95–473 PDF 

Calendar No. 152 

114TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 114–82 

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG 

ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2016 

JULY 16, 2015.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. MORAN, from the Committee on Appropriations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 1800] 

The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 1800) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 

Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal 

year ending September 30, 2016, 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 ....................$144,111,103,000 

Amount of 2015 appropriations ............................... 147,845,470,000 

Amount of 2016 budget estimate ............................ 167,967,780,000 

Bill as recommended to Senate compared to— 

2015 appropriations .......................................... ¥3,734,367,000 

2016 budget estimate ........................................ ¥23,856,677,000 
(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 .............................................................................................. 15 

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

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

Agricultural Research Service ........................................................... 17 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture ..................................... 22 

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

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 ............................................................................................ 40 

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

Risk Management Agency ................................................................. 46 

Corporations: 

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

Commodity Credit Corporation Fund ............................................... 47 

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 ........................... 52 

Rural Housing Service .............................................................................. 53 

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

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

Rural Utilities Service .............................................................................. 64 

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 .......................................................................................................................... 76 

Title VI: 

Related Agency and Food and Drug Administration: 

Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration ..................................................................................................... 80 

Independent Agency: Farm Credit Administration ................................ 90 

Title VII: General Provisions .................................................................................. 92 

Program, Project, and Activity ............................................................................... 95 

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

Senate ................................................................................................................... 95 

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

Senate ................................................................................................................... 96 

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

Senate ................................................................................................................... 96 

Budgetary Impact of Bill ......................................................................................... 97 

Comparative Statement of Budget Authority ........................................................ 98 
(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] 

2015 2016 Committee 

recommendation 

Title I: Agricultural programs ..................................................................................... 30,446,595 26,838,162 

Title II: Conservation programs .................................................................................. 859,326 856,107 

Title III: Rural economic and community development programs ............................. 2,403,423 2,493,942 

Title IV: Domestic food programs ............................................................................... 110,190,881 110,140,403 

Title V: Foreign assistance and related programs ..................................................... 1,835,325 1,864,127 

Title VI: Related agencies and Food and Drug Administration ................................. 2,597,324 2,637,766 

Title VII: General provisions ........................................................................................ ¥512,404 ¥719,404 

Title VIII: Ebola Response and Preparedness ............................................................. 25,000 ..............................

Total, new budget (obligational) authority ................................................... 147,845,470 144,111,103 
(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 2016. 

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, 2015 ............................................................................. $45,805,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 47,308,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 46,055,000 

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 $46,055,000 for 

the Office of the Secretary. The Committee recommendation includes the following accounts under the Office of the Secretary: Office of the Secretary; Military Veterans Agricultural Liaison; 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] 

2015 enacted 2016 budget 

request 

Committee recommendation 

Office of the Secretary ......................................................................... 5,051 5,137 5,051 

Military Veterans Agricultural Liaison ................................................. .......................... 250 250 

Office of Tribal Relations .................................................................... 502 507 502 

Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Coordination ................ 1,496 1,520 1,496 

Office of Advocacy and Outreach ........................................................ 1,209 1,228 1,209 

Office of Assistance Secretary for Administration .............................. 804 816 804 

Departmental Administration ............................................................... 25,124 25,688 25,124 
8 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

2015 enacted 2016 budget 

request 

Committee 

recommendation 

Office of Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations ................. 3,869 3,934 3,869 

Office of Communications ................................................................... 7,750 8,228 7,750 

Total ........................................................................................ 45,805 47,308 46,055 

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. 

Captive Marine Mammals.—The Department is directed to issue, 

within 6 months of enactment of this act, its proposed rule for public comment regarding captive marine mammal standards under 

the Animal Welfare Act in order to ensure that the handling, enclosure size, care, treatment, and transportation of marine mammals 

in captivity are based on the latest expert and scientific knowledge. 

Dietary Guidelines for Americans.—The Committee is concerned 

that the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee’s recommendations included issues outside of the nutritional scope of 

the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The Committee directs the 

Secretary to ensure that the Guidelines are solely nutritional and 

dietary in nature and based on a preponderance of scientific evidence. Furthermore, the Committee includes new bill language directing the Secretary to only include nutrition and dietary information, not extraneous factors, in the final 2015 Dietary Guidelines 

for Americans. 

The Committee is also concerned that alcohol labeling guidance 

is not standardized among Federal agencies, and encourages USDA 

and DHHS to ensure that consumption guidance issued in the 2015 

Dietary Guidelines recommendations is consistent with policies of 

the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the Tax 

and Trade Bureau, and the Food and Drug Administration, which 

acknowledge the variability of alcohol content for different beverage alcohol products. 

Drought Relief.—The Secretary is directed 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 counties are declared to be in a drought disaster, 

as well as any unmet needs or backlogs for USDA drought relief 

programs. The reports shall include detailed information specifying 

which appropriations accounts funding is derived from, the fiscal 

year in which it was appropriated or made available, and how 

much funding remains obligated but unexpended. 

Duplication Across Federal Agencies.—The Committee is concerned about duplication of functions across Federal agencies and 

directs USDA to review its operations to reduce potentially duplicative functions as a way to save taxpayer dollars. 
9 

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. 

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. 

Pay Costs.—The Committee does not recommend pay cost increases as requested in the budget. 

Pollinator Health.—The Committee supports the recently announced Pollinator Research Action Plan, and the combined efforts 

of multiple government agencies to address pollinator health. The 

Committee encourages USDA to continue to work to advance the 

conservation of Monarchs and other economically significant pollinators through all available means, including leveraging partnerships with non-governmental organizations that possess experience 

working directly with agricultural producers and other conservation partners. 

Printing Costs.—The Committee is concerned about the millions 

of taxpayer dollars spent on wasteful printing practices each year 

and the lack of clear printing policies within each of the agencies. 

While progress has been made to better utilize the cloud and digitalize records, little progress has been made to reform in-house 

printing practices. The Committee directs the Department to work 

with the Office of Management and Budget to reduce printing and 

reproduction by 34 percent and report to the Committee within 60 

days after enactment of this act on what steps have been taken to 

reduce printing volume and costs. The report should specifically 

identify how much money each agency will be saving. 

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. 

Rural Poverty.—The Department has statutory authorities and 

programs designed to help break the multigenerational trap of poverty in rural counties. The Committee recognizes that USDA may 

utilize existing programs and funding within RD and the Food and 

Nutrition Service [FNS] in order to assist families, create jobs and 

develop a path towards independence and self-sufficiency. Other 

existing resources such as the extension service and public universities can be used for coordination and outreach activities. The 

Committee directs the Secretary to provide a detailed plan including all funding resources currently being used to combat rural pov-
10 

erty. This comprehensive plan should account for all Federal 

projects, programs, and initiatives and prioritize those proposals 

that take innovative and job-creating approaches to housing and 

home ownership among low and very-low income individuals and 

families; improve rural livelihoods through the use of environmentally and economically sustainable approaches to small-holder 

agriculture that provide access to critical nutrition, jobs and revenue; and community-wide outreach, education and healthcare 

services that address some of the most common health risks in 

rural America: heart disease, stroke, malnutrition, obesity, and diabetes. 

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, 2015 ............................................................................. $17,377,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 17,465,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 16,777,000 

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 $16,777,000 for 

the Office of the Chief Economist. 

Policy Research.—The Committee recommendation includes 

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

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

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

rural development policy proposals on rural communities, farmers, 

agribusiness, taxpayers, and consumers. 
11 

NATIONAL APPEALS DIVISION

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $13,317,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 13,566,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 13,317,000 

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 $13,317,000 for 

the National Appeals Division. 

OFFICE OF BUDGET AND PROGRAM ANALYSIS

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $9,392,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 9,500,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 9,392,000 

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 $9,392,000 for 

the Office of Budget and Program Analysis. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $45,045,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 53,071,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 45,045,000 

The Office of the Chief Information Officer was established in 

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

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

investment activities in support of USDA program delivery, and is 

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

technology investments are economical and effective, coordinates 

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

interoperability. In addition, the Office of the Chief Information Of-
12 

ficer 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. 

On November 28, 2004, the information technology staffs of the 

Service Center Agencies [SCA] were converged into one IT organization within the office of the Chief Information Officer; this converged organization is named Information Technology Services and 

replaces a network of cross-agency teams used to coordinate IT infrastructure investment within the SCA and allows for unified 

management of the IT infrastructure. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $45,045,000 for 

the Office of the Chief Information Officer. This amount also includes not less than $28,000,000 to support cybersecurity requirements of the Department. 

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, 2015 ............................................................................. $6,028,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 9,154,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 6,028,000 

The Office of the Chief Financial Officer is responsible for the 

dual roles of Chief Financial Management Policy Officer and Chief 

Financial Management Advisor to the Secretary and mission area 

heads. The Office provides leadership for all financial management, 

accounting, travel, Federal assistance, and strategic planning 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 $6,028,000 for 

the Office of the Chief Financial Officer. 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $898,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 907,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 898,000 
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 $898,000 for the 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights. 

OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $24,070,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 24,443,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 24,070,000 

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 $24,070,000 for 

the Office of Civil Rights. 

AGRICULTURE BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $55,866,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 125,469,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 53,618,000 

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 $53,618,000 for 

Agriculture Buildings and Facilities. 
14 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $3,600,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 3,630,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,618,000 

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 $3,618,000 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, 2015 ............................................................................. $95,026,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 98,902,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 95,294,000 

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 $95,294,000 for 

the Office of Inspector General, which includes an increase of 

$268,000 for GSA rent and DHS security payments, as requested 

in the budget. 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, 2015 ............................................................................. $44,383,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 48,075,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 44,383,000 

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

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

proceedings; State water rights adjudications; proceedings before 

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

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

judicial proceedings and litigation. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $44,383,000 for 

the Office of the General Counsel. 

OFFICE OF ETHICS

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $3,654,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 4,565,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,654,000 

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 $3,654,000 for 

the Office of Ethics. 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND

ECONOMICS

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $898,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 907,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 898,000 

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 $898,000 for the 

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

Cover Crops.—The Committee recognizes the importance of cover 

crops to promote soil health and reduce nutrient runoff and encourages the National Institute of Food and Agriculture to coordinate 

research efforts to collect information regarding cover crop practices, adoption rates, and effects on soil health and crop yields, and 

to provide effective and widespread dissemination of the results of 

the research to agricultural producers through extension and outreach activities. 

Formula Funds.—The Committee recognizes the good work that 

stems from Hatch and Smith-Lever grants and directs that the 

funds continue to be awarded according to existing statutory funding formulas. 

ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $85,373,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 86,023,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 85,373,000 

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 $85,373,000 for 

the Economic Research Service. 

Forest Loss.—The Committee encourages ERS to analyze the impacts of U.S. trade and import of food and commodities on global 

forest loss, and to identify potential U.S. policies that could reduce 

U.S. impacts on tropical forest loss. ERS should report to the Committee on its efforts within 180 days of enactment of this act. 

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, 2015 ............................................................................. $172,408,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 180,346,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 168,108,000 

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 
17 

policy, production, and marketing decisions. NASS also furnishes 

statistical services to other USDA and Federal agencies in support 

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

training to developing countries. 

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

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

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

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

market value of agricultural production sold, acreage of major 

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $168,108,000 for 

the National Agricultural Statistics Service. The recommendation 

includes increases of $500,000 for pollinator surveys, and $957,000 

for the Chemical Use program, as requested in the budget. The 

Committee also includes funding to reinstate a vineyard production 

survey to gather information essential to annual pricing and purchase agreements and long-term production planning. 

Chemical Use Data Series.—The Committee believes that the 

Chemical Use Data Series provides timely, valuable information on 

fertilizer and chemical use data and 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 included funding in 2014 for this purpose and expects NASS 

to incorporate funding for an annual organic production survey into 

its internal budgeting process. 

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $1,132,625,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 1,191,540,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,136,825,000 

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 li-
18 

brary services through traditional library functions and modern 

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

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

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

areas: research on broad regional and national problems, research 

to support Federal action and regulatory agencies, expertise to 

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

The mission of ARS research is to develop and transfer solutions 

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

and other agricultural products; assess the nutritional needs of 

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 $1,136,825,000 

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 or closure of research 

locations. The Committee expects extramural research to be funded 

at no less than the fiscal year 2015 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. 

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 2015 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. 

Animal Welfare.—The Committee is concerned about allegations 

of mistreatment of research animals at the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center [USMARC] in Clay Center, Nebraska, and is aware 

that USDA’s Office of the Inspector General is conducting a full 

audit of animal welfare practices at USMARC and throughout the 

Agricultural Research Service [ARS]. The Committee directs ARS 

to ensure all its facilities conducting agricultural research comply 

with standards that are equivalent to the Animal Welfare Act, and 

to enter into an agreement with the Animal and Plant Health In-
19 

spection Service [APHIS] to have APHIS Animal Care conduct routine inspections of ARS facilities to ensure humane treatment of 

animals. The Committee further directs ARS to fully review all of 

its animal welfare policies and procedures, and to ensure that all 

research facilities which conduct animal research have fully functioning Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees, with appropriate record keeping procedures. The Committee directs USDA 

to provide quarterly reports to the Committees on Appropriations 

of the House and Senate regarding all efforts to improve or ensure 

all animal welfare regulations are being followed, including measures taken when problems are discovered. 

Aquaculture Disease.—The Committee is concerned about the increasing negative impact the spread of Aeromonas is having on the 

domestic farm-raised catfish industry. The ARS Aquatic Animal 

Health Unit is encouraged to collaborate with land-grant university 

partners with expertise in aquatic animal health and fish pathogens to develop more effective culture methods and advanced biosecurity measures to counteract the infections. All research, development and outreach should focus on the immediate needs surrounding Aeromonas infections, but should be tailored in a way 

that provides broad-based solutions to reducing loss due to disease 

in the domestic aquaculture industry. Research should also focus 

on methodologies that have the potential to not only reduce risks 

from pathogens, but also positively impact the viability and profitability of the industry beyond the benefits provided by disease control. The Committee is particularly interested in understanding 

what benefits the use of in-pond raceways could have on disease 

prevention and mediation, the cost of production, and profitability. 

Bioenergy Research.—ARS is encouraged to consider a wide spectrum of growing conditions and appropriate plant species in its bioenergy research to support the development of bioenergy products 

viable in all States and territories. 

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. 

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

and fruit quality improvements in cranberry production. The Committee recommendation includes $750,000 to increase resources devoted to improving cranberry yields, pest management, disease 

management, and water resource management by developing fields 

devoted to cranberry research and collection and storage of samples 

for analysis in appropriate existing laboratory facilities. 

Dairy Forage Research.—The Committee commends the ARS on 

its prioritization of research to develop improved forage breeding 

and management systems to enhance the productivity and capacity 

of animal production systems. This research should focus on improving the environmental efficiency of diverse integrated dairy 
20 

systems, environmental growth physiology, and the improvement of 

forage, forage management, and forage systems. This research 

serves the public good by improving the efficiency of dairy systems 

and addressing nutrient management pressures on water and environmental quality. 

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 2015 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 

$3,500,000 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. 

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 2015 level to 

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

National Agricultural Library.—ARS is responsible for the Abraham Lincoln National Agricultural Library [NAL] 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. The 

Committee directs ARS to continue to support the dissemination of 

objective, scholarly, and authoritative agricultural and food law research and information by entering into partnerships with institutions of higher education that have expertise in agricultural and 

food law research and information. 

Nutrition Research and Aging.—There is strong evidence that 

nutrition plays a critical role in preventative health, especially in 

aging adults. More research is needed to address our gaps in 

knowledge about how nutrition impacts the health of this growing 

population of Americans. The Agricultural Research Service is encouraged to continue research relating to the impact of nutrition on 

aging and health. 

Pollinator Research.—The Committee is aware that pollinators 

are responsible for the production of one-third of the Nation’s food 

supply, but the number of managed honeybee colonies in the 

United States has dropped in half since 1940. Because of the importance of pollinators in the production of the Nation’s food supply 

and their impact on the stability of our agricultural economy, the 
21 

Committee recommendation includes an increase of $2,000,000 for 

pollinator health. 

Potato Research.—The Committee is concerned about the potentially devastating effect that Golden Nematodes and Pale Cyst 

Nematodes could have on potatoes and other agricultural commodities in contact with soil, and recognizes that in order to ensure the 

success of nematode quarantine in the country ARS scientists must 

be able to breed and test potatoes for nematode resistance and to 

receive and analyze soil to monitor nematode infestation in regulated areas in a secure quarantined environment. 

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

Year 2015 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, 

2016, 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. 

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. 

Sustainable Water Use Research.—The Committee remains concerned about the ongoing depletion of the regional Alluvial Aquifer 

in the Lower Mississippi River Basin. Over 7 million acres in the 

region represent irrigated cropland and 90 percent of those acres 

rely on the groundwater supply. Increased water withdrawals and 

stagnant recharging jeopardize the long-term availability of the aquifer and place irrigation agriculture in the region on an 

unsustainable path. The Committee encourages ARS, in collaboration with university research and extension scientists and local 

stakeholders, to identify gaps in water management research and 
22 

focus efforts on the development of conservation and irrigation 

techniques to reduce water usage in agriculture production while 

maintaining crop quality and yield. 

