Summary

The Agriculture appropriations bill funds the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), except for the Forest Service. It also funds the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and—in even-numbered fiscal years—the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). (For CFTC, the Agriculture appropriations subcommittee has jurisdiction in the House but not in the Senate.)

Agriculture appropriations include both mandatory and discretionary spending. Discretionary amounts, though, are the primary focus during the bill's development, since mandatory amounts are generally set by authorizing laws such as the farm bill.

The largest discretionary spending items are the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); agricultural research; FDA; rural development; foreign food aid and trade; farm assistance programs; food safety inspection; conservation; and animal and plant health programs. The main mandatory spending items are the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), child nutrition, crop insurance, and the farm commodity and conservation programs paid by the Commodity Credit Corporation.

FY2017 has started under two continuing resolutions that last until April 28, 2017 (P.L. 114-254, Division A). Both theThe FY2017 appropriation for Agriculture and Related Agencies was enacted on May 5, 2017, as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-31, Division A). The fiscal year started on October 1, 2016, under continuing resolutions (CRs) that continued FY2016 funding with a few exceptions. The House and the Senate Appropriations Committees had reported their FY2017 Agriculture appropriations bills (H.R. 5054, S. 2956), but no further action on them occurred.

in April and May 2016.

The discretionary total of the FY2017 House-reported bill is $21.299enacted appropriation is $20.877 billion, which would be $451 million less than enacted in FY2016. The discretionary total of the Senate-reported bill is $21.250 billion. Although it appears less than the House bill, the Senate bill is $201 million more than the House bill on a comparable basis after adjusting for CFTC jurisdiction. Both bills also carry $126.4 billion of mandatory spending, bringing the overall total in excess of $147 billion.

In addition to setting budgetary amounts, the Agriculture appropriations bill also is a vehicle for policy-related provisions that direct how the executive branch should carry out the appropriation. Notable policy provisions in the FY2017 bills include:

• GIPSA rule. The House-reported bill would prohibit the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) from finalizing and implementing a livestock and poultry marketing rule—the "GIPSA rule."
• Horse slaughter. Both bills would prohibit the Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) from inspecting horse slaughter facilities.
• Checkoff programs. The House report calls for USDA to recognize that checkoff boards are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
• Tobacco products. The House-reported bill would grandfather all e-cigarettes and other newly deemed tobacco products currently on the market so that manufacturers would not have to file premarket applications.
• SNAP-authorized retailers. Both bills would limit the scope of rules about inventory requirements for SNAP-authorized retailers.
• SNAP households reporting requirements. Both bills would require SNAP households to report a move out of the state to the state agency.
• School meals nutrition standards. The House-reported bill would again require exemptions from a 100% whole grain requirement and prevent USDA from implementing a sodium requirement without scientific evidence.
• Export promotion office in Cuba. The Senate committee report recommends funding a request to open a Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) office in Cuba.

---

Action on FY2017 Agriculture Appropriations

FY2017 started on October 1, 2016, under a continuing resolution (CR) that lasted until December 9, 2016 (P.L. 114-223, Division C). A second CR lasts until April 28, 2017 (P.L. 114-254, Division A). The CRs basically continue FY2016 funding with a few exceptions.

In regular action, the House and the Senate Appropriations Committees reported their Agriculture appropriations bills (H.R. 5054, S. 2956) with some of the earliest subcommittee action in two decades (Figure 1; Appendix). But no further action on the bills occurred.

The discretionary total of the House-reported bill and its "302(b)" allocation¹ is $21.299 billion, which would be $451 million less than enacted in FY2016 (-2.1%). The discretionary total of the Senate-reported bill and its "302(b)" allocation is $21.250 billion. This appears to be less than the House bill, but is comparatively more because the Senate bill does not contain the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).² On a comparable basis, the Senate bill is $201 million more than the House bill (+1.0%). The bills also carry mandatory spending totaling about $126.4 billion, making the overall total exceed $147 billion (Table 1).

