Calendar No. 437

56–177 PDF

Calendar No. 437

118

ONGRESS

EPORT

" !

SENATE

2d Session 118–193

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG

ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIA-

TIONS BILL, 2025

ULY

11 (legislative day J

ULY

10), 2024—Ordered to be printed

Mr. H

EINRICH

, from the Committee on Appropriations,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany S. 4690]

The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 4690) mak-

ing appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and

Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal

year ending September 30, 2025, and for other purposes, reports fa-

vorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.

New obligational authority

Total of bill as reported to the Senate .................... $211,514,864,000

Amount of 2024 appropriations ............................... 211,801,076,000

Amount of 2025 budget estimate ............................ 213,634,202,000

Bill as recommended to Senate compared to—

2024 appropriations .......................................... ¥286,212,000

2025 budget estimate ........................................ ¥2,119,338,000

(2)

CONTENTS

Page

Overview and Summary of the Bill ........................................................................ 4

Reports to Congress ................................................................................................. 4

Breakdown by Title ................................................................................................. 5

Title I:

Agricultural Programs:

Production, Processing, and Marketing:

Office of the Secretary ....................................................................... 6

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

Office of the Chief Economist ............................................................ 10

Office of Hearings and Appeals ......................................................... 11

Office of Budget and Program Analysis ........................................... 11

Office of the Chief Information Officer ............................................. 12

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

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights ........................... 13

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

Agriculture Buildings and Facilities ................................................ 14

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

Office of Safety, Security, and Protection ........................................ 14

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

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

Office of Ethics ................................................................................... 16

Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Eco-

nomics .............................................................................................. 16

Economic Research Service ............................................................... 17

National Agricultural Statistics Service .......................................... 18

Agricultural Research Service ........................................................... 19

National Institute of Food and Agriculture ..................................... 35

Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Pro-

grams ............................................................................................... 44

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service .................................. 44

Agricultural Marketing Service ........................................................ 56

Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety ................................. 64

Food Safety and Inspection Service .................................................. 64

Title II:

Farm Production and Conservation Programs:

Office of the Under Secretary for Farm Production and Conservation 67

Farm Production and Conservation Business Center ............................ 68

Farm Service Agency ................................................................................ 68

Risk Management Agency ........................................................................ 74

Natural Resources Conservation Service ................................................ 76

Corporations:

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund ............................................. 83

Commodity Credit Corporation Fund ...................................................... 84

Title III:

Rural Development Programs:

Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development ........................... 86

Rural Development ................................................................................... 87

Rural Housing Service .............................................................................. 88

Rural Business-Cooperative Service ........................................................ 94

Rural Utilities Service .............................................................................. 101

Title IV:

Domestic Food Programs:

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

Services ................................................................................................... 107

Page

Title IV—Continued

Domestic Food Programs—Continued

Food and Nutrition Service ...................................................................... 107

Title V:

Foreign Assistance and Related Programs:

Office of the Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural

Affairs ..................................................................................................... 118

Foreign Agricultural Service .................................................................... 119

Title VI:

Related Agency and Food and Drug Administration:

Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Adminis-

tration ..................................................................................................... 123

Independent Agency: Farm Credit Administration ................................ 151

Title VII:

General Provisions ........................................................................................... 153

Program, Project, and Activity ............................................................................... 156

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

Senate ................................................................................................................... 156

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

Senate ................................................................................................................... 157

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

Senate ................................................................................................................... 158

Budgetary Impact of Bill ......................................................................................... 165

Disclosure of Congressionally Directed Spending Items ...................................... 166

Comparative Statement of Budget Authority ........................................................ 176

(4)

OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY OF THE BILL

The Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administra-

tion, and Related Agencies appropriations bill provides funding for

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

of Agriculture [USDA]. These programs include agricultural re-

search, education, and extension activities; natural resources con-

servation programs; farm income and support programs; marketing

and inspection activities; domestic food assistance programs; rural

housing, economic and community development, and telecommuni-

cation and electrification assistance; and various export and inter-

national activities of the USDA.

The bill also provides funding for the Food and Drug Administra-

tion [FDA] and allows the use of collected fees for administrative

expenses of the Farm Credit Administration [FCA].

The discretionary programs and activities of USDA and FDA

that are supported by this bill include high priority responsibilities

entrusted to the Federal Government and its partners to protect

human health and safety, contribute to economic recovery, and

achieve policy objectives strongly supported by the American peo-

ple.

All accounts in the bill have been closely examined to ensure

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

programs of USDA, FDA, and FCA. Details on each of the ac-

counts, the funding level, and the Committee’s justifications for the

funding levels are included in the report.

Fiscal year 2024 levels cited in this report reflect amounts en-

acted in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (Public Law

116–260) and do not include fiscal year 2024 supplemental appro-

priations. Accordingly, any comparisons to fiscal year 2024 do not

reflect fiscal year 2024 supplemental appropriations. Fiscal year

2024 supplemental appropriations are included in the comparative

statement of new budget authority at the end of this report under

the heading ‘‘Other Appropriations’’.

REPORTS TO CONGRESS

The Committee has, throughout this report, requested agencies

to provide studies and reports on various issues. The Committee

utilizes these reports to evaluate program performance and make

decisions on future appropriations. The Committee directs that all

studies and reports be provided to the Committee as electronic doc-

uments in an agreed upon format within 120 days after the date

of enactment of this act, unless an alternative submission schedule

is specifically stated in the report.

BREAKDOWN BY TITLE

The amounts of obligational authority for each of the seven titles

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

comparisons, appears at the end of this report. Recommendations

for individual appropriation items, projects and activities are car-

ried in this report under the appropriate item headings.

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal Year 2024

enacted

Committee

recommendation

Title I: Agricultural programs ......................................................................................... 8,437,466 8,603,282

Title II: Farm Production and Conservation programs ................................................... 30,790,897 30,302,557

Title III: Rural economic and community development programs ................................. 3,571,608 3,773,305

Title IV: Domestic food programs ................................................................................... 163,337,292 163,394,516

Title V: Foreign assistance and related programs ......................................................... 2,098,354 2,209,854

Title VI: Related agencies and Food and Drug Administration ..................................... 3,892,150 3,553,150

Title VII: General provisions ............................................................................................ ¥326,691 ¥321,800

Other Appropriations ....................................................................................................... ............................ ............................

Scorekeeping Adjustments .............................................................................................. ¥449,801 (506,000)

Total, new budget (obligational) authority ....................................................... 211,351,275 211,008,864

(6)

TITLE I

AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS

ROCESSING

, R

ESEARCH

AND

ARKETING

FFICE OF THE

ECRETARY

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $58,292,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 103,025,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 63,038,000

The Secretary of Agriculture, assisted by the Deputy Secretary,

Under Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries, Chief Information Of-

ficer, Chief Financial Officer, and members of their immediate

staffs, directs and coordinates the work of the United States De-

partment of Agriculture [USDA]. This includes developing policy,

maintaining relationships with agricultural organizations and oth-

ers in the development of farm programs, and maintaining liaison

with the Executive Office of the President and Members of Con-

gress on all matters pertaining to agricultural policy.

The general authority of the Secretary to supervise and control

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

Law 101–624). The delegation of regulatory functions to Depart-

ment employees and authorization of appropriations to carry out

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $63,038,000 for

the Office of the Secretary. This includes an increase of $2,000,000

for a Polyfluoroalkyl Substances [PFAS] initiative.

The following table reflects the amount provided by the Com-

mittee for each office and activity:

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year 2024

enacted

Fiscal year 2025

budget request

Committee

recommendation

Office of the Secretary ................................................................... 7,000 20,669 9,650

Office of Homeland Security .......................................................... 1,896 3,174 2,621

Office of Tribal Relations .............................................................. 5,190 6,613 6,561

Office of Partnerships and Public Engagement ............................ 7,500 9,339 7,500

Office of Assistant Secretary for Administration .......................... 1,706 1,737 1,706

Departmental Administration ......................................................... 23,500 45,207 23,500

Office of Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations and

Intergovernmental Affairs .......................................................... 4,500 4,709 4,500

Office of Communications ............................................................. 7,000 11,577 7,000

Total .................................................................................. 58,292 103,025 63,038

Canadian Variety Registration.—The Committee is concerned

about unfair wheat variety registration practices that negatively af-

fect American wheat growers that export to Canada. Currently, the

Canadian wheat varietal registration system is overly burdensome

to many American-developed varieties, requiring multiple years of

Canadian test plot data and considering agronomic factors that are

not relevant to the end use attributes of the grain. This results in

U.S. farmers growing very few acres of registered varieties and has

limited the opportunity to increase export trade. While the relevant

provisions of USMCA regarding wheat grading made important

changes, additional work is needed to ensure American growers can

benefit from those changes. Therefore, the Committee urges the

Secretary to work with the Department of Commerce and the

United States Trade Representative to prioritize conversations with

the Canadian government to address trade inequities resulting

from Canada’s current wheat varietal registration practices.

Colonias and Farmworker Initiatives.—The Committee requests

an update on the Department’s effort to streamline and coordinate

existing Federal programs serving colonias and farmworkers, in-

cluding housing, healthcare, water infrastructure, and broadband

programs, and the consideration of establishing an ‘‘Office of

Colonias and Farmworker Initiatives’’.

Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC] Obligations and Commit-

ments.—The Secretary is directed to notify the Committees on Ap-

propriations of the House and Senate in writing 15 days prior to

the obligation or commitment of any emergency funds from the

CCC.

The Committee also reminds USDA that while the Secretary has

broad authority to utilize the CCC for emergencies such as the re-

cent outbreak of high pathogen avian influenza, creating programs

with CCC funds that then cannot be implemented without utilizing

the interchange authority, requiring additional appropriated dol-

lars, or that will take years to obligate funding is not an appro-

priate use. As such, the plan required to be submitted as part of

the CCC notification shall also include outyear costs for implemen-

tation and how the Department intends to operationalize the pro-

gram.

Communications Services for Limited English Proficient Commu-

nities.—The Committee is supportive of efforts the Department is

taking to improve communications, which should include mediums

such as television and radio, to reach limited English proficient

[LEP] communities. However, to improve implementation, the

Committee encourages the Department to review its practices and

create uniform applications across all Department agencies to

strengthen communication practices to include digital, television,

and radio advertising when working with limited English proficient

communities. The Committee further directs each Department and

agency funded by this act with annual advertising budgets to in-

clude a report on expenditures related to local media advertising to

include digital, television, and radio no more than 30 days after the

enactment of this act. The Committee also mandates that a portion

of the advertising expenditures for LEP communications is dedi-

cated to minority-focused media outlets to ensure equity.

Coordination.—The Committee encourages additional coordina-

tion within the Department, specifically between NRCS, FSA, and

APHIS, on matters related to non-lethal wildlife conflict manage-

ment methods, techniques, and resources.

Cover Crops.—The Secretary, in consultation with the Risk Man-

agement Agency, shall submit a written report, within 1 year of en-

actment of this act, on how the Department can streamline oppor-

tunities for farmers to insure primary and secondary crops with

revenue streams resulting from biofuel use, with particular ref-

erence tocarinata, pennycress, camelina, and other oilseeds.

Farm and Food System Workforce.—The Committee encourages

department to establish an ‘‘Office of the Farm and Food System

Workforce’’ to improve awareness and access to Federal programs

for farm and food system workers, ensure inclusive communication

between the Federal Government and these workers, and to pro-

vide recommendations and technical assistance across the Federal

Government as it relates to these workers. The Secretary shall sub-

mit a report within 180 days of the enactment of this act regarding

departmental actions, policies, and methods for: (1) establishing

goals and objectives of the department to increase participation in

established programs for farm and food system workers; (2) assess-

ing the effectiveness of department outreach programs targeted to-

wards these workers; (3) collaborating with and providing input to

the agencies and offices of the department on programmatic and

policy decisions affecting these workers; and (4) determining the

barriers that farm and food system workers face to accessing de-

partment programs.

Federal Trust and Treaty Responsibilities.—The Committee re-

minds agencies funded by this act of their obligation to uphold the

Federal trust and treaty responsibilities to Tribes and Federal obli-

gations to the Native Hawaiian Community. This includes uphold-

ing treaty and reserved rights, and any other rights and obligations

under Federal law; supporting self-determination efforts by Native

communities; fulfilling obligations under Presidential Memoranda

and Executive Orders; and conducting early and robust govern-

ment-to-government consultation with Tribes, and meaningful out-

reach and engagement with Native Hawaiians.

Fertilizer Production Expansion Program [FPEP].—The Com-

mittee appreciates the work the Department has done though the

FPEP to expand domestic production of fertilizer and other inputs

to increase competition and drive costs down for producers. In fu-

ture FPEP funding rounds and any other programs or mechanisms

to support domestic fertilizer production expansion, the Committee

encourages the Secretary to prioritize the production of nitrogenous

fertilizers with low- to no-carbon emissions.

Institute for Rural Partnerships.—The Committee recognized the

unique challenges faced by rural communities when it provided

funding in fiscal year 2024 to continue three Institutes for Rural

Partnerships in geographically diverse locations to identify and

support community, statewide and regional partnership to address

these challenges. As rural challenges evolve, the continued need for

these Institutes is clear. Therefore, the Committee provides

$6,000,000 to be divided equally to continue the Institute for Rural

Partnerships at established land-grant universities including the

Auburn University Partnership Institute at Auburn University, the

Wisconsin Rural Partnership Institute at the University of Wis-

consin-Madison, and the Leahy Institute for Rural Partnerships at

the University of Vermont, which were originally funded in fiscal

year 2022. Funding will support focused research and applied tran-

sitional needs locally and regionally.

Office of Tribal Relations.—The Committee supports elevating

the Office of Tribal Relations to an Assistant Secretary level and

encourages the Secretary to evaluate the resources needed.

Resource Conservation and Development Councils.—Since 1964,

the Resource Conservation and Development [RC&D] Councils

have worked at the grassroots level with local leaders to plan, de-

velop, and carry out programs for land and water conservation and

management. The Committee encourages the Secretary to consider

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

Councils meet agency performance requirements, in the delivery of

USDA programs and services.

School Meals.—The Committee recognizes that many rural and

virtual public schools may otherwise qualify for school meal pro-

grams but lack a congregate setting. The Committee encourages

the Secretary to consider allowing rural and virtual public school

students to access their meals in non-congregate settings.

Seafood Industry Liaison.—The Committee provides $650,000 to

establish a position in the Office of the Secretary solely responsible

for the effective coordination of seafood policies and activities with-

in the Department, and in coordination with the Secretary of Com-

merce and the United States Trade Representative, relating to the

support of domestically harvested and processed wild and farmed

seafood.

Soil Carbon Monitoring.—The Committee supports the depart-

ment’s efforts to establish a Soil Carbon Monitoring Network. The

Committee notes that additional details on program structure and

plans—such as standardized methodologies, data sets to be used,

plans to harmonize data sets, and more—are necessary and cur-

rently lacking. The Committee directs the department, in close col-

laboration with experts, to conduct a systematic review of existing

USDA and Federal Government soil carbon monitoring methodolo-

gies, such as, methodologies that may have been developed by the

Long-Term Agroecosystem Research Network, Long-Term Ecologi-

cal Research Network, the National Ecological Observatory Net-

work, or other networks, in order to develop a standardized soil

carbon monitoring methodology that is reflective of current best

practices and ensures the scientific rigor necessary to accurately

measure and monitor soil carbon stocks and fluctuations over time

and across regions, soil types, and various production systems. The

Committee encourages USDA to utilize the standardized method-

ology developed from this review to ensure that the Soil Carbon

Monitoring Network is grounded in shared data measurements and

standards to enable large-scale data analysis and insights.

Tribal Self-Determination.—The Committee directs the Secretary

to submit a plan for expanding Tribal self-determination beyond

the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations and Tribal

Forestry program pilots, including, where possible, through ex-

panding 638 contract authority.

Tropical and Sub-Tropical Agriculture.—The Committee notes

the unique value of tropical agricultural crops, and directs the De-

partment to protect the branding of processed crops, such as maca-

damia nuts and coffee, under the Agricultural Marketing Act of

1946, and its implementing regulations. The Committee is also con-

cerned that these tropical crops are vulnerable to invasive disease

entities, and directs the Department to provide a report on the re-

sources needed to improve enforcement of 7 CFR 319.73–2 in order

to protect domestic tropical and subtropical agriculture.

Voting-Related Activities.—The Committee notes that the Depart-

ment has not yet provided the briefing required under this heading

in the explanatory statement accompanying Public Law 118–42.

The Committee directs the Secretary to provide to the Committee

a briefing, no later than 90 days after enactment of this act, re-

garding any strategic plans developed by the department since Jan-

uary 20, 2021 outlining the ways the department has promoted

voter registration and voter participation.

XECUTIVE

PERATIONS

Executive operations were established as a result of the reorga-

nization of the Department to provide a support team for USDA

policy officials and selected Department-wide services. Activities

under the executive operations include the Office of the Chief Econ-

omist, the National Appeals Division, and the Office of Budget and

Program Analysis.

FFICE OF THE

HIEF

CONOMIST

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $30,500,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 31,504,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 31,150,000

The Office of the Chief Economist advises the Secretary of Agri-

culture on the economic implications of Department policies and

programs. The Office serves as the single focal point for the Na-

tion’s economic intelligence and analysis, risk assessment, and cost-

benefit analysis related to domestic and international food and ag-

riculture issues, provides policy direction for renewable energy de-

velopment; conducts analyses of climate change impacts on agri-

culture and forestry; and is responsible for coordination and review

of all commodity and aggregate agricultural and food-related data

used to develop outlook and situation material within the Depart-

ment.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $31,150,000 for

the Office of the Chief Economist. The Committee provides

$650,000 for the Office of Pest Management Policy.

Pest Management.—The Committee recognizes the need for Fed-

eral pesticide policy to be science-based and keep in mind the needs

of agricultural producers and encourages the Office of Pest Man-

agement Policy to evaluate the impact on industry.

Policy Research.—The Committee provides $10,000,000 for policy

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

capacity to conduct complex economic and policy analysis and

which have a lengthy and well-documented record of conducting

policy analysis for the benefit of USDA, the Congressional Budget

Office, or the Congress. Of the amount provided for policy research

activities, $2,000,000 shall be for a center based at an upper Mid-

west land grant university focused on agricultural policy relevant

to the region, including crop insurance, livestock risk management,

and disaster programs, and $3,000,000 shall be for the Department

to focus efforts on entities that have information, analysis, research

and staff necessary to provide objective, scientific information to

support and enhance efficient, accurate implementation of Federal

drought preparedness and drought response programs, including

interagency thresholds used to determine eligibility for mitigation

or emergency assistance.

FFICE OF

EARINGS AND

PPEALS

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $16,703,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 17,127,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 16,703,000

The Office of Hearings and Appeals conducts administrative

hearings and reviews of adverse program decisions made by the

Rural Development mission area, the Farm Service Agency [FSA],

the Risk Management Agency [RMA], and the Natural Resources

Conservation Service [NRCS].

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $16,703,000 for

the Office of Hearings and Appeals.

FFICE OF

UDGET AND

ROGRAM

NALYSIS

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $14,967,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 17,321,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 15,467,000

The Office of Budget and Program Analysis provides direction

and administration of the Department’s budgetary functions includ-

ing developing, presenting, and executing of the budget; reviewing

program and legislative proposals for program, budget, and related

implications; analyzing program and resource issues and alter-

natives; preparing summaries of pertinent data to aid the Sec-

retary, Departmental policy officials, and agency program man-

agers in the decision-making process; and providing Department-

wide coordination for and participation in the presentation of budg-

et-related matters to the Committees of the Congress, the media,

and interested public. The Office also provides Department-wide co-

ordination of the preparation and processing of regulations and leg-

islative programs and reports.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $15,467,000 for

the Office of Budget and Program Analysis.

FFICE OF THE

HIEF

NFORMATION

FFICER

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $91,000,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 95,871,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 91,400,000

The Office of the Chief Information Officer was established in the

Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–106), which required

the establishment of a Chief Information Officer for major Federal

agencies. This Office provides policy guidance, leadership, coordina-

tion, and direction to the Department’s information management

and information technology [IT] investment activities in support of

USDA program delivery, and is the lead office in USDA e-gov ef-

forts. The Office provides long-range planning guidance, imple-

ments measures to ensure that technology investments are eco-

nomical and effective, coordinates interagency information re-

sources management projects, and implements standards to pro-

mote information exchange and technical interoperability. In addi-

tion, the Office of the Chief Information Officer is responsible for

certain activities financed under the Department’s Working Capital

Fund (7 U.S.C. 2235). The Office also provides telecommunication

and automated data processing [ADP] services to USDA agencies

through the National Information Technology Center with locations

in Fort Collins, Colorado; Kansas City, Missouri; and Washington,

D.C. Direct ADP operational services are also provided to the Office

of the Secretary, the Office of the General Counsel, the Office of

Communications, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, and De-

partmental Management.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $91,400,000 for

the Office of the Chief Information Officer. The Committee provides

an increase of $400,000 for artificial intelligence and machine

learning implementation.

FFICE OF THE

HIEF

INANCIAL

FFICER

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $6,867,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 8,225,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 6,867,000

The Office of the Chief Financial Officer is responsible for the

dual roles of Chief Financial Management Policy Officer and Chief

Financial Management Advisor to the Secretary and mission area

heads. The Office provides leadership for all financial management,

accounting, travel, Federal assistance, and strategic planning per-

formance measurement activities within the Department. The Of-

fice is also responsible for the management and operation of the

National Finance Center and the Departmental Working Capital

Fund.

National Finance Center.—The National Finance Center [NFC] is

the largest designated Federal Government Payroll Shared Service

Provider and it provides integrated payroll and personnel services

for over 640,000 Federal employees. To ensure that thousands of

Federal employees’ pay and human resources services are not in-

terrupted or adversely impacted by major organizational changes,

the Committee has modified requirements under current law relat-

ing to NFC payroll and shared services operations, missions, per-

sonnel, and functions. The Committee also directs the USDA to

provide quarterly reports on full-time equivalent [FTE] levels for

each of the current NFC divisions, operations, and functions, as

well as each of the Office of the Chief Financial Officer [OCFO] and

Office of the Chief Information Officer [OCIO] divisions, operations,

and functions currently co-located with the NFC. The reports also

are to include a detailed breakdown of the FTEs for each and any

of these same divisions, functions, or operations for the NFC and

the co-located OCFO and OCIO functions compared to those during

fiscal years 2017 and 2018.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,867,000 for

the Office of the Chief Financial Officer.

FFICE OF THE

SSISTANT

ECRETARY FOR

IVIL

IGHTS

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $1,466,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 1,501,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,466,000

The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights provides

oversight of civil rights and related functions. This includes coordi-

nation of the administration of civil rights laws and regulations for

employees of USDA and participants in programs of the Depart-

ment and ensuring compliance with civil rights laws.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,466,000 for

the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights.

FFICE OF

IVIL

IGHTS

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $37,000,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 38,362,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 37,000,000

The Office of Civil Rights provides overall leadership responsi-

bility for all Department-wide civil rights activities. These activi-

ties include employment opportunity, as well as program non-

discrimination policy development, analysis, coordination, and com-

pliance. The Office is responsible for providing leadership in facili-

tating the fair and equitable treatment of USDA employees and for

monitoring program activities to ensure that all USDA programs

are delivered in a nondiscriminatory manner. The Office’s outreach

functions provide leadership, coordination, facilitation, and exper-

tise to internal and external partners to ensure equal and timely

access to USDA programs for all constituents, with emphasis on

the underserved, through information sharing, technical assistance,

and training.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $37,000,000 for

the Office of Civil Rights.

GRICULTURE

UILDINGS AND

ACILITIES

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $22,603,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 54,882,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 22,906,000

Department headquarters presently operates in a two-building,

Government-owned complex in downtown Washington, DC; the

George Washington Carver Center in Beltsville, Maryland; and

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

an arrangement with the General Services Administration, USDA

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

payments. For the last several years, the Department has imple-

mented a strategic space plan to locate staff more efficiently, ren-

ovate its buildings, and eliminate safety hazards, particularly in

the Agriculture South Building.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $22,906,000 for

Agriculture Buildings and Facilities.

AZARDOUS

ATERIALS

ANAGEMENT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $3,000,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 7,615,000

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

Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensa-

tion, and Liability Act (Public Law 96–510) and the Resource Con-

servation and Recovery Act (Public Law 94–580), the Department

has the responsibility to meet the same standards regarding the

storage and disposition of hazardous materials as private busi-

nesses. The Department is required to contain, cleanup, monitor,

and inspect for hazardous materials in areas under the Depart-

ment’s jurisdiction.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

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

Hazardous Materials Management.

FFICE OF

AFETY

, S

ECURITY

AND

ROTECTION

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $20,800,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 21,952,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 20,800,000

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $20,800,000 for

the Office of Safety, Security, and Protection.

FFICE OF

NSPECTOR

ENERAL

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $111,561,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 114,024,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 111,561,000

The Office of Inspector General [OIG] was established on October

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

452). This act expanded and provided specific authorities for the ac-

tivities of OIG which had previously been carried out under the

general authorities of the Secretary.

The Office is administered by an inspector general who reports

directly to the Secretary. Functions and responsibilities of this Of-

fice include direction and control of audit and investigative activi-

ties within the Department, formulation of audit and investigative

policies and procedures regarding Department programs and oper-

ations, and analysis and coordination of program-related audit and

investigation activities performed by other Department agencies.

The activities of this Office are designed to assure compliance

with existing laws, policies, regulations, and programs of the De-

partment’s agencies and to provide appropriate officials with the

means for prompt corrective action where deviations have occurred.

The scope of audit and investigative activities is large and includes

administrative, program, and criminal matters. These activities are

coordinated, when appropriate, with various audit and investiga-

tive agencies of the executive and legislative branches of the Gov-

ernment.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $111,561,000 for

the Office of Inspector General.

Animal Welfare.—The Committee is concerned about illegal ani-

mal fighting activity that subjects animals to cruel conditions and

has the potential to spread illnesses such as virulent Newcastle

disease and avian flu. The OIG is encouraged to combat this illegal

activity and to increase its efforts to investigate dogfighting and

cockfighting operations as soon as there is any evidence of such il-

legal activity. The OIG is also encouraged to work with Federal

partners like the U.S. Postal Service and U.S. Department of Jus-

tice to examine the prevalence of the illegal shipment of game-fowl

used in cockfighting.

The Committee also encourages the OIG to audit and investigate

USDA enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act and the Horse Pro-

tection Act to help improve compliance with these important laws.

This should include the completion of an in-depth examination of

APHIS’ oversight of dog breeders with the number of in-person vis-

its originally planned. Additionally, the Committee is concerned

about the lack of meaningful enforcement of the AWA and HPA

and requests that these audits should also examine what barriers

exist to full enforcement of both Acts, and what if any steps can

be taken to ensure that the regulated community is held account-

able for violations of these Acts.

FFICE OF THE

ENERAL

OUNSEL

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $60,537,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 66,581,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 61,981,000

The Office of the General Counsel provides all legal advice, coun-

sel, and services to the Secretary and to all agencies, offices, and

corporations of the Department. The Office represents the Depart-

ment in administrative proceedings; non-litigation debt collection

proceedings; State water rights adjudications; proceedings before

the Environmental Protection Agency, Interstate Commerce Com-

mission, Federal Maritime Administration, and International Trade

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

judicial proceedings and litigation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $61,981,000 for

the Office of the General Counsel. The Committee provides an in-

crease of $1,444,000 for additional legal services.

Organic Standard Integrity.—To keep pace with new research

and changing consumer demands, organic standards should be up-

dated expeditiously to maintain integrity. The Committee encour-

ages the Office of the General Counsel to prioritize the hiring of

staff with expertise in the Organic Foods Production Act to address

the backlog of organic standards updates within the National Or-

ganic Program.

FFICE OF

THICS

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $4,500,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 7,229,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,500,000

The Office of Ethics is the centralized and consolidated office im-

plementing USDA’s ethics program throughout the Department.

The Office provides ethics services to all employees at the Depart-

ment concerning advice, training, and guidance about compliance

with conflict of interest and impartiality rules. This includes com-

plying with the requirements of the Stop Trading on Congressional

Knowledge Act (Public Law 112–105) and the Office of Government

Ethics regulatory requirements (5 CFR parts 2634 through 2641).

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,500,000 for

the Office of Ethics.

FFICE OF THE

NDER

ECRETARY FOR

ESEARCH

, E

DUCATION

AND

CONOMICS

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $1,384,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 1,421,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,384,000

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

Economics provides direction and coordination in carrying out the

laws enacted by the Congress for food and agricultural research,

education, extension, and economic and statistical information. The

Office has oversight and management responsibilities for the Agri-

cultural Research Service [ARS]; National Institute of Food and

Agriculture [NIFA]; Economic Research Service [ERS]; and Na-

tional Agricultural Statistics Service [NASS].

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,384,000 for

the Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Eco-

nomics.

CONOMIC

ESEARCH

ERVICE

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $90,612,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 98,068,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 90,612,000

The Economic Research Service provides economic and other so-

cial science research and analysis for public and private decisions

on agriculture, food, the environment, and rural America. The in-

formation that ERS produces is available to the general public and

helps the Executive and Legislative Branches develop, administer,

and evaluate agricultural and rural policies and programs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $90,612,000 for

the Economic Research Service.

Data Collection on Religiously Informed Diets.—The Committee

appreciates Department’s efforts to improve access to kosher and

halal food for Americans with religiously informed diets. However,

the Committee remains concerned about the gaps that still exist

between the need and the products currently available. While stud-

ies to collect data in this area have been conducted in individual

States, there is a lack of data available at the National level. The

Committee encourages ERS to track and report on the scope, scale

and location of the needs of Americans with religiously informed

diets.

International Commodity Trade.—The Committee recognizes the

economic importance of international trade for U.S. agricultural

commodities and believes that producers and markets would ben-

efit from having access to additional data on the country of destina-

tion or origin of those commodities. The Committee appreciates

that ERS has begun work on the top five agricultural commodity

exports and imports by State and to identify the country of destina-

tion or origin of those commodities. The Committee directs ERS to

publish this data on a quarterly basis in language that is clear,

concise, well-organized, and user-friendly, avoiding unnecessary

complexity so that it is easier for members of the general public to

understand.

Midwest Center of Agricultural Policy.—The Committee encour-

ages the Secretary to continue standing up the new Midwest policy

center and continues providing support for the existing regional

centers.

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

tremendous rate over the past several years and accurate data for

the production, pricing, and marketing of organic products is essen-

tial. Therefore, the Committee encourages ERS to continue and ex-

pand the efforts relating to organic data analysis.

ATIONAL

GRICULTURAL

TATISTICS

ERVICE

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $187,513,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 195,964,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 193,513,000

The National Agricultural Statistics Service administers the De-

partment’s program of collecting and publishing current national,

State, and county agricultural statistics. These statistics provide

accurate and timely projections of current agricultural production

and measures of the economic and environmental welfare of the ag-

ricultural sector, which are essential for making effective policy,

production, and marketing decisions. NASS also furnishes statis-

tical services to other USDA and Federal agencies in support of

their missions and provides consulting, technical assistance, and

training to developing countries.

NASS is also responsible for administration of the Census of Ag-

riculture, which is taken every 5 years and provides comprehensive

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

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

of land and buildings, farm size and characteristics of farm opera-

tors, market value of agricultural production sold, acreage of major

crops, inventory of livestock and poultry, and farm irrigation prac-

tices.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $193,513,000 for

the National Agricultural Statistics Service, of which $48,230,000

is for the Census of Agriculture.

Alfalfa Price Reporting.—The Committee recognizes alfalfa as the

Nation’s fourth most valuable field crop. In order to provide critical

data for this crop to better participate in ad hoc programs and the

creation of a revenue alfalfa crop insurance policy to ensure pro-

ducers have a safety net they need to produce alfalfa, the Com-

mittee directs NASS to report ‘‘premium grade alfalfa price’’ in ad-

dition to the ‘‘all alfalfa hay price’’ currently being reported for all

States. Additionally, the Committee directs NASS to include the

Southeast in its crop production reporting.

Cancelled Reports.—The Committee recognizes that NASS was

faced with budgetary challenges in fiscal year 2024 within the Ag

Estimates line. However, its decisions to cancel critical reports

without any consultation or engagement with the Committee was

problematic. Given the critical importance of these reports to stake-

holders across the country, the Committee includes $4,000,000 to

restore the reports cancelled in fiscal year 2024 and includes a pro-

viso requiring NASS to notify the Committee at least 30 days prior

to cancelling any report.

Chemical Use Data Series.—The Chemical Use Data Series pro-

vides timely, valuable information on fertilizer and chemical use

data on major field crops and selected specialty crops. The Com-

mittee encourages NASS to continue funding the collection and

analysis of chemical use data, as well as practices such as inte-

grated pest management. The Committee supports efforts to re-

sume collecting Fruit Chemical Use data and Vegetable Chemical

Use data in alternating years and directs the continuation of this

practice to ensure equal access to Federal statistics.

Floriculture Crops Report.—The Committee recognizes the impor-

tance of the Floriculture Crops Report and maintains funding for

NASS to complete the report. In compiling the report, the Com-

mittee continues to direct NASS to include data from Alaska.

Reports.—The Committee encourages NASS to prioritize the con-

tinued publication of all periodically published reports. The Com-

mittee recognizes that producers rely on NASS reports to make

sound marketing and investment decisions in the agricultural mar-

ket. The reports are vital for market transparency and market an-

ticipation for the entire agricultural sector.

Vineyard and Orchard Acreage Survey.—The Committee provides

an increase of $2,000,000 to resume data collection and reporting

so grape, wine, and juice producers can remain competitive and re-

spond to challenges in the industry.

GRICULTURAL

ESEARCH

ERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $1,788,063,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 1,755,512,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,826,709,000

The Agricultural Research Service [ARS] is responsible for con-

ducting basic, applied, and developmental research through its

major program areas of New Products/Product Quality/Value

Added; Livestock/Crop Production; Food Safety; Livestock/Crop Pro-

tection; Human Nutrition; and Environmental Stewardship. The

research applies to a wide range of goals, including commodities,

natural resources, fields of science, and geographic, climatic, and

environmental conditions.

ARS is also responsible for the Abraham Lincoln National Agri-

cultural Library, which provides agricultural information and li-

brary services through traditional library functions and modern

electronic dissemination to USDA agencies, public and private or-

ganizations, and individuals.

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

responsibilities for conducting and leading the National agricul-

tural research effort. It provides initiative and leadership in the fol-

lowing five areas: research on broad regional and national prob-

lems, research to support Federal action and regulatory agencies,

expertise to meet national emergencies, research support for inter-

national programs, and scientific resources to the executive branch

and Congress.

The mission of ARS research is to develop and transfer solutions

to agricultural problems of high national priority and to provide in-

formation access and dissemination to ensure high-quality, safe

food and other agricultural products; assess the nutritional needs

of Americans; sustain a competitive agricultural economy; enhance

the natural resource base and the environment; and provide eco-

nomic opportunities for rural citizens, communities, and society as

a whole.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,826,709,000

for salaries and expenses of the Agricultural Research Service.

The Committee expects extramural research to be funded at no

less than the fiscal year 2024 levels.

6PPD.—The Committee is concerned with the impact that 6p-

phenylene-diameine (6PPD) and its transformant, 6PPD-quinone

(6PPD-q), are having on aquatic ecosystems. Stormwater runoff

containing 6PPD-q has been linked to mass die-offs of endangered

and threatened salmon across the Puget Sound and San Francisco

Bay areas. The Committee supports the Service’s work to assess,

analyze, and develop potential alternatives to 6PPD and provides

an increase of $500,000 to continue research to identify an alter-

native. The Committee directs ARS to continue coordinating across

Federal and State agencies on shared priorities, and to engage in

robust government-to-government consultation with impacted

Tribes. ARS is directed to provide a report to the Committee within

90 days of enactment of this act on 6PPD-related activities, includ-

ing the ARS’s current strategy, an overview of research work com-

pleted to date, a plan for addressing potential data gaps, rec-

ommendations for future research activities, and potential funding

sources.

Aflatoxin Mitigation Research.—The Committee recognizes the

increasing economic and food safety threat that aflatoxin poses to

corn and other affected agricultural crops and products. Aflatoxin

has historically been a regional concern in the southeast but is cur-

rently spreading to other parts of the country due to more frequent

extreme weather events. As such, the Committee provides no less

than the fiscal year 2024 level for ARS to expand research into

methods of mitigating the risk of aflatoxin, particularly regarding

responsive agriculture, human nutrition, and food safety.

Agricultural Data Security.—The Committee recognizes the crit-

ical need for agricultural data security advancements alongside in-

creased use of autonomous systems and new technologies. To pre-

pare for these needs, the Committee provides an increase of

$1,000,000 for ARS to collaborate with a land-grand university to

research these data security needs and solutions. The partnership

should involve a university with expertise in both agricultural tech-

nology cybersecurity.

Agricultural Genomics.—The Committee provides no less than

the fiscal year 2024 level for agricultural genomic research to ex-

pand the knowledge of public and private sector entities and per-

sons concerning genomes for species of importance to the food and

agriculture sectors in order to maximize the return on the invest-

ment in genomics of agriculturally important species.

Agrivoltaics.—The Committee directs ARS to conduct a study on

dual-use renewable energy systems that includes an assessment of

the compatibility of different species of livestock and different crop

types with different dual-use renewable energy system designs as

well as a risk-benefit analysis of dual-use renewable energy sys-

tems in different regions. Further, the Committee directs USDA to

conduct a demonstration program on dual-use renewable energy

systems in multiple regions of the United States, including arid,

semi-arid, and wet agricultural zones. In picking locations for the

demonstration programs, the Department shall prioritize coopera-

tive agreements with land-grant universities and ARS climate

hubs. The Committee also encourages USDA to enter into a

multiyear cooperative agreement to provide education, outreach

and technical assistance materials for producers. The Committee

provides an increase of $3,000,000.

AgTech Cooperative Agreements.—The Committee provides an in-

crease of $3,000,000 for cooperative agreements to support the re-

search, development and acceleration of agriculture technology.

Alfalfa Research.—The Committee notes that research into al-

falfa seed and alfalfa forage systems holds the potential to increase

yields, increase milk production, and improve genetics, and the

Committee provides no less than the fiscal year 2024 level to sup-

port research focused on alfalfa improvement. Research should

focus on using tools to accelerate and enhance existing breeding

programs focused on improving yield and quality parameters; de-

veloping innovative harvesting and utilization systems; developing

new markets for co-products; and quantifying environmental bene-

fits from alfalfa-based systems.

Ancient Crop Genetics.—The Committee recognizes the impor-

tance of crop genetics research conducted at public-private consor-

tiums to enhance yields, fight diseases and pests, adapt to chang-

ing climates, and reduce global food insecurity. The Committee pro-

vides no less than the fiscal year 2024 level for research focused

on utilizing ancient crop plant ancestors to mobilize genetic diver-

sity, meet consumer demands, and protect the global food supply.

Animal Research.—The Committee directs ARS to provide a re-

port on steps the agency can take to transition away from animal

research.

Appalachian Native Tree Crop.—The Committee provides an in-

crease of $800,000 for the USDA Appalachian Fruit Research Sta-

tion to study and expand native fruit tree breeding including the

pawpaw, American persimmon, and hazelnut to expand new mar-

ket opportunities for Appalachian farmers.

Appalachian Natural Products Research.—The Committee pro-

vides no less than the fiscal year 2024 level to advance natural

products research and applications with a focus on plant species in

Appalachia.

Barley Pest Initiative.—The Committee recognizes that insects

and viral, bacterial, and fungal diseases inflict substantial yield

and quality losses to the barley crop throughout the United States,

resulting in significant economic losses to growers and end-users.

The Committee supports research to be carried out through the

Barley Pest Initiative to address these major threats to sustainable

and profitable barley production and utilization.

Bee Genomic Sequencing.—The Committee is aware that the ge-

nome of the honeybee, Apis mellifera, has been sequenced, but

there are more than 4,000 bee species in the United States, not all

of which are affected by colony collapse or population declines in

the same way. The Committee recognizes the critical importance of

bee species to American agriculture, floriculture, and ecosystem

biodiversity and the increasing challenges to bee colony health re-

lated to parasites, poor nutrition, pathogens, and pesticides. Al-

though progress has been made in understanding these influences

on pollinator health, additional research into a broader range of ge-

netic information will assist in addressing the decline in bee polli-

nators. The Committee provides an increase of $750,000 to se-

quence and study the genomes of all species of bees in the United

States and directs that this research be conducted in conjunction

with Midwestern land-grant universities with established expertise

in bee genomic biology.

Biochar Research.—The Committee is aware that biochar pro-

vides recalcitrant carbon to soils that can last hundreds to thou-

sands of years, improving carbon sequestration and crop yields.

The Committee provides $2,500,000 for biochar research for new

research to test a common set of biochar types across multiple sites

to advance understanding of the impact of diverse types of biochar

in varying soils and circumstances on soil health, productivity, and

carbon sequestration, research that will help inform farmers and

ranchers on which types of biochar have the most positive impacts

in their soils and circumstances.

Biologics.—The Committee is aware that increased meat proc-

essing results in increased meat processing byproducts. This in-

creasing volume of waste streams from animal agriculture poses

problems in the areas of environmental protection and sustain-

ability, placing the burden of elevated disposal costs on meat pro-

ducers and processors. The Committee provides $1,000,000 for a re-

search framework and development of novel uses for animal by-

products.

Center for Soil Health Research.—The Committee provides no

less than the fiscal year 2024 level to support comprehensive soil

testing in additional to critical research on emerging contaminants

and biological characteristics of soil.

Chronic Wasting Disease [CWD].—The Committee recognizes the

importance of a live test for cervids potentially affected with CWD

and provides no less than the fiscal year 2024 level for research

dedicated to the development of such test and research on path-

ways of transmission.

Circular Economy that Reimagines Corn Agriculture [CERCA].—

The Committee provides $1,000,000 for CERCA activities.

Citrus Greening Disease Research.—The Committee commends

ARS on its research efforts on citrus greening disease and encour-

ages 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 Huanglongbing Multi-Agency Co-

ordination [HLB–MAC] group.

Climate Hubs.—The Committee understands the important role

ARS has on addressing climate related issues. The Committee pro-

vides an increase of $250,000 for ARS research teams to support

regional Climate Hubs.

Coffee Leaf Rust.—The recent discovery of coffee leaf rust in the

U.S. insular pacific has substantially impacted U.S. coffee agri-

culture, and the Committee provides no less than the fiscal year

2024 level to develop science-based management strategies, provide

extension services, and research CLR resistant varieties of coffee.

Controlled Environment Agriculture.—The Committee provides

an increase of $1,000,000 for research on nutrient and water man-

agement, best practices, logistics, the agriculture-energy nexus, and

economic feasibility for controlled environment agriculture. Work

should specifically include research on solutions to Tribal food sov-

ereignty and access to traditional foods including viability for con-

trolled environment cultivation of such crops and medicines.

Cover Crops and Cereal Grain Variety Selection.—The Committee

provides no less than the fiscal year 2024 level to develop soil en-

hancement technologies and research cereal grains, cover crops,

and invasive weeds as they related to the northern climates in re-

gions dominated by permafrost.

Cover Crops Research and Outreach.—The Committee recognizes

the importance of developing profitable and practicable cover crop

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

including for use in no-till organic systems and as forages. There-

fore, the Committee provides an an increase of $1,000,000 to sup-

port research with the purposes of improving measures of soil

health and resiliency; varietal development; optimal dairy forage

species combinations; timing and strategies for cover crop seeding

and termination; forage integration into organic dairy systems; and

mitigation of environmental and extreme rainfall impacts on water

quality and soil security for diverse cover crop systems.

Cranberry Research.—The Committee recognizes the need for ad-

vancements in water conservation, pest control, disease reduction,

and fruit quality improvements in cranberry production. The Com-

mittee provides no less than the fiscal year 2024 level for the im-

provement of cranberry yields, pest and disease management, and

water resource management by developing fields devoted to cran-

berry research and collection and storage of samples for analysis in

appropriate existing laboratory facilities.

Crop Production, Bees, and Pollination.—The Committee pro-

vides $1,000,000 for the National Program 305 to study treatments

and tools for managing threats posed by diseases and pests, par-

ticularly parasitic mites, and thereby improving pollination capac-

ity.

Crop Production Systems and Crop Genetics.—The Committee

recommends no less than the fiscal year 2024 level to support ARS

activities in crop production systems and crop genetics in the mid-

south region.

Dairy Forage Research.—The Committee provides no less than

the fiscal year 2024 level for research and outreach on the at-

tributes of alternative cropping cycles and forage systems for dairy

production systems, including evaluation of the interactions be-

tween climate change, water quality, soil carbon, and cost-of-pro-

duction in the short and long term.

East Coast Shellfish Breeding.—The Committee recognizes the

dangers of parasites and bacterial and viral diseases to shellfish

farmers and understands the importance of selective breeding to

combat these infections. The Committee provides an increase of

$500,000 for shellfish breeding research focused on the East Coast.

Enteric Methane Reduction.—The Committee provides $1,000,000

to reduce enteric methane emissions through novel mitigation

strategies to support sustainability in Western and Central Great

Plains beef and dairy productions systems.

Federal Invasive Species Control Lab.—The Committee continues

to be concerned about the threats invasive pests pose to the Pacific

region, notably to agriculture, the economy, environment, human

health, and national security. The Committee directs ARS to con-

tinue its work with stakeholders in the Pacific region to assess op-

tions for combatting invasive pests. Options may include invasive

pest biocontrol research and development facilities, including ap-

propriate containment, rearing facilities, greenhouse quarantine,

and additional agricultural research laboratory space and adminis-

trative space.

Fish Meal from Woody Biomass.—The Committee recognizes that

the continued growth of the aquaculture industry in the U.S. and

globally depends upon the development of sustainable fish meal.

ARS is encouraged to accelerate work on fish meal from woody bio-

mass, such as yeast from woody biomass that have the ability to

convert low-grade wood into high-value (high-quality protein

source) fish meal with economic yields.

Floriculture and Nursery Research.—The Committee recognizes

the economic importance of the floriculture and nursery sector of

agriculture and the industry’s need for continued innovation. The

Committee provides no less than the fiscal year 2024 level for ARS

to support academic and Federal researchers to pursue efforts in

crop protection, breeding, mechanization, and other areas through

USDA’s Floriculture and Nursery Research Initiative.

Food Systems.—The Committee provides no less than the fiscal

year 2024 level for ARS to continue a Food Systems Center that

addresses how local, regional, and global food systems can provide

nutritious and culturally appropriate food, regardless of individual

life circumstances.

Forest Products.—The Committee provides continued funding at

the fiscal year 2024 level to support research and innovation for

wood product quality improvement and to inform further advance-

ments in forest products evaluation standards and valuation tech-

nique.

Fusion of Machine Learning and Electromagnetic Sensors.—The

Committee provides an increase of $1,000,000 for research on fus-

ing machine learning and enhanced multi-spectrum sensors for the

purpose of collecting real-time environmental data at the site of

food production.

Genetic Oat Research.—The Committee recognizes the potential

genetic oat research has to improve disease resistance (especially

rusts and viruses), augment genetics, increase yields, and develop

crop rotation systems that include oats, which will enhance the

value of oats and provide benefits to producers and consumers. The

Committee provides no less than the fiscal year 2024 level to ex-

pand existing research focused on oat improvement.

Genomes to Fields.—The Committee provides no less than the fis-

cal year 2024 level to support the Germplasm Enhancement of

Maize project to complement existing USDA maize germplasm pro-

grams and to support the emerging large-scale public sector effort

to investigate the interaction of maize genome variation and envi-

ronments, known as the Genomes to Fields project.

Grape Genomics.—The Committee understands the importance of

the National Grape Improvement Center that, when complete, will

be the world’s leading facility for grape genomics and gene expres-

sion research. The Committee provides an increase of $750,000 for

ARS to recruit and hire scientists necessary to operate the center.

Healthy Soils Initiative.—The Committee provides no less than

the fiscal year 2024 level to support the study of enhanced food nu-

tritional quality through Healthy Soil-Healthy Food-Healthy People

Initiatives.

Healthy Soils in Semi-Arid Locations.—The Committee provides

an increase of $750,000 to conduct research on soil health in the

semi-arid west within integrated cropland and rangeland eco-

systems.

Hemp Cultivar Development.—The Committee encourages ARS to

conduct biotechnology and genomics research in collaboration with

capable institutions to elucidate the genetic control of key produc-

tion and product quality traits in hemp to facilitate cultivar devel-

opment. In addition, the Committee provides no less than the fiscal

year 2024 level for ARS to partner with institutions already en-

gaged in such research to conduct hemp genetic improvement re-

search and breeding with new breeding and editing techniques.

Hemp Germplasm.—The Committee recognizes the increasing de-

mand for hemp for a variety of uses and its growing importance as

a crop for U.S. farmers. When the Nation’s hemp germplasm was

destroyed in the 1980s, researchers lost access to publicly available

germplasm for plant breeding purposes. The Committee directs

ARS to establish and maintain a hemp germplasm repository at

the Plant Genetics Resources Research Unit and provides no less

than the fiscal year 2024 level for this purpose. The Committee

also encourages ARS and the Plant Genetics Resources Research

Unit to partner with 1890 institutions that have existing institu-

tional capacity on hemp germplasm research, education, and exten-

sion capabilities.

Hemp Production Systems.—The Committee recognizes the

emerging market potential for U.S. hemp and hemp-based products

for a variety of uses. The Committee directs ARS to conduct region-

ally-driven research, development, and stakeholder engagement to

improve agronomic and agro-economic understanding of effectively

integrating hemp into existing agricultural cropping, processing,

and marketing systems. The Committee provides no less than the

fiscal year 2024 level for this purpose. Research, engagement, and

technology transfer shall be conducted in strict accordance with all

applicable Federal and State authorities and regulations.

Herbicide Resistance Initiative.—The Committee provides no less

than fiscal year 2024 funding level to support the regionally fo-

cused Herbicide Resistance Initiative for the Pacific Northwest to

identify and overcome herbicide resistance associated with the crop

production pathway, reducing production losses and reducing or

eliminating pressure on trade limits due to contamination. The

Committee supports research to address weed management strong-

ly affecting the long-term economic sustainability of food systems

in collaboration with ARS, research institutions and stakeholder

support.

High Performance Computing Support.—The Committee provides

no less than the fiscal year 2024 level to support high performance

computing capability to address scientific needs and directs ARS to

collaborate with appropriate partners with the technical capacity

and scientific synergy to provide cost-effective high performance

computing support.

Honey Bee Breeding, Genetics, and Physiology Research.—The

Committee recognizes that critical research is needed to mitigate

against threats posed by landscape use, pests, and pathogens to the

beekeeping and specialty crop industries, and to the health of polli-

nators in general. ARS shall prioritize Honey Bee Breeding, Genet-

ics, and Physiology Research to study breeding resistance in bees

from mites, diseases, and various other threats.

Hops Research.—The Committee provides no less than the fiscal

year 2024 level to support hops research.

Human Nutrition Research.—Maintenance of health throughout

the lifespan, along with prevention of obesity and chronic diseases

via food-based recommendations, are the major emphases of human

nutrition research. This research supports USDA’s strategic goals

of nutrition monitoring; the scientific basis for dietary rec-

ommendations; prevention of obesity and related diseases; and life

stage nutrition and metabolism, in order to better define the role

of nutrition in pregnancy and growth of children and for healthier

aging. The Committee provides an increase of $1,000,000 to expand

research regarding life stage nutrition and metabolism and the

growth, health promotion, disease prevention, diet, and immune

function of the developing child, especially the rural child. The

Committee also provides no less than the fiscal year 2024 level to

address the vital role that research has on human nutrition and an

aging population.

ICASS/CSCS.—The Committee understands that ARS locations

overseas are required to pay International Cooperative Administra-

tive Support Services and Capital Security Cost Sharing. The Com-

mittee provides $500,000 to assist in covering these mandatory

costs for overseas facilities.

Improving Efficiency of Catfish Aquaculture.—The Committee

provides an increase of $500,000 for Improving Efficiency of Catfish

Aquaculture.

Improvements in Broiler Production.—The Committee provides

no less than the fiscal year 2024 level and directs ARS to coordi-

nate with academic partners to understand the interactions be-

tween parasites and viruses in antibiotic free poultry production for

improved vaccination strategies and products that are able to miti-

gate against coinfections in poultry products.

Integrative Precision Agriculture.—The Committee encourages

ARS to prioritize projects that create or improve precision agricul-

tural technologies to reduce specialty crop growers’ manual labor

requirements and increase the efficiency of crop production, re-

source management, harvesting, processing, post-harvest tech-

nologies, and packaging through mechanization, automation, and

other innovations and technologies.

Invasive Pests.—The Committee continues to be concerned about

the threats invasive pests pose to the Pacific region, notably to ag-

riculture, the economy, environment, human health, and national

security. The Committee directs ARS to continue its work with

stakeholders in the Pacific region to assess options for combatting

invasive pests. Options may include invasive pest biocontrol re-

search and development facilities, including appropriate contain-

ment, rearing facilities, greenhouse quarantine, and additional ag-

ricultural research laboratory space and administrative space.

Laboratory Staffing.—The Committee directs ARS to fully staff

laboratories even if the laboratory is proposed to be closed in the

budget request.

Little Cherry Disease.—The Committee is concerned by the grow-

ing prevalence of Little Cherry Disease in the Pacific Northwest

and the significant threat that it poses to the region’s stone fruit.

The Committee provides an increase of $250,000 for research on

detection and mitigation of the disease and the vector insects in-

volved.

Livestock Infrastructure Contracting and Procurement.—The

Committee is concerned that centralization of procurement and

contracting in the USDA and Federal construction requirements

have added significant costs and greatly reduced administrative ef-

ficiency at working farm- and ranch-scale livestock research facili-

ties. USDA should identify and implement contracting and procure-

ment practices for livestock facilities to ensure costs for livestock

related infrastructure is brought in line with industry estimates.

LTAR Program.—The Committee is aware of the Long-Term

Agroecosystem Research [LTAR] Network’s work to support sus-

tainable intensification of agricultural production; however, the

Committee is concerned about the lack of geographic diversity and

the absence of specialty crop work in the program, especially in the

Northeastern United States. Therefore, the Committee strongly en-

courages the Department to include more geographic and crop di-

versification in the selection of additional LTAR sites.

Malignant Catarrhal Fever.—The Committee provides $2,000,000

for the development of a vaccine and improved diagnostics for Ma-

lignant Catarrhal Fever, which is the leading cause of death in

American Bison.

National Agricultural Library [NAL].—The Committee strongly

encourages ARS to maintain its focus on agriculture-related legal

issues within the NAL. The Committee notes that as the agri-

culture sector faces increasing financial stress, there is a necessity

that agriculture-related legal issues be addressed on an increas-

ingly frequent basis. Further, agricultural-related legal issues are

increasingly complex and the impact of these legal issues continues

to broaden in scope. The Committee provides no less than the fiscal

year 2024 level to support climate science research at the NAL.

Further, the Committee provides funding at the fiscal year 2024

level to the Agricultural Law Information Partnership, including

for the existing partner institutions, and recommends that the Na-

tional Agricultural Library continue to play an important role in

assisting all stakeholders with understanding these complex legal

issues. The Committee encourages ARS and the National Agricul-

tural Library to engage in multi-year cooperative agreements with

the Agricultural Law Information Partnership’s partner institu-

tions.

National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility.—The Committee pro-

vides an increase of $4,000,000 to continue stand-up activities and

other initial costs to operate and maintain the National Bio- and

Agro-Defense Facility [NBAF].

