.

Agriculture and Related Agencies:
FY2010 Appropriations
Jim Monke, Coordinator
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
September 4, 2009
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R40721
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
c11173008

---

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

Summary
The Agriculture appropriations bill includes all of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
except the Forest Service, plus the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Appropriations
jurisdiction for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) remains with the House
Agriculture appropriations subcommittee, but moved to the Senate Financial Services
appropriations subcommittee in FY2008. Since FY2008, enacted CFTC appropriations have
alternated between the Agriculture and Financial Services bills.
The FY2010 Agriculture appropriations bill was passed by the Senate on August 4, 2009 (as an
amendment to H.R. 2997; originally reported as S. 1406, S.Rept. 111-39). The House passed its
version on July 9, 2009 (H.R. 2997, H.Rept. 111-181).
The House-passed bill contains $123.8 billion, 14% more than FY2009. Mandatory
appropriations total $100.8 billion, $13 billion more than FY2009 (+15%). Discretionary
appropriations total $23.0 billion, $2.3 billion more than FY2009 (+11%). Most of the mandatory
growth is due to rising demand for domestic nutrition assistance. The largest increases in
discretionary appropriations also are for nutrition assistance, both domestic and foreign. Most
other programs see an increase in funding over FY2009.
The Senate-passed bill contains $124.3 billion, including $350 million of emergency spending.
After adding CFTC funding to make the total comparable to the House bill, the total becomes
$124.5 billion, $659 million more than the House-passed bill. The Senate bill contains more than
the House bill primarily for emergency dairy support ($350 million), rural development ($206
million), agricultural research ($85 million), animal and plant health programs ($30 million), and
conservation ($29 million). The House and Senate bills’ totals are nearly identical for FDA and
foreign assistance. CFTC appropriations—not part of the Senate Agriculture appropriations
jurisdiction—account for $16 million of the $659 million difference. The Senate bill is notably
lower than the House bill for USDA’s general building and facilities account (-$52 million) and
commodity assistance in the nutrition programs (-$22 million). It also places more limits on
mandatory programs (an extra -$76 million).
Both the House and Senate bills generally follow the Administration’s request for $123.9 billion
for accounts in the House bill. The House and Senate bills are nearly identical to the
Administration’s request on mandatory appropriations and within 1% of the Administration’s
request on total discretionary appropriations (before adding the Senate’s emergency spending).
Among the more publicized and notable policy differences is the treatment of poultry imports
from China. The House-passed bill includes a provision that would continue to prohibit the
Department of Agriculture from implementing a rule to allow certain poultry imports from China.
In contrast, the Senate bill would permit such imports, but only under specified preconditions.
The debate centers on the level of trade restrictions imposed by legislation, and the potential
impacts under global trade rules.
Another important difference between the House and Senate bills for conferees to resolve is $350
million of disaster assistance for dairy price support in the Senate bill, designated as emergency
funding. None of this money is in the House bill.

Congressional Research Service

---

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

Contents
Most Recent Developments......................................................................................................... 1
Scope of the Agriculture Appropriations Bill ............................................................................... 1
USDA Activities ................................................................................................................... 1
Related Agencies................................................................................................................... 3
Discretionary vs. Mandatory Spending .................................................................................. 3
Outlays, Budget Authority, and Program Levels .................................................................... 4
Action on FY2010 Appropriations............................................................................................... 5
House Action ........................................................................................................................ 5
Senate Action........................................................................................................................ 5
Funding Levels ..................................................................................................................... 6
Limits on Mandatory Program Spending ............................................................................. 17
Earmarks ............................................................................................................................ 19
USDA Agencies and Programs .................................................................................................. 21
Agricultural Research, Education, and Extension ................................................................ 21
Agricultural Research Service ....................................................................................... 22
National Institute of Food and Agriculture..................................................................... 23
Economic Research and Agricultural Statistics .............................................................. 25
National Agricultural Statistics Service ......................................................................... 25
Marketing and Regulatory Programs ................................................................................... 25
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service .................................................................. 25
Agricultural Marketing Service and Section 32.............................................................. 28
Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration............................................. 29
Meat and Poultry Inspection................................................................................................ 29
Farm Service Agency .......................................................................................................... 30
FSA Salaries and Expenses ........................................................................................... 30
FSA Farm Loan Programs ............................................................................................. 32
Commodity Credit Corporation ........................................................................................... 35
Crop Insurance.................................................................................................................... 36
Conservation....................................................................................................................... 36
Discretionary Programs................................................................................................. 36
Mandatory Programs..................................................................................................... 37
Rural Development ............................................................................................................. 38
Rural Housing Service .................................................................................................. 38
Rural Business-Cooperative Service.............................................................................. 40
Rural Utilities Service ................................................................................................... 41
Domestic Food Assistance................................................................................................... 42
Programs under the Food and Nutrition Act (Formerly the Food Stamp Act).................. 43
Child Nutrition Programs .............................................................................................. 44
The WIC Program......................................................................................................... 45
Commodity Assistance Program.................................................................................... 45
Nutrition Programs Administration (and the Congressional Hunger Center)................... 46
Special Program Initiatives, Policy Changes, and Other Funding Support ...................... 46
Agricultural Trade and Food Aid ......................................................................................... 48
Foreign Agriculture Service .......................................................................................... 49
Food for Peace Program (P.L. 480)................................................................................ 49
McGovern-Dole Food for Education and Child Nutrition .............................................. 50
Congressional Research Service

---

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

Commodity Credit Corporation—Export Credit Guarantee Programs ............................ 50

Figures
Figure 1. USDA Budget Authority, FY2009 ............................................................................... 2
Figure 2. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2009........................................... 2
Figure 3. Agriculture Appropriations: FY1997-FY2010............................................................... 7
Figure 4. Agriculture Appropriations in Constant 2009 Dollars.................................................... 7
Figure 5. USDA Research Budget: FY1990-FY2010 ................................................................. 22
Figure 6. ARS and CSREES Budget: FY1990-FY2010 ............................................................. 22

Tables
Table 1. Congressional Action on FY2010 Agriculture Appropriations......................................... 5
Table 2. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriation Totals: FY2001-FY2010...................... 7
Table 3. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations, by Title: FY2009-FY2010................. 9
Table 4. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations, by Agency and Program:
FY2009-FY2010 Regular and Supplementals ......................................................................... 11
Table 5. FY2009 Reductions in Mandatory Programs ................................................................ 18
Table 6. Earmarks Disclosed by Congress ................................................................................. 20
Table 7. National Institute of Food and Agriculture Appropriations, FY2009-2010 .................... 24
Table 8. USDA Farm Loans: Budget and Loan Authority in FY2009 ......................................... 34

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 51
Key Policy Staff........................................................................................................................ 51

Congressional Research Service

---

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

Most Recent Developments
The FY2010 Agriculture appropriations bill was passed by the Senate on August 4, 2009 (as an
amendment to H.R. 2997; originally reported as S. 1406, S.Rept. 111-39). The House passed its
version on July 9, 2009 (H.R. 2997, H.Rept. 111-181).
The House-passed bill contains $123.8 billion, 14% more than FY2009. Mandatory
appropriations total $100.8 billion, $13 billion more than FY2009 (+15%). Discretionary
appropriations total $23.0 billion, $2.3 billion more than FY2009 (+11%). Most of the mandatory
growth is due to rising demand for domestic nutrition assistance. The largest increases in
discretionary appropriations also are for nutrition assistance, both domestic and foreign. Most
programs see an increase in funding over FY2009.
The Senate-passed bill contains $124.3 billion, including $350 million of emergency spending.
After adding CFTC funding to make the total comparable to the House bill, the total becomes
$124.5 billion, $659 million more than the House-passed bill. The Senate bill contains more than
the House bill for emergency dairy support, rural development, agricultural research, animal and
plant health programs, and conservation. The House and Senate bills’ totals are nearly identical
for FDA and foreign assistance.
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—covers funding for the
following agencies and departments:
• all of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (except the Forest Service, which is
funded by 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, CFTC appropriations are handled by the Financial Services
appropriations subcommittee.
Jurisdiction for the appropriations bill rests with the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations, particularly each committee’s Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies. These committees are separate from the
agriculture authorizing committees—the House Committee on Agriculture and the Senate
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
USDA Activities
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) carries out widely varied responsibilities through
about 30 separate internal agencies and offices staffed by some 100,000 employees. USDA
spending is not synonymous with farm program spending. USDA also is responsible for many
activities outside of the agriculture budget function, such as conservation and nutrition assistance.
Congressional Research Service
1

---

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

USDA reports that its regular budget authority for FY2009 is $114.6 billion, excluding
supplemental appropriations.1 Food and nutrition programs constitute the largest mission area,
with $76 billion, or 66% of the total, to support the food stamp program, the nutrition program for
Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), and child nutrition programs (Figure 1).
The second-largest mission area, with $21 billion (18%) in budget authority, is farm and foreign
agricultural services. This mission area includes the farm commodity price and income support
programs of the Commodity Credit Corporation, certain mandatory conservation and trade
programs, crop insurance, farm loans, and foreign food aid programs.
Other USDA activities include natural resource and environmental programs (8% of the total),
rural development (3%), research and education programs (2%), marketing and regulatory
programs (2%), and food safety (1%). About two-thirds of the budget for natural resources
programs (the third-largest slice in Figure 1) goes to the Forest Service (about $7 billion), which
is funded through the Interior appropriations bill. The Forest Service is the only USDA agency
not funded through the Agriculture appropriations bill; it also accounts for about one-third of
USDA’s personnel, with nearly 34,000 staff years in FY2009.
Figure 1. USDA Budget Authority,
Figure 2. Agriculture and Related
FY2009
Agencies Appropriations, FY2009
($114.6 billion, excluding supplementals)
($108.3 billion, excluding supplementals)
Title IV: Domestic
Title I: Agricultural
Farm and foreign
Food and
food programs
programs 23%
agriculture 18%
nutrition
70%
66%
Title III: Rural
Conservation,
development 3%
and forests 8%
Title VI: FDA 2%
Rural dev. 3%
Research 2%
Title V: Foreign
aid, trade 1%
Mktg, regulatory 2%
Title II: Conservation 1%
Food safety 1%


Source: CRS, using committee print for P.L. 111-8.
Source: CRS, using USDA FY2010 Budget Summary,
May 2009.
Comparing USDA’s organization and budget data to the Agriculture appropriations bill in
Congress is not always easy. USDA defines its programs using “mission areas” that do not always
correspond to categories in the Agriculture appropriations bill. Spending may not match up
between USDA summaries and the appropriations bill for other reasons. For example, foreign
agricultural assistance programs are a separate title in the appropriations bill (Title V in Figure
2); foreign assistance programs are joined with domestic farm support in USDA’s “farm and
foreign agriculture” mission area (the second-largest slice in Figure 1). Conversely, USDA has
separate mission areas for agricultural research and marketing and regulatory programs (two of
the smaller slices in Figure 1), but both are joined with other domestic farm support programs in
Title I of the appropriations bill (the second-largest slice in Figure 2). The type of funding
(mandatory vs. discretionary) is also important. Conservation in the appropriations bill (Title II)

1 USDA, FY2010 Budget Summary and Annual Performance Plan, May 2009, p. 4-5.
Congressional Research Service
2

---

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

includes only discretionary programs, whereas USDA’s natural resources mission area includes
both discretionary and mandatory conservation programs in addition to the Forest Service.
Related Agencies
In addition to the USDA agencies mentioned above, the Agriculture appropriations
subcommittees have jurisdiction over appropriations for the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and—in the House only—the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC, an independent financial markets regulatory
agency). The combined share of FDA and CFTC funding in the overall Agriculture and Related
Agencies appropriations bill is about 2% (see Title VI in Figure 2).
Jurisdiction over CFTC appropriations is assigned differently in the House and Senate. In the
House, appropriations jurisdiction for CFTC remains with the Agriculture appropriations
subcommittee. In the Senate, jurisdiction moved to the Financial Services appropriations
subcommittee with the FY2008 appropriations cycle. Despite the differences in jurisdiction, the
Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008 still put CFTC appropriations with the Agriculture
appropriations bill. In FY2009, the CFTC appropriation was placed in the Financial Services
appropriations act.
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 has
grown at these agencies in recent decades. Some may argue that these agencies no longer belong
in the Agriculture appropriations bill. But despite the growing importance of non-agricultural
issues, agriculture and food issues are still an important component of FDA’s and CFTC’s work.
At FDA, medical and drug issues have grown in relative importance, but food safety
responsibilities that are shared between USDA and FDA have been in the media during recent
years and are the subject of legislation and hearings. At CFTC, the market for financial futures
contracts has grown significantly compared with agricultural futures contracts, but volatility in
agricultural commodity markets has been a subject of recent scrutiny at CFTC and in Congress.
Discretionary vs. Mandatory Spending
Discretionary and mandatory spending are treated differently in the budget process. Discretionary
spending is controlled by annual appropriations acts and consumes most of the attention during
the appropriations process. The subcommittees of the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees originate bills each year that provide funding and direct activities among
discretionary programs. Eligibility for mandatory programs (sometimes referred to as entitlement
programs) is usually written into authorizing laws, and any individual or entity that meets the
eligibility requirements is entitled to the benefits authorized by the law. Congress generally
controls spending on mandatory programs by setting rules for eligibility, benefit formulas, and
other parameters, not through appropriations.
Approximately 19%-20% of the Agriculture appropriations bill is for discretionary programs, and
80%-81% is classified as mandatory.
Major discretionary programs include certain conservation programs, most rural development
programs, research and education programs, agricultural credit programs, the supplemental
nutrition program for women, infants, and children (WIC), the Public Law (P.L.) 480
Congressional Research Service
3

---

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

international food aid program, meat and poultry inspection, and food marketing and regulatory
programs. The discretionary accounts also include FDA and CFTC appropriations.
The 2008 farm bill (the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, P.L. 110-246) determines
most of the parameters for mandatory spending in the Agriculture appropriations bill. The vast
majority of USDA’s mandatory spending is for the food and nutrition programs (e.g., food
stamps), the farm commodity price and income support programs, the federal crop insurance
program, and various agricultural conservation and trade programs (nearly all of Figure 1’s
largest two pie pieces). Some mandatory spending, such as the farm commodity program, is
highly variable and driven by program participation rates, economic and price conditions, and
weather patterns. But in general, mandatory spending has tended to rise over time, particularly as
food stamp participation and benefits have risen.
Although these programs have mandatory status, many of these accounts receive funding in the
annual Agriculture appropriations act. For example, the food stamp and child nutrition programs
are funded by an annual appropriation based on projected spending needs. Supplemental
appropriations generally are made if these estimates fall short of required spending. The
Commodity Credit Corporation operates on a line of credit with the Treasury, but receives an
annual appropriation to reimburse the Treasury and to maintain its line of credit.
Outlays, Budget Authority, and Program Levels
In addition to the difference between mandatory and discretionary spending, three other terms are
important to understanding differences in discussions about the federal spending: budget
authority, outlays, and program levels.
1. Budget authority is how much money Congress allows a federal agency to
commit to spend. It represents a limit on funding and is generally what Congress
focuses on in making most budgetary decisions. Most of the amounts mentioned
in this report are budget authority.
2. Outlays are how much money actually flows out of an agency’s account. Outlays
may differ from appropriations (budget authority) because, for example,
payments on a contract may not flow out until a later year. For accounts that
require multi-year contracts for construction or delivery of services, budget
authority may be committed (contracted) in one fiscal year and outlays may be
spread across several fiscal years. But for many accounts, especially those tied to
salaries and normal operating expenses, outlays closely track budget authority.
3. Program levels reflect the activities supported or undertaken by an agency. An
agency’s program level may be much higher than its budget authority for several
reasons.
• User fees support some activities (e.g., food or border inspection).
• The agency makes loans; for example, a large loan authority (program level)
is possible with a small budget authority (loan subsidy) because the loan is
expected be repaid. The appropriated loan subsidy makes allowances for
defaults and interest rate assistance.
• Transfers are available from other agencies or funds are carried forward from
a previous fiscal year.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

Action on FY2010 Appropriations
The FY2010 Agriculture appropriations bill was passed by the House on July 9, 2009 (H.R. 2997,
H.Rept. 111-181), and was passed by the Senate on August 4, 2009 (as an amendment to H.R.
2997; originally reported as S. 1406, S.Rept. 111-39). Table 1 summarizes the steps in the
passage of the bill in each chamber.
Table 1. Congressional Action on FY2010 Agriculture Appropriations
Subcommittee
Conference Report
Markup
Approval
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Public
House Senate Report
Passage
Report
Passage
Report
House Senate Law
6/11/09
—
6/18/09
7/9/09
7/7/09
8/4/09
— — — —
Voice vote Polled out H.R. 2997 H.R. 2997
S. 1406
H.R. 2997
H.Rept.
Vote of
S.Rept.
Vote 80-17
111-181
266-160
111-39
Voice vote
Vote 30-0
Source: CRS.
House Action
The House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee marked up the FY2010 Agriculture
appropriations bill on June 11, 2009. The bill was reported by the full Appropriations Committee
a week later by voice vote (H.R. 2997, H.Rept. 111-181). The full House passed the bill on July 9,
2009, by a vote of 266-160 after adopting five budget-neutral amendments. A restrictive rule for
floor consideration was adopted by the House Committee on Rules (H.Res. 609), allowing
consideration of only a certain number of preprinted amendments.
The Administration supported passage of the House bill, although it noted concern about a
provision restricting imports of poultry products from China.2
Senate Action
The Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version of the FY2010 Agriculture
appropriations bill (S. 1406, S.Rept. 111-39) on July 7, 2008. The full committee bypassed
subcommittee action by “polling” the bill out of subcommittee—a procedure that permits a bill to
advance if subcommittee members independently agree to move it along. This expedited
committee procedure was formerly uncommon for the Agriculture appropriations bill, but was
used for the FY2009 agriculture appropriations bill. The full Senate passed the bill on August 4,
2009—as an amendment to H.R. 2997—by a vote of 80-17 after adopting 18 amendments. Most
of the amendments did not change dollar amounts in the bill; those that did were budget-neutral—
with the exception of a dairy price support disaster assistance provision, which received a three-
fifths vote to waive budget rules and allow the bill to exceed its discretionary budget cap.

