Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations
Congressional research reportFeb 4, 2015
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Agriculture and Related Agencies:
FY2015 Appropriations
(name redacted), Coordinator
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
February 4, 2015
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R43669
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations
Summary
The Agriculture appropriations bill funds the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), except for
the Forest Service. It includes the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and—in the House and
in even-numbered enacted fiscal years—the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).
The FY2015 Agriculture and Related Agencies appropriation was enacted as Division A of the
FY2015 Consolidated Appropriations Act, P.L. 113-235 (December 16, 2014), an omnibus
appropriation that included 11 of the 12 appropriations subcommittee bills. Although the fiscal
year began under a continuing resolution, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees
reported their Agriculture appropriations bills (H.R. 4800 and S. 2389) in May 2014—the earliest
joint action in years. The House considered H.R. 4800 on the floor on June 11, 2014, procedurally
read through most of the bill, and adopted several amendments. The bill was left unfinished when
floor action was suspended due to House Whip leadership changes. The Senate considered a
minibus appropriations bill on June 19, 2014, that included the Agriculture bill. But Senate
consideration quickly stopped over a disagreement about procedures for amendments.
The official, enacted discretionary total in the FY2015 Agriculture appropriation is $20.575
billion, which is $90 million less than (-0.4%) the comparable Senate-basis amount for FY2014
that excludes CFTC. On a House jurisdiction basis that includes CFTC, the FY2015 discretionary
appropriation effectively is $20.825 billion, which is $55 million less than (-0.3%) the
comparable, official FY2014 amount. Despite the small decrease overall, many agencies receive
small increases compared with FY2014.
In addition to these amounts, the FY2015 appropriation includes another $116 million of
emergency spending that does not count against the discretionary allocation, including $91
million for agricultural conservation and $25 million for Ebola-related activity at FDA. Thus, if
the emergency spending is included in the comparison, the Senate-basis spending level that
includes emergency appropriations is $26 million greater than the comparable FY2014 amount.
Mandatory spending in the FY2015 Agriculture appropriation is $126.5 billion, nearly $2 billion
more than FY2014, mostly due to costs in child nutrition (school lunch and related programs).
Notable policy riders affecting the Agriculture appropriation this year include a provision to allow
white potatoes in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children
(WIC) “food package,” and to require a review of the WIC food package to determine whether
white potatoes would remain eligible. Regarding National School Lunch Program and School
Breakfast Program, the appropriation requires USDA to allow states to exempt schools that
demonstrate a hardship from implementing a whole grain requirement. The appropriation requires
scientific evidence before sodium reduction targets can go into effect. And it also prohibits
processed chicken cooked in China from being used in the National School Lunch Program and
other USDA child nutrition programs. The appropriation prevents the Grain Inspection, Packers,
and Stockyards Administration from finalizing proposed rules on livestock and poultry marketing
practices, and effectively bans horse slaughter by prohibiting USDA from inspecting horses.
Congressional Research Service
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations
Contents
Scope of the Agriculture Appropriations Bill .................................................................................. 1
Action on FY2015 Appropriations .................................................................................................. 2
Overview ................................................................................................................................... 5
Administration Budget Request ................................................................................................ 5
House Action ............................................................................................................................. 5
Senate Action ............................................................................................................................ 6
Summary of Amounts in the Appropriation .................................................................................... 7
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 .................................................................................................. 7
302(b) Subcommittee Allocations ............................................................................................. 7
Comparison of Amounts for FY2015 ........................................................................................ 7
Sequestration Continues on Mandatory Accounts..................................................................... 8
Funding During the Continuing Resolution .............................................................................. 9
Applicability of House and Senate Report Language ............................................................. 10
USDA Agencies and Programs ...................................................................................................... 16
Departmental Administration .................................................................................................. 17
Agricultural Research, Education, and Extension ................................................................... 20
Agricultural Research Service .......................................................................................... 20
National Institute of Food and Agriculture ....................................................................... 22
National Agricultural Statistics Service ............................................................................ 23
Economic Research Service .............................................................................................. 23
Marketing and Regulatory Programs ...................................................................................... 23
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service .................................................................... 23
Agricultural Marketing Service and “Section 32” ............................................................ 25
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration ............................................... 27
Food Safety ............................................................................................................................. 28
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) .............................................................................. 30
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) ...................................................................... 32
Farm Service Agency .............................................................................................................. 33
FSA Salaries and Expenses ............................................................................................... 33
FSA Farm Loan Programs ................................................................................................ 36
Commodity Credit Corporation .............................................................................................. 39
Crop Insurance ........................................................................................................................ 40
Disaster Assistance .................................................................................................................. 40
Conservation ........................................................................................................................... 41
Discretionary Conservation Programs .............................................................................. 41
Mandatory Conservation Programs .................................................................................. 43
Rural Development ................................................................................................................. 44
Rural Housing Service (RHS) ........................................................................................... 44
Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS) ..................................................................... 45
Rural Utilities Service (RUS) ........................................................................................... 45
Domestic Food Assistance ...................................................................................................... 52
SNAP and Other Programs under the Food and Nutrition Act ......................................... 52
Child Nutrition Programs .................................................................................................. 53
WIC Program .................................................................................................................... 55
Commodity Assistance Program ....................................................................................... 56
Nutrition Programs Administration................................................................................... 56
Congressional Research Service
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations
Other Nutrition Funding Support ...................................................................................... 57
Agricultural Trade and Food Aid ............................................................................................ 61
Foreign Agricultural Service ............................................................................................. 61
Food for Peace Program (P.L. 480) ................................................................................... 62
Local and Regional Procurement (LRP) Projects ............................................................. 63
McGovern-Dole Food for Education and Child Nutrition ................................................ 63
Note: Appropriations Provision on Industrial Hemp ............................................................... 63
Related Agencies ........................................................................................................................... 64
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) .................................................................................... 65
Commodity Futures Trading Commission .............................................................................. 70
Farm Credit Administration .................................................................................................... 70
General Provisions, Scorekeeping Adjustments ............................................................................ 72
Changes in Mandatory Program Spending (CHIMPS) ........................................................... 72
Rescissions .............................................................................................................................. 75
Other Appropriations (Including Emergency Disaster Programs) .......................................... 75
Other Scorekeeping Adjustments ............................................................................................ 77
Figures
Figure 1. FY2015 Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations ............................................. 1
Figure 2. Congressional Action on Agriculture Appropriations, FY1995-FY2015......................... 4
Figure A-1. Total Agriculture Appropriations: Mandatory and Discretionary .............................. 78
Figure A-2. Total Agriculture Appropriations: Domestic Nutrition and Rest of Bill .................... 79
Figure A-3. Discretionary Agriculture Appropriations .................................................................. 80
Figure A-4. Agriculture Appropriations as Percentages of Total Federal Budget ......................... 84
Figure A-5. More Components as Percentages of Total Federal Budget....................................... 84
Figure A-6. Agriculture Appropriations as Percentages of GDP ................................................... 84
Figure A-7. Agriculture Appropriations per Capita of U.S. Population ........................................ 84
Tables
Table 1. Congressional Action on Agriculture Appropriations ........................................................ 3
Table 2. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations, by Agency and Program ................... 11
Table 3. USDA Departmental Administration Appropriations ...................................................... 18
Table 4. USDA Research, Extension, and Economics (REE) Appropriations .............................. 21
Table 5. Food Safety Appropriations ............................................................................................. 29
Table 6. Farm Service Agency Appropriations .............................................................................. 35
Table 7. Farm Service Agency: Farm Loan Program .................................................................... 37
Table 8. Conservation Operations Funding ................................................................................... 42
Table 9. USDA Rural Development Appropriations ..................................................................... 47
Table 10. Domestic Food Assistance (USDA-FNS) Appropriations ............................................. 58
Table 11. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Appropriations .................................................. 67
Table 12. Farm Credit Administration Limitation on Expenses .................................................... 71
Table 13. Changes in Mandatory Program Spending (CHIMPS).................................................. 74
Congressional Research Service
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations
Table 14. Rescissions from (Prior-Year) Budget Authority ........................................................... 75
Table 15. Other Appropriations in General Provisions.................................................................. 76
Table 16. Scorekeeping Adjustments............................................................................................. 77
Table A-1. Trends in Nominal Agriculture Appropriations ........................................................... 80
Table A-2. Trends in Real Agriculture Appropriations .................................................................. 81
Table A-3. Percentage Changes in Agriculture Appropriations ..................................................... 83
Table A-4. Trends in Agriculture Appropriations Measured Against Benchmarks ....................... 85
Table B-1. Sequestration Rates and Amounts Cancelled from Agriculture Appropriations
Accounts ..................................................................................................................................... 86
Table B-2. Sequestration of Discretionary Agriculture Appropriations in FY2013 ...................... 87
Table B-3. Sequestration of Mandatory Agriculture Appropriations in FY2013-2015 ................ 89
Appendixes
Appendix A. Historical Trends ...................................................................................................... 78
Appendix B. Budget Sequestration ............................................................................................... 86
Contacts
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 91
Congressional Research Service
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations
Scope of the Agriculture Appropriations Bill
The Agriculture appropriations bill—formally known as the Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act—provides funding for:
all of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) except the Forest Service,
which is funded in the Interior appropriations bill,
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the Department of Health and
Human Services, and
in the House, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). In the
Senate, the Financial Services bill contains CFTC appropriations. In evennumbered fiscal years, CFTC appears in the enacted Agriculture appropriation.
