ....................................................................................................................................... (34,667 ) (22,576 ) (22,576 ) (¥12,091 ) ..........................Indian tribe land acquisition loans .......................................................................................................... (2,000 ) (20,000 ) (20,000 ) (∂18,000 ) ..........................Conservation loans: 

Guaranteed ....................................................................................................................................... (150,000 ) (150,000 ) (150,000 ) .......................... ..........................

Indian highly fractionated land loans ...................................................................................................... (10,000 ) (10,000 ) (10,000 ) .......................... ..........................Boll weevil eradication loans .................................................................................................................... (60,000 ) (60,000 ) (60,000 ) .......................... ..........................

Total, Loan authorizations .................................................................................................................... (6,402,114 ) (6,655,053 ) (6,655,053 ) (∂252,939 ) ..........................

Loan subsidies: 

Farm ownership loans: 

Direct ................................................................................................................................................ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................
105 

Farm operating loans: 

Direct ................................................................................................................................................ 53,961 62,198 62,198 ∂8,237 ..........................Unsubsidized guaranteed ................................................................................................................. 14,352 15,327 15,327 ∂975 ..........................

Subtotal ........................................................................................................................................ 68,313 77,525 77,525 ∂9,212 ..........................

Emergency loans ....................................................................................................................................... 1,262 1,262 1,262 .......................... ..........................Individual development account grants ................................................................................................... .......................... 1,500 1,500 ∂1,500 ..........................Indian highly fractionated land loans ...................................................................................................... .......................... 2,550 2,550 ∂2,550 ..........................

Total, Loan subsidies and grants ........................................................................................................ 69,575 82,837 82,837 ∂13,262 ..........................

ACIF administrative expenses: 

Salaries and expenses (transfer to FSA) ......................................................................................... 306,998 306,998 306,998 .......................... ..........................Administrative expenses ................................................................................................................... 7,920 10,070 10,070 ∂2,150 ..........................

Total, ACIF expenses .................................................................................................................... 314,918 317,068 317,068 ∂2,150 ..........................

Total, Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund ............................................................................................ 384,493 399,905 399,905 ∂15,412 ..........................

(Loan authorization) ......................................................................................................................... (6,402,114 ) (6,655,053 ) (6,655,053 ) (∂252,939 ) ..........................

Total, Farm Service Agency .................................................................................................................. 1,595,077 1,613,560 1,621,221 ∂26,144 ∂7,661 

Risk Management Agency: 

RMA Salaries and expenses ........................................................................................................................................ 74,829 66,615 75,750 ∂921 ∂9,135 FCIC user fee (transfer) (Leg. proposal) ..................................................................................................................... .......................... (20,000 ) .......................... .......................... (¥20,000 ) 

Subtotal, Risk Management Agency ....................................................................................................................... 74,829 86,615 75,750 ∂921 ¥10,865 Total, Farm Assistance Programs ........................................................................................................................... 1,670,804 1,681,076 1,697,872 ∂27,068 ∂16,796 

Corporations 

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation: 

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation fund ................................................................................................................... 7,870,934 8,849,090 8,849,090 ∂978,156 ..........................
106 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2016 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2016 

appropriation Budget estimate 

Commodity Credit Corporation Fund: 

Reimbursement for net realized losses ...................................................................................................................... 6,871,132 13,476,854 13,476,854 ∂6,605,722 ..........................Hazardous waste management (limitation on expenses) ........................................................................................... (5,000 ) (5,000 ) (5,000 ) .......................... ..........................

Total, Corporations .................................................................................................................................................. 14,742,066 22,325,944 22,325,944 ∂7,583,878 ..........................Total, Title I, Agricultural Programs ....................................................................................................................... 23,065,823 30,739,498 30,718,168 ∂7,652,345 ¥21,330 

(By transfer) ................................................................................................................................................... (330,369 ) (330,315 ) (330,315 ) (¥54 ) ..........................(Loan authorization) ....................................................................................................................................... (6,402,114 ) (6,655,053 ) (6,655,053 ) (∂252,939 ) ..........................(Limitation on administrative expenses) ....................................................................................................... (120,982 ) (123,727 ) (123,727 ) (∂2,745 ) ..........................

TITLE II—CONSERVATION PROGRAMS 

Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment ............................................................................. 898 901 901 ∂3 ..........................Natural Resources Conservation Service: 

Conservation Operations ............................................................................................................................................. 850,856 860,374 864,474 ∂13,618 ∂4,100 

Farm Security and Rural Investment program (Transfer authority) .................................................................. .......................... (1,033,983 ) .......................... .......................... (¥1,033,983 ) 

Total, Conservation operations ...................................................................................................................... 850,856 1,894,357 864,474 ∂13,618 ¥1,029,883 

Watershed flood and prevention operations ............................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 150,000 ∂150,000 ∂150,000 Watershed rehabilitation program .............................................................................................................................. 12,000 .......................... .......................... ¥12,000 ..........................