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. 

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. 

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $45,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 205,901,000 

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

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

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, 2015 ............................................................................. $786,874,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 990,788,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 791,096,000 

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 Eq-
23 

uity 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 $791,096,000 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: 

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 .................................. 52,485 

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) .............................. 325,000 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5832.

22,667 

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

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

Improved Pest Control: 

Minor Crop Pest Management (IR–4) ........................................ 7 U.S.C. 450i(c) .............................. 11,913 
24 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE—RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES— 

Continued 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Program/Activity Authorization Committee 

recommendation 

Alfalfa Forage and Research Program ...................................... 7 U.S.C. 5925 .................................. 2,000 

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

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

Potato Research ......................................................................... .......................................................... 2,000 

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

Total, Special Research Grants ........................................ .......................................................... 4,755 

Necessary Expenses of Research and Education Activities: 

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

Federal Administration—Other Necessary Expenses for Research and Education Activities........................................................... 12,620 

Total, Necessary Expenses ................................................ .......................................................... 20,450 

Total, Research and Education Activities ......................... .......................................................... 791,096 

Agriculture and Food Research Initiative.—The Committee recommendation includes $325,000,000 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 notes the importance of having publicly available cultivars and breeds that are specifically bred to be 

adapted to the soils, climates, and farming systems of farmers of 

all regions. Therefore, the Committee strongly urges to make public 

cultivar and breed development an increased priority for funding 

within the AFRI program by creating a separate Request for Applications in this area. The Committee further requests a report from 

the agency as to its plans for implementing this important 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 $2,000,000 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 
25 

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. 

Dual Use/Dual Benefit.—The Dual Purpose with Dual Benefit: 

Research in Biomedicine and Agriculture Using Agriculturally Important Domestic Species is an interagency partnership grants program funded by NIFA and the National Institutes of Health [NIH]. 

Both NIFA and NIH should be commended for developing this important interagency program. The Committee strongly urges continuation of this partnership because it sponsors use of farm animals as dual purpose models to better understand developmental 

origins of disease, fat regulation and obesity, stem cell biology, assisted reproductive technologies, and infectious disease which directly benefits both agriculture and biomedicine. This program also 

strengthens ties between human medicine, veterinary medicine, 

and animal sciences, which is key to success of the One Health Initiative. 

Food Safety.—The Committee recommends that NIFA prioritize 

research on funding for new food safety technologies relating to the 

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

Food Safety Outreach.—The Committee is aware that for fiscal 

year 2015 FDA and USDA is soliciting proposals for the establishment of one national and four regional food safety training centers. 

The Committee is concerned that limiting funding to one national 

center and four regional centers may inhibit the funding being used 

for on-the-ground food safety training ‘‘projects’’, as authorized by 

the Food Safety Modernization Act. The Committee expects the 

Secretary to ensure that nonprofit community-based or non-governmental organizations, or organizations representing owners and operators of small and mid-sized farms, small food processors, or 

small fruit and vegetable merchant wholesalers can compete for 

funding or subcontracts for on-the-ground food safety training 

projects that directly reach the targeted, intended beneficiaries. 
26 

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. 

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 2016 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. 
27 

HISPANIC-SERVING AGRICULTURAL COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

ENDOWMENT FUND

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... $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 Hispanic-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, 2015 ............................................................................. $11,880,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 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. 
28 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

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

the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund. 

EXTENSION ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $471,691,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 483,370,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 488,891,000 

Cooperative extension work was established by the Smith-Lever 

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

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

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

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

application of such information by demonstrations, publications, 

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

or resident at the colleges. 

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

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

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

Northern Marianas, and Micronesia conduct educational programs 

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $488,891,000 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 .................................. 43,920 

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 .................................. 2,500 

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 

Crop Protection/Pest Management ............................................. 7 U.S.C. 343(d) ............................... 17,200 

Total, Section 3(d) ................................................................. .......................................................... 102,728 
29 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE—EXTENSION ACTIVITIES—Continued 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Program/Activity Authorization Committee 

recommendation 

Necessary Expenses of Research and Education Activities: 

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

Federal Administration—Other Necessary Expenses for Research and Education Activities........................................................... 7,805 

Total, Necessary Expenses ................................................ .......................................................... 8,357 

Total, Extension Activities ................................................. .......................................................... 488,891 

INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $30,900,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 28,900,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 13,700,000 

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

research, education, and extension competitive grants program. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $13,700,000 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) ........................ 1,000 

Food and Agriculture Defense Initiative ................................................... 7 U.S.C. 3351 ........................... 6,700 

Total, Integrated Activities .......................................................... ................................................... 13,700 

Crop Protection/Pest Management.—The Committee recommendation moves funding for the Crop Protection/Pest Management line item from Integrated Activities to the Smith-Lever Act, 

section 3(d) line item within Extension Activities. 

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. 
30 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR MARKETING AND

REGULATORY PROGRAMS

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $898,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 907,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 898,000 

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 $898,000 for the 

Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs. 

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $871,315,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 855,803,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 876,465,000 

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 
31 

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 $876,465,000 for 

salaries and expenses of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service. 

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

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2015 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2016 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendation 

Safeguarding and International Technical Assistance: 

Animal Health Technical Services .............................................. 35,339 35,357 35,339 

Aquatic Animal Health ................................................................ 2,253 2,259 2,253 

Avian Health ............................................................................... 52,340 52,395 52,340 

Cattle Health ............................................................................... 92,500 90,161 92,500 

Equine, Cervid and Small Ruminant Health .............................. 19,500 19,534 19,500 

National Veterinary Stockpile ...................................................... 3,973 3,722 3,973 

Swine Health ............................................................................... 24,250 24,836 24,800 

Veterinary Biologics .................................................................... 16,417 16,448 16,417 

Veterinary Diagnostics ................................................................ 31,540 31,594 31,540 

Zoonotic Disease Management ................................................... 9,523 19,536 9,523 

Subtotal, Animal Health ......................................................... 287,635 295,842 288,185 

Agricultural Quarantine Inspection (Appropriated) .................... 26,900 29,330 27,900 

Cotton Pests ................................................................................ 11,520 8,194 11,520 

Field Crop & Rangeland Ecosystems Pests ............................... 8,826 8,876 8,826 

Pest Detection ............................................................................. 27,446 27,504 27,446 

Plant Protection Methods Development ...................................... 20,686 20,734 20,686 

Specialty Crop Pests ................................................................... 156,000 145,182 156,000 

Tree & Wood Pests ...................................................................... 54,000 45,519 54,000 

Subtotal, Plant Health ............................................................ 305,378 285,339 306,378 

Wildlife Damage Management .................................................... 90,027 80,583 92,627 

Wildlife Services Methods Development ..................................... 18,856 18,908 18,856 

Subtotal, Wildlife Services ..................................................... 108,883 99,491 111,483 

Animal & Plant Health Regulatory Enforcement ........................ 16,224 16,264 16,224 

Biotechnology Regulatory Services ............................................. 18,875 18,901 18,875 

Subtotal, Regulatory Services ................................................ 35,099 35,165 35,099 

Contingency Fund ....................................................................... 470 471 470 

Emergency Preparedness & Response ........................................ 16,966 16,991 16,966 

Subtotal, Emergency Management ......................................... 17,436 17,462 17,436 

Subtotal, Safeguarding and Emergency Preparedness/Response ................................................................................ 754,431 733,299 758,581 

Safe Trade and International Technical Assistance: 

Agriculture Import/Export ............................................................ 14,099 19,625 15,099 

Overseas Technical & Trade Operations .................................... 22,114 22,138 22,114 
32 

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2015 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2016 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendation 

Subtotal, Safe Trade .............................................................. 36,213 41,763 37,213 

Animal Welfare: 

Animal Welfare ............................................................................ 28,010 28,071 28,010 

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

Subtotal, Animal Welfare ....................................................... 28,707 28,777 28,707 

Agency Management: 

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

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

GSA rent and DHS security payments ........................................ 42,567 42,567 42,567 

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

Total, Direct Appropriation ..................................................... 871,315 855,803 876,465 

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 

$27,900,000 for the agricultural quarantine inspections (AQI) function, including pre-departure and interline inspections. 

Animal Disease Traceability.—The Committee provides 

$13,000,000 to continue support for implementation of the new animal disease traceability system. 

APHIS Cargo Release.—The Committee recommends that APHIS 

continue to work with the Department of Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Protection [CBP] in order to facilitate the release 

of cargo at commercial import facilities by ensuring that CBP officials earn Cargo Release Authority certification for those species 

and groups of organisms listed in the Cargo Release Authority 

Plan. Such coordination will allow CBP officials to release cargo authorized by the Cargo Release Authority Plan while allowing 

APHIS entomologists, plant pathologists, and botanists to make release decisions upon discovery of those reportable organisms that 

may pose a threat to the Nation’s agricultural security. APHIS is 

directed to report to the Committee regarding ongoing interagency 

coordination efforts, as well as specific steps planned for the fiscal 

year to improve release decisionmaking processes for import agriculture cargo. 

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 

Committee Directives.—In complying with the Committee’s directives, the Committee expects APHIS not to redirect support for programs and activities without prior notification to and approval by 

the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in accordance 

with the reprogramming procedures specified in the act. Unless 

otherwise directed, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

shall implement appropriations by programs, projects, and activities as specified by the Appropriations Committees of both Houses 

of Congress. Unspecified reductions necessary to carry out the provisions of this act are to be implemented in accordance with the 

definitions contained in the program, project, and activity section 

of this report. 

Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza [HPAI].—The Committee is 

appreciative of the Department’s decision to utilize emergency 

funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC] to address 

surveillance, biosecurity, indemnification, site cleanup and disinfection, etc., in the face of spreading HPAI contaminations. Although 

infections may decline during the warm summer months, it is likely that the pace will accelerate again in the fall. The Committee 

expects the Secretary to continue to move expeditiously, relying on 

CCC funding, to support research, disease tracking, containment, 

and other Federal responsibilities to combat this devastating disease. 

Honey 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. 

Invasive Annual Grasses.—The Secretary is encouraged to consider targeted herbicide treatments of invasive annual grasses and 

restoration efforts to compliment juniper control efforts on greater 

sage-grouse habitat on private rangelands. 

Invasive Tree Pests.—The Committee recognizes that the forests 

products industry and family forest owners are under great threat 

from a variety of invasive forest pests. It is essential that APHIS 

carry out a comprehensive program to counter the spread of 

invasive species and work towards complete eradication of the 

Asian long-horned beetle, which continues to be found in new locations. The Secretary is directed to report to the Committee regarding the steps being taken to eradicate Asian long-horned beetles 

and emerald ash borers in northeast forests. 

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

NAHLN Coordinating Council. 

Peer-Reviewed Accreditation.—The Committee commends 

APHIS’s collaboration with accrediting organizations whose accreditation program heeds rigorous publicly available standards, utilizes notable experts in the field to conduct comprehensive inspection and review, and provides opportunity for public input. As a result, APHIS has prioritized its allocation of inspection resources 

and inspection frequency to focus on higher risk individuals and institutions. The Committee also commends APHIS for its proactive 
34 

efforts to collaborate with these peer-reviewed accredited zoos and 

aquariums on critical initiatives such as: foreign animal disease 

surveillance; all-hazards preparedness and response; and animal 

welfare symposia. The Committee expects these efforts to continue 

and expand. 

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 $92,627,000 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 $600,000 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. 

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 establish a National Training Academy focused on those areas of greatest concern such as pyrotechnics, firearms, hazardous materials, immobilization and euthanasia 

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

watercraft, and zoonotic diseases. 

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

Center and its affiliated field locations to resolve problems caused 

by the interaction of wild animals and society. The Committee provides $18,856,000 to ensure continued development of technical 

and scientific information on wildlife damage management. 

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $3,175,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 3,175,000 

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

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

major nonrecurring construction projects in support of specific pro-
35 

gram 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, 2015 ............................................................................. $81,192,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 83,121,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 81,192,000 

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 $81,192,000 for 

Marketing Services of the Agricultural Marketing Service. 

Organic Data Collection.—The Committee encourages the Department to collect price data on organic commodities and other 

data relevant to the marketing of organic agricultural products. 

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Limitation, 2015 ..................................................................................... $60,709,000 

Budget limitation, 2016 ......................................................................... 60,982,000 

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

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

35) initiated a system of user fees for the cost of grading and 
36 

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

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

designed to facilitate commerce and protect participants in the industry. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

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

FUNDS FOR STRENGTHENING MARKETS, INCOME, AND SUPPLY

(SECTION 32)

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $20,186,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 20,489,000 

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

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

an amount equal to 30 percent of customs receipts collected during 

each preceding calendar year and unused balances are available for 

encouraging the domestic consumption and exportation of 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. 

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

2015–2016: 

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

2016 

Fiscal year 2015 

estimate 

Fiscal year 2016 

budget 

Fiscal year 2016 

estimate 

Appropriation (30 Percent of Customs Receipts) .......................... $9,714,922,892 $10,316,645,343 $10,316,645,343 

Less Transfers: 

Food and Nutrition Service ................................................... ¥8,355,670,824 ¥8,869,645,343 ¥8,869,645,343 

Commerce Department ......................................................... ¥143,738,031 ¥144,000,000 ¥144,000,000 

Total, Transfers ................................................................ ¥8,499,408,855 ¥9,013,645,343 ¥9,013,645,343 

Prior Year Appropriation Available, Start of Year ......................... 187,485,963 122,000,000 122,000,000 

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

Unavailable for Obligations (recoveries and offsetting collections) ......................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................

Transfer of Prior Year Funds to FNS (F&V) ................................... ¥119,000,000 ¥122,000,000 ¥122,000,000 

Budget Authority, Farm Bill .................................................. 1,284,000,000 1,303,000,000 1,303,000,000 

Rescission of Current Year Funds ........................................ ¥121,094,000 ¥292,020,000 ¥215,704,000 

Appropriations Temporarily Reduced—Sequestration 1 ........ ¥81,906,000 ............................ ¥77,316,000 

Unavailable for Obligations (Fruit and Veg transfer to 

FNS) .................................................................................. ¥122,000,000 ¥125,000,000 ¥125,000,000 

Budget Authority, Appropriations Act .......................... 959,000,000 885,980,000 884,980,000 

Less Obligations: 

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

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

Removal of Defective Commodities ...................................... 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 

Emergency Surplus Removal ................................................ 113,500,000 ............................ ............................

Small Business Support ....................................................... ............................ 500,000 500,000 
37 

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

2016—Continued 

Fiscal year 2015 estimate Fiscal year 2016 

budget 

Fiscal year 2016 estimate 

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

Additional Fruits, Vegetables, and Nuts Purchases ............. 92,500,000 206,000,000 206,000,000 

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

Accounting Adjustment ......................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................

Estimated Future Needs ....................................................... 180,604,000 106,692,000 106,692,000 

Total, Commodity Procurement ........................................ 904,104,000 831,692,000 831,692,000 

Administrative Funds: 

Commodity Purchase Support ............................................... 34,710,000 33,799,000 33,799,000 

Marketing Agreements and Orders ....................................... 20,186,000 20,489,000 20,489,000 

Total, Administrative Funds ............................................. 54,896,000 54,288,000 54,288,000 

Total Obligations .............................................................. 959,000,000 885,980,000 884,980,000 

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

Unavailable for Obligations (Fruit and Veg transfer to FNS) ....... 122,000,000 125,000,000 125,000,000 

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

Total End of Year Balances ............................................. 122,000,000 125,000,000 125,000,000 

1 The Budget Control Act of 2011 as amended by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 reduced all non-defense mandatory accounts by 

7.3 percent in 2015 and 6.8 percent in 2016. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends a transfer from section 32 funds of 

$20,489,000 for the formulation and administration of marketing 

agreements and orders. 

Section 32 Authorities.—Under the authority described in clause 

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

section 32 account to increase the purchasing power of producers. 

This practice has been used on various occasions to provide direct 

assistance to producers when market forces or natural conditions 

adversely affect the financial condition of farmers and ranchers. 

The Committee notes the importance of the ability of the Secretary 

to utilize this authority, but believes that communication between 

the Department and the Congress should be improved when this 

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

provide notification to the Appropriations Committee in advance of 

any public announcement or release of section 32 funds under the 

specific authorities cited above. 

PAYMENTS TO STATES AND POSSESSIONS

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $1,235,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 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 
38 

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, 2015 ............................................................................. $43,048,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 44,101,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 43,048,000 

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. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $43,048,000 for 

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

Transportation Disruptions.—The Committee directs USDA to 

develop and implement prompt and effective contingency plans to 

ensure that official grain inspection and weighing services resume 

as quickly as possible should an interruption in service occur. Additionally, in the event of a disruption, the Committee directs the 

Secretary to ensure that persons requesting official inspection and 

weighing services are informed immediately of the nature of the 

emergency, promptly implement the necessary mitigations to address any concerns, and provide regular updates should any disruption persist. 
39 

LIMITATION ON INSPECTION AND WEIGHING SERVICES EXPENSES

Limitation, 2015 ..................................................................................... $50,000,000 

Budget limitation, 2016 ......................................................................... 55,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 55,000,000 

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 $55,000,000 on inspection and weighing services expenses. 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD SAFETY

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $816,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 824,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 816,000 

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 $816,000 for the 

Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety. 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $1,016,474,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 1,011,557,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,013,621,000 

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 foreign inspection systems and establishments that prepare meat or 

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

poultry inspection programs. 
40 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,013,621,000 

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. 

