H.R. 8646 · 119th Congress · Received in the Senate.
Farm, Food Safety, and Rural Spending Plan for 2027
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agency Appropriations Act, 2027
Sponsored by Rep. Harris, Andy [R-MD-1] (R-MD)
Deep dive June 10, 2026
This bill sets federal spending for the USDA, FDA, and rural programs through September 30, 2027. It covers farm loans, school meals, crop insurance, and rural broadband. It also cancels $135 million in unspent funds and adds new rules on foreign farmland purchases.
What to know
The bill cancels $95 million in unspent farm debt relief funds and $40 million in unspent rural broadband funds.
The Agriculture Secretary joins the federal panel that reviews foreign purchases of U.S. farmland, with a focus on buyers from China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran.
The bill blocks four USDA rules on poultry and livestock contracts and orders the Secretary to drop those rules and close related investigations.
At least $200 million in tobacco fees must fund FDA action against illegal e-cigarettes, with at least $20 million going to a multi-agency task force.
The FDA's 2022 food traceability rule will not be enforced until July 20, 2028, while the FDA keeps working on flexible ways for businesses to comply.
At least one in ten dollars from rural housing, business, and broadband programs must go to counties where 20 percent or more of people have been poor for 30 years.
Heads up
12 buried provisions
Provisions we flagged do not match the bill's stated purpose, or repeat language from bills that did not pass on their own.
Religious objection to same-sex marriage shield (Section 764)
Why we flagged this
This section bars the federal government from taking many actions against a person based on their belief that marriage is between one man and one woman. It blocks denial of grants, contracts, tax-exempt status, licenses, and benefits. It also requires the government to treat people as accredited or licensed even if they were denied for that reason. This is a broad policy change placed inside a yearly farm and FDA funding bill.
Show the exact bill text
Notwithstanding section 7 of title 1, United States Code, section 1738C of title 28, United States Code, or any other provision of law, none of the funds provided by this Act, or previous appropriations Acts, shall be used in whole or in part to take any discriminatory action against a person, wholly or partially, on the basis that such person speaks, or acts, in accordance with a sincerely held religious belief, or moral conviction, that marriage is, or should be recognized as, a union of one man and one woman.
Federal preemption of state pet food rules (Section 772)
Why we flagged this
This section blocks states from setting their own rules for pet and animal food labels, labeling, or advertising that go beyond federal rules. States have long handled much of this oversight. The change is tucked inside a long FDA pet food section in a funding bill.
Show the exact bill text
No State or a political subdivision of a State may directly or indirectly establish, maintain, implement, or enforce any law, regulation, or other requirement relating to the labels, labeling, or advertising of animal food that differs from or extends beyond those established by the Food and Drug Administration.
Block on livestock and poultry market fairness rules (Section 758)
Why we flagged this
This section bars use of funds to write or enforce several recent USDA rules on poultry contracts and fair competition in livestock and poultry markets. It also requires USDA to withdraw those rules and close related investigations. This shifts major farm policy through a spending bill.
Show the exact bill text
None of the funds made available by this or any other Act thereafter may be used to write, prepare, or publish a proposed rule, final rule, or an interim final rule in furtherance of, or otherwise to implement or enforce the final rule entitled "Transparency in Poultry Grower Contracting and Tournaments"... or any subsequent substantially similar rulemaking effort, except that funds may be used to, and the Secretary of Agriculture shall, withdraw or rescind any such proposed rules... and discontinue and provide notice of closure to affected parties of any investigations or enforcement activities pending under said rules.
Vague waiver for animal disease overtime pay caps (Section 755)
Why we flagged this
This lets APHIS pay workers above normal premium pay caps when the agency head decides services respond to an animal disease or plant outbreak. The trigger is set by the agency itself with no clear standard or dollar limit. That gives wide discretion over federal pay rules.
Show the exact bill text
If services performed by APHIS employees are determined by the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to be in response to an animal disease or plant health emergency outbreak, any premium pay that is funded, either directly or through reimbursement, shall be exempted from the aggregate of basic pay and premium pay calculated under section 5547(b)(1) and (2) of title 5, United States Code, and any other provision of law limiting the aggregate amount of premium pay payable on a biweekly or calendar year basis.
Block on FDA produce safety water rule for certain crops (Section 735)
Why we flagged this
This blocks FDA from enforcing produce safety rules, including farm water rules, for growers of wine grapes, hops, pulse crops, and almonds. It carves out specific crops from federal food safety oversight through a yearly funding bill.
Show the exact bill text
None of the funds made available by this or any other Act may be used to enforce the final rule promulgated by the Food and Drug Administration entitled "Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption"... with respect to the regulation of entities that grow, harvest, pack, or hold wine grapes, hops, pulse crops, or almonds.
Block on horse slaughter inspections (Section 756)
Why we flagged this
This bars USDA from paying inspectors for horse meat inspections. Without federal inspection, horse slaughter for human food cannot legally operate in the United States. A major policy on horse slaughter is set by a funding limit.
Show the exact bill text
None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to pay the salaries or expenses of personnel— (1) to inspect horses under section 3 of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 603); (2) to inspect horses under section 903 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996...; or (3) to implement or enforce section 352.19 of title 9, Code of Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation).
This permanently cancels $95 million in unused money from a 2022 program that helped distressed farm loan borrowers. The cut is placed in a general provisions section of a funding bill.
Show the exact bill text
Of the unobligated balances made available by section 22006 of Public Law 117– 169, $95,000,000 are hereby permanently cancelled
Block on FDA sodium reduction guidance (Section 768)
Why we flagged this
This stops FDA from issuing new guidance on cutting sodium in food until a future national survey is published. It pauses a major public health effort through a one-line funding limit.
Show the exact bill text
None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used by the Food and Drug Administration to develop, issue, promote, or advance any new guidelines or regulations applicable to food manufacturers for population-wide sodium reduction actions until the publication of the 2025-26 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
WIC cash-value voucher boost for fruits and vegetables (WIC heading, Title IV)
Why we flagged this
This sets the WIC cash voucher for fruits and vegetables at 267 percent of the 2020 level for children and 428 percent for women. It locks in much larger benefits than the base law through an appropriations proviso.
Show the exact bill text
the Secretary shall use funds made available under this heading to provide a cash-value voucher for women and children participants that is set at an amount equal to 267 percent of the amount provided for such voucher in fiscal year 2020 for children participants, and 428 percent of the amount provided for such voucher in such fiscal year for women participants
Reduction in WIC milk allowances (Section 745)
Why we flagged this
This sets specific maximum monthly milk amounts for WIC food packages for one year. It overrides the normal WIC food package rules through an appropriations rider. The change affects what families can get.
Show the exact bill text
For fiscal year 2027, the maximum monthly allowances of fluid milk for the following food packages described in section 246.10(e) of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, are: (1) For Food Package IV, 16 quarts. (2) For Food Package V, 22 quarts. (3) For Food Package VI, 16 quarts. (4) For Food Package VII, 24 quarts.
This bars rural broadband pilot loans or grants from being used to overbuild areas already served by a federally funded provider, unless that provider does not meet a minimum speed. The phrase "sufficient access" and the exception leave room for broad interpretation that can decide which projects qualify.
Show the exact bill text
an entity to which a loan or grant is made under the pilot program shall not use the loan or grant to overbuild or duplicate broadband service in a service area by any entity that has received a broadband loan from the Rural Utilities Service unless such service is not provided sufficient access to broadband at the minimum service threshold
Rescission of broadband pilot program funds (Section 765)
Why we flagged this
This cancels $40 million of unused prior-year money for a rural broadband loan and grant pilot. The bill provides new money for the same program elsewhere, but this rescission reduces overall available funds.
Show the exact bill text
Of the unobligated balances from prior year appropriations made available under the heading "Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program" for the cost to continue a broadband loan and grant pilot program established by section 779 of division A of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018... $40,000,000 are hereby rescinded
Section by section
Overall funding authorization for agriculture and related agencies
This section is the opening clause of the bill. It states that money from the U.S. Treasury is set aside for programs run by the Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, the Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies. The money covers the fiscal year that ends September 30, 2027. Specific dollar amounts for each program are listed in the sections that follow. This kind of opening clause is standard in annual appropriations bills.
Who this affects
Federal agencies that receive funding through this bill, including the USDA, FDA, and rural development programs. Farmers, rural communities, food safety programs, and others served by these agencies are also affected.
Tradeoff
Setting aside Treasury funds for these agencies means money is directed to agriculture and food programs, but those dollars are not available for other federal spending.
Show the exact bill text
the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for fiscal year ending September 30, 2027
Limits on USDA vehicle purchases
This section sets rules for how the Department of Agriculture can buy new passenger vehicles. The department can use any of its 2027 funds to buy vehicles. But the total fleet cannot grow beyond the number of vehicles it owned or leased in 2018. Before buying more vehicles, the Secretary must confirm the purchases improve safety, lower costs, or protect people and property. If the Secretary wants to go above the 2018 fleet size, written notice must be sent to both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. Congress then has 30 days to approve the increase.
Who this affects
The U.S. Department of Agriculture and its employees who use government vehicles. Taxpayers fund the fleet.
Tradeoff
Capping the fleet at 2018 levels limits government spending on vehicles, but it may restrict the department if its staffing or workload has grown since 2018.
Show the exact bill text
the total number of vehicles purchased in fiscal year 2027 does not exceed the number of vehicles owned or leased in fiscal year 2018
USDA internal technology fund and National Finance Center rules
This section lets the Secretary of Agriculture move unused, unspent budget money into a fund called the Working Capital Fund. That fund pays for computers, software, cloud services, and other technology upgrades used inside the Department of Agriculture. Before any money can move into that fund, the head of the affected agency must agree. Then Congress must also give written approval before the money can be spent. The section adds extra protections for a specific office called the National Finance Center, which handles payroll and human resources for many federal agencies. Its staff, data systems, and payroll functions must stay under National Finance Center control. The Secretary must also try to sell the National Finance Center's shared services, like payroll processing, to other government agencies. Up to 4 percent of the fund's yearly income can be set aside for equipment replacement or unexpected costs, but Congress must be notified before any of that reserve is spent. Emergency exceptions exist if a disaster threatens the center's operations.
