Agriculture and Related Agencies:
FY2016 Appropriations
Jim Monke, Coordinator
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
October 21, 2015
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R44240
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Summary
The Agriculture appropriations bill funds the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), except for
the Forest Service. It also funds the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and—in evennumbered fiscal years—the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).
Agriculture appropriations include both mandatory and discretionary spending. Discretionary
amounts, though, are the primary focus during the bill’s development since mandatory amounts
generally are set by authorizing laws such as the farm bill.
The largest discretionary spending items are the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for
Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); agricultural research; FDA; rural development; foreign
food aid and trade; farm assistance programs; food safety and inspection; conservation; and
animal and plant health programs. The main mandatory spending items are the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), child nutrition, crop insurance, and the farm commodity
and conservation programs funded through the Commodity Credit Corporation.
In Congress, the FY2016 Agriculture Appropriations bill has been reported in both chambers
(H.R. 3049, S. 1800), but has not gone to the floor in either chamber. The discretionary total in
the House bill is $20.650 billion; in the Senate bill it is $20.510 billion. In general, most amounts
in the House and Senate bills are relatively similar. Officially, the two bills are $105 million
(0.5%) apart in the discretionary total (Senate basis; excluding CFTC). But the Senate bill would
spend about $180 million more than the House bill because of extra offsets in the Senate bill
through extra Changes in Mandatory Program Spending (CHIMPS) beyond the House bill’s level.
Among the policy-related differences between the bills, the Senate bill continues prohibiting
horse slaughter facility inspections; a similar provision was defeated during House markup. The
House bill continues restricting the use of imported processed poultry from China for the school
lunch and other nutrition programs. The House bill would not enforce a conservation compliance
requirement in the 2014 farm bill for the 2016 crop insurance year; and the House bill would
restore the use of commodity certificates for the marketing loan program, including not being
subject to payment limits. And, for FDA, the House bill would limit the applicability of certain
tobacco regulations for e-cigarettes and other products.
Congressional Research Service
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Contents
Scope of the Agriculture Appropriations Bill .................................................................................. 1
Action on FY2016 Appropriations .................................................................................................. 2
Administration’s FY2016 Budget Request ............................................................................... 4
House Action ............................................................................................................................. 5
Senate Action ............................................................................................................................ 5
Continuing Resolution .............................................................................................................. 5
Summary of FY2016 Appropriation Amounts ................................................................................ 5
FY2016 Budget and 302(b) Allocations to Subcommittees ...................................................... 5
Continuing Resolution .............................................................................................................. 7
Comparison of Amounts for FY2016 ........................................................................................ 7
Policy Differences ................................................................................................................... 14
Recent Trends in Agriculture Appropriations.......................................................................... 14
Sequestration Continues on Mandatory Accounts................................................................... 16
USDA Agencies and Programs ...................................................................................................... 17
Departmental Administration .................................................................................................. 17
Agricultural Research, Education, and Extension ................................................................... 20
Agricultural Research Service .......................................................................................... 20
National Institute of Food and Agriculture ....................................................................... 21
National Agricultural Statistics Service ............................................................................ 21
Economic Research Service .............................................................................................. 21
Marketing and Regulatory Programs ...................................................................................... 23
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service .................................................................... 23
Agricultural Marketing Service and “Section 32” ............................................................ 24
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration ............................................... 26
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) ............................................................................ 27
Farm Service Agency .............................................................................................................. 27
FSA Salaries and Expenses ............................................................................................... 28
FSA Farm Loan Programs ................................................................................................ 30
Commodity Credit Corporation .............................................................................................. 33
Crop Insurance ........................................................................................................................ 34
Disaster Assistance .................................................................................................................. 35
Conservation ........................................................................................................................... 35
Discretionary Conservation Programs .............................................................................. 36
Mandatory Conservation Programs .................................................................................. 36
Conservation Compliance ................................................................................................. 37
Rural Development ................................................................................................................. 38
Rural Housing Service (RHS) ........................................................................................... 38
Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS) ..................................................................... 39
Rural Utilities Service (RUS) ........................................................................................... 40
Domestic Food Assistance ...................................................................................................... 46
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services .................... 46
SNAP and Other Programs under the Food and Nutrition Act ......................................... 46
Child Nutrition Programs .................................................................................................. 47
WIC Program .................................................................................................................... 49
Commodity Assistance Program ....................................................................................... 50
Nutrition Programs Administration................................................................................... 50
Congressional Research Service
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Other Nutrition Funding Support ...................................................................................... 51
Agricultural Trade and Food Aid ............................................................................................ 54
Foreign Agricultural Service ............................................................................................. 54
Food for Peace Program (P.L. 480) ................................................................................... 55
Local and Regional Procurement (LRP) Projects ............................................................. 56
McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition .......................... 56
Appropriations Instructions about Industrial Hemp ................................................................ 56
Related Agencies ........................................................................................................................... 57
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) .................................................................................... 58
Commodity Futures Trading Commission .............................................................................. 58
Farm Credit Administration .................................................................................................... 59
General Provisions, Scorekeeping Adjustments ............................................................................ 60
Changes in Mandatory Program Spending (CHIMPS) ........................................................... 60
Rescissions of Discretionary Accounts ................................................................................... 63
Other Appropriations (Including Emergency Disaster Programs) .......................................... 64
Other Scorekeeping Adjustments ............................................................................................ 65
Figures
Figure 1. Scope of Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations ............................................ 1
Figure 2. Timeline of Action on Agriculture Appropriations, FY1996-FY2016 ............................. 4
Figure 3. Discretionary Agriculture Appropriations, by Title, Since FY2007............................... 15
Figure 4. Inflation-Adjusted Discretionary Agriculture Appropriations Since FY2007 ............... 16
Figure A-1. Total Agriculture Appropriations: Mandatory and Discretionary .............................. 66
Figure A-2. Total Agriculture Appropriations: Domestic Nutrition and Rest of Bill .................... 67
Figure A-3. Discretionary Agriculture Appropriations .................................................................. 68
Figure A-4. Agriculture Appropriations as Percentages of Total Federal Budget ......................... 72
Figure A-5. More Components as Percentages of Total Federal Budget....................................... 72
Figure A-6. Agriculture Appropriations as Percentages of GDP ................................................... 72
Figure A-7. Agriculture Appropriations per Capita of U.S. Population ........................................ 72
Tables
Table 1. Congressional Action on Agriculture Appropriations ........................................................ 3
Table 2. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations, by Title, FY2015-FY2016 ................. 6
Table 3. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations, by Agency, FY2013-FY2016 ............ 9
Table 4. USDA Departmental Administration Appropriations ...................................................... 18
Table 5. USDA Research, Extension, and Economics (REE) Appropriations .............................. 22
Table 6. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Appropriations ....................................................... 23
Table 7. Farm Service Agency Appropriations .............................................................................. 29
Table 8. Farm Service Agency: Farm Loan Program .................................................................... 31
Table 9. Conservation Operations Funding ................................................................................... 36
Congressional Research Service
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Table 10. USDA Rural Development Appropriations ................................................................... 41
Table 11. Domestic Food Assistance Appropriations .................................................................... 52
Table 12. Farm Credit Administration Limitation on Expenses .................................................... 59
Table 13. Adjustments to Mandatory Spending Programs ............................................................ 62
Table 14. Rescissions from (Prior-Year) Discretionary Budget Authority .................................... 63
Table 15. Other Appropriations in General Provisions.................................................................. 64
Table 16. Scorekeeping Adjustments............................................................................................. 65
Table A-1. Trends in Nominal Agriculture Appropriations ........................................................... 69
Table A-2. Trends in Real Agriculture Appropriations .................................................................. 70
Table A-3. Percentage Changes in Agriculture Appropriations ..................................................... 71
Table A-4. Trends in Agriculture Appropriations Measured Against Benchmarks ....................... 73
Table B-1. Sequestration from Accounts in the Agriculture Appropriation .................................. 74
Table B-2. Sequestration of Mandatory Agriculture Appropriations in FY2013-2016 ................. 75
Appendixes
Appendix A. Historical Trends ...................................................................................................... 66
Appendix B. Budget Sequestration ............................................................................................... 74
Contacts
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 77
Congressional Research Service
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Scope of the Agriculture Appropriations Bill
The Agriculture appropriations bill—formally known as the Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act—provides funding for:
All of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) except the Forest Service,
which is funded in the Interior appropriations bill,
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the Department of Health and
Human Services, and
In the House, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). In the
Senate, the Financial Services bill contains CFTC appropriations. In evennumbered fiscal years, CFTC appears in the enacted Agriculture appropriation.
Jurisdiction is with the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, and each Subcommittee
on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies. The
bill includes mandatory and discretionary spending, but the discretionary amounts are the primary
focus during the bill’s development. The scope of the bill can be shown by the amounts for
various agencies and programs that were in the FY2015 appropriation (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Scope of Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations
(FY2015 budget authority in billions of dollars)
SNAP, $82
CCC, $13
WIC, CSFP,
$7.1
Crop ins., $10
Sec.32, $1
Mandatory
$126 Discretionary
$21
Child nutrition,
$21
Research, $2.7
FDA, $2.6
Rural Dev., $2.6
Foreign aid, $1.8
FSA, RMA, $1.7
FSIS, $1.0
Conservation, $0.9
APHIS, $0.9
Source: CRS, compiled from P.L. 113-235. Does not show some agencies under $0.5 billion, including CFTC,
AMS, GIPSA, and department administration that together are essentially offset by other reductions.
Note: SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; CCC = Commodity Credit Corp.; Sec. 32 = Section
32; WIC = Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children; CSFP = Commodity
Supplemental Food Program; FDA = Food and Drug Admin.; FSA = Farm Service Agency; RMA = Risk
Management Agency; FSIS = Food Safety and Inspection Service; APHIS = Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service; CFTC = Commodity Futures Trading Commission; AMS = Agricultural Marketing Service; GIPSA =
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Admin.
Congressional Research Service
1
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
The federal budget process treats discretionary and mandatory spending differently.
Discretionary spending is controlled by annual appropriations acts and receives
most of the attention during the appropriations process. The annual budget
resolution1 process sets spending limits for discretionary appropriations. Agency
operations (salaries and expenses) and many grant programs are discretionary.
Mandatory spending—though carried in the appropriation and usually advanced
unchanged—is controlled by budget enforcement rules (e.g., PAYGO) during the
authorization process.2 Spending for eligibility and benefit formulas in so-called
entitlement programs are set in laws such as the farm bill and child nutrition act.3
In FY2015, discretionary appropriations totaled 14% ($20.6 billion) of the Agriculture
appropriations bill (P.L. 113-235). Mandatory spending carried in the bill comprised $126.5
billion, about 86% of the $147.1 billion total.
Within the discretionary total, the largest discretionary spending items are for the Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), agricultural research,
FDA, rural development, foreign food aid and trade, farm assistance program salaries and loans,
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
February 23, 2016
(R44240)
Jump to Main Text of Report
Summary
The Agriculture appropriations bill funds the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), except for the Forest Service. It also funds the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and—in even-numbered fiscal years—the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).
Agriculture appropriations include both mandatory and discretionary spending. Discretionary amounts, though, are the primary focus during the bill's development since mandatory amounts generally are set by authorizing laws such as the farm bill.
The largest discretionary spending items are the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); agricultural research; FDA; rural development; foreign food aid and trade; farm assistance programs; food safety and inspection; conservation; and animal and plant health programs. The main mandatory spending items are the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), child nutrition, crop insurance, and the farm commodity and conservation programs funded through the Commodity Credit Corporation.
The FY2016 Agriculture Appropriation was enacted as part of an omnibus bill on December 18, 2015 (P.L. 114-113). Separate Agriculture bills were reported in both chambers, but neither went to the floor (H.R. 3049, S. 1800). The fiscal year began under continuing resolutions.
The enacted omnibus appropriation uses a budget allocation that was provided in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (P.L. 114-74), which is higher than what was available to develop the House- and Senate-reported bills. The final Agriculture appropriation provides $21.750 billion for discretionary amounts, which is an increase of $925 million over FY2015 (+4.4%), after adjusting for differences in CFTC jurisdiction.
Compared to FY2015, the $925-million increase is largely allocated among a $318-million increase for the Rural Housing Service; $250 million extra for Food for Peace grants for international food aid; a $178-million increase for the Agricultural Research Service, mostly for buildings and facilities; a $132-million increase for the Food and Drug Administration, mostly for food safety; and $157 million more than last year for emergency conservation, watershed, and forestry programs, some of it offset by a disaster declaration.
In addition to specifying budget authority, the appropriation prescribes various policies or conditions that affect how some agencies may use their appropriation. Among notable policy-related provisions in the appropriation are to permanently repeal some country-of-origin labeling (COOL) laws, continue to prohibit horse slaughter facility inspection, prevent the import of processed poultry from China for certain nutrition programs, continue to implement with flexibility the whole grain and sodium requirements in the child nutrition programs, set some terms for the formation of dietary guidelines, and restore the use of commodity certificates for the marketing loan program, including not being subject to payment limits.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Scope of the Agriculture Appropriations Bill
The Agriculture appropriations bill—formally known as the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act—provides funding for:
- All of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) except the Forest Service, which is funded in the Interior appropriations bill,
- The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the Department of Health and Human Services, and
- In the House, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). In the Senate, the Financial Services bill contains CFTC appropriations. In even-numbered fiscal years, CFTC appears in the enacted Agriculture appropriation.
Jurisdiction is with the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, and their respective Subcommittees on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies. The bill includes mandatory and discretionary spending, but the discretionary amounts are the primary focus during the bill's development. The scope of the bill can be shown by the major allocations in the FY2016 appropriation (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Scope of Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations
(FY2016 budget authority in billions of dollars)
|
Source: CRS, compiled from P.L. 113-235. Does not show some agencies under $0.5 billion, including CFTC, AMS, GIPSA, and department administration that together are essentially offset by other reductions.
Note: SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; CCC = Commodity Credit Corp.; Sec. 32 = Section 32; WIC = Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children; CSFP = Commodity Supplemental Food Program; FDA = Food and Drug Admin.; FSA = Farm Service Agency; RMA = Risk Management Agency; FSIS = Food Safety and Inspection Service; APHIS = Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; CFTC = Commodity Futures Trading Commission; AMS = Agricultural Marketing Service; GIPSA = Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Admin.
|
The federal budget process treats discretionary and mandatory spending differently.
- Discretionary spending is controlled by annual appropriations acts and receives most of the attention during the appropriations process. The annual budget resolution1 process sets spending limits for discretionary appropriations. Agency operations (salaries and expenses) and many grant programs are discretionary.
- Mandatory spending—though carried in the appropriation and usually advanced unchanged—is controlled by budget enforcement rules (e.g., PAYGO) during the authorization process.2 Spending for eligibility and benefit formulas in so-called entitlement programs are set in laws such as the farm bill and child nutrition act.3
In FY2016, discretionary appropriations totaled 15% ($21.75 billion) of the Agriculture appropriations bill (P.L. 114-113). Mandatory spending carried in the bill comprised $119 billion, about 85% of the $141 billion total.
Within the discretionary total, the largest discretionary spending items are for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), agricultural research, rural development, FDA, foreign food aid and trade, farm assistance program salaries and loans, food safety inspection, conservation, and animal and plant health programs (Figure 1
).
).
The main mandatory spending items are the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP,
and other food and nutrition act programs), child nutrition (school lunch and related programs),
crop insurance, and farm commodity and conservation programs paid through USDA
’s
's Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC).
44 SNAP is referred to as an
“"appropriated entitlement,
”
" and requires an annual appropriation.
55 The nutrition program amounts are based on projected
spending needs. In contrast, the Commodity Credit Corporation operates on a line of credit; the
annual appropriation provides funding to reimburse the Treasury for using the line of credit.
Action on FY2016 Appropriations6
Separate versions of the FY2016 Agriculture Appropriations bills have been reported in the
House and Senate, but have not gone to either floor. The fiscal year has begun on a continuing
resolution (P.L. 114-53) that lasts until December 11, 2015.
The House subcommittee approved a draft FY2016 Agriculture appropriations bill on June 18,
2015. The full House Appropriations Committee reported the bill on July 8, 2015, by voice vote
(
Action on FY2016 Appropriations6
The FY2016 Agriculture Appropriation was enacted as part of an omnibus bill on December 18, 2015 (P.L. 114-113). Separate Agriculture bills were reported in both chambers, but neither went to the floor (H.R. 3049
, S. 1800). The fiscal year began under three continuing resolutions.
, H.Rept. 114-205).
The Senate Agriculture appropriations subcommittee approved a draft bill on July 14. The full
Appropriations Committee reported it on July 16, 2015, voting 28-2 (S. 1800, S.Rept. 114-82).
Table 1 summarizes actions on the FY2016 Agriculture appropriation—and each annual
appropriation since FY1995—for the subcommittees, full committees, House and Senate
chambers, and
Presidentialpresidential enactment. Figure 2 is a visual timeline of the dates in
Table 1.
Table 1.
1
See CRS Report R42388, The Congressional Appropriations Process: An Introduction, for context on procedures.
CRS Report 98-560, Baselines and Scorekeeping in the Federal Budget Process.
3
CRS Report R42484, Budget Issues That Shaped the 2014 Farm Bill
4
Mandatory spending creates funding stability and consistency compared to appropriations. In agriculture, it originally
was reserved for the farm commodity programs that had uncertain outlays because of weather and market conditions.
5
CRS Report RS20129, Entitlements and Appropriated Entitlements in the Federal Budget Process.
6
A 12-page version is in CRS Report R43938, FY2016 Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations: In Brief.
2
Congressional Research Service
2
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
The last time an Agriculture appropriations bill was enacted as a stand-alone measure was for
FY2010 (in calendar 2009). An Agriculture appropriations bill has not cleared a floor vote in
either chamber for four years
, since the FY2012 bill, when it was the vehicle for a three-bill
“minibus” measure.7 "minibus" measure.7 Committee action
this yearfor FY2016 was somewhat later than in recent years.
Table 1. Congressional Action on Agriculture Appropriations
House Action
Senate Action
Final Appropriation
Fiscal
Year
Subcmte.
Cmte.
Floor
Subcmte.
Cmte.
Floor
Public Law
CRS
Report
1995
5/26/1994
6/9/1994
6/17/1994
6/22/1994
6/23/1994
7/20/1994
9/30/1994
E
P.L. 103-330
IB94011
1996
6/14/1995
6/27/1995
7/21/1995
9/13/1995
9/14/1995
9/20/1995
10/21/1995
E
P.L. 104-37
95-624
1997
5/30/1996
6/6/1996
6/12/1996
7/10/1996
7/11/1996
7/24/1996
8/6/1996
E
P.L. 104-180
IB96015
1998
6/25/1997
7/14/1997
7/24/1997
7/15/1997
7/17/1997
7/24/1997
11/18/1997
E
P.L. 105-86
97-201
1999
6/10/1998
6/16/1998
6/24/1998
6/9/1998
6/11/1998
7/16/1998
10/21/1998
O
P.L. 105-277
98-201
2000
5/13/1999
5/24/1999
6/8/1999
6/15/1999
6/17/1999
8/4/1999
10/22/1999
E
P.L. 106-78
RL30201
2001
5/4/2000
5/16/2000
7/11/2000
5/4/2000
5/10/2000
7/20/2000
10/28/2000
E
P.L. 106-387
RL30501
2002
6/6/2001
6/27/2001
7/11/2001
Polled outb
7/18/2001
10/25/2001
11/28/2001
E
P.L. 107-76
RL31001
2003
6/26/2002
7/26/2002
—
7/23/2002
7/25/2002
—
2/20/2003
O
P.L. 108-7
RL31301
2004
6/17/2003
7/9/2003
7/14/2003
7/17/2003
11/6/2003
11/6/2003
1/23/2004
O
P.L. 108-199
RL31801
2005
6/14/2004
7/7/2004
7/13/2004
9/8/2004
9/14/2004
—
12/8/2004
O
P.L. 108-447
RL32301
2006
5/16/2005
6/2/2005
6/8/2005
6/21/2005
6/27/2005
9/22/2005
11/10/2005
E
P.L. 109-97
RL32904
2007
5/3/2006
5/9/2006
5/23/2006
6/20/2006
6/22/2006
—
2/15/2007
Y
P.L. 110-5
RL33412
2008
7/12/2007
7/19/2007
8/2/2007
7/17/2007
7/19/2007
—
12/26/2007
O
P.L. 110-161
RL34132
2009
6/19/2008
—
—
Polled out
7/17/2008
—
3/11/2009
O
P.L. 111-8
R40000
2010
6/11/2009
6/18/2009
7/9/2009
Polled out
7/7/2009
8/4/2009
10/21/2009
E
P.L. 111-80
R40721
2011
6/30/2010
—
—
Polled out
7/15/2010
—
4/15/2011
Y
P.L. 112-10
R41475
2012
5/24/2011
5/31/2011
6/16/2011
Polled out
9/7/2011
11/1/2011
11/18/2011
O
P.L. 112-55
R41964
2013
6/6/2012
6/19/2012
—
Polled out
4/26/2012
—
3/26/2013
O
P.L. 113-6
R43110
2014
6/5/2013
6/13/2013
—
6/18/2013
6/20/2013
—
1/17/2014
O
P.L. 113-76
R43110
2015
5/20/2014
5/29/2014
—
5/20/2014
5/22/2014
—
12/16/2014
O
P.L. 113-235
R43669
2016
6/18/2015
Voice vote
7/8/2015
H.R. 3049
H.Rept.
114-205
Voice vote
—
7/14/2015
Voice vote
7/16/2015
S. 1800
S.Rept. 11482
Vote 28-2
—
Enacteda
R43938
Source: CRS.
a. E=Enacted as stand-alone appropriation (9 times over 21 years); O=Omnibus appropriation (10 times);
Y=Year-long continuing resolution (2 times).
b. A procedure that permits a Senate subcommittee to transmit a bill to its full committee without a formal
Table 1. Congressional Action on Agriculture Appropriations
House Action
|
Senate Action
|
Final Appropriation
|
Fiscal Year
|
Subcmte.
|
Cmte.
|
Floor
|
Subcmte.
|
Cmte.
|
Floor
|
Enacteda
Public Law
|
CRS Report
|
|
1995
|
5/26/1994
|
6/9/1994
|
6/17/1994
|
6/22/1994
|
6/23/1994
|
7/20/1994
|
9/30/1994
|
E
|
P.L. 103-330
|
IB94011
|
|
1996
|
6/14/1995
|
6/27/1995
|
7/21/1995
|
9/13/1995
|
9/14/1995
|
9/20/1995
|
10/21/1995
|
E
|
P.L. 104-37
|
95-624
|
|
1997
|
5/30/1996
|
6/6/1996
|
6/12/1996
|
7/10/1996
|
7/11/1996
|
7/24/1996
|
8/6/1996
|
E
|
P.L. 104-180
|
IB96015
|
|
1998
|
6/25/1997
|
7/14/1997
|
7/24/1997
|
7/15/1997
|
7/17/1997
|
7/24/1997
|
11/18/1997
|
E
|
P.L. 105-86
|
97-201
|
|
1999
|
6/10/1998
|
6/16/1998
|
6/24/1998
|
6/9/1998
|
6/11/1998
|
7/16/1998
|
10/21/1998
|
O
|
P.L. 105-277
|
98-201
|
|
2000
|
5/13/1999
|
5/24/1999
|
6/8/1999
|
6/15/1999
|
6/17/1999
|
8/4/1999
|
10/22/1999
|
E
|
P.L. 106-78
|
RL30201
|
|
2001
|
5/4/2000
|
5/16/2000
|
7/11/2000
|
5/4/2000
|
5/10/2000
|
7/20/2000
|
10/28/2000
|
E
|
P.L. 106-387
|
RL30501
|
2002
|
6/6/2001
|
6/27/2001
|
7/11/2001
|
Polled outb
7/18/2001
|
10/25/2001
|
11/28/2001
|
E
|
P.L. 107-76
|
RL31001
|
|
2003
|
6/26/2002
|
7/26/2002
|
—
|
7/23/2002
|
7/25/2002
|
—
|
2/20/2003
|
O
|
P.L. 108-7
|
RL31301
|
|
2004
|
6/17/2003
|
7/9/2003
|
7/14/2003
|
7/17/2003
|
11/6/2003
|
11/6/2003
|
1/23/2004
|
O
|
P.L. 108-199
|
RL31801
|
|
2005
|
6/14/2004
|
7/7/2004
|
7/13/2004
|
9/8/2004
|
9/14/2004
|
—
|
12/8/2004
|
O
|
P.L. 108-447
|
RL32301
|
|
2006
|
5/16/2005
|
6/2/2005
|
6/8/2005
|
6/21/2005
|
6/27/2005
|
9/22/2005
|
11/10/2005
|
E
|
P.L. 109-97
|
RL32904
|
|
2007
|
5/3/2006
|
5/9/2006
|
5/23/2006
|
6/20/2006
|
6/22/2006
|
—
|
2/15/2007
|
Y
|
P.L. 110-5
|
RL33412
|
|
2008
|
7/12/2007
|
7/19/2007
|
8/2/2007
|
7/17/2007
|
7/19/2007
|
—
|
12/26/2007
|
O
|
P.L. 110-161
|
RL34132
|
|
2009
|
6/19/2008
|
—
|
—
|
Polled out
|
7/17/2008
|
—
|
3/11/2009
|
O
|
P.L. 111-8
|
R40000
|
|
2010
|
6/11/2009
|
6/18/2009
|
7/9/2009
|
Polled out
|
7/7/2009
|
8/4/2009
|
10/21/2009
|
E
|
P.L. 111-80
|
R40721
|
|
2011
|
6/30/2010
|
—
|
—
|
Polled out
|
7/15/2010
|
—
|
4/15/2011
|
Y
|
P.L. 112-10
|
R41475
|
|
2012
|
5/24/2011
|
5/31/2011
|
6/16/2011
|
Polled out
|
9/7/2011
|
11/1/2011
|
11/18/2011
|
O
|
P.L. 112-55
|
R41964
|
|
2013
|
6/6/2012
|
6/19/2012
|
—
|
Polled out
|
4/26/2012
|
—
|
3/26/2013
|
O
|
P.L. 113-6
|
R43110
|
|
2014
|
6/5/2013
|
6/13/2013
|
—
|
6/18/2013
|
6/20/2013
|
—
|
1/17/2014
|
O
|
P.L. 113-76
|
R43110
|
|
2015
|
5/20/2014
|
5/29/2014
|
—
|
5/20/2014
|
5/22/2014
|
—
|
12/16/2014
|
O
|
P.L. 113-235
|
R43669
|
2016
|
6/18/2015
Voice vote
|
7/8/2015
H.R. 3049
H.Rept. 114-205
Voice vote
|
—
|
7/14/2015
Voice vote
|
7/16/2015
S. 1800
S.Rept. 114-82
Vote 28-2
|
—
|
12/18/2015
H.R. 2029, Division A
Explan. Stmt.c
O
|
P.L. 114-113
|
R43938
Source: CRS.
a.
E=Enacted as stand-alone appropriation (nine times over 22 years); O=Omnibus appropriation (11 times); Y=Year-long continuing resolution (two times).
b.
A procedure that permits a Senate subcommittee to transmit a bill to its full committee without a formal markup session. See CRS Report RS22952,
Proxy Voting and Polling in Senate Committee.
c.
Congressional Record, "Explanatory Statement," December 17, 2015, p. H9693.
Figure 2. Timeline of Action on Agriculture Appropriations, FY1996-FY2016
|
Source: CRS.
|
Administration's FY2016 Budget Request
The White House released its FY2016 budget request on February 2, 2015.8 The same day, USDA released its 100-page budget summary9 and multi-volume budget explanatory notes10 with more programmatic details. The FDA released a one-page budget highlights11 and its detailed budget justification.12 The CFTC also released a detailed budget justification.13 From these documents, the congressional appropriations committees evaluated the request, began considering their bills, and decided how much of the request would be followed.
House Action
The Agriculture Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee held several hearings on FY2016 appropriations with various USDA agencies, FDA, and CFTC during the spring of 2015.
Proxy Voting and Polling in Senate Committee.
7
CRS Report RL32473, Omnibus Appropriations Acts: Overview of Recent Practices.
Congressional Research Service
3
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Figure 2. Timeline of Action on Agriculture Appropriations, FY1996-FY2016
Calendar
1993
Year
1995
Fiscal
1994
Year
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug Sep
House subcommittee
House committee
House floor
Oct
Nov Dec
Jan
Senate subcommittee
Senate committee
Senate floor
Feb
Mar
Apr
Stand-alone
Omnibus
Year-long CR
Source: CRS.
Administration’s FY2016 Budget Request
The White House released its FY2016 budget request on February 2, 2015.8 The same day, USDA
released its 100-page budget summary9 and multi-volume budget explanatory notes10 with more
programmatic details. The FDA released a one-page budget highlights11 and its detailed budget
justification.12 The CFTC also released a detailed budget justification.13 From these documents,
the congressional appropriations committees evaluated the request, began considering their bills,
and decided how much of the request would be followed.
8
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), FY2016 Budget of the U.S. Government, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/
omb/budget. Details are in the Appendix, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Appendix. The request for FDA is
in the Appendix for the Department of Health and Human Services, and CFTC is with Other Independent Agencies.
9
USDA, FY2016 USDA Budget Summary, at http://www.obpa.usda.gov/budsum/fy16budsum.pdf.
10
USDA, FY2016 USDA Budget Explanatory Notes, at http://www.obpa.usda.gov/fy16explan_notes.html.
11
FDA, FY2016 Budget Highlights, at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/
BudgetReports/UCM432650.pdf.
12
FDA, FY2016 FDA Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/
AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/BudgetReports/UCM432322.pdf.
13
CFTC, FY2016 CFTC President’s Budget, at http://www.cftc.gov/about/cftcreports/ssLINK/cftcbudget2016.
Congressional Research Service
4
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
House Action
The Agriculture Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee held several hearings on
FY2016 appropriations with various USDA agencies, FDA, and CFTC during the spring of 2015.
The House Budget Committee developed a FY2016 budget (H.Con.Res. 27), and the full House
and Senate agreed on a joint budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 11) on May 5, 2015. The House
Appropriations Committee divided the budget
’s “'s "302(a)
”" allocation for discretionary spending
(that at that time was pending in conference committee negotiations) on April 29, 2015, into
“ "302(b)
”" allocations for each of its 12 subcommittees (H.Rept. 114-97
).14
).14
The House Agriculture appropriations subcommittee approved a draft bill on June 18, 2015, by
voice vote.
1515 The full House Appropriations Committee reported the bill on July 8, 2015, by voice
vote (H.R. 3049
, , H.Rept. 114-205). It adopted a manager
’'s amendment and two other
amendments.
1616 The bill
haswas not
been considered on the floor.
Senate Action
Senate Action
The Agriculture Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee held hearings on the
FY2016 appropriations request with various USDA agencies and FDA during the spring of 2015.
The Senate Budget Committee developed a FY2016 budget (S.Con.Res. 11) that was agreed to on
May 5, 2015, by both the House and Senate after conference negotiations. The Senate
Appropriations Committee divided the
“"302(a)
”" allocation into
“"302(b)
”" allocations for each of
its 12 subcommittees on May 21, 2015 (S.Rept. 114-55
).
).
The Senate Agriculture appropriations subcommittee approved a draft bill on July 14, 2015. The
full committee reported it on July 16, 2015, by a vote of 28-2 (S. 1800
, , S.Rept. 114-82
). The bill was not considered on the floor. ).
The text of S. 1800 was inserted into a minibus
appropriations bill (appropriation (S. 2129
) that encompassed three subcommittee bills. That bill also was not considered on the floor.
Continuing Resolution
The fiscal year began under three continuing resolutions that lasted until December 11, 2015 (P.L. 114-53), December 16, 2015 (P.L. 114-96), and December 22, 2015 (P.L. 114-100).17
Omnibus Appropriation
The FY2016 Agriculture Appropriation was enacted as Division A of an omnibus appropriations bill on December 18, 2015 (P.L. 114-113). The Explanatory Statement was printed in the Congressional Record for December 17, 2015, on p. H9693. The House began consideration of the bill on December 17, 2015, and passed it on December 18 by a vote of 316-113. The Senate passed the bill on December 18 by a vote of 65-33. The President signed the bill that same day.
Summary of FY2016 Appropriation Amounts
The enacted omnibus appropriation uses a budget allocation that was provided in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (P.L. 114-74, November 2, 2015), which was greater than what was available to develop the House- and Senate-reported bills. The final Agriculture appropriation provides $21.750 billion for discretionary amounts (Table 2).
Original FY2016 Budget and 302(b) Allocations to Subcommittees
The initial FY2016 budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 11, May 5, 2015) set the "302(a)" allocation for discretionary spending for all 12 appropriations bills at $1,016.6 billion ($523.1 billion for defense spending, and $493.5 billion for nondefense spending). This level was consistent with the ) for the Agriculture,
Energy-Water, and Transportation-Housing and Urban Development subcommittees.
Continuing Resolution
The fiscal year began on a continuing resolution (P.L. 114-53) that lasts for the first 10 weeks of
FY2016, until December 11, 2015.17
Summary of FY2016 Appropriation Amounts
FY2016 Budget and 302(b) Allocations to Subcommittees
The FY2016 budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 11) set the “302(a)” allocation for discretionary
spending for all 12 appropriations bills at $1,016.582 billion ($523.091 billion for defense
14
See CRS Report R42388, The Congressional Appropriations Process: An Introduction CRS Report R42972,
Sequestration as a Budget Enforcement Process: Frequently Asked Questions, for context on procedures.
15
House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, Draft FY2016 bill, at http://appropriations.house.gov/Uploaded
Files/BILLS-114HR-SC-AP-FY2016-Agriculture-SubcommitteeDraft.pdf.
16
House Appropriations Committee, Amendments Adopted to the FY2016 Agriculture Appropriations, at
http://appropriations.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hmkp-114-ap00-20150708-sd004.pdf.
17
See CRS Insight IN10148, The FY2016 Continuing Resolution (H.R. 719).
Congressional Research Service
5
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
spending, and $493.491 billion for nondefense spending). This level is consistent with the
discretionary spending limit that is set in the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25), and
therefore
should not trigger sequestration. However, budget sequestration on non-exempt
mandatory accounts does apply to FY2016, as it has in recent years since FY2013 (see
“Sequestration Continues on Mandatory Accounts” and Appendix B).
The “302(b)”would not have triggered sequestration.18 This was the budget under which the appropriations subcommittees developed their bills through the summer of 2015.
The initial "302(b)" allocation from the full House Appropriations Committee to
theits Agriculture
Appropriations subcommittee
iswas $20.650 billion (H.Rept. 114-97), which
iswas $175 million less than
(-0.8%) the comparable amount for FY2015 ($20.825 billion; Table 2).18
Table 2. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations, by Title, FY2015-FY2016
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2015
Title of Agriculture Appropriations Act
I: Agricultural Programs
P.L. 113235
FY2016
Admin.
Request
H. Cmte.
H.R. 3049
Change from FY2015
S. Cmte.
S. 1800
in House
Bill
in Senate
Bill
Senate
Compared
with
House
30,446.6
27,401.7
26,830.1
26,838.2
-3,614.7
-3,608.4
+6.3
23,659.7
20,120.7
20,120.7
20,120.7
-3,539.1
-3,539.1
+0.0
6,786.9
7,281.0
6,709.4
6,717.5
-75.7
-69.4
+6.3
859.3
1,032.1
839.8
856.1
-19.5
-3.2
+16.3
2,582.4
2,758.4
2,645.6
2,675.9
+61.4
+93.5
+32.1
110,190.9
112,348.0
110,075.1
110,140.4
-115.8
-50.5
+65.3
103,096.7
105,146.4
103,128.6
103,145.4
+31.9
+48.7
+16.8
7,094.1
7,201.6
6,946.5
6,995.0
-147.7
-99.1
+48.5
V: Foreign Assistance
1,848.3
1,812.5
1,802.3
1,864.1
-46.0
+15.8
+61.8
VI: Food and Drug Administration
2,597.3
2,743.5
2,627.3
2,637.8
+30.0
+40.4
+10.4
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
[250.0]
322.0
245.0
[250.0]a
-5.0
+0.0
+5.0
VII: General Provisions: CHIMPS, rescissions
-802.0
-1,036.0
-832.0
-908.0
-30.0
-106.0
-76.0
General Provisions: Other appropriations
122.6
0.0
2.0
6.6
-120.6
-116.0
+4.6
-398.0
-331.0
-336.0
-335.0
+62.0
+63.0
+1.0
-116.0
—
—
—
—
—
—
Discretionary: Senate basis w/o CFTC
20,575.0
21,462.2
[20,405.0]
20,510.0
-170.0
-65.0
+105.0
Discretionary: House basis w/ CFTC
[20,825.0]
21,784.2
20,650.0
[20,760.0]
-175.0
-65.0
+110.0
Mandatory (M)
126,756.5
125,267.1
123,249.3
123,266.1
-3,507.2
-3,490.4
+16.8
Total: House basis w/ CFTC
147,581.5
147,051.3
143,899.3
144,026.1
-3,682.2
-3,555.4
+126.8
Mandatory (M)
Discretionary
II: Conservation Programs
III: Rural Development
IV: Domestic Food Programs
Mandatory (M)
Discretionary
Scorekeeping adjustments
Subtract disaster declaration in this bill
Source: CRS, using referenced bill text, appropriations committee report tables, and unpublished CBO tables.
Notes: Amounts are nominal budget authority in millions of dollars. Amounts are discretionary authority unless
labeled otherwise. Amounts do not include supplemental appropriations that were enacted outside the annual
appropriation. [Bracketed amounts] are not in the official totals due to differing House-Senate jurisdiction for the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).
18
The FY2015 Agriculture appropriation ($20.575 billion) was based on Senate jurisdiction for CFTC and needs to be
increased by the CFTC appropriation ($250 million) to be comparable for House jurisdiction ($20.825 billion).
Congressional Research Service
6
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
a.
From S. 1910, the committee-reported Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill.
The Senate Appropriations Committee’s allocation for its agriculture bill was $20.510 billion
(S.Rept. 114-55). Since the Senate allocation does not need to cover the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission (CFTC), which is in the jurisdiction of the Financial Services appropriations
subcommittee, it effectively is $110 million more than a comparative allocation in the House if
CFTC were held constant (+0.5%). It also is $65 million less than the FY2015 amount (-0.3%).
The final FY2016 appropriation is expected to put CFTC in the Agriculture appropriations bill, as
is customary in even-numbered fiscal years.
Continuing Resolution
In the absence of a new appropriation, the continuing resolution (P.L. 114-53) continues FY2015
funding authority until December 11, 2015 (§106), except that one-time emergency disaster and
Ebola funding is excluded, and a 0.2108% across-the-board reduction applies (§101(b)). For
mandatory programs, the CR allows sufficient funding to maintain program levels, including for
nutrition programs (§111). Two anomalies affect the agriculture appropriation: an increase of
about $9 million for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (§116), and a higher than
normal rate of apportionment for the Rural Housing Rental Assistance Program and waiver
authority on certain property renewal restrictions (§117).19
Comparison of Amounts for FY2016
In general, most amounts in the House- and Senate-reported Agriculture appropriations bills are
relatively similar. Officially, the two bills are $105 million (0.5%) apart in the discretionary total
when compared on a Senate basis that excludes CFTC. However, the Senate bill would allow
agencies to spend about $180 million more than the House bill because $77 million of that
difference is compensated for by extra offsets in the Senate bill that are beyond the House bill’s
offsets (Table 2; see also the section, “Changes in Mandatory Program Spending (CHIMPS)”).
Among agency-level spending differences that exceed $10 million between the bills (Table 3):
19
The Agricultural Research Service would receive $30 million more in the
House bill than in the Senate bill to fund buildings and facilities.
Conservation Operations would receive $22 million more in the Senate bill
than in the House bill.
The Rural Utilities Service would receive $24 million more in the Senate bill
than in the House.
The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children
(WIC) is $29 million more in the Senate bill than in the House; and Nutrition
Programs Administration is $11 million more in the Senate than the House.
For international food aid, P.L. 480 is $49 million higher in the Senate bill than
the House; for McGovern-Dole the Senate is $10 million higher than the House.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is $10 million higher in the Senate
bill than in the House bill.
See CRS Report R44214, Overview of the FY2016 Continuing Resolution (H.R. 719).
Congressional Research Service
7
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
The Senate bill reduces (CHIMPS) the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program by $75 million more than the House, while the House bill reduces the
Biorefinery and Rural Energy for America Programs by $42 million.
Congressional Research Service
8
Table 3. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations, by Agency, FY2013-FY2016
Budget authority in millions of dollars
Agency or Major Program
FY2013
P.L. 113-6
post-sequ.a
FY2014
P.L. 113-76
FY2015
P.L. 113-235
FY2016
Admin.
Request
H. Cmte.
H.R. 3049
Change from FY2015
S. Cmte.
S. 1800
in House
Bill
in Senate
Bill
Senate
Compared
with
House
Title I: Agricultural Programs
Departmental Administration
531.3
526.1
364.5
456.1
353.6
362.1
-9.1
-2.3
+6.7
Agricultural Research Service
1,016.9
1,122.5
1,177.6
1,397.4
1,167.5
1,136.8
-10.2
-40.8
-30.6
National Institute of Food & Agriculture
1,142.0
1,277.1
1,289.5
1,503.1
1,284.5
1,293.7
-5.0
+4.2
+9.2
166.6
161.2
172.4
180.3
161.2
168.1
-11.2
-4.3
+6.9
71.4
78.1
85.4
86.0
78.1
85.4
-7.3
+0.0
+7.3
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
-0.0
+0.0
+0.0
761.4
824.9
874.5
859.0
874.1
879.6
-0.4
+5.1
+5.5
75.7
81.3
82.4
84.4
82.0
82.4
-0.4
+0.0
+0.4
1,049.6
1,107.0
1,284.0
1,425.0
1,425.0
1,425.0
+141.0
+141.0
+0.0
37.3
40.3
43.0
44.1
43.0
43.0
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
-0.0
+0.0
+0.0
977.3
1,010.7
1,016.5
1,011.6
1,011.6
1,013.6
-4.9
-2.9
+2.1
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
-0.0
+0.0
+0.0
1,503.9
1,592.2
1,603.3
1,579.1
1,576.9
1,574.8
-26.3
-28.5
-2.2
4,575.7
5,527.3
6,402.1
6,402.1
6,402.1
6,402.1
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
69.1
71.5
74.8
76.9
74.0
74.8
-0.8
+0.0
+0.8
9,514.5
9,502.9
8,930.5
8,175.2
8,175.2
8,175.2
-755.3
-755.3
+0.0
Research, Education and Economics
National Agricultural Statistics Service
Economic Research Service
Under Secretary, Research, Education, Econ.
Marketing and Regulatory Programs
Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service
Agricultural Marketing Service
Section 32 (M)
Grain Inspection, Packers & Stockyards
Under Secretary, Marketing and Regulatory
Food Safety
Food Safety & Inspection Service
Under Secretary, Food Safety
Farm and Commodity Programs
Farm Service Agencyb
FSA Farm Loans: Loan
Authorityc
Risk Management Agency Salaries & Exp.
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (M)d
CRS-9
Budget authority in millions of dollars
Agency or Major Program
Commodity Credit Corporation
(M)d
Under Secretary, Farm and Foreign Agr.
FY2013
P.L. 113-6
post-sequ.a
FY2014
P.L. 113-76
FY2015
P.L. 113-235
FY2016
Admin.
Request
H. Cmte.
H.R. 3049
Change from FY2015
S. Cmte.
S. 1800
in House
Bill
in Senate
Bill
Senate
Compared
with
House
11,018.5
12,538.9
13,444.7
10,519.9
10,519.9
10,519.9
-2,924.8
-2,924.8
+0.0
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
-0.0
+0.0
+0.0
21,582.7
23,149.1
23,659.7
20,120.7
20,120.7
20,120.7
-3,539.1
-3,539.1
+0.0
6,356.2
6,789.0
6,786.9
7,281.0
6,709.4
6,717.5
-75.7
-69.4
+6.3
27,938.8
29,938.1
30,446.6
27,401.7
26,830.1
26,838.2
-3,614.7
-3,608.4
+6.3
766.8
812.9
846.4
831.2
832.9
855.2
-13.5
+8.8
+22.3
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Subtotal
Mandatory (M)
Discretionary
Subtotal
Title II: Conservation Programs
Conservation Operations
Watershed & Flood Prevention
Watershed Rehabilitation Program
Under Secretary, Natural Resources
Subtotal
200.0
13.6
12.0
12.0
0.0
6.0
0.0
-6.0
-12.0
-6.0
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
-0.0
+0.0
+0.0
781.2
825.8
859.3
1,032.1
839.8
856.1
-19.5
-3.2
+16.3
613.0
657.4
678.2
685.6
679.2
682.7
+1.0
+4.5
+3.5
1,031.1
1,279.6
1,298.4
1,394.7
1,368.7
1,367.2
+68.6
+68.8
+0.2
27,335.1
27,408.1
27,421.5
27,407.4
27,496.8
27,483.0
+0.3
+61.5
+61.3
114.2
130.2
103.2
138.7
87.0
91.5
-16.2
-11.8
+4.4
953.7
1,022.8
984.5
993.6
984.5
994.2
+0.0
+9.8
+9.8
520.8
501.6
501.7
538.4
509.7
533.7
+8.0
+32.0
+24.0
8,849.4
7,514.5
7,464.1
7,934.2
7,464.1
8,710.6
+0.0
+1,246.5
+1,246.5
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
-0.0
+0.0
+0.0
2,279.9
2,569.7
2,582.4
2,758.4
2,645.6
2,675.9
+61.4
+93.5
+32.1
37,138.2
35,945.4
35,870.1
36,335.2
35,945.4
37,187.8
+0.3
+1,317.8
+1,317.5
Title III: Rural Development
Salaries and Expenses (including transfers)e
Rural Housing Service
RHS Loan Authorityc
Rural Business-Cooperative
RBCS Loan
Servicef
Authorityc
Rural Utilities Service
RUS Loan
Authorityc
Under Secretary, Rural Development
Subtotal
Subtotal, RD Loan Authorityc
CRS-10
Budget authority in millions of dollars
Agency or Major Program
FY2013
P.L. 113-6
post-sequ.a
FY2014
P.L. 113-76
FY2015
P.L. 113-235
FY2016
Admin.
Request
H. Cmte.
H.R. 3049
Change from FY2015
S. Cmte.
S. 1800
in House
Bill
in Senate
Bill
Senate
Compared
with
House
Title IV: Domestic Food Programs
Child Nutrition Programs (M)
19,913.2
19,288.0
21,300.2
21,587.3
21,507.43
21,524.4
+207.3
+224.2
+17.0
6,522.2
6,715.8
6,623.0
6,623.0
6,484.0
6,513.0
-139.0
-110.0
+29.0
77,285.4
82,169.9
81,837.6
83,693.1
81,653.2
81,662.1
-184.4
-175.5
+8.9
Commodity Assistance Programs
243.7
269.7
278.5
288.3
288.3
288.3
+9.8
+9.8
+0.0
Nutrition Programs Administration
132.7
141.3
150.8
155.6
141.3
151.8
-9.5
+1.0
+10.5
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
-0.0
+0.0
+0.0
97,171.9
101,432.9
103,096.7
105,146.4
103,128.6
103,145.4
+31.9
+48.7
+16.8
6,926.1
7,152.7
7,094.1
7,201.6
6,946.5
6,995.0
-147.7
-99.1
+48.5
104,098.0
108,585.6
110,190.9
112,348.0
110,075.1
110,140.4
-115.8
-50.5
+65.3
163.1
177.9
181.4
191.6
184.4
187.2
+3.0
+5.8
+2.8
1,362.0
1,468.7
1,468.5
1,402.5
1,419.5
1,468.5
-49.0
+0.0
+49.0
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
WIC Program
SNAP, Food & Nutrition Act Programs (M)
Office of Under Secretary
Subtotal
Mandatory (M)
Discretionary
Subtotal
Title V: Foreign Assistance
Foreign Agricultural Service
Public Law 480 and admin. expenses
Local and regional food procurement
McGovern-Dole Food for Education
20.0
174.5
185.1
191.6
191.6
191.6
201.6
+0.0
+10.0
+10.0
6.3
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
1,705.9
1,838.5
1,848.3
1,812.5
1,802.3
1,864.1
-46.0
+15.8
+61.8
Food and Drug Administration
2,386.0
2,560.7
2,597.3
2,743.5
2,627.3
2,637.8
+30.0
+40.4
+10.4
Commodity Futures Trading Commissiong
[194.0]
215.0
[250.0]
322.0
245.0
[250.0]h
-5.0
+0.0
+5.0
2,386.0
2,775.7
2,597.3
3,065.5
2,872.3
2,637.8
CCC Export Loan Salaries
Subtotal
Title VI: Related Agencies
Subtotal
CRS-11
Budget authority in millions of dollars
Agency or Major Program
FY2013
P.L. 113-6
post-sequ.a
FY2014
P.L. 113-76
FY2015
P.L. 113-235
FY2016
Admin.
Request
H. Cmte.
H.R. 3049
Change from FY2015
S. Cmte.
S. 1800
in House
Bill
in Senate
Bill
Senate
Compared
with
House
Title VII: General Provisions
Reductions in Mandatory Programsi
a. Environmental Quality Incentives Program
-279.0
-272.0
-136.0
-373.0
-189.0
-264.0
-53.0
-128.0
-75.0
b. Watershed Rehabilitation Program
-165.0
-153.0
-69.0
-69.0
-64.0
-68.0
+5.0
+1.0
-4.0
-7.0
-3.0
-2.0
+5.0
+7.0
+2.0
-119.0
-122.0
-125.0
-125.0
-3.0
-3.0
+0.0
-40.7
-16.0
-26.0
-10.0
+16.0
+26.0
-2.0
-12.0
-10.0
-18.0
-8.0
-16.0
+0.0
+16.0
c. Conservation Stewardship Program
d. Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program
-117.0
e. Biorefinery Assistance Program
f. Biomass Crop Assistance Program
g. Rural Energy for America Program
-125.0
-20.0
-16.0
h. Cushion of Credit (Rural Development)
-180.0
-172.0
-179.0
-154.0
-154.0
-182.0
+25.0
-3.0
-28.0
i. Section 32
-110.0
-189.0
-121.0
-292.0
-216.0
-216.0
-95.0
-95.0
+0.0
-42.0
-8.0
-133.0
+139.0
+133.0
-6.0
-893.0
-953.7
-785.0
-1,016.0
-798.0
-875.0
-13.0
-90.0
-77.0
-25.3
-33.3
-17.0
-20.0
-34.0
-33.0
-17.0
-16.0
+1.0
-114.0
-116.0
-2.0
6.6
-6.6
+0.0
+6.6
j. Other reductions
Subtotal, mandatory program
reductions
Rescissions of discretionary accounts
+6.0
Other appropriations
a. Disaster/Emergency programs
83.9
b. Other appropriations
48.6
106.6
6.6
132.5
106.6
122.6
0.0
2.0
6.6
-120.6
-116.0
+4.6
-785.9
-880.4
-679.4
-1,036.0
-830.0
-901.4
-150.6
-222.0
-71.4
+116.0
+116.0
+0.0
+62.0
+63.0
+1.0
Subtotal, Other appropriations
Total, General Provisions
116.0
2.0
Scorekeeping Adjustmentsj
Disaster declaration in this bill
Other scorekeeping adjustments
CRS-12
-116.0
-129.0
-191.0
-398.0
-331.0
-336.0
-344.0
Budget authority in millions of dollars
Agency or Major Program
Subtotal
FY2013
P.L. 113-6
post-sequ.a
FY2014
P.L. 113-76
FY2015
P.L. 113-235
FY2016
Admin.