2 Office of Management and Budget, “Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 2997,” July 7, 2009, at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/sap_111/saphr2997r_20090707.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
5

---

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

The Administration supported passage of the Senate bill, although it again noted concern about
the restrictions on imports of poultry products from China.3
Among the more publicized and notable policy differences is the treatment of poultry imports
from China. The House-passed bill includes a provision that would continue to prohibit the
USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) from implementing a rule to allow certain
poultry products from China to be imported into the United States. In contrast, the Senate-passed
bill would permit such imports, but only under specified preconditions. The debate centers on the
level of trade restrictions imposed by legislation, and the potential impacts under global trade
rules. Many food safety advocates support language banning the poultry imports and asserting
that China lacks effective food safety protections. However, a coalition of U.S. exporters is
opposed to the provision, fearing that it could lead to trade retaliation by China on their products.4
Another important difference between the House and Senate bills for conferees to resolve is $350
million of disaster assistance for dairy price support in the Senate bill, designated as emergency
funding. None of this money is in the House bill. The Senate bill’s approach also differs from past
disaster assistance provisions, which either provided funds to the Secretary or instructed
payments to come from the Commodity Credit Corporation, rather than increasing Farm Service
Agency salaries and expenses as in the Senate-passed bill.5
Funding Levels
Both discretionary and mandatory Agriculture appropriations have increased over the last decade
(Table 2, Figure 3). Since 2000, discretionary agriculture appropriations have grown at a 5.1%
average annualized rate, and mandatory appropriations have grown at a 5.0% average annualized
rate. These data include the general level of increase in the House and Senate bills for FY2010,
and CFTC funding.6
If the general level of inflation is subtracted, both discretionary and mandatory appropriations still
have experienced positive “real” growth—that is, growth above the rate of inflation since 2000
(Figure 4). Discretionary agriculture appropriations grew at a 2.6% inflation-adjusted annual rate
over the 10-year period; 2.4% for mandatory appropriations.
For FY2010, the Administration’s request for accounts in the Agriculture appropriations bill was
$123.9 billion, 14% higher than the enacted FY2009 appropriation. The Administration requested
11.7% more for discretionary appropriations, and 15% more for mandatory appropriations. Both
the House and Senate bills generally follow this total amount. They are nearly identical to the
Administration’s request on mandatory appropriations and within 1% of the Administration on
discretionary appropriations (before including the Senate’s disaster funding).

3 Office of Management and Budget, “Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 2997/S. 1406,” July 30, 2009, at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/sap_111/saphr2997s_20090730.pdf.
4 For more background, see CRS Report R40706, China-U.S. Poultry Dispute, by Geoffrey S. Becker.
5 The purpose of the disaster provision is explained briefly in the “Farm Service Agency” section later in this report.
6 To facilitate comparison, all totals discussed in this section (unless otherwise indicated) include appropriations for the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) regardless of jurisdiction. In the House, CFTC jurisdiction rests with
the Agriculture appropriations subcommittee; in the Senate, jurisdiction rests with the Financial Services
subcommittee. The consolidated FY2009 appropriation put CFTC funding in Financial Services, but if final placement
alternates annually between subcommittees, the FY2010 Agriculture bill may include CFTC as it did in FY2008.
Congressional Research Service
6

---

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

Table 2. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriation Totals: FY2001-FY2010
(fiscal year budget authority in billions of dollars)










2010


2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 House
Senate
Mandatory
58.3 56.9 56.7 69.7 68.3 83.1 79.8 72.7 87.8 100.8 100.8
Discretionary 15.0 16.3 17.9 16.8 16.8 16.8 17.8 18.0 20.7 23.0 23.7
Total
73.3 73.2 74.6 86.6 85.1 99.8 97.6 90.7 108.5 123.8 124.5
Percent
discretionary 20% 22% 24% 19% 20% 17% 18% 20% 19% 19% 19%
Source: CRS, using tables from the House and Senate Appropriations Committee.
Notes: Includes regular annual appropriations for all of the USDA (except the Forest Service) and the Food and
Drug Administration. For consistency, funding is included for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission,
regardless of where it was funded. Reflects rescissions. Excludes emergency supplemental appropriations.

Figure 3. Agriculture Appropriations:
Figure 4. Agriculture Appropriations in
FY1997-FY2010
Constant 2009 Dollars
$ billion
$ billion
125
125
100
100
75
101101
75
101101
88
92
90
82
86
83 80
79
78
76
73
73 70 68
70 68
50
50
62 58 57 57
54
53
47
40
41
36
25
25
17 18 18 18 19 20 22 20 19 19 19 19 21 23 24
13 14 14 14 15 16 18 17 17 17 18 18 21 23 24
0
0
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
0
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
0
1
1
0
0
199
199
199
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
2
199
199
199
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
2
e 201
te
e 201
te
Mandatory
us
a
Mandatory (2009 dollars)
us
a
o
n
o
n
Discretionary
H
e
e
S
Discretionary (2009 dollars)
H

S

Source: CRS.
Source: CRS.
Notes: Includes regular annual appropriations only.
Notes: Fiscal year budget authority deflated using
Includes USDA (except the Forest Service), Food
the GDP price deflator.
and Drug Administration, and Commodity Futures
Trading Commission (regardless of where funded).
Fiscal year budget authority.

Congressional Research Service
7

---

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

The House-passed bill (H.R. 2997) contains $123.8 billion, only 0.1% less than the
Administration’s request and 14% more than FY2009.
• Mandatory appropriations in the House bill are $100.8 billion, which is $13
billion more than FY2009 (+15%). More than two-thirds of this increase is for
domestic nutrition assistance ($9.2 billion increase, +13% over FY2009) and
most of the rest is for farm commodity programs ($2.8 billion increase, +25%
over FY2009). Demand for nutrition assistance programs has risen sharply
during the current recession. Farm commodity program outlays are expected to
rise since commodity prices have fallen below support levels from historical
highs a year ago, and will likely trigger government payments.
• Discretionary appropriations in the House-passed bill are $23.0 billion, $2.3
billion more than FY2009 (+11%). The largest discretionary increases also are
for nutrition assistance: $716 million for domestic nutrition assistance (+10%
over FY2009), and $577 million for foreign food assistance (+38% over
FY2009). Food and Drug Administration appropriations and miscellaneous
discretionary agriculture programs comprise most of the rest of the discretionary
increase (Table 3).
The Senate-passed Agriculture appropriations bill (amendment to H.R. 2997) contains $124.3
billion. After adding CFTC funding that is in the Financial Services Appropriations bill to make
the total comparable with everything that is included in the House-passed bill, the total is $124.5
billion, $659 million more than the House-passed bill.
• The House and Senate bills are identical in the total amounts for mandatory
appropriations.
• The $659 million extra in the Senate bill’s discretionary appropriations (including
CFTC) is 2.9% more than the House’s discretionary appropriation total.
• Slightly more than half of this difference is for emergency disaster funding
for dairy price support ($350 million, part of the of the $427 million
difference in agricultural programs at the top of Table 3).
• Nearly one-third of the difference between the House and Senate is
additional funding for rural development ($206 million over the House,
+7%).
• Most of the rest of the difference is additional funding for agricultural
research ($85 million), animal and plant health programs ($30 million), and
conservation ($29 million).
• The House and Senate bills’ totals are nearly identical for FDA and foreign
assistance. CFTC appropriations—not part of the Senate Agriculture
appropriations markup—account for $16 million of the $659 million
difference.
• The Senate bill is notably lower than the House bill for USDA’s general
building and facilities account (-$52 million) and commodity assistance in
the nutrition programs (-$22 million; detailed in Table 4). It also places more
limits on mandatory programs (an extra -$76 million).
Congressional Research Service
8

---

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

Table 3. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations, by Title: FY2009-FY2010
(budget authority in millions of dollars)

FY2009
FY2010
Change
House
Senate
House-
Senate-
over
over
Title in Appropriations Bill
P.L. 111-8
passed
passed
FY2009
House
Agricultural Programs
25,727
29,850
30,277
4,123
427
Mandatory 18,877
22,702
22,702
3,824
0
Discretionary 6,850
7,148
7,575a 298 427a
Conservation Programs
969
986
1,015
17
29
Rural Development
2,732
2,841
3,046
108
206
Domestic Food Programs
76,155
86,096
86,087
9,941
-9
Mandatory 68,921
78,146
78,146
9,225
0
Discretionary 7,234
7,950
7,941
716
-9
Foreign Assistance
1,499
2,076
2,079
577
3
FDA 2,051
2,350
2,350
299
0
CFTC (146)b 161
(177)b 15 16
General Provisions
-820
-517
-530c 303 -14
Total in Agriculture appropriations





Mandatory 87,798
100,848
100,848
13,050
0
Discretionary 20,516
22,995
23,477
2,479
482
Total in Agriculture appropriations
108,315
123,843
124,325
15,529
482
CFTC in Financial Services appropriations
146
na
177


Grand Total (adding CFTC to all)





Mandatory 87,798
100,848
100,848
13,050
0
Discretionary 20,662d 22,995 23,654d 2,333 659
Grand Total (adding CFTC to all)
108,461d 123,843 124,502d 15,383 659
Source: Compiled by CRS from H.R. 2997, H.Rept. 111-181, S.Rept. 111-39, S. 1432, and S.Rept. 111-43.
Excludes supplemental appropriations.
Notes: Amounts for FY2009 do not include supplemental appropriations. A table in S.Rept. 111-39 has greater
totals for FY2009 because it includes supplemental appropriations.
a. Includes $350 million of emergency disaster assistance for dairy price support.
b. Amount was in Financial Services appropriations. Noted here for comparison with the House Agriculture
appropriations bill.
c. This amount corrects an apparent error in S.Rept. 111-39. It is $20 million less than the amount shown in
S.Rept. 111-39 because the Senate’s General Provisions limitation on the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program (EQIP) is the same as in the House bill—a limit of $1.18 billion from a mandatory $1.45 billion
authorization, resulting in a $270 million reduction (not the $250 million reduction shown for EQIP in
S.Rept. 111-39).
d. Includes CFTC funding that is not part of this Agricultural appropriation. Al ows for a more equal
comparison with the House bill.
Congressional Research Service
9

---

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

The totals in the FY2010 Agriculture appropriations bill are more transparent this year than in
previous years. The tables published at the end of the report language include items for FY2010
that were formerly categorized as “scorekeeping adjustments” and not necessarily published.
These include about $1 billion of Section 32 funds that are now listed under the Agricultural
Marketing Service in the table, and about $400-$500 million of reductions in mandatory
programs that are now included under General Provisions. The prior extensive use of
scorekeeping adjustments sometimes required analysts to use terms like “allowed” and “official”
discretionary appropriations to reconcile various published totals. However, the new approach in
the FY2010 bills is more straightforward.
Table 3 summarizes the totals of the FY2010 Agriculture appropriations bill by title or broad
program, comparing FY2009 to the House-passed and Senate-passed totals. Table 4 provides
more detail, including accounts and agencies within each title, as well as the Administration’s
request, and supplemental appropriations enacted for FY2009. The supplemental appropriations
are included for comparison—especially since some were relatively large in the economic
stimulus act—but are not included in the fiscal year totals because the primary purpose of this
report is to compare the regular annual appropriation across years. Descriptions of the issues
within each agency’s appropriation follow later in this report.


Congressional Research Service
10

---

.

Table 4. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations, by Agency and Program: FY2009-FY2010 Regular and Supplementals
(budget authority in millions of dollars)

FY2009
FY2010
Change
Regular
Supp.
Regular
House over FY2009
Senate over House
P.L. 111-5,
Admin.
House-
Senate-
Agency or Major Program
P.L. 111-8
P.L. 111-32
request
passed
passed Dollar Percent Dollar Percent
Title I: Agricultural Programs









Offices of Secretary and Chief Economist
15.8

23.0
19.3
19.3
3.4
22%
0.1
0.3%
Chief Information Officer
17.5

63.6
48.5
63.6
31.0
177%
15.0
31%
Office of Homeland Security
1.0

3.0
2.5
1.9
1.5
156%
-0.6
-25%
Office of Inspector General
85.8
22.5c 88.8 89.3 88.0 3.5 4%
-1.3 -1%
Other Departmental administration officesd 140.0

167.2 159.4 160.0 19.5 14%
0.6 0%
Buildings, facilities, and rental payments
244.2
24.0c 346.2 326.5 274.5 82.2 34%
-52.0 -16%
Under Secretaries (four offices in Title I)a 2.6

3.5 2.7 3.5 0.1 2%
0.8 32%
Research, Education and Economics









Agricultural Research Service
1,187.2
176.0c 1,153.4 1,192.6 1,228.7
5.4
0.5%
36.1
3%
National Institute of Food and Agric.
1,222.2

1,166.8
1,257.0
1,306.0
34.9
3%
49.0
4%
Economic Research Service
79.5

82.5
82.5
82.1
3.0
4%
-0.4
-1%
National Agric. Statistics Service
151.6

161.8
161.8
161.8
10.3
7%
0.0
0%
Marketing and Regulatory Programs









Animal & Plant Health Inspection Svc.
881.4

877.1
885.7
916.1
4.3
0.5%
30.4
3%
Agric. Marketing Service
105.3

112.2
112.2
112.2
6.9
7%
0.0
0%
Section 32 (permanent)
1,169.0

1,300.0
1,300.0
1,300.0
131.0
11%
0.0
0%
Grain Inspection, Packers, Stockyards
40.3

42.0
42.0
41.6
1.6
4%
-0.4
-1%
Food Safety









Food Safety & Inspection Service
971.6

1,018.5
1,018.5
1,018.5
47.0
5%
0.0
0%
CRS-11

---

.


FY2009
FY2010
Change
Regular
Supp.
Regular
House over FY2009
Senate over House
P.L. 111-5,
Admin.
House-
Senate-
Agency or Major Program
P.L. 111-8
P.L. 111-32
request
passed
passed
Dollar Percent Dollar Percent
Farm and Commodity Programs









Farm Service Agency Salaries & Exp.e 1,487.6 50.0c 1,579.9 1,574.4 1,574.9
86.8
6%
0.5
0.03%
FSA: for dairy support (emergency)




350.0


350.0
FSA Farm Loans: Subsidy Level
147.4
91.3f 109.1 104.1 104.1 -43.3 -29%
0.0 0%
Farm Loans: Loan Authorityg 3,427.6
983.0f 4,109.5 4,151.4 4,149.5 723.8 21%
-1.9
-0.05%
Dairy indem.; state mediation; waterb 11.1

10.3 9.9 10.3 -1.1
-10%
0.4 4%
Risk Mgt. Agency Salaries & Exp.
77.2

80.3
80.3
79.4
3.1
4%
-0.9
-1%
Federal Crop Insurance Corp.h 6,582.9

7,502.6
7,502.6
7,502.6
919.7
14% 0.0
0%
Commodity Credit Corp.h 11,106.3
732.0c 13,878.1 13,878.1 13,878.1 2,771.7
25%
0.0
0%
Subtotal









Mandatory
18,877.2 732.0
22,701.6
22,701.6
22,701.6
3,824.4 20%
0.0 0%
Discretionary 6,850.2
363.8
7,068.1
7,148.3
7,575.5
298.1
4%
427.2
6%
Subtotal 25,727.4
1,095.8
29,769.8
29,849.9
30,277.1
4,122.5
16%
427.2
1.4%
Title II: Conservation Programs









Conservation Operations
853.4

867.2
874.4
898.8i 21.0 2% 24.4 3%
Watershed & Flood Prevention
24.3
290.0c 0.0 20.0 24.4 -4.3 -18%
4.4 22%
Watershed Rehabilitation Program
40.0
50.0c 40.2 40.2 40.2 0.2 0.4%
0.0 0%
Resource Conservation & Development
50.7

0.0
50.7
50.7i 0.0 0% 0.0 0%
Under Secretary, Natural Resources
0.8

0.9
0.8
0.9
0.0
2%
0.1
16%
Subtotal
969.2 340.0
908.3
986.1
1,015.0 16.9 2% 29.0 3%
CRS-12

---

.