Who this affects
Federal workers and agencies that rely on the National Finance Center for payroll and HR services. Also affects USDA offices that use shared technology systems funded through the Working Capital Fund.
Tradeoff
Giving the Secretary flexibility to shift unused funds into the technology fund could speed up upgrades, but requiring congressional approval for each transfer adds oversight steps that may slow spending.
Show the exact bill text
none of the funds transferred to the Working Capital Fund pursuant to this section shall be available for obligation without written notification to and the prior approval of the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress
Spending must be used within the fiscal year
This section sets a general rule for all money provided by this law. Any funds must be spent or committed during the current fiscal year. They cannot be carried over into a future fiscal year. The only exception is if another part of this law specifically says a certain amount of money can roll over.
Who this affects
Federal agencies receiving money through this appropriations act. Any agency that has unspent funds at the end of the fiscal year must return them unless the law says otherwise.
Tradeoff
This rule keeps spending within planned budget periods, but it may pressure agencies to spend funds quickly rather than save them for later needs.
Show the exact bill text
No part of any appropriation contained in this Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Cap on indirect cost payments to nonprofits in USDA cooperative agreements
This section limits how much the USDA can pay for indirect costs (overhead) under cooperative agreements with nonprofit groups. Indirect costs cover things like rent, utilities, and administration. The cap is set at 10 percent of the total direct costs of the agreement. This cap only applies when the agreement serves a shared purpose between USDA and the nonprofit. Regular grants and contracts with nonprofits are not affected by this cap, as long as indirect costs are calculated the same way across all agencies funded by this bill.
Who this affects
Nonprofit organizations that have cooperative agreements with the USDA. USDA program offices that manage those agreements are also affected.
Tradeoff
The cap limits federal spending on overhead, but it may also reduce the amount nonprofits recover for real administrative costs, which could make some cooperative arrangements less practical for those organizations.
Show the exact bill text
No funds appropriated by this Act may be used to pay negotiated indirect cost rates on cooperative agreements or similar arrangements between the United States Department of Agriculture and nonprofit institutions in excess of 10 percent of the total direct cost of the agreement when the purpose of such cooperative arrangements is to carry out programs of mutual interest between the two parties.
Rural loan funds kept available until fully spent
This section lets three rural loan program accounts keep their money until it is fully used up. Normally, government funds expire at the end of a fiscal year. Here, funds for rural development loans, rural electric and telecom loans, and rural housing loans can stay active as long as needed to pay out any loans that were already committed in that same year. This prevents money from being lost just because a loan takes time to close after the commitment is made.
Who this affects
Rural communities, farmers, electric cooperatives, telecom providers, and rural homebuyers who rely on USDA loan programs.
Tradeoff
Keeping funds available longer gives borrowers more time to receive committed loan money, but it also means those dollars stay outside the normal annual budget review process.
Show the exact bill text
Appropriations to the Department of Agriculture for the cost of direct and guaranteed loans made available in the current fiscal year shall remain available until expended to disburse obligations made in the current fiscal year
USDA technology spending approval rules
This section sets rules for how the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) can spend money on new computer systems and software upgrades. Any new technology purchase or major upgrade must be approved by the USDA's top technology officer (the Chief Information Officer). Moving money into that officer's office requires written notice to and approval from the congressional appropriations committees in both the House and Senate. No technology contract over $25,000 can be signed without written approval from the Chief Information Officer. However, the Chief Information Officer can allow individual USDA agencies to sign technology contracts up to $250,000 on their own, if those agencies have met certain performance goals.
Who this affects
USDA agencies and staff who buy or manage technology systems. Technology vendors seeking contracts with USDA are also affected.
Tradeoff
Tighter oversight may slow technology purchases and reduce waste, but the added approval steps could delay urgent upgrades.
Show the exact bill text
none of the funds available to the Department of Agriculture for information technology shall be obligated for projects, contracts, or other agreements over $25,000 prior to receipt of written approval by the Chief Information Officer
Federal Crop Insurance research funds carry-over
This section lets a specific type of crop insurance funding last beyond the end of the fiscal year. Normally, unspent government funds expire at year-end. Section 524(b) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act funds research and development for crop insurance. This section says those funds can stay available as long as needed to pay out any promises (obligations) that were already made during the current year. In other words, if the government committed to spend the money this year, it can still pay those bills even after the fiscal year closes.
Who this affects
Federal agencies and contractors involved in crop insurance research and development. Farmers and insurers may benefit indirectly if funded projects are completed rather than cut short.
Tradeoff
Allowing funds to carry over ensures commitments are honored, but it also keeps money outside the normal annual spending review process.
Show the exact bill text
Funds made available under section 524(b) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1524(b)) in the current fiscal year shall remain available until expended to disburse obligations made in the current fiscal year.
Rural electric loan eligibility for former borrowers
This section lets two extra groups apply for a rural electric assistance program. The first group is utilities that once borrowed money from the Rural Utilities Service but have already paid off their loans. The second group is not-for-profit utilities that could qualify for a loan under the Rural Electrification Act but have not taken one. Both groups would be treated just like current borrowers when applying for help under section 313B(a) of that Act.
Who this affects
Former Rural Utilities Service loan borrowers who already paid off their debt, and not-for-profit electric utilities eligible for rural loan programs but not currently borrowing.
Tradeoff
More utilities can access federal assistance, which could broaden rural electric support, but it also expands the pool of applicants competing for the same program funds.
Show the exact bill text
any former Rural Utilities Service borrower that has repaid or prepaid an insured, direct or guaranteed loan under the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, or any not-for-profit utility that is eligible to receive an insured or direct loan under such Act, shall be eligible for assistance under section 313B(a) of such Act in the same manner as a borrower under such Act.
Farm Service Agency technology fund carryover limit
This section sets a rule for leftover money in the Farm Service Agency's budget. Normally, unspent funds expire at the end of the fiscal year. This section allows up to $20 million of unspent salary and expense funds to be kept and used for technology costs. That money can be carried over until September 30, 2028. Any unspent amount above $20 million cannot be carried over.
Who this affects
The Farm Service Agency, which serves farmers and rural communities. Taxpayers whose money funds the agency are also affected.
Tradeoff
Allowing the carryover gives the agency flexibility to plan and pay for technology projects, but it also means up to $20 million in unspent funds stays outside normal annual budget review.
Show the exact bill text
not more than $20,000,000 in unobligated balances from appropriations made available for salaries and expenses in this Act for the Farm Service Agency shall remain available through September 30, 2028, for information technology expenses.
Ban on unauthorized first-class travel
This section blocks any money from this bill from paying for first-class airline or travel tickets for federal employees. The ban applies to all agencies funded by this bill. Employees may only use first-class travel when existing federal rules (41 C.F.R. sections 301-10.122 through 301-10.124) specifically allow it. Those rules already limit first-class travel to rare cases, such as a medical need or no lower-class seats being available.
Who this affects
Federal employees at agencies funded by this bill, such as the USDA and the FDA, who travel for work.
Tradeoff
Taxpayer money is protected from being spent on premium travel, but employees in unusual situations may face limits even when first-class travel could be justified.
Show the exact bill text
None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for first-class travel by the employees of agencies funded by this Act in contravention of sections 301–10.122 through 301–10.124 of title 41, Code of Federal Regulations.
Commodity Credit Corporation spending flexibility for farm programs
This section applies to certain farm and rural programs created or updated by the 2014 Farm Act and its successors. Those programs are funded through the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), a government-owned lender that finances farm support. Normally, federal law caps how much money the CCC can move around through transfers and allotments. This section says that when CCC funds are used to pay salaries, admin costs, and technical help for those programs, that spending does not count toward the cap. In other words, the regular limit on CCC fund transfers is set aside for these administrative expenses.
Who this affects
Federal agencies that run CCC-funded farm programs, and the staff who are paid through those funds. Farmers and rural communities may also be affected if admin capacity changes.
Tradeoff
Removing the cap gives agencies more flexibility to staff and run farm programs, but it also reduces a legal check on how much CCC money can be moved without additional oversight.
Show the exact bill text
the use of such funds for such purpose shall not be considered to be a fund transfer or allotment for purposes of applying the limitation on the total amount of allotments and fund transfers contained in such section.
Cap on advisory committee spending at USDA
This section limits how much money the Department of Agriculture can spend on its advisory committees, panels, commissions, and task forces. The cap is $2.9 million for the entire year. Two types of panels are not covered by this limit: panels required by negotiated rulemaking and panels that review competitive grant applications. All other advisory bodies must share the $2.9 million cap.
Who this affects
The Department of Agriculture and the advisory groups it funds. It could also affect outside experts, stakeholders, or organizations that participate in USDA advisory bodies.
Tradeoff
The cap reduces spending on advisory input, which may lower costs but could also limit the range of expert advice available to the department.
Show the exact bill text
not more than $2,900,000 shall be used to cover necessary expenses of activities related to all advisory committees, panels, commissions, and task forces of the Department of Agriculture
Block pornography on government computer networks
This section says that no money from this bill can be used to run a government computer network unless that network blocks pornography. Blocking means users cannot view, download, or exchange it. There is one exception: law enforcement agencies and other groups working on criminal investigations, prosecutions, or court cases can still access such content when needed for their work.
Who this affects
Federal agencies funded by this bill that operate computer networks. Law enforcement agencies are exempt when doing criminal work.
Tradeoff
The rule adds a content-blocking requirement to all covered networks, which may increase IT costs and compliance work, but law enforcement agencies keep access they need for investigations.
Show the exact bill text
None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to maintain or establish a computer network unless such network blocks the viewing, downloading, and exchanging of pornography.
Spending cap on farm commodity purchase programs
This section sets a total spending limit of $1.717 billion for programs under Section 32 of a 1935 farm law. Section 32 uses customs revenue to buy surplus farm goods, support child nutrition, and stabilize agricultural markets. The bill breaks that limit into specific categories: $485 million for child nutrition commodities, $5 million for state option contracts, $2.5 million for removing defective commodities, and about $41.9 million for program administration. Any money not spent by October 1, 2027 can carry over into fiscal year 2028 and be spent later. However, money used for surplus commodity purchases (called clause 3 purchases) is capped at $350 million in carryover funds. The Agriculture Secretary must give written notice to Congress at least two weeks before spending those carryover clause 3 funds. The section also bars any Agriculture Department staff from spending new money on clause 3 purchases, except when using previously authorized carryover funds.