Nematodes.—The Committee recognizes that one of the biggest

trade, quality, and condition irritants for potato research in the Pa-

cific Northwest are nematodes. The Committee provides no less

than the fiscal year 2024 level to support research into sampling

methods and suppression strategies for nematodes.

Onion Breeding.—The Committee understands the challenges

facing the onion industry including perishability, disease and pest

management, and low yield. The Committee provides no less than

the fiscal year 2024 level for ARS to research onion breeding and

genetics. The research should work to develop new onion varieties,

resiliency against disease and pests, as well as adoption of automa-

tion and mechanization technology.

Pacific Shellfish Genetics and Breeding.—The Committee recog-

nizes the economic importance of shellfish aquaculture for rural

and coastal communities on the Pacific coast and the need for resil-

ient, healthy genetic stocks that can withstand the region’s chang-

ing ocean and coastal conditions as well as new disease threats.

The Committee provides no less than the fiscal year 2024 level for

a shellfish genetics and breeding program to develop genetically

improved stock, promote enhanced disease resiliency, modernize

production technologies, and transfer technology and improved

stocks to shellfish farmers in Pacific States.

PFAS Solutions Throughout Agricultural and Food Systems.—

The Committee provides an increase of $3,000,000 to continue a

Center of Excellence for PFAS solutions throughout Agricultural

and Food Systems in conjunction with a university partner. Fund-

ing shall be used on research to address PFAS issues in the agri-

cultural landscape, animal uptake, adsorption, distributions, me-

tabolism, and excretion, as well as the fate of PFAS residues in

meat and dairy products as well as in animal urine and feces and

subsequent distribution in the environment.

Plant Associated Microbes.—The Committee recognizes that

plant associated microbes can play a critical role in promoting

plant health and growth. The Committee provides no less than the

fiscal year 2024 level for the National Soil Dynamics Laboratory for

additional research and storage and plant associated microbes to

characterize key attributes that benefit plant production.

Potato Plant Pathologist.—The Committee is concerned by the

growing prevalence of insect vectors of pathogens in the Columbia

River Basin and the significant threat they pose to the region’s sus-

tainable production of vegetable and seed crops. The Committee

provides $1,400,000 for the establishment of a Potato Plant Pathol-

ogist for research on detection and mitigation of insect vector

pathogens in the region.

Poultry Processing Research and Innovation.—The Committee

provides no less than the fiscal year 2024 level to support research

focused on novel poultry processing approaches and methods that

drive transformational innovation in intelligent systems, automa-

tion, robotics, data science, and artificial technologies that could

enable greater efficiencies, better resilience, and viable poultry en-

terprises at various scales of production.

Pollinator Recovery, Education, and Research.—The Committee

is aware that bees play a crucial role in U.S. agriculture as polli-

nators and that colony loss poses a serious threat to future food

production. The Committee provides no less than the fiscal year

2024 level to continue work at the Pollinator Recovery, Education,

and Research Center.

Potato Research.—The Committee provides no less than the fiscal

year 2024 level for the development of new management strategies

for potato storage that will maintain potato quality, reduce grower

and processor losses, and increase profits.

Precision Aquaculture.—The Committee recognizes that land-

based, closed-containment aquaculture provides the capacity to

raise freshwater or marine species in any locale with minimal envi-

ronmental impacts. Implementing precision agriculture tech-

nologies in these systems will increase production efficiencies and

profitability, ultimately increasing capacity for meeting the seafood

demands of U.S. consumers through responsible and sustainable

domestic aquaculture production. The Committee provides no less

than the fiscal year 2024 level to continue the implementation of

precision aquaculture in land-based, closed-containment aqua-

culture systems.

Precision Management of Live Broiler Production.—The Com-

mittee directs ARS to support research focused on improving ani-

mal welfare and health, food safety and food security through novel

broiler chicken live production approaches and methods that drive

transformational innovation in intelligent systems, automation, ro-

botics, data science, and artificial technologies that could enable

greater efficiencies, better resilience, and viable poultry enterprises

at various scales of production.

Precision Nutrition.—The Committee provides $1,500,000 for pre-

cision nutrition.

Predictive Modeling Tools.—The Committee supports efforts to

develop sustainable agricultural production systems for crops

through the use of forecasting tools that incorporate post-harvest

soil testing and in-season monitoring of plant pathogens to combat

crop diseases. The Committee provides no less than the fiscal year

2024 level for ARS to work with Federal and land-grant university

partners in order to develop predictive modeling tools that aid farm

management decisions to improve agricultural production of row

crops.

Predictive Crop Performance.—The Committee is aware of the

growing need for crop varieties whose performance minimizes risks

associated with severe year-to-year fluctuations in weather pat-

terns. As such, the Committee provides an increase of $1,000,000

for additional research that integrates high-throughput perform-

ance data collected with drone, robot, and on-tractor technologies

with genome data to accurately predict which advanced lines have

economic value and environmental stability.

Promoting Innovation in Ag Machines.—Continued innovation in

ag machines and equipment has the ability to significantly improve

productivity and portability of agriculture production systems. The

Committee provides $2,500,000 for collaborative research with the

National Soil Dynamics Laboratory to address the development of

advanced technologies to meet the complex agricultural challenges

facing farmers.

Pulse Crop Quality.—The Committee recognizes the importance

of ARS wheat quality laboratories in researching and advancing

the quality and overall utilization of wheat and pulse crops. The

Committee provides no less than the fiscal year 2024 level to fur-

ther these efforts for pulse crops by establishing quality analysis

standards, developing innovative production processes, and evalu-

ating crop varieties for product functionality and market suit-

ability.

Pulse Health Initiative.—The Committee supports the expansion

of pulse crop research and provides no less than the fiscal year

2024 level to enhance scientific research into the health and nutri-

tional benefits of dry peas, lentils, chickpeas, and dry beans.

Rangeland Precision Livestock Management.—The Committee

recognizes the opportunity for precision livestock management

strategies and tools to promote economically efficient and environ-

mentally responsive livestock production systems for the Western

rangeland. The Committee provides no less than the fiscal year

2024 level to develop precision nutrition strategies for rangeland-

based livestock as well as technology-based rangeland and livestock

management strategies to optimize the health and productivity of

both Western rangeland-based livestock and the rangeland eco-

system. Further, the Committee recommends this funding to trans-

fer new knowledge and technology strategies into data-informed

tools and decision guidance for Western livestock and rangeland

managers.

Rangeland Research.—The Committee recognizes the dem-

onstrated potential for cooperative partnerships to address complex

sagebrush steppe ecosystem challenges in the Great Basin region.

The Committee provides no less than the fiscal year 2024 level for

ARS to support a regional, multi-institutional cooperative partner-

ship to advance collaborative science-based conservation research,

extension, and education to address time-sensitive and shared

rangeland challenges affecting sustainable agricultural produc-

tivity, rural communities, and ecosystem health.

Recirculating Aquaculture Systems Research.—The Committee

remains concerned with the significant trade deficit in consumed

seafood and aquacultured products and therefore provides no less

than the fiscal year 2024 level to support Recirculating Aqua-

culture Systems to expand production and resilience in domestic

finfish aquaculture.

Research Facilities.—The Committee directs ARS to work coop-

eratively with land-grant universities to better utilize available

state-of-the-art laboratory space to effectively address important

agricultural research issues, including obstacles to increasing food

production. These challenges include diseases which affect the

blueberry, potato, apple, and marine finfish aquaculture produc-

tion. The Committee again directs ARS to study ways in which the

Federal labs could be better utilized, in cooperation with land-grant

universities, to explore new scientific opportunities that benefit the

Nation’s food and agriculture system, and to submit a report with

recommendations to the Committee no later than 180 days after

enactment of this act. The report should include information on the

current utilization of ARS facilities by universities and other co-

operators, as well as the extent in which ARS is housed in coop-

erator facilities.

Resilient Barley Initiative.—The Committee recognizes the need

to build resiliency within the barley production system in order to

maintain a sustainable and high-quality supply for its many value-

added end uses. The Committee directs ARS to coordinate research

efforts focused on strengthening barley’s resilience to climate

stressors that threaten that supply through improved genetics and

management. The Committee provides $2,000,000 to support this

initiative.

Resilient Dryland Farming.—The Committee recognizes the need

for advancements in dryland production practices, cropping, and

equipment to increase profitability, conserve the soil, enhance soil

water storage, promote soil health, and decrease reliance on herbi-

cides. The Committee provides no less than the fiscal year 2024

level to expand research focused on resilient dryland farming. Re-

search should focus on improving yield and quality parameters; de-

veloping cropping systems capable of tolerating drought, heat, and

diseases; and quantifying economic and environmental benefits

from dryland crop production systems.

Resilient Livestock Initiative.—The Committee recognizes the im-

portance of livestock as a main source of sustainability of food pro-

duction systems to remain globally competitive and nourish a grow-

ing global population. In the face of increasing severe weather

events, exponentials expansion of the human population, and re-

ductions in natural resources, livestock production needs to be

more efficient and resilient to provide products for human con-

sumption. The Committee support the ARS’s Animal Disease Re-

search Unit increasing its collaborative work to devise functional

genomics strategies for developing traits in livestock to address dis-

ease resistance and improve resiliency in harsher weather condi-

tions and provides an increase of $1,700,000 to continue the Resil-

ient Livestock Initiative.

Salmonella.—The Committee recognizes the need to support ad-

ditional research and monitoring with respect to mitigating sal-

monella in beef production. The Committee provides $1,500,000 for

research to mitigate salmonella in beef. Activities should include

surveying feedlots, longitudinal surveillance, and the characteriza-

tion of salmonella types.

Sclerotinia.—The Committee is aware of the economic impor-

tance of controlling sclerotinia, which affects sunflowers, soybeans,

canola, edible beans, peas, and lentils and provides no less than the

fiscal year 2024 level for this purpose. The Committee encourages

ARS to continue both core research and cooperative projects of the

National Sclerotinia Initiative.

Shrimp Production Research.—The Committee recognizes the im-

portance of increasing domestic shrimp production and provides no

less than the fiscal year 2024 level for research and commercial de-

velopment of production technologies that will improve shrimp

health and streamline feed management regimes.

Small Fruits.—The Committee recognizes the need to support re-

search to promote sustainable and organic production of berry and

grape crops with the goal of reducing pesticide use and improving

quality and yield. The Committee provides no less than the fiscal

year 2024 level to support research to improve the ability to fore-

cast pest and disease spread, implement precision management

strategies, and improve the overall quality of fruit.

Small Grains Genomic Initiative.—The Committee supports re-

search on barley and wheat high throughput genomics and

phenotyping and recognizes its importance in improving crop traits

and developing new cultivars. The Committee provides no less than

the fiscal year 2024 level to support the Small Grains Genomic Ini-

tiative.

Smart Plants.—The Committee provides $2,000,000 for the

Smart Plants Initiative.

Smoke Exposure.—The Committee is concerned about the im-

pacts of wildfire smoke on winegrape producers and supports re-

search to help growers and processors establish science-based

threshold levels of smoke compounds that cause smoke-tainted

grapes, identify the compounds responsible for smoke taints, de-

velop mitigation methods to reduce or eliminate smoke taint, and

conduct research into compounds that can act as a barrier between

the grapes and the smoke compounds. The Committee provides no

less than the fiscal year 2024 level for this research.

Soft White Wheat Falling Numbers Test.—The Committee recog-

nizes the emerging crisis surrounding wheat starch degradation as

detected by the Hagberg-Perten Falling Numbers [FN] Test. The

quality loss was particularly devastating to Pacific Northwest soft

white wheat producers in late 2016. The Committee provides no

less than the fiscal year 2024 funding level to research the accu-

racy of the FN test and better understand environmental, storage,

and genetic conditions leading to this quality loss.

Soil Carbon Research.—The Committee recognizes the need for

research into current and future dryland production practices to in-

crease profitability, conserve soil, enhance soil water storage, pro-

mote sequestration of carbon and soil health, and reduce reliance

on herbicides. The Committee no less than the fiscal year 2024

level for research focused on improving yield; assessing the level of

carbon sequestration through existing practices; developing new

cropping systems capable of tolerating drought, heat, and diseases

by improving soil health; improving sequestration of carbon; and

identifying opportunities for increasing sustainability of dryland

crop production.

Sorghum Crop Improvement.—The Committee provides no less

than the fiscal year 2024 level for sorghum research to address in-

creased drought pressure and erratic climate patterns through

trait-based sorghum breeding, phenotyping, and associated genomic

resources. This research will help develop varietals which respond

to plant stress and deliver increased yield potential in these harsh

semi-arid conditions.

Southern Regional Research Center [SRRC].—The Committee

provides no less than the fiscal year 2024 level for the SRRC crop

adaptive resilience food program to conduct collaborative research

with research universities by exploring the value-added enhance-

ment of State-grown crops such as rice and other grains and

pulses, to define the role for novel approaches in crop biological sig-

naling and modification to yield environmentally sustainable,

adaptive and stressor resistant varieties and interventions.

Strawberry Production.—The Committee recognizes that the

highly perishable, delicate, and labor-intensive nature of straw-

berry production makes this crop an ideal test bed for innovative

automation technologies. The Committee provides no less than the

fiscal year 2024 level to utilize innovativeautomatic technologies to

enhance strawberry production.

Sudden Oak Death.—The European strain 1 [EU1] and the

North American strain 1 [NA1] of the sudden oak death pathogen

are major threats to western Douglas-fir/tanoak forests, resulting

in quarantine restrictions that threaten U.S. forests and export

markets for log shipments and lily bulbs. The Committee provides

no less than the fiscal year 2024 level for research to improve un-

derstanding of the EU1 and NA1 strains of the sudden oak death

pathogen and treatment methods to inform control and manage-

ment techniques in wildlands.

Sugar Beet Research.—The Committee provides no less than the

fiscal year 2024 level for plant disease research to improve the

quality of sugar beet production.

Sugarcane Variety Development.—The Committee provides no

less than the fiscal year 2024 level to support research to shorten

the conventional sugarcane breeding timeline, break through the

current plateau in sugar content, and predict improvement in other

traits such as cold tolerance, ratooning ability, and disease resist-

ance.

Supplemental and Alternative Crops.—The Committee recognizes

the importance of nationally coordinated, regionally managed

canola research and extension programs. The Committee encour-

ages the Secretary to seek input from stakeholders and give pri-

ority consideration to proposals in the peer review process that ad-

dress research needs in production areas with the greatest poten-

tial to expand, as well as those where canola production is estab-

lished and needs to be maintained.

Sustainable Aquaculture.—The Committee notes that aqua-

culture is the fastest growing food production industry in the

world. The Committee provides no less than the fiscal year 2024

level for a pilot Aquaculture Experiment Station in partnership

with universities to support rapid response research on sustainable

aquaculture for coldwater and warmwater production environ-

ments, with special emphasis on workforce education.

Tree Fruit Post-Harvest Research.—The Committee recognizes

that the tree fruit industry faces significant economic vulnerability

from variations in post-harvest quality control. The Committee pro-

vides funding at fiscal year 2024 levels for cherry and pear fruit

physiology and pathology research that is needed to promote en-

hanced quality and resiliency from endemic and emerging diseases.

Tropical and Subtropical Research.—Research on Tropical and

Subtropical crops is critical as the presence of and destruction by

invasive pests such as fruit flies, coffee berry borer, felted maca-

damia nut coccid, plant viruses, and fungal diseases increasingly

threaten crop security in the Pacific and Insular Areas. The Com-

mittee encourages ARS to support this research.

Tropical Grazing Land Pest Management.—The recent introduc-

tion of invasive insect species such as Prosapia bicincta has sub-

stantially impacted tropical grazing lands. The Committee provides

no less than the fiscal year 2024 level to develop science-based pest

management strategies.

Unmanned Aerial Systems [UAS] Precision Agriculture Applica-

tions.—The Committee provides no less than the fiscal year 2024

level to support efforts utilizing UAS in crop production operations

and to address the challenges associated with data capture, trans-

fer, and analysis.

U.S. Wheat and Barley Scab Initiative [USWBSI].—The Com-

mittee recognizes that fusarium head blight is a major threat to ag-

riculture, inflicting substantial yield and quality losses throughout

the United States. The Committee supports research carried out

through the USWBSI. The Committee provides an increase of

$1,000,000 to conduct further research on reducing the impact of

fusarium head blight on wheat and barley.

Warmwater Aquaculture.—The Committee provides no less than

the fiscal year 2024 level to facilitate the advancement of tech-

nologies that improve the efficiency, profitability, and sustain-

ability of warmwater aquaculture production.

Water Quality Management Systems.—The Committee provides

no less than the fiscal year 2024 level to asses, develop, and dis-

seminate novel water resource monitoring systems that promote

sustainability practices for watershed and rangeland management

necessary for small communities to prepare for a changing climate.

Wheat Resiliency Initiative.—The Committee provides no less

than the fiscal year 2024 level for a Wheat Resiliency Initiative

that supports additional research into Wheat Stem Sawfly and

Hessian Fly. This funding would allow researchers to build capac-

ity to address underfunded and emerging challenges to wheat pro-

duction throughout the United States.

Whitefly.—The Committee remains concerned with the whitefly,

Bemisia tabaci, epidemic, which is severely impacting pecan pro-

duction in the Southeastern United States. The Committee pro-

vides no less than the fiscal year 2024 level to continue this re-

search.

Wind Erosion Research Network.—The Committee provides no

less than the fiscal year 2024 levelto develop infrastructure to pre-

dict wind erosion effects and target erosion mitigation measures in

response to fire and vegetation loss and a changing climate.

Woody Biomass for Recyclable Packaging.—The Committee recog-

nizes the potential for biobased thermoplastics made from woody

biomass as more recyclable packaging material and encourages

ARS to accelerate research and technology deployment in this

space.

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $57,164,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 28,405,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 47,663,000

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $47,663,000 for

Agricultural Research Service, Buildings and Facilities, of which

$43,663,000 is for Congressionally Directed Spending.

ATIONAL

NSTITUTE OF

OOD AND

GRICULTURE

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

2008 (Public Law 110–234) amends the Department of Agriculture

Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6971) by establishing an

agency to be known as the National Institute of Food and Agri-

culture. The Secretary transferred to the Director of NIFA, effec-

tive October 1, 2009, all authorities administered by the Adminis-

trator of the Cooperative State, Research, Education, and Exten-

sion Service. The mission is to work with university partners and

customers to advance research, extension, and higher education in

the food and agricultural sciences and related environmental and

human sciences to benefit people, communities, and the Nation.

RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $1,075,950,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 1,106,070,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,078,950,000

Research and Education programs administered by NIFA are

USDA’s principal entr

ee to the U.S. university system for the pur-

pose of conducting agricultural research and education programs as

authorized by the Hatch Act of 1887, as amended (7 U.S.C. 361a–

361i); the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Act of 1962, as

amended (Public Law 87–788); the Competitive, Special, and Facili-

ties Research Grant Act, as amended (Public Law 89–106); the Na-

tional Agricultural, Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act

of 1977, as amended (Public Law 95–113); the Equity in Edu-

cational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 301 note); the Ag-

ricultural Research, Extension and Education Reform Act of 1998

(Public Law 105–185), as amended; the Food, Agriculture, Con-

servation and Trade Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–624); the Farm

Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Public Law 107–171);

and the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law

110–246). Through these authorities, USDA participates with

States and other cooperators to encourage and assist State institu-

tions in conducting agricultural research and education through

the State Agricultural Experiment Stations of the 50 States and

the territories; approved Schools of Forestry; the 1890 Land-Grant

Institutions, Tuskegee University, and West Virginia State Univer-

sity; 1994 Land-Grant Institutions; Colleges of Veterinary Medi-

cine; and other eligible institutions. The appropriated funds provide

Federal support for research and education programs at these insti-

tutions.

The research and education programs participate in a nationwide

system of agricultural research program planning and coordination

among the State institutions, USDA, and the agricultural industry

of America.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,078,950,000

for research and education activities of the National Institute of

Food and Agriculture.

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommenda-

tions for research and education activities:

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE–RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES

[Dollars in thousands]

Program/Activity Authorization

Committee

recommendation

Hatch Act ............................................................................................ 7 U.S.C. 361a–i .............................. 265,000

McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Act .......................................... 16 U.S.C. 582a through a–7 .......... 38,000

Research at 1890 Institutions (Evans-Allen Program) ...................... 7 U.S.C. 3222 .................................. 89,000

Payments to the 1994 Institutions ..................................................... 534(a)(1) of Public Law 103–382 .. 7,000

Education Grants for 1890 Institutions .............................................. 7 U.S.C. 3152(b) ............................. 30,000

Scholarships at 1890 Institutions ...................................................... 7 U.S.C. 3222a ................................ 10,000

Centers of Excellence at 1890’s Institutions ..................................... 7 U.S.C. 5926(d) ............................. 10,000

Education Grants for Hispanic-Serving Institutions ........................... 7 U.S.C. 3241 .................................. 16,000

Education Grants for Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving

Institutions.

7 U.S.C. 3156 .................................. 5,000

Research Grants for 1994 Institutions ............................................... 536 of Public Law 103–382 ........... 5,000

New Beginning for Tribal Students .................................................... 7 U.S.C. 3222e ................................ 5,000

Capacity Building for Non Land-Grant Colleges of Agriculture ......... 7 U.S.C. 3319i ................................. 6,000

Resident Instruction and Distance Education Grants for Insular

Areas.

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

Agriculture and Food Research Initiative ........................................... 7 U.S.C. 450i(b) .............................. 445,200

Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment ................................................. 7 U.S.C. 3151a ................................ 13,000

Veterinary Services Grant Program ..................................................... 7 U.S.C. 3151b ................................ 4,000

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

Supplemental and Alternative Crops .................................................. 7 U.S.C. 3319d ................................ 2,000

Multicultural Scholars, Graduate Fellowship and Institutions Chal-

lenge Grants.

7 U.S.C. 3152(b) ............................. 10,000

Secondary and 2-year Post-Secondary Education .............................. 7 U.S.C. 3152(j) .............................. 750

Aquaculture Centers ............................................................................ 7 U.S.C. 3322 .................................. 5,000

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

5832.

48,000

Farm Business Management .............................................................. 7 U.S.C. 5925f ................................ 2,000

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

Research Equipment Grants ............................................................... 7 U.S.C. 3310 .................................. 5,000

Minor Crop Pest Management (IR–4) ................................................. 7 U.S.C. 450i(c) .............................. 15,000

Alfalfa Forage and Research Program ............................................... 7 U.S.C. 5925 .................................. 4,000

Agricultural Genome to Phenome Initiative ........................................ 7 U.S.C. 5924 .................................. 2,000

Laying Hen and Turkey Research Program ......................................... 7 U.S.C. 5925 .................................. 500

Open Data Standards for Neutral Data Repository ............................ .......................................................... 1,000

Research Facilities Act ....................................................................... .......................................................... 1,000

Special Research Grants:

Global Change/UV Monitoring .................................................... 7 U.S.C. 450i(c) .............................. 1,000

Potato Research ......................................................................... 7 U.S.C. 450i(c) .............................. 4,000

Aquaculture Research ................................................................ 7 U.S.C. 450i(c) .............................. 2,000

Total, Special Research Grants ............................................. .......................................................... 7,000

Necessary Expenses of Research and Education Activities:

Grants Management System ...................................................... .......................................................... 7,000

Federal Administration—Other Necessary Expenses for Re-

search and Education Activities.

.......................................................... 11,500

Total, Necessary Expenses ..................................................... .......................................................... 18,500

Total, Research and Education Activities ............................. .......................................................... 1,078,950

Agricultural Research Enhancement Awards.—The Committee

remains determined to see that quality research and enhanced

human resources development in the agricultural and related

sciences be a nationwide commitment. Therefore, the Committee

continues its direction that not less than 15 percent of the competi-

tive research grant funds be used for USDA’s agricultural research

enhancement awards program, including USDA Established Pro-

gram to Stimulate Competitive Research [EPSCOR].

Agriculture and Food Research Initiative.—The Committee pro-

vides $445,200,000 for the Agriculture and Food Research Initia-

tive [AFRI].

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

(Public Law 110–234) specifies priority areas within AFRI, includ-

ing an emphasis on conventional (classical) plant and animal

breeding. The Committee strongly supports providing farmers na-

tionwide with greater access to cultivars that are locally and re-

gionally adapted to their soils, climates, and farming systems. The

Committee is concerned that insufficient progress is being made in

prioritizing this effort. As such, the Committee directs the agency

to make regionally adapted, publicly held cultivar development a

distinct funding priority within AFRI for fiscal year 2025 and di-

rects the agency to take steps to improve its tracking of public

cultivar projects within AFRI and report its progress in meeting

this goal.

Agriculture Defense in Poultry.—The Committee encourages

NIFA to seek opportunities for innovative and holistic approaches

to food and agriculture defense, specifically in poultry, including

approaches that may include farm level surveillance and testing.

The Committee further encourages utilization of cutting-edge lab

instruments with advanced data analytics systems to better protect

food systems. The agency should prioritize having access to objec-

tive, holistic data to better understand what is working and what

is not working in poultry production systems.

Agroacoustics.—The Committee recognizes the growing field of

acoustics and the many positive impacts it may have in agriculture,

particularly with respect to pest management. The Committee en-

courages AFRI to prioritize funding for agroacoustics in its basic

and applied research program, as well as through the Food and Ag-

ricultural Science Enhancement Grants.

Alfalfa Seed and Alfalfa Forage Systems Research.—The Com-

mittee notes that research into alfalfa and forage has the potential

to increase alfalfa and forage yields, increase milk production, and

improve genetics. The Committee provides no less than fiscal year

2024 level to support research into the improvement of yields,

water conservation, creation of new uses, and other research areas

holding the potential to advance the alfalfa seed and alfalfa forage

industry.

Artificial Intelligence Research Institutes.—The Committee sup-

ports the collaboration between USDA and the National Science

Foundation to pursue advances in precision agriculture and food

system security. The ability to meet the critical needs of the future

agricultural workforce, provide tools for resilient agriculture and

food security are within the mission of the agency in providing op-

portunity through innovation. The Committee encourages NIFA to

continue supporting the work of the Artificial Intelligence Research

Institutes funded through USDA.

Brucellosis Research.—Federal and State animal health officials

have made eradicating livestock disease with significant reservoirs

a national animal health priority. This need is reflected in the Ag-

riculture Act of 2014 which made the research and development of

surveillance methods, vaccines, vaccination delivery systems or

diagnostics tests a priority research area under the Competitive,

Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act particularly for bovine

brucellosis and bovine tuberculosis. The Committee recognizes the

need for this research and encourages the agency to make competi-

tive grants available to study improved management tools for

zoonotic livestock diseases with significant wildlife reservoirs.

Citrus Disease Research Program.—The Emergency Citrus Dis-

ease Research and Extension Program is intended to discover and

develop tools for early detection, control, and eradication of dis-

eases and pests that threaten domestic citrus production and proc-

essing. The program receives $25,000,000 per year in mandatory

funding through the Specialty Crop Research Initiative. The Com-

mittee believes that 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, Exten-

sion, and Education Advisory Board’s citrus disease subcommittee

and to collaborate with the HLB MAC group. A report shall be sub-

mitted to the Committee on these efforts within 60 days of enact-

ment.

Education Grants for Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serv-

ing Institutions.—The Committee continues to strongly support and

maintains funding for the Alaska Native-Serving and Native Ha-

waiian-Serving Institutions Education Program.

Enhanced Rock Weathering Research.—The Committee notes

that projects that focus on researching enhanced rock weathering

and related monitoring, reporting, and verification efforts are eligi-

ble for Agriculture and Food Research Initiative [AFRI] awards.

The Committee directs NIFA to prioritize funding for projects ad-

dressing carbon removal through enhanced rock weathering, in-

cluding on monitoring, reporting, and verification [MRV] of carbon

and non-climate agricultural benefits, among other priorities.

Enteric Methane Innovation.—The Committee recognizes the

value of public research in supporting innovation. The Committee

encourages AFRI to prioritize applications that focus on the ad-

vancement of enteric fermentation solutions, such as cattle feed ad-

ditives, methane-inhibiting vaccines, and breeding for low-methane

cattle, and direct-fed microorganisms.

Food Safety.—The Committee continues its recommendation that

NIFA prioritize research on technologies to rapidly and effectively

detect pathogens or contaminants in order to address foodborne ill-

nesses and improve the safety of our Nation’s supply, including re-

search of novel biodetection technologies.

Function and Efficacy of Nutrients to Treat Obesity.—The Com-

mittee supports research partnerships with academic entities to re-

search how bioactive substances help reduce obesity. Given the per-

sistent obesity problem in the U.S. and the associated and growing

costs to Federal healthcare programs, the Committee strongly sup-

ports increased investment in this area, as it holds great promise

to develop new methods to tackle obesity in our communities.

Forest Products.—The Committee recognizes the important role

of the forests products sector to the U.S. economy. The need to cre-

ate new and improved value-added products and renewable energy

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

National economy. The Committee directs NIFA to support re-

search on wood quality improvement and improvement in forest

products evaluation standards and valuation techniques.

Genome to Phenome.—The Committee supports the Agricultural

Genome to Phenome Initiative to support the development of tools

and datasets for the analysis of phenotypes that can be used across

multiple livestock and crop species to improve the output and effi-

ciency of agriculture.

Laying Hen and Turkey Research Program.—The Committee

notes that research into laying hens and turkeys holds the poten-

tial to improve the efficiency and sustainability of laying hen and

turkey production through integrated, collaborative research and

technology transfer. The Committee provides $500,000 to support

research into laying hen and turkey disease prevention, anti-

microbial resistance, nutrition, gut health, and alternative housing

systems under extreme weather conditions, all which hold the po-

tential to advance the laying hen and turkey industry.

Lowbush Blueberries.—The Committee directs NIFA to work

with research institutions to develop and refine predictive models

and monitoring technologies for native and invasive pests for incor-

poration into integrated pest management programs for naturally

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

product quality.

New Beginning for Tribal Students.—The Committee is con-

cerned that matching requirements often prevent Tribes, Tribal

Colleges and Universities, and Tribal Organizations from applying

for programs and grants at NIFA. The Committee directs the Sec-

retary to waive matching requirements for New Beginning for Trib-

al Students in NIFA in order to reduce the burden on Tribal Com-

munities and to increase Tribal participation in USDA programs

and grants.

Organic Research.—USDA’s National Organic Standards Board

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

which would help to address challenges that have limited the

growth in organic production in this country. The Committee en-

courages NIFA to give strong consideration to the NOSB organic

research priorities when crafting the fiscal year 2025 Request for

Applications for AFRI and the Organic Transition Program. Given

the growing demand for organic products, the Committee also en-

courages USDA to increase the number of organic research projects

funded under AFRI and the Specialty Crop Research Initiative.

Potato Research.—To minimize the application of pesticides and

to maximize the yield and quality of harvested potatoes, the Com-

mittee directs the Secretary to support pest management programs

in potato growing States. Such programs help scientists track po-

tential pest outbreaks and provide growers and industry profes-

sionals with current information on specific and timely treatments.

Additionally, these programs help identify serious diseases, such as

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

measures to be put in place quickly to avoid crop losses.

Specialty Crop Research Initiative.—The Committee emphasizes

the important role of the Specialty Crop Research Initiative in ad-

dressing the critical needs of the specialty crop industry through

research and extension activities. The Committee encourages NIFA

to prioritize proposals for, and enhance its overall commitment to

the ability of farmers to extend their growing season through the

use of winter growing techniques, including but not limited to high

tunnel vegetable production.

Supplemental and Alternative Crops.—The Committee recognizes

the importance of nationally coordinated, regionally managed

canola research and extension programs. The Committee encour-

ages the Secretary to continue to seek input from stakeholders and

to give priority consideration to proposals in the peer review proc-

ess that address research needs in production areas with the great-

est potential to expand, as well as those where canola production

is established and needs to be maintained.

Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education [SARE].—The

Committee appreciates the work SARE has done to improve soil

health through cutting edge research, education, and extension on

cover crops, diversified rotations, and managed grazing. The Com-

mittee expects the funding provided to be focused on increasing ag-

ricultural resilience, including, where appropriate, interdisciplinary

systems research and education, farmer and rancher research and

demonstration grants, and graduate student research grants.

NATIVE AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS ENDOWMENT FUND

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $11,880,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 11,880,000

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

The Native American Institutions Endowment Fund, authorized

by the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act (Public Law

103–382), provides an endowment for the 1994 land-grant institu-

tions (34 tribally-controlled colleges). This program enhances edu-

cational opportunity for Native Americans by building educational

capacity at these institutions in the areas of student recruitment

and retention, curricula development, faculty preparation, instruc-

tion delivery systems, and scientific instrumentation for teaching.

Income funds are also available for facility renovation, repair, con-

struction, and maintenance. On the termination of each fiscal year,

the Secretary shall withdraw the income from the endowment fund

for the fiscal year, and, after making adjustments for the cost of

administering the endowment fund, distribute the adjusted income

as follows: 60 percent of the adjusted income from these funds shall

be distributed among the 1994 land-grant institutions on a pro rata

basis, the proportionate share being based on the Indian student

count; and 40 percent of the adjusted income shall be distributed

in equal shares to the 1994 land-grant institutions.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

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

the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund.

EXTENSION ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $561,700,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 610,605,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 561,700,000

Cooperative extension work was established by the Smith-Lever

Act of May 8, 1914, as amended (Public Law 63–95). USDA is au-

thorized to provide, through the land-grant colleges, cooperative ex-

tension work that consists of the development of practical applica-

tions of research knowledge and the giving of instruction and prac-

tical demonstrations of existing or improved practices or tech-

nologies in agriculture and related subjects, and to encourage the

application of such information by demonstrations, publications,

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

or resident at the colleges.

To fulfill the requirements of the Smith-Lever Act (Public Law

63–95), State and county extension offices in each State, the Dis-

trict of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American

Samoa, the Northern Marianas, and Micronesia conduct edu-

cational programs to improve American agriculture and strengthen

the Nation’s families and communities.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $561,700,000 for

extension activities of the National Institute of Food and Agri-

culture.

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommenda-

tions for extension activities:

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE–EXTENSION ACTIVITIES

[Dollars in thousands]

Program/Activity Authorization

Committee

recommendation

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

of Public Law 93–471.

325,000

Extension Services at 1890 Institutions ............................................. 7 U.S.C. 3221 .................................. 72,000

Extension Services at 1994 Institutions ............................................. 7 U.S.C. 343(b)(3) ........................... 11,000

Facility Improvements at 1890 Institutions ....................................... 7 U.S.C. 3222b ................................ 21,500

Renewable Resources Extension Act ................................................... 16 U.S.C. 1671 et seq. ................... 4,000

Rural Health and Safety Education Programs ................................... 7 U.S.C. 2662(i) .............................. 4,000

Food and Animal Residue Avoidance Database Program .................. 7 U.S.C. 7642 .................................. 2,000

Women and Minorities in STEM Fields ............................................... 7 U.S.C. 5925 .................................. 2,000

Food Safety Outreach Program ........................................................... 7 U.S.C. 7625 .................................. 10,000

Food and Agriculture Service Learning ............................................... 7 U.S.C. 7633 .................................. 1,000

Farm and Ranch Stress Assistance Network ..................................... 7 U.S.C. 5936 .................................. 10,000

Ag Vets ................................................................................................ .......................................................... 3,000

Smith-Lever Act, Section 3(d):

Food and Nutrition Education .................................................... 7 U.S.C. 343(d) ............................... 70,000

Farm Safety and Youth Farm Safety Education Programs ....... 7 U.S.C. 343(d) ............................... 5,000

New Technologies for Agricultural Extension ............................. 7 U.S.C. 343(d) ............................... 1,600

Children, Youth, and Families at Risk ...................................... 7 U.S.C. 343(d) ............................... 8,000

Federally Recognized Tribes Extension Program ........................ 7 U.S.C. 343(d) ............................... 4,000

Total, Section 3(d) ................................................................. .......................................................... 88,600

Necessary Expenses of Extension Activities:

Agriculture in the K–12 Classroom ........................................... .......................................................... 500

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE–EXTENSION ACTIVITIES—Continued

[Dollars in thousands]

Program/Activity Authorization

Committee

recommendation

Federal Administration—Other Necessary Expenses for Exten-

sion Activities.

.......................................................... 7,100

Total, Necessary Expenses ..................................................... .......................................................... 7,600

Total, Extension Activities ..................................................... .......................................................... 561,700

Cooperative Extension System.—The Committee recognizes the

essential function that extension plays in ensuring that farmers,

ranchers, and communities of all sizes are empowered to meet the

challenges they face, adapt to changing technology and a changing

climate, improve nutrition and food safety, prepare for and respond

to emergencies, and protect our environment. The Committee is

concerned that the Federal investment in this critical Federal,

State, and local partnership has lagged in recent years, just as ex-

traordinary stresses have been placed on farmers, ranchers, rural

businesses, and communities.

Extension Design Initiative.—The Committee recognizes that for

decades, the foundation of traditional farm extension programs had

researchers and educators working on the farms and fields along-

side crop and livestock producers, but that changes are needed to

develop a 21st century extension to meet the needs of today’s farm-

ers. The Committee notes that new efforts require USDA to use

high-performance computing to develop, test, and deploy new dig-

ital infrastructure and platforms that can translate research into

real-time interactive feedback, online modeling, demonstration, and

simulations. The Committee directs NIFA to conduct meetings with

producers, stakeholders, and policymakers to begin developing a

framework for the next generation of farm extension programs.

Farm and Ranch Stress Assistance Network.—The Committee

recognizes the farmers, ranchers, and individuals working in agri-

culture who face highly stressful working conditions. NIFA is en-

couraged to coordinate with the Department of Health and Human

Services, including the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Serv-

ices Administration to assess the feasibility of a national farmer

and farm worker crisis line. Within 180 days of enactment of this

act, NIFA is directed to provide a report detailing the program?s

evolution since inception, types of programming provided, and

FRSAN’s strategy for continuing outreach and services.

Minority Outreach.—The Committee is concerned that extension

service resources do not reach minority, socially disadvantaged,

and Tribal communities in proportion to their participation in the

agricultural sector. All institutions that receive extension funding

should seek to ensure that an equitable percentage of their overall

extension work reaches minority, socially disadvantaged, and Trib-

al communities. The Committee directs NIFA to evaluate distribu-

tion of extension resources to these three populations and report to

the Committee no later than 90 days after enactment of this act.

Rural Opioid Addiction Training.—The Committee provides

$5,000,000 for Rural Health and Safety Education Programs

[RHSE] for the sole purpose of combatting opioid abuse in rural

communities. The Committee reminds USDA of the statuatory re-

quirement in the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 (Public

Law 115–334) for fiscal years 2019 through 2026 that the Secretary

give priority to applications addressing substance use disorder edu-

cation and treatment and the prevention of substance use disorder.

The Committee is still waiting for NIFA to provide a report to the

Committee detailing RHSE funding awarded to projects addressing

opioid abuse, projects combatting other types of substance abuse,

and projects unrelated to substance abuse for the past three fiscal

years.

Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program [VMLRP].—The

Committee recognizes the importance of the VMLRP in meeting the

needs rural ranchers, farmers, and rural communities across the

country by incentivizing licensed veterinarians to practice in

USDA-designated veterinary shortage areas. As such, the Com-

mittee includes an increase of $3,000,000 to increase the number

of veterinaries receiving loan repayment grants. Within 90 days of

enactment of this Act and quarterly thereafter, NIFA is directed to

provide a report to the Committee on the number of declared short-

age areas, by state, and how many positions, by shortage area, re-

main unfilled.

INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $41,100,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 15,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 41,100,000

Section 406, as amended, of the Agricultural Research, Exten-

sion, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (Public Law 105–85) au-

thorizes an integrated research, education, and extension competi-

tive grants program.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $41,100,000 for

integrated activities of the National Institute of Food and Agri-

culture.

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommenda-

tions for integrated activities:

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE–INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES

[Dollars in thousands]

Program/Activity Authorization

Committee

recommendation

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

Organic Transition Program ................................................................ 7 U.S.C. 7626 .................................. 7,500

Regional Rural Development Centers ................................................. 7 U.S.C. 450i(c) .............................. 2,600

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

Crop Protection/Pest Management ...................................................... 7 U.S.C. 343(d) ............................... 21,000

Total, Integrated Activities .................................................... .......................................................... 41,100

Food and Agriculture Defense Initiative.—The Committee sup-

ports the important work being done through the publicly funded

diagnostic laboratory network and encourages NIFA to prioritize

funding to strengthen animal health diagnostic laboratories, taking

into consideration the following: the degree to which the capacity

for surveillance, monitoring, response, and capacity is enhanced;

the concentration of human and animal populations that are di-

rectly at risk; trade, tourism, and cultural considerations; geog-

raphy, ecology, and climate; evidence of active collaboration with

and support of the State animal health officials; those States with

highest risk for the introduction of foreign and emerging pests and

diseases; and evidence of stakeholder support and engagement.

Organic Transition.—The Committee maintains funding for the

Organic Transition Program and directs the agency to use this in-

crease to focus specifically on research topics related to the role of

organic agriculture with regard to climate change.

FFICE OF THE

NDER

ECRETARY FOR

ARKETING AND

EGULATORY

ROGRAMS

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $1,617,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 1,852,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,617,000

The Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory

Programs provides direction and coordination in carrying out laws

with respect to the Department’s marketing, grading, and stand-

ardization activities related to grain; competitive marketing prac-

tices of livestock, marketing orders, and various programs; veteri-

nary services; and plant protection and quarantine. The Office has

oversight and management responsibilities for the Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service [APHIS] and Agricultural Mar-

keting Service [AMS].

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,617,000 for

the Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory

Programs.

NIMAL AND

LANT

EALTH

NSPECTION

ERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $1,163,026,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 1,178,046,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,176,596,000

The Secretary of Agriculture established the Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service on April 2, 1972, under the authority of

reorganization plan No. 2 of 1953, and other authorities. The major

objectives of APHIS are to protect the animal and plant resources

of the Nation from diseases and pests. These objectives are carried

out under the major areas of activity, as follows:

Safeguarding and Emergency Preparedness/Response.—The

agency monitors plant and animal health worldwide and sets im-

port polices to prevent the introduction of foreign plant and animal

pests and diseases. Domestically, the agency works cooperatively to

conduct plant and animal health monitoring programs, pursue

eradication, or limit the spread of the threat. The agency also con-

ducts diagnostic laboratory activities that support disease preven-

tion, detection, control, and eradication programs. In addition, the

agency protects agriculture from detrimental animal predators and

through its regulatory structure helps advance genetic research

while protecting against the release of harmful organisms.

Safe Trade and International Technical Assistance.—The agency

helps resolve technical trade issues to ensure the smooth and safe

movement of agricultural commodities into and out of the United

States. The agency negotiates animal and plant health certification

requirements and assists U.S. exporters in meeting foreign regu-

latory demands. In addition, the agency assists developing coun-

tries in improving their safeguarding systems to protect the United

States from emerging plant and animal pests and diseases.

Animal Care.—The agency conducts regulatory activities that en-

sure the humane care and treatment of animals and horses as re-

quired by the Animal Welfare Act (Public Law 89–544) and Horse

Protection Acts (Public Law 91–540). These activities include in-

spection of certain establishments that handle animals intended for

research, exhibition, and as pets, and monitoring certain horse

shows.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,176,596,000

for salaries and expenses of the Animal and Plant Health Inspec-

tion Service [APHIS], including $8,889,000 for Congressionally Di-

rected Spending.

The following table reflects the Committee’s specific rec-

ommendations for APHIS:

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year 2024

enacted

Fiscal year 2025

budget request

Committee

recommendation

Safeguarding and International Technical Assistance:

Animal Health Technical Services ........................................ 40,000 39,686 50,000

Aquatic Animal Health .......................................................... 4,500 7,625 4,500

Avian Health ......................................................................... 65,000 65,722 65,000

Cattle Health ......................................................................... 111,000 112,066 111,103

Equine, Cervid and Small Ruminant Health ........................ 35,000 23,205 35,000

National Veterinary Stockpile ................................................ 6,000 6,520 6,500

Swine Health ......................................................................... 26,500 30,767 26,500

Veterinary Biologics .............................................................. 21,000 21,898 21,000

Veterinary Diagnostics .......................................................... 63,000 64,429 63,000

Zoonotic Disease Management ............................................. 21,000 21,773 21,000

Subtotal, Animal Health ................................................... 393,000 393,691 403,603

Agricultural Quarantine Inspection (Appropriated) .............. 35,500 40,763 35,500

Cotton Pests .......................................................................... 15,500 15,613 15,500

Field crop & Rangeland Ecosystems Pests .......................... 12,000 10,242 12,500

Pest Detection ....................................................................... 29,000 29,694 29,000

Plant Protection Methods Development ................................ 21,500 22,990 21,500

Specialty Crop Pests ............................................................. 215,000 218,927 215,500

Tree & Wood Pests ................................................................ 59,000 63,534 59,000

Subtotal, Plant Health ...................................................... 387,500 401,763 388,500

Wildlife Damage Management .............................................. 122,500 124,031 128,000

Wildlife Services Methods Development ............................... 25,500 26,663 25,500

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year 2024

enacted

Fiscal year 2025

budget request

Committee

recommendation

Subtotal, Wildlife Services ............................................... 148,000 150,694 153,500

Animal & Plant Health Regulatory Enforcement .................. 18,500 19,121 18,500

Biotechnology Regulatory Services ....................................... 19,500 23,681 19,500

Subtotal, Regulatory Services .......................................... 38,000 42,802 38,000

Contingency Fund ................................................................. 250 531 250

Emergency Preparedness & Response .................................. 44,500 48,723 46,500

Subtotal, Emergency Management ................................... 44,750 49,254 46,750

Subtotal, Safeguarding and Emergency Preparedness/

Response ...................................................................... 1,011,250 1,038,204 1,030,353

Safe Trade and International Technical Assistance:

Agriculture Import/Export ...................................................... 18,750 19,572 18,750

Overseas Technical & Trade Operations .............................. 25,500 26,544 26,354

Subtotal, Safe Trade ........................................................ 44,250 46,116 45,104

Animal Welfare:

Animal Welfare ...................................................................... 37,250 38,372 40,250

Horse Protection .................................................................... 3,500 4,166 3,500

Subtotal, Animal Welfare ................................................. 40,750 42,538 43,750

Agency Management:

APHIS Information Technology Infrastructure ....................... 4,000 4,251 4,000

Physical/Operational Security ............................................... 5,000 5,195 5,000

Rent and DHS Security Payments ........................................ 42,500 38,567 39,500

Subtotal, Agency Management ......................................... 51,500 48,013 48,500

Congressionally Directed Spending ............................................... 14,276 ............................ 8,889

Total, Direct Appropriation ............................................... 1,162,026 1,174,871 1,176,596

Advocating for Reciprocity.—The Committee recognizes that the

Chinese Government provides subsidies and incentives for Chinese

companies that give them an unfair advantage over U.S-based agri-

cultural companies without reciprocal treatment or access to Chi-

na’s market. Therefore, the Committee directs the Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service to report on all ‘‘Confirmation Re-

quest’’ or ‘‘Regulatory Status Review’’ submissions by any entity

subject to the ownership, or control, of the People’s Republic of

China [PRC] over the past five fiscal years. Additionally, the Com-

mittee directs the Secretary of Agriculture to report to Congress on

whether the PRC has abided by the agricultural biotechnology com-

mitments made under the Phase One economic and trade agree-

ment signed by the United States and the PRC on January 15,

2020.

Agricultural Quarantine Inspection.—The Committee recognizes

that the prevention of infestations of pests and diseases is signifi-

cantly more cost effective than subsequent control or eradication.

This is an important Federal responsibility, and the Committee

provides $35,500,000 for the agricultural quarantine inspections

[AQI] function, including pre-departure and interline inspections,

and canine detection and surveillance activities.

The Committee notes that assessing AQI treatment monitoring

fees on a per-enclosure basis imposes disproportionate impacts on

industry and user groups at certain key ports of entry, including

ports along the Southeastern United States. USDA is encouraged

to continue evaluating alternative and equitable funding mecha-

nisms in consultation with relevant stakeholder groups.

The Committee is concerned that the Department, in the final

rule entitled User Fees for Agricultural Quarantine and Inspection

Services published on May 7, 2024, chose to remove the long-

standing small aircraft exemption. The Committee is concerned

about the potential loss of air service on short haul international

flights and reiterates its previously expressed concern that the re-

moval of this exemption and the restructured commercial aircraft

fees for the APHIS Agricultural Quarantine Inspection [AQI] pro-

gram may not be equitable to small aircraft operators. As such,

APHIS is encouraged to work with small aircraft operators to iden-

tify the risk factors associated with the international movement of

small aircraft in order to ensure that all fees charged are equitable.

Animal Welfare.—The Committee is concerned about APHIS’s

Animal Care program and the steep decline in enforcement related

to violations of the Animal Welfare Act and provides an increase

$3,000,000 to address these concerns. The Committee urges the

agency to reform its current licensing and enforcement scheme.

While the agency took steps towards this goal over the last year,

the Committee believes more progress can be made. This includes,

but is not limited to: ensuring consistent, thorough, unannounced

inspections on a regular basis; ensuring each failure to allow access

for inspection and each violation or failure to comply with animal

welfare standards is documented on an inspection report; and, re-

quiring that inspection reports which identify violations or failures

of compliance be shared with relevant local, State, and Federal

agencies.

The Committee continues to encourage APHIS to use its full en-

forcement capabilities under the AWA against chronic violators of

the AWA. The Committee directs the agency to update the Com-

mittee within 60 days of enactment of the Act on AWA enforcement

activities, including the number of cases referred to the Office of

the General Counsel, the Department of Justice, or both, when ap-

propriate. The Secretary of Agriculture shall continue the March

2024 memorandum of understanding with the U.S. Attorney Gen-

eral to encourage greater collaboration on Animal Welfare Act en-

forcement and ensure that the Department of Justice has access to

evidence needed to initiate cases.

Biotechnology Regulatory Reviews.—The Committee recognizes

the significant role APHIS’ Biotechnology Regulatory Services

[BRS] plays in advancing biotechnology innovation. Since APHIS

published a final rule in May 2020 to update biotechnology regula-

tions under 7 CFR Part 340 for certain organisms developed using

genetic engineering, developers continue to experience significant

delays when applying for regulatory status reviews and, to a lesser

degree, permits. The Committee encourages BRS to complete re-

views as expeditiously as possible and reduce regulatory burdens

for developers of organisms that are unlikely to pose plant pest

risks.

Brucellosis.—Federal and State animal health officials have

made eradicating livestock disease with significant reservoirs a na-

tional animal health priority. This need was first reflected in the

Agricultural Act of 2014, and subsequently reaffirmed in the Agri-

cultural Act of 2018, which made the research and development of

surveillance methods, vaccines, vaccination delivery systems or

diagnostics tests a priority research area under the Competitive,

Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act, particularly for bovine

brucellosis and bovine tuberculosis. The Committee recognizes the

need for this research and encourages the agency to continue to

identify improved management tools for zoonotic livestock diseases

with significant wildlife reservoirs.

Cattle Fever Ticks.—The Committee provides no less than the fis-

cal year 2024 level for cattle fever tick research needs and directs

APHIS to coordinate with ARS on the development of its long-term

cattle fever tick research program. The Committee directs APHIS

to continue to coordinate with ARS, CBP, Department of the Inte-

rior, the International Boundary and Water Commission, the Texas

State Soil and Water Conservation board, and other stakeholders

on control efforts to manage non-native Carrizo cane, which is a fa-

vorable habitat for the cattle fever tick. The Committee still awaits

a report on the progress of this effort.

Chronic Wasting Disease [CWD].—The Committee is concerned

about the growing threat of CWD and its impact on wild and

farmed deer populations. As such, the Committee provides

$17,500,000 to implement section 603 of Public Law 117–392, the

Chronic Wasting Disease Research and Management Act. Specifi-

cally, of the amount provided for cervid health activities,

$12,500,000 shall be for APHIS to allocate funds directly to State

departments of wildlife and State departments of agriculture to

further develop and implement chronic wasting disease surveil-

lance, testing, management, and response activities. Of the amount

provided for Wildlife Service Methods Development, $5,000,000

shall be for CWD work at the National Wildlife Research Center,

and the Committee directs APHIS to continue working with univer-

sity collaborators to provide research support to the overall effort

to detect, combat, and control CWD.

Citrus Health Response Program [CHRP].—CHRP is a national

effort to maintain a viable citrus industry within the United States,

maintain producers’ continued access to export markets, and safe-

guard citrus producing States against a variety of invasive pests

and diseases. These funds are designed to partner with State de-

partments of agriculture and industry groups to address the chal-

lenges of citrus pests and diseases. In addition to the funds pro-

vided 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 pos-

sible to sustain the economic viability of the citrus industry.

Cogongrass Management and Control.—The Committee main-

tains the fiscal year 2024 level to assist States with cogongrass

management and control efforts.

Congressionally Directed Spending [CDS].—The Committee has

provided CDS for certain activities and locations under APHIS.

While the Committee has provided the funding, recipients of CDS

are still required to apply for the funding. The Committee expects

the agency to review the applications and fund projects in the same

manner as in previous years.

Eastern Equine Encephalitis.—The Committee remains con-

cerned about the capacity of States to conduct surveillance, testing,

prevention, and research relating to Eastern Equine Encephalitis.

The Committee continues to provide $1,000,000 to support ongoing

cooperative agreements with impacted States.

Electronic Identification Tags.—The Committee recognizes the

importance of the electronic identification tags for certain cattle

and bison moving across state lines for disease traceability. The

Committee includes an increase of $10,000,000 for APHIS to pro-

cure and distribute the requisite number of tags associated with

the implementation of this rule. APHIS is directed to provide the

Committee an update on the use of these funds within 90 days of

enactment of this Act and quarterly thereafter.

Foreign Trading Partners.—The Committee encourages APHIS

and the Foreign Agricultural Service to engage with foreign trading

partners, international organizations and others to create a global

environment that’s conducive to agricultural trade in forest prod-

ucts by addressing trade barriers related to fumigation, and estab-

lishing transparent and predictable rules and standards.

Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza [HPAI].—The Committee re-

mains concerned with the spread of highly pathogenic avian influ-

enza and appreciates the Department’s ongoing efforts to contain

spread of the virus. The Committee encourages the Department to

continue coordination with State animal health officials in order to

proactively mitigate spread of the virus. The Committee also urges

the Department to increase outreach and engagement with poultry

producers to educate on proactive measures individuals can take to

further mitigate the spread of highly pathogenic avian influenza.

Additionally, the Committee recognizes the extreme economic

hardship posed to gamebird and egg farmers when flocks are deter-

mined to be infected by high and low pathogenic avian influenza

and acknowledges the severe limitations on controlled marketing

available to producers of live game birds, as well as the income loss

from egg production. The Committee encourages APHIS to provide

full indemnity coverage for gamebird and egg operations and cease

attempts to limit coverage.

While the Committee agrees that the transfer of CCC funds to

APHIS to address HPAI was warranted to continue to address the

ongoing outbreak among poultry and the transmission to dairy cat-

tle, to ensure that these funds are used effectively, APHIS is di-

rected to brief the Committee within 30 days of the date of enact-

ment of this act and monthly thereafter on the use of these funds.

This brief shall include both budgetary and operational data on

APHIS efforts to address HPAI both in dairy cattle and poultry, as

well as how APHIS is working with other Federal partners such as

the Centers for Disease Control and the Food and Drug Adminis-

tration, as well as State and local entities.