FY2009
FY2010
Change
Regular
Supp.
Regular
House over FY2009
Senate over House
P.L. 111-5,
Admin.
House-
Senate-
Agency or Major Program
P.L. 111-8
P.L. 111-32
request
passed
passed
Dollar Percent Dollar Percent
Title III: Rural Development









Salaries and Expenses
192.5

196.0
196.0
207.2
3.5
2%
11.3
6%
Rural Housing Service
1,753.7
330.0c 1,894.6 1,803.1 1,883.2
49.3
3%
80.1
4%
RHS Loan Authorityg 8,122.9
12,643.0c 8,103.5 8,122.8
14,004.0
-0.1
-0.001% 5,881.3 72%
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
132.0
150.0c 256.6 163.2 256.8 31.1 24%
93.7 57%
RBCS Loan Authorityg 1,085.4
2,990.0c 1,406.4 1,132.9 1,406.4
47.5
4%
273.4 24%
Rural Utilities Service
653.4
3,880.0c 667.9 677.9 698.3 24.5 4%
20.4 3%
RUS Loan Authorityg 7,765.5
2,820.0c 8,918.9 8,787.2 9,418.9 1,021.7 13%
631.7
7%
RD Under Secretary
0.6

0.9
0.7
0.9
0.0
2%
0.2
36%
Subtotal 2,732.3
4,360.0c 3,015.9 2,840.8 3,046.5
108.5
4%
205.7
7%
Subtotal, RD Loan Authorityg 16,973.8
18,453.0c 18,428.7 18,042.9 24,829.3 1,069.1
6%
6,786.4
38%
Title IV: Domestic Food Programs









Child Nutrition Programs
14,951.9
100.0c 16,797.2 16,799.6 16,801.6 1,847.7
12%
2.0
0%
WIC Program
6,860.0
500.0c 7,777.0 7,541.0 7,552.0 681.0 10%
11.0
0.1%
Food Stamp Act Programs
53,969.2
19,991.0c 61,351.8 61,351.8 61,351.8 7,382.6
14%
0.0
0%
Commodity Assistance Programs
230.8
150.0c 233.4 255.6 233.4 24.8 11%
-22.2 -9%
Nutrition Programs Admin.
142.6

150.1
147.8
147.8
5.2
4%
0.0
0%
Office of Under Secretary
0.6

0.8
0.6
0.8
0.0
2%
0.2
30%
Subtotal









Mandatory 68,921.2
20,091.0c 78,144.1 78,146.4 78,146.4 9,225.3
13%
0.0
0%
Discretionary 7,234.0
650.0c
8,166.3
7,950.0
7,941.0 716.0 10%
-9.0 -0.1%
Subtotal 76,155.2
20,741.0c 86,310.4 86,096.4 86,087.4 9,941.3
13%
-9.0
-0.01%
CRS-13

---

.


FY2009
FY2010
Change
Regular
Supp.
Regular
House over FY2009
Senate over House
P.L. 111-5,
Admin.
House-
Senate-
Agency or Major Program
P.L. 111-8
P.L. 111-32
request
passed
passed
Dollar Percent Dollar Percent
Title V: Foreign Assistance









Foreign Agric. Service
165.4

180.4
177.1
180.4
11.7
7%
3.2
2%
Public Law (P.L.) 480
1,228.6
700.0j 1,692.8 1,692.8 1,692.8 464.2 38%
0.0
0%
McGovern- Dole Food for Education
100.0

199.5
199.5
199.5
99.5
100%
0.0
0%
CCC Export Loan Salaries
5.3

6.8
6.8
6.8
1.5
28%
0.0
0%
Subtotal
1,499.4
700.0j
2,079.5
2,076.3
2,079.5 576.9 38%
3.2 0.2%
Title VI: FDA & Related Agencies









Food and Drug Administration
2,051.4

2,350.1
2,350.1
2,350.1
298.7
15%
0.0
0%
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
(146.0)k
160.6
160.6
(177.0)k 14.6 10%
16.4 10%
Title VII: General Provisions









Section 32 rescission
-293.5

-43.0
-52.0
-52.0
241.5
-82%
0.0
0%
Limit mandatory programs
-484.0

-582.0
-435.0
-511.0l 49.0
-10% -76.0 17%
Hunger fel owships
2.3


2.5
3.0


0.5
20%
Food bank infrastructure




7.0


7.0

Durum wheat quality




4.0


4.0

Geographic disadvantaged farmers




2.6


2.6

Food aid products




4.0


4.0
Other general provisions
-45.0

-49.9
-32.4
12.0


44.4
-137%
Subtotal
-820.2

-674.9
-516.9
-530.4l 303.3 -37%
-13.5 3%
TOTALS:









Total in Agriculture appropriations
108,314.7m 27,236.8n 123,919.7 123,843.2 124,325.2 15,528.6
14%
482.0
0.4%
CFTC in Financial Services appropriations
146.0k
na
na
177.0k




Grand Total (adding CFTC to all)
108,460.7o
123,919.7 123,843.2 124,502.2o 15,382.6
14%
659.0
0.5%
CRS-14

---

.


FY2009
FY2010
Change
Regular
Supp.
Regular
House over FY2009
Senate over House
P.L. 111-5,
Admin.
House-
Senate-
Agency or Major Program
P.L. 111-8
P.L. 111-32
request
passed
passed
Dollar Percent Dollar Percent
RECAPITULATION:









I: Agricultural Programs
25,727.4
1,095.8
29,769.8
29,849.9
30,277.1
4,122.5
16%
427.2
1.4%
Mandatory 18,877.2
732.0
22,701.6
22,701.6
22,701.6
3,824.4
20%
0.0
0%
Discretionary 6,850.2
363.8
7,068.1
7,148.3
7,575.5
298.1
4%
427.2
6%
II: Conservation Programs
969.2
340.0
908.3
986.1
1,015.0
16.9
2%
29.0
3%
III: Rural Development
2,732.3
4,360.0
3,015.9
2,840.8
3,046.5
108.5
4%
205.7
7%
IV: Domestic Food Programs
76,155.2
20,741.0
86,310.4
86,096.4
86,087.4
9,941.3
13%
-9.0
-0.01%
Mandatory 68,921.2
20,091.0
78,144.1
78,146.4
78,146.4
9,225.3
13%
0.0
0%
Discretionary 7,234.0
650.0
8,166.3
7,950.0
7,941.0
716.0
10%
-9.0
-0.1%
V: Foreign Assistance
1,499.4
700.0
2,079.5
2,076.3
2,079.5
576.9
38%
3.2
0.2%
VI: FDA
2,051.4

2,350.1
2,350.1
2,350.1
298.7
15%
0.0
0%
CFTC
(146.0)k
160.6
160.6
(177.0)k 14.6 10%
16.4 10%
VII: General Provisions
-820.2

-674.9
-516.9
-530.4l 303.3 -37%
-13.5 3%
Total in Agriculture appropriations









Mandatory
87,798.4 20,823.0
100,845.7
100,848.1
100,848.1 13,049.7
15%
0.0
0%
Discretionary 20,516.3
6,413.8
23,074.0
22,995.2
23,477.2
2,478.9
12%
482.0
2%
Total in Agriculture appropriations
108,314.7
27,236.8
123,919.7
123,843.2
124,325.2
15,528.6
14%
482.0
0.4%
CFTC in Financial Services appropriations
146.0

na
na
177.0




Grand Total (adding CFTC to all)









Mandatory
87,798.4 20,823.0
100,845.7
100,848.1
100,848.1 13,049.7
15%
0.0
0%
Discretionary 20,662.3o 6,413.8 23,074.0
22,995.2
23,654.2o 2,332.9
11%
659.0
3%
Grand Total (adding CFTC to all)
108,460.7o 27,236.8n 123,919.7 123,843.2 124,502.2o 15,382.6
14%
659.0
0.5%
Source: Compiled by CRS from H.R. 2997, H.Rept. 111-181, S.Rept. 111-39, S. 1432, and S.Rept. 111-43.
CRS-15

---

.

Notes: Amounts in the regular FY2009 column do not include supplemental appropriations. A table in S.Rept. 111-39 has greater totals for FY2009 because it includes
supplemental appropriations. The total supplemental appropriation enacted in FY2009 (even if multi-year) is shown in a separate column in this table.
a. Includes four Under Secretary office: Research, Education and Economics; Marketing and Regulatory Programs; Food Safety; and Farm and Foreign Agriculture.
b. Includes Dairy Indemnity Program, State Mediation Grants, and Grassroots Source Water Protection Program.
c. In P.L. 111-5.
d. Includes the National Appeals Division; Office of Budget and Program Analysis; Advocacy and Outreach; Chief Financial Officer; Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights;
Office of Civil Rights; Assistant Secretary for Administration; Hazardous materials management; Departmental administration; Assistant Secretary for Congressional
Relations; Office of Communications; and General Counsel.
e. Includes regular FSA salaries and expenses, plus transfers for farm loan program salaries and expenses and farm loan program administrative expenses. Amounts
transferred from the Foreign Agricultural Service for export loans and P.L. 480 administration are included in the originating account.
f.
In two parts: in P.L. 111-5, $20 million of budget authority to support $173 million of loan authority; in P.L. 111-32, $71 million to support $810 million of loans.
g. Loan authority is the amount of loans that can be made or guaranteed with a loan subsidy. Loan authority is not added in the budget authority subtotals or totals.
h. Commodity Credit Corporation and Federal Crop Insurance Corporation receive “such sums as necessary.” Estimates are used in the appropriations bill reports.
i.
In the Senate bill, Resource Conservation and Development funding is part of Conservation Operations. Amounts in this table are adjusted to show it separately.
j.
In P.L. 111-32.
k. Amount was in Financial Services appropriations. Noted here for comparison with the House Agriculture appropriations bill.
l.
This amount corrects an apparent error in S.Rept. 111-39. It is $20 million less than the amount shown in S.Rept. 111-39 because the Senate’s General Provisions
limitation on the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is the same as in the House bill—a limit of $1.18 billion from a mandatory $1.45 billion
authorization, resulting in a $270 million reduction (not the $250 million reduction shown for EQIP in S.Rept. 111-39).
m. Amount does not include supplemental appropriations. In the Senate report, supplemental appropriations are included in the FY2009 amounts (specifical y, the amount
of supplemental funds scored for FY2009 only). Supplemental appropriations are a separate column in this table (the full amount of supplemental funds).
n. Subtotal from P.L. 111-5 is $26.5 billion, and from P.L. 111-32 is $771 million.
o. Includes CFTC funding that is not part of this Agricultural appropriation. Al ows for a more equal comparison with the House bill, which does include CFTC.
CRS-16

---

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

Limits on Mandatory Program Spending
In recent years, appropriators have placed limitations on mandatory spending authorized in the
farm bill. Mandatory programs usually are not part of the annual appropriations process since the
authorizing committees set the eligibility rules and payment formulas in multi-year authorizing
legislation (such as the 2008 farm bill). Funding for mandatory programs usually is assumed to be
available based on the authorization without appropriations action.
Passage of a new farm bill in 2008 made more mandatory funds available for programs that
appropriators or the Administration may want to reduce, either because of policy preferences or
jurisdictional issues between authorizers and appropriators.
Historically, decisions over government expenditures are assumed to rest with the appropriations
committees. The current tension over who should fund certain agriculture programs—
appropriators or authorizers—has roots dating to the 1930s and the creation of the farm
commodity programs. Outlays for the farm commodity programs were highly variable, difficult to
predict and appropriate, and based on multi-year programs that resembled entitlements. Thus, a
mandatory funding system—the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC)—was created to remove
the unpredictable funding issue from the appropriations committee. This separation worked for
many decades. But the dynamic changed particularly in the late 1990s and the 2002 farm bill
when authorizers began writing farm bills using mandatory funds for programs that typically
were discretionary. Appropriators had not funded some of these programs as much as authorizers
had desired, and agriculture authorizing committees wrote legislation with the mandatory funding
at their discretion. Thus, tension arose over who should fund these typically discretionary
activities: authorizers with mandatory funding sources at their disposal, or appropriators having
standard appropriating authority. Does creation of the CCC in the 1930s for the hard-to-predict
farm commodity programs justify modern mandatory spending on programs that are not highly
variable and typically considered discretionary?7
Appropriator-placed limits on mandatory programs have affected conservation, rural
development, bioenergy, and research programs. The limits have not affected the farm commodity
programs or the nutrition assistance programs such as food stamps, both of which are generally
accepted by appropriators as legitimate mandatory programs.
When the appropriators limit mandatory spending, they do not change the authorizing law.
Rather, appropriators have put limits on mandatory programs by using appropriations 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 $[ ... ].” These provisions usually have appeared in Title VII, General
Provisions, of the Agriculture appropriations bill.
For FY2010, the House-passed bill contains $435 million in reductions from two mandatory
conservation programs. This is a smaller reduction than the $511 million of reductions proposed
in the Senate-passed bill, which contains the same conservation program limitations8 plus a $76

7 Summarized from Galen Fountain, 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://www.usda.gov/oce/forum/2009_Speeches/Speeches/Fountain.pdf.
8 This amount corrects an apparent error in a table in S.Rept. 111-39. The Senate bill’s General Provisions limitation on
the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is the same as in the House bill—a limit of $1.18 billion from a
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
17

---

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

million limitation on a fruit and vegetable program for schools.9 The Administration proposed
even greater reductions totaling $582 million from nine mandatory programs (Table 5).
Table 5. FY2009 Reductions in Mandatory Programs
(dollars in millions)


FY2010
Authorization
in 2008 farm
bill available
Admin.
House-
Senate-
Program (authorizing section in farm bill P.L. 110-246)
in FY2010
request
passed
passed
Conservation programs




Environmental Quality Incentives Program (Sec. 2501)
1,450
-250
-270
-270a
Dam Rehabilitation Program (Sec. 2803)
165
-30 -165 -165
Wetlands Reserve Program (Sec. 2201)
473
-184

Farmland Protection Program (Sec. 2401)
150
-30

Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (Sec. 2602)
85
-43

Agricultural Management Assistance program (Sec. 2801)
15
-5

Healthy Forest Reserve (Sec. 8205)
10
-5

Subtotal of these 7 conservation programs
2,348
-547
-435
-435a
Plant and animal protection programs




Plant Pest, Disease Management, and Disaster Prevention (Sec. 10201)
45
-30

National Clean Plant Network (Sec. 10202)
5
-5

Subtotal of these 2 plant and animal protection programs
50
-35

Specialty crops programs




Fruit and vegetables in schools program (Sec. 4304)
101


-76
Total authorization in these 10 mandatory programs
2,499



Total reduction in mandatory programs

-582
-435
-511a
Source: CRS, based on P.L. 110-246; H.R. 2997, H.Rept. 111-181, and S.Rept. 111-39.
a. This amount corrects an apparent error in S.Rept. 111-39. It is $20 million less than the amount shown in
S.Rept. 111-39 because the Senate’s General Provisions limitation on the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program (EQIP) is the same as in the House bill—a limit of $1.18 billion from a mandatory $1.45 billion
authorization, resulting in a $270 million reduction (not the $250 million reduction shown for EQIP in
S.Rept. 111-39).