Who this affects
Federal Agriculture Department staff who run these programs, and indirectly schools and food banks that receive commodities through child nutrition programs.
Tradeoff
Capping spending limits how much the government can spend buying surplus farm goods, which could reduce support for farmers and food programs but also controls federal spending.
Show the exact bill text
none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this or any other Act shall be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out a program under section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935 ( 7 U.S.C. 612c ) in excess of $1,717,000,000
User fee proposals must be backed by spending cuts
This section blocks the use of federal funds to pay staff who write budget documents for agriculture, rural development, and FDA programs. The block applies when those budget documents assume new user fee revenue that Congress has not yet approved. The exception is if the budget also clearly states which spending cuts would happen if the user fees are never passed into law. In short, the White House cannot count on unapproved fees to balance its budget request without showing a backup plan.
Who this affects
White House and agency budget staff who write the President's annual budget for agriculture, rural development, and FDA programs. It also affects any agency that relies on proposed but unapproved user fees to fund its operations in that budget.
Tradeoff
This rule pushes for more honest budget planning, but it limits the President's flexibility to propose new funding ideas before Congress acts on them.
Show the exact bill text
None of the funds appropriated by this or any other Act shall be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel who prepare or submit appropriations language as part of the President's budget submission to the Congress for programs under the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Subcommittees on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies that assumes revenues or reflects a reduction from the previous year due to user fees proposals that have not been enacted into law prior to the submission of the budget
Congressional approval required before moving agency funds
This section limits how the Agriculture Department, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission can move money around. Before doing certain things, the head of each agency must notify both House and Senate Appropriations Committees in writing and wait at least 30 days for approval. Those things include: creating new programs, eliminating existing ones, moving offices or workers, privatizing jobs currently done by federal employees, shifting more than $500,000 or 10 percent of funds (whichever is smaller) between programs, or starting activities that did not run in the prior year. The rule also covers large changes to technology investments and any reorganization that puts five or more employees into a new office or unit. No money can be spent on these actions until the agency gets written or email confirmation that Congress received the notice.
Who this affects
The Agriculture Department, HHS, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission are directly affected. Federal employees at those agencies and programs that could be moved, cut, or privatized are also affected.
Tradeoff
Congress keeps tighter control over how agencies use their money, but agencies must wait at least 30 days before acting on changes, which can slow their response to shifting needs.
Show the exact bill text
unless the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, or the Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (as the case may be) notifies in writing and receives approval from the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress at least 30 days in advance of the reprogramming of such funds or the use of such authority.
Business and industry loan guarantee fee cap
This section lets the U.S. Department of Agriculture charge a one-time fee on guaranteed business and industry loans. The fee cannot be more than 3 percent of the loan amount that the government guarantees. It sets aside a normal rule in the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act that would otherwise limit or define this fee differently.
Who this affects
Rural businesses that apply for USDA-guaranteed loans, and lenders that make those loans. Borrowers or lenders may pay this fee at loan closing.
Tradeoff
The fee can help cover program costs, but it also raises the upfront cost for rural businesses seeking a guaranteed loan.
Show the exact bill text
the Secretary may assess a one-time fee for any guaranteed business and industry loan in an amount that does not exceed 3 percent of the guaranteed principal portion of the loan.
Restricting sharing of appropriations hearing information
This section bars four agencies from sharing certain budget-related documents with outsiders. The agencies are the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and the Farm Credit Administration. If Congress asks these agencies questions during the budget approval process, the agencies cannot send the answers or related reports to people outside their own agencies. Only employees within each agency can receive that information.
Who this affects
Staff at the four named agencies and anyone outside those agencies who might otherwise receive budget hearing documents. Congressional staff and outside parties would no longer get those documents directly from the agencies.
Tradeoff
The rule keeps sensitive budget hearing responses inside the agencies, but it may limit transparency by preventing outside reviewers from seeing how agencies respond to Congress.
Show the exact bill text
None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, or the Farm Credit Administration shall be used to transmit or otherwise make available reports, questions, or responses to questions that are a result of information requested for the appropriations hearing process to any non-Department of Agriculture, non-Department of Health and Human Services, non-Commodity Futures Trading Commission, or non-Farm Credit Administration employee.
Government-produced news stories must be labeled
This section stops federal agencies from spending money on pre-made news stories meant for U.S. audiences unless those stories clearly say they were made or paid for by the agency. The label must appear in the text or audio of the story itself. The rule applies unless another existing law already allows the activity.
Who this affects
Federal executive branch agencies that create or fund news-style content. U.S. audiences who might receive that content through broadcast or other channels.
Tradeoff
Viewers and listeners get clearer information about who made a news story, but agencies must spend extra effort to add disclosures to any content they produce.
Show the exact bill text
none of the funds provided in this Act, may be used by an executive branch agency to produce any prepackaged news story intended for broadcast or distribution in the United States unless the story includes a clear notification within the text or audio of the prepackaged news story that the prepackaged news story was prepared or funded by that executive branch agency.
Limits on employee reassignments within USDA
This section sets a rule for the U.S. Department of Agriculture. If one USDA office wants to borrow an employee from another USDA office for more than 60 days in a fiscal year, the borrowing office must pay back the original office. The repayment must cover the employee's full salary and expenses for the entire assignment period. If the borrowing office does not reimburse, the detail cannot go beyond 60 days.
Who this affects
USDA employees who are temporarily assigned to work in a different USDA office or agency. It also affects USDA offices that send or receive those employees.
Tradeoff
This rule protects smaller USDA offices from losing staff time and budget to larger offices, but it could also make long-term cross-office assignments harder to arrange.
Show the exact bill text
No employee of the Department of Agriculture may be detailed or assigned from an agency or office funded by this Act or any other Act to any other agency or office of the Department for more than 60 days in a fiscal year unless the individual's employing agency or office is fully reimbursed by the receiving agency or office for the salary and expenses of the employee for the period of assignment.
Spending plan submission requirement
Within 30 days of this law taking effect, four agencies must send Congress a detailed spending plan. The agencies are the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and the Farm Credit Administration. Each plan must show how the agency intends to spend its funds. It must break down spending by program, project, and activity. It must also show estimated spending by fiscal quarter, funding source, and number of full-time employees supported. This plan then becomes the baseline for any future notifications about moving money between programs.
Who this affects
Four federal agencies must prepare and submit these plans. Congressional appropriations committees receive and review them.
Tradeoff
The requirement gives Congress more visibility into how agencies plan to spend money, but it adds a reporting task for agency staff to complete within a tight 30-day window.
Show the exact bill text
Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, the Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and the Chairman of the Farm Credit Administration shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate a detailed obligation plan delineated by program, project, and activity
Advance notice required before canceling large grants or contracts
This section requires the Secretary of Agriculture to notify Congress before canceling any grant, cooperative agreement, or contract worth $1 million or more. The notice must arrive at least 3 business days before the cancellation. It must include who received the award, how much money was involved, what fiscal year the funds came from, which program or account the money came from, the title of the award, and a detailed reason for the cancellation. This applies to awards funded by this bill or any previous appropriations bill.
Who this affects
Grant and contract recipients who receive $1 million or more from USDA funding. Congressional appropriations committees also gain an oversight role.
Tradeoff
Congress gets advance warning and more oversight over large award cancellations, but the Agriculture Department must take extra steps before ending any qualifying award.
Show the exact bill text
The Secretary of Agriculture shall provide written notification to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no fewer than 3 business days in advance of termination of any grant, cooperative agreement, or contract award totaling $1,000,000 or more
Excluding prison populations from rural housing program calculations
This section tells the Agriculture Department how to count people when deciding who qualifies for Rural Housing Service programs. When the government figures out eligibility or how much help an area gets, it must not count people who are in prison. This matters because prison populations can inflate the count of residents in a rural area. A higher population count can change whether a community qualifies for certain programs or how much funding it receives.
Who this affects
Rural communities that have prisons nearby. Local residents who apply for Rural Housing Service loans or grants could see different eligibility results.
Tradeoff
Removing prison populations from the count may make some rural areas look smaller, which could lower their funding levels or disqualify them from certain programs, but it may also prevent prison populations from artificially boosting access to housing aid intended for local residents.
Show the exact bill text
For the purposes of determining eligibility or level of program assistance for Rural Housing Service programs the Secretary shall not include incarcerated prison populations.
Flexibility to increase rural loan program levels
This section lets the Secretary of Agriculture raise the total dollar amount of certain rural loans and loan guarantees beyond what the Act originally set. For most loan programs, the Secretary can raise that ceiling by up to 25 percent. For loans tied to the Rural Electrification Act (which funds rural electric and utility projects), the ceiling can go up by up to 50 percent. These are loans that do not require extra budget money to cover potential losses. Before making any such increase, the Secretary must give written notice to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees at least 15 days ahead of time.
Who this affects
Rural borrowers who use USDA loan and loan guarantee programs, including rural electric cooperatives and utility borrowers. Lenders and program administrators are also affected.
Tradeoff
More flexibility to meet unexpected loan demand helps rural communities, but it also lets the executive branch expand spending beyond Congress's original approved levels with only a 15-day notice requirement.
Show the exact bill text
the Secretary of Agriculture may increase the program level for such loans and loan guarantees by not more than 25 percent... the Secretary notifies, in writing, the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress at least 15 days in advance.
Credit card rebates require congressional approval before use
This section deals with money the U.S. Department of Agriculture receives as rebates from credit card purchases. That money gets moved into a special account called the Working Capital Fund. Before any of it can be spent, the department must give written notice to Congress and get approval from both chambers' Appropriations Committees. The money can only be used to buy physical assets or technology. Allowed uses include financial systems, information technology tools, cloud computing, and other support systems that mainly help USDA agencies run their operations.