Jurisdiction is with the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, and each Subcommittee
on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies. The
bill includes both mandatory and discretionary spending, although most appropriations decisionmaking concerns the latter. Figure 1 illustrates the distribution of agriculture appropriations
spending among major divisions and agencies in the enacted FY2015 appropriation.
Figure 1. FY2015 Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
Source: CRS, compiled from P.L. 113-235. Does not show some agencies under $0.5 billion, including CFTC,
AMS, GIPSA, and department administration that together are essentially offset by other reductions.
Note: CCC = Commodity Credit Corp.; SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; WIC = Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children; CSFP = Commodity Supplemental Food
Program; FDA = Food and Drug Admin.; FSA = Farm Service Agency; RMA = Risk Management Agency; FSIS =
Food Safety Inspection Service; APHIS = Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
The federal budget process treats discretionary and mandatory spending differently.
Congressional Research Service
1
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations
Discretionary spending is controlled by annual appropriations acts and consumes
most of the attention during the appropriations process. The annual budget
resolution process sets spending limits for discretionary appropriations. Agency
operations (salaries and expenses) and many grant programs are discretionary.
Mandatory spending—though carried in the appropriation and usually advanced
unchanged—is controlled by budget enforcement rules (e.g., PAYGO) during the
authorization process.1 Spending for eligibility and benefit formulas in so-called
entitlement programs are set in laws such as the farm bill and child nutrition act.2
In 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.3
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 FY2015 Appropriations6
The FY2015 Agriculture and Related Agencies appropriation was enacted as Division A of the
FY2015 Consolidated Appropriations Act, P.L. 113-235—an omnibus appropriation that included
11 of the 12 appropriations subcommittee bills. The omnibus bill was filed on December 11,
2014, passed in each chamber, and signed by the President on December 16, 2014.
Table 1 summarizes actions on FY2015 Agriculture appropriations—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
CRS Report 98-560, Baselines and Scorekeeping in the Federal Budget Process.
CRS Report R42484, Budget Issues That Shaped the 2014 Farm Bill.
3
Excludes CFTC appropriations, since the Financial Services bill carried CFTC appropriations for FY2015.
4
Mandatory spending in agriculture historically was reserved for programs such as the farm commodity programs and
crop insurance that had uncertain outlays because of weather and market conditions. Mandatory spending creates
funding stability and consistency compared to appropriations.
5
CRS Report RS20129, Entitlements and Appropriated Entitlements in the Federal Budget Process.
6
For a two-page summary of action and amounts in the House and Senate bills, see CRS In Focus IF10056, FY2015
Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations.
2
Congressional Research Service
2
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations
Table 1. Congressional Action on Agriculture Appropriations
House Action
Senate Action
Final Appropriation
Fiscal
Year
Subcom.
Comm.
Chamber
Subcom.
Comm.
Chamber
Public Law
CRS
Report
1995
5/26/1994
6/9/1994
6/17/1994
6/22/1994
6/23/1994
7/20/1994
9/30/1994
E
P.L. 103-330
IB94011
1996
6/14/1995
6/27/1995
7/21/1995
9/13/1995
9/14/1995
9/20/1995
10/21/1995
E
P.L. 104-37
95-624
1997
5/30/1996
6/6/1996
6/12/1996
7/10/1996
7/11/1996
7/24/1996
8/6/1996
E
P.L. 104-180
IB96015
1998
6/25/1997
7/14/1997
7/24/1997
7/15/1997
7/17/1997
7/24/1997
11/18/1997
E
P.L. 105-86
97-201
1999
6/10/1998
6/16/1998
6/24/1998
6/9/1998
6/11/1998
7/16/1998
10/21/1998
O
P.L. 105-277
98-201
2000
5/13/1999
5/24/1999
6/8/1999
6/15/1999
6/17/1999
8/4/1999
10/22/1999
E
P.L. 106-78
RL30201
2001
5/4/2000
5/16/2000
7/11/2000
5/4/2000
5/10/2000
7/20/2000
10/28/2000
E
P.L. 106-387
RL30501
2002
6/6/2001
6/27/2001
7/11/2001
Polled out
7/18/2001
10/25/2001
11/28/2001
E
P.L. 107-76
RL31001
2003
6/26/2002
7/26/2002
—
7/23/2002
7/25/2002
—
2/20/2003
O
P.L. 108-7
RL31301
2004
6/17/2003
7/9/2003
7/14/2003
7/17/2003
11/6/2003
11/6/2003
1/23/2004
O
P.L. 108-199
RL31801
2005
6/14/2004
7/7/2004
7/13/2004
9/8/2004
9/14/2004
—
12/8/2004
O
P.L. 108-447
RL32301
2006
5/16/2005
6/2/2005
6/8/2005
6/21/2005
6/27/2005
9/22/2005
11/10/2005
E
P.L. 109-97
RL32904
2007
5/3/2006
5/9/2006
5/23/2006
6/20/2006
6/22/2006
—
2/15/2007
Y
P.L. 110-5
RL33412
2008
7/12/2007
7/19/2007
8/2/2007
7/17/2007
7/19/2007
—
12/26/2007
O
P.L. 110-161
RL34132
2009
6/19/2008
—
—
Polled out
7/17/2008
—
3/11/2009
O
P.L. 111-8
R40000
2010
6/11/2009
6/18/2009
7/9/2009
Polled out
7/7/2009
8/4/2009
10/21/2009
E
P.L. 111-80
R40721
2011
6/30/2010
—
—
Polled out
7/15/2010
—
4/15/2011
Y
P.L. 112-10
R41475
2012
5/24/2011
5/31/2011
6/16/2011
Polled out
9/7/2011
11/1/2011
11/18/2011
O
P.L. 112-55
R41964
2013
6/6/2012
6/19/2012
—
Polled out
4/26/2012
—
3/26/2013
O
P.L. 113-6
R43110
2014
6/5/2013
6/13/2013
—
6/18/2013
6/20/2013
—
1/17/2014
O
P.L. 113-76
R43110
2015
5/20/2014
Draftb
Voice vote
5/29/2014
H.R. 4800
H.Rept.
113-468
Vote of 3118
—
Considered
but
unfinished
6/11/2014
H.R. 4800
5/20/2014
Voice vote
5/22/2014
—
S. 2389
Considered
but
S.Rept. 113unfinished
164
6/19/2014
Vote 30-0c
H.R. 4660
Division Cd
12/16/2014
H.R. 83
H: 219-206
S: 56-40
Joint
explanatory
statemente
O
P.L. 113-235
R43669
Enacteda
Source: CRS.
a. E=Enacted as stand-alone appropriation; O=Omnibus appropriation; Y=Year-long continuing resolution.
b. The House subcommittee posted a draft of the bill at http://appropriations.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bills113hr-sc-ap-fy2015-agriculture-subcommitteedraft.pdf. Amendments adopted in the full committee markup
were posted at http://appropriations.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hmkp-113-ap00-20140529-sd005.pdf.
c. En bloc vote with the Military Construction-Veterans Affairs bill.
d. The Senate vehicle for Senate floor consideration was “minibus” appropriation that included three
committee-reported bills: Commerce-Justice-Science (Division A), Transportation-HUD (Division B), and
Agriculture (Division C, of S.Amdt. 3244 to H.R. 4660).
e. The joint explanatory statement was printed in the Congressional Record, Book II, December 11, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
3
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations
Figure 2. Congressional Action on Agriculture Appropriations, FY1995-FY2015
Source: CRS. Arrows indicate action was completed in a new calendar year. “Gap” is government shutdown.
Congressional Research Service
4
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations
Because Congress had not completed any of the FY2015 appropriations bills by the beginning of
the fiscal year, FY2015 began under a 10-week continuing resolution (P.L. 113-164) that lasted
until December 11, 2014.7 The continuing resolution (CR) generally extended funding under
FY2014 levels and conditions, with a small across-the-board reduction (0.0554%). Two
additional CRs were enacted to carry funding for several more days during final legislative
action, through December 13 and December 17 (P.L. 113-202 and P.L. 113-203, respectively).
Overview
During the regular FY2015 appropriations cycle, both the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations reported their respective FY2015 Agriculture appropriations bills.8 In each
chamber, floor action began on a stand-alone bill, but proceedings stopped on both the House and
Senate floor before either bill was completed or brought to a final vote.
In the House, amendments were debated and some were adopted as the bill was read through Title
VI. Procedural reading of the bill stopped before Title VII (General Provisions) and the House did
not return to the bill—initially, because of the disruption caused by the defeat in a primary
election of Majority Leader Eric Cantor.
In the Senate, a minibus appropriation of three bills—including Agriculture—was brought to the
floor, but before debate of individual provisions began, consideration stopped over disagreements
about amendment procedures. Thus, the last official version of either stand-alone Agriculture bill
is the House committee-reported bill (H.R. 4800) and Senate committee-reported bill (S. 2389).
