95–459 

114TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 114–205 

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG 

ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2016 

JULY 14, 2015.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. ADERHOLT, from the Committee on Appropriations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 3049] 

The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in 

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

Related Agencies for fiscal year 2016. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Title I—Agricultural Programs ............................................................................... 4 

Title II—Conservation Programs ........................................................................... 42 

Title III—Rural Development Programs ............................................................... 44 

Title IV—Domestic Food Programs ........................................................................ 53 

Title V—Foreign Assistance and Related Programs ............................................. 61 

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

Title VII—General Provisions ................................................................................. 78 

OVERVIEW 

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

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

diverse group of agencies responsible for such things as promoting 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
2 

the production of a plentiful food supply; assisting farmers and 

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

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

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

markets that provide confidence for businesses, traders, investors, 

and the public; and supporting a safe food supply and safe and effective drugs and devices. The activities of these agencies impact 

every American every day of the year. 

The fiscal year 2016 discretionary spending in this bill totals $20,650,000,000, which is $175,000,000 below the fiscal year 2015 

enacted level and $1,135,697,000 below the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2016. 

The funding levels provided in this appropriations bill continue 

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

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

The Committee does not include funding to begin new programs, 

terminates eight outdated programs, and, except where specifically 

noted, does not provide additional funding for pay increases. The 

Committee identifies savings of almost $1 billion at USDA, saves 

on leasing costs at the CFTC, and reins in regulatory overreach at 

the FDA. 

OVERSIGHT AND HEARINGS

Consistent with the Committee on Appropriations Oversight 

Plan, as approved and transmitted to the Committee on Oversight 

and Government Reform and the Committee on House Administration in January 2015, the Subcommittee began the fiscal year 2016 

process committed to maintaining the Committee’s focus on comprehensive oversight of Federal discretionary spending under the 

Subcommittee’s jurisdiction. In order to thoroughly review the 

President’s budget request for fiscal year 2016 and examine how 

funds appropriated in previous years had been managed, the Subcommittee held 11 hearings for the mission areas, agencies, and 

programs of the USDA, the FDA, and the CFTC. The hearings included: 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission—February 11, 2015 

USDA Inspector General—February 13, 2015 

Secretary of Agriculture—February 25, 2015 

USDA Food Safety—February 26, 2015 

USDA Natural Resources and the Environment—February 27, 

2015 

USDA Marketing and Regulatory Programs—March 3, 2015 

Food and Drug Administration—March 4, 2015 

USDA Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services—March 17, 

2015 

USDA Rural Development—March 18, 2015 

USDA Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services—March 19, 

2015 

USDA Research, Education, and Economics—March 24, 2015 

As stewards of the taxpayer’s dollar, the Subcommittee is responsible for ensuring the funds under its jurisdiction are wisely inVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:33 Jul 15, 2015 Jkt 094459 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR205.XXX HR205

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
3 

vested and properly used. As such, the Subcommittee established 

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

development of its bill and report recommendations for fiscal year 

2016. These objectives include improving the management of the 

agencies and programs within the Subcommittee’s purview; targeting funds to the most important programs and functions; and 

promoting U.S. agriculture, free and fair markets, and safe food 

and medicines. 

Through its oversight activities, the Subcommittee can accomplish the goal of improving the management of the agencies and 

programs by identifying and reducing waste, fraud, and abuse. It 

is joined in this effort by USDA’s Inspector General. During the 

hearing with the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), the Subcommittee focused on USDA information technology (IT) systems, 

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

their programs. 

The Subcommittee discussed implementation of the 2014 farm 

bill and international, in-kind food aid during its hearing with 

USDA’s Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services mission area. The 

Subcommittee ensured that adequate time is given to the nation’s 

farmers, producers, and ranchers to receive assistance and highlighted the current flexibility of food aid across the whole-of-government. There were further discussions on the challenges with the 

management of the Modernize and Innovate the Delivery of Agricultural Systems (MIDAS), which has been scrutinized by both OIG 

and the Government Accountability Office (GAO). 

During the hearing to review the USDA’s Research, Education, 

and Economics mission area, important research projects and objectives were discussed. However, the Subcommittee also made clear 

its concerns with USDA’s management of the Agricultural Research Service’s (ARS) U.S. Meat Animal Research Center (MARC) 

in Clay Center, Nebraska. 

The second objective of targeting funds to the most important 

programs and functions was the focus of the hearings with the Secretary of Agriculture, the Commissioner of the FDA, the Chairman 

of the CFTC, and USDA’s Food Safety mission area. When it convened to review CFTC’s increased budget request, the Subcommittee questioned the need for a 188 percent increase since the 

Financial Crisis of 2008 and continued to rein in wasteful spending 

by requesting a full audit of the agency’s excessive leasing costs 

identified by the CFTC Inspector General. The Subcommittee made 

clear that it does not tolerate fraud, waste, or abuse in any program, knowing that these actions undermine support for all programs. The Subcommittee also examined the CFTC’s regulations 

regarding the Swap Dealer de Minimis level. 

The Subcommittee heard from USDA’s Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services mission area and reviewed implementation of 

school meal regulations as well as waste, fraud and abuse within 

nutrition programs. The Subcommittee also expressed concerns 

with the recommendations made by the 2015 Dietary Guidelines for 

Americans advisory committee. During review of the USDA’s Rural 

Development (RD) mission area, the Subcommittee focused on 

rural housing, water and waste disposal programs, and other programs needed in rural areas. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
4 

The third objective is to promote U.S. agriculture, free and fair 

markets, and safe food and medicines. During USDA’s Marketing 

and Regulatory Programs hearing, the Subcommittee focused on 

trade issues related to domestic avian influenza, the West Coast 

port dispute, and Midwest railway backlogs. When the FDA Commissioner testified, the Subcommittee was particularly interested 

in how the FDA is implementing the Food Safety Modernization 

Act (FSMA) and ensuring medical product safety. The FDA regulates over 20 percent of every consumer dollar spent on products 

in the U.S. The Subcommittee reminded the FDA to be aware of 

the comprehensive economic impact of their regulatory decisions. 

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

broadly supported, and address imminent threats. The Subcommittee will monitor the issues identified and discussed at the 

hearings, as well as others relevant to the management of USDA, 

FDA, CFTC, and FCA. The Subcommittee will maintain its oversight efforts throughout the 114th Congress to ensure taxpayer dollars are wisely and prudently used on behalf of the American people. 

TITLE I 

AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS 

PRODUCTION, PROCESSING, AND MARKETING

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

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

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 47,308,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 39,379,000 

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥6,426,000 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥7,929,000 

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

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

FY 2015 

enacted 

FY 2016 

estimate 

Committee 

provision 

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

Office of Tribal Relations ................................................................................................... 502 507 498 

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 the Assistant Secretary for Administration ......................................................... 804 816 804 

Departmental Administration .............................................................................................. 25,124 25,688 22,786 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations ......................................... 3,869 3,934 3,064 

Office of Communications .................................................................................................. 7,750 8,228 4,471 

Total ....................................................................................................................... $45,805 $47,308 $39,379 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Secretary, the Committee provides an appropriation of $39,379,000. The Committee recommendation inVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:33 Jul 15, 2015 Jkt 094459 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR205.XXX HR205

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
5 

cludes the following offices under the Office of the Secretary: Immediate Office of the Secretary; Office of Tribal Relations; Office of 

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

Pay Cost.—The Committee does not include requested funding 

for a civilian pay increase across the Department. Should the President provide a civilian pay increase for 2016, it is assumed that the 

cost of such a pay increase will be absorbed within existing appropriations for fiscal year 2016. 

Improper Payments.—In May 2015, USDA’s OIG released a report entitled ‘‘USDA’s Fiscal Year 2014 Compliance with Improper 

Payment Requirements’’. The OIG noted that last year marked the 

fourth straight year the agency failed to comply with mandatory reporting requirements regarding improper payment information. For 

fiscal year 2014, USDA reported that these programs accounted for 

an estimated $6.9 billion in improper payments, or a 5.53 percent 

improper payment rate. This represents an increase in the improper payment rate and an increase of $700 million above the improper payments in fiscal year 2013. While there has been recent 

progress in some areas toward improving the Department’s processes to identify, report, and reduce wasteful spending, this level 

of improper payment is clearly unacceptable. As the report notes, 

it is critical for the Office of the Chief Financial Officer and senior 

officials for each noncompliant agency to set aggressive goals to 

help USDA achieve compliance with the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002. 

In the fiscal year 2015 Explanatory Statement accompanying the 

Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2015, 

the Committee required a report for the Department’s Chief Financial Officer to develop a plan to significantly reduce USDA’s improper payment rate in fiscal year 2015 and to release it simultaneously with the OIG’s report on improper payments for fiscal year 

2014. USDA failed to comply with this directive and is still accountable for the plan. 

Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) Report.—The Committee 

directs the Secretary to provide a report on November 15, 2015, 

and May 16, 2016, on planned uses of funding under the authorities of Section 4 and Section 11 of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act. 

Avian Influenza.—The Committee appreciates the Department’s 

response to the recent outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) which is causing considerable devastation to America’s 

commercial poultry industry. The Department has diligently 

worked with Federal and State agencies, stakeholders and growers 

to implement the best surveillance and biosecurity efforts to stop 

and slow the spread of the disease. The Committee recognizes the 

Department’s efforts to assist growers in repopulating their flocks 

and strengthening biosecurity measures. The Department should 

utilize all resources necessary to expand technical assistance and 

outreach to the poultry community in order to prevent the spread 

of this virus. The Committee encourages the Department to continue their work with trading partners to minimize trade impacts 

on poultry and poultry products to the greatest extent possible. The 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
6 

Committee will continue to closely monitor the situation and directs USDA to keep the Committee apprised of future developments. 

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

Secretary shall notify the Committees on Appropriations of the 

House and Senate on the allocation of the funds provided to the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations by USDA agency, 

along with an explanation for the agency-by-agency distribution of 

the funds. 

State Office Collocation.—The Committee continues to direct that 

any reallocation of resources related to the collocation of state offices scheduled for fiscal year 2016 and subsequent years is subject 

to the Committee’s reprogramming procedures required under law. 

Administrative Provision.—The Committee directs the Secretary 

to advise the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate, through the Office of Budget and Program Analysis (OBPA), 

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

at the time of submission of the fiscal year 2017 budget and monthly thereafter. The Department needs to improve its timeliness in 

adhering to a similar requirement in the fiscal year 2015 House appropriations report. The Committee reminds the Secretary that all 

correspondence related to the directives in this bill must be addressed to the Committee on Appropriations. 

Loan and Grant Programs.—The Committee directs the Department, through OBPA, to provide quarterly reports to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate on the status of 

obligations and funds availability for the loan and grant programs 

provided in this bill. 

The Committee further directs that if an estimate of loan activity 

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

a limitation on authority to make commitments for a fiscal year 

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

whenever 75 percent of the authority to make commitments has 

been utilized, the Secretary shall promptly notify the Committees 

through OBPA. 

Communication from USDA.—The Department is reminded that 

the Members of the Committee must be informed of the activities, 

pending and proposed actions, and expenditures made by USDA 

and its respective agencies so that Congress can determine whether 

laws and programs are being implemented and carried out in accordance with the intent of Congress. A collaborative working relationship between the Committees and agencies is necessary to ensure efficient and effective implementation of Congress’s funding 

decisions. USDA is directed to ensure the Committees are notified 

of major changes to existing policies and any significant developments in its operations prior to providing non-governmental stakeholders such information. 

The Committee is dissatisfied with the Department’s response to 

the allegations of animal mistreatment at the ARS MARC facility 

in Clay Center, Nebraska. The agency has been delinquent in 

meeting deadlines and slow to provide necessary information. The 

Department must improve their communication, and the Committee expects the Department to provide information and requested materials in a timely manner. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
7 

Decentralized Rent and Homeland Security.—In fiscal year 2015, 

the Committee provided the Department with authority to decentralize rent from the General Services Agency (GSA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The Secretary submitted 

this request ‘‘as part of USDA’s implementation of the President’s 

‘Freeze the Federal Footprint’ initiative’’ to encourage efficiencies 

across the Department at individual agencies. On the contrary, 

USDA did not freeze, but expanded its footprint by approximately 

141,000 square feet. Meanwhile, the Secretary has claimed savings 

of $25.2 million, while there will be a projected increase of $7.5 

million since fiscal year 2014. 

The Secretary is directed to find actual savings within the total 

estimated costs for fiscal year 2016, in accordance with the President’s new ‘‘Reduce the Federal Footprint’’ initiative. If USDA does 

not find ways to reduce its physical footprint or the cost of its existing footprint, such increased costs will need to be absorbed by the 

agency at the detriment of the core missions of these agencies. Further, the Committee in fiscal year 2015 directed that ‘‘any future 

requests for increases to rent and security costs will need to be accompanied by detailed justifications.’’ USDA has not provided such 

justification. The following table shows the increased costs, with 

the most recently available data as provided by USDA: 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Year GSA Rent and 

DHS Costs Change 

2014 ................................................................................................................................................. $215,767 $– – – 

2016 ................................................................................................................................................. 215,145 ¥622 

2016 ................................................................................................................................................. 223,261 +8,116 

Total ................................................................................................................................... .................... +$7,494 

FSMA Implementation and Interagency Coordination.—The Committee provides the full amount requested in the fiscal year 2016 

budget of $2.5 million for the National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA). This increase of $2.5 million doubles the amount 

available for Food Safety Outreach for NIFA to be the sole agency 

providing education and technical assistance for farmers in implementing new requirements resulting from FSMA. The Committee 

commends NIFA’s extension programs for the relationships they 

have built with our nation’s producers and hopes that they will 

continue to build this trust through FSMA implementation. However, USDA must clearly communicate their lead role in the collaborative partnership with the FDA to administer and manage the 

National Food Safety Training, Education, Extension, Outreach, 

and Technical Assistance Program. The Secretary is directed to 

work with the Commissioner of the FDA to ensure that there is no 

duplication of efforts and resources for FSMA education and training at the farm level. 

Design-Build.—The Committee encourages the Department to 

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

Invasive Species.—The Committee recognizes the threats posed 

by invasive plant species and the need to protect, restore, and enhance native plants, including those that are endangered or threatened. The Committee encourages ARS, the Natural Resources ConVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:33 Jul 15, 2015 Jkt 094459 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR205.XXX HR205

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
8 

servation Service (NRCS), and NIFA to support the research, education, and conservation of native plants. 

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

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

and Senate. 

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

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

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

scientific findings and conclusions publicly available, and ensuring 

a mechanism is in place to resolve disputes regarding scientific 

processes or the integrity of scientific information. The Committee 

directs the Secretary to ensure all USDA agencies are complying 

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

regulatory decisions. 

Rural Poverty.—The Department has statutory authorities and 

programs designed to help break the multi-generational trap of 

poverty in rural counties. The Committee recognizes that USDA 

may utilize existing programs and funding within RD and 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 if the Secretary chooses to bundle 

services to combat rural poverty. Before the plan can be implemented, the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate shall have no less than 30 days to review and approve the plan. 

StrikeForce Initiative.—The Committee appreciates the Department’s efforts to target assistance to at-risk communities through 

the StrikeForce Initiative for Rural Growth and Opportunity. 

USDA, in collaboration with public and private partners, helps 

rural counties experiencing chronic poverty improve economic opportunities and quality of life for local residents. The Committee 

encourages USDA to place special emphasis on persistent poverty 

counties and continue to utilize a strategy of partnering public resources with local expertise to grow rural economies and create jobs 

in these poverty-stricken areas. 

Infrastructure Plan.—The United States has experienced record 

levels of agricultural exports for the past few years, and there is 

support for expanding trade opportunities. However, increasing 

trade without consideration for the domestic infrastructure to adequately support it is short-sighted. The Midwest rail situation and 

disruptions at the West Coast ports are prime examples of the fact 

that USDA is reacting to the domestic and international commerce 

circumstances instead of having a proactive plan in place. Having 

the commodities available but not being able to deliver them will 

jeopardize the U.S.’s ability to remain a reliable trading partner. 

The Committee directs the Secretary to submit a long-term infrastructure plan that benefits American producers and provides exVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:33 Jul 15, 2015 Jkt 094459 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR205.XXX HR205

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
9 

amples of how USDA is working with other Federal agencies to 

prevent future transportation mishaps. 

Dietary Guidelines for Americans.—The Secretary, in coordination with the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), is 

responsible for issuing the Dietary Guidelines for Americans every 

five years. This has traditionally been a science-based process that 

provides diet and nutrition recommendations according to statutory 

authority. However, the advisory committee selected to provide recommendations for consideration as the final 2015 guidelines has included suggestions beyond the historical scope of the panel, resulting in controversial, agenda-driven recommendations. 

The guidelines have a far-reaching impact as they set the standards for many Federal nutrition programs, guide the health and 

medical community in assisting patients, and provide the foundation for nutrition education information. The guidelines influence 

consumer purchases and have a ripple effect throughout the economy and on consumer health. It is imperative that the guidelines 

be unequivocally based upon strong scientific evidence. 

The Committee appreciates the Secretary acknowledging that the 

advisory committee had more latitude to consider topics outside of 

the statutory mandate, and recognizes the Secretary’s commitment 

to follow the law. To preserve the scientific integrity of the dietary 

guidelines, bill language is included to provide transparency to the 

process and ensure the final recommendations are based upon 

strong scientific evidence and within scope. The Committee notes 

that the advisory committee report is merely a set of recommendations and reminds both USDA and HHS that the final 2015 Dietary 

Guidelines for Americans are a product of their scientific assessment that must comply with the statute. 

Information Technology Waste.—GAO and USDA’s OIG have 

issued reports that highlight poor program performance in the past 

and uncertainty regarding USDA’s capacity to effectively manage 

IT acquisitions in the future. Auditors found that the Secretary 

halted further development on the MIDAS program after spending 

almost $500 million for nearly a decade on planning and development of this critical system. This investment of time and limited 

resources has resulted in the delivery of about one-fifth of the 

functionality intended for twice the projected cost. While the Secretary has highlighted saving hundreds of millions of dollars on IT, 

the Committee notes that MIDAS is a prime example of government waste and inefficiency. MIDAS is still expected to cost another $330 million over the lifecycle of the project, yet the system 

will have severely reduced capacity. The total cost will equal almost three times the original projections. 

GAO noted that problems with MIDAS were due to the lack of 

implementation of USDA and Farm Service Agency (FSA) program 

management policies and best practices covering key disciplines 

such as requirements for development and management, project 

planning and monitoring, system testing, and executive-level governance. Following project stoppage, the Department has been exploring other options—at an additional cost to taxpayers and time 

spent on these modernization efforts—to provide the functionality 

that USDA had promised Congress and the agricultural community, including a modernized acreage reporting system and an online office for American farmers and ranchers to access. Given the 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
10 

lack of IT leadership demonstrated by the Secretary on the MIDAS 

investment, the Committee remains concerned as to whether the 

Department will be any more successful with IT acquisition activities moving forward than it was in the past with MIDAS. The Committee includes statutory language that places spending controls on 

both MIDAS and other IT acquisitions. 

Unachieved Savings.—On April 9, 2015, USDA’s OIG informed 

Congress of ‘‘480 open or unimplemented recommendations totaling 

over $885 million’’. This included 39 open recommendations and 

441 unimplemented audit recommendations. The top three recommendations OIG identified were the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program’s (SNAP) controls for authorization of program 

retailers, USDA Cloud Computing Services, and the Risk Management Agency’s (RMA) controls over prevented planting. Many of 

these recommendations date back as far as 2001. The Committee 

finds it counterproductive to the Secretary’s effort to reduce costs 

when these items are still pending. The Committee directs the Secretary to develop a plan of action to address them, by priority, 

within 120 days of enactment of this Act and provide the plan to 

the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate. 

Administrative Savings.—The Secretary recently announced that USDA has achieved $1.4 billion in savings through the Blueprint 

for Stronger Service initiative. The Committee acknowledges that 

the Department has taken positive steps to cut costs and modernize operations, but USDA must also acknowledge that a majority of cost savings were made necessary by funding limitations instituted by Congress and at the direction from Congress. The Committee has repeatedly encouraged USDA to reduce administrative 

spending and find efficiencies through improved management of 

personnel and other resources. The Committee has also directed 

the Secretary to look beyond administrative costs and address improper payments and waste, fraud and abuse that occurs Department-wide. All of these measures have and will continue to result 

in significant savings to the taxpayer. While USDA’s achievement 

of $1.4 billion in savings is to be commended, the Committee directs the Secretary to provide a detailed report describing each of 

the specific cost savings and the actions taken to achieve such savings for each agency in order to arrive at the estimated total. 

Late Reports.—The Committee reminds the Secretary that the 

timelines specified by the Committees on Appropriations of the 

House and Senate for fiscal year 2015 reports are deadlines that 

must be met. While the Committee notes that the Department has 

made progress since 2014, the Department still has several outstanding reports that are delayed due to long reviews and clearances, especially in the Immediate Office of the Secretary. The 

Committee directs the Secretary to submit these overdue reports. 

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

year 2015, the FDA and USDA are soliciting proposals for the establishment of one national and four regional food safety training 

centers. The Committee encourages the Secretary to ensure that 

funds are used efficiently to deliver education and technical training to producers in cooperation with nongovernmental and community-based organizations serving small and mid-sized farmers, producers, and processors, and other federal food safety agencies, as 

authorized in the FSMA. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
11 

Urban Agriculture.—The Committee acknowledges the need for 

an expanded USDA role in support of urban agriculture, in American cities. Support from the Department is lacking for urban producers who often have different needs than rural producers. Therefore, the Committee directs USDA to evaluate policies and programs and deliver a report to the Committees on Appropriations of 

the House and Senate explaining how to further advance urban agriculture. 

CCC Payments to Growers.—The Committee directs the Secretary to provide, not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of the bill to which this Committee Report pertains, a report on the amount of emergency funds that are transferred from 

the CCC to poultry owners and contract growers, respectively, to 

address outbreaks of HPAI. 

U.S.-Mexico Cooperation.— The Committee directs the Secretary 

of Agriculture to work with his Mexican counterpart to develop a 

U.S.-Mexico working group to increase cooperation between the two 

countries in a similar manner as the ‘‘Beyond the Borders Initiative’’ between the United States and Canada. The working group 

shall develop proposals and create potential solutions aimed at facilitating commerce through improvements in the efficiency of the 

inspection process on both sides of the border, integrating small 

and large producers into the trade supply chain, and improving 

border wait times and transportation costs, among others. 

Institute of Medicine (IOM) Study.—The Committee strongly 

urges the Secretary of Agriculture to engage the IOM to conduct 

a study on the process supporting the recommendations of the 

eighth edition of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA). The 

study should include, but not be limited to, an analysis of the following: how the DGA can ensure a nutritionally sufficient diet for 

all Americans; how transparency of the committee selection process 

can be improved; how the Nutrition Evidence Library (NEL) is 

used and how NEL reviews are conducted; what the evidence base 

was for the eighth edition recommendations; and how the DGA can 

ensure proper nutrition advice for a range of individual factors including metabolic, and other disease conditions. 

EXECUTIVE OPERATIONS

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ECONOMIST

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

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 17,465,000 

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

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥600,000 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥688,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Chief Economist (OCE), the Committee pro- vides an appropriation of $16,777,000. 

Drought Resilience.—The Committee is concerned about the extent and severity of drought in the U.S. and recognizes the importance of understanding and being prepared for drought. The Committee encourages the OCE to continue research and work with 

partners on drought resilience efforts to better address the serious 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
12 

threat posed by drought in the U.S., including in the U.S. territory 

of Puerto Rico. 

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

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

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

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

and the Congress. 

Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign Affairs.—The Committee 

continues to support the establishment of a new Under Secretary 

for Trade and Foreign Affairs required by Public Law 113–79. The 

Committee urges the OCE to work in coordination with the National Academy of Public Affairs (NAPA) to complete the independent study commissioned by the Committee. The Committee 

also directs the Secretary to complete the study on this topic required in Section 3208(b)(4) of Public Law 113–79. The study required by the 2014 farm bill of the Secretary is almost a year overdue. The Committee notes that the study being performed by 

NAPA does not satisfy that required by the Secretary. 

Food Manufacturing Efficiencies.—The Committee is aware of 

the potential for many new and promising food manufacturing 

processes and technologies. The nation’s food supply can be made 

safer, more secure, better and more affordable through such means 

as automation of equipment and modifying processes along the entire supply chain to work more efficiently and use less water, energy and other resources. The Committee urges the Department to 

promote enhanced technology, processes, and data analysis 

throughout the food manufacturing industry. 

NATIONAL APPEALS DIVISION

2015 appropriation ............................................................................. $13,317,000 

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 13,566,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 12,841,000 

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥476,000 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥725,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the National Appeals Division, the Committee provides an 

appropriation of $12,841,000. 

OFFICE OF BUDGET AND PROGRAM ANALYSIS

2015 appropriation ............................................................................. $9,392,000 

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 9,500,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 9,081,000 

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥311,000 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥419,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of Budget and Program Analysis, the Committee 

provides an appropriation of $9,081,000. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
13 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

2015 appropriation ............................................................................. $45,045,000 

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 53,071,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 44,031,000 

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥1,014,000 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥9,040,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Chief Information Officer (CIO), the Committee provides an appropriation of $44,031,000. This includes 

$27,000,000 for cybersecurity activities. 

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

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

future planning and current oversight of IT activities across the 

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

468. The Committee notes the CIO has not submitted the performance plan and directs the CIO to do so before the end of fiscal year 

2015. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 9,154,000 

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

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥3,126,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

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

GSA Rent and DHS Costs.—The estimates provided for rent and 

DHS costs vary greatly due to several factors. The amounts provided for fiscal year 2015 in the fall of 2014 and the summer of 

2015 vary by $24 million. Some of these factors are within the 

CFO’s control. The CFO is directed to establish a uniform estimate 

of charges for both appropriated and non-appropriated accounts 

and provide accurate estimates to the Committee for the current 

and future fiscal years. 

Digital Accountability and Transparency Act (DATA).—The Committee supports the work of the CFO to bring the Department into 

compliance with the DATA. 

Shared Costs Report.—While the Committee notes the Department did not find any increased costs in its Shared Costs Programs 

per the report required by the 2015 Appropriations Act, the Department also did not identify any savings. The Committee continues to direct the production of the report required in Public Law 

113–235 and directs the agency to identify areas of savings and efficiencies. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
14 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

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

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 907,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 893,000 

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥5,000 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥14,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

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

Committee provides an appropriation of $893,000. 

OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

2015 appropriation ............................................................................. $24,070,000 

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 24,443,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 23,871,000 

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥199,000 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥572,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of Civil Rights, the Committee provides an appropriation of $23,871,000. 

AGRICULTURE BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

2015 appropriation ............................................................................. $55,866,000 

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 125,469,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 54,730,000 

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥1,136,000 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥70,739,000 

For Agriculture Buildings and Facilities, the Committee provides 

an appropriation of $54,730,000. 

Report on Headquarters Modernization.—The Committee directs 

the Department to provide the report required in H. Rpt. 113–468. 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

2015 appropriation ............................................................................. $3,600,000 

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 3,630,000 

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

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥30,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Hazardous Materials Management, the Committee provides 

an appropriation of $3,600,000. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
15 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

2015 appropriation ............................................................................. $95,026,000 

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 98,902,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 95,643,000 

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... +617,000 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥3,259,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of Inspector General, the Committee provides an appropriation of $95,643,000. This includes requested funding to 

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

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

2015 appropriation ............................................................................. $44,383,000 

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 48,075,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 43,313,000 

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥1,070,000 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥4,762,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the General Counsel, the Committee provides an appropriation of $43,313,000. 

OFFICE OF ETHICS

2015 appropriation ............................................................................. $3,654,000 

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 4,565,000 

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

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥214,000 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥1,125,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

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

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND

ECONOMICS

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

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 907,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 893,000 

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥5,000 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥14,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

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

and Economics, the Committee provides an appropriation of 

$893,000. 

Administrative Reorganization.—The Committee does not concur 

with the agency’s proposal to combine NIFA Research and Education Activities, Extension Activities, and Integrated Activities 

into one account. While the Committee supports greater efficiency 

in the management of limited federal research dollars, the proposal 

fails to demonstrate that such reorganization would result in sigVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:33 Jul 15, 2015 Jkt 094459 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR205.XXX HR205

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
16 

nificant savings or the improvement of programs offered through 

NIFA. 

Coffee Plant Health.—The Committee appreciates ARS and 

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

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

with research partners and coffee grower groups. The Committee 

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

coffee plant health research. 

Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs).—This year 

marks the 125th Anniversary of the signing of the Second Morrill 

Act of 1890, which provided land-grant status to selected HBCUs. 

For over 125 years, these HBCUs have had a long-standing tradition of institutional commitment to excellence in teaching, scholarship, and service. The legacy of these land-grant universities will 

be further strengthened based on current and future investments 

and on the quality of research and graduates produced in the fields 

of agriculture, STEM, and related academic areas. These schools 

are to be applauded for the significant contributions they have 

made to our nation. 

However, the Committee is concerned regarding the financial 

challenges the schools continue to face, particularly, the lack of 

state matching funds and other resources. The Department is directed to develop and submit a plan of action to the Committees 

on Appropriations of the House and Senate not later than 180 days 

after enactment of this Act to cooperatively work with the states 

to meet the matching grant requirements for research and extension activities. 

National Nutrition Research Roadmap.—The Committee notes 

that the Interagency Committee on Human Nutrition Research 

(ICHNR) is requesting public input on the draft National Nutrition 

Research Roadmap 2015–2020: Advancing Nutrition Research to 

Improve and Sustain Health. The ICHNR includes representatives 

from across all Federal agencies and recognized the need for a written plan to coordinate Federal human nutrition research activities. 

As the roadmap is finalized and implemented, it is critical that all 

research be conducted with a balanced approach and be free from 

bias. Furthermore, there must be coordination amongst all Federal 

agencies to prevent duplication of efforts and resources. The Secretary must ensure that there is greater coordination of nutrition 

research within USDA to include short- and long-term outcome 

measures; establishment of milestones to measure short and longterm success; alignment of resources with milestones and goals; an 

open and competitive process in the award of contracts, grants, and 

awards; and a clearer path between the application of data and 

knowledge gained by such research to the applicable audiences. 

Within the REE mission area alone, USDA estimates spending 

approximately $204 million in fiscal year 2015 on human nutrition 

research. Billions of dollars have been spent on human nutrition 

research government-wide in recent years, yet the impact and results are questionable since obesity rates remain high. The Committee expects the ICHNR to include research that will help Americans make positive lifestyle changes and reduce obesity rates. 

The Committee is also aware that FNS conducts research and 

evaluation projects without full coordination with the REE mission 

area. Bill and report language have been included to bring more 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
17 

oversight to FNS’ work in these areas and ensure the REE mission 

area is engaged in this process. FNS projects will likely have less 

duplication and greater cost effectiveness and efficiency by working 

with the REE mission area to develop and finalize the FNS Research and Evaluation Plan submitted each fiscal year. 

Office of Pest Management Policy.—The Committee commends 

the Office of Pest Management Policy for its work providing the 

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

transition, pesticide resistance management, and the development 

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

ARS to continue to support its vital work. 

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

issues are a significant concern to beekeepers, honey producers, 

farmers, researchers, policymakers, and the public and appreciates 

USDA’s logical, scientifically based approach to studying these 

issues. The Committee directs the Department to continue to focus 

on the challenges facing pollinators. 

Potato Research.—The Committee supports research efforts to 

combat crop-threatening pest and disease pressures including the 

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

for new potato varieties and directs the Department to continue 

working with universities, industry and potato growers on these 

projects. 

ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

2015 appropriation ............................................................................. $85,373,000 

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 86,023,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 78,058,000 

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥7,315,000 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥7,965,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Economic Research Service, the Committee provides an 

appropriation of $78,058,000. 

NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS SERVICE

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

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 180,346,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 161,206,000 

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥11,202,000 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥19,140,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the Committee 

provides an appropriation of $161,206,000, of which $44,525,000 is 

for the Census of Agriculture. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
18 

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

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

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

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 1,122,454,000 

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥10,171,000 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥69,086,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Salaries and Expenses of the Agricultural Research Service, the Committee provides an appropriation of $1,122,454,000. 

The Committee does not concur with the agency’s proposed closures, redirections of research programs, or increases for fiscal year 

2016. 

Animal Research.—The Committee was disturbed to read the 

January 19, 2015, New York Times article titled ‘‘U.S. Research 

Lab Lets Livestock Suffer in Quest for Profit’’ about MARC in Clay 

Center, Nebraska. The article made numerous allegations about 

the treatment of animals at MARC and described how the staff at 

MARC was not following ARS policies and procedures regarding 

the care of animals used in research. 

The Committee understands that more information is needed to 

fully assess the details of the specific instances mentioned in the 

article. It also believes that ARS scientists sincerely care about the 

animals they work with. However, the Committee continues to be 

deeply disappointed in the Department’s response and must take 

action to ensure the welfare of all animals used in research at ARS 

facilities. The Committee recognizes the need for and value of animal research, but it demands that all animals will be treated humanely, no type of abuse or mistreatment will be tolerated, and 

that the risk of premature death will be limited wherever possible. 

As such, the Committee includes bill language to withhold 5 per- cent ($56,123,000) of ARS’ appropriations for fiscal year 2016 until 

the Department certifies in writing to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate that ARS has updated its animal 

care policies and all ARS research facilities which conduct animal 

research have fully functioning, including all appropriate and necessary record-keeping, Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUC) in place. 

The Committee directs ARS to execute an agreement with 

APHIS within 90 days of enactment of this Act by which APHIS 

will conduct inspections that are consistent with the Animal Welfare Act at each ARS research facility that uses animals in research. Inspection reports shall be provided to the Committees on 

Appropriations of the House and Senate immediately after they are 

completed. The Committee provides funding within the APHIS 

budget to cover the costs anticipated with this new responsibility. 

The Committee further directs the Department to provide a report 

at the same time it submits its fiscal year 2017 budget request regarding implementation of this directive and the findings of the 

APHIS inspections. 

In addition, the Committee is very concerned that the failure by 

USDA to ensure that MARC had a functioning IACUC indicates 

that there was a total lapse in management at every level. Instead 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
19 

of addressing that failure, the department’s response appears to be 

to add new staff to do work that should have been done by existing 

staff. 

The Committee directs ARS to conduct a full review of the easy 

care sheep research project currently underway at MARC. ARS 

should engage all stakeholders, including producers, industry and 

animal welfare experts. The Committee requests that ARS begin 

the review as soon as possible, but no later than August 1, 2015, 

and directs the agency to submit a report about the review by February 1, 2016. It should include the status of the existing project 

and any concerns, commendations and recommendations regarding 

the projects and the agency’s actions. 

Given the size and scope of MARC and the number of animals 

used in research at the location, the Committee directs ARS to consider hiring a second attending veterinarian for the Center. ARS 

should use existing resources to cover the cost of this position. 

The Committee requests a detailed report on all of the actions 

taken by ARS to respond to the allegations in the article, including 

actions taken to correct any deficiencies or improve current policies 

and procedures. This report should be submitted to the Committees 

on Appropriations of the House and Senate, by October 1, 2015. 

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

program conducts innovative research making aerial applications 

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

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

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

Alfalfa Research.—The Committee supports research into alfalfa 

seed and forage systems which hold the potential to increase yields 

and milk production and improve genetics. 

Aquatic Animal Health.—The Committee supports ARS’ work 

with land-grant universities and other Federal partners to develop 

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

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

Citrus Greening Disease Research.—The Committee commends 

ARS’ research efforts on citrus greening disease and encourages the 

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

coordinate its efforts with the Multi-Agency Coordination group. 

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

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

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

Cranberry Research.—The Committee recognizes the ongoing research needs of the cranberry sector, ranging from disease control 

to pesticide use to responsible management of water resources. The 

Committee urges ARS to continue these efforts. 

Domestic and Bighorn Sheep.—The Committee recognizes the 

challenges caused by infectious disease problems arising from wildVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:33 Jul 15, 2015 Jkt 094459 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR205.XXX HR205

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
20 

life-domestic animal agriculture interactions, particularly between 

domestic sheep and wild bighorn sheep. The Committee encourages 

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

die-offs of bighorn sheep from respiratory disease and develop 

methods to reduce transmission and enhance immunity. 

Emerging Cereal Rust Diseases.—The Committee continues to be 

concerned about emerging cereal rust diseases, particularly Ug99, 

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

Committee encourages ARS to continue its work on these diseases, 

including the development of Ug99-resistant wheat varieties. 

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

valuation techniques, developing pest and disease-resistant trees, 

and ARS’ continuing work with the Forest Products Laboratory. 

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

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

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

to develop effective control measures to eradicate this disease and 

prevent its spread nationwide. 

Germplasm Enhancement of Maize.—The Committee supports 

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

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

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

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

Human Nutrition Research.—There is strong evidence that nutrition plays a vital role in maintaining health throughout the lifespan and preventing obesity and chronic diseases. The Committee 

encourages ARS to continue research relating to obesity prevention 

strategies and the effect of nutrition on aging. 

Lower Mississippi River Basin.—The Committee recognizes the 

groundwater problems in the Lower Mississippi River Basin and 

encourages ARS to continue research to quantify how appropriate 

use of conservation practices and technology affect water quality 

and quantity. 

National Agricultural Library.—The Committee requests that 

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

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

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

an important role in assisting all stakeholders with understanding 

these issues. 

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

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

virulence factors of PEDv, identify a protective immune response 

including transmission of maternal antibodies through the milk, 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
21 

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

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

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

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

and to improve the sustainability of crop rotations by improving 

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

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

sage grouse as endangered under the Endangered Species Act has 

the potential to negatively affect rural communities in the 11 states 

that have sage brush ecosystems. The Committee encourages ARS 

to work with its partners on sage brush and related rangeland research that will help preserve the greater sage grouse and the 

other species that rely on the sage brush ecosystem. 

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

ARS to continue its support of this initiative. 

Small Grain Genomics.—The Committee supports research on 

small grain genomics and recognizes its importance in improving 

crop traits and developing new cultivars. 

U.S. Sheep Experiment Station (USSES).—The USSES provides 

valuable information to increase the production efficiency of sheep, 

improve sustainable rangeland ecosystems and expand other research initiatives. The Committee encourages ARS to work with 

stakeholders regarding efforts to propose mission improvements for 

the experiment station. 

U.S. Wheat and Barley Scab.—The Committee recognizes the fusarium head blight is a major threat to agriculture, inflicting substantial yield and quality losses throughout the U.S. The Committee supports research carried out through the U.S. Wheat and 

Barley Scab Initiative. 

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

2015 appropriation ............................................................................. $45,000,000 

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 205,901,000 

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

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥160,901,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Agricultural Research Service, Buildings and Facilities, the Committee provides an appropriation of $45,000,000 for priorities 

identified in the USDA ARS Capital Investment Strategy, April 

2012. 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE

RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES

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

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 998,593,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 781,510,000 

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥5,364,000 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥217,083,000 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
22 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Research and Education Activities, the Committee provides 

an appropriation of $781,510,000. 

Agricultural Research Enhancement Awards.—The Committee directs that not less than 15 percent of the competitive research 

grant funds be used for USDA’s agriculture research enhancement 

awards program, including USDA–EPSCoR, in accordance with 7 

U.S.C. 450i. 

Antimicrobial Resistance.—The Committee provides an increase 

of $5 million for the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative 

(AFRI) for research to combat antimicrobial resistance. In addition, 

the Committee directs NIFA to include an additional $2.3 million 

of base funding to the program’s current level of $3.7 million, for 

a total investment of $11 million in research on combating antimicrobial resistance. 

Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2017.—The Committee appreciates NIFA’s efforts to provide additional information in its budget 

requests over the past three years. For the fiscal year 2017 budget 

request, the Committee is particularly interested in the request for 

AFRI, and requests that the agency provide greater detail on the 

levels proposed to be allocated to and the expected publication date, 

scope, and allocation level for each request for awards to be published under each priority area specified in section 2(b)(2) of the 

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

450i(b)(2)). 

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

domestic citrus production and processing, and provided $25 million per year in mandatory funding for the program through the 

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

based on the critical threat of citrus greening and encourages 

NIFA, to the maximum extent practicable, to follow the recommendations of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, 

and Education Advisory Board’s citrus disease subcommittee and to 

collaborate with the Huanglongbing Multi-Agency Coordination 

group. 

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

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

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

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

resilience to weather extremes. Additionally, methods and tools 

should be developed to enable classical breeders to choose better 

breeding parents and speed up variety development. 

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

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

have a high probability of widespread implementation. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
23 

National Animal Health Laboratory Network (NAHLN).—The 

laboratories within the NAHLN network provide a critical contribution to animal and public health in the detection of newly identified 

and reemerging animal diseases. NIFA provides funding for 

NAHLN laboratory infrastructure. The fiscal year 2015 appropriations Act provided funding for NAHLN through both APHIS and 

NIFA at approximately $7 million and $3 million, respectively. In 

addition to these base funds, USDA has spent millions of dollars 

in fiscal year 2015 to reimburse laboratories in the NAHLN network for work with the HPAI outbreak. The bill continues this base 

funding and includes an additional $5 million for APHIS to support 

NAHLN, resulting in a total investment of $15 million for fiscal 

year 2016. 

Organic Agriculture.—The Economic Research Service has cited 

industry statistics that ‘‘organic sales account for over four percent 

of total U.S. food sales.’’ The Committee encourages USDA to ensure that the needs of the U.S. organic sector are more fully addressed through AFRI and to report back to the Committee with 

a plan for meeting this goal, including how the agency will ensure 

organic research conducted through AFRI is not duplicative of research conducted with mandatory funds through the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative and other research programs. 

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

continue to support biotechnology by promoting research at the 

land-grant colleges and universities, including the Historically 

Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions, 

and directs NIFA to encourage partnerships among universities 

and industry. 

Zoonotic Disease Research.—The eradication of zoonotic livestock 

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

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

The following table reflects the amount provided by the Committee: 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE

RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Program/Activity Authorization 2015 

enacted 

2016 

estimate 

Committee 

provision 

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

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

Research at 1890 Institutions (Evans-Allen Program).7 U.S.C. 3222 ........................... 52,485 58,000 52,485 

Payments to the 1994 Institutions ............................ 7 U.S.C. 301 note ..................... 3,439 3,654 3,439 

Education Grants for 1890 Institutions ..................... 7 U.S.C. 3152(b) ...................... 19,336 20,410 19,336 

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

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

Research Grants for 1994 Institutions ...................... 7 U.S.C. 301 note ..................... 1,801 1,914 1,801 

Capacity Building for Non Land-Grant Colleges of 

Agriculture.

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


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
24 

RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES—Continued 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Program/Activity Authorization 2015 

enacted 

2016 

estimate 

Committee 

provision 

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

3362.

2,000 1,800 1,800 

Agriculture and Food Research Initiative ................... 7 U.S.C. 450i(b) ....................... 325,000 450,000 335,000 

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

Food and Agriculture Resiliency Program for Military 

Veterans.

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

Continuing Animal Health and Disease Research 

Program.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and 5832.

22,667 22,667 22,667 

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

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

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

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

Special Research Grants:.

Global Change/UV Monitoring ........................... 7 U.S.C. 450i(c) ........................ 1,405 1,405 1,405 

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

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

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

Innovation Institutes ................................................... ................................................... – – – 80,000 – – – 

Necessary Expenses of Research and Education Activities: 

Grants Management Systems ............................ ................................................... 7,830 9,830 6,750 

Federal Administration—Other Necessary Expenses.................................................... 6,387 20,425 5,979 

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

Total, Necessary Expenses ............................ ................................................... 20,528 30,255 18,689 

Total, Research and Education Activities.................................................... $786,874 $998,593 $781,510 

NATIVE AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS ENDOWMENT FUND

2015 appropriation ............................................................................. ($11,880,000) 

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... (11,880,000) 

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

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund, the 

Committee provides $11,880,000. 

EXTENSION ACTIVITIES

2015 appropriation ............................................................................. $471,691,000 

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 475,565,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 472,051,000 

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... +360,000 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥3,514,000 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
25 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Extension Activities, the Committee provides an appropriation of $472,051,000. 

Food Safety Outreach.—The Committee provides an increase of 

$2.5 million for the Food Safety Outreach Program to provide education and training for farmers, producers, and processors to implement food safety guidelines resulting from FSMA. The Committee 

directs the Department to coordinate efforts with the FDA to ensure there is no duplication of efforts or resources. As stated in the 

President’s fiscal year 2016 budget request, the Committee expects 

NIFA to be the sole agency supporting the educational needs of 

growers. 

The following table reflects the amount provided by the Committee: 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE

EXTENSION ACTIVITIES 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Program/Activity Authorization FY 2015 

enacted 

FY 2016 

estimate 

Committee 

provision 

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

Cooperative Extension.

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

208(c) of P.L. 93–471.

$300,000 $300,000 $300,000 

Extension Services at 1890 Institutions .................... 7 U.S.C. 3221 ........................... 43,920 48,350 43,920 

Extension Services at 1994 Institutions .................... 7 U.S.C. 343(b)(3) .................... 4,446 4,724 4,446 

Facility Improvements at 1890 Institutions ............... 7 U.S.C. 3222b ......................... 19,730 21,703 19,730 

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

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

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

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

Food Safety Outreach Program ................................... 7 U.S.C. 7625 ........................... 2,500 5,000 5,000 

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

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

Farm Safety and Youth Farm Safety Education 

Programs.

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

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

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

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

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

Necessary Expenses of Extension Activities: 

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

Federal Administration—Other Necessary Expenses for Extension Activities.................................................... 7,805 – – – 7,165 

Total, Necessary Expenses ............................ ................................................... 8,357 – – – 7,717 

Total, Extension Activities ........................ ................................................... $471,691 $475,565 $472,051 

INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES

2015 appropriation ............................................................................. $30,900,000 

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 28,900,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 30,900,000 

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. +2,000,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Integrated Activities, the Committee provides an appropriation of $30,900,000. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
26 

The following table reflects the amount provided by the Committee. 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE

INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Program/Activity Authorization FY 2015 

enacted 

FY 2016 

estimate 

Committee 

provision 

Water Quality Program ............................................... 7 U.S.C. 7626 ........................... $– – – $– – – $– – – 

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

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

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

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

Crop Protection/Pest Management Program .............. 7 U.S.C. 7626 ........................... 17,200 17,200 17,200 

Total, Integrated Activities ................................ ................................................... $30,900 $28,900 $30,900 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR MARKETING AND

REGULATORY PROGRAMS

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

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 907,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 893,000 

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥5,000 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥14,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

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

$893,000. 

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

2015 appropriation ............................................................................. $871,315,000 

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 855,803,000 

Provided in the bill ......................................................................... 870,945,000 

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥370,000 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. +15,142,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Salaries 

and Expenses, the Committee provides an appropriation of 

$870,945,000. 

Included in this funding level are increases of $3,000,000 for Avian Health; $550,000 for Swine Health; $5,000,000 for Veterinary Diagnostics; $2,000,000 for Specialty Crop Pests; and 

$400,000 for Animal Welfare. The Committee maintains recent increases for such functions as Overseas Technical and Trade Operations in order to help resolve sanitary and phytosanitary trade 

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

products. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
27 

The following table reflects the amounts provided by the Committee: 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Committee provision 

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

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

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

Cattle Health ......................................................................................................... 90,000 

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

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

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

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

Veterinary Diagnostics ......................................................................................... 36,540 

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

Subtotal, Animal Health ...................................................................................... 293,346 

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

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

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

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

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

Specialty Crop Pests ............................................................................................. 158,000 

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

Subtotal, Plant Health .......................................................................................... 298,897 

Wildlife Damage Management ............................................................................ 90,027 

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

Subtotal, Wildlife Services ................................................................................... 108,883 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Animal Welfare ..................................................................................................... 28,410 

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

Subtotal, Animal Welfare ..................................................................................... 29,107 

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

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

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

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

Total, Salaries & Expenses .................................................................... $870,945 

Agricultural Quarantine and Inspection (AQI).—The Committee 

continues to have concerns about the proposed rules regarding adjustment to fees for AQI services and overtime reimbursement 

rates. The proposed rule related to AQI services includes the increase of some existing fees and the establishment of several new 

fees that will affect a wide variety of industries, including pest 

treatment providers, cargo and passenger vessels, international 

and domestic shippers, importers, and the ports. The proposed 

changes are significant, and it is expected that comments received 

during the initial rulemaking process and comments received from 

the AQI Webinar in January 2015 will be considered in drafting 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
28 

the final rule. The agency should exercise due diligence in determining the comprehensive impacts of these new fees on the related 

industries, especially given the coupling effect of the increased 

overtime reimbursement rates. The Committee encourages the 

agency to fully analyze these impacts and engage with additional 

stakeholders as necessary to determine if any additional time is 

necessary for those impacted by the fees to provide input as well 

as those industries requiring additional time to modify their business practices in order to accommodate higher costs. 

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

$28,410,000 in order to ensure that minimum standards of care 

and treatment are provided for certain animals bred for commercial 

sale, used in research, transported commercially, or exhibited to 

the public. The Committee provides an additional $400,000 to support a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between APHIS and 

ARS. The MOU is necessary for ARS to utilize the skills and expertise of APHIS’ animal care staff and to help ARS address some of 

their recent failures to maintain high standards of care for animals 

used in ARS funded research. At a minimum, the MOU should ensure that ARS is adhering to its own standards and guidelines for 

research practices as required by the Humane Animal Care and 

Use policy, a policy that is closely aligned with the Animal Welfare 

Act; ensure that every ARS location engaging in research and testing on vertebrate animals has a fully functioning IACUC in place; 

and, ensure that each IACUC produces a semi-annual report with 

a description of and the reasons for any major deviations from the 

requirements outlined in ARS policy. 

Aquatic Animal Health.—Nearly half of the seafood consumed 

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

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

economy. Unfortunately, the monitoring of aquatic animal health 

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

example, the shrimp and catfish aquaculture industries are losing 

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

pathogens had been promptly identified and effective treatments or 

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

industry. Collaborative efforts among the agency, industry, and 

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

Biotechnology Regulatory Services.—The Committee continues to 

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

Committee encourages the agency to continue to find ways to improve the permit review process and to reduce the number of petitions awaiting determination. The Committee provides the requested funding necessary to ensure regulatory decisions can be 

made in a more timely and predictable manner. The Committee directs APHIS to provide the Committees on Appropriations of the 

House and Senate with quarterly reports on the agency’s progress 

in meeting the targets the agency set for itself in 2011 starting on 

November 1, 2015. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
29 

Cervid Health.—Data from 2007 indicates that the cervid industry in the United States accounts for 5,600 deer farms and 1,900 

elk farms, has an economic value of $894 million, and supports 

nearly 30,000 jobs. This industry continues to participate in the 

agency’s national, voluntary Herd Certification Program (HCP) 

that supports the domestic and international marketability of U.S. 

cervid herds. The Committee encourages APHIS to maintain its 

commitment to the HCP and the cervid industry and directs the 

agency to spend no less than $3 million for cervid health activities. 

Within the funds provided, the agency should give consideration to 

indemnity payments if warranted. 

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

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

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

departments of agriculture and industry groups to address the 

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

provided in this account, the Committee encourages APHIS to utilize the funds available in the Plant Pest and Disease Management 

and Disaster Prevention Programs account to the greatest extent 

possible in an attempt to sustain the economic viability of the citrus industry. 

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

foreign governments, non-governmental organizations, and any 

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

agency. 

Cotton Pests.—The Committee is concerned that every effort be 

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

does not re-infest areas of the United States where it has been successfully eradicated. The Boll Weevil Eradication Program, an outstanding example of a public-private partnership, has successfully 

eradicated the boll weevil from all U.S. cotton-producing regions 

except for the extreme lower parts of Texas in the Lower Rio 

Grande Valley (LRGV) bordering Tamaulipas, Mexico. Growers in 

the LRGV, with assistance from APHIS and the support of the entire industry, continue to conduct an active program to eradicate 

the boll weevil. The LRGV serves as the barrier between boll weevil infested areas of Mexico and boll weevil-free areas of the United 

States. The Department is directed to work with the U.S. cotton industry to develop a plan of action to protect the United States from 

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

than 120 days after enactment of this Act. 

Designated Qualified Person Program.—Due to the subjective nature of the horse inspections, the agency is encouraged to provide 

greater transparency, more written communication with stakeholders on the rules and regulations such as the scar rule, and improved consistency to the extent possible when enforcing the Horse 

Protection Act. The agency should also consider, as part of its 

Horse Inspection Organization (HIO) approval process, the utilization of ‘‘conditional approvals’’ so that the agency can work more 

closely with a proposed HIO in considering or developing new or 

additional inspection and training methodologies or protocols. Communication and coordination between the agency and HIOs is a key 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
30 

component of the Horse Protection Act and should be enhanced 

whenever possible. 