Total, Natural Resources Conservation Service ...................................................................................................... 862,856 860,374 1,014,474 ∂151,618 ∂154,100 Total, Title II, Conservation Programs .................................................................................................................... 863,754 861,275 1,015,375 ∂151,621 ∂154,100 

TITLE III—RURAL DEVELOPMENT 

Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development ......................................................................................................... 893 896 896 ∂3 ..........................
107 

Rural Development: 

Rural development expenses: 

Salaries and expenses ....................................................................................................................................... 225,835 230,679 226,283 ∂448 ¥4,396 (Transfer from RHIF) .......................................................................................................................................... (417,854 ) (426,821 ) (417,854 ) .......................... (¥8,967 ) (Transfer from RDLFP) ........................................................................................................................................ (4,468 ) (4,564 ) (4,468 ) .......................... (¥96 ) (Transfer from RETLP) ........................................................................................................................................ (34,707 ) (36,451 ) (34,707 ) .......................... (¥1,744 ) 

Subtotal, Transfers from program accounts ................................................................................................. (457,029 ) (467,836 ) (457,029 ) .......................... (¥10,807 ) Total, Rural development expenses ............................................................................................................... (682,864 ) (698,515 ) (683,312 ) (∂448 ) (¥15,203 ) 

Rural Housing Service: 

Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account: 

Loan authorizations: 

Single family direct (Sec. 502) ................................................................................................................. (900,000 ) (900,000 ) (900,000 ) .......................... ..........................

Unsubsidized guaranteed ................................................................................................................. (24,000,000 ) (24,000,000 ) (24,000,000 ) .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Single family ................................................................................................................ (24,900,000 ) (24,900,000 ) (24,900,000 ) .......................... ..........................

Housing repair (Sec. 504) ......................................................................................................................... (26,278 ) (26,277 ) (26,278 ) .......................... (∂1 ) Rental housing (Sec. 515) ........................................................................................................................ (28,398 ) (33,074 ) (40,000 ) (∂11,602 ) (∂6,926 ) Multi-family housing guarantees (Sec. 538) ............................................................................................ (150,000 ) (230,000 ) (230,000 ) (∂80,000 ) ..........................Site development loans (Sec. 524) ........................................................................................................... (5,000 ) (5,000 ) (5,000 ) .......................... ..........................Single family housing credit sales ........................................................................................................... (10,000 ) (10,000 ) (10,000 ) .......................... ..........................Self-help housing land develop. (Sec. 523) ............................................................................................. (5,000 ) (5,000 ) (5,000 ) .......................... ..........................Farm Labor Housing (Sec.514) ................................................................................................................. (23,855 ) (23,857 ) (23,857 ) (∂2 ) ..........................

Total, Loan authorizations .................................................................................................................... (25,148,531 ) (25,233,208 ) (25,240,135 ) (∂91,604 ) (∂6,927 ) 

Loan subsidies: 

Single family direct (Sec. 502) ................................................................................................................. 60,750 60,930 60,930 ∂180 ..........................Housing repair (Sec. 504) ......................................................................................................................... 3,424 3,663 3,663 ∂239 ..........................Rental housing (Sec. 515) ........................................................................................................................ 8,414 9,790 11,840 ∂3,426 ∂2,050 Site development loans (Sec. 524) (Leg. proposal) ................................................................................. .......................... 111 111 ∂111 ..........................Farm labor housing (Sec.514) .................................................................................................................. 6,789 7,052 7,052 ∂263 ..........................Self-help land dev. housing loans (Sec. 523) (Leg. proposal) ................................................................ .......................... 417 417 ∂417 ..........................

Total, Loan subsidies ............................................................................................................................ 79,377 81,963 84,013 ∂4,636 ∂2,050 

Farm labor housing grants ....................................................................................................................... 8,336 8,336 8,336 .......................... ..........................
108 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2016 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2016 

appropriation Budget estimate 

RHIF administrative expenses (transfer to RD) ........................................................................................ 417,854 426,821 417,854 .......................... ¥8,967 

Total, Rural Housing Insurance Fund program .................................................................................... 505,567 517,120 510,203 ∂4,636 ¥6,917 

(Loan authorization) ......................................................................................................................... (25,148,531 ) (25,233,208 ) (25,240,135 ) (∂91,604 ) (∂6,927 ) 

Rental assistance program: 

Rental assistance (Sec. 521) ............................................................................................................................. 1,389,695 1,405,033 1,405,033 ∂15,338 ..........................