(...continued)
mandatory $1.45 billion authorization, resulting in a $270 million reduction (not the $250 million reduction shown for
EQIP in S.Rept. 111-39).
9 The underlying law (Section 4304 of the farm bill) provides funds at the beginning of every school year (each July),
e.g., $65 million in July 2009 and $101 million in July 2010. However, as was done for FY2009, the Senate bill
proposes to delay the availability of much of the $101 million scheduled for July 2010 until October 2010. It would
make $74 million available during FY2010 ($49 million from the delayed July 2009 distribution plus $25 million as the
first installment of the July 2010 amount). As a result, the Senate bill would effectively allocate the total mandatory
annual spending for the program by fiscal year rather than school year, with no reduction in overall support.
Congressional Research Service
18

---

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

Limits on mandatory programs in the FY2009 appropriation are comparable to the $484 million
of reductions in the enacted FY2009 Agriculture appropriation bill that affected the same three
programs as in the FY2010 Senate-passed bill. The proposed reductions, however, are not as large
as those during the height of the 2002 farm bill period that reached $1.5 billion in FY2006. Since
appropriators had garnered a reputation for limiting various mandatory programs in the 2002 farm
bill, authorizers in the agriculture committees chose to reduce or eliminate those programs when
savings needed to be scored during budget reconciliation in 2005. Thus, as the 2002 farm bill
ended by the FY2008 appropriations cycle, relatively little authorization was left among the
mandatory programs that the appropriators had limited from FY2003 to FY2006. Nonetheless,
passage of the 2008 farm bill—with a host of new and reauthorized mandatory conservation,
research, rural development, and bioenergy programs—creates new possibilities for appropriators
to limit mandatory programs.
Earmarks
Both the House and Senate adopted earmark disclosure rules in 2007 that require enacted
appropriations acts—in the report language—to disclose “earmarks and congressionally directed
spending items.” The disclosure includes the agency, project, amount, and requesting Member(s).
This list of earmarks is self-identified by Congress. Prior to FY2008, earmark lists were subject to
agency or analyst definitions as to what constituted an earmark.
Earmarks specified in a conference report generally are not considered to have the same force of
law as if they were in the text of the law itself. But in the past, executive branch agencies usually
have followed such directives since, when they testify before Congress, they do not wish to
explain why congressional directives were not followed. The FY2008 Consolidated
Appropriations Act varied in its treatment of earmarks in the bill text—some were mentioned in
the text of the law, some were incorporated by specific reference to the report language, and
others were printed in the report language without reference in the act. For the agriculture
earmarks, only three out of 623 were in the text of the FY2008 bill; the rest were in report
language without being referenced in the statute. In January 2008, President Bush issued
Executive Order 13457 instructing agencies not to honor earmarks unless they are in the text of
the law beginning in FY2009. In the FY2009 appropriations acts, appropriators responded to the
executive order by incorporating by reference in the statute the earmarks in the report language.10
The final number and amount of earmarks for FY2010 is yet to be determined. Separate House
and Senate earmark totals cannot yet be compared to prior years. Some earmarks are unique each
bill. Other earmarks are included in both bills but may have different amounts in each bill. Thus,
the total number and amount of earmarks for FY2010 will likely be less than the sum of earmarks
in the separate House and Senate bills due to double counting. At this point, the House bill
contains 322 earmarks totaling $219 million. The Senate bill contains 296 earmarks totaling
$220.7 million. Eventual conference report language will disclose the final FY2010 earmark list
to compare with FY2008 and FY2009.

10 For example, the bill text of P.L. 111-8 appropriates $1.14 billion for the Agricultural Research Service, “of which
$112,571,000 shall be for the purposes, and in the amounts, specified in the table titled ‘Agricultural Research Service,
Salaries and Expenses, Congressionally-designated Projects’ in the explanatory statement described in section 4 (in the
matter preceding division A of this consolidated Act).”
Congressional Research Service
19

---

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

For FY2009, Congress disclosed 521 earmarks for Agriculture and Related Agencies, down by
nearly 102 earmarks from FY2008 (-16%). The total amount of these earmarks was $379.6
million, down 6% from the amount in FY2008. Three USDA agencies—CSREES, ARS, and
NRCS—account for nearly 90% of the earmarks for Agriculture and Related Agencies (Table 6).
FY2009 earmarks for Agriculture and Related Agencies range from $9.5 million for an
Agricultural Research Service dietary research project to $36,000 for an Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service disease project. The median earmarked project size was $376,000. University
and extension service-based earmarks remained fairly constant into FY2009, declining 5% by
number and 9% by amount from FY2008. Although the number of in-house USDA Agricultural
Research Service earmarks decreased by 47%, the amount of ARS earmarks increased 10%.
Conservation earmarks decreased 16% by number and 23% by amount.
Table 6. Earmarks Disclosed by Congress

Number
Amount ($ million)
Agency
FY2008
FY2009 Change FY2008 FY2009 Change
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
Special Research Grants
191
183
-4%
92.4
84.5
-9%
Federal Administration
49
46
-6%
32.5
28.8
-11%
Extension 28
25
-11%
10.4
9.4
-10%
Subtotal,
CSREES
268 254 -5% 135.4 122.7 -9%
Agricultural Research Service
Salaries and Expenses
146
78
-47%
102.1
112.6
10%
Buildings and Facilities
25
24
-4%
47.1
46.8
-1%
Subtotal,
ARS
171 102 -40% 149.2 159.3 7%
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Conservation Operations
90
75
-17%
43.5
31.7
-27%
Watershed and Flood Prevention
25
22
-12%
28.0
23.6
-16%
Subtotal,
NRCS
115 97 -16% 71.5 55.3 -23%
Other agencies
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
57
53
-7%
27.5
24.0
-13%
Food and Drug Administration
9
9
0%
11.9
11.1
-7%
Rural Development
2
5
150%
4.5
4.9
9%
Food and Nutrition Service
1
1
0%
2.5
2.3
-5%
Total,
Agriculture
and
Related
Agencies 623 521 -16% 402.4 379.6 -6%
Source: CRS, compiled from “Disclosure of Earmarks and Congressional y Directed Spending Items” in
committee prints accompanying P.L. 110-161 and P.L. 111-8.
Congressional Research Service
20

---

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

USDA Agencies and Programs
For the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Agriculture and Related Agencies
appropriations bill covers all of USDA except for the Forest Service. This amounts to about 94%
of USDA’s total appropriation. The Forest Service is funded through the Interior appropriations
bill. The order of the following sections reflects the order that the agencies are listed in the
Agriculture appropriations bill. See Table 4 for more details on the amounts for specific agencies.
Agricultural Research, Education, and Extension
Four agencies carry out USDA’s research, education, and economics (REE) mission:
• The Agricultural Research Service (ARS), the Department’s intramural science
agency, conducts long-term, high-risk, basic and applied research on food and
agriculture issues of national and regional importance.
• The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
(CSREES)—replaced by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture
(NIFA) by the 2008 farm bill11—distributes federal funds to the land grant
colleges of agriculture to provide partial support for state-level research,
education, and extension programs.
• The Economic Research Service (ERS) provides economic analysis of
agriculture issues for public and private decisions on agriculture, natural
resources, food, and rural America.
• The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) collects and publishes
current national, state, and county agricultural statistics. NASS also is
responsible for administration of the Census of Agriculture, which occurs every
five years and provides comprehensive data on the U.S. agricultural economy.
The 2008 farm bill institutes significant changes in the structure of the REE mission area, but
retains and extends the existing authorities for REE programs. The farm bill called for the
establishment of a new agency called the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) by
October 1, 2009, which will replace CSREES. In addition, one program planning staff, called the
Research, Education, and Extension Office (REEO), will coordinate the activities of ARS, ERS,
NASS, and NIFA. Future budget requests for this mission area are to be in the form of a single
line item. The 2008 farm bill also provides mandatory funds for an expanded number of
competitive grant programs, including the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI),
which will be administered by NIFA, although it repeals the mandatory-funded Initiative for
Future Agriculture and Food Systems (established in 1998 legislation, but for which funding was
repeatedly blocked).

11Section 7511(f)(2) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 farm bill) amends the Department of
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6971) by establishing an agency to be known as the National
Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA). By October 1, 2009, the Secretary shall transfer to NIFA any and all
authorities administered by the Administrator of the Cooperative State, Research, Education and Extension Service.
Congressional Research Service
21

---

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

When adjusted for inflation, USDA-funding levels for agriculture research, education, and
extension have remained relatively flat from 1970 to 2000.12 From FY2001 through FY2003,
supplemental funds appropriated specifically for anti-terrorism activities, not basic programs,
accounted for most of the increases in the USDA research budget. Funding levels since have
trended downward to historic levels (Figure 5), although ARS received supplemental funding for
buildings and facilities in FY2009. ARS and CSREES account for most of the research budget
and their appropriations generally have tracked each other (Figure 6).
In an effort to find new money to boost the availability of competitive grants in the REE mission
area, the House and Senate Agriculture Committees have tapped sources of available funds from
the mandatory side of USDA’s budget and elsewhere (e.g., the U.S. Treasury) twice since 1997.
However, in every year except FY1999, the annual Agriculture appropriations act prohibited the
use of those mandatory funds for the purposes the agriculture committees intended. On the other
hand, in many years during the FY1999-FY2006 period, appropriations conferees provided more
discretionary funds for ongoing REE programs than were contained in either the House- or
Senate-passed versions of the bills. Nonetheless, once adjusted for inflation, these increases are
not viewed by some as significant growth in spending for agricultural research. Agricultural
scientists, stakeholders, and partners express concern for funding over the long term.
Figure 5. USDA Research Budget:
Figure 6. ARS and CSREES Budget:
FY1990-FY2010
FY1990-FY2010
Billion
Billion
$3.5
$1.6
$1.4
$3.0
$1.2
$2.5
$1.0
$2.0
$0.8
$1.5
$0.6
$1.0
Actual
2008 dollars
ARS
NIFA (CSREES)
$0.4
2010 House ARS
2010 Senate ARS
2010 House
2010 Senate
$0.5
$0.2
2010 House NIFA
2010 Senate NIFA
$0.0
$0.0
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Source: CRS, based on appropriations committee reports

Source: CRS, based on appropriations committee reports

Source: CRS, using appropriations committee data.
Source: CRS, using appropriations committee data.
Notes: Includes supplemental appropriations.
Notes: Includes supplemental appropriations.
Agricultural Research Service
The House bill provides a total of $1.19 billion for USDA’s in-house science agency, the
Agricultural Research Service (ARS), which is 3.4% more than the Administration’s request, and
a less than 1% increase to the regular amount available in FY2009. The research priorities in the

12 Based on analysis of USDA data.
Congressional Research Service
22

---

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

House bill coincided with the Administration’s, and included initiatives on preventing childhood
obesity, developing new bio-energy feedstocks, assessing and managing climate change, and
reducing world hunger. The President’s request included no funds for upgrading laboratories and
facilities, and it decreased funding for crop and livestock production and protection programs,
which accounts for the $39 million difference when compared to the House bill. The Senate bill
provides $1.23 billion for ARS and similarly prioritizes bio-energy and human nutrition issues
including obesity. The Senate bill also increases funding for research on colony collapse disorder
(CCD) and its impacts on pollinator species, and for efforts to speed development of wheat
varieties resistant to Ug99, wheat stem rust. The Senate bill also includes funds to begin
transitioning the activities of the Plum Island Animal Disease Center to the National Bio- and
Agro-Defense Facility, which was selected by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to be
located on the campus of Kansas State University.13 Both the House and Senate bills do not
support the Administration’s proposal to transfer the Office of Pest Management Policy from
ARS to the Office of the Chief Economist.
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
The 2008 farm bill establishes a new agency called the National Institute of Food and Agriculture
(NIFA), which will replace the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
(CSREES). The farm bill requires that the Secretary transfer all authorities administered by
CSREES to NIFA by October 1, 2009. Like CSREES, NIFA will be the primary extramural
funding agency for food and agricultural research at the USDA, and its mission continues to be to
work with university partners to advance research, extension, and higher education in the food
and agricultural sciences and related environmental and human sciences to benefit people,
communities, and the nation. NIFA will administer competitive grants, special research grants,
federal administration grants, and the so-called formula funds for research and extension.14
The House bill provides a total of $1.26 billion for NIFA, or a 2.8% increase over FY2009 and a
7.7% increase over the Administration’s request for FY2010 (Table 7). The Senate bill provides
$1.31 billion, or an additional 3.9% over the House-passed bill, where much of this increase is
due to a higher allocation of resources to competitive grant programs The Administration
requested $622.9 million for research and education, $487.0 million for extension activities, and
$56.9 million for integrated activities.15 The House bill provides $711.5 million, $485.5 million,

13 However, funding for construction of the new facility was restricted in the FY2009 DHS appropriation (P.L. 110-
329) until DHS conducted a risk assessment on whether foot-and-mouth disease research can be done safely on the
mainland and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reviewed the risk assessment. The GAO report
(Observations on DHS’s Analysis Concerning Whether FMD Research Can Be Done as Safely on the Mainland as on
Plum Island, GAO-09-747, July 30, 2009, at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09747.pdf) concluded that DHS’s
assertion of safety is not supported (p. 46). Both the FY2010 House-passed and Senate-passed DHS appropriation
(H.R. 2892) would continue the restriction on construction pending more reports (the House bill would require an
outside/independent risk assessment; the Senate bill would require an internal mitigation assessment or response plan).
For more background on the new research facility, see CRS Report RL34160, The National Bio- and Agro-Defense
Facility: Issues for Congress, by Dana A. Shea, Jim Monke, and Frank Gottron.
14 CSREES provides support for research and extension activities at land-grant institutions through grants to the states
using statutory census-based formulas. For instance, federal funding for research at state agricultural experiment
stations and for cooperative extension is authorized under the Hatch Act of 1887 and the Smith-Lever Act of 1914,
respectively. Eligibility is limited to the cooperating institutions, most of which are 1862, 1890, and 1994 land-grant
institutions.
15 Integrated activities include competitive grants for cross-cutting work in areas such as water quality, food safety,
organic agriculture, and pest management.
Congressional Research Service
23

---

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

and $60 million for research, extension and integrated programs, respectively; and the Senate bill
provides $757.8 million, $491.3 million, and $56.9 million, also respectively. The
Administration’s request for research and education activities was considerably lower than levels
enacted in FY2009 because the Administration removed most of the special and federally
administered grants. Both the House and Senate bills include funds for these earmarked grant
programs, and the Senate bill in particular includes a substantial increase in funding for
competitive grants program, specifically the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI).
Table 7. National Institute of Food and Agriculture Appropriations, FY2009-2010
(budget authority in millions of dollars)



Change


FY2010
House over FY2009
Senate over House
Admin.
House-
Senate-
NIFA activity
FY2009
request
passed
passed
Dollar Percent Dollar Percent
Research and education
691.0
622.9
711.5
757.8
20.5
3.0
46.3
6.5
Extension
474.3
487.0
485.5
491.3
11.2
2.4
5.8
1.2
Integrated activities
56.9
56.9
60.0
56.9
3.1
5.4
-3.1
-5.2
Total 1,222.2
1,166.8
1,257.0
1,306.0
34.8
2.8
49.0
3.9
Source: Compiled by CRS, from H.R. 2997, H.Rept. 111-181, and S.Rept. 111-39.
The House and Senate bills both had modest increases for research and education activities
provided for by formula fund programs. Both the House and Senate bills provide $215 million for
the Hatch Act formula fund program that supports State Agriculture Experiment Stations (SAES),
which is 3.8% over the $207.1 million enacted in FY2009 and the Administration’s request for
FY2010. The Administration requested $27.5 million for the McIntire-Stennis formula fund
program for Cooperative Forestry Research, similar to FY2009 levels, while the House-passed
bill provides $28.0 million and the Senate-passed bill provides $30 million. There were no real
differences between the Administration’s request and the levels requested in the House and
Senate bills for other special programs such as the Improved Pest Control program or the
Sustainable Agriculture programs.
The farm bill authorizes appropriations of $700 million annually for the newly created
competitive grant program, called the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI). The
AFRI program is funded at $210 million in the House bill and at $295.1 million in the Senate bill,
both increases over the $201.5 million enacted in FY2009 and the level requested by the
Administration for FY2010. AFRI replaces two other grant programs: the Initiative for Future
Agriculture and Food Systems (IFAFS), which has an emphasis on more applied research, and the
National Research Initiative (NRI) competitive grants program, whose emphasis is more on
fundamental, or basic, research. Both of these grant programs were eliminated in the 2008 farm
bill.
All three FY2010 funding proposals increase the levels of funding for extension relative to
FY2009. The Administration’s request differs significantly from the House and Senate bills,
however, in that it removes most federally administered grants and decreases the allocation of
Smith-Lever formula funds (Sections 3(b) and (c)) for extension. The Administration’s request
instead includes additional funding for Smith-Lever 3(d) competitive programs, specifically $28.0
Congressional Research Service
24

---

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

million for the Improve Rural Quality of Life program, which is part of the President’s $70
million Rural Revitalization Initiative to improve the rural economy. The House and Senate bills
do not include any funds for this rural economic development program.
Economic Research and Agricultural Statistics
The House-passed bill provides $82.5 million for USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS),
which is basically equivalent to the Administration’s request and 4% more than FY2009. The
Senate-passed bill provides $82.1 million, a smaller increase of 3%.
National Agricultural Statistics Service
Similar to the President’s request, both the House-passed and Senate-passed bills provide $161.8
million for the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), which is an increase of $10.3
million above the amount available for FY2009. The increase includes $5.75 million for the
restoration of the Agricultural Chemical Use program. Additional funds are included for the
analysis of bio-energy production and utilization from agricultural systems.
For more information on USDA research, education, and extension programs, see CRS Report
RL34352, Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education: Farm Bill Issues, by Melissa D. Ho.
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 Service
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (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. APHIS
has key responsibilities for dealing with such prominent concerns as avian influenza (AI), bovine
spongiform encephalopathy (BSE or “mad cow disease”), bovine tuberculosis, a growing number
of invasive plant pests—such as the Emerald Ash Borer, the Asian Long-horned Beetle, and the
Glassy-winged Sharpshooter—and a national animal identification (ID) program for animal
disease tracking and control, among other things. APHIS is also the USDA agency charged with
administering the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), which seeks to protect pets and other animals used
for research and entertainment.
Total appropriations for APHIS differ by $30.4 million between the House-passed ($885.7
million) and the Senate-passed ($916.1 million) bills. This difference is attributable to differences
in APHIS “salaries and expenses:” $881.0 million (House bill) and $911.4 million (Senate bill).16