Emergency Outbreaks.—The Committee has included language 

and continues to include specific language relating to the availability of funds to address emergencies related to the arrest and 

eradication of contagious or infectious disease or pests of animals, 

poultry or plants. While the Administration eventually approved 

the release of a significant sum of emergency funds from the CCC 

to address the outbreaks of HPAI, the Committee is aware of some 

hesitancy to approve such funds. It is because of situations like the 

HPAI outbreak where chicken and turkey growers, egg layers, and 

those allied industries suffer devastating losses to their livelihoods 

that the Committee retains such language and authority. The Committee expects the Secretary to continue to use the authority provided in this bill to transfer funds from the CCC for the arrest and 

eradication of animal and plant pests and diseases that threaten 

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

emergency outbreaks. 

Feral Swine Management.—The Committee provides an increase 

of $550,000 for increased surveillance work. This increase will 

allow APHIS to continue monitoring and management activities for 

emerging and foreign animal diseases in swine, enhance knowledge 

and response to these diseases, and further develop a response 

framework for them. The Committee continues to support the agency’s national feral swine management program in order to continue 

activities aimed at reducing the damage caused by these invasive 

pests. 

Foreign Market Access Requests.—Increasingly U.S. agriculture is 

facing non-tariff trade barriers, which are limiting the ability for 

U.S. agriculture to open and maintain access to key export markets. The Committee directs APHIS to review and update the list 

of foreign market access requests submitted by U.S. producers, producer groups, companies and/or non-government agencies. All efforts should be made to assign the appropriate agency resources to 

opening and maintaining access to foreign markets for U.S. products. By March 2017, the agency should provide an update to the 

Committee on the number of foreign market access requests that 

have been successfully granted for U.S. agriculture; export volumes; the number of foreign market access requests that have been 

granted for imports to the U.S. market; the number of outstanding 

requests and the length of time each request has been pending before the agency. The agency should identify the limitations in 

achieving and maintaining foreign market access for U.S. agriculture. 

Grapevine Import Regulations.—The Committee urges APHIS to 

update its import regulations for grapevines. The current regulatory review process and requirements for pathogen screening of 

imports are expensive, cumbersome and time-consuming. Complying without the use of available technology can take in excess 

of thirteen years to complete. APHIS should issue new regulations 

that dramatically shorten the review timeline, by using new technology, and prioritize the approval of new grape varieties suited for 

colder, harsher climates. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
31 

Huanglongbing Emergency Response.—The Committee provides an increase of $2 million within the Specialty Crop Pests line item 

to increase vital management, control, and associated activities to 

address Huanglongbing (HLB), or citrus greening. This disease has 

infected all of Florida’s citrus groves, reduced acreage and production, and cost Florida an estimated $3.6 billion in revenue and over 

6,600 jobs since 2006. HLB is also a threat to Texas and Puerto 

Rico citrus after the discovery of HLB in citrus growing areas. California’s citrus industry, worth an estimated $1.5 billion in production value, is at risk as well. 

Specifically, the $2 million increase will support priorities and 

strategies identified by the Huanglongbing Multi-Agency Coordination (HLB MAC) group. The MAC is focused on short-term solutions to help the citrus industry, and the cooperative nature of Federal, State, and industry representatives in this group is expected 

to result in the development of tools and techniques to address this 

devastating disease. Helping growers explore new possible solutions, the MAC has been an effective resource. The agency should 

appropriately allocate resources based on critical need and maximum impact to the citrus industry. 

Light Brown Apple Moth.—The Committee encourages APHIS to 

engage state and international regulatory bodies to deregulate the 

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

simply withdraws federal regulation without the necessary work 

with other regulatory officials, APHIS will only shift and not reduce the regulatory burden. Should APHIS withdraw the federal 

order for light brown apple moth, it must take steps to reduce the 

overall burden on growers. 

National Animal Health Laboratory Network (NAHLN).—The 

laboratories within the NAHLN network are on the frontline for 

detection of newly identified and reemerging animal diseases. 

NAHLN laboratories provide a critical contribution to animal and 

public health. The fiscal year 2015 appropriations Act provided 

funding for NAHLN through both APHIS and NIFA at approximately $7 million and $3 million, respectively. In addition to these 

base funds, USDA has spent millions of dollars in fiscal year 2015 

to reimburse laboratories in the NAHLN network for work with the 

HPAI outbreak. The bill continues this base funding and includes 

an additional $5 million for APHIS, resulting in a total investment 

of $15 million for fiscal year 2016. 

NAHLN laboratories have been invaluable during the recent outbreak of HPAI which has significantly increased testing needs. At 

the same time, NAHLN laboratories must also continue testing for 

other animal diseases of concern. The Committee encourages 

NAHLN to consider partnering with other accredited private laboratories as necessary to assist with increased testing demands in 

order to prevent backlogs and provide results as quickly as possible. 

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

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

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

from quarantined and regulated counties as well as to continue its 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
32 

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

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

Potato Cyst Nematode Eradication.—The Committee includes 

funding to maintain resources for the potato cyst nematode eradication program at the fiscal year 2015 level in order to continue 

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

pest could spread, affecting other crops. 

Swine Fever.—The Subcommittee is very concerned about the 

emergence and continuing spread of African Swine Fever (ASF) in 

Eastern European countries. ASF is one of the most feared swine 

diseases because there is no vaccine and are no effective methods 

for controlling the disease. Lithuania is currently seeking approval 

from USDA to export pork and pork products to the United States, 

and Poland is already exporting pork to the U.S. Both of these 

countries have recent and well documented cases of ASF. Exports 

from Lithuania and Poland could lead to the introduction of ASF 

into the U.S. swine herd, which would have a devastating impact 

on the U.S. industry. The impact would be so severe that the industry would not likely recover for years. Since there is a potential 

for the disease reaching the U.S. through imports from these countries, APHIS is hereby directed to conduct an assessment of that 

risk. The risk assessment report should be provided to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate not later than 90 

days after enactment of this Act. 

Vaccine for Foot-and-Mouth Disease.—Foot-and-mouth disease 

(FMD) is a highly contagious viral disease eradicated from the U.S. 

in 1929, but it is still a threat since countries around the globe continue grappling with the disease. This disease could cause billions 

of dollars in damage to the economy if unchecked. APHIS has publicly stated that the FMD vaccine bank is insufficient to deal with 

a large scale FMD outbreak in the U.S. and that a larger vaccine 

bank is needed. APHIS has also noted that expanding the current 

FMD vaccine supply is an expensive investment. Having sufficient 

quantities of vaccine rapidly available and deployable to control an 

FMD outbreak would appear to be a critical part of the USDA 

APHIS mission. Rapid control of FMD protects the security of the 

U.S. food supply, limiting the economic damage from livestock 

losses due to the disease, and also shortens disruptions to trade 

and commerce that would occur as long as FMD goes uncontrolled 

due to a lack of vaccine. The Committee is concerned that this potential vaccine shortage could result in the compromised management of an FMD outbreak in the United States. In order that the 

Committee can better understand the budget implications required 

to address this vaccine shortage, APHIS is directed to report to the 

Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate within 90 

days of enactment of this Act on contingency plans to develop an 

expanded vaccine bank and the estimated funding necessary for 

implementation and maintenance. 

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

such activities that will reduce or eliminate threats to agricultural 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
33 

industries. The Committee expects APHIS to maintain the funding 

level for national rabies control and surveillance efforts at the same 

levels as provided in the fiscal year 2015 appropriations Act. The 

Committee also encourages USDA to continue providing tools and 

resources to assist aquaculture producers being adversely impacted 

by fish-eating birds. 

Of particular concern is the continued and repeat depredation by 

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

state management plans require state agencies to utilize lethal control of wolves it is important these actions are taken to protect livestock. As experts in the field of managing predators to prevent depredation, USDA has valuable knowledge, tools and resources that 

can assist states in managing the federally reintroduced wolves. 

The Committee directs USDA to prioritize and complete the documentation and processes needed to allow them to assist states and 

local livestock producers with managing this situation. 

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

2015 appropriation ............................................................................. $3,175,000 

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 3,175,000 

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

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Buildings and 

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

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE

MARKETING SERVICES

2015 appropriation ............................................................................. $81,192,000 

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 83,121,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 80,743,000 

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥449,000 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥2,378,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Marketing Services of the Agricultural Marketing Service, 

the Committee provides an appropriation of $80,743,000. 

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

is aware that the World Trade Organization (WTO) Appellate Body 

ruled against the U.S. COOL requirements for meat products, upholding previous findings that the U.S. was in violation of its international trade obligations. The governments of Canada and Mexico 

have clearly expressed their intent to seek authority from the WTO 

to use retaliatory measures on U.S. agricultural and non-agricultural products, with U.S. exports expected to suffer an economic 

impact of almost $4 billion. The Committee supports efforts that 

will prevent harm to U.S. jobs, the U.S. economy, and trade relations with our Nation’s strongest trading partners. Therefore, the 

Committee directs the Secretary to continue to work with Congress 

to find a swift resolution. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
34 

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

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

2016 budget limitation ....................................................................... (60,982,000) 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. (60,982,000) 

Comparison: 

2015 limitation ............................................................................ +273,000 

2016 budget limitation ................................................................ – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

The Committee provides a limitation of $60,982,000 on Administrative Expenses of the Agricultural Marketing Service. 

FUNDS FOR STRENGTHENING MARKETS, INCOME, AND SUPPLY

(SECTION 32)

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

2015 appropriation ............................................................................. ($20,186,000) 

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... (20,489,000) 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. (20,186,000) 

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥303,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Marketing Agreements and Orders Program, the Committee provides a transfer from Section 32 funds of $20,186,000. 

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

2015 and 2016: 

ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD FISCAL YEARS 2015–2016 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

FY 2015 

enacted 

FY 2016 

estimate 

Appropriation (30% of Customs Receipts) ............................................................................. $9,714,923 $10,316,645 

Less Transfers: 

Food & Nutrition Service ................................................................................................ ¥8,355,671 ¥8,869,645 

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

Total, Transfers ...................................................................................................... ¥8,499,409 ¥9,013,645 

Prior Year Appropriation Available, Start of Year ................................................................... 187,486 122,000 

Prior Year Collections and Recoveries .................................................................................... 0 0 

Unavailable for Obligations (recoveries & offsetting collections) .......................................... 0 0 

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

Budget Authority: ............................................................................................................ 1,284,000 1,303,000 

Rescission of Current Year Funds ........................................................................................... ¥121,094 ¥216,020 

Appropriations Reduced—Sequestration ................................................................................ ¥81,906 ¥77,000 

Unavailable for Obligations (F&V Transfer to FNS) ................................................................ ¥122,000 ¥125,000 

Available for Obligation: ................................................................................................. 959,000 884,980 

Less Obligations: 

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

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

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

Emergency Surplus Removal .......................................................................................... 113,500 0 

Small Business Support ................................................................................................. 0 0 

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

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

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

Estimated Future Needs ................................................................................................. 180,604 106,495 

Total, Commodity Procurement .............................................................................. 904,104 830,995 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
35 

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

2016—Continued 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

FY 2015 

enacted 

FY 2016 

estimate 

Administrative Funds: 

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

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

Total, Administrative Funds .............................................................................. 54,896 53,985 

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

Unobligated Balance, End of Year .......................................................................................... 0 0 

Unavailable for Obligations (F&V Transfer to FNS) ................................................................ 122,000 125,000 

Balances, Collections, and Recoveries Not Available ............................................................. 0 0 

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

PAYMENTS TO STATES AND POSSESSIONS

2015 appropriation ............................................................................. $1,235,000 

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 1,235,000 

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

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Payments to States and Possessions, the Committee provides 

an appropriation of $1,235,000. 

GRAIN INSPECTION, PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ADMINISTRATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

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

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 44,101,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 43,048,000 

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥1,053,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administra- tion, the Committee provides an appropriation of $43,048,000. 

LIMITATION ON INSPECTION AND WEIGHING SERVICES EXPENSES

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

2016 budget limitation ....................................................................... (55,000,000) 

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

Comparison: 

2015 limitation ............................................................................ +5,000,000 

2016 budget limitation ................................................................ – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

The Committee includes a limitation on inspection and weighing 

services expenses of $55,000,000. The bill includes authority to exceed by 10 percent the limitation on inspection and weighing services with notification to the Committees on Appropriations of the 

House and Senate. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
36 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD SAFETY

2015 appropriation ............................................................................. $816,000 

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 824,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 811,000 

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥5,000 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥13,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, the Committee provides an appropriation of $811,000. 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE

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

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

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 1,011,557,000 

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥4,917,000 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), the Committee provides an appropriation of $1,011,557,000. In order to ensure that microbiological baseline data is accurately capturing national prevalence, the Committee encourages the FSIS to increase 

baseline testing. 

The following table reflects the Committee’s recommendations for 

fiscal year 2016: 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Recommendation 

Federal Inspection ............................................................................................................................................ $895,481 

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

International Food Safety and Inspection ........................................................................................................ 16,744 

State Food Safety and Inspection .................................................................................................................... 60,976 

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

Total, Food Safety and Inspection Service .............................................................................................. $1,011,557 

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

the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act focus their attention on 

overseeing compliance with humane handling rules for live animals 

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

stunning areas, and that all inspectors receive robust national 

training, including on the Regulatory Essentials, Humane Animal 

Tracking System, and Public Health Information System. 

Catfish Inspection.—The Committee is disappointed with the continual delay of issuing the final rule providing for catfish inspection 

activities and directs the Secretary to publish the final regulation 

as soon as possible. 

Water Conserving Technologies.—The Committee supports the 

agency’s efforts to encourage innovation and modernization at 

slaughter and processing establishments. The Committee is aware 

of technologies that allow hand-washing facilities to be immediately 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
37 

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

Committee directs FSIS to utilize water-conserving technologies 

and pursue implementation as soon as practicable. 

Screening Technologies.—There remains concern about countering economic fraud and improving the safety of the U.S. seafood 

supply. FSIS, in conjunction with other USDA research agencies, 

is encouraged to support developing technologies that will provide 

rapid, portable, and facile screening of food fish species at port 

sites and wholesale and retail centers. 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FARM AND FOREIGN

AGRICULTURAL SERVICES

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

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 907,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 893,000 

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥5,000 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥14,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

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

$893,000. 

FARM SERVICE AGENCY

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriation 

Transfer from 

program 

accounts 

Total, FSA S&E 

2015 Appropriation ............................................................. $1,200,180,000 ($309,880,000) ($1,510,060,000) 

2016 Budget Estimate ........................................................ 1,185,251,000 (312,873,000) (1,498,124,000) 

Provided in the Bill ............................................................. 1,183,025,000 (309,880,000) (1,492,905,000) 

Comparison: 

2015 Appropriation .................................................... ¥17,155,000 – – – (¥17,155,000) 

2016 Budget Estimate ............................................... ¥$2,226,000 ¥$2,993,000 (¥$5,219,000) 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Salaries and Expenses of the Farm Service Agency, the Com- mittee provides an appropriation of $1,183,025,000 and transfers of 

$309,880,000 for a total program level of $1,492,905,000. 

Budgetary Reductions.—FSA has submitted consecutive proposals for significant annual budget savings through ‘‘operational 

efficiencies’’ with little detail for achieving these goals. FSA proposed nearly $80 million in reductions for fiscal year 2016. While 

the Committee adopts some reductions for 2016 over fiscal year 

2015, this is a reflection of the increased need in fiscal year 2015 

for farm bill implementation. The Committee is also cognizant of 

remaining balances from the additional $100 million in mandatory 

funding provided through the 2014 farm bill that supplements 

these reductions in 2016. In particular, the Committee does not accept the proposed savings for non-Federal workers or other personnel savings, and the Committee supports full staffing levels for 

non-Federal workers. The Committee provides for proposed inVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:33 Jul 15, 2015 Jkt 094459 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR205.XXX HR205

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
38 

creases in IT while requiring stringent oversight in the bill through 

the Comptroller General. As the Committee noted in fiscal year 

2015, FSA is directed to provide detailed documentation and data 

when proposing such significant savings in future budget requests. 

Beginning Farmers and Ranchers.—The Committee does not 

fund requested increases for Beginning Farmer and Rancher programs. This is due to a lack of coordination and strategy across the 

Department per USDA OIG report 5060–0003–31. USDA already 

spends $332 million on these programs. The Committee directs the 

Secretary to implement the recommendations of the OIG before requesting further increases in funding. 

International Food Aid Commodity Reports.—The Committee directs FSA to make publicly available reports detailing U.S. Commodities purchased for international food aid similar to those published in fiscal years 2010 and 2011. These reports identified U.S. 

international food aid by type, country, program, value, and region. 

The Committee also directs FSA to include the amount, value, destination, and type of commodity shipped by U.S. port of origination. 

Proposal to Close County Offices.—The Committee expects FSA 

to complete its workload study of FSA county offices and an independent review to examine the study before FSA closes any offices. 

The Committee directs FSA to complete this study promptly and 

includes statutory language preventing the closure of these offices. 

FSA IT.—FSA’s management of certain IT projects has produced 

increased costs, bloated budgets, and inaccurate budget estimates. 

These projects include the MIDAS program and increased or inaccurate charges from the National Information Technology Center, 

for which costs have tripled since fiscal year 2014. The agreement 

includes statutory language that allows FSA to release funds for 

farm program delivery IT projects only after review by the GAO 

and approval by the Committees on Appropriations of the House 

and Senate. The roadmap submitted by FSA in fiscal year 2015 

was the first step to bringing accountability and guidance to almost 

a decade of mismanagement. In this regard, the GAO and the OIG 

are recommending that FSA establish a plan to guide the agency 

in adopting recognized best practices and in following agency policy. The GAO also recommends that the agency adhere to specific 

practices within key management disciplines before proceeding 

with further system development. FSA is directed to continue quarterly briefings in writing for the Committees on Appropriations of 

the House and Senate regarding all IT projects and activities related to farm program delivery. 

Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC).—The Committee 

urges FSA to explore further cooperation on technologies that could 

benefit American agricultural conservation practices and crop yield 

through FGDC partners, including the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

STATE MEDIATION GRANTS

2015 appropriation ............................................................................. $3,404,000 

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 3,404,000 

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

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
39 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

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

GRASSROOTS SOURCE WATER PROTECTION PROGRAM

2015 appropriation ............................................................................. $5,526,000 

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... – – – 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 5,526,000 

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. +5,526,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Grassroots Source Water Protection Program, the Com- mittee provides an appropriation of $5,526,000. 

DAIRY INDEMNITY PROGRAM

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

2015 appropriation ............................................................................. 1 $500,000 

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 1 500,000 

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

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 1Current indefinite appropriation. 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Dairy Indemnity Program, the Committee provides an 

appropriation of such sums as may be necessary (estimated to be 

$500,000 in the President’s fiscal year 2016 budget request). 

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

ESTIMATED LOAN LEVELS

2015 loan level .................................................................................... $6,402,114,000 

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 6,402,114,000 

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

Comparison: 

2015 loan level ............................................................................. – – – 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund program account, the 

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

The following table reflects the loan levels for the Agricultural 

Credit Insurance Fund program account: 

AGRICULTURE CREDIT PROGRAMS—LOAN LEVELS 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

FY 2015 

level 

FY 2016 

estimate 

Committee 

provisions 

Farm Loan Programs 

Farm Ownership: 

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

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


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
40 

AGRICULTURE CREDIT PROGRAMS—LOAN LEVELS—Continued 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

FY 2015 

level 

FY 2016 

estimate 

Committee 

provisions 

Farm Operating: 

Direct ............................................................................................... 1,252,004 1,252,004 1,252,004 

Unsubsidized Guaranteed ............................................................... 1,393,443 1,393,443 1,393,443 

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

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

Conservation Loans: 

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

Indian Highly Fractionated Land ............................................................. 10,000 10,000 10,000 

Boll Weevil Eradication ............................................................................ 60,000 60,000 60,000 

Total ................................................................................................ $6,402,114 $6,402,114 $6,402,114 

ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Direct loan 

subsidy 

Guaranteed loan 

subsidy 

Grants Administrative 

expenses 

2015 Appropriation .................................................... $63,101 $14,770 – – – $314,918 

2016 Budget Estimate ............................................... 53,961 14,352 2,500 317,911 

Provided in the Bill .................................................... 53,961 14,352 – – – 314,918 

Comparison: 

2015 Appropriation ........................................... ¥9,140 ¥418 – – – – – – 

2016 Budget Estimate ...................................... – – – – – – ¥$2,500 ¥$2,993 

The following table reflects the costs of loan programs under 

credit reform: 

AGRICULTURE CREDIT PROGRAMS—SUBSIDIES AND GRANTS 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

FY 2015 

enacted 

FY 2016 

estimate 

Committee 

provisions 

Farm Loan Subsidies: 

Farm Operating: 

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

Unsubsidized Guaranteed ............................................................... 14,770 14,352 14,352 

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

Indian Highly Fractionated Land ............................................................. – – – – – – – – – 

Individual Development Accounts ............................................................ – – – 2,500 – – – 

Total ................................................................................................ 78,727 72,075 69,575 

ACIF Expenses: 

Salaries and Expenses ............................................................................. 306,998 309,991 306,998 

Administrative Expenses .......................................................................... 7,920 7,920 7,920 

Total, ACIF Expenses ....................................................................... $314,918 $317,911 $314,918 

RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

2015 appropriation ............................................................................. $74,829,000 

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 76,946,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 73,984,000 

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥845,000 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥2,962,000 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
41 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Risk Management Agency, the Committee provides an 

appropriation of $73,984,000. 

Improper Payments.—The Committee accepts RMA’s proposed 

savings and directs the agency to supplement its discretionary 

funds with the $32 million in farm bill funding for compliance with 

the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act. 

SRA Discrepancies.—In a manner consistent with the requirements of section 11012 of the 2014 farm bill and without adversely 

impacting other policies, the Committee encourages RMA to address the flaws in the current Standard Reinsurance Agreement 

(SRA), including addressing the negative impact to specialty crop 

agents caused by the cap on Administrative and Operating (A&O) 

reimbursement. 

CORPORATIONS 

FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION FUND

2015 appropriation ............................................................................. 1 $8,930,502,000 

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 1 8,175,224,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 18,175,224,000 

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥755,278,000 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 1 Current indefinite appropriation. 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund, the Committee provides an appropriation of such sums as may be necessary 

(estimated to be $8,175,224,000 in the President’s fiscal year 2016 

budget request). 

COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION FUND

REIMBURSEMENT FOR NET REALIZED LOSSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

2015 appropriation ................................................................. 1 $13,444,728,000 

2016 budget estimate ............................................................. 1 10,519,933,000 

Provided in the bill ................................................................. 1 10,519,933,000 

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation .......................................................... ¥2,924,795,000 

2016 budget estimate ...................................................... – – – 1 Current indefinite appropriation. 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Reimbursement for Net Realized Losses to the Commodity 

Credit Corporation, the Committee provides such sums as may be 

necessary to reimburse for net realized losses sustained but not 

previously reimbursed (estimated to be $10,519,933,000 in the 

President’s fiscal year 2016 budget request). 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
42 

HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT

(LIMITATION ON EXPENSES)

2015 limitation .................................................................................... ($5,000,000) 

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... (5,000,000) 

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

Comparison: 

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

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Hazardous Waste Management, the Committee provides a 

limitation of $5,000,000. 

TITLE II 

CONSERVATION PROGRAMS 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR NATURAL RESOURCES AND

ENVIRONMENT

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

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 907,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 893,000 

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥5,000 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥14,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and 

Environment, the Committee provides an appropriation of 

$893,000. 

NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE

CONSERVATION OPERATIONS

2015 appropriation ............................................................................. $846,428,000 

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 831,231,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 832,928,000 

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥13,500,000 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. +1,697,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Conservation Operations, the Committee provides an appropriation of $832,928,000. 

The Committee provides $8,886,000 for the Snow Survey and 

Water Forecasting Program; $9,103,000 for the Plant Materials 

Centers; and $79,601,000 for the Soil Surveys Program. The Committee provides $735,338,000 for Conservation Technical Assistance 

and directs NRCS to continue to invest in the Conservation Effects 

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

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

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

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

of these efforts. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
43 

Administrative Reorganization.—The Committee commends 

NRCS for its organizational realignment of administrative functions and appreciates the savings this will generate. NRCS has 

worked to become a more efficient, accountable organization, and 

the Committee encourages NRCS to work with other agencies within USDA to do the same. 

Agricultural Conservation Easement Program.—Due to the 

unique ecological needs of each State, the Committee encourages 

NRCS to work with state and local partners to address these needs 

and to ensure the priority needs and projects in each State, such 

as those that are leveraged by public and private resources, are addressed, as appropriate. 

Cheat Grass Eradication.—The Committee encourages NRCS to 

continue to assist farmers and ranchers to eradicate, control, and 

reduce the fuel loads associated with cheat grass and to collaborate 

with ARS, as appropriate, on research related to cheat grass. 

Conservation Practice Standards.—The Committee is aware that 

NRCS has been pressured to modify its conservation practice 

standards in certain circumstances for purposes not related to the 

conservation of farm and ranch land. The Committee recognizes 

that conservation practice standards are science-based, undergo a 

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

comment, and reflect the best available knowledge on how to 

achieve the identified conservation and environmental objective. 

The Committee directs NRCS to maintain its long-standing process 

for developing and updating its conservation practice standards. 

Data Collection.—The Committee recommends continued investment from NRCS for light detection and ranging (LiDAR) data collection for the LiDAR-Enhanced Soil Survey (LESS) model and 

other such activities within NRCS reliant on mapping, surveying 

and geospatial technologies, data, and products. 

Harmful Algal Blooms.—The Committee supports NRCS’ ongoing 

work to prevent soil erosion leading to harmful algal blooms 

through the introduction of cover crops, and encourages continued 

targeting of watersheds where harmful algal blooms pose a threat. 

Herbicide Resistance.—The Committee reminds NRCS of the 

challenges many producers are facing due to the spread of herbicide-resistant weeds and encourages it to ensure agency staff, partners, and producers are aware of conservation practice standards 

and conservation activity plans to address herbicide-resistant 

weeds, and that financial assistance through certain conservation 

programs is available to assist producers in their efforts to control 

these weeds. 

Locally Led Conservation.—The Committee recognizes that locally led conservation is the foundation of the Nation’s highly successful legacy of conservation and encourages NRCS to work with 

State, Tribal, local, and other partners on voluntary stewardship 

projects that preserve working agricultural lands while protecting 

watersheds and wildlife habitat. 