Request
H. Cmte.
H.R. 3049
Change from FY2015
S. Cmte.
S. 1800
in House
Bill
in Senate
Bill
Senate
Compared
with
House
-129.0
-191.0
-514.0
-331.0
-336.0
-335.0
+178.0
+179.0
+1.0
Discretionary: Senate basis w/o CFTC
19,520.4
[20,665.0]
20,575.0
21,462.2
[20,405.0]
20,510.0
-170.0
-65.0
+105.0
Discretionary: House basis w/ CFTC
[19,714.4]
20,880.0
[20,825.0]
21,784.2
20,650.0
[20,760.0]
-175.0
-65.0
+110.0
Mandatory (M)
118,754.6
124,582.0
126,756.5
125,267.1
123,249.3
123,266.1
-3,507.2
-3,490.4
+16.8
Total: House basis w/ CFTC
138,469.0
145,462.0
147,581.5
147,051.3
143,899.3
144,026.1
-3,682.2
-3,555.4
+126.8
Totals
Source: CRS, using referenced bill text, Appropriations Committee report tables, and unpublished CBO tables.
Notes: Amounts are nominal budget authority in millions of dollars. Excludes supplementals outside the regular appropriations. Discretionary authority unless labeled
“(M)” to indicate primarily mandatory authority. [Bracketed amounts] are unofficial and provided to aid comparison due to differing House-Senate jurisdiction for CFTC.
a. (-0.8%) the comparable amount for FY2015 ($20.825 billion).19 The Senate Appropriations Committee's initial allocation for its agriculture bill was $20.510 billion (S.Rept. 114-55). Since the Senate allocation did not need to cover the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), it effectively was $110 million more than a comparative allocation in the House if CFTC were held constant (+0.5%). It also was $65 million less than the FY2015 amount (-0.3%).
Final FY2016 Budget and 302(b) Allocation
The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (P.L. 114-74, November 2, 2015) increased the FY2016 discretionary allocation for all 12 appropriations bills by $50 billion, to $1,066.6 billion.20 The increase was offset and divided evenly between defense and nondefense spending.21
The extra spending allowed by the new allocation was divided among the appropriations subcommittees to develop the omnibus appropriation. The Agriculture subcommittees were allocated $21.75 billion, which was $1.1 billion more than the original House-reported allocation and $990 million more than the original Senate-reported allocation. The final amount for Agriculture is an increase of $925 million over FY2015 (+4.4%).
The enacted FY2016 appropriation put CFTC in the Agriculture appropriations bill (a House-jurisdiction basis), as is customary for even-numbered fiscal years.
Continuing Resolution
In the absence of an FY2016 appropriation before the beginning of the fiscal year on October 1, 2015, continuing resolutions were used to prorate FY2015 funding authority. Exceptions were that one-time emergency disaster and Ebola funding was excluded, and a 0.2108% across-the-board reduction applied. For mandatory programs, the CR allowed sufficient funding to maintain program levels, including for nutrition programs. Two anomalies affected the agriculture appropriation: an increase of about $9 million for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, and a higher than normal rate of apportionment for the Rural Housing Rental Assistance Program and waiver authority on certain property renewal restrictions.22
|
Key Budget Terms
Budget authority is the main output of an appropriations act or a law authorizing mandatory spending. It provides the legal basis for agencies to obligate funds. It expires at the end of the period and usually is available for one year unless specified otherwise (such as two-year or indefinite authority). Most amounts in this report are budget authority.
Obligations reflect agency activities such as employing personnel or entering contracts. The Antideficiency Act prohibits agencies from obligating more budget authority than is provided in law.
Outlays are payments (cash disbursements) that satisfy a valid obligation. Outlays may differ from budget authority or obligations because payments from an agency may not occur until services are fulfilled, goods delivered, or construction completed, even though an obligation occurred.
Program level represents the sum of the activities supported or undertaken by an agency. A program level may be higher than a budget authority if the program (1) receives user fees that can be used to pay for activities; (2) makes or guarantees loans that are leveraged on the expectation of repayment (more than $1 of loan authority for $1 of budget authority); or (3) receives transfers from other agencies.
Rescissions are adjustments that cancel or reduce budget authority after it has been enacted; they score budgetary savings.
CHIMPS (Changes in Mandatory Program Spending) are adjustments to mandatory budget authority. CHIMPS in appropriations usually reduce or limit spending by mandatory programs and score budgetary savings.
For more background, see CRS Report 98-405, The Spending Pipeline: Stages of Federal Spending.
|
Comparison of Amounts for FY2016
The enacted FY2016 Agriculture appropriations act provides $21.75 billion of discretionary spending, which is an increase of $925 million over FY2015 (+4.4%), after adjusting for CFTC jurisdiction. The higher allocation in the Bipartisan Budget Act allowed the final bill to be $1.1 billion more than the original House-reported bill and $990 million more than the original Senate-reported bill (Table 2).
Among agency-level spending differences from FY2015 that exceed $10 million (Table 3) are: - The Rural Housing Service receives $301 million more than FY2015 for rental assistance grants (+28%) and $25 million more for housing revitalization and community facilities grants.
- Food for Peace grants for international food aid receive an extra $250 million.
- The Agricultural Research Service receives $178 million more than FY2015 (+15%), mostly for buildings and facilities.
- The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) receives a $132 million boost, including $104 million more to implement the Food Safety Modernization Act.
- Emergency conservation, watershed, and forestry programs receive $157 million more than in FY2015, some of it offset by a disaster declaration.
- The Rural Utilities Service receives $57 million more (+12%) for rural water and waste disposal grants.
- The National Institute of Food and Agriculture receives $37 million more, mostly for Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (+7.7%).
- The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service receives $23 million more than in FY2015 (+3%).
- Among reductions, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) receives $273 million less than in FY2015.
- The Environmental Quality Incentives Program, a change to a mandatory spending program, is reduced by $73 million more than its reduction last year.
Table 2. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations, by Title, FY2015-FY2016
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2015
|
FY2016
|
Change from FY2015 to FY2016 Enacted
|
Title of Agriculture Appropriations Act
|
P.L. 113-235
|
Admin. Request
|
H. Cmte. H.R. 3049
|
S. Cmte. S. 1800
|
P.L. 114-113
|
I: Agricultural Programs
|
Mandatory (M)
|
Discretionary
|
II: Conservation Programs
|
III: Rural Development
|
IV: Domestic Food Programs
|
Mandatory (M)
|
Discretionary
|
V: Foreign Assistance
|
VI: Food and Drug Administration
|
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
|
[250 | .0]a
VII: General Provisions: CHIMPS & rescissions
|
General Provisions: Other appropriations
|
Scorekeeping adjustments
|
Subtract disaster declaration in this bill
|
Discretionary: Senate basis w/o CFTC
|
Discretionary: House basis w/ CFTC
|
Mandatory (M)
|
Total: House basis w/ CFTC
|
Source: CRS, using referenced bill text, appropriations committee report tables, and unpublished Congressional Budget Office (CBO) tables.
Notes: Amounts are nominal budget authority in millions of dollars. Amounts are discretionary authority unless labeled otherwise. Amounts do not include supplemental appropriations that were enacted outside the annual appropriation. [Bracketed amounts] are not in the official totals due to differing House-Senate jurisdiction for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).
a.
From S. 1910, the committee-reported Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill.
Table 3. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations, by Agency, FY2013-FY2016
Budget authority in millions of dollars
|
FY2013
|
FY2014
|
FY2015
|
FY2016
|
Agency or Major Program
|
P.L. 113-6 post-sequ.a
P.L. 113-76
|
P.L. 113-235
|
Admin. Request
|
H. Cmte. H.R. 3049
|
S. Cmte. S. 1800
|
P.L. 114-113
|
Change from FY2015 to FY2016 Enacted
|
Title I: Agricultural Programs
|
Departmental Administration
|
Research, Education and Economics
|
Agricultural Research Service
|
National Institute of Food & Agriculture
|
National Agricultural Statistics Service
|
Economic Research Service
|
Under Secretary, Research, Education, Econ.
|
Marketing and Regulatory Programs
|
Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service
|
Agricultural Marketing Service
|
Section 32 (M)
|
Grain Inspection, Packers & Stockyards
|
Under Secretary, Marketing and Regulatory
|
Food Safety
|
Food Safety & Inspection Service
|
Under Secretary, Food Safety
|
Farm and Commodity Programs
|
Farm Service Agencyb
FSA Farm Loans: Loan Authorityc
Risk Management Agency Salaries & Exp.
|
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (M)d
Commodity Credit Corporation (M)d
Under Secretary, Farm and Foreign Agr.
|
Subtotal
|
Mandatory (M)
|
Discretionary
|
Subtotal
|
Title II: Conservation Programs
|
Conservation Operations
|
Watershed & Flood Prevention
|
Watershed Rehabilitation Program
|
Under Secretary, Natural Resources
|
Subtotal
|
Title III: Rural Development
|
Salaries and Expenses (including transfers)e
Rural Housing Service
|
RHS Loan Authorityc
Rural Business-Cooperative Servicef
RBCS Loan Authorityc
Rural Utilities Service
|
RUS Loan Authorityc
Under Secretary, Rural Development
|
Subtotal
|
Subtotal, RD Loan Authorityc
37,187.8 |
Title IV: Domestic Food Programs
|
Child Nutrition Programs (M)
|
WIC Program
|
SNAP, Food & Nutrition Act Programs (M)
|
Commodity Assistance Programs
|
Nutrition Programs Administration
|
Office of Under Secretary
|
Subtotal
|
Mandatory (M)
|
Discretionary
|
Subtotal
|
Title V: Foreign Assistance
|
Foreign Agricultural Service
|
Food for Peace Title II, and admin. Exp.
|
1,468 | .5g
Local and regional food procurement
|
McGovern-Dole Food for Education
|
CCC Export Loan Salaries
|
Subtotal
|
1,868 | .5g
Title VI: Related Agencies
|
Food and Drug Administration
|
Commodity Futures Trading Commissionh
Subtotal
|
Title VII: General Provisions
|
Reductions in Mandatory Programs
|
a. Environmental Quality Incentives Program
|
b. Watershed Rehabilitation Program
|
c. Conservation Stewardship Program
|
d. Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program
|
e. Biorefinery Assistance Program
|
f. Biomass Crop Assistance Program
|
g. Rural Energy for America Program
|
h. Cushion of Credit (Rural Development)
|
i. Section 32
|
j. Other CHIMPS and rescissions
|
Subtotal, CHIMPS
|
Rescissions (discretionary)
|
Other appropriations
|
a. Disaster/Emergency programs
|
b. Other appropriations
|
283 | .1g
Subtotal, Other appropriations
|
Total, General Provisions
|
Scorekeeping Adjustmentsi
Disaster declaration in this bill
|
Other scorekeeping adjustments
|
Subtotal
|
Totals
|
Discretionary: Senate basis w/o CFTC
|
Discretionary: House basis w/ CFTC
|
Mandatory (M)
|
Total: House basis w/ CFTC
|
Source: CRS, using referenced bill text, appropriations committee report tables, and unpublished CBO tables.
Notes: Amounts are budget authority in millions of dollars and are in nominal dollars. Amounts do not include supplemental appropriations outside the annual appropriation. Amounts are discretionary authority unless labeled otherwise; (M) indicates that the account is mandatory authority (or primarily mandatory authority). [Bracketed amounts] are not in the official totals due to differing House-Senate jurisdiction for CFTC but are shown for comparison.
a.
Amounts for FY2013 are at the post-sequestration level from the USDA FY2013 Operating Plan, at http://www.dm.usda.gov/foia/docs/USDA_Operating_Plan.pdf
.
b. .
b.
Includes regular FSA salaries and expenses, plus transfers for farm loan program salaries and administrative expenses. Also includes farm loan program loan subsidy,
State Mediation Grants, Dairy Indemnity Program (mandatory funding), and Grassroots Source Water Protection Program.
c. Does not include appropriations to the Foreign Agricultural Service for export loans and P.L. 480 administration that are transferred to FSA.
c.
Loan authority is the amount of loans that can be made or guaranteed with a loan subsidy; it is not added in the budget authority subtotals or totals.
d. Commodity Credit Corporation and Federal Crop Insurance Corporation each receive an indefinite appropriation (“such sums as necessary”). Estimates for
appropriations may not reflect actual outlays.
e.
d.
Includes Rural Development salaries and expenses, and transfers from the three rural development agencies for salaries and expenses. Amounts for the agencies
thus reflect program funds for loans and grants.
f.
e.
Amounts for the Rural Business-Cooperative Service are before the rescission from the Cushion of Credit account, unlike in Appropriations committee tables. The
rescission is included with the changes in mandatory program spending (CHIMPS), as classified by CBO, which allows the RBCS subtotal to remain positive.
g. Jurisdiction for CFTC is in the House Agriculture appropriations subcommittee and the Senate Financial Services appropriations subcommittee (S. 1910 in FY2016).
After FY2008, CFTC is carried in enacted Agriculture appropriations in even-numbered fiscal years, always in House Agriculture markup and never in Senate
Agriculture markup.
h. From S. 1910, the committee-reported Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill.
i.
Reductions to mandatory programs in this report include CHIMPS (Changes in Mandatory Program Spending) and permanent rescissions of budget authority for
mandatory program accounts. CBO estimates are used and are not always consistent in the treatment of sequestration. Amounts in the columns for the Admin.
Request and Senate do not include the effects of sequestration, whereas amounts in the House column are after including the effects of sequestration.
j.
“Scorekeeping adjustments”
f.
Commodity Credit Corporation and Federal Crop Insurance Corporation each receive an indefinite appropriation ("such sums as necessary"). Estimates for appropriations may not reflect actual outlays.
g.
In addition to the FY2016 appropriation for Food for Peace Title II grants in Title V ($1.466 billion), an extra $250 million was appropriated under General Provisions. The combined total for Food for Peace Title II grants is therefore $1.716 billion, and the effective Title V total is $2.118 billion for FY2016.
h.
Jurisdiction for CFTC is in the House agriculture appropriations subcommittee and the Senate financial services appropriations subcommittee. After FY2008, CFTC is carried in enacted Agriculture appropriations in even-numbered fiscal years, always in House Agriculture markup and never in Senate Agriculture markup. [Bracketed amounts] are not in the official totals due to differing House-Senate jurisdiction for CFTC but are shown for comparison (e.g., to S. 1910 in FY2016).
i.
"Scorekeeping adjustments" are not necessarily appropriated items and may not be shown in appropriations committee tables, but are part of the official CBO score
(accounting) of the bill. They predominantly include
“"negative subsidies
”" in loan program accounts and adjustments for disaster designations in the bill.
CRS-13
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Key Budget Terms
Budget authority is the main output of an appropriations act or a law authorizing mandatory spending. It
provides the legal basis for agencies to obligate funds. It expires at the end of the period and usually is available for
one year unless specified otherwise (such as two-year or indefinite authority). Most amounts in this report are
budget authority.
Obligations reflect agency activities such as employing personnel or entering contracts. The Antideficiency Act
prohibits agencies from obligating more budget authority than is provided in law.
Outlays are payments (cash disbursements) that satisfy a valid obligation. Outlays may differ from budget authority
or obligations because payments from an agency may not occur until services are fulfilled, goods delivered, or
construction completed, even though an obligation occurred.
Program level represents the sum of the activities supported or undertaken by an agency. A program level may
be higher than a budget authority if the program (1) receives user fees that can be used to pay for activities; (2)
makes or guarantees loans that are leveraged on the expectation of repayment (more than $1 of loan authority for
$1 of budget authority); or (3) receives transfers from other agencies.
Rescissions are adjustments that cancel or reduce budget authority after it has been enacted; they score savings.
CHIMPS (Changes in Mandatory Program Spending) are adjustments to mandatory budget authority. CHIMPS in
appropriations usually reduce or limit spending by mandatory programs and score budgetary savings.
For more background, see CRS Report 98-405, The Spending Pipeline: Stages of Federal Spending.
Policy Differences
In addition to specifying the amounts of budget authority, the bills prescribe various policies that
are tied to certain agencies’ abilities to use their appropriation. Among the notable policy-related
differences between the bills that are discussed in more detail in the relevant sections later:
The Senate bill continues prohibiting horse slaughter facility inspections; a
similar provision was defeated during House markup.
The House bill continues restricting the use of imported processed poultry from
China for the school lunch and other nutrition programs.
The House bill would not enforce a conservation compliance requirement in the
2014 farm bill for the 2016 crop insurance year.
The House bill would restore the use of commodity certificates for the
marketing loan program, including not being subject to payment limits.
The House bill would limit the applicability of certain FDA tobacco regulations
for e-cigarettes and other products.
Recent Trends in Agriculture Appropriations
Policy Changes
In addition to specifying the amounts of budget authority, the appropriation prescribes various policies or conditions that affect how some agencies may use their appropriation. Among the notable policy-related provisions that are discussed in more detail in the relevant sections later:
- Some country-of-origin labeling (COOL) laws are permanently repealed.
- Horse slaughter facility inspection continues to be prohibited for the fiscal year.
- Imports of processed poultry from China are forbidden for certain nutrition programs.
- Whole grain and sodium requirements in the child nutrition programs are to be implemented with continued flexibility.
- The appropriation directs some terms for the formation of dietary guidelines.
- The use of commodity certificates for the marketing loan program is restored, including not being subject to payment limits.
- However, unlike the House markup, the enacted appropriation does not change the conservation compliance requirements, nor does it limit the applicability of certain tobacco regulations for e-cigarettes.
In addition, the explanatory statement indicates that report language accompanying the House- or Senate-reported bills still holds, unless otherwise contradicted or changed by the explanatory statement, and that such report language is considered evidence of congressional intent.23
Recent Trends in Agriculture Appropriations
The stacked bars in Figure 3 represent the discretionary spending authorized for each title
since
FY2007, with comparisons of the proposals in FY2016in the 10 years since FY2007. The total of the positive stacked bars is
higher than the official
“"302(b)
”" discretionary spending limit (the line
, and dots for FY2016)
) because of the budgetary offset from
negative amounts in the General Provisions title and other scorekeeping
adjustments. General Provisions are negative mostly because of limits placed on certain
mandatory programs that are scored as savings (see near the end of Table 3 for examples, and the
section
“"Changes in Mandatory Program Spending (CHIMPS)
”" for background).
Increases in the use of CHIMPS and other tools to offset discretionary appropriations have
ameliorated recent reductions in budget authority
in some of the years since FY2010. For example, the official
Congressional Research Service
14
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
“ "302(b)
”" discretionary total for the bill has been given credit for declining
10.66.7% from FY2010 to
FY2015 FY2016 ($23.3 billion to $
20.821.75 billion, Figure 3), while the total of Titles I-VI has declined only
6.7 4.6% over that same period ($23.6 billion to $22.
05 billion).
On an inflation-adjusted basis, FY2015 Agriculture appropriations are 18% below their peak in
FY2010 (Figure 4). When expressed in constant FY2016 dollars, the FY2015 appropriation has
risen 2.7% above the FY2013 post-sequestration level. The FY2016 House subcommittee
allocation would be about 2.4% below the inflation-adjusted amount for FY2015, and that would
be about equal to the post-sequestration amount in FY2013 and on par with FY2007-FY2008.
The effect is less pronounced in FY2016 than it was in FY2011-FY2015 when the offsets were larger. The offset in FY2016 is relatively smaller, in part, because of additional spending in the General Provisions title for foreign food aid and emergency programs.
On an inflation-adjusted basis, FY2016 Agriculture appropriations are 16% below their peak in FY2010 (Figure 4). When expressed in constant dollars, the official FY2016 appropriation has risen 7.2% above the recent low of the FY2013 post-sequestration level, and the subtotal of Titles I-VI has risen 6.1% since FY2013. Since FY2014, on an inflation-adjusted basis, the total Agricultural appropriation has been roughly constant, and on par with FY2012 and in between the amounts in FY008 and FY2009.
Over time, changes by title of the bill generally have been proportionate to changes in the total
discretionary Agriculture appropriation, though some areas have sustained real increases while
others have declined (
separateapart from the peak in 2010). Agencies with sustained real increases
since FY2007 include the Food and Drug Administration and CFTC (Related Agencies),
the
domestic food programs, and to a lesser extent foreign assistance. Agencies with real decreases
since 2007 include
rural development, discretionary conservation programs
, and general
agricultural programs.
Figure 3. Discretionary Agriculture Appropriations, by Title, Since FY2007
Dollars in Millions
Admin House Senate Discretionary Appropriations
I: Agricultural Programs
II: Conservation Programs
7,336
6,885
6,850
6,633
969 2,979
938 2,732
2,500
5,523
6,789 6,787
889
844
7,281
6,709 6,718
6,356
1,009
6,443
853
6,677
781
826
859
1,032
840
856
2,570 2,582 2,758 2,646 2,676
2,638 2,405
2,280
III: Rural Development
IV: Domestic Food Programs
V: Foreign Assistance
2,334
6,374
7,655 7,128 7,001
7,094 7,202 6,946 6,995
6,926 7,153
7,234
VII: General Provisions and
Scorekeeping adjustments
2,089 1,891 1,836 1,706 1,838 1,848 1,813 1,802 1,864
1,499
1,479 1,476
2,659 2,711 2,580 2,776 2,847 3,066 2,872 2,888
1,672 1,828 2,197 2,526
-761 -1,490 -881
VI: Related Agencies
-291 -1,958 -1,713 -915 -1,071 -1,193 -1,367 -1,166 -1,236
Discretionary total "302(b)"
House basis w/ CFTC
Discretionary total "302(b)"
Senate basis w/o CFTC
2016
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Admin House Senate
Source: CRS.
Notes: Fiscal year budget authority. Includes only regular annual appropriations. Includes CFTC regardless of
jurisdiction, except for [bracketed] totals that allow intra-year House-Senate comparison.
Congressional Research Service
15
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Figure 4. Inflation-Adjusted Discretionary Agriculture Appropriations Since FY2007
Inflation-adjusted
FY2016 Dollars in
Millions
Admin House Senate Discretionary Appropriations
I: Agricultural Programs
8,093
7,451
7,623
7,403
7,100
7,468
6,644
1,114
1,079
3,286
1,056 3,040
980
2,628
2,873
8,445
6,346
II: Conservation Programs
7,176
8,050
962
6,990 6,895
7,281
6,709 6,718
III: Rural Development
873 1,032 840 856
2,854
2,558
2,646 2,623 2,758
2,646 2,676
2,383
IV: Domestic Food Programs
7,713 7,445
7,240 7,364 7,207 7,202 6,946 6,995
VI: Related Agencies
898
817
850
V: Foreign Assistance
VII: General Provisions and
Scorekeeping adjustments
1,669
1,699 1,662
2,305 2,047 1,952 1,783 1,893 1,878 1,813 1,802 1,864
2,878 2,883 2,697 2,858 2,893 3,066 2,872 2,888
1,922 2,058 2,445 2,787
-875 -1,677 -980
-320 -2,119 -1,821 -956 -1,103 -1,212 -1,367 -1,166 -1,236
Discretionary total "302(b)"
House basis w/ CFTC
Discretionary total "302(b)"
Senate basis w/o CFTC
2016
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Admin House Senate
Source: CRS.
Notes: Fiscal year budget authority, adjusted for inflation by CRS using the GDP price deflator. Includes only
regular appropriations. Includes CFTC regardless of jurisdiction, except for [bracketed] totals that allow intrayear House-Senate comparison.
Sequestration Continues on Mandatory Accounts
Sequestration is a process of automatic, largely across-the-board reductions that permanently
cancel mandatory and/or discretionary budget authority when spending would exceed statutory
agricultural programs. Rural development generally had decreased over the period through FY2015, though the FY2016 appropriation may have reversed that trend. Domestic nutrition programs in FY2016 are higher on a real basis than in FY2007, but are lower than in all of the other intervening years.
Figure 3. Discretionary Agriculture Appropriations, by Title, Since FY2007
|
Source: CRS.
Notes: Fiscal year budget authority. Regular appropriations only. Includes CFTC regardless of jurisdiction.
|
Figure 4. Inflation-Adjusted Discretionary Agriculture Appropriations Since FY2007
|
Source: CRS.
Notes: Fiscal year budget authority, adjusted for inflation by CRS using the gross domestic product price deflator. Includes only regular appropriations. Includes CFTC regardless of jurisdiction.
|
Sequestration Continues on Mandatory Accounts
Sequestration is a process of automatic, largely across-the-board reductions that permanently cancel mandatory and/or discretionary budget authority when spending would exceed statutory budget goals. Sequestration is required in the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA; P.L. 112-25
).24
).20
Although the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (P.L. 113-67) raised spending limits in the BCA to
avoid sequestration of discretionary accounts in FY2014 and FY2015
, it did not prevent or reduce
—and the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (P.L. 114-74) did it again for FY2016 and FY2017—they do not prevent or reduce sequestration on mandatory accounts.
Sequestration on
non-exempt mandatory accounts continues in FY2016
and is
expectedscheduled to continue through
FY2023. FY2025. Appendix B provides more detail about
sequestration at the individual account level.
20
See, Sequestration as a Budget Enforcement Process: Frequently Asked Questions.
Congressional Research Service
16
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
USDA Agencies and Programs
About 95% of the total appropriation for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is funded
through the Agriculture appropriations bill. USDA was created in 1862 and carries out widely
varied responsibilities through about 17 agencies and about a dozen administrative offices staffed
by nearly 100,000 employees.
2125 Funding for about two-thirds of those employees is provided in
Agriculture appropriations. The remaining one-third of the employees are in the Forest Service
and are funded by the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
22
26
This report is organized in the order that the agencies are listed in the Agriculture appropriations
bill.
Organization of USDA
isIs Different Than the Appropriations Bill
Agriculture appropriations are not perfectly correlated with USDA spending. Agriculture appropriations include
the FDA and CFTC (that are outside USDA), and do not fund the Forest Service (that is part of USDA). The
Forest Service is funded in the Interior and Related Agencies appropriations bill.
Similarly, USDA spending is not synonymous with farm program spending. It includes programs that may not be
considered agricultural, such as nutrition assistance and rural development.
USDA divides its activities into mission areas that are different from how the appropriation is organized in titles.
Food and nutrition programs—with more than three-fourths of USDA
’'s budget—comprise USDA
’'s largest
mission area. This is Title IV of the appropriation.
The second-largest mission area, about one-eighth of USDA
’'s budget, is farm and foreign agricultural services.
This mission area is split between appropriations to Title I (domestic) and Title V (foreign trade and aid).
Five other mission areas share one-eighth of USDA
’'s budget, including natural resources, rural development,
research, marketing and regulatory programs, and food safety. In appropriations bills, rural development is
Title III, and conservation is Title II (the part of the natural resources mission area without the Forest Service).
The other three mission areas others are combined into Title I of the appropriation.
The type of funding (mandatory or discretionary) also is an important difference between how the appropriations
bill and USDA
’'s mission areas are organized.
USDA mission area totals include both mandatory and discretionary spending.
In the appropriation, conservation (Title II), rural development (Title III), and agricultural research (part of
Title I) include only discretionary amounts. Mandatory amounts for these programs are contained within the
Commodity Credit Corporation amount in Title I.
Departmental Administration23
Departmental Administration27
The Agriculture appropriations bill contains several accounts for the general administration of the
USDA, ranging from the immediate Office of the Secretary
, to the Office of Inspector General.
For FY2016, the House-reported bill would reduce the subtotal of administrative accounts by
about $11 million compared with FY2015, while the Senate-reported bill would reduce it by $2.3
million (
For FY2016, the enacted appropriation (P.L. 114-113) increases the administrative account subtotal by about $8.7 million (+2.4%) compared with FY2015, though most accounts are held constant (Table 4
). Most of the increase is for buildings and facilities ($8.3 million, +15%), though it is well below the $69 million increase requested by the Administration for). The Senate bill generally continues FY2015 funding levels for most accounts.
The House bill achieves most of its reductions in the accounts for Departmental Administration
and the Office of Communications. Neither bill funds the Administration’s request for $69 million
to continue making long-planned structural improvements to the USDA headquarters complex
(Whitten Building and South Building).
21
USDA, FY2016 Budget Summary, Feb. 2015, p. 126, at http://www.obpa.usda.gov/budsum/fy16budsum.pdf.
See CRS Report R44061, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations in Brief.
23
This section was written by Jim Monke (7-9664, jmonke@crs.loc.gov).
22
Congressional Research Service
17
(Whitten Building and South Building).
Table 4. USDA Departmental Administration Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
Agency or Major Program
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
P.L. 113-6
post-sequ.
P.L. 113-76
P.L. 113-235
FY2016
Admin.
Request
Change from FY2015
H. Cmte.
H.R. 3049
S. Cmte.
S. 1800
in House
Bill
in Senate
Bill
Senate
Compared
with
House
Office of the Secretary
Office of the Secretary
4.69
5.05
5.05
5.14
5.05
5.05
+0.00
+0.00
+0.00
Office of Tribal Relations
0.46
0.50
0.50
0.51
0.50
0.50
-0.00
+0.00
+0.00
—
—
—
0.25
—
0.25
+0.00
+0.25
+0.25
Office of Homeland Security
1.39
1.50
1.50
1.52
1.50
1.50
+0.00
+0.00
+0.00
Advocacy and Outreach
1.32
1.21
1.21
1.23
1.21
1.21
+0.00
+0.00
+0.00
Assistant Secretary for Admin.
0.75
0.80
0.80
0.82
0.80
0.80
+0.00
+0.00
+0.00
Departmental Administration
22.50
22.79
25.12
25.69
22.79
25.12
-2.34
+0.00
+2.34
Asst. Sec. Congressional Relations
3.59
3.87
3.87
3.93
3.06
3.87
-0.81
+0.00
+0.81
Office of Communications
8.36
8.07
7.75
8.23
4.47
7.75
-3.28
+0.00
+3.28
43.06
43.78
45.81
47.31
39.38
46.06
-6.43
+0.25
+6.68
Office of Chief Economist
15.01
16.78
17.38
17.47
16.78
16.78
-0.60
-0.60
+0.00
National Appeals Division
13.19
12.84
13.32
13.57
12.84
13.32
-0.48
+0.00
+0.48
8.35
9.06
9.39
9.50
9.08
9.39
-0.31
+0.00
+0.31
36.56
38.68
40.09
40.53
38.70
39.49
-1.39
-0.60
+0.79
40.65
44.03
45.05
53.07
44.03
45.05
-1.01
+0.00
+1.01
Chief Financial Officer
5.77
6.21
6.03
9.15
6.03
6.03
+0.00
+0.00
+0.00
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights
0.83
0.89
0.90
0.91
0.89
0.90
-0.01
+0.00
+0.01
21.02
21.40
24.07
24.44
23.87
24.07
-0.20
+0.00
+0.20
Military Veterans Agricultural Liaison
Subtotal
Executive Operations
Office of Budget, Program Analysis
Subtotal
Other Administration
Chief Information Officer
Office of Civil Rights
CRS-18
FY2013
Agency or Major Program
Buildings and
facilitiesa
P.L. 113-6
post-sequ.
FY2014
P.L. 113-76
FY2015
P.L. 113-235
FY2016
Admin.
Request
H. Cmte.
H.R. 3049
Change from FY2015
S. Cmte.
S. 1800
in House
Bill
in Senate
Bill
Senate
Compared
with
House
252.40
233.00
55.87
125.47
54.73
53.62
-1.14
-2.25
-1.11
3.70
3.59
3.60
3.63
3.60
3.62
+0.00
+0.02
+0.02
Office of Inspector General
82.30
89.90
95.03
98.90
95.64
95.29
+0.62
+0.27
-0.35
General Counsel
41.87
41.20
44.38
48.08
43.31
44.38
-1.07
+0.00
+1.07
Office of Ethics
3.14
3.44
3.65
4.57
3.44
3.65
-0.21
+0.00
+0.21
Subtotal
451.68
443.67
278.57
368.22
275.55
276.61
-3.02
-1.96
+1.06
531.30
526.13
364.46
456.06
353.63
362.15
-10.83
-2.31
+8.52
Hazardous materials management
Total, Departmental Administration
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports for the referenced appropriations acts or bills. Amounts for FY2013 are
the post-sequestration level from the USDA FY2013 Operating Plan.
a. Beginning in FY2015, the amount for buildings and facilities no longer includes rental payments to the GSA (General Services Administration) or DHS (Department
of Homeland Security), which amounted to $178 million in FY2014. Although the federal government owns many of the facilities in which agencies are housed,
USDA rents some buildings and facilities from private vendors, which are contracted through GSA. Rather than paying rental obligations from a central account,
rental expenses now are paid by the individual agencies and have been absorbed into their budgets. Therefore, amounts for buildings and facilities in this account
now refer to operations, maintenance, and improvements of primarily the USDA-owned headquarters complex (the Whitten Building and the South Building).
CRS-19
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Agricultural Research, Education, and Extension24
Agricultural research was one of the founding principles when USDA was created in 1862.
Contemporary research spans traditional, organic, and sustainable agricultural production;
bioenergy; nutrition; food safety; pests and diseases of plants and animals; and economics.
Four agencies carry out USDA’s research, education, and economics (REE) mission:25
The
FY2013
|
FY2014
|
FY2015
|
FY2016
|
|
Agency or Major Program
|
P.L. 113-6 post-sequ.
|
P.L. 113-76
|
P.L. 113-235
|
Admin. Request
|
H. Cmte. H.R. 3049
|
S. Cmte. S. 1800
|
P.L. 114-113
|
Change from FY2015 to FY2016 enacted
|
Office of the Secretary
|
|
Office of the Secretary
|
4.69
|
5.05
|
5.05
|
5.14
|
5.05
|
5.05
|
5.05
|
+0.0
|
+0.0%
|
|
Office of Tribal Relations
|
0.46
|
0.50
|
0.50
|
0.51
|
0.50
|
0.50
|
0.50
|
+0.0
|
+0.0%
|
|
Military Veterans Agricultural Liaison
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
0.25
|
—
|
0.25
|
—
|
+0.0
|
+0.0%
|
|
Office of Homeland Security
|
1.39
|
1.50
|
1.50
|
1.52
|
1.50
|
1.50
|
1.50
|
+0.0
|
+0.0%
|
|
Advocacy and Outreach
|
1.32
|
1.21
|
1.21
|
1.23
|
1.21
|
1.21
|
1.21
|
+0.0
|
+0.0%
|
|
Assistant Secretary for Admin.
|
0.75
|
0.80
|
0.80
|
0.82
|
0.80
|
0.80
|
0.80
|
+0.0
|
+0.0%
|
|
Departmental Administration
|
22.50
|
22.79
|
25.12
|
25.69
|
22.79
|
25.12
|
25.12
|
+0.0
|
+0.0%
|
|
Asst. Sec. Congressional Relations
|
3.59
|
3.87
|
3.87
|
3.93
|
3.06
|
3.87
|
3.87
|
+0.0
|
+0.0%
|
|
Office of Communications
|
8.36
|
8.07
|
7.75
|
8.23
|
4.47
|
7.75
|
7.50
|
-0.3
|
-3.2%
|
|
Subtotal
|
43.06
|
43.78
|
45.81
|
47.31
|
39.38
|
46.06
|
45.56
|
-0.3
|
-0.5%
|
Executive Operations
|
|
Office of Chief Economist
|
15.01
|
16.78
|
17.38
|
17.47
|
16.78
|
16.78
|
17.78
|
+0.4
|
+2.3%
|
|
National Appeals Division
|
13.19
|
12.84
|
13.32
|
13.57
|
12.84
|
13.32
|
13.32
|
+0.0
|
+0.0%
|
|
Office of Budget, Program Analysis
|
8.35
|
9.06
|
9.39
|
9.50
|
9.08
|
9.39
|
9.39
|
+0.0
|
+0.0%
|
|
Subtotal
|
36.56
|
38.68
|
40.09
|
40.53
|
38.70
|
39.49
|
40.49
|
+0.4
|
+1.0%
|
Other Administration
|
|
Chief Information Officer
|
40.65
|
44.03
|
45.05
|
53.07
|
44.03
|
45.05
|
44.54
|
-0.5
|
-1.1%
|
|
Chief Financial Officer
|
5.77
|
6.21
|
6.03
|
9.15
|
6.03
|
6.03
|
6.03
|
+0.0
|
+0.0%
|
|
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights
|
0.83
|
0.89
|
0.90
|
0.91
|
0.89
|
0.90
|
0.90
|
+0.0
|
+0.0%
|
|
Office of Civil Rights
|
21.02
|
21.40
|
24.07
|
24.44
|
23.87
|
24.07
|
24.07
|
+0.0
|
+0.0%
|
Buildings and facilitiesa
252.40
|
233.00
|
55.87
|
125.47
|
54.73
|
53.62
|
64.19
|
+8.3
|
+14.9%
|
|
Hazardous materials management
|
3.70
|
3.59
|
3.60
|
3.63
|
3.60
|
3.62
|
3.62
|
+0.0
|
+0.5%
|
|
Office of Inspector General
|
82.30
|
89.90
|
95.03
|
98.90
|
95.64
|
95.29
|
95.74
|
+0.7
|
+0.7%
|
|
General Counsel
|
41.87
|
41.20
|
44.38
|
48.08
|
43.31
|
44.38
|
44.38
|
+0.0
|
+0.0%
|
|
Office of Ethics
|
3.14
|
3.44
|
3.65
|
4.57
|
3.44
|
3.65
|
3.65
|
+0.0
|
+0.0%
|
|
Subtotal
|
451.68
|
443.67
|
278.57
|
368.22
|
275.55
|
276.61
|
287.12
|
+8.5
|
+3.1%
|
|
Total, Departmental Administration
|
531.30
|
526.13
|
364.46
|
456.06
|
353.63
|
362.15
|
373.16
|
+8.7
|
+2.4%
|
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports for the referenced appropriations acts or bills. Amounts for FY2013 are the post-sequestration level from the USDA FY2013 Operating Plan.
a.
Beginning in FY2015, the amount for buildings and facilities no longer includes rental payments to the GSA (General Services Administration) or DHS (Department of Homeland Security), which amounted to $178 million in FY2014. Although the federal government owns many of the facilities in which agencies are housed, USDA rents some buildings and facilities from private vendors, which are contracted through GSA. Rather than paying rental obligations from a central account, rental expenses now are paid by the individual agencies and have been absorbed into their budgets. Therefore, amounts for buildings and facilities in this account now refer to operations, maintenance, and improvements of primarily the USDA-owned headquarters complex (the Whitten Building and the South Building).
Agricultural Research, Education, and Extension28
Agricultural research was one of the founding principles when USDA was created in 1862. Contemporary research spans traditional, organic, and sustainable agricultural production; bioenergy; nutrition; food safety; pests and diseases of plants and animals; and economics.
Four agencies carry out USDA's research, education, and economics (REE) mission:29
The Agricultural Research Service (ARS), USDA
’'s intramural science agency,
conducts long-term, high-risk, basic and applied research on food and agriculture
issues of national and regional importance.
The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) distributes competitive
grants and formula-based funding to land grant colleges of agriculture to provide
partial support for state-level research, education, and extension.
The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) collects and publishes
national, state, and county statistics. NASS also is responsible for the five-year
cycle of the Census of Agriculture.
The Economic Research Service (ERS) provides economic analysis of issues
regarding public and private interests in agriculture, natural resources, and food.
For FY2016, the USDA research mission area
would receive $2.691 billion in the House
committee-reported bill and $2.684 billion in the Senate committee-reported bill (receives $2.936 billion, an increase of $211 million over FY2015 (Table 5
). Most of the increase is for ARS buildings and facilities ($167 million) and the flagship NIFA competitive grant program (+$25 million), while most other accounts are held constant or nearly constant compared to FY2015. The enacted appropriation, like the House and Senate bills, does). These
amounts are decreases of 1.2% and 1.5%, respectively, from the FY2015 level. The President
requested $3.167 billion, an increase of 16%. The committee-reported bills for FY2016 generally
are flat for most research programs and do not follow most of the proposed changes in priorities
in the request.
Agricultural Research Service
For FY2016, the House-reported bill would provide $1.168 billion for ARS, and the Senatereported bill $1.137 billion. The amount for FY2015 was slightly higher compared to each bill, at
$1.178 billion. Within the proposed amounts, the House bill would continue a constant $45
million for buildings and facilities, while the Senate bill has nothing for buildings and facilities
(Table 5). The President requested 5% more for salaries and expenses, and more than four times
the FY2015 or House-reported amount for buildings and facilities.
in the Administration's request.
Agricultural Research Service
The Agricultural Research Service is USDA's in-house basic and applied research agency. It operates approximately 90 laboratories nationwide with about 7,400 employees. ARS also operates the National Agricultural Library, one of the Department's primary information repositories for food, agriculture, and natural resource sciences. ARS laboratories focus on efficient food and fiber production, development of new products and uses for agricultural commodities, development of effective controls for pest management, and support of USDA regulatory and technical assistance programs.
For FY2016, the enacted appropriation provides $1.144 billion for ARS salaries and expenses, an increase of $11 million over FY2015 (+1%; Table 5). The President had requested a 5% increase for salaries and expenses.
ARS had proposed increases across several programmatic areas for prioritized research projects,
coupled with reductions in funding for several existing programs. Both the House and Senate
committees expressly rejected many, if not most, of those specific reductions and reprogramming.
Both of the
The explanatory statement for the omnibus and the individual committee reports address deficient animal welfare conditions
that were uncovered at ARS
research facilities, particularly at the ARS Meat Animal Research Center in Nebraska.
26 Both
committees instruct30 In the appropriations act and via report language, Congress instructs ARS to comply with Animal Welfare Act standards, allow animal welfare
inspections by a USDA sister agency (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, APHIS),
review and update its own animal care policies, and certify progress with the committees.
The
House billAlso, via explanatory statements for the Office of the Secretary, all House and Senate requirements on this issue are to be followed. This therefore includes House report language that further withholds 5% of the ARS appropriation until USDA certifies that it has updated
its policies and has functioning Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees.
24
This section was written by Jim Monke (7-9664, jmonke@crs.loc.gov).
See CRS Report R40819, Agricultural Research: Background and Issues.
26
See CRS Report R44091, Meat Animal Research Center: The Animal Welfare Act and Farm Animal Research.
25
Congressional Research Service
20
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
For the buildings and facilities account, which comprises most of the difference between the
request and the committee-reported bills, the House bill would provide $45 million “for priorities
identified in the USDA ARS Capital Investment Strategy,”27 the same as in FY2015. The Senate
bill contains nothing for ARS buildings and facilities. ARS’ top facilities priority is the
construction of a biocontainment laboratory at its poultry research facility in Athens, GA.
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
For FY2016, the House-reported bill would provide $1.285 billion for NIFA, and the Senatereported bill $1.294 billion (Table 5). These amounts are within 0.4% of the FY2015 amount of
$1.290 billion. The President requested $1.503 billion for NIFA, 17% over the FY2015 amount.
USDA had proposed to merge NIFA’s three primary accounts (Research and Education,
Extension, and Integrated Activities) into a single NIFA-wide account. Congress effectively
rejected that proposal by continuing to fund each of the accounts separately as in past years.
The Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI), USDA’s flagship competitive grants
program with 25% of NIFA’s total budget, would receive $335 million in the House bill, and a
constant $325 million in the Senate-reported bill. The House-proposed amount is a $10 million
increase over FY2015, smaller than the $125 million increase requested by USDA.
Formula-funded programs are held constant in the House- and Senate-reported bills. Neither bill
provides funding for the Administration’s proposal to add a competitive portion to the normally
formula-funded “capacity awards” programs such as the Hatch Act. The House report notes a lack
of state matching funding for some historically black colleges and universities and directs USDA
to develop a plan to work with the states to meet the matching requirements.28
The Administration had proposed $80 million to establish two new “Innovation Institutes” as
public-private partnerships. Like last year, neither chambers’ bill would fund this proposal.
The President’s request would have consolidated federal science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) education funding so that USDA would no longer provide Higher
Education Challenge Grants, Graduate and Post-graduate Fellowship Grants, Higher Education
Multicultural Scholars Program, Women and Minorities in STEM Program, Agriculture in the
Classroom, and Secondary/Postsecondary Challenge Grants. Both chambers’ bills reject that
proposal and continue to fund the programs at FY2015 levels.
National Agricultural Statistics Service
For FY2016, the House-reported bill would provide NASS $161 million and the Senate-reported
bill $168 million, decreases of 6.5% and 2.5%, respectively, from FY2015. The President’s
request was $180 million, an increase of 5% over FY2015.
Economic Research Service
For FY2016, the House-reported bill would provide ERS $78 million (-8.6% from FY2015), and
the Senate-reported bill $85 million (the same as FY2015). USDA had requested $86 million.
27
USDA-ARS, The USDA Agricultural Research Service Capital Investment Strategy, April 2012, at http://www.ars.
usda.gov/sp2UserFiles/Subsite/ARSLegisAffrs/USDA_ARS_Capital_Investment_Strategy_FINAL_eeo.pdf.
28
Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities, Land-Grant but Unequal: State One-to-One Match Funding for
1890 Land-Grant Universities, September 2013, at http://www.aplu.org/library/land-grant-but-unequal-state-one-toone-match-funding-for-1890-land-grant-universities/file.
Congressional Research Service
21
Table 5. USDA Research, Extension, and Economics (REE) Appropriations
Budget authority in millions of dollars
Agency or Major Program
Agricultural Research Service
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
P.L. 113-6
post-sequ.
P.L. 113-76
P.L. 113-235
FY2016
Admin.
Request
H. Cmte.
H.R. 3049
Change from FY2015
S. Cmte.
S. 1800
in House
Bill
in Senate
Bill
Senate
Compared
With
House
1,016.9
1,122.5
1,132.6
1,191.5
1,122.5
1,136.8
-10.2
+4.2
+14.4
—
—
45.0
205.9
45.0
0.0
+0.0
-45.0
-45.0
1,016.9
1,122.5
1,177.6
1,397.4
1,167.5
1,136.8
-10.2
-40.8
-30.6
AFRI (competitive grants)
275.6
316.4
325.0
450.0
335.0
325.0
+10.0
+0.0
-10.0
Hatch Act (1862 institutions)
218.6
243.7
243.7
243.7
243.7
243.7
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Evans-Allen (1890s institutions)
47.1
52.5
52.5
58.0
52.5
52.5
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
McIntire-Stennis (forestry)
30.5
34.0
34.0
34.0
34.0
34.0
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Other
111.5
126.0
131.7
212.9
116.4
135.9
-15.4
+4.2
+19.6
Subtotal
683.2
772.6
786.9
998.6
781.5
791.1
-5.4
+4.2
+9.6
271.3
300.0
300.0
300.0
300.0
300.0
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Smith-Lever (d)
91.7
85.5
85.5
85.7
85.5
102.7
+0.0
+17.2
+17.2
Other
76.1
83.7
86.2
89.8
86.5
86.2
+0.4
+0.0
-0.4
439.1
469.2
471.7
475.6
472.1
488.9
+0.4
+17.2
+16.8
19.8
35.3
30.9
28.9
30.9
13.7
+0.0
-17.2
-17.2
1,142.0
1,277.1
1,289.5
1,503.1
1,284.5
1,293.7
-5.0
+4.2
+9.2
166.6
161.2
172.4
180.3
161.2
168.1
-11.2
-4.3
+6.9
71.4
78.1
85.4
86.0
78.1
85.4
-7.3
+0.0
+7.3
2,397.0
2,638.8
2,724.9
3,166.9
2,691.2
2,684.0
-33.7
-40.9
-7.2
Buildings and Facilities
Subtotal, ARS
National Institute of Food & Agriculture
Research and Education
Extension
Smith-Lever (b) & (c)
Subtotal
Integrated Activities
Subtotal, NIFA
National Agricultural Statistics Service
Economic Research Service
Total, REE appropriation
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports for the referenced appropriations acts or bills.
CRS-22
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Marketing and Regulatory Programs
Three agencies carry out USDA’s marketing and regulatory programs mission area: the Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), and the
Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA).
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service29
APHIS is responsible for protecting U.S. agriculture from domestic and foreign pests and
diseases, responding to domestic animal and plant health problems, and facilitating agricultural
trade through science-based standards. Prominent concerns include avian influenza (AI), bovine
spongiform encephalopathy (BSE or “mad cow disease”), bovine tuberculosis, invasive plant
pests (e.g., emerald ash borer, the Asian long-horned beetle, glassy-winged sharpshooter), and a
national animal identification program. APHIS administers the Animal Welfare Act, which
protects animals used in research and public exhibitions, and administers the Wildlife Services
Program to resolve human/wildlife conflicts and to protect against wildlife damage.
For FY2016, the House-reported bill (H.R. 3049) would provide $874.1 million for APHIS
programs, with $870.9 million for salaries and expenses and $3.2 million for building and
facilities (Table 6). This is nearly the same as for FY2015 and $15 million more than requested.
The Senate-reported bill (S. 1800) would provide $879.6 million for APHIS, $5 million more
than the House bill. Both bills would provide more to specialty crop pests and less to zoonotic
disease management than the Administration requested.
Table 6. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2015
P.L. 113235
FY2016
Admin.
Request
H. Cmte.
H.R. 3049
S. Cmte.
S. 1800
Animal Health
287.6
295.8
293.3
288.2
Plant Health
305.4
285.3
298.9
306.4
Wildlife Services
108.9
99.5
108.9
111.5
Regulatory Services
35.1
35.2
35.1
35.1
Emergency Preparedness, Contingency
17.4
17.5
17.4
17.4
Safe Trade, International Tech. Assist.
36.2
41.8
36.2
37.2
Animal Welfare
28.7
28.8
29.1
28.7
Administrative Funds
52.0
52.0
52.0
52.0
871.3
855.8
870.9
876.5
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
874.5
859.0
874.1
879.6
Subtotal, salaries and expenses
Buildings and facilities
Total, APHIS
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports for the
referenced appropriations acts or bills.