Who this affects
The U.S. Department of Agriculture and its agencies are affected. Congress gains oversight over how these rebate funds are spent.
Tradeoff
Congressional approval adds a layer of oversight but may slow down the department's ability to use rebate funds quickly.
Show the exact bill text
None of the credit card refunds or rebates transferred to the Working Capital Fund...shall be available for obligation without written notification to, and the prior approval of, the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress
Pause on SNAP store variety rules
This section blocks spending to enforce a 2016 rule that set minimum food variety requirements for stores that accept SNAP benefits. The block stays in place until the Department of Agriculture rewrites the rule to allow more items to count as acceptable varieties in each food category. Until that rewrite happens, stores must follow the older, looser variety rules that were in place before the 2014 Farm Bill took effect.
Who this affects
Grocery stores and small retailers that accept SNAP benefits, and SNAP recipients who shop at those stores.
Tradeoff
Relaxing the variety rules makes it easier for small stores to stay in the SNAP program, but it may mean some stores carry fewer healthy food options for shoppers.
Show the exact bill text
None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to implement, administer, or enforce the variety requirements of the final rule entitled Enhancing Retailer Standards in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) published by the Department of Agriculture in the Federal Register on December 15, 2016
Expanded authority for rural home loan guarantees
This section gives the Secretary of Agriculture broader powers over a rural home loan guarantee program. The program in question helps low-income rural residents get loans to buy or repair homes. Right now, the Secretary has certain powers over a different rural loan program (Section 538, which covers rural rental housing). This section says the Secretary can use those same powers for the single-family home loan guarantee program (Section 502). Those powers include things like setting lender rules and managing how guaranteed loans are handled.
Who this affects
Low-income rural homebuyers who use Section 502 loan guarantees, and the lenders who make those loans.
Tradeoff
Giving the Secretary more control over lenders and loans may make the program run more smoothly, but it also gives one official more authority over private lending decisions.
Show the exact bill text
the Secretary of Agriculture shall have the same authority with respect to loans guaranteed under such section and eligible lenders for such loans as the Secretary has under subsections (h) and (j) of section 538
Block on new USDA user fees
Section 728 stops the U.S. Department of Agriculture from using any funds in this bill to create new user fees. A user fee is a charge the government bills to people or businesses that use a specific government service. The ban covers proposing, finalizing, or putting into effect any new fee under the federal law that lets agencies set such charges (31 U.S.C. 9701). The block starts on the day this bill becomes law and lasts as long as these funds are in use.
Who this affects
Businesses and individuals who use USDA services, such as food inspections or permits. It also affects USDA programs that rely on user fees to cover operating costs.
Tradeoff
People and businesses avoid new fees for USDA services, but USDA loses a potential source of funding that could have supported those services.
Show the exact bill text
None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act shall be available for the United States Department of Agriculture to propose, finalize or implement any regulation that would promulgate new user fees pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 9701 after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Overtime and holiday pay for federal meat and poultry inspectors
This section lets the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) bill meat, poultry, and egg processing facilities for inspection costs that happen outside normal work hours or on federal holidays. Right now, laws limit how that overtime and holiday pay is calculated and charged. This section overrides those limits for these specific charges. Any money collected counts as overtime or holiday pay under a 2021 law. The collected funds stay available to FSIS without needing a new appropriation from Congress, and FSIS can use the money to cover all inspection costs.
Who this affects
Meat, poultry, and egg processing plants that need federal inspection outside regular shifts or on holidays. It also affects FSIS inspectors whose overtime and holiday pay is funded through these charges.
Tradeoff
Plants get inspected when they need it, but they may pay more because the government can now bill them directly for those extra inspection hours.
Show the exact bill text
the Secretary may charge establishments subject to the inspection requirements of the Poultry Products Inspection Act...for the cost of inspection services provided outside of an establishment's approved inspection shifts, and for inspection services provided on Federal holidays
Foreign country audits for livestock disease safety
This section requires the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct audits of foreign countries or regions that export livestock or livestock products to the United States. Each audit must look at specific factors. Those factors include how well the country controls animal diseases, its vaccination history, how it tracks livestock, how it separates animals from disease sources, how it monitors for disease, what lab testing it can do, and how prepared it is for disease outbreaks. After each audit is done, the final report must be made available to the public quickly. The section also states that these audits must follow any rules the U.S. has agreed to under international trade deals.
Who this affects
Foreign countries and regions that export livestock or animal products to the U.S. are subject to these audits. U.S. consumers and livestock producers may be affected by the findings.
Tradeoff
More thorough public audits could improve disease safety oversight, but they may also create friction with trading partners or slow import approvals.
Show the exact bill text
conduct audits in a manner that evaluates the following factors in the country or region being audited, as applicable— (A) veterinary control and oversight; (B) disease history and vaccination practices; (C) livestock demographics and traceability
Buy American iron and steel for rural water projects
This section requires that iron and steel products used in rural water and wastewater construction projects must be made in the United States. The requirement applies to projects funded through several rural water and waste disposal programs under the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act. Covered materials include pipes, fittings, manhole covers, hydrants, tanks, valves, and structural steel, among others. There are three exceptions: when using U.S. iron and steel is against the public interest, when U.S. products are not available in enough quantity or quality, or when using U.S. products would raise the total project cost by more than 25 percent. Anyone asking for a waiver must have their request posted online for at least 15 days of public comment before a decision is made. Projects that already had state-approved engineering plans before this law takes effect are also exempt. Up to 0.25 percent of program funds may be used to manage and oversee this requirement.
Who this affects
Rural communities receiving federal funding for water and wastewater infrastructure projects. U.S. iron and steel manufacturers and foreign suppliers are also affected.
Tradeoff
Requiring U.S.-made iron and steel may support domestic manufacturing jobs, but it could raise project costs or slow construction if American-made materials are limited or more expensive.
Show the exact bill text
No Federal funds made available for this fiscal year for the rural water, waste water, waste disposal, and solid waste management programs...shall be used for a project for the construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair of a public water or wastewater system unless all of the iron and steel products used in the project are produced in the United States.
Ban on using funds to lobby Congress
This section blocks any money from this bill from being used to influence how Congress votes on laws or spending bills. Federal agencies and other recipients of these funds cannot spend the money on lobbying efforts. The one exception is direct communication with members of Congress, which is already allowed under existing federal law (18 U.S.C. 1913).
Who this affects
Federal agencies and any organizations that receive funding through this bill. They cannot use these funds to try to shape congressional decisions.
Tradeoff
It limits how funded groups can spend money on political influence, but still allows basic, direct communication with lawmakers.
Show the exact bill text
None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used in any way, directly or indirectly, to influence congressional action on any legislation or appropriation matters pending before Congress
Funding set-aside for persistent poverty counties
This section requires that at least 10 percent of the money provided by this bill for rural housing, business, utilities, and broadband programs must go to counties with persistent poverty. A persistent poverty county is one where 20 percent or more of its residents have lived in poverty for the past 30 years, based on the 1990 and 2000 censuses and a 2011 survey average. All U.S. territories also qualify. County seats next to qualifying counties are included, even if their population is slightly above the normal program limit, as long as they are not more than 10 percent over that limit.
Who this affects
Rural residents in counties with long-term high poverty rates, and the federal agencies managing these rural loan and grant programs.
Tradeoff
Setting aside funds for the poorest counties directs more help to high-need areas, but leaves less funding available for other rural areas that may also have needs.
Show the exact bill text
at least 10 percent of the funds shall be allocated for assistance in persistent poverty counties under this section...the term persistent poverty counties means any county that has had 20 percent or more of its population living in poverty over the past 30 years
Ban on federal review of heritable genetic modification research
This section blocks the Food and Drug Administration from processing certain research applications. Specifically, it prevents the FDA from accepting or acknowledging any application to test a drug or biological product in research that intentionally creates or alters a human embryo with a genetic change that can be passed to future generations. Any such application is treated as if it was never received. Because the application is deemed unreceived, the research cannot legally move forward under that approval pathway.
Who this affects
Researchers and companies seeking FDA permission to conduct human embryo gene-editing studies. It also affects any future people who might benefit from or be affected by heritable genetic therapies.
Tradeoff
This section stops a narrow category of genetic research from advancing, which may prevent safety risks from heritable gene changes but also blocks potential medical treatments from being studied.
Show the exact bill text
Any such submission shall be deemed to have not been received by the Secretary, and the exemption may not go into effect.
Block FDA produce safety rules for certain crops
This section stops any federal money from being used to enforce two FDA rules about how fresh produce must be grown, harvested, packed, and held. The rules cover topics like water quality and food safety standards. However, this block only applies to four specific crops: wine grapes, hops, pulse crops (such as lentils and chickpeas), and almonds. Growers and handlers of those four crops would not have to follow the FDA rules as long as this funding ban stays in place.
Who this affects
Farmers, packers, and handlers who grow or process wine grapes, hops, pulse crops, or almonds. FDA would lose the ability to enforce these produce safety rules against those specific operators.
Tradeoff
Farmers of these four crops avoid compliance costs and paperwork, but the FDA cannot use its produce safety standards to address potential food safety risks in those supply chains.
Show the exact bill text
None of the funds made available by this or any other Act may be used to enforce the final rule promulgated by the Food and Drug Administration entitled Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption...with respect to the regulation of entities that grow, harvest, pack, or hold wine grapes, hops, pulse crops, or almonds.
School breakfast vegetable and fruit substitution
This section covers the 2026-2027 and 2027-2028 school years. During those years, no funds from this law can be used to stop schools from swapping vegetables for fruits in the School Breakfast Program. In other words, schools can serve any vegetable subgroup in place of a fruit serving without penalty or restriction.
Who this affects
Schools that participate in the federal School Breakfast Program. Students who eat school breakfasts may receive vegetables instead of fruits.
Tradeoff
Schools get more menu flexibility, but students may receive fewer fruit servings during those two school years.