Administration Budget Request
The Administration released its FY2015 budget request on March 4, 2014.9 USDA concurrently
released its budget summary10 and detailed agency budget justifications.11
House Action
The Agriculture Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee held ten hearings on
FY2015 appropriations with various USDA agencies, FDA, and CFTC from March 5, 2014,
through April 8, 2014.
The subcommittee approved its FY2015 appropriations markup by voice vote on May 20, 2013.12
The full House Appropriations Committee reported the bill (H.R. 4800; H.Rept. 113-468) on May
29, 2014, by a vote of 31-18 and officially reported it on June 4 (Table 1).
The rule for House floor consideration of the bill (H.Res. 616) was adopted on June 11, 2014, and
House floor debate began later that day. Proceedings followed a modified open rule, with
amendments debated under the five-minute rule (10 minutes of debate equally divided). H.R.
7
CRS Report R43776, Congressional Action on FY2015 Appropriations Measures. See also CRS Report R42647,
Continuing Resolutions: Overview of Components and Recent Practices.
8
See CRS Report R42388, The Congressional Appropriations Process: An Introduction, for context on procedures.
9
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2015, at http://
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget.
10
USDA, FY2015 Budget Summary, April 2014, at http://www.obpa.usda.gov/budsum/FY15budsum.pdf.
11
USDA, FY2015 USDA Budget Explanatory Notes for Committee on Appropriations, at http://www.obpa.usda.gov/
FY15explan_notes.html.
12
House subcommittee draft, http://appropriations.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bills-113hr-sc-ap-fy2015-agriculturesubcommitteedraft.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
5
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations
4800 was read procedurally through the end of Title VI (FDA and CFTC), and several
amendments were adopted. However, the last title of the bill was not read, and the bill was left
unfinished due to political changes in House Whip leadership and concern over expected
amendments.13 House appropriations action proceeded to other bills and never returned to the
Agriculture bill. Thus, while some amendments to the Agriculture appropriations bill were
adopted on the floor, the amended bill was neither completed procedurally nor voted on as a
whole, and thus was not a chamber-passed version.
Senate Action
The Agriculture Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee held two hearings on the
FY2015 appropriation—March 26, 2014, on the USDA budget request, and April 3, 2014, on the
FDA budget request.
The subcommittee approved its FY2015 bill on May 20, 2014, by voice vote (Table 1). The full
committee reported the bill (S. 2389, S.Rept. 113-164) on May 22 by a 30-0 vote.14
The Senate adopted cloture on June 17, 2014, to bring a three-bill “minibus” appropriation to the
floor that included Commerce-Justice-Science (Division A), Transportation-HUD (Division B),
and Agriculture (Division C of S.Amdt. 3244 to H.R. 4660). However, proceedings stopped over
disagreements about procedures for amendments, and by late July the Senate’s appropriations
efforts had shifted to supplemental funding and the continuing resolution.15
Legislative Action Compared With Prior Fiscal Years
The last time an Agriculture appropriations bill was enacted as a stand-alone measure was for FY2010 (in 2009). A
final floor vote on an Agriculture appropriations bill has not occurred in the House or Senate since the FY2012 bill. In
the 20 years since FY1995, Agriculture appropriations bills were enacted as stand-alone measures nine times.
Omnibus appropriations were used ten times, and year-long continuing resolutions were used twice (Table 1; see
also CRS Report RL32473, Omnibus Appropriations Acts: Overview of Recent Practices).
Committee action on the FY2015 Agriculture appropriations bill was among the earliest in the last 20 years. Only for
FY2001 did both chambers’ committees complete action sooner. The delay in completing floor action in one or both
chambers is more typical in recent years, though not with floor action starting but being left unfinished.
At the Agriculture subcommittee level, both the House and Senate have approved draft bills every year since FY1995.
The full committees usually report a bill, with the exception for two years in the House (FY2009 and FY2011).
Floor action in each chamber is somewhat less predictable, with House floor action not taking place for FY2003,
FY2009, FY2011, FY2013, FY2014, and FY2015. In the Senate, floor action did not occur during those same six years,
and also not for FY2005, FY2007, and FY2008 (when the House did pass bills).
13
Congressional Quarterly, “House Leadership Turmoil Latest Obstacle for Spending Bills,” June 12, 2014.
The 30-0 vote was an en bloc vote on the Military Construction-Veterans Affairs bill and the Agriculture bill.
15
Congressional Quarterly, “With Senate Action Stalled, Continuing Resolution Looks Likely for Fall,” July 18, 2014.
14
Congressional Research Service
6
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations
Summary of Amounts in the Appropriation16
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013
The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (P.L. 113-67, December 26, 2013) set the total governmentwide discretionary spending limits for both FY2014 and FY2015. These were upward revisions of
amounts that were originally targeted in the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25). Total
FY2015 discretionary spending was capped at $1.014 trillion (the “302(a) allocation”).
The congressional intention was to avoid sequestration on discretionary accounts in FY2014 and
FY2015.17 However, budget sequestration on non-exempt mandatory accounts does continue in
these fiscal years (see “Sequestration Continues on Mandatory Accounts” and Appendix B).
The enactment of the Bipartisan Budget Act substituted for the usual budget resolution process
during the spring of 2014 and paved the way for action on FY2015 appropriations bills.18
302(b) Subcommittee Allocations
Of the $1.014 trillion total government-wide discretionary spending limit for FY2015, the House
Appropriations committee set a $20.880 billion discretionary limit for the Agriculture bill
(H.Rept. 113-454; the “302(b) allocation”). The total amount for the House bill equaled the
enacted amount in FY2014 and included the CFTC.
The Senate allocation for the agriculture bill was $20.575 billion (S.Rept. 113-163). It was lower
than the House bill and the FY2014 enacted level by $305 million, in large part due to the
absence of CFTC in the Senate bill’s jurisdiction, which was $215 million in FY2014.
The final 302(b) Agriculture subcommittee allocation for the omnibus was $20.575 billion, the
same as the Senate’s subcommittee allocation. The omnibus bill placed CFTC appropriations in
the Financial Services appropriation, as is customary in odd-numbered fiscal years.
Comparison of Amounts for FY2015
The official, enacted discretionary total in the FY2015 Agriculture appropriation (P.L. 113-235) is
$20.575 billion, which is $90 million less than (-0.4%) the comparable Senate-basis amount for
FY2014 that excludes CFTC. On a House jurisdiction basis that includes CFTC, the FY2015
discretionary appropriation effectively is $20.825 billion, which is $55 million less than (-0.3%)
the comparable, official FY2014 amount.
In addition to these amounts, the FY2015 appropriation includes another $116 million of
emergency spending that does not count against the discretionary allocation, including $91
million for agricultural conservation and $25 million for Ebola-related activity at FDA. Thus, if
the emergency spending is included in the comparison, the Senate-basis spending level that
includes emergency spending is $26 million greater than the comparable FY2014 amount
16
For a two-page summary of action and amounts in the House and Senate bills, see CRS In Focus IF10056, FY2015
Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations.
17
OMB, Final Sequestration Report to the President and Congress for Fiscal Year 2014, Feb. 7, 2014, at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/sequestration/
sequestration_final_feb2014.pdf.
18
CRS Report R43535, Provisions in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 as an Alternative to a Traditional Budget
Resolution.
Congressional Research Service
7
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations
(+0.1%); the House-basis spending level is $61 million greater than the comparable FY2014
amount (+0.3%).
Table 2 summarizes amounts in the FY2015 Agriculture appropriation. It compares the enacted
amount to appropriations for FY2012-FY2014, and the FY2015 House-reported, Senate-reported,
and Administration-requested amounts. The table lists the major agencies or programs in the
appropriation and the subtotals for titles in the bill. Although floor consideration began and
amendments were adopted on the House floor, this report presents the committee-reported
amounts since neither the House nor Senate Agriculture bills were adopted as stand-alone
measures at the chamber level.
The House-reported bill’s discretionary total (H.R. 4800) was the same as it was for FY2014:
$20.880 billion.
The Senate-reported bill total, like the enacted appropriation, is harder to compare because of
CFTC jurisdiction and because of disaster designations. The official total of the Senate-reported
Agriculture appropriations bill (S. 2389) was $20.575 billion, the same as the FY2015 enacted
amount. While this appeared to be less than the House-reported amount, it would have allowed
$100 million of emergency appropriations that were not in the House bill. This is a similar case as
when the enacted appropriation is compared to the FY2014 levels as explained above.
The Administration’s request was scored to be nearly $450 million less than the House- and
Senate-reported bills, though that difference was overstated because of sequestration scoring
differences discussed later in a text box in the section “Changes in Mandatory Program Spending
(CHIMPS).”
Key Budget Terms
Budget authority is the main output of an appropriations act or a law authorizing mandatory spending. It
provides the legal basis for agencies to obligate funds. It expires at the end of the period and usually is available for
one year unless specified otherwise (such as two-year or indefinite authority). Most amounts in this report are
budget authority.
Obligations reflect agency activities such as employing personnel or entering contracts. The Antideficiency Act
prohibits agencies from obligating more budget authority than is provided in law.
