- TXT
-
PDF
(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.)
Tip
?
Calendar No. 152
114th Congress } { Report
SENATE
1st Session } { 114-82
======================================================================
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2016
_______
July 16, 2015.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Moran, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 1800]
The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 1800)
making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other purposes,
reports favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.
New obligational authority
Total of bill as reported to the Senate.................$144,111,103,000
Amount of 2015 appropriations........................... 147,845,470,000
Amount of 2016 budget estimate.......................... 167,967,780,000
Bill as recommended to Senate compared to--
2015 appropriations................................. -3,734,367,000
2016 budget estimate................................ -23,856,677,000
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Breakdown by Title............................................... 4
Overview and Summary of the Bill................................. 5
Reports to Congress.............................................. 6
Title I:
Agricultural Programs:
Production, Processing, and Marketing:
Office of the Secretary.............................. 7
Executive Operations................................. 10
Office of the Chief Information Officer.............. 11
Office of the Chief Financial Officer................ 12
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights... 12
Office of Civil Rights............................... 13
Agriculture Buildings and Facilities................. 13
Hazardous Materials Management....................... 14
Office of Inspector General.......................... 14
Office of the General Counsel........................ 15
Office of Ethics..................................... 15
Office of the Under Secretary for Research,
Education, and Economics........................... 15
Economic Research Service............................ 16
National Agricultural Statistics Service............. 16
Agricultural Research Service........................ 17
National Institute of Food and Agriculture........... 22
Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and
Regulatory Programs................................ 30
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service........... 30
Agricultural Marketing Service....................... 35
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards
Administration..................................... 38
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety........ 39
Food Safety and Inspection Service................... 39
Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign
Agricultural Services.............................. 40
Farm Service Agency.................................. 41
Risk Management Agency............................... 46
Corporations:
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund.............. 46
Commodity Credit Corporation Fund.................... 47
Title II:
Conservation Programs:
Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment............................................ 49
Natural Resources Conservation Service................... 49
Title III:
Rural Development Programs:
Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development...... 52
Rural Housing Service.................................... 53
Rural Community Facilities Program Account............... 59
Rural Business--Cooperative Service...................... 60
Rural Utilities Service.................................. 64
Title IV:
Domestic Food Programs:
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and
Consumer Services...................................... 69
Food and Nutrition Service............................... 69
Title V: Foreign Assistance and Related Programs: Foreign
Agricultural Service........................................... 76
Title VI:
Related Agency and Food and Drug Administration:
Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug
Administration......................................... 80
Independent Agency: Farm Credit Administration........... 90
Title VII: General Provisions.................................... 92
Program, Project, and Activity................................... 95
Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI of the Standing Rules of
the
Senate......................................................... 95
Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules
of the Senate.................................................. 96
Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of
the
Senate......................................................... 96
Budgetary Impact of Bill......................................... 97
Comparative Statement of Budget Authority........................ 98
BREAKDOWN BY TITLE
The amounts of obligational authority for each of the seven
titles are shown in the following table. A detailed tabulation,
showing comparisons, appears at the end of this report.
Recommendations for individual appropriation items, projects
and activities are carried in this report under the appropriate
item headings.
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016 Committee
2015 recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I: Agricultural programs.... 30,446,595 26,838,162
Title II: Conservation programs... 859,326 856,107
Title III: Rural economic and 2,403,423 2,493,942
community development programs...
Title IV: Domestic food programs.. 110,190,881 110,140,403
Title V: Foreign assistance and 1,835,325 1,864,127
related programs.................
Title VI: Related agencies and 2,597,324 2,637,766
Food and Drug Administration.....
Title VII: General provisions..... -512,404 -719,404
Title VIII: Ebola Response and 25,000 .................
Preparedness.....................
-------------------------------------
Total, new budget 147,845,470 144,111,103
(obligational) authority...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY OF THE BILL
The Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies appropriations bill
provides funding for a wide array of Federal programs, mostly
in the U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA]. These programs
include agricultural research, education, and extension
activities; natural resources conservation programs; farm
income and support programs; marketing and inspection
activities; domestic food assistance programs; rural housing,
economic and community development, and telecommunication and
electrification assistance; and various export and
international activities of the USDA.
The bill also provides funding for the Food and Drug
Administration [FDA] and allows the use of collected fees for
administrative expenses of the Farm Credit Administration
[FCA].
The discretionary programs and activities of USDA and FDA
that are supported by this bill include high priority
responsibilities entrusted to the Federal Government and its
partners to protect human health and safety, contribute to
economic recovery, and achieve policy objectives strongly
supported by the American people. The ability to provide for
these measures is made difficult by growing pressure on
available levels of discretionary spending as a consequence of
the overall public debate on Federal spending, revenues, and
size of the Federal debt.
Too often, the USDA programs funded by this bill are
confused with farm subsidies and other mandatory spending more
properly associated with multi-year farm bills. In contrast,
this bill provides annual funding for programs familiar to all
Americans such as protecting food safety through the Food
Safety and Inspection Service and the Food and Drug
Administration, which also plays a vital role in maintaining
the safety of the Nation's blood supply and availability of
safe and effective medical products and other components of our
health system. This bill also provides funding to fight against
the introduction and spread of noxious or infectious and often
invasive pests and disease that threaten our plant and animal
health environments, as well as funding for many other missions
of dire importance to the American people.
In the context of overall pressures on spending and the
competing priorities that the Committee faces, this bill as
reported provides the proper amount of emphasis on
agricultural, rural development, and other programs and
activities funded by the bill. It is consistent with the
subcommittee's allocation for fiscal year 2016.
All accounts in the bill have been closely examined to
ensure that an appropriate level of funding is provided to
carry out the programs of USDA, FDA, and FCA. Details on each
of the accounts, the funding level, and the Committee's
justifications for the funding levels are included in the
report.
REPORTS TO CONGRESS
The Committee has, throughout this report, requested
agencies to provide studies and reports on various issues. The
Committee utilizes these reports to evaluate program
performance and make decisions on future appropriations. The
Committee directs that all studies and reports be provided to
the Committee as electronic documents in an agreed upon format
within 120 days after the date of enactment, unless an
alternative submission schedule is specifically stated in the
report request.
TITLE I
AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS
Production, Processing, and Marketing
Office of the Secretary
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $45,805,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 47,308,000
Committee recommendation................................ 46,055,000
The Secretary of Agriculture, assisted by the Deputy
Secretary, Under Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries, Chief
Information Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and members of
their immediate staffs, directs and coordinates the work of the
Department. This includes developing policy, maintaining
relationships with agricultural organizations and others in the
development of farm programs, and maintaining liaison with the
Executive Office of the President and Members of Congress on
all matters pertaining to agricultural policy.
The general authority of the Secretary to supervise and
control the work of the Department is contained in the Organic
Act (7 U.S.C. 2201-2202). The delegation of regulatory
functions to Department employees and authorization of
appropriations to carry out these functions is contained in 7
U.S.C. 450c-450g.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $46,055,000
for the Office of the Secretary. The Committee recommendation
includes the following accounts under the Office of the
Secretary: Office of the Secretary; Military Veterans
Agricultural Liaison; Office of Tribal Relations; Office of
Homeland Security and Emergency Coordination; Office of
Advocacy and Outreach; Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Administration; Departmental Administration; Office of
Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations; and Office of
Communications. The following table reflects the amount
provided by the Committee for each office and activity:
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016 budget Committee
2015 enacted request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Secretary...................................... 5,051 5,137 5,051
Military Veterans Agricultural Liaison....................... ............... 250 250
Office of Tribal Relations................................... 502 507 502
Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Coordination....... 1,496 1,520 1,496
Office of Advocacy and Outreach.............................. 1,209 1,228 1,209
Office of Assistance Secretary for Administration............ 804 816 804
Departmental Administration.................................. 25,124 25,688 25,124
Office of Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations.... 3,869 3,934 3,869
Office of Communications..................................... 7,750 8,228 7,750
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 45,805 47,308 46,055
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biobased Products.--The Committee recognizes the
opportunity that exists for biobased products to be used in
food packaging and the food service industry. Bioplastics made
from renewable resources such as canola can play an important
role in this effort. The Committee encourages USDA to continue
to work with companies bringing these types of products to
market under the BioPreferred label.
Captive Marine Mammals.--The Department is directed to
issue, within 6 months of enactment of this act, its proposed
rule for public comment regarding captive marine mammal
standards under the Animal Welfare Act in order to ensure that
the handling, enclosure size, care, treatment, and
transportation of marine mammals in captivity are based on the
latest expert and scientific knowledge.
Dietary Guidelines for Americans.--The Committee is
concerned that the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee's
recommendations included issues outside of the nutritional
scope of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The Committee
directs the Secretary to ensure that the Guidelines are solely
nutritional and dietary in nature and based on a preponderance
of scientific evidence. Furthermore, the Committee includes new
bill language directing the Secretary to only include nutrition
and dietary information, not extraneous factors, in the final
2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
The Committee is also concerned that alcohol labeling
guidance is not standardized among Federal agencies, and
encourages USDA and DHHS to ensure that consumption guidance
issued in the 2015 Dietary Guidelines recommendations is
consistent with policies of the National Institute on Alcohol
Abuse and Alcoholism, the Tax and Trade Bureau, and the Food
and Drug Administration, which acknowledge the variability of
alcohol content for different beverage alcohol products.
Drought Relief.--The Secretary is directed to provide
quarterly reports to the Senate and House Committees on
Appropriations detailing USDA's efforts to provide drought
relief to States where all or the majority counties are
declared to be in a drought disaster, as well as any unmet
needs or backlogs for USDA drought relief programs. The reports
shall include detailed information specifying which
appropriations accounts funding is derived from, the fiscal
year in which it was appropriated or made available, and how
much funding remains obligated but unexpended.
Duplication Across Federal Agencies.--The Committee is
concerned about duplication of functions across Federal
agencies and directs USDA to review its operations to reduce
potentially duplicative functions as a way to save taxpayer
dollars.
Multi-Agency Transparency.--The Committee expresses support
for increasing transparency within all agencies of the
Department of Agriculture. The agencies are encouraged to
disclose costs associated with analyses required by the
National Environmental Policy Act.
Outreach to Socially Disadvantaged and Veteran Farmers and
Ranchers.--The Committee supports the efforts of the Office of
Advocacy and Outreach to increase the accessibility of USDA
programs to underserved constituents, and notes that
$10,000,000 in mandatory funds is available to assist socially
disadvantaged and veteran farmers and ranchers in owning and
operating farms and ranches to meet the growing need for
financial, production, management, and other assistance to
those communities and address workforce shortages.
Pay Costs.--The Committee does not recommend pay cost
increases as requested in the budget.
Pollinator Health.--The Committee supports the recently
announced Pollinator Research Action Plan, and the combined
efforts of multiple government agencies to address pollinator
health. The Committee encourages USDA to continue to work to
advance the conservation of Monarchs and other economically
significant pollinators through all available means, including
leveraging partnerships with non-governmental organizations
that possess experience working directly with agricultural
producers and other conservation partners.
Printing Costs.--The Committee is concerned about the
millions of taxpayer dollars spent on wasteful printing
practices each year and the lack of clear printing policies
within each of the agencies. While progress has been made to
better utilize the cloud and digitalize records, little
progress has been made to reform in-house printing practices.
The Committee directs the Department to work with the Office of
Management and Budget to reduce printing and reproduction by 34
percent and report to the Committee within 60 days after
enactment of this act on what steps have been taken to reduce
printing volume and costs. The report should specifically
identify how much money each agency will be saving.
Resource Conservation and Development Councils.--Since
1964, the Resource Conservation and Development [RC&D;] Councils
have worked at the grassroots level with local leaders to plan,
develop, and carry out programs for land and water conservation
and management. The Committee encourages the Secretary to
consider the maximum practical use of RC&D; Councils, where such
RC&D; Councils meet agency performance requirements, in the
delivery of USDA programs and services.
Rural Poverty.--The Department has statutory authorities
and programs designed to help break the multigenerational trap
of poverty in rural counties. The Committee recognizes that
USDA may utilize existing programs and funding within RD and
the Food and Nutrition Service [FNS] in order to assist
families, create jobs and develop a path towards independence
and self-sufficiency. Other existing resources such as the
extension service and public universities can be used for
coordination and outreach activities. The Committee directs the
Secretary to provide a detailed plan including all funding
resources currently being used to combat rural poverty. This
comprehensive plan should account for all Federal projects,
programs, and initiatives and prioritize those proposals that
take innovative and job-creating approaches to housing and home
ownership among low and very-low income individuals and
families; improve rural livelihoods through the use of
environmentally and economically sustainable approaches to
small-holder agriculture that provide access to critical
nutrition, jobs and revenue; and community-wide outreach,
education and healthcare services that address some of the most
common health risks in rural America: heart disease, stroke,
malnutrition, obesity, and diabetes.
Executive Operations
Executive operations were established as a result of the
reorganization of the Department to provide a support team for
USDA policy officials and selected department-wide services.
Activities under the executive operations include the Office of
the Chief Economist, the National Appeals Division, and the
Office of Budget and Program Analysis.
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ECONOMIST
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $17,377,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 17,465,000
Committee recommendation................................ 16,777,000
The Office of the Chief Economist advises the Secretary of
Agriculture on the economic implications of Department policies
and programs. The Office serves as the single focal point for
the Nation's economic intelligence and analysis, risk
assessment, and cost-benefit analysis related to domestic and
international food and agriculture issues, provides policy
direction for renewable energy development, conducts analyses
of climate change impacts on agriculture and forestry, and is
responsible for coordination and review of all commodity and
aggregate agricultural and food-related data used to develop
outlook and situation material within the Department.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $16,777,000
for the Office of the Chief Economist.
Policy Research.--The Committee recommendation includes
$4,000,000 for policy research under 7 U.S.C. 3155 for entities
with existing institutional capacity to conduct complex
economic and policy analysis and a lengthy and well-documented
record of conducting policy analysis for the benefit of the
Department of Agriculture, the Congressional Budget Office, or
the Congress. To maximize resources, the Committee expects the
Department to focus efforts on entities that have developed
models, databases, and staff necessary to conduct in-depth
analysis of impacts of agriculture or rural development policy
proposals on rural communities, farmers, agribusiness,
taxpayers, and consumers.
NATIONAL APPEALS DIVISION
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $13,317,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 13,566,000
Committee recommendation................................ 13,317,000
The National Appeals Division conducts administrative
hearings and reviews of adverse program decisions made by the
Rural Development mission area, the Farm Service Agency, the
Risk Management Agency, and the Natural Resources Conservation
Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $13,317,000
for the National Appeals Division.
OFFICE OF BUDGET AND PROGRAM ANALYSIS
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $9,392,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 9,500,000
Committee recommendation................................ 9,392,000
The Office of Budget and Program Analysis provides
direction and administration of the Department's budgetary
functions including development, presentation, and execution of
the budget; reviews program and legislative proposals for
program, budget, and related implications; analyzes program and
resource issues and alternatives, and prepares summaries of
pertinent data to aid the Secretary and departmental policy
officials and agency program managers in the decisionmaking
process; and provides departmentwide coordination for and
participation in the presentation of budget-related matters to
the committees of the Congress, the media, and interested
public. The Office also provides department-wide coordination
of the preparation and processing of regulations and
legislative programs and reports.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $9,392,000 for
the Office of Budget and Program Analysis.
Office of the Chief Information Officer
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $45,045,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 53,071,000
Committee recommendation................................ 45,045,000
The Office of the Chief Information Officer was established
in August 1996 (40 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), pursuant to the
Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, which required the establishment of
a Chief Information Officer for major Federal agencies. This
Office provides policy guidance, leadership, coordination, and
direction to the Department's information management and
information technology investment activities in support of USDA
program delivery, and is the lead office in USDA e-gov efforts.
The Office provides long-range planning guidance, implements
measures to ensure that technology investments are economical
and effective, coordinates interagency information resources
management projects, and implements standards to promote
information exchange and technical interoperability. In
addition, the Office of the Chief Information Officer is
responsible for certain activities financed under the
Department's Working Capital Fund (7 U.S.C. 2235). The Office
also provides telecommunication and automated data processing
[ADP] services to USDA agencies through the National
Information Technology Center with locations in Fort Collins,
Colorado, Kansas City, Missouri and Washington, DC. Direct ADP
operational services are also provided to the Office of the
Secretary, the Office of the General Counsel, the Office of
Communications, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, and
Departmental Management.
On November 28, 2004, the information technology staffs of
the Service Center Agencies [SCA] were converged into one IT
organization within the office of the Chief Information
Officer; this converged organization is named Information
Technology Services and replaces a network of cross-agency
teams used to coordinate IT infrastructure investment within
the SCA and allows for unified management of the IT
infrastructure.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $45,045,000
for the Office of the Chief Information Officer. This amount
also includes not less than $28,000,000 to support
cybersecurity requirements of the Department.
Software Licenses.--The Committee encourages the
Department's Chief Information Officer to perform periodic
automated inventories of software licenses in use across the
Department. The Department should compare those usage numbers
to its purchased licenses and seek to increase efficiency
wherever it identifies discrepancies. The Department is to
consider using this information to obtain department-wide
acquisitions as opposed to component-specific purchases of
licenses.
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $6,028,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 9,154,000
Committee recommendation................................ 6,028,000
The Office of the Chief Financial Officer is responsible
for the dual roles of Chief Financial Management Policy Officer
and Chief Financial Management Advisor to the Secretary and
mission area heads. The Office provides leadership for all
financial management, accounting, travel, Federal assistance,
and strategic planning performance measurement activities
within the Department. The Office is also responsible for the
management and operation of the National Finance Center and the
Departmental Working Capital Fund.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,028,000 for
the Office of the Chief Financial Officer.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $898,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 907,000
Committee recommendation................................ 898,000
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights
provides oversight of civil rights and related functions. This
includes coordination of the administration of civil rights
laws and regulations for employees of the Department of
Agriculture and participants in programs of the Department, and
ensuring compliance with civil rights laws.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $898,000 for
the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights.
Office of Civil Rights
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $24,070,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 24,443,000
Committee recommendation................................ 24,070,000
The Office of Civil Rights provides overall leadership
responsibility for all department-wide civil rights activities.
These activities include employment opportunity as well as
program nondiscrimination policy development, analysis,
coordination, and compliance. The Office is responsible for
providing leadership in facilitating the fair and equitable
treatment of USDA employees, and for monitoring program
activities to ensure that all USDA programs are delivered in a
nondiscriminatory manner. The Office's outreach functions
provide leadership, coordination, facilitation, and expertise
to internal and external partners to ensure equal and timely
access to USDA programs for all constituents, with emphasis on
the underserved, through information sharing, technical
assistance, and training.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $24,070,000
for the Office of Civil Rights.
Agriculture Buildings and Facilities
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $55,866,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 125,469,000
Committee recommendation................................ 53,618,000
Department headquarters presently operates in a two-
building, Government-owned complex in downtown Washington, DC,
the George Washington Carver Center in Beltsville, Maryland,
and in leased buildings in the metropolitan Washington, DC,
area. Under an arrangement with the General Services
Administration, USDA operates, maintains, and repairs these
facilities, in lieu of rental payments. For the last several
years the Department has implemented a strategic space plan to
locate staff more efficiently, renovate its buildings, and
eliminate safety hazards, particularly in the Agriculture South
Building.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $53,618,000
for Agriculture Buildings and Facilities.
Hazardous Materials Management
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $3,600,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 3,630,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,618,000
Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act and the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, the Department has the responsibility to meet
the same standards regarding the storage and disposition of
hazardous materials as private businesses. The Department is
required to contain, cleanup, monitor, and inspect for
hazardous materials in areas under the Department's
jurisdiction.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,618,000 for
Hazardous Materials Management, including the requested
increase for cleanup efforts at high-priority sites that pose
the greatest threats to human life and safety.
Office of Inspector General
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $95,026,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 98,902,000
Committee recommendation................................ 95,294,000
The Office of Inspector General [OIG] was established
October 12, 1978, by the Inspector General Act of 1978 (Public
Law 95-452). This act expanded and provided specific
authorities for the activities of OIG which had previously been
carried out under the general authorities of the Secretary of
Agriculture.
The Office is administered by an inspector general who
reports directly to the Secretary of Agriculture. Functions and
responsibilities of this Office include direction and control
of audit and investigative activities within the Department,
formulation of audit and investigative policies and procedures
regarding Department programs and operations, and analysis and
coordination of program-related audit and investigation
activities performed by other Department agencies.
The activities of this Office are designed to assure
compliance with existing laws, policies, regulations, and
programs of the Department's agencies, and to provide
appropriate officials with the means for prompt corrective
action where deviations have occurred. The scope of audit and
investigative activities is large and includes administrative,
program, and criminal matters. These activities are
coordinated, when appropriate, with various audit and
investigative agencies of the executive and legislative
branches of the Government.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $95,294,000
for the Office of Inspector General, which includes an increase
of $268,000 for GSA rent and DHS security payments, as
requested in the budget. The recommendation also includes
funding for OIG to address violations of section 26 of the
Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2156) and to coordinate with State
and local law enforcement personnel in this effort.
Office of the General Counsel
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $44,383,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 48,075,000
Committee recommendation................................ 44,383,000
The Office of the General Counsel provides all legal
advice, counsel, and services to the Secretary and to all
agencies, offices, and corporations of the Department. The
Office represents the Department in administrative proceedings;
nonlitigation debt collection proceedings; State water rights
adjudications; proceedings before the Environmental Protection
Agency, Interstate Commerce Commission, Federal Maritime
Administration, and International Trade Commission; and, in
conjunction with the Department of Justice, in judicial
proceedings and litigation.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $44,383,000
for the Office of the General Counsel.
Office of Ethics
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $3,654,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 4,565,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,654,000
The Office of Ethics is the centralized and consolidated
office implementing USDA's ethics program throughout the
Department. The Office provides ethics services to all
employees at the Department concerning advice, training, and
guidance about compliance with conflict of interest and
impartiality rules. This includes complying with the
requirements of the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge
Act, Public Law 112-105 (the STOCK Act), and the Office of
Government Ethics regulatory requirements (5 CFR parts 2634
through 2641).
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,654,000 for
the Office of Ethics.
Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $898,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 907,000
Committee recommendation................................ 898,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education,
and Economics provides direction and coordination in carrying
out the laws enacted by the Congress for food and agricultural
research, education, extension, and economic and statistical
information. The Office has oversight and management
responsibilities for the Agricultural Research Service;
National Institute of Food and Agriculture; Economic Research
Service; and National Agricultural Statistics Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $898,000 for
the Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and
Economics.
Cover Crops.--The Committee recognizes the importance of
cover crops to promote soil health and reduce nutrient runoff
and encourages the National Institute of Food and Agriculture
to coordinate research efforts to collect information regarding
cover crop practices, adoption rates, and effects on soil
health and crop yields, and to provide effective and widespread
dissemination of the results of the research to agricultural
producers through extension and outreach activities.
Formula Funds.--The Committee recognizes the good work that
stems from Hatch and Smith-Lever grants and directs that the
funds continue to be awarded according to existing statutory
funding formulas.
Economic Research Service
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $85,373,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 86,023,000
Committee recommendation................................ 85,373,000
The Economic Research Service [ERS] provides economic and
other social science research and analysis for public and
private decisions on agriculture, food, the environment, and
rural America. The information that ERS produces is for use by
the general public and to help the executive and legislative
branches develop, administer, and evaluate agricultural and
rural policies and programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $85,373,000
for the Economic Research Service.
Forest Loss.--The Committee encourages ERS to analyze the
impacts of U.S. trade and import of food and commodities on
global forest loss, and to identify potential U.S. policies
that could reduce U.S. impacts on tropical forest loss. ERS
should report to the Committee on its efforts within 180 days
of enactment of this act.
Organic Data Analysis.--The organic industry has grown at a
tremendous rate over the past several years, and accurate data
for the production, pricing and marketing of organic products
is essential. Therefore, the Committee encourages ERS to
continue and expand the efforts relating to organic data
analysis.
National Agricultural Statistics Service
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $172,408,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 180,346,000
Committee recommendation................................ 168,108,000
The National Agricultural Statistics Service [NASS]
administers the Department's program of collecting and
publishing current national, State, and county agricultural
statistics. These statistics provide accurate and timely
projections of current agricultural production and measures of
the economic and environmental welfare of the agricultural
sector which are essential for making effective policy,
production, and marketing decisions. NASS also furnishes
statistical services to other USDA and Federal agencies in
support of their missions, and provides consulting, technical
assistance, and training to developing countries.
NASS is also responsible for administration of the Census
of Agriculture, which is taken every 5 years and provides
comprehensive data on the agricultural economy including: data
on the number of farms, land use, production expenses, farm
product values, value of land and buildings, farm size and
characteristics of farm operators, market value of agricultural
production sold, acreage of major crops, inventory of livestock
and poultry, and farm irrigation practices.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $168,108,000
for the National Agricultural Statistics Service. The
recommendation includes increases of $500,000 for pollinator
surveys, and $957,000 for the Chemical Use program, as
requested in the budget. The Committee also includes funding to
reinstate a vineyard production survey to gather information
essential to annual pricing and purchase agreements and long-
term production planning.
Chemical Use Data Series.--The Committee believes that the
Chemical Use Data Series provides timely, valuable information
on fertilizer and chemical use data and major field crops and
selected specialty crops. The Committee encourages the National
Agricultural Statistics Service to continue funding the
collection and analysis of chemical use data as well as
practices such as integrated pest management. The Committee
directs the National Agricultural Statistics Service to
continue collecting Fruit Chemical Use data and Vegetable
Chemical Use data in alternating years.
Organic Data Collection.--The Committee believes the
Organic Production Survey is essential to the growth of the
organic industry, and should be conducted on a regular basis to
properly assess the characteristics, trends, and changes in the
sector. The Committee included funding in 2014 for this purpose
and expects NASS to incorporate funding for an annual organic
production survey into its internal budgeting process.
Agricultural Research Service
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $1,132,625,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 1,191,540,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,136,825,000
The Agricultural Research Service [ARS] is responsible for
conducting basic, applied, and developmental research through
its major program areas of New Products/Product Quality/Value
Added; Livestock/Crop Production; Food Safety; Livestock/Crop
Protection; Human Nutrition; and Environmental Stewardship. The
research applies to a wide range of goals; commodities; natural
resources; fields of science; and geographic, climatic, and
environmental conditions.
ARS is also responsible for the Abraham Lincoln National
Agricultural Library which provides agricultural information
and library services through traditional library functions and
modern electronic dissemination to agencies of the USDA, public
and private organizations, and individuals.
As the USDA's in-house agricultural research unit, ARS has
major responsibilities for conducting and leading the national
agricultural research effort. It provides initiative and
leadership in five areas: research on broad regional and
national problems, research to support Federal action and
regulatory agencies, expertise to meet national emergencies,
research support for international programs, and scientific
resources to the executive branch and Congress.
The mission of ARS research is to develop and transfer
solutions to agricultural problems of high national priority
and provide information access and dissemination to ensure
high-quality, safe food and other agricultural products; assess
the nutritional needs of Americans; sustain a competitive
agricultural economy; enhance the natural resource base and the
environment; and provide economic opportunities for rural
citizens, communities, and society as a whole.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,136,825,000
for salaries and expenses of the Agricultural Research Service.
