Agriculture and Related Agencies:
FY2015 Appropriations
Jim Monke, Coordinator
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
October 22, 2014
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R43669

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

Summary
The Agriculture appropriations bill funds the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), except for
the Forest Service. It includes the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and—in the House and
in even-numbered enacted fiscal years—the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).
FY2015 began under a 10-week continuing resolution (P.L. 113-164) that lasts until December
11, 2014. Accounts are funded at 99.9446% of their FY2014 amounts, and any conditions in the
FY2014 appropriation continue to apply. The CR increases the Commodity Supplemental Food
Program by $6 million, and allows the FDA to implement a newly authorized user fee. The CR
provides a total of $20.789 billion for discretionary Agriculture appropriations, which is within
0.5% of the totals proposed by the House and Senate-reported bills.
For FY2015, both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees reported their Agriculture
appropriations bills (H.R. 4800 and S. 2389) in May 2014—the earliest joint action in years. The
House considered H.R. 4800 on the floor on June 11, procedurally read through most of the bill,
and adopted several amendments. The bill was left unfinished when floor action was suspended
due to House Whip leadership changes. The Senate considered a minibus appropriations bill on
June 19 that included the Agriculture bill. But Senate consideration quickly stopped over a
disagreement about procedures for amendments. Thus both bills remain unfinished at the
chamber level, although each was considered for a time on the respective chamber floor.
The discretionary target for the FY2015 Agriculture appropriations bill in the House is $20.880
billion (the “302(b) allocation”), the same as for FY2014. The Senate’s allocation is $20.575
billion, lower than the House bill in part due to the absence of CFTC in the Senate’s jurisdiction.
In terms of budget amounts, both the House- and Senate-reported bills generally make small
discretionary changes compared with FY2014. The Senate bill includes $143 million of
emergency conservation and forestry spending, of which $100 million is offset by a disaster
declaration. If the House and Senate bills are made comparable by excluding CFTC from the
House bill, the Senate bill spends $13 million more than the House bill if the disaster designation
is not counted, but officially is $87 million less than the House total with the disaster designation.
The House bill increases the Agricultural Research Service by $155 million for construction. The
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) is reduced by
$92 million in both the House and Senate bills. Most other agencies would receive small
increases in both bills that are facilitated by higher offsets in “scorekeeping adjustments.”
Mandatory spending in the reported bills totals $121.6 billion, which is $3 billion less than
FY2014 mostly due to less farm program spending following the 2014 farm bill. Mandatory
spending on child nutrition programs increases by $1.2 billion (+6%) and Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP) appropriations remain nearly constant at about $82.2 billion.
Notable policy riders affecting the Agriculture appropriation bill this year include limitations on
implementing nutrition standards for the school meals programs (particularly a waiver in the
House-reported bill) and provisions in both bills to prevent USDA from excluding white potatoes
from the WIC program. Also, the House bill would restrict USDA from implementing some rules
about livestock and poultry marketing practices and some country-of-origin labeling regulations.
Both bills continue a provision to prevent federal inspection of horse slaughter facilities, and a
House floor amendment was adopted for local and regional international food aid purchases.
Congressional Research Service

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

Contents
Scope of the Agriculture Appropriations Bill .................................................................................. 1
Action on FY2015 Appropriations .................................................................................................. 2
Overview ................................................................................................................................... 5
Administration Budget Request................................................................................................. 5
House Action ............................................................................................................................. 5
Senate Action ............................................................................................................................. 6
Summary of Amounts in the Appropriation ..................................................................................... 6
Continuing Resolution ............................................................................................................... 6
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 .................................................................................................. 7
302(b) Subcommittee Allocations ............................................................................................. 7
Comparison of Amounts for FY2015 ........................................................................................ 8
Sequestration Continues on Mandatory Accounts ..................................................................... 9
USDA Agencies and Programs ...................................................................................................... 15
Departmental Administration .................................................................................................. 16
Agricultural Research, Education, and Extension ................................................................... 19
Agricultural Research Service ........................................................................................... 21
National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........................................................................ 21
National Agricultural Statistics Service ............................................................................ 22
Economic Research Service .............................................................................................. 22
Marketing and Regulatory Programs ....................................................................................... 22
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ..................................................................... 23
Agricultural Marketing Service and “Section 32” ............................................................ 24
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration ............................................... 27
Food Safety .............................................................................................................................. 28
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) .............................................................................. 31
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) ...................................................................... 32
Farm Service Agency .............................................................................................................. 34
FSA Salaries and Expenses ............................................................................................... 34
FSA Farm Loan Programs ................................................................................................. 36
Commodity Credit Corporation ............................................................................................... 39
Crop Insurance......................................................................................................................... 40
Conservation ............................................................................................................................ 41
Discretionary Conservation Programs............................................................................... 41
Mandatory Conservation Programs ................................................................................... 43
Rural Development .................................................................................................................. 44
Rural Housing Service (RHS) ........................................................................................... 44
Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS) ...................................................................... 50
Rural Utilities Service (RUS) ............................................................................................ 51
Domestic Food Assistance ....................................................................................................... 53
SNAP and Other Programs under the Food and Nutrition Act .......................................... 53
Child Nutrition Programs .................................................................................................. 57
WIC Program .................................................................................................................... 59
Commodity Assistance Program ....................................................................................... 60
Nutrition Programs Administration ................................................................................... 61
Other Nutrition Funding Support ...................................................................................... 61
Agricultural Trade and Food Aid ............................................................................................. 62
Congressional Research Service

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

Foreign Agricultural Service ............................................................................................. 62
Food for Peace Program (P.L. 480) ................................................................................... 63
Local and Regional Procurement (LRP) Projects ............................................................. 64
McGovern-Dole Food for Education and Child Nutrition ................................................ 64
Note: Appropriations Provision on Industrial Hemp ............................................................... 65
Related Agencies ........................................................................................................................... 66
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) .................................................................................... 66
Commodity Futures Trading Commission .............................................................................. 70
Farm Credit Administration ..................................................................................................... 71
General Provisions and Scorekeeping Adjustments ...................................................................... 72
Changes in Mandatory Program Spending (CHIMPS) ........................................................... 72
Rescissions .............................................................................................................................. 75
Other Appropriations (Including Emergency Disaster Programs) ........................................... 76
Other Scorekeeping Adjustments ............................................................................................ 77

Figures
Figure 1. FY2014 Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations ............................................. 1
Figure 2. Congressional Action on Agriculture Appropriations, FY1995-FY2015 ......................... 4
Figure A-1. Total Agriculture Appropriations: Mandatory and Discretionary ............................... 78
Figure A-2. Total Agriculture Appropriations: Domestic Nutrition and Rest of Bill ..................... 79
Figure A-3. Discretionary Agriculture Appropriations .................................................................. 80
Figure A-4. Agriculture Appropriations as Percentages of Total Federal Budget .......................... 84
Figure A-5. More Components as Percentages of Total Federal Budget ....................................... 84
Figure A-6. Agriculture Appropriations as Percentages of GDP ................................................... 84
Figure A-7. Agriculture Appropriations per Capita of U.S. Population ......................................... 84

Tables
Table 1. Congressional Action on Agriculture Appropriations ........................................................ 3
Table 2. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations, by Agency and Program .................. 10
Table 3. USDA Departmental Administration Appropriations ...................................................... 17
Table 4. USDA Research, Extension, and Economics (REE) Appropriations ............................... 20
Table 5. Food Safety Appropriations ............................................................................................. 30
Table 6. Farm Service Agency Appropriations .............................................................................. 35
Table 7. Farm Service Agency: Farm Loan Program..................................................................... 37
Table 8. Conservation Operations Funding ................................................................................... 42
Table 9. USDA Rural Development Appropriations ...................................................................... 45
Table 10. Domestic Food Assistance (USDA-FNS) Appropriations ............................................. 54
Table 11. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Appropriations .................................................. 69
Congressional Research Service

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

Table 12. Farm Credit Administration Limitation on Expenses .................................................... 71
Table 13. Changes in Mandatory Program Spending (CHIMPS) .................................................. 73
Table 14. Rescissions from (Prior-Year) Budget Authority ........................................................... 75
Table 15. Other Appropriations in General Provisions .................................................................. 76
Table 16. Scorekeeping Adjustments ............................................................................................. 77
Table A-1. Trends in Nominal Agriculture Appropriations ............................................................ 81
Table A-2. Trends in Real Agriculture Appropriations .................................................................. 82
Table A-3. Percentage Changes in Agriculture Appropriations ..................................................... 83
Table A-4. Trends in Agriculture Appropriations Measured Against Benchmarks ........................ 85
Table B-1. Sequestration Rates and Amounts Cancelled from Agriculture Appropriations
Accounts ..................................................................................................................................... 86
Table B-2. Sequestration of Discretionary Agriculture Appropriations in FY2013 ....................... 87
Table B-3. Sequestration of Mandatory Agriculture Appropriations in FY2013-2015 ................ 89

Appendixes
Appendix A. Historical Trends ...................................................................................................... 78
Appendix B. Budget Sequestration ................................................................................................ 86

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 91

Congressional Research Service

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

Scope of the Agriculture Appropriations Bill
The Agriculture appropriations bill—formally known as the Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act—provides funding for:
• all of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) except the Forest Service,
which is funded in the Interior appropriations bill,
• the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the Department of Health and
Human Services, and
• in the House, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). In the
Senate, the Financial Services bill contains CFTC appropriations. In even-
numbered fiscal years, CFTC appears in the enacted Agriculture appropriation.
Jurisdiction is with the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, and each Subcommittee
on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies. The
bill includes both mandatory and discretionary spending, although most appropriations decision-
making concerns the latter. Figure 1 illustrates the distribution of agriculture appropriations
spending among major divisions and agencies in the FY2014 appropriation.
Figure 1. FY2014 Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations
(budget authority in billions of dollars)

Source: CRS, compiled from P.L. 113-76. Does not show some agencies under $0.5 billion, including CFTC,
AMS, GIPSA, and department administration that together are essential y offset by other reductions.
Note: CCC = Commodity Credit Corp.; SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; WIC = Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children; CSFP = Commodity Supplemental Food
Program; FDA = Food and Drug Admin.; FSA = Farm Service Agency; RMA = Risk Management Agency; FSIS =
Food Safety Inspection Service; APHIS = Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
Congressional Research Service
1

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

The federal budget process treats discretionary and mandatory spending differently.
• Discretionary spending is controlled by annual appropriations acts and consumes
most of the attention during the appropriations process. The annual budget
resolution process sets spending limits for discretionary appropriations. Agency
operations (salaries and expenses) and many grant programs are discretionary.
• Mandatory spending—though carried in the appropriation and usually advanced
unchanged—is controlled by budget enforcement rules (e.g., PAYGO) during the
authorization process.1 Spending for eligibility and benefit formulas in so-called
entitlement programs are set in laws such as the farm bill and child nutrition act.2
In FY2014, about 14% ($20.9 billion) of the Agriculture appropriations bill—P.L. 113-76—was
for discretionary programs. Mandatory spending carried in the bill totaled $124.6 billion, about
86% of the $145.2 billion total.
Within the discretionary total, the largest discretionary spending items are for the Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), FDA, agricultural
research, rural development, foreign food aid and trade, farm assistance program salaries and
loans, food safety inspection, conservation, and animal and plant health programs (Figure 1).
The main mandatory spending items are the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP,
and other food and nutrition act programs), child nutrition (school lunch and related programs),
crop insurance, and farm commodity and conservation programs paid through USDA’s
Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC).3 SNAP is referred to as an “appropriated entitlement,”
and requires an annual appropriation.4 The nutrition program amounts are based on projected
spending needs. In contrast, the Commodity Credit Corporation operates on a line of credit with
the Treasury; the annual appropriation provides funding to reimburse the Treasury for using the
line of credit.
Action on FY2015 Appropriations5
Table 1 summarizes actions by the subcommittees, full committees and chambers, and enactment
of each of the Agriculture appropriations bills since FY1995. Additional details for FY2015 are
available for bill numbers and votes. Figure 2 is a visual timeline of the dates in Table 1.
Because Congress has not completed any of the FY2015 appropriations bills, FY2015 has begun
under a 10-week continuing resolution (P.L. 113-164) that lasts until December 11, 2014.6

1 CRS Report 98-560, Baselines and Scorekeeping in the Federal Budget Process.
2 CRS Report R42484, Budget Issues That Shaped the 2014 Farm Bill.
3 Mandatory spending in agriculture historically was reserved for programs such as the farm commodity programs and
crop insurance that had uncertain outlays because of weather and market conditions. Mandatory spending creates
funding stability and consistency compared to appropriations.
4 CRS Report RS20129, Entitlements and Appropriated Entitlements in the Federal Budget Process.
5 For a two-page summary of action and amounts in the House and Senate bills, see CRS Report IF00023, FY2015
Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations (In Focus).
6 CRS Report IN10148, H.J.Res. 124, the FY2015 Continuing Resolution. See also CRS Report R42647, Continuing
Resolutions: Overview of Components and Recent Practices.
Congressional Research Service
2

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

Table 1. Congressional Action on Agriculture Appropriations
House Action
Senate Action
Final Appropriation
Fiscal
CRS
Year
Subcom. Comm. Chamber Subcom. Comm. Chamber Enacteda Public
La
Re
w port
1995
5/26/1994 6/9/1994 6/17/1994 6/22/1994 6/23/1994 7/20/1994 9/30/1994 E
P.L.
103-330 IB94011
1996
6/14/1995 6/27/1995 7/21/1995 9/13/1995 9/14/1995 9/20/1995 10/21/1995 E P.L.
104-37 95-624
1997
5/30/1996 6/6/1996 6/12/1996 7/10/1996 7/11/1996 7/24/1996 8/6/1996 E
P.L.
104-180 IB96015
1998
6/25/1997 7/14/1997 7/24/1997 7/15/1997 7/17/1997 7/24/1997 11/18/1997 E P.L.
105-86 97-201
1999
6/10/1998 6/16/1998 6/24/1998 6/9/1998 6/11/1998 7/16/1998 10/21/1998 O
P.L.
105-277 98-201
2000
5/13/1999 5/24/1999 6/8/1999 6/15/1999 6/17/1999 8/4/1999 10/22/1999 E P.L.
106-78 RL30201
2001
5/4/2000 5/16/2000 7/11/2000 5/4/2000 5/10/2000 7/20/2000 10/28/2000 E
P.L.
106-387 RL30501
2002
6/6/2001
6/27/2001
7/11/2001
Polled out
7/18/2001
10/25/2001 11/28/2001
E P.L. 107-76
RL31001
2003
6/26/2002 7/26/2002
—
7/23/2002 7/25/2002
—
2/20/2003 O
P.L.
108-7 RL31301
2004
6/17/2003 7/9/2003 7/14/2003 7/17/2003 11/6/2003 11/6/2003 1/23/2004 O
P.L.
108-199 RL31801
2005
6/14/2004 7/7/2004 7/13/2004 9/8/2004 9/14/2004
—
12/8/2004 O
P.L.
108-447 RL32301
2006
5/16/2005 6/2/2005 6/8/2005 6/21/2005 6/27/2005 9/22/2005 11/10/2005 E
P.L.
109-97 RL32904
2007
5/3/2006 5/9/2006 5/23/2006 6/20/2006 6/22/2006 —
2/15/2007 Y
P.L.
110-5 RL33412
2008
7/12/2007 7/19/2007 8/2/2007 7/17/2007 7/19/2007
—
12/26/2007 O
P.L.
110-161 RL34132
2009
6/19/2008
—
—
Polled out
7/17/2008
—
3/11/2009
O P.L. 111-8
R40000
2010
6/11/2009
6/18/2009
7/9/2009
Polled out
7/7/2009
8/4/2009
10/21/2009
E P.L. 111-80
R40721
2011
6/30/2010
—
—
Polled out
7/15/2010
—
4/15/2011
Y P.L. 112-10
R41475
2012
5/24/2011 5/31/2011 6/16/2011 Polled
out 9/7/2011 11/1/2011 11/18/2011 O
P.L.
112-55 R41964
2013
6/6/2012
6/19/2012
—
Polled out
4/26/2012
—
3/26/2013
O P.L. 113-6
R43110
2014
6/5/2013 6/13/2013
—
6/18/2013 6/20/2013
—
1/17/2014 O
P.L.
113-76 R43110
2015
5/20/2014
5/29/2013
—
5/20/2014
5/22/2014
—
tbd tbd R43669
Draftb
H.R. 4800
considered Voice vote
S. 2389
considered
but
but
Voice vote
H.Rept.
unfinished
S.Rept. 113-
unfinished
113-468
164
6/11/2014
6/19/2014
Vote of 31-
H.R. 4800
Vote 30-0c
H.R. 4660
18
Division Cd
Source: CRS.
a. E=Enacted as stand-alone appropriation; O=Omnibus appropriation; Y=Year-long continuing resolution.
b. The House subcommittee posted a draft of the bill at http://appropriations.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bills-
113hr-sc-ap-fy2015-agriculture-subcommitteedraft.pdf. Amendments adopted in the full committee markup
were posted at http://appropriations.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hmkp-113-ap00-20140529-sd005.pdf.
c. En bloc vote with the Military Construction-Veterans Affairs bill.
d. The Senate vehicle for Senate floor consideration was “minibus” appropriation that included three
committee-reported bills: Commerce-Justice-Science (Division A), Transportation-HUD (Division B), and
Agriculture (Division C, of S.Amdt. 3244 to H.R. 4660).
Congressional Research Service
3

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

Figure 2. Congressional Action on Agriculture Appropriations, FY1995-FY2015

Source: CRS. Arrows indicate action was completed in a new calendar year. “Gap” is government shutdown.
Congressional Research Service
4

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

Overview
During the regular appropriations cycle, both the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations reported their respective FY2015 Agriculture appropriations bills.7 In each
chamber, floor action began on a stand-alone bill, but proceedings stopped on both the House and
Senate floor before either bill was completed or brought to a final vote.
In the House, amendments were debated and some were adopted as the bill was read through Title
VI. Procedural reading of the bill stopped before Title VII (General Provisions) and the House did
not return to the bill—initially, because of the disruption caused by the defeat in a primary
election of Majority Leader Eric Cantor.
In the Senate, a minibus appropriation of three bills—including Agriculture—was brought to the
floor, but before debate of individual provisions began, consideration stopped over disagreements
about amendment procedures. Thus, the last official version of either bill is the House committee-
reported bill (H.R. 4800) and Senate committee-reported bill (S. 2389).
Administration Budget Request
The Administration released its FY2015 budget request on March 4, 2014.8 USDA concurrently
released its budget summary9 and detailed agency budget justifications.10
House Action
The Agriculture Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee held ten hearings on
FY2015 appropriations with various USDA agencies, FDA, and CFTC from March 5, 2014,
through April 8, 2014.
The subcommittee approved its FY2015 appropriations markup by voice vote on May 20, 2013.11
The full House Appropriations Committee reported the bill (H.R. 4800; H.Rept. 113-468) on May
29, 2014, by a vote of 31-18 and officially reported it on June 4 (Table 1).
The rule for House floor consideration of the bill (H.Res. 616) was adopted on June 11, 2014, and
House floor debate began later that day. Proceedings followed a modified open rule, with
amendments debated under the five-minute rule (10 minutes of debate equally divided). H.R.
4800 was read procedurally through the end of Title VI (FDA and CFTC) and several
amendments were adopted. However, the last title of the bill was not read, and the bill was left
unfinished due to political changes in House Whip leadership and concern over expected
amendments.12 House appropriations action proceeded to other bills. Thus, while amendments to
the Agriculture appropriations bill were adopted on the floor, the amended bill was neither
completed procedurally nor voted on as a whole, and thus is not a chamber-passed version.

7 See CRS Report R42388, The Congressional Appropriations Process: An Introduction, for context on procedures.
8 Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2015, at http://
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget.
9 USDA, FY2015 Budget Summary, April 2014, at http://www.obpa.usda.gov/budsum/FY15budsum.pdf.
10 USDA, FY2015 USDA Budget Explanatory Notes for Committee on Appropriations, at http://www.obpa.usda.gov/
FY15explan_notes.html.
11 House subcommittee draft, http://appropriations.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bills-113hr-sc-ap-fy2015-agriculture-
subcommitteedraft.pdf.
12 Congressional Quarterly, “House Leadership Turmoil Latest Obstacle for Spending Bills,” June 12, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
5

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

Senate Action
The Agriculture Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee held two hearings on the
FY2015 appropriation—March 26, 2014, on the USDA budget request, and April 3, 2014, on the
FDA budget request.
The subcommittee approved its FY2015 bill on May 20, 2014, by voice vote (Table 1). The full
committee reported the bill (S. 2389, S.Rept. 113-164) on May 22 by a 30-0 vote.13
The Senate adopted cloture on June 17, 2014, to bring a three-bill “minibus” appropriation to the
floor that included Commerce-Justice-Science (Division A), Transportation-HUD (Division B),
and Agriculture (Division C of S.Amdt. 3244 to H.R. 4660). However, proceedings stopped over
disagreements about procedures for amendments, and by late July appropriations efforts had
shifted to supplemental funding and a continuing resolution.14

Legislative Action Compared With Prior Fiscal Years
The last time an Agriculture appropriations bill was enacted as a stand-alone measure was for FY2010 (in 2009). A
final floor vote on an Agriculture appropriations bill has not occurred in the House or Senate since the FY2012 bill. In
the 20 years since FY1995, Agriculture appropriations bills were enacted as stand-alone measures nine times.
Omnibus appropriations were used nine times, and year-long continuing resolutions were used twice (Table 1; see
also CRS Report RL32473, Omnibus Appropriations Acts: Overview of Recent Practices.)
Committee action on the FY2015 Agriculture appropriations bill was among the earliest in the last 20 years. Only for
FY2001 did both chambers’ committees complete action sooner. The delay in completing floor action in one or both
chambers is more typical in recent years, though not with floor action starting but being left unfinished.
At the Agriculture subcommittee level, both the House and Senate have approved draft bills every year since FY1995.
The full committees usually report a bill, with the exception for two years in the House (FY2009 and FY2011).
Floor action in each chamber is somewhat less predictable, with House floor action not taking place for FY2003,
FY2009, FY2011, FY2013, FY2014, and FY2015. In the Senate, floor action did not occur during those same six years,
and also not for FY2005, FY2007, and FY2008 (when the House did pass bills).
Summary of Amounts in the Appropriation15
Continuing Resolution
The continuing resolution (P.L. 113-164) that lasts until December 11, 2014, generally continues
the FY2014 appropriation but with a 0.0554% across-the-board rescission (Section 101(b)). That
is, accounts are funded during the CR at 99.9446% of their FY2014 amounts, as apportioned to
the agencies for the duration of the CR by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Furthermore, any conditions or limitations that were in the FY2014 appropriation—such as in the
General Provisions title that affected the implementation of programs or that placed limits on
mandatory spending—continue to apply during the CR (Section 104).

13 The 30-0 vote was an en bloc vote on the Military Construction-Veterans Affairs bill and the Agriculture bill.
14 Congressional Quarterly, “With Senate Action Stalled, Continuing Resolution Looks Likely for Fall,” July 18, 2014.
15 For a two-page summary of action and amounts in the House and Senate bills, see CRS Report IF00023, FY2015
Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations (In Focus).
Congressional Research Service
6

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

The CR provided for three “anomalies” that affect the Agriculture appropriations bill:
• The SNAP program, and other mandatory programs, are funded “at the rate to
maintain program levels under current law” (Section 111). This is typical
language from prior years’ CRs regarding mandatory program spending.
• The Commodity Assistance Program in the domestic food assistance portion of
the bill receives increased funding (Section 116). The CR provides $275.7
million for this account, an increase of $6 million (+2%) above the FY2014 level.
All of the increase goes to the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, which
will receive $208.7 million. These amounts were requested by the Administration
and proposed in both the House-reported and Senate-reported bills.
• The Food and Drug Administration may incorporate outsourcing facility fees,
which are related to drug compounding (Section 117). These fees, authorized by
P.L. 113-54, were scheduled to begin in FY2015 (21 U.S.C. 379j-62).
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the CR provides the Agriculture bill an
annual rate of $20.789 billion of discretionary budget authority. This amount is after accounting
for the across-the-board reduction (-$12 million) and the additional amount for the Commodity
Assistance Program (+$6 million).16 Thus for Agriculture appropriations accounts, the CR is
nearly equal to (within 0.5% of) the total amounts proposed by the House and Senate, but without
the reallocations among agencies and instructions that were in the FY2015 reported bills.
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013
The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (P.L. 113-67, December 26, 2013) set the total government-
wide discretionary spending limits for both FY2014 and FY2015. These were upward revisions of
amounts that were originally targeted in the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25). Total
FY2015 discretionary spending is capped at $1.014 trillion (the “302(a) allocation”).
The congressional intention was to avoid sequestration on discretionary accounts in FY2014 and
FY2015.17 However, budget sequestration on non-exempt mandatory accounts does continue in
these fiscal years (see “Sequestration Continues on Mandatory Accounts,” and Appendix B).
The enactment of the Bipartisan Budget Act substituted for the usual budget resolution process
during the spring of 2014, and paved the way for action on FY2015 appropriations bills.18
302(b) Subcommittee Allocations
Of the $1.014 trillion total government-wide discretionary spending limit for FY2015, the House
Appropriations committee set a $20.880 billion discretionary limit for the Agriculture bill
(H.Rept. 113-454; the “302(b) allocation”). The total amount for the House bill equals the enacted

16 CBO, H.J.Res. 124, Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2015, Sep. 16, 2014, at http://www.cbo.gov/publication/
45727.
17 OMB, Final Sequestration Report to the President and Congress for Fiscal Year 2014, Feb. 7, 2014, at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/sequestration/
sequestration_final_feb2014.pdf.
18 CRS Report R43535, Provisions in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 as an Alternative to a Traditional Budget
Resolution.
Congressional Research Service
7

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

amount in FY2014. The Senate allocation for the agriculture bill is $20.575 billion (S.Rept. 113-
163). It is lower than the House bill and the FY2014 enacted level by $305 million, in large part
due to the absence of CFTC in the Senate bill’s jurisdiction which was $215 million in FY2014.
Comparison of Amounts for FY2015
Table 2 summarizes the amounts in the House-reported and Senate-reported appropriations bills,
and compares them to three prior years and the Administration’s request. The table lists the major
agencies or programs in the appropriation, and the subtotals for titles in the bill. Although floor
consideration began, and amendments were adopted on the House floor, this report presents the
committee-reported amounts since neither bill has been adopted at the chamber level.
The House-reported bill’s discretionary total is nearly the same as it was for last year: $20.868
billion for FY2015 compared with $20.880 billion in FY2014.
The Senate-reported bill total is harder to
compare because of CFTC jurisdiction and
Key Budget Terms
because of disaster designations. The total
Budget authority is the main output of an appropriations
of the Senate-reported Agriculture
act or a law authorizing mandatory spending. It provides the
appropriations bill is $20.563 billion ($102
legal basis for agencies to obligate funds. It expires at the end
million less than the comparable $20.665
of the period and usually is available for one year unless
specified otherwise (such as two-year or indefinite authority).
billion total from FY2014 without CFTC).
Most amounts in this report are budget authority.
This appears to be $87 million less than a
comparable House total, but includes $100
Obligations reflect agency activities such as employing
personnel or entering contracts. The Antideficiency Act
million of emergency appropriations that
prohibits agencies from obligating more budget authority
are offset by a disaster designation. Thus,
than is provided in law.
the total budget authority in the Senate bill
Outlays are payments (cash disbursements) that satisfy a
regardless of the disaster designation
valid obligation. Outlays may differ from budget authority or
would spend $13 million more than the
obligations because payments from an agency may not occur
House bill (on a Senate-comparable basis
until services are fulfilled, goods delivered, or construction
without CFTC). Regardless, the Senate-
completed, even though an obligation occurred.
reported total is within +/- 0.5% of the
Program level represents the sum of the activities
comparable FY2014 and House levels.
supported or undertaken by an agency. A program level may
be higher than a budget authority if the program (1) receives
The Administration’s request was nearly
user fees that can be used to pay for activities; (2) makes or
$450 million less than the House- and
guarantees loans that are leveraged on the expectation of
repayment (more than $1 of loan authority for $1 of budget
Senate-reported bills, though that
authority); or (3) receives transfers from other agencies.
difference is overstated because of
sequestration scoring differences discussed
Rescissions are adjustments that cancel or reduce budget
authority after it has been enacted; they score savings.
later in a text box in the section “Changes
in Mandatory Program Spending
CHIMPS (Changes in Mandatory Program Spending) are
adjustments to mandatory budget authority. CHIMPS in
(CHIMPS).”
appropriations usual y reduce or limit spending by mandatory
programs and score budgetary savings.
For more background, see CRS Report 98-405, The Spending
Pipeline: Stages of Federal Spending.
Congressional Research Service
8

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

Sequestration Continues on Mandatory Accounts
Sequestration is a process of automatic, largely across-the-board reductions that permanently
cancel mandatory and/or discretionary budget authority when spending would exceed statutory
budget goals. Sequestration is required in the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA; P.L. 112-25).19
Although the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (P.L. 113-67) raised spending limits in the BCA to
avoid sequestration of discretionary accounts in FY2014 and FY2015, it did not prevent or reduce
sequestration on mandatory accounts.
The text box below shows the rates of sequestration and the total amount sequestered from
accounts in the Agriculture appropriations bill. In FY2014 and FY2015, over $1 billion has been
sequestered each year from mandatory programs in the Agriculture appropriations bill, primarily
in the farm commodity and conservation areas. Crop insurance and the nutrition programs are
largely exempt. Appendix B provides more detail about sequestration at the individual account
level.
Sequestration affects some amounts in the FY2015 appropriation as discussed in the sections
“Mandatory Conservation Programs” and “Changes in Mandatory Program Spending
(CHIMPS).”