Outlays are payments (cash disbursements) that satisfy a valid obligation. Outlays may differ from budget authority
or obligations because payments from an agency may not occur until services are fulfilled, goods delivered, or
construction completed, even though an obligation occurred.
Program level represents the sum of the activities supported or undertaken by an agency. A program level may
be higher than a budget authority if the program (1) receives user fees that can be used to pay for activities; (2)
makes or guarantees loans that are leveraged on the expectation of repayment (more than $1 of loan authority for
$1 of budget authority); or (3) receives transfers from other agencies.
Rescissions are adjustments that cancel or reduce budget authority after it has been enacted; they score savings.
CHIMPS (Changes in Mandatory Program Spending) are adjustments to mandatory budget authority. CHIMPS in
appropriations usually reduce or limit spending by mandatory programs and score budgetary savings.
For more background, see CRS Report 98-405, The Spending Pipeline: Stages of Federal Spending.
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
Congressional Research Service
8
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations
budget goals. Sequestration is required in the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA; P.L. 112-25).19
Although the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (P.L. 113-67) raised spending limits in the BCA to
avoid sequestration of discretionary accounts in FY2014 and FY2015, it did not prevent or reduce
sequestration on mandatory accounts.
The text box shows the rates of sequestration and the total amount sequestered from accounts in
the Agriculture appropriations bill. In FY2014 and FY2015, over $1 billion has been sequestered
each year from mandatory programs in the Agriculture appropriations bill, primarily in the farm
commodity and conservation areas. Crop insurance and the nutrition programs are largely
exempt. Appendix B provides more detail about sequestration at the individual account level.
Sequestration affects some amounts for FY2015 as discussed in the sections “Mandatory
Conservation Programs” and “Changes in Mandatory Program Spending (CHIMPS).”
Sequestration Rates and Amounts Cancelled from Agriculture Accounts
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
Discretionary accounts
Mandatory accounts
Fiscal
Year
Rate
Amount
Rate
Amount
2013a
5.0%
1,153
5.1%
713
2014b
—
—
7.2%
1,052
2015c
—
—
7.3%
1,153
Source: OMB, various Reports to the Congress on the Joint Committee Sequestration. Compiled by CRS.
Notes: Sequestration rates are for non-exempt, non-defense accounts. Totals were computed by CRS.
a. OMB, Report to the Congress on the Joint Committee Sequestration for FY2013, March 1, 2013, at http://
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fy13ombjcsequestrationreport.
pdf.
b. OMB, Reports to the Congress on the Joint Committee Reductions for FY2014, May 20, 2013, at http://www.
whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fy14_preview_and_joint_committee_
reductions_reports_05202013.pdf.
c. OMB, Report to the Congress on the Joint Committee Reductions for FY2015, March 10, 2014, at http://www.
whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/sequestration_order_report_
march2014.pdf.
Funding During the Continuing Resolution
The continuing resolution (P.L. 113-164) that lasted from October 1, 2014 until December 11,
2014—and the subsequent continuations through December 17, 2014—generally continued the
FY2014 appropriation but with a 0.0554% across-the-board rescission (Section 101(b)). That is,
accounts were funded during the CR at 99.9446% of their FY2014 amounts, as apportioned to the
agencies for the duration of the CR by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Furthermore, any conditions or limitations that were in the FY2014 appropriation—such as in the
General Provisions title that affected the implementation of programs or that placed limits on
mandatory spending—continued to apply during the CR (Section 104).
19
See CRS Report R42972, Sequestration as a Budget Enforcement Process: Frequently Asked Questions.
Congressional Research Service
9
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations
The CR provided for three “anomalies” that affected the Agriculture appropriations bill:
The SNAP program and other mandatory programs are funded “at the rate to
maintain program levels under current law” (Section 111). This is typical
language from prior years’ CRs regarding mandatory program spending.
The Commodity Assistance Program in the domestic food assistance portion of
the bill received increased funding (Section 116). The CR provided $275.7
million for this account, an increase of $6 million (+2%) above the FY2014 level.
All of the increase went to the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, which
received $208.7 million. These amounts were requested by the Administration
and proposed in both the House-reported and Senate-reported bills.
The Food and Drug Administration was allowed to incorporate outsourcing
facility fees, related to drug compounding (Section 117). These fees, authorized
by P.L. 113-54, were scheduled to begin in FY2015 (21 U.S.C. 379j-62).
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the CR provided the Agriculture bill an
annual rate of $20.789 billion of discretionary budget authority. This amount was after accounting
for the across-the-board reduction (-$12 million) and the additional amount for the Commodity
Assistance Program (+$6 million).20 Thus for Agriculture appropriations accounts, the CR was
nearly equal to (within 0.5% of) the total amounts proposed by the House and Senate, but without
the reallocations among agencies and instructions that were in the FY2015 reported bills.
Applicability of House and Senate Report Language
The joint explanatory statement continues long-standing language that makes House and Senate
report language applicable to interpretation of and implementation of the enacted appropriation.
“The explanatory statement is silent on provisions that were in both the House Report and
Senate Report that remain unchanged by this agreement;” and “House and Senate report
language that is not changed by the explanatory statement is approved and indicates
congressional intentions. The explanatory statement, while repeating some report
language for emphasis, does not intend to negate the language referred to above unless
expressly provided herein. In cases in which the House or the Senate have directed the
submission of a report, such report is to be submitted to both the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations no later than 60 days after enactment of this Act, unless
otherwise directed.”21
20
CBO, H.J.Res. 124, Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2015, Sep. 16, 2014, at http://www.cbo.gov/publication/
45727.
21
Joint Explanatory Statement for H.R. 83 (Congressional Record, December 11, 2014), Division A, Congressional
Directives.
Congressional Research Service
10
Table 2. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations, by Agency and Program
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
Agency or Major Program
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
P.L. 11255
P.L. 113-6
post-seq.
P.L. 11376
FY2015
Admin.
Request
House
H.R. 4800
Senate
S. 2389
P.L. 113235
Change from
FY2014 to FY2015
(P.L. 113-235)
$
%
SUMMARY by TITLE
I: Agricultural Programs
24,970.2
27,938.8
29,938.1
25,527.4
25,707.3
25,627.3
30,182.1
+244.0
+0.8%
Mandatory (M)
18,293.5
21,582.7
23,149.1
18,857.8
18,855.8
18,857.8
23,395.3
+246.2
+1.1%
Discretionary
6,676.7
6,356.2
6,789.0
6,669.6
6,851.5
6,769.5
6,786.9
-2.2
-0.0%
844.0
781.2
825.8
815.7
869.0
850.2
859.3
+33.5
+4.1%
2,405.2
2,279.9
2,569.7
2,385.9
2,590.8
2,606.9
2,582.4
+12.7
+0.5%
105,553.0
104,098.0
108,585.6
112,047.9
109,825.3
109,802.9
110,190.9
+1,605.3
+1.5%
Mandatory (M)
98,551.9
97,171.9
101,432.9
104,723.4
102,722.9
102,723.0
103,096.7
+1,663.8
+1.6%
Discretionary
7,001.1
6,926.1
7,152.7
7,324.5
7,102.3
7,079.9
7,094.1
-58.6
-0.8%
V: Foreign Assistance
1,835.7
1,705.9
1,838.5
1,777.0
1,856.0
1,843.2
1,848.3
+9.9
+0.5%
VI: Food and Drug Administration
2,505.8
2,386.0
2,560.7
2,584.2
2,582.9
2,597.3
2,597.3
+36.6
+1.4%
Commodity Futures Trading Commissiona
205.3
[194.0]
215.0
280.0
217.6
[280.0]
[250.0]
+35.0
+16.3%
VII: General Provisions: CHIMPS & rescissions
-1,650.7
-918.4
-987.0
-1,021.0
-792.0
-817.0
-802.0
+185.0
-18.7%
General Provisions: Other appropriations
377.1
132.5
106.6
2.0
0.0
143.3
122.6
+16.0
+15.0%
Scorekeeping adjustmentsb
-72.0
-129.0
-191.0
-398.0
-398.0
-398.0
-398.0
-207.0
+108.4%
Subtract disaster declaration in this bill
-367.0
—
—
—
—
-100.0
-116.0
na
na
Discretionary: Senate basis w/o CFTC
[19,556.0]
19,520.4
[20,665.0]
20,139.8
[20,662.4]
20,575.4
20,575.0
-90.0
-0.4%
Discretionary: House basis w/ CFTC
19,761.3
[19,714.4]
20,880.0
20,419.8
20,880.0
[20,855.4]
[20,825.0]
-55.0
-0.3%
Subtotal Mandatory (M)
116,845.4
118,754.6
124,582.0
123,581.2
121,578.7
121,580.8
126,492.0
+1,910.0
+1.5%
136,401.4
138,275.0
145,247.0
143,720.9
142,241.2
142,156.1
147,067.0
+1,820.0
+1.3%
II: Conservation Programs
III: Rural Development
IV: Domestic Food Programs
Total: Senate basis, w/o CFTC
CRS-11
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
P.L. 11255
P.L. 113-6
post-seq.
P.L. 11376
Admin.