29
This section was written by Tadlock Cowan (7-7600, tcowan@crs.loc.gov), with assistance for avian influenza from
Joel L. Greene (7-9877, jgreene@crs.loc.gov).
Congressional Research Service
23
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Both the House and Senate bills continue to provide $470,000 (available until expended) for a
contingency fund to control outbreaks of insects, plant diseases, animal diseases and for control
of pest animals and birds. For larger outbreaks, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
and congressional appropriators have sparred for years over whether APHIS should—as
appropriators have preferred—reach as needed into USDA’s Commodity Credit Corporation
(CCC) account for mandatory funds to deal with emergency plant and animal health problems,30
or use primarily funds from the annual appropriation, as OMB has argued. For example, in
FY2015 APHIS received about $700 million in CCC funds to control highly pathogenic avian
influenza (HPAI). Both the House and Senate reports recognize APHIS work on HPAI, and the
Senate report specifically calls for APHIS to continue to utilize CCC funds as needed.
Within the animal welfare portion, the House bill includes a $400,000 increase to support a
memorandum of understanding between APHIS and the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) to
address concerns at the ARS Meat Animal Research Center. The House bill also expresses
concern about APHIS’ regulatory backlog to review biotechnology product petitions.
Both the House and Senate bills would prohibit USDA from using any funds to implement,
administer, or enforce the APHIS rules that allow the import of fresh beef from Brazil and
Argentina until USDA fulfills several requirements (§749 of H.R. 3049; §743 of S. 1800). Both
provisions require that APHIS conduct a comprehensive risk evaluation of importing beef from
these two countries. The House provision requires additional onsite inspections of beef slaughter
and processing facilities in Brazil and Argentina. The Senate provision requires USDA to update
an animal disease risk assessment report, and report to Congress how it is addressing a GAO
report on the veterinarian workforce and its response to animal disease outbreaks.
Agricultural Marketing Service and “Section 32”
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) administers numerous programs that facilitate the
marketing of U.S. agricultural products in domestic and international markets. AMS each year
receives appropriations in two different ways. A discretionary appropriation of about $80 million
funds a variety of marketing activities. A larger mandatory spending amount of about $1.2 billion
(funds for strengthening markets, income, and supply; or “Section 32”) finances various types of
ad hoc decisions that support agricultural commodities (such as meat, poultry, fruits, and
vegetables) that are not supported through the direct subsidy programs for the primary field crops
(corn, soybeans, wheat, rice, and peanuts) and dairy. User fees also support some AMS activities.
Marketing Activities31
For FY2016, the House-reported bill (H.R. 3049) provides $82.0 million for the salaries,
expenses, and payments to states and possessions for marketing activities. The Senate-reported
bill (S. 1800) provides $82.4 million, level with the FY2015 appropriation. The Administration
requested $84.4 million for FY2016.
The AMS appropriation includes $1.2 million for payments to states and possessions through the
Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program. This program provides matching grants to state
marketing agencies to explore new market opportunities for U.S. food and agricultural products,
and to encourage research and innovation to improve marketing efficiency and performance.
30
As authorized in the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. §§8310 and 8316, §§10411 and 10417) and the Plant
Protection Act (7 U.S.C. §§7751 and 7772, §§431 and 442).
31
This section was written by Joel L. Greene (7-9877, jgreene@crs.loc.gov).
Congressional Research Service
24
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
The AMS discretionary appropriation funds four main areas: market news service, shell egg
surveillance and standardization, market protection and promotion, and transportation and
marketing. The market news program collects, analyzes, and disseminates market information on
a wide number of commodities. The shell egg program ensures egg quality and reviews and
maintains egg standards. As part of market protection and promotion programs, AMS administers
the pesticide data program, the National Organic Program (NOP), the seed program, country-oforigin labeling (COOL), and 22 commodity research and promotion (checkoff) programs. AMS
monitors the agriculture transportation system and conducts market analysis that supports the
transport of agriculture products domestically and internationally.
AMS collects user fees and reimbursements to cover AMS-administered activities such as product
quality and process verification programs, commodity grading, and Perishable Agricultural
Commodities Act licensing. AMS expects to collect about $231 million in user fees in FY2015
and $233 million in FY2016. Both the House and Senate bills place a $61.0-million limit on the
amount of user fees that AMS may collect for grading and classifying cotton and tobacco.32 AMS
also administers several 2014 farm bill programs that have mandatory funding and are designed
to support specialty crops, farmers markets, local foods, and organic certification.33
Section 32 (Funds for Strengthening Markets, Income, and Supply) 34
AMS’s mandatory appropriation reflects a transfer from the so-called Section 32, which is a
program created in 1935 to assist agricultural producers of non-price-supported commodities. The
Section 32 account is funded by a permanent appropriation of 30% of the previous calendar
year’s customs receipts ($10.3 billion in FY2016), less certain mandatory transfers to child
nutrition and other programs ($9.0 billion in FY2016).35
Section 32 monies available for obligation by AMS have been used at the Secretary’s discretion
to purchase agricultural commodities like meat, poultry, fruits, vegetables, and fish, which are not
typically covered by mandatory farm programs. These commodities are diverted to school lunch
and other domestic food and nutrition programs. Section 32 has also been used to fund surplus
removal and farm economic and disaster relief activities.
The 2008 farm bill (§14222) capped the annual amount of Section 32 funds available for
obligation by AMS in FY2016 at $1.303 billion. Also, to increase the amount of fruits and
vegetables purchased under Section 32, Congress limited USDA’s discretion in two ways: (1)
§4304 of the 2008 farm bill established a fresh fruit and vegetable school snack program funded
by carving out Section 32 funds (set at $40 million in 2008, rising to $150 million in 2011, and
adjusted for inflation for each year thereafter), and (2) §4404 of the 2008 farm bill required
additional purchases of fruits, vegetables, and nuts (set at $190 million in FY2008, rising to $206
million in FY2012, and remaining at that level each year thereafter). Section 4214 of the 2014
32
Authorized by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-35).
Separate from the appropriations process, the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79) authorized mandatory funding for four
AMS-administered programs as follows: $72.5 million (annually, FY2014-2017) and $85 million (annually, FY2018
and thereafter) for specialty crop block grants, $15 million (annually, FY2014-2018) for farmers’ market promotion,
$15 million (annually, FY2014-2018) for local food promotion, and a set-aside (estimated at $12.5 million in FY2015)
for AMS share of costs to support organic certification. For FY2015, AMS expects to administer an estimated $106.6
million of these mandatory farm bill initiatives, and $115 million in FY2016.
34
This section was written by Jim Monke (7-9664. jmonke@crs.loc.gov).
35
For more details about Section 32 and the farm bill changes, see CRS Report RL34081, Farm and Food Support
Under USDA’s Section 32 Program.
33
Congressional Research Service
25
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
farm bill expanded the school snack program to include frozen, canned, and dried fruits and
vegetables on a pilot basis for the 2014-15 school year.
The enacted FY2016 appropriation provides $1.425 billion of Section 32 funds for AMS, which
compares with $1.284 billion enacted in FY2015. The FY2016 amount is reduced by $216
million (rescission) and $77 million (sequestration), and is considered mandatory spending.
The House- and Senate-reported bills both continue a provision (§715) that has appeared since
FY2012 that effectively prohibits the use of Section 32 for emergency disaster payments:
[N]one of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this or any other Act
shall be used to pay the salaries or expenses of any employee of the Department of
Agriculture or officer of the Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out clause 3 of
Section 32 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1935 (P.L. 74-320, 7 U.S.C. 612c, as
amended), or for any surplus removal activities or price support activities under section 5
of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act.36
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration37
USDA’s Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) oversees the
marketing of U.S. grain, oilseeds, livestock, poultry, meat, and other commodities. The Federal
Grain Inspection Service establishes standards for the inspection, weighing, and grading of grain,
rice, and other commodities. The Packers and Stockyards Program monitors livestock and poultry
markets to ensure fair competition and guard against deceptive and fraudulent trade practices.
For FY2016, the GIPSA appropriation in both the House-reported (H.R. 3049) and Senatereported (S. 1800) bills is $43.0 million for salaries and expenses, the same as enacted for
FY2015. The Administration requested a FY2016 appropriation of $44.1 million. Also, both bills
authorize GIPSA to collect up to $55 million in user fees for inspection and weighing services. If
grain export activity requires additional services, the user fee limit may be exceeded by up to
10% upon notification to the House and Senate appropriations committees.
In response to grain inspection disruptions at the Port of Vancouver in the state of Washington,38
the Senate bill report (S. Rept. 114-82) directs USDA to develop and implement contingency
plans to ensure that official grain inspection and weighing services resume as quickly as possible
should an interruption in service occur. Also, USDA is to ensure that persons requesting official
inspection and weighing services are informed immediately of the nature of the emergency,
promptly implement the necessary mitigations to address any concerns, and provide regular
updates should any disruption persist. These issues were addressed subsequently in the grain
inspection reauthorization act (P.L. 114-54).
For the first time since FY2012, the House bill does not include a rider prohibiting USDA from
finalizing or implementing parts of GIPSA’s proposed rule on livestock and poultry marketing
practices (75 Federal Register 35338, June 22, 2010) that were required in the 2008 farm bill.39
36
Clause 3 of Section 32 provides that funds shall be used to reestablish farmers’ purchasing power by making
payments in connections with the normal production of any agricultural commodity for domestic consumption (7.U.S.C
612c). Section 5 of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act authorizes the CCC to support the prices of
agricultural commodities through loans, purchases, payments, and other operations (15 U.S.C. 714c).
37
This section was written by Joel L. Greene (7-9877, jgreene@crs.loc.gov).
38
See CRS Report R43803, U.S. Grain Standards Act: Potential Reauthorization in the 114th Congress, pp. 9-11.
39
See CRS Report R41673, USDA’s “GIPSA Rule” on Livestock and Poultry Marketing Practices.
Congressional Research Service
26
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)40
The House-reported bill, H.R. 3049, would appropriate $1.012 billion for FY2016, identical to
the Administration’s request, but about $2 million less than the Senate-reported bill, S. 1800,
which would appropriate $1.014 billion. Appropriations are augmented by existing (currently
authorized) user fees that FSIS estimates to be nearly $180 million per year.41 FSIS appropriations
are divided between various sub-accounts, including federal, state, and international inspection;
Codex Alimentarius; and the Public Health Data Communications Infrastructure System. The
difference between the bills is that the Senate, compared with the House, provides more funding
for federal inspection, and less for state and international inspection and Codex. The
Administration has re-proposed a user fee of $4 million to cover additional inspection costs
associated with performance issues at inspected facilities. In previous budget debates, the enacted
appropriations have not included this user fee proposal.
Both committee bills would require that FSIS have no fewer than 148 FTEs dedicated to the
inspection and enforcement of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA). The Senate
committee also directs FSIS to ensure compliance with humane handling rules for live animals
and to continue to provide certain annual reports to Congress. Both the House and Senate
committees also express concern that FSIS has not yet implemented the catfish inspection
program, its policies and has functioning Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees.
For the ARS buildings and facilities account, the enacted appropriation provides $212 million, an increase of $167 million over FY2015 for an account that had received no appropriation for several years. Like in FY2015, the funding is to be used for priorities that are identified in the "USDA ARS Capital Investment Strategy."31 ARS's top facilities priorities are the construction of a biocontainment laboratory at its poultry research facility in Athens, GA ($145 million); a foreign disease-weed science facility in Frederick, MD ($70 million); and an animal science, human nutrition, and bee research center in Beltsville, MD ($33 million).
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
The National Institute of Food and Agriculture provides federal funding for research, education, and extension projects conducted in partnership with the State Agricultural Experiment Stations, the State Cooperative Extension System, land grant universities, colleges, and other research and education institutions, as well as individual researchers. These partnerships include the 1862 land-grant institutions, 1890 historically black colleges and universities, 1994 tribal land-grant colleges, and Hispanic-serving institutions.32 Federal funds enhance capacity at universities and institutions by statutory formula funding, competitive awards, and grants.
For FY2016, the enacted appropriation provides $1.327 billion for NIFA, an increase of $37 million over FY2015 (+2.9%; Table 5). The President had requested $1.503 billion for NIFA.
USDA had proposed to merge NIFA's three primary accounts (Research and Education, Extension, and Integrated Activities) into a single NIFA-wide account. Congress effectively rejected that proposal by continuing to fund each of the accounts separately as in past years.
The Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI)—USDA's flagship competitive grants program with 25% of NIFA's total budget—receives $350 million, an increase of $25 million.
Formula-funded programs are held constant, with the exception of Evans-Allen funding for historically black colleges and universities, which receive a $1.7 million increase (+3%). The appropriation rejects an Administration proposal that would have added a competitive portion to the normally formula-funded "capacity awards" programs such as the Hatch Act. The House report noted a lack of state matching funding for some historically black colleges and universities and directed USDA to develop a plan to work with the states to meet the matching requirements.33
The Administration had proposed $80 million to establish two new "Innovation Institutes" as public-private partnerships. Like last year, the enacted appropriation ignores this proposal.
The President's request would have consolidated federal science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education funding so that USDA would no longer provide Higher Education Challenge Grants, Graduate and Post-graduate Fellowship Grants, Higher Education Multicultural Scholars Program, Women and Minorities in STEM Program, Agriculture in the Classroom, and Secondary/Postsecondary Challenge Grants. The appropriation rejects that proposal and continues to fund the programs in USDA at FY2015 levels.
National Agricultural Statistics Service
The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) conducts the Census of Agriculture and provides official statistics on agricultural production and indicators of the economic and environmental status of the farm sector.
For FY2016, the enacted appropriation provides NASS $168 million, a decrease of $4 million (-2%) from FY2015. The President's request was $180 million, which would have been an increase of 5% over FY2015.
Economic Research Service
The Economic Research Service supports economic and social science information analysis on agriculture, rural development, food, commodity markets, and the environment. It collects and disseminates data concerning USDA programs and policies to various stakeholders.
For FY2016, the enacted appropriation provides ERS $85 million, which is the same as FY2015. USDA had requested $86 million.
Table 5. USDA Research, Extension, and Economics (REE) Appropriations
Budget authority in millions of dollars
|
FY2013
|
FY2014
|
FY2015
|
FY2016
|
|
Agency or Major Program
|
P.L. 113-6 post-sequ.
|
P.L. 113-76
|
P.L. 113-235
|
Admin. Request
|
H. Cmte. H.R. 3049
|
S. Cmte. S. 1800
|
P.L. 114-113
|
Change from FY2015 to FY2016 enacted
|
|
Agricultural Research Service
|
1,016.9
|
1,122.5
|
1,132.6
|
1,191.5
|
1,122.5
|
1,136.8
|
1,143.8
|
+11.2
|
+1.0%
|
|
Buildings and Facilities
|
—
|
—
|
45.0
|
205.9
|
45.0
|
0.0
|
212.1
|
+167.1
|
+371.3%
|
|
Subtotal, ARS
|
1,016.9
|
1,122.5
|
1,177.6
|
1,397.4
|
1,167.5
|
1,136.8
|
1,355.9
|
+178.3
|
+15.1%
|
National Institute of Food & Agriculture
|
Research and Education
|
|
AFRI (competitive grants)
|
275.6
|
316.4
|
325.0
|
450.0
|
335.0
|
325.0
|
350.0
|
+25.0
|
+7.7%
|
|
Hatch Act (1862 institutions)
|
218.6
|
243.7
|
243.7
|
243.7
|
243.7
|
243.7
|
243.7
|
+0.0
|
+0.0%
|
|
Evans-Allen (1890s institutions)
|
47.1
|
52.5
|
52.5
|
58.0
|
52.5
|
52.5
|
54.2
|
+1.7
|
+3.2%
|
|
McIntire-Stennis (forestry)
|
30.5
|
34.0
|
34.0
|
34.0
|
34.0
|
34.0
|
34.0
|
+0.0
|
+0.0%
|
|
Other
|
111.5
|
126.0
|
131.7
|
212.9
|
116.4
|
135.9
|
137.8
|
+6.1
|
+4.6%
|
|
Subtotal
|
683.2
|
772.6
|
786.9
|
998.6
|
781.5
|
791.1
|
819.7
|
+32.8
|
+4.2%
|
Extension
|
|
Smith-Lever (b) & (c)
|
271.3
|
300.0
|
300.0
|
300.0
|
300.0
|
300.0
|
300.0
|
+0.0
|
+0.0%
|
|
Smith-Lever (d)
|
91.7
|
85.5
|
85.5
|
85.7
|
85.5
|
102.7
|
85.5
|
+0.0
|
+0.0%
|
|
Other
|
76.1
|
83.7
|
86.2
|
89.8
|
86.5
|
86.2
|
90.4
|
+4.2
|
+4.9%
|
|
Subtotal
|
439.1
|
469.2
|
471.7
|
475.6
|
472.1
|
488.9
|
475.9
|
+4.2
|
+0.9%
|
|
Integrated Activities
|
19.8
|
35.3
|
30.9
|
28.9
|
30.9
|
13.7
|
30.9
|
+0.0
|
+0.0%
|
|
Subtotal, NIFA
|
1,142.0
|
1,277.1
|
1,289.5
|
1,503.1
|
1,284.5
|
1,293.7
|
1,326.5
|
+37.0
|
+2.9%
|
|
National Agricultural Statistics Service
|
166.6
|
161.2
|
172.4
|
180.3
|
161.2
|
168.1
|
168.4
|
-4.0
|
-2.3%
|
|
Economic Research Service
|
71.4
|
78.1
|
85.4
|
86.0
|
78.1
|
85.4
|
85.4
|
+0.0
|
+0.0%
|
|
Total, REE appropriation
|
2,397.0
|
2,638.8
|
2,724.9
|
3,166.9
|
2,691.2
|
2,684.0
|
2,936.2
|
+211.3
|
+7.8%
|
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports for the referenced appropriations acts or bills.
Marketing and Regulatory Programs
Three agencies carry out USDA's marketing and regulatory programs mission area: the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), and the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA).
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service34
APHIS is responsible for protecting U.S. agriculture from domestic and foreign pests and diseases, responding to domestic animal and plant health problems, and facilitating agricultural trade through science-based standards. Prominent concerns include avian influenza, bovine spongiform encephalopathy ("mad cow disease"), foot-and-mouth disease, invasive plant pests (e.g., emerald ash borer, glassy-winged sharpshooter, Asian long-horned beetle). APHIS also administers the Animal Welfare Act to protect animals in research and public exhibitions, and administers the Wildlife Services Program to protect against wildlife damage.
For FY2016, the enacted appropriation provides $897.6 million for APHIS programs, comprised of $894.4 million for salaries and expenses and $3.2 million for building and facilities (Table 6). This is $23.1 million more than FY2015 (+2.6%), and $38.6 million more than requested.
Table 6. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2015
|
FY2016
|
P.L. 113-235
|
Admin. Request
|
H. Cmte. H.R. 3049
|
S. Cmte. S. 1800
|
P.L. 114-113
|
|
Animal Health
|
287.6
|
295.8
|
293.3
|
288.2
|
295.2
|
|
Plant Health
|
305.4
|
285.3
|
298.9
|
306.4
|
308.4
|
|
Wildlife Services
|
108.9
|
99.5
|
108.9
|
111.5
|
120.0
|
|
Regulatory Services
|
35.1
|
35.2
|
35.1
|
35.1
|
35.1
|
|
Emergency Preparedness, Contingency
|
17.4
|
17.5
|
17.4
|
17.4
|
17.4
|
|
Safe Trade, International Tech. Assist.
|
36.2
|
41.8
|
36.2
|
37.2
|
37.2
|
|
Animal Welfare
|
28.7
|
28.8
|
29.1
|
28.7
|
29.1
|
|
Administrative Funds
|
52.0
|
52.0
|
52.0
|
52.0
|
52.0
|
|
Subtotal, salaries and expenses
|
871.3
|
855.8
|
870.9
|
876.5
|
894.4
|
|
Buildings and facilities
|
3.2
|
3.2
|
3.2
|
3.2
|
3.2
|
|
Total, APHIS
|
874.5
|
859.0
|
874.1
|
879.6
|
897.6
|
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports.
The act provides a net increase of $22 million for high-priority initiatives to control outbreaks of insects, plant diseases, animal diseases, and for control of pest animals and birds. For larger outbreaks, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and congressional appropriators have sparred for years over whether APHIS should—as appropriators have preferred—reach as needed into USDA's Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) account for mandatory funds to deal with emergency plant and animal health problems,35 or use primarily funds from the annual appropriation, as OMB has argued. In FY2015, USDA transferred an unusually large amount, about $1 billion, from CCC for highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) response activities.
The enacted appropriation provides an additional $3 million for APHIS avian health to help federal and state agencies, stakeholders, and growers implement surveillance and biosecurity to halt the spread of HPAI. The act directs USDA to report to Congress on the amount of emergency funds that were transferred from the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to poultry owners and growers in FY2015. USDA is also required to inform Congress of HPAI developments and to give Congress a 15-day notification if further CCC funds are transferred for HPAI emergencies.36
In response to APHIS rule-making to allow imports of beef from Brazil and Argentina, Section 752 of the appropriation directs APHIS to establish a prioritization process for audits and reviews for countries that have been granted animal health status. APHIS is to provide the Appropriations and Agriculture committees a description of its prioritization process by April 2016. APHIS is required to conduct audits based on factors as defined in regulations for determinations of animal health status,37 and to promptly make audit reports publicly available. The section also requires that the audits be conducted in a manner consistent with U.S. international trade agreements.
Within the animal welfare portion, the enacted bill includes a $400,000 increase to support a memorandum of understanding between APHIS and the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) to provide oversight of animal research at ARS facilities. In early 2015, a New York Times article about activities at the Meat Animal Research Center, an Agricultural Research Service (ARS) facility, led to a USDA investigation of all ARS facilities that used animals in their research.
Agricultural Marketing Service and "Section 32"
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) administers numerous programs that facilitate the marketing of U.S. agricultural products in domestic and international markets. AMS each year receives appropriations in two different ways. A discretionary appropriation of about $80 million funds a variety of marketing activities. A larger mandatory spending amount of about $1.2 billion (funds for strengthening markets, income, and supply; or "Section 32") finances various types of ad hoc decisions that support agricultural commodities (such as meat, poultry, fruits, and vegetables) that are not supported through the direct subsidy programs for the primary field crops (corn, soybeans, wheat, rice, and peanuts) and dairy. User fees also support some AMS activities.
Marketing Activities38
For FY2016, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (P.L. 114-113) provides $81.22 million for AMS salaries, expenses, and $1.23 million for payments to states and possessions for marketing activities. This $82.5 million total is fractionally more than in FY2015, but is $1.9 million less than the Administration requested.
The AMS discretionary appropriation funds four main marketing activities: market news service, shell egg surveillance and standardization, market protection and promotion, and transportation and marketing. The market news program collects, analyzes, and disseminates market information on a wide number of commodities. The shell egg program ensures egg quality and reviews and maintains egg standards. As part of market protection and promotion programs, AMS administers the pesticide data program, the National Organic Program (NOP), the seed program, the country-of-origin labeling (COOL) program, and 22 commodity research and promotion (checkoff) programs. AMS monitors the agriculture transportation system and conducts market analysis that supports the transport of agricultural products domestically and internationally.
The AMS appropriation includes $1.23 million for payments to states and possessions through the Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program. This program provides matching grants to state marketing agencies to explore new market opportunities for U.S. food and agricultural products, and to encourage research and innovation to improve marketing efficiency and performance.
AMS collects user fees and reimbursements to cover product quality and process verification programs, commodity grading, and Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act licensing. AMS expects to collect about $233 million in FY2016. The appropriation places a $61 million limit on the amount of user fees that AMS may collect for grading and classifying cotton and tobacco.39 AMS also administers several 2014 farm bill programs that have mandatory funding and are designed to support specialty crops, farmers markets, local foods, and organic certification.40
The appropriation carries a significant policy development; it repeals country-of-origin labeling (COOL) requirements for beef and pork and ground beef and pork (§759).41 U.S. COOL requirements have been in force since 2004 for fish and seafood, and for other commodities, such as beef, pork, chicken, fruits, vegetables, and some nuts since 2009. Canada and Mexico challenged COOL for beef and pork at the World Trade Organization (WTO). The WTO found that the U.S. violated trade obligations by discriminating against imports of cattle and hogs from Canada and Mexico. It authorized Canada and Mexico to impose almost $1 billion in retaliatory tariffs. The repeal of COOL for beef and pork by Congress ended the threat of trade retaliation.
Section 32 (Funds for Strengthening Markets, Income, and Supply)42
AMS's mandatory appropriation reflects a transfer from the so-called Section 32, which is a program created in 1935 to assist agricultural producers of non-price-supported commodities. The Section 32 account is funded by a permanent appropriation of 30% of the previous calendar year's customs receipts ($10.3 billion in FY2016). This amount is reduced by various mandatory transfers to child nutrition and other programs ($9.0 billion in FY2016).43
Section 32 monies available for obligation by AMS have been used at the Secretary's discretion to purchase agricultural commodities like meat, poultry, fruits, vegetables, and fish, which are not typically covered by mandatory farm programs. These commodities are diverted to school lunch and other domestic food and nutrition programs. Section 32 has also been used to fund surplus removal and farm economic and disaster relief activities.
The 2008 farm bill (§14222) capped the annual amount of Section 32 funds available for obligation by AMS in FY2016 at $1.303 billion. Also, to increase the amount of fruits and vegetables purchased under Section 32, Congress limited USDA's discretion in two ways: (1) §4304 of the 2008 farm bill established a fresh fruit and vegetable school snack program funded by carving out Section 32 funds (set at $40 million in 2008, rising to $150 million in 2011, and adjusted for inflation for each year thereafter), and (2) §4404 of the 2008 farm bill required additional purchases of fruits, vegetables, and nuts (set at $190 million in FY2008, rising to $206 million in FY2012, and remaining at that level each year thereafter). Section 4214 of the 2014 farm bill expanded the school snack program to include frozen, canned, and dried fruits and vegetables on a pilot basis for the 2014-15 school year.
The enacted FY2016 appropriation provides $1.425 billion of Section 32 funds for AMS, which compares with $1.284 billion enacted in FY2015. The FY2016 amount is reduced by $216 million (rescission) and $77 million (sequestration), and is considered mandatory spending.
The House- and Senate-reported bills both continue a provision (§715) that has appeared since FY2012 that effectively prohibits the use of Section 32 for emergency disaster payments:
[N]one of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this or any other Act shall be used to pay the salaries or expenses of any employee of the Department of Agriculture or officer of the Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out clause 3 of Section 32 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1935 (P.L. 74-320, 7 U.S.C. 612c, as amended), or for any surplus removal activities or price support activities under section 5 of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act.44
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration45
The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) oversees the marketing of U.S. grain, oilseeds, livestock, poultry, meat, and other commodities. The Federal Grain Inspection Service establishes standards for the inspection, weighing, and grading of grain, rice, and other commodities. The Packers and Stockyards Program monitors livestock and poultry markets to ensure fair competition and guard against deceptive and fraudulent trade practices.
For FY2016, the enacted appropriation provides GIPSA $43.1 million for salaries and expenses, slightly higher than in FY2015. The Administration requested a FY2016 appropriation of $44.1 million. The act authorizes GIPSA to collect up to $55 million in user fees for inspection and weighing services. If grain export activity requires additional services, the user fee limit may be exceeded by up to 10% upon notification to the House and Senate appropriations committees.
For the first time in four years, there is no rider prohibiting USDA from finalizing or implementing parts of GIPSA's proposed rule on livestock and poultry marketing practices (75 Federal Register 35338, June 22, 2010) that was required in the 2008 farm bill.46
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)47
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) regulates most meat, poultry, and processed egg products.48 The Meat and Poultry Inspection Program of FSIS conducts continuous inspections at federal meat and poultry plants and ensures that state inspection programs have standards that are at least equivalent to federal standards. The Egg Products Inspection Program ensures that liquid, frozen, and dried egg products are also safe, wholesome, and correctly labeled. In addition, FSIS inspects U.S. imports of meat, poultry, and egg products, and ensures that they are produced under standards equivalent to U.S. inspection standards.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (P.L. 114-113) provides FSIS $1.015 billion in FY2016. This is $1.6 million lower than enacted in FY2015, but $3.3 million more than the Administration requested. Appropriations are augmented by existing (currently authorized) user fees that FSIS estimates to be nearly $180 million per year.49 FSIS appropriations are divided between various sub-accounts, including federal ($898.8 million), state ($61.0 million), and international ($16.7 million) inspection; Codex Alimentarius ($3.8 million); and the Public Health Data Communications Infrastructure System ($34.6 million). The Administration again proposed a user fee of $4 million to cover additional inspection costs associated with performance issues at inspected facilities, but as in previous appropriations, it was not enacted.
FSIS also administers the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA). The FY2016 appropriations act requires that FSIS have no fewer than 148 full-time equivalents dedicated to the inspection and enforcement of the HMSA. The act also encourages FSIS to provide Congress a comprehensive plan addressing the recruitment of frontline food safety personnel.
The appropriation directs FSIS to continue to implement the catfish inspection program as required under the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79
, §12106).50 It provides $2.5 million to implement the catfish rule.51 FSIS issued the final rule on catfish inspection on December 2, 2015, to go into effect on March 1, 2016, with a phase-in period continuing until September 1, 2017.52
The appropriation prohibits FSIS from using funds to inspect horse slaughter facilities (§767), as well as the use of voluntary inspection fees for horse slaughter inspection.53
Farm Service Agency54
USDA's Farm Service Agency (FSA) is probably best known for administering the farm commodity subsidy programs and the disaster assistance programs. It makes these payments to farmers through a network of county offices. In addition, FSA also administers USDA's direct and guaranteed farm loan programs and certain mandatory conservation programs (in cooperation with the Natural Resources Conservation Service), and supports certain international food assistance and export credit programs administered by the Foreign Agricultural Service and the U.S. Agency for International Development.
FSA Salaries and Expenses
For FY2016, the enacted appropriation provides $1.507 billion to FSA for salaries and expenses (including $1.200 billion for regular FSA salaries and expenses, plus the transfer within FSA of $307 million for farm loan program salaries and expenses), the same as for FY2015 (Table 7).55
Regarding information technology, the enacted appropriation adopts both the House and Senate bills and report language that continues strong requirements that began in FY2015 about FSA's implementation of information technology (IT) plans. Specifically, it addresses the MIDAS plan (Modernize and Innovate the Delivery of Agricultural Systems) that was flagged for concern by the Federal IT Dashboard in December 2012.56 FSA has struggled with the scope and schedule of work on MIDAS and has yet to achieve the expected results. The Government Accountability Office (GAO)57 and the USDA OIG continue to observe management and schedule problems in recent reports.58
The statutory language continues a FY2015 requirement that FSA—before it can spend more than 50% of the $130 million for IT—submit to Congress and GAO a detailed information technology plan that meets several specific criteria, quarterly brief and consult with the appropriations subcommittees, and submit an assessment report by the end of FY2016.
Regarding office closures and staff reductions, the FY2016 appropriations act prohibits FSA from closing any county offices. It also prohibits FSA from permanently relocating any county employees if it results in two or fewer employees, unless the Appropriations Committees approve. The FY2015 appropriation similarly prohibited county office closure and contained the relocation provision, but that was the first time that FSA office closure had been mentioned in appropriations since FY2006-FY2008. The 2008 farm bill enacted , Sec. 12106), and would require the
agency to promulgate final regulations no later than 30 days after enactment of the FY2016
appropriation.42
The House committee report contains language to encourage innovation and modernization at
slaughter and processing establishments regarding water-conserving technologies for handwashing facilities. The House committee report also expresses concern about countering
economic fraud and improving the safety of the U.S. seafood supply. Appropriators encourage
FSIS and USDA research agencies to develop technologies that will provide rapid, portable, and
easy-to-use screening of seafood at ports and at wholesale and retail locations.
The Senate bill prohibits funds from being used for horse slaughter and inspection (§744).43 The
Senate committee also directs FSIS to submit a report on a plan for recruiting personnel for
frontline inspection positions. The report should focus on recruiting candidates with demonstrated
educational backgrounds in agriculture or health sciences, including new and recent graduates.
Farm Service Agency44
USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) is probably best known for administering the farm
commodity subsidy programs and the disaster assistance programs. It makes these payments to
40
This section was written by Renée Johnson (7-9588; rjohnson@crs.loc.gov) and Joel L. Greene (7-9877,
jgreene@crs.loc.gov).
41
From recent FSIS congressional budget justifications (http://www.obpa.usda.gov/explan_notes.html). Reflects total
non-federal funds, including fees for meat, poultry and egg products inspection; fees for cost of national laboratory
accreditation programs; and trust funds.
42
The catfish inspection program was originally transferred from FDA to FSIS in the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246,
Sec. 11016). The FSIS catfish inspection rule has not been finalized yet.
43
The FY2006 and FY2007 appropriations prohibited FSIS from paying salaries and expenses for horse slaughter
inspections. The FY2008-FY2011 and FY2014-FY2015 appropriations also banned voluntary, fee-based horse
slaughter inspections. Horse slaughter inspection bans were not in force during FY2012 and FY2013, but no horse
slaughter facilities opened before the ban was reinstated in FY2014.
44
This section was written by Jim Monke (7-9664, jmonke@crs.loc.gov).
Congressional Research Service
27
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
farmers through a network of county offices. In addition, FSA also administers USDA’s direct and
guaranteed farm loan programs and certain mandatory conservation programs (in cooperation
with the Natural Resources Conservation Service), and supports certain international food
assistance and export credit programs administered by the Foreign Agricultural Service and the
U.S. Agency for International Development.
FSA Salaries and Expenses
For FY2016, the House- and Senate-reported bills are essentially the same for FSA salaries and
expenses (with the Senate bill providing 0.2% less than the House bill). The House bill would
provide $1.490 billion to FSA for salaries and expenses (including $1.183 billion for regular FSA
salaries and expenses, plus the transfer within FSA of $307 million for farm loan program salaries
and expenses; Table 7).45 This is $17 million less than the FY2015 total (-1%), and the Senate bill
is $20 million less than FY2015.
Both bills reject the Administration’s proposal for more funding for beginning farmer and rancher
programs, citing insufficient coordination among USDA agencies, as was found in a report by the
USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG).46
Regarding information technology, both the House and Senate bills and report language continue
strong requirements that began in FY2015 about FSA’s implementation of information
technology (IT) plans, specifically MIDAS (Modernize and Innovate the Delivery of Agricultural
Systems). MIDAS was flagged for concern by the Federal IT Dashboard in December 2012.47 It
has struggled with the scope and schedule of work and has yet to achieve the expected results.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) 48 and the USDA OIG continue to observe
management and schedule problems in recent reports.49
The statutory language continues a FY2015 requirement that FSA—before it can spend more than
50% of the amount for IT ($130 million in the House bill; $113 million in the Senate bill; $132
million in FY2015)—submit to Congress and GAO a detailed information technology plan that
meets several specific criteria, regularly inform and consult with the appropriations
subcommittees, and—in the Senate bill—submit an assessment report at the end of FY2016.
Regarding office closures and staff reductions, both of the FY2016 appropriations bills directly
would prohibit FSA from closing any county offices. The bills also prohibit FSA from
permanently relocating any county employees if it results in two or fewer employees, unless the
Appropriations Committees approve. The FY2015 appropriation similarly prohibited county
office closure and contained the relocation provision, but that was the first time that FSA office
closure had been mentioned in appropriations since FY2006-FY2008. The 2008 farm bill enacted
a permanent provision (7 U.S.C. 6932a; P.L. 110-246, §14212) that accomplished the same
thing—setting conditions and requiring congressional notification and local hearings before FSA
can close or consolidate a county office. The current appropriation’s temporary moratorium
surpasses this permanent provision.
45
Excludes transfers to FSA from the Foreign Agricultural Service for administrative support (about $3 million).
USDA-OIG, “USDA Beginning Farmers and Ranchers Programs”, May 2015, at http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/
50601-0003-31.pdf.
47
IT Dashboard, “Farm Program Modernization (MIDAS) #097,” at https://itdashboard.gov/investment?buscid=225.
48
GAO, “Farm Service Agency Needs to Demonstrate the Capacity to Manage IT Initiatives,” GAO-15-506, June 18,
2015, at http://gao.gov/products/GAO-15-506.
49
USDA-OIG, “Review of Farm Service Agency’s Initiative to Modernize and Innovate the Delivery of Agricultural
Systems (MIDAS),” 03501-0001-12, May 2015, at http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/03501-0001-12.pdf.
46
Congressional Research Service
28
Table 7. Farm Service Agency Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
P.L. 113-6
post-sequ.
P.L. 113-76
P.L. 113-235
FY2016
Admin.
Request
H. Cmte.
H.R. 3049
Change from FY2015
S. Cmte.
S. 1800
in House
Bill
in Senate
Bill
Senate
Compared
With
House
Salaries and expenses
Farm Service Agency (S&E base)
1,115.3
1,177.9
1,200.2
1,185.3
1,183.0
1,180.4
-17.2
-19.8
-2.6
281.6
307.0
307.0
310.0
307.0
307.0
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
1,396.8
1,484.9
1,507.2
1,495.2
1,490.0
1,487.4
-17.2
-19.8
-2.6
90.5
90.0
78.7
72.1
69.6
69.6
-9.2
-9.2
+0.0
Farm loan program admin. expenses
7.3
7.7
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
State mediation grants
4.1
3.8
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Grassroots source water protection
5.2
5.5
5.5
0.0
5.5
6.0
+0.0
+0.5
+0.5
Dairy indemnity program (M)
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
1,503.9
1,592.2
1,603.3
1,579.1
1,576.9
1,574.8
-26.3
-28.5
-2.2
FSA farm loan program S&E transfer
Subtotal, appropriated to FSA
Programs
Farm loan program (loan subsidy)
Total: Appropriation to FSA
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports for the referenced appropriations acts or bills. Amounts for FY2013 are
the post-sequestration level from the USDA FY2013 Operating Plan.
Notes: Does not include about $3 million of salaries and expenses that are appropriated to the Foreign Agricultural Service and transferred to FSA to administer P.L.
480 and export loans. Discretionary budget authority unless labeled “(M)” to indicate mandatory authority.
CRS-29
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
FSA Farm Loan Programs
can close or consolidate a county office. The FY2015 and FY2016 appropriations one-year moratoriums surpass the permanent provision.
The enacted appropriation, via report language for the House- and Senate-reported bills, rejects the Administration's proposal for more funding for beginning farmer and rancher programs, citing insufficient coordination among USDA agencies, as was found in a report by the USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG).59
FSA Farm Loan Programs
The USDA Farm Service Agency makes and guarantees loans to farmers, and is a lender of last
resort for family farmers unable to obtain credit from a commercial lender. USDA provides direct
farm loans (loans made directly from USDA to farmers), and it also guarantees the timely
repayment of principal and interest on qualified loans to farmers from commercial lenders. FSA
loans are used to finance farm real estate, operating expenses, and recovery from natural
disasters. Some loans are made at a low interest rate.
50
60
An appropriation is made to FSA each year to cover the federal cost of making direct and
guaranteed loans, referred to as a loan subsidy. Loan subsidy is directly related to any interest rate
subsidy provided by the government, as well as a projection of anticipated loan losses from
farmer non-repayment of the loans. The amount of loans that can be made—the loan authority—
is several times larger than the subsidy level.
For FY2016, the
enacted appropriation and the House- and Senate-reported bills are identical to each other and to the
Administration’ Administration's request in both loan subsidy and loan authority, with the exception of
not
the Administration requesting a slightly higher amount for salaries and expenses and Congress not funding the Administration
’'s request for Individual Development Accounts.
51
61
The FSA farm loan program
would receivereceives $70 million of loan subsidy to support $6.402 billion
of direct and guaranteed loans in FY2016 (Table 8). Though the loan subsidy is about 12%
smaller than in FY2015, the loan authority is the same as FY2015. The reduction in loan subsidy
is explained by the direct farm operating program.
Following the global financial crisis that began in 2008, FSA farm loan authority generally has
risen, reflecting the borrowing needs of many farmers. Broad financial system pressures
dramatically increased the demand for FSA farm loans and guarantees when commercial bank
lending standards became stricter and loans sometimes were less available. In FY2009 and
FY2010, supplemental appropriations increased regular FSA loan authority by nearly $1 billion
each year in order to meet demand, up from pre-crisis levels of about $3.5 billion in 2008 to
postsupplementalpost-supplemental levels of $6.0 billion in FY2010. From FY2011 to FY2013, loan authority
decreased both due to federal budget pressures and somewhat lessened demand as the financial
system stabilized. Nonetheless, in some years, continued high farm loan demand for certain
programs has caused the loan authority to be exhausted.
5262 The FY2014 loan authority restored the
total closer to the supplemental levels of FY2009 and FY2010, and the FY2015-FY2016
appropriations increase total loan authority to a new high level, particularly in the direct farm
ownership loan program.
50
For more background, see CRS Report RS21977, Agricultural Credit: Institutions and Issues.
The Individual Development Account program was authorized in the 2008 farm bill but has never received
appropriations. It is not a loan program, but rather a savings program (7 U.S.C. 1983b). USDA grants to private entities
that would deliver the program would match farmer deposits at a rate up to 2:1. Withdrawals would be allowed for
various capital expenses.
52
Updates on unused FSA loan availability are available at http://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/farm-loanprograms/funding/index.
51
Congressional Research Service
30
Table 8. Farm Service Agency: Farm Loan Program
(budget authority and loan authority, as specified, in millions of dollars)
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
P.L. 113-6
post-sequ.
P.L. 113-76
P.L. 113-235
FY2016
Admin.
Request
Change from FY2015
H. Cmte.
H.R. 3049
S. Cmte.
S. 1800
in House
Bill
in Senate
Bill
Senate
Compared
With
House
1. Budget Authority (loan subsidy)
Farm ownership loans
Direct
18.6
4.4
—
—
—
—
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Direct
54.0
65.5
63.1
54.0
54.0
54.0
-9.1
-9.1
+0.0
Guaranteed (unsubsidized)
16.5
18.3
14.8
14.4
14.4
14.4
-0.4
-0.4
+0.0
Emergency loans
1.2
1.7
0.9
1.3
1.3
1.3
+0.4
+0.4
+0.0
Indian highly fractionated land loans
0.2
0.1
—
—
—
—
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
—
—
—
2.5
—
—
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Subtotal, loan subsidy
90.5
90.0
78.7
72.1
69.6
69.6
-9.2
-9.2
+0.0
FLP salaries and expenses
281.6
307.0
307.0
310.0
307.0
307.0
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
7.3
7.7
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
379.3
404.7
393.6
390.0
384.5
384.5
-9.2
-9.2
+0.0
Farm operating loans
Other direct loans
Individual Development Accounts
FLP administrative expenses
Total, FLP budget authority
CRS-31
FY2013
P.L. 113-6
post-sequ.
FY2014
P.L. 113-76
FY2015
P.L. 113-235
FY2016
Admin.
Request
H. Cmte.
H.R. 3049
Change from FY2015
S. Cmte.
S. 1800
in House
Bill
in Senate
Bill
Senate
Compared
With
House
2. Loan Authority (loan level)
Farm ownership loans
Direct
438.5
575.0
1,500.0
1,500.0
1,500.0
1,500.0
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
1,500.0
2,000.0
2,000.0
2,000.0
2,000.0
2,000.0
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
969.5
1,195.6
1,252.0
1,252.0
1,252.0
1,252.0
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
1,384.8
1,500.0
1,393.4
1,393.4
1,393.4
1,393.4
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
21.6
34.7
34.7
34.7
34.7
34.7
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Indian tribe land acquisition loans
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Indian highly fractionated land loans
9.2
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
100.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
4,575.7
5,527.3
6,402.1
6,402.1
6,402.1
6,402.1
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Guaranteed
Farm operating loans
Direct
Guaranteed (unsubsidized)
Conservation loans
Guaranteed
Other direct loans
Emergency loans
Boll weevil eradication loans
Total, loan authority
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports for the referenced appropriations acts or bills. Amounts for FY2013 are
the post-sequestration level from the USDA FY2013 Operating Plan.
Note: Budget authority ownership loan program.
Table 7. Farm Service Agency Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2013
|
FY2014
|
FY2015
|
FY2016
|
P.L. 113-6 post-sequ.
|
P.L. 113-76
|
P.L. 113-235
|
Admin. Request
|
H. Cmte. H.R. 3049
|
S. Cmte. S. 1800
|
P.L. 114-113
|
Change from FY2015 to FY2016 enacted
|
Salaries and expenses
|
|
Farm Service Agency (S&E base)
|
1,115.3
|
1,177.9
|
1,200.2
|
1,185.3
|
1,183.0
|
1,180.4
|
1,200.2
|
+0.0
|
+0.0%
|
|
FSA farm loan program S&E transfer
|
281.6
|
307.0
|
307.0
|
310.0
|
307.0
|
307.0
|
307.0
|
+0.0
|
+0.0%
|
|
Subtotal, appropriated to FSA
|
1,396.8
|
1,484.9
|
1,507.2
|
1,495.2
|
1,490.0
|
1,487.4
|
1,507.2
|
+0.0
|
+0.0%
|
Programs
|
|
Farm loan program (loan subsidy)
|
90.5
|
90.0
|
78.7
|
72.1
|
69.6
|
69.6
|
69.6
|
-9.2
|
-11.6%
|
|
Farm loan program admin. expenses
|
7.3
|
7.7
|
7.9
|
7.9
|
7.9
|
7.9
|
7.9
|
+0.0
|
+0.0%
|
|
State mediation grants
|
4.1
|
3.8
|
3.4
|
3.4
|
3.4
|
3.4
|
3.4
|
+0.0
|
+0.0%
|
|
Grassroots source water protection
|
5.2
|
5.5
|
5.5
|
0.0
|
5.5
|
6.0
|
6.5
|
+1.0
|
+17.6%
|
|
Dairy indemnity program (M)
|
0.1
|
0.3
|
0.5
|
0.5
|
0.5
|
0.5
|
0.5
|
+0.0
|
+0.0%
|
|
Total: Appropriation to FSA
|
1,503.9
|
1,592.2
|
1,603.3
|
1,579.1
|
1,576.9
|
1,574.8
|
1,595.1
|
-8.2
|
-0.5%
|
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports for the referenced appropriations acts or bills. Amounts for FY2013 are the post-sequestration level from the USDA FY2013 Operating Plan.
Notes: Does not include about $3 million of salaries and expenses that are appropriated to the Foreign Agricultural Service and transferred to FSA to administer P.L. 480 and export loans. Discretionary budget authority unless labeled "(M)" to indicate mandatory authority.
Table 8. Farm Service Agency: Farm Loan Program
(budget authority and loan authority, as specified, in millions of dollars)
FY2013
|
FY2014
|
FY2015
|
FY2016
|
P.L. 113-6 post-sequ.
|
P.L. 113-76
|
P.L. 113-235
|
Admin. Request
|
H. Cmte. H.R. 3049
|
S. Cmte. S. 1800
|
P.L. 114-113
|
Change from FY2015 to FY2016 enacted
|
1. Budget Authority (loan subsidy)
|
Farm ownership loans
|
|
Direct
|
18.6
|
4.4
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
+0.0
|
+0.0%
|
Farm operating loans
|
|
Direct
|
54.0
|
65.5
|
63.1
|
54.0
|
54.0
|
54.0
|
54.0
|
-9.1
|
-14.5%
|
|
Guaranteed (unsubsidized)
|
16.5
|
18.3
|
14.8
|
14.4
|
14.4
|
14.4
|
14.4
|
-0.4
|
-2.8%
|
Other direct loans
|
|
Emergency loans
|
1.2
|
1.7
|
0.9
|
1.3
|
1.3
|
1.3
|
1.3
|
+0.4
|
+47.4%
|
|
Indian highly fractionated land loans
|
0.2
|
0.1
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
+0.0
|
+0.0%
|
|
Individual Development Accounts
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
2.5
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
+0.0
|
+0.0%
|
|
Subtotal, loan subsidy
|
90.5
|
90.0
|
78.7
|
72.1
|
69.6
|
69.6
|
69.6
|
-9.2
|
-11.6%
|
|
FLP salaries and expenses
|
281.6
|
307.0
|
307.0
|
310.0
|
307.0
|
307.0
|
307.0
|
+0.0
|
+0.0%
|
|
FLP administrative expenses
|
7.3
|
7.7
|
7.9
|
7.9
|
7.9
|
7.9
|
7.9
|
+0.0
|
+0.0%
|
|
Total, FLP budget authority
|
379.3
|
404.7
|
393.6
|
390.0
|
384.5
|
384.5
|
384.5
|
-9.2
|
-2.3%
|
2. Loan Authority (loan level)
|
Farm ownership loans
|
|
Direct
|
438.5
|
575.0
|
1,500.0
|
1,500.0
|
1,500.0
|
1,500.0
|
1,500.0
|
+0.0
|
+0.0%
|
|
Guaranteed
|
1,500.0
|
2,000.0
|
2,000.0
|
2,000.0
|
2,000.0
|
2,000.0
|
2,000.0
|
+0.0
|
+0.0%
|
Farm operating loans
|
|
Direct
|
969.5
|
1,195.6
|
1,252.0
|
1,252.0
|
1,252.0
|
1,252.0
|
1,252.0
|
+0.0
|
+0.0%
|
|
Guaranteed (unsubsidized)
|
1,384.8
|
1,500.0
|
1,393.4
|
1,393.4
|
1,393.4
|
1,393.4
|
1,393.4
|
+0.0
|
+0.0%
|
Conservation loans
|
|
Guaranteed
|
150.0
|
150.0
|
150.0
|
150.0
|
150.0
|
150.0
|
150.0
|
+0.0
|
+0.0%
|
Other direct loans
|
|
Emergency loans
|
21.6
|
34.7
|
34.7
|
34.7
|
34.7
|
34.7
|
34.7
|
+0.0
|
+0.0%
|
|
Indian tribe land acquisition loans
|
2.0
|
2.0
|
2.0
|
2.0
|
2.0
|
2.0
|
2.0
|
+0.0
|
+0.0%
|
|
Indian highly fractionated land loans
|
9.2
|
10.0
|
10.0
|
10.0
|
10.0
|
10.0
|
10.0
|
+0.0
|
+0.0%
|
|
Boll weevil eradication loans
|
100.0
|
60.0
|
60.0
|
60.0
|
60.0
|
60.0
|
60.0
|
+0.0
|
+0.0%
|
|
Total, loan authority
|
4,575.7
|
5,527.3
|
6,402.1
|
6,402.1
|
6,402.1
|
6,402.1
|
6,402.1
|
-0.0
|
-0.0%
|
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports for the referenced appropriations acts or bills. Amounts for FY2013 are the post-sequestration level from the USDA FY2013 Operating Plan.