The Senate's discretionary caps are set so as not to trigger sequestration under limits established by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (P.L. 114-74).³

The White House released its FY2017 request on February 9, 2016,⁴ along with the detailed justification from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).⁵ Its $21.226 billion discretionary budget (for agencies in the Senate Agriculture appropriations jurisdiction) is $177 million more than the House-reported bill without CFTC, and $24 million less than the Senate-reported bill.

is $623 million less than enacted in FY2016 (-2.9%). It achieves this primarily by increasing budgetary offsets over the FY2016 level through greater rescissions of prior appropriations and greater scorekeeping adjustments.

However, the budget authority for FY2017 provided to agencies in the major titles of the bill actually increases by $462 million compared to FY2016. Increases primarily include $163 million more for discretionary conservation programs than in FY2016, $119 million more for rural development, $65 million more for discretionary domestic nutrition programs, $52 million more for animal and plant health programs, $51 million more for agricultural research programs, $42 million more for the Food and Drug Administration, $29 million more for the Farm Service Agency, $20 million more for USDA administrative facilities, and $17 million more for food safety inspections. Reductions primarily come from a rescission of unused domestic nutrition assistance funding ($850 million rescission), supplemental funding for international food aid ($116 million less than in FY2016), agricultural research facilities ($112 million less), greater use of a disaster designation that does not count against budget caps ($76 million extra offset), and disaster assistance ($38 million less).

The appropriation also carries mandatory spending that totaled about $132.5 billion. The overall total of the FY2017 Agricultural appropriation therefore exceeded $153 billion.

FY2017 Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations: In Brief

Action on FY2017 Agriculture Appropriations

The FY2017 appropriation for Agriculture and Related Agencies was enacted on May 5, 2017, as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-31, Division A). The fiscal year started on October 1, 2016, under a continuing resolution (CR) that lasted until December 9, 2016 (P.L. 114-223, Division C). A second CR lasted until April 28, 2017 (P.L. 114-254, Division A). A third CR extended until May 5 (P.L. 115-30). The CRs continued FY2016 funding with a few exceptions.¹

In regular action, the House and the Senate Appropriations Committees reported their FY2017 Agriculture appropriations bills (H.R. 5054, S. 2956) in April and May 2016, with some of the earliest subcommittee action in two decades (Figure 1; Appendix). But no further action on the individual bills occurred until they were incorporated into the omnibus appropriation.² The discretionary total of the enacted appropriation is $20.877 billion, which is $623 million less than enacted in FY2016 (-2.9%). The appropriation also carries mandatory spending—largely determined in separate authorizing laws—that totaled about $132.5 billion. The overall total therefore exceeded $153 billion (Table 1). The discretionary caps were set so as not to trigger sequestration under limits established by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (P.L. 114-74).³

The White House released its FY2017 budget request on February 9, 2016,⁴ along with the detailed justification from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).⁵ The new Administration released an outline for FY2018 appropriations on March 16, 2017.⁶

Scope of Agriculture Appropriations

The Agriculture appropriations act funds all of USDA, except for the U.S. Forest Service. It also funds the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the Department of Health and Human Services. In even-numbered fiscal years, the enacted Agriculture bill carries CFTC funding under the compromise for usual practice for handling jurisdictional differences between the House and Senate (see footnote 2).

.⁷

Agriculture appropriations include both mandatory and discretionary spending, but discretionary amounts are the primary focus since mandatory amounts are generally set by authorizing laws. The scope of the appropriation is shown by the major allocations in Figure 2. The largest discretionary spending items are domestic nutrition, agricultural research, rural development, FDA, foreign food aid, farm assistance programs, food safety inspection, conservation, and animal and plant health. The main mandatory spending items are the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, child nutrition, crop insurance, and the Commodity Credit Corporation (which pays for the farm commodity, conservation, and other mandatory USDA programs).

Figure 1. Timeline of Action on Agriculture Appropriations, FY1997-F2017 FY2017

Source: CRS.