The Committee does not concur with the President's budget
request regarding the termination of research programs or
closure of research locations. The Committee expects extramural
research to be funded at no less than the fiscal year 2015
levels.
Aerial Application Research.--The Committee recognizes the
importance of the ARS Aerial Application Technology Program.
The program conducts innovative research making aerial
applications more efficient, effective and precise. Research
for aerial application serves the public good as a vital tool
for the future, as agriculture strives to meet the food, fiber,
and bio-energy demands of a growing population.
Agroforestry.--Agroforestry can provide on-farm financial
and environmental benefits while also addressing the regional
and national-scale issues of clean water, wildlife habitat, and
hypoxia. Agroforesters manage trees with crops, livestock, and
pasture to combine the best of both agriculture and forestry.
Recognizing the importance of agroforestry to farm practices
and the environment, the Committee recommendation includes no
less than the fiscal year 2015 level to develop integrated
strategies to manage multifunctional agricultural landscapes
that combine trees with agricultural and horticultural crops,
forages and grazing livestock for optimal economic,
environmental, and natural resources benefits.
Animal Welfare.--The Committee is concerned about
allegations of mistreatment of research animals at the U.S.
Meat Animal Research Center [USMARC] in Clay Center, Nebraska,
and is aware that USDA's Office of the Inspector General is
conducting a full audit of animal welfare practices at USMARC
and throughout the Agricultural Research Service [ARS]. The
Committee directs ARS to ensure all its facilities conducting
agricultural research comply with standards that are equivalent
to the Animal Welfare Act, and to enter into an agreement with
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [APHIS] to have
APHIS Animal Care conduct routine inspections of ARS facilities
to ensure humane treatment of animals. The Committee further
directs ARS to fully review all of its animal welfare policies
and procedures, and to ensure that all research facilities
which conduct animal research have fully functioning
Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees, with appropriate
record keeping procedures. The Committee directs USDA to
provide quarterly reports to the Committees on Appropriations
of the House and Senate regarding all efforts to improve or
ensure all animal welfare regulations are being followed,
including measures taken when problems are discovered.
Aquaculture Disease.--The Committee is concerned about the
increasing negative impact the spread of Aeromonas is having on
the domestic farm-raised catfish industry. The ARS Aquatic
Animal Health Unit is encouraged to collaborate with land-grant
university partners with expertise in aquatic animal health and
fish pathogens to develop more effective culture methods and
advanced biosecurity measures to counteract the infections. All
research, development and outreach should focus on the
immediate needs surrounding Aeromonas infections, but should be
tailored in a way that provides broad-based solutions to
reducing loss due to disease in the domestic aquaculture
industry. Research should also focus on methodologies that have
the potential to not only reduce risks from pathogens, but also
positively impact the viability and profitability of the
industry beyond the benefits provided by disease control. The
Committee is particularly interested in understanding what
benefits the use of in-pond raceways could have on disease
prevention and mediation, the cost of production, and
profitability.
Bioenergy Research.--ARS is encouraged to consider a wide
spectrum of growing conditions and appropriate plant species in
its bioenergy research to support the development of bioenergy
products viable in all States and territories.
Classical Plant Breeding.--The Committee is aware of the
need to enhance classical plant breeding, and encourages ARS to
invest in research to improve genetic resources and cultivars
for the benefit of U.S. producers, seed companies, processors
and consumers. This research should focus on breeding improved
germplasm and varieties with higher yields, improved disease
and pest resistance and resilience to weather extremes.
Additionally, methods and tools should be developed to enable
classical breeders to choose better breeding parents and speed
up variety development.
Cranberry Research.--The Committee recognizes the need for
advancements in water conservation, pest control, disease
reduction, and fruit quality improvements in cranberry
production. The Committee recommendation includes $750,000 to
increase resources devoted to improving cranberry yields, pest
management, disease management, and water resource management
by developing fields devoted to cranberry research and
collection and storage of samples for analysis in appropriate
existing laboratory facilities.
Dairy Forage Research.--The Committee commends the ARS on
its prioritization of research to develop improved forage
breeding and management systems to enhance the productivity and
capacity of animal production systems. This research should
focus on improving the environmental efficiency of diverse
integrated dairy systems, environmental growth physiology, and
the improvement of forage, forage management, and forage
systems. This research serves the public good by improving the
efficiency of dairy systems and addressing nutrient management
pressures on water and environmental quality.
Emerging Cereal Rust Diseases.--The Committee is aware that
emerging cereal rust diseases are a threat to domestic and
world food supplies. Therefore, the Department should continue
to dedicate funding to speed efforts to combat cereal rust
disease, including development of Ug99-resistant wheat
varieties.
Forage Production Systems.--The Committee recommendation
includes no less than the fiscal year 2015 level to develop
management practices that improve the production efficiency of
grazing operations in temperate pastures.
Forest Products.--The Committee recognizes the important
role of the forests products sector to the U.S. economy. The
need to create new and improved value-added products and
renewable energy from our Nation's wood supply is critical to
the sustainability of the national economy. The Committee
recommendation includes $3,500,000 to support research on wood
quality improvement and improvement in forest products
evaluation standards and valuation techniques. ARS shall
conduct this research in consultation with the Forest Products
Laboratory.
Human Nutrition Research.--The Committee remains concerned
about the high rates of obesity in this country, and believes
that research into human nutrition is important to help prevent
childhood obesity and the medical issues obesity brings. The
Committee recommendation includes no less than the fiscal year
2015 level to expand research regarding the growth, health
promotion, diet, immune function, and disease prevention of the
developing child.
National Agricultural Library.--ARS is responsible for the
Abraham Lincoln National Agricultural Library [NAL] which
provides agricultural information and library services through
traditional library functions and modern electronic
dissemination to agencies of the USDA, public and private
organizations, and individuals. The Committee directs ARS to
continue to support the dissemination of objective, scholarly,
and authoritative agricultural and food law research and
information by entering into partnerships with institutions of
higher education that have expertise in agricultural and food
law research and information.
Nutrition Research and Aging.--There is strong evidence
that nutrition plays a critical role in preventative health,
especially in aging adults. More research is needed to address
our gaps in knowledge about how nutrition impacts the health of
this growing population of Americans. The Agricultural Research
Service is encouraged to continue research relating to the
impact of nutrition on aging and health.
Pollinator Research.--The Committee is aware that
pollinators are responsible for the production of one-third of
the Nation's food supply, but the number of managed honeybee
colonies in the United States has dropped in half since 1940.
Because of the importance of pollinators in the production of
the Nation's food supply and their impact on the stability of
our agricultural economy, the Committee recommendation includes
an increase of $2,000,000 for pollinator health.
Potato Research.--The Committee is concerned about the
potentially devastating effect that Golden Nematodes and Pale
Cyst Nematodes could have on potatoes and other agricultural
commodities in contact with soil, and recognizes that in order
to ensure the success of nematode quarantine in the country ARS
scientists must be able to breed and test potatoes for nematode
resistance and to receive and analyze soil to monitor nematode
infestation in regulated areas in a secure quarantined
environment.
Research Facilities.--The Committee notes the delivery of
the report pursuant to a provision in the report accompanying
the Fiscal Year 2015 Consolidated and Further Continuing
Appropriation Act, which directed ARS to submit a report
containing recommendations to better utilize Federal labs in
cooperation with land-grant universities. It is concerning,
however, that the report contained no such recommendations and
many issues regarding the underutilization of established labs
remain unresolved. The Committee therefore directs ARS, in
consultation with land-grant universities and Center Directors,
to submit a report to the Committee by January 30, 2016, that
includes an assessment of the current utilization of each ARS
facility, the views of land-grant universities and/or Center
Directors, and specific recommendations to better utilize
Federal labs to explore new scientific opportunities that
benefit the Nation's food and agriculture system.
Sclerotinia.--The Committee is aware of the economic
importance of controlling sclerotinia, which affects
sunflowers, soybeans, canola, edible beans, peas, and lentils
and encourages ARS to continue both core research and
cooperative projects of the National Sclerotinia Initiative.
Shellfish Research.--The Committee encourages the
Agricultural Research Service to increase its investment in
partnerships with research institutions on research to improve
shellfish survival and growth rates and to classify and
preserve natural genetic variation.
Small Grains Genomic Initiative.--The Committee recognizes
that ARS small grains genotypic research provides a critical
resource to facilitate the application of genomic information
and DNA marker technologies to the improvement and breeding of
barley and wheat, with a current major need to update to next-
generation genotypic to accelerate marker-assisted breeding.
Adequate resources are also needed to enhance barley and wheat
quality phenotyping, doubled haploid research and small grains
genomic research, and the Committee supports the Small Grains
Genomic Initiative.
Sustainable Water Use Research.--The Committee remains
concerned about the ongoing depletion of the regional Alluvial
Aquifer in the Lower Mississippi River Basin. Over 7 million
acres in the region represent irrigated cropland and 90 percent
of those acres rely on the groundwater supply. Increased water
withdrawals and stagnant recharging jeopardize the long-term
availability of the aquifer and place irrigation agriculture in
the region on an unsustainable path. The Committee encourages
ARS, in collaboration with university research and extension
scientists and local stakeholders, to identify gaps in water
management research and focus efforts on the development of
conservation and irrigation techniques to reduce water usage in
agriculture production while maintaining crop quality and
yield.
Tropical and Subtropical Research.--Research on Tropical
and Subtropical crops is critical as the presence of and
destruction by invasive pests such as fruit flies, coffee berry
borer, and plant viruses increase and threaten crop security in
the Pacific and Insular Areas, and the Committee encourages ARS
to support this research.
Wheat and Sorghum Research.--The Committee recognizes the
potential impact heat and drought can have on the yield and
quality of wheat and sorghum and the need for new cultivars to
adapt to changing climatic conditions. The Committee provides
an increase of $1,000,000 for research to improve the
productivity and quality of wheat and sorghum during uncertain
growing seasons resulting from extended droughts and increased
temperatures.
Agricultural Research Service
BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $45,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 205,901,000
Committee recommendation................................................
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee does not recommend an appropriation for
Agricultural Research Service, Buildings and Facilities.
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Section 7511(f)(2) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy
Act of 2008 amends the Department of Agriculture Reorganization
Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6971) by establishing an agency to be
known as the National Institute of Food and Agriculture [NIFA].
The Secretary transferred to the Director of NIFA, effective
October 1, 2009, all authorities administered by the
Administrator of the Cooperative State, Research, Education and
Extension Service. The mission is to work with university
partners and customers to advance research, extension, and
higher education in the food and agricultural sciences and
related environmental and human sciences to benefit people,
communities, and the Nation.
RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $786,874,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 990,788,000
Committee recommendation................................ 791,096,000
Research and Education programs administered by NIFA are
USDA's principal entree to the university system of the United
States for the purpose of conducting agricultural research and
education programs as authorized by the Hatch Act of 1887, as
amended (7 U.S.C. 361a-361i); the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative
Forestry Act of 1962, as amended (16 U.S.C. 582a et seq.); the
Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act, as
amended (7 U.S.C. 450i); the National Agricultural, Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as amended (7
U.S.C. 3101 et seq.); the Equity in Educational Land-Grant
Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 301 note); the Agricultural
Research, Extension and Education Reform Act of 1998 (Public
Law 105-185), as amended; the Food, Agriculture, Conservation
and Trade Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-624); the Farm Security
and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-171); and the
Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-246).
Through these authorities, USDA participates with State and
other cooperators to encourage and assist the State
institutions in the conduct of agricultural research and
education through the State Agricultural Experiment Stations of
the 50 States and the territories; by approved Schools of
Forestry; the 1890 Land-Grant Institutions and Tuskegee
University and West Virginia State University; 1994 Land-Grant
Institutions; by Colleges of Veterinary Medicine; and other
eligible institutions. The appropriated funds provide Federal
support for research and education programs at these
institutions.
The research and education programs participate in a
nationwide system of agricultural research program planning and
coordination among the State institutions, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, and the agricultural industry of America.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $791,096,000
for research and education activities of the National Institute
of Food and Agriculture.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendations for research and education activities:
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE--RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Program/Activity Authorization recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hatch Act..................................... 7 U.S.C. 361a-i................................ 243,701
McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Act..... 16 U.S.C. 582a through a-7..................... 33,961
Research at 1890 Institutions (Evans-Allen 7 U.S.C. 3222.................................. 52,485
Program).
Payments to the 1994 Institutions............. 534(a)(1) of Public Law 103-382................ 3,439
Education Grants for 1890 Institutions........ 7 U.S.C. 3152(b)............................... 19,336
Education Grants for Hispanic-Serving 7 U.S.C. 3241.................................. 9,219
Institutions.
Education Grants for Alaska Native and Native 7 U.S.C. 3156.................................. 3,194
Hawaiian-Serving Institutions.
Research Grants for 1994 Institutions......... 536 of Public Law 103-382...................... 1,801
Capacity Building for Non Land-Grant Colleges 7 U.S.C. 3319i................................. 5,000
of Agriculture.
Resident Instruction and Distance Education 7 U.S.C. 3362 and 3363......................... 2,000
Grants for Insular Areas.
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative...... 7 U.S.C. 450i(b)............................... 325,000
Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment............ 7 U.S.C. 3151a................................. 5,000
Veterinary Services Grant Program............. 7 U.S.C. 3151b................................. 2,500
Continuing Animal Health and Disease Research 7 U.S.C. 3195.................................. 4,000
Program.
Supplemental and Alternative Crops............ 7 U.S.C. 3319d................................. 825
Multicultural Scholars, Graduate Fellowship 7 U.S.C. 3152(b)............................... 9,000
and Institutions Challenge Grants.
Secondary and 2-year Post-Secondary Education. 7 U.S.C. 3152(j)............................... 900
Aquaculture Centers........................... 7 U.S.C. 3322.................................. 4,000
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education 7 U.S.C. 5811, 5812, 5831, and 5832............ 22,667
Farm Business Management...................... 7 U.S.C. 5925f................................. 1,450
Sun Grant Program............................. 7 U.S.C. 8114.................................. 2,500
Improved Pest Control:
Minor Crop Pest Management (IR-4)......... 7 U.S.C. 450i(c)............................... 11,913
Alfalfa Forage and Research Program....... 7 U.S.C. 5925.................................. 2,000
Special Research Grants: 7 U.S.C. 450i(c)...............................
Global Change/UV Monitoring............... ............................................... 1,405
Potato Research........................... ............................................... 2,000
Aquaculture Research...................... ............................................... 1,350
----------------
Total, Special Research Grants........ ............................................... 4,755
================
Necessary Expenses of Research and Education
Activities:
Grants Management System.................. ............................................... 7,830
Federal Administration--Other Necessary ............................................... 12,620
Expenses for Research and Education
Activities.
----------------
Total, Necessary Expenses............. ............................................... 20,450
================
Total, Research and Education ............................................... 791,096
Activities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative.--The Committee
recommendation includes $325,000,000 for the Agriculture and
Food Research Initiative [AFRI].
Section 7406 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of
2008 specifies priority areas with the Agriculture and Food
Research Initiative [AFRI], including an emphasis on
conventional (classical) plant and animal breeding. The
Committee strongly concurs with the intent of this section, and
notes the importance of having publicly available cultivars and
breeds that are specifically bred to be adapted to the soils,
climates, and farming systems of farmers of all regions.
Therefore, the Committee strongly urges to make public cultivar
and breed development an increased priority for funding within
the AFRI program by creating a separate Request for
Applications in this area. The Committee further requests a
report from the agency as to its plans for implementing this
important requirement.
Agricultural Research Enhancement Awards.--The Committee
remains determined to see that quality research and enhanced
human resources development in the agricultural and related
sciences be a nationwide commitment. Therefore, the Committee
continues its direction that not less than 15 percent of the
competitive research grant funds be used for USDA's
agricultural research enhancement awards program, including
USDA-EPSCoR.
Alfalfa and Forage Research.--The Committee notes that
research into alfalfa seed and alfalfa forage systems holds the
potential to increase yields, increase milk production, and
improve genetics. The Committee recommendation includes
$2,000,000 to support research into the improvement of yields,
water conservation, creation of new uses, and the development
of new storage and harvest systems.
Aquaculture Disease Research.--The Committee encourages
USDA to support aquaculture disease and vaccine research,
including research on coldwater aquaculture vaccines. There is
currently no national facility for pathogen testing. Research
into finfish vaccines and pathogens has the potential to
accelerate the growth of sustainable U.S. aquaculture, reduce
the trade deficit attributable to imported seafood, and reduce
the pressure on overfished species.
Aquaculture Research.--The Committee recognizes the
importance of the domestic aquaculture industry to the U.S.
economy. The Committee recommendation includes $1,350,000 for
aquaculture research to address issues related to genetics,
disease, systems, and economics.
Cereal Crop Research.--Research on cereal crops has
historically been conducted by USDA and public universities,
and the Committee recognizes the importance of continuing
investment in cereal crop research. The Committee strongly
encourages USDA to provide funding for cereal crop research in
the areas of genetic and genomic research, plant pest research,
and improved production systems.
Countering Seafood Fraud.--The Committee remains concerned
about countering economic fraud and improving food safety of
the U.S. food supply. The Committee is concerned that adequate
technology is not yet available to provide for appropriate
sampling of the food supply. The Committee believes NIFA should
conduct research to develop technologies that will provide
rapid, portable and facile screening of fish species at port
sites, wholesale, and retail centers.
Dual Use/Dual Benefit.--The Dual Purpose with Dual Benefit:
Research in Biomedicine and Agriculture Using Agriculturally
Important Domestic Species is an interagency partnership grants
program funded by NIFA and the National Institutes of Health
[NIH]. Both NIFA and NIH should be commended for developing
this important interagency program. The Committee strongly
urges continuation of this partnership because it sponsors use
of farm animals as dual purpose models to better understand
developmental origins of disease, fat regulation and obesity,
stem cell biology, assisted reproductive technologies, and
infectious disease which directly benefits both agriculture and
biomedicine. This program also strengthens ties between human
medicine, veterinary medicine, and animal sciences, which is
key to success of the One Health Initiative.
Food Safety.--The Committee recommends that NIFA prioritize
research on funding for new food safety technologies relating
to the Nation's meat supply that helps researchers, producers,
and manufacturers.
Food Safety Outreach.--The Committee is aware that for
fiscal year 2015 FDA and USDA is soliciting proposals for the
establishment of one national and four regional food safety
training centers. The Committee is concerned that limiting
funding to one national center and four regional centers may
inhibit the funding being used for on-the-ground food safety
training ``projects'', as authorized by the Food Safety
Modernization Act. The Committee expects the Secretary to
ensure that nonprofit community-based or non-governmental
organizations, or organizations representing owners and
operators of small and mid-sized farms, small food processors,
or small fruit and vegetable merchant wholesalers can compete
for funding or subcontracts for on-the-ground food safety
training projects that directly reach the targeted, intended
beneficiaries.
Lowbush Blueberries.--The Committee directs NIFA to work
with research institutions to develop and refine predictive
models and monitoring technologies for native and invasive
pests for incorporation into integrated pest management
programs for naturally seeded, native berry crops to increase
the margin of food safety and product quality.
Organic Research.--USDA's National Organic Standards Board
[NOSB] has identified key organic research priorities, many of
which would help to address challenges that have limited the
growth in organic production in this country. The Committee
encourages NIFA to give strong consideration to the NOSB
organic research priorities when crafting the fiscal year 2016
RFAs for AFRI and the Organic Transition Program.
Regional Research Priorities.--The Committee encourages
NIFA to consider providing funding within AFRI to assist with
State and regional research priorities, with USDA oversight and
review.
Seafood.--The Committee encourages USDA, in partnership
with universities with established domestic shrimp farming
programs, to support the development of a domestic industry
that will help ensure the safety and quality of the Nation's
seafood supply, promote environmentally sustainable
aquaculture, create new opportunities for U.S. agriculture, and
forge new markets for U.S. grain and oilseed products and
technology services.
Specialty Crop Research Initiative.--The Committee
emphasizes the important role of the Specialty Crop Research
Initiative in addressing the critical needs of the specialty
crop industry through research and extension activities, and
encourages NIFA to prioritize proposals for and enhance its
overall commitment to identifying and addressing threats to
pollinators from pests and diseases.
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education.--The
Committee is strongly supportive of the SARE program and
directs USDA to ensure that research, education and extension
activities carried out within SARE remain intact.
Veterinary Corps.--Veterinarians fulfilling the terms of a
contract under USDA's Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment
Program, authorized by the National Veterinary Medical Services
Act, shall be members of the National Veterinary Medical
Services Corps and members who have fulfilled the terms of
their contract shall be alumni of the Corps.
Zoonotic Disease Research.--Federal and State animal health
officials have made eradicating livestock diseases with
significant wildlife reservoirs a national animal health
priority. This need is reflected in the Agricultural Act of
2014 which made the research and development of surveillance
methods, vaccines, vaccination delivery systems or diagnostic
tests a priority research area under the Competitive, Special,
and Facilities Research Grant Act particularly for bovine
brucellosis and bovine tuberculosis. The Committee recognizes
the need for this research and encourages the agency to make
competitive grants available to study improved management tools
for zoonotic livestock diseases with significant wildlife
reservoirs.
HISPANIC-SERVING AGRICULTURAL COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES ENDOWMENT FUND
Appropriations, 2015....................................................
Budget estimate, 2016................................... $10,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 10,000,000
Section 7129 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of
2008, provides for the establishment of an endowment fund for
the Hispanic-Serving Agricultural Colleges and Universities
[HSACU]. The Hispanic/Latino community is the fastest-growing
sector of the American population. This investment in the
Hispanic-Serving Agricultural Colleges and Universities is
needed to ensure institutions can effectively compete for NIFA
competitive grants.
On the termination of each fiscal year, the Secretary shall
withdraw the income from the endowment fund for the fiscal
year, and after making adjustments for the cost of
administering the endowment fund, shall distribute the adjusted
income as follows: 60 percent of the adjusted income shall be
distributed among the Hispanic-Serving Agricultural Colleges
and Universities on a pro rata basis based on the Hispanic
enrollment count of each institution; and 40 percent shall be
distributed in equal shares to the Hispanic-Serving
Agricultural Colleges and Universities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $10,000,000
for the Hispanic-Serving Agricultural Colleges and Universities
Endowment Fund.
NATIVE AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS ENDOWMENT FUND
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $11,880,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 11,880,000
Committee recommendation................................ 11,880,000
The Native American Institutions Endowment Fund authorized
by Public Law 103-382, the Equity in Educational Land-Grant
Status Act, provides an endowment for the 1994 land-grant
institutions (34 tribally controlled colleges). This program
will enhance educational opportunity for Native Americans by
building educational capacity at these institutions in the
areas of student recruitment and retention, curricula
development, faculty preparation, instruction delivery systems,
and scientific instrumentation for teaching. Income funds are
also available for facility renovation, repair, construction,
and maintenance. On the termination of each fiscal year, the
Secretary shall withdraw the income from the endowment fund for
the fiscal year, and after making adjustments for the cost of
administering the endowment fund, distribute the adjusted
income as follows: 60 percent of the adjusted income from these
funds shall be distributed among the 1994 land-grant
institutions on a pro rata basis, the proportionate share being
based on the Indian student count; and 40 percent of the
adjusted income shall be distributed in equal shares to the
1994 land-grant institutions.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $11,880,000
for the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund.
EXTENSION ACTIVITIES
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $471,691,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 483,370,000
Committee recommendation................................ 488,891,000
Cooperative extension work was established by the Smith-
Lever Act of May 8, 1914, as amended. The Department of
Agriculture is authorized to provide, through the land-grant
colleges, cooperative extension work that consists of the
development of practical applications of research knowledge and
the giving of instruction and practical demonstrations of
existing or improved practices or technologies in agriculture
and related subjects, and to encourage the application of such
information by demonstrations, publications, through 4-H clubs,
and other means to persons not in attendance or resident at the
colleges.
To fulfill the requirements of the Smith-Lever Act, State
and county extension offices in each State, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American
Samoa, the Northern Marianas, and Micronesia conduct
educational programs to improve American agriculture and
strengthen the Nation's families and communities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $488,891,000
for extension activities of the National Institute of Food and
Agriculture.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendations for extension activities:
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE--EXTENSION ACTIVITIES
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Program/Activity Authorization recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smith-Lever Act, Section 3(b) and (c) and 7 U.S.C. 343(b) and (c) and 208(c) of Public 300,000
Cooperative Extension. Law 93-471.
Extension Services at 1890 Institutions....... 7 U.S.C. 3221.................................. 43,920
Extension Services at 1994 Institutions....... 7 U.S.C. 343(b)(3)............................. 4,446
Facility Improvements at 1890 Institutions.... 7 U.S.C. 3222b................................. 19,730
Renewable Resources Extension Act............. 16 U.S.C. 1671 et seq.......................... 4,060
Rural Health and Safety Education Programs.... 7 U.S.C. 2662(i)............................... 1,500
Food and Animal Residue Avoidance Database 7 U.S.C. 7642.................................. 1,250
Program.
Women and Minorities in STEM Fields........... 7 U.S.C. 5925.................................. 400
Food Safety Outreach Program.................. 7 U.S.C. 7625.................................. 2,500
Smith-LeverAct, Section 3(d):
Food and Nutrition Education.............. 7 U.S.C. 343(d)................................ 67,934
Farm Safety and Youth Farm Safety 7 U.S.C. 343(d)................................ 4,610
Education Programs.
New Technologies for Agricultural 7 U.S.C. 343(d)................................ 1,550
Extension.
Children, Youth, and Families at Risk..... 7 U.S.C. 343(d)................................ 8,395
Federally Recognized Tribes Extension 7 U.S.C. 343(d)................................ 3,039
Program.
Crop Protection/Pest Management........... 7 U.S.C. 343(d)................................ 17,200
----------------
Total, Section 3(d)..................... ............................................... 102,728
================
Necessary Expenses of Research and Education
Activities:
Agriculture in the K-12 Classroom......... ............................................... 552
Federal Administration--Other Necessary ............................................... 7,805
Expenses for Research and Education
Activities.
----------------
Total, Necessary Expenses............. ............................................... 8,357
================
Total, Extension Activities........... ............................................... 488,891
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $30,900,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 28,900,000
Committee recommendation................................ 13,700,000
Section 406, as amended, of the Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 authorizes an
integrated research, education, and extension competitive
grants program.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $13,700,000
for integrated activities of the National Institute of Food and
Agriculture.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendations for integrated activities:
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE--INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Program/Activity Authorization recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methyl Bromide Transition Program............... 7 U.S.C. 7626................................ 2,000
Organic Transition Program...................... 7 U.S.C. 7626................................ 4,000
Regional Rural Development Centers.............. 7 U.S.C. 450i(c)............................. 1,000
Food and Agriculture Defense Initiative......... 7 U.S.C. 3351................................ 6,700
----------------
Total, Integrated Activities.............. ............................................. 13,700
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crop Protection/Pest Management.--The Committee
recommendation moves funding for the Crop Protection/Pest
Management line item from Integrated Activities to the Smith-
Lever Act, section 3(d) line item within Extension Activities.
Potato Research.--To minimize the application of pesticides
and to maximize the yield and quality of harvested potatoes,
the Committee directs the Secretary to support pest management
programs in potato growing States. Such programs help
scientists track potential pest outbreaks and provide growers
and industry professionals with current information on specific
and timely treatments. Additionally, the programs help identify
serious diseases, such as late blight disease, in their early
stages, allowing for preventive measure to be put into place
quickly to avoid crop losses.
Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $898,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 907,000
Committee recommendation................................ 898,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and
Regulatory Programs provides direction and coordination in
carrying out laws with respect to the Department's marketing,
grading, and standardization activities related to grain;
competitive marketing practices of livestock, marketing orders,
and various programs; veterinary services; and plant protection
and quarantine. The Office has oversight and management
responsibilities for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service; Agricultural Marketing Service; and Grain Inspection,
Packers and Stockyards Administration.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $898,000 for
the Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory
Programs.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $871,315,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 855,803,000
Committee recommendation................................ 876,465,000
The Secretary of Agriculture established the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service [APHIS] on April 2, 1972, under
the authority of reorganization plan No. 2 of 1953, and other
authorities. The major objectives of APHIS are to protect the
animal and plant resources of the Nation from diseases and
pests. These objectives are carried out under the major areas
of activity, as follows:
Safeguarding and Emergency Preparedness/Response.--The
agency monitors plant and animal health worldwide, and sets
import polices to prevent the introduction of foreign plant and
animal pests and diseases. Domestically, the agency works
cooperatively to conduct plant and animal health monitoring
programs, pursue eradication, or limit the spread of the
threat. The agency also conducts diagnostic laboratory
activities that support disease prevention, detection, control,
and eradication programs. In addition, the agency protects
agriculture from detrimental animal predators, and through its
regulatory structure helps advance genetic research while
protecting against the release of harmful organisms.
Safe Trade and International Technical Assistance.--The
agency helps resolve technical trade issues to ensure the
smooth and safe movement of agricultural commodities into and
out of the United States. The agency negotiates animal and
plant health certification requirements and assists U.S.
exporters meet foreign regulatory demands. In addition, the
agency assists developing countries in improving their
safeguarding systems, to protect the United States from
emerging plant and animal pests and diseases.
Animal Care.--The agency conducts regulatory activities
that ensure the humane care and treatment of animals and horses
as the Animal Welfare and Horse Protection Acts require. These
activities include inspection of certain establishments that
handle animals intended for research, exhibition, and as pets,
and monitoring certain horse shows.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $876,465,000
for salaries and expenses of the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service.
The following table reflects the Committee's specific
recommendations for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service:
ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Fiscal year 2016 budget Committee
2015 enacted request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safeguarding and International Technical Assistance:
Animal Health Technical Services......................... 35,339 35,357 35,339
Aquatic Animal Health.................................... 2,253 2,259 2,253
Avian Health............................................. 52,340 52,395 52,340
Cattle Health............................................ 92,500 90,161 92,500
Equine, Cervid and Small Ruminant Health................. 19,500 19,534 19,500
National Veterinary Stockpile............................ 3,973 3,722 3,973
Swine Health............................................. 24,250 24,836 24,800
Veterinary Biologics..................................... 16,417 16,448 16,417
Veterinary Diagnostics................................... 31,540 31,594 31,540
Zoonotic Disease Management.............................. 9,523 19,536 9,523
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Animal Health................................ 287,635 295,842 288,185
==================================================
Agricultural Quarantine Inspection (Appropriated)........ 26,900 29,330 27,900
Cotton Pests............................................. 11,520 8,194 11,520
Field Crop & Rangeland Ecosystems Pests.................. 8,826 8,876 8,826
Pest Detection........................................... 27,446 27,504 27,446
Plant Protection Methods Development..................... 20,686 20,734 20,686
Specialty Crop Pests..................................... 156,000 145,182 156,000
Tree & Wood Pests........................................ 54,000 45,519 54,000
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Plant Health................................. 305,378 285,339 306,378
==================================================
Wildlife Damage Management............................... 90,027 80,583 92,627
Wildlife Services Methods Development.................... 18,856 18,908 18,856
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Wildlife Services............................ 108,883 99,491 111,483
==================================================
Animal & Plant Health Regulatory Enforcement............. 16,224 16,264 16,224
Biotechnology Regulatory Services........................ 18,875 18,901 18,875
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Regulatory Services.......................... 35,099 35,165 35,099
==================================================
Contingency Fund......................................... 470 471 470
Emergency Preparedness & Response........................ 16,966 16,991 16,966
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Emergency Management......................... 17,436 17,462 17,436
==================================================
Subtotal, Safeguarding and Emergency Preparedness/ 754,431 733,299 758,581
Response..............................................
==================================================
Safe Trade and International Technical Assistance:
Agriculture Import/Export................................ 14,099 19,625 15,099
Overseas Technical & Trade Operations.................... 22,114 22,138 22,114
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Safe Trade................................... 36,213 41,763 37,213
==================================================
Animal Welfare:
Animal Welfare........................................... 28,010 28,071 28,010
Horse Protection......................................... 697 706 697
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Animal Welfare............................... 28,707 28,777 28,707
==================================================
Agency Management:
APHIS Information Technology Infrastructure.............. 4,251 4,251 4,251
Physical/Operational Security............................ 5,146 5,146 5,146
GSA rent and DHS security payments....................... 42,567 42,567 42,567
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Agency Management............................ 51,964 51,964 51,964
==================================================
Total, Direct Appropriation............................ 871,315 855,803 876,465
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agricultural Quarantine Inspection.--The Committee
recognizes that prevention of infestations of pests and
diseases is much more cost effective than subsequent control or
eradication. This is an important Federal responsibility and
the Committee provides $27,900,000 for the agricultural
quarantine inspections (AQI) function, including pre-departure
and interline inspections.
Animal Disease Traceability.--The Committee provides
$13,000,000 to continue support for implementation of the new
animal disease traceability system.
APHIS Cargo Release.--The Committee recommends that APHIS
continue to work with the Department of Homeland Security's
Customs and Border Protection [CBP] in order to facilitate the
release of cargo at commercial import facilities by ensuring
that CBP officials earn Cargo Release Authority certification
for those species and groups of organisms listed in the Cargo
Release Authority Plan. Such coordination will allow CBP
officials to release cargo authorized by the Cargo Release
Authority Plan while allowing APHIS entomologists, plant
pathologists, and botanists to make release decisions upon
discovery of those reportable organisms that may pose a threat
to the Nation's agricultural security. APHIS is directed to
report to the Committee regarding ongoing interagency
coordination efforts, as well as specific steps planned for the
fiscal year to improve release decisionmaking processes for
import agriculture cargo.
Chronic Wasting Disease.--The national deer farming
industry is adapting to a 2012 interim final rule that
established a national, voluntary herd certification program
[HCP] that provides uniform herd certification standards and
will support the domestic and international marketability of
U.S. cervid herds. The Committee believes the industry requires
funding support to ensure that the newly implemented chronic
wasting disease HCP is successful. Therefore, APHIS should
spend no less than $3,000,000 for cervid health activities.
Within the funds provided, APHIS should give consideration to
indemnity payments if warranted.
Committee Directives.--In complying with the Committee's
directives, the Committee expects APHIS not to redirect support
for programs and activities without prior notification to and
approval by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
in accordance with the reprogramming procedures specified in
the act. Unless otherwise directed, the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service shall implement appropriations by programs,
projects, and activities as specified by the Appropriations
Committees of both Houses of Congress. Unspecified reductions
necessary to carry out the provisions of this act are to be
implemented in accordance with the definitions contained in the
program, project, and activity section of this report.
Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza [HPAI].--The Committee is
appreciative of the Department's decision to utilize emergency
funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC] to address
surveillance, biosecurity, indemnification, site cleanup and
disinfection, etc., in the face of spreading HPAI
contaminations. Although infections may decline during the warm
summer months, it is likely that the pace will accelerate again
in the fall. The Committee expects the Secretary to continue to
move expeditiously, relying on CCC funding, to support
research, disease tracking, containment, and other Federal
responsibilities to combat this devastating disease.
Honey Bee Pests.--The Committee remains concerned with
declining bee populations and the tragic implications for
pollination of U.S. agriculture. The Committee directs the
agency to continue priority work with other Federal and State
agencies and the public to manage, suppress, and eradicate
varroa mites, small hive beetles, and other pests and diseases
contributing to colony collapse disorder.
Invasive Annual Grasses.--The Secretary is encouraged to
consider targeted herbicide treatments of invasive annual
grasses and restoration efforts to compliment juniper control
efforts on greater sage-grouse habitat on private rangelands.
Invasive Tree Pests.--The Committee recognizes that the
forests products industry and family forest owners are under
great threat from a variety of invasive forest pests. It is
essential that APHIS carry out a comprehensive program to
counter the spread of invasive species and work towards
complete eradication of the Asian long-horned beetle, which
continues to be found in new locations. The Secretary is
directed to report to the Committee regarding the steps being
taken to eradicate Asian long-horned beetles and emerald ash
borers in northeast forests.
National Animal Health Laboratory Network [NAHLN].--Funding
for the NAHLN shall be administered in consultation with the
NAHLN Coordinating Council.
Peer-Reviewed Accreditation.--The Committee commends
APHIS's collaboration with accrediting organizations whose
accreditation program heeds rigorous publicly available
standards, utilizes notable experts in the field to conduct
comprehensive inspection and review, and provides opportunity
for public input. As a result, APHIS has prioritized its
allocation of inspection resources and inspection frequency to
focus on higher risk individuals and institutions. The
Committee also commends APHIS for its proactive efforts to
collaborate with these peer-reviewed accredited zoos and
aquariums on critical initiatives such as: foreign animal
disease surveillance; all-hazards preparedness and response;
and animal welfare symposia. The Committee expects these
efforts to continue and expand.
West Nile Virus.--The Committee remains concerned with the
threats to human and animal health posed by West Nile virus and
recognizes that a critical strategy for addressing these
threats is necessary to prevent the infection and transmission
by known vectors, including farm-raised alligators. The
Committee encourages APHIS to further investigate West Nile
virus and other infectious diseases affecting farm raised
alligators and develop treatments and methods to prevent
infection and transmission.
Wildlife Damage Management.--APHIS is responsible for
providing Federal leadership in managing problems caused by
wildlife. The Committee provides $92,627,000 for wildlife
damage control to maintain priority initiatives, including
preventing the transport of invasive snakes and other harmful
species.
The Committee maintains support for assistance to
aquaculture producers to help mitigate wildlife depredation,
particularly as it pertains to fish-eating and disease-carrying
birds. The Committee provides an additional $600,000 for damage
management efforts and the development of methods to assist
producers in combatting the persistent threat and economic
hardship caused by cormorants, pelicans, and other birds.
The Committee provides $26,000,000 for the National Rabies
Management Program to fortify existing barriers and advance
prevention and eradication efforts.
Wildlife Services Education and Training.--The Committee is
aware of the wide range of hazardous procedures and materials
utilized by APHIS personnel in the conduct of daily duties. In
addition, a recent comprehensive study noted the critical need
to provide standardized safety training, certification, and
database management for tracking, to ensure the safest working
environment possible. As such, the Committee provides
$2,000,000 within Wildlife Damage Management to establish a
National Training Academy focused on those areas of greatest
concern such as pyrotechnics, firearms, hazardous materials,
immobilization and euthanasia drugs, pesticides, animal care
and handling, land vehicles, watercraft, and zoonotic diseases.
Wildlife Services Methods Development.--The Committee
appreciates the important work done by the National Wildlife
Research Center and its affiliated field locations to resolve
problems caused by the interaction of wild animals and society.
The Committee provides $18,856,000 to ensure continued
development of technical and scientific information on wildlife
damage management.
BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $3,175,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 3,175,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,175,000
The APHIS appropriation for ``Buildings and Facilities''
funds major nonrecurring construction projects in support of
specific program activities and recurring construction,
alterations, preventive maintenance, and repairs of existing
APHIS facilities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommendation includes an appropriation of
$3,175,000 for buildings and facilities of the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service. This funding is necessary to allow
APHIS to maintain existing facilities, and perform critically
needed repairs to and replacements of building components, such
as heating, ventilation and air-conditioning on a prioritized
basis at APHIS facilities. The Committee notes that due to the
environmentally sensitive nature of many APHIS facilities,
closure of a facility could result if APHIS is unable to
complete the required repairs.
Agricultural Marketing Service
MARKETING SERVICES
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $81,192,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 83,121,000
Committee recommendation................................ 81,192,000
The Agricultural Marketing Service [AMS] was established by
the Secretary of Agriculture on April 2, 1972. AMS carries out
programs authorized by more than 50 different statutory
authorities, the primary ones being the Agricultural Marketing
Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627, 1635-1638); the U.S. Cotton
Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 51-65); the Cotton Statistics and
Estimates Act (7 U.S.C. 471-476); the Tobacco Inspection Act (7
U.S.C. 511-511q); the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act
(7 U.S.C. 499a-499t); the Egg Products Inspection Act (21
U.S.C. 1031-1056); and section 32 of the Act of 1935 (Public
Law 74-320, 7 U.S.C. 612c).
Programs administered by this agency include the market
news services, standardization, grading, classing, shell egg
surveillance services, transportation services, wholesale
farmers and alternative market development, grant payments to
States for marketing activities, the Federal administration of
marketing agreements and orders, commodity purchases,
Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, the Plant Variety
Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 2321 et seq.), and market protection
and promotion activities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $81,192,000
for Marketing Services of the Agricultural Marketing Service.
Organic Data Collection.--The Committee encourages the
Department to collect price data on organic commodities and
other data relevant to the marketing of organic agricultural
products.
LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
Limitation, 2015........................................ $60,709,000
Budget limitation, 2016................................. 60,982,000
Committee recommendation................................ 60,982,000
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Public Law
97-35) initiated a system of user fees for the cost of grading
and classing cotton, and tobacco. These activities, authorized
under the U.S. Cotton Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 51 et seq.), the
Tobacco Inspection Act (7 U.S.C. 511 et seq.), and other
provisions of law are designed to facilitate commerce and
protect participants in the industry.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a limitation of $60,982,000 on
administrative expenses of the Agricultural Marketing Service.
FUNDS FOR STRENGTHENING MARKETS, INCOME, AND SUPPLY
(SECTION 32)
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $20,186,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 20,489,000
Committee recommendation................................ 20,489,000
Under section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935, (7 U.S.C.
612c), an amount equal to 30 percent of customs receipts
collected during each preceding calendar year and unused
balances are available for encouraging the domestic consumption
and exportation of agricultural commodities. An amount equal to
30 percent of receipts collected on fishery products is
transferred to the Department of Commerce. Additional transfers
to the child nutrition programs of the Food and Nutrition
Service have been provided in recent appropriations Acts.
The following table reflects the status of this fund for
fiscal years 2015-2016:
ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD--FISCAL YEARS 2015-2016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2015 Fiscal year 2016 Fiscal year 2016
estimate budget estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation (30 Percent of Customs Receipts)............ $9,714,922,892 $10,316,645,343 $10,316,645,343
Less Transfers:
Food and Nutrition Service............................ -8,355,670,824 -8,869,645,343 -8,869,645,343
Commerce Department................................... -143,738,031 -144,000,000 -144,000,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Total, Transfers.................................... -8,499,408,855 -9,013,645,343 -9,013,645,343
=====================================================
Prior Year Appropriation Available, Start of Year......... 187,485,963 122,000,000 122,000,000
Prior Year Collections and Recoveries..................... ................ ................ ................
Unavailable for Obligations (recoveries and offsetting ................ ................ ................
collections).............................................
Transfer of Prior Year Funds to FNS (F&V;)................. -119,000,000 -122,000,000 -122,000,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Budget Authority, Farm Bill........................... 1,284,000,000 1,303,000,000 1,303,000,000
Rescission of Current Year Funds...................... -121,094,000 -292,020,000 -215,704,000
Appropriations Temporarily Reduced--Sequestration\1\.. -81,906,000 ................ -77,316,000
Unavailable for Obligations (Fruit and Veg transfer to -122,000,000 -125,000,000 -125,000,000
FNS).................................................
-----------------------------------------------------
Budget Authority, Appropriations Act.............. 959,000,000 885,980,000 884,980,000
Less Obligations:
Child Nutrition Programs (Entitlement Commodities).... 465,000,000 465,000,000 465,000,000
State Option Contract................................. 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000
Removal of Defective Commodities...................... 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000
Emergency Surplus Removal............................. 113,500,000 ................ ................
Small Business Support................................ ................ 500,000 500,000
Disaster Relief....................................... 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000
Additional Fruits, Vegetables, and Nuts Purchases..... 92,500,000 206,000,000 206,000,000
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program..................... 40,000,000 41,000,000 41,000,000
Accounting Adjustment................................. ................ ................ ................
Estimated Future Needs................................ 180,604,000 106,692,000 106,692,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Total, Commodity Procurement........................ 904,104,000 831,692,000 831,692,000
=====================================================
Administrative Funds:
Commodity Purchase Support............................ 34,710,000 33,799,000 33,799,000
Marketing Agreements and Orders....................... 20,186,000 20,489,000 20,489,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Total, Administrative Funds......................... 54,896,000 54,288,000 54,288,000
=====================================================
Total Obligations................................... 959,000,000 885,980,000 884,980,000
=====================================================
Unobligated Balance, End of Year.......................... ................ ................ ................
Unavailable for Obligations (Fruit and Veg transfer to 122,000,000 125,000,000 125,000,000
FNS).....................................................
Balances, Collections and Recoveries Not Available........ ................ ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------
Total End of Year Balances.......................... 122,000,000 125,000,000 125,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The Budget Control Act of 2011 as amended by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 reduced all non-defense
mandatory accounts by 7.3 percent in 2015 and 6.8 percent in 2016.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a transfer from section 32 funds
of $20,489,000 for the formulation and administration of
marketing agreements and orders.
Section 32 Authorities.--Under the authority described in
clause 3 of 7 U.S.C. 612c, the Secretary is able to direct
funds from the section 32 account to increase the purchasing
power of producers. This practice has been used on various
occasions to provide direct assistance to producers when market
forces or natural conditions adversely affect the financial
condition of farmers and ranchers. The Committee notes the
importance of the ability of the Secretary to utilize this
authority, but believes that communication between the
Department and the Congress should be improved when this
practice is used. Therefore, the Committee directs the
Secretary to provide notification to the Appropriations
Committee in advance of any public announcement or release of
section 32 funds under the specific authorities cited above.
PAYMENTS TO STATES AND POSSESSIONS
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $1,235,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 1,235,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,235,000
The Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program [FSMIP] is
authorized by section 204(b) of the Agricultural Marketing Act
of 1946 and is also funded from appropriations. Matching grants
are awarded on a competitive basis to State marketing agencies
to identify and test market alternative farm commodities,
determine methods of providing more reliable market
information, and develop better commodity grading standards.
This program has made possible many types of projects, such as
electronic marketing and agricultural product diversification.
Current projects are focused on the improvement of marketing
efficiency and effectiveness, and seeking new outlets for
existing farm produced commodities. The legislation grants the
U.S. Department of Agriculture authority to establish
cooperative agreements with State departments of agriculture or
similar State agencies to improve the efficiency of the
agricultural marketing chain. The States perform the work or
contract it to others, and must contribute at least one-half of
the cost of the projects.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,235,000 for
Payments to States and Possessions for Federal-State marketing
projects and activities.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $43,048,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 44,101,000
Committee recommendation................................ 43,048,000
The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
[GIPSA] was established pursuant to the Secretary's 1994
reorganization. Grain inspection and weighing programs are
carried out under the U.S. Grain Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 71 et
seq.) and other programs under the authority of the
Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, including the inspection
and grading of rice and grain-related products; conducting
official weighing and grain inspection activities; and grading
dry beans and peas, and processed grain products. Under the
Packers and Stockyards Act (7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.), assurance of
the financial integrity of the livestock, meat, and poultry
markets is provided. The Administration monitors competition in
order to protect producers, consumers, and industry from
deceptive and fraudulent practices which affect meat and
poultry prices.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $43,048,000
for salaries and expenses of the Grain Inspection, Packers and
Stockyards Administration.
Transportation Disruptions.--The Committee directs USDA to
develop and implement prompt and effective contingency plans to
ensure that official grain inspection and weighing services
resume as quickly as possible should an interruption in service
occur. Additionally, in the event of a disruption, the
Committee directs the Secretary to ensure that persons
requesting official inspection and weighing services are
informed immediately of the nature of the emergency, promptly
implement the necessary mitigations to address any concerns,
and provide regular updates should any disruption persist.
LIMITATION ON INSPECTION AND WEIGHING SERVICES EXPENSES
Limitation, 2015........................................ $50,000,000
Budget limitation, 2016................................. 55,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 55,000,000
The agency provides an official grain inspection and
weighing system under the U.S. Grain Standards Act [USGSA], and
official inspection of rice and grain-related products under
the Agricultural Marketing Act [AMA] of 1946. The USGSA was
amended in 1981 to require the collection of user fees to fund
the costs associated with the operation, supervision, and
administration of Federal grain inspection and weighing
activities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a limitation of $55,000,000 on
inspection and weighing services expenses.
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $816,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 824,000
Committee recommendation................................ 816,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety provides
direction and coordination in carrying out the laws enacted by
the Congress with respect to the Department's inspection of
meat, poultry, and processed egg products. The Office has
oversight and management responsibilities for the Food Safety
and Inspection Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $816,000 for
the Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety.
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $1,016,474,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 1,011,557,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,013,621,000
The major objectives of the Food Safety and Inspection
Service are to assure that meat and poultry products are
wholesome, unadulterated, and properly labeled and packaged, as
required by the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et
seq.); and to provide continuous in-plant inspection to egg
processing plants under the Egg Products Inspection Act.
The Food Safety and Inspection Service was established on
June 17, 1981, by Secretary's Memorandum No. 1000-1, issued
pursuant to Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953.
The inspection program of the Food Safety and Inspection
Service provides in-plant inspection of all domestic plants
preparing meat, poultry or egg products for sale or
distribution; reviews foreign inspection systems and
establishments that prepare meat or poultry products for export
to the United States; and provides technical and financial
assistance to States which maintain meat and poultry inspection
programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,013,621,000
for the Food Safety and Inspection Service [FSIS]. The
Committee finds the implementation schedule set forth by FSIS
for revised inspections processes unrealistically rapid and
provides additional funds to accomplish this transition in a
more feasible manner.
Humane Slaughter.--The Committee directs FSIS to continue
to provide annual reports to the Committee on the
implementation of objective scoring methods undertaken by FSIS
to enforce the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act.
The Committee also directs FSIS to ensure that personnel
hired with funding previously provided specifically for Humane
Methods of Slaughter Act enforcement focus their attention on
overseeing compliance with humane handling rules for live
animals as they arrive and are offloaded and handled in pens,
chutes, and stunning areas and that all inspectors receive
robust training.
Inspections.--The Committee is disappointed that the
requirements set forth in section 12106 of Public Law 113-79
have not been met. The Committee directs the Department to meet
its statutory obligation by promulgating final regulations
expeditiously and meeting the implementation deadline for all
domestic and imported inspection no later than 30 days after
the enactment of this act.
Recruiting Inspection Program Personnel.--The Committee
directs FSIS to submit a report that contains a comprehensive
plan to increase the consideration of external candidates for
frontline food safety inspection positions, with a focus on
recruiting candidates with a demonstrated educational
background in agriculture or health sciences, including new and
recent graduates in these fields.
The following table represents the Committee's specific
recommendations for the Food Safety and Inspection Service as
compared to the fiscal year 2015 and budget request levels:
FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Fiscal year 2016 budget Committee
2015 enacted request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food safety inspection:
Federal..................................................... 900,641 895,481 897,788
State....................................................... 60,905 60,976 60,905
International............................................... 16,589 16,744 16,589
Codex Alimentarius.......................................... 3,759 3,776 3,759
PHDCIS...................................................... 34,580 34,580 34,580
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 1,016,474 1,011,557 1,013,621
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural
Services
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $898,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 907,000
Committee recommendation................................ 898,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign
Agricultural Services provides direction and coordination in
carrying out the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to
the Department's international affairs (except for foreign
economic development), commodity programs, farm loans, disaster
assistance, crop insurance, and some conservation and energy
programs. The Office has oversight and management
responsibilities for the Farm Service Agency (including the
Commodity Credit Corporation), Risk Management Agency, and the
Foreign Agricultural Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $898,000 for
the Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign
Agricultural Services.
Farm Service Agency
The Farm Service Agency [FSA] was established October 13,
1994, pursuant to the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and
Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, Public
Law 103-354. The FSA administers a variety of activities, such
as the commodity price support and production adjustment
programs financed by the Commodity Credit Corporation; the
Conservation Reserve Program [CRP]; the Emergency Conservation
Program; the Commodity Operation Programs including the
warehouse examination function; farm ownership, farm operating,
emergency disaster, and other loan programs; and the Noninsured
Crop Disaster Assistance Program [NAP], which provides crop
loss protection for growers of many crops for which crop
insurance is not available. In addition, FSA currently provides
certain administrative support services to the Foreign
Agricultural Service [FAS] and to the Risk Management Agency
[RMA].
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfers from Total, FSA,
Appropriations program salaries and
accounts expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2015......................................... 1,200,180 309,880 1,510,060
Budget estimate, 2016........................................ 1,185,251 312,873 1,498,124
Committee recommendation..................................... 1,180,391 309,880 1,490,271
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The account Salaries and Expenses, Farm Service Agency,
funds the administrative expenses of program administration and
other functions assigned to FSA. The funds consist of
appropriations and transfers from the CCC export credit
guarantees, Food for Peace loans, and Agricultural Credit
Insurance Fund program accounts, and miscellaneous advances
from other sources. All administrative funds used by FSA are
consolidated into one account. The consolidation provides
clarity and better management and control of funds, and
facilitates accounting, fiscal, and budgetary work by
eliminating the necessity for making individual allocations and
allotments and maintaining and recording obligations and
expenditures under numerous separate accounts.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,490,271,000
for salaries and expenses of the Farm Service Agency, including
a direct appropriation of $1,180,391,000. The Committee
supports the mission of FSA and does not agree with the
reductions for salaries and personnel expenses as proposed in
the budget. The Committee does not provide the increases for
information technology or outreach for new and beginning
farmers and ranchers as proposed in the budget.
Algae Aquaculture.--The Committee encourages the Farm
Service Agency to consider algae aquaculture in awarding
establishment and maintenance funding under the Biomass Crop
Assistance Program.
Continuous Conservation Reserve Program.--The Secretary is
strongly encouraged to, within the total acreage made available
for enrollment in the conservation reserve program and without
reducing the periodic availability of general signup, enroll,
to the maximum extent practicable, acreage for activities
included in the State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement practice
or other similar administratively established wetland and
habitat practices that benefit priority fish and wildlife
species identified in State, regional, and national
conservation initiatives with a priority for initiatives that
provide large blocks of cover ideal for wildlife nesting.
Information Technology.--The Committee remains dedicated to
ensuring FSA has reliable and functioning IT systems for
optimal customer service, but the agency's investments and
strategy in recent years have returned cost overruns and poor
performance. As such, the Committee recommendation includes a
decrease of $10,000,000 for Modernize and Innovate the Delivery
of Agricultural Systems [MIDAS]. The Committee remains
concerned that despite continued investments in FSA IT
generally, and MIDAS specifically, the agency lacks leadership
and a clear path forward. Without shown improvement by the
agency, the Committee cannot continue to provide the full
amount for information technology requested in the budget.