Loess Streambed Degradation.—The Committee encourages 

NRCS to provide technical assistance in implementing streambed 

stabilization practices and grade control structures on streams in 

areas affected by loess deposits. 

National Marine Sanctuaries.—The Committee urges the agency 

to continue the collaborative agreement with the Office of National 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
44 

Marine Sanctuaries to address agricultural sources of runoff, such 

as sediments, nitrates, and pesticides. 

Resource Conservation and Development Councils (RC&Ds).—The 

Committee recognizes RC&Ds have been valuable partners in conservation and encourages NRCS to continue working with local 

councils, as appropriate, to ensure conservation programs meet 

local resource needs. 

Sage Grouse Initiative.—The Committee supports NRCS’ sage 

grouse conservation efforts. Through the initiative, NRCS provides 

technical and financial assistance to help landowners conserve sage 

grouse habitat on their land. The initiative is an integral part of 

efforts by Federal agencies, several western states, and private 

landowners to help preclude the listing of the sage grouse as an endangered species. 

Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Plan.—NRCS has not 

yet established a long-term, multi-year plan to guide needed investments in watershed surveys and planning and watershed operations as directed in House Report 113–468. The Committee directs 

NRCS to complete this plan as soon as possible, taking into consideration existing investment in planning, infrastructure, and land 

treatment and future needs for investment to improve watershed 

condition or prevent or mitigate watershed impairments. 

Water Use Efficiency.—The Committee is encouraged by the work 

being undertaken by the Bureau of Reclamation and NRCS under 

the California Bay-Delta Program Water Use Efficiency Grants 

Program, which coordinates the water use efficiency assistance authorized under the Secure Water Act. The Committee directs NRCS 

to work with Reclamation to identify and implement ways within 

existing authorities to extend the benefits of this collaborative effort. 

WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROGRAM

2015 appropriation ............................................................................. $12,000,000 

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... – – – 

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

Comparison:.

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥6,000,000 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. +6,000,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Watershed Rehabilitation Program, the Committee provides an appropriation of $6,000,000. 

TITLE III 

RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT

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

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 907,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 893,000 

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥5,000 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥14,000 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
45 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

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

Committee provides an appropriation of $893,000. 

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

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

Reporting Requirements.—The Committee reminds RD that any 

action that relocates an office or employees and reorganizes offices, 

programs, or activities must be reported to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate as required by law. 

StrikeForce Initiative.—The Committee appreciates the Department’s efforts to target assistance to at-risk communities through 

the StrikeForce Initiative for Rural Growth and Opportunity. 

USDA, in collaboration with public and private partners, helps 

rural counties experiencing chronic poverty improve economic opportunities and quality of life for local residents. The Committee 

encourages USDA to place special emphasis on persistent poverty 

counties and continue to utilize a strategy of partnering public resources with local expertise to grow rural economies and create jobs 

in these poverty-stricken areas. 

RURAL DEVELOPMENT SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

FY 2015 

level 

FY 2016 

estimate 

Committee 

provisions 

Appropriations ........................................................................... $224,201,000 $226,717,000 $222,705,000

Transfer from: 

Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account ........... 415,100,000 419,530,000 417,854,000 

Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account ............ 4,439,000 4,488,000 4,410,000 

Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loan Program Account .............................................................. 34,478,000 34,864,000 34,247,000 

Total, RD Salaries and Expenses ........................... $678,218,000 $685,599,000 $679,216,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Salaries and Expenses of the Rural Development mission 

area, the Committee provides an appropriation of $222,705,000. 

This includes $19,500,000 for the Comprehensive Loan Accounting System. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
46 

RURAL HOUSING SERVICE

RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Loan 

level 

Subsidy 

level 

Administrative 

expenses 

2015 Appropriation ................................................................... $25,148,279 $87,507 $415,100 

2016 Budget Estimate .............................................................. 25,207,404 83,488 419,530 

Provided in the Bill ................................................................... 25,148,531 79,377 417,854 

Comparison: 

2015 Appropriation .......................................................... +252 ¥8,130 +2,754 

2016 Budget Estimate ..................................................... ¥$58,873 ¥$4,111 ¥$1,676 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Housing Insurance Fund program account, the 

Committee provides a loan level of $25,148,531,000. 

Section 502 Intermediary Pilot Program.—The bill directs the 

Secretary to continue and expand the pilot program for packaging 

section 502 direct loans. The pilot requires not less than ten nonprofit organizations to prepare and review applications for single 

family loans, saving Federal funds and staff time. The Committee 

expects the Rural Housing Service (RHS) to expeditiously implement this program upon enactment of the fiscal year 2016 appropriations Act and that USDA will promptly notify all pilot programs of the availability of national reserve funding and priority 

for loan review. 

Rural Definition.—Communities need transparency and deserve 

to understand the criteria that are evaluated when determining eligibility for RHS programs. The Committee directs RHS to submit 

a report listing the criteria used to define ‘‘rural in character’’ in 

determining program eligibility. The report should also include how 

the agency considers incarcerated populations as well as college 

and university students in the population counts. 

The following table reflects the loan levels for the Rural Housing 

Insurance Fund program account: 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

FY 2015 

level 

FY 2016 

estimate 

Committee 

provisions 

Rural Housing Insurance Fund Loans: 

Single Family Housing (sec. 502): 

Direct ............................................................................................... $900,000 $900,000 $900,000

Unsubsidized Guaranteed ............................................................... 24,000,000 24,000,000 24,000,000 

Housing Repair (sec. 504) ....................................................................... 26,279 26,278 26,278 

Rental Housing (sec. 515) ....................................................................... 28,398 42,271 28,398 

Multi-family Guaranteed (sec. 538) ........................................................ 150,000 200,000 150,000 

Site Development Loans .......................................................................... 5,000 5,000 5,000 

Credit Sales of Acquired Property ........................................................... 10,000 10,000 10,000 

Self-help Housing Land Development Fund ............................................ 5,000 – – – 5,000 

Farm Labor Housing ................................................................................ 23,602 23,855 23,855 

Total, Loan Authorization ................................................................ $25,148,279 $25,207,404 $25,148,531 

The following table reflects the costs of loan programs under 

credit reform: 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
47 

ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

FY 2015 

level 

FY 2016 

estimate 

Committee 

provision 

Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account (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 

Rental Housing (sec. 515) ............................................................................. 9,800 12,525 8,414 

Farm Labor Housing ...................................................................................... 7,600 6,789 6,789 

Total, Loan Subsidies ........................................................................... 87,507 83,488 79,377 

Farm Labor Housing Grants .......................................................................... 8,336 8,336 8,336 

RHIF Expenses: 

Administrative Expenses ....................................................................... $415,100 $419,530 $417,854 

RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

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

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

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 1,167,000,000 

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... +78,500,000 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥4,900,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rental Assistance Program, the Committee provides a 

program level of $1,167,000,000. 

MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVITALIZATION PROGRAM ACCOUNT

2015 appropriation ............................................................................. $24,000,000 

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 34,000,000 

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

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥10,000,000 

For the Multifamily Housing Revitalization Program Account, 

the Committee provides an appropriation of $24,000,000, including 

$7,000,000 for the rural housing voucher program. 

MUTUAL AND SELF-HELP HOUSING GRANTS

2015 appropriation ............................................................................. $27,500,000 

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 10,000,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 27,500,000 

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. +17,500,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Mutual and Self-Help Housing Grants, the Committee provides an appropriation of $27,500,000. 

RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GRANTS

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

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 25,000,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 32,239,000 

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. +7,239,000 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
48 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Housing Assistance Grants program, the Committee provides an appropriation of $32,239,000. 

RURAL COMMUNITY FACILITIES PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

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

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 62,000,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 30,278,000 

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥31,722,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Community Facilities Program Account, the Committee provides an appropriation of $30,278,000. 

The following table provides the Committee’s recommendations 

as compared to the budget request: 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

FY 2015 

level 

FY 2016 

estimated 

Committee 

provisions 

Loan Levels: 

Community Facility Direct Loans ..................................... ($2,200,000) ($2,200,000) ($2,200,000) 

Community Facility Guaranteed Loans ............................ (73,222) (– – –) (148,305) 

Subsidy and Grants: 

Community Facility Guaranteed Loans ............................ 3,500 – – – 3,500 

Community Facility Grants .............................................. 13,000 50,000 13,000 

Rural Community Development Initiative ........................ 4,000 4,000 4,000 

Economic Impact Initiative .............................................. 5,778 – – – 5,778 

Tribal College Grants ....................................................... 4,000 8,000 4,000 

Total, Rural Community Facilities Program Subsidy and Grants .................................................. $30,278 $62,000 $30,278 

The following is included in bill language for the Rural Community Facilities Program: $4,000,000 for the Rural Community Development Initiative. 

RURAL BUSINESS-COOPERATIVE SERVICE

RURAL BUSINESS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

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

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 81,444,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 59,686,000 

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥14,314,000 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥21,758,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Business Program Account, the Committee provides an appropriation of $59,686,000. 

The following table provides the Committee’s recommendations 

as compared to the budget request: 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
49 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

FY 2015 

level 

FY 2016 

estimated 

Committee 

provision 

Loan Level: 

Business and Industry Guaranteed Loans ...................... ($919,765) ($758,222) ($919,765) 

Subsidy and Grants: 

Business and Industry Guaranteed Loans ...................... 47,000 31,444 35,686 

Rural Business Development Grants ............................... 24,000 30,000 24,000 

Demonstration Projects .................................................... – – – 20,000 – – – 

Delta Regional Authority .................................................. 3,000 – – – – – – 

Total, Rural Business Program Subsidy and 

Grants ................................................................. $74,000 $81,444 $59,686 

The following programs are included in bill language for the 

Rural Business Program account: $500,000 for rural transportation 

technical assistance; and $4,000,000 for Federally Recognized Native American Tribes, of which $250,000 is for transportation technical assistance. The Committee notes that the 2014 farm bill consolidated the Rural Business Opportunity and Rural Business Enterprise grant programs. 

INTERMEDIARY RELENDING PROGRAM FUND ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Loan 

Level 

Subsidy 

level 

Administrative 

expenses 

2015 Appropriation ................................................................... $18,889 $5,818 $4,439 

2016 Budget Estimate .............................................................. 10,014 2,766 4,488 

Provided in the Bill ................................................................... 18,889 5,217 4,410 

Comparison: 

2015 Appropriation .......................................................... – – – ¥601 ¥29 

2016 Budget Estimate ..................................................... +$8,875 +$2,451 ¥$78 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Intermediary Relending Program Fund Account, the Committee provides for a loan level of $18,889,000. 

For the loan subsidy, the Committee provides an appropriation of $5,217,000. In addition, the Committee provides $4,410,000 for 

administrative expenses. 

RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

Loan level 

2015 Appropriation ........................................................................................................................................... $33,077,000 

2016 Budget Estimate ..................................................................................................................................... 85,000,000 

Provided in the Bill .......................................................................................................................................... 33,077,000 

Comparison: 

2015 Appropriation .................................................................................................................................. – – – 

2016 Budget Estimate ............................................................................................................................ ¥$51,923,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account, 

the Committee provides for a loan level of $33,077,000. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
50 

RURAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS

2015 appropriation ............................................................................. $22,050,000 

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 21,087,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 21,300,000 

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥750,000 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. +213,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Rural Cooperative Development Grants, the Committee pro- vides an appropriation of $21,300,000. The total includes $2,500,000 for a cooperative agreement for the 

Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas program and 

$10,000,000 for the value-added agricultural product market development grant program. 

The Committee notes that the 2014 farm bill provided mandatory 

funding for value-added agricultural product market development 

grants. 

RURAL ENERGY FOR AMERICA PROGRAM

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

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 10,000,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 842,000 

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥508,000 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥9,158,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Energy for America Program, the Committee provides a loan level of $12,760,000 and an appropriation of $842,000 

for the loan subsidy to make loans as authorized by section 9007 

of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 

8107). 

The Committee notes that the 2014 farm bill provides mandatory 

funding for this program in fiscal year 2016. 

RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE

RURAL WATER AND WASTE DISPOSAL PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

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

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 483,320,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 473,897,000 

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... +9,040,000 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥9,423,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program Account, the 

Committee provides an appropriation of $473,897,000. 

Water Supplies for Very Small Communities.—The Committee is 

aware of concerns that the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) grant programs do not adequately help small, disadvantaged, and severely 

disadvantaged communities access the funding and expertise necessary to develop sustainable water supplies or otherwise improve 

their wastewater systems and directs the agency to focus its efforts 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
51 

to assist these communities with predevelopment planning to help 

them address their water supply needs. 

Carryover Balances for AK, HI, and Colonias Grants.—The Committee is aware of significant carryover balances of unobligated 

funds provided in prior year appropriations for Water and Waste 

Disposal grants for Alaskan villages, Native American Tribes, Hawaiian Homelands, and the Colonias. The Committee urges the Department to work with state, local and Indian tribal organization 

stakeholders to provide assistance via water and waste disposal 

grant programs as long as such assistance is requested by the respective groups in the year in which the funds were appropriated. 

The Department has flexibility to shift these prior year funds 

among the four areas through a reprogramming of funds. Further, 

the Committee provides flexibility in fiscal year 2016 to move funds 

to other water and waste disposal priorities in order to reduce the 

backlog of related needs nationwide. 

Open and Free Competition Policy.—The Committee supports the 

Department’s underlying adherence to free and open competition 

on water and waste projects as contained in 7 CFR 1780.70(b) and 

(d). However, there continues to be confusion with some vendors 

and contractors as to the procurement policies of specific materials. 

The Committee encourages USDA’s Rural Utilities Service to issue 

a memorandum as necessary to clarify that the agency does not advocate for one product over another and that the agency will ensure 

the best options for the respective communities in accordance with 

the technical requirements proposed by engineers and design professionals. 

The following table provides the Committee’s recommendations 

as compared to the budget request: 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

FY 2015 

level 

FY 2016 

level 

Committee 

provisions 

Loan Levels: 

Water and Waste Direct Loans ........................................ ($1,200,000) ($1,200,000) ($1,200,000) 

Water and Waste Guaranteed Loans ............................... (50,000) – – – (50,000) 

Subsidy and Grants: 

Direct Subsidy .................................................................. – – – 31,320 31,320 

Guaranteed Subsidy ......................................................... 295 – – – 275 

Water and Waste Revolving Fund ................................... 1,000 – – – 1,000 

Water Well System Grants ............................................... 993 – – – 993 

Grants for the Colonias and AK/HI .................................. 66,500 54,240 54,240 

Water and Waste Technical Assistance Grants .............. 19,000 13,560 19,000 

Circuit Rider Program ...................................................... 15,919 11,300 15,919 

Solid Waste Management Grants .................................... 4,000 4,000 4,000 

High Energy Cost Grants ................................................. 10,000 – – – – – – 

Water and Waste Disposal Grants .................................. 347,150 358,900 337,150 

306A(i)(2) Grants ............................................................. – – – 10,000 10,000 

Total, Subsidies and Grants ................................... $464,857 $483,320 $473,897 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
52 

RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS LOANS PROGRAM

ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Loan 

level 

Subsidy 

level 

Administrative 

expenses 

2015 Appropriation ................................................................... $6,190,000 – – – $34,478 

2016 Budget Estimate .............................................................. 6,690,000 104 34,864 

Provided in the Bill ................................................................... 6,190,000 207 34,247 

Comparison: 

2015 Appropriation .......................................................... – – – +207 ¥231 

2016 Budget Estimate ..................................................... ¥$500,000 +$103 ¥$617 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program Account, the Committee provides a loan level of 

$6,190,000,000. In addition, the Committee provides $34,247,000 

for administrative expenses. 

Relief to Rural America Through Debt Refinancing.—The Committee encourages the Rural Utilities Service to favorably consider 

requests from its borrowers to refinance existing debt to permit the 

savings from that refinanced debt to provide needed relief to rural 

America through reduced electric utility rates, deferral of planned 

rate increases, enhanced use of renewable energy sources, compliance with environmental requirements and funding early retirement of generation assets. 

The following table reflects the loan levels for the Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program Account: 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

FY 2015 

enacted 

FY 2016 

estimate 

Committee 

provisions 

Loan Authorizations: 

Electric: 

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

Guaranteed Underwriting ................................................. 500,000 – – – 500,000 

Subtotal ................................................................... 5,500,000 6,000,000 5,500,000 

Telecommunications: 

Direct, Treasury Rate ....................................................... 690,000 345,000 690,000 

Total, Loan Authorizations ...................................... $6,190,000 $6,690,000 $6,190,000 

DISTANCE LEARNING, TELEMEDICINE, AND BROADBAND PROGRAM 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

FY 2015 

enacted FY 2016 estimate Committee provisions 

Broadband Program: 

Loan Authorization ..................................................... $24,077 $44,239 $24,077 

Loan Subsidy .............................................................. 4,500 9,675 5,265 

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

Distance Learning and Telemedicine: 

Grants ........................................................................ 22,000 24,950 20,000 

Total, Loan Subsidy and Grants ....................... $36,872 $54,997 $35,637 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
53 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program, the Committee provides an appropriation of $35,637,000, 

which includes $20,000,000 for distance learning and telemedicine 

grants. 

Broadband Loan Program Priorities.—Funding provided for the 

broadband program is intended to promote broadband availability 

in those areas where there is not otherwise a business case for private investment in a broadband network. The Committee directs 

RUS to focus expenditures on projects that bring broadband service 

to currently unserved households. 

The Committee notes that tribal communities continue to struggle with gaining access to broadband service. The Committee encourages the Secretary to provide a report that identifies the specific challenges Indian Tribal Organizations (ITOs) have in gaining 

access to broadband service and provide a plan for addressing these 

challenges, including how the Community Connect program can assist ITOs. 

TITLE IV 

DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD, NUTRITION, AND

CONSUMER SERVICES

2015 appropriation ............................................................................. $816,000 

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 824,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 811,000 

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥5,000 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥13,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

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

Consumer Services, the Committee provides an appropriation of 

$811,000. 

Research and Evaluations.—The Committee is concerned that research and evaluation projects conducted by FNS do not include 

more coordination with the Research, Education, and Economics 

(REE) mission area. The Committee is also concerned that the FNS 

Research and Evaluation Plan is released well after funding has already been provided for the fiscal year, making it difficult for the 

Committee to exercise its oversight responsibility. Section 735 

states that FNS cannot receive any funding for research and evaluation projects in fiscal year 2016 until the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate receive the fiscal year 2016 Research and Evaluation Plan that has been developed in coordination with the REE mission area. 

In submitting the fiscal year 2017 and subsequent fiscal year 

budget justifications, FNS is directed to provide its Research and 

Evaluation Plan simultaneously with its budget request. FNS is 

further directed to coordinate and finalize its plan with the REE 

mission area in fiscal year 2016 and each fiscal year thereafter. 

The plan submitted for fiscal years 2016 and subsequent fiscal 

years shall include a brief description of the projects FNS expects 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
54 

to pursue, the total projected cost of each project, whether it will 

be done in-house or contracted out, and whether it was mandated 

by law or not. By coordinating this plan with the REE mission 

area, FNS projects will be more cost effective, efficient and reduce 

duplication. 

Communication from FNS.—The Committee recognizes the efforts made to increase communication and reduce delays by FNS 

in completing requested reports. Reports requested by the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate, as well as information regarding FNS programs, are an important part of the 

Committees’ oversight responsibilities. The directives and issues 

that are specified in the House, Senate, or conference report are 

very important to the Committee, and dates are mandatory. FNS 

is expected to keep the Committee apprised of activities and issues, 

especially those mentioned in Committee reports. FNS is reminded 

that the Committee reserves the right to call before it any agency 

that does not submit reports on time. 

Public Release of Information.—The Committee directs FNS to 

continue making all policy documents related to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children 

(WIC) program (including, but not limited to, instructions, memoranda, guidance, and questions and answers) available to the public on the Internet within one week of their release to state WIC 

administrators. 

Program Eligibility.—The Committee directs FNS to work with 

states to ensure full compliance with the law that all WIC and 

SNAP participants meet all program eligibility requirements. FNS 

also is directed to ensure these programs are not being promoted 

to ineligible individuals, which would increase program costs. 

Fruit and Vegetable Consumption.—The Dietary Guidelines for 

Americans emphasize that Americans should consume more fruits 

and vegetables in all of their forms. In order to maximize the value 

of the benefits nutrition program participants receive, the Committee urges FNS to recognize in relevant agency publications and 

regulations related to all Federal nutrition programs, including nutrition education programs and child nutrition programs, the nutritional benefits provided by all forms of fruits, vegetables, and 

beans, whether canned, dried, fresh, or frozen. 

FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE

CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

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

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

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 21,507,426,000 

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... +207,256,000 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥79,851,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Child Nutrition Programs, the Committee provides $21,507,426,000. 

Summer EBT.—The Committee includes funding for the summer 

electronic benefit transfer (EBT) pilot projects and notes that the 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
55 

2010 agriculture appropriations Act provided the initial funding for 

demonstration projects to test various methods of providing food for 

low-income children during the summer months. The pilots have 

been ongoing for five years. If the pilots have been successful, the 

Secretary is encouraged to work through the authorization process 

to establish a summer EBT program rather than continue with 

pilot projects. 

School Equipment.—The Committee provides funding for school 

meals equipment grants and directs the Department to provide a 

report that details the type of equipment that has been purchased 

by schools including but not limited to salad bars and equipment 

used to prepare foods offered on salad bars. The report should also 

include whether Federal Acquisition Regulations prevent schools 

from purchasing needed equipment or disqualify certain equipment 

purchases utilizing the school meals equipment grant program. If 

these, or any other regulations or requirements are impediments, 

the report should provide recommended solutions to ensure schools 

are able to procure a variety of needed equipment. 

School Meals.—The Committee remains concerned about the 

challenges and costs that local schools face in implementing the 

various regulations from the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 

2010. Some schools are continuing to have difficulty complying 

with the whole grain requirements that went into effect on July 1, 

2014, and there continues to be concern with further reductions in 

the sodium requirements for school meals. The Committee appreciates the Secretary providing guidance to the states so they can 

establish a process to exempt school food authorities demonstrating 

a hardship from the current whole grain standards, as required by 

the fiscal year 2015 appropriations Act. This flexibility is extended 

for the 2016–2017 school year. The Committee also retains bill language from the fiscal year 2015 appropriations Act requiring that 

sodium standards cannot be reduced below Target 1 until the latest 

scientific research establishes the reduction is beneficial for children. 

As schools seek to implement the school meal standards, the 

Committee encourages USDA to consider ways to assist schools 

with technical assistance and training, including the services of 

not-for-profit culinary institutions, to provide healthy, cost-effective 

foods that students will eat. 

The Committee directs FNS, in coordination with AMS, to issue 

guidance to school food authorities clarifying that commodities purchased with cash reimbursement funding must be bought in accordance with the Buy American Act, which contains exceptions for 

domestic product availability and price considerations. Such guidance can assist school food authorities in supplying products, such 

as canned tuna and other items, from private vendors while adhering to the Buy American Act. 

Improper Payments.—The Committee remains concerned about 

the staggering error rates for the National School Lunch Program 

(NSLP) and School Breakfast Program (SBP), which were about 15 

percent and 26 percent, respectively, in fiscal year 2014. This 

amounts to $1.7 billion in improper payments for NSLP and $923 

million for SBP. The OIG completed an audit report in May 2015 

to evaluate how FNS has attempted to lower the error rates for 

NSLP and SBP. OIG made recommendations such as requiring 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
56 

households to provide proof of income when submitting an application for free or reduced-price meals and that school food authorities 

should verify questionable applications. The Committee directs 

FNS to provide a report on how the agency will implement the recommendations made by OIG. 

The following table reflects the Committee recommendations for 

the child nutrition programs: 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Child Nutrition Programs: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Food Safety Education ................................................................................ 2,737 

Coordinated Review ..................................................................................... 10,000 

Computer Support and Processing ............................................................. 11,374 

Training and Technical Assistance ............................................................ 13,137 

CNP Studies and Evaluations .................................................................... 20,353 

CN Payment Accuracy ................................................................................ 10,404 

Farm to School Tactical Team .................................................................... 2,761 

Team Nutrition ............................................................................................ 15,504 

Healthier US School Challenge .................................................................. 1,500 

School Meals Equipment Grants ................................................................ 20,000 

Summer EBT Demonstration ..................................................................... 12,000 

Total ...................................................................................................... $21,507,426 

SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS, AND CHILDREN (WIC)

2015 appropriation ............................................................................. $6,623,000,000 

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 6,623,000,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 6,484,000,000 

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥139,000,000 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥139,000,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, the Committee provides an appropriation of 

$6,484,000,000. 

USDA data shows that WIC participation rates have decreased 

steadily since fiscal year 2010. The President’s budget request includes a projection of an average monthly participation rate of 8.5 

million women, infants, and children for fiscal year 2016. However, 

the average monthly participation rate was 8.3 million for fiscal 

year 2014, and the current average for fiscal year 2015 is 8.1 million. This data indicates that the actual trajectory of WIC participation continues to decline. Birth rates also remain at an all-time 

low according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

USDA is estimating recovery and carryover funds to be approximately $600 million. Furthermore, the Secretary has a sufficient 

WIC contingency reserve fund as a safety net to meet unexpected 

demand. With lower participation rates, higher carryover funds, 

and an ample reserve fund, the Committee provides funding that 

will ensure all eligible participants will be served. The Committee 

will continue to monitor WIC participation, carryover funds, and 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
57 

food costs and take additional action as necessary to ensure that 

funding provided in fiscal year 2016 remains sufficient to serve all 

eligible applicants. 

The Committee provides for continuation of the breastfeeding 

peer counselor program, infrastructure, and investments in management information systems including WIC EBT systems. The 

Committee continues to support transitioning WIC paper checks 

and vouchers to an EBT system. EBT is a proven, effective tool in 

combatting waste, fraud, and abuse. These funds will help WIC 

state agencies meet the statutory requirement to have an EBT system in place by October 1, 2020. 

The Committee appreciates the Secretary’s timely implementation of Section 753 of the fiscal year 2015 agriculture appropriations Act. WIC participants may now choose from all varieties of 

fresh fruits and vegetables. The Committee recognizes that the required review of the WIC food package is currently underway and 

directs USDA to keep the Committees on Appropriations of the 

House and Senate apprised as this process continues. 