Sequestration Rates and Amounts Cancelled from Agriculture Accounts
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
Discretionary accounts
Mandatory accounts
Fiscal year
Rate
Amount
Rate
Amount
2013a
5.0%
1,153
5.1%
713
2014b
—
—
7.2%
1,052
2015c
—
—
7.3%
1,153
Source: OMB, various Reports to the Congress on the Joint Committee Sequestration. Compiled by CRS.
Notes: Sequestration rates are for non-exempt, non-defense accounts. Totals were computed by CRS.
a. OMB, Report to the Congress on the Joint Committee Sequestration for FY2013, March 1, 2013, at http://www.
whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fy13ombjcsequestrationreport.pdf.
b. OMB, Reports to the Congress on the Joint Committee Reductions for FY2014, May 20, 2013, at http://www.
whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fy14_preview_and_joint_committee_
reductions_reports_05202013.pdf.
c. OMB, Report to the Congress on the Joint Committee Reductions for FY2015, March 10, 2014, at http://www.
whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/sequestration_order_report_march2014.pdf.

19 See CRS Report R42972, Sequestration as a Budget Enforcement Process: Frequently Asked Questions.
Congressional Research Service
9

Table 2. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations, by Agency and Program
(budget authority in millions of dollars)

FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
Change from
Change from
FY2014 to House
House to Senate
P.L. 113-6
Admin.
House-
Senate-
Agency or Major Program
P.L. 112-55
post-seq.
P.L. 113-76
Request
reported
reported
$ % $ %
SUMMARY by TITLE

I: Agricultural Programs
24,970.2
27,938.8
29,938.1
25,526.9
25,707.3
25,627.3
-4,230.8
-14.1%
-80.0
-0.3%
Mandatory (M)
18,293.5
21,582.7
23,149.1 18,857.3 18,855.8 18,857.8
-4,293.3 -18.5% +2.0 +0.0%
Discretionary 6,676.7
6,356.2
6,789.0
6,669.6
6,851.5 6,769.5 +62.5
+0.9% -82.0 -1.2%
II: Conservation Programs
844.0
781.2
825.8
815.7
869.0
850.2
+43.1
+5.2%
-18.8
-2.2%
III: Rural Development
2,405.2
2,279.9
2,569.7
2,385.9
2,590.8
2,606.9
+21.1
+0.8%
+16.1
+0.6%
IV: Domestic Food Programs
105,553.0
104,098.0
108,585.6
112,047.9
109,825.3
109,802.9
+1,239.7
+1.1%
-22.4
-0.0%
Mandatory (M)
98,551.9
97,171.9
101,432.9 104,723.4 102,722.9 102,723.0 +1,290.0 +1.3% +0.1 +0.0%
Discretionary 7,001.1
6,926.1
7,152.7
7,324.5
7,102.3 7,079.9 -50.4 -0.7% -22.4 -0.3%
V: Foreign Assistance
1,835.7
1,705.9
1,838.5
1,777.0
1,856.0
1,843.2
+17.5
+1.0%
-12.8
-0.7%
VI: Food and Drug Administration
2,505.8
2,386.0
2,560.7
2,584.2
2,582.9
2,597.3
+22.2
+0.9%
+14.5
+0.6%
Commodity Futures Trading Commissiona 205.3
[194.0]
215.0
280.0
217.6
[280.0]
+2.6
+1.2%
+62.4
+28.7%
VII: General Provisions: CHIMPS & rescissions
-1,650.7
-918.4
-987.0
-1,021.0
-792.0
-817.0
+195.0
-19.8%
-25.0
+3.2%
General Provisions: Other appropriations
377.1
132.5
106.6
2.0
0.0
143.3
-106.6
-100.0%
+143.3
na
Scorekeeping adjustmentsb -72.0
-129.0
-191.0
-398.0
-410.0
-410.0
-219.0
+114.7%
+0.0
+0.0%
Subtract disaster declaration in this bill
-367.0
-100.0

Discretionary: Senate basis w/o CFTC
[19,556.0]
19,520.5
[20,665.0]
20,139.8
[20,650.4]
20,563.4
-14.6
-0.1%
-87.1
-0.4%
Discretionary: House basis w/ CFTC
19,761.3
[19,714.5]
20,880.0
20,419.8
20,868.0 [20,843.4]
-12.0
-0.1%
-24.6
-0.1%
Mandatory subtotal (M)
116,845.4
118,754.6
124,582.0
123,581.2
121,578.7
121,580.8 -3,003.2
-2.4%
2.0
+0.0%
Total: Senate basis, w/o CFTC
136,401.4
138,275.0
145,247.0
143,720.9
142,229.2
142,144.1 -3,017.8
-2.1%
-85.0
-0.1%
CRS-10

FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
Change from
Change from
FY2014 to House
House to Senate
P.L. 113-6
Admin.
House-
Senate-
Agency or Major Program
P.L. 112-55
post-seq.
P.L. 113-76
Request
reported
reported
$ % $ %
Title VII: General Provisions

Changes in Mandatory Program Spendingf -1,631.8
-893.0
-953.7
-1,008.0
-779.0
-804.0
+174.7
-18.3%
-25.0
+3.2%
Rescissions -18.9
-25.3
-33.3
-13.0
-13.0
-13.0
+20.3
-61.0%
+0.0
+0.0%
Other appropriations
377.1
132.5
106.6
2.0
0.0
143.3
-106.6
-100.0%
+143.3
na
Subtotal
-1,273.6
-785.9
-880.4
-1,019.0
-792.0
-673.7
+88.4
-10.0%
+118.3
-14.9%
Scorekeeping Adjustmentsb

Disaster declaration in this bill
-367.0
-100.0

-100.0
na
Other scorekeeping adjustments
-72.0
-129.0
-191.0
-398.0
-410.0
-410.0
-219.0
+114.7%
+0.0
+0.0%
Subtotal -439.0
-129.0
-191.0
-398.0
-410.0
-510.0
-219.0
+114.7%
-100.0
+24.4
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports for S. 2389, H.R. 4800, P.L. 113-76, and P.L. 112-55. Senate CFTC amount
is subcommittee markup. FY2013 post-sequestration amounts are from the USDA FY2013 Operating Plan. Scorekeeping adjustments are from unpublished
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) tables.
Notes:.[Bracketed amounts] are not in the official totals due to differing House-Senate jurisdiction for CFTC, but are shown for comparison. Amounts are in nominal
dollars, and are budget authority in millions of dollars. Amounts do not include supplemental appropriations outside the annual appropriation.
a. Jurisdiction for CFTC is in the House Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee and the Senate Financial Services Appropriations subcommittee. After FY2008,
CFTC is carried in enacted Agriculture appropriations in even-numbered fiscal years, always in House Agriculture markup, and never in Senate Agriculture markup.
b. “Scorekeeping adjustments” are not necessarily appropriated items and may not be shown in appropriations committee tables, but are part of the official CBO score
(accounting) of the bill. They predominately include “negative subsidies” in loan program accounts, and adjustments for disaster designations in the bill.
c. Includes regular FSA salaries and expenses, plus transfers for farm loan program salaries and expenses and farm loan program administrative expenses. Also includes
farm loan program loan subsidy, State Mediation Grants; Dairy Indemnity Program (mandatory funding); and Grassroots Source Water Protection Program. Does
not include amounts appropriated to the Foreign Agricultural Service for export loans and P.L. 480 administration and transferred to FSA.
d. Loan authority is the amount of loans that can be made or guaranteed with a loan subsidy; it is not added in the budget authority subtotals or totals.
e. Commodity Credit Corporation and Federal Crop Insurance Corporation each receive an indefinite appropriation (“such sums as necessary”). Estimates are used in
the appropriations bill reports and may not reflect actual outlays or reimbursements.
f.
Amounts for the Rural Business Cooperative Service are before the rescission from the Cushion of Credit account. This allows the RBS total to remain positive,
unlike in Appropriations committee tables. The rescission is included with the changes in mandatory program spending (CHIMPS) in the General Provisions section.
CRS-14

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

USDA Agencies and Programs
About 95% of the total appropriation for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is funded
through the Agriculture appropriations bill. The department was created in 1862 and carries out
widely varied responsibilities through about 30 separate internal agencies and offices staffed by
nearly 100,000 employees.20 Funding for about two-thirds of those employees is provided in the
Agriculture appropriation. The remaining one-third of the employees, about 33,000 staff years,
are in the Forest Service, funded by the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.21
This report is organized in the order that the agencies are listed in the Agriculture appropriations
bill (except for the portion of FDA appropriations for food safety, which is discussed in a
comprehensive section on food safety). See Table 2 and tables in some of the following sections
for more details on the amounts for specific agencies.

USDA Compared to the Appropriations Bill
Agriculture appropriations are not perfectly correlated with USDA spending.
Agriculture appropriations include the FDA and CFTC (that are outside USDA), and
do not fund the Forest Service (that is part of USDA). The Forest Service is funded
in the Interior and Related Agencies appropriations bill.
Similarly, USDA spending is not synonymous with farm program spending. It includes
programs that may not be considered agricultural, such as nutrition assistance and
rural development.
USDA divides its activities into mission areas that are different from how the
appropriation is organized in titles.
•
Food and nutrition programs—with more than three-fourths of USDA’s
budget—comprise USDA’s largest mission area. This is Title IV of the
appropriation.
•
The second-largest mission area, with about one-eighth of USDA’s budget, is
farm and foreign agricultural services. This mission area is split between
appropriations Title I (domestic) and Title V (foreign trade and aid).
•
Five other mission areas share one-eighth of USDA’s budget, including natural
resources, rural development, research, marketing and regulatory programs,
and food safety. In appropriations bills, rural development is Title III, and
conservation is Title II (the part of the natural resources mission area without
the Forest Service). The other three mission areas others are combined into
Title I of the appropriation.
The type of funding (mandatory or discretionary) also is an important difference
between how the appropriations bill and USDA’s mission areas are organized.
•
USDA mission area totals include both mandatory and discretionary spending.
•
In the appropriation, conservation (Title II), rural development (Title III), and
agricultural research (part of Title I) include only discretionary amounts.
Mandatory amounts for these programs are contained within the Commodity
Credit Corporation amount in Title I.

20 USDA, FY2015 Budget Summary, April 2014, p. 112, at http://www.obpa.usda.gov/budsum/FY15budsum.pdf.
21 See CRS Report R43142, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2013 and FY2014 Appropriations.
Congressional Research Service
15

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

Departmental Administration22
The Agriculture appropriations bill has several accounts that provide for the general
administration of the USDA, ranging from the immediate Office of the Secretary, to the Office of
Inspector General, to facilities rental payments.
One notable administrative change for FY2015 is that both the House- and Senate-reported bills
alter the accounting for rental expenses. Although the federal government owns many of the
facilities in which agencies are housed, USDA rents some buildings and facilities from private
vendors. In the past, all of USDA’s rental obligations ($178 million in FY2014) were paid from a
separate account at the Department level. For FY2015, both the House and Senate concur with
the Administration’s request that such payments be paid by the individual agencies. Thus, despite
savings at the Departmental Administration level, many agency budgets are increased to
compensate for the additional obligations. If agencies’ budgets are not increased by at least the
amount of rental payments being shifted, their net appropriation may reflect an effective decrease
from prior years. The effect of shifting these costs into agency budgets is noted for many agencies
later in this report. Therefore, the more than $150 million proposed decreases in Departmental
Administration is largely due to the accounting change in rental payments, and is offset by diffuse
and corresponding increases in individual agency budgets.
For FY2015, the House-reported bill would provide $360 million for Departmental
Administration (Table 3). Some of the increases for administrative agencies and offices over
FY2014 are, in part, to pay for the addition of rental payments in their budgets.
The Senate-reported bill would provide $380 million for Departmental Administration, $20
million more than the House bill. The differences between the House and Senate bills are the that
the Office of Communications, General Counsel, and Departmental Administration would receive
the President’s requested amount, rather than a smaller House-reported amount. The Senate bill
also provides $10 million more than the House bill and FY2014 for building operations and
maintenance, the level requested by the Administration.

22 This section was written by Jim Monke (7-9664, jmonke@crs.loc.gov).
Congressional Research Service
16

Table 3. USDA Departmental Administration Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
Change from
Change from
FY2014 to House
House to Senate
P.L. 113-6
Admin.
House-
Senate-
Administrative Office
P.L. 112-55
post-seq. P.L.
113-76 Request
reported
reported
$ % $ %
Office of the Secretary

Office of the Secretary
4.55
4.69
5.05
5.09
5.05
5.09
+0.0
+0.0%
+0.0
+0.7%
Office of Tribal Relations
0.45
0.46
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
+0.0
+0.0%
+0.0
+0.8%
Office of Homeland Security
1.32
1.39
1.50
1.51
1.51
1.51
+0.0
+0.7%
+0.0
+0.0%
Advocacy and Outreach
1.21
1.32
1.21
1.22
1.21
1.22
+0.0
+0.0%
+0.0
+0.7%
Assistant Secretary for Admin.
0.76
0.75
0.80
0.81
0.80
0.81
+0.0
+0.0%
+0.0
+0.6%
Departmental
Administration
24.17
22.50
22.79 25.66 22.81 25.31 +0.0
+0.1% +2.5
+11.0%
Asst. Sec. Congressional Relations
3.58
3.59
3.87
3.90
3.87
3.90
+0.0
+0.0%
+0.0
+0.7%
Office of Communications
8.07
8.36
8.07
8.14
5.54
8.14
-2.5
-31.4%
+2.6
+47.0%
Subtotal, Office of the Secretary
44.10
43.06
43.78
46.82
41.28
46.47
-2.5
-5.7%
+5.2
+12.6%
Executive Operations

Office of Chief Economist
11.18
15.01
16.78
16.85
16.78
16.85
+0.0
+0.0%
+0.1
+0.5%
National Appeals Division
12.84
13.19
12.84
13.43
13.32
13.43
+0.5
+3.7%
+0.1
+0.8%
Office of Budget, Program Analysis
8.95
8.35
9.06
10.29
9.39
9.31
+0.3
+3.6%
-0.1
-0.9%
Subtotal, Executive Operations
32.96
36.56
38.68
40.58
39.49
39.59
+0.8
+2.1%
+0.1
+0.3%
Other Administration

Chief Information Officer
44.03
40.65
44.03
45.20
45.03
45.20
+1.0
+2.3%
+0.2
+0.4%
Chief Financial Officer
5.65
5.77
6.21
6.08
6.03
6.08
-0.2
-3.0%
+0.1
+0.9%
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights
0.85
0.83
0.89
0.90
0.90
0.90
+0.0
+0.6%
+0.0
+0.0%
Office of Civil Rights
21.00
21.02
21.40
24.24
24.07
24.24
+2.7
+12.5%
+0.2
+0.7%
CRS-17

FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
Change from
Change from
FY2014 to House
House to Senate
P.L. 113-6
Admin.
House-
Senate-
Administrative Office
P.L. 112-55
post-seq. P.L.
113-76 Request
reported
reported
$ % $ %
Buildings, facilities, and rental payments
230.42
252.40
233.00
64.83
54.83
64.84
-178.2
-76.5%
+10.0
+18.3%
Hazardous materials management
3.59
3.70
3.59
3.60
3.60
3.60
+0.0
+0.2%
+0.0
+0.0%
Office of Inspector General
85.62
82.30
89.90
97.24
97.02
97.24
+7.1
+7.9%
+0.2
+0.2%
General
Counsel
39.35
41.87
41.20 47.57 44.38 47.57 +3.2
+7.7% +3.2
+7.2%
Office of Ethics
na
3.14
3.44
3.87
3.44
3.87
+0.0
+0.0%
+0.4
+12.4%
Subtotal, Other Administration
430.50
451.68
443.67
293.51
279.29
293.53
-164.4
-37.1%
+14.2
+5.1%
Total, Departmental Administration
507.57
531.30
526.13
380.90
360.06
379.59
-166.1
-31.6%
+19.5
+5.4%
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports for S. 2389, H.R. 4800, P.L. 113-76, and P.L. 112-55. Post-sequestration
amounts for FY2013 are from the USDA FY2013 Operating Plan.

CRS-18

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

Agricultural Research, Education, and Extension23
Four agencies carry out USDA’s research, education, and economics (REE) mission:
• The Agricultural Research Service (ARS), USDA’s intramural science agency,
conducts long-term, high-risk, basic and applied research on food and agriculture
issues of national and regional importance.
• The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) distributes federal
funds to land grant colleges of agriculture to provide partial support for state-
level research, education, and extension.
• The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) collects and publishes
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 Economic Research Service (ERS) provides economic analysis of issues
regarding public and private interests in agriculture, natural resources, food, and
rural America.
For FY2015, the House-reported bill would provide $2.804 billion to the USDA REE mission
area ($165 million, or +6.3%, more than FY2014). The Senate bill would provide $2.696 billion
($109 million less than the House bill, but still an increase from FY2014 and consistent with the
Administration’s base request). After FY2010, none of the annual appropriations have included
any earmarks or congressionally designated spending items for REE-related activities.
Across REE, most of the increase in the House-reported bill is for ARS buildings and facilities
(+$155 million), though NASS and ERS receive larger proportional increases of +5% and +10%,
respectively (Table 4). The Senate bill does not provide any funding for ARS buildings and
facilities that the House proposes, but compared to the House-reported bill provides $19 million
more to ARS salaries and expenses, $19 million more for NIFA, and $9 million more to NASS.
In addition to its base request, the Administration proposed an additional $277 million for ARS
and NIFA under an Opportunity, Growth, and Security (OGS) Initiative.24 With the exception of
the buildings and facilities appropriation in the House-reported bill, neither the House nor Senate
bill funds this initiative.
The increases in the FY2014 and FY2015 funding levels for REE activities come after three years
of reductions. Appropriations to the REE mission area declined nearly 16% from FY2010 to
FY2013. ARS appropriations declined nearly 19% and NIFA by 15% from FY2010 to FY2013.
The increases for the mission area in FY2014 and FY2015 restore most of those reductions since
FY2010 in absolute terms, if not inflation-adjusted terms. The amount for ARS in the House bill
would exceed the FY2010 level ($1.25 billion), but neither bill yet achieves the FY2010 level for
NIFA ($1.34 billion). Thus, agricultural research stakeholders continue to express concern for
research funding over the long term.

23 This section was written by Jim Monke (7-9664, jmonke@crs.loc.gov).
24 For background, see CRS Report R43580, Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015.
Congressional Research Service
19

Table 4. USDA Research, Extension, and Economics (REE) Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)

FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
Change from
Change from
FY2014 to House
House to Senate
Admin.
Admin.
P.L. 112-
P.L. 113-6
P.L. 113-
Request
OGS
House-
Senate-
Agency or Major Program
55
post-sequ.
76
(base)
initiative
reported
reported
$ % $ %
Agricultural
Research
Service
1,094.6 1,016.9 1,122.5 1,104.4
47.2 1,120.3 1,139.7 -2.2
-0.2%
+19.4
+1.7%
Buildings and Facilities
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
155.0
155.0
0.0
+155.0
na
-155.0
na
National Institute of Food & Agric.
1,202.3
1,142.0
1,277.1
1,335.5
80.0
1,273.8
1,292.4
-3.3
-0.3%
+18.6
+1.5%
Research and Education
705.6
683.2
772.6
837.7 80.0 774.5 787.5 +1.9
+0.2%
+13.1
+1.7%
AFRI (competitive grants)
264.5
275.6
316.4 325.0 60.0 325.0 325.0 +8.6
+2.7%
+0.0
+0.0%
Hatch Act (1862 institutions)
236.3
218.6
243.7 243.7 15.0 243.7 243.7 +0.0
+0.0%
+0.0
+0.0%
Evans-Allen (1890s institutions)
50.9
47.1
52.5 52.5 5.0 52.5 52.5 +0.0
+0.0%
+0.0
+0.0%
McIntire-Stennis (forestry)
32.9
30.5
34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0 +0.0
+0.0%
+0.0
+0.0%
Innovation Institutes

75.0

0.0
0.0
Other
121.0 111.5 126.0 107.6
119.3 132.4 -6.7
-5.3%
+13.1
+11.0%
Extension
475.2 439.1 469.2 469.0
467.3 472.7 -1.9
-0.4%
+5.3
+1.1%
Smith-Lever (b) & (c)
294.0
271.3
300.0
300.0
300.0
300.0
+0.0
+0.0%
+0.0
+0.0%
Smith-Lever (d)
99.3
91.7
85.5
85.7 85.7
85.5
+0.2
+0.2%
-0.2
-0.2%
Other
81.8 76.1 83.7 83.2 81.6 87.2 -2.1
-2.5%
+5.5
+6.8%
Integrated
Activities
21.5 19.8 35.3 28.8 32.0 32.2 -3.3
-9.4%
+0.2
+0.7%
National Agric. Statistics Service
158.6
166.6
161.2
179.0

169.4
178.2
+8.2
+5.1%
+8.8
+5.2%
Economic
Research
Service
77.7 71.4 78.1 83.4 85.8 85.4 +7.7
+9.9%
-0.4
-0.5%
Total
REE
appropriation
2,533.3 2,397.0 2,638.8 2,702.4 277.2 2,804.2 2,695.6 +165.4
+6.3%
-108.6
-3.9%
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports for S. 2389, H.R. 4800, P.L. 113-76, and P.L. 112-55. Post-sequestration
amounts for FY2013 are from the USDA FY2013 Operating Plan.
CRS-20

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

Agricultural Research Service
For FY2015, the House-reported bill would provide $1.120 billion for ARS salaries and expenses
and $155 million for ARS buildings and facilities construction. The House-reported amount for
salaries and expenses is about even with the FY2014 amount, though it reflects an effective
reduction of about $7 million from FY2014 after adjusting for the inclusion of building rental
payments.
The $155 million for buildings and facilities construction in the House bill was requested by the
Administration in the Opportunity, Growth, and Security (OGS) Initiative. It would construct a
new bio-containment facility to replace the Poultry Research Facility in Athens, GA. There has
been no appropriation for ARS buildings and facilities in recent years. The OGS Initiative is not
included in the request column of Appropriations committee tables, but is shown in Table 4.
The Senate bill would provide $1.140 billion for salaries and expenses, about $19 million more
than the House bill, and nothing for buildings and facilities construction. The Senate-reported
amount is $17 million more than the FY2014 amount, which is about $12 million more after
adjusting for the inclusion of rental payments.
Both the House and Senate report language reject the Administration’s request to close six ARS
research centers and to redirect research programs at other laboratories.
In addition to the base request for ARS and the OGS Initiative for buildings and facilities, the
Administration proposed an additional $42 million in the Opportunity, Growth, and Security
(OGS) Initiative to support five high-priority research areas across the agency. Neither the House
nor Senate bill addresses this request.
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
For FY2015, the House-reported bill would provide $1.274 billion for NIFA, $3 million less than
the FY2014 appropriation. This reduction is effectively about $9 million because of the addition
of rental expenses. The Senate bill would provide about $19 million more than the House bill,
which represents a small increase over FY2014, even after the addition of rental expenses. Within
the NIFA total:
• Research and Education Activities would receive $775 million in the House
bill and $788 million in the Senate bill.
• USDA’s flagship competitive grants program—the Agriculture and Food
Research Initiative (AFRI), with about one-fourth of NIFA’s total budget—
receives a $9 million increase to $325 million in both the House and Senate
bills. This concurs with the Administration’s request.
• The Administration had requested $75 million for “Innovation Institutes,”
that would focus on emerging agricultural research challenges. Startup
funding of $25 million per year for each of three institutes, for five years,
would leverage public-private partnerships. Proposed research areas were
pollinator health, bio-manufacturing and bioproducts development, and anti-
microbial resistance. Neither bill would fund the institute model, although
the research topics are addressed in other program funding.
Congressional Research Service
21

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

• Extension Activities would receive $467 million in the House bill and $473
million in the Senate bill. Both amounts are within 1% of the FY2014 amount.
• Integrated Activities—which had declined by about two-thirds from FY2010
through FY2013 (from $60 million to $20 million) but was raised to $35 million
in FY2014—would be reduced again in FY2015. The House and Senate bills are
similar in proposing about $32 million to Integrated Activities for FY2015, more
than the Administration’s request but about 9% less than the FY2014 amount.
As part of the Administration’s proposal for a government-wide reorganization of STEM
programs,25 NIFA would defund its Higher Education Challenge Grants, Graduate and
Postgraduate Fellowship Grants, the Higher Education Multicultural Scholars Program, Women
and Minorities in STEM Program, Agriculture in the Classroom, and Secondary and
Postsecondary Challenge Grants. With the exception of the Agriculture in the Classroom program
that the House bill would defund, neither the House nor Senate bill follows the Administration’s
proposed reorganization (both bills continue to fund these programs).
Finally, in addition to the base request for NIFA, the Administration proposed an additional $80
million through the OGS Initiative. Most of this extra amount would provide increased support
for additional AFRI competitive research grants ($60 million). The rest would establish a new
competitive research grant program to complement formula-funded NIFA grants. Neither the
House nor Senate bill addresses this request.
National Agricultural Statistics Service
For FY2015, the House-reported bill would provide $169 million for NASS, an increase of $8.2
million over FY2014, all of which is needed to cover the $9.2 million additional cost of rental
payments. The Senate-reported bill would provide $178 million, nearly $9 million more than the
House proposal and at the level of the Administration’s request.
Economic Research Service
For FY2015, the House-reported bill would provide $86 million, an increase of nearly $8 million
over FY2014 and equal to the additional cost of rental payments. The Senate-reported bill would
provide slightly less than the House bill, making the FY2014 amount effectively equal, or slightly
less than, the FY2014 amount after adjusting for the addition of rental payments.
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).