Recently, the Office of Inspector General [OIG] and the
Government Accountability Office [GAO] undertook systematic
reviews of MIDAS and both reports outlined egregious and
unacceptable practices undertaken by FSA during the design and
implementation of MIDAS. This ultimately resulted in the
decision to cease development, modernization, and enhancement
activities. As OIG revealed, despite investing $444,000,000,
MIDAS is 2 years overdue and approximately $140,000,000 over
budget. This stems from ineffective project management and
oversight on the part of FSA. FSA has failed to deliver a
modernized, secure, and integrated IT solution that was
promised to Congress and the agricultural community.
The Committee remains concerned by the GAO report that
found USDA and FSA did not follow their own policies, and
despite known weaknesses, management allowed the program to
move forward. GAO also acknowledged that FSA ``lacks the
demonstrated capacity to manage successor programs'' and ``the
agency has not established plans to improve its management''.
This is not an acceptable use of tax payer dollars. The
Committee continues statutory language that allows funds for IT
to be obligated only after the Secretary meets certain
reporting requirements. Per OIG recommendations, the Committee
directs the Secretary to obtain a third-party analysis to
determine if the current enterprise solution provides the
necessary functionality and is the most cost effective
modernization solution. The Secretary is directed to report to
the Committee by October 1, 2015 on this effort.
Marketing Assistance Loan Program.--The Committee directs
the Secretary to operate the marketing assistance loan program
in a way that encourages redemption and minimizes forfeitures
of loan commodities to the Federal Government, and enables the
orderly marketing of loan commodities throughout the year.
Further, the Secretary shall ensure that the marketing
assistance loan program remains a viable tool for all producers
to use in marketing loan commodities freely and competitively.
National Agriculture Imagery Program.--The Committee
recommends that funding shall be allocated to purchase imagery
products to meet programmatic requirements.
STATE MEDIATION GRANTS
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $3,404,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 3,404,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,404,000
This program is authorized under title V of the
Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 (7 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.).
Originally designed to address agricultural credit disputes,
the program was expanded by the Federal Crop Insurance Reform
and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994
(Public Law 103-354) to include other agricultural issues such
as wetland determinations, conservation compliance, rural water
loan programs, grazing on National Forest System lands, and
pesticides. Grants are made to States whose mediation programs
have been certified by the FSA. Grants will be solely for
operation and administration of the State's agricultural
mediation program.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,404,000 for
State Mediation Grants.
The Committee recognizes the rapidly growing complexity of
American agriculture and as agriculture practices, markets, and
technologies continue to evolve, new challenges and potential
conflicts arise. Accordingly, the Committee directs the
Secretary to review ways that the State Mediation Programs can
address new issues impacting agricultural producers, including
issues involving agricultural leases, right-to-farm laws, and
family farm transitions.
GRASSROOTS SOURCE WATER PROTECTION PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $5,526,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 6,000,000
This program is intended to assist in the protection of
groundwater through State rural water associations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,000,000 for
Grassroots Source Water Protection.
DAIRY INDEMNITY PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $500,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 500,000
Committee recommendation................................ 500,000
Under the program, the Department makes indemnification
payments to dairy farmers and manufacturers of dairy products
who, through no fault of their own, suffer income losses
because they are directed to remove their milk from commercial
markets due to contamination of their products by registered
pesticides. The program also authorizes indemnity payments to
dairy farmers for losses resulting from the removal of cows or
dairy products from the market due to nuclear radiation or
fallout.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of such sums as
may be necessary, estimated in fiscal year 2016 to be $500,000,
for indemnity payments to dairy farmers.
AGRICULTURAL CREDIT INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
The Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account is
used to provide direct and guaranteed farm ownership, farm
operating, conservation, Indian highly fractioned land, and
emergency loans to individuals, as well as the following types
of loans to associations: irrigation and drainage, grazing,
Indian tribe land acquisition, and boll weevil eradication.
FSA is also authorized to provide financial assistance to
borrowers by guaranteeing loans made by private lenders having
a contract of guarantee from FSA as approved by the Secretary
of Agriculture and to establish Beginning Farmer and Rancher
Individual Development grant accounts.
The following programs are financed through this fund:
Boll Weevil Eradication Loans.--Made to assist foundations
in financing the operations of the boll weevil eradication
programs provided to farmers.
Credit Sales of Acquired Property.--Property is sold out of
inventory and is made available to an eligible buyer by
providing FSA loans.
Emergency Loans.--Made to producers to aid recovery from
production and physical losses due to drought, flooding, other
natural disasters, or quarantine. The loans may be used to:
restore or replace essential property; pay all or part of
production costs associated with the disaster year; pay
essential family living expenses; reorganize the farming
operation; and refinance certain debts.
Farm Operating Loans.--Provide short-to-intermediate term
production or chattel credit to farmers who cannot obtain
credit elsewhere, to improve their farm and home operations,
and to develop or maintain a reasonable standard of living. The
term of the loan varies from 1 to 7 years.
Farm Ownership Loans.--Made to borrowers who cannot obtain
credit elsewhere to restructure their debts, improve or
purchase farms, refinance nonfarm enterprises which supplement
but do not supplant farm income, or make additions to farms.
Loans are made for 40 years or less.
Indian Tribe Land Acquisition Loans.--Made to any Indian
tribe recognized by the Secretary of the Interior or tribal
corporation established pursuant to the Indian Reorganization
Act (Public Law 93-638) which does not have adequate
uncommitted funds to acquire lands or interest in lands within
the tribe's reservation or Alaskan Indian community, as
determined by the Secretary of the Interior, for use of the
tribe or the corporation or the members thereof.
Indian Highly Fractionated Land Loans.--Made to Indian
tribal members to purchase highly fractionated lands, as
authorized by the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a total loan level of
$6,402,114,000 for programs within the Agricultural Credit
Insurance Fund Program Account.
The following table reflects the program levels for farm
credit programs administered by the Farm Service Agency
recommended by the Committee, as compared to the fiscal year
2015 and the budget request levels:
AGRICULTURAL CREDIT PROGRAMS--LOAN LEVELS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Committee
2015 enacted 2016 budget recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farm Ownership:
Direct................................................... 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
Guaranteed............................................... 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Farm Operating:
Direct................................................... 1,252,004 1,252,004 1,252,004
Guaranteed unsubsidized.................................. 1,393,443 1,393,443 1,393,443
Emergency Loans.............................................. 34,667 34,667 34,667
Indian Tribe Land Acquisition................................ 2,000 2,000 2,000
Conservation Loans:
Guaranteed............................................... 150,000 150,000 150,000
Indian Highly Fractionated Land Loans........................ 10,000 10,000 10,000
Boll Weevil Eradication...................................... 60,000 60,000 60,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the
program account. Appropriations to this account are used to
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct
loans obligated and loan guarantees committed, as well as for
administrative expenses.
The following table reflects the cost of programs under
credit reform:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
2015 enacted 2016 budget recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farm Operating:
Direct................................................... 63,101 53,961 53,961
Guaranteed unsubsidized.................................. 14,770 14,352 14,352
Emergency Loans.............................................. 856 1,262 1,262
Individual Development Account Grants........................ ............... 2,500 ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Risk Management Agency
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $74,829,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 76,946,000
Committee recommendation................................ 74,829,000
The Risk Management Agency performs administrative
functions relative to the Federal crop insurance program that
is authorized by the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C.
1508), as amended by the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of
2000 [ARPA], Public Law 106-224, and the Agricultural Act of
2014 (Public Law 113-79).
ARPA authorized significant changes in the crop insurance
program. This act provides higher government subsidies for
producer premiums to make coverage more affordable; expands
research and development for new insurance products and under-
served areas through contracts with the private sector; and
tightens compliance. Functional areas of risk management are:
research and development; insurance services; and compliance,
whose functions include policy formulation and procedures and
regulations development.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $74,829,000
for the Risk Management Agency.
The Committee recognizes that there are many research
priorities that competitive funding may be used to address,
including the feasibility of insurance programs to cover
business interruption due to integrator bankruptcy and
catastrophic loss in the poultry industry. The Committee
encourages RMA to support research into these priorities.
Price Elections.--The Committee continues to support RMA's
efforts to complete the organic price election series as
required by the Agricultural Act of 2014. The Committee
encourages RMA and NASS to formalize and institutionalize a
plan for continuing to carry out the Organic Production Survey
on an annual or biannual basis and report back to the Committee
on this effort. The Committee encourages RMA to commit to the
development of price factors that would allow information
already collected by AMS to be used to greatly expand the
number of organic price elections available.
CORPORATIONS
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $8,930,502,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 8,175,224,000
Committee recommendation................................ 8,175,224,000
The Federal Crop Insurance Act, as amended by the Federal
Crop Insurance Reform Act of 1994, authorizes the payment of
expenses which may include indemnity payments, loss adjustment,
delivery expenses, program-related research and development,
startup costs for implementing this legislation such as
studies, pilot projects, data processing improvements, public
outreach, and related tasks and functions.
All program costs, except for Federal salaries and
expenses, are mandatory expenditures subject to appropriation.
Producers of insurable crops are eligible to receive a
basic level of protection against catastrophic losses, which
cover 50 percent of the normal yield at 55 percent of the
expected price. The only cost to the producer is an
administrative fee of $300 per crop per county.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of such sums as
may be necessary, estimated to be $8,175,224,000 in fiscal year
2016 for the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund.
Commodity Credit Corporation Fund
The Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC] is a wholly owned
Government corporation created in 1933 to stabilize, support,
and protect farm income and prices; to help maintain balanced
and adequate supplies of agricultural commodities, including
products, foods, feeds, and fibers; and to help in the orderly
distribution of these commodities. CCC was originally
incorporated under a Delaware charter and was reincorporated
June 30, 1948, as a Federal corporation within the Department
of Agriculture by the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act,
approved June 29, 1948 (15 U.S.C. 714).
The Commodity Credit Corporation engages in buying,
selling, lending, and other activities with respect to
agricultural commodities, their products, food, feed, and
fibers. Its purposes include stabilizing, supporting, and
protecting farm income and prices; maintaining the balance and
adequate supplies of selected commodities; and facilitating the
orderly distribution of such commodities. In addition, the
Corporation makes available materials and facilities required
in connection with the storage and distribution of such
commodities. The Corporation also disburses funds for sharing
of costs with producers for the establishment of approved
conservation practices on environmentally sensitive land and
subsequent rental payments for such land for the duration of
Conservation Reserve Program contracts.
Corporation activities are primarily governed by the
following statutes: the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter
Act (Public Law 80-806), as amended; the Agricultural Act of
1949 (Public Law 81-439), as amended (1949 Act); the
Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (Public Law 75-430), as
amended (the 1938 Act); the Food Security Act of 1985 (Public
Law 99-198), as amended (1985 Act); the Food, Conservation, and
Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-246); and the Agricultural
Act of 2014 (Public Law 113-79).
Management of the Corporation is vested in a board of
directors, subject to the general supervision and direction of
the Secretary of Agriculture, who is an ex officio director and
chairman of the board. The board consists of seven members, in
addition to the Secretary, who are appointed by the President
of the United States with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Officers of the Corporation are designated according to their
positions in the Department of Agriculture.
The activities of the Corporation are carried out mainly by
the personnel and through the facilities of the Farm Service
Agency [FSA] and the Farm Service Agency State and county
committees. The Foreign Agricultural Service, the General Sales
Manager, other agencies and offices of the Department, and
commercial agents are also used to carry out certain aspects of
the Corporation's activities.
Under Public Law 87-155 (15 U.S.C. 713a-11, 713a-12),
annual appropriations are authorized for each fiscal year,
commencing with fiscal year 1961. These appropriations are to
reimburse the Corporation for net realized losses.
REIMBURSEMENT FOR NET REALIZED LOSSES
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $13,444,728,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 10,519,933,000
Committee recommendation................................ 10,519,933,000
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of such sums as
may be necessary, estimated in fiscal year 2016 to be
$10,519,933,000, for the payment to reimburse the Commodity
Credit Corporation for net realized losses.
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
Limitation, 2015........................................ $5,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 5,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,000,000
The Commodity Credit Corporation's [CCC] hazardous waste
management program is intended to ensure compliance with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). The CCC
funds operations and maintenance costs as well as site
investigation and cleanup expenses. Investigative and cleanup
costs associated with the management of CCC hazardous waste are
also paid from USDA's hazardous waste management appropriation.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a limitation of $5,000,000 for the
Commodity Credit Corporation's hazardous waste management
program.
TITLE II
CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $898,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 907,000
Committee recommendation................................ 898,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment provides direction and coordination in carrying out
the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to natural
resources and the environment. The Office has oversight and
management responsibilities for the Natural Resources
Conservation Service and the Forest Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $898,000 for
the Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment.
Natural Resources Conservation Service
The Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] was
established pursuant to Public Law 103-354, the Department of
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6962). The
NRCS works with conservation districts, watershed groups, and
Federal and State agencies to bring about physical adjustments
in land use that will conserve soil and water resources,
provide for agricultural production on a sustained basis, and
reduce flood damage and sedimentation.
CONSERVATION OPERATIONS
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $846,428,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 831,231,000
Committee recommendation................................ 855,209,000
Conservation operations are authorized by Public Law 74-46
(16 U.S.C. 590a-590f). Activities include:
Conservation Technical Assistance provides assistance to
district cooperators and other land users in the planning and
application of conservation treatments to control erosion and
improve the quantity and quality of soil resources, improve and
conserve water, enhance fish and wildlife habitat, conserve
energy, improve woodland, pasture and range conditions, and
reduce upstream flooding; all to protect and enhance the
natural resource base.
Resource appraisal and program development ensures that
programs administered by the Secretary of Agriculture for the
conservation of soil, water, and related resources shall
respond to the Nation's long-term needs.
Plant Materials Centers assemble, test, and encourage
increased use of plant species which show promise for use in
the treatment of conservation problem areas.
Snow Survey and Water Forecasting provides estimates of
annual water availability from high mountain snow packs and
relates to summer stream flow in the Western States and Alaska.
Information is used by agriculture, industry, and cities in
estimating future water supplies.
Soil Surveys inventory the Nation's basic soil resources
and determine land capabilities and conservation treatment
needs. Soil survey publications include interpretations useful
to cooperators, other Federal agencies, State, and local
organizations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $855,209,000
for Conservation Operations. The Committee recommendation
includes an increase of $3,781,000 for increased rent costs, as
requested in the budget, and does not accept the budget's
proposed decrease of $44,188,000 for fewer conservation plans.
Acre-for-Acre Wetlands Mitigation.--The Secretary is
encouraged to use mitigation with the conversion of a natural
wetland and equivalent wetlands functions at a ratio not to
exceed a ratio of 1-to-1 acreage.
WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION OPERATIONS
Appropriations, 2015....................................................
Budget estimate, 2016................................... $200,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................
The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public
Law 566, 83d Cong.) (16 U.S.C. 1000-1005, 1007-1009) provides
for cooperation between the Federal Government and the States
and their political subdivisions in a program to prevent
erosion, floodwater, and sediment damages in the watersheds or
rivers and streams and to further the conservation,
development, utilization, and disposal of water, and to further
the conservation and proper utilization of land in authorized
watersheds.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee does not recommend an appropriation for the
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Program.
WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $12,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................................
Committee recommendation................................................
The watershed rehabilitation program account provides for
technical and financial assistance to carry out rehabilitation
of structural measures, in accordance with section 14 of the
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, approved August
4, 1954 (16 U.S.C. 1012, U.S.C. 1001, et seq.), as amended by
section 313 of Public Law 106-472, November 9, 2000, and by
section 2803 of Public Law 110-246.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee does not recommend an appropriation for the
Watershed Rehabilitation Program.
TITLE III
RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
The Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-354)
abolished the Farmers Home Administration, Rural Development
Administration, and Rural Electrification Administration and
replaced those agencies with the Rural Housing and Community
Development Service, (currently, the Rural Housing Service),
Rural Business and Cooperative Development Service (currently,
the Rural Business--Cooperative Service), and Rural Utilities
Service and placed them under the oversight of the Under
Secretary for Rural Economic and Community Development,
(currently, Rural Development). These agencies deliver a
variety of programs through a network of State and field
offices.
Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $898,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 907,000
Committee recommendation................................ 898,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development
provides direction and coordination in carrying out laws with
respect to the Department's rural economic and community
development activities. The Office has oversight and management
responsibilities for the Rural Housing Service, Rural
Business--Cooperative Service, and the Rural Utilities Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $898,000 for
the Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development.
Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels.--The Committee is
concerned with the interim rule proposed by the Department
under the Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels program
(section 9005 of the Energy title of the farm bill, Public Law
113-79), which is intended to promote the development of
different qualifying advanced fuel categories. The Committee is
concerned that the allocation formula for distribution of
section 9005 funds among the qualified fuel categories is
inequitable, disproportionate, and inconsistent with the
purpose and intent of the section 9005 program. The Committee
urges the Department to administer the section 9005 program in
a way that is fuel and technology-neutral. Consistent with
these objectives, the Committee directs USDA to propose
amendments to the interim rule to ensure that any final rule to
implement section 9005 provides for a more equitable and
proportional allocation of funding among the qualified advanced
biofuels and the energy pathways they represent.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2015 2016 budget recommendation
appropriation request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation................................................ 224,201 226,717 228,701
Transfer from:
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Loan Program Account........ 415,100 419,530 415,100
Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Program 34,478 34,864 34,478
Account.................................................
Rural Development Loan Program Account................... 4,439 4,488 4,439
--------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural Development salaries and expenses......... 678,218 685,599 682,718
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These funds are used to administer the loan and grant
programs of the Rural Utilities Service, the Rural Housing
Service, and the Rural Business--Cooperative Service, including
reviewing applications, making and collecting loans and
providing technical assistance and guidance to borrowers; and
to assist in extending other Federal programs to people in
rural areas.
Under credit reform, administrative costs associated with
loan programs are appropriated to the program accounts.
Appropriations to the salaries and expenses account will be for
costs associated with grant programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends $682,718,000 for salaries and
expenses of Rural Development.
Rural Housing Service
The Rural Housing Service [RHS] was established under the
Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Act of 1994, dated October 13, 1994.
RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
Appropriations, 2015 (budget authority)................. $510,943,000
Budget estimate, 2016 (budget authority)................ 511,354,000
Committee recommendation (budget authority)............. 502,741,000
This fund was established in 1965 (Public Law 89-117)
pursuant to section 517 of title V of the Housing Act of 1949
(42 U.S.C. 517(d)), as amended. This fund may be used to insure
or guarantee rural housing loans for single-family homes,
rental and cooperative housing, farm labor housing, and rural
housing sites. Rural housing loans are made to construct,
improve, alter, repair, or replace dwellings and essential farm
service buildings that are modest in size, design, and cost.
Rental housing insured loans are made to individuals,
corporations, associations, trusts, or partnerships to provide
low-cost rental housing and related facilities in rural areas.
These loans are repayable in terms up to 30 years.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $502,741,000
for the Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account [RHIF].
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-508)
established the RHIF program account. Appropriations to this
account will be used to cover the lifetime subsidy costs
associated with the direct loans obligated and loan guarantees
committed in 2015, as well as for administrative expenses. The
following table presents the loan subsidy levels as compared to
the 2015 levels and the 2016 budget request:
RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
2015 2016 budget Committee
appropriation request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan Levels:
Single-Family Housing (sec. 502):
Direct............................................... 900,000 900,000 900,000
Guaranteed........................................... 24,000,000 24,000,000 24,000,000
Housing repair (sec. 504)................................ 26,279 26,278 26,278
Direct rental housing (sec. 515)......................... 28,398 42,271 28,398
Guaranteed rental housing (sec. 538)..................... 150,000 200,000 200,000
Site development loans (sec. 524)........................ 5,000 5,000 5,000
Credit sales of acquired property........................ 10,000 10,000 10,000
Self help land development loans (sec. 523).............. 5,000 ............... 5,000
Farm labor housing loans (sec. 514)...................... 23,602 23,855 23,602
--------------------------------------------------
Total, loan levels..................................... 25,148,279 25,207,404 25,198,278
==================================================
Loan Subsidies and Grants:
Single-Family Housing (sec. 502):
Direct............................................... 66,420 60,750 60,750
Housing repair (sec. 504)................................ 3,687 3,424 3,424
Direct rental housing (sec. 515)......................... 9,800 12,525 8,414
Farm labor housing loans (sec. 514)...................... 7,600 6,789 6,717
Farm labor housing grants (sec. 516)..................... 8,336 8,336 8,336
--------------------------------------------------
Total, loan subsidies and grants....................... 95,843 91,824 87,641
==================================================
Administrative expenses...................................... 415,100 419,530 415,100
==================================================
Total, loan subsidies and administrative expenses...... 510,943 511,354 502,741
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coordinated Environmental Reviews in Indian Country.--
Tribes face challenges with differing environmental review
requirements when resources are leveraged from a variety of
Federal housing and infrastructure programs. The Committee
believes substantial efficiencies and cost-savings could be
achieved by creating a coordinated project environmental review
process. The Committee directs the Secretary to work with HUD,
who is leading the initiative, and other agencies to
investigate opportunities to design a coordinated environmental
review process for tribal housing and related infrastructure
development.
Energy Efficiency.--The Committee recognizes opportunities
to reduce costs for rural housing and save taxpayer money by
embracing energy efficiency standards in rural housing, with
measures such as air sealing, and installing insulation, window
films, and roofs.
Housing Repair Program Limits.--The Committee is concerned
that the outdated housing repair program limits have not kept
pace with modern home repair costs and is limiting the
effectiveness of the program. The Committee directs the
Secretary to examine the potential impact of providing the
Secretary with discretion to establish the maximum loan and
grant levels, including the maximum level for unsecured 504
loans, and the maximum level of combined loans and grants
available to an individual.
Maturing Mortgages.--The Committee is concerned about the
increasing number of Section 515 multi-family housing loans
that are reaching maturity and being paid off. As these loans
mature and the projects leave the affordable housing program,
low- and very low-income rural households could face untenable
rent increases and possible eviction. The Committee has engaged
the Government Accountability Office to analyze the
circumstances and provide recommendations to stabilize the
situation. In addition, the Secretary is directed to continue
efforts to maintain the affordable multi-family housing
portfolio and protect low- and very low-income rural residents
from unmanageable rent increases.
Subordinate Debt.--The Committee is aware of USDA's policy
for Section 515 loans that prohibits the utilization of cash-
flow debt on its subordinate financings (7 CFR 3560.306). The
Committee acknowledges the important role that State agencies
play in providing subordinate loans for rural rental housing
properties, some of which allow the properties to repay the
State loans only if there are surplus funds in the properties'
operating budgets. However, USDA regulations disallow that use
for surplus funds, and thereby diminish financing available
from State sources. The Committee directs the Secretary to
develop a long-term solution to promote the preservation of
affordable rural rental housing that allows State agencies to
use cash-flow loan financing to fully leverage Federal funding
with State dollars and provide affordable housing for rural
residents.
RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $1,088,500,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 1,171,900,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,167,000,000
Rental assistance is authorized under section 521(a)(2) of
the Housing Act of 1949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1490a). The
objective of the program is to reduce rents paid by low-income
families living in Rural Housing Service financed rental
projects and farm labor housing projects. Under this program,
low-income tenants will contribute the higher of: (1) 30
percent of monthly adjusted income; (2) 10 percent of monthly
income; or (3) designated housing payments from a welfare
agency.
Payments from the fund are made to the project owner for
the difference between the tenant's payment and the approved
rental rate established for the unit.
The program is administered in tandem with the Rural
Housing Service section 515 rural rental housing program and
the farm labor loan and grant programs. Priority is given to
existing projects for units occupied by rent over-burdened low-
income families and projects experiencing financial
difficulties beyond the control of the owner.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,167,000,000
for the Rental Assistance Program.
Rental Assistance.--The Committee includes statutory
language requiring rental assistance to be held in 514/516
projects for a minimum period of time. Rental assistance
contracts are funded for 1-year durations and shall not be
renewed within a 12-month period. The Committee recommendation
does not include statutory language authorizing the Secretary
to selectively renew RA agreements as proposed in the budget.
In addition the Committee does not concur with the President's
budget request regarding changes to the required timeframe for
which contracts much be renewed, and thus retains the currently
enacted language requiring that RA agreements entered into or
renewed during the current fiscal year shall be funded for a 1-
year period. The Secretary is encouraged to support
preservation and revitalization efforts for properties in
greatest need, and utilize any unexpended balances at the end
of the 1-year period toward rental assistance, debt reduction,
maintenance, repair, or rehabilitation purposes.
The Committee has lost confidence in USDA's ability to
accurately estimate rental assistance needs. The Department has
a well-established history of faulty calculations and
subsequent ad hoc, informal, requests for additional funds to
cover shortfalls. This behavior places very low- and low-income
rural households at risk of untenable rent increases, and
undermines the credit soundness of Rural Development's
$11,000,000,000 multi-family housing loan portfolio. The
Secretary is directed to effect process changes that will
result in the fiscal year 2017 budget request revealing the
true amount needed to renew all expiring rental assistance
contracts. Further, the Secretary is directed to report to the
Committee, within 30 days of enactment, on the Department's
path forward regarding that effort. In addition, the Committee
has engaged the Government Accountability Office to perform a
comprehensive review and to provide recommendations.
MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING REVITALIZATION PROGRAM ACCOUNT
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $24,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 34,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 24,000,000
The Rural Housing Voucher Program was authorized under the
Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1940r) to assist very low income
families and individuals who reside in rental housing in rural
areas. Housing vouchers may be provided to residents of rental
housing projects financed by section 515 loans that have been
prepaid after September 30, 2005. Voucher amounts reflect the
difference between comparable market rents and tenant-paid rent
prior to loan prepayment. Vouchers allow tenants to remain in
existing projects or move to other rental housing.
The Multi-family Housing Revitalization Program includes
funding for housing vouchers and a demonstration program for
the preservation and revitalization of affordable multi-family
housing projects. Rural Development's multi-family housing
portfolio faces dual pressures for loan prepayments and repair/
rehabilitation stemming from inadequate reserves resulting in
deferred property maintenance.
Provision of affordable rental housing can be accomplished
more economically by revitalizing existing housing stock rather
than funding new construction. The Multi-family Housing
Revitalization Program includes revitalization tools for
maintenance of existing units and vouchers to protect tenants
in those projects that prepay. Flexibility is provided to allow
Rural Development to utilize funding to meet the most urgent
local needs for tenant protection and project revitalization.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $24,000,000
for the Multi-family Housing Revitalization Program, including
$7,000,000 for vouchers and $17,000,000 for a housing
preservation demonstration program.
MUTUAL AND SELF-HELP HOUSING GRANTS
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $27,500,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 10,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 27,500,000
The Mutual and Self-Help Housing Grants Program is
authorized by title V of the Housing Act of 1949. Grants are
made to local organizations to promote the development of
mutual or self-help programs under which groups of usually 6 to
10 families build their own homes by mutually exchanging labor.
Funds may be used to pay the cost of construction supervisors
who work with families in the construction of their homes and
for administrative expenses of the organizations providing the
self-help assistance.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $27,500,000
for Mutual and Self-Help Housing Grants.
RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GRANTS
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $32,239,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 25,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 32,239,000
The Rural Housing Assistance Grants Program consolidates
funding for rural housing grant programs. This consolidation of
housing grant funding provides greater flexibility to tailor
financial assistance to applicant needs.