Figure 2. Scope of Agriculture Appropriations (FY2016FY2017 budget authority in billions of dollars)

Source: CRS. DoesDetail does not show some agencies under $0.5 billion that, together, are offset byand other rescissions or reductions. Notes: SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; CCC = Commodity Credit Corporation; FCIC = Federal Crop Insurance Corporation; Section 32 = Funds for Strengthening Markets, Income and Supply; WIC = Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children; CSFP = Commodity Supplemental Food Program; FDA = Food and Drug Administration; FSA = Farm Service Agency; RMA = Risk Management Agency; FSIS = Food Safety and Inspection Service; APHIS = Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

DifferencesAmounts in the FY2017 Bills⁶

The House-reported bill is officially $451 million smaller, and the Senate-reported bill $250 million smaller, than the enacted Appropriation The $20.877 billion enacted in the FY2017 Agriculture appropriation is officially $623 million smaller than the FY2016 discretionary appropriation (in terms of its allocation that counts against the budget limit, the "302(b)" subcommittee the "302(b)" allocation). Both bills achieveIt achieves this primarily by increasing budgetary offsets over the FY2016 level through greater rescissions of prior appropriations, changes in mandatory program spending (CHIMPS), and scorekeeping adjustments and greater scorekeeping adjustments primarily from "negative subsidies" from loan programs that charge fees (Table 1). However, the budget authority provided forto agencies in the major titles of the bill actually increases by $165 million in the House bill and $235 million in the Senate bill over FY2016462 million (the top of the shaded bars in Figure 3).

Discretionary budget changes that are over $10 million within agencies include the following, relative to FY2016 (Table 2):

• Food for Peace grants. House: -$2.4 million. Senate: +$132 million, which would maintain some of the supplemental increase in the FY2016 appropriation.
• Conservation programs. House: +4.4 million, for technical assistance. Senate: +$147 million, mostly forConservation programs. +$163 million, mostly for $150 million of watershed and flood prevention programs that have not been funded since FY2010, and additional technical assistance.
• Rural development. House: +$85+$119 million, mostly for rural water and wastewater programs (+$49 million), rural broadband (+$24 million), and rural housing rental assistance (+$15 million), mostly for rural broadband, rural water and waste disposal, rural housing and rental assistance, rural business enterprise grants, and community facilities. Senate: +$52 million, mostly for rural water and waste disposal programs, and rural housing and rental assistance.
• Food and Nutrition Service. +$65Service. House: +$42 million, Senate: +$51 million, , both mostly for commodity assistance and nutrition programs administration.
• Food and Drug Administration. House: +$36 million, Senate: +$42 million, both largely for food safety activities.
• Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. House: +$36 million, primarily for increases in emergency preparedness, specialty crop pests, and the National Veterinary Stockpile, while maintaining recent avian health increases. Senate: +$45 million, mostly for emergency preparedness.
• USDA administration. House: +$20 million to modernize headquarters facilities. Senate: +$30 million for a more modest increase for facilities and for outreach to minority and veteran farmers, cybersecurity, and financial upgrades.
• Food Safety Inspection Service. House: +$16 million, Senate: +$19 million, both for inspection improvements.
• Farm Service Agency. House: +$12 million for greater farm loan program authority. Senate: +$26 million, including loan program increases, personnel and security expenses, and beginning and veteran farmers and ranchers.
• Agricultural research agencies. House: -$89 million, comprised primarily of $25 million more for Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) grants, offset by $112 million less for Agricultural Research Service (ARS) buildings and facilities. Senate: -$74 million, comprised of $25 million more for AFRI, $34 million more for ARS research, and $7 more million for other grants; offset by $148 million less for ARS buildings and facilities.

Policy Issues

In addition to setting budgetary amounts, the Agriculture appropriations bill also is a vehicle for policy-related provisions that direct how the executive branch should carry out the appropriation.

GIPSA Rule. USDA said in March 2016 that it would finalize a livestock and poultry marketing rule that originally had been proposed by its Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) in June 2010 (75 Federal Register 35338) and is commonly referred to as the "GIPSA rule."⁷ The proposed rule was contentious, with proponents arguing that it would bring fairness to marketing transactions, while opponents argued it would disrupt markets and lead to increased litigation. From FY2012-FY2015, appropriations riders prohibited USDA from finalizing most parts of the GIPSA rule. The FY2016 appropriations act did not include such a provision. In response to USDA's renewed efforts on a GIPSA rule, Section 767 of the House-reported FY2017 Agriculture appropriations bill would again prohibit USDA activities (adopted as a committee amendment by a vote of 26-24). The Senate-reported bill does not contain this GIPSA provision.