Horse Protection.—The Committee provides no less than the fis-

cal year 2024 level for enforcement of the Horse Protection Act of

1970, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1831), and reminds the Secretary that

Congress granted the agency primary responsibility to enforce this

law, including the training of all inspectors. The Committee directs

APHIS to ensure that all official warning letters, administrative

complaints, stipulations, and consent decisions are made publicly

available in a searchable format, consistent with 7 U.S.C. 2146a.

Huanglongbing Emergency Response.—The Committee maintains

the funding level for Huanglongbing Emergency Response within

the Specialty Crop Pests line item. The Committee encourages

APHIS to allocate sufficient resources in order to continue vital

management, control, and associated activities to address citrus

greening. The disease, for which there is no cure, has caused a re-

duction in citrus production by over 60 percent since 2007 in Flor-

ida alone. All citrus producing counties in Texas are under quar-

antine, and California has detected the disease in some backyard

trees in the Los Angeles basin. The spread of this disease has

called the domestic citrus industry’s future into question, costing

thousands of jobs and millions in lost revenue and increased pro-

duction costs per acre. In addition, the agency is encouraged to

support priorities and strategies identified by the HLB–MAC group

which will benefit the citrus industry. The agency should appro-

priately allocate resources based on critical need and maximum ef-

fect to the citrus industry. The Committee maintains the fiscal year

2024 funding level for citrus health to support priorities and strate-

gies identified by the HLB–MAC group. The MAC is focused on

short-term solutions to help the citrus industry, and the coopera-

tive nature of Federal, State, and industry representatives in this

group is expected to result in the development of tools and tech-

niques to address this devastating disease. Helping growers explore

new possible solutions, the MAC has been an effective resource.

These citrus health activities directly protect citrus production on

approximately 765,000 acres in the United States worth more than

$11,000,000,000 in total.

Huanglongbing Multi-Agency Coordination Group.—The Com-

mittee recognizes the significant economic impact of this disease on

the citrus industry, which is especially acute in Florida and is a

growing concern in both Texas and California. The Committee also

understands that growers are requesting the right to try treat-

ments that have begun to show success in early stages of testing.

The Committee encourages the HLB–MAC group to explore and

identify new methods to expedite the delivery of promising treat-

ments directly to growers. Finally, the Committee expects that any

funds which are redirected from existing HLB–MAC projects be

repurposed to other priority HLB–MAC projects that are showing

promising results to ensure these critical funds remain committed

to facilitating the design and implementation of the rapid delivery

pathway to growers.

Inspection of Research Facilities.—The Committee is aware that

Veterinary Medical Officers [VMOs] and Improved Training for In-

stitutional Animal Care and Use Committees [IACUC] members

play a significant role in the administration of animal protection

programs at research facilities. Therefore, proper training of such

personnel is essential. The Committee directs APHIS to provide on-

demand, publicly available training for IACUC members and

VMOs on how to perform adequate inspections of research facili-

ties. The training should inform VMOs and IACUC members, as

relevant to their respective roles in providing oversight of research

facilities, how to review, monitor, and approve research facilities’

protocols; verify the accuracy of annual reports submitted by re-

search facilities to confirm the correct number of animals used in

every experiment and that animals are reported in the correct pain

category; and review and monitor experiments performed on ani-

mals by research facilities to ensure the humane care and use of

animals in compliance with the AWA and IACUC-approved proto-

cols.

APHIS shall report to the Committee on an annual basis about

the trainings it has offered to VMOs and IACUC members on how

to perform adequate research facility inspections. In addition, all

training materials used and distributed by APHIS should be pub-

licly accessible online.

Lacey Act Implementation.—The Committee recognizes the im-

portance of the Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. 3371–3378) in addressing traf-

ficking of illegally taken wildlife, fish, and plants, including illegal

deforestation activities. The Committee provides no less than the

fiscal year 2024 level to support the implementation of the Lacey

Act within the Safe Trade and International Technical Assistance

program. Additionally, APHIS is directed to complete a report 6

months after Lacey Act phase 7 becomes effective on the status of

efforts to address composite materials, which will be phase 8 of the

declaration enforcement process.

Los Alamitos Sterile Insect Release Facility.—The Committee

urges APHIS and local and State cooperators to develop a com-

prehensive plan for much needed facility enhancements at the Ster-

ile Insect Release Facility in Los Alamitos, California.

Marine Mammals in Captivity.—The Committee is concerned

that USDA’s handling, care, treatment, and transportation stand-

ards for marine mammals in captivity are outdated. Marine mam-

mal science has progressed significantly in the almost 40 years

since the most important of these regulations were last updated,

and the current standards do not adequately protect the welfare of

captive marine mammals. The Committee directs APHIS to

prioritize the development and finalization of a humane and

science-based rule to modernize its marine mammal regulations

and directs the agency to report back within 90 days on its

progress in achieving that goal.

National Animal Health Laboratory Network.—The Committee

provides no less than the fiscal year 2024 level for the National

Animal Health Laboratory Network.

National Aquatic Animal Health Plan.—The Committee provides

no less than the fiscal year 2024 level to support the continued im-

plementation of the 2024–2026 National Aquaculture Health Plan

and the Comprehensive Aquaculture Health Program Standards.

National Bio- and Agro-Defense Human Capital Development.—

The Committee provides $3,000,000 for APHIS to ensure necessary

steps are taken to develop a qualified workforce comprised of sub-

ject matter experts in foreign, emerging, and zoonotic diseases and

capable of developing, validating, and conducting needed

diagnostics, performing epidemiologic studies, and completing

bioinformatics analyses. The Committee encourages APHIS to es-

tablish cooperative agreements with academic research institu-

tions, particularly non-land grant Hispanic-Serving Institutions, to

support the next generation of the NBAF workforce, including fa-

cilities and equipment.

National Detector Dog Training Center.—The Committee sup-

ports the work of the National Detector Dog Training Center in

protecting the domestic agriculture sector from invasive pests and

diseases. The Committee requests USDA, within 1 year after enact-

ment, to submit a report to Congress regarding the Center’s role

in protecting the domestic agriculture sector from pests and dis-

eases. The Committee requests that the report include a descrip-

tion of domestic pest and disease programs that use canine detector

teams, coordination between APHIS and U.S. Customs and Border

Protection on use of canine teams for agricultural quarantine in-

spections, and the Center’s current capacity level.

Additionally, the Committee encourages USDA Animal Plant

Health Inspection Service to consider and prioritize the growing

use of canine teams nationally and within territories of the U.S. by

exploring ways to expand the number of canine detection training

facilities across the country, to include areas on the West Coast

with high detection needs.

National Clean Plant Network.—APHIS is directed to allocate no

less than fiscal year 2024 levels to the National Clean Plant Net-

work.

Navel Orangeworm.—The Committee recognizes the challenges

the navel orangeworm poses to tree nut production and provides a

$500,000 increase to continue managing the pest.

Nitrogen-Based Deopopulation Methods.—The Committee directs

the USDA to continue to utilize available funds through the Na-

tional Animal Disease Preparedness and Response Program to fa-

cilitate and invest in research and development of large-scale de-

population technologies, including whole house gassing with nitro-

gen and high expansion nitrogen gas-filled foam as methods of

large-scale depopulation during animal disease emergency response

events. Further, the Committee directs the Secretary to provide a

report to the Committee within 90 days on inclusion of the method

in the American Veterinarian Medical Association [AVMA] Depopu-

lation Guidelines and on the barriers to widespread use of nitro-

gen-based depopulation methods during animal disease emergency

response events.

Non-Lethal Strategies.—The Committee is aware that Wildlife

Services has worked with landowners to deploy non-lethal strate-

gies, such as fladry, electric fencing, and livestock guardian dogs,

to reduce predator depredation on livestock. The Committee pro-

vides $5,000,000 for Wildlife Services to hire personnel exclusively

to promote and implement non-lethal human-predator conflict de-

terrence techniques in interested States, with a focus on reducing

human-wildlife conflicts related to predators and beavers in the

Western Region and Great Lakes States and to assist in providing

training in these techniques to agricultural producers, landowners,

and other agency personnel in collaboration with the National

Wildlife Research Center.

Additionally, APHIS is directed to provide an annual report with-

in 120 days of the end of the fiscal year, detailing how these addi-

tional funds were dispersed; including regional distribution, wild

and domestic species impacted, number and size of livestock/agri-

cultural operations impacted, and nonlethal tools and methods im-

plemented and supported.

National Veterinary Stockpile.—Foot and Mouth Disease [FMD]

remains a grave threat to the animal agriculture industry in the

United States. The U.S. agriculture industry must remain vigilant

and be prepared in the event of an FMD outbreak. The Committee

provides $6,500,000 for the National Veterinary Stockpile to protect

the Nation’s food supply by maintaining enough countermeasures

capable of deployment against the most damaging animal diseases.

Online Dog Dealers.—The Committee is concerned about the lack

of enforcement of the law with respect to online dog dealers and

other types of pet dealers, which has allowed many online oper-

ations to continue selling puppies without the necessary USDA li-

censing under the Animal Welfare Act. The Secretary is directed to

prioritize the enforcement of the 2013 rule that requires that deal-

ers who APHIS has determined to be selling animals sight-unseen

to consumers must have the necessary license to do so.

Pale or Potato Cyst Nematode Eradication.—The Committee sup-

ports the work of the Pale Cyst Nematode eradication program and

recognizes that if left untreated, this pest could spread, affecting

crops other than potatoes. The Committee provides no less than the

fiscal year 2024 level in order to continue with successful efforts to

eradicate this pest.

Port of Entry Process for Imported Wood Products.—The Com-

mittee recognizes the majority of U.S. manufactured finished wood

products require a combination of domestically grown species with

international species, the latter of which cannot be grown in the

U.S. APHIS, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Customs and Border

Protection are jointly responsible for overseeing processes with re-

spect to clearing imported wood products at U.S. ports of entry.

The Committee supports further coordination across the agencies

with respect to wood product imports and directs APHIS to provide

a report within 180 days of enactment of this act detailing USDA’s

current role in the wood importation declaration process, how it

interacts with other agencies, and concrete steps that can be taken

to expedite shipments that are delayed.

Poultry Indemnity Payments.—The Committee directs USDA to

coordinate amongst all relevant agencies under its authority to up-

date, and where applicable, develop consistent, easily replicated

formulas on an annual basis to estimate market values of livestock

and poultry categories for indemnity purposes. In developing and

updating these annual values, USDA should ensure that they re-

flect applicable modern production practices, and relevant livestock

and poultry markets so that payments by USDA represent average

fair market values for the category of animal that the compensa-

tion payment is intended to cover.

Public/Private Partnerships.—The health and safety of our Na-

tion’s livestock population are paramount to maintaining food secu-

rity. With the ongoing, escalating threat of Avian Influenza, the

Committee urges USDA to also pursue public/private partnerships

to utilize technologies, including AI platforms that can rapidly cre-

ate effective, shelf-stable therapeutics designed to swiftly counter-

act virus mutations. The Committee further urges USDA to ensure

that such cutting-edge antivirals are efficiently distributed nation-

wide with private sector collaboration.

Rangeland Grasshopper and Mormon Cricket Program.—The

Committee recognizes the importance of APHIS’ Rangeland Grass-

hopper and Mormon Cricket Program and includes an increase of

$500,000 to administer this program. APHIS is encouraged to ad-

minister these funds based on need and infestation severity rather

than on a first-come, first-serve basis due the season variation of

grasshopper infestations across the West.

Roseau Cane.—The Committee remains concerned with the

invasive species scale insect pest that is destroying Roseau cane in

the Mississippi River’s Delta region along the Gulf of Mexico. An

estimated 225,000 acres of wetlands in the Delta have been af-

fected with the die-off, and Roseau cane is important in maintain-

ing a healthy marsh and preventing erosion. The Committee di-

rects APHIS to work with ARS and stakeholders and provides no

less than the fiscal year 2024 level to develop an integrated man-

agement program for control of the Roseau cane scale insect pest

infestation.

Rotary Fleet.—The Committee recognizes the increasing demands

on the aging APHIS Wildlife Services rotary aircraft fleet to assist

the agricultural and livestock sectors. As a result, the Committee

is concerned about the safety, effectiveness and operating efficiency

of the existing fleet. The Committee directs APHIS to submit a re-

port assessing the fleet’s current status and future rotary aircraft

needs to operate efficiently and effectively to the Committees on

Appropriations of the House and Senate no later than 120 days

after the date of enactment of this act.

Soring.—The Committee has consistently recognized the need for

the equine industry and APHIS to cooperate in order to eliminate

the soring of horses. In 2021, the National Academy of Sciences

[NAS] recognized the importance of continuing to develop an objec-

tive science-based inspection to ensure accuracy and fairness. The

Committee directs APHIS to continue swabbing and other proven

objective science-based inspection techniques for its horse soring in-

spection protocol and to address remaining findings of the NAS re-

port as the agency deems warranted.

The Committee also includes an additional $3,000,000 in Wildlife

Damage Management line item for APHIS fleet management, in-

cluding the modification, refitting, and/or acquisition of air assets.

Sudden Oak Death.—The European strain 1 [EU1] and the

North American strain 1 [NA1] of the sudden oak death pathogen

are major threats to western Douglas-fir/tanoak forests, resulting

in quarantine restrictions that threaten U.S. forests and export

markets for log shipments and lily bulbs. The Committee rec-

ommendation includes no less than the fiscal year 2024 funding

level to improve understanding of EU1 and NA1 strains of the sud-

den oak death pathogen and treatment methods to inform control

and management techniques in wildlands.

Twenty-Eight Hour Law.—The Committee is concerned that the

regular feeding, watering, and rest required, by 49 U.S.C. 80502,

to be provided by animal carriers is not being effectively enforced.

The Committee still awaits the report on barriers to successful im-

plementation of this law.

Wildlife Damage Management.—APHIS is responsible for pro-

viding Federal leadership in managing problems caused by wildlife.

The Committee provides $128,000,000 for wildlife damage control

to maintain priority initiatives, including preventing the transport

of invasive snakes and other harmful species. The Committee pro-

vides no less than the fiscal year 2024 funding level for the agency

to reduce blackbird depredation in the Northern Great Plains.

The Committee maintains support for assistance to catfish pro-

ducers to help mitigate wildlife depredation, particularly as it per-

tains to fish-eating and disease-carrying birds. The Committee pro-

vides no less than the fiscal year 2024 level for damage manage-

ment efforts and the development of methods to assist producers in

combatting the persistent threat and economic hardship caused by

cormorants, pelicans, and other birds.

The Committee recognizes the importance of the National Feral

Swine Damage Management Program in reducing adverse ecologi-

cal and economic impacts caused by feral swine across the country.

The Committee provides an increase of $2,000,000 in support of

APHIS’ efforts to decrease these invasive pests’ damage and risk to

agriculture, natural resources, and property, and to include the use

of new technologies to control feral hogs. The Committee also en-

courages the use of all approved measures as a force multiplier and

to prioritize areas with the most populous swine population.

The Committee provides $28,000,000 for the National Rabies

Management Program to fortify existing barriers and advance pre-

vention and eradication efforts.

Wildlife Services Cost Share.—The Committee is concerned about

the increasing inequitable Federal amount of cost share in coopera-

tive service agreements between APHIS–Wildlife Services and/or

political subdivisions of States responsible for Wildlife Service pro-

grams that protect agriculture, property, human life, and natural

resources. The Committee expects Wildlife Services to strive for an

equitable 50/50 cost share to the extent that funding is available

to do so.

Wildlife Services Education and Training.—The Committee is

aware of the wide range of hazardous procedures and materials uti-

lized by APHIS personnel in the conduct of daily duties. In addi-

tion, a recent comprehensive study noted the critical need to pro-

vide standardized safety training, certification, and database man-

agement for tracking to ensure the safest working environment

possible. As such, the Committee provides $2,000,000 within Wild-

life Damage Management to maintain a National Training Acad-

emy focused on those areas of greatest concern such as pyrotech-

nics, firearms, hazardous materials, immobilization and euthanasia

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

watercraft, and zoonotic diseases.

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $1,000,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 3,175,000

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

The APHIS appropriation for Buildings and Facilities funds

major nonrecurring construction projects in support of specific pro-

gram activities and recurring construction, alterations, preventive

maintenance, and repairs of existing APHIS facilities.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommendation includes an appropriation of

$5,000,000 for buildings and facilities of the Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

This funding is necessary to allow APHIS to maintain existing

facilities and perform critically needed repairs to and replacements

of building components, such as heating, ventilation, and air-condi-

tioning on a prioritized basis at APHIS facilities. The Committee

notes that due to the environmentally sensitive nature of many

APHIS facilities, closure of a facility could result if APHIS is un-

able to complete the required repairs.

GRICULTURAL

ARKETING

ERVICE

MARKETING SERVICES

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $222,887,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 234,888,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 231,387,000

The Agricultural Marketing Service was established by the Sec-

retary of Agriculture on April 2, 1972. AMS carries out programs

authorized by more than 50 different statutory authorities, the pri-

mary ones being the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C.

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

51–65); the Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act (7 U.S.C. 471–476);

the Tobacco Inspection Act (7 U.S.C. 511–511q); the Perishable Ag-

ricultural Commodities Act (7 U.S.C. 499a–499t); the Egg Products

Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 1031–1056); and section 32 of the act of

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

Programs administered by this agency include the market news

services, standardization, grading, classing, shell egg surveillance

services, transportation services, wholesale farmers and alternative

market development, grant payments to States for marketing ac-

tivities, the Federal administration of marketing agreements and

orders, commodity purchases, the Perishable Agricultural Commod-

ities Act (7 U.S.C. 499a–499t), the Plant Variety Protection Act

(Public Law 71–325), and market protection and promotion activi-

ties.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $231,387,000 for

Marketing Services of the Agricultural Marketing Service. The

Committee provides the following amounts: $6,000,000 for the Acer

Access and Development Program; $1,500,000 for the Cattle Con-

tract Library; $2,000,000 for Cotton Classing Modernization; and a

$1,000,000 increase for oversight and enforcement of the Packers

and Stockyards Act.

The Committee includes in this account $17,000,000 for the

Dairy Business Innovation Initiatives and $5,000,000 for the Micro-

grants for Food Security Program.

Cattle Contract Library.—Smaller cattle producers often find

themselves to be price takers in the market for fed cattle and lack

the volume of large producers to negotiate unique and advan-

tageous marketing agreements with large meatpackers. The Cattle

Contracts Library helps bring transparency into the marketplace.

Dairy Business Innovation Initiatives.—The Committee is con-

cerned about the uptake of existing resources directed to dairy

farmers for the purpose of mitigating the spread of highly patho-

genic avian influenza in dairy cows. The Committee urges AMS to

direct Commodity Credit Corporation investments into innovative

and existing dairy programs that capture both dairy farmers and

dairy processors through the Dairy Business Innovation Initiatives.

Dairy Sanitary Export Certificate Software.—The Committee is

concerned with the USDA dairy sanitary export certificate program

software ATLAS has caused US dairy exporters significant export

delays and detentions in foreign ports. USDA is directed to report

to the Committee on the status of its improvements to the ATLAS

program including reporting on the quantity errors in certificates

issued by the end of this fiscal year and to include in such report,

status of Department and AMS funding from existing and relevant

funds, such as CCC funds, and if necessary, inclusion within the

Department’s fiscal year 2026 budget request.

Domestic Shrimp.—The Committee is concerned that the domes-

tic shrimp fishing and processing industry is on the brink of col-

lapse due to the overproduction and oversupply of imported shrimp

to the U.S and global markets at unprecedented levels. The Com-

mittee recognizes that this surplus of imported shrimp in U.S. in-

ventory has driven prices offered to U.S. shrimp fishermen to his-

torically low levels that fall below that which can sustain shrimp

fishing operations. The Committee is also aware that a substantial

portion of the U.S. shrimp fishing fleet remains tied to the dock

and many small, family-owned shrimp businesses are going out of

business. To help reduce this unprecedented surplus of shrimp in

the U.S. market, the Committee encourages AMS to maximize its

section 32 program purchases of domestic warm-water shrimp.

Dry Edible Beans.—The Committee is aware that dry edible

beans are an important part of a nutritious and well-balanced diet.

However, the Committee is concerned that dry edible beans have

not played an adequate role in addressing nutrition needs under

U.S. international food aid programs as well as domestic feeding

programs, and encourages the Department to enhance the amount

and frequency of dry edible bean purchases for use in such pro-

grams.

Effective Food Procurement.—The Committee encourages the De-

partment to use its existing framework and funding for food pro-

curement to target procurement of food products that support so-

cially marginalized producers and worker well-being; increase mar-

ket opportunities for small-scale producers and address food system

consolidation; meet the needs of people who follow restricted, reli-

gious, or culturally specific diets; are environmentally friendly and

use climate-smart agricultural practices; support resilient and

transparent food supply chains.

Honey.—The Committee directs the department to provide a re-

port on the necessary resources and authorities needed to ensure

a fairer market for domestic honey producers and more transparent

market for American consumers. The Department is encouraged to

collaborate with Customs and Border Protection, the Food and

Drug Administration, and domestic commercial honey producer

stakeholders.

Local Agriculture Market Program.—The Committee continues to

urge the Department to simplify the application and reporting

process for the Local Agriculture Market Program. The Committee

is aware AMS implemented a turnkey grant application in fiscal

year 2023 for Farmers Market and Local Food Promotion Grants

but that applications were restricted to specific project types and

the list was not inclusive of common needs in direct marketing and

intermediary local market settings. The Committee encourages the

agency to expand the turnkey application to include other common

activities, including vendor and customer outreach activities, farm-

ers market manager staff time, regional food chain coordination,

and special purpose equipment.

Local Meat Processing.—The Committee recognizes and supports

investments in local meat processing. These investments are an op-

portunity to combat agricultural market concentration and increase

market access for American farmers and ranchers. The Committee

directs the Department to submit a report to the Committee within

90 days of enactment of this act that includes the total amount of

Federal investments made in local meat processing across depart-

mental programs, the current status of plants receiving funding,

whether the Department has reviewed any potential sales of plants

receiving funding, and, to the extent practicable, an assessment of

the economic impact of departmental programs on local meat proc-

essing.

Meat Pricing Concerns.—The Committee recognizes the impor-

tance of ensuring that meat pricing mechanisms are transparent

and provide reliable price discovery for cattle producers and the

rest of the supply chain nationwide. The Committee notes that the

Nation’s food supply chain is an issue of national security, and em-

phasizes that our farmers, ranchers, processors, and consumers

must have a fair and competitive marketplace. The Committee di-

rects the Secretary, to analyze these issues including economic dis-

ruptions associated with public health emergencies.

Micro-Grants for Food Security.—The Committee urges AMS to

administer the Micro-Grants for Food Security program in a man-

ner that will ensure that low-income, disadvantaged, and minority

individuals are able to submit applications and receive funding for

projects such as animal processing and slaughter facilities, includ-

ing reindeer herders, greenhouses, and hydroponic growing facili-

ties that would increase the amount and quality of locally produced

foods. When practicable, the Committee directs AMS to waive or

amend how it applies the regulatory requirements of 2 CFR

200.206, 200.313, 200.328, and 200.329 to ensure that this program

addresses food insecurity challenges.

National Organic Program.—The Committee recognizes that or-

ganic regulations are a valuable market development tool for U.S.

agriculture and provides no less than the fiscal year 2024 level for

the National Organic Program [NOP]. A healthy market for organic

products requires a clear product distinction backed by a trusted,

verified, and consistently enforced label. The Committee also recog-

nizes that regular updates to the regulations are crucial. The Com-

mittee directs USDA to provide all resources needed for the NOP

to deliver the strongest possible oversight before allowing the

USDA organic seal to be granted to domestic and international op-

erations and products, including a continued focus on proactive

risk-based investigations and oversight, enhanced training for cer-

tifiers, and practice standards development. In addition, within 60

days of enactment of this act, AMS is directed to provide a full re-

port outlining the breakdown of the National Organic Program’s

key expenditures such as compliance and enforcement activities,

practice standards development, and technology upgrades.

Native American Foods and Tourism.—The Committee recog-

nizes that enhanced Native American tourism creates important

job opportunities in Native American communities while show-

casing their heritage, food, traditions, history, and continuing vital-

ity. The Committee encourages USDA to support the Native Amer-

ican Tourism and Improving Visitor Experience Act (Public Law

114–221) by prioritizing projects that market, promote, or expand

Native American foods, markets, and enterprises.

Organic Dairy.—The Committee recognizes the importance of

consumer confidence in the integrity of the USDA Organic Seal and

notes the work that USDA has done to increase training and cer-

tifier consistency with respect to dairy operations. The Committee

directs AMS to seek strong enforcement of organic dairy production

standards and resolve significant variations in standard interpreta-

tion that exists among organic certifiers, as well as among organic

dairy producers. AMS shall continue to conduct critical risk-based

oversight, particularly for large, complex dairy operations, as it has

in the past four fiscal years.

Organic Data Initiative.—The Committee recognizes that accu-

rate data for the production, pricing, and marketing of organic

products is essential to maintaining stable markets, identifying

fraud, creating risk management tools, tracking production trends,

and increasing exports. Therefore, the Committee directs the Sec-

retary to require mandatory reporting on an annual basis by ac-

credited certifying agents on aggregate production areas certified

by crop and location in order to accurately calculate organic acre-

age and yield estimates on a country-by-country basis.

Regional Food Business Centers.—The Committee recognizes the

important role the North Coasts Region plays for various seafood

products in the National and regional food systems across the coun-

try and supports efforts to strengthen supply chains and increase

and diversify market access for North Coasts Region industry part-

ners, who are responsible for seventy percent of the Nation’s sea-

food. Therefore, the Committee encourages the Secretary to explore

the establishment of a North Coasts Regional Food Business Cen-

ter and where practicable, direct the existing Regional Food Busi-

ness Centers to identify ways to strengthen seafood networks, in-

crease market access for small and mid-sized food entities, and im-

prove the viability of the industry and its products.

Soil Health.—The National Organic Standards require farmers

that voluntarily chose to certify their operation as meeting organic

practices to use farming practices that improve soil health, such as

crop rotations, cover cropping, and pasture-based livestock prac-

tices. By improving soil health, these farming practices also in-

crease the carbon sequestration potential of the soil, and improve

the farm’s resilience to extreme weather events and patterns. To

maximize the climate benefits of organic agriculture, the Com-

mittee urges the National Organic Program to increase enforce-

ment efforts to ensure full compliance with the soil health and pas-

ture requirements of USDA organic standards.

Sugar Inspection.—The Committee is concerned about possible

circumvention with respect to imported molasses and certain north-

ern border ports of entry. Therefore, the Committee directs AMS to

carry out testing to verify and validate the methodology and proto-

cols of the inspection of all imported molasses at these northern

border ports of entry, or other ports as appropriate, including

whether the molasses meets each statutory requirement without

the use of additives or blending, relevant definitional explanatory

notes, and each property typical of molasses in the United States.

The Committee includes $1,000,000 for this effort and directs AMS

to brief the Committee within 60 days of enactment of this act on

this effort, to include an evaluation of whether the method of proc-

essing actually employed to produce the inbound product does prac-

ticably yield molasses, whether the volume of raw cane sugar avail-

able and utilized to produce the inbound product is sufficient to

have practicably yielded the volume of product sought to be im-

ported if the product met all of the requirements, and whether the

inbound product is intended to be marketed and sold in the United

States in the condition in which it is classified for entry.

West Virginia Apple Surplus.—The Committee directs AMS to

initiate a study focusing on the surplus of apples in West Virginia,

resulting from insufficient refrigerated storage capacity within

processing facilities. AMS shall submit a report within 180 days,

encompassing its findings and recommendations to prevent future

surpluses. Additionally, the USDA should include an analysis in

the report if there have been notable increases in foreign apple im-

ports into the United States, with special attention to imports from

China.

Wild Game Processing Technical Assistance.—The Committee

recognizes the important role of wild game processing in rural food

supply chains, especially in the business models of small and very-

small processors. The Committee encourages AMS to expand the

scope of the existing Meat and Poultry Processing Capacity—Tech-

nical Assistance Program to include assistance for processors inter-

ested in opening or expanding facilities that conduct custom-ex-

empt wild game processing.

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Limitation, 2024 ..................................................................................... $62,596,000

Budget limitation, 2025 ......................................................................... 62,596,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 62,596,000

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

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

classing cotton and tobacco. These activities, authorized under the

U.S. Cotton Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 51 et seq.), the Tobacco In-

spection Act (7 U.S.C. 511 et seq.), and other provisions of law are

designed to facilitate commerce and protect participants in the in-

dustry.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends a limitation of $62,956,000 on ad-

ministrative expenses of the Agricultural Marketing Service.

FUNDS FOR STRENGTHENING MARKETS

INCOME

AND SUPPLY

(SECTION 32)

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $21,501,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 22,701,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 22,701,000

Under section 32 of the act of August 24, 1935, (Public Law 74–

320), an amount equal to 30 percent of customs receipts collected

during each preceding calendar year and unused balances are

available for encouraging the domestic consumption and expor-

tation of agricultural commodities. An amount equal to 30 percent

of receipts collected on fishery products is transferred to the De-

partment of Commerce. Additional transfers to the child nutrition

programs of the Food and Nutrition Service have been provided in

recent appropriations acts.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends a transfer from section 32 funds of

$22,701,000 for the formulation and administration of marketing

agreements and orders.

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

2024–2025:

ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD

FISCAL YEARS 2024–2025

Fiscal year 2024

enacted

Fiscal year 2025

budget request

Committee

recommendation

Appropriation—30% of Customs Receipts ........ $27,123,377,552 $30,801,280,267 $24,678,696,684

Prior Year Appropriation, Available .................... 15,546,365 18,089,395 ..................................

Total, Appropriation: ....................................... 27,138,923,917 30,819,369,662 24,678,696,684

Less Transfers: ....................................................

Food and Nutrition Service—Current Year ........ (25,199,766,588 ) (28,766,533,228 ) (22,592,333,480 )

Food and Nutrition Service—Prior Year ............. (15,546,365 ) (18,089,395 ) ..................................

Commerce Department—Current Year ............... (362,610,964 ) (377,363,204 ) (377,363,204 )

Total, Transfers .............................................. (25,577,923,917 ) (29,161,985,827 ) (22,969,696,684 )

Total Available Funds: .................................... 1,561,000,000 1,657,383,835 1,709,000,000

Accounting Adjustment ....................................... ¥14,000,000 .................................. ..................................

Budget Authority, Farm Bill: ............................... 1,547,000,000 1,657,383,835 1,709,000,000

ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD

FISCAL YEARS 2024–2025—Continued

Fiscal year 2024

enacted

Fiscal year 2025

budget request

Committee

recommendation

Sequester Reduction ........................................... (77,292,000 ) (83,355,879 ) (86,070,000 )

Total Funding Availability: .................................. 1,469,708,000 1,574,027,956 1,622,930,000

Unavailable for Obligations under Enacted

Budget level ................................................... (2,478,202 ) .................................. ..................................

Budget Authority, Appropriations Act: ................ 1,467,229,798 1,574,027,956 1,622,930,000

Unobligated Balance Brought Forward ............... 430,948,281 229,053,281 ..................................

Recoveries of unpaid obligations and recovery

of prior year obligations ................................. 14,961,130 .................................. ..................................

Unobligated bal brought forward, adj. ............... 445,909,411 229,053,281 ..................................

Change in Mandatory Program (CHIMP) ............ .................................. ¥90,000,000 ..................................

Net Spending authority Collections .................... 7,291,133 .................................. ..................................

Fresh Fruits & Vegetables Program (FFVP)

transfer ........................................................... (191,000,000 ) (195,000,000 ) (199,000,000 )

Hemp Production Program transfer .................... .................................. .................................. ..................................

Total Spending Authority—After Transfers: ....... 1,729,430,342 1,518,081,238 1,423,930,000

Less ..................................................................... .................................. .................................. ..................................

Child Nutrition Programs (Entitlement Commod-

ities) ............................................................... 484,849,129 485,000,000 485,000,000

12% Commodity Floor Requirement (CNP) ........ .................................. .................................. ..................................

Subtotal, CNP (Entitlement Commodities) ......... 484,849,129 485,000,000 485,000,000

Farm Bill Specialty Crop Purchases (Remaining

Funds) ............................................................. .................................. .................................. 206,000,000

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

Removal Defective Commodities ........................ 399,707 1,660,000 2,500,000

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

Direct Payments .................................................. .................................. .................................. ..................................

Emergency Surplus Removal Prior Year Adjust-

ments .............................................................. .................................. .................................. ..................................

Emergency Surplus Removal: ............................. .................................. .................................. ..................................

Fruit and Vegetables .......................................... 730,741,086 355,500,000 ..................................

Meat and Fish ..................................................... 237,787,160 131,840,000 ..................................

Poultry ................................................................. .................................. .................................. ..................................

Dairy .................................................................... .................................. .................................. ..................................

Total Purchases: ............................................. 968,528,246 487,340,000 ..................................

Future Needs Remaining Funds ......................... .................................. 246,348,957 659,999,662

Carryin Balance .................................................. .................................. 229,053,281 ..................................

Remaining Funds ................................................ .................................. 475,402,238 ..................................

Subtotal, Commodity Purchases .................... 1,453,777,082 1,459,402,238 1,363,499,662

Accounting Adjustment ....................................... 7,035,459 .................................. ..................................

Total, Commodity Purchases .......................... 1,460,812,541 1,459,402,238 1,363,499,662

Commodity Procurement Services ....................... 35,833,820 37,178,000 37,728,828

Marketing Agreements and Orders ..................... 17,730,699 21,501,000 22,701,510

Total, Administrative Funds ........................... 53,564,519 58,679,000 60,430,338

Total Direct Obligations: ................................ 1,514,377,060 1,518,081,238 1,423,930,000

Unavailable Prior Year Recoveries—Unavailable 473,767 .................................. ..................................

Current Year—Unavailable ................................ 5,635,758 .................................. ..................................

Accounting Adjustment ....................................... ¥2,020,130 .................................. ..................................

ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD

FISCAL YEARS 2024–2025—Continued

Fiscal year 2024

enacted

Fiscal year 2025

budget request

Committee

recommendation

Prior Year Recoveries—Available ....................... 12,876,172 .................................. ..................................

Current Year—Unobligated within spending

limitation ........................................................ 215,053,282 .................................. ..................................

Reimbursable UOB and other adj. ..................... 1,123,827 .................................. ..................................

Total, Unavailable Resources ............................. 4,089,395 .................................. ..................................

Unobligated Balance Carrying Forward* ............ 229,053,281 .................................. ..................................

Reimbursements ................................................. 1,139,804 .................................. ..................................

*FY22 point in time and adjusted to reflect FY23 SOY balance ($430,764,696 v. $430,948,281)

*As of 4/3/2024, AMS has received over $2,400,000,000 in requests.

Section 32 Authorities.—Under the authority described in clause

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

section 32 account to increase the purchasing power of producers.

This practice has been used on various occasions to provide direct

assistance to producers when market forces or natural conditions

adversely affect the financial condition of farmers and ranchers.

The Committee notes the importance of the ability of the Secretary

to utilize this authority but believes that communication between

USDA and Congress should be improved when this practice is

used. Therefore, the Committee directs the Secretary to provide no-

tification to the Committee in advance of any public announcement

or release of section 32 funds under the specific authorities cited

above.

PAYMENTS TO STATES AND POSSESSIONS

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $1,000,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 1,500,000

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

The Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program is author-

ized by section 204(b) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7

U.S.C. 1621–1627, 1635–1638) and is also funded from appropria-

tions. Matching grants are awarded on a competitive basis to State

marketing agencies to identify and test market alternative farm

commodities, determine methods of providing more reliable market

information, and develop better commodity grading standards. This

program has made many types of projects possible, such as elec-

tronic marketing and agricultural product diversification. Current

projects are focused on the improvement of marketing efficiency

and effectiveness and seeking new outlets for existing farm pro-

duced commodities. The legislation grants USDA authority to es-

tablish cooperative agreements with State departments of agri-

culture or similar State agencies to improve the efficiency of the

agricultural marketing chain. The States perform the work or con-

tract it to others and must contribute at least one-half of the cost

of the projects.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

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

Payments to States and Possessions for Federal-State marketing

projects and activities.

LIMITATION ON INSPECTION AND WEIGHING SERVICES EXPENSES

Limitation, 2024 ..................................................................................... $55,000,000

Budget limitation, 2025 ......................................................................... 60,000,000

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

The agency provides an official grain inspection and weighing

system under the U.S. Grain Standards Act [USGSA] (Public Law

64–190, and official inspection of rice and grain-related products

under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621–1627,

1635–1638). The USGSA was amended in 1981 to require the col-

lection of user fees to fund the costs associated with the operation,

supervision, and administration of Federal grain inspection and

weighing activities.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends a limitation of $60,000,000 on in-

spection and weighing services expenses.

FFICE OF THE

NDER

ECRETARY FOR

OOD

AFETY

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $1,117,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 1,152,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,117,000

The Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety provides direc-

tion and coordination in carrying out the laws enacted by the Con-

gress with respect to the Department’s inspection of meat, poultry,

and processed egg products. The Office has oversight and manage-

ment responsibilities for the Food Safety and Inspection Service

[FSIS].

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,117,000 for

the Office of theUnder Secretary for Food Safety.

OOD

AFETY AND

NSPECTION

ERVICE

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $1,190,009,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 1,244,231,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,232,840,000

The major objectives of the FSIS are to ensure that meat and

poultry products are wholesome, unadulterated, and properly la-

beled and packaged, as required by the Federal Meat Inspection

Act (Public Law 59–242) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act

(Public Law 85–172), as amended; and to provide continuous in-

plant inspection to egg processing plants under the Egg Products

Inspection Act (Public Law 91–597).

The Food Safety and Inspection Service was established on June

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

to Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953.

The inspection program of the Food Safety and Inspection Serv-

ice provides in-plant inspection of all domestic plants preparing

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

eign inspection systems and establishments that prepare meat or

poultry products for export to the United States; and provides tech-

nical and financial assistance to States which maintain meat and

poultry inspection programs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,232,840,000

for the Food Safety and Inspection Service.

The following table represents the Committee’s specific rec-

ommendations for the FSIS as compared to the fiscal year 2024

and budget request levels:

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE SALARIES AND EXPENSES

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year 2024

enacted

Fiscal year 2025

budget request

Committee

recommendation

Food safety inspection:

Federal .................................................................................. 1,066,390 1,115,908 1,102,907

State ...................................................................................... 67,462 71,051 72,661

International .......................................................................... 20,885 22,000 22,000

PHDCIS .................................................................................. 35,272 35,272 35,272

Total .................................................................................. 1,190,009 1,244,231 1,232,840

Brazilian Beef.—The Committee urges FSIS to maintain current

rates of reinspection tasks for raw beef imports from Brazil and to

adjust rates of import inspection as necessary and consistent with

import compliance history. The Committee also requests FSIS to

continue conducting routine onsite verification audits of the Bra-

zilian inspection system.

Holistic Approaches to Food Safety.—The Committee encourages

FSIS to seek opportunities for innovative and holistic approaches

to food and agriculture safety, especially in poultry. The Committee

further encourages utilization of cutting-edge lab instruments with

advanced data analytics systems to better protect food systems.

Data will help inform what is working and what is not working in

production systems.

Humane Slaughter.—The Committee directs FSIS to continue to

provide annual reports to the Committee on the implementation of

objective scoring methods undertaken by FSIS to enforce the Hu-

mane Methods of Slaughter Act (Public Law 85–765).

The Committee also directs FSIS to ensure that personnel hired

with funding previously provided specifically for Humane Methods

of Slaughter Act (Public Law 85–765) enforcement focus their at-

tention on overseeing compliance with humane handling rules for

live animals as they arrive and are offloaded and handled in pens,

chutes, and stunning areas and that all inspectors receive robust

training.

Invasive Blue Catfish.—The Committee continues to provide

$1,000,000 to cover overtime fees for inspectors at Siluriformes fa-

cilities and directs the Department to expand the eligible use of

these funds to include equipment and infrastructure to support

Siluriformes processing, with a priority for plants that process

invasive species.

Non-Ambulatory Livestock.—The Secretary of Agriculture shall

submit to Congress, 90 days after enactment of this Act, a report

on the scope of non-ambulatory livestock at slaughter establish-

ments; the causes that render livestock non-ambulatory at slaugh-

ter establishments; the humane treatment of non-ambulatory live-

stock at slaughter establishments; the public health threat of non-

ambulatory pigs entering the food system, including, at minimum,

the impact on public health from pathogens associated with non-

ambulatory pigs including, but not limited to Salmonella and

Campylobacter.

(67)

TITLE II

FARM PRODUCTION AND CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

FFICE OF THE

NDER

ECRETARY FOR

ARM

RODUCTION AND

ONSERVATION

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $1,527,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 1,964,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,527,000

The Office of the Under Secretary for Farm Production and Con-

servation [FPAC] provides direction and coordination in carrying

out the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to the Depart-

ment’s commodity programs, farm loans, disaster assistance, crop

insurance, natural resources conservation and environment pro-

grams, and certain energy programs. The Office has oversight and

management responsibilities for the Farm Service Agency [FSA]

(including the Commodity Credit Corporation), Risk Management

Agency [RMA], and the Natural Resources Conservation Service

[NRCS].

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,527,000 for

the Office of the Under Secretary for Farm Production and Con-

servation.

Communication.—The Committee is committed to supporting the

mission and values of the Natural Resources Conservation Service,

including through critical investments to protect our land, water,

and soil. The Committee directs NRCS to continue to brief the

Committee on ongoing and upcoming initiatives on a monthly

basis, as well as resources necessary for continued success of the

Service.

Emergency Conservation Program.—The Committee is encour-

aged by the Department’s work to provide advance cost-share pay-

ments under the emergency conservation loan program and emer-

gency forest restoration program. The committee encourages USDA

to further expand advance cost share payments as well as clarify

that wildfires which are not caused naturally but the spread of the

wildfire is due to natural causes or which are caused by the Fed-

eral Government are eligible for the program. Additionally, the De-

partment should explore flexibility in the timeline for utilizing

funding to implement necessary conservation work following a dis-

aster.

Internships.—The Committee understands the importance of re-

cruiting the next generation of staff for both FSA and NRCS. The

Committee directs the department to provide a report on how in-

terns can be better utilized, including converting interns that work

for third-party partners and any statutory or regulatory changes

that may be necessary.

USDA–Customer and Producer Farm Delivery Systems Mod-

ernization.—The Committee directs the Secretary to submit a plan

within 60 days of enactment of this act that accelerates the contin-

ued implementation and expansion of the Farmers.gov application

and Enterprise Data Analytics Platform and Toolset [EDAPT]. De-

spite the continued direction and funding provided by Congress in

previous fiscal years for these modernization applications, the Com-

mittee is aware that the Farm Service Agency, the Farm Produc-

tion and Conservation Business Center, and the Office of the Chief

Information Officer continue to maintain numerous legacy mission

support systems that should be decommissioned and transitioned

to applications and mission support services systems that are inter-

operable, facts-based, data driven, and are provided efficiently, ef-

fectively, and professionally with a commitment to excellent cus-

tomer service for USDA customers, including farmers, ranchers,

and forest landowners.

ARM

RODUCTION AND

ONSERVATION

USINESS

ENTER

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $244,183,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 246,250,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 244,183,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $244,183,000 for

the Farm Production and Conservation Business Center.

ARM

ERVICE

GENCY

The Farm Service Agency was established October 13, 1994, pur-

suant to the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of

Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–354). The

FSA administers a variety of activities, such as the commodity

price support and production adjustment programs financed by the

Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC]; the Conservation Reserve

Program [CRP]; the Emergency Conservation Program [ECP]; the

Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honey Bees, and Farm-raised

Fish Program [ELAP]; the Commodity Operation Programs, includ-

ing the warehouse examination function; farm ownership, farm op-

erating, emergency disaster, and other loan programs; and the

Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program [NAP], which pro-

vides crop loss protection for growers of many crops for which crop

insurance is not available. In addition, FSA currently provides cer-

tain administrative support services to the Foreign Agricultural

Service [FAS] and RMA.

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

[In thousands of dollars]

Appropriations

Transfers from

program accounts

Total, FSA,

salaries and

expenses

Appropriations, 2024 ..................................................................... 1,209,307 305,803 1,515,110

Budget estimate, 2025 .................................................................. 1,240,703 311,546 1,552,249

Committee recommendation .......................................................... 1,215,307 311,546 1,526,853

The account Salaries and Expenses, Farm Service Agency, funds

the administrative expenses of program administration and other

functions assigned to FSA. The funds consist of appropriations and

transfers from the CCC export credit guarantees, Food for Peace

loans, and Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund program accounts,

as well as miscellaneous advances from other sources. All adminis-

trative funds used by FSA are consolidated into one account. The

consolidation provides clarity and better management and control

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

eliminating the necessity for making individual allocations and al-

lotments and maintaining and recording obligations and expendi-

tures under numerous separate accounts.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,526,853,000

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

direct appropriation of $1,215,307,000.

Acequia Irrigated Land.—The Committee recognizes that

acequias serve as the primary method of irrigation in many rural

and underserved communities in New Mexico and that acequias re-

main an integral aspect of New Mexican cultural identity. Recent

changes administered by FSA changed eligibility of drought on

farms and ranches irrigated by acequias for the Noninsured Crop

Disaster Assistance Program [NAP]. Given the Farm Service Agen-

cy has historically considered drought on acequia-irrigated land eli-

gible for Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance and the ongoing se-

vere drought conditions in New Mexico and throughout the west,

the Committee urges the Department to maintain their position

that drought on acequia-irrigated land is an eligible cause of loss

for NAP.

Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act.—USDA is re-

sponsible for monitoring foreign purchases of agricultural land

under the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act [AFIDA]

and for assessing penalties on entities that have failed to make dis-

closures as required. The Committee is concerned that USDA failed

to assess penalties for a failure to disclose foreign investments in

American agricultural land. The Committee directs the Secretary

to report to the Committee within 90 days of enactment of this act

on USDA’s efforts to ensure that foreign investments are being ac-

curately disclosed, including an analysis of any barriers USDA

faces in conducting oversight of these purchases and planned steps

for overcoming these challenges.

Agricultural Production and Farms.—The Committee is con-

cerned about the loss of agricultural production and farms, particu-

larly in New England. Within 180 days of enactment, FSA is di-

rected to provide a report to the Committee on what factors are

leading to agricultural production and farm loss in New England,

to include historical and projected data on acreage and crops types.

Aquaculture Training.—The Committee encourages FSA to dedi-

cate resources to train all county staff on aquaculture farming

practices and aquaculture product eligibility for USDA programs,

as applicable. The Committee also encourages FSA to dedicate re-

sources to assist county staff with aquaculture data and informa-

tion collection necessary to inform disaster assistance determina-

tions.

Conservation Loan Program.—The Committee notes the under-

utilization of the guaranteed conservation loan program and as

such, recommends providing $300,000,000 in direct conservation

loans while zeroing out the guaranteed loan program. Given the

underutilization of the guaranteed loan program, within 180 days

of enactment of this Act, the Committee directs FSA to provide a

report on why the loan program was so underutilized, to include an

assessment of barriers for producers and recommended statutory

and regulatory changes to make the program more accessible to

producers. Additionally, the Committee notes the importance of

precision agricultural technologies to assist producers in making

more informed decisions that improve efficiencies, reduce waste,

and improve environmental quality in a manner that benefits both

nature and the financial well-being of the producer. As part of the

report, FSA shall include how it intends to utilize the program to

assist in the adoption of precision agriculture technologies.

Disaster Preparedness.—The Committee recognizes that millions

of farm animals die each year due to the effects of adverse weather.

The Committee is also aware that veterinary and agricultural trade

associations recognize the importance of disaster planning in pre-

venting the extent of livestock deaths. Therefore, the Committee

encourages USDA to educate producers on the benefits of written

disaster preparedness plans.

FSA Staffing.—The Committee commends FSA for the analytical

and data-driven work that it has done to identify the appropriate

staffing levels at county offices and how to most effectively serve

their constituents. As such, the Committee provides an increase of

$6,000,000 for program technician recruitment and retention ef-

forts. The Committee looks forward to continuing to work with FSA

on ensuring county offices are staffed accordingly. Within 90 days

of enactment of this Act and quarterly thereafter, FSA is directed

to brief the Committee on its workload analysis and staffing, and

to include planned versus actual hires.

Information Technology.—The Committee remains dedicated to

ensuring FSA has reliable and functioning IT systems because it

is critical that farmers and ranchers have access to the tools they

need to succeed. The Committee has invested significant taxpayer

dollars to modernize outdated systems and continues to provide re-

sources above the budget request. The Committee continues statu-

tory language that allows funds for IT to be obligated only after the

Secretary meets certain reporting requirements. The Committee

expects the agency to follow the recommendations of the third

party IT analysis where applicable. FSA is directed to provide time-

ly updates for future IT needs.

Panther Depredation.—The Committee is aware that livestock

producers in Florida have suffered from panther depredation. To

support the ongoing conservation and recovery of endangered Flor-

ida panthers while minimizing conflicts with ranchers, the Com-

mittee encourages FSA to work with ranchers to tailor the Live-

stock Indemnity Program to address unique circumstances cur-

rently preventing producers from receiving compensation for losses

stemming from Florida panther depredation events.

STATE MEDIATION GRANTS

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $6,500,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 7,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 6,500,000

This program is authorized under title V of the Agricultural

Credit Act of 1987 (Public Law 100–233). Originally designed to ad-

dress agricultural credit disputes, the program was expanded by

the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture

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

agricultural issues such as wetland determinations, conservation

compliance, rural water loan programs, grazing on National Forest

System lands, and pesticides. Grants are made to States whose me-

diation programs have been certified by the FSA. Grants will be

solely for operation and administration of the State’s agricultural

mediation program.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,500,000 for

State Mediation Grants.

GRASSROOTS SOURCE WATER PROTECTION PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $7,000,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 7,500,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 7,500,000

This program is intended to assist in the protection of ground-

water through State rural water associations.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,500,000 for

Grassroots Source Water Protection.

DAIRY INDEMNITY PROGRAM

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $500,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 500,000

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

Under the program, the Department makes indemnification pay-

ments to dairy farmers and manufacturers of dairy products who,

through no fault of their own, suffer income losses because they are

directed to remove their milk from commercial markets due to con-

tamination of their products by registered pesticides. The program

also authorizes indemnity payments to dairy farmers for losses re-

sulting from the removal of cows or dairy products from the market

due to nuclear radiation or fallout.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of such sums as

may be necessary, estimated in fiscal year 2025 to be $500,000, for

indemnity payments to dairy farmers.

GEOGRAPHICALLY DISADVANTAGED FARMERS AND RANCHERS

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $3,500,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 4,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,500,000

This program is authorized under Title I of the Food, Conserva-

tion, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8792). Under the Reim-

bursement Transportation Cost Payment Program for Geographi-

cally Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers, the Department off-

sets a portion of the costs of transporting agricultural inputs and

products over long distances for farmers and ranchers outside the

contiguous United States that face tremendously high costs for

transporting agriculture products and inputs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,500,000 for

the Reimbursement Transportation Cost Payment Program for

Geographically Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers.

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

The Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account [ACIF]

is used to provide direct and guaranteed farm ownership, farm op-

erating, conservation, Indian highly fractioned land, and emergency

loans to individuals, as well as the following types of loans to asso-

ciations: irrigation and drainage, grazing, Indian Tribe land acqui-

sition, and boll weevil eradication.

FSA is also authorized to provide financial assistance to bor-

rowers by guaranteeing loans made by private lenders having a

contract of guarantee from FSA as approved by the Secretary of

Agriculture and to establish Beginning Farmer and Rancher Indi-

vidual Development grant accounts.

The following programs are financed through this fund:

Boll Weevil Eradication Loans.—Made to assist foundations in fi-

nancing the operations of the boll weevil eradication programs pro-

vided to farmers.

Credit Sales of Acquired Property.—Property is sold out of inven-

tory and is made available to an eligible buyer by providing FSA

loans.

Emergency Loans.—Made to producers to aid recovery from pro-

duction and physical losses due to drought, flooding, other natural

disasters, or quarantine. The loans may be used to restore or re-

place essential property; pay all or part of production costs associ-

ated with the disaster year; pay essential family living expenses;

reorganize the farming operation; and refinance certain debts.

Farm Operating Loans.—Provide short-to-intermediate term pro-

duction or chattel credit to farmers who cannot obtain credit else-

where, to improve their farm and home operations, and to develop

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

varies from one to 7 years.

Farm Ownership Loans.—Made to borrowers who cannot obtain

credit elsewhere to restructure their debts, improve or purchase

farms, refinance nonfarm enterprises which supplement but do not

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

for 40 years or less.

Heirs’ Property Relending Program.—Provide revolving loan

funds to eligible intermediary lenders to resolve ownership and

complete a succession plan on farmland that has multiple owners.

The lenders will provide loans to qualified individuals to resolve

these ownership issues and ensure fair access to land for farmers,

ranchers, and future generations.

Indian Tribe Land Acquisition Loans.—Made to any Indian Tribe

recognized by the Secretary of the Interior or Tribal corporation es-

tablished pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act (Public Law

93–638) which does not have adequate uncommitted funds to ac-

quire lands or interest in lands within the Tribe’s reservation or

Alaskan Indian community, as determined by the Secretary of the

Interior, for use of the Tribe or the corporation or the members

thereof.

Indian Highly Fractionated Land Loans.—Made to Indian Tribal

members to purchase highly fractionated lands, as authorized by

the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–

234).

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends a total loan level of $9,088,196,000

for programs within the Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Pro-

gram Account.

The following table reflects the program levels for farm credit

programs administered by the Farm Service Agency recommended

by the Committee, as compared to the fiscal year 2024 and the

budget request levels:

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT PROGRAMS–LOAN LEVELS

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year 2024

enacted

Fiscal year 2025

budget request

Committee

recommendation

Farm Ownership:

Direct ..................................................................................... 3,100,000 1,966,970 2,000,000

Guaranteed ............................................................................ 3,500,000 3,500,000 3,500,000

Farm Operating:

Direct ..................................................................................... 1,633,000 1,100,000 1,100,000

Guaranteed unsubsidized ..................................................... 2,118,491 2,118,491 2,118,491

Emergency Loans ........................................................................... 37,667 37,000 37,000

Indian Tribe Land Acquisition ....................................................... 20,000 20,000 20,000

Conservation Loans:

Direct ..................................................................................... ............................ 300,000 300,000

Guaranteed ............................................................................ 150,000 ............................ ............................

Indian Highly Fractionated Land Loans ........................................ 5,000 ............................ ............................

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT PROGRAMS–LOAN LEVELS—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year 2024

enacted

Fiscal year 2025

budget request

Committee

recommendation

Boll Weevil Eradication .................................................................. 60,000 5,000 5,000

Relending Program ........................................................................ 61,426 7,705 7,705

Total, Loan Authorizations ................................................ 10,685,584 9,055,166 9,088,196

The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–508) es-

tablished the program account. Appropriations to this account are

used to cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct

loans obligated and loan guarantees committed, as well as for ad-

ministrative expenses.

The following table reflects the cost of programs under credit re-

form:

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year 2024

enacted

Fiscal year 2025

budget request

Committee

recommendation

Farm Ownership:

Direct ........................................................................................... .......................... 35,602 36,200

Farm Operating:

Direct ........................................................................................... 27,598 2,860 2,860

Guaranteed unsubsidized ........................................................... 1,483 .......................... ..........................

Emergency Loans ................................................................................. 3,507 4,488 4,488

Indian Highly Fractionated Land Loans .............................................. 1,577 .......................... ..........................

