link to page 1 
Updated May 15, 2017
Reductions to Mandatory Agricultural Conservation Programs
in Appropriations Law
Federal spending for agricultural conservation programs—
because many conservation programs have been reduced or
which assist agricultural producers with correcting and
capped through annual appropriations acts since FY2003.
preventing natural resource concerns—generally takes two
forms: (1) discretionary spending provided through annual
At the Administration’s Request
appropriations acts and (2) mandatory spending authorized
Many conservation program CHIMPS are at the request of
and paid for in multiyear legislation (e.g., farm bills).
the Administration. Both the Bush and the Obama
Historically, mandatory agricultural funding was reserved
Administrations have requested reductions in recent years
for the farm commodity programs, but it has expanded in
(Figure 1). The mix of programs and the amount of
recent years to include conservation, rural development,
reduction vary from year to year.
research, and bioenergy programs. This expansion has
generated both concern and support. Some consider the
Through Appropriations Law
expansion to be beyond the scope of the authorizing
When appropriators limit mandatory spending, they usually
committee’s jurisdiction, while others prefer the stability of
do not change the text of the authorizing law. Their action
mandatory funding to that of the appropriations process.
has the same effect as changing the law but only for the one
year to which the appropriation applies. Appropriators put
Mandatory Conservation Spending
limits on mandatory programs by using language such as
Large backlogs of interested and eligible producers led to
“None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
new and expanded farm bill conservation programs with
available by this or any other Act shall be used to pay the
mandatory spending authority beginning in the mid-1980s.
salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out section [ ... ]
Currently, the level of mandatory spending for conservation
of Public Law [ ... ] in excess of $[ ... ].”
is roughly five times that of discretionary agricultural
conservation spending.
Figure 1. Estimated Mandatory Conservation
Program Funding
The Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 farm bill, P.L. 113-79)
reauthorized mandatory spending for a number of
agricultural conservation programs through FY2018.
The Origin of CHIMPS
The rise in the number of agricultural programs with
mandatory budget authority established by the authorizing
committees has not gone unnoticed or untouched by
appropriators. In recent years, appropriations bills have
reduced some mandatory program spending below
authorized levels. These reductions, estimated by the
Congressional Budget Office, are commonly referred to as
“changes in mandatory program spending” (CHIMPS).
CHIMPS can offset discretionary spending that would
otherwise be above discretionary budget caps.
Source: CRS.
CHIMPS = Changes In Mandatory Program Spending
Notes: Reductions below authorized levels include CHIMPS and
Similarly, authorizing committees have also reduced
sequestration. FY2014 includes CHIMPS prior to enactment of the
mandatory spending levels from their initially enacted
2014 farm bill.
levels. Authorizers may make such reductions either to
The Rise of Rescissions
offset spending increases for other mandatory programs
within their jurisdiction or to get credit for budget
Unlike CHIMPS, which apply only to the current fiscal year
reconciliation requirements. Authorizing committee
and do not typically change or permanently cancel the
CHIMPS are not discussed in this document.
statutory funding authority, a rescission is a permanent
cancellation of funds. The 2014 farm bill amended
CHIMPing Conservation
mandatory funding provisions for several conservation
Mandatory conservation spending has generally increased
programs, allowing unobligated funds from previous years
annually. Nonetheless, the full potential of authorized
to be carried forward until expended or expired. Prior to
mandatory conservation spending has not been realized
this carryover provision, most mandatory conservation
https://crsreports.congress.gov
link to page 2 link to page 2 
Reductions to Mandatory Agricultural Conservation Programs in Appropriations Law
funding was for one fiscal year. Therefore, CHIMPS
sequestration). Others, such as the Environmental Quality
effectively cancelled the funding permanently. The new
Incentives Program (EQIP), have been repeatedly reduced
carryover provision allows not only unobligated funding to
below authorized levels (Figure 2). Some programs, such
be carried forward to the next fiscal year but also the
as the Watershed Rehabilitation Program (Dam Rehab),
portion of the authorization blocked by the prior year’s
have rarely been allowed to spend their mandatory
CHIMPS as well. Therefore, the full amount of funding
authority.