Very Low-Income Housing Repair Grants.--The Very Low-Income
Housing Repair Grants Program is authorized under section 504
of title V of the Housing Act of 1949. The rural housing repair
grant program is carried out by making grants to very low-
income families to make necessary repairs to their homes in
order to make such dwellings safe and sanitary, and remove
hazards to the health of the occupants, their families, or the
community.
These grants may be made to cover the cost of improvements
or additions, such as repairing roofs, providing toilet
facilities, providing a convenient and sanitary water supply,
supplying screens, repairing or providing structural supports
or making similar repairs, additions, or improvements,
including all preliminary and installation costs in obtaining
central water and sewer service. A grant can be made in
combination with a section 504 very low-income housing repair
loan.
No assistance can be extended to any one individual in the
form of a loan, grant, or combined loans and grants in excess
of $27,500, and grant assistance is limited to persons, or
families headed by persons who are 62 years of age or older.
Supervisory and Technical Assistance Grants.--Supervisory
and technical assistance grants are made to public and private
nonprofit organizations for packaging loan applications for
housing assistance under sections 502, 504, 514/516, 515, and
533 of the Housing Act of 1949. The assistance is directed to
very low-income families in underserved areas where at least 20
percent of the population is below the poverty level and at
least 10 percent or more of the population resides in
substandard housing. In fiscal year 1994 a Homebuyer Education
Program was implemented under this authority. This program
provides low-income individuals and families education and
counseling on obtaining and/or maintaining occupancy of
adequate housing and supervised credit assistance to become
successful homeowners.
Compensation for Construction Defects.--Compensation for
construction defects provides funds for grants to eligible
section 502 borrowers to correct structural defects, or to pay
claims of owners arising from such defects on a newly
constructed dwelling purchased with RHS financial assistance.
Claims are not paid until provisions under the builder's
warranty have been fully pursued. Requests for compensation for
construction defects must be made by the owner of the property
within 18 months after the date financial assistance was
granted.
Rural Housing Preservation Grants.--Rural housing
preservation grants (section 533) of the Housing and Urban-
Rural Recovery Act of 1983 (42 U.S.C. 1490m) authorizes the
Rural Housing Service to administer a program of home repair
directed at low- and very low-income people.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $32,239,000
for the Rural Housing Assistance Grants Program.
The following table compares the grant program levels
recommended by the Committee to the fiscal year 2015 levels and
the budget request:
RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GRANTS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2015 level 2016 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very low-income housing repair grants........................ 28,701 25,000 28,701
Housing preservation grants.................................. 3,538 ............... 3,538
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 32,239 25,000 32,239
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends that the Rural Housing Service
prioritize funding for communities with unique weather patterns
in need of replacing antiquated heating systems with more
efficient technologies.
Rural Community Facilities Program Account
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $30,278,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 62,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 28,778,000
Community facility loans were created by the Rural
Development Act of 1972 (7 U.S.C. 1926 et seq.) to finance a
variety of rural community facilities. Loans are made to
organizations, including certain Indian tribes and corporations
not operated for profit and public and quasi-public agencies,
to construct, enlarge, extend, or otherwise improve community
facilities providing essential services to rural residents.
Such facilities include those providing or supporting overall
community development, such as fire and rescue services,
healthcare, transportation, traffic control, and community,
social, cultural, and recreational benefits. Loans are made for
facilities which primarily serve rural residents of open
country and rural towns and villages of not more than 20,000
people. Healthcare, fire and rescue facilities, and educational
facilities are the priorities of the program and receive the
majority of available funds.
The Community Facility Grant Program authorized in the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public
Law 104-127), is used in conjunction with the existing direct
and guaranteed loan programs for the development of community
facilities, such as hospitals, fire stations, and community
centers. Grants are targeted to the lowest income communities.
Communities that have lower population and income levels
receive a higher cost-share contribution through these grants,
to a maximum contribution of 75 percent of the cost of
developing the facility.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $28,778,000
for the Rural Community Facilities Program Account.
The following table provides the Committee's
recommendations, as compared to the fiscal year 2015 and budget
request levels:
RURAL COMMUNITY FACILITIES PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[Loan levels and budget authority in thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
2015 2016 budget Committee
appropriation request recommendations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan levels:
Community facilities direct loans........................ 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000
Community facilities guaranteed loans.................... 73,222 ............... 84,746
--------------------------------------------------
Total loan levels...................................... 2,273,222 2,200,000 2,284,746
==================================================
Budget authority:
Community facilities guaranteed loans.................... 3,500 ............... 2,000
Community facilities grants.............................. 13,000 50,000 13,000
Economic initiative grants............................... 5,778 ............... 5,778
Rural community development initiative................... 4,000 4,000 4,000
Tribal college grants.................................... 4,000 8,000 4,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total budget authority................................. 30,278 62,000 28,778
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Business--Cooperative Service
The Rural Business--Cooperative Service [RBS] was
established by Public Law 103-354, Federal Crop Insurance
Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of
1994, dated October 13, 1994. Its programs were previously
administered by the Rural Development Administration, the Rural
Electrification Administration, and the Agricultural
Cooperative Service.
RURAL BUSINESS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $74,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 81,444,000
Committee recommendation................................ 62,687,000
The Rural Business and Industry Loan Program was created by
the Rural Development Act of 1972, and finances a variety of
rural industrial development loans. Loans are made for rural
industrialization and rural community facilities under Rural
Development Act amendments to the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932 et seq.) authorities. Business
and industrial loans are made to public, private, or
cooperative organizations organized for profit, to certain
Indian tribes, or to individuals for the purpose of improving,
developing or financing business, industry, and employment or
improving the economic and environmental climate in rural
areas. Such purposes include financing business and industrial
acquisition, construction, enlargement, repair or
modernization, financing the purchase and development of land,
easements, rights-of-way, buildings, payment of startup costs,
and supplying working capital.
Rural business development grants were authorized by the
Agricultural Act of 2014 and can be made to governmental and
nonprofit entities, and Indian tribes. Up to 10 percent of
appropriated funds may be used to: identify and analyze
business opportunities; identify, train, and provide technical
assistance to existing or prospective rural entrepreneurs and
managers; assist in the establishment of new rural businesses
and the maintenance of existing businesses; conduct economic
development planning, coordination and leadership development;
and establish centers for training, technology, and trade. The
balance of appropriated funding may be used for projects that
support the development of business enterprises that finance or
facilitate: the development of small and emerging private
business enterprise; the establishment, expansion, and
operation of rural distance learning networks; the development
of rural learning programs; and the provision of technical
assistance and training to rural communities for the purpose of
improving passenger transportation.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $62,687,000
for the Rural Business Program Account.
The following table provides the Committee's
recommendations, as compared to the fiscal year 2015 and budget
request levels:
RURAL BUSINESS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[Loan levels and budget authority in thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
2015 2016 budget Committee
appropriation request recommendations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan levels:
Business and industry guaranteed loans loan levels....... 919,765 758,222 919,765
Budget authority:
Business and industry guaranteed loans................... 47,000 31,444 35,687
Rural business development grants........................ 24,000 30,000 24,000
Delta Regional Authority grants.......................... 3,000 ............... 3,000
Rural child poverty demonstration........................ ............... 20,000 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Total budget authority................................. 74,000 81,444 62,687
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Business Program Account.--The Committee recommends
$500,000 for transportation technical assistance.
The Committee directs that of the $4,000,000 recommended
for grants to benefit Federally Recognized Native American
Tribes, $250,000 shall be used to implement an American Indian
and Alaska Native passenger transportation development and
assistance initiative.
INTERMEDIARY RELENDING PROGRAM FUND
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2015 level 2016 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated loan level......................................... 18,889 10,014 18,889
Direct loan subsidy.......................................... 5,818 2,766 5,217
Administrative expenses...................................... 4,439 4,488 4,439
--------------------------------------------------
Total, loan subsidies and administrative expenses...... 10,257 7,254 9,656
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rural development intermediary relending loan program
was originally authorized by the Economic Opportunity Act of
1964 (Public Law 88-452). The making of rural development loans
by the Department of Agriculture was reauthorized by Public Law
113-79, the Agricultural Act of 2014.
Loans are made to intermediary borrowers (small investment
groups) who in turn will reloan the funds to rural businesses,
community development corporations, private nonprofit
organizations, public agencies, et cetera, for the purpose of
improving business, industry, community facilities, and
employment opportunities and diversification of the economy in
rural areas.
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the
program account. Appropriations to this account will be used to
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct
loans obligated in 2016, as well as for administrative
expenses.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $9,656,000 for
the Intermediary Relending Program Fund.
RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated loan
level
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2015 level................................. 33,077
Fiscal year 2016 request............................... 85,004
Committee recommendation............................... 48,013
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Rural Economic Development Loans program was
established by the Reconciliation Act of December 1987 (Public
Law 100-203), which amended the Rural Electrification Act of
1936 (Act of May 20, 1936), by establishing a new section 313.
This section of the Rural Electrification Act (7 U.S.C. 901)
established a cushion of credit payment program and created the
rural economic development subaccount. The Administrator of RUS
is authorized under the act to utilize funds in this program to
provide zero interest loans to electric and telecommunications
borrowers for the purpose of promoting rural economic
development and job creation projects, including funding for
feasibility studies, startup costs, and other reasonable
expenses for the purpose of fostering rural economic
development.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a loan program level of
$48,013,000, to be funded from earnings on the Cushion of
Credit and fees on guaranteed underwriting loans made pursuant
to section 313A of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936.
Rural Energy Savings Program.--The Secretary is directed to
initiate rulemaking to create a subprogram of the Rural
Economic Development Loan and Grant Program to be used as a
means to carry out the activities authorized by the Rural
Energy Savings Program, authorized by the Agricultural Act of
2014, and within 30 days of enactment of this act report to the
Committee on the status of that rule. The Secretary is further
directed to maintain, to the degree practicable, no less than
the fiscal year 2015 loan level for the traditional Rural
Economic Development Loan and Grant Program.
RURAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $22,050,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 21,087,000
Committee recommendation................................ 22,050,000
Rural cooperative development grants are authorized under
section 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act, as amended. Grants are made to fund the establishment and
operation of centers for rural cooperative development with
their primary purpose being the improvement of economic
conditions in rural areas. Grants may be made to nonprofit
institutions or institutions of higher education. Grants may be
used to pay up to 75 percent of the cost of the project and
associated administrative costs. The applicant must contribute
at least 25 percent from non-Federal sources, except 1994
institutions, which only need to provide 5 percent. Grants are
competitive and are awarded based on specific selection
criteria.
Cooperative research agreements are authorized by 7 U.S.C.
2204b. The funds are used for cooperative research agreements,
primarily with colleges and universities, on critical
operational, organizational, and structural issues facing
cooperatives.
Cooperative agreements are authorized under 7 U.S.C. 2201
to any qualified State departments of agriculture, university,
and other State entity to conduct research that will strengthen
and enhance the operations of agricultural marketing
cooperatives in rural areas.
The Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas [ATTRA]
program was first authorized by the Food Security Act of 1985.
The program provides information and technical assistance to
agricultural producers to adopt sustainable agricultural
practices that are environmentally friendly and lower
production costs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $22,050,000
for Rural Cooperative Development Grants.
Of the funds recommended, $2,500,000 is for the Appropriate
Technology Transfer for Rural Areas program.
The Committee has included language in the bill that not
more than $3,000,000 shall be made available to cooperatives or
associations of cooperatives whose primary focus is to provide
assistance to small, minority producers.
Value Added.--The Committee recommends $10,750,000 for
value-added agricultural product market development grants.
RURAL MICROENTERPRISE INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2015....................................................
Budget estimate, 2016................................... $4,653,000
Committee recommendation................................................
This program, authorized by section 379E of the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1981 et
seq.), provides loans and grants to intermediaries that assist
micro-entrepreneurs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommendation does not include funding for
the Rural Microenterprise Investment Program.
RURAL ENERGY FOR AMERICA PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $1,350,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 10,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 500,000
The Rural Energy for America Program is authorized under
section 9007 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of
2002 (7 U.S.C. 8107). This program may fund energy audits,
direct loans, loan guarantees, and grants to farmers, ranchers,
and small rural businesses for the purchase of renewable energy
systems and for energy efficiency improvements.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $500,000 for
the Rural Energy for America Program.
The following table provides the Committee's recommendation
as compared to the fiscal year 2015 and budget request levels:
RURAL ENERGY FOR AMERICA PROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Committee
2015 level 2016 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated loan level............................................ 12,760 75,758 7,576
Guaranteed loan subsidy......................................... 1,350 5,000 500
Grants.......................................................... .............. 5,000 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Efficiency Coordination.--The Committee encourages
increased coordination and cooperation between USDA Rural
Development agencies and offices to better utilize the energy
efficiency and renewable energy programs available through the
Rural Energy for America Program.
HEALTHY FOOD FINANCING INITIATIVE
Appropriations, 2015....................................................
Budget estimate, 2016................................... $12,750,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,000,000
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,000,000 for
the Healthy Food Financing Initiative.
RURAL BUSINESS INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2015....................................................
Budget estimate, 2016................................... $6,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommendation does not include funding for
the Rural Business Investment Program.
Rural Utilities Service
The Rural Utilities Service [RUS] was established under the
Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-354), October 13,
1994. RUS administers the electric and telephone programs of
the former Rural Electrification Administration and the water
and waste programs of the former Rural Development
Administration.
RURAL WATER AND WASTE DISPOSAL PROGRAM ACCOUNT
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $464,857,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 483,320,000
Committee recommendation................................ 496,738,000
The water and waste disposal program is authorized by
sections 306, 306A, 309A, 306C, 306D, 306E, and 310B of the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1921 et
seq., as amended). This program makes loans for water and waste
development costs. Development loans are made to associations,
including corporations operating on a nonprofit basis,
municipalities and similar organizations, generally designated
as public or quasi-public agencies, that propose projects for
the development, storage, treatment, purification, and
distribution of domestic water or the collection, treatment, or
disposal of waste in rural areas. Such grants may not exceed 75
percent of the development cost of the projects and can
supplement other funds borrowed or furnished by applicants to
pay development costs.
The solid waste grant program is authorized under section
310B(b) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act.
Grants are made to public bodies and private nonprofit
organizations to provide technical assistance to local and
regional governments for the purpose of reducing or eliminating
pollution of water resources and for improving the planning and
management of solid waste disposal facilities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $496,738,000
for the Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program Account.
The Committee recommends $66,500,000 for water and waste
disposal systems grants for Native Americans, including Native
Alaskans, the Colonias, and residents of Hawaiian Home Lands.
The Committee recognizes the special needs and problems for
delivery of basic services to these populations. In addition,
the Committee makes up to $16,500,000 available for the circuit
rider program.
The following table provides the Committee's
recommendations, as compared to the fiscal year 2015 and budget
request levels:
RURAL WATER AND WASTE DISPOSAL PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[Loan levels and budget authority in thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2015 2016 budget Committee
appropriation request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan levels:
Water and waste disposal direct loans................. 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000
Water and waste disposal guaranteed loans............. 50,000 ................ 50,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Total loan levels................................... 1,250,000 1,200,000 1,250,000
=====================================================
Budget authority:
Water and waste disposal direct loans................. ................ 31,320 31,320
Water and waste disposal guaranteed loans............. 295 ................ 275
Water and waste disposal grants....................... 347,150 368,900 347,150
Solid waste management grants......................... 4,000 4,000 4,000
Water well systems grants............................. 993 ................ 993
Colonias and AK/HI/Native American grants............. 66,500 54,240 66,500
Water and waste water revolving funds................. 1,000 ................ 1,000
High energy cost grants............................... 10,000 ................ 10,000
Circuit rider......................................... 15,919 11,300 16,500
Technical assistance grants........................... 19,000 13,560 19,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Total, budget authority............................. 464,857 483,320 496,738
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
The Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901 et
seq.) provides the statutory authority for the electric and
telecommunications programs.
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-508)
established the program account. An appropriation to this
account will be used to cover the lifetime subsidy costs
associated with the direct loans obligated and loan guarantees
committed in fiscal year 2016, as well as for administrative
expenses.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The following table reflects the Committee's recommendation
for the Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans
Program Account, the loan subsidy and administrative expenses,
as compared to the fiscal year 2015 and budget request levels:
RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2015 level 2016 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan authorizations:
Electric:
Direct FFB........................................... 5,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000
Guaranteed underwriting.............................. 500,000 ............... 750,000
Telecommunications....................................... 690,000 ............... 690,000
Direct, Treasury Rate................................ ............... 345,000 ...............
Direct, FFB.......................................... ............... 345,000 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Total loan authorization............................... 6,190,000 6,690,000 7,440,000
==================================================
--------------------------------------------------
Total budget authority................................. ............... 104 104
==================================================
Administrative expenses...................................... 34,478 34,864 34,478
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISTANCE LEARNING, TELEMEDICINE, AND BROADBAND PROGRAM PLOANS AND GRANTS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2015 level 2016 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan and grant levels:
Distance learning and Telemedicine Program:
Grants............................................... 22,000 24,950 22,000
Broadband program:
Treasury rate loans...................................... 24,077 44,239 20,576
Treasury rate loans budget authority..................... 4,500 9,675 4,500
Grants................................................... 10,372 20,372 10,372
--------------------------------------------------
Total DLT and Broadband Program level.................. 56,449 89,561 52,948
==================================================
Total DLT and Broadband Budget authority............... 36,872 54,997 36,872
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program
is authorized by the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade
Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 950aaa et seq.), as amended by the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public
Law 104-127). This program provides incentives to improve the
quality of phone services, to provide access to advanced
telecommunications services and computer networks, and to
improve rural opportunities.
This program provides the facilities and equipment to link
rural education and medical facilities with more urban centers
and other facilities providing rural residents access to better
healthcare through technology and increasing educational
opportunities for rural students. These funds are available for
loans and grants.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $36,872,000
for the Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program.
Funds recommended for the RUS broadband program are intended to
promote broadband availability in those areas where there is
not otherwise a business case for private investment in a
broadband network. The Committee encourages RUS to focus
expenditures on projects that bring broadband service to
currently unserved households.
The Committee is concerned about the longstanding, unmet
health needs in the Mississippi River Delta. The Committee
recommendation includes $3,000,000 to address critical
healthcare needs in the region, as authorized by section 379G
of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act.
Broadband Grants.--Of the funds recommended, $10,372,000 in
grants shall be made available to support broadband
transmission for rural areas.
Broadband Program.--The Agricultural Act of 2014 made
several changes to the Rural Broadband Access Loans and Loan
Guarantees Program. The changes expand the definition of
eligible service areas and establish new minimum broadband
speed requirements for carriers receiving loans from the
program. The Committee applauds these changes and believes that
a comprehensive rural broadband strategy should include
investment in advanced networks that will meet the needs of a
21st century economy. The Committee directs the Department of
Agriculture to expedite the implementation of the broadband
provisions of the Agricultural Act of 2014, including the new
authority to increase the minimum speeds available in rural
communities.
Rural Utilities Service and Coordination on
Telecommunications Services.--The Committee recognizes the
Rural Utilities Services' [RUS] vital role in expanding access
to broadband services in rural America. In addition, the
Committee notes the importance of the RUS coordinating its
efforts with the Federal Communications Commission [FCC] on
programs designed to support broadband investment in rural
America. Recent FCC policy changes on deploying broadband in
rural areas effect rural carriers with outstanding RUS loans
and carriers aiming to use RUS loans to build out networks in
the coming years. To ensure that RUS and FCC policies are
aligned to optimize the use of limited resources and carriers
are well equipped to serve the hardest-to-reach rural
Americans, the Committee directs RUS and the FCC to coordinate
on major policy decisions.
TITLE IV
DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $816,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 824,000
Committee recommendation................................ 816,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and
Consumer Services provides direction and coordination in
carrying out the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to
the Department's nutrition assistance activities. The Office
has oversight and management responsibilities for the Food and
Nutrition Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $816,000 for
the Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and
Consumer Services.
Food and Nutrition Service
The Food and Nutrition Service represents an organizational
effort to eliminate hunger and malnutrition in this country.
Nutrition assistance programs provide access to a nutritionally
adequate diet for families and persons with low incomes and
encourage better eating patterns among the Nation's children.
These programs include:
Child Nutrition Programs.--The National School Lunch and
School Breakfast, Summer Food Service, and Child and Adult Care
Food programs provide funding to the States, Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Guam for use in serving
nutritious lunches and breakfasts to children attending schools
of high school grades and under, to children of preschool age
in child care centers, and to children in other institutions in
order to improve the health and well-being of the Nation's
children, and broaden the markets for agricultural food
commodities. Through the Special Milk Program, assistance is
provided to the States for making reimbursement payments to
eligible schools and child care institutions which institute or
expand milk service in order to increase the consumption of
fluid milk by children. Funds for this program are provided by
direct appropriation and transfer from section 32.
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants,
and Children [WIC].--This program safeguards the health of
pregnant, postpartum, and breast-feeding women, infants, and
children up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk because of
inadequate nutrition and income by providing supplemental
foods. The delivery of supplemental foods may be done through
health clinics, vouchers redeemable at retail food stores, or
other approved methods which a cooperating State health agency
may select. Funds for this program are provided by direct
appropriation.
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.--This program
seeks to improve nutritional standards of needy persons and
families. Assistance is provided to eligible households to
enable them to obtain a better diet by increasing their food
purchasing capability, usually by furnishing benefits in the
form of electronic access to funds. The program also includes
Nutrition Assistance to Puerto Rico.
The program also includes the Food Distribution Program on
Indian Reservations, which provides nutritious agricultural
commodities to low-income persons living on or near Indian
reservations who choose not to participate in the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program.
Commodity Assistance Program [CAP].--This program provides
funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program [CSFP], the
Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, Disaster Assistance, Pacific
Island Assistance, and administrative expenses for TEFAP.
CSFP provides supplemental foods to low-income elderly
persons age 60 and over.
TEFAP provides commodities and grant funds to State
agencies to assist in the cost of storage and distribution of
donated commodities.
Nutritious agricultural commodities are provided to
residents of the Federated States of Micronesia and the
Marshall Islands. Cash assistance is provided to distributing
agencies to assist them in meeting administrative expenses
incurred. It also provides funding for use in non-
presidentially declared disasters, and for FNS' administrative
costs in connection with relief for all disasters. Funds for
this program are provided by direct appropriation.
Nutrition Programs Administration.--Most salaries and
Federal operating expenses of the Food and Nutrition Service
are funded from this account. Also included is the Center for
Nutrition Policy and Promotion [CNPP] which oversees
improvements in and revisions to the food guidance systems, and
serves as the focal point for advancing and coordinating
nutrition promotion and education policy to improve the health
of all Americans.
child nutrition programs
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $21,300,170,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 21,587,277,000
Committee recommendation................................ 21,524,377,000
The Child Nutrition Programs, authorized by the Richard B.
Russell National School Lunch Act (Public Law 79-396) and the
Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-642), provide
Federal assistance to State agencies in the form of cash and
commodities for use in preparing and serving nutritious meals
to children while they are attending school, residing in
service institutions, or participating in other organized
activities away from home. The purpose of these programs is to
help maintain the health and proper physical development of
America's children. Milk is provided to children either free or
at a low cost, depending on their family income level. FNS
provides cash subsidies to States for administering the
programs and directly administers the program in the States
which choose not to do so. Grants are also made for nutritional
training and surveys and for State administrative expenses.
Under current law, most of these payments are made on the basis
of reimbursement rates established by law and applied to
lunches and breakfasts actually served by the States. The
reimbursement rates are adjusted annually to reflect changes in
the Consumer Price Index for food away from home.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends $21,524,377,000 for the Child
Nutrition Programs.
The Committee's recommendation provides for the following
annual rates for the child nutrition programs.
TOTAL OBLIGATIONAL AUTHORITY
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Child nutrition programs 2016 budget recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
School Lunch Program.................. 11,777,825 11,777,825
School Breakfast Program.............. 4,230,498 4,230,498
Child and Adult Care Food Program..... 3,240,646 3,240,646
Summer Food Service Program........... 535,633 535,633
Special Milk Program.................. 11,314 11,314
State Administrative Expenses......... 269,652 269,652
Commodity Procurement................. 1,322,088 1,322,088
Team Nutrition/HUSSC/CMS.............. 17,004 17,004
Food Safety Education................. 2,761 2,761
Coordinated Review.................... 10,000 10,000
Computer Support...................... 11,430 11,430
CACFP Training and Technical 20,267 20,267
Assistance...........................
CNP Studies and Evaluation............ 22,400 20,400
Farm to School Team................... 3,297 3,297
Payment Accuracy...................... 10,562 10,562
School Meal Equipment Grants.......... 35,000 25,000
Summer EBT Demonstration.............. 66,900 16,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee expects FNS to utilize the National Food
Service Management Institute to carry out the food safety
education program.
SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS, AND CHILDREN
[WIC]
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $6,623,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 6,623,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 6,513,000,000
The special supplemental nutrition program for women,
infants, and children [WIC] is authorized by section 17 of the
Child Nutrition Act of 1966. Its purpose is to safeguard the
health of pregnant, breast-feeding and postpartum women and
infants, and children up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk
because of inadequate nutrition and inadequate income.
The WIC program food packages are designed to provide foods
which studies have demonstrated are lacking in the diets of the
WIC program target population. The authorized supplemental
foods are iron-fortified breakfast cereal, fruit or vegetable
juice which contains vitamin C, dry beans, peas, and peanut
butter.
There are three general types of delivery systems for WIC
foods: (1) retail purchase in which participants obtain
supplemental foods through retail stores; (2) home delivery
systems in which food is delivered to the participant's home;
and (3) direct distribution systems in which participants pick
up food from a distribution outlet. The food is free of charge
to all participants.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,513,000,000
for the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants,
and Children [WIC].
The Committee recommendation fully funds estimated WIC
participation in fiscal year 2016. The Committee recommendation
includes $60,000,000 for breastfeeding support initiatives,
$13,600,000 for infrastructure, and $55,000,000 for management
information systems.
WIC Food Package.--The Committee understands the Department
is working with the Institute of Medicine to make
recommendations to update the WIC food packages to reflect
current science and cultural factors. The Committee maintains
its interest in the recommendations that will be made regarding
the fish species that scientific evidence shows to be low in
mercury and are in other respects nutritious, including wild
salmon, for inclusion in WIC Food Packages IV, V, VI, and VII
that serve children age 1 to 4 years and pregnant, postpartum,
and breastfeeding women. The Committee expects the Department
to conduct a thorough and efficient review of this question and
issue its final report in a timely manner.
SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $81,837,570,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 83,692,069,000
Committee recommendation................................ 81,662,069,000
The Food Stamp Program was reauthorized through fiscal year
2012 and renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
[SNAP] in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. The
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program attempts to alleviate
hunger and malnutrition among low-income persons by increasing
their food purchasing power. Eligible households receive SNAP
benefits with which they can purchase food through regular
retail stores.
Other programs funded through SNAP include Nutrition
Assistance to Puerto Rico and American Samoa, the Food
Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, the Emergency Food
Assistance Program, and the Community Food Projects program.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is currently
in operation in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, the
Virgin Islands, and Guam. Participating households receive food
benefits, the value of which is determined by household size
and income. The cost of the benefits is paid by the Federal
Government. As required by law, the Food and Nutrition Service
annually revises household benefit allotments to reflect
changes in the cost of the thrifty food plan.