Relending Program .............................................................................. 19,368 2,661 2,661

Boll weevil eradication loans .............................................................. 258 18 18

Total, Loan Subsidies ............................................................. 53,790 45,629 46,227

ACIF Expenses:

Salaries and Expenses ................................................................ 305,803 311,546 311,546

Administrative Expenses ............................................................. 20,250 20,658 20,658

Total, ACIF Expenses .............................................................. 326,053 332,204 332,204

Total subsidies and expenses ................................................ 379,843 377,833 378,431

ISK

ANAGEMENT

GENCY

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $65,637,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 65,950,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 65,637,000

The Risk Management Agency performs administrative functions

relative to the Federal Crop Insurance program that is authorized

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

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

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

the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (Public Law 115–334).

ARPA authorized significant changes in the crop insurance pro-

gram. This act provides higher government subsidies for producer

premiums to make coverage more affordable; expands research and

development for new insurance products and under-served areas

through contracts with the private sector; and strengthens compli-

ance. Functional areas of risk management are: research and de-

velopment; insurance services; and compliance, the functions of

which include policy formulation and procedures and regulations

development.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $65,637,000 for

Risk Management Agency, Salaries and Expenses.

The Committee recognizes that there are many research prior-

ities that competitive funding may be used to address, including

the feasibility of insurance programs to cover business interruption

due to integrator bankruptcy and catastrophic loss in the poultry

industry. The Committee encourages RMA to support research into

these priorities.

Administrative and Operating Expenses.—The Committee en-

courages the RMA to provide an annual inflation adjustment to ad-

ministrative and operating [A&O] reimbursements and to provide

equitable relief for specialty crop policies in a manner similar to a

previous adjustment that was initiated without renegotiation of the

Standard Reinsurance Agreement.

Alfalfa.—The Committee recognizes alfalfa to be an important

domestic forage crop valued for nitrogen fixation, soil conservation,

crop rotation, and as a natural habitat. From 2004 through 2024,

alfalfa acreage has declined 27.8 percent. The Committee encour-

ages RMA to explore the creation of a revenue and/or quality al-

falfa crop insurance policy to ensure producers have a safety net

that they need to produce this important crop.

Aquaculture.—The Committee notes that the Agriculture Im-

provement Act of 2018 (Public Law 115–334) directed the Board of

Directors of the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation to consider

treating the different growth stages of aquaculture species as sepa-

rate crops for the Whole Farm Diversified Risk Management Insur-

ance Plan. RMA is directed to report to the Committee no later

than 90 days after enactment of this act regarding the steps taken

by the Board to consider the feasibility of this proposed change to

recognize the difference in perils at different phases of growth for

aquaculture species.

Biofuels.—The Committee directs the Secretary of Agriculture,

within 12 months after the date of the enactment of this act, and

in consultation with the Risk Management Agency, the Farm Serv-

ice Agency, and the Natural Resource Conservation Service, submit

to Congress a written report on how the Department can stream-

line opportunities for farmers to insure primary and secondary

crops with revenue streams resulting from biofuel use, including

but not limited to sustainable aviation fuel, with particular ref-

erence to carinata, pennycress, camelina, and other oilseeds.

Crop Insurance in New England.—The Committee is concerned

that growers in New England are underserved by the Federal crop

insurance program. The Committee emphasizes RMA’s authority to

design actuarially sound crop insurance policies that reflect re-

gional differences in growing practices and conditions, as well as

crop diversity and marketing practices. The Committee appreciates

RMA’s decision to convene a working group of New England apple

growers to help better inform future policies and encourages RMA

to consider convening similar working groups for regional growers

of other crops.

Improved Producer Education.—The Committee recognizes that

crop insurance is a vital public-private partnership and is the first

line of defense for effectively managing risk for many farmers.

However, the Committee believes that additional education is need-

ed through the use of clear, comparative, and easy to understand

information on the costs of selected crop insurance policies, the pro-

ducer premium, and the Federal premium subsidy. Therefore, the

Committee directs the Secretary to work with crop insurance pro-

viders and agents to ensure that all farmers have access to that

cost information on their policies in a transparent and easy to un-

derstand manner.

ATURAL

ESOURCES

ONSERVATION

ERVICE

The Natural Resources Conservation Service was established

pursuant to the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of

1994 (Public Law 103–354). The NRCS works with conservation

districts, watershed groups, and Federal and State agencies to

bring about physical adjustments in land use that will conserve soil

and water resources, provide for agricultural production on a sus-

tained basis, and reduce flood damage and sedimentation.

CONSERVATION OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $914,899,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 985,203,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 965,754,000

Conservation operations are authorized by Public Law 74–46 (16

U.S.C. 590a–590f). Activities include:

Conservation Technical Assistance provides assistance to district

cooperators and other land users in the planning and application

of conservation treatments to control erosion and improve the

quantity and quality of soil resources; improve and conserve water;

enhance fish and wildlife habitat; conserve energy; improve wood-

land, pasture, and range conditions; and reduce upstream flooding

to protect and enhance the natural resource base.

Resource appraisal and program development ensures that pro-

grams administered by the Secretary for the conservation of soil,

water, and related resources shall respond to the Nation’s long-

term needs.

Plant Materials Centers assemble, test, and encourage increased

use of plant species which show promise for use in the treatment

of conservation problem areas.

Snow Survey and Water Forecasting provides estimates of an-

nual water availability from high mountain snow packs and sum-

mer stream flow in the Western States and Alaska. Information is

used by agriculture, industry, and cities in estimating future water

supplies.

Soil Surveys inventory the Nation’s basic soil resources and de-

termine land capabilities and conservation treatment needs. Soil

survey publications include interpretations useful to cooperators,

other Federal and State agencies, and local organizations.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $965,754,000 for

NRCS Conservation Operations. The Committee provides

$88,257,000 for Soil Surveys; $16,751,000 for Snow Survey and

Water Forecasting; $10,751,000 for Plant Materials Centers; and

$839,995,000 for Conservation Technical Assistance.

The Committee provides the following increases for Conservation

Operations: $48,500,000 to expand staff and technical assistance;

$8,000,000 for Climate Hubs; $2,000,000 for Snow Survey and

Water Forecasting; $1,500,000 for Soil Surveys; and $10,000,000

for Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative (16 U.S.C. 3839bb).

Acre-for-Acre Wetlands Mitigation.—The Secretary is encouraged

to use mitigation with the conversion of a natural wetland and

equivalent wetlands functions at a ratio which does not exceed 1-

to-1 acreage.

Alfalfa Utilization.—The Committee recognizes alfalfa as one of

the most environmentally friendly crops which can be grown on the

landscape. Alfalfa is valued for its ability to fix atmospheric nitro-

gen, protect, and conserve soil, protect water quality, provide a

habitat for pollinators, and generate a multitude of ecosystem ben-

efits. The Committee recognizes alfalfa as a ’climate-smart’ com-

modity with an exceptional capacity for carbon sequestration and

decreased reliance on synthetic nitrogen fertilizers. However, al-

falfa is not well-utilized in conservation programs at USDA’s

NRCS. The Committee urges the Secretary to incentivize the use

and integration of alfalfa in NRCS programs to capitalize on the

unique environmental and conservation benefits it brings to the ag-

ricultural landscape.

Bio-Diverse Microbial Soil Health.—The Committee recognizes

that research and data continue to show that improved soil health

via bio-diverse microbial soil amendments has a significant positive

impact for American farm and ranch lands, supporting an essential

domestic asset in a global market. The Committee encourages

USDA to support the expanded and continued use of these multi-

kingdom biologic soil health solutions across a broad range of Nat-

ural Resources Conservation Service programs, including the Envi-

ronmental Quality Incentives Program, to address soil health bene-

fits related to yield increase, advanced root development, input effi-

ciency, improved water efficacy, catastrophic soil damage restora-

tion, and catalysts to other soil health practices such as reduced

tillage.

Chesapeake Bay States’ Partnerships Initiative.—The Committee

recognizes the important role of voluntary conservation practices in

protecting and restoring waterways, especially when deployed at

scale. The Committee supports the Department’s continuation of

the Chesapeake Bay States’ Partnership Initiative, and encourages

continued leveraging of conservation resources for agricultural pro-

ducers in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Additionally, NRCS is

encouraged to target additional Conservation Technical Assistance

funds in the most effective basin areas of the watershed.

Climate Smart Agriculture and Forestry.—NRCS received nearly

$19,000,000,000 in additional funding to RCPP, EQIP, CSP and

ACEP prior to fiscal year 2025. NRCS is reminded to submit to the

Committee a report outlining how the agency allocated funding to

ensure that programmatic goals were met in a timely, optimized,

and efficient manner. This report should include consideration of

whether priority practice eligibility choices included Western prac-

tices to secure water and forestry co-benefits, as well as informa-

tion on staff hiring, technology systems utilized, contracting strate-

gies, practice eligibility lists, and departmental directives to NRCS.

Critical Conservation Areas [CCA].—The Committee supports

CCAs and the collaborative regional approach to address common

natural resources goals while maintaining or improving agricul-

tural productivity. The Committee urges NRCS to provide suffi-

cient Conservation Technical Assistance funds to CCAs to address

conservation planning backlogs. The Committee also encourages

NRCS to leverage all possible resources to identify nutrient loss

and reduce runoff to achieve the goals of the 2015 Gulf Hypoxia Ac-

tion Plan.

Drought Resilience.—The Committee applauds the passage of the

Colorado River Basin Drought Contingency Plans, appreciates ef-

forts to increase efficiencies, and expects NRCS to utilize all avail-

able opportunities to assist producers, irrigators, and irrigation dis-

tricts in addressing drought resiliency and mitigation while main-

taining strong rural and agriculture communities and protecting

natural resources. NRCS is expected to prioritize implementation of

Drought Contingency Plans, agreements, or programs that con-

serve surface or ground water, improve drought resiliency, and ad-

dress current and anticipated conservation needs and drought-re-

lated resource concerns.

Energy Efficiency Opportunities.—The Environmental Quality In-

centive Program [EQIP] is an important tool to help farmers con-

serve energy, conduct energy audits, and develop conservation

plans through locally based technical service providers. The Com-

mittee is concerned that very few farmers who complete energy au-

dits are able to actually utilize EQIP or other Federal programs to

help them adopt much-needed energy efficiency measures to reduce

their high energy expenses. The Secretary is urged to seek out and

implement opportunities to encourage and support farmers to im-

plement energy efficiency projects.

Fencing.—The Committee directs the agency to explore ways to

maximize assistance to producers with wildlife exclusion fencing

within the authority provided by the Environmental Quality Incen-

tive Program.

Feral Hogs.—The Committee is concerned that the feral hog pop-

ulation is rapidly expanding despite efforts to constrain their

spread. To help prevent further damages to agriculture and urban

lands, the Committee encourages NRCS to use available funds for

a cost-share program for the construction and repair of perimeter

fencing. The Committee directs NRCS, in conjunction with State

soil and water conservation boards and agencies, to develop a strat-

egy to exclude feral hogs from agricultural and urban areas at risk

of damage from localized feral hog populations.

Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative.—The Committee provides

$20,000,000 for the Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative (16

U.S.C. 3839bb), of which at least $15,000,000 shall be provided

through State allocations as competitive grants to diverse partner-

ships, including socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers and

their organizations, to provide technical assistance to producers for

grazing planning and implementation, conferences and other edu-

cation, demonstrations, producer networks, workforce training, re-

search, and outreach projects to improve agricultural resilience.

NRCS is directed to provide at least $5,000,000 through a coopera-

tive agreement with a national grazing lands conservation coalition

to establish diverse State-based coalitions and to undertake grazing

education.

Innovative Water Conservation.—The Committee recognizes the

devastating impacts wrought by severe and prolonged drought

across many regions of the country. The Committee notes that the

Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (Public Law 115–334) made

several updates to address water conservation and drought mitiga-

tion, including eligibility changes for water conservation and irriga-

tion efficiency practices. NRCS is encouraged to work with eligible

entities, including but not limited to producers, States, irrigation

districts, and acequias, to help implement critical innovative

drought resiliency and mitigation efforts, which maintain strong

rural and agriculture communities while protecting natural re-

sources.

Interagency Coordination.—The Committee directs the Natural

Resources Conservation Service to work with the Bureau of Rec-

lamation to expand interagency coordination of Federal invest-

ments in communities that need help addressing water conserva-

tion and drought resilience issues.

Additionally, the Committee encourages NRCS to work more

closely with the Fish and Wildlife Service for all volunteer pro-

grams that promote fish and wildlife conservation efforts, through

cooperative agreements, to continue to provide free technical and fi-

nancial assistance to landowners, managers, tribes, corporations,

schools, and nonprofits interested in improving wildlife habitat on

their land. Both agencies should continue to collaborate on stream-

lining ESA listings and consultations especially for large-ranged

species and for geographies where multiple listed species overlap in

their ranges.

Land Grants and Acequias.—The Committee recognizes that sec-

tion 2304(e) of Public Law 115–334 allows acequias and land grant

mercedes to apply directly to the Environmental Quality Incentives

Program [EQIP], which provides Federal funding and technical as-

sistance to farmers throughout the Nation. The Committee appre-

ciates that there are hundreds of acequias and dozens of land

grants in New Mexico that can now gain direct access to this im-

portant conservation program. The Committee urges USDA to de-

velop EQIP guidance that ensures timely input from local commu-

nities, including listening sessions with land grants and acequias.

Migratory Big Game Initiative.—The Committee recognizes that

working farms and ranches can provide important migratory habi-

tat for big game and other wildlife species and commends NRCS

and FSA on their collaboration with State Governments and other

partners to conserve these important working lands. The innova-

tive application of Grassland CRP and EQIP in tandem is espe-

cially important. Leveraging the unique payments, cost-share, and

technical assistance that these programs provide against one an-

other—as is being done through the USDA Migratory Big Game

Initiative in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho—provides expanded

support and management flexibility for producers stewarding wild-

life habitat while keeping lands in production. The NRCS and FSA

are encouraged to cooperate in expanding this innovative model to

other States. The Committee directs NRCS to submit a report to

the Committee within 90 days of enactment of this act on the

progress made in implementing the Migratory Big Game Initiative,

outlining plans for expanding the Migratory Big Game Initiative

into additional States, and identifying barriers to achieving the

goals outlined by the initiative.

National Resources Inventory.—In reinstating the National Re-

sources Inventory in Alaska, the Committee expects NRCS to take

into account sample design, data collection software, and data proc-

essing capability in order to collect and produce scientifically cred-

ible information on the status, condition, and trends of Alaska’s

lands, soils, waters, and related resources.

Private Land Conservation.—The Committee recognizes the im-

portance of providing private land owners with ready access to the

many Federal, State, and local government and private resources

available to support conservation efforts on private lands. The

Committee directs NRCS to implement a multi-year cooperative

agreement with appropriate funding support to an organization

that can make conservation solutions and best practices accessible

daily to private land owners. This organization should also support

efforts to conserve the lesser-prairie chicken and implement carbon

sequestration conservation programs nationwide.

Soil Health.—The Committee recognizes that improving soil

health on agricultural lands is key to achieving both meaningful

conservation and economic benefits for producers. The Committee

is pleased to see strong stakeholder interest in the new on-farm

conservation innovation trials to test new or innovative conserva-

tion approaches and the soil health demonstration trial, which pro-

vides incentives to producers to implement practices that improve

soil health and increase carbon levels in the soil. The Committee

encourages the Secretary to dedicate more technical assistance

funds to establish standard protocols for measuring and testing

carbon levels to evaluate gains in soil health that will help pro-

ducers to create positive economic, environmental, and social out-

comes through ecosystem service markets. The Committee believes

the Secretary should provide additional technical assistance related

to healthy soil planning, soil carbon sequestration, and conserva-

tion activity planning. NRCS is urged to support the expansion of

existing State soil health programs and to assist interested States

in establishing new State soil health programs.

SNOTEL.—The Committee continues to be concerned by docu-

mented changes in winter weather across the country, and the im-

pact of those changes on local ecologies and economies. The Com-

mittee continues to fund the NRCS Snow Telemetry Network and

provides an additional $2,000,000 to finalize the report on feasi-

bility of expansion to the Northeast and to begin implementation

of this expansion.

Streamlined Conservation Planning.—The Committee directs

NRCS to develop a streamlined conservation planning and applica-

tion process for small acreage operations to reduce the time and ef-

fort required by both the applicant and local NRCS staff to process

conservation program applications.

Technical Assistance.—The Committee directs NRCS to maintain

a record of total technical assistance dollars for the past 3 years

and annually in the future and to provide the data to the Appro-

priations Subcommittee on Agriculture and the Committee on Agri-

culture Nutrition and Forestry. This report should differentiate be-

tween mandatory and discretionary allocations.

Technical Service Providers.—The Committee urges NRCS to re-

evaluate the current matching requirements for the Technical

Service Provider program supporting State and Tribal soil health

programs.

Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production Grants.—It is the

Committee’s understanding that grant recipients may offer sub-

awards to agricultural producers so long as they meet relevant reg-

ulatory requirements. The committee supports this usage of grant

funds and encourages the agency to inform potential applicants of

this approved use in all relevant application materials using plain

language.

Western States Conservation Partnership Initiative.—The Com-

mittee recognizes the value of collaborative, locally-led conservation

practices and remains concerned about the ongoing extreme

drought and related water issues in the American West. NRCS is

encouraged to explore the creation of a partnership initiative, simi-

lar to the recently created Chesapeake Bay States’ Partnership Ini-

tiative, to allow Western States and partners to leverage financial

and technical assistance to address regional water issues and help

build resilience to drought. Within 90 days of enactment of this act,

NRCS is directed to brief the Committee on the feasibility of such

an initiative, as well as efforts undertaken to this end.

Western Water and Working Lands.—The Committee welcomes

the recently announced Western Water and Working Lands Frame-

work for Conservation Action, and encourages NRCS to dedicate fi-

nancial and technical assistance resources to support the frame-

work, with a priority on projects with multiple benefits. The Sec-

retary is directed to keep the Committee apprised of progress to-

ward this end, beginning with a briefing 90 days after enactment

of this act.

Wildlife Habitat on Private Lands.—The Committee recognizes

that conservation of wildlife habitat on private lands is essential

for the recovery of many threatened and endangered species. While

Federal programs that provide direct conservation assistance can

be important contributors to species recovery efforts, such pro-

grams might not be available to, or appropriate for, all private

landowners. Private landowners interested in habitat conservation

must be empowered with access to the full range of conservation

resources that exist across the Federal Government, State and local

governments, non-profit organizations, and private entities. The

Committee encourages NRCS to provide grants to, or enter into co-

operative agreements with, non-profit organizations with expertise

and experience in amalgamating and providing public access to in-

formation and resources pertaining to the conservation of wildlife

habitat on private lands.

Working Lands for Wildlife.—The Committee reminds NRCS

that supporting wildlife habitat is an important part of its mission,

and encourages NRCS to continue expanding the Working Lands

for Wildlife [WLFW] Initiative. The Committee directs NRCS to

dedicate sufficient staff positions to WLFW, and to coordinate with

the Farm Service Agency on WLFW. The Committee further directs

the Under Secretary of Farm Production and Conservation to pro-

vide a report to the Committee within 120 days of enactment of

this act on the current activities and expansion of WLFW, includ-

ing identification of barriers or challenges to further expansion in

areas such as western migratory big game, northeastern deciduous

forests, Southern pines, SE aquatics, and overall habitat

connectivity across framework geographies. The report should cover

work within existing biome frameworks and identify a path to-

wards expanding to new biomes in the United States where pri-

ority resource concerns are identified.

WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $35,000,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 70,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 51,255,000

The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public Law

83–566) (16 U.S.C. 1000–1005, 1007–1009) provides for cooperation

between the Federal Government and the States and their political

subdivisions in a program to prevent erosion, floodwater, and sedi-

ment damages in the watersheds or rivers and streams and to fur-

ther the conservation, development, utilization, and disposal of

water and the conservation and proper utilization of land in au-

thorized watersheds.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $51,255,000 for

the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Program [WFPO],

of which the Committee provides $26,255,000 for congressionally

directed projects, as specified in the table at the end of the report,

for new and ongoing watershed and flood prevention activities.

The Committee recognizes the critical challenges facing rural

water resource management and protection and supports needed

investments in watershed operations. These Federal-State-local

partnerships are uniquely positioned to identify critical watershed

protection and flood prevention needs in rural communities and im-

plement projects that deliver multiple streams of benefits for

homes, businesses, transportation infrastructure, and natural re-

sources. In selecting projects for funding, the Committee expects

the agency to balance the needs of addressing the project backlog,

remediation of existing structures, and new projects.

Congressionally Directed Spending [CDS].—The Committee has

provided CDS for certain activities and locations under Watershed

and Flood Prevention Operations. While the Committee has pro-

vided the funding, recipients of CDS are still required to apply for

the funding and must meet all statutory and regulatory require-

ments. The Committee expects the agency to review the applica-

tions and fund projects in the same manner as in previous years.

Multiple Benefit Projects.—The Committee is concerned with the

funding distribution of Watershed and Flood Prevention Oper-

ations, in particular NRCS’ resistance to supporting drought resil-

iency and mitigation in the western United States. Therefore, the

Committee continues to support funding for irrigation moderniza-

tion projects that provide multiple benefits which are primarily

found in the West, including but not limited to reduction of drought

impact, improvement of water quality or in-stream flow, off-channel

renewable energy production, and increased fish or wildlife habitat.

NRCS is directed to keep the Committee apprised of streamlining

and modernization efforts for the watershed planning process, and

of efforts to coordinate with stakeholders and other agencies to en-

sure that this program is utilized in an efficient and equitable

manner to maximize its effect.

Technical Assistance Flexibility.—The Committee directs the Sec-

retary to provide greater flexibility to State Conservationists to be

able to utilize technical assistance dedicated for certain WFPO

funds for administration and planning Statewide for all WFPO

projects.

WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $1,000,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 2,003,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,000,000

The Watershed Rehabilitation Program account provides for

technical and financial assistance to carry out rehabilitation of

structural measures, in accordance with section 14 of the Water-

shed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, approved August 4, 1954

(16 U.S.C. 1012, U.S.C. 1001, et seq.), as amended by section 313

of Public Law 106–472, November 9, 2000, and by section 2803 of

Public Law 110–246.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,000,000 for

the Watershed Rehabilitation Program.

The Committee recognizes the large backlog of community infra-

structure projects eligible for financial and technical assistance

from the Watershed Rehabilitation Program to address safety con-

cerns, public health, and environmental impacts of aging dams.

NRCS is urged to prioritize the rehabilitation of dams that pose the

greatest risk to public safety.

CORPORATIONS

EDERAL

ROP

NSURANCE

ORPORATION

UND

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $15,484,000,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 14,710,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 14,710,000,000

The Federal Crop Insurance Act, as amended by the Federal

Crop Insurance Reform Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–354), author-

izes the payment of expenses, which may include indemnity pay-

ments; loss adjustment; delivery expenses; program-related re-

search and development; startup costs for implementing this legis-

lation, such as studies, pilot projects, data processing improve-

ments, and public outreach; and related tasks and functions.

All program costs, except for Federal salaries and expenses, are

mandatory expenditures subject to appropriation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of such sums as

may be necessary, estimated to be $14,710,000,000 in fiscal year

2025, for the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund.

OMMODITY

REDIT

ORPORATION

UND

The Commodity Credit Corporation is a wholly owned Govern-

ment corporation created in 1933 to stabilize, support, and protect

farm income and prices; to help maintain balanced and adequate

supplies of agricultural commodities, including products, foods,

feeds, and fibers; and to help in the orderly distribution of these

commodities. CCC was originally incorporated under a Delaware

charter and was reincorporated June 30, 1948, as a Federal cor-

poration within USDA by the Commodity Credit Corporation Char-

ter Act (Public Law 80–806), approved June 29, 1948.

The Commodity Credit Corporation engages in buying, selling,

lending, and other activities with respect to agricultural commod-

ities, their products, food, feed, and fibers. Its purposes include sta-

bilizing, supporting, and protecting farm income and prices; main-

taining the balance and adequate supplies of selected commodities;

and facilitating the orderly distribution of such commodities. In ad-

dition, the Corporation makes available materials and facilities re-

quired in connection with the storage and distribution of such com-

modities. The Corporation also disburses funds for sharing of costs

with producers for the establishment of approved conservation

practices on environmentally sensitive land and subsequent rental

payments for such land for the duration of CRP contracts.

Corporation activities are primarily governed by the following

statutes: the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (Public

Law 80–806), as amended; the Agricultural Act of 1949 (Public Law

81–439), as amended (1949 Act); the Agricultural Adjustment Act

of 1938 (Public Law 75–430), as amended (the 1938 Act); the Food

Security Act of 1985 (Public Law 99–198), as amended (1985 Act);

the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–

246); the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Public Law 113–79); and the Ag-

riculture Improvement Act of 2018 (Public Law 115–334).

Management of the Corporation is vested in a board of directors,

subject to the general supervision and direction of the Secretary of

Agriculture, who is an ex officio director and chairman of the

board. The board consists of seven members, in addition to the Sec-

retary, who are appointed by the President of the United States

with the advice and consent of the Senate. Officers of the Corpora-

tion are designated according to their positions in USDA.

The activities of the Corporation are carried out mainly by the

personnel and through FSA facilities and FSA State and county

committees. The Foreign Agricultural Service, the General Sales

Manager, other agencies and offices of the Department, and com-

mercial agents are also used to carry out certain aspects of the Cor-

poration’s activities.

Under Public Law 87–155 (15 U.S.C. 713a-11, 713a-12), annual

appropriations are authorized for each fiscal year, commencing

with fiscal year 1961. These appropriations are to reimburse the

Corporation for net realized losses.

REIMBURSEMENT FOR NET REALIZED LOSSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $12,438,000,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 12,650,463,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 12,650,463,000

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of such sums as

may be necessary, estimated in fiscal year 2025 to be

$12,650,463,000, for the payment to reimburse the Commodity

Credit Corporation for reimbursement for net realized losses.

CRP Wetland Restoration and Wildlife Enhancement.—The Com-

mittee notes that agricultural commodity crops, if left unharvested,

may help reduce degradation of wetlands and improve sediment

trapping, surface and ground water supply, erosion control, and

wildlife habitat while providing winter food for waterfowl and other

wildlife. The Committee directs CCC, within 60 days of enactment

of this act, to amend its program policies and guidelines for CRP

conservation practices CP23 and CP23A, to provide that current

and future participants are permitted to plant, but not harvest, ag-

ricultural commodity crops as wildlife food plots on up to 10 per-

cent of the enrolled land to enhance waterfowl and upland bird

food and habitat.

HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT

(LIMITATION ON EXPENSES)

Limitation, 2024 $15,000,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 15,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 15,000,000

The CCC’s hazardous waste management program is intended to

ensure compliance with the Comprehensive Environmental Re-

sponse, Compensation, and Liability Act (Public Law 96–510) and

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (Public Law 94–580).

The CCC funds operations and maintenance costs as well as site

investigation and cleanup expenses. Investigative and cleanup costs

associated with the management of CCC hazardous waste are also

paid from USDA’s hazardous waste management appropriation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends a limitation of $15,000,000 for the

Commodity Credit Corporation’s hazardous waste management

program.

(86)

TITLE III

RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

The Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agri-

culture Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–354) abolished

the Farmers Home Administration, Rural Development Adminis-

tration, and Rural Electrification Administration and replaced

those agencies with the Rural Housing and Community Develop-

ment Service, (currently, the Rural Housing Service), Rural Busi-

ness and Cooperative Development Service (currently, the Rural

Business-Cooperative Service), and Rural Utilities Service and

placed them under the oversight of the Under Secretary for Rural

Economic and Community Development, (currently, Rural Develop-

ment [RD]). These agencies deliver a variety of programs through

a network of State and field offices.

FFICE OF THE

NDER

ECRETARY FOR

URAL

EVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $1,620,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 1,656,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,620,000

The Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development pro-

vides direction and coordination in carrying out laws with respect

to the Department’s rural economic and community development

activities. The Office has oversight and management responsibil-

ities for the Rural Housing Service [RHS], Rural Business-Coopera-

tive Service [RBS], and the Rural Utilities Service [RUS].

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,620,000 for

the Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development.

Persistent Poverty Areas.—The Committee supports targeted in-

vestments in impoverished areas, particularly in persistent poverty

counties, and directs the Department to complete the report re-

quested on this matter, which is now several years overdue. The

report shall include both the historic data requested in the original

directive as well as data for fiscal years 2024 and 2025.

Rugged Terrain in the United States.—The Committee directs

USDA Rural Development [RD] to review the report ‘‘Character-

izing Rugged Terrain in the United States,’’ specifically the Road

Ruggedness Scale [RRS], and how ruggedness may help capture

rural mountainous regions, which have previously been unable to

benefit from rural economic resources. This review should include

geospatial analysis of grant investments over a period time com-

pared to RRS scores to determine if RD investments are in fact not

benefiting more rural rugged areas.

The Committee also directs the Department to review the unique

challenges faced by rugged areas and how they may be able to sup-

port economic development in these regions and shall provide a re-

port to the Committees within 90 days of enactment of this act.

Substantially Underserved Trust Area [SUTA].—The Committee

directs Rural Development to define the term ’substantially under-

served trust area’ in the State of Hawaii to include land located

within the same county as a community located on trust lands as

defined in section 3765 of title 38, United States Code. The term

’substantially underserved trust area’ means a community in trust

land (as defined in section 3765 of title 38, United States Code)

with respect to which the Secretary determines has a high need for

the benefits of an eligible program. SUTA related investments

within the same county as a community located on trust lands

must primarily benefit Native Hawaiians.

URAL

EVELOPMENT

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year 2024

enacted

Fiscal year 2025

budget request

Committee

recommendation

Appropriation ........................................................................................ 351,087 428,206 351,087

Transfer from:

Rural Housing Insurance Fund Loan Program Account ............. 412,254 412,254 412,254

Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Program Ac-

count ....................................................................................... 4,468 4,468 4,468

Rural Development Loan Program Account ................................ 33,270 33,270 33,270

Total, Rural Development salaries and expenses .................. 801,079 878,198 801,079

These funds are used to administer the loan and grant programs

of RHS, RBS, and RUS, including reviewing applications, making

and collecting loans, providing technical assistance and guidance to

borrowers, and assisting in extending other Federal programs to

people in rural areas.

Under the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–

508), administrative costs associated with loan programs are appro-

priated to the program accounts. Appropriations to the salaries and

expenses account will be for costs associated with grant programs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $801,079,000 for salaries and ex-

penses of Rural Development, including a direct appropriation of

$351,087,000.

Quarterly Reviews.—The Committee directs the Department to

continue to provide quarterly briefings to the Committees and to

send reports ahead of the briefings covering the following topics: in-

formation technology report with updates on retiring legacy sys-

tems, making improvements to existing systems, and moving pro-

grams away from paper-based applications; staffing report that

breaks out staffing by program, including planned versus actual

hiring by pay period; a commitment and obligation report; and

Congressionally Directed Spending obligation report. The quarterly

reports should also include key operational metrics to ensure the

Committee receives a complete picture of how RD is implementing

its programs and using its funding to do so.

Rural Partners Network.—The Committee provides $1,500,000

for the Rural Partners Network. The Committee is encouraged by

the impact the Rural Partners Network has had in 10 States and

Puerto Rico. The Committee directs the Secretary, in coordination

with other Federal partners, to submit a report within 180 days of

enactment on the metrics used to gauge success within the Rural

Partner Network communities and how the program is meeting its

goals.

URAL

OUSING

ERVICE

The Rural Housing Service was established under the Federal

Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganiza-

tion Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–354).

RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2024 (budget authority) ............................................. $572,184,000

Budget estimate, 2025 (budget authority) ........................................... 734,570,000

Committee recommendation (budget authority) ................................. 615,572,000

This fund was established in 1965 (Public Law 89–117) pursuant

to section 517 of title V of the Housing Act of 1949 (Public Law 87–

171). This fund may be used to insure or guarantee rural housing

loans for single-family homes, rental and cooperative housing, farm

labor housing, and rural housing sites. Rural housing loans are

made to construct, improve, alter, repair, or replace dwellings and

essential farm service buildings that are modest in size, design,

and cost. Rental housing insured loans are made to individuals,

corporations, associations, trusts, or partnerships to provide low-

cost rental housing and related facilities in rural areas. These loans

are repayable in terms up to 30 years. The Multi-family Housing

Preservation and Revitalization Program [MPR] includes revitaliza-

tion tools for maintenance of existing units. The Federal Credit Re-

form Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–508) established the Rural Hous-

ing Insurance Fund [RHIF] program account. Appropriations to

this account will be used to cover the lifetime subsidy costs associ-

ated with the direct loans obligated and loan guarantees committed

in fiscal year 2025, as well as for administrative expenses.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $203,318,000,

excluding the transfer of funds, for the Rural Housing Insurance

Fund Program Account.

The following table presents the loan subsidy levels as compared

to the 2024 levels and the 2025 budget request:

RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year 2024

enacted

Fiscal year 2025

budget request

Committee

recommendation

Loan Levels:

Single-Family Housing (sec. 502):

Direct .................................................................................. 880,000 1,250,000 1,000,000

Direct Tribal Relending Pilot ............................................. 5,000 7,501 7,501

Guaranteed ......................................................................... 25,000,000 30,000,000 25,000,000

Housing repair (sec. 504) ........................................................... 25,000 28,000 25,000

Direct rental housing (sec. 515) ................................................ 60,000 70,000 65,000

Guaranteed rental housing (sec. 538) ....................................... 400,000 400,000 400,000

Site development loans (sec. 524) ............................................. 5,000 5,005 5,005

Credit sales of acquired property ............................................... 10,000 10,000 10,000

Self help land development loans (sec. 523) ............................ 5,000 5,000 5,000

Farm labor housing loans (sec. 514) ......................................... 15,000 25,000 25,000

Total, loan levels .................................................................... 26,405,000 31,800,501 26,542,506

Loan Subsidies and Grants:

Single-Family Housing (sec. 502):

Direct .................................................................................. 84,480 174,000 118,000

Direct Tribal Relending Pilot ............................................. 2,288 3,704 3,704

Housing repair (sec. 504) ........................................................... 4,338 5,992 5,350

Direct rental housing (sec. 515) ................................................ 20,988 27,713 25,734

Site development loans (sec. 524) ............................................. 477 491 491

Self help land development loans (sec. 523) ............................ 637 726 726

Farm labor housing loans (sec. 514) ......................................... 5,222 9,690 5,814

Farm labor housing grants (sec. 516) ....................................... 7,500 10,000 7,500

Multi-Family housing revitalization demonstration .................... 34,000 90,000 36,000

Total, loan subsidies and grants ........................................... 159,928 322,316 203,318

Administrative Expenses ...................................................................... 412,254 412,254 412,254

Total, loan subsidies and administrative expenses .............. 572,184 734,570 615,572

Fair Housing Protections.—The Committee supports efforts to

strengthen the protections of the Fair Housing Act, but under-

stands that more action is needed to ensure these protections reach

every community. The Committee is still awaiting information on

what resources are needed to ensure Rural Development has the

resources to collaborate with the Department of Housing and

Urban Development in order to conduct outreach and raise aware-

ness of the rights and protections under the Fair Housing Act for

all protected classes.

Farm Labor Housing.—The Committee urges the Rural Housing

Service [RHS] to release farm labor housing funding announce-

ments on an annual basis and expects RHS to increase consultation

with stakeholders.

Multifamily Housing Technical Assistance.—The Committee pro-

vides an additional $1,000,000 for the multifamily housing tech-

nical assistance pilot and directs the Department to prioritize ma-

turing mortgages.

Relending Program.—The Committee provides $7,501,000 for the

Section 502 Direct Tribal Relending Pilot, and to the extent prac-

ticable, encourages the Rural Housing Service to expand the cur-

rent pilot to the Southwest and to Native CDFIs that are partnered

with Regional Housing Authorities which receive block grant funds

under Public Law 104–330. The Committee recognizes that there

is a tremendous need for safe and affordable housing in American

Indian and Alaska Native communities, and Native American

CDFIs have deep ties to the local communities they serve, and are

better equipped to more effectively reach potential homebuyers.

Tribal Property Valuation Project.—The Committee directs the

Secretary to increase outreach to Tribal, Alaska Native, and Native

Hawaiian communities to increase awareness and utilization of the

502 Guaranteed Loans Tribal Property Valuation Project. The

Committee directs the Secretary to report to Congress before the

pilot program is terminated, including on the pilot program’s im-

pacts on breaking down barriers in lending on Tribal lands and in

assisting more eligible very low to moderate income applicants

seeking to purchase or rehabilitate affordable housing on Tribal

lands.

RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $1,608,000,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 1,728,376,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,691,376,000

Rental assistance is authorized under section 521(a)(2) of the

Housing Act of 1949 (Public Law 87–171). The objective of the pro-

gram is to reduce rents paid by low-income families living in RHS-

financed rental projects and farm labor housing projects. Under

this program, low-income tenants will contribute the higher of: (1)

30 percent of monthly adjusted income; (2) 10 percent of monthly

income; or (3) designated housing payments from a welfare agency.

Payments from the fund are made to the project owner for the

difference between the tenant’s payment and the approved rental

rate established for the unit.

The program is administered in tandem with RHS section 515

rural rental housing program and the farm labor loan and grant

programs. Priority is given to existing projects for rental units oc-

cupied by over-burdened low-income families and projects experi-

encing financial difficulties beyond the control of the owner.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,691,376,000

for the Rental Assistance Program. Housing vouchers continue to

be addressed in the Rural Housing Voucher Account.

Decoupling of Rental Assistance.—The Committee continues to

provide authority for the Department to decouple the rental assist-

ance program from Section 515 direct loans. The Committee re-

minds the Department that this strategy should only be used when

all other methods of preservation are exhausted and directs the De-

partment to continue to provide the Committee with monthly up-

dates on the implementation of this policy. Additionally, the Com-

mittee provides $1,000,000 for the Department to make the nec-

essary information technology upgrades to facilitate its decoupling

efforts.

Multifamily Housing Preservation Strategy.—The Committee di-

rects the Department to consider all preservation tools at its dis-

posal and to develop a report within 6 months of enactment of this

act with its multifamily housing preservation strategy including

goals, objectives, timeline, resources required, and tools to be uti-

lized.

Rental Assistance Priority.—The Secretary is encouraged to

prioritize multi-family housing properties acquired by means of a

section 515 loan within the current fiscal year when determining

current rental assistance needs.

RURAL HOUSING VOUCHER ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $48,000,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... ...........................

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 50,400,000

The Rural Housing Voucher Program was authorized under the

Housing Act of 1949 (Public Law 81–171) to assist very low-income

families and individuals who reside in rental housing in rural

areas. Housing vouchers may be provided to residents of rental

housing projects financed by section 515 loans that have been pre-

paid or paid off after September 30, 2005. Voucher amounts reflect

the difference between comparable market rents and tenant-paid

rent prior to loan pre-payment. Vouchers allow tenants to remain

in existing projects or move to other rental housing.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $50,400,000 for

the Rural Housing Voucher Program. The Committee continues to

reject the Department’s proposal to combine the rural housing

voucher program under the rental assistance account. The Com-

mittee requests historic data and projections of dollars and units

served for rural housing vouchers and rental assistance with the

assumption that the decoupling authority will continue to stay in

place.

MUTUAL AND SELF

HELP HOUSING GRANTS

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $25,000,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 32,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 25,000,000

The Mutual and Self-Help Housing Grants Program is author-

ized by title V of the Housing Act of 1949 (Public Law 81–171).

Grants are made to local organizations to promote the development

of mutual or self-help programs under which groups of usually 6

to 10 families build their own homes by mutually exchanging labor.

Funds may be used to pay the cost of construction supervisors who

work with families in the construction of their homes and for ad-

ministrative expenses of the organizations providing the self-help

assistance.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $25,000,000 for

Mutual and Self-Help Housing Grants.

RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GRANTS

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $35,000,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 46,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 40,000,000

The Rural Housing Assistance Grants Program consolidates

funding for rural housing grant programs. This consolidation of

housing grant funding provides greater flexibility to tailor financial

assistance to applicant needs.

Very Low-Income Housing Repair Grants.—The Very Low-Income

Housing Repair Grants Program is authorized under section 504 of

title V of the Housing Act of 1949 (Public Law 81–171). The rural

housing repair grant program is carried out by making grants to

very low-income families to conduct necessary repairs to their

homes in order to make such dwellings safe and sanitary and to

remove hazards to the health of the occupants, their families, or

the community.

These grants may be made to cover the cost of improvements or

additions, such as repairing roofs, providing toilet facilities, pro-

viding a convenient and sanitary water supply, supplying screens,

repairing or providing structural supports, or making similar re-

pairs, additions, or improvements, including all preliminary and in-

stallation costs in obtaining central water and sewer service. A

grant can be made in combination with a section 504 very low-in-

come housing repair loan.

No assistance can be extended to any one individual in the form

of a loan, grant, or combined loans and grants in excess of

$7,500,000, and grant assistance is limited to persons or families

headed by persons who are 62 years of age or older.

Supervisory and Technical Assistance Grants.—Supervisory and

technical assistance grants are made to public and private non-

profit organizations for packaging loan applications for housing as-

sistance under sections 502, 504, 514/516, 515, and 533 of the

Housing Act of 1949 (Public Law 81–171). The assistance is di-

rected to very low-income families in underserved areas where at

least 20 percent of the population is below the poverty level and

at least 10 percent or more of the population resides in sub-

standard housing. In fiscal year 1994, a Homebuyer Education Pro-

gram was implemented under this authority. This program pro-

vides low-income individuals and families with education and coun-

seling on obtaining and/or maintaining occupancy of adequate

housing and supervised credit assistance to become successful

homeowners.

Compensation for Construction Defects.—Compensation for con-

struction defects provides funds for grants to eligible section 502

borrowers to correct structural defects or to pay claims of owners

arising from such defects on a newly constructed dwelling pur-

chased with RHS financial assistance. Claims are not paid until

provisions under the builder’s warranty have been fully pursued.

Requests for compensation for construction defects must be made

by the owner of the property within 18 months after the date finan-

cial assistance was granted.

Rural Housing Preservation Grants.—Rural housing preservation

grants (section 533) of the Housing and Urban-Rural Recovery Act

of 1983 (Public Law 98–181) authorizes the Rural Housing Service

to administer a program of home repair directed at low- and very

low-income people.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $40,000,000 for

the Rural Housing Assistance Grants Program.

The following table compares the grant program levels rec-

ommended by the Committee to the fiscal year 2024 levels and the

budget request:

RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GRANTS

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year 2024

enacted

Fiscal year 2025

budget request

Committee

recommendation

Very low-income housing repair grants .............................................. 25,000 30,000 30,000

Housing preservation grants ............................................................... 10,000 16,000 10,000

Total ........................................................................................ 35,000 46,000 40,000

RURAL COMMUNITY FACILITIES PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2024 * ........................................................................... $18,000,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 62,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 254,338,000

* CF CDS were funded under a general provision in FY24.

Community facility loans were created by the Rural Development

Act of 1972 (Public Law 92–419) to finance a variety of rural com-

munity facilities. Loans are made to organizations, including cer-

tain Indian Tribes and corporations not operated for profit and

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

otherwise improve community facilities providing essential services

to rural residents. Such facilities include those providing or sup-

porting overall community development, such as fire and rescue

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

social, cultural, and recreational benefits. Loans are made for facili-

ties which primarily serve rural residents of open country and

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

Healthcare, fire and rescue facilities, and educational facilities are

the priorities of the program and receive the majority of available

funds.

The Community Facility Grant Program authorized in the Fed-

eral Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public Law

104–127) is used in conjunction with the existing direct and guar-

anteed loan programs for the development of community facilities

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

targeted to the lowest income communities. Communities that have

lower population and income levels receive a higher cost-share con-

tribution through these grants with a maximum contribution of 75

percent of the cost of developing the facility.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $254,338,000 for

the Rural Community Facilities Program Account, of which

$222,013,000 is for Congressionally Direct Spending.

The following table provides the Committee’s recommendations,

as compared to the fiscal year 2024 and budget request levels:

RURAL COMMUNITY FACILITIES PROGRAM ACCOUNT

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year 2024

enacted

Fiscal year 2025

budget request

Committee

recommendation

Loan Levels:

Community facilities direct loans .............................................. 2,800,000 1,250,000 1,250,000

Community facilities guaranteed loans ..................................... 650,000 650,000 650,000

Total, loan levels .................................................................... 3,450,000 1,900,000 1,900,000

Budget Authority:

Community facilities direct loans .............................................. .......................... 14,000 14,000

Community facilities grants ....................................................... 5,000 32,000 5,000

Congressionally directed spending* ........................................... 505,024 .......................... 226,338

Rural community development initiative .................................... 5,000 6,000 1,000

Tribal college grants ................................................................... 8,000 10,000 8,000

Total, budget authority ........................................................... 523,024 62,000 254,338

* FY24 CDS were funded in a general provision.

Congressionally Directed Spending [CDS].—The Committee has

provided CDS for certain activities and locations under Rural Com-

munity Facilities Program. While the Committee has provided the

funding, recipients of CDS are still required to apply for the fund-

ing. The Committee expects the agency to review the applications

and fund projects in the same manner as in previous years.

Income-based Matches.—The Committee awaits the Department’s

analysis of its methodology to calculate income-based matches for

the Community Facilities Grant program and its development of

three alternative methodologies. The Department is directed to

brief the Committees upon completion of this analysis. If war-

ranted, the Department is directed to make changes to its method-

ology based on this analysis.

Rural Community Development Initiative Grants.—The Com-

mittee encourages the Department to increase the maximum grant

amount for this program from $250,000 to $500,000 and to allow

an advance of 25 percent of grant funds prior to a match being sup-

plied.

Technical Assistance.—The Committee encourages RHS to allow

national organizations to participate in the Community Facilities

Technical Assistance program and to increase the grant cap to en-

sure that the technical assistance need in rural areas is met.

URAL

USINESS

-C

OOPERATIVE

ERVICE

The Rural Business-Cooperative Service was established by the

Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Re-

organization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–354), dated October 13,

1994. Its programs were previously administered by the Rural De-

velopment Administration, the Rural Electrification Administra-

tion, and the Agricultural Cooperative Service.

RURAL BUSINESS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $76,080,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 54,500,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 31,847,000

The Rural Business and Industry Loan Program was created by

the Rural Development Act of 1972 (Public Law 92–419), and fi-

nances a variety of rural industrial development loans. Loans are

made for rural industrialization and rural community facilities

under Rural Development Act amendments to the Consolidated

Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932 et seq.) authori-

ties. Business and industrial loans are made to public, private, or

cooperative organizations organized for profit; to certain Indian

tribes; or to individuals for the purpose of improving, developing,

or financing business, industry, and employment or improving the

economic and environmental climate in rural areas. Such purposes

include financing business and industrial acquisition, construction,

enlargement, repair or modernization; financing the purchase and

development of land, easements, rights-of-way, buildings, and pay-

ment of startup costs; and supplying working capital.

Rural business development grants were authorized by the Agri-

cultural Act of 2014 (Public Law 113–79) and can be made to gov-

ernmental and nonprofit entities and Indian Tribes. Up to 10 per-

cent of appropriated funds may be used to identify and analyze

business opportunities; identify, train, and provide technical assist-

ance to existing or prospective rural entrepreneurs and managers;

assist in the establishment of new rural businesses and the mainte-

nance of existing businesses; conduct economic development plan-

ning, coordination, and leadership development; and establish cen-

ters for training, technology, and trade. The balance of appro-

priated funding may be used for projects that support the develop-

ment of business enterprises that finance or facilitate the develop-

ment of small and emerging private business enterprise; the estab-

lishment, expansion, and operation of rural distance learning net-

works; the development of rural learning programs; and the provi-

sion of technical assistance and training to rural communities for

the purpose of improving passenger transportation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $31,847,000 for

the Rural Business Program Account.

The following table provides the Committee’s recommendations,

as compared to the fiscal year 2024 and budget request levels:

RURAL BUSINESS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year 2024

enacted

Fiscal year 2025

budget request

Committee

recommendation

Loan levels:

Business and industry guaranteed loans loan levels ................ 1,600,000 2,250,000 1,900,000

Total, loan levels .................................................................... 1,600,000 2,250,000 1,900,000

Budget Authority:

Business and industry guaranteed loans .................................. 28,080 4,500 3,800

Rural business development grants* ......................................... 30,000 37,000 30,000

DRA, NBRC, and ARC ................................................................. 8,000 9,000 8,000

Rural Innovation Stronger Economy (RISE) Grants .................... .......................... 4,000 ..........................

RURAL BUSINESS PROGRAM ACCOUNT—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year 2024

enacted

Fiscal year 2025

budget request

Committee

recommendation

Total, budget authority ........................................................... 66,080 54,500 31,847

* RBDG grants in FY24 and FY25 Cmt. Recommendation includes supplemental funds in a general provision.

Collaboration with the Small Business Administration.—The

Committee supports efforts to better help rural small businesses

and encourages the Department to continue collaborating with the

Small Business Administration to improve service delivery, advice,

and assistance for small businesses, especially those in rural areas,

including through the activities outlined in the memorandum of

understanding signed November 20, 2023. The Committee encour-

ages the Department, in collaboration with the SBA, to report on

the activities undertaken as a result of the memorandum of under-

standing. The report should include an update on the identification

of synergies between business loan programs and opportunities to

collaborate on technical assistance, especially with respect to expor-

tation and procurement.

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities.—The Committee

recognizes that strong partnerships exist between RD and Federal

Regional Commissions and Authorities. The Committee encourages

RD to coordinate with the Regional Commissions to promote effi-

ciency during the grant planning and review process. Additionally,

the Committee encourages RD to ensure flexible processes are

available for each Regional Commission as appropriate.

High Energy Cost Grants.—The Committee directs the Rural

Utilities Service to permit the repair or replacement of bulk fuel

storage tanks under the High Energy Cost Grants program. The

Committee notes that such fuels are the only source of electricity

generation in certain rural and Native communities where energy

costs are excessively high and there is a significant deferred main-

tenance cost for Bulk Fuel in Tribal communities. The longstanding

purpose of the program is to assist families and individuals in com-

munities with extremely high per-household energy costs that are

275 percent of the National average or higher. The Committee di-

rects the Secretary to make $2,000,000 available for Indian Tribes

for the repair or replacement of bulk fuel storage tanks under the

Grants program, in addition to providing no less than fiscal

year2024 levels for the Denali Commission.

Higher Blends Infrastructure Incentives Program [HBIIP] Sup-

port for Small Retailers.—The Committee recognizes the financial

constraints many small fuel retailers face when contemplating an

Underground Storage Tank [UST] system upgrade. The Committee

appreciates that USDA recognizes this and has implemented a

practice whereby HBIIP applicants with 10 or fewer gas stations

and/or home heating oil distribution facilities are eligible for an in-

creased Federal cost share of up to 75 percent. The Committee is

encouraged by the Department’s preference for small business

HBIIP applicants and encourages the Department to explore addi-

tional avenues to incentivize small businesses to upgrade fueling

infrastructure.

Infant Formula Manufacturing.—The Committee directs the Sec-

retary to ensure that small infant formula manufacturing facilities

located in rural areas are aware of their eligibility for the Business

and Industry Guaranteed Loan Program.

Rural Business Program Account.—The Committee recommends

$500,000 for transportation technical assistance.

The Committee directs that of the $400,000 recommended for

grants to benefit federally Recognized Native American Tribes,

$250,000 shall be used to implement an American Indian and Alas-

ka Native passenger transportation development and assistance

initiative. Additionally, the Committee encourages the Department

to improve information sharing about Rural Development’s busi-

ness support programs with local small business advisory organiza-

tions.

Sustainable Aviation Fuels.—The Committee notes that sustain-

able aviation fuel [SAF] has the potential to decarbonize the avia-

tion industry by utilizing several feedstocks, such as ethanol, soy,

tallow, wood biomass, agricultural residue, and cover crops. The

cultivation of these feedstocks could provide a significant economic

opportunity in rural communities across the Nation. The Bio-

refinery, Renewable Chemical, and Biobased Product Manufac-

turing Assistance Program, also known as the 9003 Program, has

tremendous potential to scale up the volume of SAF by providing

loans and financial support to burgeoning enterprises in rural

America. Therefore, the Committee directs the Secretary of Agri-

culture to provide a report to Congress that includes 9003 program

loan metrics and if converting current loan authority into grants

could be used to accelerate and scale SAF research and develop-

ment and biorefinery construction.

Tribal Buffalo Restoration.—The Committee encourages the De-

partment to set aside a portion of the rural business development

grants to benefit federally-chartered Tribal organizations with de-

monstrable expertise in Tribal buffalo restoration efforts, for the

purchase and operation of mobile buffalo meat processing units to

support federally recognized Native American Tribes’ activities re-

lated to buffalo meat production.

INTERMEDIARY RELENDING PROGRAM FUND ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year 2024

enacted

Fiscal year 2025

budget request

Committee

recommendation

Estimated loan level ...................................................................... 10,000 18,890 10,000

Direct loan subsidy ........................................................................ 3,035 6,434 3,406

Administrative expenses ................................................................ 4,468 4,468 4,468

Total, loan subsidies and administrative expenses ........ 7,503 10,902 7,874

The Rural Development Intermediary Relending Loan program

was originally authorized by the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964

(Public Law 88–452). The making of rural development loans by

USDA was reauthorized by the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Public

Law 113–79).

Loans are made to intermediary borrowers (small investment

groups) who in turn will reloan the funds to rural businesses, com-

munity development corporations, private nonprofit organizations,

public agencies, et cetera, for the purpose of improving business,

industry, community facilities, employment opportunities, and di-

versification of the economy in rural areas.

The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (Public Law 74–605) es-

tablished the program account. Appropriations to this account will

be used to cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the di-

rect loans obligated in 2025, as well as administrative expenses.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,874,000 for

the Intermediary Relending Program Fund, including $4,468,000 to

be merged with salaries and expenses.

RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

The Rural Economic Development Loans program was estab-

lished by the Reconciliation Act of December 1987 (Public Law

100–203), which amended the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7

U.S.C. 901), by establishing a new section 313. This section of the

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

credit payment program and created the rural economic develop-

ment subaccount. The Administrator of RUS is authorized under

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

loans to electric and telecommunications borrowers for the purpose

of promoting rural economic development and job creation projects,

including funding for feasibility studies, startup costs, and other

reasonable expenses for the purpose of fostering rural economic de-

velopment.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a loan program level of $50,000,000

and $10,000,000 in grants to be funded from earnings on the Cush-

ion of Credit and fees on guaranteed underwriting loans made pur-

suant to section 313A of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7

U.S.C. 901).

RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year 2024

level

Fiscal year 2025

request

Committee

recommendation

Estimated loan level ...................................................................... 50,000 75,000 50,000

RURAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $24,600,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 28,300,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 25,300,000

Rural cooperative development grants are authorized under sec-

tion 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act

(Public Law 113–79), as amended. Grants are made to fund the es-

tablishment and operation of centers for rural cooperative develop-

ment with the primary purpose of improving economic conditions

in rural areas. Grants may be made to nonprofit institutions or in-

stitutions of higher education. Grants may be used to pay up to 75

percent of the cost of the project and associated administrative

costs. The applicant must contribute at least 25 percent from non-

Federal sources, except 1994 institutions, which only need to pro-

vide 5 percent. Grants are competitive and are awarded based on

specific selection criteria.

Cooperative research agreements are authorized by 7 U.S.C.

2204b. The funds are used for cooperative research agreements,

primarily with colleges and universities, on critical operational, or-

ganizational, and structural issues facing cooperatives.

Cooperative agreements are authorized under 7 U.S.C. 2201 to

any qualified State departments of agriculture, universities, and

other State entities to conduct research that will strengthen and

enhance the operations of agricultural marketing cooperatives in

rural areas.

The Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas [ATTRA]

program was first authorized by the Food Security Act of 1985

(Public Law 99–198). The program provides information and tech-

nical assistance to agricultural producers to adopt sustainable agri-

cultural practices that are environmentally friendly and lower pro-

duction costs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The following table provides the Committee’s recommendation as

compared to the fiscal year 2024 and budget request levels:

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year 2024

level

Fiscal year 2025

request

Committee

recommendation

Rural cooperative development grants .......................................... 5,800 5,800 5,800

Appropriate technology transfer .................................................... 2,800 3,500 3,500

Grants to assist minority producers .............................................. 3,000 3,000 3,000

Value-added procuer grants .......................................................... 11,500 13,000 11,500

Agriculture innovation centers ....................................................... 1,500 3,000 1,500

Total, loan subsidies and administrative expenses ........ 24,600 28,300 25,300

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $25,300,000 for

Rural Cooperative Development Grants.

Of the funds recommended, $3,500,000 is for the Appropriate

Technology Transfer for Rural Areas program.

The Committee includes bill language directing that not more

than $3,000,000 be made available to cooperatives or associations

of cooperatives whose primary focus is to provide assistance to

small, minority producers.

Agriculture Innovation Centers.—The Committee recommends

$1,500,000 for Agriculture Innovation Center funding, as author-

ized in section 6402 of Public Law 107–171. Prior year or current

grant awardees shall be eligible for these funds.

Value-Added Producer Grants [VAPG].—The Committee directs

that Value-Added Producer Grants be prioritized to support the

production of value-added agricultural products, including dairy

and small farms, with significant potential to expand production

and processing in the United States.

100

The Committee encourages USDA to promote awareness among

potential applicants of the availability of VAPG funds for eligible

projects that modify animal housing systems to comply with state

requirements, such as States that require animal products to come

from cage-free and crate-free housing systems, or facilitate the sale

of compliant products to new markets.

RURAL MICROENTREPRENEUR ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $5,000,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 6,518,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,713,000

The Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program is authorized

under section 379E(d) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Devel-

opment Act (7 U.S.C. 2008s). This program provides direct loans

and grants to microentreprenuer development organizations with

the skills necessary to establish new rural microenterprises and

provide technical assistance to maintain the successful operation of

rural microenterprises.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,713,000 for

the Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program.

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year 2024

enacted

Fiscal year 2025

budget request

Committee

recommendation

Estimated loan level ...................................................................... 20,000 8,504 8,504

Direct loan subsidy ........................................................................ 3,140 1,853 1,853

Grants ............................................................................................ 1,860 4,665 1,860

Total, loan subsidies and grants ..................................... 5,000 6,518 3,713

RURAL ENERGY FOR AMERICA PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. ...........................

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... ...........................

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

The Rural Energy for America Program is authorized under sec-

tion 9007 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002

(Public Law 107–171). This program may fund energy audits, di-

rect loans, loan guarantees, and grants to farmers, ranchers, and

small rural businesses for the purchase of renewable energy sys-

tems and for energy efficiency improvements.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee does not recommend a discretionary appropria-

tion for the Rural Energy for America Program.

The following table provides the Committee’s recommendation as

compared to the fiscal year 2024 and budget request levels:

RURAL ENERGY FOR AMERICA PROGRAM

[In thousands of dollars]

Estimated loan level

Fiscal year 2024 enacted ................................................................................................................................ 50,000

101

RURAL ENERGY FOR AMERICA PROGRAM—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Estimated loan level

Fiscal year 2025 budget request ..................................................................................................................... 1,000,000

Committee recommendation ............................................................................................................................ 250,000

Rural Energy for America Program [REAP].—The Committee en-

courages the Department to focus a portion of funding on under-

served renewable technologies.

The Committee also acknowledges the potential of the Rural En-

ergy for America Program in helping rural agricultural producers

and small businesses diversify on-farm income and promote energy

efficiency through renewable energy production. However, the Com-

mittee recognizes financial barriers to program utilization by small

agricultural producers and small businesses due to matching fund

requirements and reimbursement-based grant funding. As such,

the Committee encourages the Department to make REAP grants

more accessible to socially disadvantaged groups and low income

applicants to ensure the program’s feasibility and accessibility for

applicants of all demographics.

HEALTHY FOOD FINANCING INITIATIVE

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $500,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 3,000,000

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

The Healthy Food Financing Initiative is authorized under sec-

tion 4206 of the Agricultural Act of 2014. This program provides

financial and technical assistance to regional, State and local part-

nerships, and helps fund projects to improve access to fresh,

healthy foods in underserved rural areas.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

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

Healthy Food Financing Initiative and notes the funding provided

through the American Rescue Plan Act.

URAL

TILITIES

ERVICE

The Rural Utilities Service was established under the Federal

Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganiza-

tion Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–354). RUS administers the elec-

tric and telephone programs of the former Rural Electrification Ad-

ministration and the water and waste programs of the former

Rural Development Administration.

RURAL WATER AND WASTE DISPOSAL PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $595,972,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 794,850,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 496,490,000

The water and waste disposal program is authorized by sections

306, 306A, 309A, 306C, 306D, 306E, and 310B of the Consolidated

Farm and Rural Development Act (Public Law 87–128). This pro-

102

gram makes loans for water and waste development costs. Develop-

ment loans are made to associations, including corporations oper-

ating on a nonprofit basis, municipalities, and similar organiza-

tions generally designated as public or quasi-public agencies, that

propose projects for the development, storage, treatment, purifi-

cation, and distribution of domestic water or the collection, treat-

ment, or disposal of waste in rural areas. Such grants may not ex-

ceed 75 percent of the development cost of the projects and can

supplement other funds borrowed or furnished by applicants to pay

development costs.

The solid waste grant program is authorized under section

310B(b) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act

(Public Law 87–128). Grants are made to public entities and pri-

vate nonprofit organizations to provide technical assistance to local

and regional governments for the purpose of reducing or elimi-

nating pollution of water resources and for improving the planning

and management of solid waste disposal facilities.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $496,490,000 for

the Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program Account.

The Committee recommends $65,000,000 for water and waste

disposal systems grants for Native Americans, including Native

Alaskans, Hawaiian Homelands, and the Colonias. The Committee

recognizes the special needs and problems for delivery of basic

services to these populations and encourages the Secretary to dis-

tribute these funds in line with the fiscal year 2014 distribution to

the degree practicable. In addition, the Committee makes

$22,470,000 available for the circuit rider program. The Committee

commends Circuit Riders, who have provided assistance to small

communities for the operation of safe and clean drinking water

supplies and compliance with water regulations since 1980. The

Circuit Rider Program has long been one of USDA’s most success-

ful public-private partnerships and one of the most efficient and ef-

fective use of appropriated funds.

Black Belt Region Water Systems.—The Committee commends

the work of Rural Development for beginning the implementation

of the pilot program to support Black Belt Region Water Systems

funded in fiscal year 2020 and fiscal year 2021. Within 90 days of

enactment of this Act and quarterly thereafter, Rural Development

is directed to brief the Committee on the use of these funds.

The following table provides the Committee’s recommendations,

as compared to the fiscal year 2024 and budget request levels:

RURAL WATER AND WASTE DISPOSAL PROGRAM ACCOUNT

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year 2024

enacted

Fiscal year 2025

budget request

Committee

recommendation

Loan levels:

Water and waste disposal direct loans ............................... 850,000 1,350,000 850,000

Water and waste disposal direct one percent loans ........... 10,000 20,000 10,000

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

Total, loan levels .............................................................. 910,000 1,420,000 910,000

103

RURAL WATER AND WASTE DISPOSAL PROGRAM ACCOUNT—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year 2024

enacted

Fiscal year 2025

budget request

Committee

recommendation

Budget authority:

Water and waste disposal direct loans ............................... 70,975 139,590 87,890

Water and waste disposal direct zero percent loans

Water and waste disposal direct one percent loans ........... 2,695 6,260 3,130

Water and waste disposal guaranteed loans

Water and waste disposal grants ........................................ 255,000 385,000 255,000

Lead pipe replacement ......................................................... ............................ 100,000 ............................

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

Water well systems grants ................................................... 5,000 5,000 5,000

Colonias, AK, HI and Native American grants ..................... 65,000 66,000 65,000

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

High energy cost grants ....................................................... 8,000 10,000 8,000

Circuit rider ........................................................................... 21,817 25,000 22,470

Emergency community water assistance grants .................. 10,000 15,000 10,000

Technical assistance grants ................................................. 35,000 38,000 35,000

Congressionally directed spending ....................................... 117,485 ............................ ............................

Total, budget authority ..................................................... 595,972 794,850 496,490

Technical Assistance.—The Committee provides $35,000,000 for

technical assistance and directs no less than $1,000,000 to be used

to support manufactured homes.

RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS LOANS PROGRAM

ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $42,568,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 47,696,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 43,407,000

The Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (Public Law 74–605) pro-

vides the statutory authority for the electric and telecommuni-

cations programs.

The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–508) es-

tablished the program account. An appropriation to this account

will be used to cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the

direct loans obligated and loan guarantees committed in fiscal year

2025, as well as administrative expenses.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The following table reflects the Committee’s recommendation for

the Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program

Account, the loan subsidy and administrative expenses, as com-

pared to the fiscal year 2024 and budget request levels:

RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year 2024

enacted

Fiscal year 2025

budget request

Committee

recommendation

Loan authorization:

Electric:

Direct FFB .................................................................... 2,167,000 2,167,000 2,167,000

Electric Direct, Treasury Rate ...................................... 4,333,000 4,333,000 4,333,000

104

RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year 2024

enacted

Fiscal year 2025

budget request

Committee

recommendation

Guaranteed underwriting ............................................. 900,000 ............................ 900,000

Telecommunications:

Direct, Treasury Rate ................................................... 550,000 335,676 550,000

Direct, FFB ................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................

Rural Energy Savings Program .................................... 20,000 53,075 20,000

Total, Loan authorization ................................................. 7,970,000 6,888,751 7,970,000

Direct, Treasury Rate Telecomm Subsidy ............................. 5,720 3,726 6,105

Electric Loan Modifications

Rural Energy Savings Program ............................................. 3,578 10,700 4,032

Telecomm. Treasury Modification

Administrative Expenses ....................................................... 33,270 33,270 33,270

Total budget authority ...................................................... 42,568 47,696 43,407

DISTANCE LEARNING

TELEMEDICINE

AND BROADBAND PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $169,959,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 207,400,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 135,105,000

The Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program is

authorized by the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act

of 1990 (Public Law 101–624), as amended by the Federal Agri-

culture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–

127). This program provides incentives to improve the quality of

phone services, provide access to advanced telecommunications

services and computer networks, and improve rural opportunities.

This program provides the facilities and equipment to link rural

education and medical facilities with more urban centers and other

facilities, providing rural residents access to better healthcare

through technology and increasing educational opportunities for

rural students. These funds are available for loans and grants.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $135,105,000 for

the Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program, in-

cluding $105,000 for congressionally directed spending.

The following table reflects the Committee’s recommendation for

the Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program, as

compared to fiscal year 2024 and the budget request levels:

DISTANCE LEARNING, TELEMEDICINE, AND BROADBAND PROGRAM

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year 2024

enacted

Fiscal year 2025

budget request

Committee

recommendation

Loan and grant levels:

Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program:

Grants ................................................................................... 40,000 60,000 40,000

Congressionally Directed Spending ...................................... 9,574 ............................ 105

Broadband Program:

Grants .......................................................................... 20,000 35,000 20,000

Re-Connect ................................................................... 90,000 112,400 75,000

105

DISTANCE LEARNING, TELEMEDICINE, AND BROADBAND PROGRAM—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year 2024

enacted

Fiscal year 2025

budget request

Committee

recommendation

Congressionally Directed Spending .................... 10,385 ............................ ............................

Total, DLT and Broadband budget authority ................... 169,959 207,400 135,105

The Committee provides $3,000,000 to address critical healthcare

needs, as authorized by section 379G of the Consolidated Farm and

Rural Development Act (Public Law 115–334).

Congressionally Directed Spending [CDS].—The Committee has

provided CDS for certain activities and locations under Distance

Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program. While the Com-

mittee has provided the funding, recipients of CDS are still re-

quired to apply for the funding. The Committee expects the agency

to review the applications and fund projects in the same manner

as in previous years.

ReConnect.—The Committee provides $75,000,000 for the ReCon-

nect pilot, which was established in the Consolidated Appropria-

tions Act, 2018 (Public Law 115–141), and again reminds USDA

that funding should not be used in areas that are already largely

served and should be focused in areas where at least 90 percent of

households lack access. In doing so, the Committee intends that

USDA should avoid efforts that could duplicate existing or planned

broadband networks, including avoiding granting funding in areas

where another provider already has received funding from another

Federal, State or local funding program to build, has otherwise

committed to a government entity to build, or has invested private

risk capital to build in an area and has obtained necessary permits

to do so, even if construction is not yet complete. To achieve these

goals, we urge USDA to continue coordinating closely with the Na-

tional Telecommunications Information Administration and the

Federal Communications Commission in a transparent manner to

ensure that there is a common agreement about which areas are

currently unserved, to utilize a common map to reach those conclu-

sions that is updated each time a new funding decision is an-

nounced, and to have a clear and understandable challenge process.

To avoid waste, funding should be given only to applicants that

can and will follow through with their commitments by prioritizing

applications from applicants that have demonstrated the technical

and financial experience required to construct and operate

broadband networks. To incentivize participation, applications

should be as streamlined as possible, including allowing all pro-

viders to offer proof of financial capability through bond ratings in-

stead of submitting financial documentation, and to offer collateral

for loans as well as security for performance under grants using al-

ternate forms of security instead of providing a first lien on assets.

Applications should only require the data strictly necessary to

evaluate the application and post-award burdens should be mini-

mized.

The Committee remains concerned that the application process

for Reconnect is often too burdensome for small providers to suc-

cessfully apply, and requires documentation beyond what is appli-

106

cable to the proposed funded service area. Additionally, Reconnect

applicants do not have the ability to submit missing documents

after an application has been accepted and certified by the Depart-

ment. The Committee therefore encourages USDA to review the ap-

plication process to ensure that it is not overly burdensome and dif-

ficult for small applicants to navigate.

In addition, while the pilot is intended to be technology neutral,

it is critical that Federal broadband investments support projects

that are both scalable and adequate for both current and future

technological requirement and consumer needs. In carrying out the

Reconnect program, the Committee directs USDA to support quali-

fied projects that will provide the highest upload and download

speeds possible to ensure rural America is receiving the same qual-

ity broadband services as their non-rural counterparts.

The Committee also remains concerned that States and terri-

tories outside the contiguous United States are having difficulty

utilizing this program and directs the agency to report back to the

Committee with recommendations to address these concerns.

(107)

TITLE IV

DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS

FFICE OF THE

NDER

ECRETARY FOR

OOD

, N

UTRITION

AND

ONSUMER

ERVICES

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $1,127,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 1,416,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,127,000

The Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Con-

sumer Services provides direction and coordination in carrying out

the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to the Department’s

nutrition assistance activities. The Office has oversight and man-

agement responsibilities for the Food and Nutrition Service [FNS].

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,127,000 for

the Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Con-

sumer Services.

Application Process.—The Committee is concerned that the appli-

cation process for organizations which participate in both the Sum-

mer Food Service Program and the Child and Adult Care Food Pro-

gram diverts resources away from serving vulnerable populations.

The Committee directs USDA to determine ways to streamline the

application process to reduce the administrative burden to pro-

viders. USDA is specifically directed to consider allowing organiza-

tions in good standing for 3 years participating in both programs

to file only one application to administer both programs each year.

Meals-to-You.—The Committee recognizes the benefits the Meals-

to-You [MTY] demonstration program has had in reducing food in-

security, particularly for children and youth in rural and frontier

areas who are unable to access congregate feeding sites. The Com-

mittee encourages FNS to continue providing meal delivery serv-

ices through the MTY demonstration project through a grant or co-

operative agreement to a non-profit provider that works with local

service institutions to enroll eligible low-income children.

OOD AND

UTRITION

ERVICE

The Food and Nutrition Service represents an organizational ef-

fort to eliminate hunger and malnutrition in this country. Nutri-

tion assistance programs provide access to a nutritionally adequate

diet for low-income individuals and families and encourage better

eating patterns among the Nation’s children. These programs in-

clude:

Child Nutrition Programs [CNP].—The National School Lunch

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

Care Food programs provide funding to the States, Puerto Rico, the

108

Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Guam for use in serving nu-

tritious lunches and breakfasts to children attending schools of

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

care centers, and to children in other institutions in order to im-

prove the health and well-being of the Nation’s children and broad-

en the markets for agricultural food commodities. Through the Spe-

cial Milk Program, assistance is provided to the States for making

reimbursement payments to eligible schools and child care institu-

tions which institute or expand milk service in order to increase

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

are provided by direct appropriation and transfer from section 32.

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants,

and Children [WIC].—This program safeguards the health of preg-

nant, postpartum, and breast-feeding women, and infants and chil-

dren up to age five who are at nutritional risk because of inad-

equate nutrition and income by providing supplemental foods. The

delivery of supplemental foods may be done through health clinics,

vouchers redeemable at retail food stores, or other approved meth-

ods which a cooperating State health agency may select. Funds for

this program are provided by direct appropriation.

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program [SNAP].—This pro-

gram seeks to improve nutritional standards of needy persons and

families. Assistance is provided to eligible households to enable

them to obtain a better diet by increasing their food purchasing ca-

pability, usually by furnishing benefits in the form of electronic ac-

cess to funds. The program includes Nutrition Assistance to Puerto

Rico [NAP]. The program also includes the Food Distribution Pro-

gram on Indian Reservations [FDPIR], which provides nutritious

agricultural commodities to low-income persons living on or near

Indian reservations who choose not to participate in SNAP.

Commodity Assistance Program [CAP].—This program provides

funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program [CSFP],

the Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program [FMNP], Disaster Assist-

ance, Pacific Island Assistance, and administrative expenses for the

Emergency Food Assistance Program [TEFAP]. CSFP provides sup-

plemental foods to low-income elderly persons age 60 and over.

TEFAP provides commodities and grant funds to State agencies to

assist in the cost of storage and distribution of donated commod-

ities. Nutritious agricultural commodities are provided to residents

of the Federated States of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands.

Cash assistance is provided to distributing agencies to assist them

in meeting administrative expenses incurred. CAP also provides

funding for use in non-presidentially declared disasters and for

FNS’s administrative costs in connection with relief for all disas-

ters. Funds for this program are provided by direct appropriation.

Nutrition Programs Administration.—Most salaries and Federal

operating expenses of FNS are funded from this account. Also in-

cluded is the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, which

oversees improvements in and revisions to the food guidance sys-

tems and serves as the focal point for advancing and coordinating

nutrition promotion and education policy to improve the health of

all Americans.

109

CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $33,266,226,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 31,799,851,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 31,775,179,000

Child Nutrition Programs, authorized by the Richard B. Russell

National School Lunch Act (Public Law 79–396) and the Child Nu-

trition Act of 1966 (Public Law 89–642), provide Federal assistance

to State agencies in the form of cash and commodities for use in

preparing and serving nutritious meals to children while they are

attending school, residing in service institutions, or participating in

other organized activities away from home. The purpose of these

programs is to help maintain the health and proper physical devel-

opment of America’s children. Milk is provided to children either

free or at a low cost, depending on their family income level. FNS

provides cash subsidies to States for administering the programs

and directly administers the program in the States which choose

not to do so. Grants are also made for nutritional training and sur-

veys and for State administrative expenses. Under current law,

most of these payments are made on the basis of reimbursement

rates established by law and applied to lunches and breakfasts ac-

tually served by the States. The reimbursement rates are adjusted

annually to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index for food

away from home.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $31,775,179,000 for the Child Nutri-

tion Programs.

The Committee’s recommendation provides for the following an-

nual rates for the child nutrition programs.

TOTAL OBLIGATIONAL AUTHORITY

[In thousands of dollars]

Child nutrition programs

Committee

recommendation

School Lunch Program ....................................................................................................................................... 14,500,000

School Breakfast Program ................................................................................................................................. 6,409,860

Child and Adult Care Food Program ................................................................................................................. 4,432,743

Summer EBT (benefits) ...................................................................................................................................... 2,635,052

Summer EBT (admin) ......................................................................................................................................... 264,505

Summer Food Service Program .......................................................................................................................... 878,304

Special Milk Program ......................................................................................................................................... 6,668

State Administrative Expenses .......................................................................................................................... 482,880

Commodity Procurement .................................................................................................................................... 1,960,069

Team Nutrition ................................................................................................................................................... 18,004

Food Safety Education ....................................................................................................................................... 4,196

Coordinated Review ............................................................................................................................................ 10,000

Computer Support .............................................................................................................................................. 41,240

Training and Technical Assistance .................................................................................................................... 65,000

CNP Studies and Evaluation .............................................................................................................................. 21,005

Farm to School Team ......................................................................................................................................... 6,433

Payment Accuracy .............................................................................................................................................. 21,220

School Meal Equipment Grants ......................................................................................................................... 12,000

Child Nutrition Training ..................................................................................................................................... 1,000

Farm to School Grants ....................................................................................................................................... 5,000

110

TOTAL OBLIGATIONAL AUTHORITY—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Child nutrition programs

Committee

recommendation

Total ...................................................................................................................................................... 31,775,179

The Committee expects FNS to utilize the National Food Service

Management Institute to carry out the food safety education pro-

gram.

Costs of Producing School Meals in Outlying Areas.—The Com-

mittee acknowledges that USDA provided a temporary increase in

the National average payment rate for the outlying areas at a rate

equal to the National average payment rate for Alaska until the

School Nutrition Cost Study II is completed and updated adjust-

ments for school meal reimbursements for these areas are subse-

quently made, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1760(f). The Committee di-

rects USDA to provide technical assistance and flexibility to school

food authorities and school staff in the outlying areas to ensure the

collection of complete and accurate data for the School Nutrition

Cost Study II.

Crediting System.—The Committee recognizes that the current

crediting system used by FNS in administering the School Lunch

Program and the School Breakfast Program has not been updated

to keep pace with products in the marketplace. Specifically, Greek

yogurt receives the same protein crediting as other products with

less protein. The Committee directs the Secretary to update the

system of crediting high-protein yogurt to accurately reflect sci-

entifically demonstrated higher protein content in strained yogurt.

Farm to School Program.—Successful implementation of Farm to

School programs requires broad-based knowledge of best practices

regarding coordination among farmers, processors, distributors,

students, teachers, dietary and food preparation staff, and USDA

professionals. Since the scope of some Farm to School projects has

expanded in recent years, the Committee has included language to

allow maximum grant amounts to increase to $500,000. Of the

grant funds provided, the Committee directs the Secretary to use

$500,000 to form at least one cooperative agreement with an estab-

lished entity, such as regional a Farm to School institute, for the

creation and dissemination of information on farm to school pro-

gram development and to provide practitioner education, training,

ongoing school year coaching, and technical assistance.

Local School Wellness Policies.—The Committee acknowledges

that difficulty accessing a variety of foods can cause significant

issues, including poor physical health and eating disorders. The

Committee directs the Secretary to update local school wellness

policy guidance to incorporate eating disorder prevention and edu-

cation into the existing local school wellness policy framework. The

Committee requests a report within 120 days of the enactment of

this act on the agency’s progress to update State Education Agen-

cies on the inclusion of eating disorders education and prevention

within Local School Wellness Policies.

Pulse Crops.—The Committee recognizes the nutritional value of

pulse crops for children and encourages FNS to support school food

authorities in sourcing and serving pulse crops.

111

Seafood Consumption in the National School Lunch Program.—

The Committee directs the department, in coordination with

NOAA, to address factors limiting seafood consumption in school

per the recommendations in GAO report ‘‘National School Lunch

Program: USDA Could Enhance Assistance to States and Schools

in Providing Seafood to Students’’ (GAO–23–105179).

Summer Food Service Program.—The Committee supports the

FNS’ proposed implementation of summer meal programs as part

of its December 2023 interim final rule in response to Congress’s

direction in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023. The Com-

mittee appreciates the interim final rule’s recognition that the nu-

tritional needs of children in the summer cannot be addressed

through a one-size-fits-all approach, and States should include the

use of non-congregate meal programs where necessary. To ensure

States have the resources needed to properly implement the rule,

the Committee encourages USDA to set aside funding to provide

technical assistance for up to five States interested in imple-

menting non-congregate meal delivery options for children and

families in rural areas. The Committee encourages USDA to

prioritize this funding for States interested in partnering with a

non-profit entity that has experience in implementing meal deliv-

ery options in rural areas and to uphold program integrity as re-

quired in the interim final rule.

SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN

INFANTS

AND CHILDREN [WIC]

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $7,030,000,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 7,730,873,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 7,697,000,000

The WIC program is authorized by section 17 of the Child Nutri-

tion Act of 1966. Its purpose is to safeguard the health of pregnant,

breast-feeding, and postpartum women and infants and children up

to age five who are at nutritional risk because of inadequate nutri-

tion and inadequate income.

The WIC program food packages are designed to provide foods

which studies have demonstrated are lacking in the diets of the

WIC program target population. The authorized supplemental

foods are iron-fortified breakfast cereal, fruit or vegetable juice

which contains vitamin C, dry beans, peas, and peanut butter.

There are three general types of delivery systems for WIC foods:

(1) retail purchase in which participants obtain supplemental foods

through retail stores; (2) home delivery systems in which food is

delivered to the participant’s home; and (3) direct distribution sys-

tems in which participants pick up food from a distribution outlet.

The food is free of charge to all participants.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,697,000,000

for the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants,

and Children.

The Committee recommendation fully funds estimated WIC par-

ticipation in fiscal year 2025. The Committee provides $90,000,000

for breastfeeding support initiatives and $16,000,000 for infrastruc-

ture.

112

Allergenic Foods.—The Committee recognizes that section 17 of

the Child Nutrition Act (42 U.S.C. 1786(c)(11)(C)) directs the Sec-

retary to conduct a scientific review of the WIC food packages no

fewer than every 10 years, and that the next scientific review is set

to be released in 2027. Given the 2020 Dietary Guidelines for

Americans recommendation of early introduction of potentially al-

lergenic foods to infants, especially peanuts and egg, to prevent al-

lergies later in life, the Committee directs the Secretary to include

a review and recommendations for the early introduction of food al-

lergens in the upcoming review of the WIC infant food packages.

Dairy.—The Committee remains concerned with the impact of re-

ducing the maximum monthly allowance with respect to milk in a

final rule to the proposed rule entitled ‘‘Special Supplemental Nu-

trition Program for Women, Infants, and Children [WIC]: Revisions

to the WIC Food Packages’’. Within 1 year of implementation of the

final rule, the Secretary is directed to submit a report to the Com-

mittee with a comparison of overall redemptions and percentage of

redemption rates within the WIC food package’s milk and dairy

categories under implementation of this rule compared to overall

redemptions and percentage of redemption rates in the WIC food

package’s milk and dairy categories in one or more years prior to

implementation of the final rule.

Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome Recommendations.—WIC des-

ignated Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome [NAS] as a nutrition risk

factor in 2017, and WIC agencies across the country actively screen

for symptoms of substance use, referring mothers who may be

struggling with substance use disorder to appropriate services. The

Committee encourages USDA to collaborate with the Department

of Health and Human Services on the development of uniform, evi-

dence-based nutrition education materials in order to best serve

WIC-eligible pregnant women and caregivers to infants impacted

by NAS. Uniform materials will enhance WIC’s ongoing efforts to

screen and support infants exhibiting symptoms of NAS.

WIC Food Package.—The Committee is pleased that the Depart-

ment issued regulations for public comment to update the WIC food

package. The Committee encourages FNS to pay particular atten-

tion to comments received regarding the inclusion of low-mercury

fish.

SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2024 .............................................................................$122,382,521,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 123,324,961,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 123,227,792,000

SNAP attempts to alleviate hunger and malnutrition among low-

income persons by increasing their food purchasing power. Eligible

households receive SNAP benefits with which they can purchase

food through regular retail stores.

Other programs funded through SNAP include Nutrition Assist-

ance to Puerto Rico and American Samoa, the Food Distribution

Program on Indian Reservations, the Emergency Food Assistance

Program, and the Community Food Projects program.

SNAP is currently in operation in all 50 States, the District of

Columbia, the Virgin Islands, and Guam. Participating households

receive food benefits, the value of which is determined by house-

113

hold size and income. The cost of the benefits is paid by the Fed-

eral Government. As required by law, FNS annually revises house-

hold benefit allotments to reflect changes in the cost of the thrifty

food plan.

Administrative Costs.—All direct and indirect administrative

costs incurred for certification of households, issuance of benefits,

quality control, outreach, and fair hearing efforts are shared by the

Federal Government and the States on a 50–50 basis.

State Antifraud Activities.—Under the provisions of the Food and

Nutrition Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–246), States are eligible to

be reimbursed for 50 percent of the costs of their fraud investiga-

tions and prosecutions.

States are required to implement an employment and training

program for the purpose of assisting members of households par-

ticipating in SNAP in gaining skills, training, or experience that

will increase their ability to obtain regular employment. USDA has

implemented a grant program to States to assist them in providing

employment and training services.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $123,227,792,000 for the Supple-

mental Nutrition Assistance Program. Of the amount rec-

ommended, $3,000,000,000 is made available as a contingency re-

serve.

TOTAL OBLIGATIONAL AUTHORITY

[In thousands of dollars]

Committee

Recommendation

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program:

Benefits ................................................................................................................................................... 108,730,689

Contingency ............................................................................................................................................. 3,000,000

Administrative Costs:

State Administrative Costs ............................................................................................................ 6,040,792

Nutrition Education and Obesity Prevention Grant Program ......................................................... 538,000

Employment and Training .............................................................................................................. 680,192

Mandatory Other Program Costs .................................................................................................... 441,990

Discretionary Other Program Costs ................................................................................................ 6,998

Administrative Subtotal ........................................................................................................ 7,706,974

Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico (NAP) ............................................................................................ 2,983,775

American Samoa ..................................................................................................................................... 11,983

Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations ................................................................................ 242,000

TEFAP Commodities ................................................................................................................................. 472,250

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands .................................................................................. 60,123

Community Food Project ......................................................................................................................... 5,000

Program Access ....................................................................................................................................... 5,000

Subtotal .............................................................................................................................................. 3,780,131

Tribal Demonstration ............................................................................................................. 5,000

Healthy Fluid Milk ................................................................................................................. 4,000

Total .................................................................................................................................................... 123,227,792

Disaster SNAP.—The Secretary, in coordination with the Admin-

istrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, is encour-

aged to coordinate food benefit allotments under section 412 of the

114

Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act

(42 U.S.C. 5179) and section 5(h) of the Food and Nutrition Act of

2008 (7 U.S.C. 2014(h)) with respect to individuals and households

adversely affected by a major disaster to minimize delays in receiv-

ing temporary food assistance, improve information sharing, and

prevent redundancy of assistance.

FDPIR Pilot Program.—The Committee is concerned that FNS

has prohibited tribes and Tribal organizations that participate in

the FDPIR pilot program from including traditional food items un-

less such items replace a USDA-provided item, and prohibited such

substitutions unless the producer of the traditional food is able to

provide sufficient quantities for all FDPIR participants nationwide.

Allowing tribes participating in the pilot to source new traditional

foods from small, indigenous producers without requiring a substi-

tution will result in the inclusion of more traditional foods and help

small, indigenous producers to expand. The Committee therefore

directs FNS to allow tribes participating in the pilot program to in-

clude traditional foods without substitutions and to allow partici-

pating tribes to purchase traditional foods from producers that may

not be able to provide sufficient quantities to serve all participating

tribes across the Nation.

Hot Foods.—The Committee directs the Secretary to study the

impact of allowing hot foods to be purchased with SNAP benefits

at different types of SNAP retail food stores, including retail food

stores with co-located entities.

National Accuracy Clearinghouse.—The Committee supports the

full implementation of the National Accuracy Clearinghouse [NAC]

that uses a third-party electronic data matching system, data ana-

lytics, and public data to determine the correct state to issue SNAP

benefits. The Committee encourages FNS to expand NAC to all

SNAP agencies. In addition, the Committee reiterates that States

must administer a robust appeals process to ensure individuals are

not automatically removed from receiving benefits.

Online Purchasing Pilot.—The Committee is concerned that the

retailer onboarding process for the SNAP Online Purchasing Pilot

is creating a backlog of applicant retailers. The Committee directs

the Secretary to conduct a review of the SNAP Online retailer

onboarding process to identify ways to streamline onboarding for

independently-owned retailers and franchisees, options to scale si-

multaneous retailer testing and provide applicants with testing

queue status information, and better document submission man-

agement and receipt confirmation tracking. The Committee directs

the Department to submit a report on its progress to identify and

implement these process improvements.

The Committee also encourages the department to make SNAP

Online permanent in order to provide certainty for the retailers

and recipients who rely on SNAP assistance.

Senior Hunger.—The Committee remains concerned about high

rates of food insecurity and hunger among those 55 years of age

and older. The Committee directs the department to coordinate

with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services [CMS] and

the Social Security Administration [SSA] to increase enrollment in

the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program [SNAP] by identi-

115

fying and conducting outreach to Seniors who meet the eligibility

requirements of all these programs.

Skimming.—The Committee understands USDA’s efforts to sup-

port States in efforts to make whole SNAP recipients after they are

victims of skimming. The Committee recognizes that authority for

States to repay skimming victims expires on September 30, 2024.

No later than 30 days after enactment of this act, the Committee

directs USDA to provide a report on progress toward making skim-

ming victims whole.

SNAP Fraud.—The Committee remains concerned about data

discrepancies that allowed retailers to provide benefits to individ-

uals using fraudulent credentials, as outlined in a January 2017

OIG report. The Committee encourages FNS, as part of their work

to implement controls to address these problems, to consider how

advanced analytics is used to improve analysis across multiple sys-

tems mentioned in the report. This could include integrating data

mining and machine learning into source systems such as STARS

and ALERT, applying computer vision to enhance FNS investiga-

tions, and deploying new predictive analytics to help detect emerg-

ing fraud schemes. The Committee requests USDA to continue to

update Congress on its progress in addressing the issues outlined

in the report.

SNAP Pilot.—The Committee directs the Secretary to submit a

report, within 180 days of enactment, to the Committee, compiled

in consultation with stakeholders and the appropriate State and

Federal officials, describing how any waiver or pilot program will

improve SNAP participant experience. The report shall include the

approximate cost, to include the administration, of the implementa-

tion of and SNAP authorized retailer compliance with any waiver

or pilot program. The report shall also include an explanation of

how the Department will communicate to States and SNAP author-

ized retailers which foods are SNAP eligible and ensure retailers

can implement and comply with food restriction requirements in

their point-of-sale [POS] systems and ongoing technical support.

Thrifty Food Plan.—The Committee is concerned that USDA’s

Thrifty Food Plan adjustment for Hawaii omits the price of food in

rural and remote regions of the state. The Committee directs

USDA to update 7 CFR 273.10(e)(4) to include the price of food

throughout the state of Hawaii.

COMMODITY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $480,070,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 536,070,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 516,070,000

The Commodity Assistance Program includes funding for the

Commodity Supplemental Food Program and funding to pay ex-

penses associated with the storage and distribution of commodities

through The Emergency Food Assistance Program.

The Commodity Supplemental Food Program.—Authorized by

section 4(a) of the Agricultural and Consumer Protection Act of

1973 (7 U.S.C. 612c note), as amended in 1981 by Public Law 97–

98 and in 2014 by Public Law 113–79, this program provides sup-

plemental food to low-income senior citizens and, in some cases,

low-income infants and children up to age six and low-income preg-

116

nant and postpartum women. The Agricultural Act of 2014 (Public

Law 113–79) discontinued the admission of new pregnant and

postpartum women and children into the program. Those already

in the program can continue to receive assistance until they are no

longer eligible.

The foods for CSFP are provided by USDA for distribution

through State agencies. The authorized commodities include iron-

fortified infant formula, rice cereal, cheese, canned juice, evapo-

rated milk and/or nonfat dry milk, canned vegetables or fruits,

canned meat or poultry, egg mix, dehydrated potatoes, farina, pea-

nut butter, and dry beans. Elderly participants may receive all

commodities except iron-fortified infant formula and rice cereal.

The Emergency Food Assistance Program.—Authorized by the

Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 7501 et seq.), as

amended, the program provides nutrition assistance to low-income

people through prepared meals served on site and through the dis-

tribution of commodities to low-income households for home con-

sumption. The commodities are provided by USDA to State agen-

cies for distribution through State-established networks. State

agencies make the commodities available to local organizations,

such as soup kitchens, food pantries, food banks, and community

action agencies, for their use in providing nutrition assistance to

those in need.

Funds are administered by FNS through grants to State agencies

which operate commodity distribution programs. Allocation of the

funds to States is based on a formula which considers the States’

unemployment rate and the number of persons with income below

the poverty level.

Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program.—The Farmers’ Market Nu-

trition Program provides WIC or WIC-eligible participants with

coupons to purchase fresh, nutritious, unprepared foods, such as

fruits and vegetables, from farmers’ markets. This benefits both

participants and local farmers by increasing the awareness and use

of farmers’ markets by low-income households.

Pacific Island and Disaster Assistance.—This program provides

funding for assistance to the nuclear-affected islands in the form of

commodities and administrative funds. It also provides funding for

use in non-presidentially declared disasters and for FNS’s adminis-

trative costs in connection with relief for all disasters.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $516,070,000 for

the Commodity Assistance Program. The Committee continues to

encourage the Department to distribute Commodity Assistance Pro-

gram funds equitably among the States, based on an assessment

of the needs and priorities of each State and the State’s preference

to receive commodity allocations through each of the programs

funded under this account.

Commodity Supplemental Food Program.—The Committee rec-

ommends $425,000,000 for CSFP. The Committee is concerned

about barriers eligible Commodity Supplemental Food Program ap-

plicants, including those residing in smaller and more rural com-

munities, face in participating in the program. The Committee di-

rects the Secretary to submit a report to study barriers to program

117

participation and strategies that States have utilized to increase

CSFP participation rates. The Committee also requests that USDA

publish an update to guidance document FNS–GD–2020–0078 reit-

erating that current CSFP program flexibilities give State and local

agencies discretion to allow for home delivery, including con-

tracting with third-party delivery.

Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program.—The Committee is aware

that FMNP provides fresh fruits and vegetables to low-income

mothers and children, benefiting not only WIC participants, but

local farmers as well. Therefore, the Committee recommends

$10,000,000 for FMNP and directs the Secretary to obligate these

funds within 45 days of enactment of this act.

The Emergency Food Assistance Program.—The Committee pro-

vides $80,000,000 in discretionary funding for TEFAP transpor-

tation, storage, and program integrity. In addition, the Committee

recommendation grants the Secretary authority to transfer up to

an additional 20 percent from TEFAP commodities for this purpose

and urges the Secretary to use this authority.

The Committee encourages the Secretary to identify opportuni-

ties for increasing the supply of TEFAP commodities in the coming

fiscal year through bonus and specialty crop purchases. The De-

partment shall make available to the States domestically produced

catfish fillets for distribution to local agencies.

Wild Game.—The Committee recognizes that The Emergency

Food Assistance Program and the ‘‘Farm to Food Bank Projects’’ al-

lows for the use of funds for the repackaging and processing of do-

nated wild game. The ‘‘Farm to Food Bank Projects’’ also allow

funds to be used for wild game. The Committee encourages the De-

partment to educate and publicize to State agencies on these inno-

vative and sustainable program to provide nutrition assistance to

low-income Americans.

NUTRITION PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $177,348,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 205,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 177,348,000

The Nutrition Programs Administration appropriation provides

for most of the Federal operating expenses of FNS, which includes

CNP, the Special Milk Program, WIC, SNAP, NAP, and CAP.

The major objective of Nutrition Programs Administration is to

efficiently and effectively carry out the nutrition assistance pro-

grams mandated by law. This is to be accomplished by the fol-

lowing: (1) giving clear and consistent guidance and supervision to

State agencies and other cooperators; (2) assisting the States and

other cooperators by providing program, managerial, financial, and

other advice and expertise; (3) measuring, reviewing, and analyzing

the progress being made toward achieving program objectives; and

(4) carrying out regular staff support functions.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $177,348,000 for

Nutrition Programs Administration.

(118)

TITLE V

FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS

FFICE OF THE

NDER

ECRETARY FOR

RADE AND

OREIGN

GRICULTURAL

FFAIR

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $932,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 1,154,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 932,000

The Office of the Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign Agricul-

tural Affairs provides direction and coordination in carrying out the

laws enacted by the Congress with respect to the Department’s

international affairs (except for foreign economic development). The

Office has oversight and management responsibilities for the For-

eign Agricultural Service [FAS].

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $932,000 for the

Office of the Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural

Affairs.

Food Chain Systems.—The Committee is aware that the lack of

comprehensive cold food chain systems is one of the main causes

of food loss and results in a significant percentage of food spoilage

from farm-to-market. Preventing food loss and implementing a ro-

bust cold food chain results in substantial benefits such as in-

creased nutrition, a safer food supply, greater economic oppor-

tunity, and increased resilience. In order to maximize the benefit

investment in the agricultural productivity of the developing world,

the Committee encourages the Department to give strong consider-

ation to the use of cold chain technologies and include the develop-

ment of appropriate cooling technologies in programs, policies, and

strategic plans aimed at hunger prevention and food security in de-

veloping agricultural markets.

International Agricultural Education Fellowship Program

[IAEFP].—The Committee urges USDA to prioritize IAEFP grants

to multi-year programs or to continue existing programs, including

programs previously awarded IAEFP funds. Further, the Com-

mittee is concerned about regional limitations on eligible programs

in previous funding opportunities and encourages USDA to avoid

limiting eligibility of applicants to specific countries or regions.

Market Access Program [MAP] and Foreign Market Development

Program [FMD] Reporting.—The Committee directs the Depart-

ment to publish an annual report describing the recipients of

funds, including the quantity and specific uses of such funding

awards, granted through MAP and FMD for the purpose of pro-

moting agricultural sales in Cuba, to ensure compliance with Sec.

3201 of Public Law 115–334.

119

Peanut Exports.—The Committee remains concerned with per-

sistent non-tariff trade barriers faced by the domestic peanut in-

dustry when attempting to export peanuts to the European Union.

The Committee encourages the Department to prioritize inter-

agency coordination with the Office of the United States Trade

Representative and industry engagement in order to develop effec-

tive and lasting solutions that will allow increased market access

for domestic peanuts into the European Union.

Pecan Exports.—The Committee directs the Department to

prioritize interagency coordination and industry engagement to de-

velop effective strategies to allow for increased market access of do-

mestic pecans into India.

Therapeutic Food for Malnutrition.—The Committee appreciates

FAS’ contributions to fighting global malnutrition through the use

of therapeutic foods and the recent funding made available for this

purpose. The Committee directs FAS to provide a report to the

committee about where therapeutic foods funded by FAS are going

by country, and if given additional funding in future fiscal years,

what countries and regions could be served.

OFFICE OF CODEX ALIMENTARIUS

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $4,922,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 4,979,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,922,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,922,000 for

the Office of Codex Alimentarius.

OREIGN

GRICULTURAL

ERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

[In thousands of dollars]

Appropriations

Transfers from

loan accounts

Total

Appropriations, 2024 ........................................................................... 227,330 6,063 233,393

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................ 244,533 6,063 250,596

Committee recommendation ................................................................ 227,330 6,063 233,393

The Foreign Agricultural Service was established March 10,

1953, by Secretary’s Memorandum No. 1320, supplement 1. Public

Law 83–690, approved August 28, 1954, transferred the agricul-

tural attache

s from the Department of State to FAS.

The mission of FAS overseas is to represent U.S. agricultural in-

terests, promote export of domestic farm products, improve world

trade conditions, and report on agricultural production and trade

in foreign countries. FAS staff are stationed at 98 offices around

the world, where they provide expertise in agricultural economics

and marketing, as well as attache

services.

FAS carries out several export assistance programs to counter

the adverse effects of unfair trade practices by competitors on U.S.

agricultural trade. The Market Access Program [MAP] conducts

both generic and brand-identified promotional programs in conjunc-

tion with nonprofit agricultural associations and private firms fi-

nanced through reimbursable CCC payments.

120

The General Sales Manager was established pursuant to section

5(f) of the charter of the Commodity Credit Corporation and 15

U.S.C. 714–714p. The funds allocated to the General Sales Man-

ager are used for conducting the following programs: (1) CCC Ex-

port Credit Guarantee Program (GSM–102), including facilities fi-

nancing guarantees; (2) Food for Peace; (3) section 416b Overseas

Donations Program; (4) Market Access Program; and (5) programs

authorized by the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (Pub-

lic Law 87–155) including barter, export sales of most CCC-owned

commodities, export payments, and other programs as assigned to

encourage and enhance the export of U.S. agricultural commodities.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $233,393,000 for the Foreign Agri-

cultural Service, including a direct appropriation of $227,330,000.

Borlaug Fellows Program.—The Committee provides no less than

the fiscal year 2024 level for the Borlaug International Agricultural

Science and Technology Fellows Program. This program provides

training for international scientists and policymakers from selected

developing countries. The fellows work closely with U.S. specialists

in their fields of expertise and apply that knowledge in their home

countries. The Committee recognizes the importance of this pro-

gram in helping developing countries strengthen their agricultural

practices and food security.

Cochran Fellowship Program.—The Committee provides no less

than the fiscal year 2024 level for the Cochran Fellowship Pro-

gram. The Committee encourages the Secretary to continue to pro-

vide additional support for the program through the CCC Emerging

Markets Program.

Disparate Effect of Hunger on Women and Girls.—The Com-

mittee acknowledges the disparate impact of hunger on women and

girls and the fact of the 333 million people who are severely hungry

in the world right now, nearly 60 percent are women and girls.

Furthermore, it is recognized that women are more likely than men

to report food insecurity in almost 2/3 of countries and are more

likely to suffer health conditions due to lack of nutrition, such as

anemia. The Committee, therefore, encourages the Secretary to

make women and girls a priority in the Food for Peace Title II pro-

gram as they often eat last and least while sacrificing for their

families.

Food for Peace.—For over 60 years the Food for Peace program

has fed millions across the world and been a stabilizing force for

good in struggling countries. Not only does the program feed vul-

nerable populations, it helps sustain the U.S. agriculture commu-

nity by requiring only U.S. grown commodities be used in the pro-

gram. The world is seeing unprecedented hunger in many areas of

the world and the Committee does not believe now is the time to

under fund this vital program. The Committee also recognizes the

current budget environment is straining resources across the de-

partment but continues to prioritize this program. Therefore, the

Committee provides an increase of $101,500,000 to the base level

of funding for the Food for Peace program to continue the long tra-

dition of this U.S. humanitarian assistance.

121

Quarterly Reports.—The Secretary is directed, in consultation

with the Administrator of USAID, to provide to the Committee a

quarterly report on obligations and current balances of Food for

Peace Title II grants. This report should also include any supple-

mental funding.

FOOD FOR PEACE TITLE II GRANTS

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. * $1,687,574,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 1,800,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,720,607,000

* Includes $68,467,000 included in a general provision

Commodities Supplied in Connection with Dispositions Abroad

(Title II) (7 U.S.C. 1721–1726).—Commodities are supplied without

cost through foreign governments to combat malnutrition and to

meet famine and other emergency requirements. Commodities are

also supplied for non-emergencies through public and private agen-

cies, including intergovernmental organizations. The CCC pays

ocean freight on shipments under this title and may also pay over-

land transportation costs to a landlocked country, as well as inter-

nal distribution costs in emergency situations. The funds appro-

priated for title II are made available to private voluntary organi-

zations and cooperatives to assist these organizations in meeting

administrative and related costs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,720,607,000

for Food for Peace title II grants.

MCGOVERN

DOLE INTERNATIONAL FOOD FOR EDUCATION AND CHILD

NUTRITION PROGRAM GRANTS

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $240,000,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 244,533,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 250,000,000

The McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child

Nutrition Program helps support education, child development, and

food security for some of the world’s poorest children. The program

provides for donations of U.S. agricultural products, as well as fi-

nancial and technical assistance, for school feeding and maternal

and child nutrition projects in low-income, food-deficit countries

that are committed to universal education. Commodities made

available for donation through agreements with private voluntary

organizations, cooperatives, intergovernmental organizations, and

foreign governments may be donated for direct feeding or for local

sale to generate proceeds to support school feeding and nutrition

projects.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $250,000,000 for

the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nu-

trition Program.

Local and Regional Procurement.—The Committee provides an

appropriation of $25,000,000 for efforts to build long-term agri-

culture sustainability and establish a local investment in school

122

feeding programs. With direct U.S. commodity contributions,

projects supported by the McGovern-Dole Food for Education and

Child Nutrition Program have significantly improved the attend-

ance, nourishment, and learning capacity of school-aged children in

low-income countries throughout the impoverished world. New

funding authorities would enable school feeding programs to

proactively transition from direct commodity assistance to locally

sourced agriculture products. The Committee directs the Secretary

to conduct the Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement Project

Program in accordance with the priorities of the McGovern-Dole

International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program.

COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION EXPORT [LOANS]

CREDIT GUARANTEE PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

[In thousands of dollars]

Guaranteed loan

levels

Appropriations, 2024 ........................................................................................................................................ 6,063

Budget estimate, 2025 .................................................................................................................................... 6,063

Committee recommendation ............................................................................................................................ 6,063

In 1980, the CCC instituted the Export Credit Guarantee Pro-

gram (GSM–102) under its charter authority. With this program,

CCC guarantees, for a fee, payments due U.S. exporters under de-

ferred payment sales contracts (up to 36 months) for defaults due

to commercial as well as noncommercial risks. The risk to CCC ex-

tends from the date of export to the end of the deferred payment

period covered in the export sales contract and covers only that

portion of the payments agreed to in the assurance agreement. Op-

eration of this program is based on criteria which will assure that

it is used only where it is determined that it will develop new mar-

ket opportunities and maintain and expand existing world markets

for U.S. agricultural commodities. The program encourages U.S. fi-

nancial institutions to provide financing to those areas where the

institutions would be unwilling to provide financing in the absence

of the CCC guarantees. CCC also provides facilities financing guar-

antees.

The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–508) es-

tablishes the program account. The subsidy costs of the CCC export

guarantee programs are exempt from the requirement of advance

appropriations of budget authority according to section 504(c)(2) of

the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–508). Ap-

propriations to this account will be used for administrative ex-

penses.

(123)

TITLE VI

RELATED AGENCY AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

EPARTMENT OF

EALTH AND

UMAN

ERVICES

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

The Food and Drug Administration [FDA] is a scientific regu-

latory agency whose mission is to promote and protect the public

health and safety of Americans. FDA’s work is a blend of science

and law. The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of

2007 (Public Law 110–85) reaffirmed the responsibilities of the

FDA: to ensure safe and effective products reach the market in a

timely way and to monitor products for continued safety while they

are in use. In addition, the FDA is entrusted with two critical func-

tions in the Nation’s war on terrorism: preventing willful contami-

nation of all regulated products, including food; and improving the

availability of medications to prevent or treat injuries caused by bi-

ological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agents.

The FDA Foods program has the primary responsibility for as-

suring that the food supply, quality of foods, food ingredients, and

dietary supplements are safe, sanitary, nutritious, wholesome, and

honestly labeled and that cosmetic products are safe and properly

labeled. The variety and complexity of the food supply has grown

dramatically while new and more complex safety issues, such as

emerging microbial pathogens, natural toxins, and technological in-

novations in production and processing, have developed. This pro-

gram plays a major role in keeping the U.S. food supply among the

safest in the world.

In January 2011, the Food Safety Modernization Act [FSMA]

(Public Law 111–353) was signed into law. This law enables the

FDA to better protect public health by strengthening the food safe-

ty system. It enables the FDA to focus more on preventing food

safety and feed problems rather than relying primarily on reacting

to problems after they occur. The law also provides the FDA with

new enforcement authorities designed to achieve higher rates of

compliance with prevention- and risk-based food and feed safety

standards and to better respond to and contain problems when

they do occur. The law also gives the FDA important new tools to

hold imported food and feed to the same standards as domestic food

and feed and directs the FDA to build an integrated national food

safety system in partnership with State and local authorities.

The FDA Drugs programs are comprised of four separate areas:

Human Drugs, Animal Drugs, Medical Devices, and Biologics. The

FDA is responsible for the lifecycle of products, including pre-

market review and post-market surveillance of human and animal

drugs, medical devices, and biological products to ensure their safe-

ty and effectiveness. For Human Drugs, this includes assuring that

124

all drug products used for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment

of disease are safe and effective. Additional procedures include re-

viewing and evaluating investigational new drug applications; eval-

uation of market applications for new and generic drugs and label-

ing and composition of prescription and over-the-counter drugs;

monitoring the quality and safety of products manufactured in, or

imported into, the United States; and regulating the advertising

and promotion of prescription drugs. The Animal Drugs and Feeds

program ensures only safe and effective veterinary drugs, intended

for the treatment and/or prevention of diseases in animals and the

improved production of food-producing animals, are approved for

marketing.

The FDA Biologics program assures that blood and blood prod-

ucts, blood test kits, vaccines, and therapeutics are pure, potent,

safe, effective, and properly labeled. The program inspects blood

banks and blood processors; licenses and inspects firms collecting

human source plasma; evaluates and licenses biologics manufac-

turing firms and products; lot releases licensed products; and mon-

itors adverse events associated with vaccine immunization, blood

products, and other biologics.

The FDA Devices and Radiological program ensures the safety

and effectiveness of medical devices and eliminates unnecessary

human exposure to man-made radiation from medical, occupa-

tional, and consumer products. In addition, the program enforces

quality standards under the Mammography Quality Standards Act

(Public Law 108–365). Medical devices include thousands of prod-

ucts from thermometers and contact lenses to heart pacemakers,

hearing aids, and MRIs. Radiological products include items such

as microwave ovens and video display terminals.

The FDA’s National Center for Toxicological Research [NCTR] in

Jefferson, Arkansas, serves as a specialized resource, conducting

peer-review scientific research that provides the basis for the FDA

to make sound, science-based regulatory decisions through its pre-

market review and post-market surveillance. The research is de-

signed to define and understand the biological mechanisms of ac-

tion underlying the toxicity of products and lead to developing

methods to improve assessment of human exposure, susceptibility,

and risk of those products regulated by the FDA.

In 2009, Congress granted the FDA new authority to regulate

the manufacture, distribution, and marketing of tobacco products.

The FDA exercises this responsibility by protecting the public

health from the health effects of tobacco, setting scientific stand-

ards and standards for tobacco product review, conducting compli-

ance activities to enforce its authority over tobacco, and conducting

public education and outreach about the health effects of tobacco

products.

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

[In thousands of dollars]

Appropriation User fees Total

Appropriations, 2024 ....................................................................................... 3,544,150 3,328,255 6,872,405

125

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,544,150,000

for salaries and expenses of the Food and Drug Administration.

The Committee also recommends $3,328,255,000 in definite user

fees, including: $1,472,210,000 in Prescription Drug user fee collec-

tions; $394,228,000 in Medical Device user fee collections;

$30,225,000 in Animal Drug user fee collections; $27,283,000 in

Animal Generic Drug user fee collections; $712,000,000 in Tobacco

Product user fee collections; $638,962,000 in Generic Drug user fee

collections; and $53,347,000 in Biosimilar user fee collections. The

Committee recommendation does not include permanent, indefinite

user fees for the Mammography Quality Standards Act; Color Cer-

tification; Export Certification; Priority Review Vouchers Pediatric

Disease; Food and Feed Recall; Food Reinspection; Voluntary

Qualified Importer Program; the Third Party Auditor Program;

Outsourcing Facility; or Over-the-Counter Monograph. The Com-

mittee includes bill language that prohibits the FDA from devel-

oping, establishing, or operating any program of user fees author-

ized by 31 U.S.C. 9701. The Committee recommendation does not

include proposed user fees requested in the President’s budget for

food facility registration and inspection, food import, food contact

substance notification, cosmetics, and international courier imports.