Multi-Family Housing Revitalization Program Account: 

Rural housing voucher program ................................................................................................................................. 15,000 18,000 18,000 ∂3,000 ..........................Multi-family housing revitalization program .............................................................................................................. 22,000 19,362 22,000 .......................... ∂2,638 

Total, Multi-family housing revitalization .............................................................................................................. 37,000 37,362 40,000 ∂3,000 ∂2,638 

Mutual and self-help housing grants ......................................................................................................................... 27,500 18,493 27,500 .......................... ∂9,007 Rural housing assistance grants ................................................................................................................................ 32,239 28,701 32,239 .......................... ∂3,538 Rural Community Facilities Program Account: 

Loan authorizations: 

Community facility: 

Direct ................................................................................................................................................ (2,200,000 ) (2,200,000 ) (2,200,000 ) .......................... ..........................Guaranteed ....................................................................................................................................... (148,305 ) .......................... (156,250 ) (∂7,945 ) (∂156,250 ) 

Total, Loan authorizations ........................................................................................................... (2,348,305 ) (2,200,000 ) (2,356,250 ) (∂7,945 ) (∂156,250 ) 

Loan subsidies and grants: 

Community facility: 

Guaranteed ....................................................................................................................................... 3,500 .......................... 3,500 .......................... ∂3,500 Grants ............................................................................................................................................... 25,000 25,000 25,000 .......................... ..........................

Rural community development initiative .................................................................................................. 4,000 4,000 4,000 .......................... ..........................Economic impact initiative grants ............................................................................................................ 5,778 .......................... 5,778 .......................... ∂5,778 
109 

Tribal college grants ................................................................................................................................. 4,000 8,000 4,000 .......................... ¥4,000 

Total, RCFP Loan subsidies and grants ............................................................................................... 42,278 37,000 42,278 .......................... ∂5,278 

Subtotal, grants and payments .............................................................................................................................. 102,017 84,194 102,017 .......................... ∂17,823 Total, Rural Housing Service .................................................................................................................................. 2,034,279 2,043,709 2,057,253 ∂22,974 ∂13,544 

(Loan authorization) ....................................................................................................................................... (27,496,836 ) (27,433,208 ) (27,596,385 ) (∂99,549 ) (∂163,177 ) 

Rural Business--Cooperative Service: 

Rural Business Program Account: 

(Guaranteed business and industry loans) ....................................................................................................... (919,765 ) (892,244 ) (919,765 ) .......................... (∂27,521 ) Loan subsidies and grants: 

Guaranteed business and industry subsidy ............................................................................................. 35,687 35,779 36,883 ∂1,196 ∂1,104 

Rural business development grants ................................................................................................ 24,000 30,000 24,000 .......................... ¥6,000 Demonstration Projects (rural child poverty) (Leg. proposal) ......................................................... .......................... 20,000 .......................... .......................... ¥20,000 Data Alignment (rural child poverty) (Leg. proposal) ..................................................................... .......................... 5,000 .......................... .......................... ¥5,000 Delta regional authority ................................................................................................................... 3,000 .......................... 3,000 .......................... ∂3,000 

Total, RBP loan subsidies and grants ........................................................................................ 62,687 90,779 63,883 ∂1,196 ¥26,896 

Intermediary Relending Program Fund Account: 

(Loan authorization) ........................................................................................................................................... (18,889 ) (18,889 ) (18,889 ) .......................... ..........................Loan subsidy ...................................................................................................................................................... 5,217 5,476 5,476 ∂259 ..........................Administrative expenses (transfer to RD) .......................................................................................................... 4,468 4,564 4,468 .......................... ¥96 

Total, IRP Fund .............................................................................................................................................. 9,685 10,040 9,944 ∂259 ¥96 

Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account: 

(Loan authorization) ........................................................................................................................................... (33,077 ) (85,000 ) (33,077 ) .......................... (¥51,923 ) Limit cushion of credit interest spending ......................................................................................................... (179,000 ) (151,487 ) (165,000 ) (¥14,000 ) (∂13,513 ) 

(Rescission) ............................................................................................................................................... ¥179,000 ¥151,487 ¥165,000 ∂14,000 ¥13,513 

Rural Cooperative Development Grants: 

Cooperative development ................................................................................................................................... 5,800 6,000 5,800 .......................... ¥200 Appropriate technology transfer for rural areas ................................................................................................ 2,500 2,500 2,750 ∂250 ∂250 Grants to assist minority producers .................................................................................................................. 3,000 3,000 3,000 .......................... ..........................Value-added agricultural product market development .................................................................................... 10,750 10,750 10,750 .......................... ..........................
110 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2016 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2016 

appropriation Budget estimate 

Total, Rural Cooperative development grants ............................................................................................... 22,050 22,250 22,300 ∂250 ∂50 