Horse Slaughter. The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is responsible for ensuring that the U.S. meat supply is unadulterated, wholesome, and properly labeled. Horses are an amenable species under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. §601 et seq.) and FSIS is responsible for horse slaughter inspection if the horsemeat is for human consumption. However, the FY2006 and FY2007 appropriations acts prohibited FSIS from funding horse slaughter inspections. In FY2008-FY2011 and FY2014-FY2016 appropriations, the inspection bans were expanded to include a prohibition on voluntary, fee-based horse slaughter inspections. Inspection bans were not in force during FY2012 and FY2013, but no horse slaughter facilities opened before the ban was reinstated. For FY2017, both the House-reported and Senate-reported bills (Section 762 and Section 755, respectively) prohibit FSIS from using funds to inspect horse slaughter facilities, as well as the use of voluntary inspection fees. This effectively bans horse slaughter.

Checkoff Programs. The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) oversees 22 commodity Research and Promotion Programs that are authorized by Congress, but are requested and funded by industry to develop new markets, strengthen existing markets, and conduct research and promotion activities. These programs, commonly referred to as checkoffs, are run by boards consisting of industry representatives that plan and manage the commodity programs. The House report calls for USDA to recognize that checkoff boards are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) because they are funded by producers and industry and board members are not government employees. The Senate bill and report do not contain a similar provision. USDA considers the checkoff boards to be subject to FOIA, excluding exempt information under FOIA, such as proprietary data. Checkoff groups that support the provision believe that FOIA requests divert checkoff time and funds away from research and promotion. Opponents believe that commodity groups are attempting to limit transparency of checkoff activities.

Tobacco Products. The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act, P.L. 111-31) amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) to provide FDA with the authority to regulate cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, smokeless tobacco, and any other tobacco products deemed by the agency. FDA published a proposed rule in 2014,⁸ and a final rule in May 2016 ("deeming rule") that extends the agency's tobacco product authorities to "all other categories of products that meet the statutory definition of 'tobacco product' in the [FFDCA] except accessories of such newly deemed tobacco products."⁹ The final rule deems electronic cigarettes ("e-cigarettes"), cigars, pipe tobacco, and hookah tobacco, among other products, to meet this statutory definition and, therefore, to be within FDA's regulatory authority.¹⁰ Manufacturers of newly deemed tobacco products that are currently being marketed in the United States will have to file an application for premarket review with FDA. The deeming rule establishes a timeline for manufacturers to submit their applications. A manufacturer who submits an application during this period may continue to market the product until FDA acts on the application. In the House-reported bill, Section 761 would grandfather all e-cigarettes and other newly deemed tobacco products currently on the market. Manufacturers would not have to file premarket applications. Section 749 would prohibit the use of appropriated funds for the finalization, implementation, administration, or enforcement of FDA's proposed deeming rule "if such rule would apply to traditional large and premium cigars." The Senate bill does not contain any tobacco-related provisions.

SNAP-Authorized Retailers. Only SNAP-authorized retailers may accept SNAP benefits. On February 17, 2016, USDA's Food and Nutrition Service (USDA-FNS) published a proposed rule that would change retailer requirements for authorization.¹¹ The proposed rule would implement the 2014 farm bill's changes to inventory requirements for SNAP-authorized retailers (Section 4002, P.L. 113-79); namely, the farm bill increased the varieties of "staple foods" and perishable varieties that SNAP retailers must stock. In addition to codifying the farm bill's changes, the proposed rule would change how staple foods are defined, create limitations on retailers' sale of hot foods, and add a minimum number of stocking units.¹² The House-reported bill (Section 763) and the Senate-reported bill (Section 752) would limit the scope of an interim final or final rule to the 2014 farm bill's specific changes, though each bill's exact language varies.

SNAP Households Reporting Requirements. Under current household reporting requirements for the commonly selected state option of "simplified reporting," participants do not have to report to the SNAP state agency when they move out of the state.¹³ USDA's FY2017 budget justification proposed to amend SNAP's authorizing law to allow state agencies to require this household reporting.¹⁴ In both the House- and Senate-reported bills (both Section 744), beginning in FY2017 and each year thereafter, SNAP households would be required to report to the state agency a move out of the state.