25 CRS Report IN10011, The Administration’s Proposed STEM Education Reorganization: Where Are We Now?
Congressional Research Service
22

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service26
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 prominent concerns such 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. APHIS also is charged with administering the Animal Welfare Act
(AWA), which seeks to protect pets and other animals used for research and entertainment.
The House bill would provide $867.5 million and the Senate bill would provide $872.4 million
for APHIS salaries and expenses, which is about $35 million more than the Administration’s
request of $834.3 million. Both bills would provide an additional $3.2 million for buildings and
facilities, and would authorize APHIS to collect fees to cover the total costs of providing
technical assistance, goods, or services in certain cases.
The House and Senate FY2015 recommendations compare to the FY2014 appropriation of
$821.7 million for salaries and expenses and $3.2 million for buildings and facilities. In part,
higher FY2015 amounts compared to FY2014 are largely attributable to rental payments of $42.6
million to the General Services Administration (GSA) and Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) that previously were funded through the Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental
Payments Account.
Both bills also specify in report language amounts at the program level.27 Within APHIS, the
following appropriations are provided across each of the proposed budget categories and are
roughly comparable: plant health (House bill, $302.9 million; Senate bill, $303.2 million); animal
health ($292.0 million; $289.4 million); wildlife services (both bills provide $109.0 million);
regulatory services ($35.6 million; $34.4 million); safe trade and international technical
assistance ($34.4 million; $36.2 million); animal welfare ($28.9 million; $28.7 million);
emergency preparedness ($17.5 million; $17.4 million); and agency management (both bills
provide $52.0 million, which includes payments to GSA and DHA mentioned previously).
As in previous years, both the House and Senate bills highlight that appropriators expect USDA
to continue to use the authority provided in the appropriation and in statute to transfer funds from
other appropriations or funds available to USDA for activities related to the arrest and eradication
of animal and plant pests and diseases.28 The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and
congressional appropriators have sparred for years over whether APHIS should—as appropriators
have preferred—reach as needed into USDA’s Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) account for
mandatory funds to deal with emerging plant pests and other plant and animal health problems on

26 This section was written by Renée Johnson (7-9588; rjohnson@crs.loc.gov).
27 Sub-account levels are according to APHIS’s new budget structure proposed and implemented as part of the FY2012
appropriations process that reorganized and consolidated APHIS programs across 29 budgetary line items. For more
information, see CRS Report R41964, Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations. See also USDA,
“2012 Budget and Explanatory Notes, APHIS,” pp. 18-47 through 18-50, http://www.obpa.usda.gov/
18aphis2012notes.pdf.
28 This provision is in accordance with the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. §§ 8310 and 8316, §§10411 and
10417) and the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. §§ 7751 and 7772, §§431 and 442).
Congressional Research Service
23

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

an emergency basis, or be provided the funds primarily through the annual USDA appropriation,
as OMB has argued. In particular, both committees highlight the need for USDA to use its
authority to transfer CCC funds to address emerging plant pests. Both bills recommend that funds
be made available until expended for a “contingency fund” to control outbreaks of insects, plant
diseases, animal diseases and for control of pest animals and birds to the extent necessary to meet
emergency conditions. The House bill recommends $0.470 million and the Senate bill
recommends $0.485 million be available for this contingency fund.
The Committees on Appropriations in both the House and Senate have expressed a number of
shared priorities. Both the House and Senate bills express concern about the emergence of
Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea virus (PEDv) that has had a devastating impact on the U.S. hog sector
over the past year. The House bill provides $3.5 million to address PEDv, consisting of $2.5
million for the swine health program and $1.0 million for the National Animal Health Laboratory
Network (NAHLN) to support veterinary diagnostics. The Senate bill provides additional, but
unspecified, funding for PEDv and for NAHLN. In addition, both the House and Senate
appropriations committees provide increased support for the National Veterinary Stockpile as well
as activities under the authority of the Horse Protection Act, and also address issues pertaining to
Agricultural Quarantine and Inspection (AQI) user fees.
Both the House and Senate bills and committee reports contain provisions and language intended
to address a range of animal wildlife services, damage management, and methods development,
including aquaculture animal health, although in some cases differ in approach. Both express
concerns about cotton pests, screw worm, Sudden Oak Death and other tree and wood pests,
among other specialty crop and invasive pests, as well as issues pertaining to the brucellosis
eradication program. The bills, however, differ in terms of some specific pests and diseases of
concern. For example, the House bill and committee report expresses concerns about the Brown
Marmorated Stink Bug, the Conehead Termite, and the Potato Cyst Nematode, and also feral
swine management and cervid29 health, among other types of emerging pests and diseases. The
House bill also provides for continued support for citrus greening disease (also known as
Huanglongbing) through increased funding of $5 million for the Citrus Health Response Program
(CHRP). The Senate bill and committee report provides specific mention of the Asian Long-
Horned Beetle, honey bee pests, chronic wasting disease, and invasive annual grasses.
Agricultural Marketing Service and “Section 32”30
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) administers numerous programs that facilitate the
marketing of U.S. agricultural products in domestic and international markets. AMS each year
receives appropriations in two different ways. A discretionary appropriation of about $80 million
funds a variety of marketing activities. A larger mandatory amount of about $1.1 billion (“Section
32,” a.k.a. Funds for strengthening markets, income and supply) finances various types of ad-hoc
decisions that support agricultural commodities (such as livestock, fruits, and vegetables) that are
not supported through the direct subsidy programs for the primary field crops (corn, soybeans,
wheat, cotton, rice, peanuts) and dairy.31

29 Refers to any ruminant mammal of the family Cervidae, including deer, moose, and elk.
30 The AMS marketing services section was written by Remy Jurenas (former CRS specialist) and the Section 32
portion by Dennis A. Shields (7-9051, dshields@crs.loc.gov).
31 In addition, user fees and reimbursements finance other AMS-administered activities, such as product quality and
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
24

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

Marketing Activities
The discretionary appropriation (8% of AMS’s total FY2014 appropriated resources) funds
several programs—dissemination of marketing news, collection of data on pesticide residues and
sampling foods consumed by infants and children, development and revision of quality grade
standards for traded commodities, analysis of issues dealing with transporting agricultural
commodities, analysis and support of local food marketing efforts, implementation of the national
organic program, surveillance to ensure that only eggs fit for human consumption are sold,
implementation of country of origin labeling requirements for covered commodities,
administration of federal regulations on the interstate shipment of agricultural and vegetable
seeds, and administering matching grants to states for resolving issues.32
The House-reported bill (H.R. 4800) provides $82.4 million for marketing services plus payments
to states and possessions, $1.1 million more (+1.4%) than made available in FY2014, but $1.8
million less (-2.1%) than requested by the Administration. House report language recommends
FY2015 funding for National Organic and Pesticide Data programs be equivalent to their FY2014
levels. The Senate-reported bill (S. 2389) appropriates slightly more than does the House measure
($83.0 million).
In its report (H.Rept. 113-468), the House Appropriations Committee “directs USDA not to
implement or enforce the [Country of Origin Labeling (COOL)] final rule [issued in May 2013]
should the WTO [World Trade Organization] issue a final ruling against the United States.” The
committee further directs the Secretary of Agriculture to “promptly issue a notice in the Federal
Register announcing that the COOL rule is suspended until further notice if the final ruling is
against the United States.” As background, Canada and Mexico challenged the May 2013 rule,
claiming it does not comply with earlier WTO dispute settlement findings. To pursue their case,
both countries in September 2013 sought a ruling, expected to be released this fall, on this matter
from a WTO compliance panel. Report language notes that U.S. exports to both countries “will
suffer an economic impact” of about $2 billion “in retaliatory actions” if the WTO determines
that the COOL final rule is inconsistent with U.S. obligations under various WTO trade
obligations.33
During floor action, the House adopted H.Amdt. 856 (by a vote of 223 to 198) by Representative
Royce that reduces funding for AMS by $15.5 million and shifts $10 million to the Foreign
Agricultural Service (see “Local and Regional Procurement (LRP) Projects”). Final action on the
amended bill has yet to take place.

(...continued)
process verification programs, commodity grading, and Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act licensing.
32 Separate from the appropriations process, the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79) authorizes mandatory funding for four
AMS-administered programs as follows: $72.5 million (annually, FY2014-2017) and $85 million (annually, FY2018
and thereafter) for specialty crop block grants, $15 million (annually, FY2014-2018) for farmers’ market promotion,
$15 million (annually, FY2014-2018) for local food promotion, and a set-aside (estimated at $12.5 million in FY2015)
for AMS share of costs to support organic certification. For FY2015, AMS expects to administer an estimated $115
million of these mandatory farm bill initiatives.
33 For information on COOL and background on the dispute brought by Canada and Mexico challenging the
implementation of this law, see CRS Report RS22955, Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods and the WTO Trade
Dispute on Meat Labeling.
Congressional Research Service
25

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

Section 32 (Funds for strengthening markets, income and supply)
AMS’s mandatory appropriation (which accounted for 92% of total agency funding in FY2014)
reflects a transfer from the so-called Section 32, an appropriation created in 1935 to assist
agricultural producers of non-price-supported commodities. The Section 32 account is funded by
a permanent appropriation of 30% of the previous calendar year’s customs receipts ($9.2 billion
in FY2014), less certain mandatory transfers to child nutrition and other programs ($8.1 billion in
FY2014).34
Section 32 monies available for obligation by AMS have been used at the Secretary’s discretion
to purchase agricultural commodities like meats, poultry, fruits, vegetables, and fish, which are
not typically covered by mandatory farm programs. These commodities are diverted to school
lunch and other domestic food and nutrition programs. Section 32 has also been used to fund
surplus removal and farm economic and disaster relief activities.
The 2008 farm bill (§14222) capped the annual amount of Section 32 funds available for
obligation by AMS in FY2015 at $1.284 billion. Also, to increase the amount of fruits and
vegetables purchased under Section 32, Congress limited USDA’s discretion in two ways: (1)
§4304 of the 2008 farm bill established a fresh fruit and vegetable school snack program funded
by carving out Section 32 funds (set at $40 million in 2008, rising to $150 million in 2011, and
adjusted for inflation for each year thereafter), and (2) §4404 of the 2008 farm bill required
additional purchases of fruits, vegetables, and nuts (set at $190 million in FY2008, rising to $206
million in FY2012, and remaining at that level each year thereafter). Section 4214 of the 2014
farm bill expanded the school snack program to include frozen, canned, and dried fruits and
vegetables on a pilot basis for the 2014-15 school year.
Both the House-reported and Senate-reported FY2015 Agriculture appropriations bills provide
$1.122 billion of Section 32 funds for AMS, which is the same as the Administration’s request,
and compares with $1.107 billion enacted in FY2014. This amount represents the actual level of
funding available for obligations by AMS, after rescissions and mandatory transfers have been
made, and is considered mandatory spending.
Both bills also include a provision (§718 in the House-reported bill and §719 in the Senate-
reported bill) that has appeared since FY2012 that effectively prohibits the use of Section 32 for
emergency disaster payments to farmers:
[N]one of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this or any other Act shall be
used to pay the salaries or expenses of any employee of the Department of Agriculture or officer
of the Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out clause 3 of Section 32 of the Agricultural
Adjustment Act of 1935 (P.L. 74-320, 7 U.S.C. 612c, as amended), or for any surplus removal
activities or price support activities under section 5 of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter
Act.35

34 For more details about Section 32 and the farm bill changes, see CRS Report RL34081, Farm and Food Support
Under USDA’s Section 32 Program.
35 Clause 3 of Section 32 provides that funds shall be used to re-establish farmers’ purchasing power by making
payments in connections with the normal production of any agricultural commodity for domestic consumption (7.U.S.C
612c). Section 5 of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act authorizes the CCC to support the prices of
agricultural commodities through loans, purchases, payments, and other operations (15 U.S.C. 714c).
Congressional Research Service
26

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

Despite this restriction, the Senate committee report language notes the importance of the ability
of the Secretary to provide direct assistance, and directs the Secretary to provide notification to
the Appropriations Committee in advance of any public announcement or release of Section 32
funds (§719 nonetheless restricts the Secretary’s authority to use these funds for such purposes).
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration36
USDA’s Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) oversees the
marketing of U.S. grain, oilseeds, livestock, poultry, meat, and other commodities. GIPSA’s
Federal Grain Inspection Service establishes standards for the inspection, weighing, and grading
of grain, rice, and other commodities. The Packers and Stockyards Program monitors livestock
and poultry markets to ensure fair competition and guard against deceptive and fraudulent trade
practices.
The House-reported FY2015 Agriculture appropriations bill (H.R. 4800) provides $43.7 million
for GIPSA salaries and expenses, which is $3.5 million (+8.6%) more than the amount enacted
for FY2014. The Senate-reported FY2015 Agriculture appropriations bill (S. 2389) provides
$44.0 million, $3.8 million (+9.3%) more than for FY2014. The House bill provides $0.3 million
less than (-0.7%) the Administration’s budget request, but the Senate bill matches the request.
Both the House and Senate appropriations bills authorize GIPSA to collect up to $50 million in
user fees for inspection and weighing services. GIPSA may exceed the user fee limit by 10% to
cover unexpected inspection and weighing costs if the Committees on Appropriations are
notified.
Section 730 of the House-reported bill restricts USDA from finalizing or implementing parts of
the GIPSA proposed rule on livestock and poultry marketing practices (75 Federal Register
35338, June 22, 2010; amends 9 C.F.R. Part 201) that were required in the 2008 farm bill (P.L.
110-246).37 The proposed rule addresses how competitive injury is treated under the Packers and
Stockyard Act (P&S Act; 7 U.S.C. §181 et seq.), sets criteria for determining unfair, unjustly
discriminatory and deceptive practices, and undue or unreasonable preference or advantages; and
includes arbitration provisions that give contract growers opportunities to participate in
meaningful arbitration. The proposed rule was contentious, with proponents arguing that it would
bring fairness to marketing transactions, while opponents argued it would disrupt markets and
lead to increased litigation. USDA finalized parts of the proposed rule in December 2011, but
much of the rule was not finalized because prohibitions have been enforced in appropriations acts
since FY2012.
Section 730 allows USDA to publish a final or interim final GIPSA rule only if the annual cost to
the economy is less than $100 million. Also, it prohibits USDA from using any funds to
implement specific provisions that were in the proposed rule. They are the definitions of the
tournament system §201.2(l); competitive injury §201.2(t); and the likelihood of injury §201.2(u).
Other prohibited parts include the applicability of the regulations on conduct that is a violation of
the P&S Act §201.3(c); unfair, unjust discriminatory and deceptive practices §201.210; undue or
unreasonable preferences §201.211; livestock and poultry contracts §201.213; and the tournament
system §201.214. In addition, the section rescinds funding for the enforcement of three provisions

36 This section was written by Joel L. Greene (7-9877, jgreene@crs.loc.gov).
37 For more, see CRS Report R41673, USDA’s “GIPSA Rule” on Livestock and Poultry Marketing Practices.
Congressional Research Service
27

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

that USDA finalized in 2011. They are the definition of suspension of delivery of birds §201.2(o),
the applicability to live poultry §201.3(a), and the 90-day notification for suspension of delivery
of birds §210.215(a).
The Senate appropriations bill does not include a provision on the GIPSA proposed rule.
Food Safety38
Numerous federal, state, and local agencies share responsibilities for regulating the safety of the
U.S. food supply.39 Federal responsibility for food safety rests primarily with the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) and the USDA. FDA, an agency of the Department of Health and Human
Services, is responsible for ensuring the safety of the majority of all domestic and imported food
products (except for meat and poultry products).40 USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) regulates most meat, poultry, and processed egg products.41 The agriculture appropriations
subcommittees oversee both the FDA and FSIS budgets.
Historically, federal funding and staffing levels between FDA and FSIS have been
disproportionate to their respective responsibilities for addressing food safety activities. Although
FSIS is responsible for roughly 10%-20% of the U.S. food supply, it has received about 60% of
the two agencies’ combined food safety budget. Although FDA has been responsible for 80%-
90% of the U.S. food supply, a few years ago it received about 40% of the combined budget for
federal food safety activities (Table 5). Staffing levels also have varied considerably among the
two agencies: FSIS staff numbered around 9,400 FTEs in FY2010, while FDA staff working on
food-related activities numbers about 3,400 FTEs.
In recent years, however, the balance of overall funding for food safety between FDA and USDA
has started to shift. Congressional appropriators have increased funding for FDA food activities,
which more than doubled from $435.5 million in FY2005 to $882.8 million in FY2014 (Table 5).
Funding for FSIS remained mostly unchanged to slightly lower overall. The Food Safety
Modernization Act (FSMA) also provided for additional limited funding through certain types of
industry-paid user fees.
FSMA—comprehensive food safety legislation enacted in the 111th Congress—authorized
additional appropriations and staff for FDA’s future food safety activities.42 FSMA was the largest
expansion of FDA’s food safety authorities since the 1930s. Among its many provisions, FSMA
authorized increasing frequency of inspections at food facilities, tightening record-keeping
requirements, extending oversight to certain farms, and also mandated product recalls. It requires
food processing, manufacturing, shipping, and other facilities to conduct a food safety plan of the
most likely safety hazards, and design and implement risk-based controls. It also mandates

38 This section was written by Renée Johnson (7-9588; rjohnson@crs.loc.gov), with contributions from Joel Greene
(FSIS) and Susan Thaul (FDA Foods Program).
39 For more information, see CRS Report RS22600, The Federal Food Safety System: A Primer.
40 FDA’s food safety authorities rest primarily with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA, 21 U.S.C.
§§301 et seq.).
41 Laws governing FSIS include the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA, 21 U.S.C. §§601, et seq.), the Poultry
Products Inspection Act (PPIA, 21 U.S.C. §§451, et seq.), and the Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA, 21 U.S.C.
§§1031, et seq.).
42 P.L. 111-353 amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
Congressional Research Service
28

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

improvements to the nation’s foodborne illness surveillance systems and increased scrutiny of
food imports, among other provisions. FSMA did not directly address meat and poultry products
under USDA’s jurisdiction.
Although Congress authorized appropriations when it enacted FSMA, it did not provide the
funding needed for FDA to perform these activities. After FSMA was signed into law in January
2011, concerns were voiced about whether there would be enough money to overhaul the U.S.
food safety system and also whether expanded investment in this area was appropriate in the
current budgetary climate.43 Prior to enactment, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
estimated that implementing FSMA could increase net federal spending subject to appropriation
by about $1.4 billion over a five-year period (FY2011-FY2015).44 This cost estimate covers
activities at FDA and other federal agencies, and does not include offsetting revenue from the
collection of new user fees authorized under FSMA.45 FSMA did not impose any new facility
registration fees. Prior to enactment, CBO estimated that about $240 million in new fees would
be collected over the five-year period (FY2011-FY2015).46 Taking into account these new fees,
CBO estimated that covering the five-year cost of new requirements within FDA, including more
frequent inspections, would require additional outlays of $1.1 billion. FSMA also authorized an
increase in FDA staff, which was expected to reach 5,000 by FY2014.47 Instead, FDA reports
actual staffing levels at 3,800 FTEs in FY2014 (Table 5).
FDA continues to implement regulations under FSMA. Although Congress has added to FDA’s
budget for its Foods Program in the past few years, agency officials claim it will need an
additional $400 million to $450 million more per year above its FY2012 base to fully implement
FSMA.48

43 See “Food Safety Bill Advocates Expect Funding Fight,” Food Safety News, January 4, 2011.
44 CBO, Cost Estimate, “S. 510, Food Safety Modernization Act, as reported by the Senate Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions on December 18, 2009, incorporating a manager’s amendment released on August 12,
2010,” August 12, 2010, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/117xx/doc11794/s510.pdf; reflects the Senate amendment to S.
510. Estimated total costs would be covered by a combination of user fees and direct appropriations (budget authority).
45 FSMA authorized additional appropriations and staff for FDA’s future food safety activities and authorized new user
fees. New fees authorized under FSMA include an annual fee for participants in the voluntary qualified importer
program (VQIP) and three fees for certain periodic activities involving reinspection, recall, and export certification.
FSMA, P.L. 111-353, §§107 and 401. Details of these annual and periodic fees are presented in CRS Report R40443,
The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (P.L. 111-353).
46 As estimated by CBO, these fees would be phased in as follows: $15 million (FY2011), $27 million (FY2012); $47
million (FY2013); $63 million (FY2014); and $89 million (FY2015).
47 FSMA, P.L. 111-353, §401. By fiscal year, staff level increases were authorized to a total of not fewer than: 4,000
staff members (FY2011); 4,200 staff (FY2012); 4,600 staff (FY2013); and 5,000 staff (FY2014).
48 FDA, Building Domestic Capacity to Implement the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), May 2013.
Congressional Research Service
29

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

Table 5. Food Safety Appropriations
(FTEs as indicated, and budget and appropriation figures in millions of dollars)
Program Level,
Agency/Year FTEsa Appropriationb
Including Feesc
HHS Food and Drug Administration (FDA), “Foods” Subtotal
FY2009 Actual
2,995
712.8
712.8
FY2010 Actual
3,387
783.2
783.2
FY2011 Actual
3,605
836.2
836.2
FY2012 Actual
3,546
866.1
882.7
FY2013 Operating Plan (post-sequestration)
3,626
796.6d 813.2
FY2014, Appropriation (P.L. 113-76)
3,805
882.8
900.3
FY2015: Administration Request
4,236
903.4
1,124.3e
H.R. 4800, as reported
NA
903.4
913.8
FY2015, S. 2389, as reported
NA
903.4
913.8
USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
FY2009 Actual
9,343
971.6
1,105.7
FY2010 Actual
9,401
1,018.5
1,172.4
FY2011 Actual
9,465
1,008.5
1,187.2
FY2012 Actual
9,351
1,004.4
1,169.1
FY2013 Operating Plan (post-sequestration)
9,158
977.3f 1,163.7
FY2014, Appropriation (P.L. 113-76)
9,360
1,010.7
1,183.2
FY2015: Administration Request
9,098
1,001.4
1,174.9
FY2015, H.R. 4800, as reported
NA
1,005.2
NA
FY2015, S. 2389, as reported
NA
1,022.8
NA
Sources: CRS, from H.R. 4800, S. 2389, FDA FY2013 Sequestration Operating Plan, FDA FY2014 Operating
Plan, and annual agency budget justifications for FDA (http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/
Reports/BudgetReports/default.htm) and FSIS (http://www.obpa.usda.gov/explan_notes.html). NA=not available.
Notes:
a. Staffing in full time equivalents (FTEs).
b. Does not include existing or proposed user fees or other ‘non-federal’ payments.
c. Includes user fees. For FDA, reflects actual or planned fees through FY2014, and for FY2015. enacted, CR,
and requested fee amounts. For FSIS, includes existing fees and trust fund for overtime, holiday, and
voluntary inspection.
d. FDA’s “FY2013 Sequestration Operating Plan.” and “FY2014 Operating Plan.”
e. The Administration’s requested Foods program level total includes $10.4 million in authorized fees relating
to food reinspection, food and feed recall, and the voluntary qualified importer program; and other
proposed fees covering food facility registration and inspection, food import, international courier, and food
contact notification fees. The “Appropriation” amount excludes fees (both authorized and proposed) from
the requested “Program Level” amount.
f.
Reported by USDA for FSIS in its “Fiscal Year 2013 Operating Plan” and reflects “2013 Enacted w/
Sequester and Rescissions.”
Congressional Research Service
30

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
FDA’s foods program accounts for about one-third of the agency’s total budget authority.49 For
FDA’s foods program, both the House- and Senate-reported bills would provide $903.4 million in
federal appropriations for FY2015 (Table 5). These congressional appropriations are expected to
be augmented by existing (currently authorized) user fees. A total program level, including
appropriations and fees, would be $913.8 million. These fees, as authorized under FSMA, include
food and feed recall fees, food reinspection fees, and voluntary qualified importer program fees.
The House and Senate recommended total program level funding (appropriations plus user fees)
is $210.5 million below the Administration’s request, which proposed several new user fees not
authorized by congressional appropriators (Table 5). In addition to FSMA-authorized use fees,
the Administration’s budget also requests approval of other new user fees. These proposed fees
included a food facility registration and inspection, food import, international courier, and food
contact notification fees. Neither the House nor the Senate appropriations bills include the
Administration’s proposed fees. The House committee report broadly addresses FDA user fees,
requesting a report on user fees collected for each user fee program.
Both the House and Senate appropriators make a number of recommendations regarding FSMA
and FDA’s ongoing efforts to develop regulations and guidance pertaining to the various
provisions of the law. Both address FSMA’s re-proposal of certain key regulations regarding food
safety preventive controls for both human and animal food, and also produce standards.50 The
House committee report expresses concern that FDA is taking an “overly prescriptive regulatory
approach” with many of the regulations including the monitoring of preventive controls and
verification testing activities, and urges FDA to “ensure all FSMA regulations are risk-based,
flexible, and science-based, and embrace the well-established and recognized standards for food
safety already employed through much of the industry.” The Senate committee report further
expresses concern that FDA “only intends to address discrete portions of these proposed rules”
and reminds the agency that the activities covered by FSMA’s rules are “complex and
interrelated” and any regulations need to be “science-based, risk-based, and flexible, taking into
account the different risks posed by different commodities.” The example provided includes the
need to consider the “secondary market for spent grains and byproduct from human food
manufacturing and agricultural practices” that is often used for animal feed. The House
committee report also directs FDA to ensure that all FDA centers (including the Foods Program)
maintain a “firm commitment to science-based, data-driven decision making, facilitating the free
flow of scientific and technical information, and requiring a fair and transparent approach to
resolving scientific disputes.”
House appropriators furthermore maintain FY2014 funding levels of $25 million for food safety
activities such as the “development of guidance, providing technical assistance to industry and
technical support to FDA inspectors, as well as training for FDA and state inspectors.” The House
committee encourages FDA to consider “funding research that would provide portable and
technologically advanced testing platforms needed to effectively monitor and protect against
intentional adulteration of the food supply,” as part of the National Agriculture and Food Defense
Strategy Plan, as required by FSMA. The House also urges FDA to consider exempting tree nut
producers from the produce standards rule, if the tree nuts meet the criteria for ‘‘rarely consumed

49 The entirety of FDA appropriations is discussed later in “Food and Drug Administration (FDA)” and Table 11.
50 For more information, see CRS Report R42885, Food Safety Issues for the 113th Congress.
Congressional Research Service
31

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

raw’’ and the buyer of the tree nuts takes the necessary steps to reduce pathogens as described in
the proposed FSMA rule.
Both the House and Senate committees encourage FDA to form partnerships under FSMA. House
appropriators encourage FDA to “work in partnership with existing government food safety
programs through Memorandum of Understandings to verify compliance with FSMA” and to
“eliminate duplication of activities under the law.” Senate appropriators emphasize the need for
FDA to work with USDA to “perform outreach and technical assistance to farmers and small
businesses” and recommend $2.5 million in funding for USDA’s National Institute of Food and
Agriculture (NIFA) to conduct extension activities related to FSMA. Appropriators also
emphasize the importance of ensuring adequate public review and comment on all proposed
requirements and supporting analyses. The House report expresses concern that FDA is not
providing stakeholders with “adequate input or economic consideration on an expanding list of
highly technical regulatory proposals” and wants the agency to better manage its priorities, given
certain gaps in the regulatory process involving some FSMA rules.
Both the House and Senate committee reports contain provisions related to seafood safety, and
direct FDA to publish updated advice to pregnant women on seafood consumption.51 The Senate
report further encourages FDA to “work with States and the Department of Commerce to more
aggressively combat fraud in parts of the seafood industry.”52 FDA is also encouraged to work
with the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to resolve a dispute between the United States and
the European Union over sanitation protocols on U.S. shellfish, and to report to Congress on this
issue. The Senate also directs FDA to spend “not less than $150,000” to “implement a labeling
requirement that genetically engineered salmon offered for sale to consumers” be labeled as such.
Both House and Senate appropriators broadly encourage FDA to expedite the import clearance
process, and report statistics to Congress that measure the effectiveness of targeting resources and
to clear trusted/compliant shipments. The House committee also requires FDA to report to
Congress on its investigation involving imported pet food, including providing a summary of
recent activities, as well as an annual report on the status of the investigation.
Finally, both House and Senate appropriators urge FDA to devise strategies to address the use of
medically important antibiotics in food animals. The House report further encourages FDA to
maintain appropriate funding levels for both FSMA-related activities and the base work
performed by its food and veterinary medicine programs and through research with their Centers
of Excellence.
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
For USDA’s FSIS, the House-reported bill (H.R. 4800) provides $1.005 billion in federal
appropriations for FY2015, while the Senate-reported appropriations bill (S. 2389) provides
$1.023 billion (Table 5). These congressional appropriations are expected to be augmented by
existing (currently authorized) user fees, which FSIS had earlier estimated would total
approximately $150 million.53 Both bills allocate FSIS appropriations between various sub-

51 FDA recently published draft updated advice on fish consumption. See FDA, “FDA and EPA issue draft updated
advice for fish consumption,” FDA News Release, June 10, 2014.
52 CRS Report R43358, Food Fraud and “Economically Motivated Adulteration” of Food and Food Ingredients.
53 FSIS congressional budget justification (http://www.obpa.usda.gov/explan_notes.html).
Congressional Research Service
32

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

accounts for federal, state, and international inspection; Codex Alimentarius; and the Public
Health Data Communications Infrastructure System. Differences between the House and Senate
bills are attributable to higher recommended appropriations for both federal and state inspections
in the Senate bill.
The Administration requested $1.001 billion for FSIS for FY2015. The Administration also
proposed a user fee of $4 million to cover additional inspection costs associated with performance
issues at inspected establishments. Neither appropriations bill included the user fee proposal.
Both the House and Senate bills provide that $1 million may be credited from fees collected for
the cost of the national laboratory accreditation programs,54 and require that no fewer than 148
FTEs be dedicated to the inspection and enforcement of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act
(HMSA) during FY2015. The Senate-reported bill requires that FSIS continue to implement
catfish inspection as required under the 2008 and 2014 farm bills.55 The House bill does not
contain similar language.
Both committee reports further address additional issues regarding animal welfare. The House
report requires that inspectors hired with funding previously specified for HMSA enforcement
oversee compliance with humane handling rules for live animals. The Senate report directs FSIS
to continue to provide annual reports to the appropriations committee on the implementation of
objective scoring methods for enforcing the HMSA.
Both committee reports also prohibit FSIS from paying the salaries and expenses to inspect
horses for slaughter or to provide voluntary, fee-for-service inspection of horses.56 During
FY2006 and FY2007 appropriations acts prohibited FSIS from paying salaries and expenses for
horse slaughter inspections. From FY2008 to FY2011, the appropriations acts also banned
voluntary, fee-based horse slaughter inspections. The appropriations ban on horse inspections was
not in appropriations acts for FY2012 and FY2013, but is in force for FY2014. No horse
slaughter facilities opened before the ban was reinstated in FY2014.
Both committee reports also support FSIS efforts to encourage water-saving technologies in
slaughter and processing facilities. The House report urges FSIS to work with Tribes to establish
a voluntary program for slaughtering buffalo and bison. The Senate report expresses
disappointment that FSIS has not finalized a catfish inspection rule and directs FSIS to implement
all domestic and import inspections no later than one year after the enactment of the Agricultural
Act of 2014, which would be February 7, 2015.

