[House Report 114-205]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


114th Congress    }                                     {       Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session      }                                     {      114-205

======================================================================



 
   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2016

                                _______
                                

 July 14, 2015.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

          Mr. Aderholt, from the Committee on Appropriations, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 3049]

    The Committee on Appropriations submits the following 
report in explanation of the accompanying bill making 
appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for fiscal year 2016.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Title I--Agricultural Programs...................................     4
Title II--Conservation Programs..................................    42
Title III--Rural Development Programs............................    44
Title IV--Domestic Food Programs.................................    53
Title V--Foreign Assistance and Related Programs.................    61
Title VI--Related Agencies and Food and Drug Administration......    63
Title VII--General Provisions....................................    78

                                OVERVIEW

    The Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee has 
jurisdiction over the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 
except for the Forest Service, the Food and Drug Administration 
(FDA), the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), and the 
Farm Credit Administration (FCA). The Subcommittee's 
responsibility covers a vast and diverse group of agencies 
responsible for such things as promoting the production of a 
plentiful food supply; assisting farmers and ranchers across 
the country with sound production practices; improving the 
quality of life and vitality of communities in Rural America; 
assisting indigent populations in the U.S. and abroad with 
basic nutritional needs; research and development in 
agriculture to improve productivity and stability; overseeing 
commodity markets that provide confidence for businesses, 
traders, investors, and the public; and supporting a safe food 
supply and safe and effective drugs and devices. The activities 
of these agencies impact every American every day of the year.
    The fiscal year 2016 discretionary spending in this bill 
totals $20,650,000,000, which is $175,000,000 below the fiscal 
year 2015 enacted level and $1,135,697,000 below the 
President's budget request for fiscal year 2016.
    The funding levels provided in this appropriations bill 
continue to demonstrate how seriously this Committee takes its 
responsibility to fund the highest priority programs and 
activities while helping to address the Nation's debt, deficit, 
and economic challenges.
    The Committee does not include funding to begin new 
programs, terminates eight outdated programs, and, except where 
specifically noted, does not provide additional funding for pay 
increases. The Committee identifies savings of almost $1 
billion at USDA, saves on leasing costs at the CFTC, and reins 
in regulatory overreach at the FDA.

                         Oversight and Hearings

    Consistent with the Committee on Appropriations Oversight 
Plan, as approved and transmitted to the Committee on Oversight 
and Government Reform and the Committee on House Administration 
in January 2015, the Subcommittee began the fiscal year 2016 
process committed to maintaining the Committee's focus on 
comprehensive oversight of Federal discretionary spending under 
the Subcommittee's jurisdiction. In order to thoroughly review 
the President's budget request for fiscal year 2016 and examine 
how funds appropriated in previous years had been managed, the 
Subcommittee held 11 hearings for the mission areas, agencies, 
and programs of the USDA, the FDA, and the CFTC. The hearings 
included:
        Commodity Futures Trading Commission--February 11, 2015
        USDA Inspector General--February 13, 2015
        Secretary of Agriculture--February 25, 2015
        USDA Food Safety--February 26, 2015
        USDA Natural Resources and the Environment--February 
        27, 2015
        USDA Marketing and Regulatory Programs--March 3, 2015
        Food and Drug Administration--March 4, 2015
        USDA Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services--March 17, 
        2015
        USDA Rural Development--March 18, 2015
        USDA Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services--March 19, 
        2015
        USDA Research, Education, and Economics--March 24, 2015
    As stewards of the taxpayer's dollar, the Subcommittee is 
responsible for ensuring the funds under its jurisdiction are 
wisely invested and properly used. As such, the Subcommittee 
established three objectives to guide its hearings, oversight 
activities, and the development of its bill and report 
recommendations for fiscal year 2016. These objectives include 
improving the management of the agencies and programs within 
the Subcommittee's purview; targeting funds to the most 
important programs and functions; and promoting U.S. 
agriculture, free and fair markets, and safe food and 
medicines.
    Through its oversight activities, the Subcommittee can 
accomplish the goal of improving the management of the agencies 
and programs by identifying and reducing waste, fraud, and 
abuse. It is joined in this effort by USDA's Inspector General. 
During the hearing with the Office of the Inspector General 
(OIG), the Subcommittee focused on USDA information technology 
(IT) systems, improper payments, and how well USDA's agencies 
are managing their programs.
    The Subcommittee discussed implementation of the 2014 farm 
bill and international, in-kind food aid during its hearing 
with USDA's Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services mission 
area. The Subcommittee ensured that adequate time is given to 
the nation's farmers, producers, and ranchers to receive 
assistance and highlighted the current flexibility of food aid 
across the whole-of-government. There were further discussions 
on the challenges with the management of the Modernize and 
Innovate the Delivery of Agricultural Systems (MIDAS), which 
has been scrutinized by both OIG and the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO).
    During the hearing to review the USDA's Research, 
Education, and Economics mission area, important research 
projects and objectives were discussed. However, the 
Subcommittee also made clear its concerns with USDA's 
management of the Agricultural Research Service's (ARS) U.S. 
Meat Animal Research Center (MARC) in Clay Center, Nebraska.
    The second objective of targeting funds to the most 
important programs and functions was the focus of the hearings 
with the Secretary of Agriculture, the Commissioner of the FDA, 
the Chairman of the CFTC, and USDA's Food Safety mission area. 
When it convened to review CFTC's increased budget request, the 
Subcommittee questioned the need for a 188 percent increase 
since the Financial Crisis of 2008 and continued to rein in 
wasteful spending by requesting a full audit of the agency's 
excessive leasing costs identified by the CFTC Inspector 
General. The Subcommittee made clear that it does not tolerate 
fraud, waste, or abuse in any program, knowing that these 
actions undermine support for all programs. The Subcommittee 
also examined the CFTC's regulations regarding the Swap Dealer 
de Minimis level.
    The Subcommittee heard from USDA's Food, Nutrition, and 
Consumer Services mission area and reviewed implementation of 
school meal regulations as well as waste, fraud and abuse 
within nutrition programs. The Subcommittee also expressed 
concerns with the recommendations made by the 2015 Dietary 
Guidelines for Americans advisory committee. During review of 
the USDA's Rural Development (RD) mission area, the 
Subcommittee focused on rural housing, water and waste disposal 
programs, and other programs needed in rural areas.
    The third objective is to promote U.S. agriculture, free 
and fair markets, and safe food and medicines. During USDA's 
Marketing and Regulatory Programs hearing, the Subcommittee 
focused on trade issues related to domestic avian influenza, 
the West Coast port dispute, and Midwest railway backlogs. When 
the FDA Commissioner testified, the Subcommittee was 
particularly interested in how the FDA is implementing the Food 
Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) and ensuring medical product 
safety. The FDA regulates over 20 percent of every consumer 
dollar spent on products in the U.S. The Subcommittee reminded 
the FDA to be aware of the comprehensive economic impact of 
their regulatory decisions.
    Because the Subcommittee knows that it cannot fulfill all 
requests for funding, it focuses on those that are most 
effective, broadly supported, and address imminent threats. The 
Subcommittee will monitor the issues identified and discussed 
at the hearings, as well as others relevant to the management 
of USDA, FDA, CFTC, and FCA. The Subcommittee will maintain its 
oversight efforts throughout the 114th Congress to ensure 
taxpayer dollars are wisely and prudently used on behalf of the 
American people.

                                TITLE I


                         AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS


                 Production, Processing, and Marketing


                        Office of the Secretary


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................       $45,805,000
2016 budget estimate..................................        47,308,000
Provided in the bill..................................        39,379,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................        -6,426,000
    2016 budget estimate..............................        -7,929,000
 

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

                         OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
                         [Dollars in Thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Committee
                                          FY 2015    FY 2016
                                          enacted    estimate  provision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Secretary................     $5,051     $5,137     $5,051
Office of Tribal Relations.............        502        507        498
Office of Homeland Security and              1,496      1,520      1,496
 Emergency Coordination................
Office of Advocacy and Outreach........      1,209      1,228      1,209
Office of the Assistant Secretary for          804        816        804
 Administration........................
Departmental Administration............     25,124     25,688     22,786
Office of the Assistant Secretary for        3,869      3,934      3,064
 Congressional Relations...............
Office of Communications...............      7,750      8,228      4,471
                                        --------------------------------
      Total............................    $45,805    $47,308    $39,379
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Office of the Secretary, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $39,379,000. The Committee recommendation 
includes the following offices under the Office of the 
Secretary: Immediate Office of the Secretary; Office of Tribal 
Relations; Office of Homeland Security and Emergency 
Coordination; Office of Advocacy and Outreach; Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Administration; Departmental 
Administration; Office of the Assistant Secretary for 
Congressional Relations; and Office of Communications.
    Pay Cost.--The Committee does not include requested funding 
for a civilian pay increase across the Department. Should the 
President provide a civilian pay increase for 2016, it is 
assumed that the cost of such a pay increase will be absorbed 
within existing appropriations for fiscal year 2016.
    Improper Payments.--In May 2015, USDA's OIG released a 
report entitled ``USDA's Fiscal Year 2014 Compliance with 
Improper Payment Requirements''. The OIG noted that last year 
marked the fourth straight year the agency failed to comply 
with mandatory reporting requirements regarding improper 
payment information. For fiscal year 2014, USDA reported that 
these programs accounted for an estimated $6.9 billion in 
improper payments, or a 5.53 percent improper payment rate. 
This represents an increase in the improper payment rate and an 
increase of $700 million above the improper payments in fiscal 
year 2013. While there has been recent progress in some areas 
toward improving the Department's processes to identify, 
report, and reduce wasteful spending, this level of improper 
payment is clearly unacceptable. As the report notes, it is 
critical for the Office of the Chief Financial Officer and 
senior officials for each noncompliant agency to set aggressive 
goals to help USDA achieve compliance with the Improper 
Payments Information Act of 2002.
    In the fiscal year 2015 Explanatory Statement accompanying 
the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 
2015, the Committee required a report for the Department's 
Chief Financial Officer to develop a plan to significantly 
reduce USDA's improper payment rate in fiscal year 2015 and to 
release it simultaneously with the OIG's report on improper 
payments for fiscal year 2014. USDA failed to comply with this 
directive and is still accountable for the plan.
    Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) Report.--The Committee 
directs the Secretary to provide a report on November 15, 2015, 
and May 16, 2016, on planned uses of funding under the 
authorities of Section 4 and Section 11 of the Commodity Credit 
Corporation Charter Act.
    Avian Influenza.--The Committee appreciates the 
Department's response to the recent outbreak of highly 
pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) which is causing considerable 
devastation to America's commercial poultry industry. The 
Department has diligently worked with Federal and State 
agencies, stakeholders and growers to implement the best 
surveillance and biosecurity efforts to stop and slow the 
spread of the disease. The Committee recognizes the 
Department's efforts to assist growers in repopulating their 
flocks and strengthening biosecurity measures. The Department 
should utilize all resources necessary to expand technical 
assistance and outreach to the poultry community in order to 
prevent the spread of this virus. The Committee encourages the 
Department to continue their work with trading partners to 
minimize trade impacts on poultry and poultry products to the 
greatest extent possible. The Committee will continue to 
closely monitor the situation and directs USDA to keep the 
Committee apprised of future developments.
    Notification.--Within 30 days from the enactment of this 
Act, the Secretary shall notify the Committees on 
Appropriations of the House and Senate on the allocation of the 
funds provided to the Assistant Secretary for Congressional 
Relations by USDA agency, along with an explanation for the 
agency-by-agency distribution of the funds.
    State Office Collocation.--The Committee continues to 
direct that any reallocation of resources related to the 
collocation of state offices scheduled for fiscal year 2016 and 
subsequent years is subject to the Committee's reprogramming 
procedures required under law.
    Administrative Provision.--The Committee directs the 
Secretary to advise the Committees on Appropriations of the 
House and Senate, through the Office of Budget and Program 
Analysis (OBPA), of the status of all reports requested of the 
Department in this bill at the time of submission of the fiscal 
year 2017 budget and monthly thereafter. The Department needs 
to improve its timeliness in adhering to a similar requirement 
in the fiscal year 2015 House appropriations report. The 
Committee reminds the Secretary that all correspondence related 
to the directives in this bill must be addressed to the 
Committee on Appropriations.
    Loan and Grant Programs.--The Committee directs the 
Department, through OBPA, to provide quarterly reports to the 
Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate on the 
status of obligations and funds availability for the loan and 
grant programs provided in this bill.
    The Committee further directs that if an estimate of loan 
activity for any program funded in Titles I and III of this 
bill indicates that a limitation on authority to make 
commitments for a fiscal year will be reached before the end of 
that fiscal year, or in any event whenever 75 percent of the 
authority to make commitments has been utilized, the Secretary 
shall promptly notify the Committees through OBPA.
    Communication from USDA.--The Department is reminded that 
the Members of the Committee must be informed of the 
activities, pending and proposed actions, and expenditures made 
by USDA and its respective agencies so that Congress can 
determine whether laws and programs are being implemented and 
carried out in accordance with the intent of Congress. A 
collaborative working relationship between the Committees and 
agencies is necessary to ensure efficient and effective 
implementation of Congress's funding decisions. USDA is 
directed to ensure the Committees are notified of major changes 
to existing policies and any significant developments in its 
operations prior to providing non-governmental stakeholders 
such information.
    The Committee is dissatisfied with the Department's 
response to the allegations of animal mistreatment at the ARS 
MARC facility in Clay Center, Nebraska. The agency has been 
delinquent in meeting deadlines and slow to provide necessary 
information. The Department must improve their communication, 
and the Committee expects the Department to provide information 
and requested materials in a timely manner.
    Decentralized Rent and Homeland Security.--In fiscal year 
2015, the Committee provided the Department with authority to 
decentralize rent from the General Services Agency (GSA) and 
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The Secretary 
submitted this request ``as part of USDA's implementation of 
the President's `Freeze the Federal Footprint' initiative'' to 
encourage efficiencies across the Department at individual 
agencies. On the contrary, USDA did not freeze, but expanded 
its footprint by approximately 141,000 square feet. Meanwhile, 
the Secretary has claimed savings of $25.2 million, while there 
will be a projected increase of $7.5 million since fiscal year 
2014.
    The Secretary is directed to find actual savings within the 
total estimated costs for fiscal year 2016, in accordance with 
the President's new ``Reduce the Federal Footprint'' 
initiative. If USDA does not find ways to reduce its physical 
footprint or the cost of its existing footprint, such increased 
costs will need to be absorbed by the agency at the detriment 
of the core missions of these agencies. Further, the Committee 
in fiscal year 2015 directed that ``any future requests for 
increases to rent and security costs will need to be 
accompanied by detailed justifications.'' USDA has not provided 
such justification. The following table shows the increased 
costs, with the most recently available data as provided by 
USDA:

                         [Dollars in Thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  GSA Rent
                     Year                         and DHS       Change
                                                   Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014..........................................     $215,767       $- - -
2016..........................................      215,145         -622
2016..........................................      223,261       +8,116
                                               -------------------------
      Total...................................  ...........      +$7,494
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FSMA Implementation and Interagency Coordination.--The 
Committee provides the full amount requested in the fiscal year 
2016 budget of $2.5 million for the National Institute for Food 
and Agriculture (NIFA). This increase of $2.5 million doubles 
the amount available for Food Safety Outreach for NIFA to be 
the sole agency providing education and technical assistance 
for farmers in implementing new requirements resulting from 
FSMA. The Committee commends NIFA's extension programs for the 
relationships they have built with our nation's producers and 
hopes that they will continue to build this trust through FSMA 
implementation. However, USDA must clearly communicate their 
lead role in the collaborative partnership with the FDA to 
administer and manage the National Food Safety Training, 
Education, Extension, Outreach, and Technical Assistance 
Program. The Secretary is directed to work with the 
Commissioner of the FDA to ensure that there is no duplication 
of efforts and resources for FSMA education and training at the 
farm level.
    Design-Build.--The Committee encourages the Department to 
use the design-build method of project delivery when 
appropriate.
    Invasive Species.--The Committee recognizes the threats 
posed by invasive plant species and the need to protect, 
restore, and enhance native plants, including those that are 
endangered or threatened. The Committee encourages ARS, the 
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and NIFA to 
support the research, education, and conservation of native 
plants.
    Flexibility in Loan and Loan Guarantee Levels.--The bill 
includes language to exceed by up to 25 percent the limitation 
on loan and loan guarantee levels without budget authority upon 
written notification to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
House and Senate.
    Scientific Integrity.--Pursuant to the President's 2009 
memorandum and as directed by the Office of Science and 
Technology Policy, USDA adopted a scientific integrity policy 
in 2011. It appears to conform to the President's directive by 
requiring the use of information based upon well-established 
scientific processes, including peer review where appropriate, 
making the Department's scientific findings and conclusions 
publicly available, and ensuring a mechanism is in place to 
resolve disputes regarding scientific processes or the 
integrity of scientific information. The Committee directs the 
Secretary to ensure all USDA agencies are complying with the 
policy and using it as a requirement in their policy and 
regulatory decisions.
    Rural Poverty.--The Department has statutory authorities 
and programs designed to help break the multi-generational trap 
of poverty in rural counties. The Committee recognizes that 
USDA may utilize existing programs and funding within RD and 
the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) in order to assist 
families, create jobs and develop a path towards independence 
and self-sufficiency. Other existing resources such as the 
extension service and public universities can be used for 
coordination and outreach activities. The Committee directs the 
Secretary to provide a detailed plan including all funding 
resources if the Secretary chooses to bundle services to combat 
rural poverty. Before the plan can be implemented, the 
Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate shall have 
no less than 30 days to review and approve the plan.
    StrikeForce Initiative.--The Committee appreciates the 
Department's efforts to target assistance to at-risk 
communities through the StrikeForce Initiative for Rural Growth 
and Opportunity. USDA, in collaboration with public and private 
partners, helps rural counties experiencing chronic poverty 
improve economic opportunities and quality of life for local 
residents. The Committee encourages USDA to place special 
emphasis on persistent poverty counties and continue to utilize 
a strategy of partnering public resources with local expertise 
to grow rural economies and create jobs in these poverty-
stricken areas.
    Infrastructure Plan.--The United States has experienced 
record levels of agricultural exports for the past few years, 
and there is support for expanding trade opportunities. 
However, increasing trade without consideration for the 
domestic infrastructure to adequately support it is short-
sighted. The Midwest rail situation and disruptions at the West 
Coast ports are prime examples of the fact that USDA is 
reacting to the domestic and international commerce 
circumstances instead of having a proactive plan in place. 
Having the commodities available but not being able to deliver 
them will jeopardize the U.S.'s ability to remain a reliable 
trading partner. The Committee directs the Secretary to submit 
a long-term infrastructure plan that benefits American 
producers and provides examples of how USDA is working with 
other Federal agencies to prevent future transportation 
mishaps.
    Dietary Guidelines for Americans.--The Secretary, in 
coordination with the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
(HHS), is responsible for issuing the Dietary Guidelines for 
Americans every five years. This has traditionally been a 
science-based process that provides diet and nutrition 
recommendations according to statutory authority. However, the 
advisory committee selected to provide recommendations for 
consideration as the final 2015 guidelines has included 
suggestions beyond the historical scope of the panel, resulting 
in controversial, agenda-driven recommendations.
    The guidelines have a far-reaching impact as they set the 
standards for many Federal nutrition programs, guide the health 
and medical community in assisting patients, and provide the 
foundation for nutrition education information. The guidelines 
influence consumer purchases and have a ripple effect 
throughout the economy and on consumer health. It is imperative 
that the guidelines be unequivocally based upon strong 
scientific evidence.
    The Committee appreciates the Secretary acknowledging that 
the advisory committee had more latitude to consider topics 
outside of the statutory mandate, and recognizes the 
Secretary's commitment to follow the law. To preserve the 
scientific integrity of the dietary guidelines, bill language 
is included to provide transparency to the process and ensure 
the final recommendations are based upon strong scientific 
evidence and within scope. The Committee notes that the 
advisory committee report is merely a set of recommendations 
and reminds both USDA and HHS that the final 2015 Dietary 
Guidelines for Americans are a product of their scientific 
assessment that must comply with the statute.
    Information Technology Waste.--GAO and USDA's OIG have 
issued reports that highlight poor program performance in the 
past and uncertainty regarding USDA's capacity to effectively 
manage IT acquisitions in the future. Auditors found that the 
Secretary halted further development on the MIDAS program after 
spending almost $500 million for nearly a decade on planning 
and development of this critical system. This investment of 
time and limited resources has resulted in the delivery of 
about one-fifth of the functionality intended for twice the 
projected cost. While the Secretary has highlighted saving 
hundreds of millions of dollars on IT, the Committee notes that 
MIDAS is a prime example of government waste and inefficiency. 
MIDAS is still expected to cost another $330 million over the 
lifecycle of the project, yet the system will have severely 
reduced capacity. The total cost will equal almost three times 
the original projections.
    GAO noted that problems with MIDAS were due to the lack of 
implementation of USDA and Farm Service Agency (FSA) program 
management policies and best practices covering key disciplines 
such as requirements for development and management, project 
planning and monitoring, system testing, and executive-level 
governance. Following project stoppage, the Department has been 
exploring other options--at an additional cost to taxpayers and 
time spent on these modernization efforts--to provide the 
functionality that USDA had promised Congress and the 
agricultural community, including a modernized acreage 
reporting system and an online office for American farmers and 
ranchers to access. Given the lack of IT leadership 
demonstrated by the Secretary on the MIDAS investment, the 
Committee remains concerned as to whether the Department will 
be any more successful with IT acquisition activities moving 
forward than it was in the past with MIDAS. The Committee 
includes statutory language that places spending controls on 
both MIDAS and other IT acquisitions.
    Unachieved Savings.--On April 9, 2015, USDA's OIG informed 
Congress of ``480 open or unimplemented recommendations 
totaling over $885 million''. This included 39 open 
recommendations and 441 unimplemented audit recommendations. 
The top three recommendations OIG identified were the 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program's (SNAP) controls for 
authorization of program retailers, USDA Cloud Computing 
Services, and the Risk Management Agency's (RMA) controls over 
prevented planting. Many of these recommendations date back as 
far as 2001. The Committee finds it counterproductive to the 
Secretary's effort to reduce costs when these items are still 
pending. The Committee directs the Secretary to develop a plan 
of action to address them, by priority, within 120 days of 
enactment of this Act and provide the plan to the Committees on 
Appropriations of the House and Senate.
    Administrative Savings.--The Secretary recently announced 
that USDA has achieved $1.4 billion in savings through the 
Blueprint for Stronger Service initiative. The Committee 
acknowledges that the Department has taken positive steps to 
cut costs and modernize operations, but USDA must also 
acknowledge that a majority of cost savings were made necessary 
by funding limitations instituted by Congress and at the 
direction from Congress. The Committee has repeatedly 
encouraged USDA to reduce administrative spending and find 
efficiencies through improved management of personnel and other 
resources. The Committee has also directed the Secretary to 
look beyond administrative costs and address improper payments 
and waste, fraud and abuse that occurs Department-wide. All of 
these measures have and will continue to result in significant 
savings to the taxpayer. While USDA's achievement of $1.4 
billion in savings is to be commended, the Committee directs 
the Secretary to provide a detailed report describing each of 
the specific cost savings and the actions taken to achieve such 
savings for each agency in order to arrive at the estimated 
total.
    Late Reports.--The Committee reminds the Secretary that the 
timelines specified by the Committees on Appropriations of the 
House and Senate for fiscal year 2015 reports are deadlines 
that must be met. While the Committee notes that the Department 
has made progress since 2014, the Department still has several 
outstanding reports that are delayed due to long reviews and 
clearances, especially in the Immediate Office of the 
Secretary. The Committee directs the Secretary to submit these 
overdue reports.
    Food Safety Outreach.--The Committee is aware that for 
fiscal year 2015, the FDA and USDA are soliciting proposals for 
the establishment of one national and four regional food safety 
training centers. The Committee encourages the Secretary to 
ensure that funds are used efficiently to deliver education and 
technical training to producers in cooperation with 
nongovernmental and community-based organizations serving small 
and mid-sized farmers, producers, and processors, and other 
federal food safety agencies, as authorized in the FSMA.
    Urban Agriculture.--The Committee acknowledges the need for 
an expanded USDA role in support of urban agriculture, in 
American cities. Support from the Department is lacking for 
urban producers who often have different needs than rural 
producers. Therefore, the Committee directs USDA to evaluate 
policies and programs and deliver a report to the Committees on 
Appropriations of the House and Senate explaining how to 
further advance urban agriculture.
    CCC Payments to Growers.--The Committee directs the 
Secretary to provide, not later than 120 days after the date of 
the enactment of the bill to which this Committee Report 
pertains, a report on the amount of emergency funds that are 
transferred from the CCC to poultry owners and contract 
growers, respectively, to address outbreaks of HPAI.
    U.S.-Mexico Cooperation.-- The Committee directs the 
Secretary of Agriculture to work with his Mexican counterpart 
to develop a U.S.-Mexico working group to increase cooperation 
between the two countries in a similar manner as the ``Beyond 
the Borders Initiative'' between the United States and Canada. 
The working group shall develop proposals and create potential 
solutions aimed at facilitating commerce through improvements 
in the efficiency of the inspection process on both sides of 
the border, integrating small and large producers into the 
trade supply chain, and improving border wait times and 
transportation costs, among others.
    Institute of Medicine (IOM) Study.--The Committee strongly 
urges the Secretary of Agriculture to engage the IOM to conduct 
a study on the process supporting the recommendations of the 
eighth edition of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA). 
The study should include, but not be limited to, an analysis of 
the following: how the DGA can ensure a nutritionally 
sufficient diet for all Americans; how transparency of the 
committee selection process can be improved; how the Nutrition 
Evidence Library (NEL) is used and how NEL reviews are 
conducted; what the evidence base was for the eighth edition 
recommendations; and how the DGA can ensure proper nutrition 
advice for a range of individual factors including metabolic, 
and other disease conditions.

                          Executive Operations


                     OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ECONOMIST

 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................       $17,377,000
2016 budget estimate..................................        17,465,000
Provided in the bill..................................        16,777,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................          -600,000
    2016 budget estimate..............................          -688,000
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Office of the Chief Economist (OCE), the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $16,777,000.
    Drought Resilience.--The Committee is concerned about the 
extent and severity of drought in the U.S. and recognizes the 
importance of understanding and being prepared for drought. The 
Committee encourages the OCE to continue research and work with 
partners on drought resilience efforts to better address the 
serious threat posed by drought in the U.S., including in the 
U.S. territory of Puerto Rico.
    Policy Research.--The Committee includes $4,000,000 for 
policy research under 7 U.S.C. 3155 for entities with existing 
institutional capacity, including staff, databases, models, and 
long-term, well-documented experience, to conduct complex 
economic and baseline analysis for the benefit of USDA, the 
Congressional Budget Office, and the Congress.
    Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign Affairs.--The 
Committee continues to support the establishment of a new Under 
Secretary for Trade and Foreign Affairs required by Public Law 
113-79. The Committee urges the OCE to work in coordination 
with the National Academy of Public Affairs (NAPA) to complete 
the independent study commissioned by the Committee. The 
Committee also directs the Secretary to complete the study on 
this topic required in Section 3208(b)(4) of Public Law 113-79. 
The study required by the 2014 farm bill of the Secretary is 
almost a year overdue. The Committee notes that the study being 
performed by NAPA does not satisfy that required by the 
Secretary.
    Food Manufacturing Efficiencies.--The Committee is aware of 
the potential for many new and promising food manufacturing 
processes and technologies. The nation's food supply can be 
made safer, more secure, better and more affordable through 
such means as automation of equipment and modifying processes 
along the entire supply chain to work more efficiently and use 
less water, energy and other resources. The Committee urges the 
Department to promote enhanced technology, processes, and data 
analysis throughout the food manufacturing industry.

                       NATIONAL APPEALS DIVISION

 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................       $13,317,000
2016 budget estimate..................................        13,566,000
Provided in the bill..................................        12,841,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................          -476,000
    2016 budget estimate..............................          -725,000
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the National Appeals Division, the Committee provides 
an appropriation of $12,841,000.

                 OFFICE OF BUDGET AND PROGRAM ANALYSIS

 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................        $9,392,000
2016 budget estimate..................................         9,500,000
Provided in the bill..................................         9,081,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................          -311,000
    2016 budget estimate..............................          -419,000
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Office of Budget and Program Analysis, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $9,081,000.

                Office of the Chief Information Officer


 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................       $45,045,000
2016 budget estimate..................................        53,071,000
Provided in the bill..................................        44,031,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................        -1,014,000
    2016 budget estimate..............................        -9,040,000
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Office of the Chief Information Officer (CIO), the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $44,031,000. This 
includes $27,000,000 for cybersecurity activities.
    IT Purchases and Oversight.--The Committee directs the CIO 
to comply with the spirit and letter of the Federal Information 
Technology Acquisition Reform Act and incorporate its 
principles into future planning and current oversight of IT 
activities across the Department and the performance plan 
required in H. Rpt. 113-468. The Committee notes the CIO has 
not submitted the performance plan and directs the CIO to do so 
before the end of fiscal year 2015.

                 Office of the Chief Financial Officer


 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................        $6,028,000
2016 budget estimate..................................         9,154,000
Provided in the bill..................................         6,028,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................             - - -
    2016 budget estimate..............................        -3,126,000
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (CFO), the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $6,028,000.
    GSA Rent and DHS Costs.--The estimates provided for rent 
and DHS costs vary greatly due to several factors. The amounts 
provided for fiscal year 2015 in the fall of 2014 and the 
summer of 2015 vary by $24 million. Some of these factors are 
within the CFO's control. The CFO is directed to establish a 
uniform estimate of charges for both appropriated and non-
appropriated accounts and provide accurate estimates to the 
Committee for the current and future fiscal years.
    Digital Accountability and Transparency Act (DATA).--The 
Committee supports the work of the CFO to bring the Department 
into compliance with the DATA.
    Shared Costs Report.--While the Committee notes the 
Department did not find any increased costs in its Shared Costs 
Programs per the report required by the 2015 Appropriations 
Act, the Department also did not identify any savings. The 
Committee continues to direct the production of the report 
required in Public Law 113-235 and directs the agency to 
identify areas of savings and efficiencies.

           Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights


 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................          $898,000
2016 budget estimate..................................           907,000
Provided in the bill..................................           893,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................            -5,000
    2016 budget estimate..............................           -14,000
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 
the Committee provides an appropriation of $893,000.

                         Office of Civil Rights


 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................       $24,070,000
2016 budget estimate..................................        24,443,000
Provided in the bill..................................        23,871,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................          -199,000
    2016 budget estimate..............................          -572,000
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

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

                  Agriculture Buildings and Facilities


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................       $55,866,000
2016 budget estimate..................................       125,469,000
Provided in the bill..................................        54,730,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................        -1,136,000
    2016 budget estimate..............................       -70,739,000
 

    For Agriculture Buildings and Facilities, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $54,730,000.
    Report on Headquarters Modernization.--The Committee 
directs the Department to provide the report required in H. 
Rpt. 113-468.

                     Hazardous Materials Management


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................        $3,600,000
2016 budget estimate..................................         3,630,000
Provided in the bill..................................         3,600,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................             - - -
    2016 budget estimate..............................           -30,000
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For Hazardous Materials Management, the Committee provides 
an appropriation of $3,600,000.

                      Office of Inspector General


 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................       $95,026,000
2016 budget estimate..................................        98,902,000
Provided in the bill..................................        95,643,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................          +617,000
    2016 budget estimate..............................        -3,259,000
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Office of Inspector General, the Committee provides 
an appropriation of $95,643,000. This includes requested 
funding to support the Council of the Inspectors General on 
Integrity and Efficiency.

                     Office of the General Counsel


 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................       $44,383,000
2016 budget estimate..................................        48,075,000
Provided in the bill..................................        43,313,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................        -1,070,000
    2016 budget estimate..............................        -4,762,000
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

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

                            Office of Ethics


 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................        $3,654,000
2016 budget estimate..................................         4,565,000
Provided in the bill..................................         3,440,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................          -214,000
    2016 budget estimate..............................        -1,125,000
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

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

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


 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................          $898,000
2016 budget estimate..................................           907,000
Provided in the bill..................................           893,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................            -5,000
    2016 budget estimate..............................           -14,000
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Research, 
Education, and Economics, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $893,000.
    Administrative Reorganization.--The Committee does not 
concur with the agency's proposal to combine NIFA Research and 
Education Activities, Extension Activities, and Integrated 
Activities into one account. While the Committee supports 
greater efficiency in the management of limited federal 
research dollars, the proposal fails to demonstrate that such 
reorganization would result in significant savings or the 
improvement of programs offered through NIFA.
    Coffee Plant Health.--The Committee appreciates ARS and 
NIFA's work to address existing and emerging challenges to 
coffee production in the United States and commends the 
agency's work with research partners and coffee grower groups. 
The Committee encourages ARS, NIFA, and its partners to 
maintain support for coffee plant health research.
    Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs).--This 
year marks the 125th Anniversary of the signing of the Second 
Morrill Act of 1890, which provided land-grant status to 
selected HBCUs. For over 125 years, these HBCUs have had a 
long-standing tradition of institutional commitment to 
excellence in teaching, scholarship, and service. The legacy of 
these land-grant universities will be further strengthened 
based on current and future investments and on the quality of 
research and graduates produced in the fields of agriculture, 
STEM, and related academic areas. These schools are to be 
applauded for the significant contributions they have made to 
our nation.
    However, the Committee is concerned regarding the financial 
challenges the schools continue to face, particularly, the lack 
of state matching funds and other resources. The Department is 
directed to develop and submit a plan of action to the 
Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate not later 
than 180 days after enactment of this Act to cooperatively work 
with the states to meet the matching grant requirements for 
research and extension activities.
    National Nutrition Research Roadmap.--The Committee notes 
that the Interagency Committee on Human Nutrition Research 
(ICHNR) is requesting public input on the draft National 
Nutrition Research Roadmap 2015-2020: Advancing Nutrition 
Research to Improve and Sustain Health. The ICHNR includes 
representatives from across all Federal agencies and recognized 
the need for a written plan to coordinate Federal human 
nutrition research activities. As the roadmap is finalized and 
implemented, it is critical that all research be conducted with 
a balanced approach and be free from bias. Furthermore, there 
must be coordination amongst all Federal agencies to prevent 
duplication of efforts and resources. The Secretary must ensure 
that there is greater coordination of nutrition research within 
USDA to include short- and long-term outcome measures; 
establishment of milestones to measure short and long-term 
success; alignment of resources with milestones and goals; an 
open and competitive process in the award of contracts, grants, 
and awards; and a clearer path between the application of data 
and knowledge gained by such research to the applicable 
audiences.
    Within the REE mission area alone, USDA estimates spending 
approximately $204 million in fiscal year 2015 on human 
nutrition research. Billions of dollars have been spent on 
human nutrition research government-wide in recent years, yet 
the impact and results are questionable since obesity rates 
remain high. The Committee expects the ICHNR to include 
research that will help Americans make positive lifestyle 
changes and reduce obesity rates.
    The Committee is also aware that FNS conducts research and 
evaluation projects without full coordination with the REE 
mission area. Bill and report language have been included to 
bring more oversight to FNS' work in these areas and ensure the 
REE mission area is engaged in this process. FNS projects will 
likely have less duplication and greater cost effectiveness and 
efficiency by working with the REE mission area to develop and 
finalize the FNS Research and Evaluation Plan submitted each 
fiscal year.
    Office of Pest Management Policy.--The Committee commends 
the Office of Pest Management Policy for its work providing the 
Department, other Federal agencies, producers, and other 
interested stakeholders scientifically sound analysis of pest 
management issues important to agriculture, especially methyl 
bromide transition, pesticide resistance management, and the 
development of antimicrobials to combat citrus greening. The 
Committee encourages the Under Secretary to better utilize this 
office and directs ARS to continue to support its vital work.
    Pollinators and Colony Health Research.--The Committee 
recognizes that Colony Collapse Disorder and related colony 
health issues are a significant concern to beekeepers, honey 
producers, farmers, researchers, policymakers, and the public 
and appreciates USDA's logical, scientifically based approach 
to studying these issues. The Committee directs the Department 
to continue to focus on the challenges facing pollinators.
    Potato Research.--The Committee supports research efforts 
to combat crop-threatening pest and disease pressures including 
the potato cyst nematode. The Committee also recognizes the 
importance of research initiatives to improve and identify 
desired traits for new potato varieties and directs the 
Department to continue working with universities, industry and 
potato growers on these projects.

                       Economic Research Service


 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................       $85,373,000
2016 budget estimate..................................        86,023,000
Provided in the bill..................................        78,058,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................        -7,315,000
    2016 budget estimate..............................        -7,965,000
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Economic Research Service, the Committee provides 
an appropriation of $78,058,000.

                National Agricultural Statistics Service


 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................      $172,408,000
2016 budget estimate..................................       180,346,000
Provided in the bill..................................       161,206,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................       -11,202,000
    2016 budget estimate..............................       -19,140,000
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $161,206,000, of which 
$44,525,000 is for the Census of Agriculture.

                     Agricultural Research Service


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................    $1,132,625,000
2016 budget estimate..................................     1,191,540,000
Provided in the bill..................................     1,122,454,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................       -10,171,000
    2016 budget estimate..............................       -69,086,000
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For Salaries and Expenses of the Agricultural Research 
Service, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$1,122,454,000.
    The Committee does not concur with the agency's proposed 
closures, redirections of research programs, or increases for 
fiscal year 2016.
    Animal Research.--The Committee was disturbed to read the 
January 19, 2015, New York Times article titled ``U.S. Research 
Lab Lets Livestock Suffer in Quest for Profit'' about MARC in 
Clay Center, Nebraska. The article made numerous allegations 
about the treatment of animals at MARC and described how the 
staff at MARC was not following ARS policies and procedures 
regarding the care of animals used in research.
    The Committee understands that more information is needed 
to fully assess the details of the specific instances mentioned 
in the article. It also believes that ARS scientists sincerely 
care about the animals they work with. However, the Committee 
continues to be deeply disappointed in the Department's 
response and must take action to ensure the welfare of all 
animals used in research at ARS facilities. The Committee 
recognizes the need for and value of animal research, but it 
demands that all animals will be treated humanely, no type of 
abuse or mistreatment will be tolerated, and that the risk of 
premature death will be limited wherever possible.
    As such, the Committee includes bill language to withhold 5 
percent ($56,123,000) of ARS' appropriations for fiscal year 
2016 until the Department certifies in writing to the 
Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate that ARS 
has updated its animal care policies and all ARS research 
facilities which conduct animal research have fully 
functioning, including all appropriate and necessary record-
keeping, Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUC) 
in place.
    The Committee directs ARS to execute an agreement with 
APHIS within 90 days of enactment of this Act by which APHIS 
will conduct inspections that are consistent with the Animal 
Welfare Act at each ARS research facility that uses animals in 
research. Inspection reports shall be provided to the 
Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate 
immediately after they are completed. The Committee provides 
funding within the APHIS budget to cover the costs anticipated 
with this new responsibility. The Committee further directs the 
Department to provide a report at the same time it submits its 
fiscal year 2017 budget request regarding implementation of 
this directive and the findings of the APHIS inspections.
    In addition, the Committee is very concerned that the 
failure by USDA to ensure that MARC had a functioning IACUC 
indicates that there was a total lapse in management at every 
level. Instead of addressing that failure, the department's 
response appears to be to add new staff to do work that should 
have been done by existing staff.
    The Committee directs ARS to conduct a full review of the 
easy care sheep research project currently underway at MARC. 
ARS should engage all stakeholders, including producers, 
industry and animal welfare experts. The Committee requests 
that ARS begin the review as soon as possible, but no later 
than August 1, 2015, and directs the agency to submit a report 
about the review by February 1, 2016. It should include the 
status of the existing project and any concerns, commendations 
and recommendations regarding the projects and the agency's 
actions.
    Given the size and scope of MARC and the number of animals 
used in research at the location, the Committee directs ARS to 
consider hiring a second attending veterinarian for the Center. 
ARS should use existing resources to cover the cost of this 
position.
    The Committee requests a detailed report on all of the 
actions taken by ARS to respond to the allegations in the 
article, including actions taken to correct any deficiencies or 
improve current policies and procedures. This report should be 
submitted to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and 
Senate, by October 1, 2015.
    Aerial Application Research.--The Committee recognizes the 
importance of the ARS Aerial Application Technology Program. 
The program conducts innovative research making aerial 
applications more efficient, effective, and precise. Research 
for aerial application serves the public good as a vital tool 
for the future, as agriculture strives to meet the food, fiber, 
and bio-energy demands of a growing population.
    Alfalfa Research.--The Committee supports research into 
alfalfa seed and forage systems which hold the potential to 
increase yields and milk production and improve genetics.
    Aquatic Animal Health.--The Committee supports ARS' work 
with land-grant universities and other Federal partners to 
develop solutions to aquatic animal pathogens including 
Aeromonas in catfish and viral hemorrhagic septicemia in 
finfish. ARS is encouraged to collaborate with industry 
stakeholders on the development of potential vaccines and 
therapeutants.
    Citrus Greening Disease Research.--The Committee commends 
ARS' research efforts on citrus greening disease and encourages 
the agency to continue working to develop methods to reduce 
transmission and enhance immunity in citrus trees and to work 
with industry, universities, growers, and other partners to 
develop effective control mechanisms. The Committee also 
encourages ARS to coordinate its efforts with the Multi-Agency 
Coordination group.
    Co-Location of Researchers.--The Committee encourages ARS 
to develop a plan to maximize its investments in plant science 
facilities and research by taking advantage of the synergies 
and efficiencies realized through the co-location of USDA 
researchers in state-of-the-art facilities with university and 
other stakeholders.
    Cranberry Research.--The Committee recognizes the ongoing 
research needs of the cranberry sector, ranging from disease 
control to pesticide use to responsible management of water 
resources. The Committee urges ARS to continue these efforts.
    Domestic and Bighorn Sheep.--The Committee recognizes the 
challenges caused by infectious disease problems arising from 
wildlife-domestic animal agriculture interactions, particularly 
between domestic sheep and wild bighorn sheep. The Committee 
encourages ARS to work to determine the role of domestic sheep 
in causing die-offs of bighorn sheep from respiratory disease 
and develop methods to reduce transmission and enhance 
immunity.
    Emerging Cereal Rust Diseases.--The Committee continues to 
be concerned about emerging cereal rust diseases, particularly 
Ug99, and the threat they pose to domestic and world food 
supplies. The Committee encourages ARS to continue its work on 
these diseases, including the development of Ug99-resistant 
wheat varieties.
    Forest Products Research.--The forest products sector is an 
important part of the U.S. economy. The Committee supports 
research on wood quality, forest product evaluation standards 
and valuation techniques, developing pest and disease-resistant 
trees, and ARS' continuing work with the Forest Products 
Laboratory.
    FOV Race 4 Cotton Research.--The Committee recognizes the 
serious threat that fusarium oxysporum f. sp. Vasinfectum 
(FOV), particularly the strain FOV Race 4, poses to the U.S. 
cotton industry. The Committee encourages ARS to continue 
research efforts to combat FOV Race 4 and to work with industry 
and other partners to develop effective control measures to 
eradicate this disease and prevent its spread nationwide.
    Germplasm Enhancement of Maize.--The Committee supports the 
germplasm enhancement of maize project and encourages continued 
cooperation between ARS and industry.
    Horticultural Research and Education.--The Committee 
recognizes the importance of the U.S. National Arboretum and 
its role as a center of discovery and education, as well as a 
destination for more than half a million visitors every year. 
The Committee encourages the agency to continue to support the 
Arboretum.
    Human Nutrition Research.--There is strong evidence that 
nutrition plays a vital role in maintaining health throughout 
the lifespan and preventing obesity and chronic diseases. The 
Committee encourages ARS to continue research relating to 
obesity prevention strategies and the effect of nutrition on 
aging.
    Lower Mississippi River Basin.--The Committee recognizes 
the groundwater problems in the Lower Mississippi River Basin 
and encourages ARS to continue research to quantify how 
appropriate use of conservation practices and technology affect 
water quality and quantity.
    National Agricultural Library.--The Committee requests that 
ARS maintain a focus on agriculture-related legal issues within 
the National Agricultural Library. The Committee recognizes 
agriculture-related legal issues are being litigated on an 
increasingly frequent basis, the complexity and scope of these 
legal issues continues to broaden, and that the National 
Agricultural Library plays an important role in assisting all 
stakeholders with understanding these issues.
    Porcine Virus Research.--The Committee is aware of ongoing 
research to identify mechanisms of viral pathogenesis, 
transmission, and immunity to porcine epidemic diarrhea virus 
(PEDv) and encourages ARS to continue its efforts to identify 
the genetic virulence factors of PEDv, identify a protective 
immune response including transmission of maternal antibodies 
through the milk, and evaluate new vaccine platforms for the 
development of improved PEDv vaccines.
    Pulse Health Initiative.--The Committee is aware of the 
need to investigate the ability of pulse crops, such as dry 
beans, dry peas, lentils, and chickpeas, to provide solutions 
to critical health issues and to improve the sustainability of 
crop rotations by improving the nitrogen-fixing abilities of 
pulse crops. The Committee encourages ARS to continue its work 
on these important issues.
    Sage Grouse.--The Committee is aware that listing the 
greater sage grouse as endangered under the Endangered Species 
Act has the potential to negatively affect rural communities in 
the 11 states that have sage brush ecosystems. The Committee 
encourages ARS to work with its partners on sage brush and 
related rangeland research that will help preserve the greater 
sage grouse and the other species that rely on the sage brush 
ecosystem.
    Sclerotinia Initiative.--The Committee is aware of the 
importance of controlling Sclerotinia in sunflowers, soybeans, 
canola, edible beans, peanuts, peas, lentils, and chickpeas and 
encourages ARS to continue its support of this initiative.
    Small Grain Genomics.--The Committee supports research on 
small grain genomics and recognizes its importance in improving 
crop traits and developing new cultivars.
    U.S. Sheep Experiment Station (USSES).--The USSES provides 
valuable information to increase the production efficiency of 
sheep, improve sustainable rangeland ecosystems and expand 
other research initiatives. The Committee encourages ARS to 
work with stakeholders regarding efforts to propose mission 
improvements for the experiment station.
    U.S. Wheat and Barley Scab.--The Committee recognizes the 
fusarium head blight is a major threat to agriculture, 
inflicting substantial yield and quality losses throughout the 
U.S. The Committee supports research carried out through the 
U.S. Wheat and Barley Scab Initiative.

                        BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................       $45,000,000
2016 budget estimate..................................       205,901,000
Provided in the bill..................................        45,000,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................             - - -
    2016 budget estimate..............................      -160,901,000
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For Agricultural Research Service, Buildings and 
Facilities, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$45,000,000 for priorities identified in the USDA ARS Capital 
Investment Strategy, April 2012.

               National Institute of Food and Agriculture


                   RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES

 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................      $786,874,000
2016 budget estimate..................................       998,593,000
Provided in the bill..................................       781,510,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................        -5,364,000
    2016 budget estimate..............................      -217,083,000
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For Research and Education Activities, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $781,510,000.
    Agricultural Research Enhancement Awards.--The Committee 
directs that not less than 15 percent of the competitive 
research grant funds be used for USDA's agriculture research 
enhancement awards program, including USDA-EPSCoR, in 
accordance with 7 U.S.C. 450i.
    Antimicrobial Resistance.--The Committee provides an 
increase of $5 million for the Agriculture and Food Research 
Initiative (AFRI) for research to combat antimicrobial 
resistance. In addition, the Committee directs NIFA to include 
an additional $2.3 million of base funding to the program's 
current level of $3.7 million, for a total investment of $11 
million in research on combating antimicrobial resistance.
    Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2017.--The Committee 
appreciates NIFA's efforts to provide additional information in 
its budget requests over the past three years. For the fiscal 
year 2017 budget request, the Committee is particularly 
interested in the request for AFRI, and requests that the 
agency provide greater detail on the levels proposed to be 
allocated to and the expected publication date, scope, and 
allocation level for each request for awards to be published 
under each priority area specified in section 2(b)(2) of the 
Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act (7 
U.S.C. 450i(b)(2)).
    Citrus Disease Research Program.--The 2014 farm bill 
established the Emergency Citrus Disease Research and Extension 
Program, which is intended to discover and develop tools for 
early detection, control, and eradication of diseases and pests 
that threaten domestic citrus production and processing, and 
provided $25 million per year in mandatory funding for the 
program through the Specialty Crop Research Initiative. The 
Committee believes research projects funded under this 
authority should be prioritized based on the critical threat of 
citrus greening and encourages NIFA, to the maximum extent 
practicable, to follow the recommendations of the National 
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Advisory 
Board's citrus disease subcommittee and to collaborate with the 
Huanglongbing Multi-Agency Coordination group.
    Classical Plant Breeding.--The Committee is aware of the 
need for classical plant breeding and encourages NIFA to invest 
in research to improve genetic resources and cultivars for the 
benefit of U.S. producers, seed companies, processors, and 
consumers. This research should focus on breeding improved 
germplasm and varieties with higher yields, improved disease 
and pest resistance, and resilience to weather extremes. 
Additionally, methods and tools should be developed to enable 
classical breeders to choose better breeding parents and speed 
up variety development.
    Livestock and Poultry Waste Research.--The Committee 
recognizes the benefits of improved methods of managing animal 
waste in livestock and poultry production and encourages NIFA 
to support research and development of innovative technologies, 
particularly those that are operationally and economically 
feasible and have a high probability of widespread 
implementation.
    National Animal Health Laboratory Network (NAHLN).--The 
laboratories within the NAHLN network provide a critical 
contribution to animal and public health in the detection of 
newly identified and reemerging animal diseases. NIFA provides 
funding for NAHLN laboratory infrastructure. The fiscal year 
2015 appropriations Act provided funding for NAHLN through both 
APHIS and NIFA at approximately $7 million and $3 million, 
respectively. In addition to these base funds, USDA has spent 
millions of dollars in fiscal year 2015 to reimburse 
laboratories in the NAHLN network for work with the HPAI 
outbreak. The bill continues this base funding and includes an 
additional $5 million for APHIS to support NAHLN, resulting in 
a total investment of $15 million for fiscal year 2016.
    Organic Agriculture.--The Economic Research Service has 
cited industry statistics that ``organic sales account for over 
four percent of total U.S. food sales.'' The Committee 
encourages USDA to ensure that the needs of the U.S. organic 
sector are more fully addressed through AFRI and to report back 
to the Committee with a plan for meeting this goal, including 
how the agency will ensure organic research conducted through 
AFRI is not duplicative of research conducted with mandatory 
funds through the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension 
Initiative and other research programs.
    Research at Historically Black Colleges and Universities 
and Hispanic Serving Institutions.--The Committee encourages 
NIFA to continue to support biotechnology by promoting research 
at the land-grant colleges and universities, including the 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic 
Serving Institutions, and directs NIFA to encourage 
partnerships among universities and industry.
    Zoonotic Disease Research.--The eradication of zoonotic 
livestock diseases has been a priority of Federal and state 
animal health officials, as was reflected in the 2014 farm 
bill. The Committee recognizes the need for this research and 
encourages NIFA to support the development of improved 
management tools for zoonotic livestock diseases that have 
significant wildlife reservoirs.
    The following table reflects the amount provided by the 
Committee:

               National Institute of Food and Agriculture


                                        RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES
                                             [Dollars in Thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    2015       2016    Committee
               Program/Activity                          Authorization            enacted    estimate  provision
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hatch Act....................................  7 U.S.C. 361a-i.................   $243,701   $243,701   $243,701
McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Act....  16 U.S.C. 582a through a-7......     33,961     33,961     33,961
Research at 1890 Institutions (Evans-Allen     7 U.S.C. 3222...................     52,485     58,000     52,485
 Program).
Payments to the 1994 Institutions............  7 U.S.C. 301 note...............      3,439      3,654      3,439
Education Grants for 1890 Institutions.......  7 U.S.C. 3152(b)................     19,336     20,410     19,336
Education Grants for Hispanic-Serving          7 U.S.C. 3241...................      9,219      9,219      9,219
 Institutions.
Education Grants for Alaska Native and Native  7 U.S.C. 3156...................      3,194      3,194      3,194
 Hawaiian-Serving Institutions.
Research Grants for 1994 Institutions........  7 U.S.C. 301 note...............      1,801      1,914      1,801
Capacity Building for Non Land-Grant Colleges  7 U.S.C. 3319i..................      4,500      - - -      - - -
 of Agriculture.
Grants for Insular Areas.....................  7 U.S.C. 3222b-2, 3363 and 3362.      2,000      1,800      1,800
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative.....  7 U.S.C. 450i(b)................    325,000    450,000    335,000
Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment...........  7 U.S.C. 3151a..................      5,000      5,000      5,000
Food and Agriculture Resiliency Program for    7 U.S.C. 2662(e)................      - - -      2,500      - - -
 Military Veterans.
Continuing Animal Health and Disease Research  7 U.S.C. 3195...................      4,000      - - -      4,000
 Program.
Supplemental and Alternative Crops...........  7 U.S.C. 3319d..................        825      - - -      - - -
Critical Agricultural Materials Act..........  7 U.S.C. 178 et seq.............      - - -      - - -      - - -
Multicultural Scholars, Graduate Fellowship    7 U.S.C. 3152(b)................      9,000      - - -      9,000
 and Institution Challenge Grants.
Secondary and 2-year Post-Secondary Education  7 U.S.C. 3152(j)................        900      - - -        900
Aquaculture Centers..........................  7 U.S.C. 3322...................      4,000      4,000      4,000
Sustainable Agriculture Research and           7 U.S.C. 5811, 5812, 5831, and       22,667     22,667     22,667
 Education.                                     5832.
Farm Business Management.....................  7 U.S.C. 5925f..................      1,450      - - -      - - -
Sun Grant Program............................  7 U.S.C. 8114...................      2,500      - - -      - - -
Alfalfa and Forage Research Program..........  7 U.S.C. 5925...................      1,350      - - -      - - -
Minor Crop Pest Management (IR-4)............  7 U.S.C. 450i(c)................     11,913     11,913     11,913
Special Research Grants:.....................
    Global Change/UV Monitoring..............  7 U.S.C. 450i(c)................      1,405      1,405      1,405
    Potato Research..........................  7 U.S.C. 450i(c)................      1,350      - - -      - - -
    Aquaculture Research.....................  7 U.S.C. 450i(c)................      1,350      - - -      - - -
                                                                                --------------------------------
      Total, Special Research Grants.........  ................................      4,105      1,405      1,405
Innovation Institutes........................  ................................      - - -     80,000      - - -
Necessary Expenses of Research and Education
 Activities:
    Grants Management Systems................  ................................      7,830      9,830      6,750
    Federal Administration--Other Necessary    ................................      6,387     20,425      5,979
     Expenses.
    GSA Rent and DHS Security Expenses.......  ................................      6,311      - - -      5,960
                                                                                --------------------------------
      Total, Necessary Expenses..............  ................................     20,528     30,255     18,689
                                                                                ================================
          Total, Research and Education        ................................   $786,874   $998,593   $781,510
           Activities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              NATIVE AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS ENDOWMENT FUND

 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................     ($11,880,000)
2016 budget estimate..................................      (11,880,000)
Provided in the bill..................................      (11,880,000)
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................             - - -
    2016 budget estimate..............................             - - -
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund, the 
Committee provides $11,880,000.

                          EXTENSION ACTIVITIES

 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................      $471,691,000
2016 budget estimate..................................       475,565,000
Provided in the bill..................................       472,051,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................          +360,000
    2016 budget estimate..............................        -3,514,000
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For Extension Activities, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $472,051,000.
    Food Safety Outreach.--The Committee provides an increase 
of $2.5 million for the Food Safety Outreach Program to provide 
education and training for farmers, producers, and processors 
to implement food safety guidelines resulting from FSMA. The 
Committee directs the Department to coordinate efforts with the 
FDA to ensure there is no duplication of efforts or resources. 
As stated in the President's fiscal year 2016 budget request, 
the Committee expects NIFA to be the sole agency supporting the 
educational needs of growers.
    The following table reflects the amount provided by the 
Committee:

               National Institute of Food and Agriculture


                                              EXTENSION ACTIVITIES
                                             [Dollars in Thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  FY 2015    FY 2016   Committee
               Program/Activity                          Authorization            enacted    estimate  provision
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smith-Lever Act, Section 3(b) and (c)          7 U.S.C. 343(b) and (c) and        $300,000   $300,000   $300,000
 programs and Cooperative Extension.            208(c) of P.L. 93-471.
Extension Services at 1890 Institutions......  7 U.S.C. 3221...................     43,920     48,350     43,920
Extension Services at 1994 Institutions......  7 U.S.C. 343(b)(3)..............      4,446      4,724      4,446
Facility Improvements at 1890 Institutions...  7 U.S.C. 3222b..................     19,730     21,703     19,730
Renewable Resources Extension Act............  16 U.S.C. 1671 et. seq..........      4,060      4,060      4,060
Rural Health and Safety Education Programs...  7 U.S.C. 2662(i)................      1,500      - - -      - - -
Food Animal Residue Avoidance Database         7 U.S.C. 7642...................      1,250      - - -      1,250
 Program.
Women and Minorities in STEM Fields..........  7 U.S.C. 5925...................        400      - - -        400
Food Safety Outreach Program.................  7 U.S.C. 7625...................      2,500      5,000      5,000
Smith-Lever Act, Section 3(d):...............  7 U.S.C. 343(d).................
    Food and Nutrition Education.............  ................................     67,934     67,934     67,934
    Farm Safety and Youth Farm Safety          ................................      4,610      4,610      4,610
     Education Programs.
    New Technologies for Agricultural          ................................      1,550      1,750      1,550
     Extension.
    Children, Youth, and Families at Risk....  ................................      8,395      8,395      8,395
    Federally Recognized Tribes Extension      ................................      3,039      3,039      3,039
     Program.
                                                                                --------------------------------
        Total, Section 3(d)..................  ................................     85,528     85,728     85,528
Necessary Expenses of Extension Activities:
    Agriculture in the K-12 Classroom........  7 U.S.C. 3152 (j)...............        552      - - -        552
    Federal Administration--Other Necessary    ................................      7,805      - - -      7,165
     Expenses for Extension Activities.
                                                                                --------------------------------
      Total, Necessary Expenses..............  ................................      8,357      - - -      7,717
                                                                                ================================
        Total, Extension Activities..........  ................................   $471,691   $475,565   $472,051
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES

 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................       $30,900,000
2016 budget estimate..................................        28,900,000
Provided in the bill..................................        30,900,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................             - - -
    2016 budget estimate..............................        +2,000,000
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For Integrated Activities, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $30,900,000.
    The following table reflects the amount provided by the 
Committee.

               National Institute of Food and Agriculture


                                              INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES
                                             [Dollars in Thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Committee
               Program/Activity                          Authorization            FY 2015    FY 2016
                                                                                  enacted    estimate  provision
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water Quality Program........................  7 U.S.C. 7626...................     $- - -     $- - -     $- - -
Methyl Bromide Transition Program............  7 U.S.C. 7626...................      2,000      - - -      2,000
Organic Transition Program...................  7 U.S.C. 7626...................      4,000      4,000      4,000
Regional Rural Development Centers...........  7 U.S.C. 450i(c)................      1,000      1,000      1,000
Food and Agriculture Defense Initiative......  7 U.S.C. 3351...................      6,700      6,700      6,700
Crop Protection/Pest Management Program......  7 U.S.C. 7626...................     17,200     17,200     17,200
                                                                                --------------------------------
    Total, Integrated Activities.............  ................................    $30,900    $28,900    $30,900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs


 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................          $898,000
2016 budget estimate..................................           907,000
Provided in the bill..................................           893,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................            -5,000
    2016 budget estimate..............................           -14,000
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and 
Regulatory Programs, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$893,000.

               Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................      $871,315,000
2016 budget estimate..................................       855,803,000
  Provided in the bill................................       870,945,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................          -370,000
    2016 budget estimate..............................       +15,142,000
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 
Salaries and Expenses, the Committee provides an appropriation 
of $870,945,000.
    Included in this funding level are increases of $3,000,000 
for Avian Health; $550,000 for Swine Health; $5,000,000 for 
Veterinary Diagnostics; $2,000,000 for Specialty Crop Pests; 
and $400,000 for Animal Welfare. The Committee maintains recent 
increases for such functions as Overseas Technical and Trade 
Operations in order to help resolve sanitary and phytosanitary 
trade issues that could result in the opening of new markets 
and retaining and expanding existing market access for U.S. 
agricultural products.
    The following table reflects the amounts provided by the 
Committee:

                         [Dollars in Thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Committee
                                                           provision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Animal Health Technical Services.....................            $35,000
Aquatic Animal Health................................              2,253
Avian Health.........................................             55,340
Cattle Health........................................             90,000
Equine, Cervid, and Small Ruminant Health............             19,500
National Veterinary Stockpile........................              3,973
Swine Health.........................................             24,800
Veterinary Biologics.................................             16,417
Veterinary Diagnostics...............................             36,540
Zoonotic Disease Management..........................              9,523
                                                      ------------------
Subtotal, Animal Health..............................            293,346
Agricultural Quarantine Inspection (Appropriated)....             26,900
Cotton Pests.........................................             11,520
Field Crop & Rangeland Ecosystem Pests...............              8,826
Pest Detection.......................................             27,446
Plant Protection Methods Development.................             20,686
Specialty Crop Pests.................................            158,000
Tree & Wood Pests....................................             45,519
                                                      ------------------
Subtotal, Plant Health...............................            298,897
Wildlife Damage Management...........................             90,027
Wildlife Services Methods Development................             18,856
                                                      ------------------
Subtotal, Wildlife Services..........................            108,883
Animal & Plant Health Regulatory Enforcement.........             16,224
Biotechnology Regulatory Services....................             18,875
                                                      ------------------
Subtotal, Regulatory Services........................             35,099
Contingency Fund.....................................                470
Emergency Preparedness & Response....................             16,966
                                                      ------------------
Subtotal, Safeguarding and Emergency Preparedness....             17,436
Agriculture Import/Export............................             14,099
Overseas Technical and Trade Operations..............             22,114
                                                      ------------------
Subtotal, Safe Trade & International Technical                    36,213
 Assistance..........................................
Animal Welfare.......................................             28,410
Horse Protection.....................................                697
                                                      ------------------
Subtotal, Animal Welfare.............................             29,107
APHIS Information Technology Infrastructure..........              4,251
Physical/Operational Security........................              5,146
GSA Rental and DHS Security Payments.................             42,567
                                                      ------------------
Subtotal, Agency Management..........................             51,964
                                                      ------------------
        Total, Salaries & Expenses...................           $870,945
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agricultural Quarantine and Inspection (AQI).--The 
Committee continues to have concerns about the proposed rules 
regarding adjustment to fees for AQI services and overtime 
reimbursement rates. The proposed rule related to AQI services 
includes the increase of some existing fees and the 
establishment of several new fees that will affect a wide 
variety of industries, including pest treatment providers, 
cargo and passenger vessels, international and domestic 
shippers, importers, and the ports. The proposed changes are 
significant, and it is expected that comments received during 
the initial rulemaking process and comments received from the 
AQI Webinar in January 2015 will be considered in drafting the 
final rule. The agency should exercise due diligence in 
determining the comprehensive impacts of these new fees on the 
related industries, especially given the coupling effect of the 
increased overtime reimbursement rates. The Committee 
encourages the agency to fully analyze these impacts and engage 
with additional stakeholders as necessary to determine if any 
additional time is necessary for those impacted by the fees to 
provide input as well as those industries requiring additional 
time to modify their business practices in order to accommodate 
higher costs.
    Animal Welfare.--The bill funds the Animal Welfare program 
at $28,410,000 in order to ensure that minimum standards of 
care and treatment are provided for certain animals bred for 
commercial sale, used in research, transported commercially, or 
exhibited to the public. The Committee provides an additional 
$400,000 to support a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between 
APHIS and ARS. The MOU is necessary for ARS to utilize the 
skills and expertise of APHIS' animal care staff and to help 
ARS address some of their recent failures to maintain high 
standards of care for animals used in ARS funded research. At a 
minimum, the MOU should ensure that ARS is adhering to its own 
standards and guidelines for research practices as required by 
the Humane Animal Care and Use policy, a policy that is closely 
aligned with the Animal Welfare Act; ensure that every ARS 
location engaging in research and testing on vertebrate animals 
has a fully functioning IACUC in place; and, ensure that each 
IACUC produces a semi-annual report with a description of and 
the reasons for any major deviations from the requirements 
outlined in ARS policy.
    Aquatic Animal Health.--Nearly half of the seafood consumed 
across the world is the product of aquaculture. In addition, 
the aquaculture industry is a critical and growing part of the 
U.S. economy. Unfortunately, the monitoring of aquatic animal 
health issues is not adequate to meet the needs of a growing 
industry. For example, the shrimp and catfish aquaculture 
industries are losing revenue due to the lack of tracking and 
monitoring of aquatic animal pathogens. These losses could have 
been prevented if the pathogens had been promptly identified 
and effective treatments or prevention procedures were 
developed and available. The Committee encourages the agency to 
support and protect this important industry. Collaborative 
efforts among the agency, industry, and other Federal and state 
partners are essential to improving preparedness, surveillance, 
and response capabilities, as well as reducing the likelihood 
of disease spread.
    Biotechnology Regulatory Services.--The Committee continues 
to be concerned about the time it takes the agency to review 
biotechnology product petitions for regulatory determination. 
The Committee encourages the agency to continue to find ways to 
improve the permit review process and to reduce the number of 
petitions awaiting determination. The Committee provides the 
requested funding necessary to ensure regulatory decisions can 
be made in a more timely and predictable manner. The Committee 
directs APHIS to provide the Committees on Appropriations of 
the House and Senate with quarterly reports on the agency's 
progress in meeting the targets the agency set for itself in 
2011 starting on November 1, 2015.
    Cervid Health.--Data from 2007 indicates that the cervid 
industry in the United States accounts for 5,600 deer farms and 
1,900 elk farms, has an economic value of $894 million, and 
supports nearly 30,000 jobs. This industry continues to 
participate in the agency's national, voluntary Herd 
Certification Program (HCP) that supports the domestic and 
international marketability of U.S. cervid herds. The Committee 
encourages APHIS to maintain its commitment to the HCP and the 
cervid industry and directs the agency to spend no less than $3 
million for cervid health activities. Within the funds 
provided, the agency should give consideration to indemnity 
payments if warranted.
    Citrus Health Response Program (CHRP).--CHRP is a national 
effort to protect the U.S. industry from the ravages of 
invasive pests and diseases. These funds are designed to 
partner with state departments of agriculture and industry 
groups to address the challenges of citrus pests and diseases. 
In addition to the funds provided in this account, the 
Committee encourages APHIS to utilize the funds available in 
the Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention 
Programs account to the greatest extent possible in an attempt 
to sustain the economic viability of the citrus industry.
    Cost Sharing with States and Other Cooperators.--The 
Committee directs APHIS to maximize the use of cost-sharing 
agreements or matching requirements with states, territories, 
producers, foreign governments, non-governmental organizations, 
and any other recipient of services in order to reduce the cost 
burden on the agency.
    Cotton Pests.--The Committee is concerned that every effort 
be made by APHIS and the cotton industry to ensure the boll 
weevil does not re-infest areas of the United States where it 
has been successfully eradicated. The Boll Weevil Eradication 
Program, an outstanding example of a public-private 
partnership, has successfully eradicated the boll weevil from 
all U.S. cotton-producing regions except for the extreme lower 
parts of Texas in the Lower Rio Grande Valley (LRGV) bordering 
Tamaulipas, Mexico. Growers in the LRGV, with assistance from 
APHIS and the support of the entire industry, continue to 
conduct an active program to eradicate the boll weevil. The 
LRGV serves as the barrier between boll weevil infested areas 
of Mexico and boll weevil-free areas of the United States. The 
Department is directed to work with the U.S. cotton industry to 
develop a plan of action to protect the United States from re-
infestation and to report its findings to the Committee not 
less than 120 days after enactment of this Act.
    Designated Qualified Person Program.--Due to the subjective 
nature of the horse inspections, the agency is encouraged to 
provide greater transparency, more written communication with 
stakeholders on the rules and regulations such as the scar 
rule, and improved consistency to the extent possible when 
enforcing the Horse Protection Act. The agency should also 
consider, as part of its Horse Inspection Organization (HIO) 
approval process, the utilization of ``conditional approvals'' 
so that the agency can work more closely with a proposed HIO in 
considering or developing new or additional inspection and 
training methodologies or protocols. Communication and 
coordination between the agency and HIOs is a key component of 
the Horse Protection Act and should be enhanced whenever 
possible.
    Emergency Outbreaks.--The Committee has included language 
and continues to include specific language relating to the 
availability of funds to address emergencies related to the 
arrest and eradication of contagious or infectious disease or 
pests of animals, poultry or plants. While the Administration 
eventually approved the release of a significant sum of 
emergency funds from the CCC to address the outbreaks of HPAI, 
the Committee is aware of some hesitancy to approve such funds. 
It is because of situations like the HPAI outbreak where 
chicken and turkey growers, egg layers, and those allied 
industries suffer devastating losses to their livelihoods that 
the Committee retains such language and authority. The 
Committee expects the Secretary to continue to use the 
authority provided in this bill to transfer funds from the CCC 
for the arrest and eradication of animal and plant pests and 
diseases that threaten American agriculture. By providing funds 
in this account, the Committee is enhancing, not replacing, the 
use of CCC funding for emergency outbreaks.
    Feral Swine Management.--The Committee provides an increase 
of $550,000 for increased surveillance work. This increase will 
allow APHIS to continue monitoring and management activities 
for emerging and foreign animal diseases in swine, enhance 
knowledge and response to these diseases, and further develop a 
response framework for them. The Committee continues to support 
the agency's national feral swine management program in order 
to continue activities aimed at reducing the damage caused by 
these invasive pests.
    Foreign Market Access Requests.--Increasingly U.S. 
agriculture is facing non-tariff trade barriers, which are 
limiting the ability for U.S. agriculture to open and maintain 
access to key export markets. The Committee directs APHIS to 
review and update the list of foreign market access requests 
submitted by U.S. producers, producer groups, companies and/or 
non-government agencies. All efforts should be made to assign 
the appropriate agency resources to opening and maintaining 
access to foreign markets for U.S. products. By March 2017, the 
agency should provide an update to the Committee on the number 
of foreign market access requests that have been successfully 
granted for U.S. agriculture; export volumes; the number of 
foreign market access requests that have been granted for 
imports to the U.S. market; the number of outstanding requests 
and the length of time each request has been pending before the 
agency. The agency should identify the limitations in achieving 
and maintaining foreign market access for U.S. agriculture.
    Grapevine Import Regulations.--The Committee urges APHIS to 
update its import regulations for grapevines. The current 
regulatory review process and requirements for pathogen 
screening of imports are expensive, cumbersome and time-
consuming. Complying without the use of available technology 
can take in excess of thirteen years to complete. APHIS should 
issue new regulations that dramatically shorten the review 
timeline, by using new technology, and prioritize the approval 
of new grape varieties suited for colder, harsher climates.
    Huanglongbing Emergency Response.--The Committee provides 
an increase of $2 million within the Specialty Crop Pests line 
item to increase vital management, control, and associated 
activities to address Huanglongbing (HLB), or citrus greening. 
This disease has infected all of Florida's citrus groves, 
reduced acreage and production, and cost Florida an estimated 
$3.6 billion in revenue and over 6,600 jobs since 2006. HLB is 
also a threat to Texas and Puerto Rico citrus after the 
discovery of HLB in citrus growing areas. California's citrus 
industry, worth an estimated $1.5 billion in production value, 
is at risk as well.
    Specifically, the $2 million increase will support 
priorities and strategies identified by the Huanglongbing 
Multi-Agency Coordination (HLB MAC) group. The MAC is focused 
on short-term solutions to help the citrus industry, and the 
cooperative nature of Federal, State, and industry 
representatives in this group is expected to result in the 
development of tools and techniques to address this devastating 
disease. Helping growers explore new possible solutions, the 
MAC has been an effective resource. The agency should 
appropriately allocate resources based on critical need and 
maximum impact to the citrus industry.
    Light Brown Apple Moth.--The Committee encourages APHIS to 
engage state and international regulatory bodies to deregulate 
the light brown apple moth. The Committee is concerned that if 
APHIS simply withdraws federal regulation without the necessary 
work with other regulatory officials, APHIS will only shift and 
not reduce the regulatory burden. Should APHIS withdraw the 
federal order for light brown apple moth, it must take steps to 
reduce the overall burden on growers.
    National Animal Health Laboratory Network (NAHLN).--The 
laboratories within the NAHLN network are on the frontline for 
detection of newly identified and reemerging animal diseases. 
NAHLN laboratories provide a critical contribution to animal 
and public health. The fiscal year 2015 appropriations Act 
provided funding for NAHLN through both APHIS and NIFA at 
approximately $7 million and $3 million, respectively. In 
addition to these base funds, USDA has spent millions of 
dollars in fiscal year 2015 to reimburse laboratories in the 
NAHLN network for work with the HPAI outbreak. The bill 
continues this base funding and includes an additional $5 
million for APHIS, resulting in a total investment of $15 
million for fiscal year 2016.
    NAHLN laboratories have been invaluable during the recent 
outbreak of HPAI which has significantly increased testing 
needs. At the same time, NAHLN laboratories must also continue 
testing for other animal diseases of concern. The Committee 
encourages NAHLN to consider partnering with other accredited 
private laboratories as necessary to assist with increased 
testing demands in order to prevent backlogs and provide 
results as quickly as possible.
    Phytopthora ramorum.--The Committee expects APHIS to 
continue its efforts to manage P. ramorum while minimizing 
disruption to the interstate movement of plant materials and 
commercial trade. The agency should use an appropriate portion 
of funds from the Specialty Crop Pests account to expeditiously 
implement the review of the Federal Order governing shipment of 
plant materials from quarantined and regulated counties as well 
as to continue its review of the efficacy of the pre-
notification requirements for western nurseries. APHIS also 
should continue efforts to partner with the regulated states to 
develop new best management practices regarding P. ramorum 
during the effective period of the Order.
    Potato Cyst Nematode Eradication.--The Committee includes 
funding to maintain resources for the potato cyst nematode 
eradication program at the fiscal year 2015 level in order to 
continue with successful efforts to eradicate this pest. If 
left untreated, this pest could spread, affecting other crops.
    Swine Fever.--The Subcommittee is very concerned about the 
emergence and continuing spread of African Swine Fever (ASF) in 
Eastern European countries. ASF is one of the most feared swine 
diseases because there is no vaccine and are no effective 
methods for controlling the disease. Lithuania is currently 
seeking approval from USDA to export pork and pork products to 
the United States, and Poland is already exporting pork to the 
U.S. Both of these countries have recent and well documented 
cases of ASF. Exports from Lithuania and Poland could lead to 
the introduction of ASF into the U.S. swine herd, which would 
have a devastating impact on the U.S. industry. The impact 
would be so severe that the industry would not likely recover 
for years. Since there is a potential for the disease reaching 
the U.S. through imports from these countries, APHIS is hereby 
directed to conduct an assessment of that risk. The risk 
assessment report should be provided to the Committees on 
Appropriations of the House and Senate not later than 90 days 
after enactment of this Act.
    Vaccine for Foot-and-Mouth Disease.--Foot-and-mouth disease 
(FMD) is a highly contagious viral disease eradicated from the 
U.S. in 1929, but it is still a threat since countries around 
the globe continue grappling with the disease. This disease 
could cause billions of dollars in damage to the economy if 
unchecked. APHIS has publicly stated that the FMD vaccine bank 
is insufficient to deal with a large scale FMD outbreak in the 
U.S. and that a larger vaccine bank is needed. APHIS has also 
noted that expanding the current FMD vaccine supply is an 
expensive investment. Having sufficient quantities of vaccine 
rapidly available and deployable to control an FMD outbreak 
would appear to be a critical part of the USDA APHIS mission. 
Rapid control of FMD protects the security of the U.S. food 
supply, limiting the economic damage from livestock losses due 
to the disease, and also shortens disruptions to trade and 
commerce that would occur as long as FMD goes uncontrolled due 
to a lack of vaccine. The Committee is concerned that this 
potential vaccine shortage could result in the compromised 
management of an FMD outbreak in the United States. In order 
that the Committee can better understand the budget 
implications required to address this vaccine shortage, APHIS 
is directed to report to the Committees on Appropriations of 
the House and Senate within 90 days of enactment of this Act on 
contingency plans to develop an expanded vaccine bank and the 
estimated funding necessary for implementation and maintenance.
    Wildlife Damage Management.--While receiving support from 
cooperators to conduct wildlife management operations, special 
emphasis should be placed on those areas such as oral rabies 
vaccination, livestock protection, predator damage management, 
and other such activities that will reduce or eliminate threats 
to agricultural industries. The Committee expects APHIS to 
maintain the funding level for national rabies control and 
surveillance efforts at the same levels as provided in the 
fiscal year 2015 appropriations Act. The Committee also 
encourages USDA to continue providing tools and resources to 
assist aquaculture producers being adversely impacted by fish-
eating birds.
    Of particular concern is the continued and repeat 
depredation by wolves and packs in the Pacific Northwest. In 
certain states where state management plans require state 
agencies to utilize lethal control of wolves it is important 
these actions are taken to protect livestock. As experts in the 
field of managing predators to prevent depredation, USDA has 
valuable knowledge, tools and resources that can assist states 
in managing the federally reintroduced wolves. The Committee 
directs USDA to prioritize and complete the documentation and 
processes needed to allow them to assist states and local 
livestock producers with managing this situation.

                        BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................        $3,175,000
2016 budget estimate..................................         3,175,000
Provided in the bill..................................         3,175,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................             - - -
    2016 budget estimate..............................             - - -
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Buildings 
and Facilities, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$3,175,000.

                     Agricultural Marketing Service


                           MARKETING SERVICES

 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................       $81,192,000
2016 budget estimate..................................        83,121,000
Provided in the bill..................................        80,743,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................          -449,000
    2016 budget estimate..............................        -2,378,000
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For Marketing Services of the Agricultural Marketing 
Service, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$80,743,000.
    Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (COOL).--The Committee 
is aware that the World Trade Organization (WTO) Appellate Body 
ruled against the U.S. COOL requirements for meat products, 
upholding previous findings that the U.S. was in violation of 
its international trade obligations. The governments of Canada 
and Mexico have clearly expressed their intent to seek 
authority from the WTO to use retaliatory measures on U.S. 
agricultural and non-agricultural products, with U.S. exports 
expected to suffer an economic impact of almost $4 billion. The 
Committee supports efforts that will prevent harm to U.S. jobs, 
the U.S. economy, and trade relations with our Nation's 
strongest trading partners. Therefore, the Committee directs 
the Secretary to continue to work with Congress to find a swift 
resolution.

                 LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

 
 
 
2015 limitation.......................................     ($60,709,000)
2016 budget limitation................................      (60,982,000)
Provided in the bill..................................      (60,982,000)
Comparison:
    2015 limitation...................................          +273,000
    2016 budget limitation............................             - - -
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

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

    FUNDS FOR STRENGTHENING MARKETS, INCOME, AND SUPPLY (SECTION 32)

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................     ($20,186,000)
2016 budget estimate..................................      (20,489,000)
Provided in the bill..................................      (20,186,000)
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................             - - -
    2016 budget estimate..............................          -303,000
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Marketing Agreements and Orders Program, the 
Committee provides a transfer from Section 32 funds of 
$20,186,000.
    The following table reflects the status of this fund for 
fiscal years 2015 and 2016:

ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD FISCAL YEARS
                                2015-2016
                         [Dollars in Thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              FY 2015         FY 2016
                                              enacted        estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation (30% of Customs Receipts).      $9,714,923     $10,316,645
Less Transfers:
    Food & Nutrition Service............      -8,355,671      -8,869,645
    Commerce Department.................        -143,738        -144,000
                                         -------------------------------
        Total, Transfers................      -8,499,409      -9,013,645
Prior Year Appropriation Available,              187,486         122,000
 Start of Year..........................
Prior Year Collections and Recoveries...               0               0
Unavailable for Obligations (recoveries                0               0
 & offsetting collections)..............
Transfer of Prior Year Funds to FNS             -119,000        -122,000
 (F&V)..................................
    Budget Authority:...................       1,284,000       1,303,000
Rescission of Current Year Funds........        -121,094        -216,020
Appropriations Reduced--Sequestration...         -81,906         -77,000
Unavailable for Obligations (F&V                -122,000        -125,000
 Transfer to FNS).......................
                                         -------------------------------
    Available for Obligation:...........         959,000         884,980
Less Obligations:
    Child Nutrition Programs                     465,000         465,000
     (Entitlement Commodities)..........
    State Option Contract...............           5,000           5,000
    Removal of Defective Commodities....           2,500           2,500
    Emergency Surplus Removal...........         113,500               0
    Small Business Support..............               0               0
    Disaster Relief.....................           5,000           5,000
    Additional Fruits, Vegetables, and            92,500         206,000
     Nuts Purchases.....................
    Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program...          40,000          41,000
    Estimated Future Needs..............         180,604         106,495
                                         -------------------------------
        Total, Commodity Procurement....         904,104         830,995
    Administrative Funds:
        Commodity Purchase Support......          34,710          33,799
        Marketing Agreements and Orders.          20,186          20,186
                                         -------------------------------
          Total, Administrative Funds...          54,896          53,985
                                         -------------------------------
    Total Obligations...................         959,000         884,980
Unobligated Balance, End of Year........               0               0
Unavailable for Obligations (F&V                 122,000         125,000
 Transfer to FNS).......................
Balances, Collections, and Recoveries                  0               0
 Not Available..........................
                                         -------------------------------
        Total, End of Year Balances.....        $122,000        $125,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   PAYMENTS TO STATES AND POSSESSIONS

 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................        $1,235,000
2016 budget estimate..................................         1,235,000
Provided in the bill..................................         1,235,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................             - - -
    2016 budget estimate..............................             - - -
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

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

        Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................       $43,048,000
2016 budget estimate..................................        44,101,000
Provided in the bill..................................        43,048,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................             - - -
    2016 budget estimate..............................        -1,053,000
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards 
Administration, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$43,048,000.

        LIMITATION ON INSPECTION AND WEIGHING SERVICES EXPENSES

 
 
 
2015 limitation.......................................     ($50,000,000)
2016 budget limitation................................      (55,000,000)
Provided in the bill..................................      (55,000,000)
Comparison:
    2015 limitation...................................        +5,000,000
    2016 budget limitation............................             - - -
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    The Committee includes a limitation on inspection and 
weighing services expenses of $55,000,000. The bill includes 
authority to exceed by 10 percent the limitation on inspection 
and weighing services with notification to the Committees on 
Appropriations of the House and Senate.

             Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety


 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................          $816,000
2016 budget estimate..................................           824,000
Provided in the bill..................................           811,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................            -5,000
    2016 budget estimate..............................           -13,000
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $811,000.

                   Food Safety and Inspection Service


 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................    $1,016,474,000
2016 budget estimate..................................     1,011,557,000
Provided in the bill..................................     1,011,557,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................        -4,917,000
    2016 budget estimate..............................             - - -
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $1,011,557,000. In order 
to ensure that microbiological baseline data is accurately 
capturing national prevalence, the Committee encourages the 
FSIS to increase baseline testing.
    The following table reflects the Committee's 
recommendations for fiscal year 2016:

                   FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE
                         [Dollars in Thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Inspection....................................          $895,481
Public Health Data Communication Infrastructure System            34,580
International Food Safety and Inspection..............            16,744
State Food Safety and Inspection......................            60,976
Codex Alimentarius....................................             3,776
                                                       -----------------
    Total, Food Safety and Inspection Service.........        $1,011,557
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Humane Methods of Slaughter.--FSIS shall ensure that 
inspectors hired with funding previously specified for 
enforcement under the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act focus 
their attention on overseeing compliance with humane handling 
rules for live animals as they arrive and are offloaded and 
handled in pens, chutes, and stunning areas, and that all 
inspectors receive robust national training, including on the 
Regulatory Essentials, Humane Animal Tracking System, and 
Public Health Information System.
    Catfish Inspection.--The Committee is disappointed with the 
continual delay of issuing the final rule providing for catfish 
inspection activities and directs the Secretary to publish the 
final regulation as soon as possible.
    Water Conserving Technologies.--The Committee supports the 
agency's efforts to encourage innovation and modernization at 
slaughter and processing establishments. The Committee is aware 
of technologies that allow hand-washing facilities to be 
immediately activated and deactivated in a hands-free manner. 
In order to encourage water conservation and reduce cross-
contamination, the Committee directs FSIS to utilize water-
conserving technologies and pursue implementation as soon as 
practicable.
    Screening Technologies.--There remains concern about 
countering economic fraud and improving the safety of the U.S. 
seafood supply. FSIS, in conjunction with other USDA research 
agencies, is encouraged to support developing technologies that 
will provide rapid, portable, and facile screening of food fish 
species at port sites and wholesale and retail centers.

    Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural 
                                Services


 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................          $898,000
2016 budget estimate..................................           907,000
Provided in the bill..................................           893,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................            -5,000
    2016 budget estimate..............................           -14,000
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign 
Agricultural Services, the Committee provides an appropriation 
of $893,000.

                          Farm Service Agency


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Transfer from
                                                         Appropriation     program  accounts    Total, FSA S&E
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015 Appropriation..................................      $1,200,180,000      ($309,880,000)    ($1,510,060,000)
2016 Budget Estimate................................       1,185,251,000       (312,873,000)     (1,498,124,000)
Provided in the Bill................................       1,183,025,000       (309,880,000)     (1,492,905,000)
Comparison:
    2015 Appropriation..............................         -17,155,000              - - -        (-17,155,000)
    2016 Budget Estimate............................         -$2,226,000         -$2,993,000       (-$5,219,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For Salaries and Expenses of the Farm Service Agency, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $1,183,025,000 and 
transfers of $309,880,000 for a total program level of 
$1,492,905,000.
    Budgetary Reductions.--FSA has submitted consecutive 
proposals for significant annual budget savings through 
``operational efficiencies'' with little detail for achieving 
these goals. FSA proposed nearly $80 million in reductions for 
fiscal year 2016. While the Committee adopts some reductions 
for 2016 over fiscal year 2015, this is a reflection of the 
increased need in fiscal year 2015 for farm bill 
implementation. The Committee is also cognizant of remaining 
balances from the additional $100 million in mandatory funding 
provided through the 2014 farm bill that supplements these 
reductions in 2016. In particular, the Committee does not 
accept the proposed savings for non-Federal workers or other 
personnel savings, and the Committee supports full staffing 
levels for non-Federal workers. The Committee provides for 
proposed increases in IT while requiring stringent oversight in 
the bill through the Comptroller General. As the Committee 
noted in fiscal year 2015, FSA is directed to provide detailed 
documentation and data when proposing such significant savings 
in future budget requests.
    Beginning Farmers and Ranchers.--The Committee does not 
fund requested increases for Beginning Farmer and Rancher 
programs. This is due to a lack of coordination and strategy 
across the Department per USDA OIG report 5060-0003-31. USDA 
already spends $332 million on these programs. The Committee 
directs the Secretary to implement the recommendations of the 
OIG before requesting further increases in funding.
    International Food Aid Commodity Reports.--The Committee 
directs FSA to make publicly available reports detailing U.S. 
Commodities purchased for international food aid similar to 
those published in fiscal years 2010 and 2011. These reports 
identified U.S. international food aid by type, country, 
program, value, and region. The Committee also directs FSA to 
include the amount, value, destination, and type of commodity 
shipped by U.S. port of origination.
    Proposal to Close County Offices.--The Committee expects 
FSA to complete its workload study of FSA county offices and an 
independent review to examine the study before FSA closes any 
offices. The Committee directs FSA to complete this study 
promptly and includes statutory language preventing the closure 
of these offices.
    FSA IT.--FSA's management of certain IT projects has 
produced increased costs, bloated budgets, and inaccurate 
budget estimates. These projects include the MIDAS program and 
increased or inaccurate charges from the National Information 
Technology Center, for which costs have tripled since fiscal 
year 2014. The agreement includes statutory language that 
allows FSA to release funds for farm program delivery IT 
projects only after review by the GAO and approval by the 
Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate. The 
roadmap submitted by FSA in fiscal year 2015 was the first step 
to bringing accountability and guidance to almost a decade of 
mismanagement. In this regard, the GAO and the OIG are 
recommending that FSA establish a plan to guide the agency in 
adopting recognized best practices and in following agency 
policy. The GAO also recommends that the agency adhere to 
specific practices within key management disciplines before 
proceeding with further system development. FSA is directed to 
continue quarterly briefings in writing for the Committees on 
Appropriations of the House and Senate regarding all IT 
projects and activities related to farm program delivery.
    Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC).--The Committee 
urges FSA to explore further cooperation on technologies that 
could benefit American agricultural conservation practices and 
crop yield through FGDC partners, including the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration and National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration.