Administrative Costs.--All direct and indirect
administrative costs incurred for certification of households,
issuance of benefits, quality control, outreach, and fair
hearing efforts are shared by the Federal Government and the
States on a 50-50 basis.
State Antifraud Activities.--Under the provisions of the
Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, States are eligible to be
reimbursed for 50 percent of the costs of their fraud
investigations and prosecutions.
States are required to implement an employment and training
program for the purpose of assisting members of households
participating in SNAP in gaining skills, training, or
experience that will increase their ability to obtain regular
employment. The Department of Agriculture has implemented a
grant program to States to assist them in providing employment
and training services.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$81,662,069,000 for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program. Of the amount recommended, $3,000,000,000 is made
available as a contingency reserve.
commodity assistance program
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $278,501,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 288,317,000
Committee recommendation................................ 288,317,000
The Commodity Assistance Program includes funding for the
Commodity Supplemental Food Program and funding to pay expenses
associated with the storage and distribution of commodities
through The Emergency Food Assistance Program.
The Commodity Supplemental Food Program [CSFP].--Authorized
by section 4(a) of the Agricultural and Consumer Protection Act
of 1973 (7 U.S.C. 612c note), as amended in 1981 by Public Law
97-98 and in 2014 by Public Law 113-79, this program provides
supplemental food to low-income senior citizens and in some
cases low-income infants and children up to age six, low-income
pregnant and postpartum women. The Agricultural Act of 2014
discontinued the admission of new pregnant and postpartum women
and children into the program. Those already in the program can
continue to receive assistance until they are no longer
eligible.
The foods for CSFP are provided by the Department of
Agriculture for distribution through State agencies. The
authorized commodities include: iron-fortified infant formula,
rice cereal, cheese, canned juice, evaporated milk and/or
nonfat dry milk, canned vegetables or fruits, canned meat or
poultry, egg mix, dehydrated potatoes, farina, and peanut
butter and dry beans. Elderly participants may receive all
commodities except iron-fortified infant formula and rice
cereal.
The Emergency Food Assistance Program [TEFAP].--Authorized
by the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 7501 et
seq.), as amended, the program provides nutrition assistance to
low-income people through prepared meals served on site and
through the distribution of commodities to low-income
households for home consumption. The commodities are provided
by USDA to State agencies for distribution through State-
established networks. State agencies make the commodities
available to local organizations, such as soup kitchens, food
pantries, food banks, and community action agencies, for their
use in providing nutrition assistance to those in need.
Funds are administered by FNS through grants to State
agencies which operate commodity distribution programs.
Allocation of the funds to States is based on a formula which
considers the States' unemployment rate and the number of
persons with income below the poverty level.
Farmers' Market Nutrition Program.--The Farmers' Market
Nutrition Program [FMNP] provides WIC or WIC-eligible
participants with coupons to purchase fresh, nutritious,
unprepared foods, such as fruits and vegetables, from farmers'
markets. This benefits both participants and local farmers by
increasing the awareness and use of farmers' markets by low-
income households.
Pacific Island and Disaster Assistance.--This program
provides funding for assistance to the nuclear-affected islands
in the form of commodities and administrative funds. It also
provides funding for use in non-presidentially declared
disasters and for FNS' administrative costs in connection with
relief for all disasters.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $288,317,000
for the Commodity Assistance Program. The Committee continues
to encourage the Department to distribute Commodity Assistance
Program funds equitably among the States, based on an
assessment of the needs and priorities of each State and the
State's preference to receive commodity allocations through
each of the programs funded under this account.
Commodity Supplemental Food Program.--The Committee
recommends $221,298,000 for the Commodity Supplemental Food
Program. This amount fully funds participation in fiscal year
2016.
Farmers' Market Nutrition Program.--The Committee is aware
that the Farmers' Market Nutrition Program provides fresh
fruits and vegetables to low-income mothers and children,
benefiting not only WIC participants, but local farmers as
well. Therefore, the Committee recommends $16,548,000 for the
Farmers' Market Nutrition Program and directs the Secretary to
obligate these funds within 45 days.
The Emergency Food Assistance Program.--The Agricultural
Act of 2014 provides $324,000,000 for TEFAP commodities to be
purchased with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program funds.
The Committee recommendation includes $49,401,000 for TEFAP
transportation, storage, and program integrity. In addition,
the Committee recommendation grants the Secretary authority to
transfer up to an additional 10 percent from TEFAP commodities
for this purpose and urges the Secretary to use this authority.
The Committee encourages the Secretary to identify
opportunities for increasing the supply of TEFAP commodities in
the coming fiscal year through bonus and specialty crop
purchases. The Department shall make available to the States
domestically produced catfish fillets for distribution to local
agencies.
nutrition programs administration
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $150,824,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 155,564,000
Committee recommendation................................ 151,824,000
The Nutrition Programs Administration appropriation
provides for most of the Federal operating expenses of the Food
and Nutrition Service, which includes the Child Nutrition
Programs; Special Milk Program; Special Supplemental Nutrition
Program for Women, Infants, and Children [WIC]; Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program; Nutrition Assistance for Puerto
Rico; the Commodity Assistance Program, including the Commodity
Supplemental Food Program and the Emergency Food Assistance
Program; and Farmers' Market Nutrition Program and Pacific
Island and Disaster Assistance.
The major objective of Nutrition Programs Administration is
to efficiently and effectively carry out the nutrition
assistance programs mandated by law. This is to be accomplished
by the following: (1) giving clear and consistent guidance and
supervision to State agencies and other cooperators; (2)
assisting the States and other cooperators by providing
program, managerial, financial, and other advice and expertise;
(3) measuring, reviewing, and analyzing the progress being made
toward achieving program objectives; and (4) carrying out
regular staff support functions.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $151,824,000
for Nutrition Programs Administration. The Committee does not
recommend an increase of $1,000,000 for MyPlate/SuperTracker
per the budget request.
TITLE V
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS
Foreign Agricultural Service
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfers from
Appropriations loan accounts Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2015......................................... 181,423 6,394 187,817
Budget estimate, 2016........................................ 191,631 6,394 198,025
Committee recommendation..................................... 187,225 6,394 193,619
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Foreign Agricultural Service [FAS] was established
March 10, 1953, by Secretary's Memorandum No. 1320, supplement
1. Public Law 83-690, approved August 28, 1954, transferred the
agricultural attaches from the Department of State to the
Foreign Agricultural Service.
The mission of FAS overseas is to represent U.S.
agricultural interests, to promote export of domestic farm
products, improve world trade conditions, and report on
agricultural production and trade in foreign countries. FAS
staff are stationed at 98 offices around the world where they
provide expertise in agricultural economics and marketing, as
well as provide attache services.
FAS carries out several export assistance programs to
counter the adverse effects of unfair trade practices by
competitors on U.S. agricultural trade. The Market Access
Program [MAP] conducts both generic and brand-identified
promotional programs in conjunction with nonprofit agricultural
associations and private firms financed through reimbursable
CCC payments.
The General Sales Manager was established pursuant to
section 5(f) of the charter of the Commodity Credit Corporation
and 15 U.S.C. 714-714p. The funds allocated to the General
Sales Manager are used for conducting the following programs:
(1) CCC Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-102), including
facilities financing guarantees; (2) Food for Peace; (3)
section 416b Overseas Donations Program; (4) Market Access
Program; and (5) programs authorized by the Commodity Credit
Corporation Charter Act including barter, export sales of most
CCC-owned commodities, export payments, and other programs as
assigned to encourage and enhance the export of U.S.
agricultural commodities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends $193,619,000 for the Foreign
Agricultural Service, including a direct appropriation of
$187,225,000. The Committee recommendation includes an increase
of $3,500,000 for the Capital Security Cost Sharing Program and
an increase of $2,302,000 for International Cooperative
Administrative Support Services.
Borlaug Fellows Program.--The Committee recommendation
includes $1,500,000 for the Borlaug International Agricultural
Science and Technology Fellows Program. This program provides
training for international scientists and policymakers from
selected developing countries. The fellows work closely with
U.S. specialists in their fields of expertise and apply that
knowledge in their home countries. The Committee recognizes the
importance of this program in helping developing countries
strengthen their agricultural practices and food security.
Cochran Fellowship Program.--The Committee recommendation
includes $5,300,000 for the Cochran Fellowship Program. The
Committee encourages the Secretary to continue to provide
additional support for the program through the Commodity Credit
Corporation Emerging Markets Program.
Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program.--The
Committee expects the FAS to fund the Foreign Market
Development Cooperator Program.
Market Access Program.--The Committee continues the full
mandatory funding for the Market Access Program and expects the
Department to administer the program as authorized in 7 U.S.C.
5623, without changing the eligibility requirements for
participation of cooperative organizations, small businesses,
trade associations, and other entities.
FOOD FOR PEACE TITLE I DIRECT CREDIT AND FOOD FOR PROGRESS PROGRAM
ACCOUNT
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $2,528,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 2,528,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,528,000
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,528,000 for
administrative expenses to continue servicing existing Food for
Peace title I agreements.
FOOD FOR PEACE TITLE II GRANTS
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $1,466,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 1,400,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,466,000,000
Commodities Supplied in Connection With Dispositions Abroad
(Title II) (7 U.S.C. 1721-1726).--Commodities are supplied
without cost through foreign governments to combat malnutrition
and to meet famine and other emergency requirements.
Commodities are also supplied for nonemergencies through public
and private agencies, including intergovernmental
organizations. The Commodity Credit Corporation pays ocean
freight on shipments under this title, and may also pay
overland transportation costs to a landlocked country, as well
as internal distribution costs in emergency situations. The
funds appropriated for title II are made available to private
voluntary organizations and cooperatives to assist these
organizations in meeting administrative and related costs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,466,000,000
for Food for Peace title II grants.
202(e) Authority.--The Administrator for the U.S. Agency
for International Development shall provide through the
Secretary of Agriculture a report, no later than March 1, 2016,
on the use of authorities under section 202(e) of the Food for
Peace Act during fiscal year 2015 and planned for fiscal year
2016. This report should identify and evaluate the type,
challenges, and success of such activities.
MCGOVERN-DOLE INTERNATIONAL FOOD FOR EDUCATION AND CHILD NUTRITION
PROGRAM GRANTS
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $191,626,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 191,626,000
Committee recommendation................................ 201,626,000
The McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and
Child Nutrition Program helps support education, child
development, and food security for some of the world's poorest
children. The program provides for donations of U.S.
agricultural products, as well as financial and technical
assistance, for school feeding and maternal and child nutrition
projects in low-income, food-deficit countries that are
committed to universal education. Commodities made available
for donation through agreements with private voluntary
organizations, cooperatives, intergovernmental organizations,
and foreign governments may be donated for direct feeding or
for local sale to generate proceeds to support school feeding
and nutrition projects.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $201,626,000
for the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and
Child Nutrition Program.
Local and Regional Procurement.--The Committee provides an
appropriation of $10,000,000 for efforts to build long-term
agriculture sustainability and establish a local investment in
school feeding programs. With direct U.S. commodity
contributions, projects supported by the McGovern-Dole Food for
Education Program have significantly improved the attendance,
nourishment, and learning capacity of school-aged children in
low-income countries throughout the impoverished world. New
funding authorities would enable school feeding programs to
proactively transition from direct commodity assistance to
locally source agriculture products. The Committee directs the
Secretary to conduct the Local and Regional Food Aid
Procurement Project Program in accordance with the priorities
of the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child
Nutrition Program.
LOCAL AND REGIONAL FOOD AID PROCUREMENT PROJECT PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2015....................................................
Budget estimate, 2016................................... $20,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee does not recommend an appropriation for the
Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement Project Program, as
requested in the budget. The Committee instead provides
$10,000,000 for this purpose through the McGovern-Dole
International Food for Education Program.
COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION EXPORT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT (EXPORT CREDIT
PROGRAMS AND GSM-102)
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guaranteed loan Administrative
levels expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2015.................. 5,500,000 6,748
Budget estimate, 2016................. 5,500,000 6,748
Committee recommendation.............. 5,500,000 6,748
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1980, the Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC] instituted
the Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-102) under its charter
authority. With this program, CCC guarantees, for a fee,
payments due U.S. exporters under deferred payment sales
contracts (up to 36 months) for defaults due to commercial as
well as noncommercial risks. The risk to CCC extends from the
date of export to the end of the deferred payment period
covered in the export sales contract and covers only that
portion of the payments agreed to in the assurance agreement.
Operation of this program is based on criteria which will
assure that it is used only where it is determined that it will
develop new market opportunities and maintain and expand
existing world markets for U.S. agricultural commodities. The
program encourages U.S. financial institutions to provide
financing to those areas where the institutions would be
unwilling to provide financing in the absence of the CCC
guarantees. CCC also provides facilities financing guarantees.
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 establishes the
program account. The subsidy costs of the CCC export guarantee
programs are exempt from the requirement of advance
appropriations of budget authority according to section
504(c)(2) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, Public Law
101-508. Appropriations to this account will be used for
administrative expenses.
TITLE VI
RELATED AGENCY AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
Department of Health and Human Services
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
The Food and Drug Administration [FDA] is a scientific
regulatory agency whose mission is to promote and protect the
public health and safety of Americans. FDA's work is a blend of
science and law. The Food and Drug Administration Amendments
Act of 2007 [FDAAA] (Public Law 110-85) reaffirmed the
responsibilities of the FDA: to ensure safe and effective
products reach the market in a timely way, and to monitor
products for continued safety while they are in use. In
addition, FDA is entrusted with two critical functions in the
Nation's war on terrorism: preventing willful contamination of
all regulated products, including food, and improving the
availability of medications to prevent or treat injuries caused
by biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agents.
The FDA Foods program has the primary responsibility for
assuring that the food supply, quality of foods, food
ingredients and dietary supplements are safe, sanitary,
nutritious, wholesome, and honestly labeled, and that cosmetic
products are safe and properly labeled. The variety and
complexity of the food supply has grown dramatically while new
and more complex safety issues, such as emerging microbial
pathogens, natural toxins, and technological innovations in
production and processing, have developed. This program plays a
major role in keeping the United States food supply among the
safest in the world.
In January 2011, the Food Safety Modernization Act was
signed into law. This law enables FDA to better protect public
health by strengthening the food safety system. It enables FDA
to focus more on preventing food safety and feed problems
rather than relying primarily on reacting to problems after
they occur. The law also provides FDA with new enforcement
authorities designed to achieve higher rates of compliance with
prevention- and risk-based food and feed safety standards and
to better respond to and contain problems when they do occur.
The law also gives FDA important new tools to hold imported
food and feed to the same standards as domestic food and feed
and directs FDA to build an integrated national food safety
system in partnership with State and local authorities.
The FDA Drugs programs are comprised of four separate
areas, Human Drugs, Animal Drugs, Medical Devices and
Biologics. FDA is responsible for the lifecycle of products,
including premarket review and postmarket surveillance of human
and animal drugs, medical devices and biological products to
ensure their safety and effectiveness. For Human Drugs this
includes assuring that all drug products used for the
prevention, diagnosis and treatment of disease are safe and
effective. Additional procedures include the review of
investigational new drug applications; evaluation of market
applications for new and generic drugs, labeling and
composition of prescription and over-the-counter drugs;
monitoring the quality and safety of products manufactured in,
or imported into, the United States; and, regulating the
advertising and promotion of prescription drugs. The Animal
Drugs and Feeds Program ensures only safe and effective
veterinary drugs, intended for the treatment and/or prevention
of diseases in animals and the improved production of food-
producing animals, are approved for marketing.
The FDA Biologics program assures that blood and blood
products, blood test kits, vaccines, and therapeutics are pure,
potent, safe, effective, and properly labeled. The program
inspects blood banks and blood processors, licenses and
inspects firms collecting human source plasma, evaluates and
licenses biologics manufacturing firms and products; lot
releases licensed products; and monitors adverse events
associated with vaccine immunization, blood products, and other
biologics.
The FDA Devices and Radiological program ensures the safety
and effectiveness of medical devices and eliminates unnecessary
human exposure to manmade radiation from medical, occupational,
and consumer products. In addition, the program enforces
quality standards under the Mammography Quality Standards Act
(Public Law 108-365). Medical devices include thousands of
products from thermometers and contact lenses to heart
pacemakers, hearing aids, and MRIs. Radiological products
include items such as microwave ovens and video display
terminals.
FDA's National Center for Toxicological Research in
Jefferson, Arkansas, serves as a specialized resource,
conducting peer-review scientific research that provides the
basis for FDA to make sound science-based regulatory decisions
through its premarket review and postmarket surveillance. The
research is designed to define and understand the biological
mechanisms of action underlying the toxicity of products and
lead to developing methods to improve assessment of human
exposure, susceptibility and risk of those products regulated
by FDA.
In 2009, Congress granted FDA new authority to regulate the
manufacture, distribution, and marketing of tobacco products.
FDA exercises this responsibility by protecting the public
health from the health effects of tobacco, setting scientific
standards and standards for tobacco product review, conducting
compliance activities to enforce its authority over tobacco,
and conducting public education and outreach about the health
effects of tobacco products.
salaries and expenses
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation User fees Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2015......... 2,588,536 1,854,820 4,443,356
Budget estimate, 2016........ 2,734,715 2,129,308 4,864,023
Committee recommendation..... 2,628,978 1,930,685 4,559,663
------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee recommendations
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,628,978,000
for FDA salaries and expenses. The Committee also recommends
$826,072,000 in Prescription Drug User Fee Act user fee
collections; $134,475,000 in Medical Device User Fee and
Modernization Act user fee collections; $22,140,000 in Animal
Drug User Fee Act user fee collections; $7,429,000 in Animal
Generic Drug User Fee Act user fee collections; $599,000,000 in
Tobacco Product user fee collections; $320,029,000 in Generic
Drug User Fee Act user fee collections; $21,540,000 in
Biosimilar User Fee Act user fee collections; $5,300,000 in
Voluntary Qualified Importer Program collections; $1,434,000 in
food and feed recall collections; $6,414,000 in food
reinspection collections; $20,109,000 in Mammography Quality
Standards Act fee collections; and $13,835,000 in export and
certification fees, as assumed in the President's budget. The
Committee recommendation includes bill language which prohibits
FDA from developing, establishing, or operating any program of
user fees authorized by 31 U.S.C. 9701.
The Committee recommendation does not include proposed user
fees for food facility registration and inspection, food
import, food contact substance notification, cosmetics, and
international courier imports. None of these user fee proposals
have been authorized by Congress. The Committee will continue
to monitor any action by the appropriate authorizing Committees
regarding these proposed user fees.
The Committee expects FDA to continue all projects,
activities, laboratories, and programs as included in fiscal
year 2015 unless otherwise specified. The Committee accepts
$11,588,000 in proposed administrative savings; however the
Committee does not support the proposed $4,333,000 reduction to
the National Center for Toxicological Research.
The Committee includes increases of $45,000,000 for the
implementation of FSMA. These increases consist of: $20,500,000
for Inspection Modernization and Training; $8,000,000 for the
National Integrated Food Safety System; $10,000,000 for
Education and Technical Assistance for Industry; $3,000,000 for
Technical Staffing and Guidance Development; and $3,500,000 for
Import Safety. The increases provided in this bill and the
increases provided since fiscal year 2011 should assist FDA in
preparation for the implementation of FSMA prior to the
effective dates of the seven foundational proposed rules. While
the FDA has not implemented the final rules, the Committee
understands that most businesses will not need to comply with
the two rules for preventive controls for human food and for
animal food until August 2016 and that the other five rules
will not be effective until fiscal year 2017 and later. Given
the diversity in the food industry, FSMA was intentionally
designed to be risk-based, flexible, and science-based. A one-
size fits all approach will not work. Yet, the Committee is
concerned that the agency not take an overly prescriptive
approach with the regulations, including the final regulation
on produce safety and the final regulations on preventive
controls for human and animal food. Accordingly, FDA shall
ensure all FSMA regulations are risk-based, flexible, and
science-based, and carefully consider the well-established and
recognized standards for food and produce safety already
employed through much of the industry. FDA shall ensure that
any regulatory proposal or final regulation minimizes, to the
extent appropriate to protect public health, the necessity to
conduct verification testing activities.
The Committee provides an increase of $5,000,000 for
medical product safety initiatives. Included in this amount is
$3,000,000 for combating antibiotic resistant bacteria as part
of the National Strategy for Combating Antibiotic Resistant
Bacteria [CARB] and $2,000,000 for the Precision Medicine
Initiative. According to the FDA's fiscal year 2016 budget
request, the Agency is spending approximately $32,500,000 on
antimicrobial resistance activities in fiscal year 2015. With
this increase, FDA is expected to spend approximately
$35,500,000 on combating antibiotic resistance in fiscal year
2016.
The following table reflects the Committee's
recommendations, as compared to the fiscal year 2015 and budget
request levels:
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2015 enacted 2016 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Centers and related field activities:
Foods.................................................... 903,403 987,328 948,403
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition [CFSAN]. 279,994 303,994 296,894
Field Activities..................................... 623,409 683,334 651,509
Human Drugs.............................................. 482,287 484,678 481,245
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research [CDER]....... 346,080 352,513 349,080
Field Activities..................................... 136,207 132,165 132,165
Biologics................................................ 211,382 215,021 209,754
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research [CBER].. 171,096 174,052 169,890
Field Activities..................................... 40,286 40,969 39,864
Animal Drugs............................................. 147,577 165,752 144,577
Center for Veterinary Medicine [CVM]................. 93,505 101,105 90,505
Field Activities..................................... 54,072 64,647 54,072
Medical and radiological devices......................... 320,825 327,760 319,937
Center for Devices and Radiological Health........... 240,345 246,166 240,308
Field Activities..................................... 80,480 81,594 79,629
National Center for Toxicological Research............... 63,331 58,998 63,331
Other Activities............................................. 174,862 181,314 174,862
Rent and related activities.................................. 115,987 137,181 117,987
Rental Payments to GSA....................................... 168,882 176,683 168,882
--------------------------------------------------
Total, FDA salaries and expenses, new budget authority. 2,588,536 2,734,715 2,628,978
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients.--The Committee is
concerned that the FDA has not yet approved a list of active
pharmaceutical ingredients [APIs] for use by compounding
pharmacists pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act [FDCA]. Within 90 days of the enactment of this act, the
FDA is directed to provide a timeline for when the remaining
substances will be considered, and in the meantime re-consider
its policy with regard to enforcement of the bulk drug
substances provisions under section 503A.
Alcohol Based Hand Sanitizers.--The Committee strongly
supports the systematic review of healthcare antiseptic active
ingredients used in alcohol based hand sanitizers [ABHS]
products marketed under the over-the-counter [OTC] monograph to
ensure the safety of healthcare workers and consumers, but is
concerned about the potential impacts to public health that
could occur if ABHS products containing healthcare antiseptic
active ingredients are reclassified in a final monograph
without full review of available, appropriate science based
data and risk models. The FDA is requested not to issue a final
monograph regarding OTC healthcare antiseptic active
ingredients that are used in ABHS products, until full and fair
consideration is given to existing evidence that has been
provided to FDA that supports general recognition of safety and
effectiveness of OTC ABHS products, and to potential costs
associated with the final monograph.
Biosimilars.--The Committee is concerned that FDA has
failed to provide the public adequate opportunity to review and
comment on regulatory standards for the approval and oversight
of biosimilar drugs. Therefore, FDA is directed to provide the
Committee with an estimated timeline by which the agency will:
finalize all pending draft biosimilars guidance documents,
publish draft biosimilar guidance documents included in its
2015 regulatory agenda, and finalize those draft guidance
documents. The Committee expects to receive this report no
later than 2 weeks after the Committee reports this
legislation.
Centers of Excellence in Regulatory Science and
Innovation.--The Committee is encouraged by the ongoing
research and collaboration underway at the Centers of
Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation program and
commends the FDA for launching this program in 2011 and
expanding it in 2014. As such, the Committee directs the Office
of the Commissioner to use at least $2,000,000 within existing
funds to provide additional funding opportunities for the
existing CERSI Centers to allow for the capitalization of
ongoing studies and research.
Comparative Oncology.--The Committee recognizes the value
in using data from cancers in companion animals to provide
answers to important translational questions about cancer
biology, diagnosis, and treatment. This research offers an
important opportunity to study cancers in thousands of subjects
to benefit both human patients and pets. The Committee requests
FDA address the use of companion animals in diagnosis and
treatment research and encourage the FDA to open grant
opportunities in animal models to increase the study of the 1
million companion animals that naturally develop cancer each
year.
Cord Blood Regulation.--The Committee directs the FDA to
undergo a review and seriously consider the potential need for
revision of the current regulatory requirements for cord blood
licensure, particularly those related to manufacturing and
storage, to ensure the correct applicability to this industry
since the current regulatory requirements being applied are the
same ones that apply to pharmaceutical products. In addition,
the Committee directs the FDA to create an advisory task force,
comprised at a minimum of public and private cord blood
bankers, transplanters and patients, to provide recommendations
to the agency about the current licensing requirements and
changes that may be necessary.
Cosmetics.--The Committee provides not less than
$11,700,000 for cosmetics activities, including not less than
$7,200,000 for the Office of Colors and Cosmetics [OCAC].
Funding for OCAC is for the direct support of the operation,
staffing, compliance, research and international activities
performed by this office. The Committee notes that FDA's budget
submission stated that FDA would meet a March 2015 deadline,
set by this Committee, to respond to a citizen petition
regarding trace amounts of lead in cosmetics. This has not
occurred, and this unacceptable delay is indicative of
longstanding issues with FDA's review of cosmetics. Since 1976,
cosmetic ingredients have been reviewed by a private Cosmetic
Ingredient Review program, established by the cosmetic
industry, with nonvoting FDA participation. The Committee
directs FDA to work with the industry to study the transfer of
this program to a more formal public-private partnership,
similar to the United States Pharmacopeia, if appropriate and
beneficial for consumers, and to report back to the Committee
on this effort.
Deeming Regulations.--The Committee notes that the Family
Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which became
law in 2009, gave FDA immediate authority over certain tobacco
products, and gave authority to the Secretary of Health and
Human Services to deem other products subject to FDA
regulation. On April 25, 2014, nearly 5 years after it had been
granted the authority to do so, FDA issued those proposed
deeming regulations, but has not yet finalized them. FDA is
therefore directed to issue a final regulation addressing the
deeming of other tobacco products under FDA's jurisdiction
within 30 days and to act expediently to implement that
regulation once finalized.
Drug Shortages.--The Committee is very concerned about
continuing drug shortages, and the serious effects they can
have on patients, including children. The Committee directs the
Food and Drug Administration to report to the Committee on the
work of FDA's intra-agency Drug Shortages Task Force. This
report should include which offices and centers are represented
on the task force, and how it works with other government
agencies and outside stakeholders to address drug shortages.
The report should also specify what activities the Task Force
has undertaken to prevent drug shortages affecting pediatric
patients, including working with outside experts on this issue.
Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy.--The Committee is aware that a
patient-focused draft guidance for drug development on Duchenne
Muscular Dystrophy was submitted to FDA in June 2014. The
Committee supports this initiative and requests that FDA
provide a detailed description of its plans to move forward
with the development of a related guidance.