None of these user fee proposals have been authorized by Congress.

The Committee will continue to monitor any action by the appro-

priate authorizing Committees regarding these proposed user fees.

The Committee expects the FDA to continue all projects, activi-

ties, laboratories, and programs as included in fiscal year 2024 un-

less otherwise specified. The Committee provides a net increase of

$1,000,000 for Cosmetics, $15,000,000 for Food Safety activities,

$3,000,000 for Neurology Drug Program, and $1,000,000 for anti-

microbial research at NCTR. The Committee also includes

$2,000,000 for FDA to support its participation on the recently cre-

ated multi-agency task force to combat the illegal distribution and

sale of unauthorized e-cigarettes.

The following table reflects the Committee’s recommendations, as

compared to the fiscal year 2024 and budget request levels:

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION SALARIES AND EXPENSES

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year 2024

enacted

Fiscal year 2025

budget request

Committee

recommendation

Centers and related field activities:

Foods ........................................................................................... 1,179,177 1,244,274 1,195,177

Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition [CFSAN] ..... 401,265 432,476 407,305

Field Activities ................................................................... 777,912 811,798 787,872

Human Drugs .............................................................................. 716,837 754,187 716,837

Center for Drug Evaluation and Research [CDER] ........... 511,802 539,613 511,802

Field Activities ................................................................... 205,035 214,574 205,035

Biologics ...................................................................................... 266,126 279,957 266,126

Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research [CBER] ..... 219,022 229,503 219,022

Field Activities ................................................................... 47,104 50,454 47,104

Animal Drugs .............................................................................. 228,629 240,353 228,629

Center for Veterinary Medicine [CVM] ............................... 148,088 156,579 148,088

Field Activities ................................................................... 80,541 83,774 80,541

Medical and Radiological Devices .............................................. 442,856 465,733 442,856

Center for Devices and Radiological Health ..................... 351,403 366,698 351,403

126

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION SALARIES AND EXPENSES—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year 2024

enacted

Fiscal year 2025

budget request

Committee

recommendation

Field Activities ................................................................... 91,453 99,035 91,453

National Center for Toxicological Research ................................ 77,361 80,723 78,361

Other Activities .................................................................................... 240,787 252,577 245,787

Rent and related activities .................................................................. 207,377 208,977 207,377

Rental payments to GSA ...................................................................... 163,000 155,386 163,000

Total, FDA salaries and expenses, new budget authority ..... 3,522,150 3,682,167 3,544,150

Accelerated Approval Pathway.—The Committee recognizes the

importance of the FDA’s continued use of the Accelerated Approval

pathway to provide patients with unmet medical needs access to

new therapies, especially to patients with neurological diseases.

Further, the Committee is concerned that the application of the

regulatory flexibility offered under the Accelerated Approval Pro-

gram is not uniform between the Center for Drug Evaluation and

Research [CDER] and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Re-

search [CBER]. The Committee directs the FDA to streamline proc-

esses among all centers and report to Congress within 90 days of

enactment of this act to detail the steps the FDA has taken to en-

sure the Accelerated Approval Program is being administered

equally in both CDER and CBER.

Congress gave FDA the authority to ensure that the accelerated

approval pathway continues to ensure early access to safe and ef-

fective new therapies for individuals with serious or life-threat-

ening illnesses. The Committee recognizes the importance of and

support for FDA’s continued use of the Accelerated Approval path-

way to provide patients with unmet medical needs access to new

therapies. In particular, the Committee supports FDA’s authority

to approve therapies under the accelerated approval pathway based

on surrogate endpoints or intermediate clinical endpoints and re-

mains concerned about other HHS agencies discouraging the use of

the pathway and thus patient access, particularly related to Alz-

heimer’s disease therapies.

Advanced Manufacturing Technologies.—The Committee encour-

ages the Commissioner to continue to facilitate the utilization of

advanced manufacturing technologies to improve manufacturing ef-

ficiencies and dependability. The Committee requests that the

Commissioner continue to encourage manufacturers of critical ge-

neric sterile injectable products that commonly experience drug

shortages to invest in innovative technologies that are effective and

sustainable.

Advisory Committee Conflicts of Interest.—The Committee re-

mains concerned with the Food and Drug Administration’s conflict

of interest rules as it pertains to advisory committees. The 2023

External Review of FDA Regulation of Opioid Analgesics Final Re-

port noted the need for the FDA to address ‘‘concerns about inap-

propriate industry influence on agency decision-making’’. Current

conflict of interest guidance is intended to show FDA’s policies be-

hind financial interests held by advisory committee membership

and Government employees participating in advisory committee

meetings. They do not specifically address industry influence, im-

127

pact of this guidance on participation in meetings, or enforcement

ability of conflict of interest guidance. For this reason, the Com-

mittee looks forward to continue engaging with the Government

Accountability Office as they review this issue as mandated in the

fiscal year 2024 report.

Agricultural Water Rule.—The Committee directs the Center for

Food Safety and Applied Nutrition to continue its Produce Safety

Network of technical agents to assist growers in conducting envi-

ronmental assessments, evaluating agricultural water, and other

crucial food safety functions. The Committee recommends the

placement of agents should take into consideration the top U.S.

States in most need of food safety technical resources, and mixed

agricultural regions.

Alzheimer’s Disease.—The Committee recognizes and commends

FDA for its efforts thus far in addressing Alzheimer’s and related

dementias and urges FDA to fully utilize all existing authorities

and tools to meet these critical unmet medical needs. It is vital

that FDA fully applies current science, patient input, and available

regulatory mechanisms to expedite the development and approval

of potential treatments. Prioritizing patient access to innovative

therapies is paramount. The Committee remains committed to sup-

porting FDA’s efforts and emphasizes the need for a proactive and

comprehensive approach in tackling this devastating family of dis-

eases.

ALS.—The Committee recognizes the FDA’s Orphan Drug Pro-

gram is one of the few programs in the Federal Government that

funds phase 1 and phase 2 clinical trials for new ALS therapies.

In addition, FDA-sponsored research can expedite ALS drug devel-

opment through innovative trial designs that can speed the FDA

regulatory processes for new ALS treatments. The Committee pro-

vides no less than the fiscal year 2024 level to implement the Ac-

celerating Access to Critical Therapies for ALS Act (Public Law

117–79), including implementation of the act for ALS Action Plan,

operation of the Public Private Partnership, and supporting the

FDA Rare Neurodegenerative Disease Grant Program which is au-

thorized to provide grants for clinical trials for ALS and other

neurodegenerative diseases. Funding for this program will further

scientific knowledge to inform product development and to allow

more ALS patients to participate in the clinical testing process and

have access to experimental therapies.

Andrological Health.—The Committee encourages the FDA to

work closely with sponsors developing new technologies intended to

treat or prevent diseases or conditions impacting male reproductive

health.

Angelman Syndrome.—The Committee is aware of the promising

research and development progress in the treatment of Angelman

Syndrome [AS], a rare and devastating neurogenetic disorder. At

the same time, there are significant challenges in developing sen-

sitive outcome measures to use in clinical trials for potential thera-

pies. The FDA advanced this field in 2017 through funding for a

prospective natural history study in Angelman Syndrome. The

Committee strongly encourages the FDA to expand this support

through rare disease grants, as appropriate, including for the eval-

uation of assessing developmental gains through growth scale val-

128

ues. The Committee also recommends renewed FDA attention to

expanding the assessment of Angelman Syndrome clinical

endpoints and novel biomarkers, in part based on the natural his-

tory background, and encourages broad data-sharing across inves-

tigators and industry for this and other rare diseases in light of the

limited size of patient populations.

Animal Drug Compounding.—The Committee urges FDA to pro-

vide public clarification on the role of Animal Drug Compounding

in outsourcing facilities registered under section 503B of the Fed-

eral Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. While both CVM and CDER

have stated in guidance documents that 503B provisions do not

apply to animal drugs, many 503B facilities continue to advertise

an ability to compound any needed animal preparation in their

503B facility. FDA should publicly clarify the use of these outsourc-

ing facilities to produce compounded preparations for animals.

Animal Food Ingredients.—Animal food ingredients are reviewed

and approved by the Center for Veterinary Medicine and the agen-

cy is responsible for ensuring the safety of ingredients as they

enter the marketplace to be consumed by either livestock or pets.

The Committee is concerned about the time associated with the in-

gredient review and approval process, and uniform acceptance of

animal food ingredients by the delegated authorities. The Com-

mittee encourages the FDA to prioritize improving animal food in-

gredient reviews, including reviews of innovative products that act

solely within the gut of an animal and are intended to affect the

structure or any function of the animal’s body.

Animal Food Substances.—The Committee understands that the

Center for Veterinary Medicine is working to improve its review

and approval of novel animal food substances that affect the struc-

ture or function of the animal through a means other than nutri-

tion, but only act within the animal’s gastrointestinal tract. In

some cases, certain substances are administered orally but not di-

rectly added to the food or drinking water of animals. When re-

viewing and approving animal feed ingredient petitions, the Center

for Veterinary Medicine shall ensure that substances administered

orally, including boluses, are deemed to be food additives provided

they achieve their intended effects solely within the gastro-

intestinal tract and meet other relevant criteria established by the

Commissioner.

Animal Product Terminology.—The Committee is concerned

about the increase of products, which do not include meat or egg

products, that are labeled and marketed using animal food product

terminology and related iconography. The Committee directs the

FDA to conduct a study to better understand consumers’ attitudes,

beliefs, motivations, and perceptions relative to product composi-

tion, health attributes, and labeling. The FDA shall assess con-

sumer perceptions of different terms used on labeling of plant-

based alternative products. No later than 1 year after the date of

enactment of this act, FDA shall submit to the Committee, and

make publicly available online, a report on the findings of this

study.

Animal Testing.—The Committee directs FDA to efficiently and

expeditiously utilize existing funds to replace, reduce, and, refine

animal testing and advance new alternative methods [NAMs] in a

129

measurable and impactful way. The Committee encourages FDA to

support NAM’s. This program is responsible for furthering the de-

velopment, qualification, and implementation of alternative meth-

ods for regulatory purposes. The agency is further directed to pro-

vide to the Committee within 90 days of enactment a report on the

status of work within the NAM’s Program in the Commissioner’s

office, including a description of program goals and staffing levels

by position classification. To encourage the use of NAMs by indus-

try, the Committee directs FDA to determine whether any changes

to its regulations may be warranted to make clear to the extent

such studies are not scientifically necessary that animal tests are

not required to support clinical testing in humans. The Committee

strongly recommends prioritizing the acceptance of alternative

methods in developing and evaluating drugs and biological prod-

ucts wherever appropriate and scientifically feasible. The agency

should, where applicable, minimize funding to carry out new ani-

mal testing, including to compare the use of animals to alternative

methods, and use existing animal data and alternative methods

that will reduce animal use in research when human data is not

available.

Antimicrobials.—The Committee is aware that some over-the-

counter [OTC] consumer antiseptic wash products were banned

from the market and FDA deferred a decision on additional

antimicrobials due to lack of research and data. The Committee

urges FDA to evaluate antimicrobials used in OTC products to de-

termine the benefits to human health and whether products may

contribute to antibiotic resistance.

Antimicrobial Research.—The Committee provides an increase of

$1,000,000 to improve the understanding of biofilms and the regu-

latory science of biofilms associated with FDA work on medical de-

vices, drug delivery, and public health. The funding increase will

help the FDA meet its objectives to reduce health care associated

infections as described in the FDA CDRH Regulatory Science Prior-

ities report, and support the domestic manufacture of drugs and bi-

ological products.

Artificial Intelligence.—The Committee supports the steps FDA

has taken to identify and oversee issues related to AI in drug de-

velopment and urges the Commissioner to convene a dedicated,

cross-center team of internal experts in AI-enabled drug develop-

ment. Building on existing frameworks and programs, the Com-

mittee encourages the agency to consider engaging subject matter

experts from outside of the agency in artificial intelligence, as ap-

propriate, to discuss general matters relating to the uses of AI in

drug development. The Commissioner shall provide a report to the

Committee no later than 180 days after enactment of this Act the

status of the FDA’s efforts regarding engagement on AI in drug de-

velopment.

Artificial Intelligence in Medical Devices.—Within 90 days of en-

actment of this act, the FDA shall conduct an assessment of its ex-

isting authorities and provide to Congress a report that identifies,

if any, changes to its statutory authorities necessary for the FDA

to conduct oversight of post-deployment performance and patient

safety monitoring of artificial intelligence/machine learning [AI/

ML] based software as a medical device (SaMD] and AI/ML-en-

130

abled medical devices. The Commissioner’s report to Congress

should include recommended modifications to authority, law, or

policy, including an estimate of the associated implementation

costs and any adjustment in the allocation of resources.

Bacterial Endotoxin Testing.—The Committee directs the FDA to

continue to be an active participant with the US Pharmacopeia

[USP] as they finalize chapter <86>. The Committee requests a

written update within 180 days of enactment of this act.

Bicillin.—The Committee is concerned that Bicillin, the only

FDA-approved treatment for syphilis in pregnant people and in-

fants, is currently in short supply, even though there has been a

significant uptick in syphilis cases. Therefore, the Committee di-

rects the FDA Commissioner, in coordination with Secretary of the

Department of Health and Human Services and the Director of the

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to provide a plan to the

Committee, no later than 90 days after enactment, to ensure an

adequate, uninterrupted drug supply and to prevent future short-

ages—including other drug shortages that may impact Bicillin, and

steps to use the most up-to-date Federal agency data to determine

drug supply needs.

Biosimilars.—The Committee recognizes the FDA’s continued

work to approve biosimilars that can enhance competition, drive

down costs to healthcare systems, and increase patient access to

biologic therapies. In April 2024, FDA approved the 50th biosimilar

product. The Committee encourages FDA to continue its commit-

ment to working with industry to resolve delays or setbacks in a

timely manner so that high-quality, safe, and effective biosimilars,

particularly those that would introduce new competition, can more

quickly get to market.

Botanical Dietary Supplements.—The Committee appreciates the

agency’s efforts to strengthen regulation of dietary supplements-in-

cluding through the use of the Dietary Supplement Ingredient Ad-

visory List and the Botanical Safety Consortium. The Committee

encourages FDA to further invest in research to identify potential

drug interactions with botanical drugs.

Cell and Gene Therapy.—The Committee commends the strong

and consistent leadership of the Center for Biologics Evaluation

and Research and continues to closely monitor the promise of cell

and gene therapy for patients, particularly children. The Com-

mittee expresses support for FDA leadership’s commitment to re-

main the gold standard in understanding novel treatments and re-

viewing them based on current science and with all due urgency

where unmet medical need exists.

Cell Cultured Products.—The Committee is aware that in April

of 2020 the U.S. Government Accountability Office completed a

study of cell culture products and found that because no company

was commercially producing cell-cultured meat at that time, there

was a lack of specific information on the technology being used,

eventual commercial production methods, and composition of final

products. FDA is directed to submit a report no later than 60 days

following the enactment of this act to the Committee outlining the

specific information on the technology being used commercial pro-

duction methods, and composition of the final products that have

131

undergone FDA’s pre- market consultation process for human foods

made with cultured animal cells.

Center for Veterinary Medicine.—FDA–CVM published final guid-

ance #256, Compounding Animal Drugs from Bulk Drug Sub-

stances, in 2022 to describe the agency’s approach to situations

where veterinarians need access to these unapproved drugs to pro-

vide appropriate care for the medical needs of the diverse species

they treat. The guidance alone will not end current abusive prac-

tices that threaten animal health. The Committee understands en-

forcement actions were delayed providing a period of adjustment.

The Committee requests CVM submit a report to the Committee on

the number of enforcement actions taken.

Clinical Trial Operations.—The Committee recognizes that the

COVID–19 pandemic further increased the staffing shortages al-

ready present at clinical research sites, exacerbating longstanding

challenges to the timely collection and efficient reporting of clinical

trial data in cancer research. The burden of data collection, entry,

and verification is high and rests primarily with site staff, who

most often input data manually. Meanwhile, the data fields re-

quested for developing a given drug class have become increasingly

numerous and may be complex. The Committee urges the FDA to

provide guidance to cancer trial sites, sponsors, and contractors

that both defines necessary data elements and streamlines data

entry and verification processes. Such guidance will be

foundational in maximizing clinical trial efficiency through a tar-

geted reduction of the administrative burden currently placed upon

research staff.

COVID Vaccine Strain Selection.—During the COVID–19 pan-

demic, FDA was able to rapidly make available a variety of safe

and efficacious COVID–19 countermeasures which helped to sig-

nificantly reduce burden of disease. However, the evolution of

SARS–CoV–2 has reduced the efficacy of several products and is re-

quiring health authorities to continuously examine potential up-

dates, most notably to the strain composition and presentations of

COVID–19 vaccines. FDA has followed a strain selection process

with timelines for updating COVID–19 vaccine composition. FDA

should continue to follow a process whereby the agency rec-

ommends modifications to vaccine composition as needed and prac-

tical to take into account viral evolution, and whenever possible to

provide all vaccine manufacturers, irrespective of manufacturing

technology, thereby supporting the availability of COVID–19 vac-

cine options for healthcare providers and consumers. This strength-

ens the vaccine supply by mitigating risks associated with product

recalls, supply chain disruptions, or changes to clinical guidance

limiting use in a given population.

Continuous Pharmaceutical Manufacturing.—The Committee ap-

preciates the FDA’s continued efforts to adapt drug manufacturing

guidance to align with new advanced manufacturing processes such

as continuous flow manufacturing of active pharmaceutical ingredi-

ents [API], including the Center for Drug Evaluation and

Research’s Framework for Regulatory Advanced Manufacturing

Evaluation [FRAME] Initiative. The Committee is concerned that

a current lack of clear standards and realistic quality assessment

methods for continuous pharmaceutical manufacturing are creating

132

unnecessary risk for capital investments in advanced manufac-

turing equipment. The Committee notes the promising potential for

continuous pharmaceutical manufacturing to reduce the cost of ge-

neric pharmaceutical production and make it more financially via-

ble to increase generic pharmaceutical manufacturing in the

United States. The Committee also notes that investors and manu-

facturers may hesitate to make the significant capital investments

required to purchase continuous manufacturing equipment when

standard practices for quality monitoring and licensing are not yet

established.

Deputy Commissioner for Human Foods.—To improve the Food

and Drug Administration’s ability to quickly and efficiently respond

to threats to food safety, the Committee directs the Commissioner

of the Food and Drug Administration to empower and provide all

necessary resources for the Deputy Commissioner for Human of

Foods to oversee the activities of the Human Foods Program, and

to grant the Deputy Commissioner for Human Foods authority over

the food inspection resources for the Office of Inspections and In-

vestigations.

Device Remanufacturing Safety and Awareness.—The Committee

recognizes that the FDA has authority over remanufacturing of de-

vices but is concerned that the agency needs to increase public

awareness of the requirements applicable to device remanufac-

turing, consistent with the agency’s mission to protect and promote

public health. The Committee recognizes that the agency plans to

publish a final guidance document on the remanufacturing of de-

vices in fiscal year 2024. Within 30 of the issuance of the final

guidance document, the Committee directs the agency to provide a

briefing to the Committee on the guidance and the agency’s plans

to promote public awareness of the applicable requirements and re-

lated compliance.

Drug Advisory Committees.—The Committee understands the im-

portance of the integrity of the FDA and that the volume and com-

plexity of new products is increasing rapidly. Expert Advisory Com-

mittees are a key component of FDA’s regulatory decisionmaking,

enhancing the agency’s capabilities and building trust among the

medical community, patients, and the broader public. FDA’s use of

advisory committees in the context of drug regulation has changed

substantially from 2010 to 2021, with FDA convening fewer com-

mittees in advance of major decisions, including new drug approv-

als. The Committee recommends that FDA take steps towards en-

gaging independent experts in a more consistent and rigorous way.

To that end, the Committee directs FDA to report on its guidelines

for utilizing Expert Advisory Committees, analyzing the predict-

ability and consistency of these Committees in fiscal year 2024 and

to provide a report to the Committee on its findings within 120

days of the enactment of this act.

Drug Approvals.—The Committee asserts that FDA’s authority to

approve medications should be based on sound science and devoid

of political or economic considerations.

Essential Medical Devices.—FDA issued a safety communication

in November 2023, with additional updates in March, April, and

May of 2024, warning consumers, healthcare providers, and

healthcare facilities to avoid syringes that are manufactured in

133

China due to quality and patient safety concerns around leaks,

breakage, and other problems. However, foreign needles and sy-

ringes, particularly from China, continue to be imported into the

U.S. These products are being widely used throughout the U.S.

healthcare system despite the serious risks to patients and the re-

sulting erosion of the domestic manufacturing base. The Committee

strongly supports efforts to protect patient safety, national security,

and vulnerable domestic supply chains for critical industries, like

essential medical devices. The Committee directs FDA to provide a

report to the Committee on steps it will take to increase awareness

of problematic syringes from China, including discussion of the use

of domestically produced syringes as alternatives where appro-

priate.

Essential Medical Devices Inspections.—The Committee urges

FDA to increase its oversight and inspection of essential medical

devices, particularly drug delivery devices and accessories, made in

foreign countries. Currently, the U.S. imports nearly 40 percent of

its needles and syringes from China and these devices have shown

to have both quality and compatibility issues. Given these con-

cerns, the FDA should be inspecting more foreign facilities, more

often, consistent with U.S. domestic manufacturers and modernize

applicable guidance that outline the technical expectations critical

to quality. Therefore, the Committee strongly urges FDA to in-

crease its oversight and inspection of essential medical devices,

particularly drug delivery devices and accessories, made in China.

FDA is directed to provide a briefing to the Committee regarding

a one, three, and five year plan, within 180 days of enactment of

this act, increasing its oversight (including inspections) of Chinese

essential medical device facilities.

Essential Medicines.—The Committee is concerned about Ameri-

cans’ access to essential medicines, as defined by the FDA’s October

2020 essential medicines and medical countermeasures list. As the

agency in charge of approving drugs, reporting drug shortages, and

protecting public health, the Committee directs the FDA to engage

with the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response,

and the HHS Supply Chain Resilience and Shortage Working

Group to identify opportunities to support the development of capa-

bilities to produce essential medicines in the United States. Par-

ticular attention should be paid to the production of antibiotics,

which are experiencing drug shortages and are found on FDA’s List

of Essential Medicines.

Food Labeling Accuracy.—The Committee supports evaluating

whether artificial intelligence [AI] driven audit tools can effectively

assess food labeling accuracy and facilitate greater Federal labeling

compliance. CFSAN is responsible for assuring that foods sold in

the United States are safe and properly labeled. The Committee be-

lieves that AI-driven tools will accelerate CFSAN’s goal of ensuring

the accuracy of food labeling consistent with the Agency’s obliga-

tion under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and the Fair

Packaging and Labeling Act to monitor and ensure that food labels

are truthful and not misleading. The Committee directs CFSAN to

report to the Committee by on the status of its evaluation.

Food Additives.—The Committee encourages FDA to consider the

cumulative effects of chemically and pharmacologically related sub-

134

stances in the diet. The Committee requests a briefing within 180

days on the number of food and color additive petitions, food con-

tact substance notifications, and generally recognized as safe

[GRAS] notifications it has received and authorized within the past

5 years that included consideration of the cumulative effects of

chemically and pharmacologically related substances.

The Committee is concerned that state legislative activity to ban

FDA-approved food and color additives threatens both FDA’s uni-

fied, science-based Federal food safety system, and the interstate

commerce of agricultural, food, and beverage goods. The Committee

reaffirms the essential role FDA plays in determining the safety of

food and color additives in the Nation’s food and beverage supply

and encourages the FDA to clearly and actively communicate with

the public and state legislatures the efforts it undertakes to protect

public health from unsafe chemicals and the risks to the food sup-

ply and interstate commerce that would result without a unified,

Federal, science-based food safety system.

Further, the Committee requests that FDA provide, no later than

180 days after enactment, a report that details food and color addi-

tives that are under current FDA review and that FDA is other-

wise prioritizing for future review, including the basis of potential

safety concerns, the current status of the review, and a timeline of

review for each additive, including a commitment to a timeframe

to complete the review.

Food Safety Modernization Act Outreach to Small Farmers.—The

Committee expects FDA to adequately fund its programs to provide

outreach, training, and technical assistance to educate small farm-

ers on compliance with the FSMA Produce Safety Rule and rules

for agricultural water. The Committee expects CFSAN to continue

support for the coopertive agreement established for this purpose.

The Committee encourages FDA to support critical outreach and

training services to small farmers until the Produce Safety Rule is

fully implemented, including enforcement and compliance of Sub-

part E (agricultural water) and Subpart F (biological soil amend-

ments of animal origin) for farms and businesses of all sizes.

Field Based Prevention Strategies.—The Committee directs the

FDA Center for Excellence to continue to dedicate funds as nec-

essary to develop field-based prevention strategies for the fresh

produce industry.

Foreign Approved Drugs.—The Committee supports efforts to in-

crease the tools available to FDA to ensure the timely approval of

lifesaving drugs and encourages FDA to examine opportunities to

facilitate submission of marketing applications by manufacturers of

drugs with marketing authorization in countries listed in 21 U.S.C.

382, Federal, Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act section 802(b), but

which are not approved in the United States.

Grain Reconditioning.—The Committee is aware of delays in

FDA approval for a reconditioning process after the Federal Grain

Inspection Service [FGIS] has determined the inspected grain at

export facilities to be Distinct Low Quality. The Committee directs

FDA and USDA to update their Memorandum of Understanding

[MOU] regarding their respective timely responsibilities in the in-

spection and standardization of grain, rice, pulses, and food prod-

ucts, to allow pre-approved reconditioning plans for lost/sublots of

135

grain that are found actionable for specific conditions. In updating

the MOU, the Committee directs FDA and USDA to consult with

key stakeholders, including industry.

Healthy Rule.—The Committee directs FDA to consider all data

and information submitted during the open public comment period

before publishing rules or regulations for updating the implied nu-

trient content claim healthy.

Heavy Metals in Baby Food.—The Committee is concerned that

lead, arsenic, cadmium and mercury are often present in dangers

quantities in foods intended for consumption by infants and tod-

dlers and encourages the FDA to coordinate with the USDA to en-

sure that a wide variety of healthy nutritious foods remain avail-

able to participants of Federal nutrition programs.

HIV Self-Testing.—The Committee supports advancement of

technologies that enable rapid self-testing for HIV, particularly

those technologies that detect HIV in patients on current or future

therapeutics and vaccines. The Committee notes the critical impor-

tance of having such self-testing technologies available before HIV

vaccines reach the market in order to eliminate false positive re-

sults with current tests and to support vaccine adoption. The Com-

mittee encourages FDA to prioritize meritorious proposals to bring

these important tests to market.

Homeopathy.—The Committee understands the importance of ho-

meopathic medicines for millions of users. Consumers access and

safety to these products are best ensured by implementing a legal

pathway that includes homeopathic specific standards for the regu-

lation of these medicines. The Committee understands FDA is lim-

ited to enforcing pharmaceutical specific standards when taking en-

forcement action against products labeled as homeopathic. The

FDA’s interpretation of the law that all homeopathic medicines are

unapproved new drugs that are illegally marketed has created con-

fusion both for the homeopathic community and enforcement offi-

cials. The Committee directs the FDA to work with the homeo-

pathic community with regards to the regulation of these medi-

cines.

HPV Self-Sampling.—One in four women in the United States do

not receive regular cervical cancer screenings, with more than half

of cervical cancer diagnoses occurring in women who are not

screened. While there are many barriers to screening, some of the

top include fear of the procedure, embarrassment, or lack of time

or transportation. The Committee encourages FDA to exercise the

use of regulatory authorities to expedite innovation related to at-

home self-collection tests that could increase and expand access to

screenings for women and address a persistent cancer health dis-

parity for women who are never screened or under-screened.

Human Drug Review Performance Trends.—The concurrent in-

vestment of discretionary resources and Prescription Drug User

Fee Act [PDUFA] Program funds has resulted in a successful pro-

gram for over three decades enabling faster review times in the

United States, thus allowing the American people to gain quicker

access to FDA approved prescription drugs. The Committee is

aware of a recent decrease in FDA first cycle approval rates [FCA]

with an increasing number of Complete Response Letters [CRLs]

being issued to drug manufacturers. This decline is observed across

136

all human drug review programs, including novel drug approvals.

To keep with the stated goals within the PDUFA Performance

Goals to increase the first cycle approval rate for medicines that

are ultimately approved, the Committee directs FDA to provide a

report to the Committee with an analysis of how the issues that

led to CRLs following a first-cycle review of new molecular entities

and original biologic license applications over the past 5 years. This

report should include recommendations on how sponsors and FDA

can improve timely identification and resolution of potential issues;

the extent to which and how the global pandemic may have im-

pacted FCAs between February 2020 to May 2023; and how chal-

lenges in the human drug review process may be addressed with

the ultimate goal of increasing FCA rates and faster patient access

to safe and effective prescription drugs.

Imported Shrimp Safety and Inspection Pilot Program.—The

Committee commends and supports FDA’s ongoing efforts to imple-

ment and increase its oversight and the regulation of the safety of

shrimp products imported into the United States. The Committee

maintains the fiscal year 2024 funding levels to implement the pro-

gram. FDA’s prior reports to Congress emphasized the importance

of increased sampling of import shipments, investment in labora-

tory capabilities, data analytics, and the establishment of regu-

latory partnership arrangements with the top three countries ex-

porting shrimp to the U.S. The Committee encourages FDA to con-

tinue the full development and implementation of the shrimp pilot

program including finalizing the establishment of regulatory part-

nership arrangements. The FDA Commissioner shall provide the

Committee a briefing before the end of fiscal year 2025 summa-

rizing how the funds appropriated have been used and how the

funds support FDA in meeting the objectives of section 787 of Pub-

lic Law 116–260.

Infant Formula.—The Committee remains concerned about the

domestic production of infant formula after the 2022 infant formula

crisis and that since the 2022 crisis, there have been several in-

stances of cronobacter being found in infant formula and illness

and death among babies who consumed it. The Committee directs

the FDA to use all authorities to prevent contaminated infant for-

mula from making it to market.

The Committee also directs the FDA to streamline approval proc-

esses for small domestic manufacturers to increase and expand the

domestic supply of infant formula and bring jobs to the Unites

States.

Innovative Glass Packaging.—The Committee directs the FDA to

work with glass packaging suppliers and pharmaceutical manufac-

turers to evaluate and promote streamlined approval requirements

designed to expedite the adoption and use of innovative glass pack-

aging technologies with the capacity to improve product quality, re-

duce product recalls, reduce drug shortages, and protect public

health. Such streamlined approval requirements should address

stability testing and other relevant types of data to be submitted

in support of product approval.

Insomnia.—The Committee encourages FDA to work with the

Drug Enforcement Administration [DEA] to prioritize actions that

may expand access to insomnia treatments. The Committee under-

137

stands that our servicemembers, veterans, and first responders

have a higher-than-average prevalence of insomnia, and that DEA

and FDA are currently undergoing a review to potentially

deschedule the DORA class of insomnia treatments. FDA is encour-

aged to work swiftly to complete their Eight-Factor Analysis to en-

sure that safer insomnia treatments get to those who need them

sooner. Within 60 days of enactment of this act, the Committee di-

rects FDA to provide a report to the Committee on the status of

any scientific and medical evaluation that may be in progress

under the provisions of 21 U.S.C. 811 and provide detailed informa-

tion on next steps on the descheduling process once FDA has com-

pleted their analysis.

Inspection Frequency.—The Committee is concerned that food fa-

cilities are not inspected frequently enough to adequately identify

and respond to risks. Under the Food Safety Modernization Act,

high-risk domestic facilities must be inspected every 3 years and

other domestic facilities must be inspected every 5 years. The Com-

mittee directs FDA to provide a report, not later than 180 days

after the enactment of this act, regarding its resource analysis on

increasing the frequency of inspections to every 18 months for

high-risk domestic facilities and every 3 years for non-high-risk do-

mestic facilities, while continuing other important public health ac-

tivities, including oversight of imported food safety.

International Mail Facilities.—The Committee remains concerned

about the opioid epidemic that has taken the lives of thousands of

Americans and support the FDA’s continued investments in Inter-

national Mail Facilities and Ports of Entry to prevent illicit drugs,

including unapproved and counterfeit pharmaceuticals, from enter-

ing the United States.

Islet Autoantibodies.—The Committee encourages FDA to engage

with the diabetes community on potential cures for Type 1 and

Type 2 diabetes, including islet therapies. The Committee is aware

of ongoing delays in research and development to potential cures

for diabetes, including islet therapies, and encourages FDA to en-

gage with stakeholders, including advocates, researchers and man-

ufacturers, on advancing transformative diabetes treatments and

cures.

Limited Population Pathway for Antibacterial and Antifungal

Drugs.—On December 13, 2016, the Limited Population Pathway

for Antibacterial and Antifungal Drugs (LPAD pathway) was added

to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act through sec-

tion 3042 of the 21st Century Cures Act (section 506(h) of the

FD&C Act). This pathway provides stakeholders, including FDA

and industry, with a tool to help with the approval of antibacterial

and antifungal drugs to treat serious and life-threatening infections

in a limited population of patients with unmet needs. On August

5, 2020, FDA published a Final Guidance for Industry: Limited

Population Pathway for Antibacterial and Antifungal Drugs. In

2021 the Government Accountability Office [GAO] published a re-

port highlighting the fact that the pathway was infrequently used.

The Committee directs the GAO to revisit and update this report

and include recommendations to improve utilization of the LPAD

program.

138

Listeria.—The Committee recognizes that developing the Compli-

ance Policy Guide [CPG] for Listeria monocytogenes in ready-to-eat

foods is a complex process, and directs the FDA to work with stake-

holders to ensure that the CPG outlines a policy that is reflective

of the current scientific evidence and is practical to implement.

Lupus.—The Committee is aware of barriers that have long af-

fected the development of therapeutics for lupus, a disease that pri-

marily targets women. A chronic and complex autoimmune disease,

lupus can affect the joints, skin, brain, lungs, kidneys, and blood

vessels, causing widespread inflammation and tissue damage in the

affected organ. The Committee is pleased that FDA participated in

an externally-led patient-focused drug development meeting with

the lupus community and identified some of these barriers and that

potential treatments are now in clinical trials. The Committee

urges FDA to expedite its ongoing work with the lupus community

to develop solutions to identified barriers that will accelerate devel-

opment of new therapies.

Medical Foods.—The Committee recognizes the unique role med-

ical foods play in the nutritional management of inborn errors of

metabolism and encourages a flexible regulatory process that would

enhance access to safe medical foods for individuals with serious or

life-threatening inborn errors of metabolism. The Committees en-

courages the FDA to continue focusing on this issue.

Medications Safety and Effectiveness.—The Committee supports

FDA’s authority to approve medications based on the scientific

evaluation of the safety and efficacy of the medication, as well as

its authority to determine the methodology to adequately perform

the scientific evaluation.

Medical Supply Chain Surveillance.—The Committee appreciates

the FDA’s work to address drug shortages and other medical sup-

ply chain issues, but these continue to persist and cause harm. The

Committee urges the FDA to build on its June 2021 recommenda-

tions to improve transparency throughout the pharmaceutical sup-

ply chain by continuing to support the development of information

systems to anticipate drug or other medical supply shortages in

order to be able to act to work to prevent and/or mitigate short-

ages. A special emphasis should be placed on drug shortages, par-

ticularly sterile injectable drugs, which were found to be the drugs

most commonly in short supply in the Drug Shortages Taskforce its

report ‘‘Drug Shortages: Root Causes and Potential Solutions’’. The

Committee urges the FDA to partner with other divisions in the

Department of Health and Human Services, such as to expedite the

development or licensure of a coordinated medical supply chain

surveillance system to support strategies to proactively prevent or

mitigate drug shortages. This effort should include the Administra-

tion for Strategic Preparedness and Response and other govern-

mental and nongovernmental organizations as deemed necessary.

Menopause and Mid-Life Women’s Health.—The Committee en-

courages the FDA to continue outreach and engagement activities

with healthcare providers and researchers on perimenopause,

menopause, and mid-life women’s health, as well as oversight and

consumer protection efforts to assess the safety and effectiveness of

new diagnostic tools for menopausal symptoms, including devices

that use artificial intelligence.

139

Metastatic Cancer.—The Committee recognizes FDA for ongoing

efforts to gather input and patient-focused feedback from the meta-

static cancer community. The Committee notes the ongoing chal-

lenge identified by patients of needing access to multiple thera-

peutic option and various sites of care due to the fact that patients

with metastatic cancer often progress through multiple therapies,

and encourages FDA to continue working to ensure multiple safe

and effective therapeutic options with varying delivery mechanisms

are available.

Minimal (or Measurable) Residual Disease.—To expedite the de-

velopment and safe patient access to new therapeutics, FDA is en-

couraged to support collaborative research with the National Insti-

tutes of Health, universities, and industry, regarding the utiliza-

tion of Minimal (or Measurable) Residual Disease [MRD] testing to

assess response to therapy and predict patient outcomes in its eval-

uation of therapeutic products. The Committee directs FDA to re-

port within 1 year of the enactment of this act on advances in the

science and development of products directed to the determination

of MRD, that might soon enable the utilization of MRD to serve as

an exploratory endpoint for clinical trial evaluations.

Neurology Drug Program.—The Committee is encouraged by the

Agency’s plants to hire additional staff with neurological expertise

to the expand the Agency’s efforts to address regulatory challenges

in neurodegenerative drug development. The Committee provides

an additional $3,000,000 in base authority for the Agency to build

on current efforts to advance scientific knowledge of neurological

diseases.

New Era of Smarter Food Safety.—The Committee supports the

FDA’s efforts to bring together data from several agencies to iden-

tify and predict vulnerabilities in the Nation’s food supply chain

and enable the FDA to take a proactive approach to ensure food

safety and supply chain continuity to prevent and respond to crises,

such as the recent infant formula shortage. The Committee pro-

vides no less than the fiscal year 2024 level to continue this initia-

tive.

New Prior Knowledge.—The Committee is aware of certain issues

with domestic drug manufacturing supply chains, and that the

FDA has been previously encouraged to improve generic drug de-

velopment, manufacturing, and quality of generic drugs domesti-

cally. The Committee urges FDA to establish a pilot program that

will apply new tools to improve generic drug development, manu-

facturing, and quality. The program must be in collaboration with

academic institutions that offer strengths in assessing and improv-

ing the generic drug supply chain to ensure the utilization of evi-

dence-based best practices.

Niemann-Pick Type C [NPC].—The Committee continues to en-

courage FDA to increase its understanding and focus on NPC, a

rare progressive and universally fatal disease that impact children

and young adults. The Committee encourages FDA to use its exist-

ing authorities and pathways to meet the urgent unmet medical

need of the current generation of NPC patients, including pre-

serving access to existing experimental therapies already in use.

The Committee further encourages FDA to maximize the use of ex-

isting natural history data and real world evidence contributed by

140

this small patient population through existing and past clinical

studies and to continue to work with patients, scientists, and in-

dustry partners to bring to full fruition the work that is being ac-

complished through patient organizations, scientists, researchers,

and other to fully benefit this generation of NPC patients.

Office of Therapeutic Products.—The Committee recognizes the

FDA’s efforts with regard to rare disease and oncology pilot pro-

grams and other positive initiatives, as well as recent increases to

support staffing, especially within the Center for Biologics Evalua-

tion and Research and the Office of Therapeutic Products [OTP].

However, the Committee is concerned about the ability to consist-

ently achieve the desired level of review timeliness and quality,

and encourages the FDA to implement and apply modern ap-

proaches to keep pace with the science. Specifically, the Committee

encourages OTP to facilitate reviewers’ understanding of the cur-

rent scientific consensus and disease-specific considerations for cur-

rent and future programs through consultation with subject matter

experts, both internal and external to FDA. The Committee is also

concerned about insufficient patient and expert input when weigh-

ing benefits and risks of potentially life changing or lifesaving new

treatments. Further, the Committee is concerned that despite Con-

gress recently reinforcing FDA’s flexibilities and toolkit related to

rare disease and unmet need, OTP is not fully utilizing these flexi-

bilities and tools as Congress intended. The Committee notes the

importance of use of these flexibilities and tools, as appropriate,

and expects a report to the Committee on interim measures of

progress within 1 year of enactment.

OIG Report on Infant Formula.—The Committee is concerned by

the findings of the HHS Office of Inspector General’s report on the

FDA’s response to the infant formula crisis (A–01–22–01502). The

Committee directs FDA to provide the Committee with quarterly

briefings on changes FDA has made as a result of the findings to

improve inspections, recalls, and administrative responses within

FDA. The Committee also directs the FDA to provide a report,

within 90 days of enactment of this act, outlining any statutory

changes needed to fully implement the findings from the report.

Opioid Epidemic.—The Committee is deeply concerned about the

opioid epidemic that took the lives of more than 109,000 Americans

in 2023. These figures continue to reflect record overdose deaths,

accelerated by the rise of illicit fentanyl. For the past two decades,

the FDA has approved new opioid analgesic drug applications fol-

lowing completion of clinical trials using the enriched enrollment

randomized withdrawal [EERW] methodology. The Committee re-

mains concerned with the FDA use of enriched enrollment, ran-

domized, withdrawal [EERW] clinical trial designs. Whereas the

FDA Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee

[AADPAC] held a meeting reviewing EERW on extended release/

long acting [ER/LA] opioids on the efficacy of EERW on showing ef-

ficacy, while no vote was held, the AADPAC noted perceived flaws

in the clinical trial design. As such the Committee directs the FDA

to continue to review the value of EERW methodology for its use

in evaluating new marketing applications for prescription opioid

analgesics review EERW’s use in approving opioids analgesics cur-

rently on the market.

141

The Committee urges the agency to produce a report to Congress

on the progress of the development and advancement of non-opioid

chronic pain therapies.

Over-the-Counter Tests.—The Committee remains concerned for

Americans lacking equitable access to healthcare. Diagnostics have

proven to be a critical component in protecting public health-miti-

gating the spread of infectious disease, as well as informing treat-

ment options- still access remains limited. The Committee is aware

of existing over-the-counter [OTC] diagnostic tests that would im-

prove accessibility for Americans, and encourage more frequent

testing of common infections, providing an overall benefit to public

health. Therefore, the Committee encourages FDA to prioritize the

premarket review of OTC tests which target the most common viral

and bacterial threats, particularly to address infections for which

there is no OTC diagnostic currently authorized, when they meet

FDA’s standards. Additionally, the Committee directs that no later

than 90 days after the enactment of this act, the agency provides

a report on the FDA’s efforts to expand access to OTC diagnostics,

including an update on submissions in general for these tests, with

special attention to products that address infections for which there

is no OTC diagnostic currently authorized.

Oversight Activities.—The Committee provides $1,500,000 for the

HHS Office of Inspector General specifically for oversight of FDA

activities.

Oversight on FDA Inspections.—The Food and Drug Administra-

tion [FDA] often takes several cycles of review to approve drugs

and biologics that are safe and effective. Pharmaceuticals or bio-

logics often take several review cycles to be approved due to ques-

tions about the quality of their manufacturing, which often takes

place overseas. The Committee directs the FDA to submit a report

of the impact of the location of manufacturing sites, and FDA’s

ability to conduct inspections, on the rate of first cycle approvals.

Pacific Snapper.—The Committee includes bill language regard-

ing Pacific Snapper and directs FDA to update its Fish and Fishery

Products Hazards and Controls Guidance or any other relevant

guidance to clarify or add any additional food safety issues that

may arise due to this change within 180 days of enactment.

Pasteurized Orange Juice.—The Committee is concerned that

pests, disease and hurricanes are having a devastating impact on

Florida’s citrus growers and processors. These circumstances have

resulted in a natural decline in the Brix level for Florida’s mature

oranges, with no known adverse health consequences for con-

sumers. The Committee believes it is necessary to provide for ana-

lytical deviation in the minimum Brix level for pasteurized orange

juice to account for these naturally occurring growing conditions.

The Committee strongly encourages both USDA and FDA to expe-

dite work with Florida’s citrus growers and processors, and other

stakeholders as necessary, to consider additional flexibility by mod-

ernizing requirements for pasteurized orange juice that better ac-

count for naturally-occurring Brix variation.

Pathogen Reduction.—The Committee supports FDA’s efforts to

recommend an individual risk assessment for blood donor eligi-

bility. The Committee encourages FDA to continue studying how to

improve existing blood donation policies to advance a safe and ade-

142

quate supply of blood and reduce stigma. Further, FDA must

prioritize further investments in pathogen reduction technologies to

reduce the risk of transfusion-transmitted infections and safeguard

the blood supply.

Patient Experience Data.—The Committee supports efforts to

identify standardized approaches to collecting and analyzing pa-

tient experience data to inform clinical research design and regu-

latory reviews under the patient-focused drug development process.

The Committee encourages FDA to make every effort to incorporate

all relevant patient experience data, including from patient advo-

cacy organizations, across its regulatory obligations.

Pediatric Cancer.—Many rare pediatric cancers have molecular

and genetic characteristics that are unique to children, such as tu-

mors with gene fusions, embryonic tumors, germline tumors, and

many brain tumors. Developing new therapies for such rare can-

cers is difficult, leaving children with rare tumors with few or no

therapeutic options. The FDA should prioritize the development of

a public-private partnership to assume responsibility for conducting

pediatric oncology drug development programs that may not be

possible for industry to develop on its own. A January 2020 GAO

report on pediatric vouchers recommended the implementation of

‘‘a collaborative agreement to share development risk and reward

between a public or quasi public organization and one or more pri-

vate developers’’.

Pediatric Cancer International Collaboration.—The Committee

encourages the FDA to engage more formally and extensively with

international entities to promote greater collaboration between the

U.S. and international partners around pediatric cancer drug devel-

opment.

Pediatric Device Consortia Grants.—Pediatric Device Consortia

grants provide funding to assist innovators in developing medical

and surgical devices designed for the unique needs of children,

needs that often go unmet by devices currently available on the

market. The Committee is pleased that the FDA-funded Pediatric

Device Consortia have assisted in advancing the development of

more than 2,500 proposed pediatric medical devices projects since

2009.

Pediatric Labeling.—The Committee continues to be concerned

that labeling for over-the-counter [OTC] single-ingredient acetami-

nophen does not contain weight-based dosing instructions for chil-

dren ages 6 months to 2 years. The Committee is concerned that

the lack of dosing information for this vulnerable population may

lead to dosing errors, adverse events, and inadequate treatment of

fever and pain. Over a decade ago, the FDA Nonprescription Drugs

Advisory Committee and Pediatric Advisory Committee rec-

ommended weight-based dosing instructions be added to the label-

ing based on scientific data; however, FDA has still not taken ac-

tion. The Committee directs the FDA to initiate regulatory action

to add dosing data within 180 days of the enactment of this act or

issue a report to Congress every 90 days until such regulatory ac-

tion is initiated.

PFAS in Cosmetics.—The Committee is concerned about the

presence of perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl [PFAS] substances in

cosmetics. The Committee directs the FDA to develop a plan out-

143

lining research needed to inform regulatory decisionmaking, includ-

ing potential development of a proposed rule to ban intentionally

added PFAS substances in cosmetics. Not later than 90 days after

enactment, FDA will brief the committee on the research plan, po-

tential regulatory options, and discuss considerations and antici-

pated challenges with issuing such a proposed rule.

Pharmaceutical Marketing.—The Committee is aware of pro-

motional activities by pharmaceutical companies to physicians and

acknowledges this practice can help inform providers of new treat-

ments. The Committee notes that this can also lead to an increase

in prescribing rates of newer, and potentially more expensive

brand-name medications. The Committee urges FDA to clarify the

obligation of prescription drug and biological product sponsors with

respect to promotional activities.

Plant Based Alternatives.—The Committee is concerned that the

current labeling practices of some plant-based alternatives to ani-

mal-derived foods have the potential to cause consumer confusion.

The Committee directs FDA to conduct a study to (1) better under-

stand consumers’ perceptions and motivations relative to product

composition, health attributes, and other confusing labeling and

marketing practices, and (2) assess consumer perceptions of dif-

ferent terms used on labeling of plant-based alternative products.

No later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this act, FDA

shall submit to Congress, and make publicly available online, a re-

port on the findings of this study.

Plant Based Product Labeling.—The Committee is concerned

that the current labeling practices of some plant based altertives

to animal-derived foods have the potential to cause consumer con-

fusion. The Committee directs the Food and Drug Administration

[FDA] to conduct a study to (1) better understand consumer’s per-

ceptions and motivations relative to produce composition, health at-

tributes, and labeling, and (2) assess consumer perceptions of dif-

ferent terms used on labeling of plant-based alternative products.

No later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this act, FDA

shall submit to Congress, and make publicly available online, a re-

port on the findings of this study.

Polycystic Ovary Syndrome [PCOS].—The Committee recognizes

that there have been no FDA-approved treatments specific to PCOS

and commends the FDA for supporting the Externally-Led Patient-

Focused Drug Development [EL–PFDD] meeting on PCOS. The

Committee further encourages the FDA, based on the findings of

the EL–PFDD meeting, to work with investigators, industry, pa-

tients, practitioners, and researchers to advance the development of

safe new evidence-based therapies, diagnostics, devices, and that

address the identified needs and treatment priorities of PCOS pa-

tients.

Predictive Toxicology Roadmap Guideline Studies.—The Com-

mittee supports activities to implement goals set in the Predictive

Toxicology Roadmap. However, the Committee is concerned that

funding intended to advance New Approach Methodologies [NAMs]

and reduce animal testing for product development will be used to

conduct new animal tests for comparative guideline studies. While

it is important to ensure that novel methods can be relied upon for

product development and regulatory decision-making, the Com-

144

mittee encourages FDA to first consider the use of human data or

existing animal study data in this comparative assessment, when

feasible, to remain aligned with the intentions of the Roadmap and

animal testing reduction, refinement, and replacement goals. The

Committee directs NCTR to prioritize use of existing human data,

or existing data from animal tests conducted prior to enactment of

this act when scientifically appropriate, when collaborating with

other FDA Centers and the National Toxicology Program data if

appropriate.

Prioritizing U.S. Biomanufacturing.—The Committee directs the

Food and Drug Administration [FDA] to prioritize applications or

supplements that identify new domestic or allied manufacturing fa-

cilities for essential medicines as identified by FDA and/or products

experiencing domestic shortages. FDA should prioritize inspections

of new U.S. manufacturing facilities and newly identified U.S.

manufacturing facilities for FDA approved products.

Promoting Domestic Manufacturing.—The Committee supports

the Agency’s work to promote the domestic manufacturing of drugs

and biological products to help bolster supply chain resiliency, in-

cluding consistent with Executive Order 13944. The Committee en-

courages the FDA to increase its efforts, consistent with its au-

thorities, to encourage the pharmaceutical industry to expand and

relocate drug manufacturing to the United States for this purpose.

The Committee encourages the FDA to continue programs and poli-

cies that would encourage the pharmaceutical industry to adopt ad-

vanced manufacturing technologies, which could help prompt in-

dustry to relocate foreign manufacturing to the United States or

expanding current domestic manufacturing.

Psychedelics.—The Committee recognizes the increased interest

and need to study psychedelics, including MDMA, psilocybin,

ibogaine, and 5–MeO–DMT, and their potential therapeutic effects.

The Committee encourages FDA to work with the VA, DoD, and

NIH on leveraging clinical trials to improve our understanding of

psychedelics The Committee also encourages FDA and VA, DoD,

and NIH to work together in developing and supporting public-pri-

vate collaborations to advance psychedelic research for therapeutic

purposes, with FDA maintaining its independent regulatory au-

thority as an observer. The Committee requests a report on such

efforts within 180 days of enactment of this act.

Rare Diseases.—The Committee recognizes the unique barriers to

developing innovative therapies for rare diseases. Approximately 25

to 30 million Americans suffer from a rare disease, yet only 500 out

of the 7,000 known rare conditions have an FDA-approved treat-

ment. The Committee commends FDA for its efforts to modernize

and expedite the regulatory environment for rare disease drug de-

velopment. While acknowledging the autonomy of both Center for

Drug Evaluation and Research [CDER] and Center for Biologics

Evaluation and Research [CBER], particularly in their restruc-

turing efforts tailored to the products they review, the Committee

underscores the necessity of a more aligned approach specifically

for rare diseases. The alignment of novel approaches to rare dis-

ease drug development helps expedite timely access to innovative

safe and effective therapies to address the urgent, unmet needs of

patients living with rare diseases. Therefore, the Committee urges

145

CDER and CBER to continue to engage through its Accelerated Ap-

proval Council to align policies related to the use of Accelerated

Approval in rare disease drug development.

Rare Disease Innovation Agenda.—The Committee recognizes

that the development of rare disease therapies offers unique regu-

latory challenges, especially for the smallest patient populations.

This is due to several factors including poorly understood natural

history, challenges in identifying informative endpoints and bio-

markers, and for certain therapies, hurdles in manufacturing and

commercialization due to population size. To help further facilitate

the development of medical products for rare diseases with a high

unmet need, the Committee requests that within 180 days of enact-

ment, the agency develop a Rare Disease Innovation Agenda to en-

hance communication between the rare disease community and the

Agency and to focus on intercenter collaboration and coordination

regarding issues critical to rare disease drug development, such as

novel endpoints, biomarker development, use of real world data,

and innovative clinical trial designs for small populations. In devel-

oping such an agenda, the Agency should consider whether dif-

ferent mechanisms could be operationalized to facilitate and en-

hance intercenter collaboration, as well as solicit public input, in-

cluding through a public meeting that includes patients, companies

developing rare disease therapies and other relevant experts. A

summary of such meeting and proposed recommendations shall be

posted on the Agency’s website.

Seafood Labeling.—The Committee continues to hear concerns

with the labeling of certain foods as a fish or seafood product when

the products are highly-processed plant-based foods rather than de-

rived from actual fish or seafood, and the labeling of these products

are misleading, deceptive, and confusing to consumers. The Com-

mittee is concerned the terms ‘‘plant-based’’ and ‘‘vegan’’ exempt

the producer from describing the actual plant source as part of the

product name, in opposition to other FDA guidance. The Committee

directs the FDA to provide clarity around the labeling of these

foods using seafood terminology to ensure they are held to the

same standards as actual seafood products to avoid consumer con-

fusion, and aligns with the structure it has applied to the draft

guidance for the labeling of plant-based milk alternatives.

Securing Medical Supply Chains.—The Committee direct the

FDA, in coordination with national security agencies, to prioritize

supply chain security and national security when evaluating all ap-

plications throughout the new drug development and approval

lifecycle.

Smoking Cessation.—The Committee is aware of alarming trends

in youth e-cigarette use; recent survey data from the Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention indicates that in 2023, 10 percent

of high school students reported using e-cigarettes in the previous

30 days. At present, there are no FDA-approved nicotine cessation

drugs that are approved for adolescent populations. With more

than 2,500,000 young people using e-cigarettes, there is a greater

need for development of nicotine Cessation treatments for adoles-

cents. The Committee encourages FDA to provide additional guid-

ance to drug manufacturers on the tools that FDA can utilize to

146

promote development and expedite approval of nicotine cessation

treatments for adolescents.