                         STATE MEDIATION GRANTS

 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................        $3,404,000
2016 budget estimate..................................         3,404,000
Provided in the bill..................................         3,404,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................             - - -
    2016 budget estimate..............................             - - -
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

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

               GRASSROOTS SOURCE WATER PROTECTION PROGRAM

 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................        $5,526,000
2016 budget estimate..................................             - - -
Provided in the bill..................................         5,526,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................             - - -
    2016 budget estimate..............................        +5,526,000
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Grassroots Source Water Protection Program, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $5,526,000.

                        DAIRY INDEMNITY PROGRAM

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................       \1\$500,000
2016 budget estimate..................................        \1\500,000
Provided in the bill..................................        \1\500,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................             - - -
    2016 budget estimate..............................             - - -
 
\1\Current indefinite appropriation.

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Dairy Indemnity Program, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of such sums as may be necessary (estimated to be 
$500,000 in the President's fiscal year 2016 budget request).

           AGRICULTURAL CREDIT INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

                         ESTIMATED LOAN LEVELS

 
 
 
2015 loan level.......................................    $6,402,114,000
2016 budget estimate..................................     6,402,114,000
Provided in the bill..................................     6,402,114,000
Comparison:
    2015 loan level...................................             - - -
    2016 budget estimate..............................             - - -
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund program account, 
the Committee provides a loan level of $6,402,114,000.
    The following table reflects the loan levels for the 
Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund program account:

                AGRICULTURE CREDIT PROGRAMS--LOAN LEVELS
                         [Dollars in Thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   FY 2015       FY 2016      Committee
                                    level       estimate     provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farm Loan Programs
    Farm Ownership:
        Direct................    $1,500,000    $1,500,000    $1,500,000
        Unsubsidized               2,000,000     2,000,000     2,000,000
         Guaranteed...........
    Farm Operating:
        Direct................     1,252,004     1,252,004     1,252,004
        Unsubsidized               1,393,443     1,393,443     1,393,443
         Guaranteed...........
    Emergency Loans...........        34,667        34,667        34,667
    Indian Tribe Land                  2,000         2,000         2,000
     Acquisition Loans........
    Conservation Loans:
        Unsubsidized                 150,000       150,000       150,000
         Guaranteed...........
    Indian Highly Fractionated        10,000        10,000        10,000
     Land.....................
    Boll Weevil Eradication...        60,000        60,000        60,000
                               -----------------------------------------
        Total.................    $6,402,114    $6,402,114    $6,402,114
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                            ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS
                                             [Dollars in Thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Guaranteed
                                                     Direct loan        loan         Grants      Administrative
                                                       subsidy         subsidy                      expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015 Appropriation..............................           $63,101       $14,770         - - -          $314,918
2016 Budget Estimate............................            53,961        14,352         2,500           317,911
Provided in the Bill............................            53,961        14,352         - - -           314,918
Comparison:
    2015 Appropriation..........................            -9,140          -418         - - -             - - -
    2016 Budget Estimate........................             - - -         - - -       -$2,500           -$2,993
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following table reflects the costs of loan programs 
under credit reform:

            AGRICULTURE CREDIT PROGRAMS--SUBSIDIES AND GRANTS
                         [Dollars in Thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   FY 2015       FY 2016      Committee
                                   enacted      estimate     provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farm Loan Subsidies:
    Farm Operating:
        Direct................       $63,101       $53,961       $53,961
        Unsubsidized                  14,770        14,352        14,352
         Guaranteed...........
    Emergency Loans...........           856         1,262         1,262
    Indian Highly Fractionated         - - -         - - -         - - -
     Land.....................
    Individual Development             - - -         2,500         - - -
     Accounts.................
                               -----------------------------------------
        Total.................        78,727        72,075        69,575
ACIF Expenses:
    Salaries and Expenses.....       306,998       309,991       306,998
    Administrative Expenses...         7,920         7,920         7,920
                               -----------------------------------------
        Total, ACIF Expenses..      $314,918      $317,911      $314,918
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Risk Management Agency


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................       $74,829,000
2016 budget estimate..................................        76,946,000
Provided in the bill..................................        73,984,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................          -845,000
    2016 budget estimate..............................        -2,962,000
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Risk Management Agency, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $73,984,000.
    Improper Payments.--The Committee accepts RMA's proposed 
savings and directs the agency to supplement its discretionary 
funds with the $32 million in farm bill funding for compliance 
with the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act.
    SRA Discrepancies.--In a manner consistent with the 
requirements of section 11012 of the 2014 farm bill and without 
adversely impacting other policies, the Committee encourages 
RMA to address the flaws in the current Standard Reinsurance 
Agreement (SRA), including addressing the negative impact to 
specialty crop agents caused by the cap on Administrative and 
Operating (A&O) reimbursement.

                              CORPORATIONS


                Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund


 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................  \1\$8,930,502,00
                                                                       0
2016 budget estimate..................................  \1\8,175,224,000
Provided in the bill..................................  \1\8,175,224,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................      -755,278,000
    2016 budget estimate..............................             - - -
 
\1\Current indefinite appropriation.

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of such sums as may be 
necessary (estimated to be $8,175,224,000 in the President's 
fiscal year 2016 budget request).

                   Commodity Credit Corporation Fund


                 REIMBURSEMENT FOR NET REALIZED LOSSES

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

 
 
 
2015 appropriation.............................       \1\$13,444,728,000
2016 budget estimate...........................        \1\10,519,933,000
Provided in the bill...........................        \1\10,519,933,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation.........................           -2,924,795,000
    2016 budget estimate.......................                    - - -
 
\1\Current indefinite appropriation.

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For Reimbursement for Net Realized Losses to the Commodity 
Credit Corporation, the Committee provides such sums as may be 
necessary to reimburse for net realized losses sustained but 
not previously reimbursed (estimated to be $10,519,933,000 in 
the President's fiscal year 2016 budget request).

                       HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT

                        (LIMITATION ON EXPENSES)

 
 
 
2015 limitation.......................................      ($5,000,000)
2016 budget estimate..................................       (5,000,000)
Provided in the bill..................................       (5,000,000)
Comparison:
    2015 limitation...................................             - - -
    2016 budget estimate..............................             - - -
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

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

                                TITLE II


                         CONSERVATION PROGRAMS


  Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment


 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................          $898,000
2016 budget estimate..................................           907,000
Provided in the bill..................................           893,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................            -5,000
    2016 budget estimate..............................           -14,000
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources 
and Environment, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$893,000.

                 Natural Resources Conservation Service


                        CONSERVATION OPERATIONS

 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................      $846,428,000
2016 budget estimate..................................       831,231,000
Provided in the bill..................................       832,928,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................       -13,500,000
    2016 budget estimate..............................        +1,697,000
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For Conservation Operations, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $832,928,000.
    The Committee provides $8,886,000 for the Snow Survey and 
Water Forecasting Program; $9,103,000 for the Plant Materials 
Centers; and $79,601,000 for the Soil Surveys Program. The 
Committee provides $735,338,000 for Conservation Technical 
Assistance and directs NRCS to continue to invest in the 
Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP). The Committee 
provides an increase of $1,500,000 for the Conservation 
Delivery Streamlining Initiative (CDSI). The Committee is 
pleased with the results of CEAP and the agency's efforts to 
modernize the delivery of conservation programs and services 
through CDSI and encourages the continuation of these efforts.
    Administrative Reorganization.--The Committee commends NRCS 
for its organizational realignment of administrative functions 
and appreciates the savings this will generate. NRCS has worked 
to become a more efficient, accountable organization, and the 
Committee encourages NRCS to work with other agencies within 
USDA to do the same.
    Agricultural Conservation Easement Program.--Due to the 
unique ecological needs of each State, the Committee encourages 
NRCS to work with state and local partners to address these 
needs and to ensure the priority needs and projects in each 
State, such as those that are leveraged by public and private 
resources, are addressed, as appropriate.
    Cheat Grass Eradication.--The Committee encourages NRCS to 
continue to assist farmers and ranchers to eradicate, control, 
and reduce the fuel loads associated with cheat grass and to 
collaborate with ARS, as appropriate, on research related to 
cheat grass.
    Conservation Practice Standards.--The Committee is aware 
that NRCS has been pressured to modify its conservation 
practice standards in certain circumstances for purposes not 
related to the conservation of farm and ranch land. The 
Committee recognizes that conservation practice standards are 
science-based, undergo a thorough technical review, are open to 
the public for notice and comment, and reflect the best 
available knowledge on how to achieve the identified 
conservation and environmental objective. The Committee directs 
NRCS to maintain its long-standing process for developing and 
updating its conservation practice standards.
    Data Collection.--The Committee recommends continued 
investment from NRCS for light detection and ranging (LiDAR) 
data collection for the LiDAR-Enhanced Soil Survey (LESS) model 
and other such activities within NRCS reliant on mapping, 
surveying and geospatial technologies, data, and products.
    Harmful Algal Blooms.--The Committee supports NRCS' ongoing 
work to prevent soil erosion leading to harmful algal blooms 
through the introduction of cover crops, and encourages 
continued targeting of watersheds where harmful algal blooms 
pose a threat.
    Herbicide Resistance.--The Committee reminds NRCS of the 
challenges many producers are facing due to the spread of 
herbicide-resistant weeds and encourages it to ensure agency 
staff, partners, and producers are aware of conservation 
practice standards and conservation activity plans to address 
herbicide-resistant weeds, and that financial assistance 
through certain conservation programs is available to assist 
producers in their efforts to control these weeds.
    Locally Led Conservation.--The Committee recognizes that 
locally led conservation is the foundation of the Nation's 
highly successful legacy of conservation and encourages NRCS to 
work with State, Tribal, local, and other partners on voluntary 
stewardship projects that preserve working agricultural lands 
while protecting watersheds and wildlife habitat.
    Loess Streambed Degradation.--The Committee encourages NRCS 
to provide technical assistance in implementing streambed 
stabilization practices and grade control structures on streams 
in areas affected by loess deposits.
    National Marine Sanctuaries.--The Committee urges the 
agency to continue the collaborative agreement with the Office 
of National Marine Sanctuaries to address agricultural sources 
of runoff, such as sediments, nitrates, and pesticides.
    Resource Conservation and Development Councils (RC&Ds).--
The Committee recognizes RC&Ds have been valuable partners in 
conservation and encourages NRCS to continue working with local 
councils, as appropriate, to ensure conservation programs meet 
local resource needs.
    Sage Grouse Initiative.--The Committee supports NRCS' sage 
grouse conservation efforts. Through the initiative, NRCS 
provides technical and financial assistance to help landowners 
conserve sage grouse habitat on their land. The initiative is 
an integral part of efforts by Federal agencies, several 
western states, and private landowners to help preclude the 
listing of the sage grouse as an endangered species.
    Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Plan.--NRCS has 
not yet established a long-term, multi-year plan to guide 
needed investments in watershed surveys and planning and 
watershed operations as directed in House Report 113-468. The 
Committee directs NRCS to complete this plan as soon as 
possible, taking into consideration existing investment in 
planning, infrastructure, and land treatment and future needs 
for investment to improve watershed condition or prevent or 
mitigate watershed impairments.
    Water Use Efficiency.--The Committee is encouraged by the 
work being undertaken by the Bureau of Reclamation and NRCS 
under the California Bay-Delta Program Water Use Efficiency 
Grants Program, which coordinates the water use efficiency 
assistance authorized under the Secure Water Act. The Committee 
directs NRCS to work with Reclamation to identify and implement 
ways within existing authorities to extend the benefits of this 
collaborative effort.

                    WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROGRAM

 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................       $12,000,000
2016 budget estimate..................................             - - -
Provided in the bill..................................         6,000,000
Comparison:...........................................
    2015 appropriation................................        -6,000,000
    2016 budget estimate..............................        +6,000,000
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Watershed Rehabilitation Program, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $6,000,000.

                               TITLE III


                       RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS


          Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development


 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................          $898,000
2016 budget estimate..................................           907,000
Provided in the bill..................................           893,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................            -5,000
    2016 budget estimate..............................           -14,000
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Rural 
Development, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$893,000.
    Resource Conservation and Development Councils.--The 
Committee recognizes RC&Ds have been valuable partners in rural 
economic development and encourages RD to continue working with 
local councils, as appropriate, to address local economic 
development needs.
    Reporting Requirements.--The Committee reminds RD that any 
action that relocates an office or employees and reorganizes 
offices, programs, or activities must be reported to the 
Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate as 
required by law.
    StrikeForce Initiative.--The Committee appreciates the 
Department's efforts to target assistance to at-risk 
communities through the StrikeForce Initiative for Rural Growth 
and Opportunity. USDA, in collaboration with public and private 
partners, helps rural counties experiencing chronic poverty 
improve economic opportunities and quality of life for local 
residents. The Committee encourages USDA to place special 
emphasis on persistent poverty counties and continue to utilize 
a strategy of partnering public resources with local expertise 
to grow rural economies and create jobs in these poverty-
stricken areas.

                Rural Development Salaries and Expenses


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Committee
                                                           FY 2015  level   FY 2016  estimate      provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations.........................................       $224,201,000       $226,717,000       $222,705,000
Transfer from:
    Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account.......        415,100,000        419,530,000        417,854,000
    Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account........          4,439,000          4,488,000          4,410,000
    Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loan           34,478,000         34,864,000         34,247,000
     Program Account...................................
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
        Total, RD Salaries and Expenses................       $678,218,000       $685,599,000       $679,216,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For Salaries and Expenses of the Rural Development mission 
area, the Committee provides an appropriation of $222,705,000.
    This includes $19,500,000 for the Comprehensive Loan 
Accounting System.

                         Rural Housing Service


              RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

                                             [Dollars in Thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Administrative
                                                            Loan  level       Subsidy  level        expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015 Appropriation.....................................        $25,148,279            $87,507           $415,100
2016 Budget Estimate...................................         25,207,404             83,488            419,530
Provided in the Bill...................................         25,148,531             79,377            417,854
Comparison:
    2015 Appropriation.................................               +252             -8,130             +2,754
    2016 Budget Estimate...............................           -$58,873            -$4,111            -$1,676
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Rural Housing Insurance Fund program account, the 
Committee provides a loan level of $25,148,531,000.
    Section 502 Intermediary Pilot Program.--The bill directs 
the Secretary to continue and expand the pilot program for 
packaging section 502 direct loans. The pilot requires not less 
than ten non-profit organizations to prepare and review 
applications for single family loans, saving Federal funds and 
staff time. The Committee expects the Rural Housing Service 
(RHS) to expeditiously implement this program upon enactment of 
the fiscal year 2016 appropriations Act and that USDA will 
promptly notify all pilot programs of the availability of 
national reserve funding and priority for loan review.
    Rural Definition.--Communities need transparency and 
deserve to understand the criteria that are evaluated when 
determining eligibility for RHS programs. The Committee directs 
RHS to submit a report listing the criteria used to define 
``rural in character'' in determining program eligibility. The 
report should also include how the agency considers 
incarcerated populations as well as college and university 
students in the population counts.
    The following table reflects the loan levels for the Rural 
Housing Insurance Fund program account:

                         [Dollars in Thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   FY 2015       FY 2016      Committee
                                    level       estimate     provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Housing Insurance Fund
 Loans:
    Single Family Housing
     (sec. 502):
        Direct................      $900,000      $900,000      $900,000
        Unsubsidized              24,000,000    24,000,000    24,000,000
         Guaranteed...........
    Housing Repair (sec. 504).        26,279        26,278        26,278
    Rental Housing (sec. 515).        28,398        42,271        28,398
    Multi-family Guaranteed          150,000       200,000       150,000
     (sec. 538)...............
    Site Development Loans....         5,000         5,000         5,000
    Credit Sales of Acquired          10,000        10,000        10,000
     Property.................
    Self-help Housing Land             5,000         - - -         5,000
     Development Fund.........
    Farm Labor Housing........        23,602        23,855        23,855
        Total, Loan              $25,148,279   $25,207,404   $25,148,531
         Authorization........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following table reflects the costs of loan programs 
under credit reform:

        ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS
                         [Dollars in Thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     FY 2015      FY 2016     Committee
                                      level       estimate    provision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Housing Insurance Fund
 Program Account (Loan Subsidies
 and Grants):
    Single Family Housing (sec.
     502):
        Direct...................      $66,420      $60,750      $60,750
    Housing Repair (sec. 504)....        3,687        3,424        3,424
    Rental Housing (sec. 515)....        9,800       12,525        8,414
    Farm Labor Housing...........        7,600        6,789        6,789
        Total, Loan Subsidies....       87,507       83,488       79,377
    Farm Labor Housing Grants....        8,336        8,336        8,336
RHIF Expenses:
        Administrative Expenses..     $415,100     $419,530     $417,854
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................    $1,088,500,000
2016 budget estimate..................................     1,171,900,000
Provided in the bill..................................     1,167,000,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................       +78,500,000
    2016 budget estimate..............................        -4,900,000
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Rental Assistance Program, the Committee provides a 
program level of $1,167,000,000.

           MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVITALIZATION PROGRAM ACCOUNT

 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................       $24,000,000
2016 budget estimate..................................        34,000,000
Provided in the bill..................................        24,000,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................             - - -
    2016 budget estimate..............................       -10,000,000
 

    For the Multifamily Housing Revitalization Program Account, 
the Committee provides an appropriation of $24,000,000, 
including $7,000,000 for the rural housing voucher program.

                  MUTUAL AND SELF-HELP HOUSING GRANTS

 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................       $27,500,000
2016 budget estimate..................................        10,000,000
Provided in the bill..................................        27,500,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................             - - -
    2016 budget estimate..............................       +17,500,000
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For Mutual and Self-Help Housing Grants, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $27,500,000.

                    RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GRANTS

 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................       $32,239,000
2016 budget estimate..................................        25,000,000
Provided in the bill..................................        32,239,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................             - - -
    2016 budget estimate..............................        +7,239,000
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Rural Housing Assistance Grants program, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $32,239,000.

               RURAL COMMUNITY FACILITIES PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................       $30,278,000
2016 budget estimate..................................        62,000,000
Provided in the bill..................................        30,278,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................             - - -
    2016 budget estimate..............................       -31,722,000
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Rural Community Facilities Program Account, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $30,278,000.
    The following table provides the Committee's 
recommendations as compared to the budget request:

                                             [Dollars in Thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 FY 2016           Committee
                                                           FY 2015  level       estimated          provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan Levels:
    Community Facility Direct Loans....................       ($2,200,000)       ($2,200,000)       ($2,200,000)
    Community Facility Guaranteed Loans................           (73,222)            (- - -)          (148,305)
Subsidy and Grants:
    Community Facility Guaranteed Loans................              3,500              - - -              3,500
    Community Facility Grants..........................             13,000             50,000             13,000
    Rural Community Development Initiative.............              4,000              4,000              4,000
    Economic Impact Initiative.........................              5,778              - - -              5,778
    Tribal College Grants..............................              4,000              8,000              4,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
        Total, Rural Community Facilities Program                  $30,278            $62,000            $30,278
         Subsidy and Grants............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following is included in bill language for the Rural 
Community Facilities Program: $4,000,000 for the Rural 
Community Development Initiative.

                   Rural Business-Cooperative Service


                     RURAL BUSINESS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................       $74,000,000
2016 budget estimate..................................        81,444,000
Provided in the bill..................................        59,686,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................       -14,314,000
    2016 budget estimate..............................       -21,758,000
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Rural Business Program Account, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $59,686,000.
    The following table provides the Committee's 
recommendations as compared to the budget request:

                                             [Dollars in Thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 FY 2016           Committee
                                                           FY 2015  level       estimated          provision
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan Level:
    Business and Industry Guaranteed Loans.............         ($919,765)         ($758,222)         ($919,765)
Subsidy and Grants:
    Business and Industry Guaranteed Loans.............             47,000             31,444             35,686
    Rural Business Development Grants..................             24,000             30,000             24,000
    Demonstration Projects.............................              - - -             20,000              - - -
    Delta Regional Authority...........................              3,000              - - -              - - -
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
        Total, Rural Business Program Subsidy and                  $74,000            $81,444            $59,686
         Grants........................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following programs are included in bill language for 
the Rural Business Program account: $500,000 for rural 
transportation technical assistance; and $4,000,000 for 
Federally Recognized Native American Tribes, of which $250,000 
is for transportation technical assistance. The Committee notes 
that the 2014 farm bill consolidated the Rural Business 
Opportunity and Rural Business Enterprise grant programs.

              INTERMEDIARY RELENDING PROGRAM FUND ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

                                             [Dollars in Thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Administrative
                                                            Loan  Level       Subsidy  level        expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015 Appropriation.....................................            $18,889             $5,818             $4,439
2016 Budget Estimate...................................             10,014              2,766              4,488
Provided in the Bill...................................             18,889              5,217              4,410
Comparison:
    2015 Appropriation.................................              - - -               -601                -29
    2016 Budget Estimate...............................            +$8,875            +$2,451               -$78
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Intermediary Relending Program Fund Account, the 
Committee provides for a loan level of $18,889,000.
    For the loan subsidy, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $5,217,000. In addition, the Committee 
provides $4,410,000 for administrative expenses.

            RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                    (INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Loan level
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015 Appropriation....................................       $33,077,000
2016 Budget Estimate..................................        85,000,000
Provided in the Bill..................................        33,077,000
Comparison:
    2015 Appropriation................................             - - -
    2016 Budget Estimate..............................      -$51,923,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account, 
the Committee provides for a loan level of $33,077,000.

                  RURAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS

 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................       $22,050,000
2016 budget estimate..................................        21,087,000
Provided in the bill..................................        21,300,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................          -750,000
    2016 budget estimate..............................          +213,000
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For Rural Cooperative Development Grants, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $21,300,000.
    The total includes $2,500,000 for a cooperative agreement 
for the Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas program 
and $10,000,000 for the value-added agricultural product market 
development grant program.
    The Committee notes that the 2014 farm bill provided 
mandatory funding for value-added agricultural product market 
development grants.

                    RURAL ENERGY FOR AMERICA PROGRAM

 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................        $1,350,000
2016 budget estimate..................................        10,000,000
Provided in the bill..................................           842,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................          -508,000
    2016 budget estimate..............................        -9,158,000
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Rural Energy for America Program, the Committee 
provides a loan level of $12,760,000 and an appropriation of 
$842,000 for the loan subsidy to make loans as authorized by 
section 9007 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 
2002 (7 U.S.C. 8107).
    The Committee notes that the 2014 farm bill provides 
mandatory funding for this program in fiscal year 2016.

                        Rural Utilities Service


             RURAL WATER AND WASTE DISPOSAL PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................      $464,857,000
2016 budget estimate..................................       483,320,000
Provided in the bill..................................       473,897,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................        +9,040,000
    2016 budget estimate..............................        -9,423,000
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program Account, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $473,897,000.
    Water Supplies for Very Small Communities.--The Committee 
is aware of concerns that the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) 
grant programs do not adequately help small, disadvantaged, and 
severely disadvantaged communities access the funding and 
expertise necessary to develop sustainable water supplies or 
otherwise improve their wastewater systems and directs the 
agency to focus its efforts to assist these communities with 
predevelopment planning to help them address their water supply 
needs.
    Carryover Balances for AK, HI, and Colonias Grants.--The 
Committee is aware of significant carryover balances of 
unobligated funds provided in prior year appropriations for 
Water and Waste Disposal grants for Alaskan villages, Native 
American Tribes, Hawaiian Homelands, and the Colonias. The 
Committee urges the Department to work with state, local and 
Indian tribal organization stakeholders to provide assistance 
via water and waste disposal grant programs as long as such 
assistance is requested by the respective groups in the year in 
which the funds were appropriated. The Department has 
flexibility to shift these prior year funds among the four 
areas through a reprogramming of funds. Further, the Committee 
provides flexibility in fiscal year 2016 to move funds to other 
water and waste disposal priorities in order to reduce the 
backlog of related needs nationwide.
    Open and Free Competition Policy.--The Committee supports 
the Department's underlying adherence to free and open 
competition on water and waste projects as contained in 7 CFR 
1780.70(b) and (d). However, there continues to be confusion 
with some vendors and contractors as to the procurement 
policies of specific materials. The Committee encourages USDA's 
Rural Utilities Service to issue a memorandum as necessary to 
clarify that the agency does not advocate for one product over 
another and that the agency will ensure the best options for 
the respective communities in accordance with the technical 
requirements proposed by engineers and design professionals.
    The following table provides the Committee's 
recommendations as compared to the budget request:

                                             [Dollars in Thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Committee
                                                           FY 2015  level     FY 2016  level       provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan Levels:
    Water and Waste Direct Loans.......................       ($1,200,000)       ($1,200,000)       ($1,200,000)
    Water and Waste Guaranteed Loans...................           (50,000)              - - -           (50,000)
Subsidy and Grants:
    Direct Subsidy.....................................              - - -             31,320             31,320
    Guaranteed Subsidy.................................                295              - - -                275
    Water and Waste Revolving Fund.....................              1,000              - - -              1,000
    Water Well System Grants...........................                993              - - -                993
    Grants for the Colonias and AK/HI..................             66,500             54,240             54,240
    Water and Waste Technical Assistance Grants........             19,000             13,560             19,000
    Circuit Rider Program..............................             15,919             11,300             15,919
    Solid Waste Management Grants......................              4,000              4,000              4,000
    High Energy Cost Grants............................             10,000              - - -              - - -
    Water and Waste Disposal Grants....................            347,150            358,900            337,150
    306A(i)(2) Grants..................................              - - -             10,000             10,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
        Total, Subsidies and Grants....................           $464,857           $483,320           $473,897
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

                                             [Dollars in Thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Administrative
                                                          Loan  level       Subsidy  level         expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015 Appropriation..................................         $6,190,000               - - -             $34,478
2016 Budget Estimate................................          6,690,000                 104              34,864
Provided in the Bill................................          6,190,000                 207              34,247
Comparison:
    2015 Appropriation..............................              - - -                +207                -231
    2016 Budget Estimate............................          -$500,000               +$103               -$617
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans 
Program Account, the Committee provides a loan level of 
$6,190,000,000. In addition, the Committee provides $34,247,000 
for administrative expenses.
    Relief to Rural America Through Debt Refinancing.--The 
Committee encourages the Rural Utilities Service to favorably 
consider requests from its borrowers to refinance existing debt 
to permit the savings from that refinanced debt to provide 
needed relief to rural America through reduced electric utility 
rates, deferral of planned rate increases, enhanced use of 
renewable energy sources, compliance with environmental 
requirements and funding early retirement of generation assets.
    The following table reflects the loan levels for the Rural 
Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program Account:

                                             [Dollars in Thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Committee
                                                       FY 2015  enacted    FY 2016  estimate      provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan Authorizations:
Electric:
    Direct, FFB.....................................         $5,000,000          $6,000,000          $5,000,000
    Guaranteed Underwriting.........................            500,000               - - -             500,000
        Subtotal....................................          5,500,000           6,000,000           5,500,000
Telecommunications:
    Direct, Treasury Rate...........................            690,000             345,000             690,000
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
        Total, Loan Authorizations..................         $6,190,000          $6,690,000          $6,190,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                             DISTANCE LEARNING, TELEMEDICINE, AND BROADBAND PROGRAM
                                             [Dollars in Thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Committee
                                                     FY 2015  enacted    FY 2016  estimate        provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Broadband Program:
    Loan Authorization...........................             $24,077              $44,239              $24,077
    Loan Subsidy.................................               4,500                9,675                5,265
    Grants.......................................              10,372               20,372               10,372
Distance Learning and Telemedicine:
    Grants.......................................              22,000               24,950               20,000
                                                  --------------------------------------------------------------
        Total, Loan Subsidy and Grants...........             $36,872              $54,997              $35,637
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband 
Program, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$35,637,000, which includes $20,000,000 for distance learning 
and telemedicine grants.
    Broadband Loan Program Priorities.--Funding provided for 
the broadband program is intended to promote broadband 
availability in those areas where there is not otherwise a 
business case for private investment in a broadband network. 
The Committee directs RUS to focus expenditures on projects 
that bring broadband service to currently unserved households.
    The Committee notes that tribal communities continue to 
struggle with gaining access to broadband service. The 
Committee encourages the Secretary to provide a report that 
identifies the specific challenges Indian Tribal Organizations 
(ITOs) have in gaining access to broadband service and provide 
a plan for addressing these challenges, including how the 
Community Connect program can assist ITOs.

                                TITLE IV


                         DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS


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


 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................          $816,000
2016 budget estimate..................................           824,000
Provided in the bill..................................           811,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................            -5,000
    2016 budget estimate..............................           -13,000
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, 
and Consumer Services, the Committee provides an appropriation 
of $811,000.
    Research and Evaluations.--The Committee is concerned that 
research and evaluation projects conducted by FNS do not 
include more coordination with the Research, Education, and 
Economics (REE) mission area. The Committee is also concerned 
that the FNS Research and Evaluation Plan is released well 
after funding has already been provided for the fiscal year, 
making it difficult for the Committee to exercise its oversight 
responsibility. Section 735 states that FNS cannot receive any 
funding for research and evaluation projects in fiscal year 
2016 until the Committees on Appropriations of the House and 
Senate receive the fiscal year 2016 Research and Evaluation 
Plan that has been developed in coordination with the REE 
mission area.
    In submitting the fiscal year 2017 and subsequent fiscal 
year budget justifications, FNS is directed to provide its 
Research and Evaluation Plan simultaneously with its budget 
request. FNS is further directed to coordinate and finalize its 
plan with the REE mission area in fiscal year 2016 and each 
fiscal year thereafter. The plan submitted for fiscal years 
2016 and subsequent fiscal years shall include a brief 
description of the projects FNS expects to pursue, the total 
projected cost of each project, whether it will be done in-
house or contracted out, and whether it was mandated by law or 
not. By coordinating this plan with the REE mission area, FNS 
projects will be more cost effective, efficient and reduce 
duplication.
    Communication from FNS.--The Committee recognizes the 
efforts made to increase communication and reduce delays by FNS 
in completing requested reports. Reports requested by the 
Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate, as well 
as information regarding FNS programs, are an important part of 
the Committees' oversight responsibilities. The directives and 
issues that are specified in the House, Senate, or conference 
report are very important to the Committee, and dates are 
mandatory. FNS is expected to keep the Committee apprised of 
activities and issues, especially those mentioned in Committee 
reports. FNS is reminded that the Committee reserves the right 
to call before it any agency that does not submit reports on 
time.
    Public Release of Information.--The Committee directs FNS 
to continue making all policy documents related to the Special 
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children 
(WIC) program (including, but not limited to, instructions, 
memoranda, guidance, and questions and answers) available to 
the public on the Internet within one week of their release to 
state WIC administrators.
    Program Eligibility.--The Committee directs FNS to work 
with states to ensure full compliance with the law that all WIC 
and SNAP participants meet all program eligibility 
requirements. FNS also is directed to ensure these programs are 
not being promoted to ineligible individuals, which would 
increase program costs.
    Fruit and Vegetable Consumption.--The Dietary Guidelines 
for Americans emphasize that Americans should consume more 
fruits and vegetables in all of their forms. In order to 
maximize the value of the benefits nutrition program 
participants receive, the Committee urges FNS to recognize in 
relevant agency publications and regulations related to all 
Federal nutrition programs, including nutrition education 
programs and child nutrition programs, the nutritional benefits 
provided by all forms of fruits, vegetables, and beans, whether 
canned, dried, fresh, or frozen.