School Meals Nutrition Standards. Implementing the Healthy, Hunger-free Kids Act of 2010, USDA-FNS updated the nutrition standards for the school meals programs (National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program).¹⁵ FY2015 and FY2016 appropriations laws (1) required USDA to allow states to exempt from the 100% whole grain requirements school food authorities that meet hardship requirements,¹⁶ and (2) prevented USDA from implementing a reduction in sodium that is to take effect school year 2017-2018 until "the latest scientific research establishes the reduction is beneficial for children." The House-reported bill (Section 731) would include these provisions again in FY2017 appropriations (making whole grain waivers available in school year 2017-2018). The Senate-reported bill does not include these provisions. The 114^th Congress is in the process of reauthorizing the school meals programs.¹⁷

Export Promotion Office in Cuba. The Administration is proposing to use $1.5 million of its requested $5 million increase for the USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) to open an FAS office in Cuba to promote U.S. agricultural exports. The Senate Appropriations Committee report recommends fully funding the increase and supports the establishment of an office in Cuba. The House-reported bill would provide FAS a $3 million increase, $2 million less than requested, with no reference to the proposal to open an office in Cuba(+$19 million) and nutrition programs administration (+$20 million) in the regular nutrition title and a $19 million supplemental in the general provisions for commodity assistance. Offset by an $850 million rescission in WIC because of lower prior-year participation than expected.

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. +$52 million, primarily for increases in emergency preparedness.

Food and Drug Administration. +$42 million, including $36 million more for food safety activities.

Farm Service Agency. +$29 million, including $23 million more to support a 25% increase in farm loan program authority.

USDA administration. +$20 million to modernize headquarters facilities.

Food Safety Inspection Service. +$17 million for inspection improvements.

Food for Peace grants. -$116 million from less supplemental funding ($134 million) to augment constant base funding of $1.466 billion.

Disaster assistance. -$114 million, comprised from $38 million less appropriated for programs than in FY2016 ($206 million in the second continuing resolution plus $28 million in the omnibus appropriation) and $76 million more in disaster designation offsets that do not count against budget caps.

Agricultural research agencies. -$46 million, comprised primarily of $25 million more for Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) grants, and $26 million more for Agricultural Research Service (ARS) operations, offset by $112 million less for ARS buildings and facilities.

Mandatory spending carried in the bill—mostly determined in separate authorizing laws—increases $13.5 billion over FY2016. All of this increase is in farm programs, including a $14.4 billion increase in the reimbursement to the Commodity Credit Corporation for higher than expected payments for farm commodity revenue support programs (Table 2). This increase is automatic based on farm bill formulas and does not affect discretionary spending limits.

Recent Trends in Agriculture Appropriations

Over time, changes by title of the Agriculture appropriations bill have generally been proportionate to changes in the bill's total discretionary limit, though some activities have sustained relative increases and decreases. Agriculture appropriations peaked in FY2010 and declined through FY2013. Since then, total Agriculture appropriations have increased (Figure 3). However, whether that increase returns the appropriation to various historical benchmarks depends upon inflation adjustments and other factors.

The stacked bars in Figure 3 represent the discretionary spending authorized for each title in the 10 years since FY2008FY2007. The total of the positive stacked bars is the budget authority contained in Titles I-VI. It is higher than the official "302(b)" discretionary spending limit (the line) because of the budgetary offset from negative amounts in Title VII General Provisions and other scorekeeping adjustments. General Provisions are negative mostly because of limits placed on mandatory programs, which are scored as savings (Table 2).

For example, in the FY2017 House-reported billappropriation, budget authority for the primary agencies in the bill (Titles I-VI) increases $166increased $462 million (the top of the stacked bars in Figure 3) even though the official discretionary spending allocation decreases $451decreased $623 million (the line and dots in Figure 3).

Increases in the use of CHIMPS and other tools to offset discretionary appropriations ameliorated reductions in discretionary budget authority in FY2011 and succeeding years. For example, the official "302(b)" discretionary total for the bill was given credit for declining 13.6% in FY2011, while the total of Titles I-VI declined only 6.4% that year (Figure 3). The effect is less pronounced in FY2016, since the offset was smaller, in part because of additional spending in General Provisions for foreign food aid and emergency programs.