Note: Budget authority reflects the cost of making loans, such as interest rate subsidies and default. Some programs are self-funding because of fees charged. Loan authority
reflects the amount of loans that FSA may make or guarantee.
CRS-32
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Commodity Credit Corporation53
Commodity Credit Corporation63
The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) is the funding mechanism for many
mandatory
of the agriculture-related mandatory spending programs in the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79, the Agricultural Act of 2014).
5464 These
include farm subsidy and disaster payments, as well as a host of other programs that receive
mandatory funding
, such as conservation, trade, food aid, research, rural development, and
bioenergy. (Programs with different mandatory funding sources
other than the CCC include crop
insurance, SNAP, child nutrition, and Section 32.)
Emergency supplementalSupplemental spending also has
been paid from the CCC
over the years, particularly for ad hoc farm disaster payments,
for direct
direct market loss payments
to growers of various commodities in response tobecause of low farm commodity
prices, and
for animal and plant disease eradication efforts. Separate discretionary appropriations
to the Farm Service Agency and other to various agencies pay for salaries to administer the programs.
The CCC is a wholly owned government corporation that has the legal authority to borrow up to
$30 billion at any one time from the U.S. Treasury
to finance program spending (15 U.S.C. 714, et seq
.). .). These borrowed
funds finance program spending. The CCC may earn a small amount of money from activities
such as buying and selling commodities and receiving interest payments on loans. But because
the CCC never earns more than it spends, its borrowing authority is replenished through a
congressional appropriation
, typically in the annual Agriculture appropriations act.
.
Mandatory outlays for the commodity programs rise and fall based on economic or weather
conditions (e.g., crop prices below program trigger levels generate farm payments). Funding
needs are difficult to estimate, which is a primary reason that the programs are mandatory rather
than discretionary, and that the program operates under a Treasury line of credit.
The congressional appropriation may not always restore the line of credit to the previous year
’s
's level, or may repay more than was spent. For these reasons, the appropriation to the CCC may not
reflect current year outlays. Moreover, the CCC appropriation is several billion dollars greater
than the amount of farm commodity subsidies because other programs are paid from CCC.
55
65
To replenish CCC
’'s borrowing authority, the
House- and Senate-reported FY2016 appropriations
bills concur with the Administration request forenacted FY2016 appropriation continues to provide an indefinite appropriation (
“"such sums as
necessary”). The estimated amount is $10.520 billion for FY2016, down 22% from FY2015.
Regarding authority in the CCC Charter Act to provide ad hoc disaster assistance, the House- and
Senate-reported bills both continue a provision (§715) that has appeared since FY2012 that
effectively prohibits the use of the CCC for emergency disaster payments to farmers:
[N]one of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this or any other Act shall be
used to pay the salaries or expenses of any employee of the Department of Agriculture or
officer of the Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out clause 3 of Section 32 of the
Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1935 (P.L. 74-320, 7 U.S.C. 612c, as amended), or for any
surplus removal activities or price support activities under section 5 of the Commodity Credit
Corporation Charter Act.56
53
This section was written by Jim Monke (7-9664, jmonke@crs.loc.gov).
For more background on the farm bill, see CRS In Focus IF10187, The 2014 Farm Bill (Agricultural Act of 2014,
P.L. 113-79), and CRS Report R43076, The 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79): Summary and Side-by-Side.
55
For an example of the accounting of CCC’s line of credit, appropriations and expenditures, see USDA, Commodity
Estimates Book, “Output 07-CCC Financing Status,” at http://www.fsa.usda.gov/about-fsa/budget-and-performancemanagement/budget/ccc-budget-essentials/index.
56
For an explanation of the statutory references, see footnote 36.
54
Congressional Research Service
33
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Separately, the House-reported bill would restore the use of “commodity certificates” for the
marketing loan program, including not being subject to payment limits (§739). The provision is
projected to cost $5 million in FY2016. Commodity certificates have not been available since the
2009 crop year and are payments-in-kind that can be redeemed for cash in lieu of marketing loan
gains or forfeiture (7 U.S.C. 7286).57 Besides providing flexibility in repaying marketing loans,
commodity certificates have been used to avoid payment limitations. Under the 2014 farm bill,
payment limits again apply to marketing loan gains, after having not been subject to limits under
the 2008 farm bill. The Senate-reported bill does not contain this provision.
Finally, the House-reported bill would continue a provision that has been enacted since FY2011
that limits the ability of USDA to provide marketing assistance loans for mohair (§722). The
Senate-reported bill does not contain this provision.
Crop Insurance58
The federal crop insurance program is administered by USDA’s Risk Management Agency
(RMA). It offers basically free catastrophic insurance to producers who grow an insurable crop.
Producers who opt for this coverage have the opportunity to purchase additional insurance
coverage at a subsidized rate (ranging between 38% and 80%). Policies are sold and serviced
through approved private insurance companies that have their program losses reinsured by USDA
and are reimbursed by the government for their administrative and operating expenses.59
Two separate appropriations support the federal crop insurance program. The first provides
discretionary funding for the salaries and expenses of the RMA. The second provides mandatory
funding for the Federal Crop Insurance Fund (FCIC), which finances other program expenses,
including premium subsidies, indemnities, and reimbursements to the insurance companies.
For the discretionary salaries and expenses of the RMA, the Senate-reported bill for FY2016 is
unchanged from the FY2015 appropriation at $74.8 million; the House-reported bill would
provide slightly less at $74.0 million. Neither bill accommodates the Administration’s request for
an increase of $2.1 million for 12 new staff to improve payment compliance efforts. The Senate
report language encourages RMA to research the feasibility of poultry industry-related insurance,
and expand availability of organic price elections for crop policies.
For the mandatory appropriation to the Federal Crop Insurance Fund, the House- and Senatereported FY2016 appropriations bills concur with the Administration request for an indefinite
appropriation (“such sums as necessary”) for FCIC. The estimated amount is $8.175 billion for
FY2016, down 8% from FY2015. (The actual amount required to cover program losses and other
subsidies is subject to change based on actual crop losses and farmer participation rates in the
program.) The year-over-year decline is driven by expected lower commodity prices, which
results in a reduced level of premium subsidies.
The House bill would prevent USDA from enforcing a conservation compliance requirement that
was in the 2014 farm bill for the 2016 crop insurance year (§748). For more background about
this rider, see the discussion under “Conservation Compliance.”
57
For more background on commodity certificates, see CRS Report RL34594, Farm Commodity Programs
in the 2008 Farm Bill; USDA fact sheet, “Commodity Certificates,” May 2007, at http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/
FSA_File/comdtycertif07n.pdf; and USDA Economic Research Service, “Farm Policy Glossary,” at http://www.ers.
usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-commodity-policy/farm-policy-glossary.aspx.
58
This section was written by Jim Monke (7-9664, jmonke@crs.loc.gov).
59
For more information, see CRS Report R40532, Federal Crop Insurance: Background.
Congressional Research Service
34
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Disaster Assistance60
Agricultural-related disaster assistance usually has been funded in emergency supplemental
appropriations or through various mandatory spending programs, and typically has not been
provided through regular appropriations. In recent years, however, disaster assistance has been
incorporated more often into annual appropriations bills as a vehicle for passage.
The House-reported bill repurposes $2.4 million in unobligated balances under the Emergency
Watershed Protection (EWP) program (§742 of H.R. 3049). The unobligated funds originally
were provided in prior year supplemental appropriations that directed funds to specific states,
counties, and disasters, including wildfire recovery in southern California (FY2004), Hurricane
Katrina and other 2005 hurricanes (FY2006), and flooding in the Midwest (FY2007).
Under the EWP program, a national or state emergency does not have to be declared in order to
receive assistance. Funding in recent years, however, has required that EWP funds be used for
necessary expenses resulting from a major disaster declared pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121, et seq.). This allows the funding
to be designated as “disaster funding” and for the purpose of budget scoring is not counted
against the discretionary spending cap. The inclusion of the Stafford Act requirement, however,
limited the number and types of disasters the EWP program is able to respond to.61
The House-reported bill’s $2.4 million allows the funding to be spent according to the purposes of
the program and for disasters occurring in FY2016 or FY2017, to remain available until
expended. The House bill does not include the Stafford Act limitation and therefore is scored
against the discretionary spending cap (see Table 15).
The Senate-reported bill does not contain any disaster assistance or EWP funding.
Conservation62
USDA administers a number of agricultural conservation programs that assist private landowners
with natural resource concerns. These include working land programs, land retirement and
easement programs, watershed programs, technical assistance, and other programs. The two lead
agricultural conservation agencies within USDA are the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS)—which provides technical assistance and administers most programs—and the Farm
Service Agency (FSA)—which administers the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).63
Most conservation program funding is mandatory, funded through the Commodity Credit
Corporation (CCC) and authorized in omnibus farm bills (about $5.3 billion of CCC funds for
conservation in FY2016). Other conservation programs—mostly technical assistance—are
discretionary and funded through annual appropriations.
As discussed below, the House- and Senate-reported bills include the same level of reductions to
mandatory conservation programs as proposed in the Administration’s request, though for
different programs. Both bills propose less than the Administration’s discretionary request.
60
This section was written by Megan Stubbs (7-8707, mstubbs@crs.loc.gov).
For additional information on the EWP program and the Stafford Act limitation, see CRS Report R42854,
Emergency Assistance for Agricultural Land Rehabilitation.
62
This section was written by Megan Stubbs (7-8707, mstubbs@crs.loc.gov).
63
For additional information on USDA conservation programs, see CRS Report R40763, Agricultural Conservation: A
Guide to Programs.
61
Congressional Research Service
35
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Discretionary Conservation Programs
All discretionary conservation programs are administered by NRCS. The largest program and the
account that funds most NRCS activities is Conservation Operations (CO). The House-reported
bill would provide $833 million for CO and Senate-reported bill $855 million, both more than the
Administration’s request ($831 million). The House proposal is a 1.6% decrease from the
FY2015 amount ($846 million) and the Senate proposal is a 1.0% increase.
Both bills further direct necessary"). The amount scored for FY2016 is $6.871 billion, down 49% from FY2015. The reduction does not indicate any action by Congress to reduce program support.
Among policy changes, the FY2016 appropriation restores the use of "commodity certificates" for the marketing loan program, including not being subject to payment limits (§740). The change is made to the farm bill statutes and applies to the 2015 crop marketing year and the remainder of the 2014 farm bill. The provision is projected to cost $5 million in FY2016. These certificates are payments-in-kind that can be redeemed for cash in lieu of marketing loan gains or forfeiture (7 U.S.C. 7286).66 Besides providing flexibility in repaying marketing loans, commodity certificates have been used by some farmers to avoid payment limitations. Commodity certificates have not been available since the 2009 crop year, and some say would not have been advantageous during the 2008 farm bill when marketing loan gains and loan deficiency payments did not have any payment limitations. However, under the 2014 farm bill, payment limits apply to marketing loan gains and loan deficiency payments. Restoring the use of certificates provides a mechanism for farmers to benefit from the marketing loan program without being subject to payment limitations. This provision was in the House-reported bill, but was not in the Senate-reported version.
Separately, regarding authority in the CCC Charter Act to provide ad hoc disaster assistance, the enacted appropriation continues a provision (§715) that has appeared since FY2012 that effectively prohibits the use of the CCC for emergency disaster payments to farmers:
[N]one of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this or any other Act shall be used to pay the salaries or expenses of any employee of the Department of Agriculture or officer of the Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out clause 3 of Section 32 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1935 (P.L. 74-320, 7 U.S.C. 612c, as amended), or for any surplus removal activities or price support activities under section 5 of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act.67
Finally, the omnibus continues a provision that has been in each appropriation since FY2011 that limits the ability of USDA to provide marketing assistance loans for mohair (§722).
Crop Insurance68
The federal crop insurance program is administered by USDA's Risk Management Agency (RMA). It offers basically free catastrophic insurance to producers who grow an insurable crop. Producers who opt for this coverage have the opportunity to purchase additional insurance coverage at a subsidized rate (ranging between 38% and 80%). Policies are sold and serviced through approved private insurance companies that have their program losses reinsured by USDA and are reimbursed by the government for their administrative and operating expenses.69
Two separate appropriations support the federal crop insurance program. The first provides discretionary funding for the salaries and expenses of the RMA. The second provides mandatory funding for the Federal Crop Insurance Fund (FCIC), which finances other program expenses, including premium subsidies, indemnities, and reimbursements to the insurance companies.
For the discretionary salaries and expenses of the RMA, the enacted FY2016 appropriation is unchanged from the FY2015 appropriation at $74.8 million. It does not accommodate the Administration's request for an increase of $2.1 million for 12 new staff to improve payment compliance efforts. Under Senate report language RMA is to research the feasibility of poultry industry-related insurance and the availability of policies that reflect organic price differentials.
For the mandatory appropriation to the Federal Crop Insurance Fund, the omnibus appropriation provides an indefinite amount ("such sums as necessary"), estimated at $7.858 billion. This is nearly $1.1 billion less than FY2015 (-12%), but does not reflect any change by Congress to reduce program benefits. The actual amount required is subject to change and is based on actual crop losses and farmer participation rates in the program. The current year-over-year decline is driven by expectations of lower commodity prices that result in lower premium subsidies.
The enacted appropriation does not contains a House-reported provision (§748) that would have prevented USDA from enforcing a conservation compliance requirement in the 2014 farm bill.
Standard Reinsurance Agreement as Temporary Budget Offset
One of the budgetary offsets that allowed the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (P.L. 114-74, November 2, 2015) to raise the government-wide discretionary spending limit by $50 billion70 in FY2016 was a reduction to the crop insurance program. The provision (§201 of P.L. 114-74) set a cap on the rate of return for private crop insurance companies that would be negotiated in the next Standard Reinsurance Agreement (SRA). The SRA is the legal risk-sharing mechanism between the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation and the private insurance companies that deliver federal crop insurance. The CBO score of the provision was a $3.038 billion savings to the federal government over 10 years.71
The provision had not been proposed or approved by the authorizing committees of jurisdiction for the crop insurance program. Despite the provision remaining in the budget agreement for expeditious reasons, assurances were expressed among congressional leadership as the bill was still being debated that the crop insurance reduction would be reversed in future legislation.72
The Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (P.L. 114-94, December 4, 2015) restored those reductions to the crop insurance program as if they never had been made (§32301). The CBO score of the reversal was a $3.038 billion cost to the federal government over 10 years.73
Disaster Assistance74
USDA offers several programs to help producers recover from natural disasters. Most of these programs are permanently authorized and do not require a federal disaster designation. Most receive mandatory funding ("such sums as necessary") and are not subject to annual appropriations.75 However, three agricultural land rehabilitation programs receive discretionary funding on an ad hoc basis. In recent years, funding has been incorporated into annual appropriations bills, even though it remains supplemental in nature and amounts vary over time.
The FY2016 enacted appropriation provides funding for these three land rehabilitation programs: Emergency Conservation Program (ECP), Emergency Forest Restoration Program (EFRP), and Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) program (§728; Table 9).76 Under these programs, a national or state emergency does not have to be declared in order to receive assistance. However, recent years' funding has included a requirement that funds be used "for necessary expenses resulting from a major disaster declared pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121, et seq.)."77 This language allows the funding to be designated as "disaster relief" and for the purpose of budget scoring is not counted against the discretionary spending cap. The addition of the Stafford Act requirement, however, limits the number and type of eligible disasters. The FY2016 appropriation provides both disaster relief funding (requiring a Stafford Act-related event) and discretionary funding (that does not require a Stafford Act-related event).
Table 9. FY2016 Funding for Emergency Agricultural Land Rehabilitation Programs
$ in millions
Program
|
Stafford Acta
Non-Stafford Act
|
Total
|
Emergency Conservation Program
|
Emergency Forest Restoration Program
|
Emergency Watershed Protection Program
|
Total
|
Source: Section 728 of P.L. 114-113.
Notes: For additional analysis of these programs and the Stafford Act limitation, see CRS Report R42854, Emergency Assistance for Agricultural Land Rehabilitation.
a.
Funds must be used for necessary expenses resulting from a major disaster declared pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121, et seq.)
The enacted appropriation also repurposes $2.4 million in unobligated balances under the EWP program (§745). The unobligated funds originally were provided in prior year supplemental appropriations that directed funds to specific states, counties, and disasters, including wildfire recovery in southern California (FY2004), Hurricane Katrina and other 2005 hurricanes (FY2006), and flooding in the Midwest (FY2007). The FY2016 appropriation allows the funding to be spent for disasters occurring in FY2016 or FY2017, and to remain available until expended.
Conservation78
USDA administers a number of agricultural conservation programs that assist private landowners with natural resource concerns. These include working land programs, land retirement and easement programs, watershed programs, technical assistance, and other programs. The two lead agricultural conservation agencies within USDA are the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)—which provides technical assistance and administers most programs—and the Farm Service Agency (FSA)—which administers the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).79
Most conservation program funding is mandatory, funded through the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) and authorized in omnibus farm bills (about $5.3 billion of CCC funds for conservation in FY2016). Other conservation programs—mostly technical assistance—are discretionary and funded through annual appropriations.
The enacted FY2016 appropriation includes reductions to mandatory conservation programs and provides a slight increase from FY2015 levels for discretionary programs.
Discretionary Conservation Programs
All discretionary conservation programs are administered by NRCS. The largest program and the account that funds most NRCS activities is Conservation Operations (CO). The enacted appropriation provides $851 million for CO; more than the FY2015 amount ($846 million), the Administration's request ($831 million), and the House-reported bill ($833 million); but less than the Senate-reported bill ($855 million). The FY2016 appropriation directs CO funding for a number of conservation programs (
Table 10).
Table 10. Conservation Operations Funding
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2015
|
FY2016
|
|
Program
|
P.L. 113-235
|
Admin. Request
|
House H.R. 3049
|
Senate S. 1800
|
P.L. 114-113
|
Conservation Operations
|
Conservation Technical Assistance
|
Soil Survey
|
Snow Survey
|
Plant Material Center
|
Watershed Projects (Watershed Operations)
|
Conservation Delivery Streamlining Initiative
|
Source: CRS, from H.R. 3049, S. 1800, Table 9). The
committee reports include a number of congressionally-directed actions, including program
administration, invasive species, wetland mitigation, herbicide resistance, conservation practices,
species protection, and partner agreements. While these actions do not include specific funding,
they ultimately can direct funding to congressionally identified projects similar to earmarks.
Table 9. Conservation Operations Funding
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2015
Program
Conservation Operations
Conservation Technical Assistance
Soil Survey
P.L. 113235
FY2016
Admin.
Request
House
H.R. 3049
Senate
S. 1800
846
831
833
855
748
733
735
0
80
80
80
0
Snow Survey
9.3
8.9
8.9
0
Plant Material Center
9.4
9.2
9.1
0
Watershed Projects (Watershed Operations)
5.6
0
0
Conservation Delivery Streamlining Initiative
1.5
14.7
1.5
10.6
0
Source: CRS, from H.R. 3049, S. 1800, H.Rept. 114-205
, , and S.Rept. 114-82
.
, and P.L. 114-113.
Notes: Lack of a specific funding level may only mean an absence of being mentioned in FY2016 report language.
Funding also is provided in the House-reported bill (and in FY2015 and the 2014 farm bill) for
The House and Senate committee reports that accompany their respective appropriations bills include a number of congressionally directed actions, including program administration, invasive species, wetland mitigation, herbicide resistance, conservation practices, species protection, and partner agreements. While these actions do not include specific funding, they ultimately can direct funding to congressionally identified projects similar to earmarks.80
Funding also is provided in the enacted appropriation (and in the 2014 farm bill) for the Watershed Rehabilitation program to repair aging dams previously built by USDA.
6481 The
Administration
had proposed no funding for this program, contending that the maintenance, repair,
and operation of dams are local responsibilities.
However, the enacted FY2016 appropriation provides $12 million for FY2016, more than both the House- ($6 million) and Senate-reported ($0) bills. The enacted FY2015 appropriation included $12
million for the program, and the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79) added an additional $250 million in
mandatory funding for FY2014 to remain available until expended.
65 H.R. 3049 would provide $6
million for FY2016. S. 1800 includes no funding for the program.
82
Mandatory Conservation Programs
Mandatory conservation programs generally are authorized in omnibus farm bills and receive
funding from the CCC, thus not requiring an annual appropriation.
66 But Congress has reduced
64
See CRS Report RL30478, Federally Supported Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment Programs.
Mandatory funding for the program was restricted in the FY2015 appropriation. Approximately $69 million (before
sequestration) remains unobligated and available in FY2016. Additional restrictions, however, are proposed in both the
House- and Senate-reported bills and discussed further in the next section.
66
For authorized funding and background, see CRS Report R40763, Agricultural Conservation: A Guide to Programs.
65
Congressional Research Service
36
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
83 But Congress has reduced mandatory conservation programs through changes in mandatory program spending (CHIMPS) in
the annual agricultural appropriations law every year since FY2003. Because money is fungible,
the savings from these reductions are not necessarily applied toward other conservation activities.
The Administration’s annual request historically has included proposed reductions to conservation
funding, usually more substantial than Congress has supported. The House- and Senate-reported
bills, as well as the Administration’s proposal, would continue the CHIMPS to farm bill
conservation programs, each including a total of $255 million.67 Sequestration would further
reduce
The FY2016 enacted CHIMPS are more than in the Administration's proposal and the House- and Senate-reported bills. The proposal and bills would have continued CHIMPS to farm bill conservation programs totaling $255 million.84 The FY2016 enacted conservation CHIMPS subtotal is effectively $273 million.85 Sequestration further reduces available funding for these and other mandatory conservation programs in FY2016, resulting in an estimated
total reduction of $
526562 million, or roughly 10% of all mandatory conservation funding.
68
86
The number of conservation programs reduced through appropriations varies from year to year;
however, some programs are
continuouslycontinually reduced, while others
almost never receive a reduction.
rarely are reduced. Programs such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) have been reduced
annually since FY2003, while others, such as the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), have not
been reduced in over a decade. In FY2016, the mix of programs reduced is similar to previous
years––EQIP
, Watershed Rehabilitation Program, and Conservation Stewardship Program.69 The
Administration’s proposal and both bills reduce the three aforementioned programs in varying
amounts, but result in the same total CHIMPS. What varies most is the use of rescissions.
and the Watershed Rehabilitation Program.87 Proposed reductions to the Conservation Stewardship Program were not included; however, additional reductions were made to EQIP above what was proposed in the Administration's request and House- and Senate-reported bills.
The enacted appropriation did not include any of the proposed rescissions of mandatory budget authority. Unlike CHIMPS, which apply only to the current fiscal year and do not typically change or
permanently cancel the statutory funding authority, a rescission is a permanent cancellation
of
budget authority. The 2014 farm bill amended mandatory funding for several conservation
programs, allowing unobligated funds from previous years to be carried forward until expended
or expired. This new
provisionfarm bill approach allows not only unobligated funding to be carried forward to the
next fiscal year, but
also prior year's CHIMPS as well. Therefore, not only are
currentnew-year mandatory
funds subject to sequestration and CHIMPS, but so are
unobligated prior-year funds and prioryear CHIMPScarry-over (unobligated) funds and prior-year CHIMPS for which budget authority becomes available again in a new fiscal year. The Administration's request
includesincluded over $320 million in conservation-related
rescissions (funding that would be permanently cancelled and not carried forward), compared to
$68 million rescinded in the Senate-reported bill and none in the House-reported bill.
Conservation Compliance
Conservation compliance is a provision requiring producers to maintain a minimum level of
conservation on highly erodible land and not to convert wetlands to crop production in exchange
for certain USDA program benefits.70 The 2014 farm bill amended the conservation compliance
requirement, adding federal crop insurance subsidies to the list of program benefits that could be
lost if a producer were found out of compliance. The House-reported bill (§748) would delay the
implementation of conservation compliance for federal crop insurance subsidies in the 2016
reinsurance year. The Senate-reported bill does not contain a comparable provision.
67
The Administration’s proposal and House- and Senate-reported bills propose a total of $255 million in CHIMPS
from conservation programs. This total appears different than those presented in Table 13. CBO was not consistent in
scoring the Senate-reported bill and the Administration’s proposal, giving credit for a level of CHIMPS that was not
available to the House-reported bill because of sequestration. If sequestration were included consistently, all three
would reduce conservation programs by the same amount. It is the mix of programs and level of rescissions that differ.
68
OMB estimates a 6.8% level of sequestration for non-exempt, non-defense mandatory accounts. See Appendix B.
69
For more on CHIMPS generally and historically, see the heading, “Changes in Mandatory Program Spending
(CHIMPS).” For more about conservation program reductions, see CRS In Focus IF10041, Reductions to Mandatory
Agricultural Conservation Programs in Appropriations Law.
70
For more about conservation compliance, see CRS Report R42459, Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy.
Congressional Research Service
37
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
USDA conducted a public outreach campaign aimed at certifying producer’s compliance with the
conservation requirements before the crop insurance year deadline of June 1, 2015. In July 2015,
following the certification deadline, USDA reported a 98.2% certification rate.71 Supporters of
conservation compliance contend that the high compliance certification indicates that the Housereported bill’s provision is not necessary. Some producer groups, however, contend that additional
time is needed for producers who are unaware of the deadline to certify compliance.
Rural Development72
Three agencies are responsible for USDA’ $68 million rescinded in the Senate-reported bill and none in the House-reported bill. The enacted FY2016 appropriation did not include any rescissions, thereby allowing FY2016 CHIMPS to be carried forward into FY2017 if Congress chooses to do so next year.
Rural Development88
Three agencies are responsible for USDA's rural development mission area: the Rural Housing
Service (RHS), the Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS), and the Rural Utilities Service
(RUS). An Office of Community Development provides community development support
through field offices. This mission area also administers Rural Economic Area Partnerships and
the National Rural Development Partnership.
The House-reported bill (H.R. 3049) and the Senate-reported bill (S. 1800) would each provide a
total of $2.4989
The enacted FY2016 appropriation (P.L. 114-113) provides a total of $2.77 billion in discretionary budget authority for rural development programs
in
FY2016.73.90 This is
approximately $90about $368 million more than enacted for FY2015
, (+15%) and $
110167 million
less more than requested by the Administration (Table
10). The Senate bill would support $37.2 billion
in loan authority and the House bill would support $35.9 billion.
11). The enacted FY2016 appropriation will support $36.7 billion in loan authority, $816.6 million more than enacted last year.
Salaries and expenses within Rural Development are funded from a direct appropriation plus
transfers from each of the agencies. The
House bill would provideFY2016 appropriation provides a combined salaries and
expenses total of $679.2 million for FY2016, about $1 million more than in FY2015. The Senate
bill would provide $682.7 million in salaries and expenses.
expenses total of $683 million, $4.6 million more than in FY2015 (+0.7%).
Rural Housing Service (RHS)
For FY2016,
the House billP.L. 114-113 provides $
1.792.03 billion in budget authority for RHS programs (before
transfers). This is
approximately $73$320.8 million (+
4.318.7%) more than FY2015.
The Senate bill would
also provide $1.78 billion. With this budget authority, the
two bills would provideappropriation provides approximately
$27.5 billion in loan authority,
essentially the same as$75 million more than the FY2015 total loan authority
.
(+0.3%).
The single-family housing loan program (Section 502 of the Housing Act of 1949) is the largest
economic activity, representing
over 9090.5% of RHS
’'s total loan authority.
Both the Senate and House bills
would provideThe enacted bill provides $900 million for direct loans and $24
.9 billion for
federal loan guarantees, the same as FY2015.
For other housing loan programs,
both the House and Senate bills would providethe enacted appropriation provides $3.4 million in
budget authority to support $26.3 million in loans for the Section 504 Very Low-Income Housing
Repair loan program,
approximately the same as FY2015 and as requested by the Administration.
For the Multi-Family Housing loan guarantee program (Section 538), the
House bill would
provideappropriation provides $150 million of loan authority (the same as for FY2015)
and the Senate bill would
provide $200 million. For the Section 515 Rental Housing Program,
both the House and Senate
bills would provideP.L. 114-113 provides loan authority of $28.4 million and $8.4 million in subsidies (the loan
authority is the same as FY2015, but
$13.8 million (-33%)33% less than the Administration
had requested).
The largest budget authority line item in RHS is the Rental Assistance Program grants (Section 521), accounting for about 68requested).
71
The 1.8% uncertified represents approximately 10,000 of the total 561,000 crop insurance policy holders nationwide.
USDA suggested that non-certifiers were likely no longer farming or filed forms with errors that may still be resolved.
72
This section was written by Tadlock Cowan (7-7600, tcowan@crs.loc.gov).
73
If the rescission to the Cushion of Credit account (-$154 million in the House bill and -$182 million in the Senate
bill) is not incorporated in the rural development section but included with changes in mandatory spending, as shown in
this report and the CBO score, then the net budget authority would be approximately $2.65 billion (Table 10).
Congressional Research Service
38
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Rental Assistance Program grants (Section 521) are the largest budget authority line item in RHS,
accounting for about 65% of the total (Table
10). Both the House and Senate bills would provide
$1.16 billion in new 11). The FY2016 appropriation provides $1.39 billion in budget authority, an increase of $
78.5 million from FY2015 (+7.2%).
For the Multi-Family Revitalization program, both bills would provide a total of $24 million, $10
million less than the request and the same as for FY2015.
301.2 million from FY2015 (+27.6%) and $217.8 million more than requested.
The Multi-Family Revitalization program receives $37 million in FY2016, $13 million more than for FY2015 (+54%) and $3 million more than the request.
The Rural Housing Service also administers the Rural Community Facilities program, which
provides direct loans, loan guarantees, and grants for
“"essential community facilities
”" in rural
areas with less than 20,000 people. The
House bill would provide $30enacted appropriation provides $42.3 million, of which $3.5
million would support a direct and guaranteed loan authorization level of $2.
342 billion and the
rest for grants, all the same as for FY2015. The Senate bill would provide slightly less,
particularly for guaranteed loans; $28.7 million, of which $2 million would support $2.28 billion
of loans and the rest for grants. The Administration requested to shift away from loans, but both
bills rejected that idea and continued the historical ratio. Besides $13 million of facilities grants,
the program also supports economic development programs. The House and Senate bills would
provide the same amounts for the Rural Community Development Initiative ($4 million),
balance ($38.7 million) for grants. The total budget authority for the Community Facilities program is $12 million more (39.6%) than for FY2015, and nearly $20 million less than requested. The Administration had requested a shift away from loans, but the appropriation continues the historical ratio between loans and grants. Besides $25 million of facilities grants, the program also supports economic development programs.
The appropriation supports Rural Community Development Initiative grants ($4 million), Economic Impact Initiative grants ($5.8 million), and Tribal College
Grants ($4 million).
Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS)
The House-reported bill would provide $91.5grants ($4 million). These amounts are the same as for FY2015.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS)
The FY2016 appropriation provides $95 million to the RBS before the
“cushion of credit”74
rescission and transfers; the Senate bill is slightly more at $95.9 million.75 These are less than
FY2015. The House bill would support $985 million in loan authority for the various RBS loan
programs, and the Senate bill slightly more at $994 million in loan authority.
For the Rural Business Program account, with the exception of the Delta Regional Authority, both
the House and Senate bills would provide $59.7 million in new budget authority, $11.3 million
less than FY2015. This "cushion of credit"91 rescission and transfers.92 This is about $12.7 million less than FY2015 (-12%). This budget authority level will support $979 million in loan authority for the various RBS loan programs.
For the Rural Business Program account, the appropriation provides $62.7 million in budget authority, $11.3 million less than FY2015. This account includes the Business and Industry (B&I) Loan Guarantee program ($35.
6
7 million of loan subsidy to support $
920919.8 million of guaranteed loans),
and the Rural Business
Development Grant program ($24 million).76 The Senate bill would continue $3 million for the
Delta Regional Authority, while the House follows the Administration’s request for no funding.
For Rural Cooperative Development Grants, the House bill would provide $21.3 million and the
Senate bill $22.05 million. These include cooperative development ($5.8 million), Appropriate
Development Grant program ($24 million), and the Delta Regional Authority ($3 million).93 Grant support for the latter two is the same as for FY2015.
For Rural Cooperative Development Grants, P.L. 114-113 provides $22 million, the same as for FY2015. These include cooperative development grants ($5.8 million), Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas ($2.5 million), grants to assist minority producers ($3
million), and Value-Added Product Development grants ($10
million in the House bill, $10.75
million in the Senate bill). With the exception of a $750,000 reduction in Value-Added grants in
the House bill, these.7 million). These are the same levels of funding as in FY2015.
For the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP), the
House bill would provide $842,000 for
appropriation provides $500,000 in loan subsidies to support $
12.8 million in loans. This is the same loan authorization level as
FY2015, but with less budget authority. The Senate bill would provide 41% less in loan authority
($500,000 in budget authority to support $7.6 million in REAP loans). As in FY2015, there is no
appropriation in either bill for REAP grants. The Administration had requested $5 million.
74
For certain RBS loans, borrowers may forward pay into a Treasury account that earns interest. Appropriators
authorize a loan level, and the needed budget authority comes from the interest earned rather than new appropriations.
A rescission of the cushion of credit account reduces the amount that remains available for the program to spend.
75
If the cushion of credit rescission is incorporated as in the Appropriations committee tables (-$154 million in the
House bill, -$182 million in the Senate bill), the net RBS budget authority provided would be negative.
76
Business Development grants combine Rural Business Enterprise grants and Rural Business Opportunity grants.
Congressional Research Service
39
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
7.6 million in loans. This is $5.2 million less in loan authority than FY2015, and $850,000 less in loan subsidies. The FY2016 appropriation provides no grant funding, the same as FY2015; the Administration had requested $5 million.
The Administration requested funding for two new business programs: the Rural Business
Investment Program ($6 million) and the Healthy Food Financing Initiative (HFFI, $13 million).
The former The Rural Business Investment Program was authorized in the 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171
, §6029), and the, §6029) but was not implemented.
The HFFI was authorized in the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79, §4206). The Administration also
requested $4.
86 million for the Rural Microenterprise Assistance Program. The
House bill would
not fund any of these programs. The Senate bill would provide $1 million for the HFFI.
Rural Utilities Service (RUS)
For FY2016, the House bill would provide $544 million in new budget authority for the Rural
appropriation provides no funding for any of these programs, the same as FY2015.
Rural Utilities Service (RUS)
The FY2016 appropriation provides $594 million in budget authority for the Rural Utilities Service before transferring salaries and expenses,
about $8 million more than FY2015.
This level would support $7.5 billion in loan authorization (Table 10). The Senate bill would
provide more than the House bill: $568 million in new budget authority (+4% compared with the
House bill) to support $8.7 billion in loan authority (+17% compared to the House).
$58 million more than FY2015 (+11%). This budget authority supports $8.2 billion in loans (Table 11).
The Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program account is
8788% of the RUS appropriation. The
House bill would provide $474 enacted bill provides $522.4 million in budget authority, $
957.5 million more than FY2015
and $9
million less than the Administration requested. The Senate bill would provide $497 million, $23
million more than the House. Both bills would support $1.25 billion in direct and guaranteed
loans. Differences between the bills reside among the grant programs, as noted below:
Water/Waste Water grants ($337.1 million House; $347.1 million Senate),
Grants for Colonias,77 and Alaska and Hawaii Natives ($54.2 million House;
$66.5 million Senate),
Technical Assistance ($19 million in both),
Circuit Rider program ($15.9 million House; $16.5 million Senate),
High Energy Cost grants ($0 House; $10 million Senate),
Emergency Community Water Assistance Grants ($10 million House; $0 Senate),
Solid Waste Management grants ($4.0 million in both),
Water and Waste Water revolving fund ($1.0 million in both),
Individual Well Water grants ($993,000 in both).
The House-reported bill would provide $5.5 billion in rural electric loan authority ($6.7 billion in
the Senate) and $690 million for Treasury rate telecommunication loans (same in the Senate).
For the combined distance learning, telemedicine, and broadband account, the House bill would
provide $35.6 million in budget authority, $1.2 million less than for FY2015. The Senate bill
would provide $36.8 million, the same as for FY2015.
For distance learning/telemedicine, the House bill would provide $20.0 million in
grants, $2 million less than FY2015. The Senate bill would provide $22 million.
For rural broadband grants, both House and Senate bills would provide $10.4
million, the same as FY2015. For loans, the House bill would provide $5.2
million to subsidize $24.1 million in direct loans, the same loan level as FY2015.
The Senate bill would provide 14.5% less than the House for such loans.
77
Colonias generally are described as unincorporated communities or housing developments on the U.S. side of the
U.S.-Mexico border that lack some or all basic infrastructure, including plumbing and public water and sewer.
Congressional Research Service
40
Table 10. USDA Rural Development Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
Summary
P.L. 113-6
post-sequ.
P.L. 113-76
P.L. 113235
Salaries and expenses (direct)
192.1
203.4
224.2
226.7
222.7
228.7
-1.5
+4.5
+6.0
Transfers from RHS, RBCS, RUS
420.9
454.0
454.0
458.9
456.5
454.0
+2.5
+0.0
-2.5
613.0
657.4
678.2
685.6
679.2
682.7
+1.0
+4.5
+3.5
1,031.1
1,279.6
1,298.4
1,394.7
1,368.7
1,367.2
+70.4
+68.8
-1.6
114.2
130.2
103.2
138.7
87.0
91.5
-16.2
-11.8
+4.4
520.8
501.6
501.7
538.4
509.7
533.7
+8.0
+32.0
+24.0
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
-0.0
+0.0
+0.0
2,279.9
2,569.7
2,582.4
2,758.4
2,645.6
2,675.9
+63.2
+93.5
+30.3
-180.0
-172.0
-179.0
-154.0
-154.0
-182.0
+25.0
-3.0
-28.0
2,099.9
2,397.7
2,403.4
2,604.4
2,491.6
2,493.9
+88.2
+90.5
+2.3
Administrative expenses (transfer)
383.3
415.1
415.1
419.5
417.9
415.1
+2.8
+0.0
-2.8
Single family direct loans (Sec. 502)
50.2
24.5
66.4
60.8
60.8
60.8
-5.7
-5.7
+0.0
840.1
900.0
900.0
900.0
900.0
900.0
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
24,000.0
24,000.0
24,000.0
24,000.0
24,000.0
24,000.0
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Other RHIF programsc
29.3
22.8
29.4
31.1
27.0
26.9
-2.5
-2.5
-0.1
Loan authority
241.7
248.6
248.3
307.4
248.5
298.3
+0.3
+50.0
+49.7
462.7
462.4
510.9
511.4
505.6
502.7
-5.4
-8.2
-2.8
25,081.8
25,148.6
25,148.3
25,207.4
25,148.5
25,198.3
+0.3
+50.0
+49.7
Subtotal, salaries and exp.
FY2016
Admin.
Request
H.Cmte.
H.R. 3049
Change from FY2015
S.Cmte.
S. 1800
in House
Bill
in Senate
Bill
Senate
Compared
With
House
Programs
1. Rural Housing Service
2. Rural Business-Cooperative
Servicea
3. Rural Utilities Service
Office of the Under Secretary
Total, Rural Development
Alternate total (including rescissions)a
Less rescission of Cushion of Credit
Net, Rural Development (in cmte. rept.)
1. Rural Housing Service
Loan authority
Single family guaranteed loans: Loan authorityb
Subtotal, RHIF
Loan authority
CRS-41
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
P.L. 113-6
post-sequ.
P.L. 113-76
P.L. 113235
834.3
1,110.0
1,088.5
1,171.9
1,167.0
1,167.0
+78.5
+78.5
+0.0
2.8
—
—
—
—
—
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Multifamily housing revitalization
26.4
32.6
24.0
34.0
24.0
24.0
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Mutual & self-help housing grants
27.7
25.0
27.5
10.0
27.5
27.5
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Rural housing assistance grants
30.6
32.2
32.2
25.0
32.2
32.2
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
12.1
13.0
13.0
50.0
13.0
13.0
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
2,200.0
2,200.0
2,200.0
2,200.0
2,200.0
2,200.0
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
3.6
3.8
3.5
—
3.5
2.0
+0.0
-1.5
-1.5
53.3
59.5
73.2
—
148.3
84.7
+75.1
+11.5
-63.6
Rural community dev. initiative
5.7
6.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Economic impact initiative grants
5.5
5.8
5.8
—
5.8
5.8
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Tribal college grants
3.1
4.0
4.0
8.0
4.0
4.0
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
30.0
32.5
30.3
62.0
30.3
28.8
+0.0
-1.5
-1.5
2,253.3
2,259.5
2,273.2
2,200.0
2,348.3
2,284.7
+75.1
+11.5
-63.6
Total, Rural Housing Service
1,414.3
1,694.7
1,713.5
1,814.3
1,786.6
1,782.3
+73.1
+68.8
-4.3
Less transfer salaries & expenses
-383.3
-415.1
-415.1
-419.5
-417.9
-415.1
-2.8
+0.0
+2.8
1,031.1
1,279.6
1,298.4
1,394.7
1,368.7
1,367.2
+70.4
+68.8
-1.6
27,335.1
27,408.1
27,421.5
27,407.4
27,496.8
27,483.0
+75.3
+61.5
-13.8
Summary
FY2016
Admin.
Request
H.Cmte.
H.R. 3049
Change from FY2015
S.Cmte.
S. 1800
in House
Bill
in Senate
Bill
Senate
Compared
With
House
Other housing programs
Rental assistance (Sec. 521)
Other rental
assistanced
Rural Community Facilities Program
Community Facilities: Grants
Community Facilities: Direct loan authority
Community Facilities: Guarantees
Loan authority
Subtotal, Rural Community Facilities
Loan authority
Rural Housing Service (programs)
Loan authority
CRS-42
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
P.L. 113-6
post-sequ.
P.L. 113-76
P.L. 113235
52.3
67.0
47.0
31.4
35.7
35.7
-11.3
-11.3
+0.0
890.2
958.1
919.8
758.2
919.8
919.8
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
22.6
24.3
24.0
30.0
24.0
24.0
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Rural bus. opportunity grants
2.1
2.3
—
—
—
—
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Delta regional authority grants
2.8
3.0
3.0
—
—
3.0
-3.0
+0.0
+3.0
Rural child poverty
—
—
—
20.0
—
—
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Admin. expenses (transfer)
4.1
4.4
4.4
4.5
4.4
4.4
-0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Loan subsidy
5.6
4.1
5.8
2.8
5.2
5.2
-0.6
-0.6
+0.0
17.4
18.9
18.9
10.0
18.9
18.9
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Rural Econ. Dev.: Loan authority
33.1
33.1
33.1
85.0
33.1
48.0
+0.0
+14.9
+14.9
Rural coop. development grants
25.7
26.1
22.1
21.1
21.3
22.1
-0.8
+0.0
+0.8
Rural Microenterprise Inv.: Grants
—
—
—
2.0
—
—
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Rural Microenterprise: Loan subsidy
—
—
—
2.7
—
—
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
—
—
—
23.4
—
—
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Rural Business Invest. Program: Grants
—
—
—
2.0
—
—
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Loan subsidy
—
—
—
4.0
—
—
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
—
—
—
41.2
—
—
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Summary
FY2016
Admin.
Request
H.Cmte.
H.R. 3049
Change from FY2015
S.Cmte.
S. 1800
in House
Bill
in Senate
Bill
Senate
Compared
With
House
2. Rural Business Cooperative Service
Rural Business Program Account
Guar. Bus. & Ind. (B&I) Loans
Loan authority
Rural bus. enterprise grants
Rural Development Loan Fund Program
Loan authority
Loan authority
Loan authority
CRS-43
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
P.L. 113-6
post-sequ.
P.L. 113-76
P.L. 113235
Rural Energy for America: Grants
—
—
—
5.0
—
—
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Loan subsidy
3.1
3.5
1.4
5.0
0.8
0.5
-0.5
-0.9
-0.3
13.1
12.8
12.8
75.8
12.8
7.6
+0.0
-5.2
-5.2
—
—
—
12.8
—
1.0
+0.0
+1.0
+1.0
118.3
134.6
107.7
143.2
91.5
95.9
-16.2
-11.8
+4.4
-4.1
-4.4
-4.4
-4.5
-4.4
-4.4
+0.0
+0.0
-0.0
114.2
130.2
103.2
138.7
87.0
91.5
-16.2
-11.8
+4.4
953.7
1,022.8
984.5
993.6
984.5
994.2
+0.0
+9.8
+9.8
Total, Rural Business-Cooperative Service
118.3
134.6
107.7
143.2
91.5
95.9
-16.2
-11.8
+4.4
Less rescission of Cushion of Credit
-180.0
-172.0
-179.0
-154.0
-154.0
-182.0
+25.0
-3.0
-28.0
-61.7
-37.4
-71.3
-10.8
-62.5
-86.1
+8.8
-14.8
-23.6
Loan subsidy and grants
484.5
462.4
464.9
483.3
473.9
496.7
+9.0
+31.9
+22.8
Direct loan authority
923.7
1,200.0
1,200.0
1,200.0
1,200.0
1,200.0
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
P.L. 83-566 loans
40.0
40.0
—
—
—
—
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Guaranteed loan authority
56.6
50.0
50.0
—
50.0
50.0
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
33.5
34.5
34.5
34.9
34.2
34.5
-0.2
+0.0
+0.2
—
—
—
0.1
0.2
0.1
+0.2
+0.1
-0.1
690.0
690.0
690.0
690.0
690.0
690.0
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Summary
Loan authority
Healthy Foods Healthy Neighborhoods Initiative
Total, Rural Business-Coop. Service
Less transfer salaries & exp.
Rural Bus.-Coop. Service (programs)a
Loan authority
Alternate total (including
FY2016
Admin.
Request
H.Cmte.
H.R. 3049
Change from FY2015
S.Cmte.
S. 1800
in House
Bill
in Senate
Bill
Senate
Compared
With
House
rescission)a
Net, Rural Bus.-Coop. Svc. (cmte. rept.)
3. Rural Utilities Service
Rural Water & Waste Disposal Program
Rural Electric and Telecom. Loans
Admin. expenses (transfer)
Telecommunication loan subsidy
Telecommunication loan authority
CRS-44
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
P.L. 113-6
post-sequ.
P.L. 113-76
P.L. 113235
7,100.0
5,500.0
5,500.0
6,000.0
5,500.0
6,750.0
+0.0
+1,250.0
+1,250.0
23.1
24.3
22.0
25.0
20.0
22.0
-2.0
+0.0
+2.0
Broadband: Grants
9.6
10.4
10.4
20.4
10.4
10.4
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Broadband: Direct loan subsidy
3.7
4.5
4.5
9.7
5.3
4.5
+0.8
+0.0
-0.8
39.1
34.5
24.1
44.2
24.1
20.6
+0.0
-3.5
-3.5
554.3
536.0
536.2
573.3
544.0
568.2
+7.8
+32.0
+24.2
-33.5
-34.5
-34.5
-34.9
-34.2
-34.5
+0.2
+0.0
-0.2
520.8
501.6
501.7
538.4
509.7
533.7
+8.0
+32.0
+24.0
8,849.4
7,514.5
7,464.1
7,934.2
7,464.1
8,710.6
+0.0
+1,246.5
+1,246.5
Summary
Electricity loan authority
FY2016
Admin.
Request
H.Cmte.
H.R. 3049
Change from FY2015
S.Cmte.
S. 1800
in House
Bill
in Senate
Bill
Senate
Compared
With
House
Distance Learning, Telemed., Broadband
Distance learning & telemedicine
Direct loan authority
Subtotal, Rural Utilities Service
Less transfer salaries & exp.
Total, Rural Utilities Service
Loan authority
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports for the referenced appropriations acts or bills. Amounts for FY2013 are
the post-sequestration level from the USDA FY2013 Operating Plan.
Notes: Loan authority is the amount of loans that can be made and is not added to budget authority in the totals.
a. Amounts for the Rural Business Cooperative Service in this report are before the rescission from the Cushion of Credit account. This allows the agency total to
remain positive. Appropriations Committee report tables show the rescission in the agency section, causing the agency total to be less than zero. This CRS report
(+12.4%) and $39 million more than the Administration requested. The FY2016 amount is divided among the following accounts:- Water/Waste Water grants: $364.4 million ($347.1 million in FY2015);
- Grants for Colonias,94 and Alaska and Hawaii Natives: $64 million ($66.5 million in FY2015);
- Technical Assistance: $20 million ($19 million in FY2015);
- Circuit Rider program: $16.4 million ($15.9 million in FY2015);
- High Energy Cost grants: $10 million (same as FY2015);
- Solid Waste Management grants: $4 million (same as FY2015);
- Water and Waste Water revolving fund: $1 million (same as FY2015);
- Individual Well Water grants: $993,000 (same as FY2015).
The FY2016 appropriation provides $5.5 billion in rural electric loan authority for Federal Financing Bank loans, and $690 million for Treasury rate telecommunication loans. These are the same amounts as enacted for FY2015. The appropriation also increased the guaranteed underwriting authorization for electric loans from $500 million to $750 million.
For the combined distance learning, telemedicine, and broadband account, the FY2016 appropriation provides $36.8 million in budget authority, the same as for FY2015.
- For distance learning/telemedicine, the appropriation provides $22.0 million in grants.
- For rural broadband, the appropriation provides $10.4 million in grants, the same as FY2015. For loans, it provides an unchanged $4.5 million in budget authority to subsidize $20.6 million in direct loans (-15% from FY2015).