                       Food and Nutrition Service


                        CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................   $21,300,170,000
2016 budget estimate..................................    21,587,277,000
Provided in the bill..................................    21,507,426,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................      +207,256,000
    2016 budget estimate..............................       -79,851,000
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Child Nutrition Programs, the Committee provides 
$21,507,426,000.
    Summer EBT.--The Committee includes funding for the summer 
electronic benefit transfer (EBT) pilot projects and notes that 
the 2010 agriculture appropriations Act provided the initial 
funding for demonstration projects to test various methods of 
providing food for low-income children during the summer 
months. The pilots have been ongoing for five years. If the 
pilots have been successful, the Secretary is encouraged to 
work through the authorization process to establish a summer 
EBT program rather than continue with pilot projects.
    School Equipment.--The Committee provides funding for 
school meals equipment grants and directs the Department to 
provide a report that details the type of equipment that has 
been purchased by schools including but not limited to salad 
bars and equipment used to prepare foods offered on salad bars. 
The report should also include whether Federal Acquisition 
Regulations prevent schools from purchasing needed equipment or 
disqualify certain equipment purchases utilizing the school 
meals equipment grant program. If these, or any other 
regulations or requirements are impediments, the report should 
provide recommended solutions to ensure schools are able to 
procure a variety of needed equipment.
    School Meals.--The Committee remains concerned about the 
challenges and costs that local schools face in implementing 
the various regulations from the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act 
of 2010. Some schools are continuing to have difficulty 
complying with the whole grain requirements that went into 
effect on July 1, 2014, and there continues to be concern with 
further reductions in the sodium requirements for school meals. 
The Committee appreciates the Secretary providing guidance to 
the states so they can establish a process to exempt school 
food authorities demonstrating a hardship from the current 
whole grain standards, as required by the fiscal year 2015 
appropriations Act. This flexibility is extended for the 2016-
2017 school year. The Committee also retains bill language from 
the fiscal year 2015 appropriations Act requiring that sodium 
standards cannot be reduced below Target 1 until the latest 
scientific research establishes the reduction is beneficial for 
children.
    As schools seek to implement the school meal standards, the 
Committee encourages USDA to consider ways to assist schools 
with technical assistance and training, including the services 
of not-for-profit culinary institutions, to provide healthy, 
cost-effective foods that students will eat.
    The Committee directs FNS, in coordination with AMS, to 
issue guidance to school food authorities clarifying that 
commodities purchased with cash reimbursement funding must be 
bought in accordance with the Buy American Act, which contains 
exceptions for domestic product availability and price 
considerations. Such guidance can assist school food 
authorities in supplying products, such as canned tuna and 
other items, from private vendors while adhering to the Buy 
American Act.
    Improper Payments.--The Committee remains concerned about 
the staggering error rates for the National School Lunch 
Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast Program (SBP), which were 
about 15 percent and 26 percent, respectively, in fiscal year 
2014. This amounts to $1.7 billion in improper payments for 
NSLP and $923 million for SBP. The OIG completed an audit 
report in May 2015 to evaluate how FNS has attempted to lower 
the error rates for NSLP and SBP. OIG made recommendations such 
as requiring households to provide proof of income when 
submitting an application for free or reduced-price meals and 
that school food authorities should verify questionable 
applications. The Committee directs FNS to provide a report on 
how the agency will implement the recommendations made by OIG.
    The following table reflects the Committee recommendations 
for the child nutrition programs:

                         [Dollars in Thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Child Nutrition Programs:
    School Lunch Program............................         $11,777,825
    School Breakfast Program........................           4,230,498
    Child and Adult Care Food Program...............           3,240,646
    Summer Food Service Program.....................             535,633
    Special Milk Program............................              11,314
    State Administrative Expenses...................             269,652
    Commodity Procurement...........................           1,322,088
    Food Safety Education...........................               2,737
    Coordinated Review..............................              10,000
    Computer Support and Processing.................              11,374
    Training and Technical Assistance...............              13,137
    CNP Studies and Evaluations.....................              20,353
    CN Payment Accuracy.............................              10,404
    Farm to School Tactical Team....................               2,761
    Team Nutrition..................................              15,504
    Healthier US School Challenge...................               1,500
    School Meals Equipment Grants...................              20,000
    Summer EBT Demonstration........................              12,000
                                                     -------------------
        Total ......................................         $21,507,426
------------------------------------------------------------------------

SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS, AND CHILDREN 
                                 (WIC)

 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................    $6,623,000,000
2016 budget estimate..................................     6,623,000,000
Provided in the bill..................................     6,484,000,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................      -139,000,000
    2016 budget estimate..............................      -139,000,000
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, 
Infants, and Children, the Committee provides an appropriation 
of $6,484,000,000.
    USDA data shows that WIC participation rates have decreased 
steadily since fiscal year 2010. The President's budget request 
includes a projection of an average monthly participation rate 
of 8.5 million women, infants, and children for fiscal year 
2016. However, the average monthly participation rate was 8.3 
million for fiscal year 2014, and the current average for 
fiscal year 2015 is 8.1 million. This data indicates that the 
actual trajectory of WIC participation continues to decline. 
Birth rates also remain at an all-time low according to the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    USDA is estimating recovery and carryover funds to be 
approximately $600 million. Furthermore, the Secretary has a 
sufficient WIC contingency reserve fund as a safety net to meet 
unexpected demand. With lower participation rates, higher 
carryover funds, and an ample reserve fund, the Committee 
provides funding that will ensure all eligible participants 
will be served. The Committee will continue to monitor WIC 
participation, carryover funds, and food costs and take 
additional action as necessary to ensure that funding provided 
in fiscal year 2016 remains sufficient to serve all eligible 
applicants.
    The Committee provides for continuation of the 
breastfeeding peer counselor program, infrastructure, and 
investments in management information systems including WIC EBT 
systems. The Committee continues to support transitioning WIC 
paper checks and vouchers to an EBT system. EBT is a proven, 
effective tool in combatting waste, fraud, and abuse. These 
funds will help WIC state agencies meet the statutory 
requirement to have an EBT system in place by October 1, 2020.
    The Committee appreciates the Secretary's timely 
implementation of Section 753 of the fiscal year 2015 
agriculture appropriations Act. WIC participants may now choose 
from all varieties of fresh fruits and vegetables. The 
Committee recognizes that the required review of the WIC food 
package is currently underway and directs USDA to keep the 
Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate apprised 
as this process continues.
    Income Eligibility Standards.--The Committee continues to 
monitor WIC income eligibility standards to ensure all 
procedures are followed by the WIC state and local agencies. 
USDA is directed to provide a report on the continuing efforts 
to ensure that only those households with incomes at or below 
185 percent of the Federal poverty level are enrolled in the 
WIC program and that state and local agencies adhere to the 
income verification procedures that the Department has 
implemented. In the case of individuals who are adjunctively 
eligible for the program through Medicaid, the Temporary 
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program or SNAP, the 
Committee encourages USDA to explore the use of income 
verification mechanisms already in use by State Medicaid 
programs, TANF and SNAP to enroll in the program those with 
household incomes consistent with the low income, nutritionally 
at risk enrollment goals of the WIC program.
    Cost Management within WIC State Agencies.--The Committee 
is aware of an OIG audit report issued in September of 2014 
stating that FNS has worked with state agencies to reduce food 
costs, but further steps could be taken. This report makes 
recommendations that could benefit the program such as 
coordinating with Medicaid for the potential program 
reimbursement for prescribed infant formulas and medical foods 
and evaluating cost containment measures in states with the 
lowest food costs to potentially expand successful initiatives 
nationwide. The Committee directs USDA to submit a report 
describing how they have responded to each of OIG's 
recommendations.
    Fraudulent Activities.--The Committee remains concerned 
that some individuals are selling WIC benefits or WIC-purchased 
infant formula or food items on social media sites and by other 
means, which is a violation of Federal WIC regulations. During 
a Congressional hearing, the GAO also expressed concern with 
this type of online fraud. The Committee directs FNS to provide 
a report within 60 days of enactment of this Act describing how 
the agency is addressing this abuse and coordinating with state 
and local officials to prevent these activities.

               SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................   $81,837,570,000
2016 budget estimate..................................    83,693,067,000
Provided in the bill..................................    81,653,207,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................      -184,363,000
    2016 budget estimate..............................    -2,039,860,000
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the 
Committee provides $81,653,207,000. The total amount includes 
$3,000,000,000 for a contingency reserve to be used only in the 
amount necessary. The Committee does not support funding to 
establish Centers of Excellence or conduct unauthorized 
activities, which leads to an expectation that future funds 
will be provided to support activities and centers not 
authorized by Congress.
    The Committee is aware that FNS is preparing a report 
describing purchases made by SNAP recipients as compared to 
non-SNAP recipients. FNS is directed to complete this report as 
soon as practicable and make this report publicly available.
    Employment Verification.--The 2014 farm bill requires state 
agencies to use the National Directory of New Hires (NDNH) to 
verify wage and employment information. As of March 2015, only 
20 states have completed the process and are conducting matches 
using NDNH. The Committee directs USDA to continue working with 
the remaining states to complete the process and implement the 
use of NDNH as soon as practicable.
    Recruitment Activities.--The Committee continues to direct 
USDA to ensure Section 4018 of the 2014 farm bill is 
implemented and enforced in a manner consistent with the 
statute which prohibits USDA from conducting recruitment 
activities, advertising the program, and from entering into 
agreements with foreign governments to promote SNAP benefits. 
The Committee continues to direct USDA to enforce this 
provision to ensure state agencies are not reimbursed for 
similar activities consistent with the statute.
    Issuance of SNAP Benefits.--The Committee notes that some 
states issue SNAP benefits to recipients in a compressed time 
frame, usually at the beginning of the month, which causes 
challenges for both SNAP participants and retailers. The 
Committee recognizes that other states issue benefits on 
different days throughout the month, which allows SNAP 
retailers to stock a consistent supply of food items to ensure 
participants have access to a variety of foods. The Committee 
directs FNS to work with those states with a compressed 
issuance schedule to provide benefits in a manner that will 
help SNAP retailers provide recipients with a steady supply of 
healthy food, and to report to the Committees on Appropriations 
of the House and Senate progress made on this issue within 90 
days of enactment of this Act.
    The following table reflects the Committee recommendations 
for SNAP:

                         [Dollars in Thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Account:
    Benefits..........................................       $70,895,726
    Contingency Reserve...............................         3,000,000
Administrative Costs:
    State Administrative Costs........................         4,238,438
    Nutrition Education and Obesity Prevention Grant             411,000
     Program..........................................
    Employment and Training...........................           456,669
    Mandatory Other Program Costs.....................           179,955
    Discretionary Other Program Costs.................               998
        Administrative Subtotal.......................         5,287,060
Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico (NAP)............         1,971,415
American Samoa........................................             7,917
Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations......           145,191
TEFAP Commodities.....................................           319,750
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands..........            12,148
Community Food Project................................             9,000
Program Access........................................             5,000
        Subtotal......................................         2,470,421
                                                       -----------------
            Total.....................................       $81,653,207
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      COMMODITY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................      $278,501,000
2016 budget estimate..................................       288,317,000
Provided in the bill..................................       288,317,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................        +9,816,000
    2016 budget estimate..............................             - - -
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    The Committee provides an appropriation of $288,317,000 for 
the Commodity Assistance Program. The recommended funding level 
for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program is $221,298,000.
    The Committee recommendation includes $16,548,000 for the 
Farmers' Market Nutrition Program.
    The Committee has included $49,401,000 for administrative 
funding for The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP).
    For the Food Donations Programs, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $1,070,000 for Pacific Island Assistance.
    TEFAP Handling and Distribution Costs.--In addition to the 
grant funds to support commodity handling and distribution 
costs, the bill permits states to use up to 10 percent of the 
funds provided for purchasing TEFAP commodities to help with 
the costs of storing, transporting, and distributing 
commodities. The Committee expects state agencies to consult 
with their emergency feeding organizations on the need for the 
conversion of such funds.

                   NUTRITION PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION

 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................      $150,824,000
2016 budget estimate..................................       155,564,000
Provided in the bill..................................       141,348,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................        -9,467,000
    2016 budget estimate..............................       -14,216,000
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For Nutrition Programs Administration, the Committee 
provides $141,348,000.
    The Committee does not provide funding for the Center for 
Nutrition Policy and Promotion to develop Federal dietary 
guidance for infants and children from birth to 24 months of 
age or to promote the Dietary Guidelines for Americans or 
MyPlate. The nutrition education services provided through WIC, 
along with other Federal nutrition education programs, are 
available to assist with the dietary and nutritional needs of 
infants and children. The Committee also notes that USDA does 
significant advertising of the Dietary Guidelines, MyPlate, and 
other resources to promote healthier lifestyles. These efforts 
are combined with the ``Let's Move!'' campaign and use of this 
information by the public and private sectors.
    Dietary Guidelines for Americans.--There continues to be 
concern with the 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans advisory 
committee (DGAC) recommendations. The fiscal year 2015 
explanatory statement stated that Congress expected the 
Secretary to ensure that the DGAC remained focused on nutrient 
and dietary recommendations based upon sound nutrition science. 
However, the DGAC report released February 19, 2015, included 
extraneous factors and policy recommendations that are outside 
of the statutory requirement, such as agriculture production 
practices including sustainability, taxes, food labeling and 
marketing policies. This was the first time environmental 
factors impacted recommendations traditionally aimed at diet 
and nutrition. Questions have been raised regarding the 
scientific evidence and scientific process used to make the 
recommendations.
    The Committee considers the scientific integrity of the 
Dietary Guidelines to be fundamental to Federal nutrition 
policy that best advances public health. Therefore, bill 
language is included to ensure both the Secretary of 
Agriculture and the Secretary of HHS use the most rigorous and 
objective science through the Nutrition Evidence Library (NEL) 
and that the final report adheres to the statutory authority of 
providing diet and nutrition information only. The Committee 
also expects the Departments to ensure the final guidelines do 
not conflict with sound scientific, nutritional guidance 
implemented by other federal agencies outside of USDA and HHS.
    USDA and HHS received more than 29,000 comments during the 
public comment period for the DGAC report. Given the 
unprecedented number of comments and the fact that the DGAC 
included recommendations beyond its nutritional purview, 
greater transparency is needed as the Departments finalize the 
guidelines. The public will have no other opportunity to 
provide input or understand what the Departments might 
recommend before they release the final guidelines. Therefore, 
bill language directs the Departments to revise and publish the 
preliminary draft of the guidelines. The public notice shall 
also include a list of the specific scientific studies and 
evidence that has been rated ``Grade I: Strong'' by the NEL 
supporting each revised or new recommendation. Finally, the 
Secretaries shall allow for a minimum 90 day public comment 
period of the revised recommendations, and finalization shall 
not occur until at least 60 days after the comment period to 
allow the Departments time to review the comments.

                                TITLE V


                FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS


                      Foreign Agricultural Service


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Transfer from
                                                           Appropriation       export loan           Total
                                                                                 account
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015 Appropriation.....................................       $181,423,000         $6,394,000       $187,817,000
2016 Budget Estimate...................................        191,631,000          6,394,000        198,025,000
Provided in the Bill...................................        184,423,000          6,394,000        190,817,000
Comparison:
    2015 Appropriation.................................         +3,000,000              - - -         +3,000,000
    2016 Budget Estimate...............................        -$7,208,000             $- - -        -$7,208,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Foreign Agricultural Service, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $184,423,000 and transfer of 
$6,394,000 for a total appropriation of $190,817,000.
    Farmer-to-Farmer.--The Farmer-to-Farmer program provides 
valuable outreach opportunities for U.S. agricultural exports. 
The program enhances agricultural efforts overseas and 
strengthens international ties. The Committee directs USDA to 
take a more prominent role in the Farmer-to-Farmer program.

  Food for Peace Title I Direct Credit and Food for Progress Program 
                                Account


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................        $2,528,000
2016 budget estimate..................................         2,528,000
Provided in the bill..................................         2,528,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................             - - -
    2016 budget estimate..............................             - - -
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the administrative expenses to carry out the credit 
program of Food for Peace Title I, Food for Peace Act, and the 
Food for Progress Act, the Committee provides an appropriation 
of $2,528,000.

                     Food for Peace Title II Grants


 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................    $1,466,000,000
2016 budget estimate..................................     1,400,000,000
Provided in the bill..................................     1,417,000,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................       -49,000,000
    2016 budget estimate..............................       +17,000,000
 

    For Food for Peace Title II grants, the Committee provides 
an appropriation of $1,417,000,000, of which $350,000,000 is 
for non-emergency assistance.
    Food Aid Funding.--The Committee provides funding above the 
President's budget request level. While the Committee 
recognizes a need for funding levels similar to the enacted 
level and supports the program, overall funding levels have 
placed severe limits on available resources.
    Food Aid Reform.--The Committee again does not provide the 
changes to the Food for Peace Act requested in the President's 
budget. The 2014 farm bill rejected similar changes just last 
year. Further, the Committee notes that the ``flexibility'' 
desired for various methods of delivery through cash, vouchers, 
and in-kind food assistance already exists across the whole-of-
government. There are numerous programs that uniquely fit each 
of these needs. Finally, the Committee notes that continued 
efforts to change the sixty-year tradition of Food for Peace 
has only created internal divisions among the food aid 
community rather than a united front against combatting hunger 
abroad.
    GAO Recommendations.--The Committee received the report 
required in Public Law 113-235 regarding responses to GAO 
recommendations and is encouraged by the direction USDA and the 
U.S. Agency for International Development are taking. The 
Committee directs both agencies to continue to update and 
ratify a written agreement that clearly defines roles and 
responsibilities for carrying out the Food for Peace Title II 
program. The Committee directs the agencies to provide a 
written report to the Committees on Appropriations of the House 
and Senate on the status of this agreement within 60 days of 
enactment of this Act.

  MCGOVERN-DOLE INTERNATIONAL FOOD FOR EDUCATION AND CHILD NUTRITION 
                             PROGRAM GRANTS

 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................      $191,626,000
2016 budget estimate..................................       191,626,000
Provided in the bill..................................       191,626,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................             - - -
    2016 budget estimate..............................             - - -
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and 
Child Nutrition Program Grants, the Committee provides an 
appropriation of $191,626,000.

              COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION EXPORT (LOANS)

                    CREDIT GUARANTEE PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................        $6,748,000
2016 budget estimate..................................         6,748,000
Provided in the bill..................................         6,748,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................             - - -
    2016 budget estimate..............................             - - -
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For administrative expenses of the Commodity Credit 
Corporation Export Loans Credit Guarantee Program Account, the 
Committee provides an appropriation of $6,748,000.