Humane Slaughter.—The Committee directs FSIS to continue to 

provide annual reports to the Committee on the implementation of 

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

The Committee also directs FSIS to ensure that personnel hired 

with funding previously provided specifically for Humane Methods 

of Slaughter Act enforcement focus their attention on overseeing 

compliance with humane handling rules for live animals as they 

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

areas and that all inspectors receive robust training. 

Inspections.—The Committee is disappointed that the requirements set forth in section 12106 of Public Law 113–79 have not 

been met. The Committee directs the Department to meet its statutory obligation by promulgating final regulations expeditiously and 

meeting the implementation deadline for all domestic and imported 

inspection no later than 30 days after the enactment of this act. 

Recruiting Inspection Program Personnel.—The Committee directs FSIS to submit a report that contains a comprehensive plan 

to increase the consideration of external candidates for frontline 

food safety inspection positions, with a focus on recruiting candidates with a demonstrated educational background in agriculture 

or health sciences, including new and recent graduates in these 

fields. 

The following table represents the Committee’s specific recommendations for the Food Safety and Inspection Service as compared to the fiscal year 2015 and budget request levels: 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE SALARIES AND EXPENSES 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2015 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2016 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendation 

Food safety inspection: 

Federal .............................................................................................. 900,641 895,481 897,788 

State .................................................................................................. 60,905 60,976 60,905 

International ...................................................................................... 16,589 16,744 16,589 

Codex Alimentarius ........................................................................... 3,759 3,776 3,759 

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

Total .............................................................................................. 1,016,474 1,011,557 1,013,621 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FARM AND FOREIGN

AGRICULTURAL SERVICES

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $898,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 907,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 898,000 

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 
41 

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 $898,000 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, 2015 ........................................................................... 1,200,180 309,880 1,510,060 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................ 1,185,251 312,873 1,498,124 

Committee recommendation ................................................................ 1,180,391 309,880 1,490,271 

The account Salaries and Expenses, Farm Service Agency, funds 

the administrative expenses of program administration and other 

functions assigned to FSA. The funds consist of appropriations and 

transfers from the CCC export credit guarantees, Food for Peace 

loans, and Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund program accounts, 

and miscellaneous advances from other sources. All administrative 

funds used by FSA are consolidated into one account. The consolidation provides clarity and better management and control of 

funds, and facilitates accounting, fiscal, and budgetary work by 

eliminating the necessity for making individual allocations and allotments and maintaining and recording obligations and expenditures under numerous separate accounts. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,490,271,000 

for salaries and expenses of the Farm Service Agency, including a 
42 

direct appropriation of $1,180,391,000. The Committee supports the 

mission of FSA and does not agree with the reductions for salaries 

and personnel expenses as proposed in the budget. The Committee 

does not provide the increases for information technology or outreach for new and beginning farmers and ranchers as proposed in 

the budget. 

Algae Aquaculture.—The Committee encourages the Farm Service Agency to consider algae aquaculture in awarding establishment and maintenance funding under the Biomass Crop Assistance 

Program. 

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 for optimal 

customer service, but the agency’s investments and strategy in recent years have returned cost overruns and poor performance. As 

such, the Committee recommendation includes a decrease of 

$10,000,000 for Modernize and Innovate the Delivery of Agricultural Systems [MIDAS]. The Committee remains concerned that 

despite continued investments in FSA IT generally, and MIDAS 

specifically, the agency lacks leadership and a clear path forward. 

Without shown improvement by the agency, the Committee cannot 

continue to provide the full amount for information technology requested in the budget. 

Recently, the Office of Inspector General [OIG] and the Government Accountability Office [GAO] undertook systematic reviews of 

MIDAS and both reports outlined egregious and unacceptable practices undertaken by FSA during the design and implementation of 

MIDAS. This ultimately resulted in the decision to cease development, modernization, and enhancement activities. As OIG revealed, 

despite investing $444,000,000, MIDAS is 2 years overdue and approximately $140,000,000 over budget. This stems from ineffective 

project management and oversight on the part of FSA. FSA has 

failed to deliver a modernized, secure, and integrated IT solution 

that was promised to Congress and the agricultural community. 

The Committee remains concerned by the GAO report that found 

USDA and FSA did not follow their own policies, and despite 

known weaknesses, management allowed the program to move forward. GAO also acknowledged that FSA ‘‘lacks the demonstrated 

capacity to manage successor programs’’ and ‘‘the agency has not 

established plans to improve its management’’. This is not an acceptable use of tax payer dollars. The Committee continues statutory language that allows funds for IT to be obligated only after the 

Secretary meets certain reporting requirements. Per OIG recommendations, the Committee directs the Secretary to obtain a 

third-party analysis to determine if the current enterprise solution 
43 

provides the necessary functionality and is the most cost effective 

modernization solution. The Secretary is directed to report to the 

Committee by October 1, 2015 on this effort. 

Marketing Assistance Loan Program.—The Committee directs the 

Secretary to operate the marketing assistance loan program in a 

way that encourages redemption and minimizes forfeitures of loan 

commodities to the Federal Government, and enables the orderly 

marketing of loan commodities throughout the year. Further, the 

Secretary shall ensure that the marketing assistance loan program 

remains a viable tool for all producers to use in marketing loan 

commodities freely and competitively. 

National Agriculture Imagery Program.—The Committee recommends that funding shall be allocated to purchase imagery products to meet programmatic requirements. 

STATE MEDIATION GRANTS

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $3,404,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 3,404,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,404,000 

This program is authorized under title V of the Agricultural 

Credit Act of 1987 (7 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.). Originally designed to 

address agricultural credit disputes, the program was expanded by 

the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture 

Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–354) to include other 

agricultural issues such as wetland determinations, conservation 

compliance, rural water loan programs, grazing on National Forest 

System lands, and pesticides. Grants are made to States whose mediation programs have been certified by the FSA. Grants will be 

solely for operation and administration of the State’s agricultural 

mediation program. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,404,000 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, 2015 ............................................................................. $5,526,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 6,000,000 

This program is intended to assist in the protection of groundwater through State rural water associations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,000,000 for 

Grassroots Source Water Protection. 
44 

DAIRY INDEMNITY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $500,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 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 2016 to be $500,000, for 

indemnity payments to dairy farmers. 

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

The Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account is 

used to provide direct and guaranteed farm ownership, farm operating, conservation, Indian highly fractioned land, and emergency 

loans to individuals, as well as the following types of loans to associations: irrigation and drainage, grazing, Indian tribe land acquisition, and boll weevil eradication. 

FSA is also authorized to provide financial assistance to borrowers by guaranteeing loans made by private lenders having a 

contract of guarantee from FSA as approved by the Secretary of 

Agriculture and to establish Beginning Farmer and Rancher Individual Development grant accounts. 

The following programs are financed through this fund: 

Boll Weevil Eradication Loans.—Made to assist foundations in financing the operations of the boll weevil eradication programs provided to farmers. 

Credit Sales of Acquired Property.—Property is sold out of inventory and is made available to an eligible buyer by providing FSA 

loans. 

Emergency Loans.—Made to producers to aid recovery from production and physical losses due to drought, flooding, other natural 

disasters, or quarantine. The loans may be used to: restore or replace essential property; pay all or part of production costs associated with the disaster year; pay essential family living expenses; 

reorganize the farming operation; and refinance certain debts. 

Farm Operating Loans.—Provide short-to-intermediate term production or chattel credit to farmers who cannot obtain credit elsewhere, to improve their farm and home operations, and to develop 

or maintain a reasonable standard of living. The term of the loan 

varies from 1 to 7 years. 

Farm Ownership Loans.—Made to borrowers who cannot obtain 

credit elsewhere to restructure their debts, improve or purchase 

farms, refinance nonfarm enterprises which supplement but do not 

supplant farm income, or make additions to farms. Loans are made 

for 40 years or less. 
45 

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 $6,402,114,000 

for programs within the Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account. 

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 2015 and the 

budget request levels: 

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT PROGRAMS—LOAN LEVELS 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2015 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2016 

budget 

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 1,252,004 1,252,004 

Guaranteed unsubsidized ........................................................... 1,393,443 1,393,443 1,393,443 

Emergency Loans ................................................................................. 34,667 34,667 34,667 

Indian Tribe Land Acquisition ............................................................. 2,000 2,000 2,000 

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] 

2015 enacted 2016 budget Committee 

recommendation 

Farm Operating: 

Direct ........................................................................................... 63,101 53,961 53,961 

Guaranteed unsubsidized ........................................................... 14,770 14,352 14,352 

Emergency Loans ................................................................................. 856 1,262 1,262 

Individual Development Account Grants ............................................. .......................... 2,500 ..........................
46 

RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $74,829,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 76,946,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 74,829,000 

The Risk Management Agency performs administrative functions 

relative to the Federal crop insurance program that is authorized 

by the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508), as amended by 

the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 [ARPA], Public Law 

106–224, and the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Public Law 113–79). 

ARPA authorized significant changes in the crop insurance program. This act provides higher government subsidies for producer 

premiums to make coverage more affordable; expands research and 

development for new insurance products and under-served areas 

through contracts with the private sector; and tightens compliance. 

Functional areas of risk management are: research and development; insurance services; and compliance, whose functions include 

policy formulation and procedures and regulations development. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $74,829,000 for 

the Risk Management Agency. 

The Committee recognizes that there are many research priorities that competitive funding may be used to address, including 

the feasibility of insurance programs to cover business interruption 

due to integrator bankruptcy and catastrophic loss in the poultry 

industry. The Committee encourages RMA to support research into 

these priorities. 

Price Elections.—The Committee continues to support RMA’s efforts to complete the organic price election series as required by the 

Agricultural Act of 2014. The Committee encourages RMA and 

NASS to formalize and institutionalize a plan for continuing to 

carry out the Organic Production Survey on an annual or biannual 

basis and report back to the Committee on this effort. The Committee encourages RMA to commit to the development of price factors that would allow information already collected by AMS to be 

used to greatly expand the number of organic price elections available. 

CORPORATIONS 

FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION FUND

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $8,930,502,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 8,175,224,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 8,175,224,000 

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. 
47 

Producers of insurable crops are eligible to receive a basic level 

of protection against catastrophic losses, which cover 50 percent of 

the normal yield at 55 percent of the expected price. The only cost 

to the producer is an administrative fee of $300 per crop per county. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of such sums as 

may be necessary, estimated to be $8,175,224,000 in fiscal year 

2016 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 

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 
48 

[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, 2015 ............................................................................. $13,444,728,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 10,519,933,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 10,519,933,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of such sums as 

may be necessary, estimated in fiscal year 2016 to be 

$10,519,933,000, for the payment to reimburse the Commodity 

Credit Corporation for net realized losses. 

HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT

Limitation, 2015 ..................................................................................... $5,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 5,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,000,000 

The Commodity Credit Corporation’s [CCC] hazardous waste 

management program is intended to ensure compliance with the 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) and the Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). The CCC funds operations and maintenance costs as well as site investigation and 

cleanup expenses. Investigative and cleanup costs associated with 

the management of CCC hazardous waste are also paid from 

USDA’s hazardous waste management appropriation. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends a limitation of $5,000,000 for the 

Commodity Credit Corporation’s hazardous waste management 

program. 
(49) 

TITLE II 

CONSERVATION PROGRAMS 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR NATURAL RESOURCES AND

ENVIRONMENT

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $898,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 907,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 898,000 

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 $898,000 for the 

Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment. 

NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE

The Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] was established pursuant to Public Law 103–354, the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6962). The NRCS 

works with conservation districts, watershed groups, and Federal 

and State agencies to bring about physical adjustments in land use 

that will conserve soil and water resources, provide for agricultural 

production on a sustained basis, and reduce flood damage and sedimentation. 

CONSERVATION OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $846,428,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 831,231,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 855,209,000 

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 con-
50 

servation 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 $855,209,000 for 

Conservation Operations. The Committee recommendation includes 

an increase of $3,781,000 for increased rent costs, as requested in 

the budget, and does not accept the budget’s proposed decrease of 

$44,188,000 for fewer conservation plans. 

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. 

WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... $200,000,000 

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

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 does not recommend an appropriation for the 

Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Program. 

WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $12,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... ........................... 

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 
51 

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. 
(52) 

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, 2015 ............................................................................. $898,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 907,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 898,000 

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 $898,000 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. 
53 

RURAL DEVELOPMENT SALARIES AND EXPENSES 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year— 

Committee 

2015 recommendation 

appropriation 

2016 budget 

request 

Appropriation ........................................................................................ 224,201 226,717 228,701 

Transfer from: 

Rural Housing Insurance Fund Loan Program Account ............. 415,100 419,530 415,100 

Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Program Account ....................................................................................... 34,478 34,864 34,478 

Rural Development Loan Program Account ................................ 4,439 4,488 4,439 

Total, Rural Development salaries and expenses .................. 678,218 685,599 682,718 

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 $682,718,000 for salaries and expenses of Rural Development. 

RURAL HOUSING SERVICE

The Rural Housing Service [RHS] was established under the 

Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, dated October 13, 1994. 

RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2015 (budget authority) ............................................. $510,943,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 (budget authority) ........................................... 511,354,000 

Committee recommendation (budget authority) ................................. 502,741,000 

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 $502,741,000 for 

the Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account [RHIF]. 
54 

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 

2015, as well as for administrative expenses. The following table 

presents the loan subsidy levels as compared to the 2015 levels and 

the 2016 budget request: 

RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2015 

appropriation 

2016 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) ........................................................... 26,279 26,278 26,278 

Direct rental housing (sec. 515) ................................................ 28,398 42,271 28,398 

Guaranteed rental housing (sec. 538) ....................................... 150,000 200,000 200,000 

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 

Farm labor housing loans (sec. 514) ......................................... 23,602 23,855 23,602 

Total, loan levels .................................................................... 25,148,279 25,207,404 25,198,278 

Loan Subsidies and Grants: 

Single-Family Housing (sec. 502): 

Direct .................................................................................. 66,420 60,750 60,750 

Housing repair (sec. 504) ........................................................... 3,687 3,424 3,424 

Direct rental housing (sec. 515) ................................................ 9,800 12,525 8,414 

Farm labor housing loans (sec. 514) ......................................... 7,600 6,789 6,717 

Farm labor housing grants (sec. 516) ....................................... 8,336 8,336 8,336 

Total, loan subsidies and grants ........................................... 95,843 91,824 87,641 

Administrative expenses ...................................................................... 415,100 419,530 415,100 

Total, loan subsidies and administrative expenses .............. 510,943 511,354 502,741 

Coordinated Environmental Reviews in Indian Country.—Tribes 

face challenges with differing environmental review requirements 

when resources are leveraged from a variety of Federal housing 

and infrastructure programs. The Committee believes substantial 

efficiencies and cost-savings could be achieved by creating a coordinated project environmental review process. The Committee directs 

the Secretary to work with HUD, who is leading the initiative, and 

other agencies to investigate opportunities to design a coordinated 

environmental review process for tribal housing and related infrastructure development. 

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 Limits.—The Committee is concerned 

that the outdated housing repair program limits have not kept pace 

with modern home repair costs and is limiting the effectiveness of 

the program. The Committee directs the Secretary to examine the 
55 

potential impact of providing the Secretary with discretion to establish the maximum loan and grant levels, including the maximum 

level for unsecured 504 loans, and the maximum level of combined 

loans and grants available to an individual. 

Maturing Mortgages.—The Committee is concerned about the increasing number of Section 515 multi-family housing loans that are 

reaching maturity and being paid off. As these loans mature and 

the projects leave the affordable housing program, low- and very 

low-income rural households could face untenable rent increases 

and possible eviction. The Committee has engaged the Government 

Accountability Office to analyze the circumstances and provide recommendations to stabilize the situation. In addition, the Secretary 

is directed to continue efforts to maintain the affordable multi-family housing portfolio and protect low- and very low-income rural 

residents from unmanageable rent increases. 

Subordinate Debt.—The Committee is aware of USDA’s policy for 

Section 515 loans that prohibits the utilization of cash-flow debt on 

its subordinate financings (7 CFR 3560.306). The Committee acknowledges the important role that State agencies play in providing subordinate loans for rural rental housing properties, some 

of which allow the properties to repay the State loans only if there 

are surplus funds in the properties’ operating budgets. However, 

USDA regulations disallow that use for surplus funds, and thereby 

diminish financing available from State sources. The Committee directs the Secretary to develop a long-term solution to promote the 

preservation of affordable rural rental housing that allows State 

agencies to use cash-flow loan financing to fully leverage Federal 

funding with State dollars and provide affordable housing for rural 

residents. 

RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $1,088,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 1,171,900,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,167,000,000 

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. 
56 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,167,000,000 

for the Rental Assistance Program. 