Farm Regulations.--The Committee remains concerned about
how the FDA will determine whether and to what degree a farm or
food business is subject to regulation. It is important that
FDA is careful to apply new rules appropriately for the size of
the operation in accordance with congressional intent.
Foreign High Risk Inspections.--As the importation of
drugs, food, and medical devices from China continue to
increase, the Committee is concerned about the FDA's ability to
keep pace with the exporter universe and volume of exports. For
fiscal year 2015, an additional $2,000,000 was provided for
foreign drug safety to address the growing number of human
drugs produced overseas and the increasing number of imported
drug shipments in order to ensure the continued safety and
quality of these products. These funds have been provided to
support the agency's overseas inspections, work with industry
and other stakeholders in safety in manufacturing, strengthen
agency relationships with foreign regulators, and analyze
trends and events that might affect the safety of FDA-regulated
products exported to the United States.
The Committee is supportive of FDA as it moves toward a
more, targeted, risk-based, and efficient inspection model that
incorporates commercially available information on high-risk
establishments. As with other Federal agencies, such as CMS,
better data has helped to make sure a company exists and is in
good standing prior to an inspection and to help prioritize
FDA's investigations and triage safety inspections. Within the
funds provided for the China Safety Initiative the Committee
directs the FDA to maintain robust funding for onsite
verification support and integration of results in FDA
inspection planning.
In Silico Clinical Trials.--In Silico clinical trials use
computer models and simulations to develop and assess devices
and drugs, including their potential risk to the public, before
being tested in live clinical trials. Advanced computer
modeling may also prove useful in helping to predict how a drug
or device will behave when deployed in the general population
or when used in particular circumstances, thereby helping to
protect the public from the unintended consequences of side
effects and drug interactions. In Silico trials may potentially
protect public health, advance personalized treatment, and be
executed quickly and for a fraction of the cost of a full scale
live trial. The FDA has advocated the use of such systems as an
additional innovative research tool. Therefore, the Committee
urges FDA to engage with device and drug sponsors to explore
greater use, where appropriate, of In Silico trials for
advancing new devices and drug therapy applications.
In Vitro Clinical Trials.--In Vitro clinical trials use
specimens collected from patients to test how a particular
cancer or disease will react to a specific therapy or
combination of therapies. This personalized approach to
treatment can improve a patient's quality of life by increasing
the likelihood that physicians and researchers will find the
proper combination of drugs uniquely suited to treat that
individual's illness. An emerging new scientific methodology,
In Vitro trials allow researchers to test therapeutics and
treatment strategies on living human tissues without the risks
posed by traditional whole patient clinical trials.
Personalized treatment through In Vitro trials dismantles the
``one size fits all'' approach to care and enables medical
professionals to diagnose and treat patients in a more
efficient and effective way. While the Committee recognizes
that In Vitro tests may not always predict clinical responses,
it urges the FDA to continue to engage with drug sponsors to
explore greater use, where appropriate, of In Vitro clinical
trials for drug development programs under Investigational New
Drug applications and general therapeutic indications,
especially as it relates to complicated cancers and other
common disease states.
Mammography Quality Standards Act.--The Committee
recommendation includes full funding as requested for
implementation of the Mammography Quality Standards Act. This
program sets national quality standards for mammography
facilities, equipment, personnel and operating procedures, and
has improved the quality of mammography and made mammograms a
more reliable tool to detect breast cancers.
Mammography Reports.--The Food and Drug Administration is
directed to revise its regulations regarding the summary
mammography reports in lay language provided to patients to
require the inclusion of information on the patient's breast
tissue density; an explanation that dense tissue may mask the
presence of breast cancer on mammograms; and advice that
patients speak with their healthcare provider about whether
they would benefit from additional tests, and about any other
questions they may have. The FDA should also revise its
regulations regarding the medical report provided to healthcare
providers to require the inclusion of information on the
patient's breast density and the masking effect such tissue may
have on detecting breast cancer.
Master Plan.--The Committee has included $3,000,000 for FDA
to complete a feasibility study to update and issue a revised
Master Plan for the White Oak campus in order to address its
expanded workforce and the facilities needed to accommodate
them. The Committee directs FDA to report on this effort by
January 1, 2016.
Medical Gases.--The Committee is concerned that FDA has not
initiated rulemaking to address numerous longstanding
regulatory issues for medical gases despite the statutory
requirement in FDASIA to issue a final rulemaking addressing
all necessary changes for medical gases by July 9, 2016.
Designated medical gases are a unique class of drugs that
differ significantly from traditional pharmaceuticals and
therefore must be addressed in the Federal drug regulations to
prevent safety and enforcement issues caused by current
regulations. The Committee disagrees with the FDA report to
Congress sent on June 30, 2015 that despite decades of issues
created by existing regulations ``the current regulatory
framework is adequate and sufficiently flexible to
appropriately regulate medical gases.''
Nanotechnology.--The Committee recognizes the increased
capabilities that FDA has developed to study environment,
health, and safety of nanomaterials within FDA's Jefferson
Laboratory Campus, including the National Center for
Toxicological Research, and its consolidated headquarters at
White Oak, Maryland. The Committee expects FDA to continue to
support collaborative research with universities and industry
on the toxicology of nanotechnology products and processes in
accordance with the National Nanotechnology Initiative
Environment, Health, and Safety Research Strategy as updated in
October 2011.
National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System.--The
Committee recommendation includes $10,800,000 for the National
Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System, equal to the level
provided in fiscal year 2015.
Nutrition Facts Label.--The Committee is concerned that the
FDA has not published in the Federal Register the results of
FDA's ``Experimental Study on Consumer Responses to Nutrition
Facts Labels with Various Footnote Formats and Declaration of
Amount of Added Sugars'' (78 FR 32394, May 30, 2013). The
purpose of the study, as described by the Agency, is ``to
examine how consumers would comprehend and use this new
information''. Given that sound science, peer review and
transparency are essential to effective protection of public
health, the Committee encourages the FDA to release this study
for public review and comment prior to finalizing changes to
the Nutrition Facts label.
Opioid Overdose Prevention.--The Committee notes that on
June 15, 2015, the CDC issued a report on ``Opioid Overdose
Prevention Programs Providing Naloxone to Laypersons'', in
which the CDC noted the benefits of expanding access to the
life-saving drug naloxone, which reverses the effects of an
opioid overdose. The Committee urges FDA to promote the
development and widespread usage of naloxone products. The
agency's efforts should include working closely with product
sponsors interested in marketing naloxone for use without a
prescription to expedite review and decisionmaking.
Oversight Activities.--The Committee notes that over the
past 5 years FDA's responsibilities and resources have grown
significantly. The Committee is concerned that oversight of FDA
has not kept pace with the growth in the agency's regulatory
authority or funding. Therefore, the Committee recommendation
includes $1,500,000 for the HHS Office of Inspector General
specifically for oversight of FDA activities. The funding
provided under this appropriation is in addition to FDA
oversight activities supported within the Inspector General's
regular appropriation. The Committee instructs the Inspector
General to submit a plan, within 60 days of the enactment of
this act, on the additional oversight activities planned with
this funding.
Pediatric Device Consortia Grants.--The Committee is
pleased that the nine FDA-funded Pediatric Device Consortia
have assisted in the development of more than 450 proposed
pediatric medical devices since its inception in 2009, as well
as promoting job-growth in the healthcare sector, and as such,
continues to support this critical effort. The program funds
consortia to assist innovators in developing medical and
surgical devices designed for the unique needs of children that
often go unmet by devices currently available on the market.
The Committee directs FDA to fund this program at the highest
possible level within available resources, and at no less than
the level funded in the previous year.
Repackaging for Long Term Care Pharmacies.--In February the
Food and Drug Administration released a draft guidance
entitled, ``Repackaging of Certain Human Drug Products by
Pharmacies and Outsourcing Facilities.'' The Committee is
concerned that in issuing the draft guidance the agency failed
to consider the unique nature of long term care pharmacies and
the populations they serve. Before issuing a final guidance the
Committee urges the agency to consider its implications on
patient access to safe and effective medications from long term
care pharmacies.
Seafood Advisory.--The Committee remains concerned that
despite numerous commitments over many years, FDA has not
published final advice on seafood consumption for pregnant
women, mothers, and children. The Committee is pleased that FDA
released draft advice in June 2014, however, pregnant women and
healthcare providers still await clear, actionable and science-
based final seafood advice. Based on the recommendation of the
Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, the final FDA seafood
advice shall re-evaluate the draft limit on albacore tuna to
ensure it is consistent with the FDA net effects report and the
Joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World
Health Organization Expert Consultation on the Risks and
Benefits of Fish Consumption, 2010. The Committee directs FDA
to publish final advice to pregnant women on seafood
consumption in conjunction with all applicable parties.
Finally, FDA shall provide a progress report to the Committee
30 days after the enactment of this act and every 30 days
thereafter until the final seafood advice is published.
Seafood Economic Integrity.--The Committee recognizes the
importance of seafood to a healthy diet, but is concerned that
the FDA does not focus sufficient attention on economic
integrity issues, particularly with respect to mislabeling of
species, weights, and treatment. The Committee encourages the
FDA to work with States and the Department of Commerce to more
aggressively combat fraud in parts of the seafood industry.
Seafood List.--The Committee directs the Commissioner to
expedite consideration of whether it is appropriate to change
the acceptable market name of Gadus chalcogrammus (formerly
classified as Theragra chalcogramma) from ``Alaska Pollock'' to
``Pollock'' in the Seafood List. It is critical that seafood
nomenclature (acceptable market names) is science-based,
truthful, and not misleading to the consumer.
Sodium.--The Committee is concerned about FDA's continued
focus on voluntary sodium reductions and the Institute of
Medicine's [IOM] 2010 recommendation to modify the Generally
Recognized as Safe [GRAS] status of sodium, particularly given
the ongoing scientific discussion regarding appropriate sodium
intake to maintain positive health. The IOM published a more
recent study in 2013, which concluded additional research may
provide further information with respect to the health effects
of sodium intake on general and sub populations. The Committee
recommends that a panel be convened, at the IOM or another
leading Federal institution, which includes a representative
array of research perspectives, including those who have raised
concerns on the safety of low-sodium diets. The Committee does
not believe any sodium reduction activities should be finalized
until the disagreement between the impact of lower sodium on
blood pressure (and an extrapolation to health) and direct
research suggesting a negative impact of very low-sodium
intakes is resolved.
Sunscreen.--The Committee is aware that in July 2014, the
U.S. Surgeon General issued A Call to Action to Prevent Skin
Cancer, concluding nearly 5 million people are treated annually
for all skin cancers combined, with an estimated cost of
$8,100,000,000 per year. As a result, the Surgeon General
called on the Federal Government to work with stakeholders to
support skin cancer prevention. The Committee is pleased with
the bipartisan reforms enacted in the Sunscreen Innovation Act
[SIA] in 2014 to improve the process by which the FDA reviews
sunscreen ingredients; however, the Committee is concerned that
while skin cancer rates in the United States continue to climb,
no new sunscreen ingredients have been generally recognized as
safe and effective [GRASE] by the FDA since passage of the SIA.
The Committee directs the FDA to provide a report that contains
a detailed analysis of how FDA is balancing the Surgeon
General's Call to Action, the known public health benefits that
regular sunscreen use provides to prevent skin cancer and
melanoma, and the long history of safe and effective use of
sunscreens in comparable countries versus the hypothetical risk
sunscreens posed to human health in FDA's generally recognized
as safe and effective [GRASE] standard. Immediate action on
sunscreen applications should be a priority.
In addition, the Committee directs the FDA to work with
stakeholders to ensure consumers in the United States have
access to all sunscreen products that have been shown to be
safe and effective; and therefore, requests that FDA, in
finalizing the sunscreen monograph consistent with the SIA,
include provisions related to the maximum Sun Protection Factor
[SPF] and to address spray dosage forms for sunscreens.
Vibrio.--The Committee is aware of the public health
challenge related to the naturally occurring bacteria called
Vibrio parahaemolyticus (V.p.) that can accumulate in shellfish
and believes that more scientific research is necessary to
developing proper controls that will reduce the risk to
consumers and sustain a healthy domestic shellfish industry.
The Committee encourages the Food and Drug Administration [FDA]
to increase funding for research into Vibrio illnesses
associated with the consumption of raw molluscan shellfish,
improve risk assessment models, and develop improved rapid
detection methods for virulent Vibrio strains.
buildings and facilities
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $8,788,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 8,788,000
Committee recommendation................................ 8,788,000
FDA maintains offices and staff in 49 States and in the
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, including field
laboratories and specialized facilities, as well as the
National Center for Toxicological Research complex. Repairs,
modifications, improvements, and construction to FDA
headquarters and field facilities must be made to preserve the
properties, ensure employee safety, meet changing program
requirements, and permit the agency to keep its laboratory
methods up to date.
committee recommendations
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $8,788,000 for
FDA buildings and facilities. This funding shall be used to
upgrade FDA facilities and laboratories which are currently
below public safety standards and incapable of performing
agency requirements.
INDEPENDENT AGENCY
Farm Credit Administration
limitation on administrative expenses
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $60,500,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 68,800,000
Committee recommendation................................ 65,600,000
The Farm Credit Administration [FCA] is the independent
agency in the executive branch of the Government responsible
for the examination and regulation of the banks, associations,
and other institutions of the Farm Credit System.
Activities of the Farm Credit Administration include the
planning and execution of examinations of Farm Credit System
institutions and the preparation of examination reports. FCA
also promulgates regulations, establishes standards, enforces
rules and regulations, and approves certain actions of the
institutions.
The administration and the institutions under its
jurisdiction now operate under authorities contained in the
Farm Credit Act of 1971, Public Law 92-181, effective December
10, 1971. Public Law 99-205, effective December 23, 1985,
restructured FCA and gave the agency regulatory authorities and
enforcement powers.
The act provides for the farmer-owned cooperative system to
make sound, adequate, and constructive credit available to
farmers and ranchers and their cooperatives, rural residences,
and associations and other entities upon which farming
operations are dependent, and to modernize existing farm credit
law to meet current and future rural credit needs.
The Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 authorized the
formation of the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation
[FAMC] to operate a secondary market for agricultural and rural
housing mortgages. The Farm Credit Administration, under
section 8.11 of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended, is
assigned the responsibility of regulating this entity and
assuring its safe and sound operation.
Expenses of the Farm Credit Administration are paid by
assessments collected from the Farm Credit System institutions
and by assessments to the Federal Agricultural Mortgage
Corporation.
committee recommendations
The Committee recommends a limitation of $65,600,000 on
administrative expenses of the Farm Credit Administration.
TITLE VII
GENERAL PROVISIONS
The Committee recommends the following provisions:
Section 701. This section makes funds available for the
purchase, replacement, and hire of passenger motor vehicles.
Section 702. This section gives the Secretary of
Agriculture authority to transfer unobligated balances to the
Working Capital Fund and clarifies longstanding practices
associated with the Fund.
Section 703. This section limits the funding provided in
the bill to 1 year, unless otherwise specified.
Section 704. This section limits negotiated indirect costs
on cooperative agreements between the Department of Agriculture
and nonprofit organizations to 10 percent.
Section 705. This section makes appropriations to the
Department of Agriculture for the cost of direct guaranteed
loans available until expended to disburse obligations for
certain Rural Development programs.
Section 706. This section prohibits the purchase of new
information technology equipment in excess of $25,000 without
the prior approval of the Chief Information Officer.
Section 707. This section makes funds for certain
conservation programs available until expended to disburse
certain obligations made in the current fiscal year.
Section 708. This section makes certain former Rural
Utilities Service borrowers eligible for the Rural Economic
Development loan and grant program.
Section 709. This section provides funds for Rural
Development and the Farm Service Agency information technology
expenses.
Section 710. This section includes language regarding
first-class travel.
Section 711. This section includes language regarding the
Commodity Credit Corporation.
Section 712. This section makes funds available for the
expenses and activities of certain advisory committees, panels,
commissions, and task forces at the Department of Agriculture.
Section 713. This section includes language regarding the
limitation on direct costs for grants awarded by the National
Institute of Food and Agriculture.
Section 714. This section includes language regarding the
availability of funds for certain Department of Agriculture
programs.
Section 715. This section includes language regarding the
availability of funds for certain Department of Agriculture
programs.
Section 716. This section prohibits the use of funds for
user fee proposals that fail to provide sufficient budget
impact information.
Section 717. This section prohibits the reprogramming of
funds for programs, projects, or activities in excess of
$500,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less without the prior
notification of the Committee on Appropriations.
Section 718. This section includes language for the
establishment of a fee under the business and industry loan
program.
Section 719. This section prohibits the Department of
Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services
from transmitting questions or responses as a result of the
appropriations hearing process to non-Department employees.
Section 720. This section includes language regarding
prepackaged news.
Section 721. This section requires Department of
Agriculture agencies to provide reimbursement to other
Department of Agriculture agencies for employees detailed for
longer than 30 days.
Section 722. This section includes language regarding
reconstituted infant formula.
Section 723. This section includes language regarding
spending plans.
Section 724. This section provides funding for the
Geographically Disadvantaged Farmers Program.
Section 725. This section includes language regarding
section 502 single family direct loans.
Section 726. This section includes language regarding loans
and loan guarantees.
Section 727. This section includes language regarding
credit card refunds.
Section 728. This section provides funding to carry out a
program for hardwood trees.
Section 729. This section includes language regarding menu
labeling.
Section 730. This section includes language regarding the
Emergency Community Water Assistance Grant Program.
Section 731. This section includes language regarding the
Water Bank Program.
Section 732. This section includes language regarding Rural
Economic Area Partnership Zones.
Section 733. This section includes language regarding the
Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
Section 734. This section includes language regarding the
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative.
Section 735. This section includes language regarding
housing programs.
Section 736. This section includes language regarding the
Rural Housing Service.
Section 737. This section includes a rescission of funds.
Section 738. This section includes a rescission of funds.
Section 739. This section includes language regarding
industrial hemp.
Section 740. This section includes language regarding
disclosure of information for pharmaceuticals.
Section 741. This section includes language regarding the
Healthy Food Financing Initiative.
Section 742. This section includes language regarding
agricultural research.
Section. 743. This section includes language regarding beef
imports from Argentina and Brazil.
Section. 744. This section includes language regarding the
use of funds for certain horse inspection activities.
Section 745. This section includes language regarding
school meals programs.
PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY
During fiscal year 2016, for purposes of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law
99-177) or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Reaffirmation Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-119), the following
information provides the definition of the term ``program,
project, and activity'' for departments and agencies under the
jurisdiction of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee. The
term ``program, project, and activity'' shall include the most
specific level of budget items identified in the Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016, and the accompanying Senate
Report.
If a sequestration order is necessary, in implementing the
Presidential order, departments and agencies shall apply any
percentage reduction required for fiscal year 2016 pursuant to
the provisions of Public Law 99-177 or Public Law 100-119 to
all items specified in the explanatory notes submitted to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate in support
of the fiscal year 2016 budget estimates, as amended, for such
departments and agencies, as modified by congressional action,
and in addition:
For the Agricultural Research Service the definition shall
include specific research locations as identified in the
explanatory notes.
For the Natural Resources Conservation Service the
definition shall include individual flood prevention projects
as identified in the explanatory notes and individual
operational watershed projects as summarized in the notes.
For the Farm Service Agency the definition shall include
individual, regional, State, district, and county offices.
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports
accompanying general appropriations bills identify each
recommended amendment which proposes an item of appropriation
which is not made to carry out the provisions of an existing
law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously
passed by the Senate during that session.
The Committee is filing an original bill, which is not
covered under this rule, but reports this information in the
spirit of full disclosure.
The Committee recommends funding for the following programs
or activities which currently lack authorization for fiscal
year 2016:
Child Nutrition Program State Administrative Expenses
Farmers Market Nutrition Program
Grain Inspection Service
Multi-family Housing Revitalization Program
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants
and Children
Summer Food Service Program
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(c), RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on July 16, 2015,
the Committee ordered favorably reported an original bill
making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other purposes,
provided, that the bill be subject to amendment and that the
bill be consistent with its budget allocation, by a recorded
vote of 28-2, a quorum being present. The vote was as follows:
Yeas Nays
Chairman Cochran Mrs. Murray
Mr. McConnell Mr. Reed
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Alexander
Ms. Collins
Ms. Murkowski
Mr. Graham
Mr. Kirk
Mr. Blunt
Mr. Moran
Mr. Hoeven
Mr. Boozman
Mrs. Capito
Mr. Cassidy
Mr. Lankford
Mr. Daines
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Leahy
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Durbin
Mr. Tester
Mr. Udall
Mrs. Shaheen
Mr. Merkley
Mr. Coons
Mr. Schatz
Ms. Baldwin
Mr. Murphy
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports
on a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute
or part of any statute include ``(a) the text of the statute or
part thereof which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a
comparative print of that part of the bill or joint resolution
making the amendment and of the statute or part thereof
proposed to be amended, showing by stricken-through type and
italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical
devices the omissions and insertions which would be made by the
bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form recommended by
the committee.''
The Committee bill as recommended contains no such
provisions.
BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL
PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS
AMENDED
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget authority Outlays
-------------------------------------------------------
Committee Amount in Committee Amount in
allocation bill allocation bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with the subcommittee
allocation for 2016: Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies:
Mandatory........................................... 116,234 116,234 108,949 \1\108,949
Discretionary....................................... 20,510 20,510 21,641 \1\21,632
Security........................................ ............ ............ ............ NA
Nonsecurity..................................... 20,510 20,510 NA NA
Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on ............ ............ ............ ............
Terrorism..........................................
Projections of outlays associated with the
recommendation:
2016................................................ ............ ............ ............ \2\116,060
2017................................................ ............ ............ ............ 4,721
2018................................................ ............ ............ ............ 990
2019................................................ ............ ............ ............ 358
2020 and future years............................... ............ ............ ............ 267
Financial assistance to State and local governments for NA 39,573 NA \2\33,112
2016...................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\2\Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
NA: Not applicable.
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2016
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Committee recommendation
compared with (+ or -)
Item 2015 Budget estimate Committee ---------------------------------
appropriation recommendation 2015
appropriation Budget estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS
Production, Processing, and Marketing
Office of the Secretary
Office of the Secretary............................................ 5,051 5,137 5,051 ............... -86
Office of Tribal Relations......................................... 502 507 502 ............... -5
Military Veterans Agricultural Liasion (Leg. proposal)............. ............... 250 250 +250 ...............
Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Coordination............. 1,496 1,520 1,496 ............... -24
Office of Advocacy and Outreach.................................... 1,209 1,228 1,209 ............... -19
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration............... 804 816 804 ............... -12
Departmental Administration........................................ 25,124 25,688 25,124 ............... -564
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Departmental Administration........................ 25,928 26,504 25,928 ............... -576
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations...... 3,869 3,934 3,869 ............... -65
Office of Communications........................................... 7,750 8,228 7,750 ............... -478
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Office of the Secretary............................... 45,805 47,308 46,055 +250 -1,253
====================================================================================
Executive Operations:
Office of the Chief Economist.................................. 17,377 17,465 16,777 -600 -688
National Appeals Division...................................... 13,317 13,566 13,317 ............... -249
Office of Budget and Program Analysis.......................... 9,392 9,500 9,392 ............... -108
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Executive Operations............................... 40,086 40,531 39,486 -600 -1,045
Office of the Chief Information Officer............................ 45,045 53,071 45,045 ............... -8,026
Office of the Chief Financial Officer.............................. 6,028 9,154 6,028 ............... -3,126
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights................. 898 907 898 ............... -9
Office of Civil Rights............................................. 24,070 24,443 24,070 ............... -373
Agriculture buildings and facilities and rental payments........... (55,866) (125,469) (53,618) (-2,248) (-71,851)
Building operations and maintenance............................ 55,866 125,469 53,618 -2,248 -71,851
Hazardous materials management..................................... 3,600 3,630 3,618 +18 -12
Office of Inspector General........................................ 95,026 98,902 95,294 +268 -3,608
Office of the General Counsel...................................... 44,383 48,075 44,383 ............... -3,692
Office of Ethics................................................... 3,654 4,565 3,654 ............... -911
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Departmental Administration........................... 364,461 456,055 362,149 -2,312 -93,906
====================================================================================
Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and 898 907 898 ............... -9
Economics.........................................................
Economic Research Service.......................................... 85,373 86,023 85,373 ............... -650
National Agricultural Statistics Service........................... 172,408 180,346 168,108 -4,300 -12,238
Census of Agriculture.......................................... (47,842) (45,747) (41,842) (-6,000) (-3,905)
Agricultural Research Service:
Salaries and expenses.......................................... 1,132,625 1,191,540 1,136,825 +4,200 -54,715
Buildings and facilities....................................... 45,000 205,901 ............... -45,000 -205,901
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Agricultural Research Service......................... 1,177,625 1,397,441 1,136,825 -40,800 -260,616
====================================================================================
National Institute of Food and Agriculture:
National Institute of Food and Agriculture (Leg. proposal)..... ............... 1,503,058 ............... ............... -1,503,058
Research and education activities.............................. 786,874 ............... 791,096 +4,222 +791,096
Native American Institutions Endowment Fund.................... (11,880) (11,880) (11,880) ............... ...............
Hispanic-Serving Agricultural Colleges and Universities ............... (10,000) (10,000) (+10,000) ...............
Endowment Fund................................................
Extension activities........................................... 471,691 ............... 488,891 +17,200 +488,891
Integrated activities.......................................... 30,900 ............... 13,700 -17,200 +13,700
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, National Institute of Food and Agriculture............ 1,289,465 1,503,058 1,293,687 +4,222 -209,371
====================================================================================
Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs 898 907 898 ............... -9
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service:
Salaries and expenses.......................................... 871,315 855,803 876,465 +5,150 +20,662
Buildings and facilities....................................... 3,175 3,175 3,175 ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service............ 874,490 858,978 879,640 +5,150 +20,662
====================================================================================
Agricultural Marketing Service:
Marketing Services............................................. 81,192 83,121 81,192 ............... -1,929
Standardization activities (user fees)..................... (64,000) (65,000) (65,000) (+1,000) ...............
(Limitation on administrative expenses, from fees collected)... (60,709) (60,982) (60,982) (+273) ...............
Funds for strengthening markets, income, and supply (Section
32):
Permanent, Section 32...................................... 1,284,000 1,425,000 1,425,000 +141,000 ...............
Marketing agreements and orders (transfer from section (20,186) (20,489) (20,489) (+303) ...............
32)...................................................
Payments to States and Possessions............................. 1,235 1,235 1,235 ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Agricultural Marketing Service program................ 1,427,136 1,570,338 1,568,409 +141,273 -1,929
====================================================================================
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration:
Salaries and expenses.......................................... 43,048 44,101 43,048 ............... -1,053
Limitation on inspection and weighing services................. (50,000) (55,000) (55,000) (+5,000) ...............
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety...................... 816 824 816 ............... -8
Food Safety and Inspection Service................................. 1,016,474 1,011,557 1,013,621 -2,853 +2,064
Lab accreditation fees......................................... (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Production, Processing, and Marketing................. 6,392,383 7,049,553 6,492,490 +100,107 -557,063
====================================================================================
Farm Assistance Programs
Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural 898 907 898 ............... -9
Services..........................................................