                                TITLE VI


           RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION


                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


                      Food and Drug Administration


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

                                             [Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Appropriation         User fees        Total, FDA  S&E
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015 Appropriation..................................          $2,588,536          $1,854,820          $4,443,356
2016 Budget Estimate................................           2,734,715           1,930,685           4,665,400
Provided in the Bill................................           2,618,534           1,930,685           4,549,219
Comparison:
    2015 Appropriation..............................             +29,998             +75,865            +105,863
    2016 Budget Estimate............................           -$116,181              $- - -           -$116,181
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee provides an appropriation of $2,618,534,000 
in new budget authority for the Food and Drug Administration. 
In addition, the Committee recommends the following user fee 
amounts: $826,072,000--prescription drugs; $134,475,000--
medical devices; $320,029,000--human generic drugs; 
$21,540,000--biosimilar biologicals; $22,140,000--animal drugs; 
$7,429,000--animal generic drugs; $599,000,000--tobacco 
products; estimated $1,434,000--food and feed recalls; 
estimated $6,414,000--food reinspection; and, estimated 
$5,300,000--voluntary qualified importers. The combination of 
new budget authority and user fees provides the FDA with a 
total discretionary salaries and expenses level of 
$4,549,219,000. This total does not include permanent, 
indefinite user fees for mammography, pharmacy compounding, 
export, and color certification estimated at $33,356,000. The 
Committee accepts proposed administrative savings of 
$15,718,000.
    The Committee recommendation does not include proposed user 
fees for Food Facility Registration and Inspection, Food 
Import, International Courier, Cosmetics, or Food Contact 
Notification.
    The Committee does not include funding for a civilian pay 
increase across the agency. Should the President provide a 
civilian pay increase for 2016, it is assumed that the cost of 
such a pay increase will be absorbed within existing 
appropriations for fiscal year 2016.
    The Committee recommendation maintains the fiscal year 2015 
funding levels for the medical countermeasures initiative as 
well as recent funding increases for antimicrobial resistance, 
counterfeit drugs, food safety, foreign drug inspections, 
import safety, and pharmacy compounding.
    Funding for Food Safety.--The Committee includes increases 
of $41,500,000 for the implementation of the FSMA. These 
increases consist of: $18,500,000 for Inspection Modernization 
and Training; $5,000,000 for the National Integrated Food 
Safety System; $11,500,000 for Education and Technical 
Assistance for Industry; $2,500,000 for Technical Staffing and 
Guidance Development; $3,000,000 for Import Safety; and 
$1,000,000 for Risk Analytics and Evaluation. The increases 
provided in this bill and the increases provided since fiscal 
year 2011 should assist the FDA in preparation for the 
implementation of FSMA prior to the effective dates of the 
seven foundational proposed rules. While the FDA has not 
implemented the final rules, the Committee understands that 
most businesses will not need to comply with the two rules for 
preventive controls for human food and for animal food until 
August 2016 and that the other five rules will not be effective 
until fiscal year 2017 and later.
     The Committee notes that with these increases, the 
estimated total funding for food safety since FSMA was signed 
into law on January 4, 2011, would be over $230 million. In 
addition to the increases for FSMA, the FDA utilizes base 
resources for its comprehensive food safety efforts. Prior to 
the Committee's investment in food safety activities related to 
FSMA over the past five years, FDA reported that it spent $785 
million for food safety in fiscal year 2009 and had an 
appropriation for food safety of $952.9 million in fiscal year 
2010. While some of these base resources prior to the enactment 
of FSMA covered statutory responsibilities that are not 
directly linked to FSMA, a large majority of such funds do 
relate to FSMA and should be accounted for accordingly. The 
Committee continues to seek far more information on how the 
agency is spending its resources for FSMA related activities 
from increased funding and base resources. Therefore, the 
Committee directs the FDA to provide a detailed accounting of 
its food safety resources in the fiscal year 2017 budget 
request, including which pre-2011 base resources are now 
repurposed for activities in support of FSMA and which 
resources are the result of appropriated increases from fiscal 
years 2011 to 2016, a detailed explanation of what the FDA has 
accomplished with increased food safety resources since fiscal 
year 2011, and how the aggregate total of these base resources 
for food safety will be utilized in fiscal year 2017.
    Medical Product Safety Funding.--The Committee provides an 
increase of $4,216,000 for medical product safety initiatives. 
Included in this amount is $2,500,000 for combating antibiotic 
resistant bacteria as part of the National Strategy for 
Combating Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria (CARB), $1,000,000 for 
the Precision Medicine initiative, and $716,000 for the 
evaluation of over the counter sunscreen products. According to 
the FDA's fiscal year 2016 budget request, the Agency is 
spending approximately $32.5 million on antimicrobial 
resistance activities in fiscal year 2015. With this increase, 
the FDA is expected to spend approximately $35 million on 
combating antibiotic resistance in fiscal year 2016.
    Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients.--The Committee is 
concerned that the FDA has not yet approved a list of Active 
Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs) for use by compounding 
pharmacists pursuant to the Drug Quality and Security Act 
(Public Law 112-43, 127 Stat. 587) and the Federal Food, Drug, 
and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 353a et seq.). Within 90 days of 
enactment of this Act, the FDA shall report to Congress on when 
its review of proposed APIs pursuant to Sec. 503A(1)(a)(iii) 
will be completed.
    Antibiotics.--The Committee urges the FDA to work to foster 
the development of new antibiotics by supporting greater 
collaboration between industry and the FDA around adaptive 
clinical trials and labeling changes. The President's Council 
of Advisors on Science and Technology has recommended this 
proposal to help support the type of robust drug development 
that will be needed to ensure patients are protected from 
bacterial resistance.
    Bioethics.--The Committee notes that the FDA commissioned a 
consensus study from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) on 
``Ethical and Social Policy Considerations of Novel Techniques 
for Prevention of Maternal Transmission of Mitochondrial DNA 
Diseases.'' The Committee further notes that the FDA has 
requested that the IOM produce a consensus report on the 
ethical and social policy issues related to genetic 
modification of eggs and zygotes to prevent transmission of 
mitochondrial disease. The Committee directs the FDA to 
establish an independent panel of experts, including those from 
faith-based institutions with expertise on bioethics and faith-
based medical associations, and to submit this consensus report 
to the independent panel of experts upon its completion by the 
IOM. The Committee urges the independent panel of experts to 
review the IOM report and report their evaluation of its 
conclusions, along with any recommendations based on this 
review, to the Committee within 30 days of the completion of 
the report by the IOM.
    Biological Products.--The Committee commends the FDA for 
issuing draft guidance to address the mixing, diluting, or 
repackaging of biological products outside the scope of an 
approved biologics license application. The Committee urges the 
FDA to finalize the guidance without delay following the public 
comment period and continues to emphasize the need for close 
FDA inspection and supervision of large-scale compounding and 
repackaging of sterile injectable drugs and biological 
products, particularly products that are administered into 
areas of the human body where there is tempered immunity, such 
as the eye or spinal column, to ensure that they are processed 
in keeping with current good manufacturing practice for sterile 
products, in particular 21 CFR 200.50 regarding ophthalmic 
preparations.
    Biosimilars--Naming and Interchangeability--Five years 
post-enactment of the Biologics Price Competition and 
Innovation Act (BPCIA), FDA has only released guidances on 
general issues like scientific considerations in demonstrating 
biosimilarity, how exclusivity for innovator products may be 
applied, and how FDA will conduct insdustry/applicant meetings. 
These guidances do not address in any way the key 
considerations affecting patients or providers, such as what 
biosimilars will be named so that patients and their providers 
know which specific therapy a patient receives, for which 
indications can a biosimilar or interchangeable product be 
used, and scientific considerations for determining 
interchangeability. Due to the absence of these guidances the 
FDA was forced to approve biosimilar Zarxio with a 
``placeholder'' name. The Committee finds this unacceptable and 
directs the FDA to issue naming and interchangeability 
guidances no later than November 30, 2015.
    Blood Plasma Products.--The Committee notes that the FDA 
has followed the Committee's advice from fiscal year 2015 and 
is addressing the issue of the use of plasma for post-
collection manufacture into critical plasma derivatives, no 
matter the manner in which the blood is collected. The 
Committee urges the FDA to prioritize developing policies to 
allow for the more timely use of plasma from automated 
donations into other biologics and asks that the FDA update the 
Committee on its progress with a report no later than 60 days 
after enactment of this Act.
    Blood Product Policies.--Last December, the FDA released 
draft guidance for industry entitled ``Bacterial Detection 
Testing by Blood Collection Establishments and Transfusion 
Services to Enhance the Safety and Availability of Platelets 
for Transfusion.'' As the agency is aware, the Committee issued 
report language in fiscal year 2012 expressing concern for the 
safety risks to transfusion patients from bacterially 
contaminated platelets. The Committee is pleased to see the 
agency take the step of releasing draft guidance. 
Unfortunately, when the FDA released its guidance agenda for 
2015, the final version of this draft guidance was not listed 
among the agency's priorities. This is an important safety 
issue, and it is essential that the agency complete the 
guidance process in a timely manner. The Committee urges the 
FDA to do so as quickly as possible.
    Centers of Excellence--The Committee is aware of the 
important contribution of CFSAN's Food Safety Centers of 
Excellence in supporting critical basic research as well as 
facilitating the implementation of the Food Safety 
Modernization Act. The Committee encourages the agency to 
continue to fully utilize the Centers of Excellence to 
accomplish these goals and to enhance its level of support for 
Food Safety Modernization Act activities and to increase 
funding for base work.
    Cord Blood Regulation.--The Committee directs the FDA to 
undergo a review and seriously consider the potential need for 
revision of the current regulatory requirements for cord blood 
licensure, particularly those related to manufacturing and 
storage, to ensure the correct applicability to this industry 
since the current regulatory requirements are the same ones 
that apply to pharmaceutical products. In addition, the 
Committee directs the FDA to create an advisory task force, 
comprised at a minimum of public and private cord blood 
bankers, transplanters and patients, to provide recommendations 
to the agency about the current licensing requirements and 
changes that may be necessary.
    Cosmetics and Colors.--The Committee directs the FDA to 
spend no less than the fiscal year 2015 level for cosmetics 
activities as well as for the Office of Colors and Cosmetics 
(OCAC). Funding provided for OCAC is for direct support of the 
operation, staffing, compliance, research and international 
activities performed by this office.
    The Committee notes that, for the past five years, it has 
directed the FDA to respond to the Citizen Petition requesting 
that the FDA establish a safe level for lead as a nonfunctional 
constituent in lipstick. The Committee is aware that in 1975 
the cosmetic industry asked the FDA to evaluate the safety of 
ingredients found in its products. Consistent with this 
commitment, in 1976 the cosmetic industry established the 
Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) under which the safety of 
approximately 3,880 ingredients has been reviewed by an Expert 
Panel of independent scientists, and the FDA has participated 
through a nonvoting liaison at all meetings of the Expert 
Panel. The Committee directs the FDA to respond to the Citizen 
Petition on this lipstick ingredient by December 31, 2015.
    Cosmetic Ingredient Review Panel.--As noted, the cosmetic 
industry established the CIR as a means to assure the safety of 
ingredients in cosmetic products. Given the breadth and volume 
of ingredients reviewed and the scientific expertise applied to 
its process, it is the Committee's belief CIR should be 
recognized and formalized as a public-private program. The 
Committee therefore directs that the FDA work with the cosmetic 
industry to transfer the CIR to the United States Pharmacopeia 
Convention (USP) or some other appropriate third body for the 
purpose of evaluating and determining the safety of ingredients 
found in cosmetics. USP is a widely respected independent 
scientific organization whose drug standards are explicitly 
incorporated under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
(FDCA). The Committee directs that the FDA, working 
cooperatively with the cosmetic industry, report back to the 
Committee no later than January 15, 2016, with a framework and 
a detailed plan.
    Drug Compounding.--The Committee is concerned that, since 
passage of the Drug Quality and Security Act (DQSA) of 2013, 
the FDA has interpreted provisions of Section 503A of the FDCA 
in a manner inconsistent with its legislative intent and with 
the agency's own previous positions. Specifically, the FDA has 
taken the position that under 503A, a pharmacist may not 
compound medications prior to receipt of a prescription and 
transfer the drugs to a requesting physician or other 
authorized agent of the prescriber for administration to his or 
her patients without a patient-specific prescription 
accompanying the medication. This practice, which is often 
referred to as ``office-use'' compounding, is authorized in the 
vast majority of states and was intended to be allowable under 
DQSA. The Committee is aware that in 2012, prior to passage of 
the DQSA, FDA was working on a draft compliance policy guide 
for 503A of the FDCA that provided guidance on how ``office-
use'' compounding could be done consistent with the provisions 
of 503A. The Committee understands the intent of the DQSA was 
not to prohibit compounding pharmacists from operation under 
existing 503A exemptions; therefore, the Committee directs the 
FDA to issue a guidance document on how compounding pharmacists 
can continue to engage in ``office-use'' compounding before the 
receipt of a patient-specific prescription consistent with the 
provisions of 503A within 90 days after the enactment of this 
Act.
    Drug Labeling Approval.--The Committee acknowledges FDA's 
actions over the past six months regarding the proposed rule, 
``Supplemental Applications Proposing Labeling Changes for 
Approved Drugs and Biological Products,'' to include a 
listening session on March 27, 2015, and a reopened comment 
period that closed on April 27, 2015. However, the Committee 
continues to be concerned with FDA actions from the beginning 
of this process and the subsequent failure to find closure on 
this issue. As things currently stand, the rule would allow a 
generic drug manufacturer to alter its safety labeling 
unilaterally without FDA's prior approval, even if there is 
more than one generic manufacturer or an innovator manufacturer 
and generic manufacturer marketing the same bioequivalent drug 
(a ``multisource'' drug), and other companies are not required 
to make a corresponding labeling change.
    The proposed rule has the potential to threaten public 
health by creating unprecedented patient and provider confusion 
by having multiple labels for bioequivalent products. The 
Committee urges the FDA to finalize the rule based upon 
comments it received in the docket and during the March 27 
public meeting to meet the stated objectives of ensuring that 
patients have the most complete and up-to-date information 
regarding their prescription drugs. The final rule should 
establish: (1) FDA as the final decision maker of whether or 
not a manufacturer should change its labeling in a multisource 
environment; (2) a process by which the FDA collects and 
utilizes all safety information to determine if a labeling 
change is required--from the new safety information from the 
manufacturer to sources such as the Sentinel System and other 
global databases; (3) a process by which the FDA has defined 
time parameters to take action on new safety information 
provided by innovator or generic application holders; and, (4) 
a process by which manufacturers should have a defined time 
period to make the corresponding labeling change. A final rule 
with these minimum requirements should be grounded in 
scientific evidence, and present no opportunity for mismatched 
dispensing or use information between the innovator drug and 
the generic version drug.
    Drug Shortages.--The Committee is aware that shortages of 
critical drugs persist following the 2012 enactment of the Food 
and Drug Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA). Surveys conducted 
by the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists, the American 
Hospital Association, and the American Society of Health-System 
Pharmacists report persistent shortages of drugs used in 
anesthesia care, oncology, and other services, owing primarily 
to problems in manufacturing, which impair patient access to 
care and patient experiences in the healthcare system, delay 
surgical procedures, and possibly increase overall healthcare 
costs. Therefore, within the funding provided the Committee 
directs the Commissioner to continue to prioritize the public 
reporting of manufacturing shortages, and to work with industry 
to prevent conditions that might lead to drug shortages.
    The Committee remains concerned about national shortages of 
drugs to test for and treat Tuberculosis (TB), and recognizes 
that shortages could lead to further TB transmission as well as 
the development of drug resistance. The FDA is encouraged to 
ensure that TB control partners are participating in the Drug 
Shortages Interagency Task Force, including representatives of 
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Office of 
Emergency Preparedness and Response, and the Federal TB Task 
Force. The Committee requests a report on steps the FDA can 
take to prevent TB drug shortages and help maintain an adequate 
supply.
    Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy.--The Committee is aware that 
the FDA recently released draft guidance for the development of 
drugs to treat Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy and related issues. 
The Committee commends FDA for working with patient groups and 
urges them to continue this collaborative approach when 
evaluating the medical needs of a rare disease community.
    FDA Partnerships Under FSMA.--The purpose of FSMA is to 
reform the nation's food safety laws to ensure a safe public 
food supply. As the FDA continues implementation of FSMA, the 
Committee encourages the FDA to work in partnership with 
existing government food safety programs, including the use of 
MOUs, to verify compliance with FSMA rules once they are 
finalized as a way to eliminate duplication of activities under 
the law. In addition, the Committee provides an increase of 
$2.5 million for the Food Safety Outreach Program under NIFA, 
and expects that, per the proposal in the President's fiscal 
year 2016 budget request, NIFA will serve as the sole agency 
providing food safety training, education, outreach, and 
technical assistance at the farm level.
    Food Contact Notification User Fees.--The funds made 
available by this Act include sufficient monies to fund the 
FDA's Food Contact Notification Program and shall be deemed to 
satisfy the requirements of 21 U.S.C. 348(h)(5)(A). The 
Committee recommendation does not include proposed user fees.
    Generic Drug User Fee Facility Fees.--When the FDA begins 
the process for GDUFA reauthorization negotiations on June 15, 
2015, the Committee urges all stakeholders to carefully 
consider providing fee waivers, exemptions, or otherwise 
reduced fees for small generic drug manufacturers to minimize 
the disproportionate financial burden on these companies.
    Genomic Editing.--The Committee understands the potential 
benefits to society in the genetic modification of living 
organisms. However, researchers do not yet fully understand all 
the possible side effects of editing the genes of a human 
embryo. Editing of the human germ line may involve serious and 
unquantifiable safety and ethical issues. Federal and non-
Federal organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences 
and National Academy of Medicine will soon engage in more 
extensive scientific analysis of the potential risks of genome 
editing and a broader public discussion of the societal and 
ethical implications of this technique. In accordance with the 
current policy at the National Institutes of Health, the 
Committee includes bill language that places a prohibition on 
the FDA's use of funds involving the genetic modification of a 
human embryo. The Committee continues to support a wide range 
of innovations in biomedical research, but will do so in a 
fashion that reflects well-established scientific and ethical 
principles.
    Harm Reduction.--It is the Committee recommendation that 
the FDA consider the benefits of harm reduction as part of 
evaluations under the Deeming regulations for tobacco products.
    Imported Pet Food Product Transparency.--As of May 15, 
2015, the FDA had received approximately 5,200 reports of pet 
illness related to consumption of jerky pet treats, nearly all 
of which are imported from China. The reports involve more than 
6,000 dogs, 26 cats, and 3 humans and include more than 1,100 
canine deaths. These incidents date back to 2007. The Committee 
requests that the FDA provide it with a summary of all 
activities associated with the investigation into the pet 
illnesses associated these products, including any import 
alerts and import refusals, within 60 days of the enactment of 
this Act. In addition, the Committee requests that the agency 
provide it with semi-annual reports on the status of the 
investigation into these illnesses beginning in April 2016 
until the issue has been resolved.
    Late Reports.--The Committee reminds the Commissioner that 
the timelines specified by the Committees on Appropriations of 
the House and Senate for fiscal year 2015 reports are deadlines 
that must be met. While the Committee notes that the FDA has 
made progress in providing more timely information and updates, 
the FDA still has several outstanding reports that are delayed 
due to long reviews and clearances. The Committee directs the 
Commissioner to submit these overdue reports.
    Local Port Cooperation--The Committee directs FDA to work 
with local governments at high volume ports of entry to explore 
activities which reduce the risk of food borne illnesses and 
enhance the capacity of local officials in dealing with food 
borne threats.
    Mammography Quality Assurance Advisory Committee.--More 
than three years ago, in November 2011, the National 
Mammography Quality Assurance Advisory Committee approved a 
change to the mammogram patient report and physician report to 
include information regarding an individual's breast density. 
This process has not been completed. The Committee urges the 
FDA to implement this change in an expedited manner and must 
report to Congress on the status of this change no more than 60 
days from the enactment of this Act.
    Medical Countermeasures.--The Committee directs that not 
less than $24,552,000 shall be available for the FDA's Medical 
Countermeasures Initiative. This total is in addition to the 
unobligated funds remaining to support the FDA's emergency 
response to Ebola and related disease outbreaks.
    Medical Gas Rulemaking.--The Committee is concerned that 
the FDA has not initiated rulemaking to address numerous 
longstanding regulatory issues for medical gases despite the 
statutory requirement in FDASIA to issue a final rulemaking 
addressing all necessary changes for medical gases by July 9, 
2016. Designated medical gases are a unique class of drugs that 
differ significantly from traditional pharmaceuticals and 
therefore must be addressed in the Federal drug regulations to 
prevent safety and enforcement issues caused by current 
regulations. The FDA has never responded to a 1979 Citizens 
Petition on expiration dating or a 1994 Citizens Petition on 
calculation of yield, and has not responded to a January 2014 
statutorily required report on medical gas regulatory review. 
Therefore, the FDA shall issue a proposed rulemaking to address 
each and every regulatory issue that creates safety and 
enforcement issues for medical gases by September 30, 2015.
    Menu Labeling.--The Committee is concerned about recent FDA 
final determination that increased the size and scope of those 
affected under restaurant menu labeling regulations. 
Specifically, the final rule attempts to regulate local grocery 
chains that typically do not qualify as restaurants. These 
newly regulated entities do not have clear guidance from the 
FDA as to how they must comply with numerous provisions of the 
final regulation. The Committee includes bill language that 
directs the FDA to implement the final rule no earlier than 
December 1, 2016, and at least one-year following agency 
publication of related guidance to newly regulated 
stakeholders.
    Molluscan Shellfish--The Committee is concerned that non-
tariff trade barriers continue to preclude trade in molluscan 
shellfish with European Union states. The Committee encourages 
the agency to expedite its audit of growing areas in Europe and 
to seek equivalency in sanitary standards where possible to 
allow a resumption of trade.
    Off-Label Guidance.--The Committee notes that in December 
of 2011, the FDA issued ``Guidance for Industry: Responding to 
Unsolicited Requests for Off-Label Information About 
Prescription Drugs and Medical Devices'', and a request for 
comment to assist the agency in evaluating policies for off-
label uses of both approved and investigational drugs and 
devices. The comment period closed on March 27, 2012. Further, 
the FDA responded in June 2014 to two citizen petitions that 
were submitted to the agency in July of 2011 and September of 
2013 requesting clarification of regulations and policies 
regarding certain communications related to investigational new 
drugs and investigational new devices and off-label uses of 
drugs and devices. In the FDA's response, the agency stated, 
``that it plans to issue guidance that addresses unsolicited 
requests, distributing scientific and medical information on 
unapproved new uses and manufacturer discussions regarding 
scientific information more generally, by the end of the 
calendar year.''
    The Committee is concerned that the FDA has yet to issue 
new guidelines regarding the manner in which truthful and non-
misleading scientific information outside of a product label 
for prescription drugs and medical devices can be conveyed. The 
Committee directs the FDA to address this issue 
comprehensively, outlining how manufacturers can communicate 
with all healthcare stakeholders, and to complete such 
guidelines within 60 days of enactment of this Act.
    Over the Counter (OTC) Medicines for Children--The 
Committee is concerned that the FDA has not issued a proposed 
rule revising the monograph regulating the labeling of OTC 
cough and cold products for children. The Committee directs the 
agency to publish a proposed rule by November 30, 2015, based 
on scientific evidence for safety and efficacy in pediatric 
populations and taking into consideration the October 19, 2007 
joint recommendations of its Pediatric Advisory Committee and 
Nonprescription Drugs Advisory Committee. While the Committee 
appreciates the agency's effort to explore possible 
improvements to the OTC drug monograph process; these efforts 
should not impede the prompt publication of this proposed rule.
    Partially Hydrogenated Oils.--The Committee is concerned 
that the FDA's recent final determination that partially 
hydrogenated oils (PHOs) are no longer Generally Recognized as 
Safe (GRAS) could cause economic disruption in the marketplace 
and lead to unnecessary litigation. More importantly, the FDA 
should clarify that they have not concluded that PHOs are 
unsafe but that they no longer meet the general recognition 
element of the GRAS standard. Further, it is disturbing that 
the FDA would make such a determination without full public 
documentation of the data and process used to do so. Therefore, 
the Committee directs the FDA, in carrying out its enforcement 
of this determination, to: 1) issue a notice that it will delay 
the effective date of the final determination until acting on a 
Food Additive Petition following the procedures identified in 
21 C.F.R. 170 38(c); 2) provide a reasonable transition period 
of 3 years for companies to reformulate products that would 
allow the marketing of current uses of PHOs during this 
transition period; 3) clarify that the final determination 
applies prospectively and after the agency issues the food 
additive regulation; and (4) that the FDA clarify that products 
containing PHOs prior to and during this transition period be 
deemed lawful and in compliance with the FDCA, and not seek to 
enforce any ban on the introduction of PHOs into commerce until 
after the revised effective date.
    Pharmacy Compounding.--The Committee is very concerned with 
the draft MOU that the FDA has proposed under Section 503A of 
the FDCA. The proposed MOU would complicate patient and 
prescriber access to compounded medications, and may have a 
deleterious effect on small pharmacies. Under the draft MOU, 
the FDA attempts to describe ``distribution'' as occurring when 
``a compounded human drug product has left the facility in 
which the drug was compounded.'' In the DQSA, Congress only 
allowed the FDA to regulate ``distribution.'' But the MOU 
appears to exceed the authority granted in the statue by 
redefining ``distribution'' in a manner that includes 
dispensing--something unprecedented. This overreach could 
generate exactly the kind of costly and confusing litigation 
that Congress intended to avoid when it amended and reinstated 
Section 503A. The Committee expects that, when a final MOU is 
proposed as a model agreement for the states to consider, that 
distribution and dispensing are treated as the different and 
separate activities that they actually are.
    Pollock Nomenclature.--The Committee directs the 
Commissioner to expedite consideration of whether it is 
appropriate to change the acceptable market name of Gadus 
chalcogrammus (formerly classified as Theragra chalcogramma) 
from ``Alaska Pollock'' to ``Pollock'' in the Seafood List. It 
is critical that seafood nomenclature (acceptable market names) 
is science-based, truthful, and not misleading to the consumer.
    Prescription Drug Labeling Inserts.--The Committee is aware 
of FDA proposals that would subvert repeatedly expressed 
Congressional intent by permitting the distribution of 
prescription drugs without printed prescribing information on 
or within the packages from which such drugs are to be 
dispensed. The FDA intends to replace such printed labeling 
with an electronic labeling system for the majority of 
prescription drugs. On several occasions Congress has directly 
declined to provide the FDA the necessary statutory authority 
to implement this change. As recently as 2012, Congress 
commissioned a GAO report (GAO-13-592) discussing this issue. 
The GAO report concluded that such a change could adversely 
impact public health. Thus, the Committee is very concerned 
that the FDA is moving to promulgate a regulation that would 
generally eliminate printed prescribing information inserts for 
prescription drugs. Therefore, the Committee has included a 
provision prohibiting the FDA from utilizing any funds to 
propose or otherwise promulgate any rule that requires or 
permits any prescription drug or biologic products to be 
distributed without printed prescribing information on or 
within the packaging from which such products are to be 
dispensed, unless such actions are expressly provided by an 
amendment to the FDCA.
    Scientific Integrity.--Pursuant to the President's 2009 
memorandum and as directed by the Office of Science and 
Technology Policy, the FDA adopted a scientific integrity 
policy in 2012. It appears to conform to the President's 
directive by maintaining a firm commitment to science-based, 
data-driven decision making, facilitating the free flow of 
scientific and technical information, and requiring a fair and 
transparent approach to resolving scientific disputes. The 
Committee directs the Commissioner to ensure all FDA centers 
agencies are complying with the policy and using it to guide 
their policy and regulatory decisions.
    Scientific Study Data.--Sound science, peer review and 
transparency are essential to effective protection of public 
health. The Committee is concerned that data from scientific 
studies utilized in forming public policy may not be available 
for public review, even under Freedom of Information Act 
requests. The Committee believes that if public policy is based 
on a scientific study, that study should be available for 
public review. The Committee urges the FDA to immediately 
provide, on its website, the data and studies it uses to 
support public policy used by the FDA or other Federal agencies 
based on FDA studies.
    Sodium Intake Levels.--The Committee is concerned about the 
FDA's continued focus on voluntary sodium reductions and 
recommendations to remove the GRAS status of sodium given the 
growing body of evidence that suggests low sodium consumption 
can lead to health problems in healthy individuals. The 
Committee requires the FDA, in coordination with CDC, to 
convene a panel at the IOM to determine the blood pressure 
effect and Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) implications for 
healthy people consuming sodium at 3000 mg or less per day. 
Federal funds should not be expended on sodium reduction 
activities below 3000 mg per day until the science is formally 
considered surrounding healthy and safe sodium intake, 
especially for healthy individuals, and the impact of lower 
sodium on blood pressure (and an extrapolation to health), 
including direct research suggesting a negative impact of lower 
sodium on health.
    Spent Grains.--The Committee recognizes that the FDA took 
into consideration public comments and revised some of its 
proposed regulations on spent grains used for animal food. 
Processors already complying with FDA human food safety 
requirements would not need to implement additional preventive 
controls when supplying a by-product like wet spent grains for 
animal food. However, further processing a by-product for use 
as animal food such as drying spent grains, would require 
additional compliance under the proposed rule. The FDA has said 
potential hazards associated with spent grains are minimal, and 
steps to prevent contamination are likely already in place. The 
Committee includes bill language to ensure dry and wet spent 
grains used for animal food are regulated equally.
    Sunscreen Ingredient Applications.--The Committee is 
concerned that another year has passed without the FDA 
completing its review of the pending Time and Extent 
Applications (TEAs) and the OTC Monograph rulemakings on 
sunscreens. Immediate action on sunscreen applications should 
be a priority since the need for sunscreens is evident by the 
nearly five million people that are treated annually for all 
skin cancers and the fact that melanoma is the fifth leading 
cause of cancer in the U.S. this year. The bill provides the 
requested funding of $700,000 for the FDA to complete timely 
reviews of filed requests and determine the safety and efficacy 
of sunscreen ingredients.
    Sunscreen Ingredients and Report.--Thirteen years have 
passed without FDA final decisions on sunscreen ingredients 
that have been used around the world for many years. FDA's 
inaction is particularly concerning because bipartisan reforms 
were enacted in the Sunscreen Innovation Act (SIA) addressing 
all of the issues identified as impediments by the FDA. The 
Surgeon General called on the Federal government to work with 
stakeholders to support skin cancer prevention and yet the FDA 
has still not approved a new sunscreen product since the 1990s. 
The FDA shall produce a report to the Committee by September 1, 
2015, that contains a detailed analysis of how the FDA is 
balancing the Surgeon General's Call to Action, the known 
public health benefits that regular sunscreen use provides to 
prevent skin cancer and melanoma, and the long history of safe 
and effective use of sunscreens currently backlogged at the FDA 
in comparable countries versus the hypothetical risk sunscreens 
posed to human health in FDA's GRAS standard. Furthermore, the 
FDA shall issue draft guidance for industry outlining data 
required for sunscreen active ingredients to meet the FDA's 
safety and efficacy standards and meet SIA's statutory 
deadlines for publication. The bill provides $700,000 for FDA's 
sunscreen activities.
    Surrogate Endpoints.--The Committee urges the FDA to issue 
guidance on the use of surrogate and intermediate endpoints for 
accelerated approval of regenerative medicine products under 
section 506(c) of the FDCA (21 U.S.C. 356(c)). In the process 
of issuing guidance, the FDA shall consult with appropriate 
stakeholders in the development of this guidance.
    Tobacco Product Regulation.--The Committee includes bill 
language making a technical change to the FDA's regulation of 
newly deemed tobacco products and products with nicotine 
derived from tobacco under the Tobacco Control Act (TCA). 
Current law allows the agency to regulate these newly deemed 
products, and this language maintains the FDA's authority to 
ensure their safety through the regulatory process. Notably, 
the TCA provides the FDA with the authority to require that 
manufacturers submit detailed product formulas to the FDA for 
each of their products; authority to review any modifications 
to these newly regulated products going forward; and authority 
to issue product standards and other enforcement tools, 
including misbranding, adulteration and post market 
surveillance. The Committee fully supports these efforts to 
reduce potentially harmful effects associated with tobacco 
products. The Committee also supports FDA efforts to subject 
certain tobacco products to additional provisions, including 
minimum age of purchase restrictions, health warnings for 
product packages and ads, and a prohibition of certain vending 
machine sales.
    Rather than amending the FDA's regulatory authority, this 
language relates only to a specific date--the predicate date of 
February 15, 2007. The current predicate date was established 
arbitrarily with the passage of TCA: Congress determined that 
manufacturers would not have to submit a pre-market approval 
application to the FDA for tobacco products that already 
existed on the market at that time. Those products that came 
onto the marketplace during the transition period after 
February 15, 2007 but before June 22, 2009 and introduced 21 
months after the law was enacted were permitted to stay on the 
market as long as the manufacturer submitted a substantial 
equivalence submission to the FDA before the end of this 
transition period. Products entering the marketplace after this 
time period are required to submit a premarket tobacco product 
application. Using the 2007 date means that newly-regulated 
categories of tobacco products--some of which have the 
potential to play an important role in harm reduction, and some 
of which hardly existed in commerce before that date--would 
face a more onerous approval process than cigarettes.
    On April 25, 2014, the FDA released a proposed deeming 
regulation, which would grant authority for the agency to 
regulate cigars, vapor products and other products with 
nicotine derived from tobacco. The Committee hopes that the FDA 
finalizes that rule as soon as possible and urges the FDA to 
develop tobacco product safety standards aimed at reducing or 
eliminating the most harmful constituents for the safety of our 
public health, with a special focus on protecting young 
populations. Manufacturers should have to meet these product 
standards in order to ensure the safe sale of tobacco products 
in the marketplace. In particular, the Committee urges the FDA 
to further the extension of the TCA's national minimum purchase 
age of 18 years to all tobacco products, regardless of when all 
other aspects of the deeming rule are made final. Further, the 
Committee urges the FDA to make child-resistant packaging and 
warning labels mandatory for liquids used with electronic-
cigarette vaporizers.
    The Committee believes the FDA has discretion to modify the 
predicate date for these newly deemed products, but the FDA 
states that it would maintain February 15, 2007 as the 
predicate date. The Committee is concerned that this approach 
will dramatically add to the FDA's substantial backlog of 
currently pending applications and create a regulatory logjam 
for the agency--diverting its attention from its core mission 
to promote public health, ensure the safe use of these products 
and prevent underage use and abuse. The Committee has therefore 
established a new policy that treats newly deemed products in 
the same way as the TCA treated newly regulated products when 
the law was enacted. Specifically, the language in this bill 
would make the predicate date for newly deemed tobacco products 
the effective date of the final deeming rule and mimic the 21-
month transition period provided for cigarettes, smokeless 
tobacco and roll-your-own tobacco.
    For those products that enter the marketplace after the new 
predicate date, it is the Committee's recommendation that the 
FDA provide education to manufacturers on how to complete 
Premarket Tobacco Applications and Substantial Equivalence 
Reports for newly deemed products. This education could take 
the form of guidance, webinars, and/or individual meetings with 
companies. Such outreach and educational efforts are especially 
important for small companies manufacturing products that have 
not been previously regulated by the FDA. Lastly, the Committee 
would support the FDA if the agency distinguished between 
premium cigars and other tobacco products in regulation. 
Premium cigars have consistently been shown to be less harmful 
and addictive, and are distinct from other tobacco products in 
regards to the perception among youth.
    User Fee Collections/Obligations.--The Committee continues 
to be concerned about the financial management of the FDA's 
user fee programs. The Committee directs that not later than 30 
days after enactment of this Act, and each month thereafter 
through the months covered by this Act, the Commissioner to 
submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and 
Senate a report on user fees collected for each user fee 
program included in the Act. The report shall also include 
monthly obligations incurred against such fee collections. The 
first report shall include a distinct categorization of the 
user fee balances that are being carried forward into fiscal 
year 2017 for each user fee account as well as a detailed 
explanation of what accounts for the balance and what the 
balance will be used for.

                        BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................        $8,788,000
2016 budget estimate..................................         8,788,000
Provided in the bill..................................         8,788,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................             - - -
    2016 budget estimate..............................             - - -
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For Buildings and Facilities of the Food and Drug 
Administration, the Committee provides an appropriation of 
$8,788,000.

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES


                  Commodity Futures Trading Commission


 
 
 
2015 appropriation....................................      $250,000,000
2016 budget estimate..................................       322,000,000
Provided in the bill..................................       245,000,000
Comparison:
    2015 appropriation................................        -5,000,000
    2016 budget estimate..............................       -77,000,000
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Committee 
provides an appropriation of $245,000,000 and requires the use 
of $5,000,000 in rental abatement for a total program level of 
$250,000,000, of which $50,000,000 is for the purchase of IT 
and $3,000,000 is for the Inspector General.
    Swap Dealer de Minimis.--The Committee notes the 
Commission's decision to provide for a public comment period on 
the study related to the Swap Dealer de Minimis level. While 
this is a positive step by the Commission in providing 
certainty to market end-users, it does not entirely comply with 
the letter of the directive in Public Law 113-235. The 
Committee directs the Commission to promulgate a rulemaking 
either maintaining the Swap Dealer de Minimis threshold at 
$8,000,000,000, the amount currently set forth in regulation, 
or above this amount pursuant to the results of the study 
currently being conducted as well as stakeholder input, within 
60 days of enactment of this Act.
    Commission Staff.--The Committee reminds the Commission of 
its responsibility when making commitments under current law, 
including the Antideficiency Act. As the GAO's Principles on 
Appropriations Law states ``The fiscal principles inherent in 
the Antideficiency Act are really quite simple. Government 
officials may not make payments or commit the United States to 
make payments at some future time for goods or services unless 
there is enough money in the `bank' to cover the cost in full. 
The `bank', of course, is the available appropriation.'' The 
Committee is aware of ongoing negotiations between the 
Commission and labor unions to arrive at a collective 
bargaining agreement (CBA). During these negotiations, the 
fundamental concept of spending within one's known and 
available means comes into play. The Commission must not make 
commitments within the CBA based upon budget requests or 
projections of spending but upon its current funding situation. 
Alternatively, if the Commission makes firm commitments to 
higher expenses in the near and long term, they risk having to 
reduce spending elsewhere in the current budget or not having 
funds to maintain current staffing levels. Any CBA must reflect 
budgetary realities and management of current funds must not 
jeopardize Commission staff. The Committee directs the 
Commission to not increase personnel costs, either through 
excessive hiring, budgetary mismanagement, or CBA negotiations, 
that would risk any furloughs, reductions-in-force, or expected 
compensation for its hardworking staff.
    Leasing Costs.--The Committee notes reviews by the 
Inspector General regarding excessive leasing costs and a 
projection of $74 million wasted on vacant space. This does not 
include approximately $30 million already spent on vacant space 
since 2009. A secondary review is being conducted by the GAO at 
the request of the Committees on Appropriations of the House 
and Senate. The Committee directs the Commission, in accordance 
with the President's ``Reduce the Federal Footprint'' 
initiative, to find ways to decrease space and renegotiate 
leasing agreements. The Committee also provides the Commission 
and taxpayer budgetary relief through direction in the bill to 
utilize rental credits of $5 million provided by the 
Commission's landlord.
    CFTC-SEC Cooperation.--The Committee directs the Commission 
to work cooperatively with the Securities and Exchange 
Commission on all joint rulemakings as required by the Dodd-
Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
    Internal Risk Management Transactions.--The Committee is 
concerned that there is a lack of global coordination among 
regulators on the treatment of internal trades between 
affiliated entities. The Committee notes that international 
bodies left this to the discretion of national governments. As 
such, European and Japanese rules provide an exemption from 
margin requirements, with certain conditions, for internal 
trades between affiliates. In contrast, the U.S. market has 
proposed rules that would impose margin requirements on these 
trades. The Committee notes this will discourage prudent risk 
management by increasing the costs of these trades. These costs 
will be borne by the customers and result in reduced liquidity. 
The Committee urges the CFTC to recognize that such internal 
risk management transactions benefit customers. These 
requirements will result in regulatory arbitrage across 
jurisdictions. The Committee directs the Commission to report 
to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress, 
within 60 days of enactment of this Act, on the impact of the 
proposed rules on consumers and industries.