Rental Assistance.—The Committee includes statutory language 

requiring rental assistance to be held in 514/516 projects for a minimum period of time. Rental assistance contracts are funded for 1- 

year durations and shall not be renewed within a 12-month period. 

The Committee recommendation does not include statutory language authorizing the Secretary to selectively renew RA agreements as proposed in the budget. In addition the Committee does 

not concur with the President’s budget request regarding changes 

to the required timeframe for which contracts much be renewed, 

and thus retains the currently enacted language requiring that RA 

agreements entered into or renewed during the current fiscal year 

shall be funded for a 1-year period. The Secretary is encouraged to 

support preservation and revitalization efforts for properties in 

greatest need, and utilize any unexpended balances at the end of 

the 1-year period toward rental assistance, debt reduction, maintenance, repair, or rehabilitation purposes. 

The Committee has lost confidence in USDA’s ability to accurately estimate rental assistance needs. The Department has a 

well-established history of faulty calculations and subsequent ad 

hoc, informal, requests for additional funds to cover shortfalls. This 

behavior places very low- and low-income rural households at risk 

of untenable rent increases, and undermines the credit soundness 

of Rural Development’s $11,000,000,000 multi-family housing loan 

portfolio. The Secretary is directed to effect process changes that 

will result in the fiscal year 2017 budget request revealing the true 

amount needed to renew all expiring rental assistance contracts. 

Further, the Secretary is directed to report to the Committee, within 30 days of enactment, on the Department’s path forward regarding that effort. In addition, the Committee has engaged the Government Accountability Office to perform a comprehensive review 

and to provide recommendations. 

MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING REVITALIZATION PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $24,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 34,000,000 

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

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 
57 

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 $24,000,000 for 

the Multi-family Housing Revitalization Program, including 

$7,000,000 for vouchers and $17,000,000 for a housing preservation 

demonstration program. 

MUTUAL AND SELF-HELP HOUSING GRANTS

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $27,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 10,000,000 

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, 2015 ............................................................................. $32,239,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 25,000,000 

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 re-
58 

pairs, 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 

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 2015 levels and the 

budget request: 

RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GRANTS 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2015 level 2016 request 

Very low-income housing repair grants .............................................. 28,701 25,000 28,701 

Housing preservation grants ............................................................... 3,538 .......................... 3,538

Total ........................................................................................ 32,239 25,000 32,239 
59 

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, 2015 ............................................................................. $30,278,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 62,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 28,778,000 

Community facility loans were created by the Rural Development 

Act of 1972 (7 U.S.C. 1926 et seq.) to finance a variety of rural 

community facilities. Loans are made to organizations, including 

certain Indian tribes and corporations not operated for profit and 

public and quasi-public agencies, to construct, enlarge, extend, or 

otherwise improve community facilities providing essential services 

to rural residents. Such facilities include those providing or supporting overall community development, such as fire and rescue 

services, healthcare, transportation, traffic control, and community, 

social, cultural, and recreational benefits. Loans are made for facilities which primarily serve rural residents of open country and 

rural towns and villages of not more than 20,000 people. 

Healthcare, fire and rescue facilities, and educational facilities are 

the priorities of the program and receive the majority of available 

funds. 

The Community Facility Grant Program authorized in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public Law 

104–127), is used in conjunction with the existing direct and guaranteed loan programs for the development of community facilities, 

such as hospitals, fire stations, and community centers. Grants are 

targeted to the lowest income communities. Communities that have 

lower population and income levels receive a higher cost-share contribution through these grants, to a maximum contribution of 75 

percent of the cost of developing the facility. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $28,778,000 for 

the Rural Community Facilities Program Account. 

The following table provides the Committee’s recommendations, 

as compared to the fiscal year 2015 and budget request levels: 

RURAL COMMUNITY FACILITIES PROGRAM ACCOUNT 

[Loan levels and budget authority in thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2015 

appropriation 

2016 budget 

request 

Committee 

recommendations 

Loan levels: 

Community facilities direct loans .............................................. 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 

Community facilities guaranteed loans ..................................... 73,222 .......................... 84,746 

Total loan levels ..................................................................... 2,273,222 2,200,000 2,284,746 

Budget authority: 

Community facilities guaranteed loans ..................................... 3,500 .......................... 2,000 

Community facilities grants ....................................................... 13,000 50,000 13,000 

Economic initiative grants .......................................................... 5,778 .......................... 5,778 

Rural community development initiative .................................... 4,000 4,000 4,000 
60 

RURAL COMMUNITY FACILITIES PROGRAM ACCOUNT—Continued 

[Loan levels and budget authority in thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2015 

appropriation 

2016 budget 

request 

Committee 

recommendations 

Tribal college grants ................................................................... 4,000 8,000 4,000 

Total budget authority ............................................................ 30,278 62,000 28,778 

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, 2015 ............................................................................. $74,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 81,444,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 62,687,000 

The Rural Business and Industry Loan Program was created by 

the Rural Development Act of 1972, and finances a variety of rural 

industrial development loans. Loans are made for rural industrialization and rural community facilities under Rural Development 

Act amendments to the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 

Act (7 U.S.C. 1932 et seq.) authorities. Business and industrial 

loans are made to public, private, or cooperative organizations organized for profit, to certain Indian tribes, or to individuals for the 

purpose of improving, developing or financing business, industry, 

and employment or improving the economic and environmental climate in rural areas. Such purposes include financing business and 

industrial acquisition, construction, enlargement, repair or modernization, financing the purchase and development of land, easements, rights-of-way, buildings, payment of startup costs, and supplying working capital. 

Rural business development grants were authorized by the Agricultural Act of 2014 and can be made to governmental and nonprofit entities, and Indian tribes. Up to 10 percent of appropriated 

funds may be used to: identify and analyze business opportunities; 

identify, train, and provide technical assistance to existing or prospective rural entrepreneurs and managers; assist in the establishment of new rural businesses and the maintenance of existing businesses; conduct economic development planning, coordination and 

leadership development; and establish centers for training, technology, and trade. The balance of appropriated funding may be 

used for projects that support the development of business enterprises that finance or facilitate: the development of small and 

emerging private business enterprise; the establishment, expansion, and operation of rural distance learning networks; the development of rural learning programs; and the provision of technical 

assistance and training to rural communities for the purpose of improving passenger transportation. 
61 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $62,687,000 for 

the Rural Business Program Account. 

The following table provides the Committee’s recommendations, 

as compared to the fiscal year 2015 and budget request levels: 

RURAL BUSINESS PROGRAM ACCOUNT 

[Loan levels and budget authority in thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2015 

appropriation 

2016 budget 

request 

Committee recommendations 

Loan levels: 

Business and industry guaranteed loans loan levels ................ 919,765 758,222 919,765 

Budget authority: 

Business and industry guaranteed loans .................................. 47,000 31,444 35,687 

Rural business development grants ........................................... 24,000 30,000 24,000 

Delta Regional Authority grants ................................................. 3,000 .......................... 3,000 

Rural child poverty demonstration ............................................. .......................... 20,000 ..........................

Total budget authority ............................................................ 74,000 81,444 62,687 

Rural Business Program Account.—The Committee recommends 

$500,000 for transportation technical assistance. 

The Committee directs that of the $4,000,000 recommended for 

grants to benefit Federally Recognized Native American Tribes, 

$250,000 shall be used to implement an American Indian and Alaska Native passenger transportation development and assistance 

initiative. 

INTERMEDIARY RELENDING PROGRAM FUND

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2015 level 2016 request 

Estimated loan level ............................................................................ 18,889 10,014 18,889 

Direct loan subsidy .............................................................................. 5,818 2,766 5,217 

Administrative expenses ...................................................................... 4,439 4,488 4,439 

Total, loan subsidies and administrative expenses .............. 10,257 7,254 9,656 

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 

2016, as well as for administrative expenses. 
62 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $9,656,000 for 

the Intermediary Relending Program Fund. 

RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

[In thousands of dollars] 

Estimated loan 

level 

Fiscal year 2015 level ........................................................................................................................................ 33,077 

Fiscal year 2016 request ................................................................................................................................... 85,004 

Committee recommendation .............................................................................................................................. 48,013 

The Rural Economic Development Loans program was established by the Reconciliation Act of December 1987 (Public Law 

100–203), which amended the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (Act 

of May 20, 1936), by establishing a new section 313. This section 

of the Rural Electrification Act (7 U.S.C. 901) established a cushion 

of credit payment program and created the rural economic development subaccount. The Administrator of RUS is authorized under 

the act to utilize funds in this program to provide zero interest 

loans to electric and telecommunications borrowers for the purpose 

of promoting rural economic development and job creation projects, 

including funding for feasibility studies, startup costs, and other 

reasonable expenses for the purpose of fostering rural economic development. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a loan program level of $48,013,000, 

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 Energy Savings Program.—The Secretary is directed to 

initiate rulemaking to create a subprogram of the Rural Economic 

Development Loan and Grant Program to be used as a means to 

carry out the activities authorized by the Rural Energy Savings 

Program, authorized by the Agricultural Act of 2014, and within 30 

days of enactment of this act report to the Committee on the status 

of that rule. The Secretary is further directed to maintain, to the 

degree practicable, no less than the fiscal year 2015 loan level for 

the traditional Rural Economic Development Loan and Grant Program. 

RURAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $22,050,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 21,087,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 22,050,000 

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 
63 

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 $22,050,000 for 

Rural Cooperative Development Grants. 

Of the funds recommended, $2,500,000 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, 2015 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... $4,653,000 

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

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, 2015 ............................................................................. $1,350,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 10,000,000 

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

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 
64 

rural businesses for the purchase of renewable energy systems and 

for energy efficiency improvements. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $500,000 for the 

Rural Energy for America Program. 

The following table provides the Committee’s recommendation as 

compared to the fiscal year 2015 and budget request levels: 

RURAL ENERGY FOR AMERICA PROGRAM 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2015 

level 2016 request Committee recommendation 

Estimated loan level .................................................................................. 12,760 75,758 7,576 

Guaranteed loan subsidy ........................................................................... 1,350 5,000 500 

Grants ........................................................................................................ ........................ 5,000 ........................

Energy Efficiency Coordination.—The Committee encourages increased coordination and cooperation between USDA Rural Development agencies and offices to better utilize the energy efficiency 

and renewable energy programs available through the Rural Energy for America Program. 

HEALTHY FOOD FINANCING INITIATIVE

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... $12,750,000 

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

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

the Healthy Food Financing Initiative. 

RURAL BUSINESS INVESTMENT PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... $6,000,000 

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, 2015 ............................................................................. $464,857,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 483,320,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 496,738,000 
65 

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 $496,738,000 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, the Colonias, and residents of Hawaiian Home Lands. 

The Committee recognizes the special needs and problems for delivery of basic services to these populations. In addition, the Committee makes up to $16,500,000 available for the circuit rider program. 

The following table provides the Committee’s recommendations, 

as compared to the fiscal year 2015 and budget request levels: 

RURAL WATER AND WASTE DISPOSAL PROGRAM ACCOUNT 

[Loan levels and budget authority in thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2015 

appropriation 

2016 budget 

request 

Committee recommendation 

Loan levels: 

Water and waste disposal direct loans ............................... 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 

Water and waste disposal guaranteed loans ...................... 50,000 ............................ 50,000 

Total loan levels ............................................................... 1,250,000 1,200,000 1,250,000 

Budget authority: 

Water and waste disposal direct loans ............................... ............................ 31,320 31,320 

Water and waste disposal guaranteed loans ...................... 295 ............................ 275 

Water and waste disposal grants ........................................ 347,150 368,900 347,150 

Solid waste management grants ......................................... 4,000 4,000 4,000 

Water well systems grants ................................................... 993 ............................ 993 

Colonias and AK/HI/Native American grants ........................ 66,500 54,240 66,500 

Water and waste water revolving funds .............................. 1,000 ............................ 1,000 

High energy cost grants ....................................................... 10,000 ............................ 10,000 

Circuit rider ........................................................................... 15,919 11,300 16,500 

Technical assistance grants ................................................. 19,000 13,560 19,000 

Total, budget authority ..................................................... 464,857 483,320 496,738 
66 

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 

2016, 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 2015 and budget request levels: 

RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2015 level 2016 request 

Loan authorizations: 

Electric: 

Direct FFB .......................................................................... 5,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 

Guaranteed underwriting ................................................... 500,000 .......................... 750,000 

Telecommunications .................................................................... 690,000 .......................... 690,000

Direct, Treasury Rate ......................................................... .......................... 345,000 ..........................

Direct, FFB ......................................................................... .......................... 345,000 ..........................

Total loan authorization ......................................................... 6,190,000 6,690,000 7,440,000 

Total budget authority ............................................................ .......................... 104 104 

Administrative expenses ...................................................................... 34,478 34,864 34,478 

DISTANCE LEARNING, TELEMEDICINE, AND BROADBAND PROGRAM 

LOANS AND GRANTS 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2015 level 2016 request 

Loan and grant levels: 

Distance learning and Telemedicine Program: 

Grants ................................................................................ 22,000 24,950 22,000 
67 

DISTANCE LEARNING, TELEMEDICINE, AND BROADBAND PROGRAM 

LOANS AND GRANTS—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2015 level 2016 request 

Broadband program: 

Treasury rate loans ..................................................................... 24,077 44,239 20,576 

Treasury rate loans budget authority ......................................... 4,500 9,675 4,500 

Grants ......................................................................................... 10,372 20,372 10,372 

Total DLT and Broadband Program level ............................... 56,449 89,561 52,948 

Total DLT and Broadband Budget authority .......................... 36,872 54,997 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 

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.—The Agricultural Act of 2014 made several 

changes to the Rural Broadband Access Loans and Loan Guarantees Program. The changes expand the definition of eligible service 

areas and establish new minimum broadband speed requirements 

for carriers receiving loans from the program. The Committee applauds these changes and believes that a comprehensive rural 

broadband strategy should include investment in advanced networks that will meet the needs of a 21st century economy. The 

Committee directs the Department of Agriculture to expedite the 
68 

implementation of the broadband provisions of the Agricultural Act 

of 2014, including the new authority to increase the minimum 

speeds available in rural communities. 

Rural Utilities Service and Coordination on Telecommunications 

Services.—The Committee recognizes the Rural Utilities Services’ 

[RUS] vital role in expanding access to broadband services in rural 

America. In addition, the Committee notes the importance of the 

RUS coordinating its efforts with the Federal Communications 

Commission [FCC] on programs designed to support broadband investment in rural America. Recent FCC policy changes on deploying broadband in rural areas effect rural carriers with outstanding 

RUS loans and carriers aiming to use RUS loans to build out networks in the coming years. To ensure that RUS and FCC policies 

are aligned to optimize the use of limited resources and carriers 

are well equipped to serve the hardest-to-reach rural Americans, 

the Committee directs RUS and the FCC to coordinate on major 

policy decisions. 
(69) 

TITLE IV 

DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD, NUTRITION AND

CONSUMER SERVICES

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $816,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 824,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 816,000 

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 $816,000 for the 

Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer 

Services. 

FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE

The Food and Nutrition Service represents an organizational effort to eliminate hunger and malnutrition in this country. Nutrition assistance programs provide access to a nutritionally adequate 

diet for families and persons with low incomes and encourage better eating patterns among the Nation’s children. These programs 

include: 

Child Nutrition Programs.—The National School Lunch and 

School Breakfast, Summer Food Service, and Child and Adult Care 

Food programs provide funding to the States, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Guam for use in serving nutritious lunches and breakfasts to children attending schools of high 

school grades and under, to children of preschool age in child care 

centers, and to children in other institutions in order to improve 

the health and well-being of the Nation’s children, and broaden the 

markets for agricultural food commodities. Through the Special 

Milk Program, assistance is provided to the States for making reimbursement payments to eligible schools and child care institutions which institute or expand milk service in order to increase 

the consumption of fluid milk by children. Funds for this program 

are provided by direct appropriation and transfer from section 32. 

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, 

and Children [WIC].—This program safeguards the health of pregnant, postpartum, and breast-feeding women, infants, and children 

up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk because of inadequate nutrition and income by providing supplemental foods. The delivery of 

supplemental foods may be done through health clinics, vouchers 
70 

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. 

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, 2015 ............................................................................. $21,300,170,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 21,587,277,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 21,524,377,000 

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 
71 

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 $21,524,377,000 for the Child Nutrition Programs. 

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 2016 budget Committee recommendation 

School Lunch Program ........................................................................................................ 11,777,825 11,777,825 

School Breakfast Program .................................................................................................. 4,230,498 4,230,498 

Child and Adult Care Food Program .................................................................................. 3,240,646 3,240,646 

Summer Food Service Program ........................................................................................... 535,633 535,633 

Special Milk Program .......................................................................................................... 11,314 11,314 

State Administrative Expenses ........................................................................................... 269,652 269,652 

Commodity Procurement ..................................................................................................... 1,322,088 1,322,088 

Team Nutrition/HUSSC/CMS ................................................................................................ 17,004 17,004 

Food Safety Education ........................................................................................................ 2,761 2,761 

Coordinated Review ............................................................................................................ 10,000 10,000 

Computer Support ............................................................................................................... 11,430 11,430 

CACFP Training and Technical Assistance ......................................................................... 20,267 20,267 

CNP Studies and Evaluation .............................................................................................. 22,400 20,400 

Farm to School Team .......................................................................................................... 3,297 3,297 

Payment Accuracy ............................................................................................................... 10,562 10,562 

School Meal Equipment Grants .......................................................................................... 35,000 25,000 

Summer EBT Demonstration ............................................................................................... 66,900 16,000 

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, 2015 ............................................................................. $6,623,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 6,623,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 6,513,000,000 

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. 
72 

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. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,513,000,000 

for the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, 

and Children [WIC]. 