Some areas have sustained real increases, while others have declined (apart from the peak in 2010). Agencies with sustained real increases (that is, inflation-adjusted; Figure 4) since FY2008 include FDA and CFTC (Related Agencies) and, to a lesser extent, foreign food assistance. Areas with real decreases in discretionary spending since 2008 include conservation, general agricultural programs, and domestic nutrition programs. Rural development and conservation also had a real decrease over the same period, though FY2016 may have reversed that trend for rural development, and FY2017 reversed it for conservation.

Figure 3. Discretionary Agriculture Appropriations, by Title, Since FY2008 FY2007

Source: CRS. Includes CFTC in Related Agencies regardless of jurisdiction, except as noted for FY2017in all years.

Figure 4. Inflation-Adjusted Discretionary Agriculture Appropriations Since FY2008 FY2007

Source: CRS. Includes CFTC in Related Agencies regardless of jurisdiction, except as noted for FY2017in all years. Notes: Budget authority adjusted for inflation by CRS using the gross domestic product price deflator.

Appendix. Action on Agriculture Appropriations

Author Contact Information

Key Policy Staff

Footnotes

1.	See CRS Report R42388, The Congressional Appropriations Process: An IntroductionFor more details on the FY2017 appropriation, including anomalies in the first two CRs, see CRS Report R44588, Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2017 Appropriations.
2.	Jurisdiction for CFTC appropriations differs between the chambers. Since FY2008, CFTC is marked up in the Agriculture subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, and in the Financial Services and General Government subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee. The enacted CFTC appropriation is carried in the Agriculture bill in even-numbered fiscal years, and in the Financial Services bill in odd-numbered fiscal yearsSee CRS Report R42388, The Congressional Appropriations Process: An Introduction.
3.	See CRS Report R44428, The Federal Budget: Overview and Issues for FY2017 and Beyond.
4.	Office of Management and Budget (OMB), FY2017 Budget of the U.S. Government, especially in the Appendix, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Appendix.
5.	USDA, FY2017 USDA Budget Summary; and USDA, 2017 Congressional Justification, http://www.obpa.usda.gov.
6.	For more details on the FY2017 appropriation, including anomalies in the two continuing resolutions, see CRS Report R44588, Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2017 Appropriations.
7.	See CRS Insight IN10499, GIPSA Rule Revived.
8.	79 Federal Register 35711.
9.	81 Federal Register 28973. FDA's "tobacco product" authorities are defined in FFDCA Section 901.
10.	Ibid.
11.	81 Federal Register 8015-8021 (February 17, 2016). For further discussion of this rulemaking, see CRS Report R44650, Proposed Rule to Update Standards for SNAP-Authorized Retailers: In BriefSee CRS Insight IN10675, The President's FY2018 Budget Request for the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
127.	The proposed rule's preamble states that, aside from the farm bill change, FNS is "using existing authority in [SNAP's authorizing statute] and feedback from a Request for Information that included five listening sessions in urban and rural locations across the nation and generated 233 public comments."
13.	As of October 1, 2015, all state agencies have opted to use simplified reporting for some or all households. SNAP State Options Report (April 2016), http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/snap/12-State_Options.pdf.
14.	USDA-FNS FY2017 congressional budget justification, p. 32-110, http://www.obpa.usda.gov/32fns2017notes.pdf.
15.	The final rule is dated January 2012, and the updated nutrition standards phased in beginning in school year 2013-2014. For further background, see "Selected Current Issues in the USDA Child Nutrition Programs" in CRS Report R43783, School Meals Programs and Other USDA Child Nutrition Programs: A Primer.
16.	Exempted schools are to maintain a 50% whole grain minimum, the requirement before school year 2014-2015.
17.	See CRS Report R44373, Tracking the Next Child Nutrition Reauthorization: An OverviewJurisdiction for CFTC appropriations differs between the chambers. Since FY2008, CFTC is marked up in the Agriculture subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee and in the Financial Services and General Government subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee. The enacted CFTC appropriation is carried in the Agriculture bill in even-numbered fiscal years and in the Financial Services bill in odd-numbered fiscal years.