Show the exact bill text
none of the funds made available by this Act may be used to restrict or limit the substitution of any vegetable subgroup for fruits under the school breakfast program
Hemp transportation and sale protections
This section blocks federal money from being used in two ways. First, it bars spending that would violate existing federal hemp laws. Those laws set rules for growing and selling hemp legally. Second, it bars spending to stop the transportation, processing, sale, or use of hemp that was grown following those same federal rules. This protection applies whether the hemp moves within a state or across state lines.
Who this affects
Farmers, processors, and businesses that grow or sell hemp legally under federal law. It also affects federal agencies that might otherwise restrict hemp commerce.
Tradeoff
Hemp growers and sellers get protection from federal interference, but only if they follow existing federal hemp rules.
Show the exact bill text
None of the funds made available by this Act or any other Act may be used... to prohibit the transportation, processing, sale, or use of hemp, or seeds of such plant, that is grown or cultivated in accordance with section 7606 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 or subtitle G of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, within or outside the State in which the hemp is grown or cultivated.
Waiver of matching funds for agriculture research grants
This section gives the Secretary of Agriculture the power to waive a matching funds rule. That rule normally requires grant recipients to put up their own money to match federal dollars for certain agriculture research grants. Under this section, the Secretary can choose to drop that requirement on a case-by-case basis.
Who this affects
Organizations and institutions that receive federal grants for specialty crop and agriculture research under the 1998 reform law. They could receive full federal funding without needing to provide matching money.
Tradeoff
Waiving the match makes it easier for groups to get research funding, but it also means federal dollars are spent without the extra private or local money that matching rules are designed to bring in.
Show the exact bill text
The Secretary of Agriculture may waive the matching funds requirement under section 412(g) of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 ( 7 U.S.C. 7632(g) ).
This section adds the Secretary of Agriculture as a member of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). The Secretary joins on a case-by-case basis for deals involving farmland, farm biotechnology, or the broader agriculture industry (including transport, storage, and processing). The Secretary must also alert CFIUS when they learn, through intelligence sources, that a foreign land purchase may be a national security risk. Special attention is given to purchases by foreign governments or certain countries: China, North Korea, Russia, and Iran. The Secretary must flag deals that also require a foreign ownership report under existing farm disclosure law.
Who this affects
Foreign buyers seeking to purchase U.S. agricultural land or agriculture businesses. It also affects the Secretary of Agriculture and the CFIUS review process.
Tradeoff
Adding the Agriculture Secretary to CFIUS gives farm and land deals more scrutiny, but it may also slow or complicate foreign investment reviews.
Show the exact bill text
The Secretary of Agriculture shall be included as a member of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) on a case by case basis...involving agricultural land, agriculture biotechnology, or the agriculture industry (including agricultural transportation, agricultural storage, and agricultural processing).
Reuse of leftover building and facility funds
This section allows any unspent money from a 2017 spending law to be used again for Agriculture Department building projects. Those projects can include construction, repairs, maintenance, upgrades, and buying equipment or land. The money can be used on top of any new funds already set aside for the same purposes. In short, it lets old unused dollars stay in play rather than go to waste.
Who this affects
The U.S. Department of Agriculture and any facilities or offices it manages. Taxpayers are affected because old funds are redirected instead of lapsing.
Tradeoff
Reusing leftover funds avoids waste and reduces the need for new spending, but it also means those dollars stay tied to agency facilities rather than returning to the general treasury.
Show the exact bill text
Any remaining unobligated balances from amounts made available by section 743 of division A of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 ( Public Law 115–31 ) may be used, in addition to any funds otherwise made available for such purposes, for plans, construction, repair, preventive maintenance, environmental support, improvement, extension, alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities
Food aid monitoring requirement
This section limits how Food for Peace funds can be used. Food for Peace is a federal program that sends emergency food to other countries. Under this rule, the U.S. can only give that food aid to a country if proper monitoring systems are already in place. The Secretary of Agriculture decides whether those systems are good enough. The goal is to make sure food reaches people in areas facing food shortages. It also aims to stop food from being taken and used for other purposes.
Who this affects
Countries that receive U.S. emergency food aid under the Food for Peace program. People in those countries who depend on that aid during food shortages.
Tradeoff
Stronger oversight may reduce waste and diversion of food aid, but it could also delay or block aid from reaching countries that lack strong monitoring systems.
Show the exact bill text
Funds made available under title II of the Food for Peace Act ( 7 U.S.C. 1721 et seq. ) may only be used to provide assistance to recipient nations if adequate monitoring and controls, as determined by the Secretary, are in place to ensure that emergency food aid is received by the intended beneficiaries in areas affected by food shortages and not diverted for unauthorized or inappropriate purposes.
Ban on Chinese poultry and seafood in federal school meal programs
This section blocks the use of funds from this bill to buy poultry or seafood that was imported from China. The ban covers four federal meal programs: the National School Lunch Program, the Child and Adult Care Food Program, the Summer Food Service Program for Children, and the School Breakfast Program. Schools and care facilities that take part in these programs would not be allowed to serve food purchased with these funds if that food came from China.
Who this affects
Schools and child/adult care facilities that participate in federal nutrition programs. Food suppliers and importers who export Chinese poultry or seafood to the U.S. market.
Tradeoff
The restriction may add security over the origin of food served to children, but it could reduce the number of available suppliers and potentially raise food costs for program operators.
Show the exact bill text
None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to procure raw or processed poultry products or seafood imported into the United States from the People's Republic of China for use in the school lunch program
School lunch pricing rule limited for 2027-2028
Current law requires schools to set paid lunch prices at a certain level based on a federal formula. This section changes that rule for the 2027-2028 school year only. Under this change, the pricing formula applies only to schools that had a negative balance in their school food account as of June 30, 2026. Schools with a positive or zero balance would not need to follow the formula that year.
Who this affects
School districts (called school food authorities) that run lunch programs, and families who pay full price for school lunches.
Tradeoff
Schools with healthy food account balances get more freedom to set their own lunch prices, but schools with deficits must still follow the federal pricing rule.
Show the exact bill text
only a school food authority that had a negative balance in the nonprofit school food service account as of June 30, 2026, shall be required to establish a price for paid lunches
Biotechnology risk assessment research grants
This section deals with funds that the Secretary of Agriculture holds back under an existing law about biotechnology. That law allows the Secretary to withhold certain money. This section says those withheld funds must be used for grants that study the risks of biotechnology in agriculture. The Secretary is also allowed to move those funds between different USDA budget accounts in order to make those grants happen.
Who this affects
Researchers and organizations who apply for USDA grants to study agricultural biotechnology risks. It also affects USDA staff who manage these budget transfers.
Tradeoff
Directing withheld funds to biotechnology risk research ensures that money goes to safety studies, but it also limits the Secretary's flexibility to use those funds for other purposes.
Show the exact bill text
Any funds made available by this or any other Act that the Secretary withholds pursuant to section 1668(g)(2) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 ( 7 U.S.C. 5921(g)(2) ), as amended, shall be available for grants for biotechnology risk assessment research
WIC milk allowances for 2027
This section sets the maximum amount of fluid milk that families can receive each month through the WIC nutrition program in fiscal year 2027. WIC provides food benefits to low-income pregnant women, new mothers, infants, and young children. The limits vary by food package type. Food Package IV allows up to 16 quarts per month. Food Package V allows up to 22 quarts. Food Package VI allows up to 16 quarts. Food Package VII allows up to 24 quarts. Food Package III must match whatever changes are made to the other packages in this section.
Who this affects
Low-income pregnant women, new mothers, infants, and young children enrolled in WIC. Grocery stores and other WIC-authorized retailers are also affected.
Tradeoff
Setting fixed monthly milk limits controls program costs but may not match every family's actual nutrition needs.
Show the exact bill text
For Food Package IV, 16 quarts. (2) For Food Package V, 22 quarts. (3) For Food Package VI, 16 quarts. (4) For Food Package VII, 24 quarts.
Technical services for watershed and flood prevention programs
This section gives the Secretary of Agriculture permission to use money from this law or other laws for watershed and flood prevention work. Specifically, it covers three programs: the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Program, the Watershed Rehabilitation Program, and the Emergency Watershed Protection Program. The Natural Resources Conservation Service can use those funds to pay for technical services. Normally, a rule in the Food Security Act limits how technical services can be funded. This section sets that rule aside, allowing more flexibility in how the agency delivers help to communities dealing with floods and watershed damage.
Who this affects
Rural communities, landowners, and local governments that rely on federal watershed and flood prevention assistance. The Natural Resources Conservation Service is the agency that carries out the work.
Tradeoff
Allowing the agency to bypass the usual funding restriction gives it more flexibility to provide technical help, but it also reduces a standard oversight limit on how those funds are used.
Show the exact bill text
notwithstanding subsection (c) of such section.
Rural broadband pilot program eligibility expansion
This section lets the U.S. Department of Agriculture expand who can get help through an existing broadband pilot program. Normally the program serves rural areas. This section allows communities called 'Areas Rural in Character' to also qualify. These are places that feel rural even if they do not officially meet the rural definition. However, no more than 10 percent of the money set aside for this pilot program can go to these newly eligible communities.
Who this affects
Communities classified as 'Areas Rural in Character' that want broadband, distance learning, or telemedicine funding. The cap also affects all other applicants in the pilot program, since a share of funds is reserved for the newly eligible group.
Tradeoff
More communities can apply for broadband funds, but the 10 percent cap limits how much money can shift away from traditionally defined rural areas.
Show the exact bill text
the Secretary of Agriculture may, for purposes of determining entities eligible to receive assistance, consider those communities which are Areas Rural in Character: Provided, That not more than 10 percent of the funds made available under the heading Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program for the purposes of the pilot program established by section 779 of Public Law 115–141 may be used for this purpose.
Permanent restriction on certain land transfers
This section changes a rule in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. The original rule blocked certain land from being sold, conveyed, or transferred only up to September 30, 2026. This section removes that end date. The restriction now applies permanently, starting from the date the original law was enacted, with no expiration.
Who this affects
Entities or parties that hold or seek to transfer specific land covered under Section 7502 of the 2008 Act. Federal agencies managing that land are also affected.
Tradeoff
Making the restriction permanent gives long-term protection to the covered land, but it removes flexibility for future transfers that might otherwise be allowed after 2026.