Request
House
H.R. 4800
507.6
531.3
526.1
380.9
360.1
379.6
Agricultural Research Service
1,094.6
1,016.9
1,122.5
1,104.4
1,275.3
National Institute of Food & Agriculture
1,202.3
1,142.0
1,277.1
1,335.5
National Agricultural Statistics Service
158.6
166.6
161.2
Economic Research Service
77.7
71.4
Under Secretary, Research, Education, Econ.
0.8
Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service
Agricultural Marketing Service
Agency or Major Program
FY2015
Senate
S. 2389
P.L. 113235
Change from
FY2014 to FY2015
(P.L. 113-235)
$
%
364.5
-161.7
-30.7%
1,139.7
1,177.6
+55.1
+4.9%
1,273.8
1,292.4
1,289.5
+12.4
+1.0%
179.0
169.4
178.2
172.4
+11.2
+6.9%
78.1
83.4
85.8
85.4
85.4
+7.3
+9.4%
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
+0.0
+0.6%
819.7
761.4
824.9
837.5
870.7
875.6
874.5
+49.6
+6.0%
83.4
75.7
81.3
84.2
82.4
83.0
82.4
+1.1
+1.4%
1,080.0
1,049.6
1,107.0
1,122.0
1,122.0
1,122.0
1,284.0
+177.0
+16.0%
Grain Inspection, Packers & Stockyards
37.8
37.3
40.3
44.0
43.7
44.0
43.0
+2.8
+6.9%
Under Secretary, Marketing and Regulatory
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
+0.0
+0.6%
1,004.4
977.3
1,010.7
1,001.4
1,005.2
1,022.8
1,016.5
+5.8
+0.6%
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
+0.0
+0.6%
1,612.5
1,503.9
1,592.2
1,539.4
1,605.1
1,589.1
1,603.3
+11.0
+0.7%
FSA Farm Loans: Loan Authorityd
4,787.1
4,575.7
5,527.3
6,402.1
6,402.1
6,402.1
6,402.1
+874.8
+15.8%
Risk Management Agency Salaries & Exp.
74.9
69.1
71.5
76.8
77.1
76.8
74.8
+3.3
+4.7%
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (M)e
3,142.4
9,514.5
9,502.9
8,668.0
8,666.0
8,668.0
8,666.0
-836.9
-8.8%
Title I: Agricultural Programs
Departmental Administration
Research, Education and Economics
Marketing and Regulatory Programs
Section 32 (M)
Food Safety
Food Safety & Inspection Service
Under Secretary, Food Safety
Farm and Commodity Programs
Farm Service Agencyc
CRS-12
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
Agency or Major Program
P.L. 11255
P.L. 113-6
post-seq.
P.L. 11376
Admin.
Request
House
H.R. 4800
Commodity Credit Corporation (M)e
14,071.0
11,018.5
12,538.9
9,067.3
9,067.3
9,067.3
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
Mandatory (M)
18,293.5
21,582.7
23,149.1
18,857.8
Discretionary
6,676.7
6,356.2
6,789.0
Subtotal
24,970.2
27,938.8
Conservation Operations
828.2
Watershed Rehabilitation Program
Under Secretary, Natural Resources
Under Secretary, Farm and Foreign Agr.
FY2015
Senate
S. 2389
P.L. 113235
Change from
FY2014 to FY2015
(P.L. 113-235)
$
%
13,444.7
+905.8
+7.2%
0.9
0.9
+0.0
+0.6%
18,855.8
18,857.8
23,395.3
+246.2
+1.1%
6,669.6
6,851.5
6,769.5
6,786.9
-2.2
-0.0%
29,938.1
25,527.4
25,707.3
25,627.3
30,182.1
+244.0
+0.8%
766.8
812.9
814.8
843.1
849.3
846.4
+33.5
+4.1%
15.0
13.6
12.0
—
25.0
—
12.0
+0.0
+0.0%
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
+0.0
+0.6%
844.0
781.2
825.8
815.7
869.0
850.2
859.3
+33.5
+4.1%
653.9
613.0
657.4
659.6
678.2
682.9
678.2
+20.8
+3.2%
1,090.3
1,031.1
1,279.6
1,228.6
1,310.4
1,307.0
1,298.4
+18.7
+1.5%
26,546.0
27,335.1
27,408.1
26,803.6
27,563.9
27,423.6
27,421.5
+13.4
+0.0%
109.3
114.2
130.2
139.2
99.6
111.7
103.2
-27.0
-20.7%
869.8
953.7
1,022.8
772.5
1,028.7
1,022.8
984.5
-38.3
-3.7%
551.0
520.8
501.6
357.6
501.8
504.4
501.7
+0.2
+0.0%
8,676.9
8,849.4
7,514.5
6,589.2
7,498.8
7,474.4
7,464.1
-50.4
-0.7%
Subtotal
Title II: Conservation Programs
Subtotal
Title III: Rural Development
Salaries and Expenses (including transfers)
Rural Housing Service
RHS Loan Authorityd
Rural Business-Cooperative Servicef
RBCS Loan Authorityd
Rural Utilities Service
RUS Loan Authorityd
Under Secretary, Rural Development
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
+0.0
+0.6%
Subtotalf
2,405.2
2,279.9
2,569.7
2,385.9
2,590.8
2,606.9
2,582.4
+12.7
+0.5%
Subtotal, RD Loan Authorityd
36,092.7
37,138.2
35,945.4
34,165.3
36,091.3
35,920.8
35,870.1
-75.3
-0.2%
CRS-13
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
P.L. 11255
P.L. 113-6
post-seq.
P.L. 11376
Admin.
Request
House
H.R. 4800
Child Nutrition Programs (M)
18,151.2
19,913.2
19,288.0
20,537.0
20,523.8
20,497.0
WIC Program
6,618.5
6,522.2
6,715.8
6,823.0
6,623.0
SNAP, Food & Nutrition Act Programs (M)
80,401.7
77,285.4
82,169.9
84,256.4
Commodity Assistance Programs
242.3
243.7
269.7
Nutrition Programs Administration
138.5
132.7
0.8
Mandatory (M)
Discretionary
Agency or Major Program
FY2015
Senate
S. 2389
P.L. 113235
Change from
FY2014 to FY2015
(P.L. 113-235)
$
%
21,300.2
+2,012.2
+10.4%
6,623.0
6,623.0
-92.8
-1.4%
82,251.1
82,251.4
81,837.6
-332.4
-0.4%
275.7
275.7
275.7
278.5
+8.8
+3.3%
141.3
155.0
150.8
155.0
150.8
+9.5
+6.7%
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
+0.0
+0.6%
98,551.9
97,171.9
101,432.9
104,723.4
102,722.9
102,723.0
103,096.7
+1,663.8
+1.6%
7,001.1
6,926.1
7,152.7
7,324.5
7,102.3
7,079.9
7,094.1
-58.6
-0.8%
105,553.0
104,098.0
108,585.6
112,047.9
109,825.3
109,802.9
110,190.9
+1,605.3
+1.5%
176.3
163.1
177.9
182.6
182.6
182.8
181.4
+3.6
+2.0%
Public Law 480 and admin. expenses
1,468.5
1,362.0
1,468.7
1,402.5
1,468.5
1,468.5
1,468.5
-0.2
-0.0%
McGovern-Dole Food for Education
184.0
174.5
185.1
185.1
198.1
185.1
191.6
+6.5
+3.5%
6.8
6.3
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
+0.0
+0.0%
1,835.7
1,705.9
1,838.5
1,777.0
1,856.0
1,843.2
1,848.3
+9.9
+0.5%
2,505.8
2,386.0
2,560.7
2,584.2
2,582.9
2,597.3
2,597.3
+36.6
+1.4%
205.3
[194.0]
215.0
280.0
217.6
[280.0]
[250.0]
+35.0
+16.3%
2,711.1
2,386.0
2,775.7
2,864.2
2,800.4
2,597.3
2,597.3
na
na
Title IV: Domestic Food Programs
Office of Under Secretary
Subtotal
Subtotal
Title V: Foreign Assistance
Foreign Agricultural Service
CCC Export Loan Salaries
Subtotal
Title VI: Related Agencies
Food and Drug Administration
Commodity Futures Trading Commissiona
Subtotal
CRS-14
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
P.L. 11255
P.L. 113-6
post-seq.
P.L. 11376
Admin.
Request
House
H.R. 4800
-1,631.8
-893.0
-953.7
-1,008.0
-779.0
-804.0
Rescissions
-18.9
-25.3
-33.3
-13.0
-13.0
Other appropriations
377.1
132.5
106.6
2.0
Subtotal
-1,273.6
-785.9
-880.4
Disaster declaration in this bill
-367.0
—
Other scorekeeping adjustments
-72.0
-439.0
Agency or Major Program
FY2015
Senate
S. 2389
P.L. 113235
Change from
FY2014 to FY2015
(P.L. 113-235)
$
%
-785.0
+168.7
-17.7%
-13.0
-17.0
+16.3
-49.0%
0.0
143.3
122.6
+16.0
+15.0%
-1,019.0
-792.0
-673.7
-679.4
+201.0
-22.8%
—
—
—
-100.0
-116.0
-116.0
na
-129.0
-191.0
-398.0
-398.0
-398.0
-398.0
-207.0
+108.4%
-129.0
-191.0
-398.0
-398.0
-498.0
-514.0
-323.0
+169.1%
Title VII: General Provisions
Changes in Mandatory Program Spendingf
Scorekeeping adjustmentsb
Subtotal
Source: CRS, compiled from the joint explanatory statements or committee reports for P.L. 113-235, S. 2389, H.R. 4800, P.L. 113-76, and P.L. 112-55. Amounts for
FY2013 in P.L. 113-6 are at the post-sequestration level from the USDA FY2013 Operating Plan. Scorekeeping adjustments are from unpublished CBO tables.