Rural Microenterprise Investment Program Account (Leg. proposal): 

(Loan authorization) ........................................................................................................................................... .......................... (23,419 ) .......................... .......................... (¥23,419 ) Loan subsidies and grants ................................................................................................................................ .......................... 4,904 .......................... .......................... ¥4,904 

Total, Rural Microenterprise Investment ....................................................................................................... .......................... 4,904 .......................... .......................... ¥4,904 

Rural Energy for America Program (Loan authorization) ........................................................................................... (7,576 ) (75,754 ) (7,576 ) .......................... (¥68,178 ) 

Loan subsidy and grants ................................................................................................................................... 500 3,515 352 ¥148 ¥3,163 Grants ................................................................................................................................................................. .......................... 15,000 .......................... .......................... ¥15,000 

Total, Rural Energy for America Program ..................................................................................................... 500 18,515 352 ¥148 ¥18,163 

Rural Business Investment Program Account (Leg. proposal): 

(Loan authorization) ........................................................................................................................................... .......................... (20,600 ) .......................... .......................... (¥20,600 ) Loan subsidy ...................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 2,577 .......................... .......................... ¥2,577 Grants ................................................................................................................................................................. .......................... 4,000 .......................... .......................... ¥4,000 

Total, Rural Business Investment Program ................................................................................................... .......................... 6,577 .......................... .......................... ¥6,577 

Healthy Foods Financing Initiative (Leg. proposal): 

Grants ................................................................................................................................................................. .......................... 1,000 .......................... .......................... ¥1,000 

Total, Healthy Foods, Healthy Neighborhoods ............................................................................................... .......................... 1,000 .......................... .......................... ¥1,000 

Total, Rural Business—Cooperative Service .......................................................................................................... ¥84,078 2,578 ¥68,521 ∂15,557 ¥71,099 

(Loan authorization) ....................................................................................................................................... (979,307 ) (1,115,906 ) (979,307 ) .......................... (¥136,599 ) 
111 

Rural Utilities Service: 

Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program Account: 

Loan authorizations: 

Direct ......................................................................................................................................................... (1,200,000 ) (803,802 ) (1,200,000 ) .......................... (∂396,198 ) Guaranteed ................................................................................................................................................ (50,000 ) .......................... (50,000 ) .......................... (∂50,000 ) 

Total, Loan authorization ...................................................................................................................... 1,250,000 803,802 1,250,000 .......................... ∂446,198 

Loan subsidies and grants: 

Direct subsidy ............................................................................................................................................ 31,320 34,885 52,080 ∂20,760 ∂17,195 Guaranteed subsidy ................................................................................................................................... 275 .......................... 240 ¥35 ∂240 Water and waste revolving fund ............................................................................................................... 1,000 500 1,000 .......................... ∂500 Water well system grants ......................................................................................................................... 993 500 993 .......................... ∂493 Colonias and AK/HI grants ........................................................................................................................ 64,000 42,544 66,500 ∂2,500 ∂23,956 Water and waste technical assistance ..................................................................................................... 20,000 13,930 20,000 .......................... ∂6,070 Circuit rider program ................................................................................................................................ 16,397 13,000 16,897 ∂500 ∂3,897 Solid waste management grants .............................................................................................................. 4,000 1,000 4,000 .......................... ∂3,000 High energy cost grants ............................................................................................................................ 10,000 .......................... 10,000 .......................... ∂10,000 Water and waste disposal grants ............................................................................................................. 364,380 350,234 364,380 .......................... ∂14,146 306A(i)(2) grants ....................................................................................................................................... 10,000 5,000 10,000 .......................... ∂5,000 

Total, Loan subsidies and grants ........................................................................................................ 522,365 461,593 546,090 ∂23,725 ∂84,497 

Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program Account: 

Loan authorizations: 

Electric: 

Direct, FFB ........................................................................................................................................ (5,500,000 ) (6,500,000 ) (5,500,000 ) .......................... (¥1,000,000 ) Guaranteed underwriting .................................................................................................................. (750,000 ) .......................... (750,000 ) .......................... (∂750,000 ) 

Subtotal, Electric ......................................................................................................................... (6,250,000 ) (6,500,000 ) (6,250,000 ) .......................... (¥250,000 ) 

Telecommunications: 