Show the exact bill text
amended by striking or otherwise be conveyed or transferred in whole or in part, for the period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and ending on September 30, 2026 and inserting beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act
Rural waste, telecom, and energy loans by Farm Credit banks
This section allows a type of Farm Credit bank (defined under federal law at 12 U.S.C. 2128) to make loans and give financial help to cooperatives and other non-federal organizations. The money can be used in rural areas for three purposes: handling or disposing of waste from any source, providing telecommunication services, or producing electricity from any source. The borrower can use or sell that electricity. The federal government itself cannot receive these loans.
Who this affects
Rural cooperatives, private businesses, and public organizations that want to build or improve waste, telecom, or power facilities in rural areas. The federal government is excluded.
Tradeoff
Expanding the bank's lending authority gives rural entities more access to financing, but it also broadens the financial risk the Farm Credit bank takes on.
Show the exact bill text
A bank referenced in 12 U.S.C. 2128 may make and participate in loans and commitments and provide technical and other financial assistance to cooperatives and any other public or private entity (except for the Federal Government) for the purpose of installing, maintaining, expanding, improving, or operating facilities in a rural area
Cancellation of unspent farm debt relief funds
This section cancels $95 million in unspent money that was set aside by the Inflation Reduction Act (Public Law 117-169, section 22006). That earlier law had provided funds to help farmers and ranchers with debt relief. Any money from that pool that has not yet been committed to a specific use is permanently taken back by the government. One limit applies: money that Congress already labeled as an emergency requirement cannot be cancelled under this section.
Who this affects
Farmers and ranchers who might have received debt relief from the original program. Federal agencies that were managing or planning to use those unspent funds.
Tradeoff
Cancelling the unspent funds reduces the federal deficit by $95 million, but it also removes money that could have gone to future farm debt relief.
Show the exact bill text
Of the unobligated balances made available by section 22006 of Public Law 117–169, $95,000,000 are hereby permanently cancelled
Extra funding for a previously authorized program
This section sets aside $2 million in new money. The money does not expire at the end of the fiscal year. It goes toward carrying out a specific program that was created in Public Law 118-42, a prior spending law. The bill does not rename or change that program. It simply adds more funding on top of whatever money was already approved for it.
Who this affects
Whoever benefits from the program created under section 758 of Public Law 118-42. The exact group depends on what that earlier program does.
Tradeoff
The extra $2 million keeps the program funded longer, but it adds to overall federal spending with no offset shown in this section.
Show the exact bill text
There is hereby appropriated $2,000,000, to remain available until expended, to carry out section 758 of division B of Public Law 118–42
Pause on new FDA Listeria rules for low-risk ready-to-eat foods
This section blocks the FDA from spending money to create or promote new guidelines or rules for makers of low-risk ready-to-eat foods related to Listeria monocytogenes. Low-risk means the food does not help the bacteria grow. The block stays in place until the FDA reviews the latest available science. Specifically, the FDA must consider that new science when updating its internal policy document called the Compliance Policy Guide, section 555.320, which covers Listeria in low-risk foods.
Who this affects
Food manufacturers that make low-risk ready-to-eat foods, such as certain packaged snacks or dry goods. It also affects FDA staff who work on food safety policy.
Tradeoff
Supporters say the pause lets science catch up before new rules are written, but critics may argue it delays safety protections for consumers.
Show the exact bill text
None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to issue or promote any new guidelines or regulations applicable to food manufacturers of low risk ready-to-eat (RTE) foods for Listeria monocytogenes (Lm) until the FDA considers the available new science
Adding peanut foods to WIC infant food packages
This section requires the Secretary of Agriculture to update two WIC food packages within 180 days. WIC (the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children) provides specific food benefits to low-income families. The update would add peanut-containing foods to the packages for infants. The goal is early introduction of peanuts to help reduce the risk of peanut allergies. Any peanut foods added must be safe for infants to eat. The changes must follow the advice in the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
Who this affects
Infants enrolled in WIC and their caregivers. The Secretary of Agriculture and WIC program administrators must carry out the change.
Tradeoff
Adding peanut foods to WIC packages may help reduce peanut allergies in infants, but it requires the USDA to update program rules and verify that all added foods are safe for infants within a set deadline.
Show the exact bill text
the Secretary of Agriculture shall— (1) amend the covered Food Packages to require the inclusion of peanut-containing foods for the purposes of early introduction of potentially allergenic foods; and (2) ensure that all such peanut-containing foods eligible are safe for consumption by infants.
Nutrition standards extended to school breakfast program
This section updates a law called the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act. Right now, certain nutrition and meal rules apply mainly to school lunches. This change adds school breakfasts to those same rules. It does this by inserting references to the school breakfast program in three places in the existing law. It also adds a second federal nutrition regulation (section 220.8) alongside the lunch regulation (section 210.10) already listed. In short, breakfasts served through the school breakfast program must now meet the same legal standards as school lunches under this part of the law.
Who this affects
Schools that take part in the federal school breakfast program. Students who eat those breakfasts are also affected.
Tradeoff
Schools gain clearer, consistent nutrition rules for breakfast, but may face more administrative work to meet the added requirements.
Show the exact bill text
in subparagraph (A), in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking Act— and inserting Act and breakfasts served by schools participating in the school breakfast program under section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966
Extra pay limits waived during animal or plant disease emergencies
This section lets APHIS employees earn extra pay during an animal disease or plant health emergency without hitting the normal cap. Federal law usually limits how much total premium pay a worker can receive in a two-week period or a calendar year. This section removes that limit when the APHIS Administrator decides the work is a response to an emergency outbreak. The extra pay can come directly from the agency or through reimbursement.
Who this affects
APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) employees who work during declared animal disease or plant health emergency outbreaks.
Tradeoff
Workers responding to emergencies can earn more pay without hitting legal caps, but the change raises the potential cost to taxpayers when outbreaks occur.
Show the exact bill text
any premium pay that is funded, either directly or through reimbursement, shall be exempted from the aggregate of basic pay and premium pay calculated under section 5547(b)(1) and (2) of title 5, United States Code
Ban on funding for horse slaughter inspections
This section blocks any money from this bill being used to pay staff who inspect horses at slaughter facilities. It covers inspections under the Federal Meat Inspection Act and related agriculture law. It also blocks enforcement of a federal rule about horse slaughter plants. Without paid inspectors, horse slaughter for food cannot legally operate in the United States, because federal law requires inspection before slaughter.
Who this affects
Horse slaughter facility operators cannot use federal inspectors, so they cannot legally process horses for food. Horse owners and the equine industry are also affected.
Tradeoff
This provision prevents horse slaughter for food in the U.S., which some see as an animal welfare measure, but it limits options for managing unwanted or aging horses.
Show the exact bill text
None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to pay the salaries or expenses of personnel— (1) to inspect horses under section 3 of the Federal Meat Inspection Act ( 21 U.S.C. 603 )
Flag display limits at federal agriculture and food agencies
This section says that none of the money in this bill can be used to fly flags at certain federal agencies, with a short list of exceptions. The agencies covered are the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and the Farm Credit Administration. The only flags allowed are: the U.S. flag, a state or territory flag, the District of Columbia flag, a tribal government flag, an official U.S. department or agency flag, and the POW/MIA flag. Any other flag cannot be flown or displayed using funds from this bill.
Who this affects
The four named federal agencies and their employees are directly affected. Members of the public who visit or work at those facilities are also affected.
Tradeoff
This section limits how agencies can use federal funds for flag displays, which restricts agency discretion but does not affect agency budgets or programs.
Show the exact bill text
None of the funds made available by this Act may be used by the Secretary of Agriculture, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, the Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, or the Chairman of the Farm Credit Administration to fly or display a flag over a facility...other than the flag of the United States; the flag of a State, territory, the District of Columbia; the flag of an Indian Tribal Government; the official flag of a U.S. Department or agency; or the Prisoners of War/Missing in Action flag.
Block USDA livestock and poultry contracting rules
This section stops federal money from being used to write, publish, or enforce four specific USDA rules about how poultry and livestock companies deal with farmers and competitors. The four rules cover topics like poultry grower contracts, fair competition under the Packers and Stockyards Act, poultry payment systems, and fair livestock and poultry markets. The section also blocks any future rules that are similar to those four. Beyond just stopping new work, it goes further: it orders the Secretary of Agriculture to formally withdraw or cancel all of those rules, including any already finalized ones, and to close any ongoing investigations tied to them.
Who this affects
Poultry growers and livestock farmers who contract with large companies are affected, as are the meat and poultry companies themselves. USDA officials who were enforcing or developing these rules are also affected.
Tradeoff
Canceling these rules removes federal oversight that was meant to protect farmers in contracts with large companies, but it also reduces regulatory costs and legal uncertainty for those companies.
Show the exact bill text
None of the funds made available by this or any other Act thereafter may be used to write, prepare, or publish a proposed rule, final rule, or an interim final rule in furtherance of, or otherwise to implement or enforce the final rule entitled Transparency in Poultry Grower Contracting and Tournaments
Block on reduced rural housing loan limits
This section stops the U.S. Department of Agriculture from using any money in this bill to apply a new, lower loan limit for certain rural housing loans. In early 2026, USDA lowered the maximum loan amount to 60 percent of a home's value through an internal handbook update. This section blocks that change. It keeps the older 80 percent limit in place. If USDA wants to lower the limit in the future, it must go through a formal public rulemaking process, which includes publishing a proposed rule and accepting public comments before making it final.
Who this affects
People applying for USDA rural housing loans on or after February 10, 2026, are directly affected. A lower limit means borrowers can get less money, so restoring the 80 percent limit allows larger loan amounts for rural home buyers.
Tradeoff
Keeping the higher 80 percent loan limit lets rural borrowers access more money, but it also means USDA cannot reduce that limit quickly if it believes lower limits are needed to manage financial risk in the program.
Show the exact bill text
None of the funds made available by this Act may be used by the Department of Agriculture to implement or enforce the reduced maximum allowable loan limit of 60 percent established in Field Office Handbook-1-3550 for loans issued made on or after February 10, 2026 (PN655)
Labeling requirement for genetically engineered animals approved before 2019
This section requires that any genetically engineered animal approved for sale before February 19, 2019 must have the words 'genetically engineered' added to the front of its official market name. The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard took effect on that date. Animals approved after that date are not covered by this rule. The change applies no matter what other laws may say, because the section starts with 'notwithstanding any other provision of law.'
Who this affects
Companies that sell or label genetically engineered animals approved before February 2019 are affected. Consumers who buy those products would see a clearer label.
Tradeoff
Buyers get more visible information about how the animal was made, but producers may face added costs to update packaging and labels.
Show the exact bill text
the acceptable market name of any engineered animal approved prior to the effective date of the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard (February 19, 2019) shall include the words genetically engineered prior to the existing acceptable market name.
Frost and cold weather crop insurance research
This section tells the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation to research a new type of crop insurance. The insurance would use an index to cover losses from frost or cold weather events. It would be available nationwide. Covered crops include table grapes, wine grapes, juice grapes, tomatoes, peppers, sugarcane, strawberries, melons, citrus, peaches, and blueberries, among others. The research must look at how well index-based tools handle rare, severe weather events. The resulting policy must cover either production loss or revenue loss, or both. Within one year, the Corporation must send a report to the House and Senate Agriculture committees. The report must describe what the research found and any recommendations.
Who this affects
Farmers who grow frost-sensitive crops across the country. The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation must carry out or contract the research.
Tradeoff
Farmers could gain access to a new nationwide frost insurance option, but the research and report process takes at least a year before any policy could be offered.
Show the exact bill text
The Corporation shall carry out research and development, or offer to enter into 1 or more contracts with 1 or more qualified persons to carry out research and development, regarding an index-based policy to insure crops (including table grapes, wine grapes, juice grapes, tomatoes, peppers, sugarcane, strawberries, melons, citrus, peaches, blueberries, and any other crop) on a nationally-available basis against losses due to a frost or cold weather event.
Exemption from egg-breaking rules for surplus broiler hatching eggs
This section blocks the use of any funds to enforce a specific FDA rule (21 CFR 118.4(e)) against surplus broiler hatching eggs. These are eggs originally meant to hatch chicks but were not used for that purpose. The section applies only when those eggs are sold to an egg breaker to be processed into liquid egg products. Liquid egg products are already regulated under a separate law called the Egg Products Inspection Act. In short, the FDA cannot spend money to apply its hatching-egg safety rule to these surplus eggs if they are headed to liquid egg processing.
Who this affects
Broiler chicken producers with surplus hatching eggs, egg-breaking facilities that process eggs into liquid form, and the FDA.
Tradeoff
Removing this enforcement may lower costs for producers and processors, but it also means one layer of FDA safety oversight would not apply to these eggs before they enter the liquid egg supply.
Show the exact bill text
No funds shall be made available for enforcement of section 118.4(e) of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor regulation with respect to surplus broiler hatching eggs that are intended to be sold to an egg breaker for purposes of processing such eggs as liquid egg products
Reimbursement for legal services within USDA
This section lets USDA agencies and offices pay the department's legal office (the Office of the General Counsel) for legal work done under short-term agreements. The money for those payments can come from funds already given to this bill. This reimbursement authority is on top of any other transfer authority already allowed by law.
Who this affects
USDA agencies and offices that use legal services, and the Office of the General Counsel that provides them.
Tradeoff
This gives USDA more flexibility to share legal costs internally, but it also means funds meant for specific programs could be used to pay for legal services instead.
Show the exact bill text
The agencies and offices of the Department of Agriculture may reimburse the Office of the General Counsel (OGC), out of the funds provided in this Act, for costs incurred by OGC in providing services to such agencies or offices under time-limited agreements
Protection for religious beliefs about marriage
This section says no federal money from this bill or past spending bills can be used to punish a person who believes marriage is only between one man and one woman. The protection applies when that belief is sincerely religious or moral. 'Punishment' covers a wide range of federal actions. The federal government cannot change that person's tax status, deny tax exemptions, reject charitable deductions, cut off grants or contracts, remove licenses or certifications, deny benefits or entitlements, or block access to federal property and programs. The section also requires the federal government to treat a person as accredited, licensed, or certified if the only reason they would be denied that status is their belief about marriage.
Who this affects
People, organizations, and businesses that hold a religious or moral belief that marriage is between one man and one woman and interact with federal programs, contracts, licenses, or tax rules.
Tradeoff
The section shields people with this belief from federal penalties, but it also limits how the government can enforce other laws or policies against those same people when the basis is that belief.
Show the exact bill text
none of the funds provided by this Act, or previous appropriations Acts, shall be used in whole or in part to take any discriminatory action against a person, wholly or partially, on the basis that such person speaks, or acts, in accordance with a sincerely held religious belief, or moral conviction, that marriage is, or should be recognized as, a union of one man and one woman.
Rural broadband pilot program funding cut
This section cancels $40 million in previously approved but unspent money. The money came from an older rural broadband loan and grant pilot program. That program was created in 2018 to help bring internet service to rural areas. The section specifies that only unused funds can be pulled back. It also blocks the cancellation of any funds that Congress previously labeled as emergency spending.
Who this affects
Rural communities and organizations that were waiting to apply for or receive broadband loans and grants from this pilot program. Federal agencies managing the unspent funds are also affected.
Tradeoff
Canceling the $40 million reduces the federal deficit, but it also means less money is available for rural broadband projects.
Show the exact bill text
$40,000,000 are hereby rescinded: Provided, That no amounts may be rescinded from amounts that were designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement
E-cigarette and vape enforcement funding
This section sets aside at least $200 million from tobacco user fees for the FDA to enforce laws against illegal e-cigarettes, vapes, and similar products (called ENDS). At least $20 million of that goes to a multi-agency task force led by the Justice Department, Homeland Security, and the FDA. That task force uses criminal and civil tools against illegal ENDS made or imported from China, other countries, and domestic assemblers. The FDA must sign a formal agreement with Justice and Homeland Security to fund more lawsuits, law enforcement, and port inspections. By November 12, 2026, the FDA must also update its 2020 enforcement guidance to cover flavored disposable vapes, not just cartridge-based ones. Finally, the FDA must report to Congress within 60 days on its plans, then submit updates every six months on seizures, refusals, state cooperation, and retailer education.
Who this affects
FDA staff, federal law enforcement agencies, importers and sellers of e-cigarettes, and retailers who sell vape products.
Tradeoff
Directing at least $200 million toward ENDS enforcement could reduce illegal vape sales, but it also locks in a large share of tobacco fee money for this purpose, leaving less flexibility for other FDA priorities.
Show the exact bill text
not less than $200,000,000 shall be used by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs for enforcement activities related to e-cigarettes, vapes, and other electronic nicotine delivery systems
Livestock price reporting program extension
This section extends two livestock market reporting laws by one year. It changes the expiration date from 2026 to 2027 in both the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 and the Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act of 1999. These laws require meat packers and livestock dealers to report prices and sales data to the government. That data is made public so farmers and buyers can see current market prices.
Who this affects
Livestock producers, meat packers, and cattle and hog dealers who must report sales data. Farmers and market participants who use the reported price information.
Tradeoff
Extending the program keeps price data available to farmers and markets for another year, but it also continues the reporting burden on meat packers and dealers.
Show the exact bill text
Section 260 of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 ( 7 U.S.C. 1636i ) is amended by striking 2026 and inserting 2027 .
Pause on FDA sodium reduction guidelines for food makers
This section blocks the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from creating, releasing, or promoting new rules or guidelines that would push all food manufacturers to lower sodium in their products. The block stays in place until a specific government nutrition survey is published. That survey is the 2025-26 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), also called the 'What We Eat in America' survey. The survey is meant to measure whether an earlier round of sodium reductions (called Phase I) actually changed how much sodium Americans eat. In short, the FDA must wait for that data before moving forward on new industry-wide sodium goals.
Who this affects
Food manufacturers who would be subject to FDA sodium reduction guidance. Americans whose diets could be affected by changes in the sodium content of packaged and processed foods.
Tradeoff
Waiting for survey data may lead to better-informed policy, but it also delays any further FDA action to reduce sodium in the food supply in the meantime.
Show the exact bill text
None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used by the Food and Drug Administration to develop, issue, promote, or advance any new guidelines or regulations applicable to food manufacturers for population-wide sodium reduction actions until the publication of the 2025-26 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), What We Eat in America Survey
Protection of NRCS and Rural Development field offices
This section blocks federal funds from being used to close Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) or Rural Development field offices. It also blocks permanently moving field-based employees if the move would leave an office with two or fewer staff. This applies to money from this bill and from past appropriations bills as well. Before any such closure or relocation can happen, both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees must be notified and must approve the action.
Who this affects
Rural communities that rely on NRCS and Rural Development field offices for farm and community assistance. Federal employees who work in those offices are also affected.
Tradeoff
Keeping field offices open maintains local access to services, but it limits the executive branch's ability to reorganize or reduce costs without congressional approval.
Show the exact bill text
None of the funds made available for any department or agency in this or any other appropriations Acts, including prior year Acts, shall be used to close Natural Resources Conservation Service or Rural Development mission area field offices or to permanently relocate any field-based employees of those agencies that would result in an office with two or fewer employees without prior notification and approval of the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.
Pause on food traceability rule enforcement until 2028
This section blocks federal money from being used to enforce the FDA's 2022 food traceability rule until July 20, 2028. That rule requires food companies to keep detailed records so officials can track food quickly during outbreaks. During the pause, the FDA must keep working on the rule. It must find flexible ways for businesses to meet lot-tracking requirements. It must clarify when warehouse activities count as a 'transformation event' under the rule. It must hold quarterly meetings open to all affected businesses, run data exercises, and publish results within 75 days. It must also create an expert panel with growers, distributors, retailers, and public health officials to review how the agency investigates foodborne illness outbreaks. The panel's findings must be published within one year of the law passing.
Who this affects
Food businesses covered by the FDA traceability rule, such as growers, distributors, and retailers. It also affects the FDA and public health agencies that investigate foodborne illness outbreaks.