                       Farm Credit Administration


                 LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

 
 
 
2015 limitation.......................................     ($60,500,000)
2016 budget estimate..................................      (69,400,000)
Provided in the bill..................................      (65,600,000)
Comparison:
 2015 limitation......................................        +5,100,000
 2016 budget estimate.................................        -3,800,000
 

                          COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

    For a limitation on the expenses of the Farm Credit 
Administration, the Committee provides $65,600,000.

                               TITLE VII


                           GENERAL PROVISIONS


             (INCLUDING RESCISSIONS AND TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

    The General Provisions contained in the accompanying bill 
for fiscal year 2016 are fundamentally the same as those 
included in last year's appropriations bill.
    The following general provisions are included in the bill:
    Section 701: Limitation on the purchase of passenger motor 
vehicles.
    Section 702: Transfer authority regarding the Working 
Capital Fund.
    Section 703: Limitation on certain obligations.
    Section 704: Indirect cost rates for cooperative agreements 
with nonprofit institutions.
    Section 705: Disbursement of rural development loans.
    Section 706: Authority of the Chief Information Officer 
relating to new IT systems.
    Section 707: Availability of mandatory conservation program 
funding.
    Section 708: Rural Utility Service borrower eligibility.
    Section 709: Rescission of certain unobligated balances.
    Section 710: Prohibition on first-class airline travel.
    Section 711: Use of funds authorized by the Commodity 
Credit Corporation Charter Act.
    Section 712: Funding for advisory committees.
    Section 713: Indirect costs for competitive agricultural 
research grants.
    Section 714: Limitation on certain funds.
    Section 715: Limitation on certain funds.
    Section 716: Language on user fee proposals without 
offsets.
    Section 717: Language on reprogramming.
    Section 718: Language on fees for the business and industry 
guaranteed loan program.
    Section 719: Language on questions for the record.
    Section 720: Language regarding prepackaged news stories.
    Section 721: Language on prohibition on paid details in 
excess of 60 days.
    Section 722: Language on the mohair program.
    Section 723: Language regarding spending plans.
    Section 724: Language on controls over humanitarian food 
assistance.
    Section 725: Language regarding Single Family Housing 
Direct Loan Program.
    Section 726: Language regarding USDA loan programs.
    Section 727: Transfer authority regarding the Working 
Capital Fund.
    Section 728: Language regarding the Commodity Exchange Act.
    Section 729: Language regarding purchases made through 
child nutrition programs.
    Section 730: Language regarding potable water supplies.
    Section 731: Language regarding research programs.
    Section 732: Language regarding child nutrition programs.
    Section 733: Language regarding child nutrition programs.
    Section 734: Language regarding Dietary Guidelines for 
Americans.
    Section 735: Language regarding nutrition research.
    Section 736: Rescission of certain unobligated balances.
    Section 737: Rescission of certain unobligated balances.
    Section 738: Rescission of certain unobligated balances.
    Section 739: Language regarding marketing programs.
    Section 740: Rescission of certain unobligated balances.
    Section 741: Language regarding housing loan programs.
    Section 742: Language regarding a redirection of funds.
    Section 743: Language regarding consumer information.
    Section 744: Language regarding menu labeling.
    Section 745: Language regarding tissue regulation.
    Section 746: Language regarding animal feed.
    Section 747: Language regarding Food and Drug regulation.
    Section 748: Language regarding conservation programs.
    Section 749: Language regarding animal health.
    Section 750: Language regarding APHIS regulation.
    Section 751: Language regarding FDA regulation.
    Section 752: Language regarding food safety.
    Section 753: Language regarding Spending Reduction 
Accounts.

              HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

         STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following is a statement of 
general performance goals and objectives for which this measure 
authorizes funding:
    The Committee on Appropriations considers program 
performance, including a program's success in developing and 
attaining outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing 
funding recommendations.

                              RESCISSIONS

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following lists the rescissions 
of unexpended balances included in the accompanying bill:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Program or Activity                         Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA Cushion of Credit...............................       $154,000,000
USDA Watershed Rehabilitation........................         69,000,000
USDA AMS (prior year balances).......................        293,020,000
USDA FSA (prior year balances).......................          1,000,000
USDA RD (prior year balances)........................         13,000,000
USDA NRCS (prior year balances)......................         20,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           TRANSFER OF FUNDS

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following list includes the 
transfers of unexpended balances included in the accompanying 
bill:
    1. Departmental Administration.--The bill requires 
reimbursement for expenses related to certain hearings.
    2. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional 
Relations.--The bill allows a portion of the funds appropriated 
to the Office of the Assistant Secretary to be transferred to 
agencies.
    3. Agriculture Buildings and Facilities.--The bill allows 
funds appropriated in prior years for rental payments to be 
transferred to meet shortfalls in prior or current year rent.
    4. Hazardous Materials Management.--The bill allows the 
funds appropriated to the Department for hazardous materials 
management to be transferred to agencies of the Department as 
required.
    5. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.--Authority 
is included to enable the Secretary of Agriculture to transfer 
from other appropriations or funds of the Department such sums 
as may be necessary to combat emergency outbreaks of certain 
diseases of animals, plants, and poultry.
    6. Funds for Strengthening Markets, Income, and Supply.--
The bill limits the transfer of section 32 funds to purposes 
specified in the bill.
    7. Farm Service Agency Salaries and Expenses.--The bill 
provides that funds provided to other accounts in the agency 
may be merged with the salaries and expenses account of the 
Farm Service Agency.
    8. Dairy Indemnity Program.--The bill authorizes the 
transfer of funds to the Commodity Credit Corporation, by 
reference.
    9. Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account.--The 
bill provides funds to be transferred to the Farm Service 
Agency.
    10. Commodity Credit Corporation.--The bill includes 
language allowing certain funds to be transferred to the 
Foreign Agricultural Service for information resource 
management activities.
    11. Rural Development, Salaries and Expenses.--The bill 
provides that prior year balances from certain accounts shall 
be transferred to and merged with this account.
    12. Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account, 
Intermediary Relending Program Fund Account, and Rural 
Electrification and Telecommunications Program Account.--The 
bill provides funds in this account shall be transferred to the 
salaries and expenses of Rural Development.
    13. Rural Community Facilities Program Account, Rural 
Business Program Account, and Rural Water and Waste Disposal 
Program Account.--The bill provides that balances from these 
accounts may be transferred to and merged with other accounts.
    14. Child Nutrition Programs.--The bill includes authority 
to transfer section 32 funds to these programs.
    15. Foreign Agricultural Service, Salaries and Expenses.--
The bill allows for the transfer of funds from the Commodity 
Credit Corporation Export Loan Program Account.
    16. Food for Peace Title I Direct Credit and Food for 
Progress Program Account.--The bill allows funds to be 
transferred to the Farm Service Agency, Salaries and Expenses 
account. The bill also provides that funds made available for 
the cost of title I agreements and for title I ocean freight 
differential may be used interchangeably.
    17. Commodity Credit Corporation Export Loans Program.--The 
bill provides for transfer of funds to the Foreign Agricultural 
Service and to the Farm Service Agency for overhead expenses 
associated with credit reform.
    18. Food and Drug Administration, Salaries and Expenses.--
The bill allows funds to be transferred among activities.
    19. General Provisions.--The bill allows unobligated 
balances of discretionary funds to be transferred to the 
Working Capital Fund.

   DISCLOSURE OF EARMARKS AND CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS

    Neither the bill nor this report contain any congressional 
earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as 
defined in clause 9 of rule XXI.

          COMPLIANCE WITH RULE XIII, CL. 3(E) (RAMSEYER RULE)

    In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman:

                         COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT




           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
SEC. 5B. DERIVATIVES CLEARING ORGANIZATIONS.

  (a) Registration Requirement.--
          (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
        it shall be unlawful for a derivatives clearing 
        organization, directly or indirectly, to make use of 
        the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate 
        commerce to perform the functions of a derivatives 
        clearing organization with respect to--
                  (A) a contract of sale of a commodity for 
                future delivery (or an option on the contract 
                of sale) or option on a commodity, in each 
                case, unless the contract or option is--
                          (i) excluded from this Act by 
                        subsection (a)(1)(C)(i), (c), or (f) of 
                        section 2; or
                          (ii) a security futures product 
                        cleared by a clearing agency registered 
                        with the Securities and Exchange 
                        Commission under the Securities 
                        Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et 
                        seq.); or
                  (B) a swap.
          (2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a 
        derivatives clearing organization that is registered 
        with the Commission.
  (b) Voluntary Registration.--A person that clears 1 or more 
agreements, contracts, or transactions that are not required to 
be cleared under this Act may register with the Commission as a 
derivatives clearing organization.
  (c) Registration of Derivatives Clearing Organizations.--
          (1) Application.--A person desiring to register as a 
        derivatives clearing organization shall submit to the 
        Commission an application in such form and containing 
        such information as the Commission may require for the 
        purpose of making the determinations required for 
        approval under paragraph (2).
          (2) Core principles for derivatives clearing 
        organizations.--
                  (A) Compliance.--
                          (i) In general.--To be registered and 
                        to maintain registration as a 
                        derivatives clearing organization, a 
                        derivatives clearing organization shall 
                        comply with each core principle 
                        described in this paragraph and any 
                        requirement that the Commission may 
                        impose by rule or regulation pursuant 
                        to section 8a(5).
                          (ii) Discretion of derivatives 
                        clearing organization.--Subject to any 
                        rule or regulation prescribed by the 
                        Commission, a derivatives clearing 
                        organization shall have reasonable 
                        discretion in establishing the manner 
                        by which the derivatives clearing 
                        organization complies with each core 
                        principle described in this paragraph.
                  (B) Financial resources.--
                          (i) In general.--Each derivatives 
                        clearing organization shall have 
                        adequate financial, operational, and 
                        managerial resources, as determined by 
                        the Commission, to discharge each 
                        responsibility of the derivatives 
                        clearing organization.
                          (ii) Minimum amount of financial 
                        resources.--Each derivatives clearing 
                        organization shall possess financial 
                        resources that, at a minimum, exceed 
                        the total amount that would--
                                  (I) enable the organization 
                                to meet its financial 
                                obligations to its members and 
                                participants notwithstanding a 
                                default by the member or 
                                participant creating the 
                                largest financial exposure for 
                                that organization in extreme 
                                but plausible market 
                                conditions; and
                                  (II) enable the derivatives 
                                clearing organization to cover 
                                the operating costs of the 
                                derivatives clearing 
                                organization for a period of 1 
                                year (as calculated on a 
                                rolling basis).
                  (C) Participant and product eligibility.--
                          (i) In general.--Each derivatives 
                        clearing organization shall establish--
                                  (I) appropriate admission and 
                                continuing eligibility 
                                standards (including sufficient 
                                financial resources and 
                                operational capacity to meet 
                                obligations arising from 
                                participation in the 
                                derivatives clearing 
                                organization) for members of, 
                                and participants in, the 
                                derivatives clearing 
                                organization; and
                                  (II) appropriate standards 
                                for determining the eligibility 
                                of agreements, contracts, or 
                                transactions submitted to the 
                                derivatives clearing 
                                organization for clearing.
                          (ii) Required procedures.--Each 
                        derivatives clearing organization shall 
                        establish and implement procedures to 
                        verify, on an ongoing basis, the 
                        compliance of each participation and 
                        membership requirement of the 
                        derivatives clearing organization.
                          (iii) Requirements.--The 
                        participation and membership 
                        requirements of each derivatives 
                        clearing organization shall--
                                  (I) be objective;
                                  (II) be publicly disclosed; 
                                and
                                  (III) permit fair and open 
                                access.
                  (D) Risk management.--
                          (i) In general.--Each derivatives 
                        clearing organization shall ensure that 
                        the derivatives clearing organization 
                        possesses the ability to manage the 
                        risks associated with discharging the 
                        responsibilities of the derivatives 
                        clearing organization through the use 
                        of appropriate tools and procedures.
                          (ii) Measurement of credit 
                        exposure.--Each derivatives clearing 
                        organization shall--
                                  (I) not less than once during 
                                each business day of the 
                                derivatives clearing 
                                organization, measure the 
                                credit exposures of the 
                                derivatives clearing 
                                organization to each member and 
                                participant of the derivatives 
                                clearing organization; and
                                  (II) monitor each exposure 
                                described in subclause (I) 
                                periodically during the 
                                business day of the derivatives 
                                clearing organization.
                          (iii) Limitation of exposure to 
                        potential losses from defaults.--Each 
                        derivatives clearing organization, 
                        through margin requirements and other 
                        risk control mechanisms, shall limit 
                        the exposure of the derivatives 
                        clearing organization to potential 
                        losses from defaults by members and 
                        participants of the derivatives 
                        clearing organization to ensure that--
                                  (I) the operations of the 
                                derivatives clearing 
                                organization would not be 
                                disrupted; and
                                  (II) nondefaulting members or 
                                participants would not be 
                                exposed to losses that 
                                nondefaulting members or 
                                participants cannot anticipate 
                                or control.
                          (iv) Margin requirements.--The margin 
                        required from each member and 
                        participant of a derivatives clearing 
                        organization shall be sufficient to 
                        cover potential exposures in normal 
                        market conditions.
                          (v) Requirements regarding models and 
                        parameters.--Each model and parameter 
                        used in setting margin requirements 
                        under clause (iv) shall be--
                                  (I) risk-based; and
                                  (II) reviewed on a regular 
                                basis.
                  (E) Settlement procedures.--Each derivatives 
                clearing organization shall--
                          (i) complete money settlements on a 
                        timely basis (but not less frequently 
                        than once each business day);
                          (ii) employ money settlement 
                        arrangements to eliminate or strictly 
                        limit the exposure of the derivatives 
                        clearing organization to settlement 
                        bank risks (including credit and 
                        liquidity risks from the use of banks 
                        to effect money settlements);
                          (iii) ensure that money settlements 
                        are final when effected;
                          (iv) maintain an accurate record of 
                        the flow of funds associated with each 
                        money settlement;
                          (v) possess the ability to comply 
                        with each term and condition of any 
                        permitted netting or offset arrangement 
                        with any other clearing organization;
                          (vi) regarding physical settlements, 
                        establish rules that clearly state each 
                        obligation of the derivatives clearing 
                        organization with respect to physical 
                        deliveries; and
                          (vii) ensure that each risk arising 
                        from an obligation described in clause 
                        (vi) is identified and managed.
                  (F) Treatment of funds.--
                          (i) Required standards and 
                        procedures.--Each derivatives clearing 
                        organization shall establish standards 
                        and procedures that are designed to 
                        protect and ensure the safety of member 
                        and participant funds and assets.
                          (ii) Holding of funds and assets.--
                        Each derivatives clearing organization 
                        shall hold member and participant funds 
                        and assets in a manner by which to 
                        minimize the risk of loss or of delay 
                        in the access by the derivatives 
                        clearing organization to the assets and 
                        funds.
                          (iii) Permissible investments.--Funds 
                        and assets invested by a derivatives 
                        clearing organization shall be held in 
                        instruments with minimal credit, 
                        market, and liquidity risks.
                  (G) Default rules and procedures.--
                          (i) In general.--Each derivatives 
                        clearing organization shall have rules 
                        and procedures designed to allow for 
                        the efficient, fair, and safe 
                        management of events during which 
                        members or participants--
                                  (I) become insolvent; or
                                  (II) otherwise default on the 
                                obligations of the members or 
                                participants to the derivatives 
                                clearing organization.
                          (ii) Default procedures.--Each 
                        derivatives clearing organization 
                        shall--
                                  (I) clearly state the default 
                                procedures of the derivatives 
                                clearing organization;
                                  (II) make publicly available 
                                the default rules of the 
                                derivatives clearing 
                                organization; and
                                  (III) ensure that the 
                                derivatives clearing 
                                organization may take timely 
                                action--
                                          (aa) to contain 
                                        losses and liquidity 
                                        pressures; and
                                          (bb) to continue 
                                        meeting each obligation 
                                        of the derivatives 
                                        clearing organization.
                  (H) Rule enforcement.--Each derivatives 
                clearing organization shall--
                          (i) maintain adequate arrangements 
                        and resources for--
                                  (I) the effective monitoring 
                                and enforcement of compliance 
                                with the rules of the 
                                derivatives clearing 
                                organization; and
                                  (II) the resolution of 
                                disputes;
                          (ii) have the authority and ability 
                        to discipline, limit, suspend, or 
                        terminate the activities of a member or 
                        participant due to a violation by the 
                        member or participant of any rule of 
                        the derivatives clearing organization; 
                        and
                          (iii) report to the Commission 
                        regarding rule enforcement activities 
                        and sanctions imposed against members 
                        and participants as provided in clause 
                        (ii).
                  (I) System safeguards.--Each derivatives 
                clearing organization shall--
                          (i) establish and maintain a program 
                        of risk analysis and oversight to 
                        identify and minimize sources of 
                        operational risk through the 
                        development of appropriate controls and 
                        procedures, and automated systems, that 
                        are reliable, secure, and have adequate 
                        scalable capacity;
                          (ii) establish and maintain emergency 
                        procedures, backup facilities, and a 
                        plan for disaster recovery that allows 
                        for--
                                  (I) the timely recovery and 
                                resumption of operations of the 
                                derivatives clearing 
                                organization; and
                                  (II) the fulfillment of each 
                                obligation and responsibility 
                                of the derivatives clearing 
                                organization; and
                          (iii) periodically conduct tests to 
                        verify that the backup resources of the 
                        derivatives clearing organization are 
                        sufficient to ensure daily processing, 
                        clearing, and settlement.
                  (J) Reporting.--Each derivatives clearing 
                organization shall provide to the Commission 
                all information that the Commission determines 
                to be necessary to conduct oversight of the 
                derivatives clearing organization.
                  (K) Recordkeeping.--Each derivatives clearing 
                organization shall maintain records of all 
                activities related to the business of the 
                derivatives clearing organization as a 
                derivatives clearing organization--
                          (i) in a form and manner that is 
                        acceptable to the Commission; and
                          (ii) for a period of not less than 5 
                        years.
                  (L) Public information.--
                          (i) In general.--Each derivatives 
                        clearing organization shall provide to 
                        market participants sufficient 
                        information to enable the market 
                        participants to identify and evaluate 
                        accurately the risks and costs 
                        associated with using the services of 
                        the derivatives clearing organization.
                          (ii) Availability of information.--
                        Each derivatives clearing organization 
                        shall make information concerning the 
                        rules and operating and default 
                        procedures governing the clearing and 
                        settlement systems of the derivatives 
                        clearing organization available to 
                        market participants.
                          (iii) Public disclosure.--Each 
                        derivatives clearing organization shall 
                        disclose publicly and to the Commission 
                        information concerning--
                                  (I) the terms and conditions 
                                of each contract, agreement, 
                                and transaction cleared and 
                                settled by the derivatives 
                                clearing organization;
                                  (II) each clearing and other 
                                fee that the derivatives 
                                clearing organization charges 
                                the members and participants of 
                                the derivatives clearing 
                                organization;
                                  (III) the margin-setting 
                                methodology, and the size and 
                                composition, of the financial 
                                resource package of the 
                                derivatives clearing 
                                organization;
                                  (IV) daily settlement prices, 
                                volume, and open interest for 
                                each contract settled or 
                                cleared by the derivatives 
                                clearing organization; and
                                  (V) any other matter relevant 
                                to participation in the 
                                settlement and clearing 
                                activities of the derivatives 
                                clearing organization.
                  (M) Information-sharing.--Each derivatives 
                clearing organization shall--
                          (i) enter into, and abide by the 
                        terms of, each appropriate and 
                        applicable domestic and international 
                        information-sharing agreement; and
                          (ii) use relevant information 
                        obtained from each agreement described 
                        in clause (i) in carrying out the risk 
                        management program of the derivatives 
                        clearing organization.
                  (N) Antitrust considerations.--Unless 
                necessary or appropriate to achieve the 
                purposes of this Act, a derivatives clearing 
                organization shall not--
                          (i) adopt any rule or take any action 
                        that results in any unreasonable 
                        restraint of trade; or
                          (ii) impose any material 
                        anticompetitive burden.
                  (O) Governance fitness standards.--
                          (i) Governance arrangements.--Each 
                        derivatives clearing organization shall 
                        establish governance arrangements that 
                        are transparent--
                                  (I) to fulfill public 
                                interest requirements; and
                                  (II) to permit the 
                                consideration of the views of 
                                owners and participants.
                          (ii) Fitness standards.--Each 
                        derivatives clearing organization shall 
                        establish and enforce appropriate 
                        fitness standards for--
                                  (I) directors;
                                  (II) members of any 
                                disciplinary committee;
                                  (III) members of the 
                                derivatives clearing 
                                organization;
                                  (IV) any other individual or 
                                entity with direct access to 
                                the settlement or clearing 
                                activities of the derivatives 
                                clearing organization; and
                                  (V) any party affiliated with 
                                any individual or entity 
                                described in this clause.
                  (P) Conflicts of interest.--Each derivatives 
                clearing organization shall--
                          (i) establish and enforce rules to 
                        minimize conflicts of interest in the 
                        decision-making process of the 
                        derivatives clearing organization; and
                          (ii) establish a process for 
                        resolving conflicts of interest 
                        described in clause (i).
                  (Q) Composition of governing boards.--Each 
                derivatives clearing organization shall ensure 
                that the composition of the governing board or 
                committee of the derivatives clearing 
                organization includes market participants.
                  (R) Legal risk.--Each derivatives clearing 
                organization shall have a well-founded, 
                transparent, and enforceable legal framework 
                for each aspect of the activities of the 
                derivatives clearing organization.''.
          (3) Orders concerning competition.--A derivatives 
        clearing organization may request the Commission to 
        issue an order concerning whether a rule or practice of 
        the applicant is the least anticompetitive means of 
        achieving the objectives, purposes, and policies of 
        this Act.
  (d) Existing Derivatives Clearing Organizations.--A 
derivatives clearing organization shall be deemed to be 
registered under this section to the extent that the 
derivatives clearing organization clears agreements, contracts, 
or transactions for a board of trade that has been designated 
by the Commission as a contract market for such agreements, 
contracts, or transactions before the date of the enactment of 
this section.
  (e) Appointment of Trustee.--
          (1) In general.--If a proceeding under section 5e 
        results in the suspension or revocation of the 
        registration of a derivatives clearing organization, or 
        if a derivatives clearing organization withdraws from 
        registration, the Commission, on notice to the 
        derivatives clearing organization, may apply to the 
        appropriate United States district court where the 
        derivatives clearing organization is located for the 
        appointment of a trustee.
          (2) Assumption of jurisdiction.--If the Commission 
        applies for appointment of a trustee under paragraph 
        (1)--
                  (A) the court may take exclusive jurisdiction 
                over the derivatives clearing organization and 
                the records and assets of the derivatives 
                clearing organization, wherever located; and
                  (B) if the court takes jurisdiction under 
                subparagraph (A), the court shall appoint the 
                Commission, or a person designated by the 
                Commission, as trustee with power to take 
                possession and continue to operate or terminate 
                the operations of the derivatives clearing 
                organization in an orderly manner for the 
                protection of participants, subject to such 
                terms and conditions as the court may 
                prescribe.
  (f) Linking of Regulated Clearing Facilities.--
          (1) In general.--The Commission shall facilitate the 
        linking or coordination of derivatives clearing 
        organizations registered under this Act with other 
        regulated clearance facilities for the coordinated 
        settlement of cleared transactions. In order to 
        minimize systemic risk, under no circumstances shall a 
        derivatives clearing organization be compelled to 
        accept the counterparty credit risk of another clearing 
        organization.
          (2) Coordination.--In carrying out paragraph (1), the 
        Commission shall coordinate with the Federal banking 
        agencies and the Securities and Exchange Commission.
  (g) Existing Depository Institutions and Clearing Agencies.--
          (1) In general.--A depository institution or clearing 
        agency registered with the Securities and Exchange 
        Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 
        (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) that is required to be 
        registered as a derivatives clearing organization under 
        this section is deemed to be registered under this 
        section to the extent that, before the date of 
        enactment of this subsection--
                  (A) the depository institution cleared swaps 
                as a multilateral clearing organization; or
                  (B) the clearing agency cleared swaps.
          (2) Conversion of depository institutions.--A 
        depository institution to which this subsection applies 
        may, by the vote of the shareholders owning not less 
        than 51 percent of the voting interests of the 
        depository institution, be converted into a State 
        corporation, partnership, limited liability company, or 
        similar legal form pursuant to a plan of conversion, if 
        the conversion is not in contravention of applicable 
        State law.
          (3) Sharing of information.--The Securities and 
        Exchange Commission shall make available to the 
        Commission, upon request, all information determined to 
        be relevant by the Securities and Exchange Commission 
        regarding a clearing agency deemed to be registered 
        with the Commission under paragraph (1).
  (h) Exemptions.--The Commission may exempt, conditionally or 
unconditionally, a derivatives clearing organization from 
registration under this section for the clearing of swaps if 
the Commission determines that the derivatives clearing 
organization is subject to comparable, comprehensive 
supervision and regulation by the Securities and Exchange 
Commission or the appropriate government authorities in the 
home country of the organization. Such conditions may include, 
but are not limited to, requiring that the derivatives clearing 
organization be available for inspection by the Commission and 
make available all information requested by the Commission.
  (i) Designation of Chief Compliance Officer.--
          (1) In general.--Each derivatives clearing 
        organization shall designate an individual to serve as 
        a chief compliance officer.
          (2) Duties.--The chief compliance officer shall--
                  (A) report directly to the board or to the 
                senior officer of the derivatives clearing 
                organization;
                  (B) review the compliance of the derivatives 
                clearing organization with respect to the core 
                principles described in subsection (c)(2);
                  (C) in consultation with the board of the 
                derivatives clearing organization, a body 
                performing a function similar to the board of 
                the derivatives clearing organization, or the 
                senior officer of the derivatives clearing 
                organization, resolve any conflicts of interest 
                that may arise;
                  (D) be responsible for administering each 
                policy and procedure that is required to be 
                established pursuant to this section;
                  (E) ensure compliance with this Act 
                (including regulations) relating to agreements, 
                contracts, or transactions, including each rule 
                prescribed by the Commission under this 
                section;
                  (F) establish procedures for the remediation 
                of noncompliance issues identified by the 
                compliance officer through any--
                          (i) compliance office review;
                          (ii) look-back;
                          (iii) internal or external audit 
                        finding;
                          (iv) self-reported error; or
                          (v) validated complaint; and
                  (G) establish and follow appropriate 
                procedures for the handling, management 
                response, remediation, retesting, and closing 
                of noncompliance issues.
          (3) Annual reports.--
                  (A) In general.--In accordance with rules 
                prescribed by the Commission, the chief 
                compliance officer shall annually prepare and 
                sign a report that contains a description of--
                          (i) the compliance of the derivatives 
                        clearing organization of the compliance 
                        officer with respect to this Act 
                        (including regulations); and
                          (ii) each policy and procedure of the 
                        derivatives clearing organization of 
                        the compliance officer (including the 
                        code of ethics and conflict of interest 
                        policies of the derivatives clearing 
                        organization).
                  (B) Requirements.--A compliance report under 
                subparagraph (A) shall--
                          (i) accompany each appropriate 
                        financial report of the derivatives 
                        clearing organization that is required 
                        to be furnished to the Commission 
                        pursuant to this section; and
                          (ii) include a certification that, 
                        under penalty of law, the compliance 
                        report is accurate and complete.
  (k) Reporting Requirements.--
          (1) Duty of derivatives clearing organizations.--Each 
        derivatives clearing organization that clears swaps 
        shall provide to the Commission all information that is 
        determined by the Commission to be necessary to perform 
        each responsibility of the Commission under this Act.
          (2) Data collection and maintenance requirements.--
        The Commission shall adopt data collection and 
        maintenance requirements for swaps cleared by 
        derivatives clearing organizations that are comparable 
        to the corresponding requirements for--
                  (A) swaps data reported to swap data 
                repositories; and
                  (B) swaps traded on swap execution 
                facilities.
          (3) Reports on security-based swap agreements to be 
        shared with the securities and exchange commission.--
                  (A) In general.--A derivatives clearing 
                organization that clears security-based swap 
                agreements (as defined in section 1a(47)(A)(v)) 
                shall, upon request, open to inspection and 
                examination to the Securities and Exchange 
                Commission all books and records relating to 
                such security-based swap agreements, consistent 
                with the confidentiality and disclosure 
                requirements of section 8.
                  (B) Jurisdiction.--Nothing in this paragraph 
                shall affect the exclusive jurisdiction of the 
                Commission to prescribe recordkeeping and 
                reporting requirements for a derivatives 
                clearing organization that is registered with 
                the Commission.
          (4) Information sharing.--Subject to section 8, and 
        upon request, the Commission shall share information 
        collected under paragraph (2) with--
                  (A) the Board;
                  (B) the Securities and Exchange Commission;
                  (C) each appropriate prudential regulator;
                  (D) the Financial Stability Oversight 
                Council;
                  (E) the Department of Justice; and
                  (F) any other person that the Commission 
                determines to be appropriate, including--
                          (i) foreign financial supervisors 
                        (including foreign futures 
                        authorities);
                          (ii) foreign central banks; and
                          (iii) foreign ministries.
          [(5) Confidentiality and indemnification agreement.--
        Before the Commission may share information with any 
        entity described in paragraph (4)--
                  [(A) the Commission shall receive a written 
                agreement from each entity stating that the 
                entity shall abide by the confidentiality 
                requirements described in section 8 relating to 
                the information on swap transactions that is 
                provided; and
                  [(B) each entity shall agree to indemnify the 
                Commission for any expenses arising from 
                litigation relating to the information provided 
                under section 8.]
          (5) Confidentiality agreement.--Before the Commission 
        may share information with any entity described in 
        paragraph (4), the Commission shall receive a written 
        agreement from each entity stating that the entity 
        shall abide by the confidentiality requirements 
        described in section 8 relating to the information on 
        swaps transactions that is provided.
          (6) Public information.--Each derivatives clearing 
        organization that clears swaps shall provide to the 
        Commission (including any designee of the Commission) 
        information under paragraph (2) in such form and at 
        such frequency as is required by the Commission to 
        comply with the public reporting requirements contained 
        in section 2(a)(13).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 21. SWAP DATA REPOSITORIES.