Table 11. USDA Rural Development Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2013
|
FY2014
|
FY2015
|
FY2016
|
Rural Development
|
P.L. 113-6 post-sequ.a
P.L. 113-76
|
P.L. 113-235
|
Admin. Request
|
H. Cmte. H.R. 3049
|
S. Cmte. S. 1800
|
P.L. 114-113
|
Change from FY2015 to FY2016 Enacted
|
Salaries and expenses (direct)
|
Transfers from RHS, RBCS, RUS
|
Subtotal, salaries and exp.
|
Programs
|
1. Rural Housing Service
|
2. Rural Business-Cooperative Servicea
3. Rural Utilities Service
|
Office of the Under Secretary
|
Total, Rural Development
|
Alternate total (including rescissions)a
Less rescission of Cushion of Credit
|
Net, Rural Development (in cmte. rept.)
|
1. Rural Housing Service
|
Administrative expenses (transfer)
|
Single family direct loans (Section 502)
|
Loan authority
|
Single family guaranteed loans: Loan authorityb
Other RHIF programsc
Loan authority
|
Subtotal, RHIF
|
Loan authority
|
Other housing programs
|
Rental assistance (Section 521)
|
Other rental assistanced
Multifamily housing revitalization
|
Mutual & self-help housing grants
|
Rural housing assistance grants
|
Rural Community Facilities Program
|
Community Facilities: Grants
|
Community Facilities: Direct loan authority
|
Community Facilities: Guarantees
|
Loan authority
|
Rural community dev. initiative
|
Economic impact initiative grants
|
Tribal college grants
|
Subtotal, Rural Community Facilities
|
Loan authority
|
Total, Rural Housing Service
|
Less transfer salaries & expenses
|
Rural Housing Service (programs)
|
Loan authority
|
2. Rural Business Cooperative Service
|
Rural Business Program Account
|
Guar. Bus. & Ind. (B&I) Loans
|
Loan authority
|
Rural bus. enterprise grants
|
Rural bus. opportunity grants
|
Delta regional authority grants
|
Rural child poverty
|
Rural Development Loan Fund Program
|
Admin. expenses (transfer)
|
Loan subsidy
|
Loan authority
|
Rural Econ. Dev.: Loan authority
|
Rural coop. development grants
|
Rural Microenterprise Inv.: Grants
|
Rural Microenterprise: Loan subsidy
|
Loan authority
|
Rural Business Invest. Program: Grants
|
Loan subsidy
|
Loan authority
|
Rural Energy for America: Grants
|
Loan subsidy
|
Loan authority
|
Healthy Foods Healthy Neighborhoods Initiative
|
Total, Rural Business-Coop. Service
|
Less transfer salaries & exp.
|
Rural Bus.-Coop. Service (programs)a
Loan authority
|
Alternate total (including rescission)a
Total, Rural Business-Cooperative Service
|
Less rescission of Cushion of Credit
|
Net, Rural Bus.-Coop. Svc. (cmte. rept.)
|
3. Rural Utilities Service
|
Rural Water & Waste Disposal Program
|
Loan subsidy and grants
|
Direct loan authority
|
P.L. 83-566 loans
|
Guaranteed loan authority
|
Rural Electric and Telecom. Loans
|
Admin. expenses (transfer)
|
Telecommunication loan subsidy
|
Telecommunication loan authority
|
Electricity loan authority
|
Distance Learning, Telemed., Broadband
|
Distance learning & telemedicine
|
Broadband: Grants
|
Broadband: Direct loan subsidy
|
Direct loan authority
|
Subtotal, Rural Utilities Service
|
Less transfer salaries & exp.
|
Total, Rural Utilities Service
|
Loan authority
|
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports for the referenced appropriations acts or bills. Amounts for FY2013 are the post-sequestration level from the USDA FY2013 Operating Plan.
Notes: Loan authority is the amount of loans that can be made and is not added to budget authority in the totals.
a.
Amounts for the Rural Business Cooperative Service in this report are before the rescission from the Cushion of Credit account. This allows the agency total to remain positive. Appropriations Committee report tables show the rescission in the agency section, causing the agency total to be less than zero. This CRS report includes the Cushion of Credit rescission in the General Provisions section with changes in mandatory spending, as it is scored by CBO (Table
13).
b. 15).
b.
This program became self-funding after enactment of loan guarantee fees being charged to banks that are sufficient to cover the loan subsidy.
c.
c.
Includes Section 504 housing repair, Section 515 rental housing, Section 524 site loans, Section 518 multi-family housing guarantees, single and multi-family housing
credit sales, Section 523 self-help housing land development, and farm labor housing.
d.
d.
Section 502(c)(5)(D) eligible households, Section 515 new construction, and farm labor housing new construction.
CRS-45
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Domestic Food Assistance78
Domestic Food Assistance95
Domestic food assistance represents over two-thirds of USDA
’'s budget. Funding is largely for
open-ended appropriated mandatory programs; that is, it varies with program participation and in
some cases inflation
under the terms of the underlying authorization law. The largest. The biggest mandatory programs include the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly the Food Stamps Program) and the child nutrition programs
(including the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program).
The three
mainlargest discretionary budget items are the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for
Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP); and
federal nutrition program administration.
79
For FY2016, both the House- and Senate-reported bills would provide over $110 billion for
96
The enacted FY2016 appropriation (P.L. 114-113) provides nearly $110 billion for domestic food assistance (
Table 12), approximately $394 million (or less than 1%) below FY2015. This FY2016 total is approximately $300 million below that proposed in House- and Senate-reported bills, due largely to the Administration's updated estimates for the SNAP and WIC accounts.
The FY2016 law's general provisions and explanatory statement language provide further information for the domestic food assistance programs and in some cases instructions to USDA. The explanatory statement indicates that House or Senate committee's directives for an agency report still hold, and that all other report language is considered evidence of committee intent, unless otherwise changed by the explanatory statement.
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services
For the Under Secretary's office, the FY2016 appropriation provides $811,000, a reduction of $5,000 from FY2015.
The explanatory statement includes several directives for the Department.97 Citing two reports from the OIG (one on SNAP's quality control process, another on school meals error rate measurement),98 it directs USDA to provide a report on how the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) will address these reports. The statement also directs FNS to inform the committees of proposed policy actions before actions are implemented and, separately, expects "FNS to ensure that all parties that enter into a contract fulfill all required obligations."
SNAP and Other Programs Under the Food and Nutrition Act
Appropriations under the Food and Nutrition Act (formerly the Food Stamp Act) support (1) SNAP (and related grants), (2) a Nutrition Assistance Block Grant for Puerto Rico and nutrition assistance block grants to American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (all in lieu of the SNAP), (3) the cost of food commodities as well as administrative and distribution expenses under the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR), (4) the cost of commodities for the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) (but not administrative/distribution expenses, which are covered under the Commodity Assistance Program budget account), and (5) Community Food Projects.
The enacted appropriation provides approximately $80.8 billion for programs under the Food and Nutrition Act in FY2016. This is nearly $1 billion less than FY2015 (-1%) and approximately $200 million less than House- and Senate-reported bills. These differences are due largely to the Administration's forecast of lower participation in the SNAP program and inflation-related updates.99 The enacted appropriation provides $3 billion for the SNAP contingency reserve fund, equal to past appropriations but less than the $5 billion requested by the Administration. The explanatory statement notes that the appropriation provides, "a funding level for SNAP benefits as reflected in OMB's mid-session review of the budget."100
The explanatory statement notes that the Nutrition Education and Program Information line item of the SNAP account "does not provide funding for new or existing Centers of Excellence, which have not been authorized by Congress."101
The enacted SNAP appropriation continues to reflect the funding increases authorized by the 2014 farm bill, such as those for TEFAP commodities and Community Food Projects.102
Child Nutrition Programs103
Appropriations under the child nutrition account fund a number of programs and activities authorized by the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition Act. These include the National School Lunch Program, School Breakfast Program, Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), Summer Food Service Program, Special Milk Program, assistance for child-nutrition-related state administrative expenses (SAE), procurement of commodities for child nutrition programs (in addition to transfers from separate budget accounts within USDA), state-federal reviews of the integrity of school meal operations ("Coordinated Reviews"), "Team Nutrition" and food safety education initiatives to improve meal quality and safety in child nutrition programs, and support activities such as technical assistance to providers and studies/evaluations. (Child nutrition efforts are also supported by mandatory permanent appropriations and other funding sources discussed in "Other Nutrition Funding Support.")
The FY2016 enacted appropriation provides approximately $22.1 billion for child nutrition programs. This proposed level is approximately $850 million greater (+4%) than the amount provided in FY2015, and includes transfers from the Section 32 account. This is also approximately $600 million greater than the House- and Senate-reported bills. Increases are largely due to updated estimates for participation and costs of the child nutrition programs.
The enacted appropriation funds certain child nutrition discretionary grants, at levels higher than the House- or Senate- reported bills, but lower than the Administration's request. Also, Section 741 in the general provisions of the appropriations law included additional funding that is available until expended. These grants are:
School Meals Equipment Grants.104 The enacted bill provides $30 million (including $5 million in Section 741(a)) for this purpose. This is a 20% increase from 2015, when $25 million was provided. The House-reported bill would have provided $20 million; the Senate-reported bill would have provided $25 million. The Administration requested $35 million for FY2016.
Summer EBT (Electronic Benefit Transfer)Table 11). The Senate-reported bill would provide about $65 million
more than the House-reported bill, largely due to WIC and child nutrition grant programs. Both
bills’ report language include further information about the domestic food assistance programs,
including general provisions, oversight concerns, and in some cases instructions to USDA.
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services
For FY2016, the House-reported bill would provide $811,000 and the Senate-reported bill would
provide $816,000. This office received $816,000 in FY2015.
In committee report language for this office, the House committee noted concerns with FNS’s
research and evaluation agenda. Particularly, the committee would like to see better coordination
with USDA’s Research, Education, and Economics (REE) mission area. The House-reported bill
(§735) would require the Secretary to submit to the appropriations committees a FY2016 research
and evaluation plan prepared in coordination with REE before using the bill’s funding to
commence any new research and evaluation projects. The Senate-reported bill does not include
this research policy in its legislation or its committee report. The House report also “urged” FNS
to recognize in publications and regulations “the nutritional benefits provided by all forms of
fruits, vegetables, and beans, whether canned, dried, fresh or frozen.”
SNAP and Other Programs under the Food and Nutrition Act
Appropriations under the Food and Nutrition Act (formerly the Food Stamp Act) support (1)
SNAP (and related grants), (2) a Nutrition Assistance Block Grant for Puerto Rico and nutrition
assistance block grants to American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands (all in lieu of the SNAP), (3) the cost of food commodities as well as administrative and
distribution expenses under the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR), (4)
the cost of commodities for The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) (but not
administrative/distribution expenses, which are covered under the Commodity Assistance
Program budget account), and (5) Community Food Projects.
Both the House-reported and Senate-reported bills would provide over $81.6 billion for programs
under the Food and Nutrition Act, with the House-reported bill providing approximately $9
million less than the Senate. These funding amounts are about $180 million less than FY2015
appropriations (less than a 1% decrease), largely due to an estimated reduction in spending on
78
79
This section was written by Randy Alison Aussenberg (7-8641, raussenberg@crs.loc.gov).
For background about the programs, see CRS Report R42353, Domestic Food Assistance: Summary of Programs.
Congressional Research Service
46
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
SNAP benefits.80 The proposed appropriations would provide $3 billion for the SNAP
contingency reserve fund, equal to past appropriations but less than the $5 billion requested by
the Administration. The Administration has requested less for SNAP benefits than in FY2015 due
to a forecast of a slight decrease in participation.81
Reported FY2016 appropriations bills for the SNAP account also reflect the funding increases
authorized by the 2014 farm bill, such as those for TEFAP and Community Food Projects.82
The House committee report includes SNAP-related language supporting the 2014 farm bill’s
policies regarding employment verification and program recruitment restrictions. House report
language also directs FNS to assist states that have a compressed benefit issuance schedule and to
report to the House and Senate Appropriations committees on these states’ progress.
Child Nutrition Programs83
Appropriations under the child nutrition account fund a number of programs and activities
covered by the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition Act. These
include the National School Lunch Program, School Breakfast Program, Child and Adult Care
Food Program (CACFP), Summer Food Service Program, Special Milk Program, assistance for
child-nutrition-related state administrative expenses (SAE), procurement of commodities for child
nutrition programs (in addition to transfers from separate budget accounts within USDA), statefederal reviews of the integrity of school meal operations (“Coordinated Reviews”), “Team
Nutrition” and food safety education initiatives to improve meal quality and safety in child
nutrition programs, and support activities such as technical assistance to providers and
studies/evaluations. (In addition, child nutrition efforts are supported by mandatory permanent
appropriations and other funding sources discussed below in “Other Nutrition Funding Support.”)
The FY2016 reported bills would provide approximately $21.5 billion for child nutrition
programs, with the House-reported bill including $17 million (<1%) less than the Senate-reported
bill. This proposed level is 1% more than the amount provided in FY2015, and includes transfers
from the Section 32 account.
The Administration requested funds for certain child nutrition discretionary grants. The Houseand Senate-reported bills propose to fund these grants differently:
School Meals Equipment and Breakfast Expansion grants. The Housereported bill would provide $20 million for this purpose, while the Senatereported bill would provide $25 million. The Administration requested $35
million for FY2016. $25 million was provided in FY2015.
Summer EBT Demonstration Projects. These
programs provideprojects provide electronic food benefits
over summer months to households with children
in order to make up for school meals
that children miss when school is out of session and as an alternative to the
Summer Food Service Program meals. These projects originally were authorized
and funded in the FY2010
appropriation (P.L. 111-80) and most recently received
80
As an appropriated, open-ended mandatory program, SNAP funding is not the same as SNAP spending. SNAP
regularly receives annual appropriations that are greater than the amount that the program spends. Better measures for
SNAP program spending are from USDA-FNS’s costs data, available at http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPmain.htm.
81
USDA-FNS Congressional Budget Justification, page “32-87,” at http://www.obpa.usda.gov/32fns2016notes.pdf.
82
See CRS Report R43332, SNAP and Related Nutrition Provisions of the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79).
83
Further background on these programs and related funding is provided in CRS Report R43783, School Meals
Programs and Other USDA Child Nutrition Programs: A Primer.
Congressional Research Service
47
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
$16 million in FY2015. The Administration requested approximately $67 million
to continue these projects in FY2016, continuing to cite the positive results of
these demonstrations. 84 The House-reported bill would provide $12 million,
while the Senate-reported bill would provide $16 million.
The House committee report includes language emphasizing that expansion of the Summer EBT
program should be addressed to authorizing committees and expresses the committee’s concern
with improper payments in the programs. The Senate report states that the committee expects that
the food safety education activities will be carried out by the National Food Service Management
Institute.
Child Nutrition Policies in General Provisions
Both the House- and Senate-reported bills would continue the school meals nutrition standards
language that was included in the general provisions of the FY2015 appropriations law:85
Exemptions from whole grain rules (House bill §732; Senate bill §745(a)).
This language would require USDA to allow states to exempt school food
authorities (typically school districts) from the 100% whole grain requirements,
if they “demonstrate hardship, including financial hardship, in procuring specific
whole grain products which are acceptable to the students and compliant with the
whole grain-rich requirements.” The provision, however, requires such exempted
authorities to maintain a 50% whole grain minimum, the requirement in place
prior to school year 2014-2015. The FY2015 appropriation requires availability
of these exemptions through school year 2015-2016; the House- and Senatereported bills would continue exemptions through school year 2016-2017.86
Scientific basis for sodium limits (House bill §733; Senate bill §745(b)). This policy
rider would prevent USDA from implementing regulations that require the reduction of
sodium in “federally reimbursed meals, foods, and snacks sold in schools” below the
“Target 1” limits until “the latest scientific research establishes the reduction is beneficial
for children.” (Note: According to the school meals regulations published in January
2012, a lower “Target 2” is to take effect during school year 2017-2018, and a still lower
“Target 3” in school year 2022-2023.87)
In addition, only the House-reported bill includes a policy rider (§729) to prevent any processed
poultry imported from China from being included in the National School Lunch Program, School
Breakfast Program, Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), and Summer Food Service
Program. This provision also was in the FY2015 enacted appropriation.
The full impact and scope of these child nutrition provisions are subject to USDA’s (and perhaps
states’) interpretation and implementation.
84
See USDA-FNS FY2016 Congressional Budget Justification, p. “32-24” for more details on this request. For the
FY2010 funding and evaluations, see also USDA-FNS website, “Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer for Children
(SEBTC)” http://www.fns.usda.gov/ops/summer-electronic-benefit-transfer-children-sebtc.
85
For background on the updated nutrition standards, see pp. 29-30 of CRS Report R43783, School Meals Programs
and Other USDA Child Nutrition Programs: A Primer. For a discussion of the FY2015 appropriation, see p. 54 of CRS
Report R43669, Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations.
86
For USDA’s implementation of the FY2015 provision, see USDA-FNS, “Requests for Exemption from the School
Meals’ Whole Grain-rich Requirement for School years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016,” http://www.fns.usda.gov/requestsexemption-school-meals%E2%80%99-whole-grain-rich-requirement-school-years-2014-2015-and-2015-2016.
87
See 7 C.F.R. 210.10(f)(3), 220.8(f)(3).
Congressional Research Service
48
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Significance of September 30, 2015 for Activities (Re)authorized by the
Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-296)88
The 2010 reauthorization of the Child Nutrition and WIC programs contains a number of authorizations of
appropriations and authorizations with September 30, 2015, end dates, but most program operations can
continue so long as funding is provided.
Many of the programs’ authorizing provisions are permanent (i.e., they do not have an expiration date
associated with them). This is the case for the main functions of NSLP, SBP, CACFP, and Special Milk.
Other programs, including SFSP, WIC, WIC FMNP, and the State Administrative Expenses (funding for states’
operation of certain programs), face an expiration date of September 30, 2015, for the authorization of their
appropriations. However, even without an authorization extension beyond that date, Congress can still
choose to provide funding via the appropriations process, allowing these programs to continue to operate.
Several policies set to expire after September 30, 2015—not authorizations of appropriations—could be
affected if their authorizing dates are not changed. These are not major program functions, but have interested
stakeholders. This list includes a California program to provide SFSP food year-round, certain food safety
audits, and preappropriated funds for a National Hunger Clearinghouse.
WIC Program
While SNAP and the child nutrition programs are appropriated mandatory programs, WIC is a
discretionary program with funding entirely at Congress’s annual discretion. Unlike the
appropriated entitlements, an inadequate appropriation for the WIC program could reduce the
number of pregnant and postpartum women, infants, and children served. Since the late 1990s,
the appropriations committees’ practice has been to provide enough funds for WIC to serve all
who are eligible.89
The House-reported bill would provide approximately $6.48 billion for WIC, a decrease of $139
million (-2%) from FY2015 appropriations. The Senate-reported bill would provide
approximately $6.51 billion, a decrease of $110 million (-2%) from FY2015 appropriations.
The House and Senate bills both include set-asides for WIC breastfeeding peer counselors and
related activities (“not less than $60 million”), infrastructure (approximately $14 million), and
management information systems ($55 million). This is equal to FY2015 set-asides for
breastfeeding peer counselors and infrastructure in FY2015, but varies slightly for management
information systems. (The FY2015 appropriation included a $25 million set-aside for
transitioning WIC programs to EBT in addition to $30 million for management information
systems generally; the FY2016 bills would include both of these purposes in one set-aside.90)
The House committee report includes language explaining that the funding level provided is due
to decreasing WIC participation and available carryover funding; the committee’s support for a
WIC transition to EBT; appreciation for USDA’s inclusion of all fruits and vegetables following
FY2015 appropriation actions on the issue;91 instructions for USDA to provide a report on efforts
88
For background, including a list of affected or potentially affected provisions, CRS has released a congressional
memorandum. Congressional clients may request a copy from Randy Alison Aussenberg at raussenberg@crs.loc.gov.
89
USDA Economic Research Service, “Anecdotal Evidence Suggest That WIC Became Fully Funded Sometime in the
Late 1990s,” in The WIC Program: Background, Trends, and Economic Issues, 2015 Edition, EIB-134, January 2015,
p. 19.
90
The Healthy, Hunger-free Kids Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-296) requires states to transition WIC vouchers to EBT by the
end of FY2020. See CRS Report R44115, A Primer on WIC: The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants, and Children, for more information on this transition.
91
For a summary of the history of the controversy over white potatoes, please see Appendix B of CRS Report R44115,
A Primer on WIC: The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.
Congressional Research Service
49
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
to ensure that income eligibility standards are followed and encouraging the use of income
verification systems; direction for USDA to submit a report on their responses to the OIG’s
September 2014 audit on state food costs; and instruction for FNS to provide a report on the
agencies’ efforts to reduce the sale of WIC benefits and infant formula. The Senate report
includes the committee’s interest that the next update on WIC-eligible foods (the WIC “food
package”) includes more fish, including wild salmon.
Commodity Assistance Program
The Commodity Assistance Program budget account supports several discretionary programs and
activities: (1) the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), (2) funding for TEFAP
administrative and distribution costs, (3) the WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program (FMNP),
and (4) special Pacific Island assistance for nuclear-test-affected zones in the Pacific (the
Marshall Islands) and in the case of natural disasters.
Both reported bills would provide approximately $288 million for this account, an increase of
nearly $10 million (+4%) from the FY2015 appropriation. The reported bills’ increase is due to
the 5% increase for CSFP. In the reported bills, all of the other programs in this account would
receive funding equal to the FY2015 appropriation.
Nutrition Programs Administration
This budget account covers spending for federal administration of all the USDA domestic food
assistance program areas noted above; special projects for improving the integrity and quality of
these programs; and the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion (CNPP), which provides
nutrition education and information to consumers (including various dietary guides).
The House-reported bill would provide approximately $141 million for this account, a reduction
of $9.5 million (-6%) from the FY2015 level. The Senate-reported bill would provide
approximately $152 million, an increase of $1 million (+1%) from FY2015.
General Provisions on the Formulation of the Dietary Guidelines92
The Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) are federally-developed food-based
recommendations for Americans ages 2 years and older, designed to promote health and prevent
disease. The DGA form the basis of federal nutrition policy, education, outreach, and food
assistance programs. They provide the scientific basis for government recommendations and are
used in the development of educational materials, messages, tools, and programs to communicate
healthy eating and physical activity information to the public.
CNPP is funded through the Nutrition Program Administration account and is the USDA office
that leads the policy development of the DGA. CNPP and the Office of Disease Prevention and
Health Promotion (ODPHP) within HHS, jointly issue the DGA policy document every five years
(since 1980), with the lead role alternating between the two departments. HHS and USDA are
currently developing the eighth edition (2015), with publication expected this year.93 HHS has the
administrative lead for the 2015 DGA. Over the last year, the development of the DGA has been
controversial, and both House- and Senate-reported appropriations bills contain policy riders
related to it.
92
93
This section was written by Agata Dabrowska, Analyst in Health Policy (adabrowska@crs.loc.gov, 7-9455).
For background, see CRS In Focus IF10118, The Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
Congressional Research Service
50
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Provisions in both reported bills (House bill §734(1)(B); Senate bill §733) would prohibit the use
of funds to issue or implement the 2015 edition of the DGA unless the information and scope of
the recommendations is limited to matters of diet and nutrition only. The House report language
clarifies the intent of §734, noting that the February 2015 report by the DGA Advisory Committee
(DGAC) “included extraneous factors outside of the statutory requirement, such as agriculture
production practices including sustainability, taxes, food labeling and marketing policies.”
Moreover, the House-reported bill would place further limits on the formulation of the next DGA.
HHS and USDA would be required (§734(1)(A)) to consider only “Grade I: Strong” evidence, as
determined by the grading rubric of the USDA Nutrition Evidence Library, for each revision to
any nutrition or dietary information or guideline contained in the 2010 DGA (the seventh edition)
and for any new nutrition or diet information or guideline to be included in the eighth edition of
the DGA. Also, HHS and USDA would be required (§734(2)-(3)) to release a preliminary draft of
the guidelines with a list of scientific studies and evidence supporting the new material for a
public comment period of 90 days. At the end of the 90-day comment period, there would be at
least 60 days for agency review of the public comments. The rationale was that more than 29,000
comments were received for the DGAC report.
In addition, the House report language states that funding is not provided for CNPP to develop
dietary guidelines for children under two years of age. The Senate’s report does not support the
Administration’s request for a $1 million increase for MyPlate/SuperTracker.
Other Nutrition Funding Support
Domestic food assistance programs also receive funds from sources other than appropriations:
94
USDA provides commodity foods to the child nutrition programs using funds
other than those in the Child Nutrition account. These purchases are financed
through permanent appropriations under “Section 32.”94 For example, about $480
million out of a total of $1.1 billion in commodity support in FY2008 came from
outside the Child Nutrition account. Historically, about half the value of
commodities distributed to child nutrition programs has come from Section 32.
The Fresh Fruit and Vegetable program for selected elementary schools
nationwide is financed with permanent, mandatory funding. The underlying law
(§4304 of the 2008 farm bill) provides funds at the beginning of every school
year (July). However, §715 of the House-reported and Senate-reported bills
delays until October 2016 the availability of a portion of the funds ($125 million)
that were scheduled for July 2016, similar to past years’ appropriations. As a
result, these proposals would allocate the total annual spending for the Fresh
Fruit and Vegetable program by fiscal year rather than school year, with no
appropriations law (P.L. 111-80). They received $23 million for FY2016 (including $7 million in §741(b)), a 44% increase from 2015 when $16 million was provided. The House-reported bill would have provided $12 million, while the Senate-reported bill would have provided $16 million. The Administration had requested approximately $67 million to continue these projects in FY2016, continuing to cite the positive results of these demonstrations.105 Child Nutrition Policies in General Provisions
The enacted appropriation includes the school meals nutrition standards "policy riders" that were in the general provisions of the FY2015 appropriations law:106
- Exemptions from whole grain rules (§733(a)). This language requires USDA to allow states to exempt school food authorities (typically school districts) from the 100% whole grain requirements, if they "demonstrate hardship, including financial hardship, in procuring specific whole grain products which are acceptable to the students and compliant with the whole grain-rich requirements." The provision, however, requires such exempted authorities to maintain a 50% whole grain minimum, the requirement in place prior to school year 2014-2015. The FY2015 appropriation required availability of these exemptions through school year 2015-2016; the enacted FY2016 appropriation continues exemptions through school year 2016-2017.107 This language had been included in the House- and Senate-reported bills.
- Scientific basis for sodium limits (Section 733(b)). This policy rider would prevent USDA from implementing regulations that require the reduction of sodium in "federally reimbursed meals, foods, and snacks sold in schools" below the "Target 1" limits until "the latest scientific research establishes the reduction is beneficial for children." (Note: According to the school meals regulations published in January 2012, a lower "Target 2" is to take effect during school year 2017-2018, and a still lower "Target 3" in school year 2022-2023.)108 This language had been included in House- and Senate-reported bills.
In addition, the enacted bill includes a policy rider (§730) to prevent any processed poultry imported from China from being included in the National School Lunch Program, School Breakfast Program, Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), and Summer Food Service Program. It was included in the House-reported bill, but not the Senate's. This provision also was in the FY2015 enacted appropriation.
The full impact and scope of these child nutrition policy riders are subject to USDA's (and perhaps states') interpretation and implementation.
The House and Senate reports each had additional child-nutrition-program related language.109
|
Significance of September 30, 2015 for Activities (Re)authorized by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-296)
As of the date of this CRS report, the most recent reauthorization of WIC and the child nutrition programs was enacted in December 2010. The 2010 reauthorization of the Child Nutrition and WIC programs contains a number of authorizations of appropriations and authorizations with September 30, 2015, end dates; however, most program operations can continue so long as funding is provided.110
As a result, the funding provided by this enacted omnibus bill (as well as the FY2016 continuing resolutions that preceded it), have allowed WIC, the child nutrition programs, and most related authorities to continue to function largely unaffected by the expiration of the authorizations of appropriations contained in that act.
|
WIC Program111
Although WIC is a discretionary program, since the late 1990s, the appropriations committees' practice has been to provide enough funds for WIC to serve all eligible participants.112
The enacted appropriation law provides $6.35 billion for the WIC program. In addition, the bill provides $220 million through a general provision that rescinds FY2015 recovery and carryover funding (discussed below).
The $6.35 billion for WIC is a decrease of $273 million (-4%) from FY2015 appropriations. The explanatory statement says, "[b]ased upon revised USDA estimates, the agreement fully funds all eligible WIC participants in fiscal year 2016." The enacted level includes set-asides for WIC breastfeeding peer counselors and related activities ("not less than $60 million") and infrastructure (approximately $14 million). These set asides are equal to FY2015 levels and are identical to those provided in the House- and Senate-reported bills.
The FY2016 law provides an additional $220 million to fund management information systems, including WIC EBT and related activities.113 According to Section 751 and the explanatory statement, these funds were offset by rescinding FY2015 carryover and recovery funds. Unlike the rest of the WIC account, which is available for two years, this rescinded funding was originally made available until expended. The House- and Senate-reported bills proposed $55 million funding for this purpose, but the funding would only have been available for two years.
The House and Senate reports each included additional WIC-related language.114
Commodity Assistance Program
The Commodity Assistance Program budget account supports several discretionary programs and activities: (1) the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), (2) funding for TEFAP administrative and distribution costs, (3) the WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program (FMNP), and (4) special Pacific Island assistance for nuclear-test-affected zones in the Pacific (the Marshall Islands) and in the case of natural disasters.
The FY2016 law provides approximately $296 million for this account, an increase of nearly $18 million (+6%) from the FY2015 appropriation. This account total is $8 million greater than the amounts proposed in House- and Senate-reported bills.
FY2016 funding provided includes increases above the FY2015 level for CSFP (+$11 million), TEFAP administrative and distribution costs (+$5 million), and WIC FMNP (+$2 million).
Nutrition Programs Administration
This budget account funds federal administration of all the USDA domestic food assistance program areas noted previously; special projects for improving the integrity and quality of these programs; and the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion (CNPP), which provides nutrition education and information to consumers (including various dietary guides).
The FY2016 enacted appropriation provides approximately $151 for this account, equal to the FY2015 funding level. This total is $10 million above the House-reported bill and $1 million below the Senate-reported bill.
General Provisions on the Formulation of the Dietary Guidelines
The Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) are federally developed food-based recommendations for Americans ages two years and older, designed to promote health and prevent disease. The DGA form the basis of federal nutrition policy, education, outreach, and food assistance programs. They provide the scientific basis for government recommendations and are used in the development of educational materials, messages, tools, and programs to communicate healthy eating and physical activity information to the public.
CNPP is funded through the Nutrition Program Administration account and is the USDA office that leads the policy development of the DGA. CNPP and the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (ODPHP), within HHS, jointly issue the DGA policy document every five years (since 1980), with the lead role alternating between the two departments. HHS had the administrative lead for development of the 2015-2020 DGA, which were issued on January 7, 2016.115 In response to congressional concern about the "quality of scientific evidence and extraneous factors" that were included in the 2015 Dietary Guideline Advisory Committee's (DGAC's) Scientific Report, Congress included several DGA-related policy riders in the FY2016 appropriation law.
Section 734 prohibits the use of funds to issue or implement the 2015 DGA unless the information and scope of the recommendations are limited to matters of diet and nutrition only, and the information is based on significant scientific agreement.
Section 735(a) requires the Secretary of USDA, within 30 days of the enactment of the law, to engage the National Academy of Medicine (NAM) to conduct a comprehensive study of the process used to establish the DGAC and the subsequent development of the DGA. Section 735(b) further requires that the NAM panel selected to conduct this study includes a "balanced representation of individuals with broad experiences and viewpoints regarding nutrition and dietary information," and that this comprehensive study include an analysis of:
- how the DGA can better prevent chronic disease, ensure nutritional adequacy for all Americans, and accommodate a range of individual factors, including age, gender, and metabolic health;
- how the DGAC selection process "can be improved to provide more transparency, eliminate bias, and include committee members with a range of viewpoints";
- how the Nutrition Evidence Library (NEL) is compiled and used, including whether NEL and other systematic reviews, as well as data analyses are conducted following "rigorous and objective scientific standards"; and
- how systematic reviews are conducted on "longstanding" DGA recommendations, including "whether scientific studies are included from scientists with a range of viewpoints."
Section 735(b) also requires the NAM study to include recommendations on how to improve the DGA development process and to ensure the DGA "reflect balanced and sound science." The explanatory statement directs NAM to provide quarterly reports informing Congress about the status of this study. The FY2016 law appropriated $1 million for NAM to conduct this study.
Other Nutrition Funding Support
Domestic food assistance programs also receive funds from sources other than appropriations:
USDA provides commodity foods to the child nutrition programs using funds other than those in the Child Nutrition account. These purchases are financed through permanent appropriations under "Section 32."116 For example, about $480 million out of a total of $1.1 billion in commodity support in FY2008 came from outside the Child Nutrition account. Historically, about half the value of commodities distributed to child nutrition programs has come from Section 32.
The Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program for selected elementary schools nationwide is financed with permanent, mandatory funding. The underlying law (§4304 of the 2008 farm bill) provides funds at the beginning of every school year (July). However, Section 715 of the FY2016 appropriations law delays until October 2016 the availability of a portion of the funds ($125 million) that were scheduled for July 2016, similar to past years' appropriations. This delay allocates the total annual spending for the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable program by fiscal year rather than school year, with no reduction in overall support (though budgetary savings are scored in Table
13).
15). House- and Senate-reported bills included the same language.
The Food Service Management Institute (technical assistance to child nutrition
providers) is funded through a permanent annual appropriation of $4 million.
The Senior Farmers
’' Market Nutrition program receives $21 million of
mandatory funding per year (FY2002-FY2018) outside the regular appropriations
process (
§Section 4402 of the 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171), as amended by
§Section 4203 the
2014 farm bill
(P.L. 113-79)).
For more background, see CRS Report RL34081, Farm and Food Support Under USDA’s Section 32 Program.
Congressional Research Service
51
Table 11[P.L. 113-79]).
Table 12. Domestic Food Assistance Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
Program
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
P.L. 113-6
post-sequ.
P.L. 11376
P.L. 113235
FY2016
Admin.
Requesta
House
H.R. 3049
Change from FY2015
Senate
S. 1800
in House
Bill
in Senate
Bill
Senate
Compared
With
House
Child Nutrition Programsb
Account Totalc (incl. transfers)
19,913.2
19,288.0
21,300.2
21,587.3
21,507.4
21,524.4
+207.2
+224.2
+17.0
11,278.6
10,576.3
11,996.1
11,777.8
11,777.8
11,777.8
-218.3
-218.3
+0.0
School Breakfast Program
3,659.3
3,728.6
3,960.0
4,230.5
4,230.5
4,230.5
+270.5
+270.5
+0.0
Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP)
2,949.5
3,080.0
3,195.9
3,240.6
3,240.6
3,240.6
+44.7
+44.7
+0.0
11.9
10.6
11.2
11.3
11.3
11.3
+0.1
+0.1
+0.0
Summer Food Service Program
434.7
461.6
495.5
535.6
535.6
535.6
+40.1
+40.1
+0.0
State Administrative Expenses
289.7
247.2
263.7
269.7
269.7
269.7
+6.0
+6.0
+0.0
1,646.7
1,078.7
1,255.5
1,322.1
1,322.1
1,322.1
+66.6
+66.6
+0.0
School Meals Equip., Breakfast Expan. Grants
9.8
25.0
25.0
35.0
20.0
25.0
-5.0
+0.0
+5.0
Summer EBT Demonstration
—
—
16.0
66.9
12.0
16.0
-4.0
+0.0
+4.0
6,522.2
6,715.8
6,623.0
6,623.0
6,484.0
6,513.0
-139.0
-110.0
+29.0
Account Totalc
77,285.4
82,169.9
81,837.6
83,692.1d
81,653.2
81,662.1
-184.4
-175.5
+8.9
SNAP benefits
67,313.1e
71,885.0e
71,035.8
70,895.7
70,895.7
n/a
-140.1
n/a
n/a
Contingency Reserve Fund
3,000.0
3,000.0
3,000.0
5,000.0
3,000.0
3,000.0
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
State Administrative Costs
3,866.5
3,999.0
4,123.0
4,238.4
4,238.4
n/a
+115.4
n/a
n/a
|
FY2013
|
FY2014
|
FY2015
|
FY2016
|
Program
|
P.L. 113-6 post-sequ.
|
P.L. 113-76
|
P.L. 113-235
|
Admin. Requesta
H. Cmte. H.R. 3049
|
S. Cmte. S. 1800
|
P.L. 114-113
|
Change from FY2015 to FY2016 Enacted
|
Child Nutrition Programsb
Account Totalc (incl. transfers)
22,149.7
|
+849.5
|
+4%
|
|
National School Lunch Program
|
11,278.6
|
10,576.3
|
11,996.1
|
11,777.8
|
11,777.8
|
11,777.8
|
12,154.7
|
+158.6
|
+1%
|
|
School Breakfast Program
|
3,659.3
|
3,728.6
|
3,960.0
|
4,230.5
|
4,230.5
|
4,230.5
|
4,338.6
|
+378.6
|
+10%
|
|
Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP)
|
2,949.5
|
3,080.0
|
3,195.9
|
3,240.6
|
3,240.6
|
3,240.6
|
3,340.1
|
+144.2
|
+5%
|
|
Special Milk Program
|
11.9
|
10.6
|
11.2
|
11.3
|
11.3
|
11.3
|
9.4
|
-1.8
|
-16%
|
|
Summer Food Service Program
|
434.7
|
461.6
|
495.5
|
535.6
|
535.6
|
535.6
|
555.7
|
+60.2
|
+12%
|
|
State Administrative Expenses
|
289.7
|
247.2
|
263.7
|
269.7
|
269.7
|
269.7
|
270.9
|
+7.2
|
+3%
|
|
Commodity Procurement for Child Nutrition
|
1,646.7
|
1,078.7
|
1,255.5
|
1,322.1
|
1,322.1
|
1,322.1
|
1,350.7
|
+95.2
|
+8%
|
School Meals Equip., Breakfast Grants
|
9.8
|
25.0
|
25.0
|
35.0
|
20.0
|
25.0
|
30.0d
+5.0
|
+20%
|
Summer EBT Demonstration
|
—
|
—
|
16.0
|
66.9
|
12.0
|
16.0
|
23.0d
+7.0
|
+44%
|
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)
|
6,522.2
|
6,715.8
|
6,623.0
|
6,623.0
|
6,484.0
|
6,513.0
|
6,350.0e
-273.0
|
-4%
|
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)b
Account Totalc
77,285.4
|
82,169.9
|
81,837.6
|
83,692.1f
81,653.2
|
81,662.1
|
80,849.4
|
-988.2
|
-1%
|
SNAP benefits
|
67,313.1g
71,885.0g
71,035.8
|
70,895.7
|
70,895.7
|
n/a
|
70,124.3
|
-911.5
|
-1%
|
|
Contingency Reserve Fund
|
3,000.0
|
3,000.0
|
3,000.0
|
5,000.0
|
3,000.0
|
3,000.0
|
3,000.0
|
0.0
|
0%
|
|
State Administrative Costs
|
3,866.5
|
3,999.0
|
4,123.0
|
4,238.4
|
4,238.4
|
n/a
|
4,222.0
|
+99.0
|
+2%
|
Employment and Training
(E&T)
415.9
|
426.4
|
447.2h
456.7
|
456.7
|
n/a
|
455.7
|
+8.5
|
+2%
|
|
TEFAP Commodities
|
265.8
|
268.8
|
327.0
|
319.8
|
319.8
|
n/a
|
318.0
|
-9.0
|
-3%
|
|
Food Distribution Program Indian Reservations
|
100.2
|
104.0
|
145.2
|
145.2
|
145.2
|
n/a
|
145.2
|
0.0
|
0%
|
|
Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands
|
12.1
|
12.1
|
12.2
|
12.2
|
12.2
|
n/a
|
12.2
|
0.0
|
0%
|
|
Puerto Rico and American Samoa
|
1,880.4
|
1,901.5
|
2,030.3
|
1,979.3
|
1,979.3
|
n/a
|
1,967.0
|
-63.3
|
-3%
|
Commodity Assistance Program
|
Account Totalc
243.7
|
269.7
|
278.5
|
288.3
|
288.3
|
288.3
|
296.2
|
+17.7
|
+6%
|
|
Commodity Supplemental Food Program
|
181.8
|
202.7
|
211.5
|
221.3
|
221.3
|
221.3
|
222.2
|
+10.7
|
+5%
|
|
WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program
|
15.3
|
16.5
|
16.5
|
16.5
|
16.5
|
16.5
|
18.5
|
+2.0
|
+12%
|
|
TEFAP Administrative Costs
|
45.6
|
49.4
|
49.4
|
49.4
|
49.4
|
49.4
|
54.4
|
+5.0
|
+10%
|
|
Nutrition Program Administration
|
132.6
|
141.3
|
150.8
|
155.6
|
141.3
|
151.8
|
150.8
|
0.0
|
0%
|
|
Office of the Under Secretary
|
0.8
|
0.8
|
0.8
|
0.8
|
0.8
|
0.8
|
0.8
|
0.0
|
-1%
|
|
Total, Domestic Food Assistance
|
104,098.0
|
108,585.8
|
110,190.9
|
133,255.1
|
110,075.2
|
110,140.4
|
109,797.0
|
-393.9
|
-0%
|
Source: (E&T)
415.9
426.4
447.2f
456.7
456.7
n/a
+9.5
n/a
n/a
TEFAP Commodities
265.8
268.8
327.0
319.8
319.8
n/a
-7.2
n/a
n/a
National School Lunch Program
Special Milk Program
Commodity Procurement for Child Nutrition
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program
for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP)b
CRS-52
Program
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
P.L. 113-6
post-sequ.
P.L. 11376
P.L. 113235
FY2016
Admin.
Requesta
House
H.R. 3049
Change from FY2015
Senate
S. 1800
in House
Bill
in Senate
Bill
Senate
Compared
With
House
Food Distribution Program Indian Reservations
100.2
104.0
145.2
145.2
145.2
n/a
+0.0
n/a
n/a
Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands
12.1
12.1
12.2
12.2
12.2
n/a
+0.0
n/a
n/a
1,880.4
1,901.5
2,030.3
1,979.3
1,979.3
n/a
-51.0
n/a
n/a
Account Totalc
243.7
269.7
278.5
288.3
288.3
288.3
+9.8
+9.8
+0.0
Commodity Supplemental Food Program
181.8
202.7
211.5
221.3
221.3
221.3
+9.8
+9.8
+0.0
WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program
15.3
16.5
16.5
16.5
16.5
16.5
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
TEFAP Administrative Costs
45.6
49.4
49.4
49.4
49.4
49.4
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
132.6
141.3
150.8
155.6
141.3
151.8
-9.5
+1.0
+10.5
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
-0.0
+0.0
+0.0
104,098.0
108,585.8
110,190.9
133,255.1
110,075.2
110,140.4
+1,605.1
-50.5
+65.2
Puerto Rico and American Samoa
Commodity Assistance Program
Nutrition Program Administration
Office of the Under Secretary
Total, Domestic Food Assistance
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports for the referenced appropriations acts or bills. Amounts for FY2013 are
the post-sequestration level from the USDA FY2013 Operating Plan.
a.
a.
The FY2016 Administration Request reflected in this column is from the USDA-FNS budget request submitted to Congress in February 2015.
b.
b.
For the USDA-FNS programs that are open-ended mandatory programs (e.g., SNAP and the Child Nutrition Programs), the programs do not necessarily have the
authority to spend all of the funds that have been appropriated. For such programs
’' historical spending, see also USDA-FNS expenditure data available on the agency
website at http://www.fns.usda.gov/data-and-statistics
.
c.
“.
c.
"Account Total
”" does not equal the sum of the programs listed below. Programs listed below are a selection of the funding that makes up the account total.
d. The Administration’
d.
Include the additional funds provided in the general provisions (§741) of the enacted law: $5 million for equipment/breakfast grants; $7 million for summer EBT.
e.
In addition, Section 751 provides $220 million for management information systems and WIC EBT by rescinding FY2015 carryover and recovery funding.
f.
The Administration's request for FY2016 also included an advance appropriation for the first quarter of FY2017 of approximately $20.9 billion. Neither the House
nor Senate proposals included an advance appropriation.
e.
g.
Appropriations do not include the pre-appropriated funds provided by American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) to increase SNAP benefits from
April 2009 through October 31, 2013. See CRS Report R43257, Background on the Scheduled Reduction to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Benefits.
f.
h.
In addition to this E&T funding, P.L. 113-235 (and the other proposals) also appropriates $190 million for E&T pilots; the 2014 farm bill provided the authorization
for this mandatory funding. For further information, see CRS Report R43332, SNAP and Related Nutrition Provisions of the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79
).
).
CRS-53
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Agricultural Trade and Food
Aid95
Aid117
The Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) administers overseas market promotion and export credit
guarantee programs designed to improve the competitive position of U.S. agriculture in the world
marketplace and to facilitate export sales. It shares responsibility with the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) to administer international food aid programs.
96
118
Each year
’'s agricultural appropriation provides
about $1.8nearly $2 billion of discretionary funding to
FAS, which is more than three-quarters of the financial resources available to them.
Budget
Other budget authority for
other agricultural export and food aid programs is
mandatory, and with mandatory spending, and is not subject to
annual appropriations. About $500 million of funding for these mandatory programs is provided
directly by the Commodity Credit Corporation under other statutes.
97
119
Foreign Agricultural Service
The FAS appropriation addresses trade policy issues on behalf of U.S. agricultural exporters to
support trade promotion activities
, and to engage in institutional capacity building and food
security activities in developing countries with promising market potential.
For FY2016, the
Administration requestedThe appropriation for FY2016 provides $191.6 million for salaries and expenses of the Foreign Agricultural
Service (FAS), an increase of $10.2 million, or 5.6%, above the appropriation for FY2015
. The
FY2016 appropriation bills reported by the House and Senate also recommend funding increases
compared with FY2015, but were below and an amount equal to the Administration
’s request. The House bill provides
$184.4 million, an increase of 1.6% over the FY2015 appropriation, while the Senate bill
proposes an appropriation of $187.2 million, an increase of 3.2% over FY2015.
's request.
The Administration
’'s FY2016 budget request
includesincluded an additional $6.7 million to cover salaries
and expenses for the export credit guarantee programs
. This concurs with the FY2015 level and
the House and Senate bills, which is unchanged from the FY2015 appropriation. Credit guarantees are the largest FAS export assistance program,
operating mainly to facilitate the direct export of U.S. agricultural commodities and products.
The
There are no budgetary outlays associated with credit guarantees unless a default occurs. The 2014 farm bill authorized $5.5 billion of credit guarantees each year to guarantee the repayment
of commercial loans extended by private banks in the event that a borrower defaults ($5.4 billion
of credit guarantees under GSM-102 for U.S. agricultural product exports, and $100 million
under the Facility Guarantee Program to build or expand agricultural facilities in emerging
markets that enhance sales of U.S. products).
There are no budgetary outlays associated with
credit guarantees unless a default occurs.
The 2014 farm bill directed the Office of the Chief Economist (OCE) to report on reorganizing
USDA’ USDA's international trade functions in tandem with
creating the newthe creation of the position of Under Secretary of
Agriculture for Trade and Foreign Affairs. The House report urges OCE to work with the National
Academy of Public Affairs (NAPA) to complete the study, noting that NAPA’s work to date is not
satisfactory. Language in FY2015 appropriation’s joint explanatory statement provided directions
for the report and established a new deadline (December 16, 2015).
95
The trade portion of this section was written by Mark McMinimy (7-2172, mmcminimy@crs.loc.gov) and the food
aid portion by Randy Schnepf (7-4277, rschnepf@crs.loc.gov).
96
For background, see CRS Report R41072, U.S. International Food Aid Programs: Background and Issues.
97
Mandatory funding for other agricultural export promotion and market development programs was reauthorized by
the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79) at slightly above $250 million each year: $200 million for the Market Access Program,
$34.5 million for the Foreign Market Development Program, $9 million for the Technical Assistance for Specialty
Crops Program, and $10 million for the Emerging Markets Program. Separately, mandatory funding for other foreign
food aid programs under the 2014 farm bill is about $250 million each year for the Food for Progress Program.
Congressional Research Service
54
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
The Senate report recommends $1.5 million for the Borlaug Fellows Program (training for
scientists and policymakers from developing countries), and $5.3 million for the Cochran
Fellowship Program (short-term technical training in the United States for international
participants). The Senate report expects FAS to fund the Foreign Market Development
Cooperator Program and continue full mandatory funding for the Market Access Program (MAP)
(see footnote 97), including administering MAP as authorized without changing the eligibility
requirements of cooperatives, small businesses, trade associations, and other entities.
Food for Peace Program (P.L. 480)
The Food for Peace Program includes four program areas, each with its own Title: Title I—
economic assistance and food security, Title II—emergency and private assistance programs, Title
III—food for development, and Title V—the farmer-to-farmer program.98 No funding for new
Title I (long-term concessional credits) or Title III (food for development) activities has been
requested since 2002, while the last Title I concessional commodity shipment occurred in 2006.
Title V (farmer-to-farmer or F2F program) funding is mandatory in nature and linked to the
overall pool of funding under the Food for Peace act—not less than the greater of $15 million or
0.6% of the amounts made available to carry out the Food for Peace Act during any fiscal year
(FY2014-FY2018) shall be used for the F2F program.
In contrast, the Food for Peace Title II program relies on annual discretionary appropriations.
Title II programs are both the largest and most active component of international agricultural food
aid expenditures. They provide primarily in-kind donations of U.S. commodities to meet foreign
humanitarian and development needs. Despite being funded in agricultural appropriations, Title II
programs are administered by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
Food for Peace Title II funding has been embroiled in a long-running debate between the current
(and previous) Administration and Congress over how Title II funds may be used. The
Administration wants to increase the share of Title II funds available as either cash transfers, food
vouchers, or for local and regional procurement of commodities in the proximity of the food
crises in order to provide a more immediate (and lower-cost) response to emergencies. In
contrast, Congress has opted to use Title II funds to purchase U.S. commodities and ship them on
U.S.-flag vessels to foreign countries with food deficiencies. Title II funding allocations also are
Agriculture for Trade and Foreign Affairs. The enacted appropriation for FY2016 provides $1 million for the completion of this task. The joint explanatory statement accompanying the appropriation directs that within 60 days of completing the required report on a proposed reorganization plan, OCE is to contract with an independent organization to assist with the implementation and establishment of the new Undersecretary position. It further underscores that OCE is to consult with the House and Senate Agriculture committees throughout this process.
Because the explanatory statement for the omnibus supports congressional intent within the individual committee reports,120 Senate report language recommending that $1.5 million within FAS be allocated for the Borlaug Fellows Program (training for scientists and policymakers from developing countries) and $5.3 million be provided for the Cochran Fellowship Program (short-term technical training in the United States for international participants) likely is applicable. These amounts are identical to what the Senate report recommended for FY2015. The Senate report states that it expects FAS to fund the Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program and continue full mandatory funding for the Market Access Program (MAP) (see footnote 119), including administering MAP as authorized without changing the eligibility requirements of cooperatives, small businesses, trade associations, and other entities.
Food for Peace Program (P.L. 480)
The Food for Peace Program includes four program areas, each with its own Title: Title I—economic assistance and food security, Title II—emergency and private assistance programs, Title III—food for development, and Title V—the farmer-to-farmer program.121 No funding for new Title I (long-term concessional credits) or Title III (food for development) activities has been requested since 2002, while the last Title I concessional commodity shipment occurred in 2006. Title V (farmer-to-farmer or F2F program) funding is mandatory in nature and linked to the overall pool of funding under the Food for Peace act—not less than the greater of $15 million or 0.6% of the amounts made available to carry out the Food for Peace Act during any fiscal year (FY2014-FY2018) shall be used for the F2F program.