Income Eligibility Standards.—The Committee continues to monitor WIC income eligibility standards to ensure all procedures are 

followed by the WIC state and local agencies. USDA is directed to 

provide a report on the continuing efforts to ensure that only those 

households with incomes at or below 185 percent of the Federal 

poverty level are enrolled in the WIC program and that state and 

local agencies adhere to the income verification procedures that the 

Department has implemented. In the case of individuals who are 

adjunctively eligible for the program through Medicaid, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program or SNAP, 

the Committee encourages USDA to explore the use of income 

verification mechanisms already in use by State Medicaid programs, TANF and SNAP to enroll in the program those with household incomes consistent with the low income, nutritionally at risk 

enrollment goals of the WIC program. 

Cost Management within WIC State Agencies.—The Committee is 

aware of an OIG audit report issued in September of 2014 stating 

that FNS has worked with state agencies to reduce food costs, but 

further steps could be taken. This report makes recommendations 

that could benefit the program such as coordinating with Medicaid 

for the potential program reimbursement for prescribed infant formulas and medical foods and evaluating cost containment measures in states with the lowest food costs to potentially expand successful initiatives nationwide. The Committee directs USDA to submit a report describing how they have responded to each of OIG’s 

recommendations. 

Fraudulent Activities.—The Committee remains concerned that 

some individuals are selling WIC benefits or WIC-purchased infant 

formula or food items on social media sites and by other means, 

which is a violation of Federal WIC regulations. During a Congressional hearing, the GAO also expressed concern with this type of 

online fraud. The Committee directs FNS to provide a report within 60 days of enactment of this Act describing how the agency is 

addressing this abuse and coordinating with state and local officials to prevent these activities. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
58 

SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

2015 appropriation ............................................................................. $81,837,570,000 

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 83,693,067,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 81,653,207,000 

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥184,363,000 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥2,039,860,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the Committee provides $81,653,207,000. The total amount includes 

$3,000,000,000 for a contingency reserve to be used only in the 

amount necessary. The Committee does not support funding to establish Centers of Excellence or conduct unauthorized activities, 

which leads to an expectation that future funds will be provided to 

support activities and centers not authorized by Congress. 

The Committee is aware that FNS is preparing a report describing purchases made by SNAP recipients as compared to non-SNAP 

recipients. FNS is directed to complete this report as soon as practicable and make this report publicly available. 

Employment Verification.—The 2014 farm bill requires state 

agencies to use the National Directory of New Hires (NDNH) to 

verify wage and employment information. As of March 2015, only 

20 states have completed the process and are conducting matches 

using NDNH. The Committee directs USDA to continue working 

with the remaining states to complete the process and implement 

the use of NDNH as soon as practicable. 

Recruitment Activities.—The Committee continues to direct 

USDA to ensure Section 4018 of the 2014 farm bill is implemented 

and enforced in a manner consistent with the statute which prohibits USDA from conducting recruitment activities, advertising 

the program, and from entering into agreements with foreign governments to promote SNAP benefits. The Committee continues to 

direct USDA to enforce this provision to ensure state agencies are 

not reimbursed for similar activities consistent with the statute. 

Issuance of SNAP Benefits.—The Committee notes that some 

states issue SNAP benefits to recipients in a compressed time 

frame, usually at the beginning of the month, which causes challenges for both SNAP participants and retailers. The Committee 

recognizes that other states issue benefits on different days 

throughout the month, which allows SNAP retailers to stock a consistent supply of food items to ensure participants have access to 

a variety of foods. The Committee directs FNS to work with those 

states with a compressed issuance schedule to provide benefits in 

a manner that will help SNAP retailers provide recipients with a 

steady supply of healthy food, and to report to the Committees on 

Appropriations of the House and Senate progress made on this 

issue within 90 days of enactment of this Act. 

The following table reflects the Committee recommendations for 

SNAP: 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Account: 

Benefits ............................................................................................................. $70,895,726 

Contingency Reserve ....................................................................................... 3,000,000 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
59 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Administrative Costs: 

State Administrative Costs ............................................................................. 4,238,438 

Nutrition Education and Obesity Prevention Grant Program ..................... 411,000 

Employment and Training .............................................................................. 456,669 

Mandatory Other Program Costs ................................................................... 179,955 

Discretionary Other Program Costs ............................................................... 998 

Administrative Subtotal ........................................................................... 5,287,060 

Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico (NAP) ......................................................... 1,971,415 

American Samoa ..................................................................................................... 7,917 

Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations ............................................ 145,191 

TEFAP Commodities .............................................................................................. 319,750 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands ............................................... 12,148 

Community Food Project ........................................................................................ 9,000 

Program Access ....................................................................................................... 5,000 

Subtotal ..................................................................................................... 2,470,421 

Total ................................................................................................... $81,653,207 

COMMODITY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

2015 appropriation ............................................................................. $278,501,000 

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 288,317,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 288,317,000 

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... +9,816,000 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

The Committee provides an appropriation of $288,317,000 for the 

Commodity Assistance Program. The recommended funding level 

for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program is $221,298,000. 

The Committee recommendation includes $16,548,000 for the 

Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program. 

The Committee has included $49,401,000 for administrative 

funding for The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP). 

For the Food Donations Programs, the Committee provides an appropriation of $1,070,000 for Pacific Island Assistance. 

TEFAP Handling and Distribution Costs.—In addition to the 

grant funds to support commodity handling and distribution costs, 

the bill permits states to use up to 10 percent of the funds provided 

for purchasing TEFAP commodities to help with the costs of storing, transporting, and distributing commodities. The Committee expects state agencies to consult with their emergency feeding organizations on the need for the conversion of such funds. 

NUTRITION PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION

2015 appropriation ............................................................................. $150,824,000 

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 155,564,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 141,348,000 

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥9,467,000 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥14,216,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Nutrition Programs Administration, the Committee provides $141,348,000. 

The Committee does not provide funding for the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion to develop Federal dietary guidance 

for infants and children from birth to 24 months of age or to proVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:33 Jul 15, 2015 Jkt 094459 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR205.XXX HR205

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
60 

mote the Dietary Guidelines for Americans or MyPlate. The nutrition education services provided through WIC, along with other 

Federal nutrition education programs, are available to assist with 

the dietary and nutritional needs of infants and children. The Committee also notes that USDA does significant advertising of the Dietary Guidelines, MyPlate, and other resources to promote 

healthier lifestyles. These efforts are combined with the ‘‘Let’s 

Move!’’ campaign and use of this information by the public and private sectors. 

Dietary Guidelines for Americans.—There continues to be concern 

with the 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans advisory committee (DGAC) recommendations. The fiscal year 2015 explanatory 

statement stated that Congress expected the Secretary to ensure 

that the DGAC remained focused on nutrient and dietary recommendations based upon sound nutrition science. However, the 

DGAC report released February 19, 2015, included extraneous factors and policy recommendations that are outside of the statutory 

requirement, such as agriculture production practices including 

sustainability, taxes, food labeling and marketing policies. This was 

the first time environmental factors impacted recommendations 

traditionally aimed at diet and nutrition. Questions have been 

raised regarding the scientific evidence and scientific process used 

to make the recommendations. 

The Committee considers the scientific integrity of the Dietary 

Guidelines to be fundamental to Federal nutrition policy that best 

advances public health. Therefore, bill language is included to ensure both the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of HHS 

use the most rigorous and objective science through the Nutrition 

Evidence Library (NEL) and that the final report adheres to the 

statutory authority of providing diet and nutrition information 

only. The Committee also expects the Departments to ensure the 

final guidelines do not conflict with sound scientific, nutritional 

guidance implemented by other federal agencies outside of USDA 

and HHS. 

USDA and HHS received more than 29,000 comments during the 

public comment period for the DGAC report. Given the unprecedented number of comments and the fact that the DGAC included 

recommendations beyond its nutritional purview, greater transparency is needed as the Departments finalize the guidelines. The 

public will have no other opportunity to provide input or understand what the Departments might recommend before they release 

the final guidelines. Therefore, bill language directs the Departments to revise and publish the preliminary draft of the guidelines. 

The public notice shall also include a list of the specific scientific 

studies and evidence that has been rated ‘‘Grade I: Strong’’ by the 

NEL supporting each revised or new recommendation. Finally, the 

Secretaries shall allow for a minimum 90 day public comment period of the revised recommendations, and finalization shall not 

occur until at least 60 days after the comment period to allow the 

Departments time to review the comments. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
61 

TITLE V 

FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS 

FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriation Transfer from export 

loan account Total 

2015 Appropriation ................................................................... $181,423,000 $6,394,000 $187,817,000 

2016 Budget Estimate .............................................................. 191,631,000 6,394,000 198,025,000 

Provided in the Bill ................................................................... 184,423,000 6,394,000 190,817,000 

Comparison: 

2015 Appropriation .......................................................... +3,000,000 – – – +3,000,000 

2016 Budget Estimate ..................................................... ¥$7,208,000 $– – – ¥$7,208,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Foreign Agricultural Service, the Committee provides an 

appropriation of $184,423,000 and transfer of $6,394,000 for a total 

appropriation of $190,817,000. 

Farmer-to-Farmer.—The Farmer-to-Farmer program provides 

valuable outreach opportunities for U.S. agricultural exports. The 

program enhances agricultural efforts overseas and strengthens 

international ties. The Committee directs USDA to take a more 

prominent role in the Farmer-to-Farmer program. 

FOOD FOR PEACE TITLE I DIRECT CREDIT AND FOOD FOR PROGRESS

PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

2015 appropriation ............................................................................. $2,528,000 

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 2,528,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 2,528,000 

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the administrative expenses to carry out the credit program 

of Food for Peace Title I, Food for Peace Act, and the Food for 

Progress Act, the Committee provides an appropriation of 

$2,528,000. 

FOOD FOR PEACE TITLE II GRANTS

2015 appropriation ............................................................................. $1,466,000,000 

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 1,400,000,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 1,417,000,000 

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥49,000,000 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. +17,000,000 

For Food for Peace Title II grants, the Committee provides an 

appropriation of $1,417,000,000, of which $350,000,000 is for nonemergency assistance. 

Food Aid Funding.—The Committee provides funding above the 

President’s budget request level. While the Committee recognizes a 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
62 

need for funding levels similar to the enacted level and supports 

the program, overall funding levels have placed severe limits on 

available resources. 

Food Aid Reform.—The Committee again does not provide the 

changes to the Food for Peace Act requested in the President’s 

budget. The 2014 farm bill rejected similar changes just last year. 

Further, the Committee notes that the ‘‘flexibility’’ desired for various methods of delivery through cash, vouchers, and in-kind food 

assistance already exists across the whole-of-government. There 

are numerous programs that uniquely fit each of these needs. Finally, the Committee notes that continued efforts to change the 

sixty-year tradition of Food for Peace has only created internal divisions among the food aid community rather than a united front 

against combatting hunger abroad. 

GAO Recommendations.—The Committee received the report required in Public Law 113–235 regarding responses to GAO recommendations and is encouraged by the direction USDA and the 

U.S. Agency for International Development are taking. The Committee directs both agencies to continue to update and ratify a 

written agreement that clearly defines roles and responsibilities for 

carrying out the Food for Peace Title II program. The Committee 

directs the agencies to provide a written report to the Committees 

on Appropriations of the House and Senate on the status of this 

agreement within 60 days of enactment of this Act. 

MCGOVERN-DOLE INTERNATIONAL FOOD FOR EDUCATION AND CHILD

NUTRITION PROGRAM GRANTS

2015 appropriation ............................................................................. $191,626,000 

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 191,626,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 191,626,000 

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child 

Nutrition Program Grants, the Committee provides an appropriation of $191,626,000. 

COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION EXPORT (LOANS)

CREDIT GUARANTEE PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

2015 appropriation ............................................................................. $6,748,000 

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 6,748,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 6,748,000 

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For administrative expenses of the Commodity Credit Corporation Export Loans Credit Guarantee Program Account, the Committee provides an appropriation of $6,748,000. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
63 

TITLE VI 

RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG 

ADMINISTRATION 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

[Dollars in thousands] 

Appropriation User fees Total, FDA 

S&E 

2015 Appropriation ............................................................. $2,588,536 $1,854,820 $4,443,356 

2016 Budget Estimate ........................................................ 2,734,715 1,930,685 4,665,400 

Provided in the Bill ............................................................. 2,618,534 1,930,685 4,549,219 

Comparison: 

2015 Appropriation .................................................... +29,998 +75,865 +105,863 

2016 Budget Estimate ............................................... ¥$116,181 $– – – ¥$116,181 

The Committee provides an appropriation of $2,618,534,000 in 

new budget authority for the Food and Drug Administration. In addition, the Committee recommends the following user fee amounts: 

$826,072,000—prescription drugs; $134,475,000—medical devices; 

$320,029,000—human generic drugs; $21,540,000—biosimilar 

biologicals; $22,140,000—animal drugs; $7,429,000—animal generic 

drugs; $599,000,000—tobacco products; estimated $1,434,000—food 

and feed recalls; estimated $6,414,000—food reinspection; and, estimated $5,300,000—voluntary qualified importers. The combination 

of new budget authority and user fees provides the FDA with a 

total discretionary salaries and expenses level of $4,549,219,000. 

This total does not include permanent, indefinite user fees for 

mammography, pharmacy compounding, export, and color certification estimated at $33,356,000. The Committee accepts proposed 

administrative savings of $15,718,000. 

The Committee recommendation does not include proposed user 

fees for Food Facility Registration and Inspection, Food Import, 

International Courier, Cosmetics, or Food Contact Notification. 

The Committee does not include funding for a civilian pay increase across the agency. Should the President provide a civilian 

pay increase for 2016, it is assumed that the cost of such a pay increase will be absorbed within existing appropriations for fiscal 

year 2016. 

The Committee recommendation maintains the fiscal year 2015 

funding levels for the medical countermeasures initiative as well as 

recent funding increases for antimicrobial resistance, counterfeit 

drugs, food safety, foreign drug inspections, import safety, and 

pharmacy compounding. 

Funding for Food Safety.—The Committee includes increases of 

$41,500,000 for the implementation of the FSMA. These increases 

consist of: $18,500,000 for Inspection Modernization and Training; 

$5,000,000 for the National Integrated Food Safety System; 

$11,500,000 for Education and Technical Assistance for Industry; 

$2,500,000 for Technical Staffing and Guidance Development; 

$3,000,000 for Import Safety; and $1,000,000 for Risk Analytics 

and Evaluation. The increases provided in this bill and the inVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:33 Jul 15, 2015 Jkt 094459 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR205.XXX HR205

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
64 

creases provided since fiscal year 2011 should assist the 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. 

The Committee notes that with these increases, the estimated 

total funding for food safety since FSMA was signed into law on 

January 4, 2011, would be over $230 million. In addition to the increases for FSMA, the FDA utilizes base resources for its comprehensive food safety efforts. Prior to the Committee’s investment 

in food safety activities related to FSMA over the past five years, 

FDA reported that it spent $785 million for food safety in fiscal 

year 2009 and had an appropriation for food safety of $952.9 million in fiscal year 2010. While some of these base resources prior 

to the enactment of FSMA covered statutory responsibilities that 

are not directly linked to FSMA, a large majority of such funds do 

relate to FSMA and should be accounted for accordingly. The Committee continues to seek far more information on how the agency 

is spending its resources for FSMA related activities from increased 

funding and base resources. Therefore, the Committee directs the 

FDA to provide a detailed accounting of its food safety resources in 

the fiscal year 2017 budget request, including which pre-2011 base 

resources are now repurposed for activities in support of FSMA and 

which resources are the result of appropriated increases from fiscal 

years 2011 to 2016, a detailed explanation of what the FDA has accomplished with increased food safety resources since fiscal year 

2011, and how the aggregate total of these base resources for food 

safety will be utilized in fiscal year 2017. 

Medical Product Safety Funding.—The Committee provides an increase of $4,216,000 for medical product safety initiatives. Included in this amount is $2,500,000 for combating antibiotic resistant bacteria as part of the National Strategy for Combating Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria (CARB), $1,000,000 for the Precision Medicine initiative, and $716,000 for the evaluation of over the counter 

sunscreen products. According to the FDA’s fiscal year 2016 budget 

request, the Agency is spending approximately $32.5 million on 

antimicrobial resistance activities in fiscal year 2015. With this increase, the FDA is expected to spend approximately $35 million on 

combating antibiotic resistance in fiscal year 2016. 

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 Drug Quality and Security Act (Public Law 112–43, 127 

Stat. 587) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 

353a et seq.). Within 90 days of enactment of this Act, the FDA 

shall report to Congress on when its review of proposed APIs pursuant to § 503A(1)(a)(iii) will be completed. 

Antibiotics.—The Committee urges the FDA to work to foster the 

development of new antibiotics by supporting greater collaboration 

between industry and the FDA around adaptive clinical trials and 

labeling changes. The President’s Council of Advisors on Science 

and Technology has recommended this proposal to help support the 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
65 

type of robust drug development that will be needed to ensure patients are protected from bacterial resistance. 

Bioethics.—The Committee notes that the FDA commissioned a 

consensus study from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) on ‘‘Ethical 

and Social Policy Considerations of Novel Techniques for Prevention of Maternal Transmission of Mitochondrial DNA Diseases.’’ 

The Committee further notes that the FDA has requested that the 

IOM produce a consensus report on the ethical and social policy 

issues related to genetic modification of eggs and zygotes to prevent 

transmission of mitochondrial disease. The Committee directs the 

FDA to establish an independent panel of experts, including those 

from faith-based institutions with expertise on bioethics and faithbased medical associations, and to submit this consensus report to 

the independent panel of experts upon its completion by the IOM. 

The Committee urges the independent panel of experts to review 

the IOM report and report their evaluation of its conclusions, along 

with any recommendations based on this review, to the Committee 

within 30 days of the completion of the report by the IOM. 

Biological Products.—The Committee commends the FDA for 

issuing draft guidance to address the mixing, diluting, or repackaging of biological products outside the scope of an approved biologics license application. The Committee urges the FDA to finalize 

the guidance without delay following the public comment period 

and continues to emphasize the need for close FDA inspection and 

supervision of large-scale compounding and repackaging of sterile 

injectable drugs and biological products, particularly products that 

are administered into areas of the human body where there is tempered immunity, such as the eye or spinal column, to ensure that 

they are processed in keeping with current good manufacturing 

practice for sterile products, in particular 21 CFR 200.50 regarding 

ophthalmic preparations. 

Biosimilars—Naming and Interchangeability—Five years postenactment of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act 

(BPCIA), FDA has only released guidances on general issues like 

scientific considerations in demonstrating biosimilarity, how exclusivity for innovator products may be applied, and how FDA will 

conduct insdustry/applicant meetings. These guidances do not address in any way the key considerations affecting patients or providers, such as what biosimilars will be named so that patients and 

their providers know which specific therapy a patient receives, for 

which indications can a biosimilar or interchangeable product be 

used, and scientific considerations for determining interchangeability. Due to the absence of these guidances the FDA was forced 

to approve biosimilar Zarxio with a ‘‘placeholder’’ name. The Committee finds this unacceptable and directs the FDA to issue naming 

and interchangeability guidances no later than November 30, 2015. 

Blood Plasma Products.—The Committee notes that the FDA has 

followed the Committee’s advice from fiscal year 2015 and is addressing the issue of the use of plasma for post-collection manufacture into critical plasma derivatives, no matter the manner in 

which the blood is collected. The Committee urges the FDA to 

prioritize developing policies to allow for the more timely use of 

plasma from automated donations into other biologics and asks 

that the FDA update the Committee on its progress with a report 

no later than 60 days after enactment of this Act. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
66 

Blood Product Policies.—Last December, the FDA released draft 

guidance for industry entitled ‘‘Bacterial Detection Testing by 

Blood Collection Establishments and Transfusion Services to Enhance the Safety and Availability of Platelets for Transfusion.’’ As 

the agency is aware, the Committee issued report language in fiscal year 2012 expressing concern for the safety risks to transfusion 

patients from bacterially contaminated platelets. The Committee is 

pleased to see the agency take the step of releasing draft guidance. 

Unfortunately, when the FDA released its guidance agenda for 

2015, the final version of this draft guidance was not listed among 

the agency’s priorities. This is an important safety issue, and it is 

essential that the agency complete the guidance process in a timely 

manner. The Committee urges the FDA to do so as quickly as possible. 

Centers of Excellence—The Committee is aware of the important 

contribution of CFSAN’s Food Safety Centers of Excellence in supporting critical basic research as well as facilitating the implementation of the Food Safety Modernization Act. The Committee encourages the agency to continue to fully utilize the Centers of Excellence to accomplish these goals and to enhance its level of support for Food Safety Modernization Act activities and to increase 

funding for base work. 

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 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 and Colors.—The Committee directs the FDA to spend 

no less than the fiscal year 2015 level for cosmetics activities as 

well as for the Office of Colors and Cosmetics (OCAC). Funding 

provided for OCAC is for direct support of the operation, staffing, 

compliance, research and international activities performed by this 

office. 

The Committee notes that, for the past five years, it has directed 

the FDA to respond to the Citizen Petition requesting that the FDA 

establish a safe level for lead as a nonfunctional constituent in lipstick. The Committee is aware that in 1975 the cosmetic industry 

asked the FDA to evaluate the safety of ingredients found in its 

products. Consistent with this commitment, in 1976 the cosmetic 

industry established the Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) under 

which the safety of approximately 3,880 ingredients has been reviewed by an Expert Panel of independent scientists, and the FDA 

has participated through a nonvoting liaison at all meetings of the 

Expert Panel. The Committee directs the FDA to respond to the 

Citizen Petition on this lipstick ingredient by December 31, 2015. 

Cosmetic Ingredient Review Panel.—As noted, the cosmetic industry established the CIR as a means to assure the safety of ingredients in cosmetic products. Given the breadth and volume of ingredients reviewed and the scientific expertise applied to its process, 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
67 

it is the Committee’s belief CIR should be recognized and formalized as a public-private program. The Committee therefore directs 

that the FDA work with the cosmetic industry to transfer the CIR 

to the United States Pharmacopeia Convention (USP) or some 

other appropriate third body for the purpose of evaluating and determining the safety of ingredients found in cosmetics. USP is a 

widely respected independent scientific organization whose drug 

standards are explicitly incorporated under the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). The Committee directs that the 

FDA, working cooperatively with the cosmetic industry, report back 

to the Committee no later than January 15, 2016, with a framework and a detailed plan. 

Drug Compounding.—The Committee is concerned that, since 

passage of the Drug Quality and Security Act (DQSA) of 2013, the 

FDA has interpreted provisions of Section 503A of the FDCA in a 

manner inconsistent with its legislative intent and with the agency’s own previous positions. Specifically, the FDA has taken the position that under 503A, a pharmacist may not compound medications prior to receipt of a prescription and transfer the drugs to a 

requesting physician or other authorized agent of the prescriber for 

administration to his or her patients without a patient-specific prescription accompanying the medication. This practice, which is 

often referred to as ‘‘office-use’’ compounding, is authorized in the 

vast majority of states and was intended to be allowable under 

DQSA. The Committee is aware that in 2012, prior to passage of 

the DQSA, FDA was working on a draft compliance policy guide for 

503A of the FDCA that provided guidance on how ‘‘office-use’’ 

compounding could be done consistent with the provisions of 503A. 

The Committee understands the intent of the DQSA was not to 

prohibit compounding pharmacists from operation under existing 

503A exemptions; therefore, the Committee directs the FDA to 

issue a guidance document on how compounding pharmacists can 

continue to engage in ‘‘office-use’’ compounding before the receipt of 

a patient-specific prescription consistent with the provisions of 

503A within 90 days after the enactment of this Act. 

Drug Labeling Approval.—The Committee acknowledges FDA’s 

actions over the past six months regarding the proposed rule, ‘‘Supplemental Applications Proposing Labeling Changes for Approved 

Drugs and Biological Products,’’ to include a listening session on 

March 27, 2015, and a reopened comment period that closed on 

April 27, 2015. However, the Committee continues to be concerned 

with FDA actions from the beginning of this process and the subsequent failure to find closure on this issue. As things currently 

stand, the rule would allow a generic drug manufacturer to alter 

its safety labeling unilaterally without FDA’s prior approval, even 

if there is more than one generic manufacturer or an innovator 

manufacturer and generic manufacturer marketing the same bioequivalent drug (a ‘‘multisource’’ drug), and other companies are 

not required to make a corresponding labeling change. 

The proposed rule has the potential to threaten public health by 

creating unprecedented patient and provider confusion by having 

multiple labels for bioequivalent products. The Committee urges 

the FDA to finalize the rule based upon comments it received in 

the docket and during the March 27 public meeting to meet the 

stated objectives of ensuring that patients have the most complete 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
68 

and up-to-date information regarding their prescription drugs. The 

final rule should establish: (1) FDA as the final decision maker of 

whether or not a manufacturer should change its labeling in a 

multisource environment; (2) a process by which the FDA collects 

and utilizes all safety information to determine if a labeling change 

is required—from the new safety information from the manufacturer to sources such as the Sentinel System and other global databases; (3) a process by which the FDA has defined time parameters 

to take action on new safety information provided by innovator or 

generic application holders; and, (4) a process by which manufacturers should have a defined time period to make the corresponding labeling change. A final rule with these minimum requirements should be grounded in scientific evidence, and present 

no opportunity for mismatched dispensing or use information between the innovator drug and the generic version drug. 

Drug Shortages.—The Committee is aware that shortages of critical drugs persist following the 2012 enactment of the Food and 

Drug Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA). Surveys conducted by 

the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists, the American Hospital Association, and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists report persistent shortages of drugs used in anesthesia 

care, oncology, and other services, owing primarily to problems in 

manufacturing, which impair patient access to care and patient experiences in the healthcare system, delay surgical procedures, and 

possibly increase overall healthcare costs. Therefore, within the 

funding provided the Committee directs the Commissioner to continue to prioritize the public reporting of manufacturing shortages, 

and to work with industry to prevent conditions that might lead to 

drug shortages. 

The Committee remains concerned about national shortages of 

drugs to test for and treat Tuberculosis (TB), and recognizes that 

shortages could lead to further TB transmission as well as the development of drug resistance. The FDA is encouraged to ensure 

that TB control partners are participating in the Drug Shortages 

Interagency Task Force, including representatives of the Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention, the Office of Emergency Preparedness and Response, and the Federal TB Task Force. The 

Committee requests a report on steps the FDA can take to prevent 

TB drug shortages and help maintain an adequate supply. 

Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy.—The Committee is aware that 

the FDA recently released draft guidance for the development of 

drugs to treat Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy and related issues. 

The Committee commends FDA for working with patient groups 

and urges them to continue this collaborative approach when evaluating the medical needs of a rare disease community. 