Notes:.[Bracketed amounts] are not in the official totals due to differing House-Senate jurisdiction for CFTC, but are shown for comparison. Amounts are in nominal
dollars, and are budget authority in millions of dollars. Amounts do not include supplemental appropriations outside the annual appropriation.
a. Jurisdiction for CFTC is in the House Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee and the Senate Financial Services Appropriations subcommittee. After FY2008,
CFTC is carried in enacted Agriculture appropriations in even-numbered fiscal years, always in House Agriculture markup, and never in Senate Agriculture markup.
b. “Scorekeeping adjustments” are not necessarily appropriated items and may not be shown in appropriations committee tables, but are part of the official CBO score
(accounting) of the bill. They predominately include “negative subsidies” in loan program accounts, and adjustments for disaster designations in the bill.
c. Includes regular FSA salaries and expenses, plus transfers for farm loan program salaries and expenses and farm loan program administrative expenses. Also includes
farm loan program loan subsidy, State Mediation Grants; Dairy Indemnity Program (mandatory funding); and Grassroots Source Water Protection Program. Does
not include amounts appropriated to the Foreign Agricultural Service for export loans and P.L. 480 administration and transferred to FSA.
d. Loan authority is the amount of loans that can be made or guaranteed with a loan subsidy; it is not added in the budget authority subtotals or totals.
e. Commodity Credit Corporation and Federal Crop Insurance Corporation each receive an indefinite appropriation (“such sums as necessary”). Estimates are used in
the appropriations bill reports and may not reflect actual outlays or reimbursements.
f.
Amounts for the Rural Business Cooperative Service are before the rescission from the Cushion of Credit account. This allows the RBS total to remain positive,
unlike in Appropriations committee tables. The rescission is included with the changes in mandatory program spending (CHIMPS) in the General Provisions section.
CRS-15
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations
USDA Agencies and Programs
About 95% of the total appropriation for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is funded
through the Agriculture appropriations bill. The department was created in 1862 and carries out
widely varied responsibilities through about 30 separate internal agencies and offices staffed by
nearly 100,000 employees.22 Funding for about two-thirds of those employees is provided in the
Agriculture appropriation. The remaining one-third of the employees, about 33,000 staff years,
are in the Forest Service, funded by the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.23
This report is organized in the order that the agencies are listed in the Agriculture appropriations
bill (except for the portion of FDA appropriations for food safety, which is discussed in a
comprehensive section on food safety). See Table 2 and tables in some of the following sections
for more details on the amounts for specific agencies.
USDA Compared to the Appropriations Bill
Agriculture appropriations are not perfectly correlated with USDA spending.
Agriculture appropriations include the FDA and CFTC (that are outside USDA), and
do not fund the Forest Service (that is part of USDA). The Forest Service is funded
in the Interior and Related Agencies appropriations bill.
Similarly, USDA spending is not synonymous with farm program spending. It includes
programs that may not be considered agricultural, such as nutrition assistance and
rural development.
USDA divides its activities into mission areas that are different from how the
appropriation is organized in titles.
Food and nutrition programs—with more than three-fourths of USDA’s
budget—comprise USDA’s largest mission area. This is Title IV of the
appropriation.
The second-largest mission area, with about one-eighth of USDA’s budget, is
farm and foreign agricultural services. This mission area is split between
appropriations Title I (domestic) and Title V (foreign trade and aid).
Five other mission areas share one-eighth of USDA’s budget, including natural
resources, rural development, research, marketing and regulatory programs,
and food safety. In appropriations bills, rural development is Title III, and
conservation is Title II (the part of the natural resources mission area without
the Forest Service). The other three mission areas others are combined into
Title I of the appropriation.
The type of funding (mandatory or discretionary) also is an important difference
between how the appropriations bill and USDA’s mission areas are organized.
22
23
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.
USDA, FY2015 Budget Summary, April 2014, p. 112, at http://www.obpa.usda.gov/budsum/FY15budsum.pdf.
See CRS Report R43142, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2013 and FY2014 Appropriations.
Congressional Research Service
16
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations
Departmental Administration24
The Agriculture appropriations bill has several accounts that provide for the general
administration of the USDA, ranging from the immediate Office of the Secretary, to the Office of
Inspector General, to facilities rental payments.
One notable administrative change for FY2015 is that the enacted appropriation follows both the
House- and Senate-reported bills in changing the long-standing practice of paying for rental
expenses from a central account for all agencies throughout the department. Although the federal
government owns many of the facilities in which agencies are housed, USDA rents some
buildings and facilities from private vendors. In the past, all of USDA’s rental obligations ($178
million in FY2014) were paid from a separate account at the Department level. For FY2015,
Congress concurred with the Administration’s request that such payments be paid by the
individual agencies. Thus, despite savings at the Departmental Administration level, many agency
budgets were increased to compensate for the additional obligation of rental expenses. If
agencies’ budgets were not increased by at least the amount of rental payments being shifted,
their net appropriation may reflect an effective decrease from prior years. The effect of shifting
these costs into agency budgets is noted for many agencies later in this report. Therefore, the
$162 million decrease in Departmental Administration is largely due to the accounting change in
rental payments (-$178 million) and is offset by diffuse and usually corresponding increases in
individual agency budgets throughout the rest of the appropriation.
For FY2015, the enacted appropriation provides $364 million for Departmental Administration
(Table 3). Some of the increases for administrative agencies and offices within this heading are,
in part, to pay for the addition of rental payments in their budgets. Beyond the $178 million
reduction because of the shift in rental expense responsibilities, amounts for other offices in
Departmental Administration generally are unchanged from FY2014 or share a combined $15
million increase (about +4% overall).
The House-reported bill would have provided $4 million less than the final amount, and the
Senate bill would have provided $15 million more than the final amount. The differences between
the House and Senate bills were that the Office of Communications, General Counsel, and
Departmental Administration would have received the President’s requested amount, rather than a
smaller House-reported amount. The Senate bill also would have provided $10 million more than
the House bill and FY2014 for building operations and maintenance, the level requested by the
Administration.
24
This section was written by (name redacted)
-....,(7 [redacted]@crs.loc.gov
).
Congressional Research Service
17
Table 3. USDA Departmental Administration Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
P.L. 112-55
P.L. 113-6
post-seq.
P.L. 113-76
Office of the Secretary
4.55
4.69
5.05
5.09
5.05
5.09
Office of Tribal Relations
0.45
0.46
0.50
0.50
0.50
Office of Homeland Security
1.32
1.39
1.50
1.51
Advocacy and Outreach
1.21
1.32
1.21
Assistant Secretary for Admin.
0.76
0.75
Departmental Administration
24.17
Asst. Sec. Congressional Relations
Office of Communications
Administrative Office
FY2015
Admin.
Request
House
H.R. 4800
Senate
2389
S.
P.L. 113235
Change from
FY2014 to FY2015
(P.L. 113-235)
$
%
5.05
+0.00
+0.0%
0.50
0.50
+0.004
+0.8%
1.51
1.51
1.50
+0.00
+0.0%
1.22
1.21
1.22
1.21
+0.00
+0.0%
0.80
0.81
0.80
0.81
0.80
+0.00
+0.0%
22.50
22.79
25.66
22.81
25.31
25.12
+2.34
+10.3%
3.58
3.59
3.87
3.90
3.87
3.90
3.87
+0.00
+0.0%
8.07
8.36
8.07
8.14
5.54
8.14
7.75
-0.32
-3.9%
44.10
43.06
43.78
46.82
41.28
46.47
45.81
+2.03
+4.6%
Office of Chief Economist
11.18
15.01
16.78
16.85
16.78
16.85
17.38
+0.60
+3.6%
National Appeals Division
12.84
13.19
12.84
13.43
13.32
13.43
13.32
+0.48
+3.7%
Office of Budget, Program Analysis
8.95
8.35
9.06
10.29
9.39
9.31
9.39
+0.33
+3.6%
32.96
36.56
38.68
40.58
39.49
39.59
40.09
+1.40
+3.6%
Chief Information Officer
44.03
40.65
44.03
45.20
45.03
45.20
45.05
+1.01
+2.3%
Chief Financial Officer
5.65
5.77
6.21
6.08
6.03
6.08
6.03
-0.19
-3.0%
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights
0.85
0.83
0.89
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
+0.01
+0.6%
Office of the Secretary
Subtotal
Executive Operations
Subtotal
Other Administration
CRS-18
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
P.L. 112-55
P.L. 113-6
post-seq.