The Committee recognizes the important work of advancing

smoking cessation treatment innovation to help adult smokers be

more successful in quitting and the critical role of the Center for

Drug Evaluation and Research [CDER] in this work. The Com-

mittee is concerned that the HHS Smoking Cessation Framework

released on March 8, 2024, as an update to a 2023 draft, does not

acknowledge the importance of bringing forward new

pharmacotherapies for smokers seeking to quit and the critical role

of CDER in modernizing the regulatory framework for these prod-

ucts to reflect the real-world experience risk-benefit considerations

and address unnecessary barriers to advancing vitally needed new

cessation therapies for patients. The Committee requests an update

from CDER on new actions the Center will take to address the sus-

tained unmet public health needs in this space not later than 90

days after enactment of this act.

Sodium.—The Committee recognizes the importance of reducing

sodium in the food supply. Within 90 days of enactment, the Com-

mittee directs FDA to provide a report to the Committee on its pre-

liminary assessment report that will be publicly posted to its

website and on its plans for monitoring and evaluation of the short-

term targets. In its report, FDA should detail how it will identify

data sources, collect and analyze data, create a timeline for assess-

ments, and work with industry on voluntary compliance.

Sponsor Communication.—The Committee is concerned with

FDA’s reliance on ‘‘Written Response Only’’ communication, in lieu

of live interactions when responding to meeting requests from

sponsors. While written response can be a useful tool, there are

times where meaningful scientific exchanges between sponsors and

FDA is required. The Committee directs the FDA to offer face to

face or teleconference meetings when requested by the sponsor, as

discussed in FDA guidance documents.

State and Local Programs.—The Committee notes that state and

local regulatory agencies are essential to the integrated food safety

system. States conduct 60 percent of food processing inspections on

behalf of the FDA, 90 percent of produce safety inspections, and

100 percent of retail food inspections. State and local agencies also

perform key roles in identifying and investigating potential ill-

nesses and effectuating product removals through recalls. FDA

often requests state authority to expedite product recalls, such as

those recently implemented for applesauce pouches contaminated

with heavy metals. The Committee provides no less than the fiscal

year 2024 level for the Field Operations Programs for state and

local programs.

Steroid Use.—The Committee is encouraged that FDA is con-

tinuing to progress in its risk benefit analysis of new treatments

for diseases, particularly rare diseases, with high unmet need and

a current standard of care that carries a potential risk, especially

for children who may be taking these higher risk treatments over

many years. The Committee applauds FDA for applying thought-

fulness and urgency when reviewing new treatment options that

are both effective treatment options and could mitigate the poten-

tial long term risk of the current standard of care. As the Agency

147

continues to address risks such as radiation exposure in cancer

treatments, prolonged exposure to addictive treatments, and other

current treatments that carry potential risk along with benefit, the

Committee supports the Agency in applying the same urgency to

addressing the risk of prolonged exposure to high dose steroids,

particularly for children.

Study on Opioid Prescribing.—The Committee remains concerned

with the ongoing opioid abuse epidemic, and effort to provide treat-

ment for those impacted. As such, the Committee directs the FDA

to review current opioid prescribing practices, including the total

number of opioids prescribed in a calendar year. The purpose of the

study is to show the number of opioids prescribed, excluding

opioids prescribed for treatment of pain related to cancer or cancer

treatment, patients participating in hospice, or a patient with re-

spect to whom the prescriber of the applicable opioid determines

that other non-opioid pain management treatments are inadequate

or inappropriate.

Sunscreen.—The Committee is concerned that Americans are

falling behind the rest of the world when it comes to access to sun-

screen even though skin cancer is the most common cancer in the

U.S. According to the Surgeon General, more than five million

Americans each year are treated for skin cancer at a cost of over

eight billion dollars per year. As a result, the Committee directs

FDA to work with stakeholders to harmonize its approach with

international testing standards to ensure Americans have access to

as many sunscreen active ingredients as possible recognizing that

safe and effective sunscreen products are a proven preventative

tool against skin cancer. In addition, the Committee urges FDA to

utilize its authorities provided under the CARES Act to evaluate

new sunscreen ingredients already approved for use around the

world and to educate stakeholders about the administrative order

process to encourage research and development of new sunscreen

technology.

Supply Shortages for Critical Medications.—The Committee is

concerned about continued reports of supply shortages for critical

medications and devices, including diabetes, cancer, antibiotic,

ADHD, and other drug shortages, which continue to pose a signifi-

cant challenge and affect patients access to vital treatments and

care. Within 90 days of enactment, the Committee requests a re-

port from FDA regarding its implementation of shortage-related

authorities, and the status of shortage related guidance documents.

Synthetic Nicotine Products.—The Committee is deeply concerned

that many tobacco products that lack the legally required mar-

keting authorization from FDA remain on the market, including

flavored products that are attractive to youth. The wide availability

of these unauthorized products is hindering efforts to reduce youth

use of e-cigarettes and other tobacco products. The Committee di-

rects FDA to quickly identify unauthorized tobacco products that

enter the market and pursue all legally authorized remedies, in-

cluding civil money penalties and injunctions, in coordination with

the Department of Justice to remove unauthorized products from

the market and prevent the products from coming into the United

States. The Committee is also concerned that FDA continues to

miss deadlines for completing its premarket review of e-cigarettes

148

and other deemed tobacco products and urges FDA to promptly

complete these reviews and deny authorization for any product that

does not meet the statutory standard of ‘‘appropriate for the protec-

tion of the public health’’.

Temporomandibular Disorder.—The Committee encourages FDA

to support the development and implementation of a Patient-Cen-

tered Coordinated Registry Network [CRN] for Temporomandibular

Joint Disorder [TMD]. This Registry will be a critical component in

the transformation of temporomandibular disorder research across

other Government Agencies. The Committee supports collabora-

tions among medical product centers related to the development of

treatments for TMD and urges FDA to support implementing of a

Temporomandibular Joint [TMJ] CRN, continuing the develop-

mental work of the TMJ Patient-led RoundTable and its partners

in successfully developing the Registry as an important tool in on-

going efforts to improve the treatment and management of TMD

patients.

Timing and Sequencing of Cancer Immunotherapy.—The Com-

mittee commends the FDA for supporting the rapid implementation

of life-saving immunotherapies into the clinic. New data suggest

the administration of immunotherapies early in the treatment

timeline may be able to prevent or intercept cancers before they de-

velop into serious disease, thus improving patient outcomes while

simultaneously reducing monetary costs and physical burden. To

support continued research in this area, the field must develop

novel tools to efficiently run early-stage clinical trials. These tools

include biomarkers that can detect early disease, inform appro-

priate treatments, and/or serve as surrogates for clinical endpoints.

In addition, determination of early-stage clinical trial endpoints at

large that can characterize patient benefit are necessary for contin-

ued momentum. Therefore, the Committee urges FDA to provide

guidance on the development of early disease clinical trial tools, in-

cluding early-stage biomarkers and clinical endpoints.

Tissue Transplants.—The Committee notes the tissue transplant

industry is growing, with approximately 58,000 donors providing

tissue allografts for 2.5 million transplants in the United States

each year. Although products in this space are widely used for pa-

tients and healthcare providers, the Committee notes outbreaks of

M. tuberculosis in 2021 and 2023 that has contaminated over 100

bone-allograft HCT/Ps placed in patients, resulting in adverse

events and negative patient outcomes. The Committee requests the

FDA issue guidance identifying M. tuberculosis as a relevant com-

municable disease agent or disease [RCDAD] and providing rec-

ommendations to reduce the risk of transmission of M. tuber-

culosis.

Tobacco Issues.—The Committee remains deeply concerned about

data from the National Youth Tobacco Survey showing more than

two million youth use e-cigarettes and urges FDA to use its full au-

thority to address this serious public health problem. The Com-

mittee is particularly concerned that the agency has not completed

its review of many e-cigarettes and other deemed tobacco products

that are popular with youth and has allowed scores of unauthor-

ized products to be sold without the authorization required by stat-

ute, whether because they failed to submit a premarket applica-

149

tion, have a pending application, or have been denied. The Com-

mittee notes there is no safe harbor for the pendency of an applica-

tion, and FDA’s premarket authorization requirement has failed to

be upheld to date. The Committee urges FDA to promptly complete

its required premarket review of e-cigarettes and to deny author-

ization for any product that does not meet the statutory standard

of ‘‘appropriate for the protection of the public health’’, including

denying authorization for all products, especially flavored products,

that have increased or are likely to increase initiation by youth or

non-tobacco users. The Committee urges FDA to pursue all legally

authorized remedies to ensure that all products being sold unlaw-

fully are removed from the marketplace.

Tobacco Task Force.—The Committee includes $2,000,000 for

FDA to support its participation on the recently created multi-

agency task force to combat the illegal distribution and sale of e-

cigarettes, specifically to focus on combatting the illegal import of

tobacco products that appear to be in violation of applicable laws.

Within 90 days of enactment of this Act and quarterly thereafter,

FDA is directed to brief the Committee on its involvement with the

task force, to include what resources and activities it has dedicated

to this initiative.

Traceability Rule.—The Committee encourages the FDA, before

implementing or enforcing the compliance requirements of the ‘‘Re-

quirements for Additional Traceability Records for Certain Foods’’

published on November 21, 2022 (87 Fed. Reg. 70910), or any other

rule promulgated in accordance with section 204 of the FDA Food

Safety Modernization Act (21 U.S.C. 2223), to conduct multiple

pilot projects, using numerous products on the Food Traceability

List, with the regulated entities, including farms, restaurants, re-

tail food establishments, and warehouses distributing to retail food

establishments and restaurants to: (1) measure the effectiveness of

foodborne illness outbreak investigations conducted without requir-

ing tracing to a single lot code; and (2) identify and evaluate the

feasibility and effectiveness of low-cost food tracing technologies.

Furthermore, the Committee expects the FDA to provide the Com-

mittee with a report following the completion of the pilot projects

and to extend the compliance date of the rule by at least 2 years

after the completion of the pilot projects.

Transparency for Imaging Technology.—Foreign adversaries are

pursuing the collection and exploitation of Americans’ sensitive

health data through medical equipment. Therefore, the Committee

directs FDA to provide a report regarding the authorization of all

medical imaging technology for sale into the United States from en-

tities that are based in a territory of a foreign adversary, as de-

fined in 15 CFR § 7.4, or under the jurisdiction of a foreign adver-

saries’ laws or regulations, to the degree that FDA has the infor-

mation and based on the most current information in FDA’s data-

bases of premarket authorizations and Establishment Registration

& Device Listings. ‘‘Medical imaging technology’’ refers to any de-

vice, software, or other technology intended for use in medical im-

aging, including but not limited to X-ray, MRI, CT, ultrasound, and

other diagnostic or therapeutic imaging modalities.

Valley Fever.—The Committee is encouraged by progress made

toward producing a Valley Fever vaccine and recommends that

150

FDA consult with the public and obtain input on the state of the

science related to vaccines to prevent Valley Fever. The Committee

further recommends that FDA draft and issue industry guidance

for entities seeking approval under the Federal Food, Drug, and

Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) or licensure under section 351

of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262) of antifungal

therapies to treat Valley Fever.

Vibrio.—The Committee is aware of the public health challenge

related to the naturally occurring bacteria called Vibrio

parahaemolyticus that can accumulate in shellfish and believes

that more scientific research is necessary to develop proper controls

that will reduce the risk to consumers and sustain a healthy do-

mestic shellfish industry. The Committee encourages the FDA to

increase funding for research into Vibrio illnesses associated with

the consumption of raw molluscan shellfish, improve risk assess-

ment models, and develop improved rapid detection methods for

virulent Vibrio strains.

Women in Clinical Research.—Following recommendations by the

Task Force on Research Specific to Pregnant Women and Lactating

Women, the Committee urges the agency to issue final regulations

relating to the protection of human subjects, including parts 50 and

56 of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, with the latest regula-

tions of the Department of Health and Human Services relating to

the inclusion of pregnant women as subjects in clinical research.

The agency should consider further guidance about ethical issues

to be considered and strategies for designing ethical studies, to in-

form the inclusion of pregnant women and lactating women in a

clinical trial and facilitate their participation.

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $5,000,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 12,788,000

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

FDA maintains offices and staff in 49 States and in the District

of Columbia and Puerto Rico, including field laboratories and spe-

cialized facilities, as well as the National Center for Toxicological

Research complex. Repairs, modifications, improvements, and con-

struction to FDA headquarters and field facilities must be made to

preserve the properties, ensure employee safety, meet changing

program requirements, and permit the agency to keep its labora-

tory methods up to date.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

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

FDA buildings and facilities.

This funding shall be used to upgrade FDA facilities and labora-

tories which are currently below public safety standards and in-

capable of performing agency requirements. The Committee is

aware that several FDA-owned facilities need significant renova-

tions and repairs. The Committee understands that high-quality,

reliable buildings are a necessity to support the FDA’s mission-crit-

ical work.

151

FDA INNOVATION ACCOUNT

CURES ACT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2024 ............................................................................. $50,000,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 55,000,000

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

The Committee recommends $55,000,000 for the FDA as author-

ized in the 21st Century Cures Act (Public Law 114–255).

INDEPENDENT AGENCY

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Limitation, 2024 ..................................................................................... $94,300,000

Budget estimate, 2025 ........................................................................... 100,430,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 100,430,000

The Farm Credit Administration [FCA] is the independent agen-

cy in the executive branch of the Government responsible for the

examination and regulation of the banks, associations, and other

institutions of the Farm Credit System.

Activities of FCA include the planning and execution of examina-

tions of Farm Credit System institutions and the preparation of ex-

amination reports. FCA also promulgates regulations, establishes

standards, enforces rules and regulations, and approves certain ac-

tions of the institutions.

The administration and the institutions under its jurisdiction

now operate under authorities contained in the Farm Credit Act of

1971 (Public Law 92–181), effective December 10, 1971. Public Law

99–205, effective December 23, 1985, restructured FCA and gave

the agency regulatory authorities and enforcement powers.

The act provides for the farmer-owned cooperative system to

make sound, adequate, and constructive credit available to farmers

and ranchers and their cooperatives, rural residences, and associa-

tions and other entities upon which farming operations are depend-

ent, and to modernize existing farm credit law to meet current and

future rural credit needs.

The Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 (Public Law 100–233) au-

thorized the formation of the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Cor-

poration [FAMC] to operate a secondary market for agricultural

and rural housing mortgages. FCA, under section 8.11 of the Farm

Credit Act of 1971 (Public Law 92–181), as amended, is assigned

the responsibility of regulating this entity and assuring its safe and

sound operation.

Expenses of FCA are paid by assessments collected from the

Farm Credit System institutions and by assessments to the FAMC.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends a limitation of $100,430,000 on ad-

ministrative expenses of the Farm Credit Administration.

Hemp-Based Products.—The Committee recognizes the growing

interest for U.S. hemp and hemp-based products for a variety of

uses and directs FCA to work with the institutions under its juris-

152

diction to provide access to guaranteed loans for hemp producers

and businesses.

(153)

TITLE VII

GENERAL PROVISIONS

(INCLUDING RESCISSIONS AND TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

The Committee recommends the following provisions:

Section 701. This section includes language regarding passenger

motor vehicles.

Section 702. This section includes language regarding the Work-

ing Capital Fund.

Section 703. This section limits the funding provided in the bill

to 1 year, unless otherwise specified.

Section 704. This section includes language regarding indirect

costs.

Section 705. This section includes language regarding Rural De-

velopment programs.

Section 706. This section includes language regarding new infor-

mation technology.

Section 707. This section includes language regarding conserva-

tion programs.

Section 708. This section includes language regarding Rural Util-

ities Service program eligibility.

Section 709. This section includes language regarding informa-

tion technology expenses.

Section 710. This section includes language regarding first-class

travel.

Section 711. This section includes language regarding the Com-

modity Credit Corporation.

Section 712. This section includes language regarding advisory

committees.

Section 713. This section includes language regarding informa-

tion technology systems.

Section 714. This section includes language regarding section 32

activities.

Section 715. This section includes language regarding user fee

proposals without offsets.

Section 716. This section includes language regarding the re-

programming of funds and notification requirements.

Section 717. This section includes language regarding fees for the

guaranteed business and industry loan program.

Section 718. This section includes language regarding the appro-

priations hearing process.

Section 719. This section includes language regarding pre-

packaged news.

Section 720. This section includes language regarding details and

assignments of Department of Agriculture employees.

Section 721. This section includes language regarding spending

plans.

154

Section 722. This section includes language regarding the Food

and Drug Administration.

Section 723. This section includes language regarding Rural De-

velopment programs.

Section 724. This section includes language regarding loans and

loan guarantees.

Section 725. This section includes language regarding credit card

refunds.

Section 726. This section includes language regarding SNAP.

Section 727. This section includes language regarding housing

loan programs.

Section 728. This section includes language regarding new user

fees.

Section 729. This section includes language regarding the Food

and Drug Administration.

Section 730. This section includes language regarding FSIS.

Section 731. This section includes language regarding APHIS in-

spections.

Section 732. This section includes language regarding a rescis-

sion.

Section 733. This section includes language regarding tobacco.

Section 734. This section includes language regarding domestic

preference.

Section 735. This section includes language regarding lobbying.

Section 736. This section includes language regarding Rural De-

velopment programs.

Section 737. This section includes language regarding the Food

and Drug Administration.

Section 738. This section includes language regarding the Food

and Drug Administration.

Section 739. This section includes language regarding school

meals program.

Section 740. This section includes language regarding hemp.

Section 741. This section includes language regarding matching

funds.

Section 742. This section includes language regarding a pilot pro-

gram.

Section 743. This section includes language regarding the Food

for Peace program.

Section 744. This section includes language regarding school

meals program.

Section 745. This section includes language regarding school

meals program.

Section 746. This section includes language regarding bio-

technology risk assessment.

Section 747. This section includes language regarding agency re-

location.

Section 748. This section includes language regarding watershed

programs.

Section 749. This section includes language regarding Rural De-

velopment.

Section 750. This section includes language regarding the Water

Bank program.

155

Section 751. This section includes language regarding the Food

and Drug Administration.

Section 752. This section includes language regarding REAP

Zones.

Section 753. This section includes language regarding a tribal

pilot program.

Section 754. This section including language regarding Listeria.

Section 755. This section includes language regarding bison.

Section 756. This section includes language regarding the Food

Safety and Inspection Service.

Section 757. This section includes language regarding APHIS.

Section 758. This section includes language regarding horse

slaughter.

Section 759. This section includes language regarding wetlands.

Section 760. This section includes language regarding the PAWS

Act.

Section 761. This section includes language regarding NASEM.

Section 762. This section includes language regarding Rural De-

velopment.

Section 763. This section includes language regarding labeling.

Section 764. This section includes language regarding the Insti-

tute for Rural Partnership.

Section 765. This section includes language regarding a working

group.

Section 766. This section includes language regarding APHIS.

Section 767. This section includes language regarding the Office

of the General Counsel.

Section 768. This section includes language regarding WIC.

Section 769. This section includes language regarding a rescis-

sion.

Section 770. This section includes language regarding the closure

of a facility.

Section 771. This section includes language regarding housing.

Section 772. This section includes language regarding Pacific

Snapper.

Section 773. This section includes language regarding emergency

funding.

Section 774. This section includes language regarding Livestock

Mandatory Reporting.

Section 775. This section includes language regarding inspec-

tions.

Section 776. This section includes language regarding Commu-

nity Facilities Program.

(156)

PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY

During fiscal year 2025, for purposes of the Balanced Budget and

Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99–177) or the

Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Reaffirmation Act

of 1987 (Public Law 100–119), the following information provides

the definition of the term ‘‘program, project, and activity’’ for de-

partments and agencies under the jurisdiction of the Agriculture,

Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related

Agencies Subcommittee. The term ‘‘program, project, and activity’’

shall include the most specific level of budget items identified in

the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administra-

tion, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2025, and the re-

port.

If a sequestration order is necessary, in implementing the Presi-

dential order, departments and agencies shall apply any percentage

reduction required for fiscal year 2025 pursuant to the provisions

of Public Law 99–177 or Public Law 100–119 to all items specified

in the explanatory notes submitted to the Committees on Appro-

priations of the House and Senate in support of the fiscal year 2025

budget estimates, as amended, for such departments and agencies,

as modified by congressional action, and in addition:

For the Agricultural Research Service the definition shall include

specific research locations as identified in the explanatory notes.

For the Natural Resources Conservation Service the definition

shall include individual flood prevention projects as identified in

the explanatory notes and individual operational watershed

projects as summarized in the notes.

For the Farm Service Agency the definition shall include indi-

vidual, regional, State, district, and county offices.

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI OF THE

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE

Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports accom-

panying general appropriations bills identify each recommended

amendment which proposes an item of appropriation which is not

made to carry out the provisions of an existing law, a treaty stipu-

lation, or an act or resolution previously passed by the Senate dur-

ing that session.

The Committee is filing an original bill, which is not covered

under this rule, but reports this information in the spirit of full dis-

closure.

The Committee recommends funding for the following programs

or activities which currently lack authorization for fiscal year 2025:

—Multi-Family Housing Revitalization Program

—Broadband Telecommunications Grants

—Child Nutrition Programs

—Summer Food Service Program

157

—National School Lunch Act—Information Clearinghouse

—School Meals Program—Compliance and Accountability

—Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants

and Children

—Farmers Market Nutrition Program

—Livestock Mandatory Reporting

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(

), RULE XXVI OF THE

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE

Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on July 11, 2024, the

Committee ordered favorably reported an original bill (S. 4690)

making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food

and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the

fiscal year ending September 30, 2025, and for other purposes, pro-

vided, that the bill be subject to amendment and that any amend-

ment increasing budget authority be offset by a reduction of equal

or greater budget authority, by a recorded vote of 27–0, a quorum

being present. The vote was as follows:

Yeas Nays

Chair Murray

Mr. Durbin

Mr. Reed

Mr. Tester

Mrs. Shaheen

Mr. Merkley

Mr. Coons

Mr. Schatz

Ms. Baldwin

Mr. Murphy

Mr. Manchin

Mr. Van Hollen

Mr. Heinrich

Mr. Peters

Ms. Sinema

Ms. Collins

Mr. McConnell

Ms. Murkowski

Mr. Graham

Mr. Moran

Mr. Hoeven

Mr. Boozman

Mr. Kennedy

Mrs. Hyde-Smith

Mr. Hagerty

Mrs. Britt

Mrs. Fischer

158

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI OF THE

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE

Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports on

a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute or part

of any statute include ‘‘(a) the text of the statute or part thereof

which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a comparative print of

that part of the bill or joint resolution making the amendment and

of the statute or part thereof proposed to be amended, showing by

stricken-through type and italics, parallel columns, or other appro-

priate typographical devices the omissions and insertions which

would be made by the bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form

recommended by the Committee.’’

In compliance with this rule, changes in existing law proposed to

be made by the bill are shown as follows: existing law to be omitted

is enclosed in black brackets; new matter is printed in italic; and

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman.

TITLE 12—BANKS AND BANKING

HAPTER

9—F

EDERAL

OOD

, D

RUG

AND

OSMETIC

UBCHAPTER

III—F

ARM

OUSING

§ 321. Definitions; generally

For the purposes of this chapter—

(a)(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(ss) The term ‘‘critical food’’ means a food that is—

(1) an infant formula; or

(2) a medical food, as defined in section 360ee(b)(3) of this

title.

(tt)(1) The term ‘‘zootechnical animal food substance’’ means a

substance that—

(A) is added to the food or drinking water of animals;

(B) is intended to—

(i) affect the byproducts of the digestive process of an

animal;

(ii) reduce the presence of foodborne pathogens of

human health significance in an animal intended to be

used for food; or

(iii) affect the structure or function of the body of the

animal, other than by providing nutritive value, by altering

the animal’s gastrointestinal microbiome; and

gastrointestinal tract of the animal.

(2) Such term does not include a substance that—

(A) is intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation,

treatment, or prevention of disease in an animal;

(B) is a hormone;

159

the filing of a petition under section 409 was approved under

section 512, conditionally approved under section 571, indexed

under section 572, or for which substantial clinical investiga-

tions have been instituted and for which the existence of such

investigations has been made public;

(D) is an ionophore; or

(E) is otherwise excluded from the definition based on cri-

teria established by the Secretary through notice and comment

rulemaking.

(3) A zootechnical animal food substance shall be deemed to be

a food additive within the meaning of paragraph (s) and its intro-

duction into interstate commerce shall be in accordance with a regu-

lation issued under section 409. A zootechnical animal food sub-

stance shall not be considered a drug under paragraph (g)(1)(C)

solely because the substance has an intended effect described in sub-

paragraph (1).

* * * * * * *

HAPTER

13—S

CHOOL

UNCH

ROGRAMS

§ 1758. Program requirements

(a) Nutritional requirements

* * * * * * *

(h) Food safety

(1) In general

* * * * * * *

(3) Audits and reports by States

øFor fiscal year 2024¿ For fiscal year 2025, each State shall

annually—

* * * * * * *

(4) Audit by the Secretary

øFor fiscal year 2024¿ For fiscal year 2025, the Secretary shall

annually audit State reports of food safety inspections of schools

submitted under paragraph (3).

* * * * * * *

§ 1769g. Information clearinghouse

(a) In general

* * * * * * *

(d) Funding

Out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated,

the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay to the Secretary to provide

to the organization selected under this section, to establish and

maintain the information clearinghouse, $200,000 for each of fiscal

years 1995 and 1996, $150,000 for fiscal year 1997, $100,000 for

fiscal year 1998, $166,000 for each of fiscal years 1999 through

2004, and $250,000 for each of fiscal years ø2010 through 2025¿

160

2010 through 2026. The Secretary shall be entitled to receive the

funds and shall accept the funds, without further appropriation.

* * * * * * *

HAPTER

38—M

ULTIFAMILY

ORTGAGE

ORECLOSURE

§ 3702. Definitions

As used in this chapter—

(1) ‘‘mortgage’’ means a deed of trust, mortgage, deed to se-

cure debt, security agreement, or any other form of instrument

under which any interest in property, real, personal or mixed,

or any interest in property including leaseholds, life estates, re-

versionary interests, and any other estates under applicable

State law, is conveyed in trust, mortgaged, encumbered,

pledged, or otherwise rendered subject to a lien, for the pur-

pose of securing the payment of money or the performance of

an obligation;

(2) ‘‘multifamily mortgage’’ means a mortgage held by the

Secretary pursuant to—

(A) section 608 or 801, or title II or X, of the National

Housing Act;

(B) section 312 of the Housing Act of 1964, as it ex-

isted immediately before its repeal by section 289 of the

Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act;

isted immediately before its amendment by section 801 of

the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act;

(D) section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959, as amend-

ed by section 801 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Af-

fordable Housing Act; øand¿

(E) section 811 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Af-

fordable Housing Actø.¿ ; and

(F) section 514 or 515 of the Housing Act of 1949 (42

U.S.C. 1484, 1485).

TITLE 21—FOOD AND DRUGS

HAPTER

9—F

EDERAL

OOD

, D

RUG

AND

OSMETIC

UBCHAPTER

IV—F

OOD

§ 343. Misbranded food

A food shall be deemed to be misbranded—

(a) False or misleading label

* * * * * * *

(y) Dietary supplements

If it is a dietary supplement that is marketed in the United

States, unless the label of such dietary supplement includes a do-

mestic address or domestic phone number through which the re-

sponsible person (as described in section 379aa–1 of this title) may

161

receive a report of a serious adverse event with such dietary sup-

plement.

(z) If it is a zootechnical animal food substance and the labeling

of the food does not include the statement required by section

409(l)(1).

* * * * * * *

§ 348. Food additives

(a) Unsafe food additives; exception for conformity with ex-

emption or regulation

* * * * * * *

(b) Petition for regulation prescribing conditions of safe

use; contents; description of production methods and

controls; samples; notice of regulation

(1) Any person may, with respect to any intended use of a food

additive, file with the Secretary a petition proposing the issuance

of a regulation prescribing the conditions under which such addi-

tive may be safely used.

(2) Such petition shall, in addition to any explanatory or sup-

porting data, contain-

(A) the name and all pertinent information concerning

such food additive, including, where available, its chemical

identity and composition;

(B) a statement of the conditions of the proposed use of

such additive, including all directions, recommendations, and

suggestions proposed for the use of such additive, and includ-

ing specimens of its proposed labeling;

nical effect such additive is intended to produce, and the quan-

tity of such additive required to produce such effect;

(D) a description of practicable methods for determining

the quantity of such additive in or on food, and any substance

formed in or on food, because of its use; and

(E) full reports of investigations made with respect to the

safety for use of such additive, including full information as to

the methods and controls used in conducting such investiga-

tions.

(3) In the case of a zootechnical animal food substance, such pe-

tition shall, in addition to any explanatory or supporting data, con-

tain—

(A) all relevant data bearing on the effect the zootechnical

animal food substance is intended to have and the quantity of

such substance required to produce the intended effect; and

(B) full reports of investigations made with respect to the

intended use of such substance, including full information as to

the methods and controls used in conducting such investiga-

tions.

ø(3)¿ (4) Upon request of the Secretary, the petitioner shall

furnish (or, if the petitioner is not the manufacturer of such addi-

tive, the petitioner shall have the manufacturer of such additive

162

furnish, without disclosure to the petitioner) a full description of

the methods used in, and the facilities and controls used for, the

production of such additive.

ø(4)¿ (5) Upon request of the Secretary, the petitioner shall

furnish samples of the food additive involved, or articles used as

components thereof, and of the food in or on which the additive is

proposed to be used.

ø(5)¿ (6) Notice of the regulation proposed by the petitioner

shall be published in general terms by the Secretary within thirty

days after filing.

evaluation of data; factors

(1) The Secretary shall—

ø(A) by order establish a regulation (whether or not in ac-

cord with that proposed by the petitioner) prescribing, with re-

spect to one or more proposed uses of the food additive in-

volved, the conditions under which such additive may be safely

used (including, but not limited to, specifications as to the par-

ticular food or classes of food in or in which such additive may

be used, the maximum quantity which may be used or per-

mitted to remain in or on such food, the manner in which such

additive may be added to or used in or on such food, and any

directions or other labeling or packaging requirements for such

additive deemed necessary by him to assure the safety of such

use), and shall notify the petitioner of such order and the rea-

sons for such action; or¿

(A)(i) by order establish a regulation (whether or not in ac-

cord with that proposed by the petitioner) prescribing—

(I) with respect to one or more proposed uses of the food

additive involved, the conditions under which such additive

may be safely used (including specifications as to the par-

ticular food or classes of food in or on which such additive

may be used, the maximum quantity which may be used or

permitted to remain in or on such food, the manner in

which such additive may be added to or used in or on such

food, and any directions or other labeling or packaging re-

quirements for such additive as the Secretary determines

necessary to assure the safety of such use); and

(II) in the case of a zootechnical animal food substance,

the conditions under which such substance may be used to

achieve the intended effect; and

(ii) notify the petitioner of such order and the reasons for

such action; or

(B) by order deny the petition, and shall notify the peti-

tioner of such order and of the reasons for such action.

(2) The order required by paragraph (1)(A) or (B) of this sub-

section shall be issued within ninety days after the date of filing

of the petition, except that the Secretary may (prior to such nine-

tieth day), by written notice to the petitioner, extend such ninety-

day period to such time (not more than one hundred and eighty

days after the date of filing of the petition) as the Secretary deems

necessary to enable him to study and investigate the petition.

163

(3) No such regulation shall issue if a fair evaluation of the

data before the Secretary—

(A) fails to establish that the proposed use of the food addi-

tive, under the conditions of use to be specified in the regula-

tion, will be safe: Provided, That no additive shall be deemed

to be safe if it is found to induce cancer when ingested by man

or animal, or if it is found, after tests which are appropriate

for the evaluation of the safety of food additives, to induce can-

cer in man or animal, except that this proviso shall not apply

with respect to the use of a substance as an ingredient of feed

for animals which are raised for food production, if the Sec-

retary finds (i) that, under the conditions of use and feeding

specified in proposed labeling and reasonably certain to be fol-

lowed in practice, such additive will not adversely affect the

animals for which such feed is intended, and (ii) that no res-

idue of the additive will be found (by methods of examination

prescribed or approved by the Secretary by regulations, which

regulations shall not be subject to subsections (f) and (g)) in

any edible portion of such animal after slaughter or in any food

yielded by or derived from the living animalø; or¿ ;

(B) shows that the proposed use of the additive would pro-

mote deception of the consumer in violation of this chapter or

would otherwise result in adulteration or in misbranding of

food within the meaning of this chapterø.¿ ; or

fails to establish that the proposed use of the substance, under

the conditions of use to be specified in the regulation, will

achieve the intended effect.

* * * * * * *

(k) Food additives intended for use in animal food

(1) In taking action on a petition under subsection (c) for, or

for recognition of, a food additive intended for use in animal food,

the Secretary shall review reports of investigations conducted in

foreign countries, provided by the petitioner.

* * * * * * *

(3) In the case of a food additive petition intended for use in

animal food, the Secretary shall provide information to the peti-

tioner on the required contents of such petition. If the Secretary re-

quires additional studies beyond what the petitioner proposed, the

Secretary shall provide the scientific rationale for such require-

ment.

(l) Z

OOTECHNICAL

NIMAL

OOD

UBSTANCES

.—The labeling of

a zootechnical animal food substance—

(1) shall include the statement: ‘‘Not for use in the diag-

nosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in

animals.’’; and

(2) may include statements regarding the intended effect of

the substance on the structure or function of the body of ani-

mals, as set forth in section 201(tt)(1).

164

CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2023,

PUBLIC LAW 117–328

DIVISION N—DISASTER RELIEF SUPPLEMENTAL

APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2023

TITLE I

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

URAL

OUSING

ERVICE

RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GRANTS

For an additional amount for ‘‘Rural Housing Assistance

Grants’’, $60,000,000, to remain available until expended, for nec-

essary expenses related to homes damaged by Presidentially de-

clared disasters in øcalendar year 2022¿ calendar years 2022, 2023,

and 2024: Provided, That 42 U.S.C. 1471(b)(3) shall not apply: Pro-

vided further, That the income limit shall be capped at 80 percent

of the area median income: Provided further, That, notwithstanding

section 1490m(c)(2) of such title, a grant made under 42 U.S.C.

1490m of such title using funds made available under this heading

in this Act, may not exceed $50,000.

RURAL COMMUNITY FACILITIES PROGRAM ACCOUNT

For an additional amount for ‘‘Rural Community Facilities Pro-

gram Account’’, $75,300,000, to remain available until expended:

Provided, That of the amounts provided under this heading in this

Act, $50,000,000 shall be for necessary expenses for grants to re-

pair essential community facilities damaged by Presidentially de-

clared disasters in øcalendar year 2022¿ calendar years 2022 and

2024: Provided further, That the percentage of the cost of the facil-

ity that may be covered by a grant pursuant to the preceding pro-

viso shall be 75 percent.

165

BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL

PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO

SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93–344, AS AMENDED

[In millions of dollars]

Budget authority Outlays

Committee

allocation

Amount

in bill

Committee

allocation

Amount

in bill

Comparison of amounts in the bill with the subcommittee allo-

cation for 2025: Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Devel-

opment, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agen-

cies:

Mandatory ............................................................................ 165,607 152,668 165,607

152,668

Discretionary ........................................................................ 27,049 27,049 28,432

28,423

Defense ....................................................................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

Non-defense ................................................................ 27,049 27,049 .................... ....................

Projection of outlays associated with the recommendation:

2025 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... ....................

152,366

2026 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 7,448

2027 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 1,945

2028 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 911

2029 and future years ........................................................ .................... .................... .................... 168

Financial assistance to State and local governments for for

2025 ......................................................................................... NA 57,120 NA

53,252

Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

NA: Not applicable.

NOTE.—Pursuant to section 1002(b)(3)(B) of the 21st Century Cures Act (Public Law 114–255), $55,000,000 in budget authority and the

resulting outlays do not count for the purposes of estimates under the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 or the

Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

166

DISCLOSURE OF CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING

ITEMS

The Constitution vests in the Congress the power of the purse.μ

The Committee believes strongly that Congress should make the

decisions on how to allocate the people’s money. As defined in Rule

XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the term ‘‘congression-

ally directed spending item’’ means a provision or report language

included primarily at the request of a Senator, providing, author-

izing, or recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget

authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for a con-

tract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expendi-

ture with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality or

congressional district, other than through a statutory or adminis-

trative, formula-driven, or competitive award process. For each

item, a Member is required to provide a certification that neither

the Member nor the Member’s immediate family has a pecuniary

interest in such congressionally directed spending item. Such cer-

tifications are available to the public on the website of the Senate

Committee on Appropriations (https://www.appropriations.senate.

gov/congressionally-directed-spending-requests). Following is a list

of congressionally directed spending items included in the Senate

recommendation discussed in this report, along with the name of

each Senator who submitted a request to the Committee of jurisdic-

tion for each item so identified. Neither the Committee rec-

ommendation nor this report contains any limited tax benefits or

limited tariff benefits as defined in rule XLIV.

167

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS

Account State Project Recipient

Recommendation

($)

Requestor(s)

Agricultural Research Service Buildings and Facilities ...... AR Dale Bumpers National Rice Research Center,

Stuttgart, AR.

Dale Bumpers National Rice Research Center .. $3,000,000 Boozman

Agricultural Research Service Buildings and Facilities ...... IL Capital Improvements, Peoria, IL ....................... ARS, Peoria ......................................................... 1,500,000 Durbin

Agricultural Research Service Buildings and Facilities ...... IL Capital Improvements, Urbana, IL ..................... ARS, Urbana ....................................................... 500,000 Durbin

Agricultural Research Service Buildings and Facilities ...... KS ARS–Manhattan, Center for Grain and Animal

Health Research, Manhattan, KS.

ARS–Manhattan, Center for Grain and Animal

Health Research.

1,000,000 Moran

Agricultural Research Service Buildings and Facilities ...... LA Sugarcane Research Facilities, Houma, LA ....... Agricultural Research Service ............................ 7,000,000 Cassidy, Kennedy

Agricultural Research Service Buildings and Facilities ...... MD BARC Phase 2, Beltsville, MD ............................ USDA Agricultural Research Center (BARC) ...... 5,000,000 Cardin, Van Hollen

Agricultural Research Service Buildings and Facilities ...... MS ARS–Mississippi State University Deferred

Maintenance, Starkville, MS.

USDA Agricultural Research Service .................. 5,400,000 Hyde-Smith

Agricultural Research Service Buildings and Facilities ...... NE ARS’ National Center for Resilient and Regen-

erative Precision Agriculture, Lincoln, NE.

USDA Agricultural Research Service co-located

at the University of Nebraska Lincoln.

16,000,000 Fischer

Agricultural Research Service Buildings and Facilities ...... NY Cornell University ARS National Grape Improve-

ment Center Plant Growth Facilities, Ontario

County, NY.

Cornell University ................................................ 1,178,000 Gillibrand, Schumer

Agricultural Research Service Buildings and Facilities ...... WA ARS Building Upgrades, Prosser, WA ................. USDA—Agricultural Research Service ............... 3,085,000 Murray

APHIS Salaries and Expenses .............................................. AK Alaska Native Rural Veterinary Care ................. Alaska Federation of Natives ............................. 750,000 Murkowski

APHIS Salaries and Expenses .............................................. AR Arkansas Clean Plant Center for Berries ........... University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture .. 500,000 Boozman

APHIS Salaries and Expenses .............................................. CT The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station

for Monitoring Ticks and Tick-borne Patho-

gens to Better Guide Public Health Action.

Connecticut Agriculture Experiment Station ...... 247,000 Blumenthal, Murphy

APHIS Salaries and Expenses .............................................. MS Wildlife Damage Management—Mississippi

Fish-Eating Bird Control Program.

APHIS–MS ........................................................... 1,000,000 Hyde-Smith

APHIS Salaries and Expenses .............................................. MS Wildlife Damage Management—Mississippi

FSCP.

APHIS–MS ........................................................... 1,000,000 Hyde-Smith

APHIS Salaries and Expenses .............................................. NM Innovative Weed Control in Perennial Crops ..... New Mexico State University .............................. 467,000 Heinrich

APHIS Salaries and Expenses .............................................. RI Restoration of Worden Pond with Chemical

Treatment for Invasive Plants.

Rhode Island Department of Environmental

Management.

425,000 Reed

APHIS Salaries and Expenses .............................................. SC Clemson University ............................................. Clemson University ............................................. 4,500,000 Graham

Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program ................... IL Teledentistry initiative ........................................ Sarah Bush Lincoln Health Center ..................... 105,000 Durbin

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. AK Heavy Equipment Improving Rural Community

Conditions.

Alaska Municipal League ................................... 4,200,000 Murkowski

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. AK Bethel Food Bank and Pantry ............................ Bethel Community Services Foundation ............. 605,000 Murkowski

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. AK Wrangell Public Safety Building and Emergency

Operations Center Rehabilitation.

City and Borough of Wrangell ............................ 2,438,000 Murkowski

168

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS—Continued

Account State Project Recipient

Recommendation

($)

Requestor(s)

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. AK Houston Alaska Fire Station 9–3 Public Works

Shared Facility.

City of Houston ................................................... 1,950,000 Murkowski

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. AK Kenai Peninsula Critical Communications Up-

grades.

Kenai Peninsula Borough ................................... 3,000,000 Murkowski

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. AK Kenai Peninsula Fire Stations Heavy Equipment Kenai Peninsula Borough ................................... 1,997,000 Murkowski

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. AK South Tongass Fire Department Emergency Re-

quest Replacement Fire Apparatus.

Ketchikan Gateway Borough ............................... 490,000 Murkowski

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. AK Upper Susitna Food Pantry ................................. Upper Susitna Food Pantry ................................ 1,500,000 Murkowski

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. AL City of Samson Water System Improvements .... City of Samson ................................................... 2,211,000 Britt

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. AL Slocomb Fire Tanker Replacement ..................... City of Slocomb .................................................. 278,000 Britt

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. AL Heflin Fire Department Ladder Truck ................. Heflin Fire Department ....................................... 1,125,000 Britt

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. AL Houston County Radio Tower ............................. Houston County Commission .............................. 221,000 Britt

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. AL Fyffe Sewer System Improvements ..................... Waterworks Sewer and Gas Board of Section,

Alabama.

2,248,000 Britt

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. AL Winfield Radio Upgrades .................................... Winfield Fire Department ................................... 32,000 Britt

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. AL Dadeville Courthouse Roof Replacement ........... Tallapoosa County Commission ......................... 371,000 Tuberville

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. AZ Alpine Fire District Emergency Response Vehi-

cle.

Alpine Fire District .............................................. 140,000 Kelly, Sinema

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. AZ Mohave Valley Fire District Radios .................... Mohave Valley Fire District ................................ 174,000 Kelly, Sinema

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. AZ Tonto Basin Fire Station Remodel ..................... Tonto Basin Fire District .................................... 132,000 Kelly, Sinema

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. AZ Clarkdale Police Station ..................................... Town of Clarkdale ............................................... 132,000 Kelly, Sinema

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. AZ Superior Fire Engine ........................................... Town of Superior ................................................. 691,000 Kelly, Sinema

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. CA 6th Street Pedestrian Bridge ............................. County of Mariposa ............................................ 737,000 Butler

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. CA Gustine Unified’s ‘‘Mental Health Matters’’

Project.

Gustine Unified School District .......................... 638,000 Butler, Padilla

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. CA Chowchilla Water District and Le Grand Athlone

Water District intertie.

Chowchilla Water District ................................... 1,500,000 Padilla

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. CA City of Huron Police Vehicle Conversion Project City of Huron ...................................................... 234,000 Padilla

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. CO Grand County EMS Station 1 ............................. Grand County ...................................................... 3,000,000 Bennet, Hickenlooper

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. CO 3–Story Regional first responder training tower NE Teller County Fire Protection District ........... 530,000 Bennet, Hickenlooper

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. CO Starpoint ELEVATES (Expand Learning and En-

able Variety in Accessible Technology, Edu-

cation, and Safety).

Starpoint ............................................................. 358,000 Bennet, Hickenlooper

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. CT Community Health Resource for Roots to Re-

covery (R2R) Facility Enhancements.

Community Health Resources ............................ 210,000 Blumenthal, Murphy

169

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. CT Essex Library Association for Infrastructure and

Accessibility Improvements.

Essex Library Association ................................... 842,000 Blumenthal, Murphy

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. CT Eugene O’Neill Theater Center for Renovations

to Historic Campus.

Eugene O’Neill Memorial Theater Center ........... 1,597,000 Blumenthal, Murphy

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. CT Library Association of Warehouse Point for Fa-

cilities Improvements.

Library Association of Warehouse Point ............. 182,000 Blumenthal, Murphy

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. CT Lower Connecticut River Land Trust for Osaki

Education Center.

Lower Connecticut River Land Trust .................. 300,000 Blumenthal, Murphy

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. CT Sea Research Foundation Improved Water Qual-

ity and Improved Quality of Wastewater Dis-

charges Project.

Sea Research Foundation (dba Mystic Aquar-

ium).

750,000 Blumenthal, Murphy

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. CT Town of Andover for New Generator Installation

and Renovations for Senior/Community Cen-

ter.

Town of Andover ................................................. 229,000 Blumenthal, Murphy

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. CT Town of Norfolk New Firehouse Construction .... Town of Norfolk ................................................... 750,000 Blumenthal, Murphy

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. CT Town of Putnam for Emergency Management

Facility.

Town of Putnam ................................................. 156,000 Blumenthal, Murphy

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. CT Town for Willington for Firehouse and EOC

Renovation and Remediation.

Town of Willington .............................................. 268,000 Blumenthal, Murphy

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. DE Emergency Radio Tower Upgrades ..................... Delaware Division of Communications .............. 5,520,000 Carper, Coons

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. DE Georgetown Facility Capital Improvements ........ La Red Health Center ......................................... 1,101,000 Carper, Coons

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. GA Toomersville Community Center Renovation ...... City of Byron ....................................................... 176,000 Ossoff

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. GA City of Fitzgerald Fire Station Bedroom Addition City of Fitzgerald ................................................ 498,000 Ossoff

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. GA Wilcox County EMS Ambulances & Fire Station Wilcox County ...................................................... 582,000 Ossoff

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. GA New Fire Truck .................................................... City of Hawkinsville ............................................ 345,000 Ossoff, Warnock

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. GA Public Safety Upgrades for Emanuel County ..... Emanuel County Board of Commissioners ......... 468,000 Ossoff, Warnock

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. GA Madison County Agricultural Education Center Madison County Board of Commissioners ......... 100,000 Ossoff, Warnock

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. GA Gillespie Gardens Project ................................... Blackshear Place Business & Events Center,

Inc..

69,000 Warnock

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. GA Oconee Cultural Center Renovation Project ....... City of Dublin ..................................................... 263,000 Warnock

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. GA Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning

(HVAC) Control System Project.

The Baxley and Appling County Hospital Au-

thority.

1,000,000 Warnock

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. HI Haiku Fire Station ............................................... County of Maui ................................................... 15,181,000 Hirono, Schatz

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. HI ’Iole Emergency Community Resilience Center .. Hawaii Community Foundation .......................... 2,515,000 Schatz, Sinema

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. IL Herrin CUSD No. 4 Pre-K Center ........................ Herrin CUSD No. 4 .............................................. 522,000 Duckworth

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. IL Memorial Hospital Association LaHarpe Clinic

Initiative.

Memorial Hospital Association ........................... 1,000,000 Duckworth

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. IL Laboratory Renovation ........................................ Blessing Care Corporation ................................. 1,000,000 Durbin

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. IL Intergenerational Center ..................................... Boys & Girls Club of Livingston County ............ 1,000,000 Durbin

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. IL Hospital Infrastructure Improvements ............... Iroquois Memorial Hospital and Resident Home 560,000 Durbin

170

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS—Continued

Account State Project Recipient

Recommendation

($)

Requestor(s)

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. IL Rural Health Clinic Expansion ........................... Southern Illinois Hospital Services .................... 1,000,000 Durbin

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. KS Baker University Facility Upgrades and Energy

Efficiencies for Student Housing.

Baker University, Kansas ................................... 2,250,000 Moran

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. KS Barclay College Nursing Program ...................... Barclay College ................................................... 1,875,000 Moran

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. KS Herington Fire Department, City of Herington ... City of Herington ................................................ 2,745,000 Moran

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. KS Parsons Fire and Police Station Renovations .... City of Parsons ................................................... 2,500,000 Moran

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. KS Sherman County, Kanorado Station, Building-

Shelter Project and Apparatus Update.

Sherman County, Kansas ................................... 281,000 Moran

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. LA Town of Lake Arthur Operations Facility ............ Town of Lake Arthur ........................................... 825,000 Cassidy, Kennedy

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. LA City of Baker Fire Department Project ............... City of Baker, Louisiana ..................................... 990,000 Kennedy

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. LA Fire Station in Zachary, Louisiana ..................... Zachary, Louisiana ............................................. 1,000,000 Kennedy

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. MA Shutesbury Public Library ................................... The Town of Shutesbury Massachusetts ............ 250,000 Markey, Warren

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. MA Town of Ashby Highway Loader ......................... Town of Ashby .................................................... 188,000 Markey, Warren

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. MA Monson Fire Department Renovation Addition ... Town of Monson .................................................. 2,475,000 Markey, Warren

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. MD Federalsburg Activities Center ........................... Federalsburg Activities Center ........................... 180,000 Cardin, Van Hollen

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. MD Friendsville Library Construction Funding ......... Ruth Enlow Library of Garrett County ................ 295,000 Cardin, Van Hollen

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. MD St. Mary’s Caring Soup Kitchen Service Expan-

sion.

St. Mary’s Caring, Inc. ....................................... 150,000 Cardin, Van Hollen

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. MD The Foxie G Foundation—Horses Helping Peo-

ple Center.

The Foxie G Foundation, Inc ............................... 429,000 Cardin, Van Hollen

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. MD Berlin Community Center at Historic Flower

Street School Site.

Town of Berlin .................................................... 479,000 Cardin, Van Hollen

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. MD Town of Eagle Harbor Community Revitalization Town of Eagle Harbor, Inc ................................. 800,000 Cardin, Van Hollen

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. MD STEM Makerspace at the New La Plata Library Charles County Public Library ............................ 63,000 Van Hollen

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. ME Trenton Grange Renovation ................................ Friends of Trenton Grange 550 .......................... 300,000 Collins

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. ME Buckfield Municipal Center ................................ Town of Buckfield ............................................... 270,000 Collins

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. ME Stone Pier Critical Infrastructure and Resiliency Town of Chebeague Island ................................. 1,181,000 Collins

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. ME Easton Fire Station ............................................. Town of Easton ................................................... 3,000,000 Collins

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. ME Island Falls Fire and Ambulance Department ... Town of Island Falls ........................................... 634,000 Collins

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. ME North Berwick Fire and Rescue Building ........... Town of North Berwick ....................................... 3,400,000 Collins

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. ME St. Albans Fire Station ....................................... Town of St. Albans ............................................. 2,027,000 Collins

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. ME University of Maine at Machias Early College

Student Support Center.

University of Maine System ................................ 750,000 Collins

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. ME Heart of Maine Resource Center Renovations ... Heart of Maine Resource Center ........................ 1,049,000 Collins, King

171

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. ME Mount Desert Island YMCA—Community Youth

Development Wing.

Mount Desert Island YMCA ................................ 500,000 Collins, King

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. ME Northern Maine Community College Building

Upgrades.

Northern Maine Community College ................... 825,000 Collins, King

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. ME Owls Head Transportation Museum—STEM

Community Center.

Owls Head Transportation Museum ................... 1,533,000 Collins, King

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. ME Town of Belgrade—Fire and Rescue Regional

Fire Station.

Town of Belgrade ................................................ 4,786,000 Collins, King

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. ME Town of Holden—Police Department Garage .... Town of Holden ................................................... 382,000 Collins, King

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. ME Littleton Town Garage Replacement .................. Town of Littleton ................................................. 847,000 Collins, King

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. ME Northport Community Center and Town Office .. Town of Northport ............................................... 2,325,000 Collins, King

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. ME Town of Penobscot—Sand and Salt Facility ..... Town of Penobscot ............................................. 1,337,000 Collins, King

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. ME Poland Library Renovation and Expansion ......... Town of Poland ................................................... 750,000 Collins, King

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. ME Town of Searsmont—Sand and Salt Shed ........ Town of Searsmont ............................................. 950,000 Collins, King

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. ME St. Agatha Fire Station ....................................... Town of St. Agatha ............................................. 273,000 Collins, King

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. ME Swan’s Island Fire and Ambulance Station Ex-

pansion.

Town of Swan’s Island ....................................... 1,308,000 Collins, King

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. ME Healthy Acadia—Women and Children Recovery

Shelter.

Healthy Acadia .................................................... 421,000 King

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. MI Central Montcalm Early Childhood Center ......... Central Montcalm Public School ........................ 225,000 Peters

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. MI City of Alpena Aerial Fire Truck Replacement

Project.

City of Alpena ..................................................... 1,500,000 Peters

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. MI Elevator Modernization at the Caro Area Dis-

trict Library.

Caro Area District Library .................................. 200,000 Peters, Stabenow

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. MI Escanaba Public Safety Department New Aerial

Ladder Truck.

Escanaba Public Safety Department ................. 1,700,000 Peters, Stabenow

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. MI Site Improvement Project ................................... Allegan County Community Mental Health Serv-

ices Board.

371,000 Stabenow

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. MI Manufacture and Installation of Two STEAM-

based Water Exhibits.

Soo Locks Children’s Museum ............................ 525,000 Stabenow

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. MN Expanding Intergenerational Capacity at the Al-

exandria YMCA.

Alexandria Area YMCA ........................................ 2,556,000 Klobuchar, Smith

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. MN Spring Grove Community Center ........................ City of Spring Grove ........................................... 2,000,000 Klobuchar, Smith

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. MS Desoto County Agri-Education Center ................ Desoto County Board of Supervisors .................. 275,000 Wicker

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. NC Southeastern Community College Truck Driver

Training Program Expansion.

Southeastern Community College ...................... 4,717,000 Tillis

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. NH Walpole Village School ....................................... The Walpole Foundaton ...................................... 2,250,000 Shaheen

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. NH Bethlehem Transfer Station Project ................... Town of Bethlehem ............................................. 750,000 Shaheen

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. NH Groton Sand Shed ............................................... Town of Groton ................................................... 38,000 Shaheen

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. NH Hampton Public Safety Pier ............................... Town of Hampton ............................................... 125,000 Shaheen

172

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS—Continued

Account State Project Recipient

Recommendation

($)

Requestor(s)

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. NH Hancock Fire Station Renovation Project ........... Town of Hancock ................................................ 600,000 Shaheen

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. NJ Purchase of Pumper Truck for Wildwood City

Fire Department.

City of Wildwood ................................................. 900,000 Booker

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. NJ HSCFD Fire Truck 2025 ...................................... Hopewell Township ............................................. 186,000 Booker

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. NJ Firehouse Critical Infrastructure Update ........... Runnemede Fire Company No 1 ......................... 600,000 Booker

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. NJ Purchase of an ambulance for Lawrence Town-

ship EMS.

Township of Lawrence ........................................ 413,000 Booker

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. NJ Senior Center Improvements Project .................. Borough of Hopatcong ........................................ 500,000 Menendez

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. NM Portales Fire Department Fire Apparatus .......... City of Portales ................................................... 1,000,000 Heinrich

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. NM COPE Navajo FVRx: Expanding Nutrition Secu-

rity and Strengthening the Rural Economy.

Community Outreach and Patient Empower-

ment, Inc. (COPE).

488,000 Heinrich

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. NM Zuni Pueblo Conservation Career and Cultural

Preservation Center.