FDA Partnerships Under FSMA.—The purpose of FSMA is to reform the nation’s food safety laws to ensure a safe public food supply. As the FDA continues implementation of FSMA, the Committee encourages the FDA to work in partnership with existing 

government food safety programs, including the use of MOUs, to 

verify compliance with FSMA rules once they are finalized as a 

way to eliminate duplication of activities under the law. In addition, the Committee provides an increase of $2.5 million for the 

Food Safety Outreach Program under NIFA, and expects that, per 

the proposal in the President’s fiscal year 2016 budget request, 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
69 

NIFA will serve as the sole agency providing food safety training, 

education, outreach, and technical assistance at the farm level. 

Food Contact Notification User Fees.—The funds made available 

by this Act include sufficient monies to fund the FDA’s Food Contact Notification Program and shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of 21 U.S.C. 348(h)(5)(A). The Committee recommendation does not include proposed user fees. 

Generic Drug User Fee Facility Fees.—When the FDA begins the 

process for GDUFA reauthorization negotiations on June 15, 2015, 

the Committee urges all stakeholders to carefully consider providing fee waivers, exemptions, or otherwise reduced fees for small 

generic drug manufacturers to minimize the disproportionate financial burden on these companies. 

Genomic Editing.—The Committee understands the potential 

benefits to society in the genetic modification of living organisms. 

However, researchers do not yet fully understand all the possible 

side effects of editing the genes of a human embryo. Editing of the 

human germ line may involve serious and unquantifiable safety 

and ethical issues. Federal and non-Federal organizations such as 

the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Medicine will soon engage in more extensive scientific analysis of the 

potential risks of genome editing and a broader public discussion 

of the societal and ethical implications of this technique. In accordance with the current policy at the National Institutes of Health, 

the Committee includes bill language that places a prohibition on 

the FDA’s use of funds involving the genetic modification of a 

human embryo. The Committee continues to support a wide range 

of innovations in biomedical research, but will do so in a fashion 

that reflects well-established scientific and ethical principles. 

Harm Reduction.—It is the Committee recommendation that the 

FDA consider the benefits of harm reduction as part of evaluations 

under the Deeming regulations for tobacco products. 

Imported Pet Food Product Transparency.—As of May 15, 2015, 

the FDA had received approximately 5,200 reports of pet illness related to consumption of jerky pet treats, nearly all of which are imported from China. The reports involve more than 6,000 dogs, 26 

cats, and 3 humans and include more than 1,100 canine deaths. 

These incidents date back to 2007. The Committee requests that 

the FDA provide it with a summary of all activities associated with 

the investigation into the pet illnesses associated these products, 

including any import alerts and import refusals, within 60 days of 

the enactment of this Act. In addition, the Committee requests that 

the agency provide it with semi-annual reports on the status of the 

investigation into these illnesses beginning in April 2016 until the 

issue has been resolved. 

Late Reports.—The Committee reminds the Commissioner that 

the timelines specified by the Committees on Appropriations of the 

House and Senate for fiscal year 2015 reports are deadlines that 

must be met. While the Committee notes that the FDA has made 

progress in providing more timely information and updates, the 

FDA still has several outstanding reports that are delayed due to 

long reviews and clearances. The Committee directs the Commissioner to submit these overdue reports. 

Local Port Cooperation—The Committee directs FDA to work 

with local governments at high volume ports of entry to explore acVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:33 Jul 15, 2015 Jkt 094459 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR205.XXX HR205

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
70 

tivities which reduce the risk of food borne illnesses and enhance 

the capacity of local officials in dealing with food borne threats. 

Mammography Quality Assurance Advisory Committee.—More 

than three years ago, in November 2011, the National Mammography Quality Assurance Advisory Committee approved a change 

to the mammogram patient report and physician report to include 

information regarding an individual’s breast density. This process 

has not been completed. The Committee urges the FDA to implement this change in an expedited manner and must report to Congress on the status of this change no more than 60 days from the 

enactment of this Act. 

Medical Countermeasures.—The Committee directs that not less 

than $24,552,000 shall be available for the FDA’s Medical Countermeasures Initiative. This total is in addition to the unobligated 

funds remaining to support the FDA’s emergency response to Ebola 

and related disease outbreaks. 

Medical Gas Rulemaking.—The Committee is concerned that the 

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 FDA has never responded to a 1979 Citizens Petition on expiration dating or a 1994 

Citizens Petition on calculation of yield, and has not responded to 

a January 2014 statutorily required report on medical gas regulatory review. Therefore, the FDA shall issue a proposed rulemaking to address each and every regulatory issue that creates 

safety and enforcement issues for medical gases by September 30, 

2015. 

Menu Labeling.—The Committee is concerned about recent FDA 

final determination that increased the size and scope of those affected under restaurant menu labeling regulations. Specifically, the 

final rule attempts to regulate local grocery chains that typically do 

not qualify as restaurants. These newly regulated entities do not 

have clear guidance from the FDA as to how they must comply 

with numerous provisions of the final regulation. The Committee 

includes bill language that directs the FDA to implement the final 

rule no earlier than December 1, 2016, and at least one-year following agency publication of related guidance to newly regulated 

stakeholders. 

Molluscan Shellfish—The Committee is concerned that non-tariff 

trade barriers continue to preclude trade in molluscan shellfish 

with European Union states. The Committee encourages the agency to expedite its audit of growing areas in Europe and to seek 

equivalency in sanitary standards where possible to allow a resumption of trade. 

Off-Label Guidance.—The Committee notes that in December of 

2011, the FDA issued ‘‘Guidance for Industry: Responding to Unsolicited Requests for Off-Label Information About Prescription 

Drugs and Medical Devices’’, and a request for comment to assist 

the agency in evaluating policies for off-label uses of both approved 

and investigational drugs and devices. The comment period closed 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
71 

on March 27, 2012. Further, the FDA responded in June 2014 to 

two citizen petitions that were submitted to the agency in July of 

2011 and September of 2013 requesting clarification of regulations 

and policies regarding certain communications related to investigational new drugs and investigational new devices and off-label uses 

of drugs and devices. In the FDA’s response, the agency stated, 

‘‘that it plans to issue guidance that addresses unsolicited requests, 

distributing scientific and medical information on unapproved new 

uses and manufacturer discussions regarding scientific information 

more generally, by the end of the calendar year.’’ 

The Committee is concerned that the FDA has yet to issue new 

guidelines regarding the manner in which truthful and non-misleading scientific information outside of a product label for prescription drugs and medical devices can be conveyed. The Committee directs the FDA to address this issue comprehensively, outlining how manufacturers can communicate with all healthcare 

stakeholders, and to complete such guidelines within 60 days of enactment of this Act. 

Over the Counter (OTC) Medicines for Children—The Committee 

is concerned that the FDA has not issued a proposed rule revising 

the monograph regulating the labeling of OTC cough and cold products for children. The Committee directs the agency to publish a 

proposed rule by November 30, 2015, based on scientific evidence 

for safety and efficacy in pediatric populations and taking into consideration the October 19, 2007 joint recommendations of its Pediatric Advisory Committee and Nonprescription Drugs Advisory 

Committee. While the Committee appreciates the agency’s effort to 

explore possible improvements to the OTC drug monograph process; these efforts should not impede the prompt publication of this 

proposed rule. 

Partially Hydrogenated Oils.—The Committee is concerned that 

the FDA’s recent final determination that partially hydrogenated 

oils (PHOs) are no longer Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) 

could cause economic disruption in the marketplace and lead to unnecessary litigation. More importantly, the FDA should clarify that 

they have not concluded that PHOs are unsafe but that they no 

longer meet the general recognition element of the GRAS standard. 

Further, it is disturbing that the FDA would make such a determination without full public documentation of the data and process 

used to do so. Therefore, the Committee directs the FDA, in carrying out its enforcement of this determination, to: 1) issue a notice 

that it will delay the effective date of the final determination until 

acting on a Food Additive Petition following the procedures identified in 21 C.F.R. 170 38(c); 2) provide a reasonable transition period of 3 years for companies to reformulate products that would 

allow the marketing of current uses of PHOs during this transition 

period; 3) clarify that the final determination applies prospectively 

and after the agency issues the food additive regulation; and (4) 

that the FDA clarify that products containing PHOs prior to and 

during this transition period be deemed lawful and in compliance 

with the FDCA, and not seek to enforce any ban on the introduction of PHOs into commerce until after the revised effective date. 

Pharmacy Compounding.—The Committee is very concerned 

with the draft MOU that the FDA has proposed under Section 

503A of the FDCA. The proposed MOU would complicate patient 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
72 

and prescriber access to compounded medications, and may have a 

deleterious effect on small pharmacies. Under the draft MOU, the 

FDA attempts to describe ‘‘distribution’’ as occurring when ‘‘a compounded human drug product has left the facility in which the drug 

was compounded.’’ In the DQSA, Congress only allowed the FDA 

to regulate ‘‘distribution.’’ But the MOU appears to exceed the authority granted in the statue by redefining ‘‘distribution’’ in a manner that includes dispensing—something unprecedented. This overreach could generate exactly the kind of costly and confusing litigation that Congress intended to avoid when it amended and reinstated Section 503A. The Committee expects that, when a final 

MOU is proposed as a model agreement for the states to consider, 

that distribution and dispensing are treated as the different and 

separate activities that they actually are. 

Pollock Nomenclature.—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. 

Prescription Drug Labeling Inserts.—The Committee is aware of 

FDA proposals that would subvert repeatedly expressed Congressional intent by permitting the distribution of prescription drugs 

without printed prescribing information on or within the packages 

from which such drugs are to be dispensed. The FDA intends to replace such printed labeling with an electronic labeling system for 

the majority of prescription drugs. On several occasions Congress 

has directly declined to provide the FDA the necessary statutory 

authority to implement this change. As recently as 2012, Congress 

commissioned a GAO report (GAO–13–592) discussing this issue. 

The GAO report concluded that such a change could adversely impact public health. Thus, the Committee is very concerned that the 

FDA is moving to promulgate a regulation that would generally 

eliminate printed prescribing information inserts for prescription 

drugs. Therefore, the Committee has included a provision prohibiting the FDA from utilizing any funds to propose or otherwise promulgate any rule that requires or permits any prescription drug or 

biologic products to be distributed without printed prescribing information on or within the packaging from which such products are 

to be dispensed, unless such actions are expressly provided by an 

amendment to the FDCA. 

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

Policy, the FDA adopted a scientific integrity policy in 2012. It appears to conform to the President’s directive by maintaining a firm 

commitment to science-based, data-driven decision making, facilitating the free flow of scientific and technical information, and requiring a fair and transparent approach to resolving scientific disputes. The Committee directs the Commissioner to ensure all FDA 

centers agencies are complying with the policy and using it to 

guide their policy and regulatory decisions. 

Scientific Study Data.—Sound science, peer review and transparency are essential to effective protection of public health. The 

Committee is concerned that data from scientific studies utilized in 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
73 

forming public policy may not be available for public review, even 

under Freedom of Information Act requests. The Committee believes that if public policy is based on a scientific study, that study 

should be available for public review. The Committee urges the 

FDA to immediately provide, on its website, the data and studies 

it uses to support public policy used by the FDA or other Federal 

agencies based on FDA studies. 

Sodium Intake Levels.—The Committee is concerned about the 

FDA’s continued focus on voluntary sodium reductions and recommendations to remove the GRAS status of sodium given the 

growing body of evidence that suggests low sodium consumption 

can lead to health problems in healthy individuals. The Committee 

requires the FDA, in coordination with CDC, to convene a panel at 

the IOM to determine the blood pressure effect and Cardiovascular 

Disease (CVD) implications for healthy people consuming sodium 

at 3000 mg or less per day. Federal funds should not be expended 

on sodium reduction activities below 3000 mg per day until the 

science is formally considered surrounding healthy and safe sodium 

intake, especially for healthy individuals, and the impact of lower 

sodium on blood pressure (and an extrapolation to health), including direct research suggesting a negative impact of lower sodium 

on health. 

Spent Grains.—The Committee recognizes that the FDA took 

into consideration public comments and revised some of its proposed regulations on spent grains used for animal food. Processors 

already complying with FDA human food safety requirements 

would not need to implement additional preventive controls when 

supplying a by-product like wet spent grains for animal food. However, further processing a by-product for use as animal food such 

as drying spent grains, would require additional compliance under 

the proposed rule. The FDA has said potential hazards associated 

with spent grains are minimal, and steps to prevent contamination 

are likely already in place. The Committee includes bill language 

to ensure dry and wet spent grains used for animal food are regulated equally. 

Sunscreen Ingredient Applications.—The Committee is concerned 

that another year has passed without the FDA completing its review of the pending Time and Extent Applications (TEAs) and the 

OTC Monograph rulemakings on sunscreens. Immediate action on 

sunscreen applications should be a priority since the need for sunscreens is evident by the nearly five million people that are treated 

annually for all skin cancers and the fact that melanoma is the 

fifth leading cause of cancer in the U.S. this year. The bill provides 

the requested funding of $700,000 for the FDA to complete timely 

reviews of filed requests and determine the safety and efficacy of 

sunscreen ingredients. 

Sunscreen Ingredients and Report.—Thirteen years have passed 

without FDA final decisions on sunscreen ingredients that have 

been used around the world for many years. FDA’s inaction is particularly concerning because bipartisan reforms were enacted in the 

Sunscreen Innovation Act (SIA) addressing all of the issues identified as impediments by the FDA. The Surgeon General called on 

the Federal government to work with stakeholders to support skin 

cancer prevention and yet the FDA has still not approved a new 

sunscreen product since the 1990s. The FDA shall produce a report 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
74 

to the Committee by September 1, 2015, that contains a detailed 

analysis of how the FDA is balancing the Surgeon General’s Call 

to Action, the known public health benefits that regular sunscreen 

use provides to prevent skin cancer and melanoma, and the long 

history of safe and effective use of sunscreens currently backlogged 

at the FDA in comparable countries versus the hypothetical risk 

sunscreens posed to human health in FDA’s GRAS standard. Furthermore, the FDA shall issue draft guidance for industry outlining 

data required for sunscreen active ingredients to meet the FDA’s 

safety and efficacy standards and meet SIA’s statutory deadlines 

for publication. The bill provides $700,000 for FDA’s sunscreen activities. 

Surrogate Endpoints.—The Committee urges the FDA to issue 

guidance on the use of surrogate and intermediate endpoints for accelerated approval of regenerative medicine products under section 

506(c) of the FDCA (21 U.S.C. 356(c)). In the process of issuing 

guidance, the FDA shall consult with appropriate stakeholders in 

the development of this guidance. 

Tobacco Product Regulation.—The Committee includes bill language making a technical change to the FDA’s regulation of newly 

deemed tobacco products and products with nicotine derived from 

tobacco under the Tobacco Control Act (TCA). Current law allows 

the agency to regulate these newly deemed products, and this language maintains the FDA’s authority to ensure their safety 

through the regulatory process. Notably, the TCA provides the FDA 

with the authority to require that manufacturers submit detailed 

product formulas to the FDA for each of their products; authority 

to review any modifications to these newly regulated products 

going forward; and authority to issue product standards and other 

enforcement tools, including misbranding, adulteration and post 

market surveillance. The Committee fully supports these efforts to 

reduce potentially harmful effects associated with tobacco products. 

The Committee also supports FDA efforts to subject certain tobacco 

products to additional provisions, including minimum age of purchase restrictions, health warnings for product packages and ads, 

and a prohibition of certain vending machine sales. 

Rather than amending the FDA’s regulatory authority, this language relates only to a specific date—the predicate date of February 15, 2007. The current predicate date was established arbitrarily with the passage of TCA: Congress determined that manufacturers would not have to submit a pre-market approval application to the FDA for tobacco products that already existed on the 

market at that time. Those products that came onto the marketplace during the transition period after February 15, 2007 but before June 22, 2009 and introduced 21 months after the law was enacted were permitted to stay on the market as long as the manufacturer submitted a substantial equivalence submission to the 

FDA before the end of this transition period. Products entering the 

marketplace after this time period are required to submit a premarket tobacco product application. Using the 2007 date means 

that newly-regulated categories of tobacco products—some of which 

have the potential to play an important role in harm reduction, and 

some of which hardly existed in commerce before that date—would 

face a more onerous approval process than cigarettes. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
75 

On April 25, 2014, the FDA released a proposed deeming regulation, which would grant authority for the agency to regulate cigars, 

vapor products and other products with nicotine derived from tobacco. The Committee hopes that the FDA finalizes that rule as 

soon as possible and urges the FDA to develop tobacco product 

safety standards aimed at reducing or eliminating the most harmful constituents for the safety of our public health, with a special 

focus on protecting young populations. Manufacturers should have 

to meet these product standards in order to ensure the safe sale 

of tobacco products in the marketplace. In particular, the Committee urges the FDA to further the extension of the TCA’s national minimum purchase age of 18 years to all tobacco products, 

regardless of when all other aspects of the deeming rule are made 

final. Further, the Committee urges the FDA to make child-resistant packaging and warning labels mandatory for liquids used with 

electronic-cigarette vaporizers. 

The Committee believes the FDA has discretion to modify the 

predicate date for these newly deemed products, but the FDA 

states that it would maintain February 15, 2007 as the predicate 

date. The Committee is concerned that this approach will dramatically add to the FDA’s substantial backlog of currently pending applications and create a regulatory logjam for the agency—diverting 

its attention from its core mission to promote public health, ensure 

the safe use of these products and prevent underage use and abuse. 

The Committee has therefore established a new policy that treats 

newly deemed products in the same way as the TCA treated newly 

regulated products when the law was enacted. Specifically, the language in this bill would make the predicate date for newly deemed 

tobacco products the effective date of the final deeming rule and 

mimic the 21-month transition period provided for cigarettes, 

smokeless tobacco and roll-your-own tobacco. 

For those products that enter the marketplace after the new 

predicate date, it is the Committee’s recommendation that the FDA 

provide education to manufacturers on how to complete Premarket 

Tobacco Applications and Substantial Equivalence Reports for 

newly deemed products. This education could take the form of guidance, webinars, and/or individual meetings with companies. Such 

outreach and educational efforts are especially important for small 

companies manufacturing products that have not been previously 

regulated by the FDA. Lastly, the Committee would support the 

FDA if the agency distinguished between premium cigars and other 

tobacco products in regulation. Premium cigars have consistently 

been shown to be less harmful and addictive, and are distinct from 

other tobacco products in regards to the perception among youth. 

User Fee Collections/Obligations.—The Committee continues to 

be concerned about the financial management of the FDA’s user fee 

programs. The Committee directs that not later than 30 days after 

enactment of this Act, and each month thereafter through the 

months covered by this Act, the Commissioner to submit to the 

Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate a report on 

user fees collected for each user fee program included in the Act. 

The report shall also include monthly obligations incurred against 

such fee collections. The first report shall include a distinct categorization of the user fee balances that are being carried forward 

into fiscal year 2017 for each user fee account as well as a detailed 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
76 

explanation of what accounts for the balance and what the balance 

will be used for. 

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

2015 appropriation ............................................................................. $8,788,000 

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 8,788,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 8,788,000 

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Buildings and Facilities of the Food and Drug Administration, the Committee provides an appropriation of $8,788,000. 

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

2015 appropriation ............................................................................. $250,000,000 

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... 322,000,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 245,000,000 

Comparison: 

2015 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥5,000,000 

2016 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥77,000,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Committee provides an appropriation of $245,000,000 and requires the use of 

$5,000,000 in rental abatement for a total program level of 

$250,000,000, of which $50,000,000 is for the purchase of IT and 

$3,000,000 is for the Inspector General. 

Swap Dealer de Minimis.—The Committee notes the Commission’s decision to provide for a public comment period on the study 

related to the Swap Dealer de Minimis level. While this is a positive step by the Commission in providing certainty to market endusers, it does not entirely comply with the letter of the directive in 

Public Law 113–235. The Committee directs the Commission to 

promulgate a rulemaking either maintaining the Swap Dealer de 

Minimis threshold at $8,000,000,000, the amount currently set 

forth in regulation, or above this amount pursuant to the results 

of the study currently being conducted as well as stakeholder 

input, within 60 days of enactment of this Act. 

Commission Staff.—The Committee reminds the Commission of 

its responsibility when making commitments under current law, including the Antideficiency Act. As the GAO’s Principles on Appropriations Law states ‘‘The fiscal principles inherent in the 

Antideficiency Act are really quite simple. Government officials 

may not make payments or commit the United States to make payments at some future time for goods or services unless there is 

enough money in the ‘bank’ to cover the cost in full. The ‘bank’, of 

course, is the available appropriation.’’ The Committee is aware of 

ongoing negotiations between the Commission and labor unions to 

arrive at a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). During these negotiations, the fundamental concept of spending within one’s 

known and available means comes into play. The Commission must 

not make commitments within the CBA based upon budget reVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:33 Jul 15, 2015 Jkt 094459 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR205.XXX HR205

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
77 

quests or projections of spending but upon its current funding situation. Alternatively, if the Commission makes firm commitments to 

higher expenses in the near and long term, they risk having to reduce spending elsewhere in the current budget or not having funds 

to maintain current staffing levels. Any CBA must reflect budgetary realities and management of current funds must not jeopardize Commission staff. The Committee directs the Commission to 

not increase personnel costs, either through excessive hiring, budgetary mismanagement, or CBA negotiations, that would risk any 

furloughs, reductions-in-force, or expected compensation for its 

hardworking staff. 

Leasing Costs.—The Committee notes reviews by the Inspector 

General regarding excessive leasing costs and a projection of $74 

million wasted on vacant space. This does not include approximately $30 million already spent on vacant space since 2009. A secondary review is being conducted by the GAO at the request of the 

Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate. The Committee directs the Commission, in accordance with the President’s 

‘‘Reduce the Federal Footprint’’ initiative, to find ways to decrease 

space and renegotiate leasing agreements. The Committee also provides the Commission and taxpayer budgetary relief through direction in the bill to utilize rental credits of $5 million provided by the 

Commission’s landlord. 

CFTC–SEC Cooperation.—The Committee directs the Commission to work cooperatively with the Securities and Exchange Commission on all joint rulemakings as required by the Dodd-Frank 

Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. 

Internal Risk Management Transactions.—The Committee is concerned that there is a lack of global coordination among regulators 

on the treatment of internal trades between affiliated entities. The 

Committee notes that international bodies left this to the discretion 

of national governments. As such, European and Japanese rules 

provide an exemption from margin requirements, with certain conditions, for internal trades between affiliates. In contrast, the U.S. 

market has proposed rules that would impose margin requirements 

on these trades. The Committee notes this will discourage prudent 

risk management by increasing the costs of these trades. These 

costs will be borne by the customers and result in reduced liquidity. The Committee urges the CFTC to recognize that such internal 

risk management transactions benefit customers. These requirements will result in regulatory arbitrage across jurisdictions. The 

Committee directs the Commission to report to the Committees on 

Appropriations of both Houses of Congress, within 60 days of enactment of this Act, on the impact of the proposed rules on consumers and industries. 

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

2015 limitation .................................................................................... ($60,500,000) 

2016 budget estimate ......................................................................... (69,400,000) 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. (65,600,000) 

Comparison: 

2015 limitation .................................................................................. +5,100,000 

2016 budget estimate ....................................................................... ¥3,800,000 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
78 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For a limitation on the expenses of the Farm Credit Administra- tion, the Committee provides $65,600,000. 

TITLE VII 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

(INCLUDING RESCISSIONS AND TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

The General Provisions contained in the accompanying bill for 

fiscal year 2016 are fundamentally the same as those included in 

last year’s appropriations bill. 

The following general provisions are included in the bill: 

Section 701: Limitation on the purchase of passenger motor vehicles. 

Section 702: Transfer authority regarding the Working Capital 

Fund. 

Section 703: Limitation on certain obligations. 

Section 704: Indirect cost rates for cooperative agreements with 

nonprofit institutions. 

Section 705: Disbursement of rural development loans. 

Section 706: Authority of the Chief Information Officer relating 

to new IT systems. 

Section 707: Availability of mandatory conservation program 

funding. 

Section 708: Rural Utility Service borrower eligibility. 

Section 709: Rescission of certain unobligated balances. 

Section 710: Prohibition on first-class airline travel. 

Section 711: Use of funds authorized by the Commodity Credit 

Corporation Charter Act. 

Section 712: Funding for advisory committees. 

Section 713: Indirect costs for competitive agricultural research 

grants. 

Section 714: Limitation on certain funds. 

Section 715: Limitation on certain funds. 

Section 716: Language on user fee proposals without offsets. 

Section 717: Language on reprogramming. 

Section 718: Language on fees for the business and industry 

guaranteed loan program. 

Section 719: Language on questions for the record. 

Section 720: Language regarding prepackaged news stories. 

Section 721: Language on prohibition on paid details in excess of 

60 days. 

Section 722: Language on the mohair program. 

Section 723: Language regarding spending plans. 

Section 724: Language on controls over humanitarian food assistance. 

Section 725: Language regarding Single Family Housing Direct 

Loan Program. 

Section 726: Language regarding USDA loan programs. 

Section 727: Transfer authority regarding the Working Capital 

Fund. 

Section 728: Language regarding the Commodity Exchange Act. 

Section 729: Language regarding purchases made through child 

nutrition programs. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
79 

Section 730: Language regarding potable water supplies. 

Section 731: Language regarding research programs. 

Section 732: Language regarding child nutrition programs. 

Section 733: Language regarding child nutrition programs. 

Section 734: Language regarding Dietary Guidelines for Americans. 

Section 735: Language regarding nutrition research. 

Section 736: Rescission of certain unobligated balances. 

Section 737: Rescission of certain unobligated balances. 

Section 738: Rescission of certain unobligated balances. 

Section 739: Language regarding marketing programs. 

Section 740: Rescission of certain unobligated balances. 

Section 741: Language regarding housing loan programs. 

Section 742: Language regarding a redirection of funds. 

Section 743: Language regarding consumer information. 

Section 744: Language regarding menu labeling. 

Section 745: Language regarding tissue regulation. 

Section 746: Language regarding animal feed. 

Section 747: Language regarding Food and Drug regulation. 

Section 748: Language regarding conservation programs. 

Section 749: Language regarding animal health. 

Section 750: Language regarding APHIS regulation. 

Section 751: Language regarding FDA regulation. 

Section 752: Language regarding food safety. 

Section 753: Language regarding Spending Reduction Accounts. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
80 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 03 here HR205.001
81 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 4 here HR205.002
82 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 5 here HR205.003
83 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 6 here HR205.004
84 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 7 here HR205.005
85 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 8 here HR205.006
86 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is a statement of general performance goals and objectives for which this measure authorizes funding: 

The Committee on Appropriations considers program performance, including a program’s success in developing and attaining 

outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing funding recommendations. 