P.L. 113-76
Office of Civil Rights
21.00
21.02
21.40
24.24
24.07
24.24
Buildings, facilities, rental payments
230.42
252.40
233.00
64.83
54.83
Hazardous materials management
3.59
3.70
3.59
3.60
Office of Inspector General
85.62
82.30
89.90
General Counsel
39.35
41.87
Office of Ethics
—
Administrative Office
Subtotal
Total, Departmental Administration
FY2015
Admin.
Request
House
H.R. 4800
Senate
2389
S.
P.L. 113235
Change from
FY2014 to FY2015
(P.L. 113-235)
$
%
24.07
+2.67
+12.5%
64.84
55.87
-177.13
-76.0%
3.60
3.60
3.60
+0.01
+0.2%
97.24
97.02
97.24
95.03
+5.12
+5.7%
41.20
47.57
44.38
47.57
44.38
+3.18
+7.7%
3.14
3.44
3.87
3.44
3.87
3.65
+0.21
+6.2%
430.50
451.68
443.67
293.51
279.29
293.53
278.57
-165.10
-37.2%
507.57
531.30
526.13
380.90
360.06
379.59
364.46
-161.67
-30.7%
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports for P.L. 113-235, S. 2389, H.R. 4800, P.L. 113-76, and P.L. 112-55. Amounts for
FY2013 in P.L. 113-6 are at the post-sequestration level and are from the USDA FY2013 Operating Plan.
CRS-19
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations
Agricultural Research, Education, and Extension25
Four agencies carry out USDA’s research, education, and economics (REE) mission:
The Agricultural Research Service (ARS), USDA’s intramural science agency,
conducts long-term, high-risk, basic and applied research on food and agriculture
issues of national and regional importance.
The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) distributes federal
funds to land grant colleges of agriculture to provide partial support for statelevel research, education, and extension.
The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) collects and publishes
current national, state, and county agricultural statistics. NASS also is
responsible for administration of the Census of Agriculture, which occurs every
five years and provides comprehensive data on the U.S. agricultural economy.
The Economic Research Service (ERS) provides economic analysis of issues
regarding public and private interests in agriculture, natural resources, food, and
rural America.
For FY2015, the appropriation provides $2.725 billion to the USDA REE mission area, which is
$86 million more than in FY2014 (+3%). After FY2010, none of the annual appropriations have
included any earmarks or congressionally designated spending items for REE-related activities.
Across REE, about half of the overall increase is for ARS buildings and facilities (+$45 million),
an account that has not received any appropriation in recent years (Table 4). Furthermore, after
adjusting for the additional cost of building rental payments at the agency level (rather than the
former practice of being paid from a central account at the department level), most programs in
REE remain at effectively the same levels as in FY2014.
The increases in the FY2014 and FY2015 funding levels come after three years of reductions.
Appropriations to the REE mission area declined nearly 16% from FY2010 to FY2013. ARS
appropriations declined nearly 19% and NIFA by 15% from FY2010 to FY2013. The increases
for the mission area in FY2014 and FY2015 restore some of those reductions since FY2010 in
absolute terms, but less so in inflation-adjusted terms. The FY2015 enacted amount (including
buildings and facilities) for ARS remains 6% below the FY2010 level ($1.25 billion), and the
FY2015 amount for NIFA is 4% below the FY2010 level ($1.34 billion). Thus, agricultural
research stakeholders continue to express concern for research funding over the long term.
Agricultural Research Service
For FY2015, the enacted appropriation provides $1.133 billion for ARS salaries and expenses,
plus $45 million for ARS buildings and facilities construction. The salaries and expenses portion
is $10 million more than FY2014 (+1%) and in between the House- and Senate- proposed
amounts. Much of the increase (about $7 million) will pay for building rental payments that ARS
must now pay rather than being paid from a central departmental account.
25
This section was written by (name redacted)
-....,(7 [redacted]@crs.loc.gov
).
Congressional Research Service
20
Table 4. USDA Research, Extension, and Economics (REE) Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2010
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
P.L. 11180
P.L.
112-55
P.L.
113-6
P.L.
113-76
Base
1,250.5
1,094.6
1,016.9
1,122.5
—
—
—
1,343.2
1,202.3
788.2
AFRI (competitive grants)
Admin. Request
Change from
FY2014 to
P.L. 113-235
Initiative
House
H.R.
4800
Senate
S. 2389
P.L.
113-235
$
%
1,104.4
42.2
1,120.3
1,139.7
1,132.6
+10.1
+0.9%
—
—
155.0
155.0
—
45.0
+45.0
na
1,142.0
1,277.1
1,335.5
80.0
1,273.8
1,292.4
1,289.5
+12.4
+1.0%
705.6
683.2
772.6
837.7
80.0
774.5
787.5
786.9
+14.3
+1.9%
262.5
264.5
275.6
316.4
325.0
60.0
325.0
325.0
325.0
+8.6
+2.7%
Hatch Act (1862 institutions)
215.0
236.3
218.6
243.7
243.7
15.0
243.7
243.7
243.7
+0.0
+0.0%
Evans-Allen (1890s institutions)
48.5
50.9
47.1
52.5
52.5
5.0
52.5
52.5
52.5
+0.0
+0.0%
McIntire-Stennis (forestry)
29.0
32.9
30.5
34.0
34.0
—
34.0
34.0
34.0
+0.0
+0.0%
Innovation Institutes
—
—
—
—
75.0
—
—
—
—
—
—
Other
233.2
121.0
111.5
126.0
107.6
—
119.3
132.4
131.7
+5.7
+4.5%
Extension
494.9
475.2
439.1
469.2
469.0
—
467.3
472.7
471.7
+2.5
+0.5%
Smith-Lever (b) & (c)
297.5
294.0
271.3
300.0
300.0
—
300.0
300.0
300.0
+0.0
+0.0%
Smith-Lever (d)
101.3
99.3
91.7
85.5
85.7
—
85.7
85.5
85.5
+0.0
+0.0%
Other
96.1
81.8
76.1
83.7
83.2
—
81.6
87.2
86.2
+2.5
+3.0%
60.0
21.5
19.8
35.3
28.8
—
32.0
32.2
30.9
-4.4
-12.5%
National Agricultural Statistics Service
161.8
158.6
166.6
161.2
179.0
—
169.4
178.2
172.4
+11.2
+6.9%
Economic Research Service
82.5
77.7
71.4
78.1
83.4
—
85.8
85.4
85.4
+7.3
+9.4%
Total, REE appropriation
2,838.0
2,533.3
2,397.0
2,638.8
2,702.4
277.2
2,804.2
2,695.6
2,724.9
+86.1
+3.3%
Agency or Major Program
Agricultural Research Service
Buildings and Facilities
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Research and Education
Integrated Activities
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports for P.L. 113-235, S. 2389, H.R. 4800, P.L. 113-76, P.L. 112-55, and P.L. 11180. Amounts for FY2013 in P.L. 113-6 are at the post-sequestration level and are from the USDA FY2013 Operating Plan.
CRS-21
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations
The $45 million for buildings and facilities construction is the first time in several years that this
account has received appropriations. The joint explanatory statement directs it for “priorities
identified in the USDA ARS Capital Investment Strategy.”26 This amount is less than the $155
million proposed in the House bill and the Administration’s Opportunity, Growth, and Security
(OGS) Initiative and is not specific to a facility, unlike the OGS request that was for a new biocontainment facility at the Poultry Research Facility in Athens, GA. The Senate-reported bill did
not contain any amount for buildings and facilities. (The OGS Initiative is not included in the
request column of Appropriations committee tables, but is shown in Table 4.)
The joint explanatory statement, as well as the House and Senate report language, rejects the
Administration’s request to close six ARS research centers and to redirect research programs at
other laboratories. This is a continuation of the instructions in recent years’ appropriations.
In addition to the base request for ARS and the OGS Initiative for buildings and facilities, the
Administration proposed an additional $42 million in the Opportunity, Growth, and Security
(OGS) Initiative to support five high-priority research areas across the agency. The enacted
appropriation, like the House and Senate bills, does not address this request.
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
For FY2015, the enacted appropriation provides $1.290 billion for NIFA, $12 million more than
the FY2014 appropriation (+1%). Much of the increase will pay for a new category of building
rental payments that are being transferred to agencies rather than being paid from a central
departmental account. Within the NIFA total:
Research and Education Activities receive $787 million for FY2015, $14
million more than in FY2014 (+2%) and nearly the more generous amount
recommended by the Senate bill.
USDA’s flagship competitive grants program—the Agriculture and Food
Research Initiative (AFRI), with about one-fourth of NIFA’s total budget—
receives a $9 million increase to $325 million. This concurs with the
Administration’s request and was recommended by both the House and
Senate bills.
Funding remains constant for Hatch Act activities that fund 1862 land-grant
universities ($244 million), as well as Evans-Allen activities that fund 1890
land-grant universities ($52 million).
The Administration had requested $75 million for “Innovation Institutes,”
that would focus on emerging agricultural research challenges. Startup
funding of $25 million per year for each of three institutes, for five years,
would leverage public-private partnerships. Proposed research areas were
pollinator health, bio-manufacturing and bioproducts development, and
antimicrobial resistance. The enacted appropriation does not fund this
initiative, nor did either the House or Senate bill recommend it (although the
research topics are addressed in other program funding).