The Committee recommendation fully funds estimated WIC participation in fiscal year 2016. The Committee recommendation includes $60,000,000 for breastfeeding support initiatives, 

$13,600,000 for infrastructure, and $55,000,000 for management 

information systems. 

WIC Food Package.—The Committee understands the Department is working 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 in a timely manner. 

SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $81,837,570,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 83,692,069,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 81,662,069,000 

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. 
73 

Administrative Costs.—All direct and indirect administrative 

costs incurred for certification of households, issuance of benefits, 

quality control, outreach, and fair hearing efforts are shared by the 

Federal Government and the States on a 50–50 basis. 

State Antifraud Activities.—Under the provisions of the Food and 

Nutrition Act of 2008, States are eligible to be reimbursed for 50 

percent of the costs of their fraud investigations and prosecutions. 

States are required to implement an employment and training 

program for the purpose of assisting members of households participating in SNAP in gaining skills, training, or experience that 

will increase their ability to obtain regular employment. The Department of Agriculture has implemented a grant program to 

States to assist them in providing employment and training services. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $81,662,069,000 

for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Of the amount 

recommended, $3,000,000,000 is made available as a contingency 

reserve. 

COMMODITY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $278,501,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 288,317,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 288,317,000 

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 

through the distribution of commodities to low-income households 

for home consumption. The commodities are provided by USDA to 
74 

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 $288,317,000 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 $221,298,000 for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program. This amount fully funds participation in fiscal year 2016. 

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 $324,000,000 for TEFAP commodities to be purchased with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program funds. 

The Committee recommendation includes $49,401,000 for TEFAP 

transportation, storage, and program integrity. In addition, the 

Committee recommendation grants the Secretary authority to 

transfer up to an additional 10 percent from TEFAP commodities 

for this purpose and urges the Secretary to use this authority. 

The Committee encourages the Secretary to identify opportunities for increasing the supply of TEFAP commodities in the coming 

fiscal year through bonus and specialty crop purchases. The Department shall make available to the States domestically produced 

catfish fillets for distribution to local agencies. 
75 

NUTRITION PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $150,824,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 155,564,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 151,824,000 

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 $151,824,000 for 

Nutrition Programs Administration. The Committee does not recommend an increase of $1,000,000 for MyPlate/SuperTracker per 

the budget request. 
(76) 

TITLE V 

FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS 

FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

[In thousands of dollars] 

Appropriations Transfers from 

loan accounts Total 

Appropriations, 2015 ........................................................................... 181,423 6,394 187,817 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................ 191,631 6,394 198,025 

Committee recommendation ................................................................ 187,225 6,394 193,619 

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 $193,619,000 for the Foreign Agricultural Service, including a direct appropriation of $187,225,000. 

The Committee recommendation includes an increase of $3,500,000 

for the Capital Security Cost Sharing Program and an increase of 
77 

$2,302,000 for International Cooperative Administrative Support 

Services. 

Borlaug Fellows Program.—The Committee recommendation includes $1,500,000 for the Borlaug International Agricultural 

Science and Technology Fellows Program. This program provides 

training for international scientists and policymakers from selected 

developing countries. The fellows work closely with U.S. specialists 

in their fields of expertise and apply that knowledge in their home 

countries. The Committee recognizes the importance of this program in helping developing countries strengthen their agricultural 

practices and food security. 

Cochran Fellowship Program.—The Committee recommendation 

includes $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. 

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, 2015 ............................................................................. $2,528,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 2,528,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,528,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,528,000 for 

administrative expenses to continue servicing existing Food for 

Peace title I agreements. 

FOOD FOR PEACE TITLE II GRANTS

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $1,466,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 1,400,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,466,000,000 

Commodities Supplied in Connection With Dispositions Abroad 

(Title II) (7 U.S.C. 1721–1726).—Commodities are supplied without 

cost through foreign governments to combat malnutrition and to 

meet famine and other emergency requirements. Commodities are 

also supplied for nonemergencies through public and private agencies, including intergovernmental organizations. The Commodity 

Credit Corporation pays ocean freight on shipments under this 

title, and may also pay overland transportation costs to a landlocked country, as well as internal distribution costs in emergency 

situations. The funds appropriated for title II are made available 

to private voluntary organizations and cooperatives to assist these 

organizations in meeting administrative and related costs. 
78 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,466,000,000 

for Food for Peace title II grants. 

202(e) Authority.—The Administrator for the U.S. Agency for 

International Development shall provide through the Secretary of 

Agriculture a report, no later than March 1, 2016, on the use of authorities under section 202(e) of the Food for Peace Act during fiscal year 2015 and planned for fiscal year 2016. This report should 

identify and evaluate the type, challenges, and success of such activities. 

MC GOVERN-DOLE INTERNATIONAL FOOD FOR EDUCATION AND CHILD

NUTRITION PROGRAM GRANTS

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $191,626,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 191,626,000 

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, 2015 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... $20,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 
79 

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, 2015 .......................................................................................................... 5,500,000 6,748 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................................................... 5,500,000 6,748 

Committee recommendation ............................................................................................... 5,500,000 6,748 

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. 
(80) 

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 
81 

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, 2015 ....................................................................................... 2,588,536 1,854,820 4,443,356 

Budget estimate, 2016 .................................................................................... 2,734,715 2,129,308 4,864,023 

Committee recommendation ............................................................................ 2,628,978 1,930,685 4,559,663 
82 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,628,978,000 

for FDA salaries and expenses. The Committee also recommends 

$826,072,000 in Prescription Drug User Fee Act user fee collections; $134,475,000 in Medical Device User Fee and Modernization 

Act user fee collections; $22,140,000 in Animal Drug User Fee Act 

user fee collections; $7,429,000 in Animal Generic Drug User Fee 

Act user fee collections; $599,000,000 in Tobacco Product user fee 

collections; $320,029,000 in Generic Drug User Fee Act user fee collections; $21,540,000 in Biosimilar User Fee Act user fee collections; $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; $20,109,000 in Mammography Quality 

Standards Act fee collections; and $13,835,000 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 2015 unless 

otherwise specified. The Committee accepts $11,588,000 in proposed administrative savings; however the Committee does not 

support the proposed $4,333,000 reduction to the National Center 

for Toxicological Research. 

The Committee includes increases of $45,000,000 for the implementation of FSMA. These increases consist of: $20,500,000 for Inspection Modernization and Training; $8,000,000 for the National 

Integrated Food Safety System; $10,000,000 for Education and 

Technical Assistance for Industry; $3,000,000 for Technical Staffing 

and Guidance Development; and $3,500,000 for Import Safety. The 

increases provided in this bill and the increases provided since fiscal year 2011 should assist FDA in preparation for the implementation of FSMA prior to the effective dates of the seven foundational 

proposed rules. While the FDA has not implemented the final 

rules, the Committee understands that most businesses will not 

need to comply with the two rules for preventive controls for 

human food and for animal food until August 2016 and that the 

other five rules will not be effective until fiscal year 2017 and later. 

Given the diversity in the food industry, FSMA was intentionally 

designed to be risk-based, flexible, and science-based. A one-size 

fits all approach will not work. Yet, the Committee is concerned 

that the agency not take an overly prescriptive approach with the 

regulations, including the final regulation on produce safety and 

the final regulations on preventive controls for human and animal 

food. Accordingly, FDA shall ensure all FSMA regulations are riskbased, flexible, and science-based, and carefully consider the well- 
83 

established and recognized standards for food and produce safety 

already employed through much of the industry. FDA shall ensure 

that any regulatory proposal or final regulation minimizes, to the 

extent appropriate to protect public health, the necessity to conduct 

verification testing activities. The Committee provides an increase of $5,000,000 for medical product safety initiatives. Included in this amount is $3,000,000 for 

combating antibiotic resistant bacteria as part of the National 

Strategy for Combating Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria [CARB] and 

$2,000,000 for the Precision Medicine Initiative. According to the 

FDA’s fiscal year 2016 budget request, the Agency is spending approximately $32,500,000 on antimicrobial resistance activities in 

fiscal year 2015. With this increase, FDA is expected to spend approximately $35,500,000 on combating antibiotic resistance in fiscal 

year 2016. 

The following table reflects the Committee’s recommendations, as 

compared to the fiscal year 2015 and budget request levels: 

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION SALARIES AND EXPENSES 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2015 enacted 2016 request 

Centers and related field activities: 

Foods ........................................................................................... 903,403 987,328 948,403 

Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition [CFSAN] ..... 279,994 303,994 296,894 

Field Activities ................................................................... 623,409 683,334 651,509 

Human Drugs .............................................................................. 482,287 484,678 481,245 

Center for Drug Evaluation and Research [CDER] ........... 346,080 352,513 349,080 

Field Activities ................................................................... 136,207 132,165 132,165 

Biologics ...................................................................................... 211,382 215,021 209,754 

Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research [CBER] ..... 171,096 174,052 169,890 

Field Activities ................................................................... 40,286 40,969 39,864 

Animal Drugs .............................................................................. 147,577 165,752 144,577 

Center for Veterinary Medicine [CVM] ............................... 93,505 101,105 90,505 

Field Activities ................................................................... 54,072 64,647 54,072 

Medical and radiological devices ............................................... 320,825 327,760 319,937 

Center for Devices and Radiological Health ..................... 240,345 246,166 240,308 

Field Activities ................................................................... 80,480 81,594 79,629 

National Center for Toxicological Research ................................ 63,331 58,998 63,331 

Other Activities .................................................................................... 174,862 181,314 174,862 

Rent and related activities .................................................................. 115,987 137,181 117,987 

Rental Payments to GSA ...................................................................... 168,882 176,683 168,882 

Total, FDA salaries and expenses, new budget authority ..... 2,588,536 2,734,715 2,628,978 

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. 

Alcohol Based Hand Sanitizers.—The Committee strongly supports the systematic review of healthcare antiseptic active ingredients used in alcohol based hand sanitizers [ABHS] products marketed under the over-the-counter [OTC] monograph to ensure the 

safety of healthcare workers and consumers, but is concerned about 
84 

the potential impacts to public health that could occur if ABHS 

products containing healthcare antiseptic active ingredients are reclassified in a final monograph without full review of available, appropriate science based data and risk models. The FDA is requested not to issue a final monograph regarding OTC healthcare 

antiseptic active ingredients that are used in ABHS products, until 

full and fair consideration is given to existing evidence that has 

been provided to FDA that supports general recognition of safety 

and effectiveness of OTC ABHS products, and to potential costs associated with the final monograph. 

Biosimilars.—The Committee is concerned that FDA has failed to 

provide the public adequate opportunity to review and comment on 

regulatory standards for the approval and oversight of biosimilar 

drugs. Therefore, FDA is directed to provide the Committee with 

an estimated timeline by which the agency will: finalize all pending 

draft biosimilars guidance documents, publish draft biosimilar 

guidance documents included in its 2015 regulatory agenda, and finalize those draft guidance documents. The Committee expects to 

receive this report no later than 2 weeks after the Committee reports this legislation. 

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. 

Comparative Oncology.—The Committee recognizes the value in 

using data from cancers in companion animals to provide answers 

to important translational questions about cancer biology, diagnosis, and treatment. This research offers an important opportunity to study cancers in thousands of subjects to benefit both 

human patients and pets. The Committee requests FDA address 

the use of companion animals in diagnosis and treatment research 

and encourage the FDA to open grant opportunities in animal models to increase the study of the 1 million companion animals that 

naturally develop cancer each year. 

Cord Blood Regulation.—The Committee directs the FDA to undergo a review and seriously consider the potential need for revision of the current regulatory requirements for cord blood licensure, particularly those related to manufacturing and storage, to 

ensure the correct applicability to this industry since the current 

regulatory requirements being applied are the same ones that 

apply to pharmaceutical products. In addition, the Committee directs the FDA to create an advisory task force, comprised at a minimum of public and private cord blood bankers, transplanters and 

patients, to provide recommendations to the agency about the current licensing requirements and changes that may be necessary. 

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 
85 

and international activities performed by this office. The Committee notes that FDA’s budget submission stated that FDA would 

meet a March 2015 deadline, set by this Committee, to respond to 

a citizen petition regarding trace amounts of lead in cosmetics. 

This has not occurred, and this unacceptable delay is indicative of 

longstanding issues with FDA’s review of cosmetics. Since 1976, 

cosmetic ingredients have been reviewed by a private Cosmetic Ingredient Review program, established by the cosmetic industry, 

with nonvoting FDA participation. The Committee directs FDA to 

work with the industry to study the transfer of this program to a 

more formal public-private partnership, similar to the United 

States Pharmacopeia, if appropriate and beneficial for consumers, 

and to report back to the Committee on this effort. 

Deeming Regulations.—The Committee notes that the Family 

Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which became 

law in 2009, gave FDA immediate authority over certain tobacco 

products, and gave authority to the Secretary of Health and 

Human Services to deem other products subject to FDA regulation. 

On April 25, 2014, nearly 5 years after it had been granted the authority to do so, FDA issued those proposed deeming regulations, 

but has not yet finalized them. FDA is therefore directed to issue 

a final regulation addressing the deeming of other tobacco products 

under FDA’s jurisdiction within 30 days and to act expediently to 

implement that regulation once finalized. 

Drug Shortages.—The Committee is very concerned about continuing drug shortages, and the serious effects they can have on 

patients, including children. The Committee directs the Food and 

Drug Administration to report to the Committee on the work of 

FDA’s intra-agency Drug Shortages Task Force. This report should 

include which offices and centers are represented on the task force, 

and how it works with other government agencies and outside 

stakeholders to address drug shortages. The report should also 

specify what activities the Task Force has undertaken to prevent 

drug shortages affecting pediatric patients, including working with 

outside experts on this issue. 

Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy.—The Committee is aware that a 

patient-focused draft guidance for drug development on Duchenne 

Muscular Dystrophy was submitted to FDA in June 2014. The 

Committee supports this initiative and requests that FDA provide 

a detailed description of its plans to move forward with the development of a related guidance. 

Farm Regulations.—The Committee remains concerned about 

how the FDA will determine whether and to what degree a farm 

or food business is subject to regulation. It is important that FDA 

is careful to apply new rules appropriately for the size of the operation in accordance with congressional intent. 

Foreign High Risk Inspections.—As the importation of drugs, 

food, and medical devices from China continue to increase, the 

Committee is concerned about the FDA’s ability to keep pace with 

the exporter universe and volume of exports. For fiscal year 2015, 

an additional $2,000,000 was provided for foreign drug safety to address the growing number of human drugs produced overseas and 

the increasing number of imported drug shipments in order to ensure the continued safety and quality of these products. These 
86 

funds have been provided to support the agency’s overseas inspections, work with industry and other stakeholders in safety in manufacturing, strengthen agency relationships with foreign regulators, 

and analyze trends and events that might affect the safety of FDAregulated products exported to the United States. 

The Committee is supportive of FDA as it moves toward a more, 

targeted, risk-based, and efficient inspection model that incorporates commercially available information on high-risk establishments. As with other Federal agencies, such as CMS, better data 

has helped to make sure a company exists and is in good standing 

prior to an inspection and to help prioritize FDA’s investigations 

and triage safety inspections. Within the funds provided for the 

China Safety Initiative the Committee directs the FDA to maintain 

robust funding for onsite verification support and integration of results in FDA inspection planning. 

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 may also prove 

useful in helping to predict how a drug or device will behave when 

deployed in the general population or when used in particular circumstances, thereby helping to protect the public from the unintended consequences of side effects and drug interactions. In Silico 

trials may potentially protect public health, advance personalized 

treatment, and be executed quickly and for a fraction of the cost 

of a full scale live trial. The FDA has advocated the use of such 

systems as an additional innovative research tool. Therefore, the 

Committee urges FDA to engage with device and drug sponsors to 

explore greater use, where appropriate, of In Silico trials for advancing new devices and drug therapy applications. 

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. While the Committee recognizes 

that In Vitro tests may not always predict clinical responses, it 

urges the FDA to continue to engage with drug sponsors to explore 

greater use, where appropriate, of In Vitro clinical trials for drug 

development programs under Investigational New Drug applications and general therapeutic indications, especially as it relates to 

complicated cancers and other common disease states. 

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 
87 

quality of mammography and made mammograms a more reliable 

tool to detect breast cancers. 

Mammography Reports.—The Food and Drug Administration is 

directed to revise its regulations regarding the summary mammography reports in lay language provided to patients to require the 

inclusion of information on the patient’s breast tissue density; an 

explanation that dense tissue may mask the presence of breast cancer on mammograms; and advice that patients speak with their 

healthcare provider about whether they would benefit from additional tests, and about any other questions they may have. The 

FDA should also revise its regulations regarding the medical report 

provided to healthcare providers to require the inclusion of information on the patient’s breast density and the masking effect such 

tissue may have on detecting breast cancer. 