Farm Service Agency:
Salaries and expenses.......................................... 1,200,180 1,185,251 1,180,391 -19,789 -4,860
(Transfer from Food for Peace (Public Law 480))................ (2,528) (2,528) (2,528) ............... ...............
(Transfer from export loans)................................... (354) (354) (354) ............... ...............
(Transfer from ACIF)........................................... (306,998) (309,991) (306,998) ............... (-2,993)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, transfers from program accounts.................... (309,880) (312,873) (309,880) ............... (-2,993)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Salaries and expenses................................. (1,510,060) (1,498,124) (1,490,271) (-19,789) (-7,853)
====================================================================================
State mediation grants......................................... 3,404 3,404 3,404 ............... ...............
Grassroots source water protection program..................... 5,526 ............... 6,000 +474 +6,000
Dairy indemnity program........................................ 500 500 500 ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Farm Service Agency................................ 1,209,610 1,189,155 1,190,295 -19,315 +1,140
Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund [ACIF] Program Account:
Loan authorizations:
Farm ownership loans:
Direct............................................. (1,500,000) (1,500,000) (1,500,000) ............... ...............
Guaranteed......................................... (2,000,000) (2,000,000) (2,000,000) ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal......................................... (3,500,000) (3,500,000) (3,500,000) ............... ...............
Farm operating loans:
Direct............................................. (1,252,004) (1,252,004) (1,252,004) ............... ...............
Unsubsidized guaranteed............................ (1,393,443) (1,393,443) (1,393,443) ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal......................................... (2,645,447) (2,645,447) (2,645,447) ............... ...............
Emergency loans........................................ (34,667) (34,667) (34,667) ............... ...............
Indian tribe land acquisition loans.................... (2,000) (2,000) (2,000) ............... ...............
Conservation loans:
Guaranteed......................................... (150,000) (150,000) (150,000) ............... ...............
Indian highly fractionated land loans.................. (10,000) (10,000) (10,000) ............... ...............
Boll weevil eradication loans.......................... (60,000) (60,000) (60,000) ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan authorizations........................... (6,402,114) (6,402,114) (6,402,114) ............... ...............
====================================================================================
Loan subsidies:
Farm operating loans:
Direct............................................. 63,101 53,961 53,961 -9,140 ...............
Unsubsidized guaranteed............................ 14,770 14,352 14,352 -418 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal......................................... 77,871 68,313 68,313 -9,558 ...............
Emergency Loans........................................ 856 1,262 1,262 +406 ...............
Indian highly fractionated land loans.................. ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Individual development account grants.................. ............... 2,500 ............... ............... -2,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan subsidies and grants..................... 78,727 72,075 69,575 -9,152 -2,500
====================================================================================
ACIF administrative expenses:
Salaries and expense (transfer to FSA)................. 306,998 309,991 306,998 ............... -2,993
Administrative expenses................................ 7,920 7,920 7,920 ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, ACIF expenses................................. 314,918 317,911 314,918 ............... -2,993
====================================================================================
Total, Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund................ 393,645 389,986 384,493 -9,152 -5,493
(Loan authorization)................................... (6,402,114) (6,402,114) (6,402,114) ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Farm Service Agency............................... 1,603,255 1,579,141 1,574,788 -28,467 -4,353
====================================================================================
Risk Management Agency:
RMA Salaries and expenses...................................... 74,829 76,946 74,829 ............... -2,117
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Farm Assistance Programs.............................. 1,678,982 1,656,994 1,650,515 -28,467 -6,479
====================================================================================
Corporations
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation:
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation fund........................ 8,930,502 8,175,224 8,175,224 -755,278 ...............
Commodity Credit Corporation Fund:
Reimbursement for net realized losses.......................... 13,444,728 10,519,933 10,519,933 -2,924,795 ...............
Hazardous waste management (limitation on expenses)............ (5,000) (5,000) (5,000) ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Corporations.......................................... 22,375,230 18,695,157 18,695,157 -3,680,073 ...............
====================================================================================
Total, Title I, Agricultural Programs........................ 30,446,595 27,401,704 26,838,162 -3,608,433 -563,542
(By transfer)............................................ (330,066) (333,362) (330,369) (+303) (-2,993)
(Loan authorization)..................................... (6,402,114) (6,402,114) (6,402,114) ............... ...............
(Limitation on administrative expenses).................. (115,709) (120,982) (120,982) (+5,273) ...............
====================================================================================
TITLE II--CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment 898 907 898 ............... -9
Natural Resources Conservation Service:
Private lands conservation operations.......................... 846,428 831,231 855,209 +8,781 +23,978
Farm Security and Rural Investment program (transfer ............... (774,612) ............... ............... (-774,612)
authority)................................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Public Lands Conservation operations.............. 846,428 1,605,843 855,209 +8,781 -750,634
====================================================================================
Watershed Flood and Prevention operations (Leg. proposal)...... ............... 200,000 ............... ............... -200,000
Watershed rehabilitation program............................... 12,000 ............... ............... -12,000 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Natural Resources Conservation Service................ 858,428 1,031,231 855,209 -3,219 -176,022
====================================================================================
Total, Title II, Conservation Programs....................... 859,326 1,032,138 856,107 -3,219 -176,031
====================================================================================
TITLE III--RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development................ 898 907 898 ............... -9
Rural Development:
Rural development expenses:
Salaries and expenses...................................... 224,201 226,717 228,701 +4,500 +1,984
(Transfer from RHIF)....................................... (415,100) (419,530) (415,100) ............... (-4,430)
(Transfer from RDLFP)...................................... (4,439) (4,488) (4,439) ............... (-49)
(Transfer from RETLP)...................................... (34,478) (34,864) (34,478) ............... (-386)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Transfers from program accounts................ (454,017) (458,882) (454,017) ............... (-4,865)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural development expenses........................ (678,218) (685,599) (682,718) (+4,500) (-2,881)
====================================================================================
Rural Housing Service:
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account:
Loan authorizations:
Single family direct (Sec. 502)........................ (900,000) (900,000) (900,000) ............... ...............
Unsubsidized guaranteed............................ (24,000,000) (24,000,000) (24,000,000) ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Single family.......................... (24,900,000) (24,900,000) (24,900,000) ............... ...............
Housing repair (Sec. 504).............................. (26,279) (26,278) (26,278) (-1) ...............
Rental housing (Sec. 515).............................. (28,398) (42,271) (28,398) ............... (-13,873)
Multi-family housing guarantees (Sec. 538)............. (150,000) (200,000) (200,000) (+50,000) ...............
Site development loans (Sec. 524)...................... (5,000) (5,000) (5,000) ............... ...............
Single family housing credit sales..................... (10,000) (10,000) (10,000) ............... ...............
Self-help housing land develop. (Sec. 523)............. (5,000) ............... (5,000) ............... (+5,000)
Farm Labor Housing (Sec.514)........................... (23,602) (23,855) (23,602) ............... (-253)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan authorizations........................... (25,148,279) (25,207,404) (25,198,278) (+49,999) (-9,126)
====================================================================================
Loan subsidies:
Single family direct (Sec. 502)........................ 66,420 60,750 60,750 -5,670 ...............
Housing repair (Sec. 504).............................. 3,687 3,424 3,424 -263 ...............
Rental housing (Sec. 515).............................. 9,800 12,525 8,414 -1,386 -4,111
Farm labor housing (Sec. 514).......................... 7,600 6,789 6,717 -883 -72
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan subsidies................................ 87,507 83,488 79,305 -8,202 -4,183
====================================================================================
Farm labor housing grants.............................. 8,336 8,336 8,336 ............... ...............
RHIF administrative expenses (transfer to RD).......... 415,100 419,530 415,100 ............... -4,430
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural Housing Insurance Fund program.......... 510,943 511,354 502,741 -8,202 -8,613
(Loan authorization)............................... (25,148,279) (25,207,404) (25,198,278) (+49,999) (-9,126)
====================================================================================
Rental assistance program:
Rental assistance (Sec. 521)............................... 1,088,500 1,171,900 1,167,000 +78,500 -4,900
Multi-Family Housing Revitalization Program Account:
Rural housing voucher program.................................. 7,000 15,000 7,000 ............... -8,000
Multi-family housing revitalization program.................... 17,000 19,000 17,000 ............... -2,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Multi-family housing revitalization................... 24,000 34,000 24,000 ............... -10,000
====================================================================================
Mutual and self-help housing grants............................ 27,500 10,000 27,500 ............... +17,500
Rural housing assistance grants................................ 32,239 25,000 32,239 ............... +7,239
Rural Community Facilities Program Account:
Loan authorizations:
Community facility:
Direct............................................. (2,200,000) (2,200,000) (2,200,000) ............... ...............
Guaranteed......................................... (73,222) ............... (84,746) (+11,524) (+84,746)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan authorizations....................... (2,273,222) (2,200,000) (2,284,746) (+11,524) (+84,746)
====================================================================================
Loan subsidies and grants:
Community facility:
Guaranteed......................................... 3,500 ............... 2,000 -1,500 +2,000
Grants............................................. 13,000 50,000 13,000 ............... -37,000
Rural community development initiative................. 4,000 4,000 4,000 ............... ...............
Economic impact initiative grants...................... 5,778 ............... 5,778 ............... +5,778
Tribal college grants.................................. 4,000 8,000 4,000 ............... -4,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, RCFP Loan subsidies and grants................ 30,278 62,000 28,778 -1,500 -33,222
====================================================================================
Subtotal, grants and payments................................ 90,017 97,000 88,517 -1,500 -8,483
====================================================================================
Total, Rural Housing Service................................. 1,713,460 1,814,254 1,782,258 +68,798 -31,996
(Loan authorization)..................................... (27,421,501) (27,407,404) (27,483,024) (+61,523) (+75,620)
====================================================================================
Rural Business--Cooperative Service:
Rural Business Program Account:
(Guaranteed business and industry loans)................... (919,765) (758,222) (919,765) ............... (+161,543)
Loan subsidies and grants:
Guaranteed business and industry subsidy............... 47,000 31,444 35,687 -11,313 +4,243
Rural business development grants.................. 24,000 30,000 24,000 ............... -6,000
Demonstration Projects (rural child poverty) (Leg. ............... 20,000 ............... ............... -20,000
proposal).........................................
Delta regional authority........................... 3,000 ............... 3,000 ............... +3,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, RBP loan subsidies and grants............. 74,000 81,444 62,687 -11,313 -18,757
====================================================================================
Intermediary Relending Program Fund Account:
(Loan authorization)....................................... (18,889) (10,014) (18,889) ............... (+8,875)
Loan subsidy............................................... 5,818 2,766 5,217 -601 +2,451
Administrative expenses (transfer to RD)................... 4,439 4,488 4,439 ............... -49
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural Business Program Fund....................... 10,257 7,254 9,656 -601 +2,402
====================================================================================
Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account:
(Loan authorization)....................................... (33,077) (85,000) (48,013) (+14,936) (-36,987)
Limit cushion of credit interest spending.................. (179,000) (154,000) (182,000) (+3,000) (+28,000)
(Rescission)........................................... -179,000 -154,000 -182,000 -3,000 -28,000
Rural Cooperative Development Grants:
Cooperative development.................................... 5,800 6,000 5,800 ............... -200
Appropriate technology transfer for rural areas............ 2,500 2,087 2,500 ............... +413
Grants to assist minority producers........................ 3,000 3,000 3,000 ............... ...............
Value-added agricultural product market development........ 10,750 10,000 10,750 ............... +750
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural Cooperative development grants.............. 22,050 21,087 22,050 ............... +963
====================================================================================
Rural Microenterprise Investment Program Account:
(Loan authorization)....................................... ............... (23,416) ............... ............... (-23,416)
Loan subsidies and grants.................................. ............... 4,653 ............... ............... -4,653
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural Microenterprise Investment.................. ............... 4,653 ............... ............... -4,653
====================================================================================
Rural Energy for America Program (Loan authorization).......... (12,760) (75,758) (7,576) (-5,184) (-68,182)
Loan subsidy and grants.................................... 1,350 5,000 500 -850 -4,500
Grants..................................................... ............... 5,000 ............... ............... -5,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural Energy for America Program.................. 1,350 10,000 500 -850 -9,500
====================================================================================
Rural Business Investment Program Account (Loan authorization). ............... (41,195) ............... ............... (-41,195)
Loan subsidy............................................... ............... 4,000 ............... ............... -4,000
Grants..................................................... ............... 2,000 ............... ............... -2,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural Business Investment Program................. ............... 6,000 ............... ............... -6,000
====================================================================================
Healthy Foods Financing Initiative (Leg. proposal):
Grants..................................................... ............... 12,750 1,000 +1,000 -11,750
====================================================================================
Total, Rural Business-Cooperative Service.................... -71,343 -10,812 -86,107 -14,764 -75,295
(Loan authorization)..................................... (984,491) (993,605) (994,243) (+9,752) (+638)
====================================================================================
Rural Utilities Service:
Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program Account:
Loan authorizations:
Direct................................................. (1,200,000) (1,200,000) (1,200,000) ............... ...............
Guaranteed............................................. (50,000) ............... (50,000) ............... (+50,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan authorization............................ 1,250,000 1,200,000 1,250,000 ............... +50,000
====================================================================================
Loan subsidies and grants:
Direct subsidy......................................... ............... 31,320 31,320 +31,320 ...............
Guaranteed subsidy..................................... 295 ............... 275 -20 +275
Water and waste revolving fund......................... 1,000 ............... 1,000 ............... +1,000
Water well system grants............................... 993 ............... 993 ............... +993
Colonias and AK/HI grants.............................. 66,500 54,240 66,500 ............... +12,260
Water and waste technical assistance................... 19,000 13,560 19,000 ............... +5,440
Circuit rider program.................................. 15,919 11,300 16,500 +581 +5,200
Solid waste management grants.......................... 4,000 4,000 4,000 ............... ...............
High energy cost grants................................ 10,000 ............... 10,000 ............... +10,000
Water and waste disposal grants........................ 347,150 358,900 347,150 ............... -11,750
306A(i)(2) grants (Leg. proposal)...................... ............... 10,000 ............... ............... -10,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan subsidies and grants..................... 464,857 483,320 496,738 +31,881 +13,418
====================================================================================
Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program
Account:
Loan authorizations:
Electric:
Direct, FFB........................................ (5,000,000) (6,000,000) (6,000,000) (+1,000,000) ...............
Guaranteed underwriting............................ (500,000) ............... (750,000) (+250,000) (+750,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Electric............................... (5,500,000) (6,000,000) (6,750,000) (+1,250,000) (+750,000)
Telecommunications:
Direct, Treasury rate.............................. (690,000) (345,000) (345,000) (-345,000) ...............
Direct, FFB........................................ ............... (345,000) (345,000) (+345,000) ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Telecommunications..................... (690,000) (690,000) (690,000) ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan authorizations....................... (6,190,000) (6,690,000) (7,440,000) (+1,250,000) (+750,000)
====================================================================================
Loan Subsidy:
Telecommunications Direct, Treasury Rate........... ............... 104 104 +104 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan subsidies............................ ............... 104 104 +104 ...............
====================================================================================
RETLP administrative expenses (transfer to RD)............. 34,478 34,864 34,478 ............... -386
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans 34,478 34,968 34,582 +104 -386
Program Account.........................................
(Loan authorization)............................... (6,190,000) (6,690,000) (7,440,000) (+1,250,000) (+750,000)
====================================================================================
Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program:
Loan authorizations:
Broadband telecommunications........................... (24,077) (44,239) (20,576) (-3,501) (-23,663)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan authorizations........................... (24,077) (44,239) (20,576) (-3,501) (-23,663)
====================================================================================
Loan subsidies and grants:
Distance learning and telemedicine:
Grants............................................. 22,000 24,950 22,000 ............... -2,950
Broadband telecommunications:
Direct............................................. 4,500 9,675 4,500 ............... -5,175
Grants............................................. 10,372 20,372 10,372 ............... -10,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan subsidies and grants................. 36,872 54,997 36,872 ............... -18,125
====================================================================================
Total, Rural Utilities Service............................... 536,207 573,285 568,192 +31,985 -5,093
(Loan authorization)..................................... (7,464,077) (7,934,239) (8,710,576) (+1,246,499) (+776,337)
====================================================================================
Total, Title III, Rural Development Programs................. 2,403,423 2,604,351 2,493,942 +90,519 -110,409
(By transfer)............................................ (454,017) (458,882) (454,017) ............... (-4,865)
(Loan authorization)..................................... (35,870,069) (36,335,248) (37,187,843) (+1,317,774) (+852,595)
====================================================================================
TITLE IV--DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer 816 824 816 ............... -8
Services..........................................................
Food and Nutrition Service:
Child nutrition programs....................................... 21,259,170 21,483,377 21,483,377 +224,207 ...............
School breakfast program equipment grants.................. 25,000 35,000 25,000 ............... -10,000
Demonstration projects (Summer EBT)........................ 16,000 66,900 16,000 ............... -50,900
Child Nutrition State Exchange Activities (Leg. proposal).. ............... 2,000 ............... ............... -2,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Child nutrition programs.......................... 21,300,170 21,587,277 21,524,377 +224,207 -62,900
====================================================================================
Special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and 6,623,000 6,623,000 6,513,000 -110,000 -110,000
children (WIC)................................................
Supplemental nutrition assistance program:
(Food stamp program)....................................... 78,836,572 78,661,071 78,661,071 -175,501 ...............
Reserve................................................ 3,000,000 5,000,000 3,000,000 ............... -2,000,000
FDPIR nutrition education services..................... 998 998 998 ............... ...............
National food consumption survey (Leg. proposal)....... ............... 5,000 ............... ............... -5,000
State Transition Grants (Leg. proposal)................ ............... 25,000 ............... ............... -25,000
Fiscal Year 2017 (first quarter)....................... ............... 20,907,000 ............... ............... -20,907,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Food stamp program............................ 81,837,570 104,599,069 81,662,069 -175,501 -22,937,000
Fiscal year 2016....................................... (81,837,570) (83,692,069) (81,662,069) (-175,501) (-2,030,000)
====================================================================================
Commodity Assistance Program:
Commodity supplemental food program........................ 211,482 221,298 221,298 +9,816 ...............
Farmers market nutrition program........................... 16,548 16,548 16,548 ............... ...............
Emergency food assistance program.......................... 49,401 49,401 49,401 ............... ...............
Pacific island and disaster assistance..................... 1,070 1,070 1,070 ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Commodity assistance program...................... 278,501 288,317 288,317 +9,816 ...............
Nutrition programs administration.............................. 150,824 155,564 151,824 +1,000 -3,740
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Food and Nutrition Service............................ 110,190,065 133,253,227 110,139,587 -50,478 -23,113,640
Fiscal Year 2016......................................... (110,190,065) (112,346,227) (110,139,587) (-50,478) (-2,206,640)
====================================================================================
Total, Title IV, Domestic Food Programs...................... 110,190,881 133,254,051 110,140,403 -50,478 -23,113,648
Fiscal Year 2016......................................... (110,190,065) (112,346,227) (110,139,587) (-50,478) (-2,206,640)
====================================================================================
TITLE V--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS
Foreign Agricultural Service
Salaries and expenses.............................................. 181,423 191,631 187,225 +5,802 -4,406
(Transfer from export loans)................................... (6,394) (6,394) (6,394) ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Salaries and expenses................................. 187,817 198,025 193,619 +5,802 -4,406
====================================================================================
Food for Peace Title I Direct Credit and Food for Progress Program
Account, Administrative expenses:
Farm Service Agency, Salaries and expenses (transfer to FSA)... 2,528 2,528 2,528 ............... ...............
Unobligated balances (rescission).............................. -13,000 ............... ............... +13,000 ...............
Food for Peace Title II Grants:
Expenses....................................................... 1,466,000 1,400,000 1,466,000 ............... +66,000
Commodity Credit Corporation Export Loans Program Account
(administrative expenses):
Salaries and expenses (Export Loans):
General Sales Manager (transfer to FAS).................... 6,394 6,394 6,394 ............... ...............
Farm Service Agency S&E; (transfer to FSA).................. 354 354 354 ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, CCC Export Loans Program Account.................. 6,748 6,748 6,748 ............... ...............
====================================================================================
McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition 191,626 191,626 201,626 +10,000 +10,000
program grants....................................................
Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement Program (Leg. proposal).... ............... 20,000 ............... ............... -20,000
====================================================================================
Total, Title V, Foreign Assistance and Related Programs...... 1,835,325 1,812,533 1,864,127 +28,802 +51,594
(By transfer)............................................ (6,394) (6,394) (6,394) ............... ...............
====================================================================================
TITLE VI--RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
Salaries and expenses, direct appropriation........................ 2,588,536 2,734,715 2,628,978 +40,442 -105,737
Prescription drug user fees.................................... (798,000) (826,072) (826,072) (+28,072) ...............
Medical device user fees....................................... (128,282) (134,475) (134,475) (+6,193) ...............
Human generic drug user fees................................... (312,116) (320,029) (320,029) (+7,913) ...............
Biosimilar biological products user fees....................... (21,014) (21,540) (21,540) (+526) ...............
Animal drug user fees.......................................... (22,464) (22,140) (22,140) (-324) ...............
Animal generic drug user fees.................................. (6,944) (7,429) (7,429) (+485) ...............
Tobacco product user fees...................................... (566,000) (599,000) (599,000) (+33,000) ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal (including user fees)............................... (4,443,356) (4,665,400) (4,559,663) (+116,307) (-105,737)
Mammography user fees.......................................... (19,705) (20,109) (20,109) (+404) ...............
Export and color certification user fees....................... (13,651) (13,835) (13,835) (+184) ...............
Food and Feed Recall user fees................................. (1,434) (1,434) (1,434) ............... ...............
Food Reinspection fees......................................... (6,414) (6,414) (6,414) ............... ...............
Voluntary qualified importer program fees...................... (5,300) (5,300) (5,300) ............... ...............
Pharmacy compounding fees (CBO estimate)....................... (1,000) ............... ............... (-1,000) ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, FDA (with user fees)............................... (4,490,860) (4,712,492) (4,606,755) (+115,895) (-105,737)
FDA New User Fees (Leg. proposals):
Export and color certification user fees cap increase (Leg. ............... (4,280) ............... ............... (-4,280)
proposal).................................................
Food Inspection and Facility Registration user fees........ ............... (60,120) ............... ............... (-60,120)
Food import user fees...................................... ............... (103,343) ............... ............... (-103,343)
International courier user fees............................ ............... (5,926) ............... ............... (-5,926)
Cosemetic user fees........................................ ............... (19,856) ............... ............... (-19,856)
Food contact substance notification user fees.............. ............... (5,098) ............... ............... (-5,098)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, FDA new user fees (Leg. Proposals)............. ............... (198,623) ............... ............... (-198,623)
Buildings and facilities........................................... 8,788 8,788 8,788 ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, FDA (w/user fees, including proposals)................ (4,499,648) (4,919,903) (4,615,543) (+115,895) (-304,360)
Total, FDA (w/enacted user fees only)........................ (4,499,648) (4,725,560) (4,615,543) (+115,895) (-110,017)
Total, FDA (excluding user fees)............................. 2,597,324 2,743,503 2,637,766 +40,442 -105,737
====================================================================================
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Farm Credit Administration (limitation on administrative expenses). (60,500) (69,400) (65,600) (+5,100) (-3,800)
====================================================================================
Total, Title VI, Related Agencies and Food and Drug 2,597,324 2,743,503 2,637,766 +40,442 -105,737
Administration..............................................
====================================================================================
TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Emergency livestock assistance program (rescission) (Sec. 709)..... -125,000 ............... ............... +125,000 ...............
Limit Dam Rehab (Sec. 714(1))...................................... -69,000 ............... -68,000 +1,000 -68,000
(rescission)................................................... ............... -69,000 ............... ............... +69,000
Limit Environmental Quality Incentives (Sec. 716(2))............... -136,000 ............... -191,000 -55,000 -191,000
Limit Environmental Quality Incentives Program fiscal year 2015 ............... -300,000 ............... ............... +300,000
(Sec. 1241(a)(5)(C))(Sec. 714(2)) (rescission)....................
Limit Environmental Quality Incentives Program fiscal year 2016 ............... -73,000 -73,000 -73,000 ...............
(Sec. 1241 (a)(5)(B)) (Sec. 714(2)) (rescission)..................
Limit Conservation Stewardship Program (Sec. 713(3))............... -7,000 -3,000 ............... +7,000 +3,000
Limit fruit and vegetable program (Sec. 714)....................... -122,000 -125,000 -125,000 -3,000 ...............
Section 32 (rescission) (Sec. 715)................................. -121,000 -292,000 -216,000 -95,000 +76,000
Limit Biomass Crop Assistance Program (Sec. 714(3))................ -2,000 ............... -20,000 -18,000 -20,000
Watershed Flood and Prevention Program (rescission) (Sec. 737)).... ............... -20,000 -20,000 -20,000 ...............
Water and waste cancellation (rescission ) (Sec. 738).............. ............... ............... -13,000 -13,000 -13,000
Limit Biorefinery Assistance (Sec. 717(7))......................... -16,000 ............... ............... +16,000 ...............
Geographic Disadvantaged farmers................................... 1,996 ............... 1,996 ............... +1,996
Hardwood Trees (Reforestation Pilot Program)....................... 600 ............... 600 ............... +600
Water Bank program................................................. 4,000 ............... 4,000 ............... +4,000
Repowering Assistance (rescission)................................. -8,000 ............... ............... +8,000 ...............
ARS Building and Facilities (rescission)........................... -2,000 ............... ............... +2,000 ...............
Freight Reimbursement (rescission)................................. -2,000 ............... ............... +2,000 ...............
Emergency Watershed Protection (disaster relief category).......... 78,581 ............... ............... -78,581 ...............
Emergency Forestry Restoration Program (disaster relief category).. 3,203 ............... ............... -3,203 ...............
Emergency Conservation Program (disaster relief category).......... 9,216 ............... ............... -9,216 ...............
====================================================================================
Total, Title VII, General Provisions......................... -512,404 -882,000 -719,404 -207,000 +162,596
====================================================================================
TITLE VIII--EBOLA RESPONSE AND PREPAREDNESS
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
Salaries and expenses, direct appropriation (emergency)............ 25,000 ............... ............... -25,000 ...............
====================================================================================
Total, Title VIII, Ebola Response and Preparedness 25,000 ............... ............... -25,000 ...............
(emergency).................................................
====================================================================================
Grand total.................................................. 147,845,470 167,966,280 144,111,103 -3,734,367 -23,855,177
Appropriations fiscal year 2015.......................... (148,179,470) (147,594,280) (144,542,103) (-3,637,367) (-3,052,177)
Emergency Appropriations................................. (25,000) ............... ............... (-25,000) ...............
Emergency appropriations................................. (25,000) ............... ............... (-25,000) ...............
Disaster relief.......................................... (91,000) ............... ............... (-91,000) ...............
Rescissions.............................................. (-450,000) (-535,000) (-431,000) (+19,000) (+104,000)
Advance appropriations, Fiscal Year 2016................... ............... (20,907,000) ............... ............... (-20,907,000)
(By transfer)................................................ (790,477) (798,638) (790,780) (+303) (-7,858)
(Loan authorization)......................................... (42,272,183) (42,737,362) (43,589,957) (+1,317,774) (+852,595)
(Limitation on administrative expenses)...................... (176,209) (190,382) (186,582) (+10,373) (-3,800)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[all]