In contrast, the Food for Peace Title II program relies on annual discretionary appropriations. Title II programs are both the largest and most active component of international agricultural food aid expenditures. They provide primarily in-kind donations of U.S. commodities to meet foreign humanitarian and development needs. Despite being funded in agricultural appropriations, Title II programs are administered by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
Food for Peace Title II funding has been embroiled in a long-running debate between the current (and previous) Administration and Congress over how Title II funds may be used. The Administration wants to increase the share of Title II funds available as either cash transfers, food vouchers, or for local and regional procurement of commodities in the proximity of the food crises in order to provide a more immediate (and lower-cost) response to emergencies. In contrast, Congress has opted to use Title II funds to purchase U.S. commodities and ship them on U.S.-flag vessels to foreign countries with food deficiencies. Title II funding allocations also are affected by a provision in the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79; §3012) that states that the minimum
funding requirement for nonemergency food aid shall not be less than $350 million.
For FY2015 and FY2016, the Administration proposed $1.4 billion in Title II funding, of which
25% ($350 million) would be exempt from any U.S. purchase requirement and instead would be
available as cash-based food assistance for emergencies. The Administration also requested that
$270 million of Title II funds be combined with an additional $80 million requested in the
Development Assistance account under USAID’s Community Development Fund and used to
support development food assistance programs that address chronic food insecurity in areas of
recurrent crises, thus achieving the mandatory $350 million for nonemergency programs.
In contrast, congressional appropriators provided a slightly larger $1.469 billion for Title II
programs in FY2015, the same as in FY2014. For FY2016, the House-reported bill would provide
$1.417 billion for Title II programs, including $350 million for nonemergency programs, while
the Senate-reported bill would provide a larger amount of $1.466 billion. In addition, the House
committee report notes that the “flexibility” desired by the Administration for various methods of
98
Title IV of the Food for Peace Act involves general authorities and requirements.
Congressional Research Service
55
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
delivery through cash, vouchers, and in-kind food assistance already exists across the whole-ofgovernment and, thus, is not included in its FY2016 Title II appropriations. The Senate committee
report specifically requests that USAID provide a report, no later than March 1, 2016, on the use
of authorities under section 202(e) of the Food for Peace during both FY2015 and FY2016.99
Local and Regional Procurement (LRP) Projects
LRP projects are administered by USDA (in consultation with USAID). LRP was authorized as a
The FY2016 appropriation provides $1.466 billion for Title II program grants, down slightly from $1.469 billion in FY2015. In addition, a one-time supplement of $250 million brings the total Title II grant allocation to $1.716 billion; this is in response to ongoing food assistance requirements as a result of international conflicts (particularly in Syria, Yemen, Iraq, and South Sudan, where there have been large increases in internally displaced persons) and areas suffering from natural disasters. Of the $1.716 billion, $20 million is specifically to reimburse the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust (BEHT) for disbursements made in 2015.
By law, Title II funding includes a carve-out of at least $350 million for nonemergency programs (7 U.S.C. 1736f(e)). Appropriators specifically request that USAID provide a report, no later than 60 days after enactment (or by February 16, 2016), on the use of authorities under 7 U.S.C. 1736f(e), including section 202(e), during FY2015 and planned uses during FY2016.122
The Administration had proposed $1.4 billion in Title II funding for both FY2015 and FY2016, of which 25% ($350 million) would be exempt from any U.S. purchase requirement and instead would be available as cash-based food assistance for emergencies. The Administration also had requested that $270 million of Title II funds be combined with an additional $80 million requested in the Development Assistance account under USAID's Community Development Fund and used to support development food assistance programs that address chronic food insecurity in areas of recurrent crises, thus achieving the mandatory $350 million for nonemergency programs.
Local and Regional Procurement (LRP) Projects
LRP projects are administered by USDA (in consultation with USAID). LRP was authorized as a permanent project under the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79
);123 however, its funding became discretionary, );100 however, its funding source became
an authorization for discretionary appropriations ($80 million for each of FY2014-FY2018),
rather than mandatory funds in the 2008 farm bill.
101
124
No discretionary funding was enacted for LRP during FY2014 and FY2015. For FY2016, the
Administration requested $20 million for LRP projects.
The House-reported bill does not provide
any funding for LRP in FY2016, while the Senate-reported bill would provide $10 million for
However, the FY2016 appropriation provides $5 million for LRP within the McGovern-Dole program (see below).
McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition
The
The McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program provides
donations of U.S. agricultural products and financial and technical assistance for school feeding
and maternal and child nutrition projects in developing countries. It is administered by FAS.
For FY2016, the Administration requested $191.6 million, the same as the FY2015 enacted level.
The House-reported bill would keep funding at $191.6 million The FY2016 appropriation provides $10 million more, $201.6 million, for the McGovern-Dole program,
while the Senate-reported bill would provide a larger $201.6 million that includes including an additional
$10 $5 million for the LRP program, as mentioned earlier.
Appropriations Instructions
aboutAbout Industrial
Hemp102
Hemp125
Industrial hemp is an agricultural commodity that is cultivated for a range of hemp-based goods,
including foods and beverages, cosmetics and personal care products, nutritional supplements,
fabrics and textiles, yarns and spun fibers, paper, construction/insulation materials, and other
manufactured goods. It is, however, a variety of Cannabis sativa
, , the same plant species as
marijuana, and is therefore subject to U.S. drug laws. The 2014 farm bill provided that certain
research institutions and state departments of agriculture may grow industrial hemp as part of an
agricultural pilot program, if allowed under state laws.
103
126
For FY2016, the production of industrial hemp
iswas addressed in both in the Senate
-reported Agriculture
appropriations bill and the House
-reported and Senate
-reported Commerce-Justice-Science (CJS) appropriations
bills. In the Agriculture appropriation, the Senate committee-reported bill states that “none of the
99
USAID had been granted some additional flexibility in use of cash-based food assistance under section 202(e) under
the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79; §3002).
100
7 U.S.C. 1726c.
101
Under the previous 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246; §3206), LRP was implemented as a pilot program but with
mandatory funding of $60 million of CCC funds (mandatory funds, not Title II appropriations), spread over four years.
102
This section was written by Renée Johnson (7-9588; rjohnson@crs.loc.gov).
103
P.L. 113-79, §7606, “Legitimacy of Industrial Hemp Research.” It also created a statutory definition of “industrial
hemp” as “the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.”
Congressional Research Service
56
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
funds made available” by the agriculture bills.
The enacted FY2016 Agriculture appropriation states that "none of the funds made available" by the Agriculture or any other appropriation may be used
“"to prohibit the
transportation, processing, sale, or use of industrial hemp that is grown or cultivated in
accordance with
”" the 2014 farm bill provision (
§739 of S. 1800). In the CJS appropriation, both
the House-passed bill and the Senate-reported bill state that “P.L. 114-113, Division A, §763).
The CJS appropriation states that none of the funds made available
”
by the CJS appropriation “ "may be used in contravention
”" of the 2014 farm bill
’'s hemp provision
by the Department of Justice (DOJ) or the Drug Enforcement Administration
. (H.R. 2578, §567;
and the Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2578, §541). The House-passed
CJS bill would further block (P.L. 114-113, Division B, §543). The enacted CJS appropriations does not include a provision that was contained in the House-passed CJS appropriations bill, which would have further blocked DOJ from preventing a state from implementing its own state laws
that
“"authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of industrial hemp
,”" as defined in
the 2014 the farm bill (
H.R. 2578, §557).
§557).
The FY2015 CJS appropriation contained similar language to block federal law enforcement from
interfering with state agencies, hemp growers, and agricultural research.
104
Related Agencies
127
Related Agencies
In addition to the USDA agencies mentioned above, the Agriculture appropriations
subcommittees have jurisdiction over appropriations for three related agencies:
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS),
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)—in the House
Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee only, and
The Farm Credit Administration (FCA), which does not receive an appropriation
but rather oversight via a limit on its spending from fees paid to the agency.
Agriculture’
Agriculture's Relationship to the Related Agencies
The combined share of FDA and CFTC funding (Title VI) in the overall Agriculture and
Related Agencies appropriations bill is about 13% of discretionary
appropriations, or about
2% of the total.
Agriculture appropriation.
These agencies are included in the Agriculture appropriations bill because of their historical
connection to agricultural markets. However, the number and scope of non-agricultural
issues dealt with by these agencies has grown in recent decades. Because of this shift, some
may argue that these agencies no longer belong in the Agriculture appropriations bill. Others
say that agriculture and food issues are still an important component of each agency.
At FDA, food
Food safety responsibilities that are shared between USDA and FDA have been in
the media during recent years and have been the subject of legislation and hearings. At CFTC,
volatility in agricultural commodity markets has been a subject of recent scrutiny at CFTC
and in Congress.
Jurisdiction over CFTC appropriations is assigned differently in the House and Senate. Before
FY2008, the Agriculture subcommittees in both the House and Senate had jurisdiction over
CFTC funding. In FY2008, Senate jurisdiction moved to the Financial Services Appropriations
Subcommittee. Placement in the enacted version now alternates each year. In even-numbered
fiscal years, CFTC has resided in the Agriculture appropriations act. In odd-numbered fiscal
years, CFTC has resided in the enacted Financial Services appropriations act.
104
P.L. 113-235, Division B, §539 (Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015).
Congressional Research Service
57
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
128
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates the safety of foods, cosmetics, and
radiationemittingradiation-emitting products; the safety and effectiveness of drugs, biologics (e.g., vaccines), and medical
devices; and public health aspects of tobacco products.
105129 Although FDA has been a part of the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) since 1940, the
CommitteeCommittees on Appropriations
does do not consider FDA within the rest of HHS under
itsthe Subcommittee on Labor, Health and
Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies. Jurisdiction over FDA
’'s budget remains
with the
SubcommitteeSubcommittees on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies, reflecting FDA
’s beginnings as part of the Department of Agriculture.
Food Safety Funding at the Food and Drug Administration
FDA’s Foods program accounts for roughly one-third of the agency’s total appropriation ($903 million out of $2.6
billion in FY2015). FDA is responsible for ensuring the safety of the majority of all domestic and imported food
products (except for meat, poultry, and processed egg products). Funding increases over recent years in this
program area largely have been in response to additional food safety responsibilities following enactment of the
FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA, P.L. 111-353) in 2011.
For the FDA Foods program in FY2016, the House-reported bill would appropriate $938.4 million, $10 million less
than the Senate-reported bill. The Administration had requested $49 million more than the House bill ($39 million
more than the Senate bill). All of these amounts, though, would still represent increases above FY2015.
Specifically for food safety activities, which is a subset of the overall Foods program, the Administration had
requested an increase of $110 million, while the House and Senate bills provide increases of $41.5 million and $45
million for food safety, respectively.
For more background, see CRS Report RS22600, The Federal Food Safety System: A Primer.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission106
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is the independent regulatory agency
charged with oversight of derivatives markets. The CFTC’s functions include oversight of trading
on the futures exchanges, oversight of the swaps markets, registration and supervision of futures
industry personnel, self-regulatory organizations and major participants in the swaps markets,
prevention of fraud and price manipulation, and investor protection.107 The Dodd-Frank Act (P.L.
111-203) brought the bulk of the previously unregulated over-the-counter swaps markets under
CFTC jurisdiction as well as the previously regulated futures and options markets.108 Since the
swaps markets, by most estimates, is much larger in size than the futures markets, one budget
question that has lingered for several years is whether the CFTC’s resources are sufficient to meet
the agency’s newly added responsibilities.109
105
Several CRS reports have information on FDA authority and activities: CRS Report R41983, How FDA Approves
Drugs and Regulates Their Safety and Effectiveness.
106
This section was written by Rena S. Miller (7-0826, rsmiller@crs.loc.gov).
107
For further details about the CFTC, please see CRS Report R43117, The Commodity Futures Trading Commission:
Background and Current Issues.
108
A subset of the swaps market, called security-based swaps, which are swaps related to securities such as stocks and
bonds, are overseen by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
109
See, e.g., testimony of Chairman Timothy G. Massad before the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition &
Forestry, Washington, DC, May 14, 2015: “The CFTC does not have the resources to fulfill our new responsibilities as
well as all the responsibilities it had—and still has—prior to the passage of Dodd Frank in a way that most Americans
would expect. Our staff, for example, is no larger than it was when Dodd-Frank was enacted in 2010.” Available at
http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/opamassad-22.
Congressional Research Service
58
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
For FY2016, the President’s budget request was $322 million, an increase of 29% above the
FY2015 enacted level, noting that past appropriations have “not enabled the Commission to keep
pace with the increased technological complexity and globalization of the markets overseen by
the Commission” since its jurisdiction was expanded to include swaps in 2010.110
The House-reported Agriculture appropriations bill (H.R. 3049) would provide $245 million for
the CFTC, and the Senate reported Financial Services appropriations bill (S. 1910) would provide
$250 million. The House bill would be a $5 million reduction from FY2015, and the Senate bill is
the same as the FY2015 funding level.
Farm Credit Administration111
The Farm Credit Administration (FCA) is the federal regulator for the Farm Credit System (FCS),
which is a borrower-owned cooperative lender operated as a government-sponsored enterprise.112
Neither the FCS nor the FCA receives a federal appropriation. The FCA is funded by assessments
on the FCS entities that it regulates. As part of its congressional oversight, however, the
Agriculture appropriations bill sets a limitation on administrative expenses (a maximum operating
level) for the FCA—a check on the size of the FCA and the amount that FCA can collect.
For FY2016, the House- and Senate-reported bills are identical in allowing FCA a maximum
operating level of $65.6 million, which is $5.1 million greater than allowed in FY2015, but $3.8
million less than requested.113 The $65.6 million allowed in the FY2016 bills happens to be the
same as the revised FCA request for FY2015, and thus effectively would hold FCA at a constant
level with what it planned to be its operating level at the beginning of FY2015 when the
appropriation was delayed.114 Nonetheless, the FY2016 amounts represent an increase since the
$60.5 million enacted amount for FY2015 was lower than it had been for several years.
FCA’s request continues to note costs for a staffing replacement plan because of expected
retirements and the desire to add new staff while experienced staff can train their replacements.
Table 12. Farm Credit Administration Limitation on Expenses
(dollars in millions)
FY2013
P.L. 113-6
FCA limitation
on expenses
63.3
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
P.L. 11376
P.L. 113235
Admin.
Request
62.6
60.5
69.4
House
H.R. 3049
65.6
Change from FY2015
Senate
S. 1800
65.6
in House
Bill
in Senate
Bill
Senate
Compared
With
House
+5.1
+5.1
+0.0
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports for the
referenced appropriations acts or bills.
110
Commodity Futures Trading Commission: President’s Budget Fiscal Year 2016, Prepared for the Committee on
Appropriations, February, 2015, at pg. 1. Available at: http://www.cftc.gov/ucm/groups/public/@newsroom/
documents/file/cftcbudget2016.pdf.
111
This section was written by Jim Monke (7-9664, jmonke@crs.loc.gov).
112
For background, see CRS Report RS21278, Farm Credit System.
113
Farm Credit Administration, Fiscal Year 2016 Proposed Budget and Performance Plan, at http://www.fca.gov/
Download/BudgetFY2016.pdf.
114
Ibid, at p. 9.
Congressional Research Service
59
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
General Provisions, Scorekeeping Adjustments115
Agriculture appropriations acts in recent years have had over $1 billion in net offsets that
effectively reduce the cost of appropriations in the rest of the bill. The House- and Senatereported FY2016 appropriations bill would continue that practice. These reductions occur in Title
VII (General Provisions) through rescissions and CHIMPS (Changes in Mandatory Program
Spending), and in separate CBO scorekeeping adjustments.
For FY2016, reductions would be made by placing limitations on mandatory programs (-$798
million in the House bill, and -$875 million in the Senate bill, Table 13), recessions from other
appropriated accounts (about -$34 million in both bills, Table 14), and other scorekeeping
adjustments that are usually not detailed in the bills (about -$335 million in both bills, Table 16).
Some additional spending is authorized in the General Provisions ($2 million in the House bill,
and $6.6 million in the Senate bill, Table 15).
Limitations and rescissions are used to score budgetary savings that help meet the discretionary
budget allocation. By offsetting spending elsewhere in the bill, they help provide relatively more
to (or help avoid deeper cuts to) regular discretionary accounts than might otherwise occur.116
The General Provisions title also contains many important policy-related provisions that affect
how the executive branch carries out the appropriation and authorizing laws. Some of these
policy-related provisions are discussed earlier in this report under the relevant agency heading.
Changes in Mandatory Program Spending (CHIMPS)
For more than a decade, appropriators have placed limits on mandatory spending authorized in
statutes such as the farm bill (Table 13). These limits generally are also known as CHIMPS,
“changes in mandatory program spending.” CHIMPS usually are reductions to mandatory
spending authority, but they also may be increases in spending authority. Moreover, besides
CHIMPS, rescissions may be made to mandatory spending programs to permanently cancel
budget authority (sometimes considered a type of CHIMP). Mandatory programs usually are not
part of the appropriations process since formulas and eligibility rules are set in multi-year
authorizing laws (such as the 2014 farm bill). Funding usually is assumed to be available based
on the statute and without appropriations action.
When appropriators limit mandatory spending, they do not change the authorizing law.117 When
using a CHIMP, the action has the same effect as changing the law, but only for the one year to
which the appropriation applies. Appropriators put limits on mandatory program by using
language such as: “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 section [ ... ] of
Public Law [ ... ] in excess of $[ ... ].” Limits usually appear in Title VII, General Provisions, of
the Agriculture appropriations bill.
Historically, expenditure allocations often originate from the appropriations committees. The
division over who should fund certain agriculture programs—appropriators or authorizers—has
115
This section was written by Jim Monke (7-9664, jmonke@crs.loc.gov).
For example, in FY2011, half of the $3.4 billion reduction in total discretionary appropriations between FY2010 and
FY2011 was achieved by a $1.7 billion increase in the use of farm bill limitations and rescissions.
117
CRS Report R41634, Limitations in Appropriations Measures: An Overview of Procedural Issues.
116
Congressional Research Service
60
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
roots dating to the 1930s. Variable outlays for the farm commodity programs were difficult to
budget and resembled entitlements. Mandatory funding—the Commodity Credit Corporation
(CCC)—was created to remove the unpredictable funding issue from the appropriations process.
The dynamic changed after the 1996 farm bill, when mandatory funds were used for programs
that usually were discretionary. 118 Appropriators had not funded some programs as much as
authorizers had desired, and authorizing committees wrote farm bills using the mandatory
funding at their discretion. Tension arose over who should fund certain activities. Some question
whether the CCC should be used for programs that are not variable.
The programs affected by CHIMPS typically include conservation, rural development, bioenergy,
and some smaller nutrition assistance programs.119 CHIMPS have not affected the farm
commodity programs or the primary nutrition assistance programs (such as SNAP).
The House-reported FY2016 appropriation contains $798 million in savings attributable to
CHIMPS, and the Senate-reported bill $875 million. These totals are slightly larger than the
FY2015 CHIMPS total, yet remain smaller than the levels that were enacted between FY2011FY2014 (Table 13).120
Budget Sequestration and Conservation CHIMPS
A complicating factor in understanding the CHIMP amounts proposed for FY2016 is a methodological difference in
how CBO scored the Administration’s request compared with the House and Senate bills. Budget sequestration of
mandatory accounts has occurred since FY2013, reducing the amount available to most mandatory programs
regardless of whether reductions were made in appropriations. For example, the complete prohibition on spending
for the Watershed Rehabilitation Program resulted in a smaller $153 million CHIMP in FY2014, after sequestration,
than the $165 million CHIMP in FY2013 (Table 13).
For most of the conservation CHIMP scores in FY2016, sequestration was incorporated into the amounts available
for each program before the CHIMPS were computed in FY2014 and FY2015—except for the accounting of the
Administration’s FY2015 request. By not incorporating sequestration in the FY2015 estimates of the Administration
request, CBO gave the Administration more credit for some CHIMPS than the House or Senate bills.
118
Adapted from Galen Fountain, then Majority Clerk of the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee,
“Funding Rural Development Programs: Past, Present, and Future,” p. 4, at the 2009 USDA Agricultural Outlook
Forum, February 22, 2009, at http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/50603/2/Fountain-Galen-pdf.pdf.
119
This report uses the CBO compilation of CHIMPS, which in addition to limits on farm bill programs also includes
the rescission from the Cushion of Credit account for the Rural Business and Cooperative Service (RBS). Including the
Cushion of Credit rescission in CHIMPS allows the total appropriation for RBS to remain positive and concurs with
CBO scoring. However, appropriations committee tables include the Cushion of Credit rescission in the RBS section,
causing the net agency appropriations total to be less than zero (the alternative scoring method noted in Table 10).
120
For more background on reductions in mandatory agricultural programs, especially in appropriations, CRS In Focus
IF10041, Reductions to Mandatory Agricultural Conservation Programs in Appropriations Law.
Congressional Research Service
61
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Table 13. Adjustments to Mandatory Spending Programs
(dollars in millions)
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
P.L. 113-6
post-sequ.
P.L. 11376
P.L. 113235
FY2016
Admin.
Request
H.Cmte.
H.R. 3049
S.Cmte.
S. 1800
Changes to farm bill programs (CHIMPS and rescissions)a
Conservation programs
Environmental Quality Incentives Prog.
-279.0
-272.0
-136.0
-373.0
-189.0
-264.0
Watershed Rehabilitation Program
-165.0
-153.0
-69.0
-69.0
-64.0
-68.0
Conservation Stewardship Program
—
—
-7.0
-3.0
-2.0
—
Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program
-9.0
—
—
—
—
—
Agricultural Management Assistance
-5.0
—
—
—
—
—
-458.0
-425.0
-212.0
-445.0
-255.0
-332.0
-117.0
-119.0
-122.0
-125.0
-125.0
-125.0
Biorefinery Assistance Program
—
-40.7
-16.0
—
-26.0
—
Biomass Crop Assistance Program
—
—
-2.0
—
-12.0
-20.0
Rural Energy for America Program
—
—
—
—
-16.0
—
-28.0
—
-8.0
—
—
—
Bioenergy Prog. for Advanced Biofuels
—
-8.0
—
—
—
—
Emergency Livestock Assistance Prog.
—
—
-125.0
—
—
—
Conservation Compliance
—
—
—
—
+1.0
—
Marketing Certificates
—
—
—
—
+5.0
—
-145.0
-167.7
-273.0
-125.0
-173.0
-145.0
-603.0
-592.7
-485.0
-570.0
-428.0
-477.0
Cushion of Credit (Rural Dev.)
-180.0
-172.0
-179.0
-154.0
-154.0
-182.0
Section 32
-110.0
-189.0
-121.0
-292.0
-216.0
-216.0
-893.0
-953.7
-785.0
-1,016.0
-798.0
-875.0
Subtotal, conservation
Other farm bill programs
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Programb
Repowering Assistance
Subtotal, other from farm bill
Subtotal, of farm bill programs
Other reductions of mandatory programsa
Total
Source: CRS, based on the categorization of CHIMPS in unpublished CBO tables, and from the joint
explanatory statements or committee reports for the referenced appropriations acts or bills.
a. Reductions to mandatory programs in this report include CHIMPS (Changes in Mandatory Program
Spending) and permanent rescissions of budget authority for mandatory program accounts. CBO estimates
are used and are not always consistent in the treatment of sequestration. Amounts in the columns for the
Admin. Request and Senate do not include the effects of sequestration, whereas amounts in the House
column are after including the effects of sequestration.
b. Delays funding from July until October of the same calendar year, effectively allocating the authorization by
fiscal year rather than school year—with no reduction in overall support—and scoring budgetary savings.
Congressional Research Service
62
Enacted
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Rescissions of Discretionary Accounts
Rescissions are a method of permanently cancelling the availability of funds that were provided
by a previous appropriations law. When scoring a bill to determine its budget effect, a rescission
results in budgetary savings.
As a budgetary offset, rescissions can allow more spending in an appropriations bill. But unlike a
CHIMP, a rescission can prevent an unobligated budget authority from being reallocated or
repurposed by future appropriation since the cancellation is permanent. Often rescissions relate to
the unobligated balances of funds that were appropriated a year or more ago that still remain
available for a specific purpose (e.g., buildings and facilities funding that remains available until
expended for specific projects, or disaster response funds for losses due to a specifically named
hurricane).
For FY2016, the House-reported bill rescinds -$34 million from three discretionary programs and
the Senate-reported bill -$33 million from two discretionary programs (Table 14). Rescissions to
mandatory programs are included in the CHIMPS section, according to CBO scoring tables.
These levels of rescissions are typical for most years but are small by comparison to FY2011,
when rescissions were unusually large (-$372 million) and helped achieve that year’s relatively
large spending reduction.
Table 14. Rescissions from (Prior-Year) Discretionary Budget Authority
(dollars in millions)
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
P.L. 113-6
post-sequ.
P.L. 11376
P.L. 113235
FY2016
Admin.
Request
H.Cmte.
H.R. 3049
S.Cmte.
S. 1800
ARS buildings and facilities
—
—
-2.0
—
—
—
Agriculture buildings and facilities
—
-30.0
—
—
—
—
-25.3
—
—
—
—
—
Common Computing Environment
—
—
—
—
-1.0
—
Rural Housing Service
—
-1.3
—
—
—
—
Ocean freight (food aid)
—
—
-2.0
—
—
—
P.L. 480 Title I (food aid)
—
—
-13.0
—
—
—
Watershed and Flood Prevention
—
—
—
-20.0
-20.0
-20.0
Resource Conservation and Development
—
-2.0
—
—
—
—
Water and waste disposal cancellation
—
—
—
—
-13.0
-13.0
-25.3
-33.3
-17.0
-20.0
-34.0
-33.0
Broadband loan balances
Total
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports for the
referenced appropriations acts or bills.
Congressional Research Service
63
Enacted
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Other Appropriations (Including Emergency Disaster Programs)
The General Provisions title may contain appropriations for activities that are not part of regular
agency appropriations. These sometimes include supplemental or disaster appropriations, and
may be offset in scorekeeping adjustments by emergency spending designations.
Table 15 shows that the FY2016 House-reported bill contains $2 million for the Emergency
Watershed Program (subject to the discretionary budget cap), and the Senate-reported bill has
$6.6 million of other spending provisions. In FY2015, emergency conservation programs
received $91 million and Ebola response $25 million, both offset by a disaster designation. The
$6.6 million in the Senate-reported bill has been in recent years’ enacted appropriations.
Table 15. Other Appropriations in General Provisions
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
P.L. 113-6
post-sequ.
P.L. 11376
P.L. 113235
FY2016
Admin.
Request
H.Cmte.
H.R. 3049
S.Cmte.
S. 1800
Disaster/Emergency programs
Emergency Watershed Protection
60.5
—
78.6
—
2.0
—
Emergency Conservation Program
10.3
—
9.2
—
—
—
Emergency Forest Restoration
13.1
—
3.2
—
—
—
—
—
25.0
—
—
—
83.9
0.0
116.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
—
—
116.0
—
—
—
46.2
—
—
—
—
—
FDA user fees
—
79.0
—
—
—
—
Citrus greening
—
20.0
—
—
—
—
Hardwood trees reforestation pilot
0.6
0.6
0.6
—
—
0.6
Geographically disadvantaged farmers
1.8
2.0
2.0
—
—
2.0
Water Bank
—
4.0
4.0
—
—
4.0
Hunger Commission
—
1.0
—
—
—
—
48.6
106.6
6.6
0.0
0.0
6.6
132.5
106.6
122.6
0.0
2.0
6.6
FDA Salaries and expenses for Ebola
Subtotal, disaster programs
Note: Disaster designation for budget
Other spending provisions
FDA salaries and expenses
Subtotal, other spending
Total
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports for the
referenced appropriations acts or bills.
Congressional Research Service
64
Enacted
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Other Scorekeeping Adjustments
Scorekeeping adjustments are a final part of the accounting of the appropriations bill that is not
necessarily shown in the tables published by the appropriations committees.121 These adjustments
are critical, however, for the bill to reach the desired total amount that complies with the 302(b)
spending limit for the subcommittee. Some of these amounts are not necessarily specified by
provisions in the bill but are related to program operations, such as direct and guaranteed loan
programs. CBO calculates and reports these scorekeeping adjustments in unpublished tables.
For FY2016, the other scorekeeping adjustments in the House-reported bill are -$336 million and
-$335 million in the Senate-reported bill (Table 16). The FY2015 amount was notably larger
because of the $116 million disaster designation that offset spending for emergency programs.
Also noteworthy, the “negative subsidy” from various USDA loan programs has increased in
recent years. Negative subsidies effectively reflect “income” to the government when a loan
program operates at less cost than it receives in appropriations via the collection of fees or betterthan-expected loan repayment. These negative subsidies have become larger in recent years, and
are helping to offset more of the regular appropriation. Prior to FY2013, these negative subsidies
were cumulatively less than $100 million. Since FY2013 they have grown to $408 million in
FY2015, and moderated slightly to $345 million in the committee-reported bills for FY2016.
Table 16. Scorekeeping Adjustments
(dollars in millions)
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
P.L. 113-6
post-sequ.
P.L. 11376
P.L. 113235
FY2016
Admin.
Request
H.Cmte.
H.R. 3049
S.Cmte.
S. 1800
Denali Commission (permanent)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Interest Native American Fund Endowment
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
Child nutrition equipment grants
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
—
1.0
SNAP employment & training
—
—
—
4.0
—
—
Rural housing negative subsidy
-62.0
-62.0
-141.0
-31.0
-31.0
-31.0
Rural community facilities negative subsidy
-14.0
-41.0
-90.0
-135.0
-135.0
-135.0
Rural elec. & tele. loan negative subsidy
-60.0
-92.0
-152.0
-154.0
-154.0
-154.0
—
—
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-3.0
-6.0
-23.0
-23.0
-23.0
-23.0
-139.0
-201.0
-408.0
-345.0
-345.0
-345.0
—
—
-116.0
—
—
—
-129.0
-191.0
-514.0
-331.0
-336.0
-335.0
Loan program negative subsidies
Rural water & waste loan negative subsidy
Ag credit loan negative subsidy
Subtotal, negative subsidies
Emergency designations not in 302(b)
Total
Source: CRS, compiled from unpublished CBO tables.
121
Although CHIMPS sometimes are considered to be scorekeeping adjustments and are shown in committee tables,
they are discussed elsewhere in this report. This section discusses the unpublished, other scorekeeping adjustments.
Congressional Research Service
65
Enacted
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Appendix A. Historical Trends
This appendix offers historical perspective on trends in Agricultural appropriations from FY1995
to FY2015. Comparisons are made for mandatory vs. discretionary spending, nutrition spending
compared to the rest of the bill, inflation-adjusted amounts, and agriculture appropriations relative
to the entire federal budget, economy, and population.
Figure 3 earlier in this report illustrates discretionary spending for each title, FY2007-FY2016.
See Figure A-1's beginnings as part of the Department of Agriculture.
FDA's program level, the amount that FDA can spend, is composed of direct appropriations (also referred to as budget authority, BA) and user fees.130 The enacted FY2016 appropriation provides an FDA total program level of $4.738 billion, an increase of $238 million (+5.3%) from the FY2015 appropriation's program level of $4.500 billion. The President's FY2016 budget had requested a total program level of $4.731 billion, while the House-reported bill would have provided $4.606, and the Senate-reported bill would have provided $4.616 billion.
For direct appropriations, the enacted FY2016 appropriation includes $2.729 billion, an increase of $132 million (+5%) from the FY2015 level of $2.597 billion. The President's budget had requested $2.744 billion in FY2016, while the House-reported bill would have provided $2.627 billion, and the Senate-reported bill would have provided $2.638 billion.
User fees totaling $2.009 billion are allowed in the enacted FY2016 FDA appropriation. The President had requested $1.988 billion in fees to be collected through authorized programs to support specified agency activities regarding prescription drugs, medical devices, animal drugs, animal generic drugs, tobacco products, generic human drugs, biosimilars, mammography quality, color certification, export certification, food reinspection, food recall, the voluntary qualified importer program, outsourcing facilities, priority review vouchers, and third-party auditors.131 In addition to the $1.988 billion in user fees from currently authorized programs, the President had requested $199 million in as yet unauthorized fees to support international courier, food establishment registration, food imports, cosmetics, and food contact notification activities. With those proposed fees, the President's total user fee request was $2.187 billion, bringing the total program level request to $4.93 billion. The enacted appropriation did not include any of the proposed fees; however, it did include $1 million for fees authorized by this Congress related to the regulation of drug compounding. Neither appropriations committee's recommendations included any proposed fees. For authorized fees, the House-reported bill would provide $1.979 billion in fees, and the Senate-reported bill would provide $1.978 billion in fees.
The enacted FY2016 appropriation requires that $1.5 million of the budget authority provided for other activities (e.g., Office of the Commissioner) be transferred to the HHS Office of Inspector General for FDA oversight; this provision had also appeared in the Senate-reported bill.
Table 13 displays, by program area, the budget authority (direct appropriations), user fees, and total program levels for FDA in previous years: FY2013 (as calculated by the June 2014 operating plan), FY2014 (as calculated by the June 2014 operating plan), and FY2015 (as enacted). Regarding appropriations for FY2016, Table 13 displays the President's FY2016 request, the House Committee on Appropriations-reported H.R. 3049, the Senate Committee on Appropriations-reported S. 1800, and as enacted in P.L. 114-113.
Consistent with the Administration and congressional committee formats, each program area in Table 13 includes funding designated for the responsible FDA center (e.g., the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research or the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition) and the portion of effort budgeted for the agency-wide Office of Regulatory Affairs to commit to that area. It also apportions user fee revenue across the program areas as indicated in the Administration's request (e.g., 90% of the animal drug user fee revenue is designated for the animal drugs and feeds program, with the rest going to the categories of headquarters and Office of the Commissioner, General Services Administration [GSA] rent, and other rent and rent-related activities).
Table 13. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Appropriations
(dollars in millions)
|
Program area
|
FY2013
|
FY2014
|
FY2015
|
FY2016
|
P.L. 113-6 post-seq.
|
P.L. 113-76
|
P.L. 113-235
|
Admin.. requesta
H. Cmte. H.R. 3049
|
S. Cmte. S. 1800
|
P.L. 114-113
|
Foods
|
BA
|
Fees
|
Human drugs
|
BA
|
Fees
|
Biologics
|
BA
|
Fees
|
Animal drugs and feeds
|
BA
|
Fees
|
Devices and radiological health
|
BA
|
Fees
|
Tobacco products
|
Fees
|
Toxicological research
|
BA
|
Other (e.g., Commissioner Office)
|
281b
291c
BA
|
Fees
|
GSA rent
|
BA
|
Fees
|
Other rent, rent-related activitiesd
BA
|
Fees
|
Export, color certification (Fees)
|
Priority review voucher (Fees)
|
Food and drug safetye (BA)
Buildings & Facilities (BA)
|
Total Budget Authority
|
2,597f
Total User Fees
|
1,902g
1,979h
1,978i
2,009j
Total Program Level
|
Sources: FY2013 and FY2014 amounts are from the FDA FY2014 Operating Plan. FY2013 figures reflect sequestration. The enacted FY2015 appropriations data are from P.L. 113-235 and the explanatory statement. FY2016 request amounts are taken from the FY2016 congressional justification, issued in February 2015. Appropriations Committees reported amounts come from H.R. 3049, H.Rept. 114-205, S. 1800, and S.Rept. 114-82. The enacted FY2016 appropriations data are from P.L. 114-113 and the explanatory statement.
Notes: Consistent with the Administration and congressional committee formats, each program area includes funding designated for the responsible FDA center (e.g., the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research or the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition) and the portion budgeted for agency-wide Office of Regulatory Affairs in that area. User fee revenue is apportioned as indicated in the Administration's request (e.g., 90% of the animal drug user fee revenue is designated for the animal drugs and feeds program, with the rest going to other [including Office of the Commissioner], GSA rent, and other rent and rent-related activities categories).
a.
The President's FY2016 request includes $1.988 billion in user fees from currently authorized programs (prescription drug, medical device, animal drug, animal generic drug, tobacco product, generic drug, biosimilars, mammography quality, color certification, export certification, food reinspection, food recall, pharmacy compounding, and third-party food import auditors). The request included an additional $199 million in proposed fees (medical product reinspection, international courier, food establishment registration, food imports, cosmetics, and food contact notification) that would require authorizing legislation to implement. The request allocated these across several FDA program areas (foods $168 million; human drugs $0.5 million; animal drugs and feeds $4 million; devices and radiological health $4 million; headquarters and Office of the Commissioner $12 million; GSA rent $4 million; other rent and rent-related activities $2 million; and $4 million in export certification). For user fees in the Administration's FY2016 request, this column shows only those that have been authorized. Including the $199 million in proposed user fees, the President's total user fee request would have been $2.187 billion, yielding a total program level request of $4.93 billion.
b.
The Senate-reported bill would require that $1.5 million of the budget authority provided for "other activities" (e.g., Office of the Commissioner) be transferred to the HHS Office of Inspector General for FDA oversight.
c.
P.L. 114-113 requires that $1.5 million of the budget authority provided for "other activities" (e.g., Office of the Commissioner) be transferred to the HHS Office of Inspector General for FDA oversight.
d.
Other rent and rent-related activities include White Oak consolidation.
e.
The FY2013 Sequestration Operating Plan notes food safety and drug safety items that had not been included in the program-level appropriations.
f.
Table VIII of P.L. 113-235 provided an additional, one-time $25 million in direct appropriations to FDA for Ebola response and preparedness activities, which is not shown in this table. Adding this $25 million to the FDA appropriations made in Title VI brings BA to $2.622 billion and the total program level to $4.525 billion for FY2015.
g.
The FY2015 enacted bill included $1 million for fees related to pharmacy compounding that the President's request had not included the FY2015 request submission.
h.
The House bill and report include no mention of authorized third-party auditor fees despite their inclusion in the President's request. Although the President's request for compounding pharmacy fees was $1,015,000, which is reflected in the rows for human drugs, other (including the Office of the Commissioner), GSA rent, and other rent, the House report refers to $1 million.
i.
The Senate bill and report include no mention of authorized pharmacy compounding fees despite their inclusion in the President's request.
j.
The FY2016 enacted bill included $1 million for fees related to pharmacy compounding (CBO estimate) that the President's request had not included the FY2016 request submission.
The explanatory statement accompanying the enacted appropriation notes that it increased budget authority for various activities and/or directs FDA to complete certain activities.
Medical product safety initiatives: The explanatory statement notes the following increases in budget authority: $8.732 million for the Combatting Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria (CARB) initiative, $2.392 million for the precision medicine initiative, $716,000 for sunscreen activities, and $2.5 million for the Orphan Drug Development Grants Program.132
Foreign high-risk inspections: The explanatory statement notes a $5 million increase provided for foreign high-risk inspections. In report language, the Senate Committee had expressed that as the importation of drugs, foods, and medical devices from China continues to increase, there is concern with FDA's ability to keep pace with the volume of exports.
Master Plan: The explanatory statement notes that the appropriation includes $5 million for FDA to complete a feasibility study to update and issue a revised Master Plan for the White Oak campus to accommodate its expanded workforce; FDA was directed to report on this effort by January 1, 2016.
Food and Drug Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA) implementation: The explanatory statement notes that the appropriation provides $5 million for FDASIA implementation. It further states that there continue to be shortages of critical drugs. The agreement directs the FDA Commissioner to continue to prioritize public reporting of manufacturing shortages and to work with industry to prevent conditions that may lead to drug shortages. The agreement also directs the Commissioner to report on the work of FDA's intra-agency Drug Shortage Task Force (including collaborations with other government agencies and stakeholders, and activities to prevent drug shortages affecting pediatric patients), as well as steps FDA can take to prevent shortages of drugs to test for and treat tuberculosis (TB).
Center for Tobacco Products: The explanatory statement notes that the agreement provides $1 million for the Center for Tobacco Products to contract with the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to conduct an evaluation of the evidence on the health effects from using e-cigarettes and recommendations for future federally funded research.
Partially hydrogenated oils: The explanatory statement notes that the enacted appropriation includes language related to the use of partially hydrogenated oils (PHOs) in food. On June 17, 2015, FDA issued a final determination that PHOs are no longer generally recognized as safe (GRAS) for any use in human foods, establishing a compliance date of three years (June 18, 2018).133 Food manufacturers may seek food additive approval for one or more specific uses of PHOs by submitting data demonstrating reasonable certainty of safe use.134 Section 754 of the appropriation provides that, during FDA's three-year compliance period, a food cannot be deemed unsafe or adulterated solely because it contains a PHO. The explanatory statement adds that FDA is encouraged to provide a timely review of the Food Additive Petition for minor use of PHOs in certain foods.
Seafood consumption advice: The explanatory statement includes language about seafood consumption advice for pregnant women. In June 2014, FDA and EPA issued a draft of the agencies' advice on fish consumption for pregnant women, women likely to become pregnant, and young children. In accompanying Senate report language, the committee directed FDA to re-evaluate the draft limit on albacore tuna, publish final advice to pregnant women on seafood consumption, and "provide a progress report to the Committee 30 days after the enactment of this act and every 30 days thereafter until the final seafood advice is published." The explanatory statement for the enacted appropriation directs FDA to provide final guidance on nutrition advice regarding safe and healthy consumption of seafood, without the requirements of progress reports.
Other activities: The explanatory statement directs FDA to provide the committees with an estimated timeline by which the agency will finalize all pending draft biosimilar guidance documents and regulations. In addition, the explanatory statement notes concern with safety issues raised at a September 2015 meeting of the Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee, and directs FDA to issue recommendations on how to address these concerns. The agreement notes concern about the agency's use of "draft guidance to make substantive policy decisions." The explanatory statement also requests from FDA a report "documenting the agency's review and solicitation of scientific data impacting bioequivalence standards and patients suffering from ophthalmologic conditions."
FDA's Food Safety Activities135
FDA's Foods program covers the agency's food safety activities, as well as certain other food-related programs. The program plays a major food safety role, assuring that the nation's food supply, quality of foods, food ingredients, and dietary supplements (and also cosmetic products) are safe, sanitary, nutritious, wholesome, and properly labeled. In recent years, congressional appropriators have increased funding for FDA Food Programs, more than doubling funding over the past decade. Largely, this increase has been in response to comprehensive food safety legislation enacted in the 111th Congress, as part of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA, P.L. 111-353). FSMA was the largest expansion of FDA's food safety authorities since the 1930s.136 FDA's Foods program also has had to adapt to the increasing variety and complexity of the U.S. food supply, including rising import demand for products produced outside the United States, as well as other market factors, including emerging microbial pathogens, natural toxins, and technological innovations in production and processing.
FDA's Foods program budget accounts for roughly one-third of FDA's total appropriation. FDA's total budget for food safety programs and activities, however, extends beyond the agency's Foods program, encompassing other food and veterinary medicine programs at FDA. As reported by FDA, the agency's budget for food safety activities totaled $1.2 billion in FY2015.137 This amount includes most of FDA's Food program funding, along with aspects of other FDA program areas covering food additives, antimicrobial resistance, nutrition labeling and dietary supplements, cosmetics, and all related user fees, as well as administrative expenses associated with FDA headquarters and rent-related expenses.
For FDA's food safety activities, including FSMA implementation, the enacted FY2016 Agriculture appropriation provides for a $104.5 million increase in budget authority.138 This is nearly the increase requested by the Administration ($109.5 million),139 and is more than double the increase that the House and Senate committee bills proposed (H.R. 3049 would have increased FSMA funding by $41.5 million, and S. 1800 by $45.0 million). Both the House and Senate committees had noted that these increases and previous increases provided since FY2011 "should assist the FDA in preparation for the implementation of FSMA prior to the effective dates of the seven foundational proposed rules."140 The enacted appropriation also provides $5 million for competitive grants to state agencies for local educational agencies and schools to purchase equipment to serve healthier meals and improve food safety,141 and funding for FSMA implementation and interagency coordination between FDA and USDA-NIFA.
Overall, for FDA's Foods program, the enacted FY2016 appropriation provides $987.3 million, identical to that requested by the Administration. These congressional appropriations are augmented by existing (currently authorized) user fees. These fees, as authorized under FSMA, include food and feed recall fees, food reinspection fees, and voluntary qualified importer program fees. In recent years these fees have generated less than $18 million per year.
The appropriation, along with statements in the House and Senate committee reports, include a number of provisions requiring FDA to take additional food safety and food-related actions. These include provisions about FDA's regulatory process that reflect concerns by Members of Congress about FDA's development of FSMA regulations, and the extensive delays in rulemaking to implement FSMA.142 They also include a number of provisions about fish and seafood labeling and safety. Separately, the enacted law directs FDA to "develop labeling guidelines" and "implement a program" to inform consumers whether salmon for sale is genetically engineered. Other provisions require FDA to further addresses illnesses associated with imported pet food, perhaps related to consumption of jerky pet treats imported from China.
The enacted FY2016 Agriculture appropriation contains other policy riders for FDA's Foods program, not necessarily for food safety activities but including other FDA food programs. The appropriation places restrictions on FDA regarding implementation of the 2015 "Dietary Guidelines for Americans" and its final regulations regarding restaurant menu labeling. It also allows states to exempt schools from certain whole grain requirements, and places certain restrictions regarding other FDA activities regarding partially hydrogenated oils (PHOs); nutrition labeling regarding added sugars; and the agency's policies regarding sodium in federally reimbursed meals, foods, and snacks sold in schools.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission143
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is the independent regulatory agency charged with oversight of derivatives markets. The CFTC's functions include oversight of trading on the futures exchanges, oversight of the swaps markets,144 registration and supervision of futures industry personnel, self-regulatory organizations and major participants in the swaps markets, prevention of fraud and price manipulation, and investor protection.145 The Dodd-Frank Act (P.L. 111-203) brought the bulk of the previously unregulated over-the-counter swaps markets under CFTC jurisdiction as well as the previously regulated futures and options markets. Since the swaps market is much larger than the futures market, a lingering question is whether CFTC has sufficient resources to meet the agency's newly added responsibilities.146
The enacted FY2016 appropriation is $250 million, the same as the FY2015 amount. Of the $250 million, $50 million is for the purchase of information technology.
The Senate Financial Services markup (S. 1910) would have provided this same amount, which was $5 million more than the House Agriculture markup (H.R. 3049). The President's budget request was $322 million, an increase of 29% above the FY2015 level, noting that past appropriations have "not enabled the Commission to keep pace with the increased technological complexity and globalization of the markets overseen by the Commission" since its jurisdiction was expanded to include swaps in 2010.147
Following enactment, the CFTC Chairman issued a statement criticizing the lack of any increase for the agency despite its expanded oversight over the swaps market. "The failure to provide the CFTC even a modest increase in the fiscal year 2016 budget agreement sends a clear message that meaningful oversight of the derivatives markets, and the very types of products that exacerbated the global financial crisis, is not a priority," stated CFTC Chairman Timothy Massad.148 He added that the flat appropriations amount failed to take into account the need for added resources to enforce oversight of the expanded, technologically complex swaps markets.149
Farm Credit Administration150
The Farm Credit Administration (FCA) is the federal regulator for the Farm Credit System (FCS), which is a borrower-owned cooperative lender operated as a government-sponsored enterprise.151
Neither the FCS nor the FCA receives a federal appropriation. The FCA is funded by assessments on the FCS entities that it regulates; FCS is funded by agency bonds sold on Wall Street and loans repaid by its borrowers. As part of its congressional oversight, however, the Agriculture appropriations bill sets a limitation (a maximum operating level) on FCA administrative expenses. This serves as a check on the size of the FCA and the amount that FCA can collect.
For FY2016, the appropriation allows FCA a maximum operating level of $65.6 million, which is $5.1 million greater than allowed in FY2015 (+8.4%), but $3.8 million less than requested.152 FCA's request continues to note additional costs for a staffing replacement plan because of expected retirements and the desire to add new staff while experienced staff can train their replacements.
The $65.6 million allowed in FY2016 happens to be the same as what FCA had planned to be its operating level at the beginning of FY2015, before the lower FY2015 amount was enacted. Nonetheless, the FY2016 amount represents a return to higher levels, especially since the FY2014-FY2015 amounts had been lower than FY2013.
Table 14. Farm Credit Administration Limitation on Expenses
(dollars in millions)
FY2013
|
FY2014
|
FY2015
|
FY2016
|
P.L. 113-6
|
P.L. 113-76
|
P.L. 113-235
|
Admin. Request
|
House H.R. 3049
|
Senate S. 1800
|
P.L. 114-113
|
Change from FY2015 to FY2016 Enacted
|
FCA limitation on expenses
|
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports for the referenced appropriations acts or bills.
General Provisions, Scorekeeping Adjustments153
Agriculture appropriations acts in recent years have had over $1 billion in net offsets that effectively reduce the cost of appropriations in the rest of the bill. The enacted FY2016 appropriation continues that practice. These reductions occur in Title VII (General Provisions) through rescissions and CHIMPS (Changes in Mandatory Program Spending), and in separate CBO scorekeeping adjustments. Other appropriations are also made.
For FY2016, reductions are made by placing limitations on mandatory programs (-$831 million, Table 15), recessions from other appropriated accounts (-$34 million, Table 16), and other scorekeeping adjustments that are usually not detailed in the bills (-$462 million, Table 18). Besides reductions, some additional spending is authorized in the General Provisions ($556 million, including $250 million for foreign food aid and $273 million for emergency conservation programs, Table 17).
Limitations and rescissions are used to score budgetary savings that help meet the discretionary budget allocation. By offsetting spending elsewhere in the bill, they help provide relatively more to (or help avoid deeper cuts to) regular discretionary accounts than might otherwise occur.154
The General Provisions title also contains many important policy-related provisions that affect how the executive branch carries out the appropriation and authorizing laws, many of which have no budgetary effect. Some of these policy-related provisions are discussed earlier in this report under the relevant agency heading.
Changes in Mandatory Program Spending (CHIMPS)
Mandatory programs usually are not part of the appropriations process since formulas and eligibility rules are set in multi-year authorizing laws (such as the 2014 farm bill). Funding usually is assumed to be available based on the statute and without appropriations action. However, for more than a decade, appropriators have placed limits on mandatory spending authorized in statutes such as the farm bill (Table 15). These limits are known as CHIMPS, "changes in mandatory program spending." CHIMPS usually are reductions to mandatory spending authority, but they also may be increases in spending authority. Although many CHIMPS have an effect for one year, rescissions may be made to mandatory spending programs to permanently cancel budget authority (also considered a CHIMP here and by CBO).155
When appropriators limit mandatory spending, they do not change the authorizing law.156 However, their action has a similar effect through CHIMPS, but usually only for the one year to which the appropriation applies. Appropriators put limits on mandatory program by using language such as: "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 section [ ... ] of Public Law [ ... ] in excess of $[ ... ]." Limits usually appear in Title VII, General Provisions, of the Agriculture appropriations bill.