16 During the Senate floor debate, S.Amdt. 2271 was approved to provide $2 million for the school community garden
pilot program established under Section 18(g)(3) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C.
1769(g)(3)) garden pilot program, with an offset “derived by transfer of the amount made available under the heading
‘Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’ of title I for ‘salaries and expenses’.” However, the engrossed
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
25

---

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

Both bills authorize $4.7 million for buildings and facilities. Both the House-passed and Senate-
passed bills provide more compared to the President’s FY2009 budget request of $877.1 million
and the FY2008 level of $881.4 million.
Within total APHIS appropriations, both the House- and Senate-passed bills highlight identical
funding for certain identified programs, including $2.1 million to control of outbreaks of insects,
plant diseases, animal diseases under emergency conditions; $23.4 million for the cotton pests
program for cost share purposes or for debt retirement for active eradication zones; $60.2 million
to prevent and control avian influenza; $22.5 million for animal care, and $10.1 million for
management initiatives. The Senate-passed bill also would provide $18.1 million for certain
congressionally designated projects and $7.3 million for a National Animal Identification System
program (more than the House’s zero amount, as discussed below).
Both the House and Senate bills identify some of the same requirements and restrictions within
various provisions, including requirements on the transfer of funds to address emergencies, a
requirement that matching state funds be at least 40% for formulating and administer a brucellosis
eradication program, and limitations on the operation and maintenance of aircrafts and aircraft
purchases. During the Senate floor debate, S.Amdt. 2241 was approved, increasing funding for
USDA’s tuberculosis program by $2 million to at least $17.8 million, including at least
$3,000,000 for tuberculosis indemnity and depopulation.
Within the APHIS appropriation, the House-passed bill provides less than the Senate-passed bill
for the following categories: pest and disease eradication ($163.4 million in the House compared
to $166.7 million in the Senate bill); plant and animal health monitoring ($242.3 million in the
House compared to $257.7 million in the Senate); pest and disease management ($359.4 million
in the House; $366.6 million in the Senate); and scientific and technical services ($83.2 million in
the House compared to $87.7 million in the Senate bill).
Among APHIS allocations noted in the Senate committee report were $14.0 million for Animal
and Plant Health Regulatory Enforcement, which includes increased funding to hire and train
investigators to address increased violations at major ports of entry referred by U.S. Customs and
Border Protection and support Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.) compliance
inspections. The Senate report also recommends $28.1 million for pest detection, including
$619,000 to continue the California County Pest Detection Augmentation Program for a statewide
network of insect traps and other detection tools to serve as an early warning system against
serious agricultural pests in the State of California, and $738,000 for import inspections at points
of entry in California to prevent the establishment of serious agricultural and environmental
invasive pests and diseases.
National Animal Identification System
Within the “Animal Health Monitoring and Surveillance” spending area, the largest difference
between the House- and Senate-passed bills is attributable to appropriations for a National
Animal Identification System (NAIS) program. Since FY2004, approximately $142 million has
been appropriated for NAIS, including $14.5 million in FY2009. The Administration proposed

(...continued)
amendment as agreed to by the Senate continues to cite $911,394,000 for APHIS salaries and expenses.

Congressional Research Service
26

---

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

slightly increasing the funding for NAIS to $14.6 million in FY2010. However, the House-passed
bill would eliminate all funding for NAIS for FY2010 and the Senate would provide only half the
requested amount.
In its report, the House Agriculture Committee stated that, until USDA provides specific details
on implementing “an improved animal identification system, continued investments into the
current NAIS are unwarranted.” At the end of FY2008, 485,539 premises (or about 35%) were
registered under NAIS, out of an estimated 1.4 million U.S. animal and poultry operations. USDA
has stated that much higher levels of participation are needed to successfully implement NAIS.
The Senate-reported version of H.R. 2997 (S. 1406) originally provided for the entire $14.6
million proposed by the Administration.17 An amendment to zero out Senate funding for NAIS
failed to pass in committee; however, a floor amendment (S.Amdt. 2230; introduced by Senators
Tester and Enzi) was passed on August 3, 2009, to reduce the Senate FY2010 funding to $7.3
million. The successful amendment explicitly restricts use of FY2010 funds to ongoing NAIS
activities and purposes related to rulemaking for the program. House and Senate differences in
NAIS funding for FY2010 will have to be resolved in conference. (See CRS Report RS22653,
Animal Identification: Overview and Issues, by Geoffrey S. Becker.)
Emerging Plant Pests
The emerging plant pests (EPP) account within the “Pest and Disease Management” spending
area is funded at $156.8 million in the House-passed bill and $159.3 million in the Senate-passed
bill in FY2010. This compares with an Administration request of $143.8 million and a FY2009
level of $133.7 million. The respective committee reports further specify how most of this money
should be divided among plant problems of major concern.
Both the House (H.Rept. 111-181) and Senate (S.Rept. 111-39) committee reports identify $23.0
million for Glassy-winged Sharpshooter/Pierce’s Disease; $5.3 million for Sudden Oak Death;18
$2.2 for Karnal Bunt; $8.3 million for Potato Cyst Nematode; $1.0 million for Light Brown
Apple Moth; $1.5 million for Sirex Woodwasp; and $2.1 million for other miscellaneous pests
and diseases. Differences in funding levels are as follows. The House committee identifies $43.7
million for citrus pests and diseases; $35.0 million for Asian Longhorned Beetle; and $34.7
million for Emerald Ash Borer. The Senate committee identifies $45.7 million for citrus pests and
diseases; $30.0 million for Asian Longhorned Beetle; and $39.7 million for Emerald Ash Borer.19
The Senate Committee report also provides $469,000 to be used for Varroa mite suppression in
Hawaii, in connection with concerns about colony collapse disorder among honey bees.20

17 The Senate committee report further recommends funding of $343,000 to allow additional producers to participate in
the National Farm Animal Identification and Records Project, which electronically identifies individual animals and
tracks their movements from birth to slaughter within 48 hours in order to combat animal disease outbreaks.
18 Both committees also encourages APHIS to continue supporting projects to develop best management practices to
manage Sudden Oak Death in nurseries.
19 The Senate Committee notes that “further efforts are required to manage the spread of emerald ash borer and develop
techniques and technologies to eradicate this species.”
20 Other funding to address colony collapse disorder is provided as part of USDA’s Agricultural Research Service
(ARS) funding for honey bee research.
Congressional Research Service
27

---

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

More generally, the Administration 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 EPP and other
plant and animal health problems on an emergency basis, or be provided the funds primarily
through the annual USDA appropriation, as the Administration and OMB have argued. Both the
House and Senate committee reports continue to state that the committees expect the Secretary of
Agriculture to continue to use the authority provided in this bill to transfer CCC funds for
activities related to the arrest and eradication of animal and plant pests and diseases. The House
report further states that “by providing funds in this account, the Committee is enhancing, but not
replacing, the use of CCC funding for emergency outbreaks.”
Agricultural Marketing Service and Section 32
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is responsible for promoting the marketing and
distribution of U.S. agricultural products in domestic and international markets. User fees and
reimbursements, rather than appropriated funds, account for a substantial portion of spending by
the agency. Such fees, which now cover AMS activities like product quality and process
verification programs, commodity grading, and Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act
licensing, total about $140 million.
AMS historically receives additional funding each year through two separate appropriations
mechanisms—the direct annual USDA appropriation and a transfer from the so-called Section 32
account. 21
For FY2010, both the House-passed and the Senate-passed agricultural appropriation bills
provide $91 million (the same as the President’s request), compared with $87 million in the
enacted FY2009 omnibus bill and $77 million in actual FY2008 outlays. Also under the AMS
Marketing Services account, $6.7 million is provided for the National Organic Program.
Payments to states total $1.3 million under the Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program
(FSMIP).
The Section 32 program is funded by a permanent appropriation of 30% of the previous calendar
year’s customs receipts, less certain mandatory transfers. Both the House and Senate-passed bills
estimate the amount available to fund Section 32 activities at $1,300 million compared with
$1,169 million in the FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act. This amount has been used, at the
Secretary’s discretion, primarily to fund commodity purchases for school lunch and other
domestic programs and support farm prices, and to provide disaster assistance.
Rescissions of Section 32 carryover funds are generally used to achieve budgetary savings. The
appropriation for FY2010 contains, under Title VII (General Provisions) a rescission of $52
million from unobligated balances carried over from FY2009.

21 Section 32 funding comes from a permanent appropriation equivalent to 30% of annual U.S. Customs receipts. AMS
uses these additional Section 32 monies (also not reflected in the above totals) to pay for a variety of programs and
activities, notably child nutrition, and government purchases of surplus farm commodities not supported by ongoing
farm price support programs. For an explanation of this account and more details on the farm bill change, see CRS
Report RL34081, Farm and Food Support Under USDA’s Section 32 Program, by Geoffrey S. Becker.
Congressional Research Service
28

---

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

The 2008 farm bill also effectively sets new annual caps on how much Section 32 money is
available for other activities, the most significant being the purchase of surplus agricultural
commodities. These caps are intended as a way to fund a fresh produce program for school
nutrition programs and a computer system for commodity purchase support; without raising
spending above the budget baseline, as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The
farm bill cap for FY2009 was set at $1,173 million; and the enacted omnibus lowered that to
$1,072 million. The apparent effect of this reduction could be to free up additional Section 32
money (i.e., $101 million) that the committee presumably had redirected toward other programs
in its bill. The farm bill cap for FY2010 is $1,199 million, and was not reduced in the House or
Senate appropriation bills.
The 2008 farm bill also requires $199 million of Section 32 funds be used during FY2010 to
purchase fruit, vegetables, and nuts for domestic food assistance programs.
Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration
One branch of the Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) establishes
the official U.S. standards for inspection and grading of grain and other commodities. Another
branch is charged with ensuring competition and fair-trading practices in livestock and meat
markets.
In FY2009, $40.3 million was provided for GIPSA salaries and expenses. Both the
Administration and the House bill propose that FY2010 funding for GIPSA be increased by $1.6
million to $42 million, including $900,000 for increased staff for the Packers and Stockyards
program to strengthen the agency’s compliance, investigative, and enforcement activities in the
field. In contrast, the Senate version proposes a slightly smaller funding increase of $1.2 million
to $41.6 million for FY2010.
Agency activities also are supported by user fees, amounting to approximately $42.5 million
annually or about half the agency’s overall budget. The Administration again proposed additional
user fees—to take effect after FY2010—to offset some grain inspection and Packers and
Stockyards (P&S) activities, to recoup an estimated $27 million annually; the FY2010 report did
not make note of this proposal, which would require authorizing legislation.
Meat and Poultry Inspection
USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) conducts mandatory inspection of meat,
poultry, and processed egg products to insure their safety and proper labeling. Both the House-
passed and Senate-passed versions would provide $1.019 billion, which is the Administration-
requested level and an increase over the enacted FY2009 level of $971.6 million.
This congressional appropriation would be augmented in FY2010 by existing (currently
authorized) user fees, which FSIS had earlier estimated would total approximately $150 million.
Neither the House nor Senate version recommends the adoption of a new user fee, proposed by
the Administration, to be charged establishments involved in product retesting, recalls, or illness
outbreaks. Estimated revenue from this fee, which would require new authorizing legislation, was
$4 million.
Congressional Research Service
29

---

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

As in past years, both versions of the bill would direct that $3 million of the total be obligated to
maintain the Humane Animal Tracking System. Both also would require that a minimum number
of staff positions be devoted solely to inspections and enforcement under the Humane Methods of
Slaughter Act: the House-passed bill would set the minimum at 120 positions and the Senate bill
at 150. The House bill contains a provision (not in the Senate version) that would continue a
prohibition on the use of funds or user fees to inspect horses destined for human food.
The House and Senate bills differ over the issue of permitting poultry products to be imported
into the United States from China. FSIS had published a final rule on April 24, 2006, that would
allow certain poultry products processed in China to be imported into the United States. However,
USDA appropriation measures for recent years have prohibited FSIS from using funds to
implement the rule. The House-passed bill (Section 723) would continue this prohibition. The
Senate version (Section 744) would permit such imports but only under specified preconditions.
These conditions include a formal commitment in advance by the Secretary of Agriculture to
conduct audits of Chinese inspection systems, on-site reviews of slaughter and processing
facilities, laboratories, and other controls operations before any Chinese facilities can be certified
to export “fully cooked poultry products” to the United States. The Secretary also must commit in
advance “to implement a significantly increased level of port of entry inspection” and “to conduct
information sharing” with other countries that permit Chinese poultry products regarding their
audits and inspections of Chinese facilities.
Many food safety advocates are supportive of the House appropriations language banning the
poultry rule, arguing that China—the third leading foreign supplier of food and agricultural
imports into the United States—lacks effective food safety protections, and that the 2006 rule was
rushed into approval without an adequate safety evaluation. Opponents of a ban, particularly
those in the U.S. animal industries, argue that it undermines U.S. trade commitments, and already
is leading to trade retaliation by the Chinese.
For details on the Chinese imports issue, see CRS Report R40706, China-U.S. Poultry Dispute,
by Geoffrey S. Becker. For background on food safety generally, see CRS Report RL32922,
Meat and Poultry Inspection: Background and Selected Issues, by Geoffrey S. Becker.
Farm Service Agency
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, certain mandatory conservation programs (in cooperation with
the Natural Resources Conservation Service), and certain international food assistance and export
credit programs (in cooperation with the Foreign Agriculture Service).
FSA Salaries and Expenses
All of the administrative funds used by FSA to carry out its programs are consolidated into one
account. A direct appropriation for FSA salaries and expenses pays to carry out the activities such
as the farm commodity programs. Transfers are received for administration of CCC export credit
guarantees, P.L. 480 loans, and the farm loan programs.
Congressional Research Service
30

---

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

This section discusses amounts for regular FSA salaries and expenses, plus transfers for the
salaries and expenses of the farm loan programs. Amounts transferred to FSA for export programs
and P.L. 480 are included with the originating account.
The FY2010 amounts proposed in the House and Senate-passed bills for regular FSA salaries and
expenses are nearly the same, at about $1.574 billion (before accounting for disaster relief in the
Senate bill, discussed in the next paragraph). The Senate-passed bill would provide $519,000
more (+0.03%) than the House bill, due to amendments in the House bill that used FSA salaries
expenses to offset increases elsewhere in the bill. These totals are about $5 million less than the
Administration’s request, but about $87 million more (+6%) than the regular FY2009
appropriation. The increase over FY2009 is for information technology improvements and routine
pay cost (salary) adjustments.
Unlike recent appropriations bills through FY2008, the FY2010 bills do not contain language
prohibiting closure of FSA county offices. That language was incorporated into the 2008 farm bill
as a two-year prohibition, with certain exceptions (P.L. 110-246, Sec. 14212).
Dairy Disaster Assistance
In addition to the amounts above, the Senate-passed bill includes an additional $350 million in
FSA salaries and expenses, ostensibly for dairy disaster assistance. The text of this Sanders
amendment (S.Amdt. 2276) simply increases FSA salaries and expenses without stating a
purpose, but floor statements and press releases by Senator Sanders indicate that the purpose is to
increase dairy price support levels.22 The amendment was one of the more controversial Senate
floor amendments since it was designated emergency funding and was not offset elsewhere in the
bill. The amendment itself was adopted by voice vote, after a procedural vote of 60-37 to waive
budget rules to allow the bill to exceed its 302(b) appropriations subcommittee allocation. The
House-passed bill does not have a similar provision.
In the past, other disaster assistance provisions provided funds to the Secretary or instructed
payments to come from the Commodity Credit Corporation, rather than increasing FSA salaries
and expenses.
For more background on the economic forces affecting the dairy sector, see CRS Report R40205,
Dairy Market and Policy Issues, by Dennis A. Shields.
Information Technology
Both the House and Senate bills include the Administration’s requested funding for FSA’s
computer infrastructure. The Administration requested $67.3 million for FY2010 for information
technology ($20.4 million for stabilization, and $46.9 million for modernization). The House
committee report requests a series of reports from UDSA on the progress of improvements to
FSA’s information technology, especially relating to department-wide computer improvements. It
also requests reports on the use of past- and current-year information technology appropriations,
noting the cost, schedule, and achievement of computer modernization milestones.