54 Authorized by §1327 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 138f).
55 P.L. 110-246, §11016, clarified in P.L. 113-79, §12106.
56 H.R. 4800, § 741; S. 2389, § 746.
Congressional Research Service
33

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

Farm Service Agency57
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 supports certain international food assistance
and export credit programs administered by the Foreign Agricultural Service and the U.S. Agency
for International Development.
FSA Salaries and Expenses
For FY2015, the House-reported bill would provide $1.512 billion to FSA for salaries and
expenses (Table 6, including amounts for regular FSA salaries and expenses, plus the transfer
within FSA for the salaries and expenses of the farm loan program).58 This is $27.1 million more
than the amount for FY2014, and the increase equals the amount for building rental payments that
the agency is becoming responsible for in FY2015 (see “Departmental Administration”). Thus,
after adjusting for the new rental expenses, the House bill would be level with FY2014.
The Senate bill for FY2015 would provide $1.490 billion to FSA for salaries and expenses. This
is $22.5 million less than the House bill and about $5 million more than FY2014. After the
addition of rental expenses in FY2015, the Senate bill is a slight reduction compared to FY2014.
Both the House and Senate reports criticize FSA for delays and costs in implementing the
MIDAS (Modernize and Innovate the Delivery of Agricultural Systems) computer upgrade
process. MIDAS was flagged for concern by the IT Dashboard in December 2012. It has
struggled with the scope and schedule of work, and has yet to achieve the expected results.59 The
Government Accountability Office also observed management and schedule problems in 2011.60
Both of the FY2015 appropriations bills—in the Senate bill text61 and in both bills’ committee
reports62—reject USDA’s proposal to close 250 FSA county offices and reduce staffing. They cite
insufficient information, justification, and/or poor timing regarding implementing the 2014 farm
bill. This is the first time that FSA office closure has been mentioned in appropriations since
FY2006-FY2008, which limited FSA’s ability to close offices. The 2008 farm bill enacted a
permanent provision (7 USC 6932a; P.L. 110-246, §14212) that accomplished the same thing—
setting conditions and requiring congressional notification and local hearings before FSA can
close or consolidate a county office. The workload evaluation mentioned in the FY2015
committee reports was in the House-proposed 2014 farm bill, but was not adopted in conference.

57 This section was written by Jim Monke (7-9664, jmonke@crs.loc.gov).
58 Excludes transfers to FSA from the Foreign Agricultural Service for administrative support (about $3 million).
59 IT Dashboard, “Farm Program Modernization (MIDAS) #097,” at https://itdashboard.gov/investment?buscid=225.
60 GAO, “USDA Systems Modernization: Management and Oversight Improvements Are Needed,” GAO-11-586, July
20, 2011, at http://www.gao.gov/assets/330/321447.pdf.
61 S. 2389 states, “That none of the funds available to the Farm Service Agency shall be used to close Farm Service
Agency county offices,” and that FSA cannot relocate county-based employees without congressional approval.
62 H.Rept. 113-468 states that, “[I]n addition to the requirements mandated by the 2008 farm bill for office closures, the
Department is directed to conduct, complete, and submit an evaluation of workload assessments for proposed office
closures to the Committees on Appropriations ... prior to the closure of any FSA county offices.”
Congressional Research Service
34

Table 6. Farm Service Agency Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
Change from
Change from
FY2014 to House
House to Senate
P.L. 113-6
Admin.
House-
Senate-
P.L. 112-55
post-sequ.
P.L. 113-76
Request
reported
reported
$ % $ %
Salaries and expenses

Farm Service Agency (S&E base)
1,199.0
1,115.3
1,177.9
1,139.3
1,205.1
1,182.5
+27.1
+2.3%
-22.5
-1.9%
FSA farm loan program S&E transfer
289.7
281.6
307.0
307.0
307.0
307.0
+0.0
+0.0%
+0.0
+0.0%
Subtotal,
appropriated
to
FSA
1,488.7 1,396.8 1,484.9 1,446.3 1,512.1 1,489.5 +27.1
+1.8%
-22.5
-1.5%
Programs

Farm loan program (loan subsidy)
108.2
90.5
90.0
81.2
78.7
81.2
-11.3
-12.5%
+2.5
+3.2%
Farm loan program admin. expenses
7.9
7.3
7.7
7.9
7.9
7.9
+0.2
+2.6%
+0.0
+0.0%
State
mediation
grants
3.8 4.1 3.8 3.4 3.4 3.4
-0.4
-10.0%
+0.0
+0.0%
Grassroots
source
water
protection
3.8 5.2 5.5 0.0 2.5 6.5
-3.0
-54.8%
+4.0
+160.0%
Dairy
indemnity
program
(M)
0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5
+0.3
+100.0%
+0.0
+0.0%
Total:
Appropriation
to
FSA
1,612.5 1,503.9 1,592.2 1,539.4 1,605.1 1,589.1 +12.9
+0.8%
-16.0
-1.0%
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports for S. 2389, H.R. 4800, P.L. 113-76, and P.L. 112-55. Post-sequestration
amounts for FY2013 are from the USDA FY2013 Operating Plan.
Notes: Does not include about $3 million of salaries and expenses that are appropriated to the Foreign Agricultural Service to administer P.L. 480 and export loans and
transferred to FSA.

CRS-35

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

FSA Farm Loan Programs
The USDA Farm Service Agency makes and guarantees loans to farmers, and is a lender of last
resort for family farmers unable to obtain credit from a commercial lender. USDA provides direct
farm loans (loans made directly from USDA to farmers), and it also guarantees the timely
repayment of principal and interest on qualified loans to farmers from commercial lenders. FSA
loans are used to finance farm real estate, operating expenses, and recovery from natural
disasters. Some loans are made at a low interest rate.63
An appropriation is made to FSA each year to cover the federal cost of making direct and
guaranteed loans, referred to as a loan subsidy. Loan subsidy is directly related to any interest rate
subsidy provided by the government, as well as a projection of anticipated loan losses from
farmer non-repayment of the loans. The amount of loans that can be made—the loan authority—
is several times larger than the subsidy level.
For FY2015, the House bill concurs with the Administration’s request for the farm loan program,
except that the House bill does not fund the Individual Development Account program.64
The House bill would provide $79 million of loan subsidy to support $6.402 billion of direct and
guaranteed loans (Table 7). Though the loan subsidy is about 12% smaller than in FY2014, the
loan authority is $875 million greater than FY2014 (+16%). Both of these changes are largely
explained by the direct farm ownership program, which becomes self-supporting (through fees)
and more than doubles in size. Reductions in the guaranteed operating loan program make up
most of the rest of the difference.
The Senate bill would provide $81 million of loan subsidy (including the $2.5 million requested
for the Individual Development Account program) to support the same $6.402 billion of direct
and guaranteed loan authority as the House-reported bill and Administration request.
Following the global financial crisis that began in 2008, FSA farm loan authority generally has
risen, reflecting the borrowing needs of many farmers. Broad financial system pressures
dramatically increased the demand for FSA farm loans and guarantees when commercial bank
lending standards became stricter and loans sometimes were less available. In FY2009 and
FY2010, supplemental appropriations increased regular FSA loan authority by nearly $1 billion
each year in order to meet demand, up from pre-crisis levels of about $3.5 billion in 2008 to post-
supplemental levels of $6.0 billion in FY2010. From FY2011 to FY2013, loan authority
decreased both due to federal budget pressures and somewhat lessened demand as the financial
system stabilized. Nonetheless, in some years, continued high farm loan demand for certain
programs has caused the loan authority to be exhausted.65 The FY2014 loan authority restored the
total closer to the supplemental levels of FY2009 and FY2010, and the FY2015 appropriation
would increase total loan authority to a new high level, particularly in the direct farm ownership
loan program.

63 For more background, see CRS Report RS21977, Agricultural Credit: Institutions and Issues.
64 The Individual Development Account program was authorized in the 2008 farm bill, but has never been funded. It is
not a loan program, but rather a savings program (7 U.S.C. 1983b). USDA grants would be matched, and farmer
deposits would be augmented at a rate up to 2:1. Withdrawals could be used for various capital expenses.
65 Updates on unused FSA loan availability are available at http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&
subject=fmlp&topic=fun.
Congressional Research Service
36

Table 7. Farm Service Agency: Farm Loan Program
(budget authority and loan authority, as specified, in millions of dollars)

FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
Change from
Change from
FY2014 to House
House to Senate
P.L. 113-6
Admin.
House-
Senate-
P.L.
112-55
post-sequ.
P.L. 113-76
Request
reported
reported
$ % $ %
1. Budget Authority (loan subsidy)

Farm
ownership
loans

Direct
22.8 18.6 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
-4.4
-100.0%
+0.0
+0.0%
Farm
operating
loans

Direct
59.1 54.0 65.5 63.1 63.1 63.1 -2.4
-3.7%
+0.0
+0.0%
Guaranteed
(unsubsidized)
26.1 16.5 18.3 14.8 14.8 14.8 -3.5
-19.3%
+0.0
+0.0%
Other
direct
loans

Emergency
loans
1.2 1.7 0.9 0.9 0.9
-0.8
-49.6%
+0.0
+0.0%
Indian highly fractionated land loans
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.1
-100.0%
+0.0
+0.0%
Individual Development Accounts

2.5 0.0 2.5
+0.0
+0.0%
+2.5
+0.0%
Subtotal,
loan
subsidy
108.2 90.5 90.0 81.2 78.7 81.2
-11.3
-12.5%
+2.5
+3.2%
FLP salaries and expenses
289.7
281.6
307.0
307.0
307.0
307.0
+0.0
+0.0%
+0.0
+0.0%
FLP
administrative
expenses
7.9 7.3 7.7 7.9 7.9 7.9
+0.2
+2.6%
+0.0
+0.0%
Total, FLP budget authority
405.8 379.3 404.7 396.1 393.6 396.1 -11.1
-2.7%
+2.5
+0.6%
CRS-37

FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
Change from
Change from
FY2014 to House
House to Senate
P.L. 113-6
Admin.
House-
Senate-
P.L.
112-55
post-sequ.
P.L. 113-76
Request
reported
reported
$ % $ %
2. Loan Authority (loan level)

Farm ownership loans

Direct
475.0 438.5 575.0 1,500.0 1,500.0 1,500.0 +925.0
+160.9%
+0.0
+0.0%
Guaranteed
1,500.0 1,500.0 2,000.0 2,000.0 2,000.0 2,000.0 +0.0
+0.0%
+0.0
+0.0%
Farm operating loans

Direct
1,050.1 969.5 1,195.6 1,252.0 1,252.0 1,252.0 +56.4
+4.7%
+0.0
+0.0%
Guaranteed (unsubsidized)
1,500.0 1,384.8 1,500.0 1,393.4 1,393.4 1,393.4 -106.6
-7.1%
+0.0
+0.0%
Conservation loans

Guaranteed
150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 +0.0
+0.0%
+0.0
+0.0%
Other
direct
loans

Emergency loans
0.0 21.6 34.7 34.7 34.7 34.7 +0.0
+0.0%
+0.0
+0.0%
Indian tribe land acquisition loans
2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
+0.0
+0.0%
+0.0
+0.0%
Indian highly fractionated land loans
10.0 9.2 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 +0.0
+0.0%
+0.0
+0.0%
Boll weevil eradication loans
100.0 100.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 +0.0
+0.0%
+0.0
+0.0%
Total, loan authority
4,787.1 4,575.7 5,527.3 6,402.1 6,402.1 6,402.1 +874.8
+15.8%
+0.0
+0.0%
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports for S. 2389, H.R. 4800, P.L. 113-76, and P.L. 112-55. Post-sequestration
amounts for FY2013 are from the USDA FY2013 Operating Plan.
Note: Budget authority reflects the cost of making loans, such as interest rate subsidies and default. Some programs are self-funding because of fees charged. Loan authority
reflects the amount of loans that FSA may make or guarantee.

CRS-38

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

Commodity Credit Corporation66
The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) is the funding mechanism for most mandatory
programs in the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79, the Agricultural Act of 2014).67 These include farm
subsidy and disaster payments, as well as a host of other programs that receive mandatory
funding such as conservation, trade, food aid, research, rural development, and bioenergy.
(Programs with different mandatory funding sources than the CCC include crop insurance, SNAP,
child nutrition, and Section 32.) 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. Farm Service Agency salaries and expenses (a
discretionary appropriation) pays for administration of the programs.
The CCC is a wholly owned government corporation that has the legal authority to borrow up to
$30 billion at any one time from the U.S. Treasury (15 U.S.C. 714 et seq.). These borrowed funds
finance program spending, and CCC eventually must repay the funds. 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 it does not reach its $30
billion debt limit. Congress generally provides this infusion through the annual Agriculture
appropriations act. 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 outlays. Also, the appropriation for CCC is several billion dollars
greater than the amount of farm commodity subsidies because many conservation and other
mandatory programs are paid using CCC funds.68
To replenish CCC’s borrowing authority with the Treasury, the FY2015 House-reported and
Senate-reported bills concur with the Administration request for an indefinite appropriation
(“such sums as necessary”) for CCC. The amount is estimated in all cases to be $9.1 billion for
FY2015, down 28% from FY2014. The reduction is due in part to the 2014 farm bill’s elimination
of “direct payments” to farmers and landowners and the delayed timing of 2014-crop farm
program payments, which are scheduled to be issued in FY2016.
Mandatory outlays for the commodity programs rise and fall based on economic or weather
conditions (e.g., crop prices below program trigger levels generate farm payments). Funding
needs are difficult to estimate, which is a primary reason that the programs are mandatory rather
than discretionary.

66 This section was written by Dennis A. Shields (7-9051, dshields@crs.loc.gov).
67 For more information on the provisions of the farm bill, see CRS Report IF00014, The 2014 Farm Bill (Agricultural
Act of 2014, P.L. 113-79) (In Focus) and CRS Report R43076, The 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79): Summary and Side-
by-Side.
68 For an example of the accounting of CCC’s line of credit, appropriations and expenditures, see USDA, Commodity
Estimates Book: FY2014 President’s Budget, “Output 07-CCC Financing Status,” at http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/
FSA_File/pb14_table_07a.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
39

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

Regarding authority for ad-hoc disaster assistance, both bills include a provision (§718 in the
House-reported bill and §719 in the Senate-reported bill) that has appeared since FY2012 that
effectively prohibits the use of CCC funds for emergency disaster payments to farmers:
[N]one of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this or any other Act shall be
used to pay the salaries or expenses of any employee of the Department of Agriculture or officer
of the Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out clause 3 of Section 32 of the Agricultural
Adjustment Act of 1935 (P.L. 74-320, 7 U.S.C. 612c, as amended), or for any surplus removal
activities or price support activities under section 5 of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter
Act.69
Separately, only the House-reported bill would continue a provision (§725) that has been enacted
since FY2011 that limits the ability of USDA to provide marketing assistance loans for mohair.
Indeed, USDA has suspended the marketing loan and deficiency payment program for mohair
since FY2011.70
Crop Insurance71
The federal crop insurance program is administered by USDA’s Risk Management Agency
(RMA). It offers basically free catastrophic insurance to producers who grow an insurable crop.
Producers who opt for this coverage have the opportunity to purchase additional insurance
coverage at a subsidized rate (ranging between 38% and 80%). Policies are sold and serviced
through approved private insurance companies that have their program losses reinsured by USDA
and are reimbursed by the government for their administrative and operating expenses.
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” of mandatory funding for
the Federal Crop Insurance Fund, which finances all other expenses of the program, including
premium subsidies, net indemnity payments, and reimbursements to the private insurance
companies.
For the discretionary salaries and expenses of the RMA, the FY2015 House- and Senate-reported
bills would provide approximately $77 million (same as the Administration’s request), up nearly
$6 million from the enacted FY2014 amount. About one-half of the increase would replace
payments to the General Services Administration for rent and for payments to the Department of
Homeland Security for building security activities, which was previously funded through the

69 Clause 3 of Section 32 provides that funds shall be used to re-establish farmers’ purchasing power by making
payments in connections with the normal production of any agricultural commodity for domestic consumption (7.U.S.C
612c). Section 5 of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act authorizes the CCC to support the prices of
agricultural commodities through loans, purchases, payments, and other operations (15 U.S.C. 714c).
70 USDA Farm Service Agency, Notice LP-2157, “Suspension of MAL’s and LDP’s for Mohair,” April 15, 2011, at
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_Notice/lp_2157.pdf; USDA Farm Service Agency, Notice LP-2165,
“Suspension of MAL’s and LDP’s for Mohair,” December 1, 2011, at http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_Notice/
lp_2165.pdf; USDA Farm Service Agency, Notice LP-2175, “2013 Crop Year MAL’s and LDP’s,” January 14, 2013,
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_Notice/lp_2175.pdf; USDA Farm Service Agency, Notice LP-2188, “MAL and
LDP Policy for Crop Year 2014,” December 23, 2013, http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_Notice/lp_2188.pdf.
71 This section was written by Dennis A. Shields (7-9051, dshields@crs.loc.gov). For more information on crop
insurance, see CRS Report R40532, Federal Crop Insurance: Background.
Congressional Research Service
40

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments account. Most of the remaining
increase—as indicated in the Administration’s request but not specifically mentioned in either the
House- or Senate-reported bill—would represent additional funding for RMA’s ability to improve
program compliance, including efforts to reduce improper payments.
For the Federal Crop Insurance Fund mandatory appropriation, the FY2015 House-reported and
Senate-reported bills concur with the Administration request for $8.7 billion, down 9% from the
estimated level in FY2014. (The actual amount required to cover program losses and other
subsidies is subject to change based on actual crop losses and farmer participation rates in the
program.) The year-over-year decline is driven by expected lower commodity prices, which
results in a reduced level of premium subsidies. The estimate also incorporates expected funds
needed in FY2015 for crop insurance changes made by the 2014 farm bill, including additional
coverage provided by the Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) and the Stacked Income
Protection Plan (STAX) for upland cotton.
Conservation72
USDA administers a number of agricultural conservation programs that assist private landowners
with natural resource concerns. These include working land programs, land retirement and
easement programs, watershed programs, technical assistance, and other programs. The two lead
agricultural conservation agencies within USDA are the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS), which provides technical assistance and administers most programs, and the Farm
Service Agency (FSA), which administers the largest program, the Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP).
The majority of conservation program funding is mandatory, funded through the Commodity
Credit Corporation (CCC), and authorized in omnibus farm bills (about $5.5 billion of CCC funds
in FY2015). Other conservation programs, mostly technical assistance, are discretionary and
funded through annual appropriations (about $850 million in the FY2015 appropriations bills).
As discussed in more detail below, the Senate-reported bill accepts all of the Administration’s
proposed reductions to mandatory conservation programs, while the House-reported bill includes
additional reductions. Both the House- and Senate-reported bills provide more than the
Administration’s request for discretionary programs.
Discretionary Conservation Programs
All of the discretionary conservation programs are administered by NRCS. The largest
discretionary conservation program that funds most all NRCS operations is the Conservation
Operations (CO) account. Both the Administration’s request and the Senate conference report
(S.Rept. 113-164) propose decentralizing General Services Administrations (GSA) rental
payments and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) security services payments previously
funded through the USDA Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments account.
This amount is included in the total CO funding level for FY2015. The House report does not
specifically mention rental expenses in the conservation section, but funding levels appear
consistent with this known change to paying for rent. After accounting for the GSA and DHS

72 This section was written by Megan Stubbs (7-8707, mstubbs@crs.loc.gov).
Congressional Research Service
41

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

payments, the House- and Senate-report bills increase funding for CO above FY2014 levels,
while the Administration’s request is actually a decrease from FY2014.
Both H.R. 4800 and S. 2389, as reported, further direct CO funding for a number of existing
conservation programs (see Table 8). The committee reports (H.Rept. 113-468 and S.Rept. 113-
164) include a number of congressionally directed actions for NRCS, including program
administration, invasive species needs, wetland mitigation requirements, herbicide resistance
actions, conservation practices and standard direction, species protection, and partner agreements.
While these actions do not include a specific funding level, they can ultimately direct funding to
congressionally identified projects, similar to earmarks.
Table 8. Conservation Operations Funding
(budget authority in millions of dollars)

FY2014
FY2015
Admin.
House
Senate
Program P.L.
113-76
Request
report
report
Conservation Operationsa
813 815 843 849
Conservation Technical Assistance
711
717
747
0
Soil
Survey
80 80 78 0
Snow
Survey
9.3 8.9 9.1 0
Plant
Material
Center
9.4 9.2 9.2 0
Watershed Projects (Watershed Operations)
3.0
0
0
5.6
Conservation Delivery Streamlining Initiative
0
3.7
1.5
0
Source: CRS from H.R. 4800, S. 2389, H.Rept. 113-468, and S.Rept. 113-164.
Notes: The lack of a specified funding level does not necessarily indicate a committee’s lack of support for a
particular sub-program, only that the bill and report language did not specify an amount for FY2015.
a. Total CO includes GSA and DHS rental payments of $28.6 million in the Administration’s request and
Senate-reported bill. The House-reported bill does not include similar language, but funding levels are
consistent with these payments inclusion.
The Administration proposes renaming the Conservation Operations account as “Private Lands
Conservation Operations” and consolidating the technical assistance funding for the mandatory
conservation programs with CO. Neither the House- nor Senate-reported bills adopted this
proposed change.
Funding also is provided in the House-reported bill (and in the enacted FY2014 appropriation and
the 2014 farm bill) for the Watershed Rehabilitation program, which rehabilitates aging dams
previously built by USDA.73 The Administration proposed terminating this program contending
that the maintenance, repair, and operation of dams are the responsibility of the local project
sponsor. The enacted FY2014 appropriation included $12 million for the program and the 2014

73 For additional information, see CRS Report RL30478, Federally Supported Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment
Programs.
Congressional Research Service
42

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

farm bill (P.L. 113-79) added an additional $250 million in mandatory funding for FY2014.74
H.R. 4800 provides $25 million for FY2015 and S. 2389 includes no funding for the program.
Mandatory Conservation Programs
Mandatory conservation programs generally are authorized in omnibus farm bills and receive
funding from the CCC, thus not requiring an annual appropriation. But Congress has reduced
mandatory conservation programs through changes in mandatory program spending (CHIMPS) in
the annual agricultural appropriations law every year since FY2003. Because money is fungible,
the savings from these reductions are not necessarily applied toward other conservation activities.
Prior to the 2008 farm bill, reductions to conservation programs through appropriations law
peaked in FY2006 with a reduction totaling $638 million. Following the 2008 farm bill,
reductions peaked again in FY2012, with total conservation CHIMPS of $929 million. The 2014
farm bill reauthorized, consolidated, and created a number of conservation programs that receive
mandatory funding (over $5 billion in FY2015). The House- and Senate-reported bills would
continue the CHIMPS to farm bill conservation programs of $206 million and $278 million,
respectively.
The Administration’s request has historically included annual proposed reductions to conservation
funding, usually more substantial than Congress has supported. Both the Administration’s request
and Senate-reported bill reduce mandatory conservation program spending (CHIMPS) by $278
million in FY2015, while the House-reported reduction is slightly less at $206 million.75
Sequestration is expected to reduce these programs further in FY2015, resulting in a total
reduction to CHIMPed conservation programs of $396 million in H.R. 4800 and $403 million in
S. 2389.
The number of conservation programs reduced through appropriations varies from year-to-year,
however some programs are continuously reduced, while others almost never receive a reduction.
Programs such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) have been reduced
annually since FY2003, while others, such as the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), have not
been reduced in over a decade. In FY2015, the Administration’s request and Senate-reported bill
include the same level of reductions, including allowing EQIP no more than $1.35 billion
(authorized at $1.6 billion) and no funding for the Watershed Rehabilitation Program (authorized
at $153 million).76 The House-reported bill allows more for these two programs: $1.391 billion
for EQIP and $92 million from the Watershed Rehabilitation Program. However, H.R. 4800 also

74 Mandatory funding for the program was restricted in the FY2014 appropriation, but because the 2014 farm bill was
enacted after the enactment of the FY2014 appropriation, the CHIMPS in appropriations did not apply to the new
funding; therefore NRCS received the full $250 million from the farm bill for the Watershed Rehabilitation Program.
According to NRCS, the agency will be able to obligate all of the new funding and still have a backlog of requested
funding close to $336 million that will remain unfunded.
75 For discussion purposes, since the Senate bill and Administration’s request would reduce these programs to the same
level, this paragraph refers to them having the same $278 million conservation CHIMP total. However, CBO was not
consistent and gave the Administration credit for a level of CHIMPS that was not available to the Senate because of
sequestration. Therefore the Administration actually is credited in Table 13 with $403 million from two conservation
program CHIMPS. See the text box in the later section “Changes in Mandatory Program Spending (CHIMPS).”
76 Mandatory funding for the program originally was provided in the 2002 farm bill to remain available until expended.
Since that time, annual appropriations have restricted this no-year funding to generate annual savings. In FY2014, this
restriction resulted in savings of $153 million and is expected to save $142 million if fully restricted again in FY2015.
The $11 million difference is an estimated reduction from sequestration.
Congressional Research Service
43

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

limits the new Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) to $385 million ($425
million authorized) and the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) to $1.166 billion
(authorized to enroll up to 10 million acres). The Senate-reported bill does not reduce these latter
two programs.
For more information on reductions to mandatory conservation programs through appropriations,
see CRS Report IF00036, Reductions to Mandatory Agricultural Conservation Programs in
Appropriations Law (In Focus).
Rural Development77
Three agencies are responsible for USDA’s rural development mission area: the Rural Housing
Service (RHS), the Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS), and the Rural Utilities Service
(RUS). An Office of Community Development provides community development support
through field offices. This mission area also administers Rural Economic Area Partnerships and
the National Rural Development Partnership.
In the Appropriations committee tables, H.R. 4800 recommends a total of $2.44 billion in
discretionary budget authority for rural development programs in FY2015, which is $38 million
more than in FY2014 (+1.6%). The Senate bill (S. 2389) would provide $13 million more in
budget authority than the House bill. Both bills support about $36 billion in total loan authority.
If the rescission to the Cushion of Credit account (-$158 million in the Senate bill and -$155
million in the House bill) is not incorporated in the rural development section but included with
CHIMPS as in the CBO score, then the net budget authority for rural development would be
$2.59 billion in the House bill and $2.61 billion in the Senate bill (Table 9).
Salaries and expenses within Rural Development are funded from a direct appropriation plus
transfers from each of the mission agencies. The House bill recommends a combined salaries and
expenses total of $678.2 million for FY2015, $21 million more than in FY2014. The Senate bill
would provide $682.9 million, $4.7 million more than the House bill.
Rural Housing Service (RHS)
The House bill would provide $1.72 billion in budget authority for RHS programs (after transfers
of salary and expenses), $30.7 million more than in FY2014 (+1.8%). This is $99.5 million more
than requested, and about $3 million less than the Senate bill. The House measure would support
a loan authorization level of $27.6 billion, about $155 million more than in FY2014. The Senate
bill would support a loan authorization level of $27.4 billion.
The single-family housing loan program (Section 502 of the Housing Act of 1949) is the largest
loan account, representing 90% of RHS’s total loan authority. H.R. 4800 recommends $25.0
billion in loan authorization for Section 502 direct and guaranteed loans, and the Senate bill
recommends $24.9 billion. Both the House and Senate bills recommend the same loan level for
Section 502 loan guarantees ($24 billion), the same as FY2014 and the Administration’s request.

77 This section was written by Tadlock Cowan (7-7600, tcowan@crs.loc.gov ).
Congressional Research Service
44

Table 9. USDA Rural Development Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
Change from
Change from
FY2014 to House
House to Senate
P.L. 113-6
P.L. 113-
Admin.
House-
Senate-
P.L.
112-55
post-sequ.
76
Request
reported
reported
$ % $ %
Summary

Salaries and expenses (direct)
182.0
192.1
203.4
225.1
224.2
228.9
+20.8
+10.2%
+4.7
+2.1%
Transfers from RHS, RBCS, RUS
471.9
420.9
454.0
434.5
454.0
454.0
+0.0
+0.0%
+0.0
+0.0%
Subtotal, salaries and exp.
653.9
613.0
657.4
659.6
678.2
682.9
+20.8
+3.2%
+4.7
+0.7%
1. Rural Housing Service
1,090.3
1,031.1
1,279.6
1,228.6
1,310.4
1,307.0
+30.7
+2.4%
-3.4
-0.3%
2. Rural Business-Cooperative Service
109.3
114.2
130.2
139.2
99.6
111.7
-30.6
-23.5%
+12.2
+12.3%
3. Rural Utilities Service
551.0
520.8 501.6 357.6 501.8 504.4 +0.2
+0.0%
+2.6
+0.5%
Office of the Under Secretary
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
+0.0
+0.6%
+0.0
+0.0%
Total,
Rural
Development
2,405.2 2,279.9 2,569.7 2,385.9 2,590.8 2,606.9 +21.1
+0.8%
+16.1
+0.6%
Alternate total (including rescissions)a

Less rescission of Cushion of Credit
-155.0
-180.0 -172.0 -155.0 -155.0 -158.0 +17.0
-9.9%
-3.0
+1.9%
Net, Rural Development (in comm. rept.)
2,250.2
2,099.9
2,397.7
2,230.9
2,435.8
2,448.9
+38.1
+1.6%
+13.1
+0.5%

1. Rural Housing Service
Administrative
expenses
(transfer)
430.8 383.3 415.1 397.3 415.1 415.1 +0.0
+0.0%
+0.0
+0.0%
Single family direct loans (§502)
42.6
50.2
24.5
26.6
76.9
66.4
+52.4
+214.2%
-10.5
-13.7%
Loan
authority
900.0 840.1 900.0 360.0
1,042.3 900.0
+142.3
+15.8%
-142.3
-13.7%
Single family guaranteed loans: Loan authorityb 24,000.0 24,000.0
24,000.0 24,000.0 24,000.0 24,000.0
+0.0
+0.0%
+0.0
+0.0%
Other RHIF programsc
37.6 29.3 22.8 29.5 29.4 29.5
+6.6
+29.0%
+0.1
+0.3%
Loan
authority
240.3 241.7 248.6 243.6 248.4 248.6 -0.2
-0.1%
+0.2
+0.1%
CRS-45

FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
Change from
Change from
FY2014 to House
House to Senate
P.L. 113-6
P.L. 113-
Admin.
House-
Senate-
P.L.
112-55
post-sequ.
76
Request
reported
reported
$ % $ %
Subtotal,
RHIF
511.0 462.7 462.4 453.4 521.5 511.0
+59.1
+12.8%
-10.4
-2.0%
Loan
authority
25,140.3 25,081.8 25,148.6 24,603.6 25,290.6 25,148.6 +142.1
+0.6%
-142.1
-0.6%
Other
housing
programs

Rental
assistance
(§521)
900.7 834.3 1,110.0 1,088.5 1,088.5 1,093.5 -21.5
-1.9%
+5.0
+0.5%
Other rental assistanced
4.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
+0.0
0.0%
+0.0
0.0%
Multifamily
housing
revitalization
13.0 26.4 32.6 28.0 28.0 28.0 -4.6
-14.0%
+0.0
+0.0%
Mutual & self-help housing grants
30.0
27.7
25.0
10.0
30.0
25.0
+5.0
+20.0%
-5.0
-16.7%
Rural housing assistance grants
33.1
30.6
32.2
25.0
27.0
32.2
-5.2
-16.3%
+5.2
+19.4%
Rural
Community
Facilities
Program
Community
Facilities:
Grants
11.4 12.1 13.0 17.0 13.0 13.0
+0.0
+0.0%
+0.0
+0.0%
Loan
authority
1,300.0 2,200.0 2,200.0 2,200.0 2,200.0 2,200.0 +0.0
+0.0%
+0.0
+0.0%
Community
Facilities:
Guarantees
5.0 3.6 3.8 0.0 3.5 3.6
-0.3
-7.3%
+0.1
+2.4%
Loan
authority
105.7 53.3 59.5 0.0 73.2 75.0
+13.7
+23.0%
+1.8
+2.4%
Rural community dev. initiative
3.6
5.7
6.0
0.0
5.0
6.0
-1.0
-16.2%
+1.0
+19.3%
Economic impact initiative grants
5.9
5.5
5.8
0.0
5.0
5.8
-0.8
-13.5%
+0.8
+15.6%
Tribal
college
grants
3.4 3.1 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
+0.0
+0.0%
+0.0
+0.0%
Subtotal, Rural Comm. Facil.
29.3
30.0
32.5
21.0
30.5
32.3
-2.0
-6.2%
+1.8
+6.0%
Loan
authority
1,405.7 2,253.3 2,259.5 2,200.0 2,273.2 2,275.0 +13.7
+0.6%
+1.8
+0.1%
Total, Rural Housing Service
1,521.1
1,414.3
1,694.7
1,625.9
1,725.5
1,722.1
+30.7
+1.8%
-3.4
-0.2%
Less transfer salaries & exp.
-430.8
-383.3
-415.1
-397.3
-415.1
-415.1
+0.0
+0.0%
+0.0
+0.0%
Rural Housing Service (programs)
1,090.3
1,031.1
1,279.6
1,228.6
1,310.4
1,307.0
+30.7
+2.4%
-3.4
-0.3%
Loan
authority
26,546.0 27,335.1 27,408.1 26,803.6 27,563.9 27,423.6 +155.8
+0.6%
-140.3
-0.5%
CRS-46

FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
Change from
Change from
FY2014 to House
House to Senate
P.L. 113-6
P.L. 113-
Admin.
House-
Senate-
P.L.
112-55
post-sequ.
76
Request
reported
reported
$ % $ %
Loan
authority
6.5 13.1 12.8 47.3 33.1 12.8
+20.3
+159.3%
-20.3
-61.4%
Healthy Foods, Neighborhoods Initiative

13.0
0.0
0.0
+0.0
0.0%
+0.0
0.0%
Total,
Rural
Business-Coop.
Service

Budget
authority
113.9 118.3 134.6 143.4 104.0 116.2 -30.6
-22.7%
+12.2
+11.7%
Less transfer salaries & exp.
-4.7
-4.1
-4.4
-4.2
-4.4
-4.4
+0.0
+0.0%
+0.0
+0.0%
Rural Bus.-Coop. Svc. (programs)
109.3
114.2
130.2
139.2
99.6
111.7
-30.6
-23.5%
+12.2
+12.3%
Loan authority
869.8
953.7
1,022.8
772.5
1,028.7 1,022.8 +5.8
+0.6%
-5.8
-0.6%
Alternate total (including rescission)a

Budget
authority
113.9 118.3 134.6 143.4 104.0 116.2 -30.6
-22.7%
+12.2
+11.7%
Less rescission of Cushion of Credit
-155.0
-180.0 -172.0 -155.0 -155.0 -158.0 +17.0
-9.9%
-3.0
+1.9%
Net, Rural Bus.-Coop. Svc. (cmte. reports)
-41.1
-61.7
-37.4
-11.6
-51.0
-41.8
-13.6
+36.4%
+9.2
-18.0%

3. Rural Utilities Service
Rural Water and Waste Disposal Prog.

Loan subsidy and grants
513.0
484.5
462.4
304.0
466.9
463.2
+4.5
+1.0%
-3.7
-0.8%
Direct loan authority
730.7
923.7
1,200.0
1,200.0 1,200.0 1,200.0 +0.0
+0.0%
+0.0
+0.0%
P.L. 83-566 loans
0.0
40.0
40.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
-40.0
-100.0%
+0.0
+0.0%
Guaranteed loan authority
62.9
56.6
50.0
0.0
84.7
50.0
+34.7
+69.5%
-34.7
-41.0%
Rural Electric and Telecomm. Loans

Admin.
expenses
(transfer)
36.4 33.5 34.5 33.0 34.5 34.5
+0.0
+0.0%
+0.0
+0.0%
Telecommunication loan authority
690.0
690.0 690.0 345.0 690.0 690.0 +0.0
+0.0%
+0.0
+0.0%
Guar. underwriting loan subsidy
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
+0.0
+0.0%
+0.0
+0.0%
CRS-48

FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
Change from
Change from
FY2014 to House
House to Senate
P.L. 113-6
P.L. 113-
Admin.
House-
Senate-
P.L.
112-55
post-sequ.
76
Request
reported
reported
$ % $ %
Electricity loan authority
7,024.3
7,100.0
5,500.0 5,000.0 5,500.0 5,500.0 +0.0
+0.0%
+0.0
+0.0%
Distance Learning, Telemedicine, Broadband
Distance learning & telemedicine
21.0
23.1
24.3
25.0
20.0
24.3
-4.3
-17.8%
+4.3
+21.6%
Broadband:
Grants
10.4 9.6 10.4 20.4 10.4 10.4
+0.0
+0.0%
+0.0
+0.0%
Broadband: Direct loan subsidy
6.0
3.7
4.5
8.3
4.5
6.4
+0.0
+0.0%
+1.9
+43.0%
Direct loan authority
169.0
39.1
34.5
44.2 24.1 34.4
-10.4
-30.2%
+10.4
+43.0%
Subtotal, Rural Utilities Service

Budget
authority
587.3 554.3 536.0 390.6 536.2 538.8 +0.2
+0.0%
+2.6
+0.5%
Less transfer salaries & exp.
-36.4
-33.5
-34.5
-33.0
-34.5
-34.5
+0.0
+0.0%
+0.0
+0.0%
Total, Rural Utilities Service
551.0
520.8
501.6
357.6
501.8
504.4
+0.2
+0.0%
+2.6
+0.5%
Loan
authority
8,676.9 8,849.4 7,514.5 6,589.2 7,498.8 7,474.4 -15.7
-0.2%
-24.4
-0.3%
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports for S. 2389, H.R. 4800, P.L. 113-76, and P.L. 112-55. Post-sequestration
amounts for FY2013 are from the USDA FY2013 Operating Plan.
Notes: Loan authority is the amount of loans that can be made and is not added to budget authority in the totals.
a. Amounts for the Rural Business Cooperative Service in this report are before the rescission from the Cushion of Credit account. This allows the agency total to
remain positive. Appropriations Committee report tables show the rescission in the agency section, causing the agency total to be less than zero. This CRS report
includes the Cushion of Credit rescission in the General Provisions section with changes in mandatory spending, as it is scored by CBO (Table 13).
b. This program became self-funding after enactment of higher loan guarantee fees being charged to banks.
c. Includes Section 504 housing repair, Section 515 rental housing, Section 524 site loans, Section 518 multi-family housing guarantees, single and multi-family housing
credit sales, Section 523 self-help housing land development, and farm labor housing.
d. Section 502(c)(5)(D) eligible households, Section 515 new construction, and farm labor housing new construction.

CRS-49

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

The House bill would provide $1 billion in loan authorization ($142 million more than FY2014)
for direct 502 loans, and $682 million more than the request. The Senate bill recommends $900
million in loan authority for the 502 direct loan program. The Section 502 loan guarantee
program is self-funding, and needs no supporting budget authority. The Section 502 direct loan
program requires a subsidy. The House bill recommends $76.9 million in budget authority to
support a $1 billion loan authorization, $52.4 million more than in FY2014. The Senate bill
would provide $66.4 million to support its $900 million loan authorization, about $40 million
more than in FY2014.
H.R. 4800 recommends $3.7 million in budget authority to support $26.4 million in loans for the
Section 504 Very Low-Income Housing Repair loan program. This is approximately the same
loan authorization level as FY2014 ($26.3 million) and about $1.5 million less in budget authority
than for FY2014 ($2.2 million). The Senate bill would provide the same in budget authority and
approximately the same in loan authorization ($26.3 million). The Administration requested no
funding for the Section 504 program. For the Multi-Family Housing loan guarantee program
(Section 538), both House and Senate bills recommend loan authority of $150 million for
FY2015, the same as for FY2014. Both House and Senate bills would provide about $28 million
in loan authority for the Section 515 Rental Housing Program, and $9.8 million in subsidies. This
is the same loan authorization level for the program in FY2014, but $3.2 million more in budget
authority (+47.4%).
The Rental Assistance Program grants (Section 521) is the largest budget authority line item in
RHS, accounting for 63% of the total RHS budget authority appropriation for FY2015. H.R. 4800
recommends $1.09 billion in new budget authority, the same as the request and a decrease of
$21.5 million from FY2014 (-1.9%). The Senate bill would provide $5.0 million more than the
House bill.
For Mutual and Self-Help Housing Grants, H.R. 4800 recommends $30 million, which is $5
million more than FY2014 and $5 million more than the Senate bill. For Rural Housing
Assistance grants, H.R. 4800 would provide $27.0 million, 16.2% less than FY2014. The Senate
bill recommends $32.2 million for the program, the same as for FY2014.
The Rural Housing Service also administers the Rural Community Facilities program. The
program provides direct loans, loan guarantees, and grants for “essential community facilities” in
rural areas with less than 20,000 in population. H.R. 4800 recommends a total of $30.5 million in
new budget authority for the program to support a loan authorization level of $2.27 billion and
$13 million in grants. This budget authority is $2.0 million less than for FY2014 (-6.2%). The
Community Facilities account also contains appropriations for the Rural Community
Development Initiative ($5 million in the House bill; $6 million in the Senate bill), Economic
Impact Initiative grants ($5 million in the House; $5.8 million in the Senate), and Tribal College
grants ($4 million in both bills). The Senate amounts are the same as FY2014; the House amounts
represent reductions.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS)
The House-reported bill recommends $104.0 million in FY2015 budget authority to the RBS
before the Cushion of Credit rescission and transfers of salaries and expenses. This is about $31
million less than in the enacted FY2014 amount (-23%). The Senate-reported bill recommends
$116.2 million, which is 11.7% more than the House bill, but still less than FY2014.
Congressional Research Service
50

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

If the Cushion of Credit rescission is incorporated (-$155 million in the House bill; -$158 million
in the Senate bill), the net RBS budget authority accounted for in Appropriations committee
tables is -$51.0 million in the House-reported bill and -$41.8 million in the Senate-reported bill.
Both bills would provide about $1.02 billion in loan authority for the various RBS loan programs,
about the same as FY2014.
For the Rural Business Program account, H.R. 4800 recommends $65.0 million in budget
authority, $31.5 million less than FY2014 (-32.8%). The Senate bill would provide $78.5 million
in new budget authority for the Rural Business Program account, $13 million more than the
House bill. The Rural Business Program account includes the Business and Industry (B&I) Loan
Guarantee program ($49 million Senate, $45 million House), the Rural Business Development
Grant program ($26.5 million Senate, $20 million House), and the Delta Regional Authority grant
program ($3.0 million Senate, $0 House).78 The House bill would reduce by $22 million (32.8%)
the B&I Loan Guarantee Program’s budget authority over FY2014, and the Senate bill would
reduce the subsidy by $18 million. Loan authority recommended by the Senate bill for the B&I is
the same as for FY2014 ($958.1 million). The House bill would reduce the B&I loan authority by
$77.5 million over FY2014 to $880.6 million.
H.R. 4800 recommends $5.0 million in budget authority to support $16.2 million in loans for the
Intermediary Relending Program, also known as the Rural Development Loan Program. This loan
level is $2.6 million less (-14.0%) in loan authority than FY2014 and about $1 million less in
budget authority. The Senate bill recommends $5.8 million in budget authority to support $18.8
million in loans. For Rural Cooperative Development Grants, H.R. 4800 would provide a total of
$22.0 million, 15.3% less than FY2014. The Senate bill recommends $26 million, the same as
FY2014. This appropriation is divided among Cooperative Development Grants ($5.8 million in
both the House and Senate bills), Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas ($2.5 million
House, $2.2 million Senate), Value-Added Product Grants ($10.7 million House, $15 million
Senate), and grants to assist minority producers ($3.0 million for both House and Senate bills).
For the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP), H.R. 4800 recommends $3.5 million ($33.1
million in loans, and no grants), and S. 2389 would provide $1.4 million ($12.8 million in loans,
and no grants).
The Administration requested funding for two new business programs for FY2015: the Rural
Business Investment Program ($6 million) and the Health Food Financing Initiative (HFFI) ($13
million). The former program was authorized in the 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171, §6029), but
never implemented; the HFFI was authorized in the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79, §4206). H.R.
4800 recommends $4 million to support $39.2 million in loans for the new Rural Business
Investment Program. The Senate bill recommends $0 funding for the program. Neither House nor
Senate bill recommends funding for the HFFI.
Rural Utilities Service (RUS)
H.R. 4800 recommends $536.2 million in new budget authority for the Rural Utilities Service
before transferring salaries and expenses, essentially the same as FY2014. The Senate bill

78 The Business Development grants program combines the Rural Business Enterprise grants and the Rural Business
Opportunity grants.
Congressional Research Service
51

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

recommends a slight increase to $538.8 million. These are about $148 million more than the
Administration requested.
Loan subsidies and grants under the Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program account represent
the largest share of FY2015 recommended budget authority under RUS programs (approximately
87% of total RUS budget authority). The House bill recommends $466.9 million in budget
authority, $4.5 million more than FY2014 and significantly more than the Administration
requested. This appropriation would support $1.28 billion in direct and guaranteed loans, $5.2
million less than FY2014. The Senate bill recommends slightly less than the House: $463.2
million. Most of the differences between the bills are accounted for among the grant programs:
• Water/Waste Water grants ($359.9 million House, $345.5 million Senate)
• Solid Waste Management grants ($4.0 million for both House and Senate bills)
• Individual Well Water grants ($993,000 for both House and Senate bills)
• Water and Waste Water revolving fund ($1.0 million for both House and Senate)
• Circuit Rider program ($15.0 million House, $15.9 million Senate)
• Technical Assistance ($19 million for both House and Senate bills)
• Grants for Colonias and Alaska and Hawaii Natives ($66.5 million for both bills)
• High Energy Cost grants ($0 House, $10 million Senate).
Both House and Senate bills recommend $5.5 billion in electric loans, the same as FY2014, and
$690 million in Treasury rate telecommunication loans, also the same as FY2014. Most of the
recommended loan authority is for direct Federal Finance Bank electric loans ($5.0 billion). Both
bills also recommend the transfer to USDA Rural Development of $34.5 million in budget
authority for electric and telecommunication administrative expenses.
For the combined distance learning, telemedicine, and broadband account, the House bill
recommends $34.8 million and the Senate recommends $41.1 million in budget authority. The
FY2014 appropriation was $39.2 million.
• For Distance Learning/Telemedicine, H.R. 4800 recommends $20.0 million in
grant support, $4.3 million less than FY2014 (-11%). The Senate bill
recommends $24.3 million for the grants program, the same as FY2014.
• For rural broadband, H.R. 4800 recommends $10.4 million for grants and $4.5
million for direct loan subsidies, each the same as FY2014. The associated loan
authority however would decrease by $10 million from FY2014 to $24.1 million.
The Senate bill recommends the same $10.4 million for grants, and a higher $6.4
million for loan subsidies, which would support the same $34 million loan level
as in FY2014. The Administration requested $20 million in grants, $8.3 million
in loan subsidy, and $44 million in loan authority.
Congressional Research Service
52

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

Domestic Food Assistance79
Domestic food assistance represents over two-thirds of USDA’s budget. This funding is largely
for open-ended appropriated mandatory programs; that is, funding that varies with participation
and in some cases inflation. The biggest mandatory programs include the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly the Food Stamp program) and the child nutrition programs
(including the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program).
The three main discretionary budget items are the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for
Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), and
federal nutrition program administration. For background on the major programs discussed in this
section, see CRS Report R42353, Domestic Food Assistance: Summary of Programs.
For FY2015, the House and Senate committees both recommend total funding levels of about
$109.8 billion. The bills differ by approximately $22 million, largely the result of differences in
the child nutrition programs account, discussed below. Other non-monetary differences exist
between the bills’ FNS report language and general provisions.
Table 10 displays FNS’s enacted appropriations for FY2011 through FY2014, and it displays the
President’s request, House, and Senate proposals for FY2015.
SNAP and Other Programs under the Food and Nutrition Act
Appropriations under the Food and Nutrition Act (formerly the Food Stamp Act) support (1)
SNAP (and related grants), (2) a Nutrition Assistance Block Grant for Puerto Rico and nutrition
assistance block grants to American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands (all in lieu of the SNAP), (3) the cost of food commodities as well as administrative and
distribution expenses under the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR), (4)
the cost of commodities for The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) (but not
administrative/distribution expenses, which are covered under the Commodity Assistance
Program budget account), and (5) Community Food Projects.
The FY2015 appropriations proposals would provide approximately $82.3 billion for programs
under the Food and Nutrition Act. This funding amount is an $81 million increase (less than 1%)
over the total amount provided in FY2014.80 The proposals would appropriate $3 billion for the
SNAP contingency reserve fund, equal to past appropriations but less than the $5 billion
requested by the Administration. The Administration has requested fewer funds for SNAP
benefits than in FY2014 due to a forecast of a slight decrease in participation.81

79 This section was written by Randy Alison Aussenberg (7-8641, raussenberg@crs.loc.gov).
80 As an appropriated, open-ended mandatory program, SNAP funding is not the same as SNAP spending. SNAP
regularly receives annual appropriations that are greater than the amount that the program spends. Better measures for
SNAP program spending are from USDA-FNS’s costs data, available at http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPmain.htm.
81 USDA-FNS FY2015 Congressional Budget Justification, page “32-82.” It is also worth noting that SNAP benefit
spending will decrease from FY2014 due in part to the October 31, 2013 sunset of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act’s benefit increase; however, these funds were preappropriated and did not require funding from
annual appropriations bills. See CRS Report R43257, Background on the Scheduled Reduction to Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Benefits, by Randy Alison Aussenberg and Gene Falk.
Congressional Research Service
53

Table 10. Domestic Food Assistance (USDA-FNS) Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)

FY2011
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
Change from
Change from
FY2014 to House
House to Senate
P.L. 112-
P.L. 112-
P.L. 113-6
P.L. 113-
Admin.
House-
Senate-
Program
10
55
post-sequ.
76
Requesta
reported
reported
$ % $ %
Child Nutrition Programsb
Account Total,c incl. transfers
17,319.9
18,151.2 19,913.2 19,288.0 20,537.0 20,523.8 20,497.0
+1,235.8
+6%
-26.8 -0.1%
National School Lunch Program
9,981.1
10,169.6 11,278.6 10,576.3 11,369.1 11,369.1 11,369.1 +792.8
+7%
+0.0
+0.0%
School Breakfast Program
3,094.0
3,313.8 3,659.3 3,728.6 3,905.0 3,905.0 3,905.0
+176.4
+5%
+0.0
+0.0%
Child and Adult Care Food Program
2,686.3
2,831.5 2,949.5 3,080.0 3,149.7 3,149.7 3,149.7 +69.7
+2%
+0.0
+0.0%
(CACFP)
Special Milk Program
12.5
13.2 11.9 10.6 10.4 10.4 10.4
-0.2
-2%
+0.0
+0.0%
Summer Food Service Program
392.7
402.0 434.7 461.6 492.7 492.7 492.7
+31.1
+7%
+0.0
+0.0%
State Administrative Expenses
206.9
279.0 289.7 247.2 264.0 264.0 264.0
+16.8
+7%
+0.0
+0.0%
Commodity Procurement for Child
907.9
1,075.7 1,646.7 1,078.7 1,200.0 1,200.0 1,200.0
+121.3
+11%
+0.0
+0.0%
Nutrition
School Meals Equipment & Breakfast
0.0
1.0 35.0 25.0 35.0 25.0 25.0
+0.0
+0%
+0.0
+0.0%
Expansion Grantsd
Summer EBT Demonstration
0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 27.0 0
+27.0
na
-27.0
na
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)
Account
Total
7,252.0 6,734.0 6,618.5 6,715.8 6,823.0 6,623.0e 6,623.0 -92.8 -1% +0.0
+0.0%
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)b
Account Totalc
70,613.4f
80,401.7 77,285.4 82,169.9 84,256.4g 82,251.1 82,251.4 +81.2 +0% +0.3 +0.0%
SNAP benefits
61,001.0h
70,524.6h 67,313.1h 71,885.0h 71,503.4 71,503.4
n/a
-381.6 -1% na na
Contingency Reserve Fund
3,000.0f
3,000.0 3,000.0 3,000.0 5,000.0 3,000.0 3,000.0 +0.0 +0% +0.0
+0.0%
Advance Appropriations for FY2016
0
0 0 0
21,064.1
0.0
0.0
+0.0
n/a
+0.0 +0.0%
CRS-54

FY2011
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
Change from
Change from
FY2014 to House
House to Senate
P.L. 112-
P.L. 112-
P.L. 113-6
P.L. 113-
Admin.
House-
Senate-
Program
10
55
post-sequ.
76
Requesta
reported
reported
$ % $ %
State Administrative Costs
3,618.0
3,742.0 3,866.5 3,999.0 4,119.0 4,119.0
n/a
+120.0 +3% na na
Employment and Training
387.9
397.1 415.9 426.4 447.2 447.2 n/a
+20.8
+5% na na
TEFAP Commodities
247.5
260.3 265.8 268.8 324.0 324.0
n/a +55.2 +21%
na na
Food Distribution on Indian
97.0 102.7 100.2 104.0 119.7 119.7
n/a +15.7 +15%
na na
Reservations
Commonwealth of Northern Mariana
12.1 13.1 12.1 12.1 12.2 12.2 n/a
+0.1
+1%
na na
Islands
Puerto Rico and American Samoa
1,751.60
1,842.8 1,880.4 1,901.5 1,937.9 1,937.9 n/a
+36.4
+2%
na na
Commodity Assistance Program
Account Totalc
246.6 242.3 243.7 269.7 275.7 275.7 275.7
+6.0
+2%
+0.0
0.0%
Commodity Supplemental Food
175.7 176.8 181.8 202.7 208.7 208.7 208.7
+6.0
+3%
+0.0
0.0%
Program
WIC Farmers Market Nutrition
20 16.5 15.3 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5
+0.0
+0%
+0.0
0.0%
Program
TEFAP Administrative Costs
49.4
48.0
45.6
49.4
49.4
49.4
49.4 +0.0 +0% +0.0 0.0%
Nutrition Program Administration
Account
Total
147.5 138.5 132.6 141.3 155.0 150.8 155.0
+8.7
+7%
+1.4
+0.9%
Domestic
Food
Assistance
Total
82,782.6 105,553.0 104,098.0 108,585.6 112,047.1 109,824.5 109,802.1 +1,239 +1% -22.4 -0.0%
Source: CRS, compiled from appropriations committee tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports for P.L. 113-76, H.R. 2410, S. 1244, P.L. 113-6,
P.L. 112-55, P.L. 112-10. Post-sequestration amounts for FY2013 were obtained from the USDA FY2013 Operating Plan (at http://www.dm.usda.gov/foia/docs/
USDA_Operating_Plan.pdf) and USDA Office of Budget and Program Analysis unpublished tables, July 2013.
a. The FY2015 Administration Request reflected in this column is from the USDA-FNS budget request submitted to Congress in March 2014.
b. For the USDA-FNS programs that are open-ended mandatory programs (e.g., SNAP and the Child Nutrition Programs), the programs do not necessarily have the
authority to spend al of the funds that have been appropriated. For such programs’ historical spending, see also USDA-FNS expenditure data available on the agency
website at http://www.fns.usda.gov/data-and-statistics.
CRS-55

c. “Account Total” does not equal the sum of the programs listed below. Programs listed below are a selection of the funding that makes up the account total.
d. In FY2012, the funds were appropriated only as School Breakfast Expansion grants. In FY2013, FY2014, and in FY2015 proposals, the grant purposes were
consolidated into one appropriation with both School Breakfast Expansion and Meals Equipment purchases.
e. According to H.Rept. 113-468, p. 48, this appropriation level reflects USDA’s revision of their estimate.
f.
Committee and conference reports show conflicting information for FY2011’s SNAP (or Food and Nutrition Act) Account Total. The FY2011 continuing resolution
(P.L. 112-10) gave USDA-FNS indefinite authority for Food and Nutrition Act programs, al owing for “amounts necessary to maintain current program levels under
current law.” The amounts for SNAP in S.Rept. 112-73 match the funds apportioned by OMB to USDA-FNS, and this column reflects those numbers rather than the
amount in the original request or the conference agreement table. However, all committee reports indicate that a contingency reserve fund of $3 billion was
appropriated, whereas the agency did not interpret a contingency reserve fund.
g. This is the Administration’s request for FY2015 funding, but their request also included an advance appropriation for the first quarter of FY2016. The FY2016
amount requested was approximately $21.1 billion. Neither House nor Senate proposals include an advance appropriation.
h. Appropriations laws do not include the pre-appropriated funds provided by American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) for increasing SNAP benefits
from April 2009 through October 31, 2013. See CRS Report R43257, Background on the Scheduled Reduction to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
Benefits.

CRS-56

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

Both the House and Senate committee reports include report language pertaining to the SNAP
and Food and Nutrition Act programs account. The House’s report includes language seeking
updates on the impact of the Affordable Care Act on SNAP; directing FNS to enforce SNAP
retailer regulations; and encouraging the implementation of certain provisions of the 2014 farm
bill—wage and immigration verification, SNAP recruitment activities, and a feasibility study on
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands’ transition to SNAP.82 The Senate’s report
includes language encouraging the continued purchase of bison for FDPIR.83
Child Nutrition Programs
Appropriations under the child nutrition account fund a number of programs and activities
covered by the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition Act. These
include the National School Lunch Program, School Breakfast Program, Child and Adult Care
Food Program (CACFP), Summer Food Service program, Special Milk program, assistance for
child-nutrition-related state administrative expenses (SAE), procurement of commodities for child
nutrition programs (in addition to transfers from separate budget accounts within USDA), 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, child nutrition efforts are supported by mandatory permanent
appropriations and other funding sources discussed below in “Other Nutrition Funding Support.”)
The FY2015 appropriations proposals would provide approximately $20.5 billion for child
nutrition programs, 6% above the amount provided in FY2014. This total includes transfers from
the Section 32 account.
For FY2015, the Administration requested funds for certain child nutrition discretionary grants.
The House and Senate bills would provide amounts that differ from the request, and in one case,
differ from each other:
• School Meals Equipment and Breakfast Expansion grants. In FY2014, the
appropriations law provided $25 million for this purpose. For FY2015, the
Administration requested $35 million. Both the House and Senate proposals
would provide $25 million, $10 million below the Administration’s request.
• Summer EBT Demonstration Projects. These programs provide food benefits
to households with children over summer months, to make up for school meals
that children miss when school is out of session and as an alternative to the
Summer Food Service Program meals. These projects were last authorized and
funded in the FY2010 appropriation (P.L. 111-80). The Administration requests
$30 million to continue these projects in FY2015, citing the positive results of
these demonstrations. The House committee’s proposal would provide $27
million; the Senate committee’s proposal does not fund this request.84

82 H.Rept. 113-468, pages 45, 49-50.
83 S.Rept. 113-164, page 70.
84 See USDA-FNS Congressional Budget Justification, p. “32-24” for more details on this request. For the FY2010
funding and evaluation, see also USDA-FNS website, “Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer for Children
(SEBTC)”http://www.fns.usda.gov/ops/summer-electronic-benefit-transfer-children-sebtc.
Congressional Research Service
57

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

Child Nutrition Policies in General Provisions
The House and Senate proposals each contain general provisions that may impact the
administration of programs funded by the Child Nutrition Programs account. In particular, both
bills contain policies that would impact the implementation of the school meals nutrition
guidelines.
Since the enactment of the 2010 reauthorization of the child nutrition and WIC programs (P.L.
111-296, “Healthy, Hunger-free Kids Act of 2010”), USDA-FNS has promulgated multiple
regulations, formulated various program guidance, and published many other policy documents
and reports. One of the major new rules to implement the law updates nutrition standards for the
school meals programs.85 Although the rule was finalized in January 2012, all aspects of the rule
were not to be implemented immediately; for instance, some aspects of the new guidelines go into
effect July 1, 2014, for the 2014-2015 school year. Three aspects of the new regulations that go
into effect for 2014-2015 are: all grains served must be whole-grain-rich, new fruit requirements
for breakfast, and the first of three weekly sodium targets (“Target 1”).86 On May 20, 2014,
USDA-FNS announced flexibility on whole grain pasta, as response to feedback.87
Both the House and Senate committees’ proposals include general provisions that would affect
schools’ implementation of these rules in school year 2014-2015. The House proposal (Section
739) would require USDA to issue waivers from the nutrition standards for 2014-2015 for school
nutrition programs demonstrating a financial loss.88 The Senate proposal (Section 747) would
require scientific research before imposing sodium limits lower than “Target 1,” a USDA report
on the availability of whole grain products, and a USDA technical assistance plan to help schools
meet nutrition guidelines.
The House proposal—but not the Senate proposal—also includes a policy rider (§742) seeking to
prevent any processed chicken imported from China from being included in the child nutrition
programs.
In addition to these general provisions, both the House and Senate committee reports include
report language pertaining to the Child Nutrition Program account. The Senate report directs
USDA to work with schools and industry to help implement the new whole grains requirements
in the school meals programs and encourages FNS to work with national youth mentoring
organizations to help administer the Summer Food Service Program.89 The House report includes
multiple instructions related to the implementation of the 2010 child nutrition reauthorization; it
provides further details on the rationale and implementation of the bill’s Section 739 (waivers
from school meals’ nutrition guidelines), encourages FNS to help states include cultural and
regionally diverse foods in the school meals’ programs, encourages FNS to work with

85 The final rule for these guidelines was promulgated on January 26, 2012. For the rule and related resources, see
USDA-FNS website at http://www.fns.usda.gov/school-meals/nutrition-standards-school-meals.
86 See USDA-FNS Implementation Timeline, http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/implementation_timeline.pdf,
based on regulations.
87 USDA-FNS, Flexibility for Whole Grain-Rich Pasta in School Years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016, Memo Code: SP
47-2014, May 20, 2014, http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/SP47-2014os.pdf.
88 A similar provision was included in the FY2014 appropriation law’s report language “Joint Explanatory Statement.”
See CRS Report R43110, Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2014 and FY2013 (Post-Sequestration)
Appropriations, coordinated by Jim Monke, pages 62-63.
89 S.Rept. 113-164, page 68.
Congressional Research Service
58

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

stakeholders on the school nutrition personnel proposed rule, and directs USDA to submit a report
as to whether USDA’s cafeterias and vending machines meet the “Smart Snacks in Schools”
standards.90 The House report also directs USDA to give states additional flexibilities in
conducting their monitoring and compliance reviews, and it directs USDA to implement the 2014
farm bill’s fruit and vegetable pilot program at the beginning of school year 2014-2015.91
WIC Program
While SNAP and the child nutrition programs are appropriated mandatory programs, WIC is a
discretionary program with the funding level entirely at Congress’s discretion. Unlike the
appropriated entitlements, an inadequate appropriation for the WIC program could reduce the
number of pregnant and postpartum women, infants, and children served. It has been the practice
of the appropriations committees to appropriate enough funds for WIC to serve all who are
eligible.
House and Senate proposals would each provide $6.62 billion for WIC, a decrease of $93 million
(1%) from FY2014 appropriations. The Senate proposal would restore the contingency reserve
fund up to $150 million; but no additional reserve funding is provided by the House proposal.
The FY2014 law restored the contingency reserve fund up to $125 million.
Both the House and Senate proposals include identical set-asides for WIC breastfeeding peer
counselors and related activities (“not less than $60 million”), infrastructure ($14 million), and
management information systems ($30 million). The House proposal also includes a $30 million
set aside for transitioning WIC programs to electronic benefit transfer (EBT).
New WIC Program Policies in the General Provisions
The House and Senate proposals each contain general provisions that would impact the food
eligible for purchase with WIC benefits, in particular, white potatoes.
USDA-FNS promulgated a WIC regulation, published as final in March 2014, that—among many
other changes—prevents WIC benefit redemption for white potatoes.92 WIC benefits, unlike cash
assistance or SNAP benefits, are redeemable for particular foods tailored to whether a WIC
participant is a woman who is pregnant, post-partum, or breastfeeding; an infant or child; as well
as particular nutritional needs of the individual. The lists of foods are known as the “WIC Food
Packages.” States have some leeway to determine the specific foods that are eligible for WIC
redemption in their state, but they must do so within federal regulatory requirements. Since 1973
(shortly after the program’s establishment), the federal government has had regulations defining
the WIC food packages. But before USDA embarked on the most recent process to update the
food packages, they had not had a major revision since the 1970s. One of the changes in the new
food package is the inclusion of a Fruit and Vegetable Voucher (FVV) for fresh fruits and

90 For more information on these regulations, please see USDA-FNS website, http://www.fns.usda.gov/school-meals/
regulations.
91 H.Rept. 113-468, pages 45-47.
92 USDA-FNS final rule and related resources available on agency website at http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/final-rule-
revisions-wic-food-packages.
Congressional Research Service
59

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

vegetables. Based on recommendations made by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), the new food
package does not allow participants to purchase white potatoes with their cash value voucher.93
The House proposal (Section 738) would bar USDA from excluding any vegetable (without
added sugar, salt, fat) from the WIC “food package,” presumably allowing white potatoes.
The Senate proposal (Section 745) includes vegetable language identical to the House proposal,
presumably allowing white potatoes, but it also includes additional provisos. Namely, the Senate
proposal would require USDA to conduct another review of the WIC food package, and, based on
the results of that review, white potatoes (or other vegetables) would either continue to be
included or would return to being excluded.
In addition to these general provisions, both House and Senate proposals’ committee reports
include report language pertaining to the WIC account. The Senate committee’s report includes
language on concerns with adhering to WIC income eligibility guidelines and the types of fish for
the WIC “food package.”94 The House committee’s report includes language seeking updates on
the impact of the Affordable Care Act on WIC, directing FNS to issue an update on states’
adherence to the income eligibility guidelines, and also directing FNS to monitor states’ cost
management efforts and to report on the sale of WIC benefits through social media.95
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
(FMNP), and (4) special Pacific Island assistance for nuclear-test-affected zones in the Pacific
(the Marshall Islands) and in the case of natural disasters.
Both the House and Senate proposals would provide approximately $276 million for this account,
an increase of $6 million (2%) from the FY2014 appropriation. The account’s increase is due to
CSFP; both bills would provide approximately $209 million for CSFP, an increase of $6 million
(+3%) from CSFP’s FY2014 funding level. All other programs in the account receive funding
equal to the FY2014 appropriation.
Neither the House nor Senate proposals include related policies in the bill text, but both mention
these programs in report language. The House report includes language expecting state agencies
to consult with emergency feeding organizations on the need for converting entitlement
commodity funds for handling and distribution costs.96 The Senate report includes language
encouraging USDA to work to provide funding for new CSFP states in future budget requests,
directing USDA to expedite the obligation of WIC FMNP funds, and encouraging USDA to
increase the supply of TEFAP foods through bonus and specialty crop purchases.97

93 For further background on this issue, please see CRS Report IN10060, Following the Debate on White Potatoes in
the WIC Program, by Randy Alison Aussenberg.
94 S.Rept. 113-164, page 69.
95 H.Rept. 113-468, pages 45, 48-49.
96 H.Rept. 113-468, page 51.
97 S.Rept. 113-164, page 72.
Congressional Research Service
60

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

Nutrition Programs Administration
This budget account covers spending for federal administration of all the USDA domestic food
assistance program areas noted above; special projects for improving the integrity and quality of
these programs; and the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion (CNPP), which provides
nutrition education and information to consumers (including various dietary guides).
The House proposal would provide about $151 million for Nutrition Programs Administration
(+7% compared to FY2014). The Senate would provide $4 million more than the House.
Neither bill addresses policy issues in the bill text, but they do mention these programs in report
language. The House report expresses concerns with formulation of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines
for Americans.98 The Senate report includes further details on using these funds to pay rent.99
Other Nutrition Funding Support
As in earlier years, domestic food assistance programs will receive FY2015 funds from sources
other than appropriations:
• USDA provides commodity foods to the child nutrition programs using funds
other than those in the Child Nutrition account. These purchases are financed
through the use of permanent appropriations under Section 32.100 For 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.
Historically, about half the value of commodities distributed to child nutrition
programs has come from the Section 32 account.
• The Fresh Fruit and Vegetable program offers fresh fruits and vegetables in
selected elementary schools nationwide. It is financed with permanent,
mandatory funding. The underlying law (Section 4304 of the 2008 farm bill)
provides funds at the beginning of every school year (July). However, as in past
years, general provisions in the House (Section 718) and Senate (Section 719)
proposals would delay the availability of $122 million that is scheduled for July
2015 until October 2015. As a result, these proposals would allocate the total
annual spending for the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable program mandated by the
authorizing language by fiscal year rather than school year, with no reduction in
overall support (savings scored in Table 13).
• The Food Service Management Institute (technical assistance to child nutrition
providers) is funded through a permanent annual appropriation of $4 million.
• The Seniors Farmers’ Market Nutrition program receives $21 million of
mandatory funding per year (FY2002-FY2018) outside the regular appropriations
process. See Section 4402 of the 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171) as amended by
Section 4203 the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79).

98 H.Rept. 113-468, page 45, 51.
99 S.Rept. 113-164, page 73.
100 For more background on the Section 32 account, see CRS Report RL34081, Farm and Food Support Under USDA’s
Section 32 Program.
Congressional Research Service
61

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

Agricultural Trade and Food Aid101
The Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) administers overseas market promotion and export credit
guarantee programs designed to improve the competitive position of U.S. agriculture in the world
marketplace and to facilitate export sales. It shares responsibility with the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) to administer international food aid programs.102
Each year’s agricultural appropriations measure provides more than three-quarters of the financial
resources made available to FAS. Budget authority for other agricultural export and food aid
programs is mandatory, and not subject to annual appropriations.103 Funding for these mandatory
programs is provided directly by the Commodity Credit Corporation under other statutes.
For FY2015, the Administration requested $1.777 billion for FAS/USAID programs that are
funded on a discretionary basis (Title V: Foreign Assistance in Table 2). This is $61.5 million less
than the FY2014 appropriation, with the reduction focused on the Food for Peace (P.L. 480)
program. On the contrary, the House- and Senate-reported bills have small increases over FY2014
($1.856 billion and $1.843 billion, respectively), and do not reduce P.L. 480.
Foreign Agricultural Service
Both the House- and Senate-reported bills appropriate almost $183 million for the salaries and
expenses of the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), almost $5 million (+2.7%) more than
appropriated for FY2014. This appropriation funds FAS efforts to address trade policy issues on
behalf of U.S. agricultural exporters, support trade promotion activities, and engage in
institutional capacity building and food security activities in developing countries with promising
market potential. The House-reported bill (H.R. 4800) adopted the Administration’s proposed
spending level ($182.6 million); the Senate-reported bill (S. 2389) increased the amount slightly.
Both bills appropriate to the FAS another $6.7 million to cover the salaries and expenses
associated with implementing the export credit guarantee program. This is the largest export
assistance program administered by FAS, and operates to facilitate the direct export of U.S.
agricultural commodities and food products. Authorized by the 2014 farm bill at a $5.5 billion
program level each year, this program guarantees the repayment of commercial loans extended by
private banks in case a borrower defaults on making payments when due. There are no budgetary
outlays associated with credit guarantees unless a default occurs.
House report language directs FAS to include performance goals in its future budget justifications
for proposed changes to spending, and to present its budget submission in a way similar to that
done by other USDA agencies to show the percentage of spending by major budget object class

101 The agricultural trade section was written by Remy Jurenas (former CRS specialist) and the food aid section by
Randy Schnepf (7-4277, rschnepf@crs.loc.gov).
102 For background on USDA’s international programs, see CRS Report R41072, International Food Aid Programs:
Background and Issues.
103 Mandatory funding for other agricultural export promotion and market development programs was reauthorized by
the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79) at slightly above $250 million each year. Annual funding levels are set at $200 million
for the Market Access Program, $34.5 million for the Foreign Market Development Program, $9 million for the
Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops Program, and $10 million for the Emerging Markets Program. Mandatory
funding authorized for other foreign food aid programs under the 2014 farm bill will total about $250 million each
year—all for the Food for Progress Program.
Congressional Research Service
62

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

for each program and funding source. Senate report language recommends $1.5 million for the
Borlaug Fellows Program to provide training for international scientists and policy makers from
developing countries and $5.3 million for the Cochran Fellowship Program to provide short-term
technical training for international participants in the United States. The Senate report also states
appropriators’ expectation that FAS fund the Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program
and continue full mandatory funding for the Market Access Program (MAP) (see footnote 103).
Senate appropriators expect FAS to administer MAP as authorized in law without changing the
eligibility requirements for participation by cooperative organizations, small businesses, trade
associations, and other entities.
Food for Peace Program (P.L. 480)
The Food for Peace Program includes four separate program areas, each with its own title: Title
I—economic assistance and food security, Title II—emergency and private assistance programs,
Title III—food for development, and Title V—the farmer-to-farmer program.104 No funding for
new Title I (long-term concessional credits) or Title III (food for development) activities has been
requested since 2002, while the last Title I concessional commodity shipment occurred in 2006.
Title V (farmer-to-farmer program) funding is mandatory in nature and linked to the overall pool
of funding under the Food for Peace act—not less than the greater of $15 million or 0.6% of the
amounts made available to carry out the Food for Peace Act during any fiscal year (FY2014-
FY2018) shall be used to carry out the farmer-to-farmer program.
In contrast, the Food for Peace Title II program—which provides donations of U.S. commodities
and cash to meet humanitarian and development needs abroad—relies on each year’s agriculture
appropriations measure for funding. Title II programs are both the largest and most active
component of international agriculture food aid expenditures. Despite their funding origins in
agricultural appropriations, Title II programs are administered by the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID).
Food for Peace Title II funding has been embroiled in a long-running debate between the current
(and previous) Administration and Congress over how Title II funds may be used. The
Administration argues in favor of increasing the share of Title II funds available as either cash
transfers, food vouchers, or for local and regional procurement of commodities in the proximity
of the food crises in order to provide a more immediate (and lower-cost) response to international
emergencies. In contrast, Congress favors using Title II funds to purchase U.S. commodities and
ship them on U.S.-flag vessels to foreign countries with food deficiencies. Title II funding
allocations are also affected by a provision in the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79; §3012) which states
that the minimum funding requirement for nonemergency food aid shall not be less than $350
million.
In FY2014, Food for Peace Title II humanitarian food aid was appropriated $1.469 billion. The
Administration had requested to zero out the FY2014 Food for Peace Title II appropriations and
shift all of the funding for food aid to the State Department’s Foreign Operations Appropriations
where it would be available as cash-based food assistance for emergencies; however, Congress
rejected the Administration’s request.

104 Title IV of the Food for Peace Act involves general authorities and requirements.
Congressional Research Service
63

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

The Administration’s FY2015 budget request proposed that $1.4 billion be appropriated for Title
II programs, of which 25% ($350 million) would be exempt from any U.S. purchase requirement
and instead would be available as cash-based food assistance for emergencies. In addition, the
Administration’s budget request specified that $270 million of Title II funds be combined with an
additional $80 million requested in the Development Assistance account under USAID’s
Community Development Fund and used to support development food assistance programs that
address chronic food insecurity in areas of recurrent crises, thus achieving the required $350
million for nonemergency programs.
In contrast to the Administration, both the House-reported and Senate-reported appropriations
bills would provide $1.469 billion, same as in FY2014, for Title II programs. The House bill also
specifies that $375 million (not $350 million) shall be used for nonemergency programs, while
the Senate bill specifies that $35 million be available under “enhanced” Title II section 202(e)
program operations, including such activities as cash-based food assistance for emergencies.
Local and Regional Procurement (LRP) Projects
The 2008 farm bill authorized a total of $60 million of CCC funds (mandatory funds, not Title II
appropriations) spread over four years for a pilot project to assess local and regional purchases of
food aid for emergency relief. The 2014 farm bill changed the LRP pilot program into a
permanent program with an authorization for discretionary funding of up to $80 million per fiscal
year for each of FY2014-FY2018. However, neither the House-reported nor Senate-reported
appropriations bill included any funding for the newly authorized permanent LRP program. The
Administration requested that 25% ($350 million) of Title II funds be available as cash-based
food assistance for emergencies.
However, an amendment (H.Amdt. 856) to H.R. 4800 was adopted on the House floor on June
11, 2014, to provide $10 million for the LRP program, offset by a reduction to the Agricultural
Marketing Service. Final action on the amended bill has yet to take place.
Two additional provisions affecting the Food for Peace program are included in the House bill,
the first of which also appears in the Senate bill. As has been done in previous appropriations
bills, Section 714 (of both H.R. 4800 and S. 2389) includes a provision that would limit, up to
$20 million, the amount of Food for Peace funds available for reimbursement of the Commodity
Credit Corporation for the release of commodities from the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust (7
U.S.C. 1736f-1). The second provision, provided in Section 727 (H.R. 4800), states that Title II
funds “may only be used to provide assistance to recipient nations if adequate monitoring and
controls, as determined by the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development,
are in place to ensure that emergency food aid is received by the intended beneficiaries in areas
affected by food shortages and not diverted for unauthorized or inappropriate purpose.”
McGovern-Dole Food for Education and Child Nutrition
The McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program provides
donations of U.S. agricultural products and financial and technical assistance for school feeding
and maternal and child nutrition projects in developing countries. For FY2015, both the
President’s budget request and the Senate-reported level are in concurrence with recommended
funding of $185.1 million—equal to the FY2014 level—whereas the House-reported bill includes
a higher $198.1 million appropriation.
Congressional Research Service
64

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

Note: Appropriations Provision on Industrial Hemp105
The production of industrial hemp in the United States is receiving appropriations attention.
However, this provision is not part of the Agriculture appropriation, but is in the Commerce-
Justice-Science (CJS) appropriations bill (both H.R. 4660 and S. 2437). Although hemp is an
agricultural commodity used in a range of goods, hemp is a variety of Cannabis sativa and is of
the same plant species as marijuana and subject to U.S. drug laws (see box below).106
The House and Senate CJS provisions would block federal law enforcement authorities from
interfering with state agencies, hemp growers, and agricultural research. Both the House and
Senate CJS bills state that “none of the funds made available” to the U.S. Department of Justice
(DOJ) and the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) “be used in contravention” of the 2014 farm
bill. The House bill further provides that no funds be used to prevent a state from implementing
its own state laws that “authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of industrial
hemp” as defined in the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79, §7606). In part this provision is in response
to the seizure of 250 pounds of imported hemp seeds by federal authorities at Louisville
International Airport in May 2014. The seeds were intended to be used by the state of Kentucky
to plant industrial hemp in a pilot project authorized in the 2014 farm bill. Although the seeds
were eventually released, the circumstances have resulted in uncertainty for hemp growers.107
Industrial Hemp: U.S. Laws and Policy
Industrial hemp is an agricultural commodity that is cultivated for use in the production of a range of hemp-based
goods, including foods and beverages, cosmetics and personal care products, and nutritional supplements, as wel as
fabrics and textiles, yarns and spun fibers, paper, construction/insulation materials, and other manufactured goods.
Hemp, however, is a variety of Cannabis sativa and is of the same plant species as marijuana and is subject to U.S. drug
laws. Under current U.S. drug policy all cannabis varieties, including hemp, are considered Schedule I controlled
substances under the Control ed Substances Act (CSA, 21 U.S.C. §§801 et seq.; Title 21 CFR Part 1308.11). Despite
these legitimate uses, hemp production and usage are control ed and regulated by the U.S. Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA). Strictly speaking, the CSA does not make growing hemp illegal; rather, it places strict controls
on its production and enforces standards governing the security conditions under which the crop must be grown,
making it illegal to grow without a DEA permit. Currently, cannabis varieties may be legitimately grown for research
purposes only. No known active federal licenses allow for hemp cultivation at this time.
Until recently industrial hemp was not grown commercially in the United States. Changes to state laws in Colorado in
November 2012 now allow for hemp cultivation in that state, which reported its first commercial hemp harvest in
May 2013. Several Other states have passed laws that allow for growing hemp under certain conditions, including
California, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Utah, Vermont,
and West Virginia, with certain other allowances in other states. However, federal permitting requirements and other
restrictions still apply and likely limit commercial cultivation and market expansion.
Given the absence of large-scale commercial industrial hemp production in the United States, the U.S. market is
largely dependent on imports, both as finished hemp-containing products and as ingredients for processing.
The Agricultural Act of 2014 (“farm bill”, P.L. 113-79, §7606) provides that certain research institutions and state
departments of agriculture may grow industrial hemp, as part of an agricultural pilot program, if allowed under state
laws where the institution or state department of agriculture is located. The farm bill also established a statutory
definition of “industrial hemp” as “the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of such plant, whether growing or not,
with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.”

105 This section was written by Renée Johnson (7-9588; rjohnson@crs.loc.gov).
106 For more information, see CRS Report RL32725, Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity.
107 Also see CRS Insight IN10087, Congressional Efforts to Reduce Restrictions on Growing Industrial Hemp.
Congressional Research Service
65

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

Related Agencies
In addition to the USDA agencies mentioned above, the Agriculture appropriations
subcommittees have jurisdiction over appropriations for two related agencies:
• The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS), and
• The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)—in the House
Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee only.

Agricultural Relationship to Related Agencies
The combined share of FDA and CFTC funding (Title VI) in the overall Agriculture and Related Agencies
appropriations bill is about 13% of discretionary appropriations, or about 2% of the total.
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 in recent decades.
Some may argue that these agencies no longer belong in the Agriculture appropriations bill. Others say that
despite the growing importance of non-agricultural issues, agriculture and food issues are still an important
component of each agency. At FDA, food safety responsibilities that are shared between USDA and FDA have
been in the media during recent years and have been the subject of legislation and hearings. At CFTC, volatility in
agricultural commodity markets has been a subject of recent scrutiny at CFTC and in Congress.
Jurisdiction over CFTC appropriations is assigned differently in the House and Senate. Before FY2008, the
Agriculture subcommittees in both the House and Senate had jurisdiction over CFTC funding. In FY2008, Senate
jurisdiction moved to the Financial Services Appropriations Subcommittee. Placement in the enacted version now
alternates each year. In even-numbered fiscal years, CFTC has resided in the Agriculture appropriations act. In
odd-numbered fiscal years, CFTC has resided in the enacted Financial Services appropriations act.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA)108
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates the safety of foods and cosmetics; the safety
and effectiveness of drugs, biologics (e.g., vaccines), and medical devices; and public health
aspects of tobacco products.109 Although FDA has been a part of the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) since 1940, the Committee on Appropriations does not consider FDA
within HHS under its Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and
Related Agencies. Jurisdiction over FDA’s budget remains with the Subcommittee on Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, reflecting FDA’s
beginnings as part of the Department of Agriculture.
FDA’s program level, the amount that FDA can spend, is composed of direct appropriations (also
referred to as budget authority) and user fees.110 The President requested a total program level of

108 This section was written by Susan Thaul (7-0562, sthaul@crs.loc.gov).
109 Several CRS reports provide information on FDA authority and activities. See, for example, CRS Report R41983,
How FDA Approves Drugs and Regulates Their Safety and Effectiveness, by Susan Thaul, and CRS Report R42130,
FDA Regulation of Medical Devices, by Judith A. Johnson.
110 Beginning with the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA, P.L. 102-571) in 1992, Congress has authorized FDA
to collect fees from industry sponsors of certain FDA-regulated products and to use the revenue to support statutorily
defined activities, such as the review of product marketing applications.
Congressional Research Service
66

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

$4.485 billion for FY2015, 2.3% more than the appropriated amount for FY2014.111 The House-
reported bill, H.R. 4800, puts the total at $4.485 billion and the Senate-reported bill, S. 2389, puts
the total at $4.5 billion.
The President’s request for FY2015 included $2.584 billion in direct appropriations, nearly 1%
more than the FY2014 appropriation. The House bill would include $2.583 billion and the Senate
bill would include $2.597 billion.
For user fees, the President requested $1.901 billion in fees to be collected through authorized
programs to support specified agency activities regarding prescription drugs, medical devices,
animal drugs, animal generic drugs, tobacco products, generic human drugs, biosimilars,
mammography quality, color certification, export certification, food reinspection, food recall, and
the voluntary qualified importer program.112 In addition to the $1.901 billion in user fees from
currently authorized programs, the President requested $260 million for as yet unauthorized fees
for medical product reinspection, international courier, food establishment registration, food
imports, cosmetics, and food contact notification. With those proposed fees, the President’s total
user fee request was $2.161 billion, bringing the total program level request to $4.745 billion. The
House and Senate bills, as reported by the committees, would provide the total fee amount
requested for authorized programs ($1.901 billion) plus $1 million for fees authorized by this
Congress related to the regulation of drug compounding113 for a total of $1.902 billion.
Of the funds to be appropriated for FDA, the House-reported bill would make $20 million not
available until FDA finalizes its January 2013 draft guidance on the evaluation and labeling of
abuse-deterrent opioids (§734), and further directs that the $20 million go to FDA’s Office of
Criminal Investigation if FDA has not finalized the guidance by June 30, 2015.
In report language, the House committee notes that the recommended appropriations include the
following increases: (1) $25 million for food safety activities; and (2) $12 million for pharmacy
compounding activities. The committee also states its expectation that FDA fund the National
Antimicrobial Response Monitoring System (NARMS) at $7.8 million, urging the agency to
increase that funding “if warranted.”
S. 2389, as reported, specifies that FDA use at least $150,000 to implement a labeling
requirement concerning genetically engineered salmon. It also would require that $1.5 million of
the budget authority provided for other activities (e.g., Office of the Commissioner) be transferred
to the HHS Office of Inspector General for FDA oversight. In S.Rept. 113-164, the committee
notes that the recommended appropriations include the following increases: (1) $4 million for the

111 The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76).
112 Those who speak of FDA policy often use acronyms for the various user fee authorizing acts: Prescription Drug
User Fee Act or Amendments (PDUFA), Medical Device User Fee Act or Amendments (MDUFA), Animal Drug User
Fee Program (ADUFA), Animal Generic Drug User Fee Program (AGDUFA), Generic Drug User Fee Amendments
(GDUFA), Biosimilar User Fee Act (BSUFA), and the Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA). Acronyms for
others have not caught on: color certification, export certification, tobacco (from the Family Smoking Prevention and
Tobacco Control Act), and food reinspection and food recall (both authorized by the FDA Food Safety Modernization
Act (FMSA)). Several CRS reports describe FDA user fee programs. See, for example, CRS Report R42366,
Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA): 2012 Reauthorization as PDUFA V, by Susan Thaul, and CRS Report
R42508, The FDA Medical Device User Fee Program, by Judith A. Johnson.
113 See Title I, the Compounding Quality Act, of P.L. 113-54, the Drug Quality and Security Act.
Congressional Research Service
67

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System; (2) $4.82 million for counterfeit drug
investigations; and (3) $11.7 million for cosmetics activities.
In addition to comments on specific amounts of funding, the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations lay out in the reports that accompanied their respectively reported bills (H.Rept.
113-468 and S.Rept. 113-164) their concerns with specific FDA activities. The reports include 60
statements that direct or encourage specific action.114 The directions and encouragements covered
most FDA programs, with the majority (37 out of 60) involving foods or human drugs. While
directions and suggestions in the committee reports do not have statutory stature, they convey to
the agency the concerns of committees that determine future appropriations. The topics the
committees raise indicate both the broad range of responsibilities Congress has given FDA and a
hint of the level of scientific expertise necessary to regulate items that touch many aspects of U.S.
consumers’ lives.115
Food safety activities at FDA are discussed earlier in this report in the section on “Food Safety.”
Table 11 displays, by program area, the budget authority (direct appropriations), user fees, and
total program levels for FDA in previous years: FY2012 (as calculated for the agency’s June 2013
operating plan), FY2013 (as calculated by the June 2014 operating plan), and FY2014 (as
calculated by the June 2014 operating plan). Regarding appropriations for FY2015, Table 11
displays the President’s FY2015 request, the House Committee on Appropriations-reported H.R.
4800, and the Senate Committee on Appropriations-reported S. 2389.
Consistent with the Administration and congressional committee formats, each program area in
Table 11 includes funding designated for the responsible FDA center (e.g., the Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research or the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition) and the portion of
effort budgeted for the agency-wide Office of Regulatory Affairs to commit to that area. It also
apportions user fee revenue across the program areas as indicated in the Administration’s request
(e.g., 90% of the animal drug user fee revenue is designated for the animal drugs and feeds
program, with the rest going to the categories of headquarters and Office of the Commissioner,
General Services Administration (GSA) rent, and other rent and rent-related activities).

114 H.Rept. 113-468, submitted by Mr. Aderholt, from the Committee on Appropriations, to accompany H.R. 4800,
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2015, June
4, 2014; and S.Rept. 113-164, submitted by Mr. Pryor, from the Committee on Appropriations, to accompany S. 2389,
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2015, May
22, 2014.
115 Topics addressed in the FY2015 committee reports, by program area, follow. Foods: Food Safety Modernization
Act implementation (several items), food safety outreach and technical assistance, international regulation of lead in
cosmetics, seafood advisory for pregnant women, seafood economic security, shellfish embargo, menu labeling, natural
claims, regulation of tree nuts, and calorie display in vending machines. Human drugs: abuse deterrent drug
development, compounding pharmacies, fixed dose combination drugs, global drug supply chain, prescription drug
inserts, special protocol assessment agreement, sunscreen labeling and ingredient review, over-the-counter cold
medicines for children, drug shortages, ANDA review prioritization, accelerated approval, Duchenne muscular
dystrophy, generic drug labeling, opioid application approvals, and compassionate use. Biologics: bioethics committee,
and blood plasma products. Animal drugs and feeds: use of medically important antibiotics for use in food animals,
imported pet food product transparency, National Antimicrobial Response Monitoring System (NARMS), and
veterinary feed directive regulation. Devices and radiological products: artificial pancreas, comprehensive device
review assessment, mammography quality, and pediatric device grants. Tobacco products: deeming regulations
regarding premium cigars, and tobacco product smuggling. Toxicological research: nanotechnology. FDA-wide:
counterfeit products, import shipments, inclusion in clinical trials, user fee accounting, White Oak consolidation, and
scientific integrity.
Congressional Research Service
68

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

Table 11. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Appropriations
(dollars in millions)

FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
P.L. 112-
P.L. 113-6
P.L. 113-
Admin.
House-
Senate-

55
post-sequ.
76
requesta
reported
reported
Foods
883 814
900
914 914 914
BA
866 797
883
903 913 903
Fees
17 17
17
10 10 10
Human
drugs
979 1,187
1,289
1,335 1,326 1,340
BA
478 439
466
480 471 484
Fees
501 748
823
856 856 856
Biologics
329 308
338
343 344 343
BA
212 195
211
210 211 210
Fees
117 113
127
133 133 133
Animal drugs and feeds
166
155
173
172
172
176
BA
138 126
142
145 145 149
Fees
28 29
32
27 27 27
Devices and radiological health
376
384
428
437
440
437
BA
323 296
321
318 321 318
Fees
53 88
107
119 119 119
Tobacco products
455 459 501 532 532 532
Fees
455 459
501
532 532 532
Toxicological
research
60 55
62
59 62 63
BA
60 55
62
59 62 63
Other (e.g., Commissioner Office)
223
251
275
279
279
279
BA
154 160
172
175 175 176
Fees
69 91
103
104 104 104
GSA
rent
205 199
220
229 229 229
BA
161 150
162
169 169 169
Fees
45 49
58
60 60 60
Other rent, rent-related activitiesb
132 157
178
164 163 164
BA
106 118
133
116 116 116
Fees
26 40
46
48 48 48
Export & color certification (fees)
11
12
12
14
14
14
Priority review voucher (fees)
0 5 0 0 0 0
Food and drug safetyc (BA)
— 46 0 0 0 0
Pharmacy compounding (fees)
— — — — 1 1
Buildings & Facilities (BA)
9
5
9
9
9
9
Total Budget Authority
2,506
2,386
2,561
2,584
2,583
2,597
Total User Fees
1,326
1,645
1,826
1,901d
1,902ef
1,902e
Congressional Research Service
69

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
P.L. 112-
P.L. 113-6
P.L. 113-
Admin.
House-
Senate-

55
post-sequ.
76
requesta
reported
reported
Total, Program Level
3,832
4,031
4,387
4,485d
4,485
4,500
Sources: Funding amounts for FY2012 are taken from the FDA FY2013 Sequestration Operating Plan. The
FY2013 and FY2014 amounts are from the FDA FY2014 Operating Plan, issued after enactment of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014. FY2013 figures reflect sequestration. FY2015 request amounts are taken
from the FY2015 congressional justification, issued in March 2014. Appropriations Committees reported
amounts come from H.R. 4800, H.Rept. 113-468, S. 2389, and S.Rept. 113-164.
Notes: Consistent with the Administration and congressional committee formats, each program area includes
funding designated for the responsible FDA center (e.g., the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research or the
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition) and the portion of effort budgeted for the agency-wide Office of
Regulatory Affairs to commit to that area. It also apportions user fee revenue across the program areas as
indicated in the Administration’s request (e.g., 90% of the animal drug user fee revenue is designated for the
animal drugs and feeds program, with the rest going to headquarters and Office of the Commissioner, GSA rent,
and other rent and rent-related activities categories).
a. For user fees in the Administration’s FY2015 request, this column shows only those that have been
authorized. The request included an additional $260 million in proposed fees, allocated across several FDA
program areas (foods $210 million; human drugs $0.5 million; animal drugs and feeds $18 million; devices
and radiological health $4 million; headquarters and Office of the Commissioner $16 million; GSA rent $7
million; and other rent and rent-related activities $4 million).
b. Other rent and rent-related activities include White Oak consolidation.
c. The FY2013 Sequestration Operating Plan notes food safety and drug safety items that had not been
included in the program-level appropriations.
d. The President’s FY2015 request includes $1.901 billion in user fees from currently authorized programs
(prescription drug, medical device, animal drug, animal generic drug, tobacco product, generic drug,
biosimilars, mammography quality, color certification, export certification, food reinspection, and food
recall) plus $260 million in proposed user fees (medical product reinspection, international courier, food
establishment registration, food imports, cosmetics, and food contact notification) that would require
authorizing legislation to implement. With those proposed fees, the President’s total user fee request is
$2.161 billion, yielding a total program level request of $4.745 billion.
e. The House and Senate committee-reported bills each included $1 million for fees related to pharmacy
compounding that the President’s request had not included. The President’s request noted, “The Drug
Quality and Security Act (P.L. 113-54) authorized three new FDA user fees: the outsourcing facility fees; the
prescription drug wholesale distributer licensing and inspection; and the third-party logistics provider
licensing and inspection fees. It is expected that collections for FY 2015 will be minimal.”
f.
In addition to mentioning other continuing and newly authorized fees, the House Committee-reported bill
authorizes the crediting of fees (without indicating amounts) relating to outsourcing facilities, wholesale
distributor licensing and inspection, and third-party logistics provider licensing and inspection as authorized
by Title II, the Drug Supply Chain Security Act, of P.L. 113-54, the Drug Quality and Security Act.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission116
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is the independent regulatory agency
charged with oversight of derivatives markets. The CFTC’s functions include oversight of trading
on the futures exchanges, oversight of the swaps markets, registration and supervision of futures
industry personnel, self-regulatory organizations and major participants in the swaps markets,

116 This section was written by Rena S. Miller (7-0826, rsmiller@crs.loc.gov) and Jim Monke.
Congressional Research Service
70

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

prevention of fraud and price manipulation, and investor protection. The Dodd-Frank Act (P.L.
111-203) brought the bulk of the previously unregulated over-the-counter swaps markets under
CFTC jurisdiction as well as the previously regulated futures and options markets.117
The House-reported Agriculture appropriations bill would provide $217.6 million for CFTC in
FY2015. This is $2.6 million more than FY2014 (+1.2%), but $62 million below the
Administration’s request.
The Senate Financial Services appropriations subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over CFTC
appropriations, marked up a bill its bill on June 24, 2014.118 The subcommittee mark would
provide $280 million for CFTC, the same as the Administration’s request. The Senate
Appropriations full committee has not acted on subcommittee’s recommendation.
Farm Credit Administration119
The Farm Credit Administration (FCA) is the federal regulator for the Farm Credit System (FCS).
Neither the FCS nor the FCA receives a federal appropriation. The FCS is a borrower-owned
lender operated as a government sponsored enterprise. The FCA is funded by assessments on the
FCS entities that it regulates. As part of its congressional oversight, however, the Agriculture
appropriations bill sets a limitation on administrative expenses (a maximum operating level) for
the FCA—a check on the size of the FCA and the amount FCA can collect.
For FY2015, the FCA requested a $65.1 million limitation on expenses.120 The Senate-reported
bill concurs with the Administration’s request. The House-reported bill would provide a level of
$54 million, a level last seen in FY2010. The House committee report notes that FCA can exceed
the limitation by 10% by notifying the Appropriations committees and that the $54 million level
is the average level of obligations over the past five years. FCA’s request notes a staffing
replacement plan in which obligations for personnel are expected to rise about 20% in FY2014.121
Table 12. Farm Credit Administration Limitation on Expenses
(dollars in millions)
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
P.L.
P.L.
P.L.
P.L.
P.L.
Admin.
House-
Senate-
111-80
112-10
112-55
113-6
113-76
Request
report
report
FCA
limitation
on
expenses 54.5 59.4 61.0 63.3 62.6 65.1 54.0 65.1
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports.

117 A subset of the swaps market, called security-based swaps, which are swaps related to securities such as stocks and
bonds, are overseen by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
118 Senate Committee on Appropriations, “FY15 FSGG Subcommittee Reported Bill and Draft Report,” at http://www.
appropriations.senate.gov/news/fy15-fsgg-subcommittee-reported-bill-and-draft-report.
119 This section was written by Jim Monke (7-9664, jmonke@crs.loc.gov).
120 Farm Credit Administration, Fiscal Year 2015 Proposed Budget and Performance Plan, at http://fca.gov/Download/
BudgetFY2015.pdf.
121 Ibid, at p. 13, and p. 19.
Congressional Research Service
71

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

General Provisions and Scorekeeping
Adjustments122
The House- and Senate-reported FY2015 Agriculture appropriation bills each contain a total of
about $1.2 billion in net offsets that effectively reduce the cost of appropriations in the rest of the
bill. These reductions occur in Title VII (General Provisions) and in separate CBO scorekeeping
adjustments. Reductions are made by limitations on mandatory farm bill programs (about -$800
million, Table 13), recessions from other appropriated accounts (-$13 million, Table 14), and
other scorekeeping adjustments not usually detailed in the bills (-$410 million in the House-
reported bill, -$510 million in the Senate-reported bill, Table 16). Some additional spending
authorizations also may be made in General Provisions, including $143 million in the Senate
proposal (Table 15).
Limitations and rescissions in appropriations are used to score budgetary savings that help the bill
meet the discretionary budget allocation. By offsetting spending elsewhere in the bill, they help
provide relatively more to (or help avoid deeper cuts to) regular discretionary accounts than might
otherwise occur.123
The General Provisions title also contains many policy-related provisions that affect how the
executive branch carries out the appropriation or other authorizing laws. Some of these policy-
related provisions are discussed earlier in this report in the sections relevant for each agency.
Changes in Mandatory Program Spending (CHIMPS)
For more than a decade, appropriators have placed limits on mandatory spending authorized in
statutes such as the farm bill (Table 13). These limits are also known as CHIMPS, “changes in
mandatory program spending.” Mandatory programs usually are not part of the appropriations
process since formulas and eligibility rules are set in multi-year authorizing laws (such as the
2014 farm bill). Funding usually is assumed to be available based on the statute and without
appropriations action.124
When appropriators limit mandatory spending, they do not change the authorizing law. Rather,
limits on mandatory programs come from 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 $[ ... ].”
Limits usually appear in Title VII, General Provisions, of the Agriculture appropriations bill.

122 This section was written by Jim Monke (7-9664, jmonke@crs.loc.gov).
123 For example, in FY2011, half of the $3.4 billion reduction in total discretionary appropriations between FY2010 and
FY2011 was achieved by a $1.7 billion increase in the use of farm bill limitations and rescissions.
124 This report uses the CBO compilation of CHIMPS, which in addition to limits on farm bill programs also includes
the rescission from the Cushion of Credit account for the Rural Business and Cooperative Service (RBS). Including the
Cushion of Credit rescission in CHIMPS allows the total appropriation for RBS to remain positive and concurs with
CBO scoring. However, appropriations committee tables include the Cushion of Credit rescission in the RBS section,
causing the net agency appropriations total to be less than zero (the alternative scoring method noted in Table 9).
Congressional Research Service
72

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

Table 13. Changes in Mandatory Program Spending (CHIMPS)
(dollars in millions)

FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
P.L. 112-
P.L. 113-6
P.L. 113-
Admin.
House-
Senate-
CHIMPS
55
post-sequ.
76
Request
reported
reported
Farm
Bill
CHIMPS

Environmental Quality Incentives Program
-350.0
-279.0
-272.0
-250.0
-95.0
-136.0
Watershed Rehabilitation Program
-165.0 -165.0 -153.0 -153.0 -50.0 -142.0
Wetlands Reserve Program
-200.0

Conservation Stewardship Program
-76.5

-31.0

Agric. Conservation Easement Program

-30.0

Farmland Protection Program
-50.0

Grasslands Reserve Program
-30.0

Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program
-35.0
-9.0

Voluntary Public Access Program
-17.0

Agricultural Management Assistance
-5.0
-5.0

Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Programa
-133.0 -117.0 -119.0 -122.0 -122.0 -122.0
SNAP employment and trainingb
-11.0

Biorefinery Assistance Program

-40.7

-24.0

Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels
-40.0

-8.0

Biomass Crop Assistance Program
-28.0

-10.0

Rural Energy for America Program
-48.0

-16.0

Repowering
Assistance

-28.0

Crop insurance good performance discount
-25.0

Microenterpreneur Assistance Program
-3.0

Subtotal, Farm Bill CHIMPS
-1,216.5
-603.0
-592.7
-525.0
-378.0
-400.0
Other CHIMPS (rescissions of mandatory accounts)
Cushion of Credit (Rural Development)
-155.0
-180.0
-172.0
-155.0
-155.0
-158.0
Section
32
-150.0 -110.0 -189.0 -203.0 -121.0 -121.0
Emergency Livestock Assistance Program

-125.0
-125.0
-125.0
Export
credit
-20.2

Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers
-90.0

Total
CHIMPS
-1,631.8 -893.0 -953.7
-1,008.0 -779.0 -804.0
Source: CRS, based on categorization of CHIMPS in unpublished CBO tables and drawn from tables in the joint
explanatory statements or committee reports for S. 2389, H.R. 4800, P.L. 113-6, P.L. 113-76, and P.L. 112-55.
a. Delays funding from July until October of the same calendar year, effectively allocating the authorization by
fiscal year rather than school year—with no reduction in overal support—and savings being scored.
b. The 2002 and 2008 farm bills authorized $90 million in mandatory funding for SNAP E&T, which was limited
by various laws. The FY2014 appropriation continued that reduced level. The enacted 2014 farm bill (P.L.
113-79) restored available E&T funding to $90 million.
Congressional Research Service
73

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

Historically, expenditure decisions are assumed to rest with appropriations committees.125 The
division over who should fund certain agriculture programs—appropriators or authorizers—has
roots dating to the 1930s. Variable outlays for the farm commodity programs were difficult to
budget and resembled entitlements. Mandatory funding—the Commodity Credit Corporation
(CCC)—was created to remove the unpredictable funding issue from the appropriations process.
The dynamic changed after the 1996 farm bill when mandatory funds were used for programs that
usually were discretionary. Appropriators had not funded some programs as much as authorizers
had desired, and authorizing committees wrote farm bills using the mandatory funding at their
discretion. Tension arose over who should fund certain activities. Some question whether the
CCC should be used for programs that are not variable. The programs affected by CHIMPS
typically include conservation, rural development, bioenergy, and some smaller nutrition
assistance programs. CHIMPS have not affected the farm commodity programs or the primary
nutrition assistance programs (such as SNAP).
The House-reported bill contains $779 million of CHIMPS, and the Senate-reported bill $804
million of CHIMPS. Both of these amounts are smaller than the CHIMP levels that were enacted
in FY2011-FY2014 (Table 13).
For more information on reductions to mandatory conservation programs through appropriations,
see CRS Report IF00036, Reductions to Mandatory Agricultural Conservation Programs in
Appropriations Law (In Focus). For more background generally, see CRS Report R41245,
Reductions in Mandatory Agriculture Program Spending.

Budget Sequestration and CHIMPS
A complicating factor in understanding the CHIMP amounts for FY2015 is a methodological difference in
how CBO scored the Administration’s request compared with the House and Senate bills. Budget
sequestration of mandatory accounts occurred in FY2014 and FY2015, reducing the amount available to
most mandatory programs regardless of whether reductions were made in appropriations. For example,
the complete prohibition on spending for the Watershed Rehabilitation Program resulted in a smaller
$153 million CHIMP in FY2014 than the $165 million CHIMP in FY2013, even though the same $165
million program authority was available initially (Table 13).
Sequestration was incorporated into the amounts available for each program before the CHIMPS were
computed in FY2014 and FY2015—except for the accounting of the Administration’s FY2015 request. By
not incorporating sequestration in the FY2015 estimates of the Administration request, CBO gave the
Administration more credit for some CHIMPS than the House or Senate bills. For example, the
Administration and the Senate proposed the same level of proposed program activity for the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) in FY2015, but each was credited a different CHIMP
amount. The CBO score of the Administration’s CHIMP of EQIP was $250 million, but the score of the
Senate bill’s CHIMP was $136 million (Table 13); the $114 million difference is the implied amount of
sequestration on the $1.6 billion farm bill authorization. Similar calculations may be made for other
programs in Table 13.
This difference is important, for example, in reconciling the $20.9 billion discretionary total of the House
bill (and the FY2014 level) with the $20.4 billion total for the Administration’s request (Table 2). While
it may appear that the Administration was proposing an overal reduction in spending from the $20.9
billion level of FY2014 and less than the FY2015 House and Senate bills, some of the difference is because
the Administration was given credit for larger CHIMPS than the House and Senate bills.

125 Summarized from Galen Fountain, (former) 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.
Congressional Research Service
74

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

Rescissions
Rescissions are a method of permanently cancelling the availability of funds that were provided
by a previous appropriations law, and in doing so achieving or scoring budgetary savings.126
As an offset, rescissions can allow more spending in an appropriations bill. But by cancelling an
authorization, a rescission can prevent an unobligated budget authority from being reallocated or
repurposed by future appropriations. Often rescissions relate to the unobligated balances of funds
still available for a specific purpose that were appropriated a year or more ago (e.g., buildings and
facilities funding that remains available until expended for specific projects, or disaster response
funds for losses due to a specifically named hurricane).
Rescissions in the FY2015 Administration request and in the House- and Senate-reported bills are
small by comparison to recent years. For FY2015, the request and each chamber’s bill would
rescind $13 million, compared to a $33 million rescission in FY2014; Table 14). The FY2011
appropriation made unusually large rescissions (-$372 million) compared with prior and
succeeding years and was difficult to repeat in the following years. Nonetheless, the FY2011
rescissions helped reduce the impact of that year’s smaller total spending level because they
offset relatively larger appropriations to agencies than would otherwise have been possible.
Table 14. Rescissions from (Prior-Year) Budget Authority
(dollars in millions)
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
P.L. 112-
P.L. 113-6
P.L. 113-
Admin.
House-
Senate-
Rescissions
55
post-sequ.
76
Request
reported
reported
P.L. 480 Title I
-2.3

-13.0
-13.0
-13.0
Agriculture buildings and facilities

-30.0

Rural Housing Service

-1.3

Resource Conservation and Development

-2.0

Broadband loan balances

-25.3

NIFA buildings and facilities
-2.5

Forestry
incentives
-6.0

Great Plains Conservation
-0.5

Ocean
freight
-3.2

Office of Advocacy and Outreach
-4.0

Foreign
currency
program
-0.3

Total
-18.9 -25.3 -33.3 -13.0 -13.0 -13.0
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports for S. 2389, H.R.
4800, P.L. 113-6, P.L. 113-76, and P.L. 112-55.

126 Rescissions to mandatory programs are counted in the CHIMPS section.
Congressional Research Service
75

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

Other Appropriations (Including Emergency Disaster Programs)
The General Provisions title may contain appropriations for activities that are not part of regular
agency appropriations. These sometimes include supplemental or disaster appropriations, and
may be offset in scorekeeping adjustments by emergency spending designations.
Table 15 shows that for FY2015, the Senate-reported bill contains funding in Section 738 for
several emergency conservation and emergency forestry activities, some of which are part of a
$100 million emergency spending provision that does not apply to the spending limits.127 The
House bill and the Administration’s request do not include these items.
Table 15. Other Appropriations in General Provisions
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
P.L. 112-
P.L. 113-6
P.L. 113-
Admin.
House-
Senate-
Other spending provisions
55
post-sequ.
76
Request
reported
reported
Water Bank
7.5

4.0

4.0
Hardwood trees reforestation pilot
0.6
0.6
0.6

0.6
Geographical y disadvantaged farmers
2.0
1.8
2.0

2.0
FDA salaries and expenses

46.2

FDA user fees

79.0

Citrus
greening

20.0

Hunger
Commission
1.0

SW Border Regional Commission

2.0
Emergency Watershed Protection

60.5

25.0
Emergency Conservation Program

10.3

11.8
Emergency Forest Restoration

13.1

Total (before disaster provisions)
10.1
132.5
106.6
2.0
0.0
43.3
Disaster provisions, subtotal
367.0

100.0
Emergency Watershed Protection
215.9

85.0
Emergency Conservation Program
122.7

Emergency Forest Restoration
28.4

15.0
Total (including disaster funding)
377.1
132.5
106.6
2.0
0.0
143.3
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports for S. 2389, H.R.
4800, P.L. 113-6, P.L. 113-76, and P.L. 112-55.

127 These are in addition to the “permanent agricultural disaster” programs for livestock and fruit trees authorized in the
2014 farm bill and funded with mandatory funds. See CRS Report RS21212, Agricultural Disaster Assistance.
Congressional Research Service
76

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

Other Scorekeeping Adjustments
Scorekeeping adjustments are a final part of the accounting of the appropriations bill that is not
necessarily shown in the tables published by the appropriations committees.128 These adjustments
are critical, however, for the bill to reach the desired total amount that complies with the 302(b)
spending limit for the subcommittee. Some of these amounts are not necessarily specified by
provisions in the bill, but are related to program operations. CBO calculates and reports these
scorekeeping adjustments in unpublished tables.
For FY2015, the other scorekeeping adjustments in the House-reported bill total -$410 million,
and in the Senate-reported bill total -$510 million (Table 16). The scorekeeping amounts in the
House and Senate bills are the same, except for the Senate bill’s $100 million disaster designation
for two emergency conservation and emergency forestry programs.
Also, the regular FY2015 scorekeeping adjustments are about $200 million greater than in
FY2014 and past years due to an increase in the magnitude of “negative subsidies” in several
USDA loan programs. These negative subsidies effectively reflect “income” to the government
when loan program operations cost less than appropriated though fees or better-than-expected
loan repayment. These negative subsidies have become larger in recent years, and are helping to
offset more of the appropriation.
Table 16. Scorekeeping Adjustments
(dollars in millions)
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
P.L. 112-
P.L. 113-6
P.L. 113-
Admin.
House-
Senate-
Other scorekeeping adjustments
55
post-seq.
76
Request
reported
reported
Denali Commission (permanent)

4.0
4.0
4.0
-3.0
-3.0
Interest Native American Fund Endow.

5.0
5.0
5.0

Child
nutrition
equipment
grants
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Loan
program
negative
subsidies

Rural housing negative subsidy
-7.0
-62.0
-62.0
-141.0
-141.0
-141.0
Rural community facilities negative subsidy
-4.0 -14.0 -41.0 -90.0 -90.0 -90.0
Rural elec. & tele. loan negative subsidy
-60.0 -60.0 -92.0 -152.0 -152.0 -152.0
Rural water & waste loan negative subsidy

-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
Agricultural credit loan negative subsidy
-1.0
-3.0
-6.0
-23.0
-23.0
-23.0
Subtotal,
negative
subsidies
-72.0 -139.0 -201.0 -408.0 -408.0 -408.0
Emergency designations, not in 302(b)
-367.0

-100.0
Total
-439.0 -129.0 -191.0 -398.0 -410.0 -510.0
Source: CRS, compiled from unpublished CBO tables.

128 Although CHIMPS sometimes are considered to be scorekeeping adjustments and are shown in committee tables,
they are discussed elsewhere in this report. This section discusses the unpublished, other scorekeeping adjustments.
Congressional Research Service
77

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

Appendix A. Historical Trends
This appendix offers historical perspective on trends in mandatory vs. discretionary spending, and
a primary division of the appropriation into nutrition vs. other. It also shows inflation-adjusted
amounts, and relationships to the size of the economy (GDP) and the federal budget. The enacted
FY2014 appropriation in P.L. 113-76 is the basis for comparison throughout most of this section.
Discretionary Agriculture appropriations peaked in FY2010, although mandatory nutrition
spending has continued to rise. In inflation-adjusted terms, the rise in mandatory spending and the
total appropriation since FY2012 is small. See Figure A-1 for the mandatory and discretionary
breakdown; Table A-1 contains the nominal data, and Table A-2 contains the inflation-adjusted
data. See Table A-3 for the compounded annualized percentage changes over time periods.
• Over the past 10 years (since FY2004), total Agriculture appropriations have
grown at an average annualized rate (compounded annual rate) of +5.3% per year
(+3.0% on an inflation-adjusted basis).
• The mandatory spending portion of this total shows a +6.0% average annual
increase over the past 10 years (+3.7% on an inflation-adjusted basis).
• The discretionary portion has an average annual 10-year increase of +2.2%
(constant on an inflation-adjusted basis). In FY2004, 19% of the total agriculture
appropriation was for discretionary; in FY2014, that ratio had decreased to 14%
since mandatory spending rose faster than discretionary spending.
Figure A-1. Total Agriculture Appropriations: Mandatory and Discretionary

Source: CRS. Fiscal year budget authority. Inflation-adjusted amounts are based on the GDP price deflator.
Notes: Includes only regular annual appropriations for USDA (except the Forest Service), FDA, and CFTC
(regardless of jurisdiction).
Congressional Research Service
78

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

Another way to divide the total agriculture appropriation is domestic nutrition compared to
everything else (Figure A-2). Domestic nutrition appropriations include primarily the child
nutrition programs (school lunch and related programs), the Special Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP)—both of which are mandatory—and the Special Supplemental
Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), which is discretionary. The “rest of
the bill” includes other USDA programs (except the Forest Service), FDA and CFTC.
• The portion of the total for domestic nutrition programs has risen at an 8.7%
average annual rate over 10 years (+6.3% on an inflation-adjusted basis). In
FY2004, 55% of the total agriculture appropriation was for domestic nutrition. In
FY2014, 75% of the total is for domestic nutrition.
• Most of the domestic nutrition program budget is mandatory spending, primarily
in SNAP and the child nutrition programs. The mandatory spending portion rose
at a +9.1% average annual rate over 10 years (+6.8% on an inflation-adjusted
basis). By comparison, mandatory spending within the rest of the rest of the bill
decreased at a -1.7% average annual rate over 10 years (-3.8% on an inflation-
adjusted basis).
• The portion of the total for the rest of the bill (non-nutrition rest) has decreased at
a -0.6% average annual rate over 10 years (-2.8% per year on an inflation-
adjusted basis).
Figure A-2. Total Agriculture Appropriations: Domestic Nutrition and Rest of Bill

Source: CRS. Fiscal year budget authority. Inflation-adjusted amounts are based on the GDP price deflator.
Notes: The largest domestic nutrition programs are the child nutrition programs, SNAP, and WIC. The “rest of
bill” includes USDA (except the Forest Service), FDA and CFTC.
Congressional Research Service
79

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

Within the discretionary subtotal of Figure A-1, a similar domestic nutrition vs. rest of the bill
comparison can be made as was done for the total appropriation (see Figure A-3).
• As stated before, total discretionary Agriculture appropriations grew at +2.2% per
year over the past 10 years, and were nearly constant on an inflation-adjusted
level. This component of the appropriation is arguably where appropriators have
the most control.
Over the five-year period since FY2009, the annual change is +0.3% per year, or
-1.5% per year on an inflation-adjusted basis.
• The domestic nutrition portion of this discretionary subtotal (primarily WIC,
commodity assistance programs, and nutrition programs administration) shows a
+3.9% average annual increase over 10 years (+1.6% per year on an inflation-
adjusted basis).
Over the five-year period, the annual change is -0.2% per year, or -2.0% per year
on an inflation-adjusted basis.
• The discretionary portion for rest of the bill has an average annual 10-year
increase +1.4% (-0.8% per year on an inflation-adjusted basis).
Over the five-year period, the annual change is +0.5% per year, or -1.2% per year
on an inflation-adjusted basis.
Figure A-3. Discretionary Agriculture Appropriations

Source: CRS. Fiscal year budget authority. Inflation-adjusted amounts are based on the GDP price deflator.
Notes: Includes only regular annual appropriations for USDA (except the Forest Service), FDA, and CFTC
(regardless of jurisdiction). The label “Domestic nutrition” includes WIC, commodity assistance programs, and
nutrition programs administration.
Congressional Research Service
80

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

Table A-1. Trends in Nominal Agriculture Appropriations
(fiscal year budget authority in billions of dollars, except as noted)
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Discretionary
total
13.29
13.31 13.04
13.75
13.69
13.95
14.97
16.28 17.91
16.84
Domestic
nutrition
3.93
4.22 4.22
4.31
4.31
4.42
4.46
4.89 5.00
4.90
Rest of bil
9.36
9.09
8.82
9.44
9.39
9.53
10.51
11.39
12.91
11.94
Mandatory
total
54.61
49.78 40.08
35.80
41.00
61.95
59.77
56.91 56.70
69.75
Domestic
nutrition
36.30
35.54 36.27
32.91
30.51
30.63
29.66
33.06 36.89
42.36
Rest of bil
18.31
14.23
3.81
2.89
10.48
31.33
30.12
23.86
19.82
27.38
Total
bill
67.90
63.09 53.12
49.55
54.69
75.90
74.74
73.19 74.61
86.59
Domestic
nutrition
40.23
39.76 40.49
37.22
34.82
35.04
34.12
37.95 41.89
47.26
Rest of bil
27.67
23.33
12.63
12.33
19.87
40.85
40.63
35.24
32.72
39.32
Percentages of Total

1. Mandatory
80%
79%
75%
72%
75%
82%
80%
78%
76%
81%
2. Discretionary
20%
21%
25%
28%
25%
18%
20%
22%
24%
19%
1. Domestic nutrition
59%
63%
76%
75%
64%
46%
46%
52%
56%
55%
2. Rest of bil
41%
37%
24%
25%
36%
54%
54%
48%
44%
45%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Discretionary
total
16.83
16.78 17.81
18.09
20.60
23.30
20.13
19.76 19.72
20.88
Domestic
nutrition
5.55
5.53 5.52
6.37
7.23
7.65
7.13
7.00 6.93
7.15
Rest of bil
11.28
11.25
12.29
11.72
13.37
15.65
13.00
12.76
12.79
13.73
Mandatory total
68.29
83.07
79.80
72.67
87.80
97.98
105.13
116.85 118.75
124.58
Domestic
nutrition
46.94
53.37 51.51
53.68
68.92
75.13
82.53
98.55 97.17
101.43
Rest of bil
21.36
29.70
28.29
18.99
18.88
22.86
22.60
18.29
21.58
23.15
Total bill
85.13
99.85
97.61
90.76
108.40
121.29
125.26
136.61 138.47
145.46
Domestic nutrition
52.49
58.89
57.03
60.06
76.16
82.78
89.66
105.55
104.10
108.59
Rest of bil
32.64
40.95
40.58
30.71
32.24
38.50
35.61
31.05
34.37
36.88
Percentages of Total

1. Mandatory
80%
83%
82%
80%
81%
81%
84%
86%
86%
86%
2. Discretionary
20%
17%
18%
20%
19%
19%
16%
14%
14%
14%
1. Domestic nutrition
62%
59%
58%
66%
70%
68%
72%
77%
75%
75%
2. Rest of bil
38%
41%
42%
34%
30%
32%
28%
23%
25%
25%
Source: CRS. Regular appropriations only; all years include Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
a. The largest domestic nutrition programs are the child nutrition programs, the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps)—both of which are mandatory—and the Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), which is discretionary.
b. “Rest of bill” includes the non-nutrition remainder of USDA (except the Forest Service), FDA, and CFTC.
Within that group, mandatory programs include the farm commodity programs, crop insurance, and some
conservation and foreign aid/trade programs.
Congressional Research Service
81

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

Table A-2. Trends in Real Agriculture Appropriations
(fiscal year budget authority in billions of dollars, except as noted)
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
GDP price indexa 81.84
83.42
84.95
86.03
87.17
88.97
91.06
92.57
94.46
96.85
Inflation-adjusted 2014 dollars (real dollars)
Discretionary total
19.58
19.23
18.51
19.27
18.93
18.89
19.82
21.19
22.85
20.96
Domestic nutrition
5.79
6.10
5.99
6.04
5.95
5.99
5.90
6.37
6.38
6.10
Rest of bil
13.79
13.14
12.52
13.22
12.98
12.91
13.91
14.83
16.47
14.86
Mandatory total
80.43
71.93
56.87
50.16
56.69
83.94
79.12
74.11
72.36
86.81
Domestic nutrition
53.47
51.36
51.47
46.11
42.19
41.49
39.26
43.04
47.07
52.73
Rest of bil
26.97
20.57
5.40
4.05
14.50
42.44
39.86
31.06
25.29
34.08
Total bill
100.01
91.16
75.37
69.43
75.62
102.83
98.94
95.30
95.21
107.76
Domestic nutrition
59.25
57.46
57.45
52.15
48.15
47.48
45.16
49.41
53.46
58.82
Rest of bil
40.76
33.70
17.92
17.27
27.48
55.35
53.78
45.89
41.76
48.94
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
GDP price indexa 100.00
103.40
106.46
108.93
110.33
111.45
113.79
115.88
118.30
120.54
Inflation-adjusted 2014 dollars (real dollars)
Discretionary total
20.29
19.56
20.17
20.02
22.51
25.20
21.33
20.56
20.09
20.88
Domestic nutrition
6.69
6.44
6.25
7.05
7.90
8.28
7.55
7.28
7.06
7.15
Rest of bil
13.60
13.12
13.91
12.97
14.60
16.93
13.78
13.27
13.03
13.73
Mandatory total
82.32
96.84
90.35
80.42
95.92
105.98
111.37
121.54
121.00
124.58
Domestic nutrition
56.58
62.21
58.32
59.40
75.30
81.26
87.42
102.52
99.01
101.43
Rest of bil
25.74
34.62
32.04
21.01
20.62
24.72
23.95
19.03
21.99
23.15
Total bill
102.61
116.40
110.52
100.44
118.43
131.18
132.70
142.10
141.09
145.46
Domestic nutrition
63.27
68.66
64.57
66.46
83.20
89.53
94.97
109.80
106.07
108.59
Rest of bil
39.34
47.74
45.95
33.98
35.23
41.65
37.72
32.30
35.02
36.88
Source: CRS. Regular appropriations only; all years include Commodity Futures Trading Commission. See
footnotes in Table A-1 for definitions of “domestic nutrition” and “rest of bill.”
a. OMB, Budget of the United States Government, “Historical Tables,” Table 10.1, at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals.
Congressional Research Service
82

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

Table A-3. Percentage Changes in Agriculture Appropriations
Average annual (compounded) rate of change from years in the past to FY2014
Actual Change (Nominal)
Inflation-Adjusted (Real) Change (2014 $)
FY2013
FY2009
FY2004
FY1999
FY2013
FY2009
FY2004
FY1999
(1 yr.)
(5 yrs.)
(10 yrs.)
(15 yrs.)
(1 yr.)
(5 yrs.)
(10 yrs.)
(15 yrs.)
Discretionary
total +5.9% +0.3% +2.2% +2.9% +3.9% -1.5% -0.0% +0.7%
Domestic
nutrition +3.3% -0.2% +3.9% +3.4% +1.4% -2.0% +1.6% +1.2%
Rest
of
bill
+7.3% +0.5% +1.4% +2.6% +5.3% -1.2% -0.8% +0.4%
Mandatory
total
+4.9% +7.2% +6.0% +7.7% +3.0% +5.4% +3.7% +5.4%
Domestic
nutrition +4.4% +8.0% +9.1% +8.3% +2.4% +6.1% +6.8% +6.0%
Rest
of
bill
+7.3% +4.2% -1.7% +5.4% +5.3% +2.3% -3.8% +3.2%
Total
bill
+5.0% +6.1% +5.3% +6.7% +3.1% +4.2% +3.0% +4.5%
Domestic
nutrition +4.3% +7.4% +8.7% +7.9% +2.4% +5.5% +6.3% +5.6%
Rest
of
bill
+7.3% +2.7% -0.6% +4.2% +5.3% +0.9% -2.8% +2.0%
Source: CRS calculations of the compounded annual rate of change between FY2014 and the stated prior year.
Regular appropriations only; all years include Commodity Futures Trading Commission. See footnotes in Table
A-1 for definitions of “domestic nutrition” and “rest of bill.”
Comparisons to the Federal Budget, GDP, and Population
Relative to the entire federal budget, the Agriculture bill’s share has declined from over 4% of the
total federal budget in FY1995 and FY2000 to 2.7% in FY2009, before rising again to nearly that
level since the recession, to 3.8% in FY2014 (Figure A-4, Table A-4). Within that total, the share
for nutrition programs had declined from 2.6% in FY1995 to 1.8% in FY2008, but the recent
recession has caused that share to rise to about 2.9% in FY2014. The share for the rest of the bill
has declined from 2.1% in FY2001 to about 1.0% in FY2014.
Those shares of the federal budget also can be subdivided into mandatory and discretionary
spending (Figure A-5). The mandatory share for nutrition is presently about 2.7% (generally
rising, but recently ameliorating), while the discretionary share for nutrition is fairly steady 0.2%.
The mandatory share for the rest of the bill (primarily crop insurance, commodity program
subsidies, and conservation) is about 0.6%, while the discretionary share for the rest of the bill is
about 0.4% (generally declining).
The 0.6% share of the federal budget above for mandatory spending on crop insurance, farm
commodity subsidies, and conservation is a good proxy for farm bill spending on agricultural
(non-nutrition) programs (Figure A-5). It has been variable and generally declining since 2000
(consistent with farm commodity spending), though since 2009 steadier to slightly rising
(consistent with steady to declining farm commodity spending but increasing crop insurance and
mandatory conservation spending).

Congressional Research Service
83

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

Figure A-4. Agriculture Appropriations as
Figure A-5. More Components as
Percentages of Total Federal Budget
Percentages of Total Federal Budget
Source: CRS.
Source: CRS.
As a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP),129 Agriculture appropriations had been fairly
steady at under 0.75% of GDP from FY2000-FY2009, but have risen to about 0.86% of GDP in
FY2014 (Figure A-6, Table A-4) due to increases in nutrition program demand. Nutrition
programs have been rising as a percentage of GDP since FY2000 (0.33% in FY2001 to 0.64% in
FY2014), while non-nutrition agricultural programs have declined (0.42% in FY2000 to 0.22% in
FY2014).
On a per capita basis, inflation-adjusted total Agriculture appropriations have risen slightly over
the past 10 to 15 years from about $250 per capita in 1998 (FY2014 dollars) to about $450 per
capita in FY2014 (Figure A-7). Nutrition programs have risen more steadily on a per capita basis
from about $160 per capita in FY2001 to nearly $350 per capita in FY2014. Non-nutrition
“other” agricultural programs have been more steady or declining, falling from nearly $200 per
capita in 2000 to about $115 per capita in FY2014.
Figure A-6. Agriculture Appropriations as
Figure A-7. Agriculture Appropriations
Percentages of GDP
per Capita of U.S. Population
Source: CRS.
Source: CRS.

129 Two other CRS reports compare various components of federal spending against GDP at a more aggregate level.
See CRS Report RL33074, Mandatory Spending Since 1962, and CRS Report RL34424, The Budget Control Act and
Trends in Discretionary Spending.
Congressional Research Service
84

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

Table A-4. Trends in Agriculture Appropriations Measured Against Benchmarks
(fiscal year)

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Federal Budget ($ billions)
1,540
1,581
1,643
1,692
1,777
1,825
1,959
2,090
2,266
2,408
GDP ($ billions)
7,341
7,718
8,212
8,663
9,208
9,821
10,225
10,544
10,980
11,676
Population (mil ion)
266.6
269.7
272.9
276.1
279.3
282.4
285.3
288.0
290.7
293.3
Pct. of Federal Budget
4.41%
3.99%
3.23%
2.93%
3.08%
4.16%
3.82%
3.50%
3.29%
3.60%
Domestic nutrition
2.61%
2.52%
2.46%
2.20%
1.96%
1.92%
1.74%
1.82%
1.85%
1.96%
Mandatory 2.36%
2.25%
2.21%
1.94%
1.72%
1.68%
1.51%
1.58%
1.63%
1.76%
Discretionary 0.26%
0.27%
0.26%
0.25%
0.24%
0.24%
0.23%
0.23%
0.22%
0.20%
Rest of bil
1.80%
1.48%
0.77%
0.73%
1.12%
2.24%
2.07%
1.69%
1.44%
1.63%
Mandatory 1.19%
0.90%
0.23%
0.17%
0.59%
1.72%
1.54%
1.14%
0.87%
1.14%
Discretionary 0.61%
0.58%
0.54%
0.56%
0.53%
0.52%
0.54%
0.54%
0.57%
0.50%
Pct. of GDP
0.92%
0.82%
0.65%
0.57%
0.59%
0.77%
0.73%
0.69%
0.68%
0.74%
Domestic nutrition
0.55%
0.52%
0.49%
0.43%
0.38%
0.36%
0.33%
0.36%
0.38%
0.40%
Rest of bil
0.38%
0.30%
0.15%
0.14%
0.22%
0.42%
0.40%
0.33%
0.30%
0.34%
Per capita (2014 dollars)
375
338
276
251
271
364
347
331
328
367
Domestic nutrition
222
213
211
189
172
168
158
172
184
201
Rest of bil
153
125
66
63
98
196
189
159
144
167

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
U.S. budget authority ($ billions)
2,583
2,780
2,863
3,326
4,077
3,485
3,510
3,576
3,767
3,796
GDP ($ billions)
12,429
13,207
13,861
14,334
13,961
14,348
14,929
15,547
16,203
17,011
Population (mil ion)
296.0
298.8
301.7
304.5
307.2
309.3
311.6
313.9
316.1
318.9
Pct. of Federal Budget
3.30%
3.59%
3.41%
2.73%
2.66%
3.48%
3.57%
3.82%
3.68%
3.83%
Domestic nutrition
2.03%
2.12%
1.99%
1.81%
1.87%
2.38%
2.55%
2.95%
2.76%
2.86%
Mandatory 1.82%
1.92%
1.80%
1.61%
1.69%
2.16%
2.35%
2.76%
2.58%
2.67%
Discretionary 0.21%
0.20%
0.19%
0.19%
0.18%
0.22%
0.20%
0.20%
0.18%
0.19%
Rest of bil
1.26%
1.47%
1.42%
0.92%
0.79%
1.10%
1.01%
0.87%
0.91%
0.97%
Mandatory 0.83%
1.07%
0.99%
0.57%
0.46%
0.66%
0.64%
0.51%
0.57%
0.61%
Discretionary 0.44%
0.40%
0.43%
0.35%
0.33%
0.45%
0.37%
0.36%
0.34%
0.36%
Pct. of GDP
0.68%
0.76%
0.70%
0.63%
0.78%
0.85%
0.84%
0.88%
0.85%
0.86%
Domestic nutrition
0.42%
0.45%
0.41%
0.42%
0.55%
0.58%
0.60%
0.68%
0.64%
0.64%
Rest of bil
0.26%
0.31%
0.29%
0.21%
0.23%
0.27%
0.24%
0.20%
0.21%
0.22%
Per capita (2014 dollars)
347
390
366
330
386
424
426
453
446
456
Domestic nutrition
214
230
214
218
271
289
305
350
336
341
Rest of bil
133
160
152
112
115
135
121
103
111
116
Source: CRS. Federal budget and GDP from OMB, Budget of the United States, “Historical Tables,” Table 5.1
(total budget authority), and Table 10.1, respectively. Populations from Census Bureau Population Projections,
and Statistical Abstract of the United States. See Table A-1 for definitions of “domestic nutrition” and “rest of bill.”
Congressional Research Service
85

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

Appendix B. Budget Sequestration
Sequestration is a process of automatic, largely across-the-board reductions that permanently
cancel mandatory and/or discretionary budget authority when spending would exceed statutory
budget goals. The current requirement for sequestration is in the Budget Control Act of 2011
(BCA; P.L. 112-25).130 Table B-1 shows the rates of sequestration and the amounts of budget
authority cancelled from accounts in the Agriculture appropriations bill.
Table B-1. Sequestration Rates and Amounts Cancelled from Agriculture
Appropriations Accounts
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
Discretionary accounts
Mandatory accounts
Fiscal year
Rate
Amount
Rate
Amount
2013a 5.0%
1,153
5.1% 713
2014b —
—
7.2%
1,052
2015c —
—
7.3%
1,153
Source: OMB, various Reports to the Congress on the Joint Committee Sequestration. Compiled by CRS.
Notes: Sequestration rates are for non-exempt, non-defense accounts. Amount totals were computed by CRS.
a. OMB, Report to the Congress on the Joint Committee Sequestration for FY2013, March 1, 2013, at http://www.
whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fy13ombjcsequestrationreport.pdf.
b. OMB, Reports to the Congress on the Joint Committee Reductions for FY2014, May 20, 2013, at http://www.white
house.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fy14_preview_and_joint_committee_reductions_
reports_05202013.pdf.
c. OMB, Report to the Congress on Joint Committee Reductions for FY2015, March 10, 2014, at http://www.white
house.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/sequestration_order_report_march2014.pdf.
Although the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (P.L. 113-67) raised spending limits in the BCA to
avoid sequestration of discretionary accounts in FY2014 and FY2015, it did not prevent or reduce
sequestration on mandatory accounts. In fact, to pay for avoiding sequestration in the near term, it
extended by two years (until FY2023) the duration for sequestration on mandatory programs.131
Some farm bill mandatory programs are exempt from sequestration. The nutrition programs and
the Conservation Reserve Program are exempt,132 and some prior legal obligations in crop
insurance and the farm commodity programs may be exempt as determined by OMB.133
Since enactment of the BCA, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has ordered budget
sequestration in FY2013 on non-exempt, non-defense discretionary accounts (Table B-2) and on
mandatory accounts in FY2013-FY2015 (Table B-3).

130 See CRS Report R42972, Sequestration as a Budget Enforcement Process: Frequently Asked Questions.
131 CBO, Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, December 11, 2013, at http://cbo.gov/publication/44964.
132 Generally speaking, the benefits from these programs are exempt; some administrative expenses in these programs
may be subject to sequestration and therefore the programs may appear in the tables in this appendix.
133 See 2 U.S.C. 905 (g)(1)(A), and 2 U.S.C. 906 (j). See also CRS Report R42050, Budget “Sequestration” and
Selected Program Exemptions and Special Rules.
Congressional Research Service
86

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

Table B-2. Sequestration of Discretionary Agriculture Appropriations in FY2013
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
Sequesterable
Amount of

Budget Authority
Sequestration
FY2013 sequestration rate on non-exempt, non-defense discretionary accounts
5.0%
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Office of the Secretary
16
0.8
Buildings, Facilities and Rental Payments
232
11.6
Hazardous Materials Management
4
0.2
Departmental Administration
86
4.3
Office of Communications
8
0.4
Office of Civil Rights
21
1.1
Office of Inspector General
86
4.3
Office of Chief Economist
11
0.6
Office of General Counsel
40
2.0
National Appeals Division
13
0.7
Economic Research Service
78
3.9
National Agricultural Statistics Service
160
8.0
Agricultural Research Service
1,102
55.1
National Institute of Food and Agriculture

Extension
478
23.9
Research and Education
714
35.7
Integrated Activities
21
1.1
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Salaries appropriation
822
41.1
Spending authority
18
0.9
Buildings and Facilities
3
0.2
Food Safety Inspection Service

Salaries appropriation
1,010
50.5
Spending authority
45
2.3
Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Admin.
38
1.9
Agricultural Marketing Service

Marketing Services
83
4.2
Payments to States and Possessions
1
0.1
Risk Management Agency
75
3.8
Farm Service Agency

State Mediation Grants
4
0.2
Emergency Forest Restoration Program
23
1.2
Salaries appropriation
1,206
60.3
Congressional Research Service
87

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

Sequesterable
Amount of

Budget Authority
Sequestration
Agricultural Credit Insurance Corporation
408
20.4
Commodity Credit Corporation Export Loans
7
0.4
USDA Supplemental Assistance
2
0.1
Grassroots Source Water Protection
4
0.2
Reforestation Pilot Program
1
0.1
Emergency Conservation Program
15
0.8
Natural Resources Conservation Service

Conservation Operations appropriations
833
41.7
Conservation Operations spending authority
9
0.5
Watershed Rehabilitation Program
15
0.8
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations
180
9.0
Water Bank Program
8
0.4
Rural Development

Salaries appropriation
183
9.2
Rural Utilities Service
591
29.6
Rural Housing Service
1,529
76.5
Rural Business Cooperative Service
114
5.7
Foreign Agricultural Service

P.L. 480 Title I
3
0.2
P.L. 480 Title II (Food for Peace)
1,475
73.8
Salaries appropriation
177
8.9
McGovern-Dole Food for Education
185
9.3
Food and Nutrition Service

Commodity Assistance Program
73
3.7
Nutrition Programs Administration
140
7.0
WIC
6,659
333.0
Related Agencies

Food and Drug Administration

Salaries appropriation
2,521
126.1
User Fees
1,328
66.4
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
206
10.3
Total
23,064
1,153.2
Source: OMB, Report to the Congress on the Joint Committee Sequestration for FY2013, March 1, 2013, at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fy13ombjcsequestrationreport.pdf.
Compiled by CRS.
Notes: Sequestration rates are for non-exempt, non-defense accounts. Amount totals were computed by CRS.
Congressional Research Service
88

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

Table B-3. Sequestration of Mandatory Agriculture Appropriations in FY2013-2015
(budget authority in millions of dollars)

FY2013a
FY2014b
FY2015c
Sequester-
Amount of
Sequester-
Amount of
Sequester-
Amount of
able Budget
Sequestra-
able Budget
Sequestra-
able Budget
Sequestra-
Authority
tion
Authority
tion
Authority
tion
Sequestration rate on non-exempt, non-defense
5.1%
7.2%
7.3%
mandatory accounts

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Office of the Secretary

13
0.9
Office of Chief Economist

1
0.1
Agricultural Research Service
2
0.1
2
0.1
2
0.1
National Institute of Food and Agriculture

Extension
5 0.3 5 0.4
25 1.8
Research and Education

3
0.2
Integrated Activities

100
7.3
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Salaries
appropriation
266 13.6 261 18.8
294 21.5
Misc. Trust Funds
1
0.1
1
0.1
1
0.1
Food Safety Inspection Service

Expenses and refunds
1
0.1
1
0.1
1
0.1
Grain Insp. Packers, Stockyards Admin.

Limitation on Expenses
41
2.1
41
3.0
41
3.0
Agricultural Marketing Service

Marketing Services

30
2.2
Payments to States and Possessions

73
5.3
Perishable Ag Commodities Act
11
0.6
11
0.8
11
0.8
Section
32
792 40.4 1,107 79.7

1,122 81.9
Expenses and refunds
8
0.4
12
0.9
12
0.9
Milk Market Orders Assessment Fund
57
2.9
58
4.2
57
4.2
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
58
3.0
58
4.2
81
5.9
Farm Service Agency

Agricultural Credit Insurance Corp.

1
0.1
Commodity
Credit
Corporation
Fund
6,460 329.5 7,968 573.7
9,737 710.8
Agricultural Disaster Relief Fund
1,372
70.0

Tobacco Trust Fund
960
49.0
960
69.1

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Watershed Rehabilitation Program

165
11.9
153
11.2
Farm Security, Rural Invest. Programs
3,357
171.2
3,654
263.1
3,697
269.9
Congressional Research Service
89

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

FY2013a
FY2014b
FY2015c
Sequester-
Amount of
Sequester-
Amount of
Sequester-
Amount of
able Budget
Sequestra-
able Budget
Sequestra-
able Budget
Sequestra-
Authority
tion
Authority
tion
Authority
tion
Rural Business Cooperative Service
87
4.4
89
6.4
118
8.6
Foreign Agricultural Service
1
0.1
2
0.1
1
0.1
Food and Nutrition Serviced

SNAP
93 4.7 111 8.0
115 8.4
Commodity Assistance Program
21
1.1
21
1.5
21
1.5
WIC
1 0.1 1 0.1
1 0.1
Child Nutrition Programs
49
2.5
58
4.2
58
4.2
Related Agencies

Food and Drug Administration

Revolving Fund for Certification
8
0.4
8
0.6
8
0.6
User
Fees
319
16.3

Commodity Futures Trading Commission
13
0.7
12
0.9
14
1.0
Total
13,983 713.1 14,606 1,051.6
15,791 1,152.7
Source: OMB, Reports to the Congress on the Joint Committee Sequestration (see footnotes). Compiled by CRS.
Notes: Sequestration rates are for non-exempt, non-defense accounts. Amount totals were computed by CRS.
a. OMB, Report to the Congress on the Joint Committee Sequestration for FY2013, March 1, 2013, at http://www.
whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fy13ombjcsequestrationreport.pdf.
b. OMB, Reports to the Congress on the Joint Committee Reductions for FY2014, May 20, 2013, at http://www.white
house.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fy14_preview_and_joint_committee_reductions_
reports_05202013.pdf.
c. OMB, Report to the Congress on the Joint Committee Reductions for FY2015, March 10, 2014, at http://www.
whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/sequestration_order_report_march2014.
pdf.
d. Benefits from the nutrition programs general y are exempt from sequestration by statute, but some
administrative expenses in these programs may be subject to sequestration and therefore a relatively smal
portion of the total budget authority may be sequesterable.

Congressional Research Service
90

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

Author Contact Information

Jim Monke, Coordinator
Susan Thaul
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Specialist in Drug Safety and Effectiveness
jmonke@crs.loc.gov, 7-9664
sthaul@crs.loc.gov, 7-0562
Randy Alison Aussenberg
Tadlock Cowan
Specialist in Nutrition Assistance Policy
Analyst in Natural Resources and Rural
raussenberg@crs.loc.gov, 7-8641
Development
tcowan@crs.loc.gov, 7-7600
Megan Stubbs
Dennis A. Shields
Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Resources Policy
dshields@crs.loc.gov, 7-9051
mstubbs@crs.loc.gov, 7-8707
Renée Johnson
Randy Schnepf
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
rjohnson@crs.loc.gov, 7-9588
rschnepf@crs.loc.gov, 7-4277
Joel L. Greene
Rena S. Miller
Analyst in Agricultural Policy
Specialist in Financial Economics
jgreene@crs.loc.gov, 7-9877
rsmiller@crs.loc.gov, 7-0826

Congressional Research Service
91