Direct, Treasury rate ......................................................................................................................... (346,667 ) (345,056 ) (345,000 ) (¥1,667 ) (¥56 ) Direct, FFB ........................................................................................................................................ (345,000 ) (345,000 ) (345,000 ) .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Telecommunications ..................................................................................................... (691,667 ) (690,056 ) (690,000 ) (¥1,667 ) (¥56 ) Total, Loan authorizations ........................................................................................................... (6,941,667 ) (7,190,056 ) (6,940,000 ) (¥1,667 ) (¥250,056 ) 

Loan Subsidy: 

Telecommunications Direct, Treasury Rate ...................................................................................... 104 3,071 3,071 ∂2,967 ..........................
112 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2016 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2016 

appropriation Budget estimate 

Loan modifcations (Leg. proposal) .................................................................................................. .......................... 11,000 .......................... .......................... ¥11,000 

Total, Loan subsidies ................................................................................................................... 104 14,071 3,071 ∂2,967 ¥11,000 

RETLP administrative expenses (transfer to RD) .............................................................................................. 34,707 36,451 34,707 .......................... ¥1,744 

Total, Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program Account ............................................ 34,811 50,522 37,778 ∂2,967 ¥12,744 

(Loan authorization) ......................................................................................................................... (6,941,667 ) (7,190,056 ) (6,940,000 ) (¥1,667 ) (¥250,056 ) 

Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program: 

Loan authorizations: 

Broadband telecommunications ................................................................................................................ (20,576 ) .......................... (27,043 ) (∂6,467 ) (∂27,043 ) 

Total, Loan authorizations .................................................................................................................... (20,576 ) .......................... (27,043 ) (∂6,467 ) (∂27,043 ) 

Loan subsidies and grants: 

Distance learning and telemedicine: 

Grants ............................................................................................................................................... 22,000 34,950 22,000 .......................... ¥12,950 

Broadband telecommunications: 

Direct ................................................................................................................................................ 4,500 .......................... 4,500 .......................... ∂4,500 Grants ............................................................................................................................................... 10,372 39,492 10,372 .......................... ¥29,120 

Total, Loan subsidies and grants ............................................................................................... 36,872 74,442 36,872 .......................... ¥37,570 

Total, Rural Utilities Service ................................................................................................................................... 594,048 586,557 620,740 ∂26,692 ∂34,183 

(Loan authorization) ....................................................................................................................................... (8,212,243 ) (7,993,858 ) (8,217,043 ) (∂4,800 ) (∂223,185 ) 

Total, Title III, Rural Development Programs ......................................................................................................... 2,770,977 2,864,419 2,836,651 ∂65,674 ¥27,768 

(By transfer) ................................................................................................................................................... (457,029 ) (467,836 ) (457,029 ) .......................... (¥10,807 ) (Loan authorization) ....................................................................................................................................... (36,688,386 ) (36,542,972 ) (36,792,735 ) (∂104,349 ) (∂249,763 ) 
113 

TITLE IV—DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS 

Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services ........................................................................ 811 814 814 ∂3 ..........................Food and Nutrition Service: 

Child nutrition programs ............................................................................................................................................. 22,108,746 23,148,733 23,148,733 ∂1,039,987 ..........................

School breakfast program equipment grants .................................................................................................... 25,000 35,000 30,000 ∂5,000 ¥5,000 Demonstration projects (Summer EBT) .............................................................................................................. 16,000 26,000 23,000 ∂7,000 ¥3,000 Summer Food Service Program (Leg. proposal) ................................................................................................. .......................... 10,000 .......................... .......................... ¥10,000 Direct Certification (Leg. proposal) .................................................................................................................... .......................... 10,000 .......................... .......................... ¥10,000 Child Nutrition State Exchange Activities (Leg. proposal) ................................................................................ .......................... 1,000 .......................... .......................... ¥1,000 

Total, Child nutrition programs ..................................................................................................................... 22,149,746 23,230,733 23,201,733 ∂1,051,987 ¥29,000 

Special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children (WIC) ................................................... 6,350,000 6,350,000 6,350,000 .......................... ..........................Supplemental nutrition assistance program: 

(Food stamp program) ....................................................................................................................................... 77,848,385 76,681,170 76,681,170 ¥1,167,215 ..........................

Reserve ...................................................................................................................................................... 3,000,000 5,000,000 3,000,000 .......................... ¥2,000,000 FDPIR nutrition education services ........................................................................................................... 998 998 998 .......................... ..........................National food consumption survey (Leg. proposal) .................................................................................. .......................... 5,000 .......................... .......................... ¥5,000 Traditional and Local Foods Demonstration Project (Leg. proposal) ....................................................... .......................... 2,000 .......................... .......................... ¥2,000 Fiscal Year 2018 (first quarter) (Leg. proposal) ...................................................................................... .......................... 19,647,500 .......................... .......................... ¥19,647,500 

Total, Food stamp program .................................................................................................................. 80,849,383 101,336,668 79,682,168 ¥1,167,215 ¥21,654,500 

Commodity Assistance Program: 

Commodity supplemental food program ............................................................................................................ 222,198 236,120 236,120 ∂13,922 ..........................Farmers market nutrition program .................................................................................................................... 18,548 16,548 16,548 ¥2,000 ..........................Emergency food assistance program ................................................................................................................. 54,401 59,401 59,401 ∂5,000 ..........................Pacific island and disaster assistance ............................................................................................................. 1,070 1,070 1,070 .......................... ..........................