Master Plan.—The Committee has included $3,000,000 for FDA 

to complete a feasibility study to update and issue a revised Master 

Plan for the White Oak campus in order to address its expanded 

workforce and the facilities needed to accommodate them. The 

Committee directs FDA to report on this effort by January 1, 2016. 

Medical Gases.—The Committee is concerned that FDA has not 

initiated rulemaking to address numerous longstanding regulatory 

issues for medical gases despite the statutory requirement in 

FDASIA to issue a final rulemaking addressing all necessary 

changes for medical gases by July 9, 2016. Designated medical 

gases are a unique class of drugs that differ significantly from traditional pharmaceuticals and therefore must be addressed in the 

Federal drug regulations to prevent safety and enforcement issues 

caused by current regulations. The Committee disagrees with the 

FDA report to Congress sent on June 30, 2015 that despite decades 

of issues created by existing regulations ‘‘the current regulatory 

framework is adequate and sufficiently flexible to appropriately 

regulate medical gases.’’ 

Nanotechnology.—The Committee recognizes the increased capabilities that FDA has developed to study environment, health, and 

safety of nanomaterials within FDA’s Jefferson Laboratory Campus, 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 2015. 

Nutrition Facts Label.—The Committee is concerned that the 

FDA has not published in the Federal Register the results of FDA’s 

‘‘Experimental Study on Consumer Responses to Nutrition Facts 

Labels with Various Footnote Formats and Declaration of Amount 

of Added Sugars’’ (78 FR 32394, May 30, 2013). The purpose of the 

study, as described by the Agency, is ‘‘to examine how consumers 

would comprehend and use this new information’’. Given that 

sound science, peer review and transparency are essential to effec-
88 

tive protection of public health, the Committee encourages the FDA 

to release this study for public review and comment prior to finalizing changes to the Nutrition Facts label. 

Opioid Overdose Prevention.—The Committee notes that on June 

15, 2015, the CDC issued a report on ‘‘Opioid Overdose Prevention 

Programs Providing Naloxone to Laypersons’’, in which the CDC 

noted the benefits of expanding access to the life-saving drug 

naloxone, which reverses the effects of an opioid overdose. The 

Committee urges FDA to promote the development and widespread 

usage of naloxone products. The agency’s efforts should include 

working closely with product sponsors interested in marketing 

naloxone for use without a prescription to expedite review and decisionmaking. 

Oversight Activities.—The Committee notes that over the past 5 

years FDA’s responsibilities and resources have grown significantly. The Committee is concerned that oversight of FDA has not 

kept pace with the growth in the agency’s regulatory authority or 

funding. Therefore, the Committee recommendation includes 

$1,500,000 for the HHS Office of Inspector General specifically for 

oversight of FDA activities. The funding provided under this appropriation is in addition to FDA oversight activities supported within 

the Inspector General’s regular appropriation. The Committee instructs the Inspector General to submit a plan, within 60 days of 

the enactment of this act, on the additional oversight activities 

planned with this funding. 

Pediatric Device Consortia Grants.—The Committee is pleased 

that the nine FDA-funded Pediatric Device Consortia have assisted 

in the development of more than 450 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 directs FDA to fund this program at the highest possible level within available resources, and 

at no less than the level funded in the previous year. 

Repackaging for Long Term Care Pharmacies.—In February the 

Food and Drug Administration released a draft guidance entitled, 

‘‘Repackaging of Certain Human Drug Products by Pharmacies and 

Outsourcing Facilities.’’ The Committee is concerned that in issuing 

the draft guidance the agency failed to consider the unique nature 

of long term care pharmacies and the populations they serve. Before issuing a final guidance the Committee urges the agency to 

consider its implications on patient access to safe and effective 

medications from long term care pharmacies. 

Seafood Advisory.—The Committee remains concerned that despite numerous commitments over many years, FDA has not published final advice on seafood consumption for pregnant women, 

mothers, and children. The Committee is pleased that FDA released draft advice in June 2014, however, pregnant women and 

healthcare providers still await clear, actionable and science-based 

final seafood advice. Based on the recommendation of the Dietary 

Guidelines Advisory Committee, the final FDA seafood advice shall 

re-evaluate the draft limit on albacore tuna to ensure it is con-
89 

sistent with the FDA net effects report and the Joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization Expert Consultation on the Risks and Benefits of Fish Consumption, 2010. The Committee directs FDA to publish final advice 

to pregnant women on seafood consumption in conjunction with all 

applicable parties. Finally, FDA shall provide a progress report to 

the Committee 30 days after the enactment of this act and every 

30 days thereafter until the final seafood advice is published. 

Seafood Economic Integrity.—The Committee recognizes the importance of seafood to a healthy diet, but is concerned that the 

FDA does not focus sufficient attention on economic integrity 

issues, particularly with respect to mislabeling of species, weights, 

and treatment. The Committee encourages the FDA to work with 

States and the Department of Commerce to more aggressively combat fraud in parts of the seafood industry. 

Seafood List.—The Committee directs the Commissioner to expedite consideration of whether it is appropriate to change the acceptable market name of Gadus chalcogrammus (formerly classified as 

Theragra chalcogramma) from ‘‘Alaska Pollock’’ to ‘‘Pollock’’ in the 

Seafood List. It is critical that seafood nomenclature (acceptable 

market names) is science-based, truthful, and not misleading to the 

consumer. 

Sodium.—The Committee is concerned about FDA’s continued 

focus on voluntary sodium reductions and the Institute of Medicine’s [IOM] 2010 recommendation to modify the Generally Recognized as Safe [GRAS] status of sodium, particularly given the ongoing scientific discussion regarding appropriate sodium intake to 

maintain positive health. The IOM published a more recent study 

in 2013, which concluded additional research may provide further 

information with respect to the health effects of sodium intake on 

general and sub populations. The Committee recommends that a 

panel be convened, at the IOM or another leading Federal institution, which includes a representative array of research perspectives, including those who have raised concerns on the safety of 

low-sodium diets. The Committee does not believe any sodium reduction activities should be finalized until the disagreement between the impact of lower sodium on blood pressure (and an extrapolation to health) and direct research suggesting a negative impact of very low-sodium intakes is resolved. 

Sunscreen.—The Committee is aware that in July 2014, the U.S. 

Surgeon General issued A Call to Action to Prevent Skin Cancer, 

concluding nearly 5 million people are treated annually for all skin 

cancers combined, with an estimated cost of $8,100,000,000 per 

year. As a result, the Surgeon General called on the Federal Government to work with stakeholders to support skin cancer prevention. The Committee is pleased with the bipartisan reforms enacted 

in the Sunscreen Innovation Act [SIA] in 2014 to improve the process by which the FDA reviews sunscreen ingredients; however, the 

Committee is concerned that while skin cancer rates in the United 

States continue to climb, no new sunscreen ingredients have been 

generally recognized as safe and effective [GRASE] by the FDA 

since passage of the SIA. The Committee directs the FDA to provide a report that contains a detailed analysis of how FDA is balancing the Surgeon General’s Call to Action, the known public 
90 

health benefits that regular sunscreen use provides to prevent skin 

cancer and melanoma, and the long history of safe and effective use 

of sunscreens in comparable countries versus the hypothetical risk 

sunscreens posed to human health in FDA’s generally recognized 

as safe and effective [GRASE] standard. Immediate action on sunscreen applications should be a priority. 

In addition, the Committee directs the FDA to work with stakeholders to ensure consumers in the United States have access to 

all sunscreen products that have been shown to be safe and effective; and therefore, requests that FDA, in finalizing the sunscreen 

monograph consistent with the SIA, include provisions related to 

the maximum Sun Protection Factor [SPF] and to address spray 

dosage forms for sunscreens. 

Vibrio.—The Committee is aware of the public health challenge 

related to the naturally occurring bacteria called Vibrio 

parahaemolyticus (V.p.) that can accumulate in shellfish and believes that more scientific research is necessary to developing 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. 

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $8,788,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 8,788,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 8,788,000 

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. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $8,788,000 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, 2015 ............................................................................. $60,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 68,800,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 65,600,000 

The Farm Credit Administration [FCA] is the independent agency in the executive branch of the Government responsible for the 
91 

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. 
(92) 

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-
93 

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 30 days. 

Section 722. This section includes language regarding reconstituted infant formula. 

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 provides funding to carry out a program 

for hardwood trees. 

Section 729. This section includes language regarding menu labeling. 

Section 730. This section includes language regarding the Emergency Community Water Assistance Grant Program. 

Section 731. This section includes language regarding the Water 

Bank Program. 

Section 732. This section includes language regarding Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones. 

Section 733. This section includes language regarding the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. 

Section 734. This section includes language regarding the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative. 

Section 735. This section includes language regarding housing 

programs. 

Section 736. This section includes language regarding the Rural 

Housing Service. 

Section 737. This section includes a rescission of funds. 

Section 738. This section includes a rescission of funds. 

Section 739. This section includes language regarding industrial 

hemp. 

Section 740. This section includes language regarding disclosure 

of information for pharmaceuticals. 

Section 741. This section includes language regarding the 

Healthy Food Financing Initiative. 

Section 742. This section includes language regarding agricultural research. 
94 

Section. 743. This section includes language regarding beef imports from Argentina and Brazil. 

Section. 744. This section includes language regarding the use of 

funds for certain horse inspection activities. 

Section 745. This section includes language regarding school 

meals programs. 
(95) 

PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY 

During fiscal year 2016, 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, 2016, 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 2016 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 2016 

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 2016: 

Child Nutrition Program State Administrative Expenses 

Farmers Market Nutrition Program 

Grain Inspection Service 

Multi-family Housing Revitalization Program 
96 

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants 

and Children 

Summer Food Service Program 

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(c), RULE XXVI OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on July 16, 2015, the 

Committee ordered favorably reported an original bill making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 

Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year 

ending September 30, 2016, and for other purposes, provided, that 

the bill be subject to amendment and that the bill be consistent 

with its budget allocation, by a recorded vote of 28–2, a quorum 

being present. The vote was as follows: 

Yeas Nays 

Chairman Cochran Mrs. Murray 

Mr. McConnell Mr. Reed 

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. Feinstein 

Mr. Durbin 

Mr. Tester 

Mr. Udall 

Mrs. Shaheen 

Mr. Merkley 

Mr. Coons 

Mr. Schatz 

Ms. Baldwin 

Mr. Murphy 

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 appro-
97 

priate 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.’’ 

The Committee bill as recommended contains no such provisions. 

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 2016: Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural 

Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies: 

Mandatory .................................................................... 116,234 116,234 108,949 1 108,949 

Discretionary ................................................................ 20,510 20,510 21,641 1 21,632 

Security ............................................................... ...................... ...................... ...................... NA 

Nonsecurity ......................................................... 20,510 20,510 NA NA 

Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism ...................................................................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ......................

Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation: 

2016 ............................................................................. ...................... ...................... ...................... 2 116,060 

2017 ............................................................................. ...................... ...................... ...................... 4,721 

2018 ............................................................................. ...................... ...................... ...................... 990 

2019 ............................................................................. ...................... ...................... ...................... 358 

2020 and future years ................................................ ...................... ...................... ...................... 267 

Financial assistance to State and local governments for 

2016 ................................................................................. NA 39,573 NA 2 33,112 

1 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

2 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

NA: Not applicable. 
98 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2015 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2015 

appropriation Budget estimate 

TITLE I—AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS 

Production, Processing, and Marketing 

Office of the Secretary 

Office of the Secretary ......................................................................................................................................................... 5,051 5,137 5,051 .......................... ¥86 Office of Tribal Relations ..................................................................................................................................................... 502 507 502 .......................... ¥5 Military Veterans Agricultural Liasion (Leg. proposal) ........................................................................................................ .......................... 250 250 ∂250 ..........................Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Coordination ................................................................................................. 1,496 1,520 1,496 .......................... ¥24 Office of Advocacy and Outreach ........................................................................................................................................ 1,209 1,228 1,209 .......................... ¥19 Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration .......................................................................................................... 804 816 804 .......................... ¥12 Departmental Administration ............................................................................................................................................... 25,124 25,688 25,124 .......................... ¥564 

Subtotal, Departmental Administration .................................................................................................................. 25,928 26,504 25,928 .......................... ¥576 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations ........................................................................................... 3,869 3,934 3,869 .......................... ¥65 Office of Communications .................................................................................................................................................... 7,750 8,228 7,750 .......................... ¥478 

Total, Office of the Secretary ................................................................................................................................. 45,805 47,308 46,055 ∂250 ¥1,253 

Executive Operations: 

Office of the Chief Economist ..................................................................................................................................... 17,377 17,465 16,777 ¥600 ¥688 National Appeals Division ........................................................................................................................................... 13,317 13,566 13,317 .......................... ¥249 Office of Budget and Program Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 9,392 9,500 9,392 .......................... ¥108 

Subtotal, Executive Operations ............................................................................................................................... 40,086 40,531 39,486 ¥600 ¥1,045 

Office of the Chief Information Officer ................................................................................................................................ 45,045 53,071 45,045 .......................... ¥8,026 Office of the Chief Financial Officer ................................................................................................................................... 6,028 9,154 6,028 .......................... ¥3,126 Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights ............................................................................................................... 898 907 898 .......................... ¥9 Office of Civil Rights ........................................................................................................................................................... 24,070 24,443 24,070 .......................... ¥373 Agriculture buildings and facilities and rental payments .................................................................................................. (55,866 ) (125,469 ) (53,618 ) (¥2,248 ) (¥71,851 ) 
99 

Building operations and maintenance ........................................................................................................................ 55,866 125,469 53,618 ¥2,248 ¥71,851 

Hazardous materials management ...................................................................................................................................... 3,600 3,630 3,618 ∂18 ¥12 Office of Inspector General .................................................................................................................................................. 95,026 98,902 95,294 ∂268 ¥3,608 Office of the General Counsel .............................................................................................................................................. 44,383 48,075 44,383 .......................... ¥3,692 Office of Ethics .................................................................................................................................................................... 3,654 4,565 3,654 .......................... ¥911 

Total, Departmental Administration ....................................................................................................................... 364,461 456,055 362,149 ¥2,312 ¥93,906 

Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics ............................................................................ 898 907 898 .......................... ¥9 Economic Research Service .................................................................................................................................................. 85,373 86,023 85,373 .......................... ¥650 National Agricultural Statistics Service ............................................................................................................................... 172,408 180,346 168,108 ¥4,300 ¥12,238 

Census of Agriculture .................................................................................................................................................. (47,842 ) (45,747 ) (41,842 ) (¥6,000 ) (¥3,905 ) 

Agricultural Research Service: 

Salaries and expenses ................................................................................................................................................ 1,132,625 1,191,540 1,136,825 ∂4,200 ¥54,715 Buildings and facilities ............................................................................................................................................... 45,000 205,901 .......................... ¥45,000 ¥205,901 

Total, Agricultural Research Service ...................................................................................................................... 1,177,625 1,397,441 1,136,825 ¥40,800 ¥260,616 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture: 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture (Leg. proposal) ....................................................................................... .......................... 1,503,058 .......................... .......................... ¥1,503,058 Research and education activities ............................................................................................................................. 786,874 .......................... 791,096 ∂4,222 ∂791,096 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 ..................................................................................................................................................... 471,691 .......................... 488,891 ∂17,200 ∂488,891 Integrated activities .................................................................................................................................................... 30,900 .......................... 13,700 ¥17,200 ∂13,700 

Total, National Institute of Food and Agriculture .................................................................................................. 1,289,465 1,503,058 1,293,687 ∂4,222 ¥209,371 

Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs ............................................................................. 898 907 898 .......................... ¥9 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service: 

Salaries and expenses ................................................................................................................................................ 871,315 855,803 876,465 ∂5,150 ∂20,662 Buildings and facilities ............................................................................................................................................... 3,175 3,175 3,175 .......................... ..........................

Total, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ............................................................................................... 874,490 858,978 879,640 ∂5,150 ∂20,662 

Agricultural Marketing Service: 

Marketing Services ...................................................................................................................................................... 81,192 83,121 81,192 .......................... ¥1,929 

Standardization activities (user fees) ................................................................................................................ (64,000 ) (65,000 ) (65,000 ) (∂1,000 ) ..........................

(Limitation on administrative expenses, from fees collected) ................................................................................... (60,709 ) (60,982 ) (60,982 ) (∂273 ) ..........................
100 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2015 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2015 

appropriation Budget estimate 

Funds for strengthening markets, income, and supply (Section 32): 

Permanent, Section 32 ....................................................................................................................................... 1,284,000 1,425,000 1,425,000 ∂141,000 ..........................

Marketing agreements and orders (transfer from section 32) ................................................................ (20,186 ) (20,489 ) (20,489 ) (∂303 ) ..........................

Payments to States and Possessions ......................................................................................................................... 1,235 1,235 1,235 .......................... ..........................