22 Congressional Record, August 4, 2009, p. S8714. See also Senator Sanders’s press release, “Senate Approves Help
for Dairy Farmers,” August 4, 2009, http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=a8567c42-8810-4e1d-a752-
5776662bc0ac.
Congressional Research Service
31

---

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

For many years, FSA has had problems with an outdated mainframe computer system. Its service
to farmers—particularly through its network of county offices where enrollment and verification
occurs—has been jeopardized by computer malfunctions. At one time in 2007, the computer
system would fail daily or county offices would be rationed in the amount of time they would be
allowed to use or access their computers because of overloading the system. Data processing
requirements are increasing with each farm bill, and the 2008 farm bill’s new Average Crop
Revenue Election (ACRE) and adjusted gross income limits are expected to further stress the
antiquated computer system. For many years, FSA has sought increased funding for computers,
and to some extent partial funding has been appropriated through annual appropriations bills, but
the computer problems have continued.
Following the 2007 computer system failures, USDA developed a “stabilization and
modernization” plan in consultation with industry experts.23 The stabilization plan is meant to
shore up the current computer system while upgrades are implemented and prepare it for
migration to the new system. The modernization plan (called MIDAS, “modernize and innovate
the delivery of agricultural systems”) would replace antiquated mainframe hardware that relies on
the outdated COBOL computer language with a modern Web-based system.
A May 2008 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) finds that the USDA plan
addresses technical issues, but lacks details in the business plan for efficient implementation.24
The regular FY2009 FSA appropriation noted $22 million for information technology expenses
and stabilization of the existing network, and the economic stimulus act (ARRA, P.L. 111-5)
provided another $50 million for maintaining and modernizing FSA’s computer system. These
amounts address “stabilization” and a limited amount of “modernization” of the existing outdated
USDA mainframe system. Additional appropriations for modernization (about $266 million) will
be needed after FY2010, according to USDA’s plans.25
FSA Farm Loan Programs
The USDA Farm Service Agency serves as 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
subsidized interest rate.
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

23 USDA Farm Service Agency, Farm Service Agency Modernization and IT Stabilization Plan: Response to
Congressional Directives, August 2008. FSA expects to fund an additional estimated $20 million in annual operations
costs for MIDAS from its annual salaries and expenses appropriation.
24 Government Accountability Office, Agriculture Needs to Strengthen Management Practices for Stabilizing and
Modernizing Its Farm Program Delivery Systems, GAO-08-657, May 2008, at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/
d08657.pdf.
25 USDA, FY2010 USDA Budget Explanatory Notes for Committee on Appropriations, p. 18-15, at
http://www.obpa.usda.gov/18fsa2010notes.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
32

---

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

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.
The House-passed and Senate-passed bills concur with the Administration’s request and are
identical for essentially all of the farm loan programs, except for the small Indian tribe land
acquisition program. The bills contain $104 million of budget authority to support $4.15 billion
of loan authority (Table 8). This is $722 million more of loan authority (+21%) than the regular
loan authority for FY2009, but with $43 million less in budget authority (-29%).
The FY2010 bill incorporates for the first time the 2008 farm bill authorizations for the new
conservation loan program and Indian highly fractured land loans. These programs account for
nearly a quarter of the increase in loan authority over FY2009 ($160 million of the $722 million).
The rest of the increase over FY2009 is split among the traditional direct and guaranteed farm
operating and farm ownership loan programs, with the biggest percentage increase going to the
direct farm ownership program (up 77% over the regular FY2009 appropriation). Other loan
program increases include a 21% increase in guaranteed farm ownership loans, 22% for direct
farm operating loans, and 13% for guaranteed unsubsidized farm operating loans. These
increases are needed to meet the increased demand for USDA loans and guarantees as a result of
the global financial crisis (described below), but are not as large as the supplemental funding
enacted for FY2009. The guaranteed interest assistance operating loan program is slated for
nearly a 50% reduction, consistent with the internal transfer UDSA made from the program in
FY2009, and the lower demand for the program in the current low interest rate environment.
FSA has experienced higher demand for its loans in FY2009, given the financial pressures of the
global financial crisis.26 An unusually high number of direct operating loan applications are from
new customers: 45% this year compared with about 20% usually.27
Because of this increased demand, Congress made two supplemental appropriations in FY2009
for FSA farm loans and USDA made an internal transfer within the loan program. These
supplemental appropriations and transfers more than doubled the loan authority for the direct loan
programs and increased the guaranteed unsubsidized operating loan program by nearly 20%. By
September 2009, USDA had used 93% of all its FY2009 loan authority, including supplemental
appropriations and transfers (Table 8).

26 See CRS Report RS21977, Agricultural Credit: Institutions and Issues, by Jim Monke.
27 Doug Caruso, FSA Administrator, in testimony before the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit,
Energy and Research, June 11, 2009, at http://agriculture.house.gov/testimony/111/h061109sc/Caruso.doc.
Congressional Research Service
33

---

.

Table 8. USDA Farm Loans: Budget and Loan Authority in FY2009
(dollars in millions)

FY2009
FY2010
Change
Supplemental
Appropriations (P.L.
111-5, P.L. 111-32)
Regular Appropriation
and USDA internal
Loan
FY2010 (Senate) over

(P.L. 111-8)
transfera
authority
House-passed
Senate-passed
Regular FY2009
used
Budget
Loan
Budget
Loan
through
Budget
Loan
Budget
Loan
Budget
Loan
FSA Farm Loan Program
Authority Authority Authority Authority
9/1/09
Authority Authority Authority Authority Authority Authority
Farm ownership loans











Direct
13 222 23 360 99% 16 393 16 393 3 171
Guaranteed
4 1,239


91% 6 1,500
6 1,500
1 261
Farm operating loans











Direct 68
575
81a 683a 89% 33 700 33 700 -35 125
Guaranteed (unsubsidized)
25
1,017
5a 193a 100% 27 1,150 27 1,150
2 133
Guaranteed (interest assistance)
37
270
-17a -120a 100% 20 144 20 144 -17 -126
Indian tribe land acquisition
0.2
4


0%
0
4
0
2
-0.2
-2
Indian highly fractured land loans





0.8
10
0.8
10
0.8
10
Bol weevil eradication loans
0
100


86%
0
100
0
100
0
0
Conservation loans











Direct

1.1
75 1.1
75 1.1
75
Guaranteed

0.3
75 0.3
75 0.3
75
Total 147
3,428
92
1,117a 93%
104
4,151 104
4,149 -43 722
Source: CRS compilation from P.L. 111-5; P.L. 111-8; P.L. 111-32; H.R. 2997; H.Rept. 111-181; S. 1406; S.Rept. 111-39; USDA Farm Service Agency, ”Funding,” at
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=fmlp&topic=fun; and Associated Press, “Shift in Loan Funds could help Colorado farmers,” May 9, 2009.
Notes: Budget authority reflects the cost of making loans, such as interest subsidies and default. Loan authority reflects the amount of loans that FSA may make or guarantee.
a. Incorporates CRS calculations for a portion of the USDA internal transfer, based on the common ratio of loan authority-to-budget authority for each loan type in P.L.
111-8 and P.L. 111-5. For a listing of the separate amounts in the supplementals and the USDA internal transfer, see CRS Report R40000, Agriculture and Related
Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations, coordinated by Jim Monke.
CRS-34

---

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

Commodity Credit Corporation
The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) is the funding mechanism for the mandatory subsidy
payments that farmers receive. (Discretionary appropriations for Farm Service Agency salaries
and expenses pay for administration of the programs.) Most spending for USDA’s mandatory
agriculture and conservation programs was authorized by the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246).28
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 (15 U.S.C. 714 et seq.). These borrowed funds
finance spending for programs such as farm commodity subsidies and various conservation, trade,
and rural development programs. Emergency supplemental spending also has been paid from the
CCC over the years, particularly for ad hoc farm disaster payments, for direct market loss
payments to growers of various commodities in response to low farm commodity prices, and for
animal and plant disease eradication efforts.
Although the CCC can borrow from the Treasury, it eventually must repay the funds it borrows. It
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 must be replenished periodically through a congressional appropriation so
that its $30 billion debt limit is not depleted. Congress generally provides this infusion through
the annual Agriculture appropriation law. In recent years, the CCC has received a “current
indefinite appropriation,” which provides “such sums as are necessary” during the fiscal year.
Mandatory outlays for the commodity programs rise and fall automatically based on economic or
weather conditions. Funding needs are difficult to estimate, which is a primary reason that the
programs are mandatory rather than discretionary. More or less of the Treasury line of credit may
be used year to year. Similarly, the congressional appropriation may not always restore the line of
credit to the previous year’s level, or may repay more than was spent. For these reasons, the
appropriation to the CCC may not reflect the outlays of the CCC for the agricultural programs.
Outlays (e.g., payments to farmers) in FY2010 will be funded initially through the borrowing
authority of the CCC and reimbursed to the Treasury through a separate (and possibly future)
appropriation.
USDA projects that CCC net expenditures will be $10.8 billion in FY2010, less than the $12.1
billion in FY2009 but more than the $8.2 billion in FY2008.29
To replenish CCC’s borrowing authority with the Treasury, the FY2010 House and Senate bills
concur with the Administration request for an indefinite appropriation (“such sums as necessary”)
for CCC. The appropriation is estimated to be $13.9 billion, up from an average of $12.3 billion
in FY2008-09 but down from $23 billion in FY2007. With these amounts of outlays and
appropriations, the CCC would have about $24 billion of its $30 billion line of credit available at
the end of the FY2010, consistent with prior years.30

28 For more information on the provisions of the farm bill, see CRS Report RL34696, The 2008 Farm Bill: Major
Provisions and Legislative Action, coordinated by Renée Johnson.
29 USDA-FSA, Commodity Estimates Book: FY2010 President’s Budget, “Output 7: CCC Financing Status,” May 7,
2009, at http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=about&subject=landing&topic=bap-bu-ce.
30 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
35

---

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

Crop Insurance
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. Policies are sold and completely 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.
The annual Agriculture appropriations bill traditionally makes two separate appropriations for the
federal crop insurance program. First, it provides discretionary funding for the salaries and
expenses of the RMA. Second, it provides “such sums as are necessary” for the Federal Crop
Insurance Fund, which finances all other expenses of the program, including premium subsidies,
indemnity payments, and reimbursements to the private insurance companies.
For the salaries and expenses of the RMA, the House-passed bill (H.R. 2997) contains $80.3
million, the same as the Administration’s request and 4% more than FY2009. The report language
in the House-passed bill directs part of the funding increase for additional staff to enhance
compliance and oversight work. The Senate-passed bill is $79.4 million, $0.9 million less than the
House-passed bill. Both bills allow RMA to tap mandatory money made available under the
Federal Crop Insurance Act for improving the agency’s information management system.
Appropriators in both chambers have concurred with the Administration estimate of the need for
an FY2010 appropriation of $7.5 billion for the Federal Crop Insurance Fund, although the
amount actually 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 Administration’s estimate
for the fund is higher in FY2010 than in FY2009 as crop prices—and associated crop values and
prospective losses—remain relatively high. Also, expenditures in FY2009 have been limited by
relatively low loss ratios (indemnities paid divided by premiums collected) for 2008 crops. More
than half of the crop insurance policies sold in recent years have been revenue products, which
provide protection against both a loss of yield and a decline in commodity prices.
For more information on crop insurance, see CRS Report R40532, Federal Crop Insurance:
Background and Issues, by Dennis A. Shields.
Conservation
The House- and Senate-passed bills provide increased funding for discretionary Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS) programs, rejecting many of the Administration’s proposed
reductions. Both bills make few changes to mandatory programs.
Discretionary Programs
The House-passed bill provides $986.1 total for FY2010 discretionary conservation programs and
the Senate-passed bill provides $1.015 billion total. The House bill provides $16.9 million (+2%)
more than was provided in FY2009 and $77.8 million more than was requested by the
Administration. The Senate bill provides $45.8 million (+5%) more than was provided in
FY2009, and $106.7 million more than was requested by the Administration. All the discretionary
conservation programs are administered by NRCS.
Congressional Research Service
36

---

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

Most of the increase was in appropriations for Conservation Operations (CO), the largest
discretionary program. The Senate bill provides $949.6 million for FY2010, which was $96.2
million and above the FY2009 enacted level and $82.4 million more than requested by the
Administration. The House-passed bill provides $874.4 million for FY2010 for CO, which was
$21 million and above the FY2009 enacted level and $7.2 million more than requested by the
Administration.
Unlike previous appropriations, the Senate bill includes funding for the Resource Conservation
and Development (RC&D) program ($50.7 million) within CO. According to S.Rept. 111-39,
NRCS may use up to $50.7 million of CO to fund “meritorious RC&D councils with a proven
track record in promoting conservation, development and utilization of natural resources.” The
Administration proposed eliminating the RC&D program in FY2010, suggesting that, if passed,
the Senate language would allow NRCS to fund the RC&D program at a lesser amount and use
remaining funds throughout CO.
Additionally, S.Rept. 111-39 also requires that $21.7 million (2.2% of total CO funding) be
available for congressionally designated projects. H.Rept. 111-181 requires that $21.2 million
(2.4% of total CO funding) be available for congressionally designated projects (Table 6), and
includes language directing NRCS to not reduce state funding allocations by the level of earmarks
it receives and requires a report to the Committee on Appropriations about any changes to the
formula or process by which these state allocations are made. Both bills specified that no more
than $250,000 be available for alterations and improvements to buildings and other public
improvements.
The House and Senate bills also maintain similar funding levels for other discretionary programs
at levels enacted for FY2009, thus restoring funding for programs the Administration proposed to
terminate, including the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations (the House bill includes $20
million and Senate bill includes $24.4 million for FY2009) and the Resource Conservation and
Development (RC&D) program ($50.7 million for FY2009). The House and Senate bills also
specify that no more than $12 million and $15 million, respectively, of funds for Watershed and
Flood Prevention Operations be used for technical assistance. Of the $24.3 million for the
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations, $8.7 million (44%) in the House bill and $16.8
million (69%) in the Senate bill are directed to congressionally designated projects (Table 6). No
more than $3.1 million of funds for RC&D could be available for national headquarters activities
under the House bill. The Administration proposed to reduce funding for the Watershed
Rehabilitation Program to $40.2 million and both the House and Senate bills concur.
Mandatory Programs
Mandatory conservation programs are administered by NRCS and the Farm Service Agency
(FSA). Funding comes from the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). The House and Senate
bills reject most of the Administration’s proposed reductions to mandatory conservation
programs, which totaled $547 million. Overall, FY2010 funding for NRCS’s mandatory spending
programs in the House and Senate bills was reduced by $435 million (Table 5) from the FY2010
level authorized by the 2008 farm bill.
Specifically, funding levels for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) are limited
to $1.18 billion for FY2010—a reduction of $270 million from the authorized level of $1.45
billion in the 2008 farm bill. Funding for the largest conservation program, FSA’s Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP), did not change and was estimated at about $1.9 billion for FY2010.
Congressional Research Service
37

---

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

The Watershed Rehabilitation Program is authorized to receive mandatory funding in addition to
the $40.2 million in discretionary funding for FY2010 as described above. The 2008 farm bill
authorized $100 million of mandatory funding for FY2009 (available until expended). The
enacted omnibus specified that no mandatory funds be used the Watershed Rehabilitation
Program, which includes the authorized $100 million in FY2009 and $65 million in carryover
from an FY2007 funding restriction. The FY2010 bills continue this restriction (Table 5).
Rural Development
Three agencies are responsible for USDA’s rural development mission area:
• Rural Housing Service (RHS),
• Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS), and
• Rural Utilities Service (RUS).
An Office of Community Development provides community development support through field
offices. This mission area also administers the rural portion of the Empowerment Zones and
Enterprise Communities Initiative, Rural Economic Area Partnerships, and the National Rural
Development Partnership.
Federal assistance for USDA Rural Development programs comes predominantly from loans and
grants. Part of the rural development appropriation covers the federal cost of making loans,
referred to as a loan subsidy. The amount of loan subsidies and grant support is expressed in the
level of appropriated budget authority. Loan subsidy is directly related to any interest rate
reduction provided by the government, as well as a projection of anticipated loan losses from
non-repayment of the loans. The amount of loans that can be made, the loan authority, is several
times larger than the subsidy.
For FY2010, the House-passed bill recommends $2.84 billion (4% more than FY2009) and the
Senate-passed bill recommends $3.05 billion (7% more than FY2009) in discretionary budget
authority to support USDA rural development loan and grant programs. Budget authority in the
House and Senate bills would support approximately $18 billion and $25 billion respectively in
loan authorization levels. The relatively large difference between the two levels of loan
authorization is accounted for by the Senate bill’s recommendation for $5.9 billion more in single
family guaranteed loan authorization than the House bill. The Administration had requested $3.02
billion in budget authority, and $18.4 billion in loan authority For FY2009, the omnibus
appropriations bill provided $2.73 billion in budget authority to support $17 billion in loan
authorization.
Rural Housing Service
The House-passed bill recommends a $1.8 billion appropriation for Rural Housing Service (RHS)
loans and grants, about 2.7% more (+$49.3 million) than enacted for FY2009, while the Senate-
passed bill recommends $1.88 billion. This House recommendation would support a loan
authorization level of $8.1 billion, the same as FY2009. The Senate measure would support $14
billion in housing loan authority, nearly $6 billion more than FY2009. This loan authorization
difference is accounted for by the Senate-passed bill’s recommendation of $12 billion for the
Section 502 single family housing loan guarantee program.
Congressional Research Service
38