Total, Commodity assistance program .......................................................................................................... 296,217 313,139 313,139 ∂16,922 ..........................

Nutrition programs administration ............................................................................................................................. 150,824 179,447 173,274 ∂22,450 ¥6,173 

Total, Food and Nutrition Service ........................................................................................................................... 109,796,170 131,409,987 109,720,314 ¥75,856 ¥21,689,673 

Fiscal Year 2017 .............................................................................................................................. (109,796,170 ) (111,762,487 ) (109,720,314 ) (¥75,856 ) (¥2,042,173 ) 
114 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2016 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2016 

appropriation Budget estimate 

Total, Title IV, Domestic Food Programs ................................................................................................................ 109,796,981 131,410,801 109,721,128 ¥75,853 ¥21,689,673 

Fiscal Year 2017 .............................................................................................................................. (109,796,170 ) (111,762,487 ) (109,720,314 ) (¥75,856 ) (¥2,042,173 ) 

TITLE V—FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS 

Foreign Agricultural Service 

Salaries and expenses ......................................................................................................................................................... 191,566 196,571 196,571 ∂5,005 ..........................

(Transfer from export loans) ....................................................................................................................................... (6,394 ) (6,074 ) (6,074 ) (¥320 ) ..........................

Total, Salaries and expenses .................................................................................................................................. 197,960 202,645 202,645 ∂4,685 ..........................

Food for Peace Title I Direct Credit and Food for Progress Program Account, Administrative Expenses: 

Farm Service Agency, Salaries and expenses (transfer to FSA) ................................................................................ 2,528 149 149 ¥2,379 ..........................

Food for Peace Title II Grants: 

Expenses ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1,466,000 1,350,000 1,600,000 ∂134,000 ∂250,000 

Commodity Credit Corporation Export Loans Program Account (administrative expenses): 

Salaries and expenses (Export Loans): 

Foreign Agriculture Service, S&E (transfer to FAS) ........................................................................................... 6,394 6,074 6,074 ¥320 ..........................Farm Service Agency S&E (transfer to FSA) ...................................................................................................... 354 2,463 2,463 ∂2,109 ..........................

Total, CCC Export Loans Program Account ................................................................................................... 6,748 8,537 8,537 ∂1,789 ..........................

McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition program grants ..................................................... 201,626 182,045 201,626 .......................... ∂19,581 Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement Program (Leg. proposal) .................................................................................. .......................... 15,000 .......................... .......................... ¥15,000 

Total, Title V, Foreign Assistance and Related Programs ..................................................................................... 1,868,468 1,752,302 2,006,883 ∂138,415 ∂254,581 

(By transfer) ................................................................................................................................................... (6,394 ) (6,074 ) (6,074 ) (¥320 ) ..........................
115 

TITLE VI—RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

Food and Drug Administration 

Salaries and expenses, direct appropriation ....................................................................................................................... 2,720,808 2,730,924 2,759,978 ∂39,170 ∂29,054 

Prescription drug user fees ......................................................................................................................................... (851,481 ) (865,653 ) (865,653 ) (∂14,172 ) ..........................Medical device user fees ............................................................................................................................................ (137,677 ) (144,859 ) (144,859 ) (∂7,182 ) ..........................Human generic drug user fees ................................................................................................................................... (318,363 ) (324,085 ) (324,085 ) (∂5,722 ) ..........................Biosimilar biological products user fees .................................................................................................................... (21,540 ) (22,079 ) (22,079 ) (∂539 ) ..........................Animal drug user fees ................................................................................................................................................ (22,818 ) (22,977 ) (22,977 ) (∂159 ) ..........................Animal generic drug user fees ................................................................................................................................... (9,705 ) (10,367 ) (10,367 ) (∂662 ) ..........................Tobacco product user fees .......................................................................................................................................... (599,000 ) (635,000 ) (635,000 ) (∂36,000 ) ..........................