Total, Agricultural Marketing Service program ...................................................................................................... 1,427,136 1,570,338 1,568,409 ∂141,273 ¥1,929 

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration: 

Salaries and expenses ................................................................................................................................................ 43,048 44,101 43,048 .......................... ¥1,053 Limitation on inspection and weighing services ........................................................................................................ (50,000 ) (55,000 ) (55,000 ) (∂5,000 ) ..........................

Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety ..................................................................................................................... 816 824 816 .......................... ¥8 Food Safety and Inspection Service ..................................................................................................................................... 1,016,474 1,011,557 1,013,621 ¥2,853 ∂2,064 

Lab accreditation fees ................................................................................................................................................ (1,000 ) (1,000 ) (1,000 ) .......................... ..........................

Total, Production, Processing, and Marketing ........................................................................................................ 6,392,383 7,049,553 6,492,490 ∂100,107 ¥557,063 

Farm Assistance Programs 

Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services ........................................................................ 898 907 898 .......................... ¥9 Farm Service Agency: 

Salaries and expenses ................................................................................................................................................ 1,200,180 1,185,251 1,180,391 ¥19,789 ¥4,860 (Transfer from Food for Peace (Public Law 480)) ...................................................................................................... (2,528 ) (2,528 ) (2,528 ) .......................... ..........................(Transfer from export loans) ....................................................................................................................................... (354 ) (354 ) (354 ) .......................... ..........................(Transfer from ACIF) .................................................................................................................................................... (306,998 ) (309,991 ) (306,998 ) .......................... (¥2,993 ) 

Subtotal, transfers from program accounts ........................................................................................................... (309,880 ) (312,873 ) (309,880 ) .......................... (¥2,993 ) Total, Salaries and expenses .................................................................................................................................. (1,510,060 ) (1,498,124 ) (1,490,271 ) (¥19,789 ) (¥7,853 ) 

State mediation grants ............................................................................................................................................... 3,404 3,404 3,404 .......................... ..........................
101 

Grassroots source water protection program .............................................................................................................. 5,526 .......................... 6,000 ∂474 ∂6,000 Dairy indemnity program ............................................................................................................................................. 500 500 500 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Farm Service Agency ............................................................................................................................... 1,209,610 1,189,155 1,190,295 ¥19,315 ∂1,140 

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 ) (1,252,004 ) (1,252,004 ) .......................... ..........................Unsubsidized guaranteed ................................................................................................................. (1,393,443 ) (1,393,443 ) (1,393,443 ) .......................... ..........................

Subtotal ........................................................................................................................................ (2,645,447 ) (2,645,447 ) (2,645,447 ) .......................... ..........................

Emergency loans ....................................................................................................................................... (34,667 ) (34,667 ) (34,667 ) .......................... ..........................Indian tribe land acquisition loans .......................................................................................................... (2,000 ) (2,000 ) (2,000 ) .......................... ..........................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 ) (6,402,114 ) (6,402,114 ) .......................... ..........................

Loan subsidies: 

Farm operating loans: 

Direct ................................................................................................................................................ 63,101 53,961 53,961 ¥9,140 ..........................Unsubsidized guaranteed ................................................................................................................. 14,770 14,352 14,352 ¥418 ..........................

Subtotal ........................................................................................................................................ 77,871 68,313 68,313 ¥9,558 ..........................

Emergency Loans ....................................................................................................................................... 856 1,262 1,262 ∂406 ..........................Indian highly fractionated land loans ...................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Individual development account grants ................................................................................................... .......................... 2,500 .......................... .......................... ¥2,500 

Total, Loan subsidies and grants ........................................................................................................ 78,727 72,075 69,575 ¥9,152 ¥2,500 
102 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2015 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2015 

appropriation Budget estimate 

ACIF administrative expenses: 

Salaries and expense (transfer to FSA) .................................................................................................... 306,998 309,991 306,998 .......................... ¥2,993 Administrative expenses ............................................................................................................................ 7,920 7,920 7,920 .......................... ..........................

Total, ACIF expenses ............................................................................................................................. 314,918 317,911 314,918 .......................... ¥2,993 

Total, Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund ..................................................................................................... 393,645 389,986 384,493 ¥9,152 ¥5,493 

(Loan authorization) .................................................................................................................................. (6,402,114 ) (6,402,114 ) (6,402,114 ) .......................... ..........................

Total, Farm Service Agency ........................................................................................................................... 1,603,255 1,579,141 1,574,788 ¥28,467 ¥4,353 

Risk Management Agency: 

RMA Salaries and expenses ........................................................................................................................................ 74,829 76,946 74,829 .......................... ¥2,117 

Total, Farm Assistance Programs ........................................................................................................................... 1,678,982 1,656,994 1,650,515 ¥28,467 ¥6,479 

Corporations 

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation: 

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation fund ................................................................................................................... 8,930,502 8,175,224 8,175,224 ¥755,278 ..........................

Commodity Credit Corporation Fund: 

Reimbursement for net realized losses ...................................................................................................................... 13,444,728 10,519,933 10,519,933 ¥2,924,795 ..........................Hazardous waste management (limitation on expenses) ........................................................................................... (5,000 ) (5,000 ) (5,000 ) .......................... ..........................

Total, Corporations .................................................................................................................................................. 22,375,230 18,695,157 18,695,157 ¥3,680,073 ..........................Total, Title I, Agricultural Programs ....................................................................................................................... 30,446,595 27,401,704 26,838,162 ¥3,608,433 ¥563,542 

(By transfer) ................................................................................................................................................... (330,066 ) (333,362 ) (330,369 ) (∂303 ) (¥2,993 ) (Loan authorization) ....................................................................................................................................... (6,402,114 ) (6,402,114 ) (6,402,114 ) .......................... ..........................
103 

(Limitation on administrative expenses) ....................................................................................................... (115,709 ) (120,982 ) (120,982 ) (∂5,273 ) ..........................

TITLE II—CONSERVATION PROGRAMS 

Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment ............................................................................. 898 907 898 .......................... ¥9 Natural Resources Conservation Service: 

Private lands conservation operations ........................................................................................................................ 846,428 831,231 855,209 ∂8,781 ∂23,978 

Farm Security and Rural Investment program (transfer authority) .................................................................. .......................... (774,612 ) .......................... .......................... (¥774,612 ) 

Total, Public Lands Conservation operations ................................................................................................ 846,428 1,605,843 855,209 ∂8,781 ¥750,634 

Watershed Flood and Prevention operations (Leg. proposal) ..................................................................................... .......................... 200,000 .......................... .......................... ¥200,000 Watershed rehabilitation program .............................................................................................................................. 12,000 .......................... .......................... ¥12,000 ..........................

Total, Natural Resources Conservation Service ...................................................................................................... 858,428 1,031,231 855,209 ¥3,219 ¥176,022 Total, Title II, Conservation Programs .................................................................................................................... 859,326 1,032,138 856,107 ¥3,219 ¥176,031 

TITLE III—RURAL DEVELOPMENT 

Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development ......................................................................................................... 898 907 898 .......................... ¥9 Rural Development: 

Rural development expenses: 

Salaries and expenses ....................................................................................................................................... 224,201 226,717 228,701 ∂4,500 ∂1,984 (Transfer from RHIF) .......................................................................................................................................... (415,100 ) (419,530 ) (415,100 ) .......................... (¥4,430 ) (Transfer from RDLFP) ........................................................................................................................................ (4,439 ) (4,488 ) (4,439 ) .......................... (¥49 ) (Transfer from RETLP) ........................................................................................................................................ (34,478 ) (34,864 ) (34,478 ) .......................... (¥386 ) 

Subtotal, Transfers from program accounts ................................................................................................. (454,017 ) (458,882 ) (454,017 ) .......................... (¥4,865 ) Total, Rural development expenses ............................................................................................................... (678,218 ) (685,599 ) (682,718 ) (∂4,500 ) (¥2,881 ) 

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 ) .......................... ..........................
104 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2015 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2015 

appropriation Budget estimate 

Housing repair (Sec. 504) ......................................................................................................................... (26,279 ) (26,278 ) (26,278 ) (¥1 ) ..........................Rental housing (Sec. 515) ........................................................................................................................ (28,398 ) (42,271 ) (28,398 ) .......................... (¥13,873 ) Multi-family housing guarantees (Sec. 538) ............................................................................................ (150,000 ) (200,000 ) (200,000 ) (∂50,000 ) ..........................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) ................................................................................................................. (23,602 ) (23,855 ) (23,602 ) .......................... (¥253 ) 

Total, Loan authorizations .................................................................................................................... (25,148,279 ) (25,207,404 ) (25,198,278 ) (∂49,999 ) (¥9,126 ) 

Loan subsidies: 

Single family direct (Sec. 502) ................................................................................................................. 66,420 60,750 60,750 ¥5,670 ..........................Housing repair (Sec. 504) ......................................................................................................................... 3,687 3,424 3,424 ¥263 ..........................Rental housing (Sec. 515) ........................................................................................................................ 9,800 12,525 8,414 ¥1,386 ¥4,111 Farm labor housing (Sec. 514) ................................................................................................................. 7,600 6,789 6,717 ¥883 ¥72 

Total, Loan subsidies ............................................................................................................................ 87,507 83,488 79,305 ¥8,202 ¥4,183 

Farm labor housing grants ....................................................................................................................... 8,336 8,336 8,336 .......................... ..........................RHIF administrative expenses (transfer to RD) ........................................................................................ 415,100 419,530 415,100 .......................... ¥4,430 

Total, Rural Housing Insurance Fund program .................................................................................... 510,943 511,354 502,741 ¥8,202 ¥8,613 

(Loan authorization) ......................................................................................................................... (25,148,279 ) (25,207,404 ) (25,198,278 ) (∂49,999 ) (¥9,126 ) 

Rental assistance program: 

Rental assistance (Sec. 521) ............................................................................................................................. 1,088,500 1,171,900 1,167,000 ∂78,500 ¥4,900 

Multi-Family Housing Revitalization Program Account: 

Rural housing voucher program ................................................................................................................................. 7,000 15,000 7,000 .......................... ¥8,000 Multi-family housing revitalization program .............................................................................................................. 17,000 19,000 17,000 .......................... ¥2,000 
105 

Total, Multi-family housing revitalization .............................................................................................................. 24,000 34,000 24,000 .......................... ¥10,000 

Mutual and self-help housing grants ......................................................................................................................... 27,500 10,000 27,500 .......................... ∂17,500 Rural housing assistance grants ................................................................................................................................ 32,239 25,000 32,239 .......................... ∂7,239 Rural Community Facilities Program Account: 

Loan authorizations: 

Community facility: 

Direct ................................................................................................................................................ (2,200,000 ) (2,200,000 ) (2,200,000 ) .......................... ..........................Guaranteed ....................................................................................................................................... (73,222 ) .......................... (84,746 ) (∂11,524 ) (∂84,746 ) 

Total, Loan authorizations ........................................................................................................... (2,273,222 ) (2,200,000 ) (2,284,746 ) (∂11,524 ) (∂84,746 ) 

Loan subsidies and grants: 

Community facility: 

Guaranteed ....................................................................................................................................... 3,500 .......................... 2,000 ¥1,500 ∂2,000 Grants ............................................................................................................................................... 13,000 50,000 13,000 .......................... ¥37,000 

Rural community development initiative .................................................................................................. 4,000 4,000 4,000 .......................... ..........................Economic impact initiative grants ............................................................................................................ 5,778 .......................... 5,778 .......................... ∂5,778 Tribal college grants ................................................................................................................................. 4,000 8,000 4,000 .......................... ¥4,000 

Total, RCFP Loan subsidies and grants ............................................................................................... 30,278 62,000 28,778 ¥1,500 ¥33,222 

Subtotal, grants and payments .............................................................................................................................. 90,017 97,000 88,517 ¥1,500 ¥8,483 Total, Rural Housing Service .................................................................................................................................. 1,713,460 1,814,254 1,782,258 ∂68,798 ¥31,996 

(Loan authorization) ....................................................................................................................................... (27,421,501 ) (27,407,404 ) (27,483,024 ) (∂61,523 ) (∂75,620 ) 

Rural Business—Cooperative Service: 

Rural Business Program Account: 

(Guaranteed business and industry loans) ....................................................................................................... (919,765 ) (758,222 ) (919,765 ) .......................... (∂161,543 ) Loan subsidies and grants: 

Guaranteed business and industry subsidy ............................................................................................. 47,000 31,444 35,687 ¥11,313 ∂4,243 

Rural business development grants ................................................................................................ 24,000 30,000 24,000 .......................... ¥6,000 Demonstration Projects (rural child poverty) (Leg. proposal) ......................................................... .......................... 20,000 .......................... .......................... ¥20,000 Delta regional authority ................................................................................................................... 3,000 .......................... 3,000 .......................... ∂3,000 

Total, RBP loan subsidies and grants ........................................................................................ 74,000 81,444 62,687 ¥11,313 ¥18,757 

Intermediary Relending Program Fund Account: 

(Loan authorization) ........................................................................................................................................... (18,889 ) (10,014 ) (18,889 ) .......................... (∂8,875 ) 
106 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2015 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2015 

appropriation Budget estimate 

Loan subsidy ...................................................................................................................................................... 5,818 2,766 5,217 ¥601 ∂2,451 Administrative expenses (transfer to RD) .......................................................................................................... 4,439 4,488 4,439 .......................... ¥49 

Total, Rural Business Program Fund ............................................................................................................ 10,257 7,254 9,656 ¥601 ∂2,402 

Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account: 

(Loan authorization) ........................................................................................................................................... (33,077 ) (85,000 ) (48,013 ) (∂14,936 ) (¥36,987 ) Limit cushion of credit interest spending ......................................................................................................... (179,000 ) (154,000 ) (182,000 ) (∂3,000 ) (∂28,000 ) 

(Rescission) ............................................................................................................................................... ¥179,000 ¥154,000 ¥182,000 ¥3,000 ¥28,000 

Rural Cooperative Development Grants: 

Cooperative development ................................................................................................................................... 5,800 6,000 5,800 .......................... ¥200 Appropriate technology transfer for rural areas ................................................................................................ 2,500 2,087 2,500 .......................... ∂413 Grants to assist minority producers .................................................................................................................. 3,000 3,000 3,000 .......................... ..........................Value-added agricultural product market development .................................................................................... 10,750 10,000 10,750 .......................... ∂750 

Total, Rural Cooperative development grants ............................................................................................... 22,050 21,087 22,050 .......................... ∂963 

Rural Microenterprise Investment Program Account: 

(Loan authorization) ........................................................................................................................................... .......................... (23,416 ) .......................... .......................... (¥23,416 ) Loan subsidies and grants ................................................................................................................................ .......................... 4,653 .......................... .......................... ¥4,653 

Total, Rural Microenterprise Investment ....................................................................................................... .......................... 4,653 .......................... .......................... ¥4,653 

Rural Energy for America Program (Loan authorization) ........................................................................................... (12,760 ) (75,758 ) (7,576 ) (¥5,184 ) (¥68,182 ) 

Loan subsidy and grants ................................................................................................................................... 1,350 5,000 500 ¥850 ¥4,500 Grants ................................................................................................................................................................. .......................... 5,000 .......................... .......................... ¥5,000 

Total, Rural Energy for America Program ..................................................................................................... 1,350 10,000 500 ¥850 ¥9,500 

Rural Business Investment Program Account (Loan authorization) ........................................................................... .......................... (41,195 ) .......................... .......................... (¥41,195 ) 
107 

Loan subsidy ...................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 4,000 .......................... .......................... ¥4,000 Grants ................................................................................................................................................................. .......................... 2,000 .......................... .......................... ¥2,000 

Total, Rural Business Investment Program ................................................................................................... .......................... 6,000 .......................... .......................... ¥6,000 

Healthy Foods Financing Initiative (Leg. proposal): 

Grants ................................................................................................................................................................. .......................... 12,750 1,000 ∂1,000 ¥11,750 

Total, Rural Business-Cooperative Service ............................................................................................................. ¥71,343 ¥10,812 ¥86,107 ¥14,764 ¥75,295 

(Loan authorization) ....................................................................................................................................... (984,491 ) (993,605 ) (994,243 ) (∂9,752 ) (∂638 ) 

Rural Utilities Service: 

Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program Account: 

Loan authorizations: 

Direct ......................................................................................................................................................... (1,200,000 ) (1,200,000 ) (1,200,000 ) .......................... ..........................Guaranteed ................................................................................................................................................ (50,000 ) .......................... (50,000 ) .......................... (∂50,000 ) 

Total, Loan authorization ...................................................................................................................... 1,250,000 1,200,000 1,250,000 .......................... ∂50,000 

Loan subsidies and grants: 

Direct subsidy ............................................................................................................................................ .......................... 31,320 31,320 ∂31,320 ..........................Guaranteed subsidy ................................................................................................................................... 295 .......................... 275 ¥20 ∂275 Water and waste revolving fund ............................................................................................................... 1,000 .......................... 1,000 .......................... ∂1,000 Water well system grants ......................................................................................................................... 993 .......................... 993 .......................... ∂993 Colonias and AK/HI grants ........................................................................................................................ 66,500 54,240 66,500 .......................... ∂12,260 Water and waste technical assistance ..................................................................................................... 19,000 13,560 19,000 .......................... ∂5,440 Circuit rider program ................................................................................................................................ 15,919 11,300 16,500 ∂581 ∂5,200 Solid waste management grants .............................................................................................................. 4,000 4,000 4,000 .......................... ..........................High energy cost grants ............................................................................................................................ 10,000 .......................... 10,000 .......................... ∂10,000 Water and waste disposal grants ............................................................................................................. 347,150 358,900 347,150 .......................... ¥11,750 306A(i)(2) grants (Leg. proposal) ............................................................................................................. .......................... 10,000 .......................... .......................... ¥10,000 

Total, Loan subsidies and grants ........................................................................................................ 464,857 483,320 496,738 ∂31,881 ∂13,418 

Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program Account: 

Loan authorizations: 

Electric: 

Direct, FFB ........................................................................................................................................ (5,000,000 ) (6,000,000 ) (6,000,000 ) (∂1,000,000 ) ..........................
108 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2015 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2015 

appropriation Budget estimate 

Guaranteed underwriting .................................................................................................................. (500,000 ) .......................... (750,000 ) (∂250,000 ) (∂750,000 ) 

Subtotal, Electric ......................................................................................................................... (5,500,000 ) (6,000,000 ) (6,750,000 ) (∂1,250,000 ) (∂750,000 ) 

Telecommunications: 

Direct, Treasury rate ......................................................................................................................... (690,000 ) (345,000 ) (345,000 ) (¥345,000 ) ..........................Direct, FFB ........................................................................................................................................ .......................... (345,000 ) (345,000 ) (∂345,000 ) ..........................