  (a) Registration Requirement.--
          (1) Requirement; authority of derivatives clearing 
        organization.--
                  (A) In general.--It shall be unlawful for any 
                person, unless registered with the Commission, 
                directly or indirectly to make use of the mails 
                or any means or instrumentality of interstate 
                commerce to perform the functions of a swap 
                data repository.
                  (B) Registration of derivatives clearing 
                organizations.--A derivatives clearing 
                organization may register as a swap data 
                repository.
          (2) Inspection and examination.--Each registered swap 
        data repository shall be subject to inspection and 
        examination by any representative of the Commission.
          (3) Compliance with core principles.--
                  (A) In general.--To be registered, and 
                maintain registration, as a swap data 
                repository, the swap data repository shall 
                comply with--
                          (i) the requirements and core 
                        principles described in this section; 
                        and
                          (ii) any requirement that the 
                        Commission may impose by rule or 
                        regulation pursuant to section 8a(5).
                  (B) Reasonable discretion of swap data 
                repository.--Unless otherwise determined by the 
                Commission by rule or regulation, a swap data 
                repository described in subparagraph (A) shall 
                have reasonable discretion in establishing the 
                manner in which the swap data repository 
                complies with the core principles described in 
                this section.
  (b) Standard Setting.--
          (1) Data identification.--
                  (A) In general.--In accordance with 
                subparagraph (B), the Commission shall 
                prescribe standards that specify the data 
                elements for each swap that shall be collected 
                and maintained by each registered swap data 
                repository.
                  (B) Requirement.--In carrying out 
                subparagraph (A), the Commission shall 
                prescribe consistent data element standards 
                applicable to registered entities and reporting 
                counterparties.
          (2) Data collection and maintenance.--The Commission 
        shall prescribe data collection and data maintenance 
        standards for swap data repositories.
          (3) Comparability.--The standards prescribed by the 
        Commission under this subsection shall be comparable to 
        the data standards imposed by the Commission on 
        derivatives clearing organizations in connection with 
        their clearing of swaps.
  (c) Duties.--A swap data repository shall--
          (1) accept data prescribed by the Commission for each 
        swap under subsection (b);
          (2) confirm with both counterparties to the swap the 
        accuracy of the data that was submitted;
          (3) maintain the data described in paragraph (1) in 
        such form, in such manner, and for such period as may 
        be required by the Commission;
          (4)(A) provide direct electronic access to the 
        Commission (or any designee of the Commission, 
        including another registered entity); and
          (B) provide the information described in paragraph 
        (1) in such form and at such frequency as the 
        Commission may require to comply with the public 
        reporting requirements contained in section 2(a)(13);
          (5) at the direction of the Commission, establish 
        automated systems for monitoring, screening, and 
        analyzing swap data, including compliance and frequency 
        of end user clearing exemption claims by individual and 
        affiliated entities;
          (6) maintain the privacy of any and all swap 
        transaction information that the swap data repository 
        receives from a swap dealer, counterparty, or any other 
        registered entity; and
          (7) on a confidential basis pursuant to section 8, 
        upon request, and after notifying the Commission of the 
        request, make available all data obtained by the swap 
        data repository, including individual counterparty 
        trade and position data, to--
                  (A) each appropriate prudential regulator;
                  (B) the Financial Stability Oversight 
                Council;
                  (C) the Securities and Exchange Commission;
                  (D) the Department of Justice; and
                  (E) any other person that the Commission 
                determines to be appropriate, including--
                          (i) foreign financial supervisors 
                        (including foreign futures 
                        authorities);
                          (ii) foreign central banks; and
                          (iii) foreign ministries; and
          (8) establish and maintain emergency procedures, 
        backup facilities, and a plan for disaster recovery 
        that allows for the timely recovery and resumption of 
        operations and the fulfillment of the responsibilities 
        and obligations of the organization.
  [(d) Confidentiality and Indemnification Agreement.--Before 
the swap data repository may share information with any entity 
described in subsection (c)(7)--
          [(1) the swap data repository shall receive a written 
        agreement from each entity stating that the entity 
        shall abide by the confidentiality requirements 
        described in section 8 relating to the information on 
        swap transactions that is provided; and
          [(2) each entity shall agree to indemnify the swap 
        data repository and the Commission for any expenses 
        arising from litigation relating to the information 
        provided under section 8.]
  (d) Confidentiality Agreement.--Before the swap data 
repository may share information with any entity described in 
subsection (c)(7), the swap data repository shall receive a 
written agreement from each entity stating that the entity 
shall abide by the confidentiality requirements described in 
section 8 relating to the information on swap transactions that 
is provided.
  (e) Designation of Chief Compliance Officer.--
          (1) In general.--Each swap data repository shall 
        designate an individual to serve as a chief compliance 
        officer.
          (2) Duties.--The chief compliance officer shall--
                  (A) report directly to the board or to the 
                senior officer of the swap data repository;
                  (B) review the compliance of the swap data 
                repository with respect to the requirements and 
                core principles described in this section;
                  (C) in consultation with the board of the 
                swap data repository, a body performing a 
                function similar to the board of the swap data 
                repository, or the senior officer of the swap 
                data repository, resolve any conflicts of 
                interest that may arise;
                  (D) be responsible for administering each 
                policy and procedure that is required to be 
                established pursuant to this section;
                  (E) ensure compliance with this Act 
                (including regulations) relating to agreements, 
                contracts, or transactions, including each rule 
                prescribed by the Commission under this 
                section;
                  (F) establish procedures for the remediation 
                of noncompliance issues identified by the chief 
                compliance officer through any--
                          (i) compliance office review;
                          (ii) look-back;
                          (iii) internal or external audit 
                        finding;
                          (iv) self-reported error; or
                          (v) validated complaint; and
                  (G) establish and follow appropriate 
                procedures for the handling, management 
                response, remediation, retesting, and closing 
                of noncompliance issues.
          (3) Annual reports.--
                  (A) In general.--In accordance with rules 
                prescribed by the Commission, the chief 
                compliance officer shall annually prepare and 
                sign a report that contains a description of--
                          (i) the compliance of the swap data 
                        repository of the chief compliance 
                        officer with respect to this Act 
                        (including regulations); and
                          (ii) each policy and procedure of the 
                        swap data repository of the chief 
                        compliance officer (including the code 
                        of ethics and conflict of interest 
                        policies of the swap data repository).
                  (B) Requirements.--A compliance report under 
                subparagraph (A) shall--
                          (i) accompany each appropriate 
                        financial report of the swap data 
                        repository that is required to be 
                        furnished to the Commission pursuant to 
                        this section; and
                          (ii) include a certification that, 
                        under penalty of law, the compliance 
                        report is accurate and complete.
  (f) Core Principles Applicable To Swap Data Repositories.--
          (1) Antitrust considerations.--Unless necessary or 
        appropriate to achieve the purposes of this Act, a swap 
        data repository shall not--
                  (A) adopt any rule or take any action that 
                results in any unreasonable restraint of trade; 
                or
                  (B) impose any material anticompetitive 
                burden on the trading, clearing, or reporting 
                of transactions.
          (2) Governance arrangements.--Each swap data 
        repository shall establish governance arrangements that 
        are transparent--
                  (A) to fulfill public interest requirements; 
                and
                  (B) to support the objectives of the Federal 
                Government, owners, and participants.
          (3) Conflicts of interest.--Each swap data repository 
        shall--
                  (A) establish and enforce rules to minimize 
                conflicts of interest in the decision-making 
                process of the swap data repository; and
                  (B) establish a process for resolving 
                conflicts of interest described in subparagraph 
                (A).
          (4) Additional duties developed by commission.--
                  (A) In general.--The Commission may develop 1 
                or more additional duties applicable to swap 
                data repositories.
                  (B) Consideration of evolving standards.--In 
                developing additional duties under subparagraph 
                (A), the Commission may take into consideration 
                any evolving standard of the United States or 
                the international community.
                  (C) Additional duties for commission 
                designees.--The Commission shall establish 
                additional duties for any registrant described 
                in section 1a(48) in order to minimize 
                conflicts of interest, protect data, ensure 
                compliance, and guarantee the safety and 
                security of the swap data repository.
  (g) Required Registration for Swap Data Repositories.--Any 
person that is required to be registered as a swap data 
repository under this section shall register with the 
Commission regardless of whether that person is also licensed 
as a bank or registered with the Securities and Exchange 
Commission as a swap data repository.
  (h) Rules.--The Commission shall adopt rules governing 
persons that are registered under this section.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


         FEDERAL AGRICULTURE IMPROVEMENT AND REFORM ACT OF 1996



           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL MARKET TRANSITION ACT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subtitle E--Administration

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 166. COMMODITY CERTIFICATES.

  (a) In General.--In making in-kind payments under subtitle C 
of this title, title I of the Farm Security and Rural 
Investment Act of 2002, [and title I of the Food, Conservation, 
and Energy Act of 2008] title I of the Food, Conservation, and 
Energy Act of 2008, and Subtitle B of title I of the 
Agricultural Act of 2014, the Commodity Credit Corporation 
may--
          (1) acquire and use commodities that have been 
        pledged to the Commodity Credit Corporation as 
        collateral for loans made by the Corporation;
          (2) use other commodities owned by the Commodity 
        Credit Corporation; and
          (3) redeem negotiable marketing certificates for cash 
        under terms and conditions established by the 
        Secretary.
  (b) Methods of Payment.--The Commodity Credit Corporation may 
make in-kind payments--
          (1) by delivery of the commodity at a warehouse or 
        other similar facility;
          (2) by the transfer of negotiable warehouse receipts;
          (3) by the issuance of negotiable certificates, which 
        the Commodity Credit Corporation shall exchange for a 
        commodity owned or controlled by the Corporation in 
        accordance with regulations promulgated by the 
        Corporation; or
          (4) by such other methods as the Commodity Credit 
        Corporation determines appropriate to promote the 
        efficient, equitable, and expeditious receipt of the 
        in-kind payments so that a person receiving the 
        payments receives the same total return as if the 
        payments had been made in cash.
  (c) Administration.--
          (1) Form.--At the option of a producer, the Commodity 
        Credit Corporation shall make negotiable certificates 
        authorized under subsection (b)(3) available to the 
        producer, in the form of program payments or by sale, 
        in a manner that the Corporation determines will 
        encourage the orderly marketing of commodities pledged 
        as collateral for loans made to producers under 
        subtitle C of this title, title I of the Farm Security 
        and Rural Investment Act of 2002, [and title I of the 
        Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008] title I of 
        the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, and 
        Subtitle B of title I of the Agricultural Act of 2014.
          (2) Transfer.--A negotiable certificate issued in 
        accordance with this subsection may be transferred to 
        another person in accordance with regulations 
        promulgated by the Secretary.
          [(3)  Termination of authority.--The authority to 
        carry out paragraph (1) terminates effective ending 
        with the 2009 crop year.]
          (3) Application of authority.--The Secretary shall 
        carry out paragraph (1) under the same terms and 
        conditions as were in effect for the 2008 crop year for 
        loans made to producers under subtitle B of title I of 
        the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 
        U.S.C. 8701 et. seq.).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


               CHANGES IN THE APPLICATION OF EXISTING LAW

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(A) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the following statements are 
submitted describing the effect of provisions in the 
accompanying bill that directly or indirectly change the 
application of existing law.
    The bill includes a number of provisions which place 
limitations on the use of funds in the bill or change existing 
limitations and which might, under some circumstances, be 
construed as changing the application of existing law:
    1. Office of the Secretary.--Language is included to limit 
the amount of funds for official reception and representation 
expenses, as determined by the Secretary.
    2. Departmental Administration.--Language is included to 
reimburse the agency for travel expenses incident to the 
holding of hearings.
    3. Agricultural Research Service.--Language is included 
that allows the Agricultural Research Service to grant 
easements at the Beltsville, MD, agricultural research center 
and to grant easements at any facility for the construction of 
a research facility for use by the agency.
    4. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.--A provision 
carried in the bill since fiscal year 1973 regarding state 
matching funds has been continued to assure more effective 
operation of the brucellosis control program through state cost 
sharing, with resulting savings to the Federal budget.
    Language is included to allow APHIS to recoup expenses 
incurred from providing technical assistance goods, or services 
to non-APHIS personnel, and to allow transfers of funds for 
agricultural emergencies.
    Language is included to limit the amount of funds for 
representational allowances.
    5. Agricultural Marketing Service, Limitation on 
Administrative Expenses.--The bill includes language to allow 
AMS to exceed the limitation on administrative expenses by 10 
percent with notification to the Appropriations Committees. 
This allows flexibility in case crop size is understated and/or 
other uncontrollable events occur.
    6. Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, 
Inspection and Weighing Services.--The bill includes authority 
to exceed the limitation on inspection and weighing services by 
10 percent with notification to the Appropriations Committees. 
This allows for flexibility if export activities require 
additional supervision and oversight, or other uncontrollable 
factors occur.
    7. Dairy Indemnity Program.--Language is included by 
reference that allows the Secretary to utilize the services of 
the Commodity Credit Corporation for the purpose of making 
dairy indemnity payments.
    8. Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account.--
Language is included that deems the pink bollworm a boll weevil 
for the purposes of administering the boll weevil loan program.
    9. Risk Management Agency.--Language is included to limit 
the amount of funds for official reception and representation 
expenses.
    10. Commodity Credit Corporation Fund.--Language is 
included to provide for the reimbursement appropriation. 
Language is also included to allow certain funds transferred 
from the Commodity Credit Corporation to be used for 
information resource management. In addition, language is 
included which limits the amount of funds that can be spent on 
operation and maintenance costs of CCC hazardous waste sites.
    11. Natural Resources Conservation Service.--Conservation 
Operations.--Language which has been included in the bill since 
1938 prohibits construction of buildings on land not owned by 
the government, although construction on land owned by states 
and counties is permitted as authorized by law.
    12. Rural Development Salaries and Expenses.--Language is 
included to allow funds to be used for advertising and 
promotional activities and to limit the amount of funds to 
provide modest nonmonetary awards to non-USDA employees.
    13. Rental Assistance Program.--Language is included which 
provides that agreements entered into during the current fiscal 
year be funded for a one-year period. Language also is included 
to prohibit the renewal of contracts within the 12-month 
contract period.
    14. Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, 
Infants, and Children (WIC).--Language is included to purchase 
infant formula except in accordance with law and pay for 
activities that are not fully reimbursed by other departments 
or agencies unless authorized by law.
    15. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.--Language is 
included to enter into contracts and employ staff to conduct 
studies, evaluations, or to conduct activities related to 
program integrity.
    16. Foreign Agricultural Service.--Language carried since 
1979 enables this agency to use funds received by an advance or 
by reimbursement to carry out its activities involving 
international development and technical cooperation. Language 
is included to limit the amount of funds for official reception 
and representation expenses.
    17. Commodity Futures Trading Commission.--Language is 
included to limit the amount of funds for official reception 
and representation expenses.
    18. Farm Credit Administration.--The bill includes 
authority to exceed the limitation on assessments by 10 percent 
with notification to the Appropriations Committees.
    19. General Provisions.--
    Section 704: This provision provides that none of the funds 
in this Act may be made available to pay indirect costs charged 
against competitive agricultural research, education, or 
extension grants awarded by the National Institute of Food and 
Agriculture in excess of 10 percent of total direct costs.
    Section 705: This provision allows funds made available in 
the current fiscal year for the Rural Development Loan Fund 
program account; the Rural Electrification and 
Telecommunications Loans program account; and the Rural Housing 
Insurance Fund program account to remain available until 
expended to disburse obligations.
    Section 706: Language is included that requires approval of 
the Chief Information Officer and the concurrence of the 
Executive Information Technology Investment Review Board for 
acquisition of new information technology systems or 
significant upgrades, and that prohibits the transfer of funds 
to the Office of the Chief Information Officer without the 
notification of the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses 
of Congress.
    Section 707: Language is included regarding the 
availability of funds for certain conservation programs.
    Section 708: Language is included regarding certain Rural 
Utilities Service Programs.
    Section 709: Language is included that allows unobligated 
balances of the Farm Service Agency and Rural Development 
mission areas to be used for information technology purposes.
    Section 710: Language is included regarding the prohibition 
of first-class travel by the employees of agencies funded in 
this Act.
    Section 711: Language is included regarding the funds of 
the Commodity Credit Corporation.
    Section 712 Language is included that limits the amount of 
spending for USDA advisory committees.
    Section 713: Language is included regarding indirect costs 
for grants.
    Section 714: Language regarding certain limitations of 
mandatory programs.
    Section 715: Language regarding certain limitations of 
mandatory programs.
    Section 716: Language is included that prohibits funds from 
being used to prepare a budget submission to Congress that 
assumes reductions from the previous year's budget due to user 
fee proposals unless the submission also identifies spending 
reductions which should occur if the user fees are not enacted.
    Section 717: Language is included that requires certain 
reprogramming procedures of funds provided in Appropriations 
Acts.
    Section 718: Language is included regarding fees for the 
business and industry guaranteed loan program.
    Section 719: This provision prohibits the Department of 
Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, the CFTC or the 
FCA from transmitting or making available to any non-Department 
of Agriculture, non-Department of Health and Human Services, 
non-CFTC, or non-FCA employee reports, questions or responses 
to questions that are a result of information requested for the 
appropriations hearing process.
    Section 720: Language regarding prepackaged news stories.
    Section 721: This provision prohibits any employee of the 
Department of Agriculture from being detailed or assigned to 
any other agency or office of the Department for more than 60 
days unless the individual's employing agency or office is 
fully reimbursed by the receiving agency or office for the 
salary and expenses of the employee for the period of 
assignment.
    Section 722: Language is included regarding the mohair 
program.
    Section 723: Language is included requiring spending plans 
for each agency funded by the Act.
    Section 724: Language is included regarding the use funds 
for humanitarian food assistance programs.
    Section 725: Language is included regarding the Single 
Family Housing Direct Loan Program.
    Section 726: Language is included on certain USDA loan 
programs.
    Section 727: Language is included regarding the Working 
Capital Fund.
    Section 728: Language is included regarding the Commodity 
Exchange Act.
    Section 729: Language is included regarding purchases made 
through child nutrition programs.
    Section 730: Language is included regarding potable water 
supplies.
    Section 731: Language is included regarding the Agriculture 
and Food Research Initiative.
    Section 732: Language is included regarding school meal 
programs.
    Section 733: Language is included regarding school meal 
programs.
    Section 734: Language is included regarding the Dietary 
Guidelines for Americans.
    Section 735: Language is included regarding interagency 
coordination of nutrition research.
    Section 739: Language is included regarding marketing loan 
programs.
    Section 741: Language is included regarding USDA housing 
loan programs.
    Section 742: Language is included redirecting funds for 
disaster programs.
    Section 743: Language is included regarding disclosure of 
information for pharmaceuticals.
    Section 744:Language is included regarding menu labeling.
    Section 745: Language is included regarding FDA 
regulations.
    Section 746: Language is included regarding spent grains 
for animal feed.
    Section 747: Language is included regarding FDA 
regulations.
    Section 748: Language is included regarding conservation 
programs.
    Section 749: Language regarding animal health.
    Section 750: Language regarding APHIS regulation.
    Section 751: Language regarding FDA regulation.
    Section 752: Language regarding food safety.
    Section 753: Spending Reduction Account.

                  APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(B) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the following table lists the 
appropriations in the accompanying bill which are not 
authorized by law for the period concerned:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Appropriation in
              Agency/Program                 Last year of    Authorization    last  year of    Net appropriation
                                             authorization       level        authorization      in  this bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFTC......................................            2013       Such sums        205,000,000         45,000,000
Grain Inspection Service..................            2015       Such sums         20,000,000         20,000,000
Food and Nutrition Service:
    Farmers' Market Nutrition Program.....            2015       Such sums         16,548,000         16,548,000
    State Administrative Expenses.........            2015       Such sums        263,686,000        269,652,000
    Summer Food Service Program...........            2015       Such sums        495,521,000        535,633,000
    WIC...................................            2015       Such sums      6,623,000,000      6,484,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 COMPARISON WITH THE BUDGET RESOLUTION

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives and section 308(a)(1)(A) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the following table compares 
the levels of new budget authority provided in the bill with 
the appropriate allocation under section 302(b) of the Budget 
Act:

 
                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Budget authority               Outlays
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                                                               Committee    Amount  of   Committee    Amount  of
                                                               allocation      bill      allocation      bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations
 to its subcommittees: Subcommittee On Agriculture, Rural
 Development, FDA, and Related Agencies.....................
    Mandatory...............................................      115,461      115,461      108,308   \1\108,308
    Discretionary...........................................       20,650       20,650       22,064    \1\32,762
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

                      FIVE-YEAR OUTLAY PROJECTIONS

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII and section 
308(a)(1)(B) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 
following table contains five-year projections associated with 
the budget authority provided in the accompanying bill as 
provided to the Committee by the Congressional Budget Office:

 
                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Budget authority               Outlays
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                                                               Committee    Amount  of   Committee    Amount of
                                                               allocation      bill      allocation      bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projection of outlays associated with the recommendation:
    2016....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........   \1\115,521
    2017....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        4,685
    2018....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........          957
    2019....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........          340
    2020 and future years...................................  ...........  ...........  ...........           95
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

               ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII and section 
308(a)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 
Congressional Budget Office has provided the following 
estimates of new budget a the amounts of financial assistance 
to State and local governments is as follows:

 
                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Budget authority               Outlays
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                                                               Committee    Amount  of   Committee    Amount  of
                                                               allocation      bill      allocation      bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Financial assistance to State and local governments for 2016           NA       39,530           NA    \1\32,445
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

                          PROGRAM DUPLICATION

    No provision of this bill establishes or reauthorizes a 
program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of 
another Federal program, a program that was included in any 
report from the GAO to Congress pursuant to section 21 of 
Public Law 111-139, or a program related to a program 
identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance.

                          DIRECTED RULE MAKING

    The bill does not direct any rule making.
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

      MINORITY VIEWS OF THE HON. NITA LOWEY AND THE HON. SAM FARR

    We cannot support this bill in its current form.
    Before discussing our concerns, we reiterate our and our 
colleagues' concern about the woeful inadequacy of the 
Committee's overall budget allocation. Bill after bill has 
failed to meet critical public needs. The President has 
threatened to veto all of the bills we have so far marked up, 
and we are headed to an entirely foreseeable crisis this fall. 
We again call upon the House and Senate leadership to work with 
the President to develop a new budget agreement that raises 
discretionary spending caps for both defense and non-defense 
priorities.
    With respect to this bill, while the allocation was not 
among the worst of the 12 subcommittees, it is still below 
2015, more than $1.1 billion below the request, and resulted in 
short-funding of a number of key programs.
    Before we discuss funding issues, however, we must note our 
serious concerns about two highly objectionable riders in the 
bill.
    First, we are deeply shocked at the inclusion of section 
747. It would allow hundreds of unregulated tobacco products, 
including e-cigarettes, to stay on the market without a pre-
market review by FDA. At present, there are over 7,000 e-
cigarette flavors, including Kool-Aid, gummy bears and cotton 
candy, that are intended to appeal to young people. And that 
appeal has worked. According to CDC, while 1.5% of high school 
students used e-cigarettes in 2011, the rate skyrocketed to 
13.4% in 2014. Almost 4% of middle school students used e-
cigarettes in 2014.
    The committee report makes numerous questionable statements 
about this language, such as characterizing this as a 
``technical change.'' Taking away FDA pre-market review of 
whole classes of products is not a technical change by any 
stretch of the imagination. It is, in reality, a backdoor 
amendment to the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control 
Act (TCA).
    The report even suggests that pre-market review of these 
products would divert FDA ``from its core mission to . . . 
ensure the safe use of these products.'' Any use of the word 
``safe'' with respect to these products is totally 
inappropriate. The TCA does not charge FDA with finding tobacco 
products to be ``safe'' and in fact, if a manufacturer claims 
that that FDA has found its product to be ``safe,'' the product 
is considered misbranded and subject to enforcement action by 
FDA.
    Apparently alluding to e-cigarettes, the report refers to 
products that ``have the potential to play an important role in 
harm reduction.'' The jury is out on whether e-cigarettes may 
be less harmful than regular cigarettes, Congress certainly 
does not have the expertise to make such an assessment, and 
several reports have raised serious questions about these 
products:
     A limited FDA laboratory examination of e-
cigarettes ``showed that the product contained detectable 
levels of known carcinogens and toxic chemicals to which users 
could potentially be exposed . . . and suggested that quality 
control processes used to manufacture these products are 
inconsistent or non-existent.''
     Last fall, a government report said that ``the 
shape and construction of e-cigarettes can make them more 
likely than other products with lithium-ion batteries to behave 
like `flaming rockets' when a battery fails.''
     The American Association of Poison Control Centers 
reported nearly 3800 cases in calendar year 2014 of harm from 
exposure to e-cigarettes or liquid nicotine, more than half of 
them to children under 6 years of age.
    We would strongly oppose the bill on the basis of this 
rider alone.
    Another rider, section 734, is also of deep concern. 
Congress should have no role deciding the level of scientific 
evidence required for the Dietary Guidelines for Americans 
(DGA). The rider requires that recommendations be based only on 
``Grade I: Strong'' evidence and be limited only to issues of 
``diet and nutrition intake.''
    These are requirements invented by the Committee. About 50 
words into the text of the law that created the DGA is the 
requirement that each set of guidelines ``be based on the 
preponderance of the scientific and medical knowledge which is 
current at the time the report is prepared.'' Not ``Grade I'' 
evidence, but the preponderance of evidence.
    If section 734 became law, the 2015 DGA would be a very 
slim document, indeed. Ironically, the 2010 recommendations 
would largely be frozen in time, and important changes in 
guidance related to cholesterol and sodium could not be issued.
    Moreover, if the guidelines have to be limited only to 
``diet and nutrition intake,'' no recommendations on exercise 
would be allowed.
    Section 734 also requires more public comment, in addition 
to what has already been a generous allotment of time for 
comment. We see no purpose-- besides delay--to extend the time 
for public comment. We are also troubled by the mysterious 
appearance of the exact same bill language in the Labor, HHS 
bill.
    The funding levels in the bill create significant 
shortfalls from the request. Among them is the Commodity 
Futures Trading Commission, which is funded at $245 million. 
This is $77 million below the president's request and $5 
million below the level House Republicans agreed to just months 
ago in the 2015 bill. As we have said time and time again, 
Republicans must drop the pretense that they will succeed in 
repealing the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
Protection Act and provide the agency the resources it needs to 
fulfill its mandate.
    The FDA funding level is also disappointing. In recent 
years, subcommittee members on both sides of the aisle have 
expressed concern about the inclusion of high levels of 
unauthorized user fees in FDA budgets, primarily for funding 
its responsibilities under the Food Safety Modernization Act 
(FSMA). In the 2016 budget, responding to this criticism, FDA 
shifted away from its over-reliance on unauthorized fees and 
requested more funding as a straight discretionary 
appropriation. Rather that meet the agency's needs, this 
subcommittee promptly slashed the request. While $30 million 
over 2015, FDA funding of $116 million below the request will 
slow implementation of the FSMA and other priorities at the 
agency.
    We appreciate the increase over the budget request of $17 
million for Food for Peace (FFP), although it is $49 million 
below 2015. However, we would note that last year we voted with 
a bi-partisan majority of Members for an amendment by Chairman 
Royce in support of food aid reform. We are thus deeply 
disappointed that the bill does not include the President's 
request to allow up to 25% of the Food for Peace appropriation 
to be used for cash-based assistance in emergency situations. 
That language would allow us to assist about 2 million more 
people around the world at no additional cost.
    We also appreciate that the McGovern-Dole program is funded 
at the 2015 and request levels. But we are also disappointed 
that the bill does not include the President's request for 
language in the McGovern-Dole account authorizing the purchase 
commodities from developing countries and that it does not 
provide funding for the newly authorized Local and Regional 
Food Aid Procurement program.
    While we are appreciative of the $12 million provided for 
the Summer EBT Demonstration program, it should be funded at 
the request, and this subcommittee which has the lead on food 
issues should finally fund the Healthy Foods Financing 
Initiative, as other subcommittees have.
    We are appreciative of improvements made to the bill in the 
manager's amendment, including tightening requirements on the 
Agricultural Research Service in light of a deeply troubling 
story in The New York Times in January that raised concerns 
about animal handling at one of its facilities. We also 
appreciate the inclusion of Congresswoman Roybal-Allard's 
proposal to end the issuance by USDA of licenses to so-called 
``Class B random source dealers,'' who obtain dogs and cats 
from pounds, individuals or other sources to sell for research 
purposes. There has long been concern about potential abuses in 
animal procurement by these license holders, who are thankfully 
decreasing in number.
    We regret the failure of the Committee to agree to Ranking 
Member Farr's amendment to include bill language reflecting 
current law that bans the inspection of horses for human meat, 
and we will seek its inclusion as the process moves forward.
    As the legislative process continues, we will do our best 
to address the problems we have described here; however, we do 
not support the bill in its current form.

                                                     Nita M. Lowey.
                                                          Sam Farr.

                                  [all]