(minus any sequestration) is restored the following fiscal
year and could potentially be reduced again.
Budgetary scoring methods have also led to what some
argue is “double counting” for CHIMPS of authorizations
This has led to a number of proposed rescissions in annual
that do not expire after one year. The new carryover
appropriations bills. A rescission permanently cancels
provisions for farm bill conservation programs will allow
funds, preventing the funding from being carried forward to
unobligated and “CHIMPed” funding (minus any
the next fiscal year. For example, the House-reported bill
sequestration) to be restored the following fiscal year and
(H.R. 5054) included $173 million in CHIMPS for FY2017,
can potentially be reduced again. Thus, successive years’
and the Senate-reported bill (S. 2956) included $252
CHIMPS can score savings for prohibiting spending of the
million—or an approximate $80 million greater reduction
same money over multiple years unless the funding is
to authorized levels for FY2017. The difference, however,
rescinded.
is that the House bill also incorporated $98 million in
rescissions, compared to no rescissions in the Senate bill.
Figure 2. CHIMPS to Conservation Programs in
Thus the House bill would have reduced the total funding
Appropriations Law
for conservation more than the Senate bill would have.
Ultimately, the enacted FY2017 appropriation (P.L. 115-
31) includes $235 million in CHIMPS and no rescissions.
Budget Sequestration: A Further
Reduction
Budget sequestration continues to impact a number of
mandatory programs and reduces the authorized level
available to programs. During the 2014 farm bill debate,
sequestration reduced the overall baseline prior to the bill’s
enactment. Sequestration, combined with the farm bill’s
other reductions, resulted in a net reduction of over $6
billion over 10 years for mandatory conservation programs.
Currently, sequestration does not directly reduce
discretionary accounts but continues to impact mandatory
programs. Sequestration is calculated on the authorized
Source: CRS. Sequestration estimates are from the Office of
funding level and before CHIMPS. This leaves less
Management and Budget’s Reports to the Congress on the Joint
authority for CHIMPS to conservation than previous years
Committee Sequestration.
(Figure 2). However, the overall impact to conservation
Notes: FY2008 and FY2014 include CHIMPS prior to enactment of
programs (CHIMPS + sequestration) is similar to previous
the 2008 and 2014 farm bills, respectively. CSP = Conservation
years––a reduction from the authorized level.
Stewardship Program, WRP = Wetlands Reserve Program (now
authorized as the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program, or
The 2014 farm bill carryover provision is also impacted by
ACEP).
sequestration. Not only are current-year mandatory funds
subject to sequestration, but so are unobligated prior-year
Finally, conservation advocates contend that these
funds that are carried forward.
reductions are significant changes from the intent of the
Concluding Thoughts
authorizing law (farm bill), undercutting many of the
Initially, CHIMPS in appropriations law were fiercely
programs that generated political support for the farm bill’s
opposed by conservation advocates. And while
initial passage. They also point out that savings generated
conservation programs continue to have broad support
from conservation funding reductions are not necessarily
against reductions (now including sequestration and
used for other conservation or environmental activities.
rescissions), the outcry has lessened slightly, possibly
Those interested in reducing agricultural expenditures
indicating a certain level of acceptance. Some believe that
counter that even with these reductions, overall funding for
the agriculture committees might anticipate some level of
conservation has not been significantly reduced and has
funding authority reduction when they establish spending
increased in recent years, albeit not as much as authorized.
levels in an omnibus farm bill.
Megan Stubbs, Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and
Additionally, reductions are not uniform among programs.
Natural Resources Policy
Some programs, such as the Conservation Reserve Program
IF10041
(CRP), have not been reduced by CHIMPS or sequestration
in recent years (CRP is statutorily exempt from
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Reductions to Mandatory Agricultural Conservation Programs in Appropriations Law
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF10041 · VERSION 6 · UPDATED