RESCISSIONS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following lists the rescissions of unexpended 

balances included in the accompanying bill: 

Program or Activity Amount 

USDA Cushion of Credit ................................................................................................................................. $154,000,000 

USDA Watershed Rehabilitation ..................................................................................................................... 69,000,000 

USDA AMS (prior year balances) .................................................................................................................... 293,020,000 

USDA FSA (prior year balances) ..................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

USDA RD (prior year balances) ...................................................................................................................... 13,000,000 

USDA NRCS (prior year balances) .................................................................................................................. 20,000,000 

TRANSFER OF FUNDS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following list includes the transfers of unexpended balances included in the accompanying bill: 

1. Departmental Administration.—The bill requires reimbursement for expenses related to certain hearings. 

2. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations.— 

The bill allows a portion of the funds appropriated to the Office of 

the Assistant Secretary to be transferred to agencies. 

3. Agriculture Buildings and Facilities.—The bill allows funds 

appropriated in prior years for rental payments to be transferred 

to meet shortfalls in prior or current year rent. 

4. Hazardous Materials Management.—The bill allows the funds 

appropriated to the Department for hazardous materials management to be transferred to agencies of the Department as required. 

5. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.—Authority is included to enable the Secretary of Agriculture to transfer from other 

appropriations or funds of the Department such sums as may be 

necessary to combat emergency outbreaks of certain diseases of 

animals, plants, and poultry. 

6. Funds for Strengthening Markets, Income, and Supply.—The 

bill limits the transfer of section 32 funds to purposes specified in 

the bill. 

7. Farm Service Agency Salaries and Expenses.—The bill provides that funds provided to other accounts in the agency may be 

merged with the salaries and expenses account of the Farm Service 

Agency. 

8. Dairy Indemnity Program.—The bill authorizes the transfer of 

funds to the Commodity Credit Corporation, by reference. 

9. Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account.—The 

bill provides funds to be transferred to the Farm Service Agency. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
87 

10. Commodity Credit Corporation.—The bill includes language 

allowing certain funds to be transferred to the Foreign Agricultural 

Service for information resource management activities. 

11. Rural Development, Salaries and Expenses.—The bill provides that prior year balances from certain accounts shall be transferred to and merged with this account. 

12. Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account, Intermediary Relending Program Fund Account, and Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Program Account.—The bill provides 

funds in this account shall be transferred to the salaries and expenses of Rural Development. 

13. Rural Community Facilities Program Account, Rural Business Program Account, and Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program Account.—The bill provides that balances from these accounts may be transferred to and merged with other accounts. 

14. Child Nutrition Programs.—The bill includes authority to 

transfer section 32 funds to these programs. 

15. Foreign Agricultural Service, Salaries and Expenses.—The 

bill allows for the transfer of funds from the Commodity Credit 

Corporation Export Loan Program Account. 

16. Food for Peace Title I Direct Credit and Food for Progress 

Program Account.—The bill allows funds to be transferred to the 

Farm Service Agency, Salaries and Expenses account. The bill also 

provides that funds made available for the cost of title I agreements and for title I ocean freight differential may be used interchangeably. 

17. Commodity Credit Corporation Export Loans Program.—The 

bill provides for transfer of funds to the Foreign Agricultural Service and to the Farm Service Agency for overhead expenses associated with credit reform. 

18. Food and Drug Administration, Salaries and Expenses.—The 

bill allows funds to be transferred among activities. 

19. General Provisions.—The bill allows unobligated balances of 

discretionary funds to be transferred to the Working Capital Fund. 

DISCLOSURE OF EARMARKS AND CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED

SPENDING ITEMS

Neither the bill nor this report contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in 

clause 9 of rule XXI. 

COMPLIANCE WITH RULE XIII, CL. 3(e) (RAMSEYER RULE)

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman: 

COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 5b. DERIVATIVES CLEARING ORGANIZATIONS. 

(a) REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), it 

shall be unlawful for a derivatives clearing organization, diVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:33 Jul 15, 2015 Jkt 094459 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR205.XXX HR205

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
88 

rectly or indirectly, to make use of the mails or any means or 

instrumentality of interstate commerce to perform the functions of a derivatives clearing organization with respect to— 

(A) a contract of sale of a commodity for future delivery 

(or an option on the contract of sale) or option on a commodity, in each case, unless the contract or option is— 

(i) excluded from this Act by subsection (a)(1)(C)(i), 

(c), or (f) of section 2; or 

(ii) a security futures product cleared by a clearing 

agency registered with the Securities and Exchange 

Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 

1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.); or 

(B) a swap. 

(2) EXCEPTION.—Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a derivatives clearing organization that is registered with the Commission. 

(b) VOLUNTARY REGISTRATION.—A person that clears 1 or more 

agreements, contracts, or transactions that are not required to be 

cleared under this Act may register with the Commission as a derivatives clearing organization. 

(c) REGISTRATION OF DERIVATIVES CLEARING ORGANIZATIONS.— (1) APPLICATION.—A person desiring to register as a derivatives clearing organization shall submit to the Commission an 

application in such form and containing such information as 

the Commission may require for the purpose of making the determinations required for approval under paragraph (2). 

(2) CORE PRINCIPLES FOR DERIVATIVES CLEARING ORGANIZA- TIONS.— 

(A) COMPLIANCE.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—To be registered and to maintain 

registration as a derivatives clearing organization, a 

derivatives clearing organization shall comply with 

each core principle described in this paragraph and 

any requirement that the Commission may impose by 

rule or regulation pursuant to section 8a(5). 

(ii) DISCRETION OF DERIVATIVES CLEARING ORGANIZA- TION.—Subject to any rule or regulation prescribed by 

the Commission, a derivatives clearing organization 

shall have reasonable discretion in establishing the 

manner by which the derivatives clearing organization 

complies with each core principle described in this 

paragraph. 

(B) FINANCIAL RESOURCES.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—Each derivatives clearing organization shall have adequate financial, operational, and 

managerial resources, as determined by the Commission, to discharge each responsibility of the derivatives 

clearing organization. 

(ii) MINIMUM AMOUNT OF FINANCIAL RESOURCES.— Each derivatives clearing organization shall possess financial resources that, at a minimum, exceed the total 

amount that would— 

(I) enable the organization to meet its financial 

obligations to its members and participants notwithstanding a default by the member or particiVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:33 Jul 15, 2015 Jkt 094459 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR205.XXX HR205

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
89 

pant creating the largest financial exposure for 

that organization in extreme but plausible market 

conditions; and 

(II) enable the derivatives clearing organization 

to cover the operating costs of the derivatives 

clearing organization for a period of 1 year (as calculated on a rolling basis). 

(C) PARTICIPANT AND PRODUCT ELIGIBILITY.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—Each derivatives clearing organization shall establish— 

(I) appropriate admission and continuing eligibility standards (including sufficient financial resources and operational capacity to meet obligations arising from participation in the derivatives 

clearing organization) for members of, and participants in, the derivatives clearing organization; 

and 

(II) appropriate standards for determining the 

eligibility of agreements, contracts, or transactions 

submitted to the derivatives clearing organization 

for clearing. 

(ii) REQUIRED PROCEDURES.—Each derivatives clearing organization shall establish and implement procedures to verify, on an ongoing basis, the compliance of 

each participation and membership requirement of the 

derivatives clearing organization. 

(iii) REQUIREMENTS.—The participation and membership requirements of each derivatives clearing organization shall— 

(I) be objective; 

(II) be publicly disclosed; and 

(III) permit fair and open access. 

(D) RISK MANAGEMENT.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—Each derivatives clearing organization shall ensure that the derivatives clearing organization possesses the ability to manage the risks associated with discharging the responsibilities of the derivatives clearing organization through the use of appropriate tools and procedures. 

(ii) MEASUREMENT OF CREDIT EXPOSURE.—Each derivatives clearing organization shall— 

(I) not less than once during each business day 

of the derivatives clearing organization, measure 

the credit exposures of the derivatives clearing organization to each member and participant of the 

derivatives clearing organization; and 

(II) monitor each exposure described in subclause (I) periodically during the business day of 

the derivatives clearing organization. 

(iii) LIMITATION OF EXPOSURE TO POTENTIAL LOSSES

FROM DEFAULTS.—Each derivatives clearing organization, through margin requirements and other risk control mechanisms, shall limit the exposure of the derivatives clearing organization to potential losses from 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
90 

defaults by members and participants of the derivatives clearing organization to ensure that— 

(I) the operations of the derivatives clearing organization would not be disrupted; and 

(II) nondefaulting members or participants 

would not be exposed to losses that nondefaulting 

members or participants cannot anticipate or control. 

(iv) MARGIN REQUIREMENTS.—The margin required 

from each member and participant of a derivatives 

clearing organization shall be sufficient to cover potential exposures in normal market conditions. 

(v) REQUIREMENTS REGARDING MODELS AND PARAMETERS.—Each model and parameter used in setting 

margin requirements under clause (iv) shall be— 

(I) risk-based; and 

(II) reviewed on a regular basis. 

(E) SETTLEMENT PROCEDURES.—Each derivatives clearing organization shall— 

(i) complete money settlements on a timely basis 

(but not less frequently than once each business day); 

(ii) employ money settlement arrangements to eliminate or strictly limit the exposure of the derivatives 

clearing organization to settlement bank risks (including credit and liquidity risks from the use of banks to 

effect money settlements); 

(iii) ensure that money settlements are final when 

effected; 

(iv) maintain an accurate record of the flow of funds 

associated with each money settlement; 

(v) possess the ability to comply with each term and 

condition of any permitted netting or offset arrangement with any other clearing organization; 

(vi) regarding physical settlements, establish rules 

that clearly state each obligation of the derivatives 

clearing organization with respect to physical deliveries; and 

(vii) ensure that each risk arising from an obligation 

described in clause (vi) is identified and managed. 

(F) TREATMENT OF FUNDS.— 

(i) REQUIRED STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES.—Each 

derivatives clearing organization shall establish standards and procedures that are designed to protect and 

ensure the safety of member and participant funds 

and assets. 

(ii) HOLDING OF FUNDS AND ASSETS.—Each derivatives clearing organization shall hold member and participant funds and assets in a manner by which to 

minimize the risk of loss or of delay in the access by 

the derivatives clearing organization to the assets and 

funds. 

(iii) PERMISSIBLE INVESTMENTS.—Funds and assets 

invested by a derivatives clearing organization shall 

be held in instruments with minimal credit, market, 

and liquidity risks. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
91 

(G) DEFAULT RULES AND PROCEDURES.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—Each derivatives clearing organization shall have rules and procedures designed to allow 

for the efficient, fair, and safe management of events 

during which members or participants— 

(I) become insolvent; or 

(II) otherwise default on the obligations of the 

members or participants to the derivatives clearing organization. 

(ii) DEFAULT PROCEDURES.—Each derivatives clearing organization shall— 

(I) clearly state the default procedures of the derivatives clearing organization; 

(II) make publicly available the default rules of 

the derivatives clearing organization; and 

(III) ensure that the derivatives clearing organization may take timely action— 

(aa) to contain losses and liquidity pressures; and 

(bb) to continue meeting each obligation of 

the derivatives clearing organization. 

(H) RULE ENFORCEMENT.—Each derivatives clearing organization shall— 

(i) maintain adequate arrangements and resources 

for— 

(I) the effective monitoring and enforcement of 

compliance with the rules of the derivatives clearing organization; and 

(II) the resolution of disputes; 

(ii) have the authority and ability to discipline, 

limit, suspend, or terminate the activities of a member 

or participant due to a violation by the member or participant of any rule of the derivatives clearing organization; and 

(iii) report to the Commission regarding rule enforcement activities and sanctions imposed against 

members and participants as provided in clause (ii). 

(I) SYSTEM SAFEGUARDS.—Each derivatives clearing organization shall— 

(i) establish and maintain a program of risk analysis 

and oversight to identify and minimize sources of operational risk through the development of appropriate 

controls and procedures, and automated systems, that 

are reliable, secure, and have adequate scalable capacity; 

(ii) establish and maintain emergency procedures, 

backup facilities, and a plan for disaster recovery that 

allows for— 

(I) the timely recovery and resumption of operations of the derivatives clearing organization; 

and 

(II) the fulfillment of each obligation and responsibility of the derivatives clearing organization; and 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
92 

(iii) periodically conduct tests to verify that the 

backup resources of the derivatives clearing organization are sufficient to ensure daily processing, clearing, 

and settlement. 

(J) REPORTING.—Each derivatives clearing organization 

shall provide to the Commission all information that the 

Commission determines to be necessary to conduct oversight of the derivatives clearing organization. 

(K) RECORDKEEPING.—Each derivatives clearing organization shall maintain records of all activities related to the 

business of the derivatives clearing organization as a derivatives clearing organization— 

(i) in a form and manner that is acceptable to the 

Commission; and 

(ii) for a period of not less than 5 years. 

(L) PUBLIC INFORMATION.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—Each derivatives clearing organization shall provide to market participants sufficient information to enable the market participants to identify 

and evaluate accurately the risks and costs associated 

with using the services of the derivatives clearing organization. 

(ii) AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION.—Each derivatives clearing organization shall make information 

concerning the rules and operating and default procedures governing the clearing and settlement systems 

of the derivatives clearing organization available to 

market participants. 

(iii) PUBLIC DISCLOSURE.—Each derivatives clearing 

organization shall disclose publicly and to the Commission information concerning— 

(I) the terms and conditions of each contract, 

agreement, and transaction cleared and settled by 

the derivatives clearing organization; 

(II) each clearing and other fee that the derivatives clearing organization charges the members 

and participants of the derivatives clearing organization; 

(III) the margin-setting methodology, and the 

size and composition, of the financial resource 

package of the derivatives clearing organization; 

(IV) daily settlement prices, volume, and open 

interest for each contract settled or cleared by the 

derivatives clearing organization; and 

(V) any other matter relevant to participation in 

the settlement and clearing activities of the derivatives clearing organization. 

(M) INFORMATION-SHARING.—Each derivatives clearing 

organization shall— 

(i) enter into, and abide by the terms of, each appropriate and applicable domestic and international information-sharing agreement; and 

(ii) use relevant information obtained from each 

agreement described in clause (i) in carrying out the 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
93 

risk management program of the derivatives clearing 

organization. 

(N) ANTITRUST CONSIDERATIONS.—Unless necessary or 

appropriate to achieve the purposes of this Act, a derivatives clearing organization shall not— 

(i) adopt any rule or take any action that results in 

any unreasonable restraint of trade; or 

(ii) impose any material anticompetitive burden. 

(O) GOVERNANCE FITNESS STANDARDS.— (i) GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS.—Each derivatives 

clearing organization shall establish governance arrangements that are transparent— 

(I) to fulfill public interest requirements; and 

(II) to permit the consideration of the views of 

owners and participants. 

(ii) FITNESS STANDARDS.—Each derivatives clearing 

organization shall establish and enforce appropriate 

fitness standards for— 

(I) directors; 

(II) members of any disciplinary committee; 

(III) members of the derivatives clearing organization; 

(IV) any other individual or entity with direct 

access to the settlement or clearing activities of 

the derivatives clearing organization; and 

(V) any party affiliated with any individual or 

entity described in this clause. 

(P) CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.—Each derivatives clearing 

organization shall— 

(i) establish and enforce rules to minimize conflicts 

of interest in the decision-making process of the derivatives clearing organization; and 

(ii) establish a process for resolving conflicts of interest described in clause (i). 

(Q) COMPOSITION OF GOVERNING BOARDS.—Each derivatives clearing organization shall ensure that the composition of the governing board or committee of the derivatives 

clearing organization includes market participants. 

(R) LEGAL RISK.—Each derivatives clearing organization 

shall have a well-founded, transparent, and enforceable 

legal framework for each aspect of the activities of the derivatives clearing organization.’’. 

(3) ORDERS CONCERNING COMPETITION.—A derivatives clearing organization may request the Commission to issue an order 

concerning whether a rule or practice of the applicant is the 

least anticompetitive means of achieving the objectives, purposes, and policies of this Act. 

(d) EXISTING DERIVATIVES CLEARING ORGANIZATIONS.—A derivatives clearing organization shall be deemed to be registered under 

this section to the extent that the derivatives clearing organization 

clears agreements, contracts, or transactions for a board of trade 

that has been designated by the Commission as a contract market 

for such agreements, contracts, or transactions before the date of 

the enactment of this section. 

(e) APPOINTMENT OF TRUSTEE.— 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
94 

(1) IN GENERAL.—If a proceeding under section 5e results in 

the suspension or revocation of the registration of a derivatives 

clearing organization, or if a derivatives clearing organization 

withdraws from registration, the Commission, on notice to the 

derivatives clearing organization, may apply to the appropriate 

United States district court where the derivatives clearing organization is located for the appointment of a trustee. 

(2) ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION.—If the Commission applies for appointment of a trustee under paragraph (1)— 

(A) the court may take exclusive jurisdiction over the derivatives clearing organization and the records and assets 

of the derivatives clearing organization, wherever located; 

and 

(B) if the court takes jurisdiction under subparagraph 

(A), the court shall appoint the Commission, or a person 

designated by the Commission, as trustee with power to 

take possession and continue to operate or terminate the 

operations of the derivatives clearing organization in an 

orderly manner for the protection of participants, subject 

to such terms and conditions as the court may prescribe. 

(f) LINKING OF REGULATED CLEARING FACILITIES.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Commission shall facilitate the linking 

or coordination of derivatives clearing organizations registered 

under this Act with other regulated clearance facilities for the 

coordinated settlement of cleared transactions. In order to minimize systemic risk, under no circumstances shall a derivatives 

clearing organization be compelled to accept the counterparty 

credit risk of another clearing organization. 

(2) COORDINATION.—In carrying out paragraph (1), the Commission shall coordinate with the Federal banking agencies 

and the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

(g) EXISTING DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS AND CLEARING AGENCIES.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—A depository institution or clearing agency 

registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission 

under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et 

seq.) that is required to be registered as a derivatives clearing 

organization under this section is deemed to be registered 

under this section to the extent that, before the date of enactment of this subsection— 

(A) the depository institution cleared swaps as a multilateral clearing organization; or 

(B) the clearing agency cleared swaps. 

(2) CONVERSION OF DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS.—A depository 

institution to which this subsection applies may, by the vote of 

the shareholders owning not less than 51 percent of the voting 

interests of the depository institution, be converted into a State 

corporation, partnership, limited liability company, or similar 

legal form pursuant to a plan of conversion, if the conversion 

is not in contravention of applicable State law. 

(3) SHARING OF INFORMATION.—The Securities and Exchange 

Commission shall make available to the Commission, upon request, all information determined to be relevant by the Securities and Exchange Commission regarding a clearing agency 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
95 

deemed to be registered with the Commission under paragraph 

(1). 

(h) EXEMPTIONS.—The Commission may exempt, conditionally or 

unconditionally, a derivatives clearing organization from registration under this section for the clearing of swaps if the Commission 

determines that the derivatives clearing organization is subject to 

comparable, comprehensive supervision and regulation by the Securities and Exchange Commission or the appropriate government 

authorities in the home country of the organization. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, requiring that the derivatives clearing organization be available for inspection by the Commission and make available all information requested by the Commission. 

(i) DESIGNATION OF CHIEF COMPLIANCE OFFICER.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Each derivatives clearing organization 

shall designate an individual to serve as a chief compliance officer. 

(2) DUTIES.—The chief compliance officer shall— 

(A) report directly to the board or to the senior officer of 

the derivatives clearing organization; 

(B) review the compliance of the derivatives clearing organization with respect to the core principles described in 

subsection (c)(2); 

(C) in consultation with the board of the derivatives 

clearing organization, a body performing a function similar 

to the board of the derivatives clearing organization, or the 

senior officer of the derivatives clearing organization, resolve any conflicts of interest that may arise; 

(D) be responsible for administering each policy and procedure that is required to be established pursuant to this 

section; 

(E) ensure compliance with this Act (including regulations) relating to agreements, contracts, or transactions, 

including each rule prescribed by the Commission under 

this section; 

(F) establish procedures for the remediation of noncompliance issues identified by the compliance officer 

through any— 

(i) compliance office review; 

(ii) look-back; 

(iii) internal or external audit finding; 

(iv) self-reported error; or 

(v) validated complaint; and 

(G) establish and follow appropriate procedures for the 

handling, management response, remediation, retesting, 

and closing of noncompliance issues. 

(3) ANNUAL REPORTS.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—In accordance with rules prescribed by 

the Commission, the chief compliance officer shall annually prepare and sign a report that contains a description 

of— 

(i) the compliance of the derivatives clearing organization of the compliance officer with respect to this Act 

(including regulations); and 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
96 

(ii) each policy and procedure of the derivatives 

clearing organization of the compliance officer (including the code of ethics and conflict of interest policies 

of the derivatives clearing organization). 

(B) REQUIREMENTS.—A compliance report under subparagraph (A) shall— 

(i) accompany each appropriate financial report of 

the derivatives clearing organization that is required 

to be furnished to the Commission pursuant to this 

section; and 

(ii) include a certification that, under penalty of law, 

the compliance report is accurate and complete. 

(k) REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.— 

(1) DUTY OF DERIVATIVES CLEARING ORGANIZATIONS.—Each 

derivatives clearing organization that clears swaps shall provide to the Commission all information that is determined by 

the Commission to be necessary to perform each responsibility 

of the Commission under this Act. 

(2) DATA COLLECTION AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS.— 

The Commission shall adopt data collection and maintenance 

requirements for swaps cleared by derivatives clearing organizations that are comparable to the corresponding requirements 

for— 

(A) swaps data reported to swap data repositories; and 

(B) swaps traded on swap execution facilities. 

(3) REPORTS ON SECURITY-BASED SWAP AGREEMENTS TO BE

SHARED WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—A derivatives clearing organization 

that clears security-based swap agreements (as defined in 

section 1a(47)(A)(v)) shall, upon request, open to inspection 

and examination to the Securities and Exchange Commission all books and records relating to such security-based 

swap agreements, consistent with the confidentiality and 

disclosure requirements of section 8. 

(B) JURISDICTION.—Nothing in this paragraph shall affect the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commission to prescribe recordkeeping and reporting requirements for a derivatives clearing organization that is registered with the 

Commission. 

(4) INFORMATION SHARING.—Subject to section 8, and upon 

request, the Commission shall share information collected 

under paragraph (2) with— 

(A) the Board; 

(B) the Securities and Exchange Commission; 

(C) each appropriate prudential regulator; 

(D) the Financial Stability Oversight Council; 

(E) the Department of Justice; and 

(F) any other person that the Commission determines to 

be appropriate, including— 

(i) foreign financial supervisors (including foreign futures authorities); 

(ii) foreign central banks; and 

(iii) foreign ministries. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
97 

ø(5) CONFIDENTIALITY AND INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT.— Before the Commission may share information with any entity 

described in paragraph (4)— 

ø(A) the Commission shall receive a written agreement 

from each entity stating that the entity shall abide by the 

confidentiality requirements described in section 8 relating 

to the information on swap transactions that is provided; 

and 

ø(B) each entity shall agree to indemnify the Commission for any expenses arising from litigation relating to the 

information provided under section 8.¿ 

(5) CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT.—Before the Commission 

may share information with any entity described in paragraph 

(4), the Commission shall receive a written agreement from each 

entity stating that the entity shall abide by the confidentiality 

requirements described in section 8 relating to the information 

on swaps transactions that is provided. 

(6) PUBLIC INFORMATION.—Each derivatives clearing organization that clears swaps shall provide to the Commission (including any designee of the Commission) information under 

paragraph (2) in such form and at such frequency as is required by the Commission to comply with the public reporting 

requirements contained in section 2(a)(13). 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 21. SWAP DATA REPOSITORIES. 

(a) REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT.— (1) REQUIREMENT; AUTHORITY OF DERIVATIVES CLEARING ORGANIZATION.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—It shall be unlawful for any person, 

unless registered with the Commission, directly or indirectly to make use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce to perform the functions 

of a swap data repository. 

(B) REGISTRATION OF DERIVATIVES CLEARING ORGANIZA- TIONS.—A derivatives clearing organization may register 

as a swap data repository. 

(2) INSPECTION AND EXAMINATION.—Each registered swap 

data repository shall be subject to inspection and examination 

by any representative of the Commission. 

(3) COMPLIANCE WITH CORE PRINCIPLES.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—To be registered, and maintain registration, as a swap data repository, the swap data repository shall comply with— 

(i) the requirements and core principles described in 

this section; and 

(ii) any requirement that the Commission may impose by rule or regulation pursuant to section 8a(5). 

(B) REASONABLE DISCRETION OF SWAP DATA REPOSI- TORY.—Unless otherwise determined by the Commission 

by rule or regulation, a swap data repository described in 

subparagraph (A) shall have reasonable discretion in establishing the manner in which the swap data repository 

complies with the core principles described in this section. 

(b) STANDARD SETTING.— 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
98 

(1) DATA IDENTIFICATION.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—In accordance with subparagraph (B), 

the Commission shall prescribe standards that specify the 

data elements for each swap that shall be collected and 

maintained by each registered swap data repository. 

(B) REQUIREMENT.—In carrying out subparagraph (A), 

the Commission shall prescribe consistent data element 

standards applicable to registered entities and reporting 

counterparties. 

(2) DATA COLLECTION AND MAINTENANCE.—The Commission 

shall prescribe data collection and data maintenance standards 

for swap data repositories. 

(3) COMPARABILITY.—The standards prescribed by the Commission under this subsection shall be comparable to the data 

standards imposed by the Commission on derivatives clearing 

organizations in connection with their clearing of swaps. 

(c) DUTIES.—A swap data repository shall— 

(1) accept data prescribed by the Commission for each swap 

under subsection (b); 

(2) confirm with both counterparties to the swap the accuracy of the data that was submitted; 

(3) maintain the data described in paragraph (1) in such 

form, in such manner, and for such period as may be required 

by the Commission; 

(4)(A) provide direct electronic access to the Commission (or 

any designee of the Commission, including another registered 

entity); and 

(B) provide the information described in paragraph (1) in 

such form and at such frequency as the Commission may require to comply with the public reporting requirements contained in section 2(a)(13); 

(5) at the direction of the Commission, establish automated 

systems for monitoring, screening, and analyzing swap data, 

including compliance and frequency of end user clearing exemption claims by individual and affiliated entities; 

(6) maintain the privacy of any and all swap transaction information that the swap data repository receives from a swap 

dealer, counterparty, or any other registered entity; and 

(7) on a confidential basis pursuant to section 8, upon request, and after notifying the Commission of the request, make 

available all data obtained by the swap data repository, including individual counterparty trade and position data, to— 

(A) each appropriate prudential regulator; 

(B) the Financial Stability Oversight Council; 

(C) the Securities and Exchange Commission; 

(D) the Department of Justice; and 

(E) any other person that the Commission determines to 

be appropriate, including— 

(i) foreign financial supervisors (including foreign futures authorities); 

(ii) foreign central banks; and 

(iii) foreign ministries; and 

(8) establish and maintain emergency procedures, backup facilities, and a plan for disaster recovery that allows for the 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
99 

timely recovery and resumption of operations and the fulfillment of the responsibilities and obligations of the organization. 