Conservation Legacy ........................................... 263,000 Heinrich

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. NM Repair and Replace Plant Operations Utility

Systems.

Gila Regional Medical Center ............................. 275,000 Heinrich

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. NM Collaborative Expansion of Early Childhood

Campus in Luna County.

HELP New Mexico, Inc. ....................................... 3,000,000 Heinrich

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. NM Medically Tailored Meal Delivery to Bernalillo

and Sandoval County Residents.

Meals on Wheels New Mexico ............................ 61,000 Heinrich

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. NM NMSU San Juan Extension Farm Kitchen ........... NMSU San Juan County Extension Office .......... 200,000 Heinrich

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. NM Communications Equipment for Firefighters ..... Rio Arriba County ............................................... 1,100,000 Heinrich

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. NM SNAP Mobile Market ........................................... Roadrunner Food Bank ....................................... 1,696,000 Heinrich

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. NM Red River Public Safety Equipment Upgrade .... Town of Red River .............................................. 228,000 Heinrich

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. NM Wildland Fire Engine .......................................... Village of Questa ................................................ 500,000 Heinrich

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. NM Food Bank of Eastern New Mexico—Mobile

Mercado Fresh Food Delivery Truck.

Food Bank of Eastern New Mexico ..................... 275,000 Heinrich, Luja

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. NM National Indian Youth Leadership Development

Project—Project Venture Camp Site.

National Indian Youth Leadership Development

Project.

110,000 Heinrich, Luja

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. NM Estancia Town Hall and Community Center

Renovation.

Town of Estancia ................................................ 1,513,000 Heinrich, Luja

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. NM Truchas Volunteer Fire Department Fire Appa-

ratus.

Truchas Volunteer Fire Department ................... 563,000 Heinrich, Luja

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. NM County of Mora—ADA Compliant Access for

Mora County Government and Community

Facilities.

County of Mora ................................................... 169,000 Luja

173

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. NM Town of Carrizozo—Fire Hydrant Replacement Town of Carrizozo ............................................... 500,000 Luja

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. NV Ely Shoshone Tribe—Community Facility Center Ely Shoshone Tribe ............................................. 2,100,000 Cortez Masto, Rosen

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. NV Lander County—Battle Mountain Fire Station .. Lander County ..................................................... 4,600,000 Cortez Masto, Rosen

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. NY Community Gathering Space and Open-Air The-

ater.

Hudson Valley Shakespeare Festival, Inc. ......... 1,500,000 Gillibrand, Schumer

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. NY Lake Placid Center for the Arts Expansion and

Modernization.

Lake Placid Center for the Arts ......................... 850,000 Gillibrand, Schumer

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. NY The Wild Center Facilities Improvements .......... Natural History Museum of the Adirondacks d/

b/a The Wild Center.

1,000,000 Gillibrand, Schumer

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. NY Tioga County Regional Career and Technical

Education Center.

Owego Apalachin Central School District .......... 1,000,000 Gillibrand, Schumer

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. NY Pendragon Theatre Adaptive Reusue Project ..... Pendragon, Inc .................................................... 850,000 Gillibrand, Schumer

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. NY Refuah Health Center—Construction of New

Healthcare Facility at South Fallsburg.

Refuah Health Center, Inc. ................................ 1,100,000 Gillibrand, Schumer

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. OH Gallipolis Fire Department ................................. City of Gallipolis ................................................. 450,000 Brown

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. OH City of Jackson’s Memorial Building Renova-

tions.

City of Jackson ................................................... 1,000,000 Brown

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. OH Pultney Township Municipal Building ................ Pultney Township ................................................ 700,000 Brown

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. OH Township Salt Barn ............................................ Saint Joseph Township ....................................... 56,000 Brown

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. OH Don W. Miller Memorial Park Renovations ......... Sandusky County Park District ........................... 859,000 Brown

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. OH Pike County Public Library ................................. The Garnet A. Wilson Public Library of Pike

County.

500,000 Brown

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. OH West Unity Street Project ................................... Village of West Unity .......................................... 500,000 Brown

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. OR Southwestern Polk County Rural Fire Station

Construction.

Southwestern Polk County Rural Fire District .... 986,000 Merkley, Wyden

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. OR Wheeler Soil and Water Conservation District

Conservation Community Center.

Wheeler Soil and Water Conservation District ... 948,000 Merkley, Wyden

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. PA Cambridge Springs Senior and Community

Center Construction.

Active Aging, Inc. ............................................... 500,000 Casey

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. PA Emporium Borough Town Hall Structural Re-

pairs and Improvements.

Borough of Emporium ......................................... 175,000 Casey

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. PA Brighton Township Volunteer Fire Department

Fire Training Building Construction.

Brighton Township .............................................. 500,000 Casey

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. PA Multi-Purpose Community Center and Emer-

gency Evacuation Point in Marion Township.

Marion Township ................................................. 370,000 Casey, Fetterman

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. PA The Center For Youth and Community Develop-

ment Multicultural Community Education

Center in Adams County, PA.

The Center For Youth and Community Develop-

ment.

500,000 Casey, Fetterman

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. PA City of Meadville Fire Station Roof Replacement City of Meadville ................................................. 145,000 Fetterman

174

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS—Continued

Account State Project Recipient

Recommendation

($)

Requestor(s)

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. PA Learning Lamp Inc. ADA Renovations to Pre-K

Classroom in Somerset County, PA.

The Learning Lamp, Inc. .................................... 55,000 Fetterman

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. PA Wayne County Commissioners—Agriculture In-

novation Center (AIC) Food Pantry—Con-

struction.

Wayne County, PA ............................................... 750,000 Fetterman

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. RI Maury Loontjens Library Terrace ........................ Maury Loontjens Memorial Library ..................... 105,000 Reed

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. RI Foster Public Safety Complex ............................. Town of Foster .................................................... 2,000,000 Reed

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. RI Glocester Communications Tower ...................... Town of Glocester Police Department ................ 165,000 Reed

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. RI Middletown School Improvements ...................... Town of Middletown ........................................... 1,820,000 Reed

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. RI Block Island Maritime Institute Marine Mammal

Rescue and Response and Conservation

Project.

Block Island Maritime Institute ......................... 275,000 Whitehouse

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. SC City of Fountain Inn Municipal Center .............. City of Fountain Inn ........................................... 1,200,000 Graham

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. SC Newberry County Courthouse Annex ................... Newberry County ................................................. 1,200,000 Graham

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. SC Tega Cay Fire Department ................................. Tega Cay Fire Department ................................. 533,000 Graham

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. SC Town of Central Fire Station .............................. Town of Central .................................................. 1,500,000 Graham

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. SC Town of McClellanville ........................................ Town of McClellanville ....................................... 1,125,000 Graham

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. VA Bedford County Community Center Renovation Bedford County, Virginia .................................... 770,000 Kaine, Warner

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. VA City of Bristol Municipal Vehicles Replacement City of Bristol, Virginia ....................................... 572,000 Kaine, Warner

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. VA Russell County Fire Department Replacement .. Russell County, Virginia ..................................... 423,000 Kaine, Warner

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. VA Town of Crewe Community Center ..................... Town of Crewe, Virginia ..................................... 338,000 Kaine, Warner

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. VA Town of Grundy Fire Truck Replacement ........... Town of Grundy, Virginia .................................... 310,000 Kaine, Warner

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. VA Town of Lebanon Brush Truck Replacement ..... Town of Lebanon, Virginia ................................. 188,000 Kaine, Warner

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. VA Town of Pulaski Fire Department Expansion

and Renovation.

Town of Pulaski, Virginia ................................... 500,000 Kaine, Warner

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. VT Gilman Senior Center Covered Ramp Project .... Lunenburg Gilman and Concord Senior Citizens

Inc..

27,000 Sanders

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. VT Town of Newark Highway Garage and Fire Sta-

tion.

Town of Newark .................................................. 1,125,000 Sanders

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. VT Twin Valley Senior Center ................................... Twin Valley Seniors Inc. ..................................... 38,000 Sanders

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. VT Update of Waterbury Area Senior Center Facility Waterbury Area Senior Citizens Association ...... 14,000 Sanders

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. VT Craftsbury Saplings Community Children’s Cen-

ter.

Craftsbury Saplings, Inc ..................................... 3,000,000 Welch

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. WA Ritzville Wellness & Education Center ............... East Adams Rural Healthcare ............................ 2,250,000 Cantwell

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. WA Skokomish Education Building ........................... Skokomish Indian Tribe ...................................... 2,000,000 Cantwell, Murray

175

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. WA Natural Disaster Monitoring and Response

Equipment Upgrades.

City of Ferndale .................................................. 210,000 Murray

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. WA YMCA Early Learning Center .............................. Olympic Peninsula YMCA .................................... 1,500,000 Murray

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. WA Ensuring Senior Access to Surgical Care Project Tri-State Memorial Hospital ............................... 3,000,000 Murray

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. WI Bad River Boys and Girls Club Waabizi Youth

Building.

Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chip-

pewa.

4,000,000 Baldwin

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. WI Black River Falls Public Safety Building ........... City of Black River Falls .................................... 6,500,000 Baldwin

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. WI Dodge County Community Childcare Center ...... Dodge County Housing Authority ........................ 550,000 Baldwin

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. WI La Pointe Big Bay Town Park Accessibility

Project.

Town of La Pointe ............................................... 1,362,000 Baldwin

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. WV City of Smithers Emergency Trucks ................... City of Smithers ................................................. 101,000 Capito

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. WV Mullens Fire Departmet ...................................... Mullens Volunteer Fire Department Inc ............. 1,260,000 Capito

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. WV Poca Public Safety Buildling .............................. Town of Poca ...................................................... 5,400,000 Capito

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. WV Ravenswood Firehouse ........................................ City of Ravenswood ............................................ 1,000,000 Capito, Manchin

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. WV McDowell County Health and Wellness Center .. McDowell County Commission ............................ 675,000 Capito, Manchin

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. WV Moorefield Volunteer Fire Company 46 Fire Sta-

tion.

Moorefield Volunteer Fire Company .................... 6,900,000 Capito, Manchin

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. WV Snowshoe Resort Ranger Station ....................... Snowshoe Resort Community District ................ 300,000 Capito, Manchin

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. WV Public Safety Upgrades—Fire Vehicle Acquisi-

tion.

City of Clarksburg .............................................. 84,000 Manchin

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. WV Ladder truck for voluntary fire department

within the city of Mannington.

City of Mannington ............................................. 1,200,000 Manchin

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. WV CORA Community Building ................................. CORA Community Building ................................. 188,000 Manchin

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. WV Savas-Kostas Theater Project ............................ Southern WV Community College Foundation .... 300,000 Manchin

Rural Community Facilities Program .................................. WV Town of Delbarton Municipal Complex .............. Town of Delbarton .............................................. 225,000 Manchin

Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations ...................... AZ Eagle Wash Flood Control Study ........................ La Paz County ..................................................... 55,000 Kelly, Sinema

Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations ...................... KS Rattlesnake Creek Watershed ............................ Big Bend Groundwater Management District

No. 5.

4,200,000 Marshall, Moran

Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations ...................... MS Mississippi Watershed and Flood Prevention

Operations.

NRCS Mississippi ................................................ 9,000,000 Hyde-Smith

Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations ...................... MS Choctaw County Lake ......................................... Choctaw County Board of Supervisors ............... 1,000,000 Wicker

Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations ...................... MS Pearl River Valley Watershed Project ................. Pearl River Valley Water Supply District ............ 1,000,000 Wicker

Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations ...................... NM Rincon Arroyo ...................................................... Don

a Ana County Flood Commission ................. 2,000,000 Heinrich

Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations ...................... NM Belen Highline Canal and Watershed Project .... Valencia County .................................................. 2,000,000 Heinrich

Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations ...................... OR Farmers Irrigation District Irrigation Moderniza-

tion Project.

Farmers Irrigation District .................................. 2,000,000 Merkley, Wyden

Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations ...................... OR North Unit Irrigation District Infrastructure

Modernization Project.

North Unit Irrigation District .............................. 2,000,000 Merkley, Wyden

Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations ...................... SC Clemson University Experiment Station ............. Clemson University Experiment Station ............. 3,000,000 Graham

176

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2024 appropriation Budget estimate

Committee

recommendation

Senate Committee recommendation

compared with (∂ or ¥)

2024 appropriation Budget estimate

TITLE I—AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS

Processing, Research, and Marketing

Office of the Secretary

Office of the Secretary ............................................................................................................................................... 7,000 20,669 9,650 ∂2,650 ¥11,019

Office of Homeland Security ...................................................................................................................................... 1,896 3,174 2,621 ∂725 ¥553

Office of Tribal Relations ........................................................................................................................................... 5,190 6,613 6,561 ∂1,371 ¥52

Office of Partnerships and Public Engagement ........................................................................................................ 7,500 9,339 7,500 ............................ ¥1,839

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration ................................................................................................ 1,706 1,737 1,706 ............................ ¥31

Departmental Administration ..................................................................................................................................... 23,500 45,207 23,500 ............................ ¥21,707

Subtotal ............................................................................................................................................................. 25,206 46,944 25,206 ............................ ¥21,738

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations and Intergovernmental Affairs ............................... 4,500 4,709 4,500 ............................ ¥209

Office of Communications .......................................................................................................................................... 7,000 11,577 7,000 ............................ ¥4,577

Total, Office of the Secretary ............................................................................................................................ 58,292 103,025 63,038 ∂4,746 ¥39,987

Executive Operations

Office of the Chief Economist .................................................................................................................................... 30,500 31,504 31,150 ∂650 ¥354

Office of Hearings and Appeals ................................................................................................................................. 16,703 17,127 16,703 ............................ ¥424

Office of Budget and Program Analysis .................................................................................................................... 14,967 17,321 15,467 ∂500 ¥1,854

Office of the Chief Information Officer ...................................................................................................................... 91,000 95,871 91,400 ∂400 ¥4,471

Office of the Chief Financial Officer ......................................................................................................................... 6,867 8,225 6,867 ............................ ¥1,358

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights ..................................................................................................... 1,466 1,501 1,466 ............................ ¥35

Office of Civil Rights ................................................................................................................................................. 37,000 38,362 37,000 ............................ ¥1,362

Agriculture Buildings and Facilities .......................................................................................................................... 22,603 54,882 22,906 ∂303 ¥31,976

Hazardous materials management ............................................................................................................................ 3,000 7,615 3,000 ............................ ¥4,615

Office of Safety, Security, and Protection .................................................................................................................. 20,800 21,952 20,800 ............................ ¥1,152

Office of Inspector General ........................................................................................................................................ 111,561 114,024 111,561 ............................ ¥2,463

177

Office of the General Counsel .................................................................................................................................... 60,537 66,581 61,981 ∂1,444 ¥4,600

Office of Ethics .......................................................................................................................................................... 4,500 7,229 4,500 ............................ ¥2,729

Total, Executive Operations ............................................................................................................................... 421,504 482,194 424,801 ∂3,297 ¥57,393

Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics .................................................................. 1,384 1,421 1,384 ............................ ¥37

Office of the Chief Scientist ............................................................................................................................. 500 2,800 1,000 ∂500 ¥1,800

Subtotal .................................................................................................................................................... 1,884 4,221 2,384 ∂500 ¥1,837

Economic Research Service ........................................................................................................................................ 90,612 98,068 90,612 ............................ ¥7,456

National Agricultural Statistics Service ..................................................................................................................... 187,513 195,964 193,513 ∂6,000 ¥2,451

Census of Agriculture ........................................................................................................................................ (46,850 ) (48,230 ) (48,230 ) (∂1,380 ) ............................

Agricultural Research Service

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................................................................................... 1,788,063 1,755,512 1,826,709 ∂38,646 ∂71,197

Buildings and facilities .............................................................................................................................................. ............................ 28,405 4,000 ∂4,000 ¥24,405

Community Project Funding/Congressionally Directed Spending ..................................................................... 57,164 ............................ 43,663 ¥13,501 ∂43,663

Subtotal .................................................................................................................................................... 57,164 28,405 47,663 ¥9,501 ∂19,258

Total, Agricultural Research Service ................................................................................................................. 1,845,227 1,783,917 1,874,372 ∂29,145 ∂90,455

National Institute of Food and Agriculture

Research and education activities ............................................................................................................................ 1,075,950 1,106,070 1,078,950 ∂3,000 ¥27,120

Native American Institutions Endowment Fund ......................................................................................................... (11,880 ) (11,880 ) (11,880 ) ............................ ............................

Extension activities .................................................................................................................................................... 561,700 610,605 561,700 ............................ ¥48,905

Integrated activities ................................................................................................................................................... 41,100 15,000 41,100 ............................ ∂26,100

Total, National Institute of Food and Agriculture ............................................................................................. 1,678,750 1,731,675 1,681,750 ∂3,000 ¥49,925

Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs ................................................................... 1,617 1,852 1,617 ............................ ¥235

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Community Project Funding/Congressionally Directed Spending ..................................................................... 14,276 ............................ 8,889 ¥5,387 ∂8,889

178

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2024 appropriation Budget estimate

Committee

recommendation

Senate Committee recommendation

compared with (∂ or ¥)

2024 appropriation Budget estimate

Total, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ................................................................................. 1,163,026 1,178,046 1,181,596 ∂18,570 ∂3,550

Agricultural Marketing Service

Marketing Services ..................................................................................................................................................... 222,887 234,888 231,387 ∂8,500 ¥3,501

(Limitation on administrative expenses, from fees collected) .................................................................................. (62,596 ) (62,596 ) (62,596 ) ............................ ............................

Funds for strengthening markets, income, and supply (Section 32):

Permanent, (Section 32) ................................................................................................................................... 1,574,028 1,622,930 1,622,930 ∂48,902 ............................

Marketing agreements and orders (transfer from Section 32) ............................................................... (21,501 ) (22,701 ) (22,701 ) (∂1,200 ) ............................

Payments to States and Possessions ............................................................................................................... 1,000 1,500 1,000 ............................ ¥500

Limitation on inspection and weighing services expenses .............................................................................. (55,000 ) (60,000 ) (60,000 ) (∂5,000 ) ............................

Total, Agricultural Marketing Service ....................................................................................................... 1,915,511 1,981,914 1,977,913 ∂62,402 ¥4,001

Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety ........................................................................................................... 1,117 1,152 1,117 ............................ ¥35

Food Safety and Inspection Service ........................................................................................................................... 1,190,009 1,244,231 1,232,840 ∂42,831 ¥11,391

Lab accreditation fees ...................................................................................................................................... (1,000 ) (1,000 ) (1,000 ) ............................ ............................

Total, title I, Agricultural Programs ......................................................................................................... 8,437,466 8,683,663 8,602,957 ∂165,491 ¥80,706

(By transfer) ............................................................................................................................................. (21,501 ) (22,701 ) (22,701 ) (∂1,200 ) ............................

(Limitation on administrative expenses) ................................................................................................. (117,596 ) (122,596 ) (122,596 ) (∂5,000 ) ............................

TITLE II—FARM PRODUCTION AND CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

Farm Production Programs

Office of the Under Secretary for Farm Production and Conservation ..................................................................... 1,527 1,964 1,527 ............................ ¥437

Farm Production and Conservation Business Center ................................................................................................ 244,183 246,250 244,183 ............................ ¥2,067

179

(by transfer from CCC) ..................................................................................................................................... (60,228 ) (70,740 ) (70,740 ) (∂10,512 ) ............................

Farm Service Agency

(by transfer from ACIF) ..................................................................................................................................... (305,803 ) (311,546 ) (311,546 ) (∂5,743 ) ............................

Total, Salaries and expenses (including transfers) ................................................................................. 1,515,110 1,552,249 1,526,853 ∂11,743 ¥25,396

State mediation grants .............................................................................................................................................. 6,500 7,000 6,500 ............................ ¥500

Grassroots source water protection program ............................................................................................................. 7,000 7,500 7,500 ∂500 ............................

Dairy indemnity program ............................................................................................................................................ 500 500 500 ............................ ............................

Geographically Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers ............................................................................................. 3,500 4,000 3,500 ............................ ¥500

Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund [ACIF] Program Account:

Loan authorizations:

Farm ownership loans:

Guaranteed ...................................................................................................................................... (3,500,000 ) (3,500,000 ) (3,500,000 ) ............................ ............................

Direct ............................................................................................................................................... (3,100,000 ) (1,966,970 ) (2,000,000 ) (¥1,100,000 ) (∂33,030 )

Subtotal .................................................................................................................................. (6,600,000 ) (5,466,970 ) (5,500,000 ) (¥1,100,000 ) (∂33,030 )

Farm operating loans:

Unsubsidized guaranteed ................................................................................................................ (2,118,491 ) (2,118,491 ) (2,118,491 ) ............................ ............................

Direct ............................................................................................................................................... (1,633,000 ) (1,100,000 ) (1,100,000 ) (¥533,000 ) ............................

Subtotal .................................................................................................................................. (3,751,491 ) (3,218,491 ) (3,218,491 ) (¥533,000 ) ............................

Emergency loans ...................................................................................................................................... (37,667 ) (37,000 ) (37,000 ) (¥667 ) ............................

Indian tribe land acquisition loans ......................................................................................................... (20,000 ) (20,000 ) (20,000 ) ............................ ............................

Conservation loans:

Guaranteed ...................................................................................................................................... (150,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥150,000 ) ............................

Direct ........................................................................................................................................................ ............................ (300,000 ) (300,000 ) (∂300,000 ) ............................

Relending program loans ......................................................................................................................... (61,426 ) (7,705 ) (7,705 ) (¥53,721 ) ............................

Indian Highly Fractionated Land Loans ................................................................................................... (5,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥5,000 ) ............................

Boll weevil eradication loans ................................................................................................................... (60,000 ) (5,000 ) (5,000 ) (¥55,000 ) ............................

Total, Loan authorizations ............................................................................................................... (10,685,584 ) (9,055,166 ) (9,088,196 ) (¥1,597,388 ) (∂33,030 )

Loan subsidies:

Emergency Loans ...................................................................................................................................... 3,507 4,488 4,488 ∂981 ............................

180

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2024 appropriation Budget estimate

Committee

recommendation

Senate Committee recommendation

compared with (∂ or ¥)

2024 appropriation Budget estimate

Farm operating loans:

Direct farm operating loans ............................................................................................................ ............................ 2,860 2,860 ∂2,860 ............................

Unsubsidized guaranteed ................................................................................................................ 1,483 ............................ ............................ ¥1,483 ............................

Farm Ownership Loans:

Direct (ownership) ........................................................................................................................... 27,598 35,602 36,200 ∂8,602 ∂598

Subtotal .................................................................................................................................. 32,588 42,950 43,548 ∂10,960 ∂598

Relending program loans ......................................................................................................................... 19,368 2,661 2,661 ¥16,707 ............................

Indian Highly Fractionated Land Loans ................................................................................................... 1,577 ............................ ............................ ¥1,577 ............................

Boll weevil eradication loans ................................................................................................................... 258 18 18 ¥240 ............................

Total, Loan subsidies and grants ................................................................................................... 53,791 45,629 46,227 ¥7,564 ∂598

ACIF administrative expenses:

Administrative Expenses .......................................................................................................................... 326,053 332,204 332,204 ∂6,151 ............................

(Program Loan Cost Expenses) ....................................................................................................... (20,250 ) (20,658 ) (20,658 ) (∂408 ) ............................

(Transfer out to FSA Salaries and expenses) ................................................................................. (¥305,803 ) (¥311,546 ) (¥311,546 ) (¥5,743 ) ............................

Total, Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account ................................................. 379,844 377,833 378,431 ¥1,413 ∂598

(Loan authorizations) ............................................................................................................. (10,685,584 ) (9,055,166 ) (9,088,196 ) (¥1,597,388 ) (∂33,030 )

Total, Farm Service Agency .................................................................................................... 1,606,651 1,637,536 1,611,738 ∂5,087 ¥25,798

Risk Management Agency

RMA Salaries and Expenses ....................................................................................................................................... 65,637 65,950 65,637 ............................ ¥313

181

Total, Farm Production Programs ............................................................................................................ 1,917,998 1,951,700 1,923,085 ∂5,087 ¥28,615

Natural Resources Conservation Service:

Conservation Operations ................................................................................................................................... 895,754 985,203 965,754 ∂70,000 ¥19,449

Community Project Funding/Congressionally Directed Spending ............................................................ 19,145 ............................ ............................ ¥19,145 ............................

Farm Security and Rural Investment Program:

Administrative expenses-FPAC Business Center (transfer out) ............................................................... (¥60,228 ) (¥70,740 ) (¥70,740 ) (¥10,512 ) ............................

Watershed flood and prevention operations ..................................................................................................... 14,650 70,000 25,000 ∂10,350 ¥45,000

Community Project Funding/Congressionally Directed Spending ............................................................ 20,350 ............................ 26,255 ∂5,905 ∂26,255

Subtotal .................................................................................................................................................... 35,000 70,000 51,255 ∂16,255 ¥18,745

Watershed rehabilitation program .................................................................................................................... 1,000 2,003 2,000 ∂1,000 ¥3

Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production ................................................................................................... ............................ 15,042 ............................ ............................ ¥15,042

Water Bank Program ......................................................................................................................................... ............................ 2,011 ............................ ............................ ¥2,011

Total, Natural Resources Conservation Service ....................................................................................... 950,899 1,074,259 1,019,009 ∂68,110 ¥55,250

Corporations

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation:

Federal crop insurance corporation fund .......................................................................................................... 15,484,000 14,710,000 14,710,000 ¥774,000 ............................

Commodity Credit Corporation Fund:

Reimbursement for net realized losses ............................................................................................................ 12,438,000 12,650,463 12,650,463 ∂212,463 ............................

Hazardous waste management (limitation on expenses) ................................................................................. (15,000 ) (15,000 ) (15,000 ) ............................ ............................

Total, Corporations ................................................................................................................................... 27,922,000 27,360,463 27,360,463 ¥561,537 ............................

Total, title II, Farm Production and Conservation Programs ............................................................................ 30,790,897 30,386,422 30,302,557 ¥488,340 ¥83,865

(By transfer) ...................................................................................................................................................... (366,031 ) (382,286 ) (382,286 ) (∂16,255 ) ............................

(Transfer out) .................................................................................................................................................... (¥366,031 ) (¥382,286 ) (¥382,286 ) (¥16,255 ) ............................

TITLE III—RURAL DEVELOPMENT

Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development ............................................................................................... 1,620 1,656 1,620 ............................ ¥36

182

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2024 appropriation Budget estimate

Committee

recommendation

Senate Committee recommendation

compared with (∂ or ¥)

2024 appropriation Budget estimate

Rural Development

Rural development expenses:

Salaries and expenses ...................................................................................................................................... 351,087 428,206 351,087 ............................ ¥77,119

(by transfer from RHIF) ..................................................................................................................................... (412,254 ) (412,254 ) (412,254 ) ............................ ............................

(by transfer from RDLFP) .................................................................................................................................. (4,468 ) (4,468 ) (4,468 ) ............................ ............................

(by transfer from RETLP) .................................................................................................................................. (33,270 ) (33,270 ) (33,270 ) ............................ ............................

Subtotal, transfers from program accounts ............................................................................................ 449,992 449,992 449,992 ............................ ............................

Total, Rural development expenses (including transfers) ................................................................................ 801,079 878,198 801,079 ............................ ¥77,119

Rural Housing Service

Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account:

Loan authorizations:

Single family direct (Sec 502) ................................................................................................................. (880,000 ) (1,250,000 ) (1,000,000 ) (∂120,000 ) (¥250,000 )

Relending demonstration program for Native American Tribes .............................................................. (5,000 ) (7,501 ) (7,501 ) (∂2,501 ) ............................

Unsubsidized guaranteed ......................................................................................................................... (25,000,000 ) (30,000,000 ) (25,000,000 ) ............................ (¥5,000,000 )

Subtotal, Single family .................................................................................................................... 25,885,000 31,257,501 26,007,501 ∂122,501 ¥5,250,000

Housing repair (Sec 504) ......................................................................................................................... (25,000 ) (28,000 ) (25,000 ) ............................ (¥3,000 )

Rental housing (Sec 515) ........................................................................................................................ (60,000 ) (70,000 ) (65,000 ) (∂5,000 ) (¥5,000 )

Multi-family housing guarantees (Sec 538) ............................................................................................ (400,000 ) (400,000 ) (400,000 ) ............................ ............................

Single family housing credit sales .......................................................................................................... (10,000 ) (10,000 ) (10,000 ) ............................ ............................

Self-help housing land development housing loans (Sec 523) .............................................................. (5,000 ) (5,000 ) (5,000 ) ............................ ............................

Site development loans (Sec 524) ........................................................................................................... (5,000 ) (5,000 ) (5,005 ) (∂5 ) (∂5 )

Farm Labor Housing (Sec514) ................................................................................................................. (15,000 ) (25,000 ) (25,000 ) (∂10,000 ) ............................

Total, Loan authorizations ............................................................................................................... 26,405,000 31,800,501 26,542,506 ∂137,506 ¥5,257,995

183

Loan subsidies:

Single family direct (Sec 502) ................................................................................................................. 84,480 174,000 118,000 ∂33,520 ¥56,000

Relending demonstration program for Native American Tribes .............................................................. 2,288 3,704 3,704 ∂1,416 ............................

Housing repair (Sec 504) ......................................................................................................................... 4,338 5,992 5,350 ∂1,012 ¥642

Self-Help Land Development Housing Loans (Sec523) ........................................................................... 637 726 726 ∂89 ............................

Site Development Loans (Sec524) ........................................................................................................... 477 491 491 ∂14 ............................

Rental housing (Sec 515) ........................................................................................................................ 20,988 27,713 25,734 ∂4,746 ¥1,979

Multi-family housing revitalization program ........................................................................................... 34,000 90,000 36,000 ∂2,000 ¥54,000

Farm labor housing (Sec514) .................................................................................................................. 5,222 9,690 5,814 ∂592 ¥3,876

Total, Loan subsidies ...................................................................................................................... 152,430 312,316 195,819 ∂43,389 ¥116,497

Farm labor housing grants ............................................................................................................................... 7,500 10,000 7,500 ............................ ¥2,500

RHIF administrative expenses ........................................................................................................................... 412,254 412,254 412,254 ............................ ............................

(transfer out to Rural Development) ................................................................................................................. (¥412,254 ) (¥412,254 ) (¥412,254 ) ............................ ............................

Total, Rural Housing Insurance Fund program ....................................................................................... 572,184 734,570 615,573 ∂43,389 ¥118,997

(Loan authorization) ................................................................................................................................. (26,405,000 ) (31,800,501 ) (26,542,506 ) (∂137,506 ) (¥5,257,995 )

Rental assistance (Sec 521) .................................................................................................................... 1,608,000 1,728,376 1,691,376 ∂83,376 ¥37,000

Rural Housing Vouchers ........................................................................................................................... 48,000 ............................ 50,400 ∂2,400 ∂50,400

Mutual and self-help housing grants ...................................................................................................... 25,000 32,000 25,000 ............................ ¥7,000

Rural housing assistance grants ............................................................................................................. 35,000 46,000 40,000 ∂5,000 ¥6,000

Rural community facilities program account:

Loan authorizations:

Community facility:

Direct ............................................................................................................................. (2,800,000 ) (1,250,000 ) (1,250,000 ) (¥1,550,000 ) ............................

Guaranteed .................................................................................................................... (650,000 ) (650,000 ) (650,000 ) ............................ ............................

Total, Loan authorizations .................................................................................... 3,450,000 1,900,000 1,900,000 ¥1,550,000 ............................

Loan subsidies and grants:

Community facility:

Community Facilities Direct Loans ............................................................................... ............................ 14,000 14,000 ∂14,000 ............................

Grants ............................................................................................................................ 5,000 32,000 1,000 ¥4,000 ¥31,000

Community Project Funding/Congressionally Directed Spending ..................................................................... ............................ ............................ 226,338 ∂226,338 ∂226,338

Rural community development initiative ............................................................................... 5,000 6,000 5,000 ............................ ¥1,000

Tribal college grants .............................................................................................................. 8,000 10,000 8,000 ............................ ¥2,000

184

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2024 appropriation Budget estimate

Committee

recommendation

Senate Committee recommendation

compared with (∂ or ¥)

2024 appropriation Budget estimate

Subtotal, Loan subsidies and grants ........................................................................... 18,000 62,000 254,338 ∂236,338 ∂192,338

Total, grants and payments ............................................................................................................ 78,000 140,000 319,338 ∂241,338 ∂179,338

Total, Rural Housing Service .................................................................................................................... 2,306,184 2,602,946 2,676,687 ∂370,503 ∂73,741

(Loan authorization) ................................................................................................................................. (29,855,000 ) (33,700,501 ) (28,442,506 ) (¥1,412,494 ) (¥5,257,995 )

Rural Business-Cooperative Service:

Rural Business Program Account:

(Guaranteed business and industry loan authorization) ......................................................................... (1,600,000 ) (2,250,000 ) (1,900,000 ) (∂300,000 ) (¥350,000 )

Loan subsidies and grants:

Guaranteed business and industry subsidy ................................................................................... 38,080 4,500 3,800 ¥34,280 ¥700

Rural business development grants ...................................................................................... 20,535 37,000 20,047 ¥488 ¥16,953

Delta Regional Authority, Appalachian Regional Commission, Northern Border Regional

Commission, and Southwest Border Regional Commission .............................................. 8,000 9,000 8,000 ............................ ¥1,000

Rural Innovation Stronger Economy Grant Program .............................................................. ............................ 4,000 ............................ ............................ ¥4,000

Total, RBP loan subsidies and grants .......................................................................... 66,615 54,500 31,847 ¥34,768 ¥22,653

Intermediary Relending Program Fund Account:

(Loan authorization) ................................................................................................................................. (10,000 ) (18,890 ) (10,000 ) ............................ (¥8,890 )

Loan subsidy ............................................................................................................................................ 3,035 6,434 3,406 ∂371 ¥3,028

Administrative expenses ........................................................................................................................... 4,468 4,468 4,468 ............................ ............................

(transfer out to Rural Development) ............................................................................................... (¥4,468 ) (¥4,468 ) (¥4,468 ) ............................ ............................

Total, Intermediary Relending Program Account ................................................................... 7,503 10,902 7,874 ∂371 ¥3,028

185

Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account:

(Loan authorization) ................................................................................................................................. (50,000 ) (75,000 ) (50,000 ) ............................ (¥25,000 )

Limit cushion of credit interest spending ............................................................................................... (75,000 ) ............................ (75,000 ) ............................ (∂75,000 )

Rural Cooperative Development Grants:

Cooperative development ......................................................................................................................... 5,800 5,800 5,800 ............................ ............................

Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas .................................................................................... 2,800 3,500 3,500 ∂700 ............................

Grants to assist minority producers ........................................................................................................ 3,000 3,000 3,000 ............................ ............................

Value-added agricultural product market development .......................................................................... 11,500 13,000 11,500 ............................ ¥1,500

Agriculture innovation centers ................................................................................................................. 1,500 3,000 1,500 ............................ ¥1,500

Total, Rural Cooperative development grants ................................................................................ 24,600 28,300 25,300 ∂700 ¥3,000

Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program:

(Loan authorization) ................................................................................................................................. (20,000 ) (8,504 ) (8,504 ) (¥11,496 ) ............................

Loan subsidy and grants ......................................................................................................................... 5,000 6,518 3,713 ¥1,287 ¥2,805

Rural Energy for America Program:

Healthy Food Financing Initiative ..................................................................................................................... 500 3,000 500 ............................ ¥2,500

Total, Rural Business-Cooperative Service .............................................................................................. 104,218 103,220 69,234 ¥34,984 ¥33,986

(Loan authorizations) ............................................................................................................................... (1,730,000 ) (3,352,394 ) (2,218,504 ) (∂488,504 ) (¥1,133,890 )

Rural Utilities Service:

Rural water and waste disposal program account:

Loan authorizations:

Direct ............................................................................................................................................... (860,000 ) (1,370,000 ) (860,000 ) ............................ (¥510,000 )

Guaranteed ...................................................................................................................................... (50,000 ) (50,000 ) (50,000 ) ............................ ............................

Total, Loan authorizations ...................................................................................................... 910,000 1,420,000 910,000 ............................ ¥510,000

Loan subsidies and grants:

Water and waste revolving fund ..................................................................................................... 1,000 1,000 1,000 ............................ ............................

Water well system grants ............................................................................................................... 5,000 5,000 5,000 ............................ ............................

306A(i)(2) grants ............................................................................................................................. 10,000 15,000 10,000 ............................ ¥5,000

Colonias and AK/HI grants .............................................................................................................. 65,000 66,000 65,000 ............................ ¥1,000

Water and waste technical assistance ........................................................................................... 35,000 38,000 35,000 ............................ ¥3,000

Circuit rider program ...................................................................................................................... 21,817 25,000 22,470 ∂653 ¥2,530

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

186

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2024 appropriation Budget estimate

Committee

recommendation

Senate Committee recommendation

compared with (∂ or ¥)

2024 appropriation Budget estimate

Direct subsidy .................................................................................................................................. 73,670 145,850 91,020 ∂17,350 ¥54,830

High energy cost grants .................................................................................................................. 8,000 10,000 8,000 ............................ ¥2,000

Water and waste disposal grants ................................................................................................... 255,000 385,000 255,000 ............................ ¥130,000

Community Project Funding/Congressionally Directed Spending ................................................... 117,485 ............................ ............................ ¥117,485 ............................

Lead Service Line Replacement Grants .......................................................................................... ............................ 100,000 ............................ ............................ ¥100,000

Total, Loan subsidies and grants .......................................................................................... 595,972 794,850 496,490 ¥99,482 ¥298,360

Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program Account:

Loan authorizations:

Electric:

Direct, FFB .............................................................................................................................. (2,167,000 ) (2,167,000 ) (2,167,000 ) ............................ ............................

Electric Direct, Treasury Rate ................................................................................................ (4,333,000 ) (4,333,000 ) (4,333,000 ) ............................ ............................

Guaranteed underwriting ........................................................................................................ (900,000 ) ............................ (900,000 ) ............................ (∂900,000 )

Rural Energy Savings Program .............................................................................................. (20,000 ) (99,437 ) (20,000 ) ............................ (¥79,437 )

Subtotal, Electric ........................................................................................................... 7,420,000 6,599,437 7,420,000 ............................ ∂820,563

Telecommunications:

Telecomm Direct, Treasury ..................................................................................................... (550,000 ) ............................ (550,000 ) ............................ (∂550,000 )

Total, Loan authorizations ............................................................................................................... 7,970,000 6,599,437 7,970,000 ............................ ∂1,370,563

Loan Subsidy:

Telecommunications Direct, Treasury Rate ..................................................................................... 5,720 3,726 6,105 ∂385 ∂2,379

Rural Energy Savings Program ....................................................................................................... 3,578 10,700 4,032 ∂454 ¥6,668

RETLP administrative expenses ............................................................................................................... 33,270 33,270 33,270 ............................ ............................

(transfer out to Rural Development) ............................................................................................... (¥33,270 ) (¥33,270 ) (¥33,270 ) ............................ ............................

187

Total, Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program Account ............................. 42,568 47,696 43,407 ∂839 ¥4,289

(Loan authorization) ........................................................................................................................ (7,970,000 ) (6,599,437 ) (7,970,000 ) ............................ (∂1,370,563 )

Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program:

Loan subsidies and grants:

Distance learning and telemedicine:

Grants .............................................................................................................................................. 40,000 60,000 40,000 ............................ ¥20,000

Community Project Funding/Congressionally Directed Spending ................................................... 9,574 ............................ 105 ¥9,469 ∂105

Subtotal ........................................................................................................................................... 49,574 60,000 40,105 ¥9,469 ¥19,895

Broadband telecommunications:

Broadband Re-Connect:

Loan subsidies and grants ............................................................................................................. 90,000 112,400 75,000 ¥15,000 ¥37,400

Community Project Funding/Congressionally Directed Spending ................................................... 10,385 ............................ ............................ ¥10,385 ............................

Community Connect Grants ............................................................................................................ 20,000 35,000 20,000 ............................ ¥15,000

Subtotal ........................................................................................................................................... 120,385 147,400 95,000 ¥25,385 ¥52,400

Total, Loan subsidies and grants ................................................................................................... 169,959 207,400 135,105 ¥34,854 ¥72,295

Total, Rural Utilities Service .................................................................................................................... 808,499 1,049,946 675,002 ¥133,497 ¥374,944

(Loan authorization) ................................................................................................................................. (8,880,000 ) (8,019,437 ) (8,880,000 ) ............................ (∂860,563 )

Total, title III, Rural Development Programs ........................................................................................... 3,571,608 4,185,974 3,773,630 ∂202,022 ¥412,344

(By transfer) ............................................................................................................................................. (449,992 ) (449,992 ) (449,992 ) ............................ ............................

(Transfer out) ........................................................................................................................................... (¥449,992 ) (¥449,992 ) (¥449,992 ) ............................ ............................

(Loan authorizations) ............................................................................................................................... (40,465,000 ) (45,072,332 ) (39,541,010 ) (¥923,990 ) (¥5,531,322 )

TITLE IV—DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services ............................................................. 1,127 1,416 1,127 ............................ ¥289

Food and Nutrition Service:

Child nutrition programs ................................................................................................................................... 33,250,226 31,765,851 31,757,179 ¥1,493,047 ¥8,672

Farm to School ......................................................................................................................................... 5,000 12,000 5,000 ............................ ¥7,000

School breakfast program equipment grants .......................................................................................... 10,000 20,000 12,000 ∂2,000 ¥8,000

Child Nutrition Training (Sec 735) .......................................................................................................... 1,000 2,000 1,000 ............................ ¥1,000

188

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2024 appropriation Budget estimate

Committee

recommendation

Senate Committee recommendation

compared with (∂ or ¥)

2024 appropriation Budget estimate

Total, Child nutrition programs ...................................................................................................... 33,266,226 31,799,851 31,775,179 ¥1,491,047 ¥24,672

Special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children (WIC) ......................................... 7,030,000 7,697,000 7,697,000 ∂667,000 ............................

Emergency ................................................................................................................................................ ............................ 500,000 ............................ ............................ ¥500,000

Subtotal ........................................................................................................................................... 7,030,000 8,197,000 7,697,000 ∂667,000 ¥500,000

Supplemental nutrition assistance program:

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ........................................................................................... 119,375,523 120,316,961 120,217,794 ∂842,271 ¥99,167

Reserve ..................................................................................................................................................... 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 ............................ ............................

FDPIR nutrition education services .......................................................................................................... 998 ............................ 998 ............................ ∂998

Healthy Fluid Milk .................................................................................................................................... 3,000 3,000 4,000 ∂1,000 ∂1,000

Tribal Demonstration Projects .................................................................................................................. 3,000 5,000 5,000 ∂2,000 ............................

Total, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ........................................................................ 122,382,521 123,324,961 123,227,792 ∂845,271 ¥97,169

Commodity assistance program:

Commodity supplemental food program .................................................................................................. 389,000 425,000 425,000 ∂36,000 ............................

Farmers market nutrition program .......................................................................................................... 10,000 15,000 10,000 ............................ ¥5,000

Emergency food assistance program ....................................................................................................... 80,000 95,000 80,000 ............................ ¥15,000

Pacific island and disaster assistance ................................................................................................... 1,070 1,070 1,070 ............................ ............................

Total, Commodity assistance program ........................................................................................... 480,070 536,070 516,070 ∂36,000 ¥20,000

Nutrition programs administration ................................................................................................................... 177,348 205,000 177,348 ............................ ¥27,652

Congressional Hunger Center ................................................................................................................... (2,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥2,000 ) ............................

Total, Food and Nutrition Service ............................................................................................................ 163,336,165 164,062,882 163,393,389 ∂57,224 ¥669,493

189

Total, title IV, Domestic Food Programs .................................................................................................. 163,337,292 164,064,298 163,394,516 ∂57,224 ¥669,782

TITLE V—FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs ................................................................ 932 1,154 932 ............................ ¥222

Office of Codex Alimentarius ..................................................................................................................................... 4,922 4,979 4,922 ............................ ¥57

Foreign Agricultural Service

(By transfer from export loans) ........................................................................................................................ (6,063 ) (6,063 ) (6,063 ) ............................ ............................

Food for Peace Title II Grants:

Expenses ............................................................................................................................................................ 1,619,107 1,800,000 1,720,607 ∂101,500 ¥79,393

McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition program grants ........................................... 240,000 243,331 250,000 ∂10,000 ∂6,669

Commodity Credit Corporation Export (Loans):

Credit Guarantee Program Account .................................................................................................................. 6,063 6,063 6,063 ............................ ............................

Foreign Agriculture Service, Salaries and expenses (transfer out) ......................................................... (¥6,063 ) (¥6,063 ) (¥6,063 ) ............................ ............................

Total, title V, Foreign Assistance and Related Programs ................................................................................ 2,098,354 2,300,060 2,209,854 ∂111,500 ¥90,206

(By transfer) ...................................................................................................................................................... (6,063 ) (6,063 ) (6,063 ) ............................ ............................

(Transfer out) .................................................................................................................................................... (¥6,063 ) (¥6,063 ) (¥6,063 ) ............................ ............................

TITLE VI—RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

Salaries and expenses

Direct appropriation ................................................................................................................................................... 3,522,150 3,682,167 3,544,150 ∂22,000 ¥138,017

Transfer to OIG (transfer out) ........................................................................................................................... (¥1,500 ) (¥1,500 ) (¥1,500 ) ............................ ............................

Spending from appropriated user fees:

Prescription drug user fees ............................................................................................................................... 1,422,104 1,450,545 1,472,210 ∂50,106 ∂21,665

Medical device user fees .................................................................................................................................. 362,381 369,627 394,228 ∂31,847 ∂24,601

Human generic drug user fees ......................................................................................................................... 613,538 625,812 638,962 ∂25,424 ∂13,150

Biosimilar biological products user fees .......................................................................................................... 31,109 31,731 53,347 ∂22,238 ∂21,616

Animal drug user fees ...................................................................................................................................... 33,500 34,170 30,225 ¥3,275 ¥3,945

Animal generic drug user fees ......................................................................................................................... 25,000 25,500 27,283 ∂2,283 ∂1,783

Tobacco product user fees ................................................................................................................................ 712,000 712,000 712,000 ............................ ............................

190

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2024 appropriation Budget estimate

Committee

recommendation

Senate Committee recommendation

compared with (∂ or ¥)

2024 appropriation Budget estimate

Subtotal, user fees (appropriated) ........................................................................................................... 3,199,632 3,249,385 3,328,255 ∂128,623 ∂78,870

Subtotal (including appropriated user fees) ........................................................................................... 6,721,782 6,931,552 6,872,405 ∂150,623 ¥59,147

Mammography user fees ................................................................................................................................... 19,758 20,152 20,152 ∂394 ............................

Export user fees ................................................................................................................................................ 5,185 5,289 5,289 ∂104 ............................

Color certification user fees .............................................................................................................................. 11,109 11,331 11,331 ∂222 ............................

Food and Feed Recall user fees ....................................................................................................................... 1,584 1,616 1,616 ∂32 ............................

Food Reinspection fees ..................................................................................................................................... 7,079 7,221 7,221 ∂142 ............................

Voluntary qualified importer program fees ....................................................................................................... 5,852 5,968 5,968 ∂116 ............................

Pharmacy compounding fees ............................................................................................................................ 1,679 1,746 1,746 ∂67 ............................

Priority review vouchers (PRV) pediatric disease ............................................................................................. 8,486 8,656 8,656 ∂170 ............................

Priority review vouchers (PRV) tropical disease ............................................................................................... 2,713 2,767 2,767 ∂54 ............................

Priority review vouchers (PRV) medical countermeasures ................................................................................ 2,713 ............................ ............................ ¥2,713 ............................

Third party auditor ............................................................................................................................................ 787 803 803 ∂16 ............................

Over-the-Counter Monograph fees .................................................................................................................... 31,800 32,898 32,898 ∂1,098 ............................

Increased export certification fees (leg proposal) ............................................................................................ ............................ 5,000 ............................ ............................ ¥5,000

Expand tobacco products fees (leg proposal) .................................................................................................. ............................ 114,000 ............................ ............................ ¥114,000

Subtotal, spending from FDA user fees ................................................................................................... 3,298,377 3,466,832 3,426,702 ∂128,325 ¥40,130

Total, Salaries and expenses (including user fees) ................................................................................ 6,819,027 7,147,499 6,969,352 ∂150,325 ¥178,147

HHS Office of Inspector General (by transfer) ........................................................................................................... (1,500 ) (1,500 ) (1,500 ) ............................ ............................

FDA Innovation account, Cures Act ........................................................................................................................... 50,000 55,000 55,000 ∂5,000 ............................

Offset of appropriation pursuant to Section 1002 (b)(3)(B) of the 21st Century Cures Act (PL 114–255) ........... ¥50,000 ¥55,000 ¥55,000 ¥5,000 ............................

Spending of FDA innovation account (transfer) ........................................................................................................ (50,000 ) (55,000 ) (55,000 ) (∂5,000 ) ............................

Total, FDA (w/user fees, including proposals) .................................................................................................. 6,825,527 7,161,787 6,979,852 ∂154,325 ¥181,935

191

Total, FDA (w/enacted user fees only) .............................................................................................................. 6,825,527 7,042,787 6,979,852 ∂154,325 ¥62,935

FDA user fees ............................................................................................................................................................. ¥3,298,377 ¥3,466,832 ¥3,426,702 ¥128,325 ∂40,130

Total, Food and Drug Administration (excluding user fees) ............................................................................ 3,527,150 3,694,955 3,553,150 ∂26,000 ¥141,805

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Commodity Futures Trading Commission .................................................................................................................. 365,000 374,000 ............................ ¥365,000 ¥374,000

Farm Credit Administration (limitation on administrative expenses) ....................................................................... (94,300 ) (100,430 ) (100,430 ) (∂6,130 ) ............................

Total, title VI, Related Agencies and Food and Drug Administration .............................................................. 3,892,150 4,068,955 3,553,150 ¥339,000 ¥515,805

TITLE VII—GENERAL PROVISIONS

Protecting Animals with Shelter Grants .................................................................................................................... 3,000 ............................ 3,000 ............................ ∂3,000

Water Bank program .................................................................................................................................................. 2,000 ............................ 2,000 ............................ ∂2,000

Maturing mortgage pilot ............................................................................................................................................ 1,000 ............................ 2,000 ∂1,000 ∂2,000

Mitigation banking ..................................................................................................................................................... 2,000 ............................ 2,000 ............................ ∂2,000

NOAA working group ................................................................................................................................................... 500 ............................ 500 ............................ ∂500

Institute for Rural Partnership ................................................................................................................................... 6,000 ............................ 6,000 ............................ ∂6,000

Bison Inspection Waiver ............................................................................................................................................. 700 ............................ 700 ............................ ∂700

Sugar Inspection ........................................................................................................................................................ ............................ ............................ 1,000 ∂1,000 ∂1,000

Bison Marketing Pilot ................................................................................................................................................. 2,000 ............................ 2,000 ............................ ∂2,000

Broadband Treasury Rate Loan Program (rescission) ............................................................................................... ¥7,000 ¥10,280 ............................ ∂7,000 ∂10,280

Rural Cooperative Development Grants (rescission) ................................................................................................. ¥7,000 ¥8,000 ............................ ∂7,000 ∂8,000

NIFA Research and Education (rescission) ................................................................................................................ ¥37,000 ............................ ............................ ∂37,000 ............................

Housing Repair Loans and Grants (rescission) ......................................................................................................... ¥28,000 ............................ ............................ ∂28,000 ............................

Rural Housing Voucher (rescission) ........................................................................................................................... ¥35,000 ¥11,786 ............................ ∂35,000 ∂11,786

Tribal Pilot .................................................................................................................................................................. 2,000 ............................ 2,000 ............................ ∂2,000

Meat and Poultry Processing Expansion Grants ........................................................................................................ 3,000 ............................ ............................ ¥3,000 ............................

FDA Tobacco GP ......................................................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ¥12,000 ¥12,000 ¥12,000

Water and Waste Pilot ............................................................................................................................................... 1,000 ............................ ............................ ¥1,000 ............................

WFPO (recission) ......................................................................................................................................................... ¥28,000 ............................ ............................ ∂28,000 ............................

REAP (recission) ......................................................................................................................................................... ¥10,000 ............................ ............................ ∂10,000 ............................

NRCS (recission) ......................................................................................................................................................... ¥30,000 ............................ ............................ ∂30,000 ............................

NPA (recission) ........................................................................................................................................................... ¥8,000 ¥8,000 ............................ ∂8,000 ∂8,000

NEF Repurpose (emergency)(non-add) ....................................................................................................................... (573,500 ) ............................ ............................ (¥573,500 ) ............................

RCFP (emergency) ............................................................................................................................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

Food for Peace (emergency) .............................................................................................................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

192

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2024 appropriation Budget estimate

Committee

recommendation

Senate Committee recommendation

compared with (∂ or ¥)

2024 appropriation Budget estimate

Community Connect (recission) ................................................................................................................................. ¥30,000 ............................ ............................ ∂30,000 ............................

Working Capital Fund (recission) ............................................................................................................................... ¥78,000 ............................ ............................ ∂78,000 ............................

RD DLT (recission) ...................................................................................................................................................... ¥18,891 ............................ ............................ ∂18,891 ............................

APHIS NBAF (recission) .............................................................................................................................................. ¥5,000 ¥16,500 ............................ ∂5,000 ∂16,500

FDA ARP (recission) .................................................................................................................................................... ¥30,000 ............................ ............................ ∂30,000 ............................

AFIDA .......................................................................................................................................................................... 2,000 ............................ ............................ ¥2,000 ............................

Sec 745 (recission) .................................................................................................................................................... ............................ ¥604 ............................ ............................ ∂604

WIC (recission) ........................................................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ¥300,000 ¥300,000 ¥300,000

Summer EBT (recission) ............................................................................................................................................. ............................ ............................ ¥30,000 ¥30,000 ¥30,000

RCDG (recission) ........................................................................................................................................................ ............................ ............................ ¥1,000 ¥1,000 ¥1,000

Total, title VII, General Provisions .................................................................................................................... ¥326,691 ¥55,170 ¥321,800 ∂4,891 ¥266,630

Grand total ................................................................................................................................................................. 211,801,076 213,634,202 211,514,864 ¥286,212 ¥2,119,338

Appropriations ................................................................................................................................................... (215,451,344 ) (216,656,204 ) (215,272,566 ) (¥178,778 ) (¥1,383,638 )

Emergency appropriations ................................................................................................................................. ............................ (500,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥500,000 )

Emergency advance appropriations .................................................................................................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

Offsetting collections ........................................................................................................................................ (¥3,298,377 ) (¥3,466,832 ) (¥3,426,702 ) (¥128,325 ) (∂40,130 )

Rescissions ........................................................................................................................................................ (¥351,891 ) (¥55,170 ) (¥331,000 ) (∂20,891 ) (¥275,830 )

193

(By transfer) ............................................................................................................................................................... (1,645,672 ) (1,678,182 ) (1,678,182 ) (∂32,510 ) ............................

(By transfer) (emergency) .......................................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

(Transfer out) ............................................................................................................................................................. (¥1,645,672 ) (¥1,678,182 ) (¥1,678,182 ) (¥32,510 ) ............................

(Loan authorization) ................................................................................................................................................... (51,150,584 ) (54,127,498 ) (48,629,206 ) (¥2,521,378 ) (¥5,498,292 )

(Limitation on administrative expenses) ................................................................................................................... (226,896 ) (238,026 ) (238,026 ) (∂11,130 ) ............................

Grand total, excluding Other Appropriations ............................................................................................................. 211,801,076 213,634,202 211,514,864 ¥286,212 ¥2,119,338