Historically, most allocations to spend budgetary resources originated from the appropriations committees. The division over who should fund certain agriculture programs—appropriators or authorizers—has roots dating to the 1930s. Variable outlays for the farm commodity programs were difficult to budget and resembled entitlements. Mandatory funding—the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC)—was created to remove the unpredictable funding issue from the appropriations process, and those decisions generally rested with the authorizing committee.
The dynamic further changed after the 1996 farm bill, when mandatory funds were used for programs that usually had been discretionary.157 Appropriators had not funded some programs as much as authorizers had desired, and authorizing committees wrote farm bills to more broadly use the mandatory funding at their discretion. Tension arose over who should fund certain activities. Some question whether the CCC should be used for outlays that are not uncertain.
The programs affected by CHIMPS typically include conservation, rural development, bioenergy, and some smaller nutrition assistance programs.158 CHIMPS have not affected the farm commodity programs or the primary nutrition assistance programs (such as SNAP).
The enacted FY2016 appropriation contains $831 million in savings attributable to CHIMPS, of which $436 million are from programs authorized in the 2014 farm bill. These totals are roughly similar to FY2015, though the subtotal from the farm bill is slightly smaller and the overall total is slightly greater. They are both smaller than the annual levels that were enacted between FY2011-FY2014 (Table 15).159
A complicating factor in understanding the CHIMP amounts in the proposed bills for FY2016 is budget sequestration, and a methodological difference in how CBO scored the sequestration across various proposals. Budget sequestration of mandatory accounts has occurred every year since FY2013, reducing the amount available to most mandatory programs. For example, the CHIMP to accomplish the complete prohibition on spending for the Watershed Rehabilitation Program resulted in a smaller $153 million CHIMP in FY2014, after sequestration, than the $165 million CHIMP in FY2013, even though no spending was allowed either year (Table 15). In FY2016, the scoring of the Administration's request and the Senate bill are before sequestration, while scoring of the CHIMP in the House bill is after sequestration. By not incorporating sequestration into the CHIMP estimates, CBO gave the Administration and the Senate more credit for some CHIMPS than the House bill.
Table 15. Adjustments to Mandatory Spending Programs
(dollars in millions)
FY2013
|
FY2014
|
FY2015
|
FY2016
|
P.L. 113-6 post-sequ.
|
P.L. 113-76
|
P.L. 113-235
|
Admin. Request
|
H.Cmte. H.R. 3049
|
S.Cmte. S. 1800
|
P.L. 114-113
|
Changes to farm bill programs (CHIMPS and rescissions)a
Conservation programs
|
|
Environmental Quality Incentives Prog.
|
-279.0
|
-272.0
|
-136.0
|
-373.0
|
-189.0
|
-264.0
|
-209.0
|
|
Watershed Rehabilitation Program
|
-165.0
|
-153.0
|
-69.0
|
-69.0
|
-64.0
|
-68.0
|
-68.0
|
|
Conservation Stewardship Program
|
—
|
—
|
-7.0
|
-3.0
|
-2.0
|
—
|
—
|
|
Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program
|
-9.0
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
|
Agricultural Management Assistance
|
-5.0
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
|
Subtotal, conservation
|
-458.0
|
-425.0
|
-212.0
|
-445.0
|
-255.0
|
-332.0
|
-277.0
|
Other farm bill programs
|
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Programb
-117.0
|
-119.0
|
-122.0
|
-125.0
|
-125.0
|
-125.0
|
-125.0
|
|
Biorefinery Assistance Program
|
—
|
-40.7
|
-16.0
|
—
|
-26.0
|
—
|
-19.0
|
|
Biomass Crop Assistance Program
|
—
|
—
|
-2.0
|
—
|
-12.0
|
-20.0
|
-20.0
|
|
Rural Energy for America Program
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
-16.0
|
—
|
—
|
|
Repowering Assistance
|
-28.0
|
—
|
-8.0
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
|
Bioenergy Prog. for Advanced Biofuels
|
—
|
-8.0
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
|
Emergency Livestock Assistance Prog.
|
—
|
—
|
-125.0
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
|
Conservation Compliance
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
+1.0
|
—
|
—
|
|
Marketing Certificates
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
+5.0
|
—
|
+5.0
|
|
Subtotal, other from farm bill
|
-145.0
|
-167.7
|
-273.0
|
-125.0
|
-173.0
|
-145.0
|
-159.0
|
|
Subtotal, of farm bill programs
|
-603.0
|
-592.7
|
-485.0
|
-570.0
|
-428.0
|
-477.0
|
-436.0
|
Other reductions of mandatory programsa
|
Cushion of Credit (Rural Develop.)
|
-180.0
|
-172.0
|
-179.0
|
-154.0
|
-154.0
|
-182.0
|
-179.0
|
|
Section 32
|
-110.0
|
-189.0
|
-121.0
|
-292.0
|
-216.0
|
-216.0
|
-216.0
|
|
Total
|
-893.0
|
-953.7
|
-785.0
|
-1,016.0
|
-798.0
|
-875.0
|
-831.0
|
Source: CRS, based on the categorization of CHIMPS in unpublished CBO tables, and from the joint explanatory statements or committee reports for the referenced appropriations acts or bills.
a.
Reductions to mandatory programs in this report include CHIMPS (Changes in Mandatory Program Spending) and permanent rescissions of budget authority for mandatory program accounts. CBO estimates are used and are not always consistent in the treatment of sequestration. Amounts in the columns for the Admin. Request and Senate do not include the effects of sequestration, whereas amounts in the House column are after including the effects of sequestration.
b.
Delays funding from July until October of the same calendar year, effectively allocating the authorization by fiscal year rather than school year—with no reduction in overall support—and scoring budgetary savings.
Rescissions of Discretionary Accounts
Rescissions are a method of permanently cancelling the availability of funds that were provided by a previous appropriations law. When scoring a bill to determine its budget effect, a rescission results in budgetary savings.
As a budgetary offset, rescissions can allow more spending in an appropriations bill. But unlike a CHIMP, a rescission can prevent an unobligated budget authority from being reallocated or repurposed by future appropriations since the cancellation is permanent. Often rescissions relate to the unobligated balances of funds that were appropriated a year or more ago that still remain available for a specific purpose (e.g., buildings and facilities funding that remains available until expended for specific projects, or disaster response funds for losses due to a specifically named hurricane).
For FY2016, the enacted appropriation rescinds $34 million from three discretionary programs (Table 16). Rescissions to mandatory programs are included in the CHIMPS section, according to CBO scoring tables. These levels of rescissions are typical for most years but are small by comparison to FY2011, when rescissions were unusually large ($372 million) and helped achieve that year's relatively large spending reduction.
Table 16. Rescissions from (Prior-Year) Discretionary Budget Authority
(dollars in millions)
FY2013
|
FY2014
|
FY2015
|
FY2016
|
P.L. 113-6 post-sequ.
|
P.L. 113-76
|
P.L. 113-235
|
Admin. Request
|
H.Cmte. H.R. 3049
|
S.Cmte. S. 1800
|
P.L. 114-113
|
|
ARS buildings and facilities
|
—
|
—
|
-2.0
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
|
Agriculture buildings and facilities
|
—
|
-30.0
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
|
Broadband loan balances
|
-25.3
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
|
Common Computing Environment
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
-1.0
|
—
|
-1.0
|
|
Rural Housing Service
|
—
|
-1.3
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
|
Ocean freight (food aid)
|
—
|
—
|
-2.0
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
|
P.L. 480 Title I (food aid)
|
—
|
—
|
-13.0
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
|
Watershed and Flood Prevention
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
-20.0
|
-20.0
|
-20.0
|
-20.0
|
|
Resource Conservation and Development
|
—
|
-2.0
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
|
Water and waste disposal cancellation
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
-13.0
|
-13.0
|
-13.0
|
|
Total
|
-25.3
|
-33.3
|
-17.0
|
-20.0
|
-34.0
|
-33.0
|
-34.0
|
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports.
Other Appropriations (Including Emergency Disaster Programs)
The General Provisions title may contain appropriations for activities that are not part of regular agency appropriations. These sometimes include supplemental or disaster appropriations, and may be offset in scorekeeping adjustments by emergency spending designations.
Table 17 shows that the FY2016 appropriation contains $273 million for the emergency watershed, conservation and forestry programs, $130 million of which is not subject to the discretionary budget cap. It also contains $283 million of other spending provisions, including $250 million to supplement the Food for Peace program and several other programs.
Table 17. Other Appropriations in General Provisions
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2013
|
FY2014
|
FY2015
|
FY2016
|
P.L. 113-6 post-sequ.
|
P.L. 113-76
|
P.L. 113-235
|
Admin. Request
|
H.Cmte. H.R. 3049
|
S.Cmte. S. 1800
|
P.L. 114-113
|
Disaster/Emergency programs
|
|
Emergency Watershed Protection
|
60.5
|
—
|
78.6
|
—
|
2.0
|
—
|
159.0
|
|
Emergency Conservation Program
|
10.3
|
—
|
9.2
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
108.0
|
|
Emergency Forest Restoration
|
13.1
|
—
|
3.2
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
6.0
|
|
FDA Salaries and expenses for Ebola
|
—
|
—
|
25.0
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
|
Subtotal, disaster programs
|
83.9
|
0.0
|
116.0
|
0.0
|
2.0
|
0.0
|
273.0
|
|
Note: Disaster designation for budget
|
—
|
—
|
-116.0
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
-130.0
|
Other spending provisions
|
|
FDA salaries and expenses
|
46.2
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
|
FDA user fees
|
—
|
79.0
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
Food for Peacea
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
250.0
|
|
Citrus greening
|
—
|
20.0
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
5.5
|
|
Hardwood trees reforestation pilot
|
0.6
|
0.6
|
0.6
|
—
|
—
|
0.6
|
0.6
|
|
Geographically disadvantaged farmers
|
1.8
|
2.0
|
2.0
|
—
|
—
|
2.0
|
2.0
|
|
Water Bank
|
—
|
4.0
|
4.0
|
—
|
—
|
4.0
|
4.0
|
|
Rural Energy Savings Program
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
8.0
|
|
Dietary Guidelines study
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
1.0
|
|
Summer meals
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
7.0
|
|
School equipment grants
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
5.0
|
|
Hunger Commission
|
—
|
1.0
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
|
Subtotal, other spending
|
48.6
|
106.6
|
6.6
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
6.6
|
283.1
|
|
Total
|
132.5
|
106.6
|
122.6
|
0.0
|
2.0
|
6.6
|
556.1
|
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports for the referenced appropriations acts or bills.
a.
This amount for Food for Peace is in addition to the regular appropriation in Title V of $1.466 billion.
Other Scorekeeping Adjustments
Scorekeeping adjustments are a final part of the accounting of the appropriations bill that is not necessarily shown in the tables published by the appropriations committees.160 These adjustments are critical, however, for the bill to reach the desired total amount that complies with the 302(b) spending limit for the subcommittee. Some of these amounts are not necessarily specified by provisions in the bill but are related to program operations, such as direct and guaranteed loan programs. CBO calculates and reports these scorekeeping adjustments in unpublished tables.
For FY2016, the other scorekeeping adjustment in the enacted appropriation is -$462 million (Table 18). The disaster designation for emergency programs that offset spending in the enacted bill (Table 17) is slightly greater than last year.
Also noteworthy, the "negative subsidy" from various USDA loan programs has increased in recent years. Negative subsidies effectively reflect "income" to the government when a loan program operates at less cost than it receives in appropriations via the collection of fees or better-than-expected loan repayment. These negative subsidies have become larger in recent years, and are helping to offset more of the regular appropriation. Prior to FY2013, these negative subsidies were cumulatively less than $100 million. Since FY2013 they have grown to $408 million in FY2015, and moderated slightly to $345 million in FY2016.
Table 18. Scorekeeping Adjustments
(dollars in millions)
FY2013
|
FY2014
|
FY2015
|
FY2016
|
P.L. 113-6 post-sequ.
|
P.L. 113-76
|
P.L. 113-235
|
Admin. Request
|
H.Cmte. H.R. 3049
|
S.Cmte. S. 1800
|
P.L. 114-113
|
|
Denali Commission (permanent)
|
4.0
|
4.0
|
4.0
|
4.0
|
4.0
|
4.0
|
4.0
|
|
Interest Native American Fund Endowment
|
5.0
|
5.0
|
5.0
|
5.0
|
5.0
|
5.0
|
5.0
|
|
Child nutrition equipment grants
|
1.0
|
1.0
|
1.0
|
1.0
|
—
|
1.0
|
1.0
|
SNAP employment & training
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
4.0
|
—
|
—
|
Loan program negative subsidies
|
|
Rural housing negative subsidy
|
-62.0
|
-62.0
|
-141.0
|
-31.0
|
-31.0
|
-31.0
|
-31.0
|
|
Rural community facilities negative subsidy
|
-14.0
|
-41.0
|
-90.0
|
-135.0
|
-135.0
|
-135.0
|
-135.0
|
|
Rural elec. & tele. loan negative subsidy
|
-60.0
|
-92.0
|
-152.0
|
-154.0
|
-154.0
|
-154.0
|
-154.0
|
|
Rural water & waste loan negative subsidy
|
—
|
—
|
-2.0
|
-2.0
|
-2.0
|
-2.0
|
-2.0
|
|
Ag credit loan negative subsidy
|
-3.0
|
-6.0
|
-23.0
|
-23.0
|
-23.0
|
-23.0
|
-23.0
|
|
Subtotal, negative subsidies
|
-139.0
|
-201.0
|
-408.0
|
-345.0
|
-345.0
|
-345.0
|
-345.0
|
Rounding plug
|
3.0
|
|
Emergency designations not in 302(b)
|
—
|
—
|
-116.0
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
-130.0
|
|
Total
|
-129.0
|
-191.0
|
-514.0
|
-331.0
|
-336.0
|
-335.0
|
-462.0
|
Source: CRS, compiled from unpublished CBO tables.
Appendix A.
Historical Trends
This appendix offers historical perspective on trends in Agricultural appropriations from FY1995 to FY2015. Comparisons are made across (1) mandatory vs. discretionary spending, (2) nutrition spending compared to the rest of the bill, (3) inflation-adjusted amounts, and (4) agriculture appropriations relative to the entire federal budget, economy, and population.
Discretionary spending for each title, over FY2007-FY2016, is shown in Figure 3.
See Figure A-1 for the mandatory and discretionary breakdown; Table A-1 contains the nominal
data, and Table A-2 contains the inflation-adjusted data. Table A-3 shows the compounded
annualized percentage changes over various time periods.
Mandatory and Discretionary Spending
Discretionary Agriculture appropriations peaked in FY2010, although mandatory
nutrition spending
has continued to rise
.
through FY2015.
Over the past
10five years (since
FY2005FY2011), total Agriculture appropriations grew at a
compounded annual rate of +
5.62.4% (+
30.7% on an inflation-adjusted
annual basis).
The mandatory spending portion of this total shows a +
6.42.5% annual increase over
the past
10five years (+
4.40.9% on an inflation-adjusted basis).
The discretionary portion has an annual increase of +
2.21.6% over
10five years (
+0.3%
annuallybasically flat on an inflation-adjusted basis
).
In FY2015, 14; -0.1% annually).
In FY2016, 15% of the total agriculture appropriation is discretionary spending,
down from 28% of the total appropriation in FY1998.
Figure A-1. Total Agriculture Appropriations: Mandatory and Discretionary
Source: CRS. Fiscal year budget authority. Inflation-adjusted amounts are based on the GDP price deflator.
Notes: Includes only regular annual appropriations; includes CFTC regardless of jurisdiction.
Congressional Research Service
66
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Domestic Nutrition and the Rest of the Bill
Another way to divide the total agriculture appropriation is domestic nutrition compared to
everything else (Figure A-2). Domestic nutrition appropriations include primarily the child
nutrition programs (school lunch and related programs), the Special Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP)—which are mandatory—and the Special Supplemental Nutrition
Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), which is discretionary. The
“"rest of the bill
”
" includes other USDA programs (except the Forest Service), FDA, and CFTC.
Total domestic nutrition program spending rose at a
7.7+4.1% compounded annual
rate over
10five years (+
5.82.5% annually on an inflation-adjusted basis).
Spending on the rest of the bill (non-nutrition)
increased at +1.3decreased at -2.7% annually over
10 five years (-
0.54.3% per year on an inflation-adjusted basis).
In FY2015, 75
In FY2016, 78% of the total agriculture appropriation was for domestic nutrition,
up from
6259% in
20052006 and 46% in FY2001.
Most of domestic nutrition is mandatory spending, primarily in SNAP and the
child nutrition programs. The mandatory nutrition spending portion rose at a
+8.2 +4.5% annual rate over
10five years (+
6.22.8% annually inflation-adjusted basis).
The discretionary portion decreased -0.8% annually over five years.
The relationship is reversed for the rest of the bill. Mandatory spending within the rest of the rest of the bill
increased at a +0.9%
decreased at a -6.5% annual rate over
10five years (-
0.98.0% on an inflation-adjusted annual basis).
Figure A-2. Discretionary spending increased at a +2.5% annual rate.
Figure A-2. Total Agriculture Appropriations: Domestic Nutrition and Rest of Bill
Source: CRS. Fiscal year budget authority. Inflation-adjusted amounts are based on the GDP price deflator.
Notes: The largest domestic nutrition programs are the child nutrition programs, SNAP, and WIC. The
“"rest of
bill” bill" includes USDA (except the Forest Service), FDA, and CFTC.
Congressional Research Service
67
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Discretionary Appropriations
Appropriators arguably have the most control over discretionary appropriations. Within the
discretionary subtotal of Figure A-1, a similar domestic nutrition vs. rest of the bill comparison
can be made as was done for the total appropriation (see Figure A-3
). In FY2016, discretionary budget authority rose +4.4%. For the nutrition portion of the bill, it decreased -3.6%; for the rest of the bill, it rose +8.6%.
Total).
As stated before, total discretionary Agriculture appropriations grew at +
2.21.6% per
year over the past
10five years (
+0.3% annuallybasically flat on an inflation-adjusted basis
).
Over a shorter; -0.1% annually).
Over a longer period, the annual change is
-2.2+2.6% per year over the past
five
10 years, or
-3.8+0.9% per year on an inflation-adjusted basis.
The domestic nutrition portion of this discretionary subtotal (primarily WIC,
commodity assistance programs, and nutrition programs administration) shows a
+2.5% annual increase over 10 years (+0.6% per year if adjusted for inflation).
Over a five-year period, the annual change is -1.5% per year (-3.1% per year if
-0.8% annual decrease over five years (-2.4% per year if adjusted for inflation).
The discretionary portion for rest of the bill has risen at +2.
08% per year for
10
five years (+
01.1% per year on an inflation-adjusted basis).
Over the five-year period, the annual change is -2.6% per year (-4.2% per year on
an inflation-adjusted basis).
Figure A-3. Discretionary Agriculture Appropriations
Figure A-3. Discretionary Agriculture Appropriations
Source: CRS. Fiscal year budget authority. Inflation-adjusted amounts are based on the GDP price deflator.
Notes: Includes only regular annual appropriations; includes CFTC regardless of jurisdiction. The label
“ "Domestic nutrition
”" includes WIC, commodity assistance programs, and nutrition programs administration.
Congressional Research Service
68
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Table A-1.
Table A-1. Trends in Nominal Agriculture Appropriations
(fiscal year budget authority in billions of dollars, except as noted)
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
13.31
13.04
13.75
13.69
13.95
14.97
16.28
17.91
16.84
16.83
Domestic nutrition
4.22
4.22
4.31
4.31
4.42
4.46
4.89
5.00
4.90
5.55
Rest of bill
9.09
8.82
9.44
9.39
9.53
10.51
11.39
12.91
11.94
11.28
49.78
40.08
35.80
41.00
61.95
59.77
56.91
56.70
69.75
68.29
Domestic nutrition
35.54
36.27
32.91
30.51
30.63
29.66
33.06
36.89
42.36
46.94
Rest of bill
14.23
3.81
2.89
10.48
31.33
30.12
23.86
19.82
27.38
21.36
63.09
53.12
49.55
54.69
75.90
74.74
73.19
74.61
86.59
85.13
Domestic nutrition
39.76
40.49
37.22
34.82
35.04
34.12
37.95
41.89
47.26
52.49
Rest of bill
23.33
12.63
12.33
19.87
40.85
40.63
35.24
32.72
39.32
32.64
1. Mandatory
79%
75%
72%
75%
82%
80%
78%
76%
81%
80%
2. Discretionary
21%
25%
28%
25%
18%
20%
22%
24%
19%
20%
1. Domestic nutrition
63%
76%
75%
64%
46%
46%
52%
56%
55%
62%
2. Rest of bill
37%
24%
25%
36%
54%
54%
48%
44%
45%
38%
Discretionary total
Mandatory total
Total bill
Percentages of Total
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
16.78
17.81
18.09
20.60
23.30
20.13
19.76
19.71
20.88
20.83
5.53
5.52
6.37
7.23
7.65
7.13
7.00
6.93
7.15
7.09
11.25
12.29
11.72
13.37
15.65
13.00
12.76
12.79
13.73
13.73
83.07
79.80
72.67
87.80
97.98
105.13
116.85
118.75
124.58
126.49
Domestic nutrition
53.37
51.51
53.68
68.92
75.13
82.53
98.55
97.17
101.43
103.10
Rest of bill
29.70
28.29
18.99
18.88
22.86
22.60
18.29
21.58
23.15
23.40
99.85
97.61
90.76
108.40
121.29
125.26
136.61
138.47
145.46
147.32
Domestic nutrition
58.89
57.03
60.06
76.16
82.78
89.66
105.55
104.10
108.59
110.19
Rest of bill
40.95
40.58
30.71
32.24
38.50
35.61
31.05
34.37
36.88
37.13
1. Mandatory
83%
82%
80%
81%
81%
84%
86%
86%
86%
86%
2. Discretionary
17%
18%
20%
19%
19%
16%
14%
14%
14%
14%
1. Domestic nutrition
59%
58%
66%
70%
68%
72%
77%
75%
75%
75%
2. Rest of bill
41%
42%
34%
30%
32%
28%
23%
25%
25%
25%
Discretionary total
Domestic nutrition
Rest of bill
Mandatory total
Total bill
Percentages of Total
Source: CRS. Regular appropriations only; all years include Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
a. The largest domestic nutrition programs are the child nutrition programs, the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps)—both of which are mandatory—and the Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), which is discretionary.
b. “Rest of bill” includes the non-nutrition remainder of USDA (except the Forest Service), FDA, and CFTC.
Within that group, mandatory programs include the farm commodity programs, crop insurance, and some
conservation and foreign aid/trade programs.
Congressional Research Service
69
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Table A-2.Trends in Real Agriculture Appropriations
(fiscal year budget authority in billions of dollars, except as noted)
GDP price indexa
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
0.7651
0.7786
0.7882
0.7982
0.8147
0.8344
0.8478
0.8640
0.8854
0.9132
Inflation-adjusted 2015 dollars (real dollars)
Discretionary total
19.06
18.35
19.11
18.79
18.75
19.65
21.03
22.70
20.83
20.19
6.04
5.94
6.00
5.91
5.94
5.86
6.32
6.34
6.06
6.66
13.02
12.41
13.11
12.88
12.81
13.80
14.71
16.36
14.77
13.53
71.27
56.38
49.75
56.26
83.30
78.47
73.53
71.89
86.29
81.92
Domestic nutrition
50.89
51.03
45.73
41.87
41.18
38.93
42.71
46.77
52.41
56.30
Rest of bill
20.38
5.35
4.02
14.39
42.12
39.54
30.82
25.12
33.88
25.62
90.32
74.73
68.86
75.05
102.05
98.12
94.56
94.59
107.12
102.11
Domestic nutrition
56.93
56.97
51.73
47.78
47.12
44.79
49.03
53.11
58.47
62.96
Rest of bill
33.39
17.77
17.13
27.27
54.93
53.33
45.53
41.48
48.65
39.15
Domestic nutrition
Rest of bill
Mandatory total
Total bill
GDP price
indexa
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
0.9429
0.9684
0.9884
1.0000
1.0087
1.0284
1.0464
1.0646
1.0808
1.0954
Inflation-adjusted 2015 dollars (real dollars)
Discretionary total
19.49
20.15
20.05
22.57
25.31
21.44
20.69
20.28
21.16
20.83
6.42
6.25
7.06
7.92
8.31
7.59
7.33
7.13
7.25
7.09
13.07
13.90
12.99
14.64
16.99
13.85
13.36
13.16
13.91
13.73
96.50
90.27
80.54
96.17
106.41
111.98
122.32
122.19
126.26
126.49
Domestic nutrition
62.00
58.26
59.49
75.50
81.59
87.90
103.17
99.98
102.80
103.10
Rest of bill
34.50
32.00
21.04
20.68
24.82
24.08
19.15
22.21
23.46
23.40
116.00
110.41
100.59
118.74
131.71
133.43
143.00
142.48
147.43
147.32
Domestic nutrition
68.42
64.51
66.56
83.42
89.90
95.50
110.50
107.11
110.05
110.19
Rest of bill
47.58
45.90
34.03
35.32
41.81
37.93
32.51
35.37
37.37
37.13
Domestic nutrition
Rest of bill
Mandatory total
Total bill
Source: CRS. Regular appropriations only; all years include Commodity Futures Trading Commission. See
footnotes in Table A-1 for definitions of “domestic nutrition” and “rest of bill.”
a. OMB, Budget of the U.S. Government, “Historical Tables,” Table 10.1, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
budget/Historicals.
Congressional Research Service
70
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Table A-3. Percentage Changes in Agriculture Appropriations
Compounded annual rate of change from years in the past to FY2015
Actual Change (Nominal)
Inflation-Adjusted (Real) Change (2015$)
1 yr.
FY2014
5 yrs.
FY2010
10 yrs.
FY2005
15 yrs.
FY2000
1 yr.
FY2014
5 yrs.
FY2010
10 yrs.
FY2005
15 yrs.
FY2000
-0.3%
-2.2%
+2.2%
+2.7%
-1.6%
-3.8%
+0.3%
+0.7%
Domestic nutrition
-0.8%
-1.5%
+2.5%
+3.2%
-2.1%
-3.1%
+0.6%
+1.2%
Rest of bill
+0.0%
-2.6%
+2.0%
+2.5%
-1.3%
-4.2%
+0.1%
+0.5%
+1.5%
+5.2%
+6.4%
+4.9%
+0.2%
+3.5%
+4.4%
+2.8%
Domestic nutrition
+1.6%
+6.5%
+8.2%
+8.4%
+0.3%
+4.8%
+6.2%
+6.3%
Rest of bill
+1.1%
+0.5%
+0.9%
-1.9%
-0.3%
-1.2%
-0.9%
-3.8%
+1.3%
+4.0%
+5.6%
+4.5%
-0.1%
+2.3%
+3.7%
+2.5%
Domestic nutrition
+1.5%
+5.9%
+7.7%
+7.9%
+0.1%
+4.2%
+5.8%
+5.8%
Rest of bill
+0.7%
-0.7%
+1.3%
-0.6%
-0.7%
-2.4%
-0.5%
-2.6%
Discretionary total
Mandatory total
Total bill
Source: CRS calculations of the compounded annual rate of change between FY2014 and the stated prior year.
Regular appropriations only; all years include Commodity Futures Trading Commission. See footnotes in Table
A-1 for definitions of “domestic nutrition” and “rest of bill.”
Comparisons to the Federal Budget, GDP, and Population
Relative to the entire federal budget, the Agriculture bill’s share has declined from over 4% of the
total federal budget in FY1995 and FY2000, to 2.7% in FY2009, before rising again to 4% in
recent years (Figure A-4, Table A-4). Within that total, the share for nutrition programs had
declined from 2.6% in FY1995 to 1.8% in FY2008, but the recent recession has caused that share
to rise to about 3%. The share for the rest of the bill has declined from 2.2% in FY2000 to about
1.0% recently.
Those shares of the federal budget also can be subdivided into mandatory and discretionary
spending (Figure A-5). The mandatory share for nutrition is presently about 2.7% (generally
rising, but recently ameliorating), while the discretionary share for nutrition is fairly steady 0.2%.
The mandatory share for the rest of the bill (primarily crop insurance, commodity program
subsidies, and conservation) is about 0.6%, while the discretionary share for the rest of the bill is
about 0.4% (generally declining).
The 0.6% share of the federal budget above for mandatory spending on crop insurance, farm
commodity subsidies, and conservation is a good proxy for farm bill spending on agricultural
(non-nutrition) programs (Figure A-5). It has been variable and generally declining since 2000
(consistent with farm commodity spending), though since 2009 steadier to slightly rising
(consistent with steady to declining farm commodity spending but increasing crop insurance and
mandatory conservation spending).
Congressional Research Service
71
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Figure A-4. Agriculture Appropriations as
Percentages of Total Federal Budget
Figure A-5. More Components as
Percentages of Total Federal Budget
Source: CRS.
Source: CRS.
(fiscal year budget authority in billions of dollars, except as noted)
1997
|
1998
|
1999
|
2000
|
2001
|
2002
|
2003
|
2004
|
2005
|
2006
|
|
Discretionary total
|
13.04
|
13.75
|
13.69
|
13.95
|
14.97
|
16.28
|
17.91
|
16.84
|
16.83
|
16.78
|
Domestic nutritiona
4.22
|
4.31
|
4.31
|
4.42
|
4.46
|
4.89
|
5.00
|
4.90
|
5.55
|
5.53
|
Rest of billb
8.82
|
9.44
|
9.39
|
9.53
|
10.51
|
11.39
|
12.91
|
11.94
|
11.28
|
11.25
|
|
Mandatory total
|
40.08
|
35.80
|
41.00
|
61.95
|
59.77
|
56.91
|
56.70
|
69.75
|
68.29
|
83.07
|
|
Domestic nutrition
|
36.27
|
32.91
|
30.51
|
30.63
|
29.66
|
33.06
|
36.89
|
42.36
|
46.94
|
53.37
|
|
Rest of bill
|
3.81
|
2.89
|
10.48
|
31.33
|
30.12
|
23.86
|
19.82
|
27.38
|
21.36
|
29.70
|
|
Total bill
|
53.12
|
49.55
|
54.69
|
75.90
|
74.74
|
73.19
|
74.61
|
86.59
|
85.13
|
99.85
|
|
Domestic nutrition
|
40.49
|
37.22
|
34.82
|
35.04
|
34.12
|
37.95
|
41.89
|
47.26
|
52.49
|
58.89
|
|
Rest of bill
|
12.63
|
12.33
|
19.87
|
40.85
|
40.63
|
35.24
|
32.72
|
39.32
|
32.64
|
40.95
|
Percentages of Total
|
|
1. Mandatory
|
75%
|
72%
|
75%
|
82%
|
80%
|
78%
|
76%
|
81%
|
80%
|
83%
|
|
2. Discretionary
|
25%
|
28%
|
25%
|
18%
|
20%
|
22%
|
24%
|
19%
|
20%
|
17%
|
|
1. Domestic nutrition
|
76%
|
75%
|
64%
|
46%
|
46%
|
52%
|
56%
|
55%
|
62%
|
59%
|
|
2. Rest of bill
|
24%
|
25%
|
36%
|
54%
|
54%
|
48%
|
44%
|
45%
|
38%
|
41%
|
2007
|
2008
|
2009
|
2010
|
2011
|
2012
|
2013
|
2014
|
2015
|
2016
|
|
Discretionary total
|
17.81
|
18.09
|
20.60
|
23.30
|
20.13
|
19.76
|
19.71
|
20.88
|
20.83
|
21.75
|
|
Domestic nutrition
|
5.52
|
6.37
|
7.23
|
7.65
|
7.13
|
7.00
|
6.93
|
7.15
|
7.09
|
6.84
|
|
Rest of bill
|
12.29
|
11.72
|
13.37
|
15.65
|
13.00
|
12.76
|
12.79
|
13.73
|
13.73
|
14.91
|
|
Mandatory total
|
79.80
|
72.67
|
87.80
|
97.98
|
105.13
|
116.85
|
118.75
|
124.58
|
126.49
|
119.11
|
|
Domestic nutrition
|
51.51
|
53.68
|
68.92
|
75.13
|
82.53
|
98.55
|
97.17
|
101.43
|
103.10
|
102.96
|
|
Rest of bill
|
28.29
|
18.99
|
18.88
|
22.86
|
22.60
|
18.29
|
21.58
|
23.15
|
23.40
|
16.15
|
|
Total bill
|
97.61
|
90.76
|
108.40
|
121.29
|
125.26
|
136.61
|
138.47
|
145.46
|
147.32
|
140.86
|
|
Domestic nutrition
|
57.03
|
60.06
|
76.16
|
82.78
|
89.66
|
105.55
|
104.10
|
108.59
|
110.19
|
109.80
|
|
Rest of bill
|
40.58
|
30.71
|
32.24
|
38.50
|
35.61
|
31.05
|
34.37
|
36.88
|
37.13
|
31.07
|
Percentages of Total
|
|
1. Mandatory
|
82%
|
80%
|
81%
|
81%
|
84%
|
86%
|
86%
|
86%
|
86%
|
85%
|
|
2. Discretionary
|
18%
|
20%
|
19%
|
19%
|
16%
|
14%
|
14%
|
14%
|
14%
|
15%
|
|
1. Domestic nutrition
|
58%
|
66%
|
70%
|
68%
|
72%
|
77%
|
75%
|
75%
|
75%
|
78%
|
|
2. Rest of bill
|
42%
|
34%
|
30%
|
32%
|
28%
|
23%
|
25%
|
25%
|
25%
|
22%
|
Source: CRS. Regular appropriations only; all years include Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
a.
The largest domestic nutrition programs are the child nutrition programs, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps)—both of which are mandatory—and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), which is discretionary.
b.
"Rest of bill" includes the non-nutrition remainder of USDA (except the Forest Service), FDA, and CFTC. Within that group, mandatory programs include the farm commodity programs, crop insurance, and some conservation and foreign aid/trade programs.
Table A-2. Trends in Real Agriculture Appropriations
(fiscal year inflation-adjusted budget authority in billions of dollars, except as noted)
|
|
1997
|
1998
|
1999
|
2000
|
2001
|
2002
|
2003
|
2004
|
2005
|
2006
|
GDP price indexa
0.7785
|
0.7881
|
0.7981
|
0.8147
|
0.8342
|
0.8477
|
0.8639
|
0.8853
|
0.9131
|
0.9428
|
|
Inflation-adjusted 2016 dollars (real dollars)
|
|
Discretionary total
|
18.70
|
19.48
|
19.15
|
19.11
|
20.04
|
21.44
|
23.14
|
21.23
|
20.58
|
19.87
|
|
Domestic nutrition
|
6.05
|
6.11
|
6.02
|
6.05
|
5.97
|
6.44
|
6.46
|
6.18
|
6.79
|
6.54
|
|
Rest of bill
|
12.65
|
13.37
|
13.13
|
13.05
|
14.07
|
14.99
|
16.68
|
15.06
|
13.79
|
13.33
|
|
Mandatory total
|
57.47
|
50.71
|
57.35
|
84.90
|
79.99
|
74.95
|
73.28
|
87.95
|
83.50
|
98.36
|
|
Domestic nutrition
|
52.01
|
46.62
|
42.68
|
41.97
|
39.69
|
43.53
|
47.67
|
53.42
|
57.39
|
63.20
|
|
Rest of bill
|
5.46
|
4.10
|
14.67
|
42.93
|
40.30
|
31.42
|
25.61
|
34.53
|
26.11
|
35.17
|
|
Total bill
|
76.18
|
70.19
|
76.50
|
104.01
|
100.03
|
96.39
|
96.42
|
109.19
|
104.08
|
118.23
|
|
Domestic nutrition
|
58.07
|
52.73
|
48.70
|
48.02
|
45.66
|
49.97
|
54.13
|
59.60
|
64.17
|
69.74
|
|
Rest of bill
|
18.11
|
17.46
|
27.80
|
55.98
|
54.37
|
46.41
|
42.28
|
49.59
|
39.90
|
48.49
|
2007
|
2008
|
2009
|
2010
|
2011
|
2012
|
2013
|
2014
|
2015
|
2016
|
GDP price indexa
0.9684
|
0.9885
|
1.0000
|
1.0088
|
1.0293
|
1.0481
|
1.0661
|
1.0843
|
1.0990
|
1.1164
|
|
Inflation-adjusted 2016 dollars (real dollars)
|
|
Discretionary total
|
20.53
|
20.43
|
23.00
|
25.79
|
21.84
|
21.05
|
20.64
|
21.50
|
21.15
|
21.75
|
|
Domestic nutrition
|
6.37
|
7.20
|
8.08
|
8.47
|
7.73
|
7.46
|
7.25
|
7.36
|
7.21
|
6.84
|
|
Rest of bill
|
14.17
|
13.24
|
14.92
|
17.32
|
14.11
|
13.59
|
13.39
|
14.13
|
13.95
|
14.91
|
|
Mandatory total
|
92.00
|
82.07
|
98.02
|
108.43
|
114.03
|
124.46
|
124.36
|
128.27
|
128.76
|
119.11
|
|
Domestic nutrition
|
59.38
|
60.63
|
76.94
|
83.14
|
89.51
|
104.97
|
101.76
|
104.44
|
104.73
|
102.96
|
|
Rest of bill
|
32.62
|
21.44
|
21.07
|
25.29
|
24.52
|
19.49
|
22.60
|
23.83
|
24.03
|
16.15
|
|
Total bill
|
112.53
|
102.51
|
121.02
|
134.22
|
135.86
|
145.51
|
145.00
|
149.77
|
149.92
|
140.86
|
|
Domestic nutrition
|
65.75
|
67.83
|
85.02
|
91.61
|
97.24
|
112.43
|
109.01
|
111.80
|
111.94
|
109.80
|
|
Rest of bill
|
46.78
|
34.68
|
36.00
|
42.61
|
38.62
|
33.08
|
35.99
|
37.97
|
37.98
|
31.07
|
Source: CRS. Regular appropriations only; all years include Commodity Futures Trading Commission. See footnotes in Table A-1 for definitions of "domestic nutrition" and "rest of bill."
a.
OMB, Budget of the U.S. Government, "Historical Tables," Table 10.1, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals.
Table A-3. Percentage Changes in Agriculture Appropriations
Compounded annual rate of change from years in the past to FY2016
|
Actual Change (Nominal)
|
Inflation-Adjusted (Real) Change (2016$)
|
1 yr. FY2015
|
5 yrs. FY2011
|
10 yrs. FY2006
|
15 yrs. FY2001
|
1 yr. FY2015
|
5 yrs. FY2011
|
10 yrs. FY2006
|
15 yrs. FY2001
|
GDP price index
|
+1.6%
|
+1.6%
|
+1.7%
|
+2.0%
|
|
Discretionary total
|
+4.4%
|
+1.6%
|
+2.6%
|
+2.5%
|
+2.8%
|
-0.1%
|
+0.9%
|
+0.5%
|
|
Domestic nutrition
|
-3.6%
|
-0.8%
|
+2.2%
|
+2.9%
|
-5.1%
|
-2.4%
|
+0.4%
|
+0.9%
|
|
Rest of bill
|
+8.6%
|
+2.8%
|
+2.9%
|
+2.4%
|
+6.9%
|
+1.1%
|
+1.1%
|
+0.4%
|
|
Mandatory total
|
-6.0%
|
+2.5%
|
+3.7%
|
+4.7%
|
-7.5%
|
+0.9%
|
+1.9%
|
+2.7%
|
|
Domestic nutrition
|
-0.1%
|
+4.5%
|
+6.8%
|
+8.7%
|
-1.7%
|
+2.8%
|
+5.0%
|
+6.6%
|
|
Rest of bill
|
-31.7%
|
-6.5%
|
-5.9%
|
-4.1%
|
-32.8%
|
-8.0%
|
-7.5%
|
-5.9%
|
|
Total bill
|
-4.6%
|
+2.4%
|
+3.5%
|
+4.3%
|
-6.0%
|
+0.7%
|
+1.8%
|
+2.3%
|
|
Domestic nutrition
|
-0.4%
|
+4.1%
|
+6.4%
|
+8.1%
|
-1.9%
|
+2.5%
|
+4.6%
|
+6.0%
|
|
Rest of bill
|
-16.9%
|
-2.7%
|
-2.7%
|
-1.8%
|
-18.2%
|
-4.3%
|
-4.4%
|
-3.7%
|
Source: CRS calculations of the compounded annual rate of change between FY2016 and the stated prior year. Regular appropriations only; all years include Commodity Futures Trading Commission. See footnotes in Table A-1 for definitions of "domestic nutrition" and "rest of bill."
Comparisons to the Federal Budget, GDP, and Population
Relative to the entire federal budget, the Agriculture bill's share has declined from over 4% of the total federal budget in FY1995 and FY2000, to 2.7% in FY2008, before rising again to about 4% from FY2013-FY2015 (Figure A-4, Table A-4). Within that total, the share for nutrition programs had declined from 2.5% in FY1995 to 1.8% in FY2008, but the recent recession has caused that share to rise to about 3% through FY2014, before falling again. The share for the rest of the bill has declined from 2.2% in FY2000 to about 1.0% since FY2011 and 0.8% in FY2016.
Those shares of the federal budget also can be subdivided into mandatory and discretionary spending (Figure A-5). The mandatory share for nutrition is presently about 2.6% (decreasing since FY2014), while the discretionary share for nutrition is fairly steady at about 0.2%. The mandatory share for the rest of the bill (primarily crop insurance, commodity program subsidies, and conservation) fell from about 0.6% to 0.4% in FY2016, while the discretionary share for the rest of the bill remains steady at about 0.37%.
The 0.4% share of the federal budget above for mandatory spending on crop insurance, farm commodity subsidies, and conservation is a good proxy for farm bill spending on agricultural (non-nutrition) programs (Figure A-5). It has been variable and generally declining since 2000 (consistent with farm commodity spending until recently), and steadier since 2009 (consistent with the recent inverse relationship between the farm commodity programs and crop insurance).
Figure A-4. Agriculture Appropriations as Percentages of Total Federal Budget
|
Source: CRS.
|
Figure A-5. More Components as Percentages of Total Federal Budget
|
Source: CRS.
|
As a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP),161As a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), Agriculture appropriations had been fairly
steady at under 0.75% of GDP from FY1997
- to FY2009, but have risen to
about 0.8% of GDP since
FY2010 due to increases in nutrition program demand (over 0.8% of GDP from FY2010 to FY2015, before falling again to 0.76% in FY2016 (Figure A-6
, , Table A-4). Nutrition
programs have
been risingrisen as a percentage of GDP since FY2000 (0.32% in FY2001 to 0.
61% in
FY2015), while66% in FY2012), though they have ameliorated to 0.59% in FY2016. The share relative to GDP for non-nutrition agricultural programs
havehas declined (0.40% in FY2000 to 0.
2117% in
FY2015).
122
On a per capita basis, inflation-adjusted total Agriculture appropriations have risen slightly over
the past 10 to 15 years from about $250 per capita in 1998 (
FY2015FY2016 dollars) to about $
460435 per
capita in
FY2015 (FY2016 (Figure A-7). Nutrition programs have risen more steadily on a per capita basis
from about $
157160 per capita in FY2001 to nearly $
343340 per capita in
FY2015FY2016. Non-nutrition
“other” "other" agricultural programs have been more steady or declining, falling from
about $200$195 per capita in
FY2000 to
about $116slightly under $100 per capita in
FY2015.
FY2016.
Figure A-6. Agriculture Appropriations as
Percentages of GDP
Source: CRS.
Figure A-7. Agriculture Appropriations
per Capita of U.S. Population
Source: CRS.
122
Two other CRS reports compare various components of federal spending against GDP at a more aggregate level.
See CRS Report RL33074, Mandatory Spending Since 1962, and CRS Report RL34424, The Budget Control Act and
Trends in Discretionary Spending.
Congressional Research Service
72
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Table A-4.Trends in Agriculture Appropriations Measured Against Benchmarks
(fiscal year)
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Federal Budget ($ billions)
1,581
1,643
1,692
1,777
1,825
1,959
2,090
2,266
2,408
2,583
GDP ($ billions)
7,978
8,483
8,955
9,511
10,148
10,565
10,877
11,332
12,089
12,889
Population (millions)
269.7
272.9
276.1
279.3
282.4
285.3
288.0
290.7
293.3
296.0
3.99%
3.23%
2.93%
3.08%
4.16%
3.82%
3.50%
3.29%
3.60%
3.30%
Domestic nutrition
2.52%
2.46%
2.20%
1.96%
1.92%
1.74%
1.82%
1.85%
1.96%
2.03%
Mandatory
2.25%
2.21%
1.94%
1.72%
1.68%
1.51%
1.58%
1.63%
1.76%
1.82%
Discretionary
0.27%
0.26%
0.25%
0.24%
0.24%
0.23%
0.23%
0.22%
0.20%
0.21%
1.48%
0.77%
0.73%
1.12%
2.24%
2.07%
1.69%
1.44%
1.63%
1.26%
Mandatory
0.90%
0.23%
0.17%
0.59%
1.72%
1.54%
1.14%
0.87%
1.14%
0.83%
Discretionary
0.58%
0.54%
0.56%
0.53%
0.52%
0.54%
0.54%
0.57%
0.50%
0.44%
0.79%
0.63%
0.55%
0.58%
0.75%
0.71%
0.67%
0.66%
0.72%
0.66%
Domestic nutrition
0.50%
0.48%
0.42%
0.37%
0.35%
0.32%
0.35%
0.37%
0.39%
0.41%
Rest of bill
0.29%
0.15%
0.14%
0.21%
0.40%
0.38%
0.32%
0.29%
0.33%
0.25%
Per capita (2015 dollars)
335
274
249
269
361
344
328
325
365
345
Domestic nutrition
211
209
187
171
167
157
170
183
199
213
Rest of bill
124
65
62
98
195
187
158
143
166
132
Pct. of Federal Budget
Rest of bill
Pct. of GDP
2006
Federal Budget ($ billions)
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2,780
2,863
3,326
4,077
3,485
3,510
3,576
3,478
3,619
3,798
13,685
14,323
14,752
14,415
14,799
15,379
16,026
16,582
17,244
17,985
298.8
301.7
304.5
307.2
309.3
311.6
313.9
316.1
318.9
321.4
3.59%
3.41%
2.73%
2.66%
3.48%
3.57%
3.82%
3.98%
4.02%
3.88%
Domestic nutrition
2.12%
1.99%
1.81%
1.87%
2.38%
2.55%
2.95%
2.99%
3.00%
2.90%
Mandatory
1.92%
1.80%
1.61%
1.69%
2.16%
2.35%
2.76%
2.79%
2.80%
2.71%
Discretionary
0.20%
0.19%
0.19%
0.18%
0.22%
0.20%
0.20%
0.20%
0.20%
0.19%
1.47%
1.42%
0.92%
0.79%
1.10%
1.01%
0.87%
0.99%
1.02%
0.98%
Mandatory
1.07%
0.99%
0.57%
0.46%
0.66%
0.64%
0.51%
0.62%
0.64%
0.62%
Discretionary
0.40%
0.43%
0.35%
0.33%
0.45%
0.37%
0.36%
0.37%
0.38%
0.36%
0.73%
0.68%
0.62%
0.75%
0.82%
0.81%
0.85%
0.84%
0.84%
0.82%
Domestic nutrition
0.43%
0.40%
0.41%
0.53%
0.56%
0.58%
0.66%
0.63%
0.63%
0.61%
Rest of bill
0.30%
0.28%
0.21%
0.22%
0.26%
0.23%
0.19%
0.21%
0.21%
0.21%
Per capita (2015 dollars)
388
366
330
387
426
428
456
451
462
458
Domestic nutrition
229
214
219
272
291
306
352
339
345
343
Rest of bill
159
152
112
115
135
122
104
112
117
116
GDP ($ billions)
Population (millions)
Pct. of Federal Budget
Rest of bill
Pct. of GDP
Source: CRS. Federal budget and GDP from OMB, Budget of the United States, “Historical Tables,” Table 5.1
(total budget authority), and Table 10.1, respectively. Populations from Census Bureau Population Projections,
and Statistical Abstract of the United States. See Table A-1 for definitions of “domestic nutrition” and “rest of bill.”
Congressional Research Service
73
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Appendix B. Budget Sequestration
Sequestration is a process of automatic, largely across-the-board reductions that permanently
cancel mandatory and/or discretionary budget authority when spending would exceed statutory
budget goals. The current requirement for sequestration is in the Budget Control Act of 2011
(BCA; P.L. 112-25).123 Table B-1 shows the rates of sequestration and the amounts of budget
authority cancelled from accounts in the Agriculture appropriations bill.