ø(d) CONFIDENTIALITY AND INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT.—Before the swap data repository may share information with any entity described in subsection (c)(7)— 

ø(1) the swap data repository shall receive a written agreement from each entity stating that the entity shall abide by 

the confidentiality requirements described in section 8 relating 

to the information on swap transactions that is provided; and 

ø(2) each entity shall agree to indemnify the swap data repository and the Commission for any expenses arising from litigation relating to the information provided under section 8.¿ 

(d) CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT.—Before the swap data repository may share information with any entity described in subsection 

(c)(7), the swap data repository shall receive a written agreement 

from each entity stating that the entity shall abide by the confidentiality requirements described in section 8 relating to the information on swap transactions that is provided. 

(e) DESIGNATION OF CHIEF COMPLIANCE OFFICER.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Each swap data repository shall designate 

an individual to serve as a chief compliance officer. 

(2) DUTIES.—The chief compliance officer shall— 

(A) report directly to the board or to the senior officer of 

the swap data repository; 

(B) review the compliance of the swap data repository 

with respect to the requirements and core principles described in this section; 

(C) in consultation with the board of the swap data repository, a body performing a function similar to the board 

of the swap data repository, or the senior officer of the 

swap data repository, resolve any conflicts of interest that 

may arise; 

(D) be responsible for administering each policy and procedure that is required to be established pursuant to this 

section; 

(E) ensure compliance with this Act (including regulations) relating to agreements, contracts, or transactions, 

including each rule prescribed by the Commission under 

this section; 

(F) establish procedures for the remediation of noncompliance issues identified by the chief compliance officer 

through any— 

(i) compliance office review; 

(ii) look-back; 

(iii) internal or external audit finding; 

(iv) self-reported error; or 

(v) validated complaint; and 

(G) establish and follow appropriate procedures for the 

handling, management response, remediation, retesting, 

and closing of noncompliance issues. 

(3) ANNUAL REPORTS.— (A) IN GENERAL.—In accordance with rules prescribed by 

the Commission, the chief compliance officer shall annually prepare and sign a report that contains a description 

of— 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
100 

(i) the compliance of the swap data repository of the 

chief compliance officer with respect to this Act (including regulations); and 

(ii) each policy and procedure of the swap data repository of the chief compliance officer (including the 

code of ethics and conflict of interest policies of the 

swap data repository). 

(B) REQUIREMENTS.—A compliance report under subparagraph (A) shall— 

(i) accompany each appropriate financial report of 

the swap data repository that is required to be furnished to the Commission pursuant to this section; 

and 

(ii) include a certification that, under penalty of law, 

the compliance report is accurate and complete. 

(f) CORE PRINCIPLES APPLICABLE TO SWAP DATA REPOSITORIES.— 

(1) ANTITRUST CONSIDERATIONS.—Unless necessary or appropriate to achieve the purposes of this Act, a swap data repository shall not— 

(A) adopt any rule or take any action that results in any 

unreasonable restraint of trade; or 

(B) impose any material anticompetitive burden on the 

trading, clearing, or reporting of transactions. 

(2) GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS.—Each swap data repository shall establish governance arrangements that are transparent— 

(A) to fulfill public interest requirements; and 

(B) to support the objectives of the Federal Government, 

owners, and participants. 

(3) CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.—Each swap data repository 

shall— 

(A) establish and enforce rules to minimize conflicts of 

interest in the decision-making process of the swap data 

repository; and 

(B) establish a process for resolving conflicts of interest 

described in subparagraph (A). 

(4) ADDITIONAL DUTIES DEVELOPED BY COMMISSION.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Commission may develop 1 or 

more additional duties applicable to swap data repositories. 

(B) CONSIDERATION OF EVOLVING STANDARDS.—In developing additional duties under subparagraph (A), the Commission may take into consideration any evolving standard 

of the United States or the international community. 

(C) ADDITIONAL DUTIES FOR COMMISSION DESIGNEES.— 

The Commission shall establish additional duties for any 

registrant described in section 1a(48) in order to minimize 

conflicts of interest, protect data, ensure compliance, and 

guarantee the safety and security of the swap data repository. 

(g) REQUIRED REGISTRATION FOR SWAP DATA REPOSITORIES.—Any 

person that is required to be registered as a swap data repository 

under this section shall register with the Commission regardless of 

whether that person is also licensed as a bank or registered with 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
101 

the Securities and Exchange Commission as a swap data repository. 

(h) RULES.—The Commission shall adopt rules governing persons 

that are registered under this section. 

* * * * * * * 

FEDERAL AGRICULTURE IMPROVEMENT AND REFORM 

ACT OF 1996 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE I—AGRICULTURAL MARKET 

TRANSITION ACT 

* * * * * * * 

Subtitle E—Administration 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 166. COMMODITY CERTIFICATES. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—In making in-kind payments under subtitle C 

of this title, title I of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 

of 2002, øand title I of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 

2008¿ title I of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, and 

Subtitle B of title I of the Agricultural Act of 2014, the Commodity 

Credit Corporation may— 

(1) acquire and use commodities that have been pledged to 

the Commodity Credit Corporation as collateral for loans made 

by the Corporation; 

(2) use other commodities owned by the Commodity Credit 

Corporation; and 

(3) redeem negotiable marketing certificates for cash under 

terms and conditions established by the Secretary. 

(b) METHODS OF PAYMENT.—The Commodity Credit Corporation 

may make in-kind payments— 

(1) by delivery of the commodity at a warehouse or other 

similar facility; 

(2) by the transfer of negotiable warehouse receipts; 

(3) by the issuance of negotiable certificates, which the Commodity Credit Corporation shall exchange for a commodity 

owned or controlled by the Corporation in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Corporation; or 

(4) by such other methods as the Commodity Credit Corporation determines appropriate to promote the efficient, equitable, 

and expeditious receipt of the in-kind payments so that a person receiving the payments receives the same total return as 

if the payments had been made in cash. 

(c) ADMINISTRATION.— (1) FORM.—At the option of a producer, the Commodity Credit Corporation shall make negotiable certificates authorized 

under subsection (b)(3) available to the producer, in the form 

of program payments or by sale, in a manner that the CorporaVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:33 Jul 15, 2015 Jkt 094459 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR205.XXX HR205

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
102 

tion determines will encourage the orderly marketing of commodities pledged as collateral for loans made to producers 

under subtitle C of this title, title I of the Farm Security and 

Rural Investment Act of 2002, øand title I of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008¿ title I of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, and Subtitle B of title I of 

the Agricultural Act of 2014. (2) TRANSFER.—A negotiable certificate issued in accordance 

with this subsection may be transferred to another person in 

accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary. 

ø(3) TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.—The authority to carry out 

paragraph (1) terminates effective ending with the 2009 crop 

year.¿ 

(3) APPLICATION OF AUTHORITY.—The Secretary shall carry 

out paragraph (1) under the same terms and conditions as were 

in effect for the 2008 crop year for loans made to producers 

under subtitle B of title I of the Food, Conservation, and Energy 

Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8701 et. seq.). 

* * * * * * * 

CHANGES IN THE APPLICATION OF EXISTING LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(A) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the following statements are submitted 

describing the effect of provisions in the accompanying bill that directly or indirectly change the application of existing law. 

The bill includes a number of provisions which place limitations 

on the use of funds in the bill or change existing limitations and 

which might, under some circumstances, be construed as changing 

the application of existing law: 

1. Office of the Secretary.—Language is included to limit the 

amount of funds for official reception and representation expenses, 

as determined by the Secretary. 

2. Departmental Administration.—Language is included to reimburse the agency for travel expenses incident to the holding of 

hearings. 

3. Agricultural Research Service.—Language is included that allows the Agricultural Research Service to grant easements at the 

Beltsville, MD, agricultural research center and to grant easements 

at any facility for the construction of a research facility for use by 

the agency. 

4. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.—A provision carried in the bill since fiscal year 1973 regarding state matching 

funds has been continued to assure more effective operation of the 

brucellosis control program through state cost sharing, with resulting savings to the Federal budget. 

Language is included to allow APHIS to recoup expenses incurred from providing technical assistance goods, or services to 

non-APHIS personnel, and to allow transfers of funds for agricultural emergencies. 

Language is included to limit the amount of funds for representational allowances. 

5. Agricultural Marketing Service, Limitation on Administrative 

Expenses.—The bill includes language to allow AMS to exceed the 

limitation on administrative expenses by 10 percent with notificaVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:33 Jul 15, 2015 Jkt 094459 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR205.XXX HR205

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
103 

tion to the Appropriations Committees. This allows flexibility in 

case crop size is understated and/or other uncontrollable events 

occur. 

6. Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, Inspection and Weighing Services.—The bill includes authority to exceed the limitation on inspection and weighing services by 10 percent with notification to the Appropriations Committees. This allows for flexibility if export activities require additional supervision 

and oversight, or other uncontrollable factors occur. 

7. Dairy Indemnity Program.—Language is included by reference 

that allows the Secretary to utilize the services of the Commodity 

Credit Corporation for the purpose of making dairy indemnity payments. 

8. Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account.—Language is included that deems the pink bollworm a boll weevil for 

the purposes of administering the boll weevil loan program. 

9. Risk Management Agency.—Language is included to limit the 

amount of funds for official reception and representation expenses. 

10. Commodity Credit Corporation Fund.—Language is included 

to provide for the reimbursement appropriation. Language is also 

included to allow certain funds transferred from the Commodity 

Credit Corporation to be used for information resource management. In addition, language is included which limits the amount of 

funds that can be spent on operation and maintenance costs of 

CCC hazardous waste sites. 

11. Natural Resources Conservation Service.—Conservation Operations.—Language which has been included in the bill since 1938 

prohibits construction of buildings on land not owned by the government, although construction on land owned by states and counties is permitted as authorized by law. 

12. Rural Development Salaries and Expenses.—Language is included to allow funds to be used for advertising and promotional 

activities and to limit the amount of funds to provide modest nonmonetary awards to non-USDA employees. 

13. Rental Assistance Program.—Language is included which provides that agreements entered into during the current fiscal year 

be funded for a one-year period. Language also is included to prohibit the renewal of contracts within the 12-month contract period. 

14. Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, 

and Children (WIC).—Language is included to purchase infant formula except in accordance with law and pay for activities that are 

not fully reimbursed by other departments or agencies unless authorized by law. 

15. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.—Language is 

included to enter into contracts and employ staff to conduct studies, evaluations, or to conduct activities related to program integrity. 

16. Foreign Agricultural Service.—Language carried since 1979 

enables this agency to use funds received by an advance or by reimbursement to carry out its activities involving international development and technical cooperation. Language is included to limit 

the amount of funds for official reception and representation expenses. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
104 

17. Commodity Futures Trading Commission.—Language is included to limit the amount of funds for official reception and representation expenses. 

18. Farm Credit Administration.—The bill includes authority to 

exceed the limitation on assessments by 10 percent with notification to the Appropriations Committees. 

19. General Provisions.— Section 704: This provision provides that none of the funds in 

this Act may be made available to pay indirect costs charged 

against competitive agricultural research, education, or extension 

grants awarded by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture 

in excess of 10 percent of total direct costs. 

Section 705: This provision allows funds made available in the 

current fiscal year for the Rural Development Loan Fund program 

account; the Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans 

program account; and the Rural Housing Insurance Fund program 

account to remain available until expended to disburse obligations. 

Section 706: Language is included that requires approval of the 

Chief Information Officer and the concurrence of the Executive Information Technology Investment Review Board for acquisition of 

new information technology systems or significant upgrades, and 

that prohibits the transfer of funds to the Office of the Chief Information Officer without the notification of the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress. 

Section 707: Language is included regarding the availability of 

funds for certain conservation programs. 

Section 708: Language is included regarding certain Rural Utilities Service Programs. 

Section 709: Language is included that allows unobligated balances of the Farm Service Agency and Rural Development mission 

areas to be used for information technology purposes. 

Section 710: Language is included regarding the prohibition of 

first-class travel by the employees of agencies funded in this Act. 

Section 711: Language is included regarding the funds of the 

Commodity Credit Corporation. 

Section 712 Language is included that limits the amount of 

spending for USDA advisory committees. 

Section 713: Language is included regarding indirect costs for 

grants. 

Section 714: Language regarding certain limitations of mandatory programs. 

Section 715: Language regarding certain limitations of mandatory programs. 

Section 716: Language is included that prohibits funds from 

being used to prepare a budget submission to Congress that assumes reductions from the previous year’s budget due to user fee 

proposals unless the submission also identifies spending reductions 

which should occur if the user fees are not enacted. 

Section 717: Language is included that requires certain reprogramming procedures of funds provided in Appropriations Acts. 

Section 718: Language is included regarding fees for the business 

and industry guaranteed loan program. 

Section 719: This provision prohibits the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, the CFTC or the FCA 

from transmitting or making available to any non-Department of 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
105 

Agriculture, non-Department of Health and Human Services, nonCFTC, or non-FCA employee reports, questions or responses to 

questions that are a result of information requested for the appropriations hearing process. 

Section 720: Language regarding prepackaged news stories. 

Section 721: This provision prohibits any employee of the Department of Agriculture from being detailed or assigned to any other 

agency or office of the Department for more than 60 days unless 

the individual’s employing agency or office is fully reimbursed by 

the receiving agency or office for the salary and expenses of the employee for the period of assignment. 

Section 722: Language is included regarding the mohair program. 

Section 723: Language is included requiring spending plans for 

each agency funded by the Act. 

Section 724: Language is included regarding the use funds for 

humanitarian food assistance programs. 

Section 725: Language is included regarding the Single Family 

Housing Direct Loan Program. 

Section 726: Language is included on certain USDA loan programs. 

Section 727: Language is included regarding the Working Capital 

Fund. 

Section 728: Language is included regarding the Commodity Exchange Act. 

Section 729: Language is included regarding purchases made 

through child nutrition programs. 

Section 730: Language is included regarding potable water supplies. 

Section 731: Language is included regarding the Agriculture and 

Food Research Initiative. 

Section 732: Language is included regarding school meal programs. 

Section 733: Language is included regarding school meal programs. 

Section 734: Language is included regarding the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. 

Section 735: Language is included regarding interagency coordination of nutrition research. 

Section 739: Language is included regarding marketing loan programs. 

Section 741: Language is included regarding USDA housing loan 

programs. 

Section 742: Language is included redirecting funds for disaster 

programs. 

Section 743: Language is included regarding disclosure of information for pharmaceuticals. 

Section 744:Language is included regarding menu labeling. 

Section 745: Language is included regarding FDA regulations. 

Section 746: Language is included regarding spent grains for animal feed. 

Section 747: Language is included regarding FDA regulations. 

Section 748: Language is included regarding conservation programs. 

Section 749: Language regarding animal health. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
106 

Section 750: Language regarding APHIS regulation. 

Section 751: Language regarding FDA regulation. 

Section 752: Language regarding food safety. 

Section 753: Spending Reduction Account. 

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(B) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the following table lists the appropriations in the accompanying bill which are not authorized by law for 

the period concerned: 

Agency/Program Last year of 

authorization 

Authorization 

level 

Appropriation in last 

year of 

authorization 

Net appropriation in 

this bill 

CFTC ................................................................... 2013 Such sums 205,000,000 45,000,000 

Grain Inspection Service .................................... 2015 Such sums 20,000,000 20,000,000 

Food and Nutrition Service: 

Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program .......... 2015 Such sums 16,548,000 16,548,000 

State Administrative Expenses ................. 2015 Such sums 263,686,000 269,652,000 

Summer Food Service Program ................. 2015 Such sums 495,521,000 535,633,000 

WIC ............................................................ 2015 Such sums 6,623,000,000 6,484,000,000 

COMPARISON WITH THE BUDGET RESOLUTION

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives and section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974, the following table compares the levels of new 

budget authority provided in the bill with the appropriate allocation under section 302(b) of the Budget Act: 

[In millions of dollars] 

Budget authority Outlays 

Committee 

allocation 

Amount 

of bill 

Committee 

allocation 

Amount 

of bill 

Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations 

to its subcommittees: Subcommittee On Agriculture, Rural 

Development, FDA, and Related Agencies.

Mandatory ............................................................................. 115,461 115,461 108,308 1 108,308 

Discretionary ......................................................................... 20,650 20,650 22,064 1 32,762 

1 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

FIVE-YEAR OUTLAY PROJECTIONS

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII and section 308(a)(1)(B) of 

the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the following table contains 

five-year projections associated with the budget authority provided 

in the accompanying bill as provided to the Committee by the Congressional Budget Office: 

[In millions of dollars] 

Budget authority Outlays 

Committee 

allocation 

Amount 

of bill 

Committee 

allocation 

Amount 

of bill 

Projection of outlays associated with the recommendation: 

2016 ...................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 1 115,521 

2017 ...................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 4,685 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
107 

[In millions of dollars] 

Budget authority Outlays 

Committee 

allocation 

Amount 

of bill 

Committee 

allocation 

Amount 

of bill 

2018 ...................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 957 

2019 ...................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 340 

2020 and future years .......................................................... .................... .................... .................... 95 

1 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII and section 308(a)(1)(C) of 

the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Congressional Budget 

Office has provided the following estimates of new budget a the 

amounts of financial assistance to State and local governments is 

as follows: 

[In millions of dollars] 

Budget authority Outlays 

Committee 

allocation 

Amount 

of bill 

Committee 

allocation 

Amount 

of bill 

Financial assistance to State and local governments for 2016 .. NA 39,530 NA 1 32,445 

1 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

PROGRAM DUPLICATION

No provision of this bill establishes or reauthorizes a program of 

the Federal Government known to be duplicative of another Federal program, a program that was included in any report from the 

GAO to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111–139, or 

a program related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. 

DIRECTED RULE MAKING

The bill does not direct any rule making. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
108 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 013 here 93748A.001
109 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 14 here 93748A.002
110 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 15 here 93748A.003
111 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 16 here 93748A.004
112 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 17 here 93748A.005
113 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 18 here 93748A.006
114 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 19 here 93748A.007
115 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 20 here 93748A.008
116 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 21 here 93748A.009
117 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 22 here 93748A.010
118 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 23 here 93748A.011
119 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 24 here 93748A.012
120 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 25 here 93748A.013
121 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 26 here 93748A.014
122 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 27 here 93748A.015
123 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 28 here 93748A.016
124 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 29 here 93748A.017
125 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 30 here 93748A.018
126 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 31 here 93748A.019
127 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 32 here 93748A.020
128 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 33 here 93748A.021
129 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 34 here 93748A.022
130 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 35 here 93748A.023
131 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 36 here 93748A.024
132 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 37 here 93748A.025
133 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 38 here 93748A.026
134 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 39 here 93748A.027
135 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 40 here 93748A.028
136 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 41 here 93748A.029
(137) 

MINORITY VIEWS OF THE HON. NITA LOWEY AND THE 

HON. SAM FARR 

We cannot support this bill in its current form. 

Before discussing our concerns, we reiterate our and our colleagues’ concern about the woeful inadequacy of the Committee’s 

overall budget allocation. Bill after bill has failed to meet critical 

public needs. The President has threatened to veto all of the bills 

we have so far marked up, and we are headed to an entirely foreseeable crisis this fall. We again call upon the House and Senate 

leadership to work with the President to develop a new budget 

agreement that raises discretionary spending caps for both defense 

and non-defense priorities. 

With respect to this bill, while the allocation was not among the 

worst of the 12 subcommittees, it is still below 2015, more than 

$1.1 billion below the request, and resulted in short-funding of a 

number of key programs. 

Before we discuss funding issues, however, we must note our serious concerns about two highly objectionable riders in the bill. 

First, we are deeply shocked at the inclusion of section 747. It 

would allow hundreds of unregulated tobacco products, including ecigarettes, to stay on the market without a pre-market review by 

FDA. At present, there are over 7,000 e-cigarette flavors, including 

Kool-Aid, gummy bears and cotton candy, that are intended to appeal to young people. And that appeal has worked. According to 

CDC, while 1.5% of high school students used e-cigarettes in 2011, 

the rate skyrocketed to 13.4% in 2014. Almost 4% of middle school 

students used e-cigarettes in 2014. 

The committee report makes numerous questionable statements 

about this language, such as characterizing this as a ‘‘technical 

change.’’ Taking away FDA pre-market review of whole classes of 

products is not a technical change by any stretch of the imagination. It is, in reality, a backdoor amendment to the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (TCA). 

The report even suggests that pre-market review of these products would divert FDA ‘‘from its core mission to . . . ensure the 

safe use of these products.’’ Any use of the word ‘‘safe’’ with respect 

to these products is totally inappropriate. The TCA does not charge 

FDA with finding tobacco products to be ‘‘safe’’ and in fact, if a 

manufacturer claims that that FDA has found its product to be 

‘‘safe,’’ the product is considered misbranded and subject to enforcement action by FDA. 

Apparently alluding to e-cigarettes, the report refers to products 

that ‘‘have the potential to play an important role in harm reduction.’’ The jury is out on whether e-cigarettes may be less harmful 

than regular cigarettes, Congress certainly does not have the expertise to make such an assessment, and several reports have 

raised serious questions about these products: 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
138 

• A limited FDA laboratory examination of e-cigarettes ‘‘showed 

that the product contained detectable levels of known carcinogens 

and toxic chemicals to which users could potentially be exposed 

. . . and suggested that quality control processes used to manufacture these products are inconsistent or non-existent.’’ • Last fall, a government report said that ‘‘the shape and construction of e-cigarettes can make them more likely than other 

products with lithium-ion batteries to behave like ‘flaming rockets’ 

when a battery fails.’’ • The American Association of Poison Control Centers reported 

nearly 3800 cases in calendar year 2014 of harm from exposure to 

e-cigarettes or liquid nicotine, more than half of them to children 

under 6 years of age. 

We would strongly oppose the bill on the basis of this rider alone. 

Another rider, section 734, is also of deep concern. Congress 

should have no role deciding the level of scientific evidence required for the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA). The rider 

requires that recommendations be based only on ‘‘Grade I: Strong’’ 

evidence and be limited only to issues of ‘‘diet and nutrition intake.’’ 

These are requirements invented by the Committee. About 50 

words into the text of the law that created the DGA is the requirement that each set of guidelines ‘‘be based on the preponderance 

of the scientific and medical knowledge which is current at the 

time the report is prepared.’’ Not ‘‘Grade I’’ evidence, but the preponderance of evidence. 

If section 734 became law, the 2015 DGA would be a very slim 

document, indeed. Ironically, the 2010 recommendations would 

largely be frozen in time, and important changes in guidance related to cholesterol and sodium could not be issued. 

Moreover, if the guidelines have to be limited only to ‘‘diet and 

nutrition intake,’’ no recommendations on exercise would be allowed. 

Section 734 also requires more public comment, in addition to 

what has already been a generous allotment of time for comment. 

We see no purpose— besides delay—to extend the time for public 

comment. We are also troubled by the mysterious appearance of 

the exact same bill language in the Labor, HHS bill. 

The funding levels in the bill create significant shortfalls from 

the request. Among them is the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which is funded at $245 million. This is $77 million below 

the president’s request and $5 million below the level House Republicans agreed to just months ago in the 2015 bill. As we have 

said time and time again, Republicans must drop the pretense that 

they will succeed in repealing the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform 

and Consumer Protection Act and provide the agency the resources 

it needs to fulfill its mandate. 

The FDA funding level is also disappointing. In recent years, 

subcommittee members on both sides of the aisle have expressed 

concern about the inclusion of high levels of unauthorized user fees 

in FDA budgets, primarily for funding its responsibilities under the 

Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). In the 2016 budget, responding to this criticism, FDA shifted away from its over-reliance 

on unauthorized fees and requested more funding as a straight disVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:33 Jul 15, 2015 Jkt 094459 PO 00000 Frm 00138 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR205.XXX HR205

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
139 

cretionary appropriation. Rather that meet the agency’s needs, this 

subcommittee promptly slashed the request. While $30 million over 

2015, FDA funding of $116 million below the request will slow implementation of the FSMA and other priorities at the agency. We appreciate the increase over the budget request of $17 mil- lion for Food for Peace (FFP), although it is $49 million below 2015. 

However, we would note that last year we voted with a bi-partisan 

majority of Members for an amendment by Chairman Royce in support of food aid reform. We are thus deeply disappointed that the 

bill does not include the President’s request to allow up to 25% of 

the Food for Peace appropriation to be used for cash-based assistance in emergency situations. That language would allow us to assist about 2 million more people around the world at no additional 

cost. 

We also appreciate that the McGovern-Dole program is funded at 

the 2015 and request levels. But we are also disappointed that the 

bill does not include the President’s request for language in the 

McGovern-Dole account authorizing the purchase commodities from 

developing countries and that it does not provide funding for the 

newly authorized Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement program. While we are appreciative of the $12 million provided for the 

Summer EBT Demonstration program, it should be funded at the 

request, and this subcommittee which has the lead on food issues 

should finally fund the Healthy Foods Financing Initiative, as 

other subcommittees have. 

We are appreciative of improvements made to the bill in the 

manager’s amendment, including tightening requirements on the 

Agricultural Research Service in light of a deeply troubling story 

in The New York Times in January that raised concerns about animal handling at one of its facilities. We also appreciate the inclusion of Congresswoman Roybal-Allard’s proposal to end the 

issuance by USDA of licenses to so-called ‘‘Class B random source 

dealers,’’ who obtain dogs and cats from pounds, individuals or 

other sources to sell for research purposes. There has long been 

concern about potential abuses in animal procurement by these license holders, who are thankfully decreasing in number. 

We regret the failure of the Committee to agree to Ranking 

Member Farr’s amendment to include bill language reflecting current law that bans the inspection of horses for human meat, and 

we will seek its inclusion as the process moves forward. 

As the legislative process continues, we will do our best to address the problems we have described here; however, we do not 

support the bill in its current form. 

NITA M. LOWEY. 

SAM FARR. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE