Agriculture and Related Agencies:
FY2016 Appropriations
Jim Monke, Coordinator
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
October 21, 2015
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R44240
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Summary
The Agriculture appropriations bill funds the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), except for
the Forest Service. It also funds the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and—in even-
numbered fiscal years—the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).
Agriculture appropriations include both mandatory and discretionary spending. Discretionary
amounts, though, are the primary focus during the bill’s development since mandatory amounts
generally are set by authorizing laws such as the farm bill.
The largest discretionary spending items are the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for
Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); agricultural research; FDA; rural development; foreign
food aid and trade; farm assistance programs; food safety and inspection; conservation; and
animal and plant health programs. The main mandatory spending items are the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), child nutrition, crop insurance, and the farm commodity
and conservation programs funded through the Commodity Credit Corporation.
In Congress, the FY2016 Agriculture Appropriations bill has been reported in both chambers
(H.R. 3049, S. 1800), but has not gone to the floor in either chamber. The discretionary total in
the House bill is $20.650 billion; in the Senate bill it is $20.510 billion. In general, most amounts
in the House and Senate bills are relatively similar. Officially, the two bills are $105 million
(0.5%) apart in the discretionary total (Senate basis; excluding CFTC). But the Senate bill would
spend about $180 million more than the House bill because of extra offsets in the Senate bill
through extra Changes in Mandatory Program Spending (CHIMPS) beyond the House bill’s level.
Among the policy-related differences between the bills, the Senate bill continues prohibiting
horse slaughter facility inspections; a similar provision was defeated during House markup. The
House bill continues restricting the use of imported processed poultry from China for the school
lunch and other nutrition programs. The House bill would not enforce a conservation compliance
requirement in the 2014 farm bill for the 2016 crop insurance year; and the House bill would
restore the use of commodity certificates for the marketing loan program, including not being
subject to payment limits. And, for FDA, the House bill would limit the applicability of certain
tobacco regulations for e-cigarettes and other products.
Congressional Research Service
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Contents
Scope of the Agriculture Appropriations Bill .................................................................................. 1
Action on FY2016 Appropriations .................................................................................................. 2
Administration’s FY2016 Budget Request ............................................................................... 4
House Action ............................................................................................................................. 5
Senate Action ............................................................................................................................ 5
Continuing Resolution .............................................................................................................. 5
Summary of FY2016 Appropriation Amounts ................................................................................ 5
FY2016 Budget and 302(b) Allocations to Subcommittees ...................................................... 5
Continuing Resolution .............................................................................................................. 7
Comparison of Amounts for FY2016 ........................................................................................ 7
Policy Differences ................................................................................................................... 14
Recent Trends in Agriculture Appropriations .......................................................................... 14
Sequestration Continues on Mandatory Accounts................................................................... 16
USDA Agencies and Programs ...................................................................................................... 17
Departmental Administration .................................................................................................. 17
Agricultural Research, Education, and Extension ................................................................... 20
Agricultural Research Service .......................................................................................... 20
National Institute of Food and Agriculture ....................................................................... 21
National Agricultural Statistics Service ............................................................................ 21
Economic Research Service .............................................................................................. 21
Marketing and Regulatory Programs ...................................................................................... 23
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service .................................................................... 23
Agricultural Marketing Service and “Section 32” ............................................................ 24
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration ............................................... 26
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) ............................................................................ 27
Farm Service Agency .............................................................................................................. 27
FSA Salaries and Expenses ............................................................................................... 28
FSA Farm Loan Programs ................................................................................................ 30
Commodity Credit Corporation .............................................................................................. 33
Crop Insurance ........................................................................................................................ 34
Disaster Assistance .................................................................................................................. 35
Conservation ........................................................................................................................... 35
Discretionary Conservation Programs .............................................................................. 36
Mandatory Conservation Programs .................................................................................. 36
Conservation Compliance ................................................................................................. 37
Rural Development ................................................................................................................. 38
Rural Housing Service (RHS) ........................................................................................... 38
Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS) ..................................................................... 39
Rural Utilities Service (RUS) ........................................................................................... 40
Domestic Food Assistance ...................................................................................................... 46
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services .................... 46
SNAP and Other Programs under the Food and Nutrition Act ......................................... 46
Child Nutrition Programs .................................................................................................. 47
WIC Program .................................................................................................................... 49
Commodity Assistance Program ....................................................................................... 50
Nutrition Programs Administration ................................................................................... 50
Congressional Research Service
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Other Nutrition Funding Support ...................................................................................... 51
Agricultural Trade and Food Aid ............................................................................................ 54
Foreign Agricultural Service ............................................................................................. 54
Food for Peace Program (P.L. 480) ................................................................................... 55
Local and Regional Procurement (LRP) Projects ............................................................. 56
McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition .......................... 56
Appropriations Instructions about Industrial Hemp ................................................................ 56
Related Agencies ........................................................................................................................... 57
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) .................................................................................... 58
Commodity Futures Trading Commission .............................................................................. 58
Farm Credit Administration .................................................................................................... 59
General Provisions, Scorekeeping Adjustments ............................................................................ 60
Changes in Mandatory Program Spending (CHIMPS) ........................................................... 60
Rescissions of Discretionary Accounts ................................................................................... 63
Other Appropriations (Including Emergency Disaster Programs) .......................................... 64
Other Scorekeeping Adjustments ............................................................................................ 65
Figures
Figure 1. Scope of Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations ............................................ 1
Figure 2. Timeline of Action on Agriculture Appropriations, FY1996-FY2016 ............................. 4
Figure 3. Discretionary Agriculture Appropriations, by Title, Since FY2007 ............................... 15
Figure 4. Inflation-Adjusted Discretionary Agriculture Appropriations Since FY2007 ............... 16
Figure A-1. Total Agriculture Appropriations: Mandatory and Discretionary .............................. 66
Figure A-2. Total Agriculture Appropriations: Domestic Nutrition and Rest of Bill .................... 67
Figure A-3. Discretionary Agriculture Appropriations .................................................................. 68
Figure A-4. Agriculture Appropriations as Percentages of Total Federal Budget ......................... 72
Figure A-5. More Components as Percentages of Total Federal Budget ....................................... 72
Figure A-6. Agriculture Appropriations as Percentages of GDP ................................................... 72
Figure A-7. Agriculture Appropriations per Capita of U.S. Population ........................................ 72
Tables
Table 1. Congressional Action on Agriculture Appropriations ........................................................ 3
Table 2. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations, by Title, FY2015-FY2016 ................. 6
Table 3. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations, by Agency, FY2013-FY2016 ............ 9
Table 4. USDA Departmental Administration Appropriations ...................................................... 18
Table 5. USDA Research, Extension, and Economics (REE) Appropriations .............................. 22
Table 6. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Appropriations ....................................................... 23
Table 7. Farm Service Agency Appropriations .............................................................................. 29
Table 8. Farm Service Agency: Farm Loan Program .................................................................... 31
Table 9. Conservation Operations Funding ................................................................................... 36
Congressional Research Service
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Table 10. USDA Rural Development Appropriations ................................................................... 41
Table 11. Domestic Food Assistance Appropriations .................................................................... 52
Table 12. Farm Credit Administration Limitation on Expenses .................................................... 59
Table 13. Adjustments to Mandatory Spending Programs ............................................................ 62
Table 14. Rescissions from (Prior-Year) Discretionary Budget Authority .................................... 63
Table 15. Other Appropriations in General Provisions .................................................................. 64
Table 16. Scorekeeping Adjustments............................................................................................. 65
Table A-1. Trends in Nominal Agriculture Appropriations ........................................................... 69
Table A-2. Trends in Real Agriculture Appropriations .................................................................. 70
Table A-3. Percentage Changes in Agriculture Appropriations ..................................................... 71
Table A-4. Trends in Agriculture Appropriations Measured Against Benchmarks ....................... 73
Table B-1. Sequestration from Accounts in the Agriculture Appropriation .................................. 74
Table B-2. Sequestration of Mandatory Agriculture Appropriations in FY2013-2016 ................. 75
Appendixes
Appendix A. Historical Trends ...................................................................................................... 66
Appendix B. Budget Sequestration ............................................................................................... 74
Contacts
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 77
Congressional Research Service
link to page 6 
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Scope of the Agriculture Appropriations Bill
The Agriculture appropriations bill—formally known as the Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act—provides funding for:
All of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) except the Forest Service,
which is funded in the Interior appropriations bill,
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the Department of Health and
Human Services, and
In the House, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). In the
Senate, the Financial Services bill contains CFTC appropriations. In even-
numbered fiscal years, CFTC appears in the enacted Agriculture appropriation.
Jurisdiction is with the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, and each Subcommittee
on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies. The
bill includes mandatory and discretionary spending, but the discretionary amounts are the primary
focus during the bill’s development. The scope of the bill can be shown by the amounts for
various agencies and programs that were in the FY2015 appropriation (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Scope of Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations
(FY2015 budget authority in billions of dollars)
SNAP, $82
CCC, $13
WIC, CSFP,
$7.1
Crop ins., $10
Sec.32, $1
Mandatory
Research, $2.7
$126
Discretionary
FDA, $2.6
$21
Rural Dev., $2.6
Child nutrition,
Foreign aid, $1.8
$21
FSA, RMA, $1.7
FSIS, $1.0
Conservation, $0.9
APHIS, $0.9
Source: CRS, compiled from P.L. 113-235. Does not show some agencies under $0.5 bil ion, including CFTC,
AMS, GIPSA, and department administration that together are essentially offset by other reductions.
Note: SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; CCC = Commodity Credit Corp.; Sec. 32 = Section
32; WIC = Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children; CSFP = Commodity
Supplemental Food Program; FDA = Food and Drug Admin.; FSA = Farm Service Agency; RMA = Risk
Management Agency; FSIS = Food Safety and Inspection Service; APHIS = Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service; CFTC = Commodity Futures Trading Commission; AMS = Agricultural Marketing Service; GIPSA =
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Admin.
Congressional Research Service
1
link to page 6 link to page 8 link to page 9 link to page 8 Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
The federal budget process treats discretionary and mandatory spending differently.
Discretionary spending is controlled by annual appropriations acts and receives
most of the attention during the appropriations process. The annual budget
resolution1 process sets spending limits for discretionary appropriations. Agency
operations (salaries and expenses) and many grant programs are discretionary.
Mandatory spending—though carried in the appropriation and usually advanced
unchanged—is controlled by budget enforcement rules (e.g., PAYGO) during the
authorization process.2 Spending for eligibility and benefit formulas in so-called
entitlement programs are set in laws such as the farm bill and child nutrition act.3
In FY2015, discretionary appropriations totaled 14% ($20.6 billion) of the Agriculture
appropriations bill (P.L. 113-235). Mandatory spending carried in the bill comprised $126.5
billion, about 86% of the $147.1 billion total.
Within the discretionary total, the largest discretionary spending items are for the Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), agricultural research,
FDA, rural development, foreign food aid and trade, farm assistance program salaries and loans,
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).4 SNAP is referred to as an “appropriated entitlement,”
and requires an annual appropriation.5 The nutrition program amounts are based on projected
spending needs. In contrast, the Commodity Credit Corporation operates on a line of credit; the
annual appropriation provides funding to reimburse the Treasury for using the line of credit.
Action on FY2016 Appropriations6
Separate versions of the FY2016 Agriculture Appropriations bills have been reported in the
House and Senate, but have not gone to either floor. The fiscal year has begun on a continuing
resolution (P.L. 114-53) that lasts until December 11, 2015.
The House subcommittee approved a draft FY2016 Agriculture appropriations bill on June 18,
2015. The full House Appropriations Committee reported the bill on July 8, 2015, by voice vote
(H.R. 3049, H.Rept. 114-205).
The Senate Agriculture appropriations subcommittee approved a draft bill on July 14. The full
Appropriations Committee reported it on July 16, 2015, voting 28-2 (S. 1800, S.Rept. 114-82).
Table 1 summarizes actions on the FY2016 Agriculture appropriation—and each annual
appropriation since FY1995—for the subcommittees, full committees, House and Senate
chambers, and Presidential enactment. Figure 2 is a visual timeline of the dates in Table 1.
1 See CRS Report R42388, The Congressional Appropriations Process: An Introduction, for context on procedures.
2 CRS Report 98-560, Baselines and Scorekeeping in the Federal Budget Process.
3 CRS Report R42484, Budget Issues That Shaped the 2014 Farm Bill
4 Mandatory spending creates funding stability and consistency compared to appropriations. In agriculture, it originally
was reserved for the farm commodity programs that had uncertain outlays because of weather and market conditions.
5 CRS Report RS20129, Entitlements and Appropriated Entitlements in the Federal Budget Process.
6 A 12-page version is in CRS Report R43938, FY2016 Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations: In Brief.
Congressional Research Service
2
link to page 8 link to page 8 Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
The last time an Agriculture appropriations bill was enacted as a stand-alone measure was for
FY2010 (in calendar 2009). An Agriculture appropriations bill has not cleared a floor vote in
either chamber for four years since the FY2012 bill, when it was the vehicle for a three-bill
“minibus” measure.7 Committee action this year was somewhat later than in recent years.
Table 1. Congressional Action on Agriculture Appropriations
House Action
Senate Action
Final Appropriation
Fiscal
CRS
Year
Subcmte.
Cmte.
Floor
Subcmte.
Cmte.
Floor
Enacteda
Public Law
Report
1995
5/26/1994
6/9/1994
6/17/1994
6/22/1994
6/23/1994
7/20/1994
9/30/1994
E P.L. 103-330
IB94011
1996
6/14/1995
6/27/1995
7/21/1995
9/13/1995
9/14/1995
9/20/1995
10/21/1995
E P.L. 104-37
95-624
1997
5/30/1996
6/6/1996
6/12/1996
7/10/1996
7/11/1996
7/24/1996
8/6/1996
E P.L. 104-180
IB96015
1998
6/25/1997
7/14/1997
7/24/1997
7/15/1997
7/17/1997
7/24/1997
11/18/1997
E P.L. 105-86
97-201
1999
6/10/1998
6/16/1998
6/24/1998
6/9/1998
6/11/1998
7/16/1998
10/21/1998 O P.L. 105-277
98-201
2000
5/13/1999
5/24/1999
6/8/1999
6/15/1999
6/17/1999
8/4/1999
10/22/1999
E P.L. 106-78
RL30201
2001
5/4/2000
5/16/2000
7/11/2000
5/4/2000
5/10/2000
7/20/2000
10/28/2000
E P.L. 106-387
RL30501
2002
6/6/2001
6/27/2001
7/11/2001
Pol ed outb
7/18/2001
10/25/2001 11/28/2001
E P.L. 107-76
RL31001
2003
6/26/2002
7/26/2002
—
7/23/2002
7/25/2002
—
2/20/2003
O P.L. 108-7
RL31301
2004
6/17/2003
7/9/2003
7/14/2003
7/17/2003
11/6/2003
11/6/2003
1/23/2004
O P.L. 108-199
RL31801
2005
6/14/2004
7/7/2004
7/13/2004
9/8/2004
9/14/2004
—
12/8/2004
O P.L. 108-447
RL32301
2006
5/16/2005
6/2/2005
6/8/2005
6/21/2005
6/27/2005
9/22/2005
11/10/2005
E P.L. 109-97
RL32904
2007
5/3/2006
5/9/2006
5/23/2006
6/20/2006
6/22/2006
—
2/15/2007
Y P.L. 110-5
RL33412
2008
7/12/2007
7/19/2007
8/2/2007
7/17/2007
7/19/2007
—
12/26/2007 O P.L. 110-161
RL34132
2009
6/19/2008
—
—
Pol ed out
7/17/2008
—
3/11/2009
O P.L. 111-8
R40000
2010
6/11/2009
6/18/2009
7/9/2009
Pol ed out
7/7/2009
8/4/2009
10/21/2009
E P.L. 111-80
R40721
2011
6/30/2010
—
—
Pol ed out
7/15/2010
—
4/15/2011
Y P.L. 112-10
R41475
2012
5/24/2011
5/31/2011
6/16/2011
Pol ed out
9/7/2011
11/1/2011
11/18/2011 O P.L. 112-55
R41964
2013
6/6/2012
6/19/2012
—
Pol ed out
4/26/2012
—
3/26/2013
O P.L. 113-6
R43110
2014
6/5/2013
6/13/2013
—
6/18/2013
6/20/2013
—
1/17/2014
O P.L. 113-76
R43110
2015
5/20/2014
5/29/2014
—
5/20/2014
5/22/2014
—
12/16/2014 O P.L. 113-235
R43669
2016
6/18/2015
7/8/2015
—
7/14/2015 7/16/2015
—
R43938
Voice vote H.R. 3049
Voice vote S. 1800
H.Rept.
S.Rept. 114-
114-205
82
Voice vote
Vote 28-2
Source: CRS.
a. E=Enacted as stand-alone appropriation (9 times over 21 years); O=Omnibus appropriation (10 times);
Y=Year-long continuing resolution (2 times).
b. A procedure that permits a Senate subcommittee to transmit a bil to its ful committee without a formal
markup session. See CRS Report RS22952, Proxy Voting and Polling in Senate Committee.
7 CRS Report RL32473, Omnibus Appropriations Acts: Overview of Recent Practices.
Congressional Research Service
3
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Figure 2. Timeline of Action on Agriculture Appropriations, FY1996-FY2016
1993
Calendar
199
Fisc 4
al
Year
Year
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
House subcommittee
Senate subcommittee
Stand-alone
House committee
Senate committee
Omnibus
House floor
Senate floor
Year-long CR
Source: CRS.
Administration’s FY2016 Budget Request
The White House released its FY2016 budget request on February 2, 2015.8 The same day, USDA
released its 100-page budget summary9 and multi-volume budget explanatory notes10 with more
programmatic details. The FDA released a one-page budget highlights11 and its detailed budget
justification.12 The CFTC also released a detailed budget justification.13 From these documents,
the congressional appropriations committees evaluated the request, began considering their bills,
and decided how much of the request would be followed.
8 Office of Management and Budget (OMB), FY2016 Budget of the U.S. Government, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/
omb/budget. Details are in the Appendix, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Appendix. The request for FDA is
in the Appendix for the Department of Health and Human Services, and CFTC is with Other Independent Agencies.
9 USDA, FY2016 USDA Budget Summary, at http://www.obpa.usda.gov/budsum/fy16budsum.pdf.
10 USDA, FY2016 USDA Budget Explanatory Notes, at http://www.obpa.usda.gov/fy16explan_notes.html.
11 FDA, FY2016 Budget Highlights, at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/
BudgetReports/UCM432650.pdf.
12 FDA, FY2016 FDA Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/
AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/BudgetReports/UCM432322.pdf.
13 CFTC, FY2016 CFTC President’s Budget, at http://www.cftc.gov/about/cftcreports/ssLINK/cftcbudget2016.
Congressional Research Service
4
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
House Action
The Agriculture Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee held several hearings on
FY2016 appropriations with various USDA agencies, FDA, and CFTC during the spring of 2015.
The House Budget Committee developed a FY2016 budget (H.Con.Res. 27), and the full House
and Senate agreed on a joint budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 11) on May 5, 2015. The House
Appropriations Committee divided the budget’s “302(a)” allocation for discretionary spending
(that at that time was pending in conference committee negotiations) on April 29, 2015, into
“302(b)” allocations for each of its 12 subcommittees (H.Rept. 114-97).14
The House Agriculture appropriations subcommittee approved a draft bill on June 18, 2015, by
voice vote.15 The full House Appropriations Committee reported the bill on July 8, 2015, by voice
vote (H.R. 3049, H.Rept. 114-205). It adopted a manager’s amendment and two other
amendments.16 The bill has not been considered on the floor.
Senate Action
The Agriculture Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee held hearings on the
FY2016 appropriations request with various USDA agencies and FDA during the spring of 2015.
The Senate Budget Committee developed a FY2016 budget (S.Con.Res. 11) that was agreed to on
May 5, 2015, by both the House and Senate after conference negotiations. The Senate
Appropriations Committee divided the “302(a)” allocation into “302(b)” allocations for each of
its 12 subcommittees on May 21, 2015 (S.Rept. 114-55).
The Senate Agriculture appropriations subcommittee approved a draft bill on July 14, 2015. The
full committee reported it on July 16, 2015, by a vote of 28-2 (S. 1800, S.Rept. 114-82).
The text of S. 1800 was inserted into a minibus appropriations bill (S. 2129) for the Agriculture,
Energy-Water, and Transportation-Housing and Urban Development subcommittees.
Continuing Resolution
The fiscal year began on a continuing resolution (P.L. 114-53) that lasts for the first 10 weeks of
FY2016, until December 11, 2015.17
Summary of FY2016 Appropriation Amounts
FY2016 Budget and 302(b) Allocations to Subcommittees
The FY2016 budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 11) set the “302(a)” allocation for discretionary
spending for all 12 appropriations bills at $1,016.582 billion ($523.091 billion for defense
14 See CRS Report R42388, The Congressional Appropriations Process: An Introduction CRS Report R42972,
Sequestration as a Budget Enforcement Process: Frequently Asked Questions, for context on procedures.
15 House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, Draft FY2016 bill, at http://appropriations.house.gov/Uploaded
Files/BILLS-114HR-SC-AP-FY2016-Agriculture-SubcommitteeDraft.pdf.
16 House Appropriations Committee, Amendments Adopted to the FY2016 Agriculture Appropriations, at
http://appropriations.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hmkp-114-ap00-20150708-sd004.pdf.
17 See CRS Insight IN10148, The FY2016 Continuing Resolution (H.R. 719).
Congressional Research Service
5
link to page 21 link to page 79 link to page 11 link to page 12 Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
spending, and $493.491 billion for nondefense spending). This level is consistent with the
discretionary spending limit that is set in the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25), and
therefore should not trigger sequestration. However, budget sequestration on non-exempt
mandatory accounts does apply to FY2016, as it has in recent years since FY2013 (see
“Sequestration Continues on Mandatory Accounts” and Appendix B).
The “302(b)” allocation from the full House Appropriations Committee to the Agriculture
Appropriations subcommittee is $20.650 billion (H.Rept. 114-97), which is $175 million less than
(-0.8%) the comparable amount for FY2015 ($20.825 billion; Table 2).18
Table 2. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations, by Title, FY2015-FY2016
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2015
FY2016
Change from FY2015
Senate
Compared
P.L. 113-
Admin.
H. Cmte.
S. Cmte. in House
in Senate
with
Title of Agriculture Appropriations Act 235
Request
H.R. 3049
S. 1800
Bill
Bill
House
I: Agricultural Programs
30,446.6
27,401.7
26,830.1
26,838.2
-3,614.7
-3,608.4
+6.3
Mandatory (M)
23,659.7
20,120.7
20,120.7
20,120.7
-3,539.1
-3,539.1
+0.0
Discretionary
6,786.9
7,281.0
6,709.4
6,717.5
-75.7
-69.4
+6.3
II: Conservation Programs
859.3
1,032.1
839.8
856.1
-19.5
-3.2
+16.3
III: Rural Development
2,582.4
2,758.4
2,645.6
2,675.9
+61.4
+93.5
+32.1
IV: Domestic Food Programs
110,190.9
112,348.0
110,075.1
110,140.4
-115.8
-50.5
+65.3
Mandatory (M)
103,096.7
105,146.4
103,128.6
103,145.4
+31.9
+48.7
+16.8
Discretionary
7,094.1
7,201.6
6,946.5
6,995.0
-147.7
-99.1
+48.5
V: Foreign Assistance
1,848.3
1,812.5
1,802.3
1,864.1
-46.0
+15.8
+61.8
VI: Food and Drug Administration
2,597.3
2,743.5
2,627.3
2,637.8
+30.0
+40.4
+10.4
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
[250.0]
322.0
245.0
[250.0]a
-5.0
+0.0
+5.0
VII: General Provisions: CHIMPS, rescissions
-802.0
-1,036.0
-832.0
-908.0
-30.0
-106.0
-76.0
General Provisions: Other appropriations
122.6
0.0
2.0
6.6
-120.6
-116.0
+4.6
Scorekeeping adjustments
-398.0
-331.0
-336.0
-335.0
+62.0
+63.0
+1.0
Subtract disaster declaration in this bil
-116.0
—
—
—
—
—
—
Discretionary: Senate basis w/o CFTC
20,575.0
21,462.2
[20,405.0]
20,510.0
-170.0
-65.0
+105.0
Discretionary: House basis w/ CFTC
[20,825.0]
21,784.2
20,650.0
[20,760.0]
-175.0
-65.0
+110.0
Mandatory (M)
126,756.5
125,267.1
123,249.3
123,266.1
-3,507.2
-3,490.4
+16.8
Total: House basis w/ CFTC
147,581.5
147,051.3
143,899.3
144,026.1
-3,682.2
-3,555.4
+126.8
Source: CRS, using referenced bil text, appropriations committee report tables, and unpublished CBO tables.
Notes: Amounts are nominal budget authority in mil ions of dol ars. Amounts are discretionary authority unless
labeled otherwise. Amounts do not include supplemental appropriations that were enacted outside the annual
appropriation. [Bracketed amounts] are not in the official totals due to differing House-Senate jurisdiction for the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).
18 The FY2015 Agriculture appropriation ($20.575 billion) was based on Senate jurisdiction for CFTC and needs to be
increased by the CFTC appropriation ($250 million) to be comparable for House jurisdiction ($20.825 billion).
Congressional Research Service
6
link to page 11 link to page 65 link to page 14 Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
a. From S. 1910, the committee-reported Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bil .
The Senate Appropriations Committee’s allocation for its agriculture bill was $20.510 billion
(S.Rept. 114-55). Since the Senate allocation does not need to cover the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission (CFTC), which is in the jurisdiction of the Financial Services appropriations
subcommittee, it effectively is $110 million more than a comparative allocation in the House if
CFTC were held constant (+0.5%). It also is $65 million less than the FY2015 amount (-0.3%).
The final FY2016 appropriation is expected to put CFTC in the Agriculture appropriations bill, as
is customary in even-numbered fiscal years.
Continuing Resolution
In the absence of a new appropriation, the continuing resolution (P.L. 114-53) continues FY2015
funding authority until December 11, 2015 (§106), except that one-time emergency disaster and
Ebola funding is excluded, and a 0.2108% across-the-board reduction applies (§101(b)). For
mandatory programs, the CR allows sufficient funding to maintain program levels, including for
nutrition programs (§111). Two anomalies affect the agriculture appropriation: an increase of
about $9 million for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (§116), and a higher than
normal rate of apportionment for the Rural Housing Rental Assistance Program and waiver
authority on certain property renewal restrictions (§117).19
Comparison of Amounts for FY2016
In general, most amounts in the House- and Senate-reported Agriculture appropriations bills are
relatively similar. Officially, the two bills are $105 million (0.5%) apart in the discretionary total
when compared on a Senate basis that excludes CFTC. However, the Senate bill would allow
agencies to spend about $180 million more than the House bill because $77 million of that
difference is compensated for by extra offsets in the Senate bill that are beyond the House bill’s
offsets (Table 2; see also the section, “Changes in Mandatory Program Spending (CHIMPS)”).
Among agency-level spending differences that exceed $10 million between the bills (Table 3):
The Agricultural Research Service would receive $30 million more in the
House bill than in the Senate bill to fund buildings and facilities.
Conservation Operations would receive $22 million more in the Senate bill
than in the House bill.
The Rural Utilities Service would receive $24 million more in the Senate bill
than in the House.
The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children
(WIC) is $29 million more in the Senate bill than in the House; and Nutrition
Programs Administration is $11 million more in the Senate than the House.
For international food aid, P.L. 480 is $49 million higher in the Senate bill than
the House; for McGovern-Dole the Senate is $10 million higher than the House.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is $10 million higher in the Senate
bill than in the House bill.
19 See CRS Report R44214, Overview of the FY2016 Continuing Resolution (H.R. 719).
Congressional Research Service
7
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
The Senate bill reduces (CHIMPS) the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program by $75 million more than the House, while the House bill reduces the
Biorefinery and Rural Energy for America Programs by $42 million.
Congressional Research Service
8
link to page 18 link to page 18 link to page 18 link to page 18
Table 3. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations, by Agency, FY2013-FY2016
Budget authority in mil ions of dol ars
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
Change from FY2015
Senate
Compared
P.L. 113-6
Admin.
H. Cmte.
S. Cmte.
in House
in Senate
with
Agency or Major Program
post-sequ.a P.L. 113-76
P.L. 113-235
Request
H.R. 3049
S. 1800
Bill
Bill
House
Title I: Agricultural Programs
Departmental Administration
531.3
526.1
364.5
456.1
353.6
362.1
-9.1
-2.3
+6.7
Research, Education and Economics
Agricultural Research Service
1,016.9
1,122.5
1,177.6
1,397.4
1,167.5
1,136.8
-10.2
-40.8
-30.6
National Institute of Food & Agriculture
1,142.0
1,277.1
1,289.5
1,503.1
1,284.5
1,293.7
-5.0
+4.2
+9.2
National Agricultural Statistics Service
166.6
161.2
172.4
180.3
161.2
168.1
-11.2
-4.3
+6.9
Economic Research Service
71.4
78.1
85.4
86.0
78.1
85.4
-7.3
+0.0
+7.3
Under Secretary, Research, Education, Econ.
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
-0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Marketing and Regulatory Programs
Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service
761.4
824.9
874.5
859.0
874.1
879.6
-0.4
+5.1
+5.5
Agricultural Marketing Service
75.7
81.3
82.4
84.4
82.0
82.4
-0.4
+0.0
+0.4
Section 32 (M)
1,049.6
1,107.0
1,284.0
1,425.0
1,425.0
1,425.0
+141.0
+141.0
+0.0
Grain Inspection, Packers & Stockyards
37.3
40.3
43.0
44.1
43.0
43.0
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Under Secretary, Marketing and Regulatory
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
-0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Food Safety
Food Safety & Inspection Service
977.3
1,010.7
1,016.5
1,011.6
1,011.6
1,013.6
-4.9
-2.9
+2.1
Under Secretary, Food Safety
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
-0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Farm and Commodity Programs
Farm Service Agencyb
1,503.9
1,592.2
1,603.3
1,579.1
1,576.9
1,574.8
-26.3
-28.5
-2.2
FSA Farm Loans: Loan Authorityc
4,575.7
5,527.3
6,402.1
6,402.1
6,402.1
6,402.1
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Risk Management Agency Salaries & Exp.
69.1
71.5
74.8
76.9
74.0
74.8
-0.8
+0.0
+0.8
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (M)d
9,514.5
9,502.9
8,930.5
8,175.2
8,175.2
8,175.2
-755.3
-755.3
+0.0
CRS-9
link to page 18 link to page 18 link to page 18 link to page 18 link to page 18 link to page 18 link to page 18 link to page 18
Budget authority in mil ions of dol ars
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
Change from FY2015
Senate
Compared
P.L. 113-6
Admin.
H. Cmte.
S. Cmte.
in House
in Senate
with
Agency or Major Program
post-sequ.a P.L. 113-76
P.L. 113-235
Request
H.R. 3049
S. 1800
Bill
Bill
House
Commodity Credit Corporation (M)d
11,018.5
12,538.9
13,444.7
10,519.9
10,519.9
10,519.9
-2,924.8
-2,924.8
+0.0
Under Secretary, Farm and Foreign Agr.
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
-0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Subtotal
Mandatory (M)
21,582.7
23,149.1
23,659.7
20,120.7
20,120.7
20,120.7
-3,539.1
-3,539.1
+0.0
Discretionary
6,356.2
6,789.0
6,786.9
7,281.0
6,709.4
6,717.5
-75.7
-69.4
+6.3
Subtotal
27,938.8
29,938.1
30,446.6
27,401.7
26,830.1
26,838.2
-3,614.7
-3,608.4
+6.3
Title II: Conservation Programs
Conservation Operations
766.8
812.9
846.4
831.2
832.9
855.2
-13.5
+8.8
+22.3
Watershed & Flood Prevention
200.0
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Watershed Rehabilitation Program
13.6
12.0
12.0
0.0
6.0
0.0
-6.0
-12.0
-6.0
Under Secretary, Natural Resources
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
-0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Subtotal
781.2
825.8
859.3
1,032.1
839.8
856.1
-19.5
-3.2
+16.3
Title III: Rural Development
Salaries and Expenses (including transfers)e
613.0
657.4
678.2
685.6
679.2
682.7
+1.0
+4.5
+3.5
Rural Housing Service
1,031.1
1,279.6
1,298.4
1,394.7
1,368.7
1,367.2
+68.6
+68.8
+0.2
RHS Loan Authorityc
27,335.1
27,408.1
27,421.5
27,407.4
27,496.8
27,483.0
+0.3
+61.5
+61.3
Rural Business-Cooperative Servicef
114.2
130.2
103.2
138.7
87.0
91.5
-16.2
-11.8
+4.4
RBCS Loan Authorityc
953.7
1,022.8
984.5
993.6
984.5
994.2
+0.0
+9.8
+9.8
Rural Utilities Service
520.8
501.6
501.7
538.4
509.7
533.7
+8.0
+32.0
+24.0
RUS Loan Authorityc
8,849.4
7,514.5
7,464.1
7,934.2
7,464.1
8,710.6
+0.0
+1,246.5
+1,246.5
Under Secretary, Rural Development
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
-0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Subtotal
2,279.9
2,569.7
2,582.4
2,758.4
2,645.6
2,675.9
+61.4
+93.5
+32.1
Subtotal, RD Loan Authorityc
37,138.2
35,945.4
35,870.1
36,335.2
35,945.4
37,187.8
+0.3
+1,317.8
+1,317.5
CRS-10
link to page 18 link to page 18 link to page 18
Budget authority in mil ions of dol ars
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
Change from FY2015
Senate
Compared
P.L. 113-6
Admin.
H. Cmte.
S. Cmte.
in House
in Senate
with
Agency or Major Program
post-sequ.a P.L. 113-76
P.L. 113-235
Request
H.R. 3049
S. 1800
Bill
Bill
House
Title IV: Domestic Food Programs
Child Nutrition Programs (M)
19,913.2
19,288.0
21,300.2
21,587.3
21,507.43
21,524.4
+207.3
+224.2
+17.0
WIC Program
6,522.2
6,715.8
6,623.0
6,623.0
6,484.0
6,513.0
-139.0
-110.0
+29.0
SNAP, Food & Nutrition Act Programs (M)
77,285.4
82,169.9
81,837.6
83,693.1
81,653.2
81,662.1
-184.4
-175.5
+8.9
Commodity Assistance Programs
243.7
269.7
278.5
288.3
288.3
288.3
+9.8
+9.8
+0.0
Nutrition Programs Administration
132.7
141.3
150.8
155.6
141.3
151.8
-9.5
+1.0
+10.5
Office of Under Secretary
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
-0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Subtotal
Mandatory (M)
97,171.9
101,432.9
103,096.7
105,146.4
103,128.6
103,145.4
+31.9
+48.7
+16.8
Discretionary
6,926.1
7,152.7
7,094.1
7,201.6
6,946.5
6,995.0
-147.7
-99.1
+48.5
Subtotal
104,098.0
108,585.6
110,190.9
112,348.0
110,075.1
110,140.4
-115.8
-50.5
+65.3
Title V: Foreign Assistance
Foreign Agricultural Service
163.1
177.9
181.4
191.6
184.4
187.2
+3.0
+5.8
+2.8
Public Law 480 and admin. expenses
1,362.0
1,468.7
1,468.5
1,402.5
1,419.5
1,468.5
-49.0
+0.0
+49.0
Local and regional food procurement
20.0
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
McGovern-Dole Food for Education
174.5
185.1
191.6
191.6
191.6
201.6
+0.0
+10.0
+10.0
CCC Export Loan Salaries
6.3
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Subtotal
1,705.9
1,838.5
1,848.3
1,812.5
1,802.3
1,864.1
-46.0
+15.8
+61.8
Title VI: Related Agencies
Food and Drug Administration
2,386.0
2,560.7
2,597.3
2,743.5
2,627.3
2,637.8
+30.0
+40.4
+10.4
Commodity Futures Trading Commissiong
[194.0]
215.0
[250.0]
322.0
245.0
[250.0]h
-5.0
+0.0
+5.0
Subtotal
2,386.0
2,775.7
2,597.3
3,065.5
2,872.3
2,637.8
CRS-11
link to page 18 link to page 18 link to page 18
Budget authority in mil ions of dol ars
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
Change from FY2015
Senate
Compared
P.L. 113-6
Admin.
H. Cmte.
S. Cmte.
in House
in Senate
with
Agency or Major Program
post-sequ.a P.L. 113-76
P.L. 113-235
Request
H.R. 3049
S. 1800
Bill
Bill
House
Title VII: General Provisions
Reductions in Mandatory Programsi
a. Environmental Quality Incentives Program
-279.0
-272.0
-136.0
-373.0
-189.0
-264.0
-53.0
-128.0
-75.0
b. Watershed Rehabilitation Program
-165.0
-153.0
-69.0
-69.0
-64.0
-68.0
+5.0
+1.0
-4.0
c. Conservation Stewardship Program
-7.0
-3.0
-2.0
+5.0
+7.0
+2.0
d. Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program
-117.0
-119.0
-122.0
-125.0
-125.0
-125.0
-3.0
-3.0
+0.0
e. Biorefinery Assistance Program
-40.7
-16.0
-26.0
-10.0
+16.0
+26.0
f. Biomass Crop Assistance Program
-2.0
-12.0
-20.0
-10.0
-18.0
-8.0
g. Rural Energy for America Program
-16.0
-16.0
+0.0
+16.0
h. Cushion of Credit (Rural Development)
-180.0
-172.0
-179.0
-154.0
-154.0
-182.0
+25.0
-3.0
-28.0
i. Section 32
-110.0
-189.0
-121.0
-292.0
-216.0
-216.0
-95.0
-95.0
+0.0
j. Other reductions
-42.0
-8.0
-133.0
+6.0
+139.0
+133.0
-6.0
Subtotal, mandatory program
-893.0
-953.7
-785.0
-1,016.0
-798.0
-875.0
-13.0
-90.0
-77.0
reductions
Rescissions of discretionary accounts
-25.3
-33.3
-17.0
-20.0
-34.0
-33.0
-17.0
-16.0
+1.0
Other appropriations
a. Disaster/Emergency programs
83.9
116.0
2.0
-114.0
-116.0
-2.0
b. Other appropriations
48.6
106.6
6.6
6.6
-6.6
+0.0
+6.6
Subtotal, Other appropriations
132.5
106.6
122.6
0.0
2.0
6.6
-120.6
-116.0
+4.6
Total, General Provisions
-785.9
-880.4
-679.4
-1,036.0
-830.0
-901.4
-150.6
-222.0
-71.4
Scorekeeping Adjustmentsj
Disaster declaration in this bil
-116.0
+116.0
+116.0
+0.0
Other scorekeeping adjustments
-129.0
-191.0
-398.0
-331.0
-336.0
-344.0
+62.0
+63.0
+1.0
CRS-12
link to page 18
Budget authority in mil ions of dol ars
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
Change from FY2015
Senate
Compared
P.L. 113-6
Admin.
H. Cmte.
S. Cmte.
in House
in Senate
with
Agency or Major Program
post-sequ.a P.L. 113-76
P.L. 113-235
Request
H.R. 3049
S. 1800
Bill
Bill
House
Subtotal
-129.0
-191.0
-514.0
-331.0
-336.0
-335.0
+178.0
+179.0
+1.0
Totals
Discretionary: Senate basis w/o CFTC
19,520.4
[20,665.0]
20,575.0
21,462.2
[20,405.0]
20,510.0
-170.0
-65.0
+105.0
Discretionary: House basis w/ CFTC
[19,714.4]
20,880.0
[20,825.0]
21,784.2
20,650.0
[20,760.0]
-175.0
-65.0
+110.0
Mandatory (M)
118,754.6
124,582.0
126,756.5
125,267.1
123,249.3
123,266.1
-3,507.2
-3,490.4
+16.8
Total: House basis w/ CFTC
138,469.0
145,462.0
147,581.5
147,051.3
143,899.3
144,026.1
-3,682.2
-3,555.4
+126.8
Source: CRS, using referenced bil text, Appropriations Committee report tables, and unpublished CBO tables.
Notes: Amounts are nominal budget authority in mil ions of dol ars. Excludes supplementals outside the regular appropriations. Discretionary authority unless labeled
“(M)” to indicate primarily mandatory authority. [Bracketed amounts] are unofficial and provided to aid comparison due to differing House-Senate jurisdiction for CFTC.
a. Amounts for FY2013 are at the post-sequestration level from the USDA FY2013 Operating Plan, at http://www.dm.usda.gov/foia/docs/USDA_Operating_Plan.pdf.
b. Includes regular FSA salaries and expenses, plus transfers for farm loan program salaries and administrative expenses. Also includes farm loan program loan subsidy,
State Mediation Grants, Dairy Indemnity Program (mandatory funding), and Grassroots Source Water Protection Program.
c. Loan authority is the amount of loans that can be made or guaranteed with a loan subsidy; it is not added in the budget authority subtotals or totals.
d. Commodity Credit Corporation and Federal Crop Insurance Corporation each receive an indefinite appropriation (“such sums as necessary”). Estimates for
appropriations may not reflect actual outlays.
e. Includes Rural Development salaries and expenses, and transfers from the three rural development agencies for salaries and expenses. Amounts for the agencies
thus reflect program funds for loans and grants.
f.
Amounts for the Rural Business-Cooperative Service are before the rescission from the Cushion of Credit account, unlike in Appropriations committee tables. The
rescission is included with the changes in mandatory program spending (CHIMPS), as classified by CBO, which allows the RBCS subtotal to remain positive.
g. Jurisdiction for CFTC is in the House Agriculture appropriations subcommittee and the Senate Financial Services appropriations subcommittee (S. 1910 in FY2016).
After FY2008, CFTC is carried in enacted Agriculture appropriations in even-numbered fiscal years, always in House Agriculture markup and never in Senate
Agriculture markup.
h. From S. 1910, the committee-reported Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bil .
i.
Reductions to mandatory programs in this report include CHIMPS (Changes in Mandatory Program Spending) and permanent rescissions of budget authority for
mandatory program accounts. CBO estimates are used and are not always consistent in the treatment of sequestration. Amounts in the columns for the Admin.
Request and Senate do not include the effects of sequestration, whereas amounts in the House column are after including the effects of sequestration.
j.
“Scorekeeping adjustments” 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 bil . They predominantly include “negative subsidies” in loan program accounts and adjustments for disaster designations in the bil .
CRS-13
link to page 20 link to page 14 link to page 65 Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Key Budget Terms
Budget authority is the main output of an appropriations act or a law authorizing mandatory spending. It
provides the legal basis for agencies to obligate funds. It expires at the end of the period and usually is available for
one year unless specified otherwise (such as two-year or indefinite authority). Most amounts in this report are
budget authority.
Obligations reflect agency activities such as employing personnel or entering contracts. The Antideficiency Act
prohibits agencies from obligating more budget authority than is provided in law.
Outlays are payments (cash disbursements) that satisfy a valid obligation. Outlays may differ from budget authority
or obligations because payments from an agency may not occur until services are fulfil ed, goods delivered, or
construction completed, even though an obligation occurred.
Program level represents the sum of the activities supported or undertaken by an agency. A program level may
be higher than a budget authority if the program (1) receives user fees that can be used to pay for activities; (2)
makes or guarantees loans that are leveraged on the expectation of repayment (more than $1 of loan authority for
$1 of budget authority); or (3) receives transfers from other agencies.
Rescissions are adjustments that cancel or reduce budget authority after it has been enacted; they score savings.
CHIMPS (Changes in Mandatory Program Spending) are adjustments to mandatory budget authority. CHIMPS in
appropriations usually reduce or limit spending by mandatory programs and score budgetary savings.
For more background, see CRS Report 98-405, The Spending Pipeline: Stages of Federal Spending.
Policy Differences
In addition to specifying the amounts of budget authority, the bills prescribe various policies that
are tied to certain agencies’ abilities to use their appropriation. Among the notable policy-related
differences between the bills that are discussed in more detail in the relevant sections later:
The Senate bill continues prohibiting horse slaughter facility inspections; a
similar provision was defeated during House markup.
The House bill continues restricting the use of imported processed poultry from
China for the school lunch and other nutrition programs.
The House bill would not enforce a conservation compliance requirement in the
2014 farm bill for the 2016 crop insurance year.
The House bill would restore the use of commodity certificates for the
marketing loan program, including not being subject to payment limits.
The House bill would limit the applicability of certain FDA tobacco regulations
for e-cigarettes and other products.
Recent Trends in Agriculture Appropriations
The stacked bars in Figure 3 represent the discretionary spending authorized for each title since
FY2007, with comparisons of the proposals in FY2016. The total of the positive stacked bars is
higher than the official “302(b)” discretionary spending limit (the line, and dots for FY2016)
because of the budgetary offset from the General Provisions title and other scorekeeping
adjustments. General Provisions are negative mostly because of limits placed on certain
mandatory programs that are scored as savings (see near the end of Table 3 for examples, and the
section “Changes in Mandatory Program Spending (CHIMPS)” for background).
Increases in the use of CHIMPS and other tools to offset discretionary appropriations have
ameliorated recent reductions in budget authority since FY2010. For example, the official
Congressional Research Service
14
link to page 20 link to page 21 
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
“302(b)” discretionary total for the bill has been given credit for declining 10.6% from FY2010 to
FY2015 ($23.3 billion to $20.8 billion, Figure 3), while the total of Titles I-VI has declined only
6.7% over that same period ($23.6 billion to $22.0 billion).
On an inflation-adjusted basis, FY2015 Agriculture appropriations are 18% below their peak in
FY2010 (Figure 4). When expressed in constant FY2016 dollars, the FY2015 appropriation has
risen 2.7% above the FY2013 post-sequestration level. The FY2016 House subcommittee
allocation would be about 2.4% below the inflation-adjusted amount for FY2015, and that would
be about equal to the post-sequestration amount in FY2013 and on par with FY2007-FY2008.
Over time, changes by title of the bill generally have been proportionate to changes in the total
discretionary Agriculture appropriation, though some areas have sustained real increases while
others have declined (separate from the peak in 2010). Agencies with sustained real increases
since FY2007 include the Food and Drug Administration and CFTC (Related Agencies), the
domestic food programs, and to a lesser extent foreign assistance. Agencies with real decreases
since 2007 include rural development, discretionary conservation programs, and general
agricultural programs.
Figure 3. Discretionary Agriculture Appropriations, by Title, Since FY2007
Dollars in Millions
Admin House Senate Discretionary Appropriations
I: Agricultural Programs
II: Conservation Programs
7,336
7,281
6,885
6,789 6,787
6,850
6,677 6,356
6,709 6,718
III: Rural Development
6,633
1,009
6,443
1,032
889
826
859
840
856
IV: Domestic Food Programs
969
844
2,979
781
2,638
2,570 2,582 2,758 2,646 2,676
938 2,732
2,405 2,280
853
V: Foreign Assistance
2,334
2,500
VI: Related Agencies
7,655 7,128 7,001
7,234
6,926 7,153 7,094 7,202 6,946 6,995
6,374
5,523
VII: General Provisions and
Scorekeeping adjustments
2,089 1,891 1,836 1,706 1,838 1,848 1,813 1,802 1,864
Discretionary total "302(b)"
1,479 1,476 1,499
House basis w/ CFTC
1,672 1,828 2,197 2,526 2,659 2,711 2,580 2,776 2,847 3,066 2,872 2,888
Discretionary total "302(b)"
-761 -1,490 -881 -291 -1,958 -1,713 -915 -1,071 -1,193 -1,367 -1,166 -1,236
Senate basis w/o CFTC
2016
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Admin House Senate
Source: CRS.
Notes: Fiscal year budget authority. Includes only regular annual appropriations. Includes CFTC regardless of
jurisdiction, except for [bracketed] totals that allow intra-year House-Senate comparison.
Congressional Research Service
15
link to page 79 
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Figure 4. Inflation-Adjusted Discretionary Agriculture Appropriations Since FY2007
Inflation-adjusted
FY2016 Dollars in
Admin House Senate Discretionary Appropriations
Millions
I: Agricultural Programs
8,093
II: Conservation Programs
7,623
7,451 7,100
6,990
7,281
6,895
7,468
6,644
7,403
III: Rural Development
1,114
6,709 6,718
1,079
962
3,286
898
850
873 1,032 840 856
IV: Domestic Food Programs
1,056
817
3,040
2,854 2,558
980
2,646
2,383
2,623 2,758 2,646 2,676
2,628
V: Foreign Assistance
2,873
8,445 7,713
VI: Related Agencies
8,050
7,445 7,240 7,364 7,207 7,202 6,946 6,995
7,176
6,346
VII: General Provisions and
Scorekeeping adjustments
2,305 2,047 1,952 1,783 1,893 1,878 1,813 1,802 1,864
1,699 1,662 1,669
Discretionary total "302(b)"
House basis w/ CFTC
1,922 2,058 2,445 2,787 2,878 2,883 2,697 2,858 2,893 3,066 2,872 2,888
Discretionary total "302(b)"
-875 -1,677 -980 -320 -2,119 -1,821 -956 -1,103 -1,212 -1,367 -1,166 -1,236
Senate basis w/o CFTC
2016
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Admin House Senate
Source: CRS.
Notes: Fiscal year budget authority, adjusted for inflation by CRS using the GDP price deflator. Includes only
regular appropriations. Includes CFTC regardless of jurisdiction, except for [bracketed] totals that allow intra-
year House-Senate comparison.
Sequestration Continues on Mandatory Accounts
Sequestration is a process of automatic, largely across-the-board reductions that permanently
cancel mandatory and/or discretionary budget authority when spending would exceed statutory
budget goals. Sequestration is required in the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA; P.L. 112-25).20
Although the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (P.L. 113-67) raised spending limits in the BCA to
avoid sequestration of discretionary accounts in FY2014 and FY2015, it did not prevent or reduce
sequestration on mandatory accounts. Sequestration on mandatory accounts continues in FY2016
and is expected to continue through FY2023. Appendix B provides more detail about
sequestration at the individual account level.
20 See, Sequestration as a Budget Enforcement Process: Frequently Asked Questions.
Congressional Research Service
16
link to page 23 Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
USDA Agencies and Programs
About 95% of the total appropriation for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is funded
through the Agriculture appropriations bill. USDA was created in 1862 and carries out widely
varied responsibilities through about 17 agencies and about a dozen administrative offices staffed
by nearly 100,000 employees.21 Funding for about two-thirds of those employees is provided in
Agriculture appropriations. The remaining one-third of the employees are in the Forest Service
and are funded by the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.22
This report is organized in the order that the agencies are listed in the Agriculture appropriations
bill.
Organization of USDA is Different Than the Appropriations Bill
Agriculture appropriations are not perfectly correlated with USDA spending. Agriculture appropriations include
the FDA and CFTC (that are outside USDA), and do not fund the Forest Service (that is part of USDA). The
Forest Service is funded in the Interior and Related Agencies appropriations bil .
Similarly, USDA spending is not synonymous with farm program spending. It includes programs that may not be
considered agricultural, such as nutrition assistance and rural development.
USDA divides its activities into mission areas that are different from how the appropriation is organized in titles.
Food and nutrition programs—with more than three-fourths of USDA’s budget—comprise USDA’s largest
mission area. This is Title IV of the appropriation.
The second-largest mission area, about one-eighth of USDA’s budget, is farm and foreign agricultural services.
This mission area is split between appropriations to Title I (domestic) and Title V (foreign trade and aid).
Five other mission areas share one-eighth of USDA’s budget, including natural resources, rural development,
research, marketing and regulatory programs, and food safety. In appropriations bil s, 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
bil and USDA’s mission areas are organized.
USDA mission area totals include both mandatory and discretionary spending.
In the appropriation, conservation (Title II), rural development (Title III), and agricultural research (part of
Title I) include only discretionary amounts. Mandatory amounts for these programs are contained within the
Commodity Credit Corporation amount in Title I.
Departmental Administration23
The Agriculture appropriations bill contains several accounts for the general administration of the
USDA, ranging from the immediate Office of the Secretary, to the Office of Inspector General.
For FY2016, the House-reported bill would reduce the subtotal of administrative accounts by
about $11 million compared with FY2015, while the Senate-reported bill would reduce it by $2.3
million (Table 4). The Senate bill generally continues FY2015 funding levels for most accounts.
The House bill achieves most of its reductions in the accounts for Departmental Administration
and the Office of Communications. Neither bill funds the Administration’s request for $69 million
to continue making long-planned structural improvements to the USDA headquarters complex
(Whitten Building and South Building).
21 USDA, FY2016 Budget Summary, Feb. 2015, p. 126, at http://www.obpa.usda.gov/budsum/fy16budsum.pdf.
22 See CRS Report R44061, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations in Brief.
23 This section was written by Jim Monke (7-9664, jmonke@crs.loc.gov).
Congressional Research Service
17
Table 4. USDA Departmental Administration Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
Change from FY2015
Senate
Compared
P.L. 113-6
Admin.
H. Cmte.
S. Cmte.
in House
in Senate
with
Agency or Major Program
post-sequ.
P.L. 113-76
P.L. 113-235
Request
H.R. 3049
S. 1800
Bill
Bill
House
Office of the Secretary
Office of the Secretary
4.69
5.05
5.05
5.14
5.05
5.05
+0.00
+0.00
+0.00
Office of Tribal Relations
0.46
0.50
0.50
0.51
0.50
0.50
-0.00
+0.00
+0.00
Military Veterans Agricultural Liaison
—
—
—
0.25
—
0.25
+0.00
+0.25
+0.25
Office of Homeland Security
1.39
1.50
1.50
1.52
1.50
1.50
+0.00
+0.00
+0.00
Advocacy and Outreach
1.32
1.21
1.21
1.23
1.21
1.21
+0.00
+0.00
+0.00
Assistant Secretary for Admin.
0.75
0.80
0.80
0.82
0.80
0.80
+0.00
+0.00
+0.00
Departmental Administration
22.50
22.79
25.12
25.69
22.79
25.12
-2.34
+0.00
+2.34
Asst. Sec. Congressional Relations
3.59
3.87
3.87
3.93
3.06
3.87
-0.81
+0.00
+0.81
Office of Communications
8.36
8.07
7.75
8.23
4.47
7.75
-3.28
+0.00
+3.28
Subtotal
43.06
43.78
45.81
47.31
39.38
46.06
-6.43
+0.25
+6.68
Executive Operations
Office of Chief Economist
15.01
16.78
17.38
17.47
16.78
16.78
-0.60
-0.60
+0.00
National Appeals Division
13.19
12.84
13.32
13.57
12.84
13.32
-0.48
+0.00
+0.48
Office of Budget, Program Analysis
8.35
9.06
9.39
9.50
9.08
9.39
-0.31
+0.00
+0.31
Subtotal
36.56
38.68
40.09
40.53
38.70
39.49
-1.39
-0.60
+0.79
Other Administration
Chief Information Officer
40.65
44.03
45.05
53.07
44.03
45.05
-1.01
+0.00
+1.01
Chief Financial Officer
5.77
6.21
6.03
9.15
6.03
6.03
+0.00
+0.00
+0.00
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights
0.83
0.89
0.90
0.91
0.89
0.90
-0.01
+0.00
+0.01
Office of Civil Rights
21.02
21.40
24.07
24.44
23.87
24.07
-0.20
+0.00
+0.20
CRS-18
link to page 24
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
Change from FY2015
Senate
Compared
P.L. 113-6
Admin.
H. Cmte.
S. Cmte.
in House
in Senate
with
Agency or Major Program
post-sequ.
P.L. 113-76
P.L. 113-235
Request
H.R. 3049
S. 1800
Bill
Bill
House
Buildings and facilitiesa
252.40
233.00
55.87
125.47
54.73
53.62
-1.14
-2.25
-1.11
Hazardous materials management
3.70
3.59
3.60
3.63
3.60
3.62
+0.00
+0.02
+0.02
Office of Inspector General
82.30
89.90
95.03
98.90
95.64
95.29
+0.62
+0.27
-0.35
General Counsel
41.87
41.20
44.38
48.08
43.31
44.38
-1.07
+0.00
+1.07
Office of Ethics
3.14
3.44
3.65
4.57
3.44
3.65
-0.21
+0.00
+0.21
Subtotal
451.68
443.67
278.57
368.22
275.55
276.61
-3.02
-1.96
+1.06
Total, Departmental Administration
531.30
526.13
364.46
456.06
353.63
362.15
-10.83
-2.31
+8.52
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports for the referenced appropriations acts or bil s. Amounts for FY2013 are
the post-sequestration level from the USDA FY2013 Operating Plan.
a. Beginning in FY2015, the amount for buildings and facilities no longer includes rental payments to the GSA (General Services Administration) or DHS (Department
of Homeland Security), which amounted to $178 mil ion in FY2014. Although the federal government owns many of the facilities in which agencies are housed,
USDA rents some buildings and facilities from private vendors, which are contracted through GSA. Rather than paying rental obligations from a central account,
rental expenses now are paid by the individual agencies and have been absorbed into their budgets. Therefore, amounts for buildings and facilities in this account
now refer to operations, maintenance, and improvements of primarily the USDA-owned headquarters complex (the Whitten Building and the South Building).
CRS-19
link to page 27 link to page 27 Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Agricultural Research, Education, and Extension24
Agricultural research was one of the founding principles when USDA was created in 1862.
Contemporary research spans traditional, organic, and sustainable agricultural production;
bioenergy; nutrition; food safety; pests and diseases of plants and animals; and economics.
Four agencies carry out USDA’s research, education, and economics (REE) mission:25
The Agricultural Research Service (ARS), USDA’s intramural science agency,
conducts long-term, high-risk, basic and applied research on food and agriculture
issues of national and regional importance.
The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) distributes competitive
grants and formula-based funding to land grant colleges of agriculture to provide
partial support for state-level research, education, and extension.
The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) collects and publishes
national, state, and county statistics. NASS also is responsible for the five-year
cycle of the Census of Agriculture.
The Economic Research Service (ERS) provides economic analysis of issues
regarding public and private interests in agriculture, natural resources, and food.
For FY2016, the USDA research mission area would receive $2.691 billion in the House
committee-reported bill and $2.684 billion in the Senate committee-reported bill (Table 5). These
amounts are decreases of 1.2% and 1.5%, respectively, from the FY2015 level. The President
requested $3.167 billion, an increase of 16%. The committee-reported bills for FY2016 generally
are flat for most research programs and do not follow most of the proposed changes in priorities
in the request.
Agricultural Research Service
For FY2016, the House-reported bill would provide $1.168 billion for ARS, and the Senate-
reported bill $1.137 billion. The amount for FY2015 was slightly higher compared to each bill, at
$1.178 billion. Within the proposed amounts, the House bill would continue a constant $45
million for buildings and facilities, while the Senate bill has nothing for buildings and facilities
(Table 5). The President requested 5% more for salaries and expenses, and more than four times
the FY2015 or House-reported amount for buildings and facilities.
ARS had proposed increases across several programmatic areas for prioritized research projects,
coupled with reductions in funding for several existing programs. Both the House and Senate
committees expressly rejected many, if not most, of those specific reductions and reprogramming.
Both of the committee reports address deficient animal welfare conditions uncovered at ARS
research facilities, particularly at the ARS Meat Animal Research Center in Nebraska.26 Both
committees instruct ARS to comply with Animal Welfare Act standards, allow animal welfare
inspections by a USDA sister agency (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, APHIS),
review and update its own animal care policies, and certify progress with the committees. The
House bill further withholds 5% of the ARS appropriation until USDA certifies that it has updated
its policies and has functioning Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees.
24 This section was written by Jim Monke (7-9664, jmonke@crs.loc.gov).
25 See CRS Report R40819, Agricultural Research: Background and Issues.
26 See CRS Report R44091, Meat Animal Research Center: The Animal Welfare Act and Farm Animal Research.
Congressional Research Service
20
link to page 27 Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
For the buildings and facilities account, which comprises most of the difference between the
request and the committee-reported bills, the House bill would provide $45 million “for priorities
identified in the USDA ARS Capital Investment Strategy,”27 the same as in FY2015. The Senate
bill contains nothing for ARS buildings and facilities. ARS’ top facilities priority is the
construction of a biocontainment laboratory at its poultry research facility in Athens, GA.
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
For FY2016, the House-reported bill would provide $1.285 billion for NIFA, and the Senate-
reported bill $1.294 billion (Table 5). These amounts are within 0.4% of the FY2015 amount of
$1.290 billion. The President requested $1.503 billion for NIFA, 17% over the FY2015 amount.
USDA had proposed to merge NIFA’s three primary accounts (Research and Education,
Extension, and Integrated Activities) into a single NIFA-wide account. Congress effectively
rejected that proposal by continuing to fund each of the accounts separately as in past years.
The Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI), USDA’s flagship competitive grants
program with 25% of NIFA’s total budget, would receive $335 million in the House bill, and a
constant $325 million in the Senate-reported bill. The House-proposed amount is a $10 million
increase over FY2015, smaller than the $125 million increase requested by USDA.
Formula-funded programs are held constant in the House- and Senate-reported bills. Neither bill
provides funding for the Administration’s proposal to add a competitive portion to the normally
formula-funded “capacity awards” programs such as the Hatch Act. The House report notes a lack
of state matching funding for some historically black colleges and universities and directs USDA
to develop a plan to work with the states to meet the matching requirements.28
The Administration had proposed $80 million to establish two new “Innovation Institutes” as
public-private partnerships. Like last year, neither chambers’ bill would fund this proposal.
The President’s request would have consolidated federal science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) education funding so that USDA would no longer provide Higher
Education Challenge Grants, Graduate and Post-graduate Fellowship Grants, Higher Education
Multicultural Scholars Program, Women and Minorities in STEM Program, Agriculture in the
Classroom, and Secondary/Postsecondary Challenge Grants. Both chambers’ bills reject that
proposal and continue to fund the programs at FY2015 levels.
National Agricultural Statistics Service
For FY2016, the House-reported bill would provide NASS $161 million and the Senate-reported
bill $168 million, decreases of 6.5% and 2.5%, respectively, from FY2015. The President’s
request was $180 million, an increase of 5% over FY2015.
Economic Research Service
For FY2016, the House-reported bill would provide ERS $78 million (-8.6% from FY2015), and
the Senate-reported bill $85 million (the same as FY2015). USDA had requested $86 million.
27 USDA-ARS, The USDA Agricultural Research Service Capital Investment Strategy, April 2012, at http://www.ars.
usda.gov/sp2UserFiles/Subsite/ARSLegisAffrs/USDA_ARS_Capital_Investment_Strategy_FINAL_eeo.pdf.
28 Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities, Land-Grant but Unequal: State One-to-One Match Funding for
1890 Land-Grant Universities, September 2013, at http://www.aplu.org/library/land-grant-but-unequal-state-one-to-
one-match-funding-for-1890-land-grant-universities/file.
Congressional Research Service
21
Table 5. USDA Research, Extension, and Economics (REE) Appropriations
Budget authority in mil ions of dol ars
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
Change from FY2015
Senate
Compared
P.L. 113-6
Admin.
H. Cmte.
S. Cmte.
in House
in Senate
With
Agency or Major Program
post-sequ.
P.L. 113-76
P.L. 113-235
Request
H.R. 3049
S. 1800
Bill
Bill
House
Agricultural Research Service
1,016.9
1,122.5
1,132.6
1,191.5
1,122.5
1,136.8
-10.2
+4.2
+14.4
Buildings and Facilities
—
—
45.0
205.9
45.0
0.0
+0.0
-45.0
-45.0
Subtotal, ARS
1,016.9
1,122.5
1,177.6
1,397.4
1,167.5
1,136.8
-10.2
-40.8
-30.6
National Institute of Food & Agriculture
Research and Education
AFRI (competitive grants)
275.6
316.4
325.0
450.0
335.0
325.0
+10.0
+0.0
-10.0
Hatch Act (1862 institutions)
218.6
243.7
243.7
243.7
243.7
243.7
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Evans-Allen (1890s institutions)
47.1
52.5
52.5
58.0
52.5
52.5
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
McIntire-Stennis (forestry)
30.5
34.0
34.0
34.0
34.0
34.0
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Other
111.5
126.0
131.7
212.9
116.4
135.9
-15.4
+4.2
+19.6
Subtotal
683.2
772.6
786.9
998.6
781.5
791.1
-5.4
+4.2
+9.6
Extension
Smith-Lever (b) & (c)
271.3
300.0
300.0
300.0
300.0
300.0
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Smith-Lever (d)
91.7
85.5
85.5
85.7
85.5
102.7
+0.0
+17.2
+17.2
Other
76.1
83.7
86.2
89.8
86.5
86.2
+0.4
+0.0
-0.4
Subtotal
439.1
469.2
471.7
475.6
472.1
488.9
+0.4
+17.2
+16.8
Integrated Activities
19.8
35.3
30.9
28.9
30.9
13.7
+0.0
-17.2
-17.2
Subtotal, NIFA
1,142.0
1,277.1
1,289.5
1,503.1
1,284.5
1,293.7
-5.0
+4.2
+9.2
National Agricultural Statistics Service
166.6
161.2
172.4
180.3
161.2
168.1
-11.2
-4.3
+6.9
Economic Research Service
71.4
78.1
85.4
86.0
78.1
85.4
-7.3
+0.0
+7.3
Total, REE appropriation
2,397.0
2,638.8
2,724.9
3,166.9
2,691.2
2,684.0
-33.7
-40.9
-7.2
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports for the referenced appropriations acts or bil s.
CRS-22
link to page 28 Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Marketing and Regulatory Programs
Three agencies carry out USDA’s marketing and regulatory programs mission area: the Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), and the
Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA).
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service29
APHIS is responsible for protecting U.S. agriculture from domestic and foreign pests and
diseases, responding to domestic animal and plant health problems, and facilitating agricultural
trade through science-based standards. Prominent concerns include avian influenza (AI), bovine
spongiform encephalopathy (BSE or “mad cow disease”), bovine tuberculosis, invasive plant
pests (e.g., emerald ash borer, the Asian long-horned beetle, glassy-winged sharpshooter), and a
national animal identification program. APHIS administers the Animal Welfare Act, which
protects animals used in research and public exhibitions, and administers the Wildlife Services
Program to resolve human/wildlife conflicts and to protect against wildlife damage.
For FY2016, the House-reported bill (H.R. 3049) would provide $874.1 million for APHIS
programs, with $870.9 million for salaries and expenses and $3.2 million for building and
facilities (Table 6). This is nearly the same as for FY2015 and $15 million more than requested.
The Senate-reported bill (S. 1800) would provide $879.6 million for APHIS, $5 million more
than the House bill. Both bills would provide more to specialty crop pests and less to zoonotic
disease management than the Administration requested.
Table 6. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2015
FY2016
P.L. 113-
Admin.
H. Cmte.
S. Cmte.
235
Request
H.R. 3049
S. 1800
Animal Health
287.6
295.8
293.3
288.2
Plant Health
305.4
285.3
298.9
306.4
Wildlife Services
108.9
99.5
108.9
111.5
Regulatory Services
35.1
35.2
35.1
35.1
Emergency Preparedness, Contingency
17.4
17.5
17.4
17.4
Safe Trade, International Tech. Assist.
36.2
41.8
36.2
37.2
Animal Welfare
28.7
28.8
29.1
28.7
Administrative Funds
52.0
52.0
52.0
52.0
Subtotal, salaries and expenses
871.3
855.8
870.9
876.5
Buildings and facilities
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
Total, APHIS
874.5
859.0
874.1
879.6
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports for the
referenced appropriations acts or bil s.
29 This section was written by Tadlock Cowan (7-7600, tcowan@crs.loc.gov), with assistance for avian influenza from
Joel L. Greene (7-9877, jgreene@crs.loc.gov).
Congressional Research Service
23
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Both the House and Senate bills continue to provide $470,000 (available until expended) for a
contingency fund to control outbreaks of insects, plant diseases, animal diseases and for control
of pest animals and birds. For larger outbreaks, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
and congressional appropriators have sparred for years over whether APHIS should—as
appropriators have preferred—reach as needed into USDA’s Commodity Credit Corporation
(CCC) account for mandatory funds to deal with emergency plant and animal health problems,30
or use primarily funds from the annual appropriation, as OMB has argued. For example, in
FY2015 APHIS received about $700 million in CCC funds to control highly pathogenic avian
influenza (HPAI). Both the House and Senate reports recognize APHIS work on HPAI, and the
Senate report specifically calls for APHIS to continue to utilize CCC funds as needed.
Within the animal welfare portion, the House bill includes a $400,000 increase to support a
memorandum of understanding between APHIS and the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) to
address concerns at the ARS Meat Animal Research Center. The House bill also expresses
concern about APHIS’ regulatory backlog to review biotechnology product petitions.
Both the House and Senate bills would prohibit USDA from using any funds to implement,
administer, or enforce the APHIS rules that allow the import of fresh beef from Brazil and
Argentina until USDA fulfills several requirements (§749 of H.R. 3049; §743 of S. 1800). Both
provisions require that APHIS conduct a comprehensive risk evaluation of importing beef from
these two countries. The House provision requires additional onsite inspections of beef slaughter
and processing facilities in Brazil and Argentina. The Senate provision requires USDA to update
an animal disease risk assessment report, and report to Congress how it is addressing a GAO
report on the veterinarian workforce and its response to animal disease outbreaks.
Agricultural Marketing Service and “Section 32”
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) administers numerous programs that facilitate the
marketing of U.S. agricultural products in domestic and international markets. AMS each year
receives appropriations in two different ways. A discretionary appropriation of about $80 million
funds a variety of marketing activities. A larger mandatory spending amount of about $1.2 billion
(funds for strengthening markets, income, and supply; or “Section 32”) finances various types of
ad hoc decisions that support agricultural commodities (such as meat, poultry, fruits, and
vegetables) that are not supported through the direct subsidy programs for the primary field crops
(corn, soybeans, wheat, rice, and peanuts) and dairy. User fees also support some AMS activities.
Marketing Activities31
For FY2016, the House-reported bill (H.R. 3049) provides $82.0 million for the salaries,
expenses, and payments to states and possessions for marketing activities. The Senate-reported
bill (S. 1800) provides $82.4 million, level with the FY2015 appropriation. The Administration
requested $84.4 million for FY2016.
The AMS appropriation includes $1.2 million for payments to states and possessions through the
Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program. This program provides matching grants to state
marketing agencies to explore new market opportunities for U.S. food and agricultural products,
and to encourage research and innovation to improve marketing efficiency and performance.
30 As authorized in the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. §§8310 and 8316, §§10411 and 10417) and the Plant
Protection Act (7 U.S.C. §§7751 and 7772, §§431 and 442).
31 This section was written by Joel L. Greene (7-9877, jgreene@crs.loc.gov).
Congressional Research Service
24
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
The AMS discretionary appropriation funds four main areas: market news service, shell egg
surveillance and standardization, market protection and promotion, and transportation and
marketing. The market news program collects, analyzes, and disseminates market information on
a wide number of commodities. The shell egg program ensures egg quality and reviews and
maintains egg standards. As part of market protection and promotion programs, AMS administers
the pesticide data program, the National Organic Program (NOP), the seed program, country-of-
origin labeling (COOL), and 22 commodity research and promotion (checkoff) programs. AMS
monitors the agriculture transportation system and conducts market analysis that supports the
transport of agriculture products domestically and internationally.
AMS collects user fees and reimbursements to cover AMS-administered activities such as product
quality and process verification programs, commodity grading, and Perishable Agricultural
Commodities Act licensing. AMS expects to collect about $231 million in user fees in FY2015
and $233 million in FY2016. Both the House and Senate bills place a $61.0-million limit on the
amount of user fees that AMS may collect for grading and classifying cotton and tobacco.32 AMS
also administers several 2014 farm bill programs that have mandatory funding and are designed
to support specialty crops, farmers markets, local foods, and organic certification.33
Section 32 (Funds for Strengthening Markets, Income, and Supply) 34
AMS’s mandatory appropriation reflects a transfer from the so-called Section 32, which is a
program created in 1935 to assist agricultural producers of non-price-supported commodities. The
Section 32 account is funded by a permanent appropriation of 30% of the previous calendar
year’s customs receipts ($10.3 billion in FY2016), less certain mandatory transfers to child
nutrition and other programs ($9.0 billion in FY2016).35
Section 32 monies available for obligation by AMS have been used at the Secretary’s discretion
to purchase agricultural commodities like meat, poultry, fruits, vegetables, and fish, which are not
typically covered by mandatory farm programs. These commodities are diverted to school lunch
and other domestic food and nutrition programs. Section 32 has also been used to fund surplus
removal and farm economic and disaster relief activities.
The 2008 farm bill (§14222) capped the annual amount of Section 32 funds available for
obligation by AMS in FY2016 at $1.303 billion. Also, to increase the amount of fruits and
vegetables purchased under Section 32, Congress limited USDA’s discretion in two ways: (1)
§4304 of the 2008 farm bill established a fresh fruit and vegetable school snack program funded
by carving out Section 32 funds (set at $40 million in 2008, rising to $150 million in 2011, and
adjusted for inflation for each year thereafter), and (2) §4404 of the 2008 farm bill required
additional purchases of fruits, vegetables, and nuts (set at $190 million in FY2008, rising to $206
million in FY2012, and remaining at that level each year thereafter). Section 4214 of the 2014
32 Authorized by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-35).
33 Separate from the appropriations process, the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79) authorized mandatory funding for four
AMS-administered programs as follows: $72.5 million (annually, FY2014-2017) and $85 million (annually, FY2018
and thereafter) for specialty crop block grants, $15 million (annually, FY2014-2018) for farmers’ market promotion,
$15 million (annually, FY2014-2018) for local food promotion, and a set-aside (estimated at $12.5 million in FY2015)
for AMS share of costs to support organic certification. For FY2015, AMS expects to administer an estimated $106.6
million of these mandatory farm bill initiatives, and $115 million in FY2016.
34 This section was written by Jim Monke (7-9664. jmonke@crs.loc.gov).
35 For more details about Section 32 and the farm bill changes, see CRS Report RL34081, Farm and Food Support
Under USDA’s Section 32 Program.
Congressional Research Service
25
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
farm bill expanded the school snack program to include frozen, canned, and dried fruits and
vegetables on a pilot basis for the 2014-15 school year.
The enacted FY2016 appropriation provides $1.425 billion of Section 32 funds for AMS, which
compares with $1.284 billion enacted in FY2015. The FY2016 amount is reduced by $216
million (rescission) and $77 million (sequestration), and is considered mandatory spending.
The House- and Senate-reported bills both continue a provision (§715) that has appeared since
FY2012 that effectively prohibits the use of Section 32 for emergency disaster payments:
[N]one of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this or any other Act
shall be used to pay the salaries or expenses of any employee of the Department of
Agriculture or officer of the Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out clause 3 of
Section 32 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1935 (P.L. 74-320, 7 U.S.C. 612c, as
amended), or for any surplus removal activities or price support activities under section 5
of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act.36
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration37
USDA’s Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) oversees the
marketing of U.S. grain, oilseeds, livestock, poultry, meat, and other commodities. The Federal
Grain Inspection Service establishes standards for the inspection, weighing, and grading of grain,
rice, and other commodities. The Packers and Stockyards Program monitors livestock and poultry
markets to ensure fair competition and guard against deceptive and fraudulent trade practices.
For FY2016, the GIPSA appropriation in both the House-reported (H.R. 3049) and Senate-
reported (S. 1800) bills is $43.0 million for salaries and expenses, the same as enacted for
FY2015. The Administration requested a FY2016 appropriation of $44.1 million. Also, both bills
authorize GIPSA to collect up to $55 million in user fees for inspection and weighing services. If
grain export activity requires additional services, the user fee limit may be exceeded by up to
10% upon notification to the House and Senate appropriations committees.
In response to grain inspection disruptions at the Port of Vancouver in the state of Washington,38
the Senate bill report (S. Rept. 114-82) directs USDA to develop and implement contingency
plans to ensure that official grain inspection and weighing services resume as quickly as possible
should an interruption in service occur. Also, USDA is to ensure that persons requesting official
inspection and weighing services are informed immediately of the nature of the emergency,
promptly implement the necessary mitigations to address any concerns, and provide regular
updates should any disruption persist. These issues were addressed subsequently in the grain
inspection reauthorization act (P.L. 114-54).
For the first time since FY2012, the House bill does not include a rider prohibiting USDA from
finalizing or implementing parts of GIPSA’s proposed rule on livestock and poultry marketing
practices (75 Federal Register 35338, June 22, 2010) that were required in the 2008 farm bill.39
36 Clause 3 of Section 32 provides that funds shall be used to reestablish farmers’ purchasing power by making
payments in connections with the normal production of any agricultural commodity for domestic consumption (7.U.S.C
612c). Section 5 of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act authorizes the CCC to support the prices of
agricultural commodities through loans, purchases, payments, and other operations (15 U.S.C. 714c).
37 This section was written by Joel L. Greene (7-9877, jgreene@crs.loc.gov).
38 See CRS Report R43803, U.S. Grain Standards Act: Potential Reauthorization in the 114th Congress, pp. 9-11.
39 See CRS Report R41673, USDA’s “GIPSA Rule” on Livestock and Poultry Marketing Practices.
Congressional Research Service
26
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)40
The House-reported bill, H.R. 3049, would appropriate $1.012 billion for FY2016, identical to
the Administration’s request, but about $2 million less than the Senate-reported bill, S. 1800,
which would appropriate $1.014 billion. Appropriations are augmented by existing (currently
authorized) user fees that FSIS estimates to be nearly $180 million per year.41 FSIS appropriations
are divided between various sub-accounts, including federal, state, and international inspection;
Codex Alimentarius; and the Public Health Data Communications Infrastructure System. The
difference between the bills is that the Senate, compared with the House, provides more funding
for federal inspection, and less for state and international inspection and Codex. The
Administration has re-proposed a user fee of $4 million to cover additional inspection costs
associated with performance issues at inspected facilities. In previous budget debates, the enacted
appropriations have not included this user fee proposal.
Both committee bills would require that FSIS have no fewer than 148 FTEs dedicated to the
inspection and enforcement of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA). The Senate
committee also directs FSIS to ensure compliance with humane handling rules for live animals
and to continue to provide certain annual reports to Congress. Both the House and Senate
committees also express concern that FSIS has not yet implemented the catfish inspection
program, as required under the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79, Sec. 12106), and would require the
agency to promulgate final regulations no later than 30 days after enactment of the FY2016
appropriation.42
The House committee report contains language to encourage innovation and modernization at
slaughter and processing establishments regarding water-conserving technologies for hand-
washing facilities. The House committee report also expresses concern about countering
economic fraud and improving the safety of the U.S. seafood supply. Appropriators encourage
FSIS and USDA research agencies to develop technologies that will provide rapid, portable, and
easy-to-use screening of seafood at ports and at wholesale and retail locations.
The Senate bill prohibits funds from being used for horse slaughter and inspection (§744).43 The
Senate committee also directs FSIS to submit a report on a plan for recruiting personnel for
frontline inspection positions. The report should focus on recruiting candidates with demonstrated
educational backgrounds in agriculture or health sciences, including new and recent graduates.
Farm Service Agency44
USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) is probably best known for administering the farm
commodity subsidy programs and the disaster assistance programs. It makes these payments to
40 This section was written by Renée Johnson (7-9588; rjohnson@crs.loc.gov) and Joel L. Greene (7-9877,
jgreene@crs.loc.gov).
41 From recent FSIS congressional budget justifications (http://www.obpa.usda.gov/explan_notes.html). Reflects total
non-federal funds, including fees for meat, poultry and egg products inspection; fees for cost of national laboratory
accreditation programs; and trust funds.
42 The catfish inspection program was originally transferred from FDA to FSIS in the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246,
Sec. 11016). The FSIS catfish inspection rule has not been finalized yet.
43 The FY2006 and FY2007 appropriations prohibited FSIS from paying salaries and expenses for horse slaughter
inspections. The FY2008-FY2011 and FY2014-FY2015 appropriations also banned voluntary, fee-based horse
slaughter inspections. Horse slaughter inspection bans were not in force during FY2012 and FY2013, but no horse
slaughter facilities opened before the ban was reinstated in FY2014.
44 This section was written by Jim Monke (7-9664, jmonke@crs.loc.gov).
Congressional Research Service
27
link to page 34 Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
farmers through a network of county offices. In addition, FSA also administers USDA’s direct and
guaranteed farm loan programs and certain mandatory conservation programs (in cooperation
with the Natural Resources Conservation Service), and supports certain international food
assistance and export credit programs administered by the Foreign Agricultural Service and the
U.S. Agency for International Development.
FSA Salaries and Expenses
For FY2016, the House- and Senate-reported bills are essentially the same for FSA salaries and
expenses (with the Senate bill providing 0.2% less than the House bill). The House bill would
provide $1.490 billion to FSA for salaries and expenses (including $1.183 billion for regular FSA
salaries and expenses, plus the transfer within FSA of $307 million for farm loan program salaries
and expenses; Table 7).45 This is $17 million less than the FY2015 total (-1%), and the Senate bill
is $20 million less than FY2015.
Both bills reject the Administration’s proposal for more funding for beginning farmer and rancher
programs, citing insufficient coordination among USDA agencies, as was found in a report by the
USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG).46
Regarding information technology, both the House and Senate bills and report language continue
strong requirements that began in FY2015 about FSA’s implementation of information
technology (IT) plans, specifically MIDAS (Modernize and Innovate the Delivery of Agricultural
Systems). MIDAS was flagged for concern by the Federal IT Dashboard in December 2012.47 It
has struggled with the scope and schedule of work and has yet to achieve the expected results.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) 48 and the USDA OIG continue to observe
management and schedule problems in recent reports.49
The statutory language continues a FY2015 requirement that FSA—before it can spend more than
50% of the amount for IT ($130 million in the House bill; $113 million in the Senate bill; $132
million in FY2015)—submit to Congress and GAO a detailed information technology plan that
meets several specific criteria, regularly inform and consult with the appropriations
subcommittees, and—in the Senate bill—submit an assessment report at the end of FY2016.
Regarding office closures and staff reductions, both of the FY2016 appropriations bills directly
would prohibit FSA from closing any county offices. The bills also prohibit FSA from
permanently relocating any county employees if it results in two or fewer employees, unless the
Appropriations Committees approve. The FY2015 appropriation similarly prohibited county
office closure and contained the relocation provision, but that was the first time that FSA office
closure had been mentioned in appropriations since FY2006-FY2008. The 2008 farm bill enacted
a permanent provision (7 U.S.C. 6932a; P.L. 110-246, §14212) that accomplished the same
thing—setting conditions and requiring congressional notification and local hearings before FSA
can close or consolidate a county office. The current appropriation’s temporary moratorium
surpasses this permanent provision.
45 Excludes transfers to FSA from the Foreign Agricultural Service for administrative support (about $3 million).
46 USDA-OIG, “USDA Beginning Farmers and Ranchers Programs”, May 2015, at http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/
50601-0003-31.pdf.
47 IT Dashboard, “Farm Program Modernization (MIDAS) #097,” at https://itdashboard.gov/investment?buscid=225.
48 GAO, “Farm Service Agency Needs to Demonstrate the Capacity to Manage IT Initiatives,” GAO-15-506, June 18,
2015, at http://gao.gov/products/GAO-15-506.
49 USDA-OIG, “Review of Farm Service Agency’s Initiative to Modernize and Innovate the Delivery of Agricultural
Systems (MIDAS),” 03501-0001-12, May 2015, at http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/03501-0001-12.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
28
Table 7. Farm Service Agency Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
Change from FY2015
Senate
Compared
P.L. 113-6
Admin.
H. Cmte.
S. Cmte.
in House
in Senate
With
post-sequ.
P.L. 113-76
P.L. 113-235
Request
H.R. 3049
S. 1800
Bill
Bill
House
Salaries and expenses
Farm Service Agency (S&E base)
1,115.3
1,177.9
1,200.2
1,185.3
1,183.0
1,180.4
-17.2
-19.8
-2.6
FSA farm loan program S&E transfer
281.6
307.0
307.0
310.0
307.0
307.0
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Subtotal, appropriated to FSA
1,396.8
1,484.9
1,507.2
1,495.2
1,490.0
1,487.4
-17.2
-19.8
-2.6
Programs
Farm loan program (loan subsidy)
90.5
90.0
78.7
72.1
69.6
69.6
-9.2
-9.2
+0.0
Farm loan program admin. expenses
7.3
7.7
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
State mediation grants
4.1
3.8
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Grassroots source water protection
5.2
5.5
5.5
0.0
5.5
6.0
+0.0
+0.5
+0.5
Dairy indemnity program (M)
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Total: Appropriation to FSA
1,503.9
1,592.2
1,603.3
1,579.1
1,576.9
1,574.8
-26.3
-28.5
-2.2
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports for the referenced appropriations acts or bil s. Amounts for FY2013 are
the post-sequestration level from the USDA FY2013 Operating Plan.
Notes: Does not include about $3 mil ion of salaries and expenses that are appropriated to the Foreign Agricultural Service and transferred to FSA to administer P.L.
480 and export loans. Discretionary budget authority unless labeled “(M)” to indicate mandatory authority.
CRS-29
link to page 36 Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 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.50
An appropriation is made to FSA each year to cover the federal cost of making direct and
guaranteed loans, referred to as a loan subsidy. Loan subsidy is directly related to any interest rate
subsidy provided by the government, as well as a projection of anticipated loan losses from
farmer non-repayment of the loans. The amount of loans that can be made—the loan authority—
is several times larger than the subsidy level.
For FY2016, the House- and Senate-reported bills are identical to each other and to the
Administration’s request in both loan subsidy and loan authority, with the exception of not
funding the Administration’s request for Individual Development Accounts.51
The FSA farm loan program would receive $70 million of loan subsidy to support $6.402 billion
of direct and guaranteed loans in FY2016 (Table 8). Though the loan subsidy is about 12%
smaller than in FY2015, the loan authority is the same as FY2015. The reduction in loan subsidy
is explained by the direct farm operating program.
Following the global financial crisis that began in 2008, FSA farm loan authority generally has
risen, reflecting the borrowing needs of many farmers. Broad financial system pressures
dramatically increased the demand for FSA farm loans and guarantees when commercial bank
lending standards became stricter and loans sometimes were less available. In FY2009 and
FY2010, supplemental appropriations increased regular FSA loan authority by nearly $1 billion
each year in order to meet demand, up from pre-crisis levels of about $3.5 billion in 2008 to 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.52 The FY2014 loan authority restored the
total closer to the supplemental levels of FY2009 and FY2010, and the FY2015-FY2016
appropriations increase total loan authority to a new high level, particularly in the direct farm
ownership loan program.
50 For more background, see CRS Report RS21977, Agricultural Credit: Institutions and Issues.
51 The Individual Development Account program was authorized in the 2008 farm bill but has never received
appropriations. It is not a loan program, but rather a savings program (7 U.S.C. 1983b). USDA grants to private entities
that would deliver the program would match farmer deposits at a rate up to 2:1. Withdrawals would be allowed for
various capital expenses.
52 Updates on unused FSA loan availability are available at http://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/farm-loan-
programs/funding/index.
Congressional Research Service
30
Table 8. Farm Service Agency: Farm Loan Program
(budget authority and loan authority, as specified, in millions of dollars)
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
Change from FY2015
Senate
Compared
P.L. 113-6
Admin.
H. Cmte.
S. Cmte.
in House
in Senate
With
post-sequ.
P.L. 113-76
P.L. 113-235
Request
H.R. 3049
S. 1800
Bill
Bill
House
1. Budget Authority (loan subsidy)
Farm ownership loans
Direct
18.6
4.4
—
—
—
—
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Farm operating loans
Direct
54.0
65.5
63.1
54.0
54.0
54.0
-9.1
-9.1
+0.0
Guaranteed (unsubsidized)
16.5
18.3
14.8
14.4
14.4
14.4
-0.4
-0.4
+0.0
Other direct loans
Emergency loans
1.2
1.7
0.9
1.3
1.3
1.3
+0.4
+0.4
+0.0
Indian highly fractionated land loans
0.2
0.1
—
—
—
—
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Individual Development Accounts
—
—
—
2.5
—
—
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Subtotal, loan subsidy
90.5
90.0
78.7
72.1
69.6
69.6
-9.2
-9.2
+0.0
FLP salaries and expenses
281.6
307.0
307.0
310.0
307.0
307.0
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
FLP administrative expenses
7.3
7.7
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Total, FLP budget authority
379.3
404.7
393.6
390.0
384.5
384.5
-9.2
-9.2
+0.0
CRS-31
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
Change from FY2015
Senate
Compared
P.L. 113-6
Admin.
H. Cmte.
S. Cmte.
in House
in Senate
With
post-sequ.
P.L. 113-76
P.L. 113-235
Request
H.R. 3049
S. 1800
Bill
Bill
House
2. Loan Authority (loan level)
Farm ownership loans
Direct
438.5
575.0
1,500.0
1,500.0
1,500.0
1,500.0
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Guaranteed
1,500.0
2,000.0
2,000.0
2,000.0
2,000.0
2,000.0
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Farm operating loans
Direct
969.5
1,195.6
1,252.0
1,252.0
1,252.0
1,252.0
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Guaranteed (unsubsidized)
1,384.8
1,500.0
1,393.4
1,393.4
1,393.4
1,393.4
+0.0
+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
Other direct loans
Emergency loans
21.6
34.7
34.7
34.7
34.7
34.7
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Indian tribe land acquisition loans
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Indian highly fractionated land loans
9.2
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Bol weevil eradication loans
100.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Total, loan authority
4,575.7
5,527.3
6,402.1
6,402.1
6,402.1
6,402.1
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports for the referenced appropriations acts or bil s. Amounts for FY2013 are
the post-sequestration level from the USDA FY2013 Operating Plan.
Note: Budget authority reflects the cost of making loans, such as interest rate subsidies and default. Some programs are self-funding because of fees charged. Loan authority
reflects the amount of loans that FSA may make or guarantee.
CRS-32
link to page 31 Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Commodity Credit Corporation53
The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) is the funding mechanism for many mandatory
spending programs in the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79, the Agricultural Act of 2014).54 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. Separate discretionary appropriations
to the Farm Service Agency and other agencies pay for salaries to administer the programs.
The CCC is a wholly owned government corporation that has the legal authority to borrow up to
$30 billion at any one time from the U.S. Treasury (15 U.S.C. 714, et seq.). These borrowed
funds finance program spending. The CCC may earn a small amount of money from activities
such as buying and selling commodities and receiving interest payments on loans. But because
the CCC never earns more than it spends, its borrowing authority is replenished through a
congressional appropriation, typically in the annual Agriculture appropriations act.
Mandatory outlays for the commodity programs rise and fall based on economic or weather
conditions (e.g., crop prices below program trigger levels generate farm payments). Funding
needs are difficult to estimate, which is a primary reason that the programs are mandatory rather
than discretionary, and that the program operates under a Treasury line of credit.
The congressional appropriation may not always restore the line of credit to the previous year’s
level, or may repay more than was spent. For these reasons, the appropriation to the CCC may not
reflect current year outlays. Moreover, the CCC appropriation is several billion dollars greater
than the amount of farm commodity subsidies because other programs are paid from CCC.55
To replenish CCC’s borrowing authority, the House- and Senate-reported FY2016 appropriations
bills concur with the Administration request for an indefinite appropriation (“such sums as
necessary”). The estimated amount is $10.520 billion for FY2016, down 22% from FY2015.
Regarding authority in the CCC Charter Act to provide ad hoc disaster assistance, the House- and
Senate-reported bills both continue a provision (§715) that has appeared since FY2012 that
effectively prohibits the use of the CCC for emergency disaster payments to farmers:
[N]one of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this or any other Act shall be
used to pay the salaries or expenses of any employee of the Department of Agriculture or
officer of the Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out clause 3 of Section 32 of the
Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1935 (P.L. 74-320, 7 U.S.C. 612c, as amended), or for any
surplus removal activities or price support activities under section 5 of the Commodity Credit
Corporation Charter Act.56
53 This section was written by Jim Monke (7-9664, jmonke@crs.loc.gov).
54 For more background on the farm bill, see CRS In Focus IF10187, The 2014 Farm Bill (Agricultural Act of 2014,
P.L. 113-79), and CRS Report R43076, The 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79): Summary and Side-by-Side.
55 For an example of the accounting of CCC’s line of credit, appropriations and expenditures, see USDA, Commodity
Estimates Book, “Output 07-CCC Financing Status,” at http://www.fsa.usda.gov/about-fsa/budget-and-performance-
management/budget/ccc-budget-essentials/index.
56 For an explanation of the statutory references, see footnote 36.
Congressional Research Service
33
link to page 42 Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Separately, the House-reported bill would restore the use of “commodity certificates” for the
marketing loan program, including not being subject to payment limits (§739). The provision is
projected to cost $5 million in FY2016. Commodity certificates have not been available since the
2009 crop year and are payments-in-kind that can be redeemed for cash in lieu of marketing loan
gains or forfeiture (7 U.S.C. 7286).57 Besides providing flexibility in repaying marketing loans,
commodity certificates have been used to avoid payment limitations. Under the 2014 farm bill,
payment limits again apply to marketing loan gains, after having not been subject to limits under
the 2008 farm bill. The Senate-reported bill does not contain this provision.
Finally, the House-reported bill would continue a provision that has been enacted since FY2011
that limits the ability of USDA to provide marketing assistance loans for mohair (§722). The
Senate-reported bill does not contain this provision.
Crop Insurance58
The federal crop insurance program is administered by USDA’s Risk Management Agency
(RMA). It offers basically free catastrophic insurance to producers who grow an insurable crop.
Producers who opt for this coverage have the opportunity to purchase additional insurance
coverage at a subsidized rate (ranging between 38% and 80%). Policies are sold and serviced
through approved private insurance companies that have their program losses reinsured by USDA
and are reimbursed by the government for their administrative and operating expenses.59
Two separate appropriations support the federal crop insurance program. The first provides
discretionary funding for the salaries and expenses of the RMA. The second provides mandatory
funding for the Federal Crop Insurance Fund (FCIC), which finances other program expenses,
including premium subsidies, indemnities, and reimbursements to the insurance companies.
For the discretionary salaries and expenses of the RMA, the Senate-reported bill for FY2016 is
unchanged from the FY2015 appropriation at $74.8 million; the House-reported bill would
provide slightly less at $74.0 million. Neither bill accommodates the Administration’s request for
an increase of $2.1 million for 12 new staff to improve payment compliance efforts. The Senate
report language encourages RMA to research the feasibility of poultry industry-related insurance,
and expand availability of organic price elections for crop policies.
For the mandatory appropriation to the Federal Crop Insurance Fund, the House- and Senate-
reported FY2016 appropriations bills concur with the Administration request for an indefinite
appropriation (“such sums as necessary”) for FCIC. The estimated amount is $8.175 billion for
FY2016, down 8% from FY2015. (The actual amount required to cover program losses and other
subsidies is subject to change based on actual crop losses and farmer participation rates in the
program.) The year-over-year decline is driven by expected lower commodity prices, which
results in a reduced level of premium subsidies.
The House bill would prevent USDA from enforcing a conservation compliance requirement that
was in the 2014 farm bill for the 2016 crop insurance year (§748). For more background about
this rider, see the discussion under “Conservation Compliance.”
57 For more background on commodity certificates, see CRS Report RL34594, Farm Commodity Programs
in the 2008 Farm Bill; USDA fact sheet, “Commodity Certificates,” May 2007, at http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/
FSA_File/comdtycertif07n.pdf; and USDA Economic Research Service, “Farm Policy Glossary,” at http://www.ers.
usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-commodity-policy/farm-policy-glossary.aspx.
58 This section was written by Jim Monke (7-9664, jmonke@crs.loc.gov).
59 For more information, see CRS Report R40532, Federal Crop Insurance: Background.
Congressional Research Service
34
link to page 69 Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Disaster Assistance60
Agricultural-related disaster assistance usually has been funded in emergency supplemental
appropriations or through various mandatory spending programs, and typically has not been
provided through regular appropriations. In recent years, however, disaster assistance has been
incorporated more often into annual appropriations bills as a vehicle for passage.
The House-reported bill repurposes $2.4 million in unobligated balances under the Emergency
Watershed Protection (EWP) program (§742 of H.R. 3049). The unobligated funds originally
were provided in prior year supplemental appropriations that directed funds to specific states,
counties, and disasters, including wildfire recovery in southern California (FY2004), Hurricane
Katrina and other 2005 hurricanes (FY2006), and flooding in the Midwest (FY2007).
Under the EWP program, a national or state emergency does not have to be declared in order to
receive assistance. Funding in recent years, however, has required that EWP funds be used for
necessary expenses resulting from a major disaster declared pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121, et seq.). This allows the funding
to be designated as “disaster funding” and for the purpose of budget scoring is not counted
against the discretionary spending cap. The inclusion of the Stafford Act requirement, however,
limited the number and types of disasters the EWP program is able to respond to.61
The House-reported bill’s $2.4 million allows the funding to be spent according to the purposes of
the program and for disasters occurring in FY2016 or FY2017, to remain available until
expended. The House bill does not include the Stafford Act limitation and therefore is scored
against the discretionary spending cap (see Table 15).
The Senate-reported bill does not contain any disaster assistance or EWP funding.
Conservation62
USDA administers a number of agricultural conservation programs that assist private landowners
with natural resource concerns. These include working land programs, land retirement and
easement programs, watershed programs, technical assistance, and other programs. The two lead
agricultural conservation agencies within USDA are the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS)—which provides technical assistance and administers most programs—and the Farm
Service Agency (FSA)—which administers the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).63
Most conservation program funding is mandatory, funded through the Commodity Credit
Corporation (CCC) and authorized in omnibus farm bills (about $5.3 billion of CCC funds for
conservation in FY2016). Other conservation programs—mostly technical assistance—are
discretionary and funded through annual appropriations.
As discussed below, the House- and Senate-reported bills include the same level of reductions to
mandatory conservation programs as proposed in the Administration’s request, though for
different programs. Both bills propose less than the Administration’s discretionary request.
60 This section was written by Megan Stubbs (7-8707, mstubbs@crs.loc.gov).
61 For additional information on the EWP program and the Stafford Act limitation, see CRS Report R42854,
Emergency Assistance for Agricultural Land Rehabilitation.
62 This section was written by Megan Stubbs (7-8707, mstubbs@crs.loc.gov).
63 For additional information on USDA conservation programs, see CRS Report R40763, Agricultural Conservation: A
Guide to Programs.
Congressional Research Service
35
link to page 41 Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Discretionary Conservation Programs
All discretionary conservation programs are administered by NRCS. The largest program and the
account that funds most NRCS activities is Conservation Operations (CO). The House-reported
bill would provide $833 million for CO and Senate-reported bill $855 million, both more than the
Administration’s request ($831 million). The House proposal is a 1.6% decrease from the
FY2015 amount ($846 million) and the Senate proposal is a 1.0% increase.
Both bills further direct CO funding for a number of conservation programs (Table 9). The
committee reports include a number of congressionally-directed actions, including program
administration, invasive species, wetland mitigation, herbicide resistance, conservation practices,
species protection, and partner agreements. While these actions do not include specific funding,
they ultimately can direct funding to congressionally identified projects similar to earmarks.
Table 9. Conservation Operations Funding
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2015
FY2016
P.L. 113-
Admin.
House
Senate
Program
235
Request
H.R. 3049
S. 1800
Conservation Operations
846
831
833
855
Conservation Technical Assistance
748
733
735
0
Soil Survey
80
80
80
0
Snow Survey
9.3
8.9
8.9
0
Plant Material Center
9.4
9.2
9.1
0
Watershed Projects (Watershed Operations)
5.6
0
0
10.6
Conservation Delivery Streamlining Initiative
1.5
14.7
1.5
0
Source: CRS, from H.R. 3049, S. 1800, H.Rept. 114-205, and S.Rept. 114-82.
Notes: Lack of a specific funding level may only mean an absence of being mentioned in FY2016 report language.
Funding also is provided in the House-reported bill (and in FY2015 and the 2014 farm bill) for
the Watershed Rehabilitation program to repair aging dams previously built by USDA.64 The
Administration proposed no funding for this program, contending that the maintenance, repair,
and operation of dams are local responsibilities. The enacted FY2015 appropriation included $12
million for the program, and the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79) added an additional $250 million in
mandatory funding for FY2014 to remain available until expended.65 H.R. 3049 would provide $6
million for FY2016. S. 1800 includes no funding for the program.
Mandatory Conservation Programs
Mandatory conservation programs generally are authorized in omnibus farm bills and receive
funding from the CCC, thus not requiring an annual appropriation. 66 But Congress has reduced
64 See CRS Report RL30478, Federally Supported Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment Programs.
65 Mandatory funding for the program was restricted in the FY2015 appropriation. Approximately $69 million (before
sequestration) remains unobligated and available in FY2016. Additional restrictions, however, are proposed in both the
House- and Senate-reported bills and discussed further in the next section.
66 For authorized funding and background, see CRS Report R40763, Agricultural Conservation: A Guide to Programs.
Congressional Research Service
36
link to page 67 link to page 79 link to page 65 link to page 65 Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
mandatory conservation programs through changes in mandatory program spending (CHIMPS) in
the annual agricultural appropriations law every year since FY2003. Because money is fungible,
the savings from these reductions are not necessarily applied toward other conservation activities.
The Administration’s annual request historically has included proposed reductions to conservation
funding, usually more substantial than Congress has supported. The House- and Senate-reported
bills, as well as the Administration’s proposal, would continue the CHIMPS to farm bill
conservation programs, each including a total of $255 million.67 Sequestration would further
reduce these and other mandatory conservation programs in FY2016, resulting in an estimated
total reduction of $526 million, or roughly 10% of all mandatory conservation funding.68
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 FY2016, the mix of programs reduced is similar to previous
years––EQIP, Watershed Rehabilitation Program, and Conservation Stewardship Program.69 The
Administration’s proposal and both bills reduce the three aforementioned programs in varying
amounts, but result in the same total CHIMPS. What varies most is the use of rescissions.
Unlike CHIMPS, which apply only to the current fiscal year and do not typically change or
permanently cancel the statutory funding authority, a rescission is a permanent cancellation of
budget authority. The 2014 farm bill amended mandatory funding for several conservation
programs, allowing unobligated funds from previous years to be carried forward until expended
or expired. This new provision allows not only unobligated funding to be carried forward to the
next fiscal year, but prior year's CHIMPS as well. Therefore, not only are current-year mandatory
funds subject to sequestration and CHIMPS, but so are unobligated prior-year funds and prior-
year CHIMPS. The Administration's request includes over $320 million in conservation-related
rescissions (funding that would be permanently cancelled and not carried forward), compared to
$68 million rescinded in the Senate-reported bill and none in the House-reported bill.
Conservation Compliance
Conservation compliance is a provision requiring producers to maintain a minimum level of
conservation on highly erodible land and not to convert wetlands to crop production in exchange
for certain USDA program benefits.70 The 2014 farm bill amended the conservation compliance
requirement, adding federal crop insurance subsidies to the list of program benefits that could be
lost if a producer were found out of compliance. The House-reported bill (§748) would delay the
implementation of conservation compliance for federal crop insurance subsidies in the 2016
reinsurance year. The Senate-reported bill does not contain a comparable provision.
67 The Administration’s proposal and House- and Senate-reported bills propose a total of $255 million in CHIMPS
from conservation programs. This total appears different than those presented in Table 13. CBO was not consistent in
scoring the Senate-reported bill and the Administration’s proposal, giving credit for a level of CHIMPS that was not
available to the House-reported bill because of sequestration. If sequestration were included consistently, all three
would reduce conservation programs by the same amount. It is the mix of programs and level of rescissions that differ.
68 OMB estimates a 6.8% level of sequestration for non-exempt, non-defense mandatory accounts. See Appendix B.
69 For more on CHIMPS generally and historically, see the heading, “Changes in Mandatory Program Spending
(CHIMPS).” For more about conservation program reductions, see CRS In Focus IF10041, Reductions to Mandatory
Agricultural Conservation Programs in Appropriations Law.
70 For more about conservation compliance, see CRS Report R42459, Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy.
Congressional Research Service
37
link to page 46 link to page 46 Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
USDA conducted a public outreach campaign aimed at certifying producer’s compliance with the
conservation requirements before the crop insurance year deadline of June 1, 2015. In July 2015,
following the certification deadline, USDA reported a 98.2% certification rate.71 Supporters of
conservation compliance contend that the high compliance certification indicates that the House-
reported bill’s provision is not necessary. Some producer groups, however, contend that additional
time is needed for producers who are unaware of the deadline to certify compliance.
Rural Development72
Three agencies are responsible for USDA’s rural development mission area: the Rural Housing
Service (RHS), the Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS), and the Rural Utilities Service
(RUS). An Office of Community Development provides community development support
through field offices. This mission area also administers Rural Economic Area Partnerships and
the National Rural Development Partnership.
The House-reported bill (H.R. 3049) and the Senate-reported bill (S. 1800) would each provide a
total of $2.49 billion in discretionary budget authority for rural development programs in
FY2016.73 This is approximately $90 million more than enacted for FY2015, and $110 million
less than requested by the Administration (Table 10). The Senate bill would support $37.2 billion
in loan authority and the House bill would support $35.9 billion.
Salaries and expenses within Rural Development are funded from a direct appropriation plus
transfers from each of the agencies. The House bill would provide a combined salaries and
expenses total of $679.2 million for FY2016, about $1 million more than in FY2015. The Senate
bill would provide $682.7 million in salaries and expenses.
Rural Housing Service (RHS)
For FY2016, the House bill provides $1.79 billion in budget authority for RHS programs (before
transfers). This is approximately $73 million (+4.3%) more than FY2015. The Senate bill would
also provide $1.78 billion. With this budget authority, the two bills would provide approximately
$27.5 billion in loan authority, essentially the same as the FY2015 total loan authority.
The single-family housing loan program (Section 502 of the Housing Act of 1949) is the largest
activity, representing over 90% of RHS’s total loan authority. Both the Senate and House bills
would provide $900 million for direct loans and $24 billion for guarantees, the same as FY2015.
For other housing loan programs, both the House and Senate bills would provide $3.4 million in
budget authority to support $26.3 million in loans for the Section 504 Very Low-Income Housing
Repair loan program, approximately the same as FY2015 and as requested by the Administration.
For the Multi-Family Housing loan guarantee program (Section 538), the House bill would
provide $150 million of loan authority (the same as for FY2015) and the Senate bill would
provide $200 million. For the Section 515 Rental Housing Program, both the House and Senate
bills would provide loan authority of $28.4 million and $8.4 million in subsidies (the loan
authority is the same as FY2015, but 33% less than the Administration requested).
71 The 1.8% uncertified represents approximately 10,000 of the total 561,000 crop insurance policy holders nationwide.
USDA suggested that non-certifiers were likely no longer farming or filed forms with errors that may still be resolved.
72 This section was written by Tadlock Cowan (7-7600, tcowan@crs.loc.gov).
73 If the rescission to the Cushion of Credit account (-$154 million in the House bill and -$182 million in the Senate
bill) is not incorporated in the rural development section but included with changes in mandatory spending, as shown in
this report and the CBO score, then the net budget authority would be approximately $2.65 billion (Table 10).
Congressional Research Service
38
link to page 46 Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Rental Assistance Program grants (Section 521) are the largest budget authority line item in RHS,
accounting for about 65% of the total (Table 10). Both the House and Senate bills would provide
$1.16 billion in new budget authority, an increase of $78.5 million from FY2015 (+7.2%).
For the Multi-Family Revitalization program, both bills would provide a total of $24 million, $10
million less than the request and the same as for FY2015.
The Rural Housing Service also administers the Rural Community Facilities program, which
provides direct loans, loan guarantees, and grants for “essential community facilities” in rural
areas with less than 20,000 people. The House bill would provide $30.3 million, of which $3.5
million would support a direct and guaranteed loan authorization level of $2.34 billion and the
rest for grants, all the same as for FY2015. The Senate bill would provide slightly less,
particularly for guaranteed loans; $28.7 million, of which $2 million would support $2.28 billion
of loans and the rest for grants. The Administration requested to shift away from loans, but both
bills rejected that idea and continued the historical ratio. Besides $13 million of facilities grants,
the program also supports economic development programs. The House and Senate bills would
provide the same amounts for the Rural Community Development Initiative ($4 million),
Economic Impact Initiative grants ($5.8 million), and Tribal College Grants ($4 million).
Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS)
The House-reported bill would provide $91.5 million to the RBS before the “cushion of credit”74
rescission and transfers; the Senate bill is slightly more at $95.9 million.75 These are less than
FY2015. The House bill would support $985 million in loan authority for the various RBS loan
programs, and the Senate bill slightly more at $994 million in loan authority.
For the Rural Business Program account, with the exception of the Delta Regional Authority, both
the House and Senate bills would provide $59.7 million in new budget authority, $11.3 million
less than FY2015. This includes the Business and Industry (B&I) Loan Guarantee program ($35.6
million of loan subsidy to support $920 million of guaranteed loans), and the Rural Business
Development Grant program ($24 million).76 The Senate bill would continue $3 million for the
Delta Regional Authority, while the House follows the Administration’s request for no funding.
For Rural Cooperative Development Grants, the House bill would provide $21.3 million and the
Senate bill $22.05 million. These include cooperative development ($5.8 million), Appropriate
Technology Transfer for Rural Areas ($2.5 million), grants to assist minority producers ($3
million), and Value-Added Product Development grants ($10 million in the House bill, $10.75
million in the Senate bill). With the exception of a $750,000 reduction in Value-Added grants in
the House bill, these are the same levels of funding as in FY2015.
For the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP), the House bill would provide $842,000 for
loan subsidies to support $12.8 million in loans. This is the same loan authorization level as
FY2015, but with less budget authority. The Senate bill would provide 41% less in loan authority
($500,000 in budget authority to support $7.6 million in REAP loans). As in FY2015, there is no
appropriation in either bill for REAP grants. The Administration had requested $5 million.
74 For certain RBS loans, borrowers may forward pay into a Treasury account that earns interest. Appropriators
authorize a loan level, and the needed budget authority comes from the interest earned rather than new appropriations.
A rescission of the cushion of credit account reduces the amount that remains available for the program to spend.
75 If the cushion of credit rescission is incorporated as in the Appropriations committee tables (-$154 million in the
House bill, -$182 million in the Senate bill), the net RBS budget authority provided would be negative.
76 Business Development grants combine Rural Business Enterprise grants and Rural Business Opportunity grants.
Congressional Research Service
39
link to page 46 Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
The Administration requested funding for two new business programs: the Rural Business
Investment Program ($6 million) and the Healthy Food Financing Initiative (HFFI, $13 million).
The former was authorized in the 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171, §6029) but was not implemented.
The HFFI was authorized in the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79, §4206). The Administration also
requested $4.8 million for the Rural Microenterprise Assistance Program. The House bill would
not fund any of these programs. The Senate bill would provide $1 million for the HFFI.
Rural Utilities Service (RUS)
For FY2016, the House bill would provide $544 million in new budget authority for the Rural
Utilities Service before transferring salaries and expenses, about $8 million more than FY2015.
This level would support $7.5 billion in loan authorization (Table 10). The Senate bill would
provide more than the House bill: $568 million in new budget authority (+4% compared with the
House bill) to support $8.7 billion in loan authority (+17% compared to the House).
The Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program account is 87% of the RUS appropriation. The
House bill would provide $474 million in budget authority, $9 million more than FY2015 and $9
million less than the Administration requested. The Senate bill would provide $497 million, $23
million more than the House. Both bills would support $1.25 billion in direct and guaranteed
loans. Differences between the bills reside among the grant programs, as noted below:
Water/Waste Water grants ($337.1 million House; $347.1 million Senate),
Grants for Colonias,77 and Alaska and Hawaii Natives ($54.2 million House;
$66.5 million Senate),
Technical Assistance ($19 million in both),
Circuit Rider program ($15.9 million House; $16.5 million Senate),
High Energy Cost grants ($0 House; $10 million Senate),
Emergency Community Water Assistance Grants ($10 million House; $0 Senate),
Solid Waste Management grants ($4.0 million in both),
Water and Waste Water revolving fund ($1.0 million in both),
Individual Well Water grants ($993,000 in both).
The House-reported bill would provide $5.5 billion in rural electric loan authority ($6.7 billion in
the Senate) and $690 million for Treasury rate telecommunication loans (same in the Senate).
For the combined distance learning, telemedicine, and broadband account, the House bill would
provide $35.6 million in budget authority, $1.2 million less than for FY2015. The Senate bill
would provide $36.8 million, the same as for FY2015.
For distance learning/telemedicine, the House bill would provide $20.0 million in
grants, $2 million less than FY2015. The Senate bill would provide $22 million.
For rural broadband grants, both House and Senate bills would provide $10.4
million, the same as FY2015. For loans, the House bill would provide $5.2
million to subsidize $24.1 million in direct loans, the same loan level as FY2015.
The Senate bill would provide 14.5% less than the House for such loans.
77 Colonias generally are described as unincorporated communities or housing developments on the U.S. side of the
U.S.-Mexico border that lack some or all basic infrastructure, including plumbing and public water and sewer.
Congressional Research Service
40
link to page 50 link to page 50 link to page 50 link to page 50
Table 10. USDA Rural Development Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
Change from FY2015
Senate
Compared
P.L. 113-6
P.L. 113-
Admin.
H.Cmte.
S.Cmte. in House
in Senate
With
Summary
post-sequ. P.L. 113-76
235
Request
H.R. 3049
S. 1800
Bill
Bill
House
Salaries and expenses (direct)
192.1
203.4
224.2
226.7
222.7
228.7
-1.5
+4.5
+6.0
Transfers from RHS, RBCS, RUS
420.9
454.0
454.0
458.9
456.5
454.0
+2.5
+0.0
-2.5
Subtotal, salaries and exp.
613.0
657.4
678.2
685.6
679.2
682.7
+1.0
+4.5
+3.5
Programs
1. Rural Housing Service
1,031.1
1,279.6
1,298.4
1,394.7
1,368.7
1,367.2
+70.4
+68.8
-1.6
2. Rural Business-Cooperative Servicea
114.2
130.2
103.2
138.7
87.0
91.5
-16.2
-11.8
+4.4
3. Rural Utilities Service
520.8
501.6
501.7
538.4
509.7
533.7
+8.0
+32.0
+24.0
Office of the Under Secretary
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
-0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Total, Rural Development
2,279.9
2,569.7
2,582.4
2,758.4
2,645.6
2,675.9
+63.2
+93.5
+30.3
Alternate total (including rescissions)a
Less rescission of Cushion of Credit
-180.0
-172.0
-179.0
-154.0
-154.0
-182.0
+25.0
-3.0
-28.0
Net, Rural Development (in cmte. rept.)
2,099.9
2,397.7
2,403.4
2,604.4
2,491.6
2,493.9
+88.2
+90.5
+2.3
1. Rural Housing Service
Administrative expenses (transfer)
383.3
415.1
415.1
419.5
417.9
415.1
+2.8
+0.0
-2.8
Single family direct loans (Sec. 502)
50.2
24.5
66.4
60.8
60.8
60.8
-5.7
-5.7
+0.0
Loan authority
840.1
900.0
900.0
900.0
900.0
900.0
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
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
Other RHIF programsc
29.3
22.8
29.4
31.1
27.0
26.9
-2.5
-2.5
-0.1
Loan authority
241.7
248.6
248.3
307.4
248.5
298.3
+0.3
+50.0
+49.7
Subtotal, RHIF
462.7
462.4
510.9
511.4
505.6
502.7
-5.4
-8.2
-2.8
Loan authority
25,081.8
25,148.6
25,148.3
25,207.4
25,148.5
25,198.3
+0.3
+50.0
+49.7
CRS-41
link to page 50
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
Change from FY2015
Senate
Compared
P.L. 113-6
P.L. 113-
Admin.
H.Cmte.
S.Cmte. in House
in Senate
With
Summary
post-sequ. P.L. 113-76
235
Request
H.R. 3049
S. 1800
Bill
Bill
House
Other housing programs
Rental assistance (Sec. 521)
834.3
1,110.0
1,088.5
1,171.9
1,167.0
1,167.0
+78.5
+78.5
+0.0
Other rental assistanced
2.8
—
—
—
—
—
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Multifamily housing revitalization
26.4
32.6
24.0
34.0
24.0
24.0
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Mutual & self-help housing grants
27.7
25.0
27.5
10.0
27.5
27.5
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Rural housing assistance grants
30.6
32.2
32.2
25.0
32.2
32.2
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Rural Community Facilities Program
Community Facilities: Grants
12.1
13.0
13.0
50.0
13.0
13.0
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Community Facilities: Direct loan authority
2,200.0
2,200.0
2,200.0
2,200.0
2,200.0
2,200.0
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Community Facilities: Guarantees
3.6
3.8
3.5
—
3.5
2.0
+0.0
-1.5
-1.5
Loan authority
53.3
59.5
73.2
—
148.3
84.7
+75.1
+11.5
-63.6
Rural community dev. initiative
5.7
6.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Economic impact initiative grants
5.5
5.8
5.8
—
5.8
5.8
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Tribal col ege grants
3.1
4.0
4.0
8.0
4.0
4.0
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Subtotal, Rural Community Facilities
30.0
32.5
30.3
62.0
30.3
28.8
+0.0
-1.5
-1.5
Loan authority
2,253.3
2,259.5
2,273.2
2,200.0
2,348.3
2,284.7
+75.1
+11.5
-63.6
Total, Rural Housing Service
1,414.3
1,694.7
1,713.5
1,814.3
1,786.6
1,782.3
+73.1
+68.8
-4.3
Less transfer salaries & expenses
-383.3
-415.1
-415.1
-419.5
-417.9
-415.1
-2.8
+0.0
+2.8
Rural Housing Service (programs)
1,031.1
1,279.6
1,298.4
1,394.7
1,368.7
1,367.2
+70.4
+68.8
-1.6
Loan authority
27,335.1
27,408.1
27,421.5
27,407.4
27,496.8
27,483.0
+75.3
+61.5
-13.8
CRS-42
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
Change from FY2015
Senate
Compared
P.L. 113-6
P.L. 113-
Admin.
H.Cmte.
S.Cmte. in House
in Senate
With
Summary
post-sequ. P.L. 113-76
235
Request
H.R. 3049
S. 1800
Bill
Bill
House
2. Rural Business Cooperative Service
Rural Business Program Account
Guar. Bus. & Ind. (B&I) Loans
52.3
67.0
47.0
31.4
35.7
35.7
-11.3
-11.3
+0.0
Loan authority
890.2
958.1
919.8
758.2
919.8
919.8
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Rural bus. enterprise grants
22.6
24.3
24.0
30.0
24.0
24.0
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Rural bus. opportunity grants
2.1
2.3
—
—
—
—
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Delta regional authority grants
2.8
3.0
3.0
—
—
3.0
-3.0
+0.0
+3.0
Rural child poverty
—
—
—
20.0
—
—
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Rural Development Loan Fund Program
Admin. expenses (transfer)
4.1
4.4
4.4
4.5
4.4
4.4
-0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Loan subsidy
5.6
4.1
5.8
2.8
5.2
5.2
-0.6
-0.6
+0.0
Loan authority
17.4
18.9
18.9
10.0
18.9
18.9
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Rural Econ. Dev.: Loan authority
33.1
33.1
33.1
85.0
33.1
48.0
+0.0
+14.9
+14.9
Rural coop. development grants
25.7
26.1
22.1
21.1
21.3
22.1
-0.8
+0.0
+0.8
Rural Microenterprise Inv.: Grants
—
—
—
2.0
—
—
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Rural Microenterprise: Loan subsidy
—
—
—
2.7
—
—
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Loan authority
—
—
—
23.4
—
—
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Rural Business Invest. Program: Grants
—
—
—
2.0
—
—
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Loan subsidy
—
—
—
4.0
—
—
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Loan authority
—
—
—
41.2
—
—
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
CRS-43
link to page 50 link to page 50
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
Change from FY2015
Senate
Compared
P.L. 113-6
P.L. 113-
Admin.
H.Cmte.
S.Cmte. in House
in Senate
With
Summary
post-sequ. P.L. 113-76
235
Request
H.R. 3049
S. 1800
Bill
Bill
House
Rural Energy for America: Grants
—
—
—
5.0
—
—
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Loan subsidy
3.1
3.5
1.4
5.0
0.8
0.5
-0.5
-0.9
-0.3
Loan authority
13.1
12.8
12.8
75.8
12.8
7.6
+0.0
-5.2
-5.2
Healthy Foods Healthy Neighborhoods Initiative
—
—
—
12.8
—
1.0
+0.0
+1.0
+1.0
Total, Rural Business-Coop. Service
118.3
134.6
107.7
143.2
91.5
95.9
-16.2
-11.8
+4.4
Less transfer salaries & exp.
-4.1
-4.4
-4.4
-4.5
-4.4
-4.4
+0.0
+0.0
-0.0
Rural Bus.-Coop. Service (programs)a
114.2
130.2
103.2
138.7
87.0
91.5
-16.2
-11.8
+4.4
Loan authority
953.7
1,022.8
984.5
993.6
984.5
994.2
+0.0
+9.8
+9.8
Alternate total (including rescission)a
Total, Rural Business-Cooperative Service
118.3
134.6
107.7
143.2
91.5
95.9
-16.2
-11.8
+4.4
Less rescission of Cushion of Credit
-180.0
-172.0
-179.0
-154.0
-154.0
-182.0
+25.0
-3.0
-28.0
Net, Rural Bus.-Coop. Svc. (cmte. rept.)
-61.7
-37.4
-71.3
-10.8
-62.5
-86.1
+8.8
-14.8
-23.6
3. Rural Utilities Service
Rural Water & Waste Disposal Program
Loan subsidy and grants
484.5
462.4
464.9
483.3
473.9
496.7
+9.0
+31.9
+22.8
Direct loan authority
923.7
1,200.0
1,200.0
1,200.0
1,200.0
1,200.0
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
P.L. 83-566 loans
40.0
40.0
—
—
—
—
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Guaranteed loan authority
56.6
50.0
50.0
—
50.0
50.0
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Rural Electric and Telecom. Loans
Admin. expenses (transfer)
33.5
34.5
34.5
34.9
34.2
34.5
-0.2
+0.0
+0.2
Telecommunication loan subsidy
—
—
—
0.1
0.2
0.1
+0.2
+0.1
-0.1
Telecommunication loan authority
690.0
690.0
690.0
690.0
690.0
690.0
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
CRS-44
link to page 67
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
Change from FY2015
Senate
Compared
P.L. 113-6
P.L. 113-
Admin.
H.Cmte.
S.Cmte. in House
in Senate
With
Summary
post-sequ. P.L. 113-76
235
Request
H.R. 3049
S. 1800
Bill
Bill
House
Electricity loan authority
7,100.0
5,500.0
5,500.0
6,000.0
5,500.0
6,750.0
+0.0
+1,250.0
+1,250.0
Distance Learning, Telemed., Broadband
Distance learning & telemedicine
23.1
24.3
22.0
25.0
20.0
22.0
-2.0
+0.0
+2.0
Broadband: Grants
9.6
10.4
10.4
20.4
10.4
10.4
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Broadband: Direct loan subsidy
3.7
4.5
4.5
9.7
5.3
4.5
+0.8
+0.0
-0.8
Direct loan authority
39.1
34.5
24.1
44.2
24.1
20.6
+0.0
-3.5
-3.5
Subtotal, Rural Utilities Service
554.3
536.0
536.2
573.3
544.0
568.2
+7.8
+32.0
+24.2
Less transfer salaries & exp.
-33.5
-34.5
-34.5
-34.9
-34.2
-34.5
+0.2
+0.0
-0.2
Total, Rural Utilities Service
520.8
501.6
501.7
538.4
509.7
533.7
+8.0
+32.0
+24.0
Loan authority
8,849.4
7,514.5
7,464.1
7,934.2
7,464.1
8,710.6
+0.0
+1,246.5
+1,246.5
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports for the referenced appropriations acts or bil s. Amounts for FY2013 are
the post-sequestration level from the USDA FY2013 Operating Plan.
Notes: Loan authority is the amount of loans that can be made and is not added to budget authority in the totals.
a. Amounts for the Rural Business Cooperative Service in this report are before the rescission from the Cushion of Credit account. This allows the agency total to
remain positive. Appropriations Committee report tables show the rescission in the agency section, causing the agency total to be less than zero. This CRS report
includes the Cushion of Credit rescission in the General Provisions section with changes in mandatory spending, as it is scored by CBO (Table 13).
b. This program became self-funding after enactment of loan guarantee fees being charged to banks that are sufficient to cover the loan subsidy.
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-45
link to page 57 Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Domestic Food Assistance78
Domestic food assistance represents over two-thirds of USDA’s budget. Funding is largely for
open-ended appropriated mandatory programs; that is, it varies with program participation and in
some cases inflation. The biggest mandatory programs include the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly the Food Stamps Program) and the child nutrition programs
(including the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program).
The three 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.79
For FY2016, both the House- and Senate-reported bills would provide over $110 billion for
domestic food assistance (Table 11). The Senate-reported bill would provide about $65 million
more than the House-reported bill, largely due to WIC and child nutrition grant programs. Both
bills’ report language include further information about the domestic food assistance programs,
including general provisions, oversight concerns, and in some cases instructions to USDA.
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services
For FY2016, the House-reported bill would provide $811,000 and the Senate-reported bill would
provide $816,000. This office received $816,000 in FY2015.
In committee report language for this office, the House committee noted concerns with FNS’s
research and evaluation agenda. Particularly, the committee would like to see better coordination
with USDA’s Research, Education, and Economics (REE) mission area. The House-reported bill
(§735) would require the Secretary to submit to the appropriations committees a FY2016 research
and evaluation plan prepared in coordination with REE before using the bill’s funding to
commence any new research and evaluation projects. The Senate-reported bill does not include
this research policy in its legislation or its committee report. The House report also “urged” FNS
to recognize in publications and regulations “the nutritional benefits provided by all forms of
fruits, vegetables, and beans, whether canned, dried, fresh or frozen.”
SNAP and Other Programs under the Food and Nutrition Act
Appropriations under the Food and Nutrition Act (formerly the Food Stamp Act) support (1)
SNAP (and related grants), (2) a Nutrition Assistance Block Grant for Puerto Rico and nutrition
assistance block grants to American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands (all in lieu of the SNAP), (3) the cost of food commodities as well as administrative and
distribution expenses under the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR), (4)
the cost of commodities for The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) (but not
administrative/distribution expenses, which are covered under the Commodity Assistance
Program budget account), and (5) Community Food Projects.
Both the House-reported and Senate-reported bills would provide over $81.6 billion for programs
under the Food and Nutrition Act, with the House-reported bill providing approximately $9
million less than the Senate. These funding amounts are about $180 million less than FY2015
appropriations (less than a 1% decrease), largely due to an estimated reduction in spending on
78 This section was written by Randy Alison Aussenberg (7-8641, raussenberg@crs.loc.gov).
79 For background about the programs, see CRS Report R42353, Domestic Food Assistance: Summary of Programs.
Congressional Research Service
46
link to page 56 Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
SNAP benefits.80 The proposed appropriations would provide $3 billion for the SNAP
contingency reserve fund, equal to past appropriations but less than the $5 billion requested by
the Administration. The Administration has requested less for SNAP benefits than in FY2015 due
to a forecast of a slight decrease in participation.81
Reported FY2016 appropriations bills for the SNAP account also reflect the funding increases
authorized by the 2014 farm bill, such as those for TEFAP and Community Food Projects.82
The House committee report includes SNAP-related language supporting the 2014 farm bill’s
policies regarding employment verification and program recruitment restrictions. House report
language also directs FNS to assist states that have a compressed benefit issuance schedule and to
report to the House and Senate Appropriations committees on these states’ progress.
Child Nutrition Programs83
Appropriations under the child nutrition account fund a number of programs and activities
covered by the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition Act. These
include the National School Lunch Program, School Breakfast Program, Child and Adult Care
Food Program (CACFP), Summer Food Service Program, Special Milk Program, assistance for
child-nutrition-related state administrative expenses (SAE), procurement of commodities for child
nutrition programs (in addition to transfers from separate budget accounts within USDA), 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 FY2016 reported bills would provide approximately $21.5 billion for child nutrition
programs, with the House-reported bill including $17 million (<1%) less than the Senate-reported
bill. This proposed level is 1% more than the amount provided in FY2015, and includes transfers
from the Section 32 account.
The Administration requested funds for certain child nutrition discretionary grants. The House-
and Senate-reported bills propose to fund these grants differently:
School Meals Equipment and Breakfast Expansion grants. The House-
reported bill would provide $20 million for this purpose, while the Senate-
reported bill would provide $25 million. The Administration requested $35
million for FY2016. $25 million was provided in FY2015.
Summer EBT Demonstration Projects. These programs provide food benefits
over summer months to households with children to make up for school meals
that children miss when school is out of session and as an alternative to the
Summer Food Service Program meals. These projects originally were authorized
and funded in the FY2010 appropriation (P.L. 111-80) and most recently received
80 As an appropriated, open-ended mandatory program, SNAP funding is not the same as SNAP spending. SNAP
regularly receives annual appropriations that are greater than the amount that the program spends. Better measures for
SNAP program spending are from USDA-FNS’s costs data, available at http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPmain.htm.
81 USDA-FNS Congressional Budget Justification, page “32-87,” at http://www.obpa.usda.gov/32fns2016notes.pdf.
82 See CRS Report R43332, SNAP and Related Nutrition Provisions of the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79).
83 Further background on these programs and related funding is provided in CRS Report R43783, School Meals
Programs and Other USDA Child Nutrition Programs: A Primer.
Congressional Research Service
47
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
$16 million in FY2015. The Administration requested approximately $67 million
to continue these projects in FY2016, continuing to cite the positive results of
these demonstrations. 84 The House-reported bill would provide $12 million,
while the Senate-reported bill would provide $16 million.
The House committee report includes language emphasizing that expansion of the Summer EBT
program should be addressed to authorizing committees and expresses the committee’s concern
with improper payments in the programs. The Senate report states that the committee expects that
the food safety education activities will be carried out by the National Food Service Management
Institute.
Child Nutrition Policies in General Provisions
Both the House- and Senate-reported bills would continue the school meals nutrition standards
language that was included in the general provisions of the FY2015 appropriations law:85
Exemptions from whole grain rules (House bill §732; Senate bill §745(a)).
This language would require USDA to allow states to exempt school food
authorities (typically school districts) from the 100% whole grain requirements,
if they “demonstrate hardship, including financial hardship, in procuring specific
whole grain products which are acceptable to the students and compliant with the
whole grain-rich requirements.” The provision, however, requires such exempted
authorities to maintain a 50% whole grain minimum, the requirement in place
prior to school year 2014-2015. The FY2015 appropriation requires availability
of these exemptions through school year 2015-2016; the House- and Senate-
reported bills would continue exemptions through school year 2016-2017.86
Scientific basis for sodium limits (House bill §733; Senate bill §745(b)). This policy
rider would prevent USDA from implementing regulations that require the reduction of
sodium in “federally reimbursed meals, foods, and snacks sold in schools” below the
“Target 1” limits until “the latest scientific research establishes the reduction is beneficial
for children.” (Note: According to the school meals regulations published in January
2012, a lower “Target 2” is to take effect during school year 2017-2018, and a still lower
“Target 3” in school year 2022-2023.87)
In addition, only the House-reported bill includes a policy rider (§729) to prevent any processed
poultry imported from China from being included in the National School Lunch Program, School
Breakfast Program, Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), and Summer Food Service
Program. This provision also was in the FY2015 enacted appropriation.
The full impact and scope of these child nutrition provisions are subject to USDA’s (and perhaps
states’) interpretation and implementation.
84 See USDA-FNS FY2016 Congressional Budget Justification, p. “32-24” for more details on this request. For the
FY2010 funding and evaluations, see also USDA-FNS website, “Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer for Children
(SEBTC)” http://www.fns.usda.gov/ops/summer-electronic-benefit-transfer-children-sebtc.
85 For background on the updated nutrition standards, see pp. 29-30 of CRS Report R43783, School Meals Programs
and Other USDA Child Nutrition Programs: A Primer. For a discussion of the FY2015 appropriation, see p. 54 of CRS
Report R43669, Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations.
86 For USDA’s implementation of the FY2015 provision, see USDA-FNS, “Requests for Exemption from the School
Meals’ Whole Grain-rich Requirement for School years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016,” http://www.fns.usda.gov/requests-
exemption-school-meals%E2%80%99-whole-grain-rich-requirement-school-years-2014-2015-and-2015-2016.
87 See 7 C.F.R. 210.10(f)(3), 220.8(f)(3).
Congressional Research Service
48
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Significance of September 30, 2015 for Activities (Re)authorized by the
Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-296)88
The 2010 reauthorization of the Child Nutrition and WIC programs contains a number of authorizations of
appropriations and authorizations with September 30, 2015, end dates, but most program operations can
continue so long as funding is provided.
Many of the programs’ authorizing provisions are permanent (i.e., they do not have an expiration date
associated with them). This is the case for the main functions of NSLP, SBP, CACFP, and Special Milk.
Other programs, including SFSP, WIC, WIC FMNP, and the State Administrative Expenses (funding for states’
operation of certain programs), face an expiration date of September 30, 2015, for the authorization of their
appropriations. However, even without an authorization extension beyond that date, Congress can stil
choose to provide funding via the appropriations process, allowing these programs to continue to operate.
Several policies set to expire after September 30, 2015—not authorizations of appropriations—could be
affected if their authorizing dates are not changed. These are not major program functions, but have interested
stakeholders. This list includes a California program to provide SFSP food year-round, certain food safety
audits, and preappropriated funds for a National Hunger Clearinghouse.
WIC Program
While SNAP and the child nutrition programs are appropriated mandatory programs, WIC is a
discretionary program with funding entirely at Congress’s annual discretion. Unlike the
appropriated entitlements, an inadequate appropriation for the WIC program could reduce the
number of pregnant and postpartum women, infants, and children served. Since the late 1990s,
the appropriations committees’ practice has been to provide enough funds for WIC to serve all
who are eligible.89
The House-reported bill would provide approximately $6.48 billion for WIC, a decrease of $139
million (-2%) from FY2015 appropriations. The Senate-reported bill would provide
approximately $6.51 billion, a decrease of $110 million (-2%) from FY2015 appropriations.
The House and Senate bills both include set-asides for WIC breastfeeding peer counselors and
related activities (“not less than $60 million”), infrastructure (approximately $14 million), and
management information systems ($55 million). This is equal to FY2015 set-asides for
breastfeeding peer counselors and infrastructure in FY2015, but varies slightly for management
information systems. (The FY2015 appropriation included a $25 million set-aside for
transitioning WIC programs to EBT in addition to $30 million for management information
systems generally; the FY2016 bills would include both of these purposes in one set-aside.90)
The House committee report includes language explaining that the funding level provided is due
to decreasing WIC participation and available carryover funding; the committee’s support for a
WIC transition to EBT; appreciation for USDA’s inclusion of all fruits and vegetables following
FY2015 appropriation actions on the issue;91 instructions for USDA to provide a report on efforts
88 For background, including a list of affected or potentially affected provisions, CRS has released a congressional
memorandum. Congressional clients may request a copy from Randy Alison Aussenberg at raussenberg@crs.loc.gov.
89 USDA Economic Research Service, “Anecdotal Evidence Suggest That WIC Became Fully Funded Sometime in the
Late 1990s,” in The WIC Program: Background, Trends, and Economic Issues, 2015 Edition, EIB-134, January 2015,
p. 19.
90 The Healthy, Hunger-free Kids Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-296) requires states to transition WIC vouchers to EBT by the
end of FY2020. See CRS Report R44115, A Primer on WIC: The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants, and Children, for more information on this transition.
91 For a summary of the history of the controversy over white potatoes, please see Appendix B of CRS Report R44115,
A Primer on WIC: The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.
Congressional Research Service
49
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
to ensure that income eligibility standards are followed and encouraging the use of income
verification systems; direction for USDA to submit a report on their responses to the OIG’s
September 2014 audit on state food costs; and instruction for FNS to provide a report on the
agencies’ efforts to reduce the sale of WIC benefits and infant formula. The Senate report
includes the committee’s interest that the next update on WIC-eligible foods (the WIC “food
package”) includes more fish, including wild salmon.
Commodity Assistance Program
The Commodity Assistance Program budget account supports several discretionary programs and
activities: (1) the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), (2) funding for TEFAP
administrative and distribution costs, (3) the WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program (FMNP),
and (4) special Pacific Island assistance for nuclear-test-affected zones in the Pacific (the
Marshall Islands) and in the case of natural disasters.
Both reported bills would provide approximately $288 million for this account, an increase of
nearly $10 million (+4%) from the FY2015 appropriation. The reported bills’ increase is due to
the 5% increase for CSFP. In the reported bills, all of the other programs in this account would
receive funding equal to the FY2015 appropriation.
Nutrition Programs Administration
This budget account covers spending for federal administration of all the USDA domestic food
assistance program areas noted above; special projects for improving the integrity and quality of
these programs; and the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion (CNPP), which provides
nutrition education and information to consumers (including various dietary guides).
The House-reported bill would provide approximately $141 million for this account, a reduction
of $9.5 million (-6%) from the FY2015 level. The Senate-reported bill would provide
approximately $152 million, an increase of $1 million (+1%) from FY2015.
General Provisions on the Formulation of the Dietary Guidelines92
The Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) are federally-developed food-based
recommendations for Americans ages 2 years and older, designed to promote health and prevent
disease. The DGA form the basis of federal nutrition policy, education, outreach, and food
assistance programs. They provide the scientific basis for government recommendations and are
used in the development of educational materials, messages, tools, and programs to communicate
healthy eating and physical activity information to the public.
CNPP is funded through the Nutrition Program Administration account and is the USDA office
that leads the policy development of the DGA. CNPP and the Office of Disease Prevention and
Health Promotion (ODPHP) within HHS, jointly issue the DGA policy document every five years
(since 1980), with the lead role alternating between the two departments. HHS and USDA are
currently developing the eighth edition (2015), with publication expected this year.93 HHS has the
administrative lead for the 2015 DGA. Over the last year, the development of the DGA has been
controversial, and both House- and Senate-reported appropriations bills contain policy riders
related to it.
92 This section was written by Agata Dabrowska, Analyst in Health Policy (adabrowska@crs.loc.gov, 7-9455).
93 For background, see CRS In Focus IF10118, The Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
Congressional Research Service
50
link to page 67 Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Provisions in both reported bills (House bill §734(1)(B); Senate bill §733) would prohibit the use
of funds to issue or implement the 2015 edition of the DGA unless the information and scope of
the recommendations is limited to matters of diet and nutrition only. The House report language
clarifies the intent of §734, noting that the February 2015 report by the DGA Advisory Committee
(DGAC) “included extraneous factors outside of the statutory requirement, such as agriculture
production practices including sustainability, taxes, food labeling and marketing policies.”
Moreover, the House-reported bill would place further limits on the formulation of the next DGA.
HHS and USDA would be required (§734(1)(A)) to consider only “Grade I: Strong” evidence, as
determined by the grading rubric of the USDA Nutrition Evidence Library, for each revision to
any nutrition or dietary information or guideline contained in the 2010 DGA (the seventh edition)
and for any new nutrition or diet information or guideline to be included in the eighth edition of
the DGA. Also, HHS and USDA would be required (§734(2)-(3)) to release a preliminary draft of
the guidelines with a list of scientific studies and evidence supporting the new material for a
public comment period of 90 days. At the end of the 90-day comment period, there would be at
least 60 days for agency review of the public comments. The rationale was that more than 29,000
comments were received for the DGAC report.
In addition, the House report language states that funding is not provided for CNPP to develop
dietary guidelines for children under two years of age. The Senate’s report does not support the
Administration’s request for a $1 million increase for MyPlate/SuperTracker.
Other Nutrition Funding Support
Domestic food assistance programs also receive funds from sources other than appropriations:
USDA provides commodity foods to the child nutrition programs using funds
other than those in the Child Nutrition account. These purchases are financed
through permanent appropriations under “Section 32.”94 For example, about $480
million out of a total of $1.1 billion in commodity support in FY2008 came from
outside the Child Nutrition account. Historically, about half the value of
commodities distributed to child nutrition programs has come from Section 32.
The Fresh Fruit and Vegetable program for selected elementary schools
nationwide is financed with permanent, mandatory funding. The underlying law
(§4304 of the 2008 farm bill) provides funds at the beginning of every school
year (July). However, §715 of the House-reported and Senate-reported bills
delays until October 2016 the availability of a portion of the funds ($125 million)
that were scheduled for July 2016, similar to past years’ appropriations. As a
result, these proposals would allocate the total annual spending for the Fresh
Fruit and Vegetable program by fiscal year rather than school year, with no
reduction in overall support (though budgetary savings are 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 Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition program receives $21 million of
mandatory funding per year (FY2002-FY2018) outside the regular appropriations
process (§4402 of the 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171), as amended by §4203 the
2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79)).
94 For more background, see CRS Report RL34081, Farm and Food Support Under USDA’s Section 32 Program.
Congressional Research Service
51
link to page 58 link to page 58 link to page 58 link to page 58 link to page 58 link to page 58 link to page 58 link to page 58 link to page 58
Table 11. Domestic Food Assistance Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
Change from FY2015
Senate
Compared
P.L. 113-6
P.L. 113-
P.L. 113-
Admin.
House
Senate in House
in Senate
With
Program
post-sequ.
76
235
Requesta
H.R. 3049
S. 1800
Bill
Bill
House
Child Nutrition Programsb
Account Totalc (incl. transfers)
19,913.2
19,288.0
21,300.2
21,587.3
21,507.4
21,524.4
+207.2
+224.2
+17.0
National School Lunch Program
11,278.6
10,576.3
11,996.1
11,777.8
11,777.8
11,777.8
-218.3
-218.3
+0.0
School Breakfast Program
3,659.3
3,728.6
3,960.0
4,230.5
4,230.5
4,230.5
+270.5
+270.5
+0.0
Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP)
2,949.5
3,080.0
3,195.9
3,240.6
3,240.6
3,240.6
+44.7
+44.7
+0.0
Special Milk Program
11.9
10.6
11.2
11.3
11.3
11.3
+0.1
+0.1
+0.0
Summer Food Service Program
434.7
461.6
495.5
535.6
535.6
535.6
+40.1
+40.1
+0.0
State Administrative Expenses
289.7
247.2
263.7
269.7
269.7
269.7
+6.0
+6.0
+0.0
Commodity Procurement for Child Nutrition
1,646.7
1,078.7
1,255.5
1,322.1
1,322.1
1,322.1
+66.6
+66.6
+0.0
School Meals Equip., Breakfast Expan. Grants
9.8
25.0
25.0
35.0
20.0
25.0
-5.0
+0.0
+5.0
Summer EBT Demonstration
—
—
16.0
66.9
12.0
16.0
-4.0
+0.0
+4.0
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program
for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)
6,522.2
6,715.8
6,623.0
6,623.0
6,484.0
6,513.0
-139.0
-110.0
+29.0
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP)b
Account Totalc
77,285.4
82,169.9
81,837.6
83,692.1d
81,653.2
81,662.1
-184.4
-175.5
+8.9
SNAP benefits
67,313.1e
71,885.0e
71,035.8
70,895.7
70,895.7
n/a
-140.1
n/a
n/a
Contingency Reserve Fund
3,000.0
3,000.0
3,000.0
5,000.0
3,000.0
3,000.0
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
State Administrative Costs
3,866.5
3,999.0
4,123.0
4,238.4
4,238.4
n/a
+115.4
n/a
n/a
Employment and Training (E&T)
415.9
426.4
447.2f
456.7
456.7
n/a
+9.5
n/a
n/a
TEFAP Commodities
265.8
268.8
327.0
319.8
319.8
n/a
-7.2
n/a
n/a
CRS-52
link to page 58 link to page 58
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
Change from FY2015
Senate
Compared
P.L. 113-6
P.L. 113-
P.L. 113-
Admin.
House
Senate in House
in Senate
With
Program
post-sequ.
76
235
Requesta
H.R. 3049
S. 1800
Bill
Bill
House
Food Distribution Program Indian Reservations
100.2
104.0
145.2
145.2
145.2
n/a
+0.0
n/a
n/a
Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands
12.1
12.1
12.2
12.2
12.2
n/a
+0.0
n/a
n/a
Puerto Rico and American Samoa
1,880.4
1,901.5
2,030.3
1,979.3
1,979.3
n/a
-51.0
n/a
n/a
Commodity Assistance Program
Account Totalc
243.7
269.7
278.5
288.3
288.3
288.3
+9.8
+9.8
+0.0
Commodity Supplemental Food Program
181.8
202.7
211.5
221.3
221.3
221.3
+9.8
+9.8
+0.0
WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program
15.3
16.5
16.5
16.5
16.5
16.5
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
TEFAP Administrative Costs
45.6
49.4
49.4
49.4
49.4
49.4
+0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Nutrition Program Administration
132.6
141.3
150.8
155.6
141.3
151.8
-9.5
+1.0
+10.5
Office of the Under Secretary
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
-0.0
+0.0
+0.0
Total, Domestic Food Assistance
104,098.0
108,585.8
110,190.9
133,255.1
110,075.2
110,140.4
+1,605.1
-50.5
+65.2
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports for the referenced appropriations acts or bil s. Amounts for FY2013 are
the post-sequestration level from the USDA FY2013 Operating Plan.
a. The FY2016 Administration Request reflected in this column is from the USDA-FNS budget request submitted to Congress in February 2015.
b. For the USDA-FNS programs that are open-ended mandatory programs (e.g., SNAP and the Child Nutrition Programs), the programs do not necessarily have the
authority to spend all of the funds that have been appropriated. For such programs’ historical spending, see also USDA-FNS expenditure data available on the agency
website at http://www.fns.usda.gov/data-and-statistics.
c. “Account Total” does not equal the sum of the programs listed below. Programs listed below are a selection of the funding that makes up the account total.
d. The Administration’s request for FY2016 also included an advance appropriation for the first quarter of FY2017 of approximately $20.9 bil ion. Neither the House
nor Senate proposals included an advance appropriation.
e. Appropriations do not include the pre-appropriated funds provided by American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) to increase SNAP benefits from
April 2009 through October 31, 2013. See CRS Report R43257, Background on the Scheduled Reduction to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Benefits.
f.
In addition to this E&T funding, P.L. 113-235 (and the other proposals) also appropriates $190 mil ion for E&T pilots; the 2014 farm bil provided the authorization
for this mandatory funding. For further information, see CRS Report R43332, SNAP and Related Nutrition Provisions of the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79).
CRS-53
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Agricultural Trade and Food Aid95
The Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) administers overseas market promotion and export credit
guarantee programs designed to improve the competitive position of U.S. agriculture in the world
marketplace and to facilitate export sales. It shares responsibility with the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) to administer international food aid programs.96
Each year’s agricultural appropriation provides about $1.8 billion of discretionary funding to
FAS, which is more than three-quarters of the financial resources available to them. Budget
authority for other agricultural export and food aid programs is mandatory, and not subject to
annual appropriations. About $500 million of funding for these mandatory programs is provided
directly by the Commodity Credit Corporation under other statutes.97
Foreign Agricultural Service
The FAS appropriation addresses trade policy issues on behalf of U.S. agricultural exporters to
support trade promotion activities, and to engage in institutional capacity building and food
security activities in developing countries with promising market potential. For FY2016, the
Administration requested $191.6 million for salaries and expenses of the Foreign Agricultural
Service (FAS), an increase of $10.2 million, or 5.6%, above the appropriation for FY2015. The
FY2016 appropriation bills reported by the House and Senate also recommend funding increases
compared with FY2015, but were below the Administration’s request. The House bill provides
$184.4 million, an increase of 1.6% over the FY2015 appropriation, while the Senate bill
proposes an appropriation of $187.2 million, an increase of 3.2% over FY2015.
The Administration’s FY2016 budget request includes an additional $6.7 million to cover salaries
and expenses for the export credit guarantee programs. This concurs with the FY2015 level and
the House and Senate bills. Credit guarantees are the largest FAS export assistance program,
operating mainly to facilitate the direct export of U.S. agricultural commodities and products. The
2014 farm bill authorized $5.5 billion of credit guarantees each year to guarantee the repayment
of commercial loans extended by private banks in the event that a borrower defaults ($5.4 billion
of credit guarantees under GSM-102 for U.S. agricultural product exports, and $100 million
under the Facility Guarantee Program to build or expand agricultural facilities in emerging
markets that enhance sales of U.S. products). There are no budgetary outlays associated with
credit guarantees unless a default occurs.
The 2014 farm bill directed the Office of the Chief Economist (OCE) to report on reorganizing
USDA’s international trade functions in tandem with creating the new Under Secretary of
Agriculture for Trade and Foreign Affairs. The House report urges OCE to work with the National
Academy of Public Affairs (NAPA) to complete the study, noting that NAPA’s work to date is not
satisfactory. Language in FY2015 appropriation’s joint explanatory statement provided directions
for the report and established a new deadline (December 16, 2015).
95 The trade portion of this section was written by Mark McMinimy (7-2172, mmcminimy@crs.loc.gov) and the food
aid portion by Randy Schnepf (7-4277, rschnepf@crs.loc.gov).
96 For background, see CRS Report R41072, U.S. International Food Aid Programs: Background and Issues.
97 Mandatory funding for other agricultural export promotion and market development programs was reauthorized by
the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79) at slightly above $250 million each year: $200 million for the Market Access Program,
$34.5 million for the Foreign Market Development Program, $9 million for the Technical Assistance for Specialty
Crops Program, and $10 million for the Emerging Markets Program. Separately, mandatory funding for other foreign
food aid programs under the 2014 farm bill is about $250 million each year for the Food for Progress Program.
Congressional Research Service
54
link to page 59 Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
The Senate report recommends $1.5 million for the Borlaug Fellows Program (training for
scientists and policymakers from developing countries), and $5.3 million for the Cochran
Fellowship Program (short-term technical training in the United States for international
participants). The Senate report expects FAS to fund the Foreign Market Development
Cooperator Program and continue full mandatory funding for the Market Access Program (MAP)
(see footnote 97), including administering MAP as authorized without changing the eligibility
requirements of cooperatives, small businesses, trade associations, and other entities.
Food for Peace Program (P.L. 480)
The Food for Peace Program includes four program areas, each with its own Title: Title I—
economic assistance and food security, Title II—emergency and private assistance programs, Title
III—food for development, and Title V—the farmer-to-farmer program.98 No funding for new
Title I (long-term concessional credits) or Title III (food for development) activities has been
requested since 2002, while the last Title I concessional commodity shipment occurred in 2006.
Title V (farmer-to-farmer or F2F program) funding is mandatory in nature and linked to the
overall pool of funding under the Food for Peace act—not less than the greater of $15 million or
0.6% of the amounts made available to carry out the Food for Peace Act during any fiscal year
(FY2014-FY2018) shall be used for the F2F program.
In contrast, the Food for Peace Title II program relies on annual discretionary appropriations.
Title II programs are both the largest and most active component of international agricultural food
aid expenditures. They provide primarily in-kind donations of U.S. commodities to meet foreign
humanitarian and development needs. Despite being funded in agricultural appropriations, Title II
programs are administered by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
Food for Peace Title II funding has been embroiled in a long-running debate between the current
(and previous) Administration and Congress over how Title II funds may be used. The
Administration wants to increase the share of Title II funds available as either cash transfers, food
vouchers, or for local and regional procurement of commodities in the proximity of the food
crises in order to provide a more immediate (and lower-cost) response to emergencies. In
contrast, Congress has opted to use Title II funds to purchase U.S. commodities and ship them on
U.S.-flag vessels to foreign countries with food deficiencies. Title II funding allocations also are
affected by a provision in the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79; §3012) that states that the minimum
funding requirement for nonemergency food aid shall not be less than $350 million.
For FY2015 and FY2016, the Administration proposed $1.4 billion in Title II funding, of which
25% ($350 million) would be exempt from any U.S. purchase requirement and instead would be
available as cash-based food assistance for emergencies. The Administration also requested that
$270 million of Title II funds be combined with an additional $80 million requested in the
Development Assistance account under USAID’s Community Development Fund and used to
support development food assistance programs that address chronic food insecurity in areas of
recurrent crises, thus achieving the mandatory $350 million for nonemergency programs.
In contrast, congressional appropriators provided a slightly larger $1.469 billion for Title II
programs in FY2015, the same as in FY2014. For FY2016, the House-reported bill would provide
$1.417 billion for Title II programs, including $350 million for nonemergency programs, while
the Senate-reported bill would provide a larger amount of $1.466 billion. In addition, the House
committee report notes that the “flexibility” desired by the Administration for various methods of
98 Title IV of the Food for Peace Act involves general authorities and requirements.
Congressional Research Service
55
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
delivery through cash, vouchers, and in-kind food assistance already exists across the whole-of-
government and, thus, is not included in its FY2016 Title II appropriations. The Senate committee
report specifically requests that USAID provide a report, no later than March 1, 2016, on the use
of authorities under section 202(e) of the Food for Peace during both FY2015 and FY2016.99
Local and Regional Procurement (LRP) Projects
LRP projects are administered by USDA (in consultation with USAID). LRP was authorized as a
permanent project under the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79);100 however, its funding source became
an authorization for discretionary appropriations ($80 million for each of FY2014-FY2018),
rather than mandatory funds in the 2008 farm bill.101
No discretionary funding was enacted for LRP during FY2014 and FY2015. For FY2016, the
Administration requested $20 million for LRP projects. The House-reported bill does not provide
any funding for LRP in FY2016, while the Senate-reported bill would provide $10 million for
LRP within the McGovern-Dole program (see below).
McGovern-Dole International 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. It is administered by FAS.
For FY2016, the Administration requested $191.6 million, the same as the FY2015 enacted level.
The House-reported bill would keep funding at $191.6 million for the McGovern-Dole program,
while the Senate-reported bill would provide a larger $201.6 million that includes an additional
$10 million for the LRP program, as mentioned earlier.
Appropriations Instructions about Industrial Hemp102
Industrial hemp is an agricultural commodity that is cultivated for a range of hemp-based goods,
including foods and beverages, cosmetics and personal care products, nutritional supplements,
fabrics and textiles, yarns and spun fibers, paper, construction/insulation materials, and other
manufactured goods. It is, however, a variety of Cannabis sativa, the same plant species as
marijuana, and is therefore subject to U.S. drug laws. The 2014 farm bill provided that certain
research institutions and state departments of agriculture may grow industrial hemp as part of an
agricultural pilot program, if allowed under state laws.103
For FY2016, the production of industrial hemp is addressed in both in the Senate Agriculture
appropriations bill and the House and Senate Commerce-Justice-Science (CJS) appropriations
bills. In the Agriculture appropriation, the Senate committee-reported bill states that “none of the
99 USAID had been granted some additional flexibility in use of cash-based food assistance under section 202(e) under
the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79; §3002).
100 7 U.S.C. 1726c.
101 Under the previous 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246; §3206), LRP was implemented as a pilot program but with
mandatory funding of $60 million of CCC funds (mandatory funds, not Title II appropriations), spread over four years.
102 This section was written by Renée Johnson (7-9588; rjohnson@crs.loc.gov).
103 P.L. 113-79, §7606, “Legitimacy of Industrial Hemp Research.” It also created a statutory definition of “industrial
hemp” as “the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydro-
cannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.”
Congressional Research Service
56
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
funds made available” by the agriculture or any other appropriation may be used “to prohibit the
transportation, processing, sale, or use of industrial hemp that is grown or cultivated in
accordance with” the 2014 farm bill provision (§739 of S. 1800). In the CJS appropriation, both
the House-passed bill and the Senate-reported bill state that “none of the funds made available”
by the CJS appropriation “may be used in contravention” of the 2014 farm bill’s hemp provision
by the Department of Justice (DOJ) or the Drug Enforcement Administration. (H.R. 2578, §567;
and the Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2578, §541). The House-passed
CJS bill would further block DOJ from preventing a state from implementing its own state laws
that “authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of industrial hemp,” as defined in
the 2014 farm bill (§557).
The FY2015 CJS appropriation contained similar language to block federal law enforcement from
interfering with state agencies, hemp growers, and agricultural research.104
Related Agencies
In addition to the USDA agencies mentioned above, the Agriculture appropriations
subcommittees have jurisdiction over appropriations for three related agencies:
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS),
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)—in the House
Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee only, and
The Farm Credit Administration (FCA), which does not receive an appropriation
but rather oversight via a limit on its spending from fees paid to the agency.
Agriculture’s Relationship to the Related Agencies
The combined share of FDA and CFTC funding (Title VI) in the overall Agriculture and
Related Agencies appropriations bil is about 13% of discretionary appropriations, or about
2% of the total.
These agencies are included in the Agriculture appropriations bil because of their historical
connection to agricultural markets. However, the number and scope of non-agricultural
issues dealt with by these agencies has grown in recent decades. Because of this shift, some
may argue that these agencies no longer belong in the Agriculture appropriations bil . Others
say that agriculture and food issues are stil 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.
104 P.L. 113-235, Division B, §539 (Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015).
Congressional Research Service
57
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates the safety of foods, cosmetics, and radiation-
emitting products; the safety and effectiveness of drugs, biologics (e.g., vaccines), and medical
devices; and public health aspects of tobacco products.105 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 the rest of 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.
Food Safety Funding at the Food and Drug Administration
FDA’s Foods program accounts for roughly one-third of the agency’s total appropriation ($903 mil ion out of $2.6
bil ion in FY2015). FDA is responsible for ensuring the safety of the majority of all domestic and imported food
products (except for meat, poultry, and processed egg products). Funding increases over recent years in this
program area largely have been in response to additional food safety responsibilities fol owing enactment of the
FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA, P.L. 111-353) in 2011.
For the FDA Foods program in FY2016, the House-reported bil would appropriate $938.4 mil ion, $10 mil ion less
than the Senate-reported bil . The Administration had requested $49 mil ion more than the House bil ($39 mil ion
more than the Senate bil ). All of these amounts, though, would stil represent increases above FY2015.
Specifically for food safety activities, which is a subset of the overall Foods program, the Administration had
requested an increase of $110 mil ion, while the House and Senate bil s provide increases of $41.5 mil ion and $45
mil ion for food safety, respectively.
For more background, see CRS Report RS22600, The Federal Food Safety System: A Primer.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission106
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is the independent regulatory agency
charged with oversight of derivatives markets. The CFTC’s functions include oversight of trading
on the futures exchanges, oversight of the swaps markets, registration and supervision of futures
industry personnel, self-regulatory organizations and major participants in the swaps markets,
prevention of fraud and price manipulation, and investor protection.107 The Dodd-Frank Act (P.L.
111-203) brought the bulk of the previously unregulated over-the-counter swaps markets under
CFTC jurisdiction as well as the previously regulated futures and options markets.108 Since the
swaps markets, by most estimates, is much larger in size than the futures markets, one budget
question that has lingered for several years is whether the CFTC’s resources are sufficient to meet
the agency’s newly added responsibilities.109
105 Several CRS reports have information on FDA authority and activities: CRS Report R41983, How FDA Approves
Drugs and Regulates Their Safety and Effectiveness.
106 This section was written by Rena S. Miller (7-0826, rsmiller@crs.loc.gov).
107 For further details about the CFTC, please see CRS Report R43117, The Commodity Futures Trading Commission:
Background and Current Issues.
108 A subset of the swaps market, called security-based swaps, which are swaps related to securities such as stocks and
bonds, are overseen by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
109 See, e.g., testimony of Chairman Timothy G. Massad before the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition &
Forestry, Washington, DC, May 14, 2015: “The CFTC does not have the resources to fulfill our new responsibilities as
well as all the responsibilities it had—and still has—prior to the passage of Dodd Frank in a way that most Americans
would expect. Our staff, for example, is no larger than it was when Dodd-Frank was enacted in 2010.” Available at
http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/opamassad-22.
Congressional Research Service
58
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
For FY2016, the President’s budget request was $322 million, an increase of 29% above the
FY2015 enacted level, noting that past appropriations have “not enabled the Commission to keep
pace with the increased technological complexity and globalization of the markets overseen by
the Commission” since its jurisdiction was expanded to include swaps in 2010.110
The House-reported Agriculture appropriations bill (H.R. 3049) would provide $245 million for
the CFTC, and the Senate reported Financial Services appropriations bill (S. 1910) would provide
$250 million. The House bill would be a $5 million reduction from FY2015, and the Senate bill is
the same as the FY2015 funding level.
Farm Credit Administration111
The Farm Credit Administration (FCA) is the federal regulator for the Farm Credit System (FCS),
which is a borrower-owned cooperative lender operated as a government-sponsored enterprise.112
Neither the FCS nor the FCA receives a federal appropriation. The FCA is funded by assessments
on the FCS entities that it regulates. As part of its congressional oversight, however, the
Agriculture appropriations bill sets a limitation on administrative expenses (a maximum operating
level) for the FCA—a check on the size of the FCA and the amount that FCA can collect.
For FY2016, the House- and Senate-reported bills are identical in allowing FCA a maximum
operating level of $65.6 million, which is $5.1 million greater than allowed in FY2015, but $3.8
million less than requested.113 The $65.6 million allowed in the FY2016 bills happens to be the
same as the revised FCA request for FY2015, and thus effectively would hold FCA at a constant
level with what it planned to be its operating level at the beginning of FY2015 when the
appropriation was delayed.114 Nonetheless, the FY2016 amounts represent an increase since the
$60.5 million enacted amount for FY2015 was lower than it had been for several years.
FCA’s request continues to note costs for a staffing replacement plan because of expected
retirements and the desire to add new staff while experienced staff can train their replacements.
Table 12. Farm Credit Administration Limitation on Expenses
(dollars in millions)
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
Change from FY2015
Senate
Compared
P.L. 113-
P.L. 113-
Admin.
House
Senate
in House
in Senate
With
P.L. 113-6 76
235
Request H.R. 3049 S. 1800
Bill
Bill
House
FCA li
mitation
on expenses
63.3
62.6
60.5
69.4
65.6
65.6
+5.1
+5.1
+0.0
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports for the
referenced appropriations acts or bil s.
110 Commodity Futures Trading Commission: President’s Budget Fiscal Year 2016, Prepared for the Committee on
Appropriations, February, 2015, at pg. 1. Available at: http://www.cftc.gov/ucm/groups/public/@newsroom/
documents/file/cftcbudget2016.pdf.
111 This section was written by Jim Monke (7-9664, jmonke@crs.loc.gov).
112 For background, see CRS Report RS21278, Farm Credit System.
113 Farm Credit Administration, Fiscal Year 2016 Proposed Budget and Performance Plan, at http://www.fca.gov/
Download/BudgetFY2016.pdf.
114 Ibid, at p. 9.
Congressional Research Service
59
link to page 67 link to page 68 link to page 70 link to page 69 link to page 67 Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
General Provisions, Scorekeeping Adjustments115
Agriculture appropriations acts in recent years have had over $1 billion in net offsets that
effectively reduce the cost of appropriations in the rest of the bill. The House- and Senate-
reported FY2016 appropriations bill would continue that practice. These reductions occur in Title
VII (General Provisions) through rescissions and CHIMPS (Changes in Mandatory Program
Spending), and in separate CBO scorekeeping adjustments.
For FY2016, reductions would be made by placing limitations on mandatory programs (-$798
million in the House bill, and -$875 million in the Senate bill, Table 13), recessions from other
appropriated accounts (about -$34 million in both bills, Table 14), and other scorekeeping
adjustments that are usually not detailed in the bills (about -$335 million in both bills, Table 16).
Some additional spending is authorized in the General Provisions ($2 million in the House bill,
and $6.6 million in the Senate bill, Table 15).
Limitations and rescissions are used to score budgetary savings that help meet the discretionary
budget allocation. By offsetting spending elsewhere in the bill, they help provide relatively more
to (or help avoid deeper cuts to) regular discretionary accounts than might otherwise occur.116
The General Provisions title also contains many important policy-related provisions that affect
how the executive branch carries out the appropriation and authorizing laws. Some of these
policy-related provisions are discussed earlier in this report under the relevant agency heading.
Changes in Mandatory Program Spending (CHIMPS)
For more than a decade, appropriators have placed limits on mandatory spending authorized in
statutes such as the farm bill (Table 13). These limits generally are also known as CHIMPS,
“changes in mandatory program spending.” CHIMPS usually are reductions to mandatory
spending authority, but they also may be increases in spending authority. Moreover, besides
CHIMPS, rescissions may be made to mandatory spending programs to permanently cancel
budget authority (sometimes considered a type of CHIMP). Mandatory programs usually are not
part of the appropriations process since formulas and eligibility rules are set in multi-year
authorizing laws (such as the 2014 farm bill). Funding usually is assumed to be available based
on the statute and without appropriations action.
When appropriators limit mandatory spending, they do not change the authorizing law.117 When
using a CHIMP, the action has the same effect as changing the law, but only for the one year to
which the appropriation applies. Appropriators put limits on mandatory program by using
language such as: “None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this or any
other Act shall be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out section [ ... ] of
Public Law [ ... ] in excess of $[ ... ].” Limits usually appear in Title VII, General Provisions, of
the Agriculture appropriations bill.
Historically, expenditure allocations often originate from the appropriations committees. The
division over who should fund certain agriculture programs—appropriators or authorizers—has
115 This section was written by Jim Monke (7-9664, jmonke@crs.loc.gov).
116 For example, in FY2011, half of the $3.4 billion reduction in total discretionary appropriations between FY2010 and
FY2011 was achieved by a $1.7 billion increase in the use of farm bill limitations and rescissions.
117 CRS Report R41634, Limitations in Appropriations Measures: An Overview of Procedural Issues.
Congressional Research Service
60
link to page 67 link to page 67 link to page 46 Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
roots dating to the 1930s. Variable outlays for the farm commodity programs were difficult to
budget and resembled entitlements. Mandatory funding—the Commodity Credit Corporation
(CCC)—was created to remove the unpredictable funding issue from the appropriations process.
The dynamic changed after the 1996 farm bill, when mandatory funds were used for programs
that usually were discretionary. 118 Appropriators had not funded some programs as much as
authorizers had desired, and authorizing committees wrote farm bills using the mandatory
funding at their discretion. Tension arose over who should fund certain activities. Some question
whether the CCC should be used for programs that are not variable.
The programs affected by CHIMPS typically include conservation, rural development, bioenergy,
and some smaller nutrition assistance programs.119 CHIMPS have not affected the farm
commodity programs or the primary nutrition assistance programs (such as SNAP).
The House-reported FY2016 appropriation contains $798 million in savings attributable to
CHIMPS, and the Senate-reported bill $875 million. These totals are slightly larger than the
FY2015 CHIMPS total, yet remain smaller than the levels that were enacted between FY2011-
FY2014 (Table 13).120
Budget Sequestration and Conservation CHIMPS
A complicating factor in understanding the CHIMP amounts proposed for FY2016 is a methodological difference in
how CBO scored the Administration’s request compared with the House and Senate bil s. Budget sequestration of
mandatory accounts has occurred since FY2013, reducing the amount available to most mandatory programs
regardless of whether reductions were made in appropriations. For example, the complete prohibition on spending
for the Watershed Rehabilitation Program resulted in a smaller $153 mil ion CHIMP in FY2014, after sequestration,
than the $165 mil ion CHIMP in FY2013 (Table 13).
For most of the conservation CHIMP scores in FY2016, sequestration was incorporated into the amounts available
for each program before the CHIMPS were computed in FY2014 and FY2015—except for the accounting of the
Administration’s FY2015 request. By not incorporating sequestration in the FY2015 estimates of the Administration
request, CBO gave the Administration more credit for some CHIMPS than the House or Senate bil s.
118 Adapted from Galen Fountain, then Majority Clerk of the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee,
“Funding Rural Development Programs: Past, Present, and Future,” p. 4, at the 2009 USDA Agricultural Outlook
Forum, February 22, 2009, at http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/50603/2/Fountain-Galen-pdf.pdf.
119 This report uses the CBO compilation of CHIMPS, which in addition to limits on farm bill programs also includes
the rescission from the Cushion of Credit account for the Rural Business and Cooperative Service (RBS). Including the
Cushion of Credit rescission in CHIMPS allows the total appropriation for RBS to remain positive and concurs with
CBO scoring. However, appropriations committee tables include the Cushion of Credit rescission in the RBS section,
causing the net agency appropriations total to be less than zero (the alternative scoring method noted in Table 10).
120 For more background on reductions in mandatory agricultural programs, especially in appropriations, CRS In Focus
IF10041, Reductions to Mandatory Agricultural Conservation Programs in Appropriations Law.
Congressional Research Service
61
link to page 67 link to page 67 link to page 67 Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Table 13. Adjustments to Mandatory Spending Programs
(dollars in millions)
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
P.L. 113-6
P.L. 113-
P.L. 113-
Admin.
H.Cmte.
S.Cmte.
post-sequ.
76
235
Request
H.R. 3049
S. 1800
Enacted
Changes to farm bill programs (CHIMPS and rescissions)a
Conservation programs
Environmental Quality Incentives Prog.
-279.0
-272.0
-136.0
-373.0
-189.0
-264.0
Watershed Rehabilitation Program
-165.0
-153.0
-69.0
-69.0
-64.0
-68.0
Conservation Stewardship Program
—
—
-7.0
-3.0
-2.0
—
Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program
-9.0
—
—
—
—
—
Agricultural Management Assistance
-5.0
—
—
—
—
—
Subtotal, conservation
-458.0
-425.0
-212.0
-445.0
-255.0
-332.0
Other farm bill programs
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Programb
-117.0
-119.0
-122.0
-125.0
-125.0
-125.0
Biorefinery Assistance Program
—
-40.7
-16.0
—
-26.0
—
Biomass Crop Assistance Program
—
—
-2.0
—
-12.0
-20.0
Rural Energy for America Program
—
—
—
—
-16.0
—
Repowering Assistance
-28.0
—
-8.0
—
—
—
Bioenergy Prog. for Advanced Biofuels
—
-8.0
—
—
—
—
Emergency Livestock Assistance Prog.
—
—
-125.0
—
—
—
Conservation Compliance
—
—
—
—
+1.0
—
Marketing Certificates
—
—
—
—
+5.0
—
Subtotal, other from farm bill
-145.0
-167.7
-273.0
-125.0
-173.0
-145.0
Subtotal, of farm bill programs
-603.0
-592.7
-485.0
-570.0
-428.0
-477.0
Other reductions of mandatory programsa
Cushion of Credit (Rural Dev.)
-180.0
-172.0
-179.0
-154.0
-154.0
-182.0
Section 32
-110.0
-189.0
-121.0
-292.0
-216.0
-216.0
Total
-893.0
-953.7
-785.0
-1,016.0
-798.0
-875.0
Source: CRS, based on the categorization of CHIMPS in unpublished CBO tables, and from the joint
explanatory statements or committee reports for the referenced appropriations acts or bil s.
a. Reductions to mandatory programs in this report include CHIMPS (Changes in Mandatory Program
Spending) and permanent rescissions of budget authority for mandatory program accounts. CBO estimates
are used and are not always consistent in the treatment of sequestration. Amounts in the columns for the
Admin. Request and Senate do not include the effects of sequestration, whereas amounts in the House
column are after including the effects of sequestration.
b. Delays funding from July until October of the same calendar year, effectively allocating the authorization by
fiscal year rather than school year—with no reduction in overall support—and scoring budgetary savings.
Congressional Research Service
62
link to page 68 Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Rescissions of Discretionary Accounts
Rescissions are a method of permanently cancelling the availability of funds that were provided
by a previous appropriations law. When scoring a bill to determine its budget effect, a rescission
results in budgetary savings.
As a budgetary offset, rescissions can allow more spending in an appropriations bill. But unlike a
CHIMP, a rescission can prevent an unobligated budget authority from being reallocated or
repurposed by future appropriation since the cancellation is permanent. Often rescissions relate to
the unobligated balances of funds that were appropriated a year or more ago that still remain
available for a specific purpose (e.g., buildings and facilities funding that remains available until
expended for specific projects, or disaster response funds for losses due to a specifically named
hurricane).
For FY2016, the House-reported bill rescinds -$34 million from three discretionary programs and
the Senate-reported bill -$33 million from two discretionary programs (Table 14). Rescissions to
mandatory programs are included in the CHIMPS section, according to CBO scoring tables.
These levels of rescissions are typical for most years but are small by comparison to FY2011,
when rescissions were unusually large (-$372 million) and helped achieve that year’s relatively
large spending reduction.
Table 14. Rescissions from (Prior-Year) Discretionary Budget Authority
(dollars in millions)
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
P.L. 113-6
P.L. 113-
P.L. 113-
Admin.
H.Cmte.
S.Cmte.
post-sequ.
76
235
Request
H.R. 3049
S. 1800
Enacted
ARS buildings and facilities
—
—
-2.0
—
—
—
Agriculture buildings and facilities
—
-30.0
—
—
—
—
Broadband loan balances
-25.3
—
—
—
—
—
Common Computing Environment
—
—
—
—
-1.0
—
Rural Housing Service
—
-1.3
—
—
—
—
Ocean freight (food aid)
—
—
-2.0
—
—
—
P.L. 480 Title I (food aid)
—
—
-13.0
—
—
—
Watershed and Flood Prevention
—
—
—
-20.0
-20.0
-20.0
Resource Conservation and Development
—
-2.0
—
—
—
—
Water and waste disposal cancellation
—
—
—
—
-13.0
-13.0
Total
-25.3
-33.3
-17.0
-20.0
-34.0
-33.0
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports for the
referenced appropriations acts or bil s.
Congressional Research Service
63
link to page 69 Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Other Appropriations (Including Emergency Disaster Programs)
The General Provisions title may contain appropriations for activities that are not part of regular
agency appropriations. These sometimes include supplemental or disaster appropriations, and
may be offset in scorekeeping adjustments by emergency spending designations.
Table 15 shows that the FY2016 House-reported bill contains $2 million for the Emergency
Watershed Program (subject to the discretionary budget cap), and the Senate-reported bill has
$6.6 million of other spending provisions. In FY2015, emergency conservation programs
received $91 million and Ebola response $25 million, both offset by a disaster designation. The
$6.6 million in the Senate-reported bill has been in recent years’ enacted appropriations.
Table 15. Other Appropriations in General Provisions
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
P.L. 113-6
P.L. 113-
P.L. 113-
Admin.
H.Cmte.
S.Cmte.
post-sequ.
76
235
Request
H.R. 3049
S. 1800
Enacted
Disaster/Emergency programs
Emergency Watershed Protection
60.5
—
78.6
—
2.0
—
Emergency Conservation Program
10.3
—
9.2
—
—
—
Emergency Forest Restoration
13.1
—
3.2
—
—
—
FDA Salaries and expenses for Ebola
—
—
25.0
—
—
—
Subtotal, disaster programs
83.9
0.0
116.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
Note: Disaster designation for budget
—
—
116.0
—
—
—
Other spending provisions
FDA salaries and expenses
46.2
—
—
—
—
—
FDA user fees
—
79.0
—
—
—
—
Citrus greening
—
20.0
—
—
—
—
Hardwood trees reforestation pilot
0.6
0.6
0.6
—
—
0.6
Geographically disadvantaged farmers
1.8
2.0
2.0
—
—
2.0
Water Bank
—
4.0
4.0
—
—
4.0
Hunger Commission
—
1.0
—
—
—
—
Subtotal, other spending
48.6
106.6
6.6
0.0
0.0
6.6
Total
132.5
106.6
122.6
0.0
2.0
6.6
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports for the
referenced appropriations acts or bil s.
Congressional Research Service
64
link to page 70 Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Other Scorekeeping Adjustments
Scorekeeping adjustments are a final part of the accounting of the appropriations bill that is not
necessarily shown in the tables published by the appropriations committees.121 These adjustments
are critical, however, for the bill to reach the desired total amount that complies with the 302(b)
spending limit for the subcommittee. Some of these amounts are not necessarily specified by
provisions in the bill but are related to program operations, such as direct and guaranteed loan
programs. CBO calculates and reports these scorekeeping adjustments in unpublished tables.
For FY2016, the other scorekeeping adjustments in the House-reported bill are -$336 million and
-$335 million in the Senate-reported bill (Table 16). The FY2015 amount was notably larger
because of the $116 million disaster designation that offset spending for emergency programs.
Also noteworthy, the “negative subsidy” from various USDA loan programs has increased in
recent years. Negative subsidies effectively reflect “income” to the government when a loan
program operates at less cost than it receives in appropriations via the collection of fees or better-
than-expected loan repayment. These negative subsidies have become larger in recent years, and
are helping to offset more of the regular appropriation. Prior to FY2013, these negative subsidies
were cumulatively less than $100 million. Since FY2013 they have grown to $408 million in
FY2015, and moderated slightly to $345 million in the committee-reported bills for FY2016.
Table 16. Scorekeeping Adjustments
(dollars in millions)
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
P.L. 113-6
P.L. 113-
P.L. 113-
Admin.
H.Cmte.
S.Cmte.
post-sequ.
76
235
Request
H.R. 3049
S. 1800
Enacted
Denali Commission (permanent)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Interest Native American Fund Endowment
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
Child nutrition equipment grants
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
—
1.0
SNAP employment & training
—
—
—
4.0
—
—
Loan program negative subsidies
Rural housing negative subsidy
-62.0
-62.0
-141.0
-31.0
-31.0
-31.0
Rural community facilities negative subsidy
-14.0
-41.0
-90.0
-135.0
-135.0
-135.0
Rural elec. & tele. loan negative subsidy
-60.0
-92.0
-152.0
-154.0
-154.0
-154.0
Rural water & waste loan negative subsidy
—
—
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
Ag credit loan negative subsidy
-3.0
-6.0
-23.0
-23.0
-23.0
-23.0
Subtotal, negative subsidies
-139.0
-201.0
-408.0
-345.0
-345.0
-345.0
Emergency designations not in 302(b)
—
—
-116.0
—
—
—
Total
-129.0
-191.0
-514.0
-331.0
-336.0
-335.0
Source: CRS, compiled from unpublished CBO tables.
121 Although CHIMPS sometimes are considered to be scorekeeping adjustments and are shown in committee tables,
they are discussed elsewhere in this report. This section discusses the unpublished, other scorekeeping adjustments.
Congressional Research Service
65
link to page 20 link to page 71 link to page 74 link to page 75 link to page 76 
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Appendix A. Historical Trends
This appendix offers historical perspective on trends in Agricultural appropriations from FY1995
to FY2015. Comparisons are made for mandatory vs. discretionary spending, nutrition spending
compared to the rest of the bill, inflation-adjusted amounts, and agriculture appropriations relative
to the entire federal budget, economy, and population.
Figure 3 earlier in this report illustrates discretionary spending for each title, FY2007-FY2016.
See Figure A-1 for the mandatory and discretionary breakdown; Table A-1 contains the nominal
data, and Table A-2 contains the inflation-adjusted data. Table A-3 shows the compounded
annualized percentage changes over various time periods.
Discretionary Agriculture appropriations peaked in FY2010, although mandatory
nutrition spending has continued to rise.
Over the past 10 years (since FY2005), total Agriculture appropriations grew at a
compounded annual rate of +5.6% (+3.7% on an inflation-adjusted annual basis).
The mandatory spending portion of this total shows a +6.4% annual increase over
the past 10 years (+4.4% on an inflation-adjusted basis).
The discretionary portion has an annual increase of +2.2% over 10 years (+0.3%
annually on an inflation-adjusted basis).
In FY2015, 14% of the total agriculture appropriation is discretionary spending,
down from 28% of the total appropriation in FY1998.
Figure A-1. Total Agriculture Appropriations: Mandatory and Discretionary
Source: CRS. Fiscal year budget authority. Inflation-adjusted amounts are based on the GDP price deflator.
Notes: Includes only regular annual appropriations; includes CFTC regardless of jurisdiction.
Congressional Research Service
66
link to page 72 
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 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)—which are mandatory—and the Special Supplemental Nutrition
Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), which is discretionary. The “rest of the bill”
includes other USDA programs (except the Forest Service), FDA, and CFTC.
Total domestic nutrition program spending rose at a 7.7% compounded annual
rate over 10 years (+5.8% annually on an inflation-adjusted basis).
Spending on the rest of the bill (non-nutrition) increased at +1.3% annually over
10 years (-0.5% per year on an inflation-adjusted basis).
In FY2015, 75% of the total agriculture appropriation was for domestic nutrition,
up from 62% in 2005 and 46% in FY2001.
Most of domestic nutrition is mandatory spending, primarily in SNAP and the
child nutrition programs. The mandatory nutrition spending portion rose at a
+8.2% annual rate over 10 years (+6.2% annually inflation-adjusted basis).
Mandatory spending within the rest of the rest of the bill increased at a +0.9%
annual rate over 10 years (-0.9% on an inflation-adjusted annual 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
bil ” includes USDA (except the Forest Service), FDA, and CFTC.
Congressional Research Service
67
link to page 71 link to page 73 
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Appropriators arguably have the most control over discretionary appropriations. Within the
discretionary subtotal of Figure A-1, a similar domestic nutrition vs. rest of the bill comparison
can be made as was done for the total appropriation (see Figure A-3).
As stated before, total discretionary Agriculture appropriations grew at +2.2% per
year over the past 10 years (+0.3% annually on an inflation-adjusted basis).
Over a shorter period, the annual change is -2.2% per year over the past five
years, or -3.8% per year on an inflation-adjusted basis.
The domestic nutrition portion of this discretionary subtotal (primarily WIC,
commodity assistance programs, and nutrition programs administration) shows a
+2.5% annual increase over 10 years (+0.6% per year if adjusted for inflation).
Over a five-year period, the annual change is -1.5% per year (-3.1% per year if
adjusted for inflation).
The discretionary portion for rest of the bill has risen at +2.0% per year for 10
years (+0.1% per year on an inflation-adjusted basis).
Over the five-year period, the annual change is -2.6% per year (-4.2% per year on
an inflation-adjusted basis).
Figure A-3. Discretionary Agriculture Appropriations
Source: CRS. Fiscal year budget authority. Inflation-adjusted amounts are based on the GDP price deflator.
Notes: Includes only regular annual appropriations; includes CFTC regardless of jurisdiction. The label
“Domestic nutrition” includes WIC, commodity assistance programs, and nutrition programs administration.
Congressional Research Service
68
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Table A-1. Trends in Nominal Agriculture Appropriations
(fiscal year budget authority in billions of dollars, except as noted)
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Discretionary total
13.31
13.04
13.75
13.69
13.95
14.97
16.28
17.91
16.84
16.83
Domestic nutrition
4.22
4.22
4.31
4.31
4.42
4.46
4.89
5.00
4.90
5.55
Rest of bil
9.09
8.82
9.44
9.39
9.53
10.51
11.39
12.91
11.94
11.28
Mandatory total
49.78
40.08
35.80
41.00
61.95
59.77
56.91
56.70
69.75
68.29
Domestic nutrition
35.54
36.27
32.91
30.51
30.63
29.66
33.06
36.89
42.36
46.94
Rest of bil
14.23
3.81
2.89
10.48
31.33
30.12
23.86
19.82
27.38
21.36
Total bill
63.09
53.12
49.55
54.69
75.90
74.74
73.19
74.61
86.59
85.13
Domestic nutrition
39.76
40.49
37.22
34.82
35.04
34.12
37.95
41.89
47.26
52.49
Rest of bil
23.33
12.63
12.33
19.87
40.85
40.63
35.24
32.72
39.32
32.64
Percentages of Total
1. Mandatory
79%
75%
72%
75%
82%
80%
78%
76%
81%
80%
2. Discretionary
21%
25%
28%
25%
18%
20%
22%
24%
19%
20%
1. Domestic nutrition
63%
76%
75%
64%
46%
46%
52%
56%
55%
62%
2. Rest of bil
37%
24%
25%
36%
54%
54%
48%
44%
45%
38%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Discretionary total
16.78
17.81
18.09
20.60
23.30
20.13
19.76
19.71
20.88
20.83
Domestic nutrition
5.53
5.52
6.37
7.23
7.65
7.13
7.00
6.93
7.15
7.09
Rest of bil
11.25
12.29
11.72
13.37
15.65
13.00
12.76
12.79
13.73
13.73
Mandatory total
83.07
79.80
72.67
87.80
97.98 105.13 116.85 118.75 124.58 126.49
Domestic nutrition
53.37
51.51
53.68
68.92
75.13
82.53
98.55
97.17
101.43
103.10
Rest of bil
29.70
28.29
18.99
18.88
22.86
22.60
18.29
21.58
23.15
23.40
Total bill
99.85
97.61
90.76 108.40 121.29 125.26 136.61 138.47 145.46 147.32
Domestic nutrition
58.89
57.03
60.06
76.16
82.78
89.66
105.55
104.10
108.59
110.19
Rest of bil
40.95
40.58
30.71
32.24
38.50
35.61
31.05
34.37
36.88
37.13
Percentages of Total
1. Mandatory
83%
82%
80%
81%
81%
84%
86%
86%
86%
86%
2. Discretionary
17%
18%
20%
19%
19%
16%
14%
14%
14%
14%
1. Domestic nutrition
59%
58%
66%
70%
68%
72%
77%
75%
75%
75%
2. Rest of bil
41%
42%
34%
30%
32%
28%
23%
25%
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 bil ” includes the non-nutrition remainder of USDA (except the Forest Service), FDA, and CFTC.
Within that group, mandatory programs include the farm commodity programs, crop insurance, and some
conservation and foreign aid/trade programs.
Congressional Research Service
69
link to page 75 link to page 75 link to page 74 Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Table A-2. Trends in Real Agriculture Appropriations
(fiscal year budget authority in billions of dollars, except as noted)
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
GDP price indexa
0.7651
0.7786
0.7882
0.7982
0.8147
0.8344
0.8478
0.8640
0.8854
0.9132
Inflation-adjusted 2015 dollars (real dollars)
Discretionary total
19.06
18.35
19.11
18.79
18.75
19.65
21.03
22.70
20.83
20.19
Domestic nutrition
6.04
5.94
6.00
5.91
5.94
5.86
6.32
6.34
6.06
6.66
Rest of bil
13.02
12.41
13.11
12.88
12.81
13.80
14.71
16.36
14.77
13.53
Mandatory total
71.27
56.38
49.75
56.26
83.30
78.47
73.53
71.89
86.29
81.92
Domestic nutrition
50.89
51.03
45.73
41.87
41.18
38.93
42.71
46.77
52.41
56.30
Rest of bil
20.38
5.35
4.02
14.39
42.12
39.54
30.82
25.12
33.88
25.62
Total bill
90.32
74.73
68.86
75.05 102.05
98.12
94.56
94.59 107.12 102.11
Domestic nutrition
56.93
56.97
51.73
47.78
47.12
44.79
49.03
53.11
58.47
62.96
Rest of bil
33.39
17.77
17.13
27.27
54.93
53.33
45.53
41.48
48.65
39.15
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
GDP price in dexa
0.9429
0.9684
0.9884
1.0000
1.0087
1.0284
1.0464
1.0646
1.0808
1.0954
Inflation-adjusted 2015 dollars (real dollars)
Discretionary total
19.49
20.15
20.05
22.57
25.31
21.44
20.69
20.28
21.16
20.83
Domestic nutrition
6.42
6.25
7.06
7.92
8.31
7.59
7.33
7.13
7.25
7.09
Rest of bil
13.07
13.90
12.99
14.64
16.99
13.85
13.36
13.16
13.91
13.73
Mandatory total
96.50
90.27
80.54
96.17 106.41 111.98 122.32 122.19 126.26 126.49
Domestic nutrition
62.00
58.26
59.49
75.50
81.59
87.90
103.17
99.98
102.80
103.10
Rest of bil
34.50
32.00
21.04
20.68
24.82
24.08
19.15
22.21
23.46
23.40
Total bill
116.00 110.41 100.59 118.74 131.71 133.43 143.00 142.48 147.43 147.32
Domestic nutrition
68.42
64.51
66.56
83.42
89.90
95.50
110.50
107.11
110.05
110.19
Rest of bil
47.58
45.90
34.03
35.32
41.81
37.93
32.51
35.37
37.37
37.13
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 bil .”
a. OMB, Budget of the U.S. Government, “Historical Tables,” Table 10.1, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
budget/Historicals.
Congressional Research Service
70
link to page 74 link to page 74 link to page 77 link to page 78 link to page 77 link to page 77 Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Table A-3. Percentage Changes in Agriculture Appropriations
Compounded annual rate of change from years in the past to FY2015
Actual Change (Nominal)
Inflation-Adjusted (Real) Change (2015$)
1 yr.
5 yrs.
10 yrs.
15 yrs.
1 yr.
5 yrs.
10 yrs.
15 yrs.
FY2014
FY2010
FY2005
FY2000
FY2014
FY2010
FY2005
FY2000
Discretion ary total
-0.3%
-2.2%
+2.2%
+2.7%
-1.6%
-3.8%
+0.3%
+0.7%
Domestic nutrition
-0.8%
-1.5%
+2.5%
+3.2%
-2.1%
-3.1%
+0.6%
+1.2%
Rest of bil
+0.0%
-2.6%
+2.0%
+2.5%
-1.3%
-4.2%
+0.1%
+0.5%
Mandatory total
+1.5%
+5.2%
+6.4%
+4.9%
+0.2%
+3.5%
+4.4%
+2.8%
Domestic nutrition
+1.6%
+6.5%
+8.2%
+8.4%
+0.3%
+4.8%
+6.2%
+6.3%
Rest of bil
+1.1%
+0.5%
+0.9%
-1.9%
-0.3%
-1.2%
-0.9%
-3.8%
Total bill
+1.3%
+4.0%
+5.6%
+4.5%
-0.1%
+2.3%
+3.7%
+2.5%
Domestic nutrition
+1.5%
+5.9%
+7.7%
+7.9%
+0.1%
+4.2%
+5.8%
+5.8%
Rest of bil
+0.7%
-0.7%
+1.3%
-0.6%
-0.7%
-2.4%
-0.5%
-2.6%
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 bil .”
Comparisons to the Federal Budget, GDP, and Population
Relative to the entire federal budget, the Agriculture bill’s share has declined from over 4% of the
total federal budget in FY1995 and FY2000, to 2.7% in FY2009, before rising again to 4% in
recent years (Figure A-4, Table A-4). Within that total, the share for nutrition programs had
declined from 2.6% in FY1995 to 1.8% in FY2008, but the recent recession has caused that share
to rise to about 3%. The share for the rest of the bill has declined from 2.2% in FY2000 to about
1.0% recently.
Those shares of the federal budget also can be subdivided into mandatory and discretionary
spending (Figure A-5). The mandatory share for nutrition is presently about 2.7% (generally
rising, but recently ameliorating), while the discretionary share for nutrition is fairly steady 0.2%.
The mandatory share for the rest of the bill (primarily crop insurance, commodity program
subsidies, and conservation) is about 0.6%, while the discretionary share for the rest of the bill is
about 0.4% (generally declining).
The 0.6% share of the federal budget above for mandatory spending on crop insurance, farm
commodity subsidies, and conservation is a good proxy for farm bill spending on agricultural
(non-nutrition) programs (Figure A-5). It has been variable and generally declining since 2000
(consistent with farm commodity spending), though since 2009 steadier to slightly rising
(consistent with steady to declining farm commodity spending but increasing crop insurance and
mandatory conservation spending).
Congressional Research Service
71
link to page 77 link to page 78 link to page 77 
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 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),122 Agriculture appropriations had been fairly
steady at under 0.75% of GDP from FY1997-FY2009, but have risen to about 0.8% of GDP since
FY2010 due to increases in nutrition program demand (Figure A-6, Table A-4). Nutrition
programs have been rising as a percentage of GDP since FY2000 (0.32% in FY2001 to 0.61% in
FY2015), while non-nutrition agricultural programs have declined (0.40% in FY2000 to 0.21% in
FY2015).
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 (FY2015 dollars) to about $460 per
capita in FY2015 (Figure A-7). Nutrition programs have risen more steadily on a per capita basis
from about $157 per capita in FY2001 to nearly $343 per capita in FY2015. Non-nutrition
“other” agricultural programs have been more steady or declining, falling from $195 per capita in
FY2000 to about $116 per capita in FY2015.
Figure A-6. Agriculture Appropriations as
Figure A-7. Agriculture Appropriations
Percentages of GDP
per Capita of U.S. Population
Source: CRS.
Source: CRS.
122 Two other CRS reports compare various components of federal spending against GDP at a more aggregate level.
See CRS Report RL33074, Mandatory Spending Since 1962, and CRS Report RL34424, The Budget Control Act and
Trends in Discretionary Spending.
Congressional Research Service
72
link to page 74 Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Table A-4. Trends in Agriculture Appropriations Measured Against Benchmarks
(fiscal year)
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Federal Budget ($ bil ions)
1,581
1,643
1,692
1,777
1,825
1,959
2,090
2,266
2,408
2,583
GDP ($ bil ions)
7,978
8,483
8,955
9,511 10,148 10,565 10,877 11,332 12,089 12,889
Population (mil ions)
269.7
272.9
276.1
279.3
282.4
285.3
288.0
290.7
293.3
296.0
Pct. of Federal Budget
3.99% 3.23% 2.93% 3.08% 4.16% 3.82% 3.50% 3.29% 3.60% 3.30%
Domestic nutrition
2.52%
2.46%
2.20%
1.96%
1.92%
1.74%
1.82%
1.85%
1.96%
2.03%
Mandatory
2.25%
2.21%
1.94%
1.72%
1.68%
1.51%
1.58%
1.63%
1.76%
1.82%
Discretionary
0.27%
0.26%
0.25%
0.24%
0.24%
0.23%
0.23%
0.22%
0.20%
0.21%
Rest of bil
1.48%
0.77%
0.73%
1.12%
2.24%
2.07%
1.69%
1.44%
1.63%
1.26%
Mandatory
0.90%
0.23%
0.17%
0.59%
1.72%
1.54%
1.14%
0.87%
1.14%
0.83%
Discretionary
0.58%
0.54%
0.56%
0.53%
0.52%
0.54%
0.54%
0.57%
0.50%
0.44%
Pct. of GDP
0.79% 0.63% 0.55% 0.58% 0.75% 0.71% 0.67% 0.66% 0.72% 0.66%
Domestic nutrition
0.50%
0.48%
0.42%
0.37%
0.35%
0.32%
0.35%
0.37%
0.39%
0.41%
Rest of bil
0.29%
0.15%
0.14%
0.21%
0.40%
0.38%
0.32%
0.29%
0.33%
0.25%
Per capita (2015 dollars)
335
274
249
269
361
344
328
325
365
345
Domestic nutrition
211
209
187
171
167
157
170
183
199
213
Rest of bil
124
65
62
98
195
187
158
143
166
132
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Federal Bud
get ($ bil ions)
2,780
2,863
3,326
4,077
3,485
3,510
3,576
3,478
3,619
3,798
GDP ($ bil ions)
13,685 14,323 14,752 14,415 14,799 15,379 16,026 16,582 17,244 17,985
Population (mil ions)
298.8
301.7
304.5
307.2
309.3
311.6
313.9
316.1
318.9
321.4
Pct. of Federal Budget
3.59% 3.41% 2.73% 2.66% 3.48% 3.57% 3.82% 3.98% 4.02% 3.88%
Domestic nutrition
2.12%
1.99%
1.81%
1.87%
2.38%
2.55%
2.95%
2.99%
3.00%
2.90%
Mandatory
1.92%
1.80%
1.61%
1.69%
2.16%
2.35%
2.76%
2.79%
2.80%
2.71%
Discretionary
0.20%
0.19%
0.19%
0.18%
0.22%
0.20%
0.20%
0.20%
0.20%
0.19%
Rest of bil
1.47%
1.42%
0.92%
0.79%
1.10%
1.01%
0.87%
0.99%
1.02%
0.98%
Mandatory
1.07%
0.99%
0.57%
0.46%
0.66%
0.64%
0.51%
0.62%
0.64%
0.62%
Discretionary
0.40%
0.43%
0.35%
0.33%
0.45%
0.37%
0.36%
0.37%
0.38%
0.36%
Pct. of GDP
0.73% 0.68% 0.62% 0.75% 0.82% 0.81% 0.85% 0.84% 0.84% 0.82%
Domestic nutrition
0.43%
0.40%
0.41%
0.53%
0.56%
0.58%
0.66%
0.63%
0.63%
0.61%
Rest of bil
0.30%
0.28%
0.21%
0.22%
0.26%
0.23%
0.19%
0.21%
0.21%
0.21%
Per capita (2015 dollars)
388
366
330
387
426
428
456
451
462
458
Domestic nutrition
229
214
219
272
291
306
352
339
345
343
Rest of bil
159
152
112
115
135
122
104
112
117
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 bil .”
Congressional Research Service
73
link to page 79 link to page 79 link to page 79 link to page 80 Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Appendix B. Budget Sequestration
Sequestration is a process of automatic, largely across-the-board reductions that permanently
cancel mandatory and/or discretionary budget authority when spending would exceed statutory
budget goals. The current requirement for sequestration is in the Budget Control Act of 2011
(BCA; P.L. 112-25).123 Table B-1 shows the rates of sequestration and the amounts of budget
authority cancelled from accounts in the Agriculture appropriations bill.
Table B-1. Sequestration from Accounts in the Agriculture Appropriation
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
Discretionary Accounts
Mandatory Accounts
Fisc
al year
Rate
Amount
Rate
Amount
2013
5.0%
1,153
5.1%
713
2014
—
—
7.2%
1,052
2015
—
—
7.3%
1,153
2016
—
—
6.8%
1,819
Source: OMB, various Reports to the Congress on the Joint Committee Reductions (Sequestration), at https://www.
whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative_reports/sequestration. Compiled by CRS.
Notes: Sequestration rates are for non-exempt, non-defense accounts. Amount totals were computed by CRS.
Although the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (P.L. 113-67) raised spending limits in the BCA to
avoid sequestration of discretionary accounts in FY2014 and FY2015, it did not prevent or reduce
sequestration on mandatory accounts. In fact, to pay for avoiding sequestration of discretionary
spending in the near term, Congress extended the duration of sequestration on mandatory
programs by two years (until FY2023). 124 Congress subsequently extended sequestration another
year (until FY2024) to maintain retirement benefits for certain military personnel (P.L. 113-82).
The first farm commodity program payments from the 2014 farm bill are due in October 2015,
and USDA has indicated that they will be subject to the 6.8% reduction applicable to FY2016.125
Some farm bill mandatory programs are exempt from sequestration. The nutrition programs and
the Conservation Reserve Program are statutorily exempt,126 and some prior legal obligations in
crop insurance and the farm commodity programs may be exempt as determined by OMB.127
Since enactment of the BCA, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has ordered budget
sequestration on non-exempt, non-defense discretionary accounts only once,128 in FY2013 (Table
B-1), and on mandatory accounts annually in FY2013-FY2016 (Table B-2).
123 See CRS Report R42972, Sequestration as a Budget Enforcement Process: Frequently Asked Questions.
124 CBO, Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, December 11, 2013, at http://cbo.gov/publication/44964.
125 Southwest Farm Press, “Vilsack announces 6.8% ARC/PLC cuts forthcoming,” October 8, 2016, at http://southwest
farmpress.com/government/vilsack-announces-68-arcplc-cuts-forthcoming-2014-2016-payments-farmers.
126 Generally speaking, the benefits from these programs are exempt from sequestration; however, some administrative
expenses in these programs may be subject to sequestration, and therefore the programs may appear in the tables in this
appendix with a relatively small sequesterable amount compared to their total budget authority.
127 2 U.S.C. 905 (g)(1)(A), and 2 U.S.C. 906 (j). See also CRS Report R42050, Budget “Sequestration” and Selected
Program Exemptions and Special Rules.
128 See CRS Report R43669, Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations.
Congressional Research Service
74
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Table B-2. Sequestration of Mandatory Agriculture Appropriations in FY2013-2016
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
Seq. BA
Amount
Seq. BA
Amount
Seq. BA
Amount
Seq. BA
Amount
Sequestration rate on non-exempt, non-
defense mandatory accounts
5.1%
7.2%
7.3%
6.8%
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Office of the Secretary
—
—
—
—
13
0.9
13
0.9
Office of Chief Economist
—
—
—
—
1
0.1
1
0.1
Agricultural Research Service
2
0.1
2
0.1
2
0.1
2
0.1
National Institute of Food, Agriculture
145
9.9
Extension
5
0.3
5
0.4
25
1.8
—
—
Biomass R&D
—
—
—
—
3
0.2
3
0.2
Integrated Activities
—
—
—
—
100
7.3
—
—
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Salaries appropriation
266
13.6
261
18.8
294
21.5
295
20.1
Misc. Trust Funds
1
0.1
1
0.1
1
0.1
1
0.1
Food Safety Inspection Service
Expenses and refunds
1
0.1
1
0.1
1
0.1
1
0.1
Grain Insp. Packers, Stockyards Admin.
Limitation on Expenses
41
2.1
41
3.0
41
3.0
46
3.1
Agricultural Marketing Service
Section 32
792
40.4
1,107
79.7
1,122
81.9
1,137
77.3
Milk Market Orders Assess. Fund
57
2.9
58
4.2
57
4.2
59
4.0
Perishable Ag Commodities Act
11
0.6
11
0.8
11
0.8
12
0.8
Expenses and refunds
8
0.4
12
0.9
12
0.9
19
1.3
Payments to States and Possessions
—
—
—
—
73
5.3
73
5.0
Marketing Services
—
—
—
—
30
2.2
30
2.0
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
58
3.0
58
4.2
81
5.9
51
3.5
Farm Service Agency
Commodity Credit Corporation
6,460
329.5
7,968
573.7
9,737
710.8
20,420
1,388.6
Agricultural Disaster Relief Fund
1,372
70.0
—
—
—
—
—
—
Tobacco Trust Fund
960
49.0
960
69.1
—
—
—
—
Ag. Credit Insurance Corp.
—
—
—
—
1
0.1
1
0.1
CCC Export Loans
—
—
—
—
—
—
6
0.4
Pima Cotton Trust Fund
—
—
—
—
—
—
16
1.1
Wool Apparel Trust Fund
—
—
—
—
—
—
30
2.0
Congressional Research Service
75
link to page 24 Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
Seq. BA
Amount
Seq. BA
Amount
Seq. BA
Amount
Seq. BA
Amount
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Farm Security, Rural Invest. Prog.
3,357
171.2
3,654
263.1
3,697
269.9
3,907
265.7
Watershed Rehabilitation Program
—
—
165
11.9
153
11.2
69
4.7
Rural Business Cooperative Service
87
4.4
89
6.4
118
8.6
141
9.6
Foreign Agricultural Service
1
0.1
2
0.1
1
0.1
1
0.1
Food and Nutrition Servicea
SNAP
93
4.7
111
8.0
115
8.4
144
9.8
Child Nutrition Programs
49
2.5
58
4.2
58
4.2
58
3.9
Commodity Assistance Program
21
1.1
21
1.5
21
1.5
21
1.4
WIC
1
0.1
1
0.1
1
0.1
1
0.1
Related Agencies
Food and Drug Administration
User Fees
319
16.3
—
—
—
—
—
—
Revolving Fund for Certification
8
0.4
8
0.6
8
0.6
9
0.6
Commodity Futures Trading Comm.
13
0.7
12
0.9
14
1.0
32
2.2
Total
13,983
713.1
14,606
1,051.6
15,791
1,152.7
26,744
1,818.6
Source: OMB, various Reports to the Congress on the Joint Committee Reductions (Sequestration), at https://www.
whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative_reports/sequestration. Compiled by CRS.
Notes: “Seq. BA” = Sequesterable budget authority; “Amount” = Amount of sequestration. Sequestration rates
are for non-exempt, non-defense accounts. Column totals were computed by CRS.
a. Benefits from the nutrition programs generally are exempt from sequestration by statute, but some
administrative expenses in these programs may be subject to sequestration and therefore a relatively small
portion of the total budget authority may be sequesterable.
Congressional Research Service
76
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Author Contact Information
Jim Monke, Coordinator
Mark A. McMinimy
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Analyst in Agricultural Policy
jmonke@crs.loc.gov, 7-9664
mmcminimy@crs.loc.gov, 7-2172
Megan Stubbs
Randy Schnepf
Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Resources Policy
rschnepf@crs.loc.gov, 7-4277
mstubbs@crs.loc.gov, 7-8707
Randy Alison Aussenberg
Susan Thaul
Specialist in Nutrition Assistance Policy
Specialist in Drug Safety and Effectiveness
raussenberg@crs.loc.gov, 7-8641
sthaul@crs.loc.gov, 7-0562
Joel L. Greene
Agata Dabrowska
Analyst in Agricultural Policy
Analyst in Health Policy
jgreene@crs.loc.gov, 7-9877
adabrowska@crs.loc.gov, 7-9455
Renée Johnson
Rena S. Miller
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Specialist in Financial Economics
rjohnson@crs.loc.gov, 7-9588
rsmiller@crs.loc.gov, 7-0826
Tadlock Cowan
Analyst in Natural Resources and Rural
Development
tcowan@crs.loc.gov, 7-7600
Congressional Research Service
77