---

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

Single-family housing loans (Section 50231 direct and guaranteed loans) constitute the largest
RHS loan account and represent 94% of the total housing loan authority in the Senate-passed bill
and approximately 90% in the House-passed bill. Guaranteed loans under the Section 502
program account for about 85% of this total in both House and Senate measures ($6.2 billion and
$12 billion respectively). The Section 502 direct loans comprise the other 15% of the total ($1.1
billion in the House-passed bill and $1.2 billion in the Senate-passed bill). The Section 502
program also received $200 million in supplemental funding under the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) to support an additional $11.5 billion in direct and guaranteed
loans. These funds will be obligated in FY2009 and FY2010.
Both the House- and Senate-passed bills recommend $968.6 million in budget authority for the
rental assistance program (Section 521), an increase of $77.5 million over FY2009 (+8%). This is
approximately $111 million less than requested by the Administration.
The House-passed bill recommends $45 million for mutual and self-help housing grants,
approximately $6 million more than the Senate-passed bill ($38.7 million). The Senate bill’s
recommendation is the same as requested in the budget and the same as enacted for FY2009. For
the rural housing assistance grants, the House-passed bill recommends $45 million and the
Senate-passed bill recommends $41.5 million, the same as requested by the Administration and
the same as enacted in FY2009.32 For the farm labor account (Section 514/516), the House-passed
bill would provide $22.5 million for loan subsidies and grants, about $4 million more than
enacted for FY2008. The Senate-passed bill recommends $17 million for the program, the same
as requested. For the multi-family housing revitalization program, the House-passed bill
recommends $25 million, $5 million more than for FY2009. The Senate-passed bill recommends
$20 million, the same as requested and the same as enacted for FY2009.
RHS also administers the Rural Community Facilities account. The House-passed bill
recommends $51.1 million for the Community Facilities program to be allocated among direct
loan subsidies ($3.9 million), guaranteed loan subsidies ($6.6 million), and grants ($20.4 million).
The Senate-passed bill would provide $55 million and the same allocation. This is the same as the
budget request. The recommended appropriation also includes grant funding for the Rural
Community Development Initiative ($6.3 million in both House and Senate bills), Economic
Impact Initiative grants ($10 million in the House-passed bill, $13.9 million in the Senate-passed
bill), and tribal college grants ($4 million in both House and Senate bills). Total funding for the
Rural Community Facilities program is approximately $138 million less than for FY2009 in the
Senate-passed bill and $141 less in the House-passed bill.33 The Community Facilities program,
however, also received $130 million in supplemental budget authority for loans and grants under
ARRA. These funds will be obligated in FY2009 and FY2010.
A general provision in the Senate-passed bill would permit USDA to fund projects in
Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island communities that had filed applications for

31 Section references in this heading are to Title V of the Housing Act of 1949.
32 Rural Housing Assistance supports very low-income housing repair grants and housing preservation grants. The
program also supports supervisory and technical assistance grants and compensation for construction defects. No
funding for FY2009 was recommended for these latter two programs.
33 Prior to FY2008, 12 accounts in the Rural Community Advancement Program (RCAP) were combined into a single
account with three funding streams: a Rural Community Facilities Account administered by RHS; a Rural Business
Program Account administered by RBS, and a Rural Water and Waste Disposal Account administered by RUS.
Beginning in FY2008, the former RCAP accounts are reported separately under the RHS, RBS, and RUS accounts.
Congressional Research Service
39

---

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

community facility loans and grants prior to August 1, 2009, if their applications had been judged
to be eligible by the USDA Rural Development field office.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
For the Rural Business-Cooperative Service, the House bill recommends an appropriation of
$163.2 million in budget authority ($31 million more than FY2009, +19%), which will support
$1.13 billion in loan authority, $47.5 million more than FY2009. These amounts were less than
the Administration’s request, which was for $256.6 million in budget authority and $1.4 billion in
loan authority. The Senate measure was the same as the Administration’s request.
Both the House and Senate bills recommend $97.1 million for the Rural Business Program
account (see footnote 33), nearly $10 million more than for FY2009 and the same as requested by
the Administration. The recommended budget authority of both bills would provide $38.7 million
for Rural Business Enterprise grants, $2.5 million for Rural Business Opportunity grants, $53
million in loan subsidies for Business and Industry (B&I) loan guarantees ($993.0 million in loan
authorization), and $3.0 million for the Delta Regional Authority. These funding levels and loan
authorization levels were the same as enacted for FY2009. In addition to the appropriations
recommended in the House and Senate-passed bills, the Rural Business Enterprise program and
the B&I loan guarantee program will receive $150 million in supplemental budget authority from
ARRA.
Both the House and Senate-passed bills recommend no funding for the rural Empowerment
Zone/Enterprise Communities (EZ/EC) grants programs ($8.1 million for FY2009), the same as
the request. A general provision in the Senate-passed bill, however, would provide $499,000 for
any rural development program in communities suffering from extreme outmigration and situated
in areas designated as part of an Empowerment Zone under the Community Renewal Tax Relief
Act of 2000 (Appendix G of P.L. 106-554).
The Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) encourages the use of renewable energy by
farmers, ranchers, and rural small businesses through energy audits, direct loans, loan guarantees,
and grants. The House-passed bill recommends $22 million (with half in grants and the rest in
loan subsidies) for the Renewable Energy Program (Rural Energy for America). This
recommended level is $17 million more than FY2009 and $46 million less than the budget
request. The Senate-passed bill would provide an appropriation of $68.1 million ($34.5 grants,
$33.6 loan subsidies), the same as the request. The farm bill also authorized $60 million in
mandatory spending for the program in FY2010. The subsidies recommended in the House-
passed bill would support $73.3 million in loan authority and the Senate-passed bill would
provide $246.3 million in loan authority. The FY2009 loan authorization level was $28.4 million.
Appropriations are also recommended for the Biorefinery Assistance Program, which supports the
development of new and emerging technologies for the development of advanced (non-corn)
biofuels through grants and loans for biorefinery conversion and construction. The Senate-passed
bill recommends $17.3 million in loan subsidies to support $48.9 million in loan authorization for
the program, the same as requested by the Administration. There was no appropriation for the
program in FY2009. The House-passed bill recommends no funding for the program.
The Microenterprise Investment Program was authorized in the 2008 farm bill. The Senate-
passed bill would provide $22 million for the program, $11 million each for grants and loan
subsidies. The loan subsidies would support a loan authorization level of $51.5 million. This is
Congressional Research Service
40

---

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

the same as requested by the Administration. The House-passed bill recommended no funding for
the program.
The House bill also provides $30.6 million in Rural Cooperative Development Grants (+$18
million compared to FY2009) to support the Cooperative Development program ($5.4 million),
Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas ($2.6 million), Value-Added Product Grants
($18.8 million), and Grants to Assist Minority Producers ($3.5 million). By comparison, the
Senate bill recommends $38.8 million for the Rural Cooperative Development Grant program
(Cooperative Development program ($10.4 million), Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural
Areas ($2.8 million), Value-Added Product Grants ($21.8 million), and Grants to Assist Minority
Producers ($3.5 million). The House bill recommendation for Value-Added Product Grants is $15
million more than enacted for FY2009 and the Senate bill is $18 million more than for FY2009.
The 2008 farm bill also included $15 million in mandatory spending for the program, to be
available until expended. Both the House and the Senate-passed bills recommend $8.5 million in
budget authority to support $33.5 million of loans for the Rural Development Loan Fund, the
same loan authority as for FY2009, but $5.5 million less in loan subsidies.
A general provision in the Senate-passed bill directs the Government Accountability Office to
prepare a report on developing the tourism potential of rural communities. The report would
identify federal program that provide assistance to rural small businesses in developing marketing
and promotion plans related to rural tourism.
Rural Utilities Service
The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) provides loan and grant assistance for rural electricity,
telecommunications, and rural water/waste water under projects. For FY2010, the House-passed
bill recommends $677.9 million in budget authority and $8.88 billion in loan authority. This is
$1.02 billion more (+13%) in loan authorization than FY2009, and $24.5 (+4%) million more in
budget authority. The Senate-passed bill recommends $631.7 million more in loan authority
($9.42 billion) and $20.4 million more in budget authority ($698.3 million) than the House-
passed bill. . The House-passed bill recommends $10 million more in budget authority than the
request, and the Senate-passed bill recommends $31 million more than the request.
Loan subsidies and grants under the Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program account (see
footnote 33) represent the largest share of budget authority under RUS programs, about 82% of
the total RUS appropriation. For the various water and waste disposal programs, the House-
passed bill recommends $556.3 million in budget authority, the same as FY2009 and $10 million
more than requested.34 This budget authority would support $1.1 billion in direct and guaranteed
loans, $1 billion more than FY2009 and the same as requested. The Senate-passed bill would
provide $568.7 million in budget authority and $1.1 billion in loan authority, the same as the
House-passed bill.35 ARRA also includes a supplemental appropriation of $1.38 billion for water
and waste water projects. This supplemental budget authority under ARRA will support a
program level of $3.8 billion.

34 The water and waste water account also include an appropriation ($17.5 million) for the High Energy Cost grant
program.
35 The 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246) also provided $120 million in budget authority for a one time funding of back-log
water and waste water project applications.
Congressional Research Service
41

---

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

A general provision in the Senate-passed bill would permit USDA to fund projects in
Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island communities that had filed applications for water
and waste water loans and grants prior to August 1, 2009 if their applications had been judged to
be eligible by the USDA Rural Development field office.
Funding in both the House and Senate bills would support water projects in areas where delivery
of basic services is especially needed. The House-passed bill recommends $41.1 million for water
and waste disposal systems in colonias and for Native American tribes. The bill also recommends
$12.7 million for water projects in Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities and
communities in Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones. The Senate-passed bill recommends $70
million for Native Americans, Native Alaskans, colonias, and Hawaiian Homelands. The Senate
measure also requires USDA to provide a report on where water and waste water assistance has
been provided and where additional resources are most needed. The FY2009 enacted bill also
directed USDA to provide a report by November 2009 describing the quantitative measure used
by USDA to determine the socioeconomic and geographic characteristics of the rural
communities served by the water and waste water program and where additional resources were
most needed.
The Senate-passed bill also recommends $17.5 million for the High Energy Cost Grant program,
the same as for FY2009. The House-passed bill had recommended no funding for the program.
The Administration had proposed eliminating the program because it was judged to duplicate
funding under the electrification loan program. The program provides grants for a variety of
energy projects where average home energy costs exceed 275% of the national average.
The House-passed bill recommends a loan authority level of $6.6 billion for rural electric loans.
All but $100 million of the loan authority is for Federal Financing Bank direct loans. This loan
level is the same as enacted for FY2009 and the same as the request. The Senate-passed bill
would provide the same level of funding, but also includes $500 million in loan authority for
guaranteed underwriting for a total loan authorization level of $7.1 billion
The House-passed bill includes $29 million in budget authority to support $400 million in
broadband telecommunication loans. This is nearly double the budget authority for FY2009, but
approximately the same loan authorization level. The Senate-passed would support $531.7
million in broadband loan authority on budget authority of $38.5 million. The House-passed bill
also recommends $18 million in broadband grants. The Senate-passed bill would provide $13.4
million for grants, the same as FY2009 and the same as the request. Supplemental budget
authority under ARRA will provide $2.5 billion for broadband infrastructure development,
supporting $4.8 billion in new broadband infrastructure to rural areas.
For the Distance Learning/Telemedicine program, the House-passed bill recommends
approximately $34.7 million in grant support, the same as for FY2009 and $5 million less than
the request. The Senate-passed bill recommends $37.7 million for the grants program.
For more information on USDA rural development programs, see CRS Report RL31837, An
Overview of USDA Rural Development Programs, by Tadlock Cowan.
Domestic Food Assistance
Funding for domestic food assistance represents over two-thirds of USDA’s budget. These
programs are, for the most part, mandatory entitlements; that is, funding depends directly on
Congressional Research Service
42

---

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

program participation and indexing of benefits and other payments. The biggest mandatory
programs include the newly renamed Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (the SNAP,
formerly the Food Stamp program), child nutrition programs, and The Emergency Food
Assistance Program (TEFAP). The three main discretionary budget items are the Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (the WIC program), the
Commodity Supplemental Food Program (the CSFP), and federal nutrition program
administration.
With marginal differences, the House and Senate bills provide an FY2010 total of $86.1 billion
for domestic food assistance administered by the USDA.36 This figure is some $200 million less
than requested by the Administration and $9.9 billion above the FY2009 amount. Virtually all of
the difference between the House/Senate appropriations total and the Administration’s request is a
smaller appropriation for the WIC program.
Programs under the Food and Nutrition Act (Formerly the Food Stamp Act)
Appropriations under the Food and Nutrition Act support (1) the regular Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (the SNAP), (2) a Nutrition Assistance Block Grant for Puerto Rico and
small nutrition assistance grants to American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands (all in lieu of the SNAP), (3) the cost of food commodities and administrative/
distribution expenses under the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (the FDPIR),
(4) the cost of commodities for TEFAP (but generally not administrative/distribution expenses,
which are covered under the Commodity Assistance Program budget account), and
(5) Community Food Projects and grants to improve access to the SNAP.
The House and Senate appropriations bills both agree with the Administration’s requested funding
for programs under the Food and Nutrition Act. They appropriate a total of $61.35 billion for
FY2010 (including a $3 billion contingency reserve for the regular SNAP). They provide:
• $59.1 billion for the regular SNAP, including a $3 billion contingency reserve,
• $1.9 billion for Puerto Rico’s grant, plus some $20 million for American Samoa
and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
• $113 million for the FDPIR,
• $253 million for TEFAP commodities (with permission to use up to 10% of this
amount for distribution costs), and
• $5 million each for Community Food Projects and SNAP program access grants.
FY2010 funding requested by the Administration and provided in the House and Senate
represents a $7.4 billion increase over the total amount available for FY2009. All of the
components of this budget account (except funding for Community Food Projects and SNAP

36 Not included in this appropriations figure is new funding provided through provisions, like increased SNAP benefits,
in the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the ARRA; P.L. 111-5), commodity support provided under
“Section 32” authority, and permanent appropriations and mandatory funding directed by underlying authorizing laws.
The availability of this support is separate from, but recognized in, the regular appropriations decision process. See
later section headed, “Special Program Initiatives, Policy Changes, and Other Funding Support.” Also see the Section
32 discussion under the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) heading earlier in this report.
Congressional Research Service
43

---

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

program access grants) received substantial boosts that recognized projected increases in
participation and inflation indexing.
In addition to the regular FY2010 appropriation, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(the ARRA; P.L. 111-5) provided for substantial new FY2010 funding for the SNAP and the
nutrition assistance grants for Puerto Rico and American Samoa. ARRA-added SNAP benefits
and spending on SNAP administrative costs are estimated to total some $5.8 billion; Puerto
Rico’s grant are mandated to rise by about $130 million over what is provided for through the
underlying law; and American Samoa will receive an extra $500,000.
Child Nutrition Programs
Appropriations under the child nutrition budget 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 School Lunch and Breakfast programs, the Child and Adult Care Food Program
(CACFP), the Summer Food Service program, the Special Milk program, assistance for child-
nutrition-related state administrative expenses (SAE), procurement of commodities for child
nutrition programs (in addition to those funded 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. In addition to funding directly from the child nutrition appropriation, child
nutrition efforts are supported by mandatory permanent appropriations and other funding sources;
these are covered later in the section headed Special Program Initiatives, Policy Changes, and
Other Funding Support.
For FY2010, the House and Senate differ only slightly from each other and the Administration’s
request. All three would provide a child nutrition total of $16.8 billion, a $1.8 billion increase
over FY2009. The House and Senate bills are marginally higher than the Administration’s
proposed appropriation because (1) they both add $2.3 million for technical assistance to state
and local administrators to promote payment accuracy and (2) the Senate bill includes $2 million
for “community garden pilot projects.”
While the child nutrition appropriation itself is not broken down program by program and funding
can be shifted among program areas if needed, estimates for FY2010 funding of the more
significant components of the child nutrition account are:
• $9.821 billion for the School Lunch program,
• $2.867 billion for the School Breakfast program,
• $2.687 billion for the CACFP,
• $793 million for procurement of commodities for child nutrition programs,
• $378 million for the Summer Food Service program, and
• $193 million for SAE.
Congressional Research Service
44

---

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

The WIC Program
The House bill appropriates $7.541 billion for the WIC program in FY2010, $681 million more
than the $6.860 billion made available in the FY2009 appropriation.37 The Senate bill provides an
appropriation totaling $7.552 billion These amounts are approximately $230 million below the
Administration’s request of $7.777 billion for FY2010. But the Administration’s amount included
$225 million to add to the contingency reserve, while neither the House nor the Senate provides
for new contingency funding because, as noted in the committee reports accompanying their bills,
an estimated $487 million is already available as a reserve for FY2010. Moreover, the
Administration included some $162 million for generally unspecified “program improvements”
and changes that may be made in upcoming WIC reauthorization legislation and this set-aside
was not adopted by the House and Senate. The Senate bill provides an appropriation totaling
$7.552 billion. In all three cases (House, Senate, and the Administration), supporters estimate that
they are making available enough money to “fully fund” the program for all those eligible who
will claim benefits—approximately 10 million women, infants, and children a month—although
using somewhat different estimates of “need.”
While generally accepting the Administration’s allocation of WIC appropriations among the
various activities that are covered, the House and Senate bills do not explicitly adopt the
Administration’s proposal for a $162 million set-aside for program improvements and changes
related to upcoming reauthorization legislation. Instead, they include a number of spending
directives within the overall appropriation. The House provides $125 million for potential WIC
reauthorization initiatives, an increase in the value of the newly established WIC fruit and
vegetable vouchers, an expansion of funding for management information and electronic benefit
transfer systems, and more support for breastfeeding peer counseling efforts. The Senate makes
$15 million available for WIC program performance evaluations and makes clear that $154
million is provided for program infrastructure development, management information systems,
and breastfeeding support activities (in the process greatly increasing funding for management
information systems and breastfeeding support over the Administration’s request and FY2009).
As with the House, it also makes funding available to increase the value of fruit and vegetable
vouchers.
Commodity Assistance Program
Funding under 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, and
(4) special Pacific Island assistance for certain nuclear-test-affected zones in the Pacific (the
Marshall Islands) and in the case of natural disasters.
The House bill provides a total FY2010 appropriation of $256 million for the commodity
assistance account. This is $25 million above the FY2009 amount and $22 million above the
Senate’s appropriation amount, which matches the Administration’s request for $233 million.