Table B-1. Sequestration from Accounts in the Agriculture Appropriation
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
Discretionary Accounts
Fiscal year
Rate
Amount
Mandatory Accounts
Rate
Amount
2013
5.0%
1,153
5.1%
713
2014
—
—
7.2%
1,052
2015
—
—
7.3%
1,153
2016
—
—
6.8%
1,819
Source: OMB, various per Capita of U.S. Population
|
Source: CRS.
|
Table A-4. Trends in Agriculture Appropriations Measured Against Benchmarks
|
Fiscal year
|
1997
|
1998
|
1999
|
2000
|
2001
|
2002
|
2003
|
2004
|
2005
|
2006
|
|
Federal Budget ($ billions)
|
1,643
|
1,692
|
1,777
|
1,825
|
1,959
|
2,090
|
2,266
|
2,408
|
2,583
|
2,780
|
|
GDP ($ billions)
|
8,483
|
8,955
|
9,511
|
10,148
|
10,565
|
10,877
|
11,332
|
12,089
|
12,889
|
13,685
|
|
Population (millions)
|
272.9
|
276.1
|
279.3
|
282.4
|
285.3
|
288.0
|
290.7
|
293.3
|
296.0
|
298.8
|
|
Pct. of Federal Budget
|
3.23%
|
2.93%
|
3.08%
|
4.16%
|
3.82%
|
3.50%
|
3.29%
|
3.60%
|
3.30%
|
3.59%
|
|
Domestic nutrition
|
2.46%
|
2.20%
|
1.96%
|
1.92%
|
1.74%
|
1.82%
|
1.85%
|
1.96%
|
2.03%
|
2.12%
|
|
Mandatory
|
2.21%
|
1.94%
|
1.72%
|
1.68%
|
1.51%
|
1.58%
|
1.63%
|
1.76%
|
1.82%
|
1.92%
|
|
Discretionary
|
0.26%
|
0.25%
|
0.24%
|
0.24%
|
0.23%
|
0.23%
|
0.22%
|
0.20%
|
0.21%
|
0.20%
|
|
Rest of bill
|
0.77%
|
0.73%
|
1.12%
|
2.24%
|
2.07%
|
1.69%
|
1.44%
|
1.63%
|
1.26%
|
1.47%
|
|
Mandatory
|
0.23%
|
0.17%
|
0.59%
|
1.72%
|
1.54%
|
1.14%
|
0.87%
|
1.14%
|
0.83%
|
1.07%
|
|
Discretionary
|
0.54%
|
0.56%
|
0.53%
|
0.52%
|
0.54%
|
0.54%
|
0.57%
|
0.50%
|
0.44%
|
0.40%
|
|
Pct. of GDP
|
0.63%
|
0.55%
|
0.58%
|
0.75%
|
0.71%
|
0.67%
|
0.66%
|
0.72%
|
0.66%
|
0.73%
|
|
Domestic nutrition
|
0.48%
|
0.42%
|
0.37%
|
0.35%
|
0.32%
|
0.35%
|
0.37%
|
0.39%
|
0.41%
|
0.43%
|
|
Rest of bill
|
0.15%
|
0.14%
|
0.21%
|
0.40%
|
0.38%
|
0.32%
|
0.29%
|
0.33%
|
0.25%
|
0.30%
|
|
Per capita (2015 dollars)
|
279
|
254
|
274
|
368
|
351
|
335
|
332
|
372
|
352
|
396
|
|
Domestic nutrition
|
213
|
191
|
174
|
170
|
160
|
174
|
186
|
203
|
217
|
233
|
|
Rest of bill
|
66
|
63
|
100
|
198
|
191
|
161
|
145
|
169
|
135
|
162
|
|
Fiscal year
|
2007
|
2008
|
2009
|
2010
|
2011
|
2012
|
2013
|
2014
|
2015
|
2016
|
|
Federal Budget ($ billions)
|
2,863
|
3,326
|
4,077
|
3,485
|
3,510
|
3,576
|
3,478
|
3,619
|
3,773
|
3,991
|
|
GDP ($ billions)
|
14,323
|
14,752
|
14,415
|
14,799
|
15,379
|
16,027
|
16,498
|
17,184
|
17,803
|
18,472
|
|
Population (millions)
|
301.7
|
304.5
|
307.2
|
309.3
|
311.6
|
313.9
|
316.1
|
318.9
|
321.4
|
324.0
|
|
Pct. of Federal Budget
|
3.41%
|
2.73%
|
2.66%
|
3.48%
|
3.57%
|
3.82%
|
3.98%
|
4.02%
|
3.91%
|
3.53%
|
|
Domestic nutrition
|
1.99%
|
1.81%
|
1.87%
|
2.38%
|
2.55%
|
2.95%
|
2.99%
|
3.00%
|
2.92%
|
2.75%
|
|
Mandatory
|
1.80%
|
1.61%
|
1.69%
|
2.16%
|
2.35%
|
2.76%
|
2.79%
|
2.80%
|
2.73%
|
2.58%
|
|
Discretionary
|
0.19%
|
0.19%
|
0.18%
|
0.22%
|
0.20%
|
0.20%
|
0.20%
|
0.20%
|
0.19%
|
0.17%
|
|
Rest of bill
|
1.42%
|
0.92%
|
0.79%
|
1.10%
|
1.01%
|
0.87%
|
0.99%
|
1.02%
|
0.99%
|
0.78%
|
|
Mandatory
|
0.99%
|
0.57%
|
0.46%
|
0.66%
|
0.64%
|
0.51%
|
0.62%
|
0.64%
|
0.63%
|
0.40%
|
|
Discretionary
|
0.43%
|
0.35%
|
0.33%
|
0.45%
|
0.37%
|
0.36%
|
0.37%
|
0.38%
|
0.36%
|
0.37%
|
|
Pct. of GDP
|
0.68%
|
0.62%
|
0.75%
|
0.82%
|
0.81%
|
0.85%
|
0.84%
|
0.85%
|
0.83%
|
0.76%
|
|
Domestic nutrition
|
0.40%
|
0.41%
|
0.53%
|
0.56%
|
0.58%
|
0.66%
|
0.63%
|
0.63%
|
0.62%
|
0.59%
|
|
Rest of bill
|
0.28%
|
0.21%
|
0.22%
|
0.26%
|
0.23%
|
0.19%
|
0.21%
|
0.21%
|
0.21%
|
0.17%
|
|
Per capita (2015 dollars)
|
373
|
337
|
394
|
434
|
436
|
464
|
459
|
470
|
466
|
435
|
|
Domestic nutrition
|
218
|
223
|
277
|
296
|
312
|
358
|
345
|
351
|
348
|
339
|
|
Rest of bill
|
155
|
114
|
117
|
138
|
124
|
105
|
114
|
119
|
118
|
96
|
Source: CRS. Federal budget and GDP from OMB, Budget of the United States, "Historical Tables," Table 5.1 (total budget authority), and Table 10.1, respectively. Populations from Census Bureau Population Projections,and Statistical Abstract of the United States. See Table A-1 for definitions of "domestic nutrition" and "rest of bill."
Appendix B.
Budget Sequestration
Sequestration is a process of automatic, largely across-the-board reductions that permanently cancel mandatory and/or discretionary budget authority when spending would exceed statutory budget goals. The current requirement for sequestration is in the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA; P.L. 112-25).162 Table B-1 shows the rates of sequestration and the amounts of budget authority cancelled from accounts in the Agriculture appropriations bill.
Table B-1. Sequestration from Accounts in the Agriculture Appropriation
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
Discretionary Accounts
|
Mandatory Accounts
|
|
Fiscal year
|
Rate
|
Amount
|
Rate
|
Amount
|
|
2013
|
5.0%
|
1,153
|
5.1%
|
713
|
|
2014
|
—
|
—
|
7.2%
|
1,052
|
|
2015
|
—
|
—
|
7.3%
|
1,153
|
|
2016
|
—
|
—
|
6.8%
|
1,819
|
Source: OMB, various Reports to the Congress on the Joint Committee Reductions (
Sequestration), at Sequestration), at https://www.
whitehouse.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative_reports/sequestration. Compiled by CRS.
Notes: Sequestration rates are for non-exempt, non-defense accounts. Amount totals were computed by CRS.
Although the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (P.L. 113-67) raised spending limits in the BCA to
avoid sequestration of discretionary accounts in FY2014 and FY2015
, it did not prevent or reduce
—and the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (P.L. 114-74) did it again for FY2016 and FY2017—they do not prevent or reduce sequestration on mandatory accounts.
In fact, to pay for avoiding sequestration of discretionary
spending in the near term,
Congress extended theor as a general budgetary offset for other bills, Congress extended the original FY2021 duration of sequestration on mandatory
programs by two years (until FY2023). 124 Congress subsequently extended sequestration another
programs three times. First, it extended the duration of mandatory sequestration by two years (until FY2023) as an offset in the 2013 budget act.163 Second, by another year (until FY2024) to maintain retirement benefits for certain military personnel (P.L. 113-82
). And third, another year (until FY205) as an offset in the 2015 budget act.164
).
The first farm commodity program payments from the 2014 farm bill
arewere due in October 2015,
and USDA
has indicated that they
willwould be subject to the 6.8% reduction applicable to FY2016.
125
165
Some farm bill mandatory programs are exempt from sequestration. The nutrition programs and
the Conservation Reserve Program are statutorily exempt,
126166 and some prior legal obligations in
crop insurance and the farm commodity programs may be exempt as determined by OMB.
127
167 Generally speaking, the experience since FY2013 is that OMB has ruled most of crop insurance as exempt from sequestration, while the farm commodity programs have been subject to it.
Since enactment of the BCA, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has ordered budget
sequestration on non-exempt, non-defense discretionary accounts only once,
128168 in FY2013 (
Table
Table B-1), and on mandatory accounts annually in FY2013-FY2016 (Table B-2
).
Table B-2. Sequestration of Mandatory Agriculture Appropriations in FY2013-2016
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2013
|
FY2014
|
FY2015
|
FY2016
|
Seq. BA
|
Amount
|
Seq. BA
|
Amount
|
Seq. BA
|
Amount
|
Seq. BA
|
Amount
|
|
Sequestration rate on non-exempt, non-defense mandatory accounts
|
|
5.1%
|
|
7.2%
|
|
7.3%
|
|
6.8%
|
U.S. Department of Agriculture
|
|
|
|
|
Office of the Secretary
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
13
|
0.9
|
13
|
0.9
|
|
Office of Chief Economist
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
1
|
0.1
|
1
|
0.1
|
|
Agricultural Research Service
|
2
|
0.1
|
2
|
0.1
|
2
|
0.1
|
2
|
0.1
|
National Institute of Food, Agriculture
|
145
|
9.9
|
|
Extension
|
5
|
0.3
|
5
|
0.4
|
25
|
1.8
|
—
|
—
|
|
Biomass R&D
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
3
|
0.2
|
3
|
0.2
|
|
Integrated Activities
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
100
|
7.3
|
—
|
—
|
|
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
|
|
Salaries appropriation
|
266
|
13.6
|
261
|
18.8
|
294
|
21.5
|
295
|
20.1
|
|
Misc. Trust Funds
|
1
|
0.1
|
1
|
0.1
|
1
|
0.1
|
1
|
0.1
|
Food Safety Inspection Service
|
|
|
|
|
Expenses and refunds
|
1
|
0.1
|
1
|
0.1
|
1
|
0.1
|
1
|
0.1
|
Grain Insp. Packers, Stockyards Admin.
|
|
|
|
|
Limitation on Expenses
|
41
|
2.1
|
41
|
3.0
|
41
|
3.0
|
46
|
3.1
|
Agricultural Marketing Service
|
|
|
|
|
Section 32
|
792
|
40.4
|
1,107
|
79.7
|
1,122
|
81.9
|
1,137
|
77.3
|
|
Milk Market Orders Assess. Fund
|
57
|
2.9
|
58
|
4.2
|
57
|
4.2
|
59
|
4.0
|
|
Perishable Ag Commodities Act
|
11
|
0.6
|
11
|
0.8
|
11
|
0.8
|
12
|
0.8
|
|
Expenses and refunds
|
8
|
0.4
|
12
|
0.9
|
12
|
0.9
|
19
|
1.3
|
|
Payments to States and Possessions
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
73
|
5.3
|
73
|
5.0
|
|
Marketing Services
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
30
|
2.2
|
30
|
2.0
|
|
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
|
58
|
3.0
|
58
|
4.2
|
81
|
5.9
|
51
|
3.5
|
Farm Service Agency
|
|
|
|
|
Commodity Credit Corporation
|
6,460
|
329.5
|
7,968
|
573.7
|
9,737
|
710.8
|
20,420
|
1,388.6
|
|
Agricultural Disaster Relief Fund
|
1,372
|
70.0
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
|
Tobacco Trust Fund
|
960
|
49.0
|
960
|
69.1
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
|
Ag. Credit Insurance Corp.
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
1
|
0.1
|
1
|
0.1
|
|
CCC Export Loans
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
6
|
0.4
|
|
Pima Cotton Trust Fund
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
16
|
1.1
|
|
Wool Apparel Trust Fund
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
30
|
2.0
|
Natural Resources Conservation Service
|
|
|
|
|
Farm Security, Rural Invest. Prog.
|
3,357
|
171.2
|
3,654
|
263.1
|
3,697
|
269.9
|
3,907
|
265.7
|
|
Watershed Rehabilitation Program
|
—
|
—
|
165
|
11.9
|
153
|
11.2
|
69
|
4.7
|
|
Rural Business Cooperative Service
|
87
|
4.4
|
89
|
6.4
|
118
|
8.6
|
141
|
9.6
|
|
Foreign Agricultural Service
|
1
|
0.1
|
2
|
0.1
|
1
|
0.1
|
1
|
0.1
|
Food and Nutrition Servicea
|
|
|
|
SNAP
|
93
|
4.7
|
111
|
8.0
|
115
|
8.4
|
144
|
9.8
|
|
Child Nutrition Programs
|
49
|
2.5
|
58
|
4.2
|
58
|
4.2
|
58
|
3.9
|
|
Commodity Assistance Program
|
21
|
1.1
|
21
|
1.5
|
21
|
1.5
|
21
|
1.4
|
|
WIC
|
1
|
0.1
|
1
|
0.1
|
1
|
0.1
|
1
|
0.1
|
Related Agencies
|
|
|
|
Food and Drug Administration
|
|
|
|
|
User Fees
|
319
|
16.3
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
|
Revolving Fund for Certification
|
8
|
0.4
|
8
|
0.6
|
8
|
0.6
|
9
|
0.6
|
|
Commodity Futures Trading Comm.
|
13
|
0.7
|
12
|
0.9
|
14
|
1.0
|
32
|
2.2
|
|
Total
|
13,983
|
713.1
|
14,606
|
1,051.6
|
15,791
|
1,152.7
|
26,744
|
1,818.6
|
Source: OMB, various ).
123
See CRS Report R42972, Sequestration as a Budget Enforcement Process: Frequently Asked Questions.
CBO, Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, December 11, 2013, at http://cbo.gov/publication/44964.
125
Southwest Farm Press, “Vilsack announces 6.8% ARC/PLC cuts forthcoming,” October 8, 2016, at http://southwest
farmpress.com/government/vilsack-announces-68-arcplc-cuts-forthcoming-2014-2016-payments-farmers.
126
Generally speaking, the benefits from these programs are exempt from sequestration; however, some administrative
expenses in these programs may be subject to sequestration, and therefore the programs may appear in the tables in this
appendix with a relatively small sequesterable amount compared to their total budget authority.
127
2 U.S.C. 905 (g)(1)(A), and 2 U.S.C. 906 (j). See also CRS Report R42050, Budget “Sequestration” and Selected
Program Exemptions and Special Rules.
128
See CRS Report R43669, Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations.
124
Congressional Research Service
74
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Table B-2. Sequestration of Mandatory Agriculture Appropriations in FY2013-2016
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2013
Seq. BA
Sequestration rate on non-exempt, nondefense mandatory accounts
FY2014
Amount
Seq. BA
5.1%
FY2015
Amount
Seq. BA
7.2%
FY2016
Amount
Seq. BA
7.3%
Amount
6.8%
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Office of the Secretary
—
—
—
—
13
0.9
13
0.9
Office of Chief Economist
—
—
—
—
1
0.1
1
0.1
2
0.1
2
0.1
2
0.1
2
0.1
145
9.9
Agricultural Research Service
National Institute of Food, Agriculture
Extension
5
0.3
5
0.4
25
1.8
—
—
Biomass R&D
—
—
—
—
3
0.2
3
0.2
Integrated Activities
—
—
—
—
100
7.3
—
—
266
13.6
261
18.8
294
21.5
295
20.1
1
0.1
1
0.1
1
0.1
1
0.1
1
0.1
1
0.1
1
0.1
1
0.1
41
2.1
41
3.0
41
3.0
46
3.1
792
40.4
1,107
79.7
1,122
81.9
1,137
77.3
Milk Market Orders Assess. Fund
57
2.9
58
4.2
57
4.2
59
4.0
Perishable Ag Commodities Act
11
0.6
11
0.8
11
0.8
12
0.8
8
0.4
12
0.9
12
0.9
19
1.3
Payments to States and Possessions
—
—
—
—
73
5.3
73
5.0
Marketing Services
—
—
—
—
30
2.2
30
2.0
58
3.0
58
4.2
81
5.9
51
3.5
Commodity Credit Corporation
6,460
329.5
7,968
573.7
9,737
710.8
20,420
1,388.6
Agricultural Disaster Relief Fund
1,372
70.0
—
—
—
—
—
—
960
49.0
960
69.1
—
—
—
—
Ag. Credit Insurance Corp.
—
—
—
—
1
0.1
1
0.1
CCC Export Loans
—
—
—
—
—
—
6
0.4
Pima Cotton Trust Fund
—
—
—
—
—
—
16
1.1
Wool Apparel Trust Fund
—
—
—
—
—
—
30
2.0
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Salaries appropriation
Misc. Trust Funds
Food Safety Inspection Service
Expenses and refunds
Grain Insp. Packers, Stockyards Admin.
Limitation on Expenses
Agricultural Marketing Service
Section 32
Expenses and refunds
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
Farm Service Agency
Tobacco Trust Fund
Congressional Research Service
75
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
Seq. BA
Amount
Seq. BA
Amount
Seq. BA
Amount
Seq. BA
Amount
3,357
171.2
3,654
263.1
3,697
269.9
3,907
265.7
—
—
165
11.9
153
11.2
69
4.7
87
4.4
89
6.4
118
8.6
141
9.6
1
0.1
2
0.1
1
0.1
1
0.1
SNAP
93
4.7
111
8.0
115
8.4
144
9.8
Child Nutrition Programs
49
2.5
58
4.2
58
4.2
58
3.9
Commodity Assistance Program
21
1.1
21
1.5
21
1.5
21
1.4
1
0.1
1
0.1
1
0.1
1
0.1
319
16.3
—
—
—
—
—
—
Revolving Fund for Certification
8
0.4
8
0.6
8
0.6
9
0.6
Commodity Futures Trading Comm.
13
0.7
12
0.9
14
1.0
32
2.2
13,983
713.1
14,606
1,051.6
15,791
1,152.7
26,744
1,818.6
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Farm Security, Rural Invest. Prog.
Watershed Rehabilitation Program
Rural Business Cooperative Service
Foreign Agricultural Service
Food and Nutrition Servicea
WIC
Related Agencies
Food and Drug Administration
User Fees
Total
Source: OMB, various Reports to the Congress on the Joint Committee Reductions (
Sequestration), at Sequestration), at https://www.
whitehouse.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative_reports/sequestration. Compiled by CRS.
Notes:
“"Seq. BA
”" = Sequesterable budget authority;
“Amount”"Amount" = Amount of sequestration. Sequestration rates
are for non-exempt, non-defense accounts. Column totals were computed by CRS.
a.
a.
Benefits from the nutrition programs generally are exempt from sequestration by statute, but some
administrative expenses in these programs may be subject to sequestration and therefore a relatively small
portion of the total budget authority may be sequesterable.
Congressional Research Service
76
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Author Contact Information
Jim Monke, Coordinator
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
jmonke@crs.loc.gov, 7-9664
Mark A. McMinimy
Analyst in Agricultural Policy
mmcminimy@crs.loc.gov, 7-2172
Megan Stubbs
Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural
Resources Policy
mstubbs@crs.loc.gov, 7-8707
Randy Schnepf
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
rschnepf@crs.loc.gov, 7-4277
Randy Alison Aussenberg
Specialist in Nutrition Assistance Policy
raussenberg@crs.loc.gov, 7-8641
Susan Thaul
Specialist in Drug Safety and Effectiveness
sthaul@crs.loc.gov, 7-0562
Joel L. Greene
Analyst in Agricultural Policy
jgreene@crs.loc.gov, 7-9877
Agata Dabrowska
Analyst in Health Policy
adabrowska@crs.loc.gov, 7-9455
Renée Johnson
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
rjohnson@crs.loc.gov, 7-9588
Rena S. Miller
Specialist in Financial Economics
rsmiller@crs.loc.gov, 7-0826
Tadlock Cowan
Analyst in Natural Resources and Rural
Development
tcowan@crs.loc.gov, 7-7600
Congressional Research Service
77
portion of the total budget authority may be sequesterable.
Author Contact Information
[author name scrubbed], Coordinator, Specialist in Agricultural Policy
([email address scrubbed], [phone number scrubbed])
[author name scrubbed], Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural Resources Policy
([email address scrubbed], [phone number scrubbed])
[author name scrubbed], Specialist in Nutrition Assistance Policy
([email address scrubbed], [phone number scrubbed])
[author name scrubbed], Analyst in Agricultural Policy
([email address scrubbed], [phone number scrubbed])
[author name scrubbed], Specialist in Agricultural Policy
([email address scrubbed], [phone number scrubbed])
[author name scrubbed], Analyst in Natural Resources and Rural Development
([email address scrubbed], [phone number scrubbed])
[author name scrubbed], Analyst in Agricultural Policy
([email address scrubbed], [phone number scrubbed])
[author name scrubbed], Specialist in Agricultural Policy
([email address scrubbed], [phone number scrubbed])
[author name scrubbed], Analyst in Health Policy
([email address scrubbed], [phone number scrubbed])
[author name scrubbed], Specialist in Drug Safety and Effectiveness
([email address scrubbed], [phone number scrubbed])
[author name scrubbed], Specialist in Financial Economics
([email address scrubbed], [phone number scrubbed])
Footnotes
| 1.
|
See CRS Report R42388, The Congressional Appropriations Process: An Introduction, for context on procedures.
|
| 2.
|
CRS Report 98-560, Baselines and Scorekeeping in the Federal Budget Process.
|
| 3.
|
CRS Report R42484, Budget Issues That Shaped the 2014 Farm Bill.
|
| 4.
|
Mandatory spending creates funding stability and consistency compared to appropriations. In agriculture, it originally was reserved for the farm commodity programs that had uncertain outlays because of weather and market conditions.
|
| 5.
|
CRS Report RS20129, Entitlements and Appropriated Entitlements in the Federal Budget Process.
|
| 6.
|
A 12-page version is in CRS Report R43938, FY2016 Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations: In Brief.
|
| 7.
|
CRS Report RL32473, Omnibus Appropriations Acts: Overview of Recent Practices.
|
| 8.
|
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), FY2016 Budget of the U.S. Government, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget. Details are in the Appendix, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Appendix. The request for FDA is in the Appendix for the Department of Health and Human Services, and CFTC is with Other Independent Agencies.
|
| 9.
|
USDA, FY2016 USDA Budget Summary, at http://www.obpa.usda.gov/budsum/fy16budsum.pdf.
|
| 10.
|
USDA, FY2016 USDA Budget Explanatory Notes, at http://www.obpa.usda.gov/fy16explan_notes.html.
|
| 11.
|
FDA, FY2016 Budget Highlights, at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/BudgetReports/UCM432650.pdf.
|
| 12.
|
FDA, FY2016 FDA Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/BudgetReports/UCM432322.pdf.
|
| 13.
|
CFTC, FY2016 CFTC President's Budget, at http://www.cftc.gov/about/cftcreports/ssLINK/cftcbudget2016.
|
| 14.
|
See CRS Report R42388, The Congressional Appropriations Process: An Introduction; CRS Report R42972, Sequestration as a Budget Enforcement Process: Frequently Asked Questions, for context on procedures.
|
| 15.
|
House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, Draft FY2016 Bill, at http://appropriations.house.gov/UploadedFiles/BILLS-114HR-SC-AP-FY2016-Agriculture-SubcommitteeDraft.pdf.
|
| 16.
|
House Appropriations Committee, Amendments Adopted to the FY2016 Agriculture Appropriations, at http://appropriations.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hmkp-114-ap00-20150708-sd004.pdf.
|
| 17.
|
See CRS Insight IN10148, The FY2016 Continuing Resolution (H.R. 719).
|
18.
|
However, budget sequestration on non-exempt mandatory accounts continues to apply to FY2016, as it has in recent years since FY2013 (see "Sequestration Continues on Mandatory Accounts" and Appendix B in this report).
| 19.
|
The FY2015 Agriculture appropriation ($20.575 billion) was based on Senate jurisdiction for CFTC and needs to be increased by the CFTC appropriation ($250 million) to be comparable for House jurisdiction ($20.825 billion).
|
| 20.
|
See CRS Insight IN10389, Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015: Adjustments to the Budget Control Act of 2011.
|
21.
|
Some budgetary offsets also affected agriculture, including an extension of sequestration on mandatory accounts (see Appendix B) and changes to crop insurance (see "Standard Reinsurance Agreement as Temporary Budget Offset").
| 22.
|
See CRS Report R44214, Overview of the FY2016 Continuing Resolution (H.R. 719).
|
| 23.
|
"The explanatory statement is silent on provisions that were in both the House Report and Senate Report that remain unchanged by this agreement, except as noted in this explanatory statement… The House and Senate report language that is not changed by the explanatory statement is approved and indicates congressional intentions. The explanatory statement, while repeating some report language for emphasis, does not intend to negate the language referred to above unless expressly provided herein. In cases in which the House or the Senate have directed the submission of a report, such report is to be submitted to both the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations." Explanatory Statement for the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Congressional Record, vol. 161 (December 17, 2015), p. H9694.
|
| 24.
|
See CRS Report R42972, Sequestration as a Budget Enforcement Process: Frequently Asked Questions.
|
| 25.
|
USDA, FY2016 Budget Summary, February 2015, p. 126, at http://www.obpa.usda.gov/budsum/fy16budsum.pdf.
|
| 26.
|
See CRS Report R44061, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations.
|
| 27.
|
This section was written by [author name scrubbed] ([phone number scrubbed], [email address scrubbed]).
|
| 28.
|
This section was written by [author name scrubbed] ([phone number scrubbed], [email address scrubbed]).
|
| 29.
|
See CRS Report R40819, Agricultural Research: Background and Issues.
|
| 30.
|
See CRS Report R44091, Meat Animal Research Center: The Animal Welfare Act and Farm Animal Research.
|
31.
|
USDA-ARS, The USDA Agricultural Research Service Capital Investment Strategy, April 2012, at http://www.ars.usda.gov/sp2UserFiles/Subsite/ARSLegisAffrs/USDA_ARS_Capital_Investment_Strategy_FINAL_eeo.pdf.
| 32.
|
The numbers 1862, 1890, and 1994 in this context refer to the years that laws were enacted creating these classifications of colleges and universities, not to the number of institutions.
|
| 33.
|
Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities, Land-Grant But Unequal: State One-to-One Match Funding for 1890 Land-Grant Universities, September 2013, at http://www.aplu.org/library/land-grant-but-unequal-state-one-to-one-match-funding-for-1890-land-grant-universities/file.
|
| 34.
|
This section was written by [author name scrubbed] ([phone number scrubbed], [email address scrubbed]), with assistance for avian influenza from [author name scrubbed] ([phone number scrubbed], [email address scrubbed]).
|
| 35.
|
As authorized in the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. §§8310 and 8316, §§10411 and 10417) and the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. §§7751 and 7772, §§431 and 442).
|
| 36.
|
Explanatory Statement for the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Congressional Record, vol. 161 (December 17, 2015), p. H9694.
|
| 37.
|
For example, audits are required to cover veterinary control and oversight, disease history, and vaccine practices, surveillance practices, and emergency preparedness and response. See 9 C.F.R. 92.2.
|
| 38.
|
This section was written by [author name scrubbed] ([phone number scrubbed], [email address scrubbed]).
|
| 39.
|
Authorized by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-35).
|
| 40.
|
Separate from the appropriations process, the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79) authorized mandatory funding for four AMS-administered programs as follows: $72.5 million (annually, FY2014-2017) and $85 million (annually, FY2018 and thereafter) for specialty crop block grants, $15 million (annually, FY2014-2018) for farmers' market promotion, $15 million (annually, FY2014-2018) for local food promotion, and a set-aside (estimated at $12.5 million in FY2015) for the AMS share of costs to support organic certification. For FY2015, AMS expects to administer an estimated $106.6 million of these mandatory farm bill initiatives, and $115 million in FY2016. Of the FY2014 and FY2015 spending for these programs, $4.1 million and $8.4 million were sequestered, respectively. In FY2016, spending for these programs will be subject to a 6.8% sequestration.
|
| 41.
|
For more information, see CRS Report RS22955, Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods and the WTO Trade Dispute on Meat Labeling.
|
| 42.
|
This section was written by [author name scrubbed] ([phone number scrubbed]. [email address scrubbed]).
|
| 43.
|
For more details, see CRS Report RL34081, Farm and Food Support Under USDA's Section 32 Program.
|
| 44.
|
Clause 3 of Section 32 provides that funds shall be used to reestablish farmers' purchasing power by making payments in connections with the normal production of any agricultural commodity for domestic consumption (7.U.S.C 612c). Section 5 of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act authorizes the CCC to support the prices of agricultural commodities through loans, purchases, payments, and other operations (15 U.S.C. 714c).
|
| 45.
|
This section was written by [author name scrubbed] ([phone number scrubbed], [email address scrubbed]).
|
| 46.
|
See CRS Report R41673, USDA's "GIPSA Rule" on Livestock and Poultry Marketing Practices.
|
| 47.
|
This section was written by [author name scrubbed] ([phone number scrubbed], [email address scrubbed]).
|
| 48.
|
FSIS authorities include the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. §601 et seq.), the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA, 21 U.S.C. §451 et seq.), the Egg Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. §1031 et seq.), and the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA, 7 U.S.C. §1901 et seq.).
|
| 49.
|
From recent FSIS congressional budget justifications (http://www.obpa.usda.gov/explan_notes.html). Reflects total non-federal funds, including fees for meat, poultry and egg products inspection; fees for cost of national laboratory accreditation programs; and trust funds.
|
| 50.
|
Catfish inspection originally was transferred from FDA to FSIS in the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246, §11016).
|
| 51.
|
Explanatory Statement for the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Congressional Record, vol. 161 (December 17, 2015), p. H9697.
|
| 52.
|
80 Federal Register 75590 (December 2, 2015).
|
| 53.
|
The FY2006 and FY2007 appropriations prohibited FSIS from paying for horse slaughter inspections. The FY2008-FY2011 and FY2014-FY2015 appropriations also banned voluntary, fee-based horse slaughter inspections. Inspection bans were not in force during FY2012 and FY2013, but no facilities opened before the ban was reinstated in FY2014.
|
| 54.
|
This section was written by [author name scrubbed] ([phone number scrubbed], [email address scrubbed]).
|
| 55.
|
Excludes transfers to FSA from the Foreign Agricultural Service for administrative support (about $3 million).
|
| 56.
|
IT Dashboard, "Farm Program Modernization (MIDAS) #097," at https://itdashboard.gov/investment?buscid=225.
|
| 57.
|
GAO, "Farm Service Agency Needs to Demonstrate the Capacity to Manage IT Initiatives," GAO-15-506, June 18, 2015, at http://gao.gov/products/GAO-15-506.
|
| 58.
|
USDA-OIG, "Review of Farm Service Agency's Initiative to Modernize and Innovate the Delivery of Agricultural Systems (MIDAS)," 03501-0001-12, May 2015, at http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/03501-0001-12.pdf.
|
59.
|
USDA-OIG, "USDA Beginning Farmers and Ranchers Programs," May 2015, at http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/50601-0003-31.pdf.
| 60.
|
For more background, see CRS Report RS21977, Agricultural Credit: Institutions and Issues.
|
| 61.
|
The Individual Development Account program was authorized in the 2008 farm bill but has never received funding. It is not a loan program, but rather a savings program (7 U.S.C. 1983b). USDA would make grants to private entities to deliver the program, which would match farmer deposits at a rate up to 2:1. Withdrawals would be allowed for various capital expenses.
|
| 62.
|
Updates on unused FSA loan availability are available at http://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/farm-loan-programs/funding/index.
|
| 63.
|
This section was written by [author name scrubbed] ([phone number scrubbed], [email address scrubbed]).
|
| 64.
|
For more background on the farm bill, see CRS In Focus IF10187, The 2014 Farm Bill (Agricultural Act of 2014, P.L. 113-79), and CRS Report R43076, The 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79): Summary and Side-by-Side.
|
| 65.
|
For an example of the accounting of CCC's line of credit, appropriations and expenditures, see USDA, Commodity Estimates Book, "Output 07-CCC Financing Status," at http://www.fsa.usda.gov/about-fsa/budget-and-performance-management/budget/ccc-budget-essentials/index.
|
| 66.
|
For more background on how commodity certificates work, see CRS Report RL34594, Farm Commodity Programs in the 2008 Farm Bill; USDA fact sheet, "Commodity Certificates," May 2007, at http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/comdtycertif07n.pdf; and USDA Economic Research Service, "Farm Policy Glossary," at http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-commodity-policy/farm-policy-glossary.aspx.
|
| 67.
|
For an explanation of the statutory references, see footnote 44.
|
| 68.
|
This section was written by [author name scrubbed] ([phone number scrubbed], [email address scrubbed]).
|
| 69.
|
For more information, see CRS Report R40532, Federal Crop Insurance: Background.
|
| 70.
|
See the heading, "Final FY2016 Budget and 302(b) Allocation."
|
71.
|
Congressional Budget Office, "Estimate of the Effect of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015," p. 1, at https://www.cbo.gov/publication/50938.
| 72.
|
See the colloquy between Senator McConnell (Majority Leader) and Senator Roberts (Agriculture committee chairman) in the Congressional Record, October 29, 2015, p. S7608. McConnell: "It is our joint understanding that the House leaders will work to reverse these crop insurance changes." Roberts: "I have been working very closely with [the] House Agriculture Committee Chairman who has reached a similar position with the House leadership. We have all agreed here to restore these funds to the program and reverse this policy."
|
73.
|
Congressional Budget Office, "Cost Estimate for the Conference Agreement on the FAST Act," p. 4, at https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51051.
| 74.
|
This section was written by [author name scrubbed] ([phone number scrubbed], [email address scrubbed]).
|
| 75.
|
For additional information on these programs, see CRS Report RS21212, Agricultural Disaster Assistance.
|
| 76.
|
For additional information, see CRS Report R42854, Emergency Assistance for Agricultural Land Rehabilitation.
|
| 77.
|
See §728 of P.L. 114-113.
|
| 78.
|
This section was written by [author name scrubbed] ([phone number scrubbed], [email address scrubbed]).
|
| 79.
|
For additional information, see CRS Report R40763, Agricultural Conservation: A Guide to Programs.
|
| 80.
|
Language in the joint explanatory statement accompanying the enacted appropriation suggests that House and Senate committee report language not changed by the explanatory statement still expresses congressional intentions (see Congressional Record, vol. 161, part 184, book 11 [December 17, 2015], p. H9694).
|
| 81.
|
See CRS Report RL30478, Federally Supported Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment Programs.
|
| 82.
|
In FY2015, some mandatory funding was spent, while $69 million was restricted by the appropriation. This unobligated balance (before sequestration) remained available going into FY2016, and all of it is restricted in FY2016.
|
| 83.
|
For authorized funding and background, see CRS Report R40763, Agricultural Conservation: A Guide to Programs.
|
84.
|
The Administration's proposal and the House- and Senate-reported bills effectively proposed a total of $255 million in CHIMPS from conservation programs. This amount is different than those presented in Table 15 because CBO was not consistent in scoring the Senate-reported bill and the Administration's proposal, giving credit for a level of CHIMPS that was not available to the House-reported bill because of sequestration. If sequestration were included consistently, all three proposals would reduce conservation programs by the same amount. Differences among the proposals remain, though, for the mix of programs and level of rescissions.
85.
|
Similar to footnote 84, CHIMPS are not scored consistently due to sequestration and therefore the total here is not consistent with that used for scoring in Table 15.
86.
|
OMB estimates a 6.8% level of sequestration for non-exempt, non-defense mandatory accounts. See Appendix B.
| 87.
|
For more on CHIMPS generally and historically, see the heading, "Changes in Mandatory Program Spending (CHIMPS)." For more about conservation program reductions, see CRS In Focus IF10041, Reductions to Mandatory Agricultural Conservation Programs in Appropriations Law.
|
| 88.
|
This section was written by [author name scrubbed] ([phone number scrubbed], [email address scrubbed]).
|
| 89.
|
For more background on rural development programs and issues, see CRS Report RL31837, An Overview of USDA Rural Development Programs.
|
90.
|
If the rescission to the Cushion of Credit account (-$179 million) is not incorporated in the rural development section but included with changes in mandatory spending, as shown in this report, then the net budget authority would be approximately $2.95 billion (Table 11).
| 91.
|
For certain RBS loans, borrowers may pay forward into a Treasury account that earns interest. Appropriators authorize a loan level, and the needed budget authority comes from the interest earned rather than new appropriations. A rescission of the cushion of credit account reduces the amount that remains available for the program to spend.
|
| 92.
|
If the cushion of credit rescission is incorporated as in the Appropriations committee tables (-$179 million), the net RBS budget authority provided would be negative.
|
| 93.
|
Business Development grants combine Rural Business Enterprise grants and Rural Business Opportunity grants.
|
| 94.
|
Colonias generally are described as unincorporated communities or housing developments on the U.S. side of the U.S.-Mexico border that lack some or all basic infrastructure, including plumbing and public water and sewer.
|
| 95.
|
This section was written by [author name scrubbed] ([phone number scrubbed], [email address scrubbed]).
|
| 96.
|
For background about the programs, see CRS Report R42353, Domestic Food Assistance: Summary of Programs.
|
| 97.
|
In addition to the enacted appropriation and explanatory statement, the House and Senate separately noted or required the following: (1) The House committee noted concerns with FNS's research and evaluation agenda. Particularly, the committee would like to see better coordination with USDA's Research, Education, and Economics (REE) mission area. The House-reported bill (§735) required the Secretary to submit to the appropriations committees a FY2016 research and evaluation plan prepared in coordination with REE before using the bill's funding to commence any new research and evaluation projects. The Senate-reported bill did not include this research policy in its legislation or its committee report. (2) The House report also "urged" FNS to recognize in publications and regulations "the nutritional benefits provided by all forms of fruits, vegetables, and beans, whether canned, dried, fresh or frozen."
|
| 98.
|
See USDA Office of the Inspector General, FNS Quality Control Process for SNAP Error Rate, Report No. 27601-0002-41, September 2015, http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/27601-0002-41.pdf; USDA Office of the Inspector General, FNS - National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs, April 2015, http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/27601-0001-41.pdf.
|
| 99.
|
See also USDA-FNS Congressional Budget Justification, page "32-87," at http://www.obpa.usda.gov/32fns2016notes.pdf. As an appropriated, open-ended mandatory program, SNAP funding is not the same as SNAP spending. SNAP regularly receives annual appropriations that are greater than the amount that the program spends. Better measures for SNAP program spending are from USDA-FNS's costs data, available at http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPmain.htm.
|
| 100.
|
Page 25. The House committee report had included additional SNAP-related language: language supporting the 2014 farm bill's policies regarding employment verification and program recruitment restrictions, a directive for FNS to assist states that have a compressed benefit issuance schedule and to report to the House and Senate Appropriations committees on these states' progress.
|
| 101.
|
Page 25. A budget proposal for an Employment and Training Centers of Excellence had been included in the FNS budget justification; see pages "32-90, 94-95." FNS launched such a "Center of Excellence" in October 2015 (press release at http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=2015/10/0302.xml&contentidonly=true).
|
| 102.
|
See CRS Report R43332, SNAP and Related Nutrition Provisions of the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79).
|
| 103.
|
Further background on these programs and related funding is provided in CRS Report R43783, School Meals Programs and Other USDA Child Nutrition Programs: A Primer.
|
| 104.
|
For more information about these grants, see USDA-FNS's resources for the FY2015 grants: http://www.fns.usda.gov/fy2015-nslp-equipment-assistance-grants-sfas.
|
| 105.
|
See USDA-FNS FY2016 Congressional Budget Justification, p. "32-24" for more details on this request. For the FY2010 funding and evaluations, see also USDA-FNS website, "Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer for Children (SEBTC)" http://www.fns.usda.gov/ops/summer-electronic-benefit-transfer-children-sebtc.
|
| 106.
|
For background on school meals nutrition standards, see "Current Issues" in CRS Report R43783, School Meals Programs and Other USDA Child Nutrition Programs: A Primer. For a discussion of the FY2015 appropriation, see p. 54 of CRS Report R43669, Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations.
|
| 107.
|
For implementation of the FY2015 provision, see USDA-FNS, "Requests for Exemption from the School Meals' Whole Grain-Rich Requirement for School Years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016," http://www.fns.usda.gov/requests-exemption-school-meals%E2%80%99-whole-grain-rich-requirement-school-years-2014-2015-and-2015-2016.
|
| 108.
|
See 7 C.F.R. 210.10(f)(3), 220.8(f)(3).
|
| 109.
|
The House committee report included language emphasizing that expansion of the Summer EBT program should be addressed to authorizing committees and expresses the committee's concern with improper payments in the programs. The Senate report stated that the committee expects that the food safety education activities will be carried out by the National Food Service Management Institute.
|
| 110.
|
Many of the programs' authorizing provisions are permanent (i.e., they do not have an expiration date associated with them). This is the case for the main functions of NSLP, SBP, CACFP, and Special Milk. Other programs, including SFSP, WIC, WIC FMNP, and the State Administrative Expenses (funding for states' operation of certain programs), face an expiration date of September 30, 2015, for the authorization of their appropriations. However, even without an authorization extension beyond that date, Congress can still choose to provide funding via the appropriations process, allowing these programs to continue to operate. Several policies—not authorizations of appropriations—that expired September 30, 2015, are affected. These are not major programs, including a California program to provide SFSP food year-round, certain food safety audits, and pre-appropriated funds for a National Hunger Clearinghouse. For additional background, CRS has a memorandum that congressional clients may request.
|
| 111.
|
Further background on these programs and related funding is provided in CRS Report R44115, A Primer on WIC: The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.
|
| 112.
|
USDA Economic Research Service, "Anecdotal Evidence Suggest That WIC Became Fully Funded Sometime in the Late 1990s," in The WIC Program: Background, Trends, and Economic Issues, 2015 Edition, EIB-134, January 2015, p. 19.
|
| 113.
|
The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-296) requires states to transition WIC vouchers to EBT by the end of FY2020. See CRS Report R44115, A Primer on WIC: The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, for more information on this transition.
|
| 114.
|
The House committee report included language explaining that the funding level incorporates decreasing WIC participation and available carryover funding; the committee's support for a WIC transition to EBT; appreciation for USDA's inclusion of all fruits and vegetables following the FY2015 appropriation (for a summary of the controversy over white potatoes, see Appendix B of CRS Report R44115, A Primer on WIC: The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children); instructions for USDA to report on efforts to ensure that income eligibility standards are followed and encouraging the use of income verification systems; direction for USDA to report on their responses to the OIG's September 2014 audit on state food costs; and instruction for FNS to report on efforts to reduce the sale of WIC benefits and infant formula. The Senate report included the committee's interest that the next update on WIC-eligible foods (the WIC "food package") include more fish, including wild salmon.
|
| 115.
|
For background, see CRS In Focus IF10118, The Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
|
| 116.
|
For further background, see CRS Report RL34081, Farm and Food Support Under USDA's Section 32 Program.
|
| 117.
|
The trade portion of this section was written by Mark McMinimy ([phone number scrubbed], [email address scrubbed]) and the food aid portion by [author name scrubbed] ([phone number scrubbed], [email address scrubbed]).
|
| 118.
|
For background, see CRS Report R41072, U.S. International Food Aid Programs: Background and Issues.
|
| 119.
|
Mandatory funding for other agricultural export promotion and market development programs was reauthorized by the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79) at slightly above $250 million each year: $200 million for the Market Access Program, $34.5 million for the Foreign Market Development Program, $9 million for the Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops Program, and $10 million for the Emerging Markets Program. Separately, mandatory funding for other foreign food aid programs under the 2014 farm bill is about $250 million each year for the Food for Progress Program.
|
| 120.
|
"The House and Senate report language that is not changed by the explanatory statement is approved and indicates congressional intent." Explanatory Statement, Division A (Agriculture), Congressional Directives, Congressional Record, December 17, 2015, p. H9694.
|
| 121.
|
Title IV of the Food for Peace Act involves general authorities and requirements.
|
| 122.
|
USAID has additional flexibility in the use of cash-based food assistance in the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79; §3002).
|
| 123.
|
7 U.S.C. 1726c.
|
| 124.
|
Under the previous 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246; §3206), LRP was implemented as a pilot program but with mandatory funding of $60 million of CCC funds (mandatory funds, not Title II appropriations), spread over four years.
|
| 125.
|
This section was written by [author name scrubbed] ([phone number scrubbed]; [email address scrubbed]).
|
| 126.
|
P.L. 113-79, §7606, "Legitimacy of Industrial Hemp Research." It also created a statutory definition of "industrial hemp" as "the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydro-cannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis."
|
| 127.
|
P.L. 113-235, Division B, §539 (Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015).
|
| 128.
|
This section was written by [author name scrubbed] ([phone number scrubbed], [email address scrubbed]) and [author name scrubbed] ([phone number scrubbed], [email address scrubbed]).
|
| 129.
|
Several CRS reports have information on FDA authority and activities: CRS Report R41983, How FDA Approves Drugs and Regulates Their Safety and Effectiveness, and CRS Report R42130, FDA Regulation of Medical Devices.
|
| 130.
|
Beginning with the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA, P.L. 102-571) in 1992, Congress has authorized FDA to collect fees from industry sponsors of certain FDA-regulated products and to use the revenue to support statutorily defined activities, such as the review of product marketing applications.
|
| 131.
|
Those who speak of FDA policy often use acronyms for the various user fee authorizing acts: Prescription Drug User Fee Act or Amendments (PDUFA), Medical Device User Fee Act or Amendments (MDUFA), Animal Drug User Fee Program (ADUFA), Animal Generic Drug User Fee Program (AGDUFA), Generic Drug User Fee Amendments (GDUFA), Biosimilar User Fee Act (BSUFA), and the Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA). Acronyms for others have not caught on: color certification, export certification, tobacco (from the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act), and food reinspection and food recall (both authorized by the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FMSA)). Several CRS reports describe FDA user fee programs. See, for example, CRS Report R42366, Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA): 2012 Reauthorization as PDUFA V, and CRS Report R42508, The FDA Medical Device User Fee Program.
|
| 132.
|
Paragraph 4 of the explanatory statement notes an increase of $10.608 million for medical product safety initiatives. However, the sum of the increase in budget authority for CARB ($8.732 million) and precision medicine ($2.392 million) totals to $11.124 million even without the sunscreen initiative ($716,000) or orphan drug grants ($2.5 million). CRS was unable to determine how the $10.608 million was derived.
|
| 133.
|
80 Federal Register 34650.
|
| 134.
|
Ibid.
|
| 135.
|
This section was written by [author name scrubbed] ([phone number scrubbed]; [email address scrubbed]).
|
| 136.
|
P.L. 111-353 amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
|
| 137.
|
CRS communication with FDA budget staff, December 4, 2015.
|
| 138.
|
See also CRS Report R44309, FY2016 Appropriations: Selected Federal Food Safety Agencies.
|
| 139.
|
FDA, "President's FY 2016 Budget Request: Key Investments for Implementing the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA)," February 2015, http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/FSMA/ucm432576.htm.
|
| 140.
|
H.Rept. 114-205, S.Rept. 114-82.
|
| 141.
|
Division A, §741.
|
| 142.
|
See CRS Report R43724, Implementation of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA, P.L. 111-353).
|
| 143.
|
This section was written by [author name scrubbed] ([phone number scrubbed], [email address scrubbed]).
|
| 144.
|
With the exception of a narrow slice of the swaps markets, called security-based swaps, which are based on a single security, loan, or narrow group or index of securities. These are overseen by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
|
| 145.
|
See CRS Report R43117, The Commodity Futures Trading Commission: Background and Current Issues.
|
| 146.
|
Testimony of Chairman Timothy G. Massad before the Senate Agriculture Committee (May 14, 2015): "The CFTC does not have the resources to fulfill our new responsibilities as well as all the responsibilities it had prior to the passage of Dodd Frank in a way that most Americans would expect. Our staff, for example, is no larger than it was when Dodd-Frank was enacted in 2010." http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/opamassad-22.
|
| 147.
|
CFTC FY2016 Budget, at http://www.cftc.gov/ucm/groups/public/@newsroom/documents/file/cftcbudget2016.pdf.
|
| 148.
|
Statement of Chairman Timothy Massad on the Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Agreement, December 21, 2015, at http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/massadstatement122115.
|
| 149.
|
Ibid.
|
| 150.
|
This section was written by [author name scrubbed] ([phone number scrubbed], [email address scrubbed]).
|
| 151.
|
For background, see CRS Report RS21278, Farm Credit System.
|
| 152.
|
Farm Credit Administration, Fiscal Year 2016 Proposed Budget and Performance Plan, at http://www.fca.gov/Download/BudgetFY2016.pdf.
|
| 153.
|
This section was written by [author name scrubbed] ([phone number scrubbed], [email address scrubbed]).
|
| 154.
|
For example, in FY2011, half of the $3.4 billion reduction in total discretionary appropriations between FY2010 and FY2011 was achieved by a $1.7 billion increase in the use of farm bill limitations and rescissions.
|
| 155.
|
Examples of rescissions of mandatory programs are discussed in the section, "Mandatory Conservation Programs."
|
| 156.
|
CRS Report R41634, Limitations in Appropriations Measures: An Overview of Procedural Issues.
|
| 157.
|
Adapted from Galen Fountain, then Majority Clerk of the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, "Funding Rural Development Programs: Past, Present, and Future," p. 4, at the 2009 USDA Agricultural Outlook Forum, February 22, 2009, at http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/50603/2/Fountain-Galen-pdf.pdf.
|
158.
|
This report uses the CBO compilation of CHIMPS, which in addition to limits on farm bill programs also includes the rescission from the Cushion of Credit account for the Rural Business and Cooperative Service (RBS). Including the Cushion of Credit rescission in CHIMPS allows the total appropriation for RBS to remain positive and concurs with CBO scoring. However, appropriations committee tables include the Cushion of Credit rescission in the RBS section, causing the net agency appropriations total to be less than zero (the alternative scoring method noted in Table 11).
| 159.
|
For more background on reductions in mandatory agricultural programs, especially in appropriations, CRS In Focus IF10041, Reductions to Mandatory Agricultural Conservation Programs in Appropriations Law.
|
| 160.
|
Although CHIMPS sometimes are considered to be scorekeeping adjustments and are shown in committee tables, they are discussed elsewhere in this report. This section discusses the unpublished, other scorekeeping adjustments.
|
| 161.
|
Two other CRS reports compare various components of federal spending against GDP at a more aggregate level. See CRS Report RL33074, Mandatory Spending Since 1962, and CRS Report RL34424, The Budget Control Act and Trends in Discretionary Spending.
|
| 162.
|
See CRS Report R42972, Sequestration as a Budget Enforcement Process: Frequently Asked Questions.
|
| 163.
|
CBO, Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, December 11, 2013, at https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44964.
|
| 164.
|
CBO, Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, October 28, 2015, at https://www.cbo.gov/publication/50938.
|
165.
|
Southwest Farm Press, "Vilsack Announces 6.8% ARC/PLC Cuts Forthcoming," October 8, 2016, at http://southwestfarmpress.com/government/vilsack-announces-68-arcplc-cuts-forthcoming-2014-2016-payments-farmers.
| 166.
|
Generally speaking, the benefits from these programs are exempt from sequestration; however, some administrative expenses in these programs may be subject to sequestration, and therefore the programs may appear in the tables in this appendix with a relatively small sequesterable amount compared to their total budget authority.
|
| 167.
|
2 U.S.C. 905 (g)(1)(A), and 2 U.S.C. 906 (j). See also CRS Report R42050, Budget "Sequestration" and Selected Program Exemptions and Special Rules.
|
| 168.
|
See CRS Report R43669, Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations.
|