Subtotal, user fees, enacted and definite ............................................................................................................. (1,960,584 ) (2,025,020 ) (2,025,020 ) (∂64,436 ) ..........................Subtotal (including user fees) ................................................................................................................................ (4,681,392 ) (4,755,944 ) (4,784,998 ) (∂103,606 ) (∂29,054 ) 

Mammography user fees ............................................................................................................................................. (20,109 ) (20,522 ) (20,522 ) (∂413 ) ..........................Export and color certification user fees ..................................................................................................................... (13,835 ) (14,758 ) (14,758 ) (∂923 ) ..........................Food and Feed Recall user fees ................................................................................................................................. (1,434 ) (1,434 ) (1,434 ) .......................... ..........................Food Reinspection fees ............................................................................................................................................... (6,414 ) (6,414 ) (6,414 ) .......................... ..........................Voluntary qualified importer program fees ................................................................................................................. (5,300 ) (5,300 ) (5,300 ) .......................... ..........................Pharmacy compounding fees (CBO estimate) ............................................................................................................ (1,000 ) .......................... .......................... (¥1,000 ) ..........................Priority review vouchers (PRV) pediatirc disease ....................................................................................................... (7,686 ) (7,686 ) (7,686 ) .......................... ..........................Third pary auditor ....................................................................................................................................................... (1,400 ) (1,400 ) (1,400 ) .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, FDA user fees .......................................................................................................................................... (2,017,762 ) (2,082,534 ) (2,082,534 ) (∂64,772 ) ..........................Subtotal, FDA (including user fees) ....................................................................................................................... (4,738,570 ) (4,813,458 ) (4,842,512 ) (∂103,942 ) (∂29,054 ) 

FDA New User Fees (Leg. proposals): Export and color certification user fees cap increase (Leg. proposal) ............................................................. .......................... (4,280 ) .......................... .......................... (¥4,280 ) Food Inspection and Facility Registration user fees ......................................................................................... .......................... (61,252 ) .......................... .......................... (¥61,252 ) Food import user fees ........................................................................................................................................ .......................... (105,289 ) .......................... .......................... (¥105,289 ) International courier user fees ........................................................................................................................... .......................... (6,038 ) .......................... .......................... (¥6,038 ) Cosmetic user fees ............................................................................................................................................. .......................... (20,230 ) .......................... .......................... (¥20,230 ) Food contact substance notification user fees ................................................................................................. .......................... (5,193 ) .......................... .......................... (¥5,193 ) 

Subtotal, FDA new user fees (Leg. Proposals) .............................................................................................. .......................... (202,282 ) .......................... .......................... (¥202,282 ) 
116 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2016 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2016 

appropriation Budget estimate 

Buildings and facilities ........................................................................................................................................................ 8,788 11,788 11,788 ∂3,000 ..........................

Total, FDA (w/user fees, including proposals) ....................................................................................................... (4,747,358 ) (5,027,528 ) (4,854,300 ) (∂106,942 ) (¥173,228 ) Total, FDA (w/enacted user fees only) ................................................................................................................... (4,747,358 ) (4,829,526 ) (4,854,300 ) (∂106,942 ) (∂24,774 ) Total, FDA (excluding user fees) ............................................................................................................................ 2,729,596 2,742,712 2,771,766 ∂42,170 ∂29,054 

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

Farm Credit Administration (limitation on administrative expenses) ................................................................................. (65,600 ) (69,800 ) (65,600 ) .......................... (¥4,200 ) 

Total, Title VI, Related Agencies and Food and Drug Administration ................................................................... 2,729,596 2,742,712 2,771,766 ∂42,170 ∂29,054 

TITLE VII—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Limit Dam Rehab (Sec. 714(1)) ........................................................................................................................................... ¥68,000 .......................... ¥63,000 ∂5,000 ¥63,000 

(rescission) .................................................................................................................................................................. .......................... ¥54,000 .......................... .......................... ∂54,000 

Limit Environmental Quality Incentives Program (Sec. 714(2)) .......................................................................................... ¥209,000 .......................... ¥189,000 ∂20,000 ¥189,000 Limit Environmental Quality Incentives Program Fiscal Year 2016 (Sec. 714 (2)) (rescission) ........................................ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Limit Biomass Crop Assistance Program (Sec. 714(3)) ...................................................................................................... ¥20,000 .......................... ¥20,000 .......................... ¥20,000 Limit Biorefinery Assistance (Sec. 714(4)) .......................................................................................................................... ¥19,000 .......................... .......................... ∂19,000 ..........................Limit Conservation Stewardship Program (Sec. 714 (5)) .................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Limit Ag Management Assistance (Sec. 714 (6)) ............................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Limit fruit and vegetable program (Sec. 715) .................................................................................................................... ¥125,000 ¥125,000 ¥125,000 .......................... ..........................Section 32 (Sec. 715) (rescission) ....................................................................................................................................... ¥216,000 ¥311,000 ¥237,000 ¥21,000 ∂74,000 APHIS B&F—Fruit Fly Rearing (Sec. 743) ........................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................WIC (rescission) (Sec. 745) .................................................................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... ¥200,000 ¥200,000 ¥200,000 TEFAP (Sec. 748) .................................................................................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Ebola/Zika Funding (Sec. 752) ............................................................................................................................................ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Emergency Watershed Protection Program (Sec. 753) ........................................................................................................ 120,000 .......................... .......................... ¥120,000 ..........................Citrus Greening (Sec. 757) .................................................................................................................................................. 5,500 .......................... .......................... ¥5,500 ..........................RD balances (Sec. 758) (rescission) ................................................................................................................................... .......................... ¥4,221 ¥4,221 ¥4,221 ..........................
117 