37 The FY2009 appropriation for the WIC program was supplemented with $500 million provided by the ARRA—$100
million of which went toward support for improved management information systems and $400 million of which was
placed in the program’s contingency reserve.
Congressional Research Service
45

---

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

Of the total in the House bill, $180 million is allocated to support the CSFP—$20 million above
the FY2009 figure and $17 million higher than the amount advanced by the Administration and
the Senate. While the level proposed by the Senate and Administration is aimed at maintaining
the existing CSFP caseload, the higher House appropriation envisions $12 million for expanding
the caseload and $5 million to begin funding CSFP projects in newly participating states.
The House bill also differs from the Senate and the Administration in funding for TEFAP costs
other than the value of federally provided commodities. As with the Administration and the
Senate bill (and FY2009), it provides some $50 million for TEFAP administrative/distribution
costs in FY2010. However, it adds a $5 million appropriation to fund infrastructure grants for
TEFAP providers, while the Senate, in a separate provision of its bill, adds $7 million.
Following the Administration’s request, both the House and Senate provide $20 million (as in
FY2009) for the FY2010 WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program.
As with FY2009, the House, Senate, and Administration agree on making a total of $1 million
available for Pacific Island assistance in FY2010.
Nutrition Programs Administration (and the Congressional Hunger Center)
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).
For FY2010, the House and Senate provide $148 million, up from $143 million in FY2009 but $2
million less than the Administration called for. The Administration proposed some $5 million for
new program integrity initiatives, but the House and Senate bills effectively allow for only about
$3 million.
Discretionary grants to support the Congressional Hunger Center (and its Bill Emerson and
Mickey Leland hunger fellowships) also have typically been administered out of this budget
account. Because it views it as a congressional entity, the Administration has traditionally not
requested funding for the center. However, as in the past, the House and Senate bills provide
funding for FY2010—$2.5 million in the House (the same as FY2009) and $3 million in the
Senate.
Special Program Initiatives, Policy Changes, and Other Funding Support
In addition to regular FY2010 appropriations, the House and Senate bills contain changes to
program rules established in underlying legislative and regulatory authorities for domestic food
assistance programs and provide money for newly authorized or unfunded existing initiatives.
Substantial support also is available from sources outside the regular domestic food assistance
portion of the annual appropriation.
Child Nutrition Programs
Section 729 of the House bill adds Connecticut and the District of Columbia to the ten states in
which federal subsidies are offered for suppers served in after-school programs. Section 729 of
Congressional Research Service
46

---

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

the Senate bill adds one state, Wisconsin. The ten existing states are Delaware, Illinois, Maryland,
Michigan, Missouri, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and West Virginia.
Section 732(a) of the Senate bill requires that military combat pay be disregarded in judging
eligibility for free and reduced-price meals in child nutrition programs.
The WIC Program
Section 732(b) in the Senate requires that military combat pay be disregarded in determining
eligibility for WIC benefits.
Both the House bill (Section 732) and the Senate bill (Section 743) would allow state WIC
agencies to be authorized to exceed regulatory maximums on the amount of reconstituted liquid
concentrate infant formula given to WIC participants.
Hunger-Free Community Grants
Section 4405 of the 2008 farm bill authorized Hunger-Free Community grants (1) to food
program service providers and nonprofits for collaborative efforts to assess community hunger
problems and to achieve “hunger-free” communities and (2) to emergency feeding organizations
for infrastructure development. Funding is divided equally between these two initiatives and the
federal match is limited to 80%. As recommended by the Administration, the House and Senate
bills (as part of their appropriation for the Child Nutrition budget account) provide $5 million to
fund this initiative in FY2010. The Senate bill also suspends the requirement that the grants be
divided equally as set forth in the underlying law.
School Community Garden Pilot Program
Section 18(g) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act authorizes, but does not fund,
pilot projects for school gardens (and other means of accessing local foods). The Senate bill (as
part of its FY2010 appropriation for the Child Nutrition budget account) provides $2 million for
school community garden pilots.
TEFAP Infrastructure Grants
Section 4202 of the 2008 farm bill authorized, but did not fund, grants to TEFAP emergency
feeding organizations to improve the infrastructure for handling and delivering commodities. The
House bill appropriates $5 million for this effort in FY2010 (as part of its Commodity Assistance
Program appropriation). Section 737 of the Senate bill provides $7 million.
Other Funding Support
As in earlier years, domestic food assistance programs will receive substantial FY2010 support
from sources other than noted above (direct appropriations and ARRA contributions).
• Food commodities are provided to child nutrition programs in addition to those
purchased with appropriations from the Child Nutrition account. They are
financed through the use of permanent appropriations under Section 32. For
Congressional Research Service
47

---

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

example, out of a total of about $1.1 billion in commodity support provided in
FY2008, about $480 million worth came from outside the Child Nutrition
account.
• The Fresh Fruit and Vegetable program offers fresh fruits and vegetables in
selected elementary schools nationwide. It is financed with mandatory funding
directed by the 2008 farm bill. The underlying law (Section 4304 of the farm bill)
provides funds at the beginning of every school year (each July)—$65 million in
July 2009, $101 million in July 2010. However, as was done for FY2009, the
Senate bill proposes to delay the availability of much of the $101 million
scheduled for July 2010 until October 2010. It would make $74 million available
during FY2010 ($49 million from the delayed July 2009 distribution plus $25
million as the first installment of the July 2010 amount, Table 5). As a result, the
FY2009 Agriculture Department appropriations measure and the FY2010 Senate
bill effectively allocate the total annual spending for the Fresh Fruit and
Vegetable program mandated by the farm bill by fiscal year rather than school
year, with no reduction in overall support.
• The Food Service Management Institute (providing technical assistance to child
nutrition providers) is funded through a permanent annual appropriation of $4
million a year.
• The Seniors Farmers’ Market Nutrition program receives mandatory funding of
some $21 million a year from outside the regular appropriations process under
the terms of its underlying law.
Child nutrition law mandates annual funding for (1) grants to states to support administrative
review of child nutrition operations ($4 million) and (2) an information clearinghouse ($250,000).
Agricultural Trade and Food Aid
The 2008 farm bill reauthorizes programs that promote U.S. commercial agricultural exports and
that provide international food aid. The Foreign Agriculture Service (FAS) also helps to increase
income and food availability globally by providing technical assistance to developing countries.
There are four primary USDA appropriations in the area of agricultural trade and food aid:
• The Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), the primary USDA agency responsible
for international activities, works to improve the competitive position of U.S.
agriculture and products in the world market, and also administers USDA’s
export credit guarantee and food aid programs.
• The Food for Peace Program (P.L. 480), which is actually administered through
the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), has a mission to
combat hunger and malnutrition, and promote equitable and sustainable
development and global food security.
• The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) Export Credit Guarantee
Program provides payment guarantees for the commercial financing of U.S.
agricultural exports.
• The McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition
Program, which was originally authorized by the 2002 farm bill, provides
Congressional Research Service
48

---

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

donations of U.S. agricultural products and financial and technical assistance for
school feeding and maternal and child nutrition projects in developing countries.
The Administration’s total request for USDA’s international activities in FY2010 is $2.079
billion, which is about $580 million, or 38% more than the enacted levels available in FY2009.
The Senate-passed bill is the same as the Administration’s request, while the House-passed bill is
similar, except that it provides $3.3 million less to the Foreign Agriculture Service for salaries and
administrative expenses. P.L. 480 Title II humanitarian food aid is by far the largest component of
requested programmatic expenditures at $1.69 billion.
In addition, the President’s budget allocates about $500 million in mandatory spending authorized
in the 2008 farm bill, including programs for overseas market development, dairy export,
international food assistance, and $90 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA) of 2009 for trade adjustment assistance for farmers.
Foreign Agriculture Service
The House-passed bill provides an appropriation of $177.1 million for FAS, an amount $11.7
million, or 7%, above the amount appropriated in FY2009 and $3.2 million, or 2% lower than the
Senate-passed bill and the Administration’s request. The budget increase would allow FAS to
maintain and strengthen it’s overseas presence so that FAS can continue to represent and advocate
on behalf of U.S. agriculture. Funds would also go towards upgrading and rebuilding FAS’s
information technology infrastructure
Food for Peace Program (P.L. 480)
For 2010, the Administration’s budget provides funding of nearly $1.7 billion for Food for Peace
Title II food assistance, an increase of about $464 million, or 38%, over the levels enacted in
FY2009. The House-passed and Senate-passed budget for the Food for Peace Program concur
with the Administration’s request. The increase in funding to the program is intended to reduce
the need for future emergency supplemental funding (approximately $700 million in FY2009;
P.L. 111-32) and reflects the fact that the global need for food assistance has increased
substantially in recent years. The budget includes no funding for Title I credit sales and grants.
Unlike in the previous Administration, the Obama budget request did not propose to allow the
Administrator of USAID to use up to 25% of Food for Peace Title II funds for local or regional
purchases of commodities (i.e., non-U.S. commodities) to address international food crises. To
date, Congress has not supported this request. Instead, for FY2010, the President requested that
$300 million from the International Disaster Assistance Account within USAID be made
available for local and regional procurement of food assistance to address food insecurity in
emergency situations. The House bill on State, Foreign Operations Appropriations (H.R. 3081)
provides $200 million for this purpose. In addition, the 2008 farm bill authorizes $60 million of
CCC funds (e.g. not Title II appropriations), over four years for a pilot project to assess local and
regional purchases of food aid for emergency relief. The President requested $25 million for this
Local and Regional Commodity Procurement Pilot Program, which was allocated $5 million in
FY2009.
Congressional Research Service
49

---

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

McGovern-Dole Food for Education and Child Nutrition
The House-passed and Senate-passed bills both provide $199.5 million for the McGovern-Dole
International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program Grants, as similarly requested by
the Administration. The 2010 budget provides for a major expansion in appropriated funding for
the McGovern-Dole program, nearly a 100% increase above the level enacted in FY2009. The
additional resources would build upon an existing expansion in programming, which was
included as a one-time authorization in the 2008 farm bill, of $84 million of CCC funding to the
program in FY2009.
The Senate-passed bill includes an appropriation to the Secretary of $4 million to award grants to
develop and field test new food products designed to improve the nutritional delivery of
humanitarian food assistance provided through the McGovern-Dole and the Food for Peace Title
II programs. The bill directs the Secretary to use the authorities provided under the Research,
Education, and Economics mission area and to give priority to proposals that demonstrate
partnering with and in-kind support from the private sector. The Senate-passed bill also requires
that all agencies with jurisdiction over international food assistance programs, specifically the
Food for Peace Title II and the McGovern Dole Programs, provide a consensus report that
discusses the impact of pre-positioning of food aid, longer-term contracting, and domestic
procurement and transport of commodities, on program costs and logistics; the cause and
frequency of delays in food aid delivery; and methodologies to improve interagency coordination
for more timely and efficient delivery of food assistance. This report is due to the House and
Senate Appropriations Committees by March 1, 2010.
Commodity Credit Corporation—Export Credit Guarantee Programs
Both the House-passed bill and the Senate-passed bill provide $6.8 million for administrative
expenses of the CCC Export Credit Guarantee Program, which is similar to the amount requested
by the Administration, and an increase of $1.5 million above the amount available in FY2009.
The President’s budget estimated this would support an overall program level of $5.5 billion for
CCC export credit guarantees in FY2010, compared with $5 billion in FY2009.
In addition, consistent with provisions in the 2008 farm bill, the President’s request for funding
levels of other mandatory programs that promote export market development include $160 for the
Market Access Program (MAP), $40 million less than the authorized level; $34.5 million for the
Foreign Market Development Program; $8 million for the Technical Assistance for Specialty
Crops (TASC) Program, up from $7 million in 2009; $10 million for the Emerging Markets
Program; and $25 million for the Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP). Mandatory funding
levels requested by the Administration for international food assistance programs include $146
million for Food for Progress; and $25 million for the Local and Regional Commodity
Procurement Pilot Program. In addition, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
reauthorized the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers (TAAF) program, which was originally
authorized by the Trade Act of 2002, and provides funding of $90 million for FY2009 and
FY2010.
For additional information on USDA’s international activities, see CRS Report RL33553,
Agricultural Export and Food Aid Programs, by Charles E. Hanrahan.

Congressional Research Service
50

---

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

Author Contact Information

Jim Monke, Coordinator
Renée Johnson
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
jmonke@crs.loc.gov, 7-9664
rjohnson@crs.loc.gov, 7-9588
Melissa D. Ho
Geoffrey S. Becker
Analyst in Agricultural Policy
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
mho@crs.loc.gov, 7-5342
gbecker@crs.loc.gov, 7-7287
Megan Stubbs
Dennis A. Shields
Analyst in Agricultural Conservation and Natural
Analyst in Agricultural Policy
Resources Policy
dshields@crs.loc.gov, 7-9051
mstubbs@crs.loc.gov, 7-8707
Joe Richardson
Tom Capehart
Specialist in Social Policy
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
jirichardson@crs.loc.gov, 7-7325
tcapehart@crs.loc.gov, 7-2425
Tadlock Cowan
Randy Schnepf
Analyst in Natural Resources and Rural
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Development
rschnepf@crs.loc.gov, 7-4277
tcowan@crs.loc.gov, 7-7600

Key Policy Staff

Area of Expertise
Name
Phone
E-mail
Agricultural Marketing Service
Tom Capehart
7-2425
tcapehart@crs.loc.gov
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Renée Johnson
7-9588
rjohnson@crs.loc.gov
Animal identification
Randy Schnepf
7-4277
rschnepf@crs.loc.gov
Commodity Credit Corporation
Jim Monke
7-9664
jmonke@crs.loc.gov
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Mark Jickling
7-7784
mjickling@crs.loc.gov
Conservation Megan
Stubbs
7-8707
mstubbs@crs.loc.gov
Crop insurance and disaster assistance
Dennis A. Shields
7-9051
dshields@crs.loc.gov
Farm Service Agency
Jim Monke
7-9664
jmonke@crs.loc.gov
Food and Drug Administration
Susan Thaul
7-0562
sthaul@crs.loc.gov
Food safety
Geoffrey S. Becker
7-7287
gbecker@crs.loc.gov
Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Admin. Randy Schnepf
7-4277
rschnepf@crs.loc.gov
Horticulture Renée
Johnson
7-9588
rjohnson@crs.loc.gov
Nutrition and domestic food assistance
Joe Richardson
7-7325
jirichardson@crs.loc.gov
Organic agriculture
Renée Johnson
7-9588
rjohnson@crs.loc.gov
Research and extension
Melissa D. Ho
7-5342
mho@crs.loc.gov
Risk Management Agency
Dennis A. Shields
7-9051
dshields@crs.loc.gov
Rural Development
Tadlock Cowan
7-7600
tcowan@crs.loc.gov
Trade and foreign food aid
Melissa D. Ho
7-5342
mho@crs.loc.gov
USDA budget general y
Jim Monke
7-9664
jmonke@crs.loc.gov


Congressional Research Service
51

---