Subtotal, Telecommunications ..................................................................................................... (690,000 ) (690,000 ) (690,000 ) .......................... ..........................Total, Loan authorizations ........................................................................................................... (6,190,000 ) (6,690,000 ) (7,440,000 ) (∂1,250,000 ) (∂750,000 ) 

Loan Subsidy: 

Telecommunications Direct, Treasury Rate ...................................................................................... .......................... 104 104 ∂104 ..........................

Total, Loan subsidies ................................................................................................................... .......................... 104 104 ∂104 ..........................

RETLP administrative expenses (transfer to RD) .............................................................................................. 34,478 34,864 34,478 .......................... ¥386 

Total, Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program Account ............................................ 34,478 34,968 34,582 ∂104 ¥386 

(Loan authorization) ......................................................................................................................... (6,190,000 ) (6,690,000 ) (7,440,000 ) (∂1,250,000 ) (∂750,000 ) 

Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program: 

Loan authorizations: 

Broadband telecommunications ................................................................................................................ (24,077 ) (44,239 ) (20,576 ) (¥3,501 ) (¥23,663 ) 

Total, Loan authorizations .................................................................................................................... (24,077 ) (44,239 ) (20,576 ) (¥3,501 ) (¥23,663 ) 

Loan subsidies and grants: 

Distance learning and telemedicine: 

Grants ............................................................................................................................................... 22,000 24,950 22,000 .......................... ¥2,950 
109 

Broadband telecommunications: 

Direct ................................................................................................................................................ 4,500 9,675 4,500 .......................... ¥5,175 Grants ............................................................................................................................................... 10,372 20,372 10,372 .......................... ¥10,000 

Total, Loan subsidies and grants ............................................................................................... 36,872 54,997 36,872 .......................... ¥18,125 

Total, Rural Utilities Service ................................................................................................................................... 536,207 573,285 568,192 ∂31,985 ¥5,093 

(Loan authorization) ....................................................................................................................................... (7,464,077 ) (7,934,239 ) (8,710,576 ) (∂1,246,499 ) (∂776,337 ) 

Total, Title III, Rural Development Programs ......................................................................................................... 2,403,423 2,604,351 2,493,942 ∂90,519 ¥110,409 

(By transfer) ................................................................................................................................................... (454,017 ) (458,882 ) (454,017 ) .......................... (¥4,865 ) (Loan authorization) ....................................................................................................................................... (35,870,069 ) (36,335,248 ) (37,187,843 ) (∂1,317,774 ) (∂852,595 ) 

TITLE IV—DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS 

Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services ........................................................................ 816 824 816 .......................... ¥8 Food and Nutrition Service: 

Child nutrition programs ............................................................................................................................................. 21,259,170 21,483,377 21,483,377 ∂224,207 ..........................

School breakfast program equipment grants .................................................................................................... 25,000 35,000 25,000 .......................... ¥10,000 Demonstration projects (Summer EBT) .............................................................................................................. 16,000 66,900 16,000 .......................... ¥50,900 Child Nutrition State Exchange Activities (Leg. proposal) ................................................................................ .......................... 2,000 .......................... .......................... ¥2,000 

Total, Child nutrition programs ..................................................................................................................... 21,300,170 21,587,277 21,524,377 ∂224,207 ¥62,900 

Special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children (WIC) ................................................... 6,623,000 6,623,000 6,513,000 ¥110,000 ¥110,000 Supplemental nutrition assistance program: 

(Food stamp program) ....................................................................................................................................... 78,836,572 78,661,071 78,661,071 ¥175,501 ..........................

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 State Transition Grants (Leg. proposal) ................................................................................................... .......................... 25,000 .......................... .......................... ¥25,000 Fiscal Year 2017 (first quarter) ................................................................................................................ .......................... 20,907,000 .......................... .......................... ¥20,907,000 

Total, Food stamp program .................................................................................................................. 81,837,570 104,599,069 81,662,069 ¥175,501 ¥22,937,000 

Fiscal year 2016 ........................................................................................................................................ (81,837,570 ) (83,692,069 ) (81,662,069 ) (¥175,501 ) (¥2,030,000 ) 

Commodity Assistance Program: 

Commodity supplemental food program ............................................................................................................ 211,482 221,298 221,298 ∂9,816 ..........................Farmers market nutrition program .................................................................................................................... 16,548 16,548 16,548 .......................... ..........................
110 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2015 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2015 

appropriation Budget estimate 

Emergency food assistance program ................................................................................................................. 49,401 49,401 49,401 .......................... ..........................Pacific island and disaster assistance ............................................................................................................. 1,070 1,070 1,070 .......................... ..........................

Total, Commodity assistance program .......................................................................................................... 278,501 288,317 288,317 ∂9,816 ..........................

Nutrition programs administration ............................................................................................................................. 150,824 155,564 151,824 ∂1,000 ¥3,740 

Total, Food and Nutrition Service ........................................................................................................................... 110,190,065 133,253,227 110,139,587 ¥50,478 ¥23,113,640 

Fiscal Year 2016 ............................................................................................................................................ (110,190,065 ) (112,346,227 ) (110,139,587 ) (¥50,478 ) (¥2,206,640 ) 

Total, Title IV, Domestic Food Programs ................................................................................................................ 110,190,881 133,254,051 110,140,403 ¥50,478 ¥23,113,648 

Fiscal Year 2016 ............................................................................................................................................ (110,190,065 ) (112,346,227 ) (110,139,587 ) (¥50,478 ) (¥2,206,640 ) 

TITLE V—FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS 

Foreign Agricultural Service 

Salaries and expenses ......................................................................................................................................................... 181,423 191,631 187,225 ∂5,802 ¥4,406 

(Transfer from export loans) ....................................................................................................................................... (6,394 ) (6,394 ) (6,394 ) .......................... ..........................

Total, Salaries and expenses .................................................................................................................................. 187,817 198,025 193,619 ∂5,802 ¥4,406 

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 2,528 2,528 .......................... ..........................Unobligated balances (rescission) .............................................................................................................................. ¥13,000 .......................... .......................... ∂13,000 ..........................

Food for Peace Title II Grants: 

Expenses ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1,466,000 1,400,000 1,466,000 .......................... ∂66,000 

Commodity Credit Corporation Export Loans Program Account (administrative expenses): 

Salaries and expenses (Export Loans): 

General Sales Manager (transfer to FAS) .......................................................................................................... 6,394 6,394 6,394 .......................... ..........................
111 

Farm Service Agency S&E (transfer to FSA) ...................................................................................................... 354 354 354 .......................... ..........................

Total, CCC Export Loans Program Account ................................................................................................... 6,748 6,748 6,748 .......................... ..........................

McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition program grants ..................................................... 191,626 191,626 201,626 ∂10,000 ∂10,000 Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement Program (Leg. proposal) .................................................................................. .......................... 20,000 .......................... .......................... ¥20,000 

Total, Title V, Foreign Assistance and Related Programs ..................................................................................... 1,835,325 1,812,533 1,864,127 ∂28,802 ∂51,594 

(By transfer) ................................................................................................................................................... (6,394 ) (6,394 ) (6,394 ) .......................... ..........................

TITLE VI—RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

Food and Drug Administration 

Salaries and expenses, direct appropriation ....................................................................................................................... 2,588,536 2,734,715 2,628,978 ∂40,442 ¥105,737 

Prescription drug user fees ......................................................................................................................................... (798,000 ) (826,072 ) (826,072 ) (∂28,072 ) ..........................Medical device user fees ............................................................................................................................................ (128,282 ) (134,475 ) (134,475 ) (∂6,193 ) ..........................Human generic drug user fees ................................................................................................................................... (312,116 ) (320,029 ) (320,029 ) (∂7,913 ) ..........................Biosimilar biological products user fees .................................................................................................................... (21,014 ) (21,540 ) (21,540 ) (∂526 ) ..........................Animal drug user fees ................................................................................................................................................ (22,464 ) (22,140 ) (22,140 ) (¥324 ) ..........................Animal generic drug user fees ................................................................................................................................... (6,944 ) (7,429 ) (7,429 ) (∂485 ) ..........................Tobacco product user fees .......................................................................................................................................... (566,000 ) (599,000 ) (599,000 ) (∂33,000 ) ..........................

Subtotal (including user fees) ................................................................................................................................ (4,443,356 ) (4,665,400 ) (4,559,663 ) (∂116,307 ) (¥105,737 ) 

Mammography user fees ............................................................................................................................................. (19,705 ) (20,109 ) (20,109 ) (∂404 ) ..........................Export and color certification user fees ..................................................................................................................... (13,651 ) (13,835 ) (13,835 ) (∂184 ) ..........................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 ) ..........................

Subtotal, FDA (with user fees) ............................................................................................................................... (4,490,860 ) (4,712,492 ) (4,606,755 ) (∂115,895 ) (¥105,737 ) 

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 ......................................................................................... .......................... (60,120 ) .......................... .......................... (¥60,120 ) Food import user fees ........................................................................................................................................ .......................... (103,343 ) .......................... .......................... (¥103,343 ) International courier user fees ........................................................................................................................... .......................... (5,926 ) .......................... .......................... (¥5,926 ) Cosemetic user fees ........................................................................................................................................... .......................... (19,856 ) .......................... .......................... (¥19,856 ) 
112 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2015 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2015 

appropriation Budget estimate 

Food contact substance notification user fees ................................................................................................. .......................... (5,098 ) .......................... .......................... (¥5,098 ) 

Subtotal, FDA new user fees (Leg. Proposals) .............................................................................................. .......................... (198,623 ) .......................... .......................... (¥198,623 ) 

Buildings and facilities ........................................................................................................................................................ 8,788 8,788 8,788 .......................... ..........................

Total, FDA (w/user fees, including proposals) ....................................................................................................... (4,499,648 ) (4,919,903 ) (4,615,543 ) (∂115,895 ) (¥304,360 ) Total, FDA (w/enacted user fees only) ................................................................................................................... (4,499,648 ) (4,725,560 ) (4,615,543 ) (∂115,895 ) (¥110,017 ) Total, FDA (excluding user fees) ............................................................................................................................ 2,597,324 2,743,503 2,637,766 ∂40,442 ¥105,737 

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

Farm Credit Administration (limitation on administrative expenses) ................................................................................. (60,500 ) (69,400 ) (65,600 ) (∂5,100 ) (¥3,800 ) 

Total, Title VI, Related Agencies and Food and Drug Administration ................................................................... 2,597,324 2,743,503 2,637,766 ∂40,442 ¥105,737 

TITLE VII—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Emergency livestock assistance program (rescission) (Sec. 709) ...................................................................................... ¥125,000 .......................... .......................... ∂125,000 ..........................Limit Dam Rehab (Sec. 714(1)) ........................................................................................................................................... ¥69,000 .......................... ¥68,000 ∂1,000 ¥68,000 

(rescission) .................................................................................................................................................................. .......................... ¥69,000 .......................... .......................... ∂69,000 

Limit Environmental Quality Incentives (Sec. 716(2)) ......................................................................................................... ¥136,000 .......................... ¥191,000 ¥55,000 ¥191,000 Limit Environmental Quality Incentives Program fiscal year 2015 (Sec. 1241(a)(5)(C))(Sec. 714(2)) (rescission) .......... .......................... ¥300,000 .......................... .......................... ∂300,000 Limit Environmental Quality Incentives Program fiscal year 2016 (Sec. 1241 (a)(5)(B)) (Sec. 714(2)) (rescission) ....... .......................... ¥73,000 ¥73,000 ¥73,000 ..........................Limit Conservation Stewardship Program (Sec. 713(3)) ..................................................................................................... ¥7,000 ¥3,000 .......................... ∂7,000 ∂3,000 Limit fruit and vegetable program (Sec. 714) .................................................................................................................... ¥122,000 ¥125,000 ¥125,000 ¥3,000 ..........................Section 32 (rescission) (Sec. 715) ....................................................................................................................................... ¥121,000 ¥292,000 ¥216,000 ¥95,000 ∂76,000 Limit Biomass Crop Assistance Program (Sec. 714(3)) ...................................................................................................... ¥2,000 .......................... ¥20,000 ¥18,000 ¥20,000 Watershed Flood and Prevention Program (rescission) (Sec. 737)) .................................................................................... .......................... ¥20,000 ¥20,000 ¥20,000 ..........................Water and waste cancellation (rescission ) (Sec. 738) ...................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥13,000 ¥13,000 ¥13,000 Limit Biorefinery Assistance (Sec. 717(7)) .......................................................................................................................... ¥16,000 .......................... .......................... ∂16,000 ..........................Geographic Disadvantaged farmers ..................................................................................................................................... 1,996 .......................... 1,996 .......................... ∂1,996 
113 

Hardwood Trees (Reforestation Pilot Program) .................................................................................................................... 600 .......................... 600 .......................... ∂600 Water Bank program ............................................................................................................................................................ 4,000 .......................... 4,000 .......................... ∂4,000 Repowering Assistance (rescission) ..................................................................................................................................... ¥8,000 .......................... .......................... ∂8,000 ..........................ARS Building and Facilities (rescission) ............................................................................................................................. ¥2,000 .......................... .......................... ∂2,000 ..........................Freight Reimbursement (rescission) .................................................................................................................................... ¥2,000 .......................... .......................... ∂2,000 ..........................Emergency Watershed Protection (disaster relief category) ................................................................................................ 78,581 .......................... .......................... ¥78,581 ..........................Emergency Forestry Restoration Program (disaster relief category) ................................................................................... 3,203 .......................... .......................... ¥3,203 ..........................Emergency Conservation Program (disaster relief category) ............................................................................................... 9,216 .......................... .......................... ¥9,216 ..........................

Total, Title VII, General Provisions ......................................................................................................................... ¥512,404 ¥882,000 ¥719,404 ¥207,000 ∂162,596 

TITLE VIII—EBOLA RESPONSE AND PREPAREDNESS 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

Food and Drug Administration 

Salaries and expenses, direct appropriation (emergency) .................................................................................................. 25,000 .......................... .......................... ¥25,000 ..........................

Total, Title VIII, Ebola Response and Preparedness (emergency) .......................................................................... 25,000 .......................... .......................... ¥25,000 ..........................Grand total .............................................................................................................................................................. 147,845,470 167,966,280 144,111,103 ¥3,734,367 ¥23,855,177 

Appropriations fiscal year 2015 .................................................................................................................... (148,179,470 ) (147,594,280 ) (144,542,103 ) (¥3,637,367 ) (¥3,052,177 ) Emergency Appropriations ............................................................................................................................. (25,000 ) .......................... .......................... (¥25,000 ) ..........................Emergency appropriations ............................................................................................................................. (25,000 ) .......................... .......................... (¥25,000 ) ..........................Disaster relief ................................................................................................................................................ (91,000 ) .......................... .......................... (¥91,000 ) ..........................Rescissions .................................................................................................................................................... (¥450,000 ) (¥535,000 ) (¥431,000 ) (∂19,000 ) (∂104,000 ) 

Advance appropriations, Fiscal Year 2016 ........................................................................................................ .......................... (20,907,000 ) .......................... .......................... (¥20,907,000 ) 

(By transfer) ............................................................................................................................................................ (790,477 ) (798,638 ) (790,780 ) (∂303 ) (¥7,858 ) (Loan authorization) ................................................................................................................................................ (42,272,183 ) (42,737,362 ) (43,589,957 ) (∂1,317,774 ) (∂852,595 ) (Limitation on administrative expenses) ................................................................................................................ (176,209 ) (190,382 ) (186,582 ) (∂10,373 ) (¥3,800 ) 

Æ