Healthy Food Financing Initiative ........................................................................................................................................ .......................... .......................... 1,000 ∂1,000 ∂1,000 FSA, CCE (rescission) ........................................................................................................................................................... ¥1,000 .......................... .......................... ∂1,000 ..........................RD unobligated balances (rescission) ................................................................................................................................. ¥13,000 .......................... .......................... ∂13,000 ..........................Marketing Certificate CHIMP ................................................................................................................................................ 5,000 .......................... .......................... ¥5,000 ..........................Watershed Flood and Prevention Program (rescission) ....................................................................................................... ¥20,000 .......................... .......................... ∂20,000 ..........................Emergency Watershed .......................................................................................................................................................... 2,000 .......................... .......................... ¥2,000 ..........................Hardwood Trees (Reforestation Pilot Program) .................................................................................................................... 600 .......................... 600 .......................... ∂600 Water Bank program ............................................................................................................................................................ 4,000 .......................... 4,000 .......................... ∂4,000 Geographic Disadvantaged farmers ..................................................................................................................................... 1,996 .......................... 1,996 .......................... ∂1,996 Emergency Forest Restoration Program ............................................................................................................................... 4,000 .......................... .......................... ¥4,000 ..........................Emergency Conservation Program ........................................................................................................................................ 17,000 .......................... .......................... ¥17,000 ..........................Emergency Watershed Protection (disaster relief category) ................................................................................................ 37,000 .......................... .......................... ¥37,000 ..........................Emergency Forestry Restoration Program (disaster relief category) ................................................................................... 2,000 .......................... .......................... ¥2,000 ..........................Emergency Conservation Program (disaster relief category) ............................................................................................... 91,000 .......................... .......................... ¥91,000 ..........................NAM Study ............................................................................................................................................................................ 1,000 .......................... .......................... ¥1,000 ..........................Summer EBT ......................................................................................................................................................................... 7,000 .......................... .......................... ¥7,000 ..........................School Equipment Grants ..................................................................................................................................................... 5,000 .......................... .......................... ¥5,000 ..........................Food for Peace ...................................................................................................................................................................... 250,000 .......................... .......................... ¥250,000 ..........................Rural Energy Savings Program ............................................................................................................................................ 8,000 .......................... 8,000 .......................... ∂8,000 Maturing mortgage pilot ...................................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,000 ∂1,000 ∂1,000 FSA ARC pilot ....................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 5,000 ∂5,000 ∂5,000 

Total, Title VII, General Provisions ......................................................................................................................... ¥129,904 ¥494,221 ¥816,625 ¥686,721 ¥322,404 Grand total .............................................................................................................................................................. 140,965,695 169,876,786 148,253,346 ∂7,287,651 ¥21,623,440 

Appropriations fiscal year 2017 .................................................................................................................... (141,264,695 ) (150,749,994 ) (148,859,567 ) (∂7,594,872 ) (¥1,890,427 ) Emergency appropriations ............................................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Disaster relief ................................................................................................................................................ (130,000 ) .......................... .......................... (¥130,000 ) ..........................Rescissions .................................................................................................................................................... (¥429,000 ) (¥520,708 ) (¥606,221 ) (¥177,221 ) (¥85,513 ) Advance appropriations, Fiscal Year 2017 ................................................................................................... .......................... (19,647,500 ) .......................... .......................... (¥19,647,500 ) 

(By transfer) ....................................................................................................................................................... (793,792 ) (804,225 ) (793,418 ) (¥374 ) (¥10,807 ) (Loan authorization) ........................................................................................................................................... (43,090,500 ) (43,198,025 ) (43,447,788 ) (∂357,288 ) (∂249,763 ) (Limitation on administrative expenses) ........................................................................................................... (186,582 ) (193,527 ) (189,327 ) (∂2,745 ) (¥4,200 ) 

Æ