Tradeoff
Delaying enforcement gives businesses more time to prepare, but it also means the stricter traceability records required to quickly trace foodborne illness outbreaks will not be in effect until at least mid-2028.
Show the exact bill text
No funds appropriated by this Act may be used to administer or enforce the final rule on 'Requirements for Additional Traceability Records for Certain Foods' published on November 21, 2022 (87 Fed. Reg. 70910) ... prior to July 20, 2028.
Grants for invasive catfish processors
This section adds $1 million in new funding to an existing meat and poultry grant program. The money would go specifically to businesses that catch and process invasive wild catfish. The funds have no expiration date, meaning they can be spent until they run out. The program was originally created under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021.
Who this affects
Businesses that process invasive, wild-caught catfish. Consumers and ecosystems in areas where invasive catfish species are a problem may also be indirectly affected.
Tradeoff
The grants could help grow a market for removing invasive catfish, but the $1 million adds to federal spending and benefits a narrow group of processors.
Show the exact bill text
there is hereby appropriated $1,000,000, to remain available until expended, for the Meat and Poultry Processing Expansion Program...to award grants to processors of invasive, wild-caught catfish.
Animal food labeling and ingredient safety rules
This section adds a new part to federal food and drug law focused on animal food, including pet food and livestock feed. It sets definitions for terms like 'pet food,' 'companion animal,' and 'specialty pet.' It blocks states from making their own animal food labeling rules that go beyond federal rules, though states can still investigate food safety problems. Ingredients already listed in a 2024 industry publication called the AAFCO Official Publication are treated as safe unless the FDA says otherwise. Manufacturers do not have to notify the FDA about ingredients they consider generally recognized as safe, but they may do so voluntarily. The FDA must respond to ingredient approval requests within 180 days. Pet food labels can list certain ingredients like fats, oils, and grains as 'sometimes present' without being considered mislabeled. Ingredients must be listed by weight from most to least, with a small exception for ingredients at 2 percent or less. Labels can make claims about hairball control, tartar control, urinary health, and the word 'natural' without getting FDA pre-approval, as long as the claims are truthful and backed by science. The FDA must also issue guidance on topics like how to measure pet food nutrition within 18 months.
Who this affects
Pet food and animal feed manufacturers, the FDA, state regulators, and consumers who buy food for pets or livestock.
Tradeoff
The section reduces regulatory burdens and speeds up ingredient approvals for the pet food industry, but it limits states from adding their own labeling protections beyond federal rules.
Show the exact bill text
No State or a political subdivision of a State may directly or indirectly establish, maintain, implement, or enforce any law, regulation, or other requirement relating to the labels, labeling, or advertising of animal food that differs from or extends beyond those established by the Food and Drug Administration.
Animal food regulation duties assigned to FDA's veterinary center
This section tells the Secretary of Health and Human Services to hand off animal food oversight to the Director of the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) inside the FDA. The Director must review animal food ingredient submissions using science. The Director must send Congress a yearly report showing how fast those reviews are going and whether guidance and rules are being issued on time. The Director must also educate pet owners, veterinarians, and the pet food industry about pet food safety. Finally, the Director must run research to support better animal food rules.
Who this affects
Pet owners, veterinarians, pet food companies, and specialty pet food makers are affected. The FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine takes on new formal duties.
Tradeoff
Giving CVM clear legal responsibility may speed up reviews and improve transparency, but it also adds reporting and coordination workload to the agency.
Show the exact bill text
The Secretary shall delegate to the Director of the Center for Veterinary Medicine responsibility for carrying out section 425 and, as appropriate, other responsibilities and authorities of the Food and Drug Administration with respect to animal food.
Emergency pet shelter and housing assistance grants
This section sets aside $1.5 million for a grant program that helps domestic violence shelters provide housing for pets. The program was created by the 2018 Farm Bill. It lets survivors bring their animals with them when they flee unsafe homes. Shelters can use the money to build or run spaces that house pets alongside their owners.
Who this affects
Domestic violence survivors who have pets. Shelters and organizations that serve those survivors.
Tradeoff
The $1.5 million gives shelters funds to house pets, but the amount is limited and may not cover all shelters that apply.
Show the exact bill text
There is appropriated $1,500,000 for the emergency and transitional pet shelter and housing assistance grant program established under section 12502(b) of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018
Liability protection for donated pet food and supplies
This section protects people, nonprofits, and state or local governments from lawsuits when they donate pet food or pet supplies in good faith. The donated items must meet quality and labeling laws, or the donor must tell the recipient about any problems. The recipient must also agree to fix those problems before giving the items to animals. Protection does not apply if someone acts with gross negligence or does something intentionally harmful. Qualified animals include pets, service animals, and emotional support animals. Pet supplies covered include carriers, bowls, leashes, bedding, toys, and similar items.
Who this affects
People or businesses donating pet food and supplies, nonprofits and government agencies receiving those donations, and the animals that ultimately receive the donated goods.
Tradeoff
Donors gain legal protection that encourages giving, but that protection disappears if they act with gross negligence or intentional misconduct.
Show the exact bill text
A person shall not be subject to civil or criminal liability arising from the nature, age, packaging, or condition of an apparently fit pet-related product that the person donates in good faith to a State or unit of local government or a nonprofit organization for ultimate distribution to qualified animals.
No cost-sharing rules for specialty crop grants
This section blocks the use of any funds in this bill to require cost sharing or matching funds for grants under the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program in fiscal year 2027. That program gives money to states to support fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, dried fruits, horticulture, and nursery crops. Normally, a grant program can require recipients to put up some of their own money alongside federal dollars. This section removes that requirement for this program for one year.
Who this affects
State agencies and organizations that receive Specialty Crop Block Grant funds. Specialty crop farmers and growers who benefit from those grants are also affected.
Tradeoff
Removing the matching requirement makes it easier for grant recipients to access funds, but it also means the federal government bears the full cost without requiring any local investment.
Show the exact bill text
None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to impose any cost sharing or matching requirements for any awards or subawards under the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program ( 7 U.S.C. 1621 note) for fiscal year 2027.
Protection of Agricultural Research Service labs from closure
This section blocks the U.S. Department of Agriculture from closing or merging any existing Agricultural Research Service labs or facilities. Before any such action could happen, the agency must first notify Congress. That notice must include a cost analysis, an estimate of how many scientists would likely refuse to relocate, and a list of research projects that would be ended or harmed by the move. Both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees must approve the action before it can proceed.
Who this affects
Agricultural Research Service employees, including research scientists, and the communities that host USDA labs. Farmers and others who rely on USDA agricultural research could also be affected if projects are disrupted.
Tradeoff
Requiring congressional approval protects existing labs and ongoing research, but it limits the agency's ability to reorganize or cut costs on its own.
Show the exact bill text
None of the funds made available to the Department of Agriculture in this or any other Act may be used to close or consolidate the resources or locations of any existing Agricultural Research Service laboratories and facilities without prior notification, including cost analysis, how many research scientists will likely not be willing to relocate, and which research projects will be terminated or adversely impacted by the relocation, and approval of the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.
Extra funding for Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program
This section adds $2.5 million to the Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program. This program gives low-income seniors coupons to buy fresh fruits, vegetables, and herbs at farmers' markets. The money is added on top of whatever other funding the program already receives. The legal basis for the program is found in federal farm law.
Who this affects
Low-income seniors who use the program to buy fresh food at farmers' markets. Farmers and market vendors who accept the program's coupons also benefit.
Tradeoff
The extra $2.5 million expands fresh food access for low-income seniors, but it adds to federal spending.
Show the exact bill text
there is hereby appropriated $2,500,000 for the Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 3007(a)
Adding millet to the specialty crops list
This section adds millet to the legal definition of 'specialty crops' under the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004. That law defines specialty crops as fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, dried fruits, and similar items. By adding millet to this list, millet growers become eligible for federal programs and funding that support specialty crop research, promotion, and marketing.
Who this affects
Millet farmers and producers across the U.S. who want access to specialty crop grants and support programs.
Tradeoff
Millet growers gain access to federal specialty crop funding, but that funding must now be shared among more crop types.
Show the exact bill text
Section 3(1) of the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004 ( 7 U.S.C. 1621 note) is amended by striking dried fruits, and inserting dried fruits, millet,
Arkansas Valley Conduit repayment terms
This section changes how communities must repay the cost of the Arkansas Valley Conduit, a water pipeline in Colorado. Under the new rules, contracting parties only need to repay 35 percent of the conduit's total cost. Any money contributed by non-federal partners during construction counts toward that 35 percent. If a community can show financial hardship, it may repay the remaining balance over up to 75 years. The interest rate on that balance is set at half the rate normally used by the Treasury. The section also makes clear that the communities receiving water must take on the job of operating and maintaining the conduit themselves.
Who this affects
Communities and households in the Arkansas Valley area of Colorado that lack reliable drinking water. Federal and non-federal partners involved in funding and operating the conduit are also affected.
Tradeoff
Communities get lower repayment costs and more time to pay, but they must take on full responsibility for operating and maintaining the pipeline.
Show the exact bill text
the contract for the Arkansas Valley Conduit shall provide for payment in an amount equal to 35 percent of the cost of the conduit... repayment of the balance not covered under subparagraph (A) for a period of not more than 75 years with simple interest at a rate that is equal to 50 percent of the interest rate determined by the Secretary of the Treasury
Zero-dollar funding line
This section sets a funding amount of $0 for a particular item or program. No money is provided. The specific program or account is not named in this excerpt. A $0 appropriation means the item receives no federal funds for that period.
Who this affects
Any program or account that this line item covers would receive no federal funding. The exact group affected cannot be determined from the text alone.
Tradeoff
Setting funding to $0 saves federal money but provides no resources for whatever program or activity this line covers.
Show the exact bill text
780. $0.
Citations
Congress.gov bill text: link (retrieved 2026-06-10)
Public record
Below is the official voting record from Congress.gov. It is not our analysis.
Source: Congress.gov
House: Yea-and-Nay
PassedJune 4, 2026
On Passage
Yea213
Nay210
Present0
Not Voting7
See how each representative voted (430)
How each representative voted on On Passage. Default ordering: by state, then by name.