Extension Activities receive $472 million for FY2015, 0.5% more than FY2014,
and in between the amounts recommended by the House and Senate bills.
26
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.
Congressional Research Service
22
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations
Integrated Activities—which had declined by about two-thirds from FY2010
through FY2013 (from $60 million to $20 million) but was raised to $35 million
in FY2014—are reduced again in FY2015. The enacted amount is $30.9 million,
which is $4.4 million less than FY2014 (-12%). This is more than the
Administration requested, but less than either of the House or Senate bills.
Finally, in addition to the base request for NIFA, the Administration proposed an additional $80
million through the OGS Initiative. Most of this extra amount would provide increased support
for additional AFRI competitive research grants ($60 million). The rest would establish a new
competitive research grant program to complement formula-funded NIFA grants. The enacted
appropriation, like the House and Senate bills, does not address this request.
National Agricultural Statistics Service
For FY2015, the enacted appropriation provides $172 million for NASS, an increase of $11
million over FY2014 (+7%). Most of this increase ($9 million) will pay for the additional cost of
rental payments that agencies are paying instead of through a central account in the department.
The Administration’s requested level ($6.6 million more than the enacted amount) was to restore
selected surveys that were reduced or eliminated in recent years for budgetary reasons (including
a variety of fruit and vegetable surveys and a chemical use survey).
Economic Research Service
For FY2015, the enacted appropriation provides $85 million for ERS, an increase of $7 million
over FY2014 (+9%). This amount is effectively equal to the FY2014 amount after adjusting for
the addition of rental payments.
Marketing and Regulatory Programs
Three agencies carry out USDA’s marketing and regulatory programs mission area: the Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), and the
Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA).
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service27
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is responsible for protecting U.S.
agriculture from domestic and foreign pests and diseases, responding to domestic animal and
plant health problems, and facilitating agricultural trade through science-based standards. APHIS
has key responsibilities for dealing with prominent concerns such as avian influenza (AI), bovine
spongiform encephalopathy (BSE or “mad cow disease”), bovine tuberculosis, a growing number
of invasive plant pests—such as the Emerald Ash Borer, the Asian Long-horned Beetle, and the
Glassy-winged Sharpshooter—and a national animal identification (ID) program for animal
disease tracking and control. APHIS also is charged with administering the Animal Welfare Act
(AWA), which seeks to protect pets and other animals used for research and entertainment.
The enacted FY2015 appropriation provides $874.5 million for APHIS, of which $871.3 million
is for salaries and expenses and $3.2 million is for building and facilities. The amount for salaries
and expenses is well above the Administration’s request of $834.3 million and the FY2014
27
This section was written by (name redacted) (7-....;
Congressional Research Service
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
).
23
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations
appropriation of $821.7 million (+$50 million; +6%). In part, the higher amounts will pay for
rental obligations that previously were funded through a central departmental account. The
enacted law also authorizes APHIS to collect fees to cover the total costs of providing technical
assistance, goods, or services in certain cases.
Within APHIS, the following enacted appropriations are provided across each of the programlevel budget categories: 28 plant health ($305.4 million); animal health ($287.6 million); wildlife
services ($108.9 million); regulatory services ($35.1 million); safe trade and international
technical assistance ($36.2 million); animal welfare ($28.7 million); emergency management
($17.4 million); and administrative funds ($54.9 million, which includes payments to GSA and
DHA mentioned previously).
As in previous years, the enacted law highlights that appropriators expect USDA to continue to
use the authority provided in the appropriation and in statute to transfer funds from other
appropriations or funds available to USDA for activities related to the arrest and eradication of
animal and plant pests and diseases.29 The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and
congressional appropriators have sparred for years over whether APHIS should—as appropriators
have preferred—reach as needed into USDA’s Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) account for
mandatory funds to deal with emerging plant pests and other plant and animal health problems on
an emergency basis, or be provided the funds primarily through the annual USDA appropriation,
as OMB has argued. In particular, both appropriations subcommittees highlight the need for
USDA to use its authority to transfer CCC funds to address emerging plant pests. Both bills
recommended that funds be made available until expended for a “contingency fund” to control
outbreaks of insects, plant diseases, animal diseases, and for control of pest animals and birds to
the extent necessary to meet emergency conditions. The enacted appropriation provides $470,000
for this contingency fund.
The enacted appropriation also provides funding to address specialty crop pests ($156.0 million),
tree and wood pests ($54.0 million), avian health ($52.3 million), Animal Health Technical
Services ($35.4 million), and field crop and rangeland ecosystems services pests ($8.8 million).
In addition, the enacted law provides funding to address cotton pests ($11.5 million) and screw
worm ($5.0 million); to support the scrapie program ($1.5 million) and National Veterinary
Stockpile ($4.0 million with an increase to assist in critical veterinary countermeasures); and to
support wildlife damage management ($1.5), wildlife services methods development ($1.0
million), and activities under the Horse Protection Act ($0.7 million). The enacted law further
specifies that no funds be used to formulate or administer a brucellosis eradication program.
The committee report further specifies funding for national rabies management, surveillance, and
eradication efforts ($26.0 million with an increase for related priority activities); the National
Animal Health Laboratory Network ($6.7 million); Citrus Health Response Program ($4.5
million) Overseas and Technical and Trade Operations (an increase of $2.0 million); and Swine
Health program (an increase of $2.0 million). It also specifies funding for cervid health activities
(“no less than” $3.0 million) and encourages the agency to improve its enforcement activities
under the Horse Protection Act. The committee report also expresses concern about APHIS’
28
Sub-account levels follow the APHIS budget structure that was implemented in the FY2012 appropriations process
that reorganized and consolidated APHIS programs across 29 budgetary line items. For more information, see CRS
Report R41964, Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations. See also USDA, “2012 Budget and
Explanatory Notes, APHIS,” pp. 18-47 through 18-50, http://www.obpa.usda.gov/18aphis2012notes.pdf.
29
This provision is in accordance with the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. §§ 8310 and 8316, §§10411 and
10417) and the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. §§ 7751 and 7772, §§431 and 442).
Congressional Research Service
24
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations
regulatory backlog to review biotechnology product petitions and provides an increase in funding
($0.74 million) to address these backlogs.
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 Activities30
The discretionary appropriation funds four main areas: market news service, shell egg
surveillance and standardization, market protection and promotion, and transportation and
marketing. The market news program collects, analyzes, and disseminates market information on
a wide number of commodities. The shell egg program ensures egg quality and reviews and
maintains egg standards. As part of market protection and promotion programs, AMS administers
the pesticide data program, the National Organic Program (NOP), the seed program, country-oforigin labeling (COOL), and 22 commodity research and promotion (checkoff) programs. AMS
monitors the agriculture transportation system and conducts market analysis that supports the
transport of agriculture products domestically and internationally.
In addition, user fees and reimbursements finance other AMS-administered activities, such as
product quality and process verification programs, commodity grading, and Perishable
Agricultural Commodities Act licensing. 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.31
For FY2015, the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (P.L. 113-235,
Division A) provides $81.2 million for marketing activities. The AMS discretionary appropriation
is $1.3 million more than (+1.6%) that enacted for FY2014 but is $1.8 million less than the
Administration’s request. Also, the act provides $1.2 million for AMS payments to states and
possessions for cooperative marketing agreements and grants, for a total discretionary
appropriation of $82.4 million.
The joint explanatory statement directs USDA, in consultation with the U.S. Trade
Representative, to submit a report to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees with
recommendations on how to change the country-of-origin labeling (COOL) law. The
recommendations are to make the law “not conflict with or in any manner inconsistent with” U.S.
World Trade Organization (WTO) obligations. The report is due to the committees within 15 days
30
This section was written by (name redacted) (7
-...., [redacted]@crs.loc.gov
).
Separate from the appropriations process, the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79) authorizes mandatory funding for four
AMS-administered programs as follows: $72.5 million (annually, FY2014-2017) and $85 million (annually, FY2018
and thereafter) for specialty crop block grants, $15 million (annually, FY2014-2018) for farmers’ market promotion,
$15 million (annually, FY2014-2018) for local food promotion, and a set-aside (estimated at $12.5 million in FY2015)
for AMS share of costs to support organic certification. For FY2015, AMS expects to administer an estimated $115
million of these mandatory farm bill initiatives.
31
Congressional Research Service
25
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations
of final resolution (i.e., the WTO issuing an appellate ruling on the COOL compliance report) or
May 1, 2015, whichever comes first. The WTO is in the process of hearing appeals of the COOL
compliance report that was issued in October 2014. The Canada and Mexico challenge of U.S.
COOL regulations has been progressing through the WTO dispute settlement process since 2009
and is expected to reach a conclusion in 2015. If the current appellate hearing again determines
that COOL is inconsistent with U.S. obligations, U.S. exports to Canada and Mexico could face
about $2 billion in retaliatory measures in the form of increased tariffs.32
The explanatory statement also directs USDA “not to implement a second duplicative beef
checkoff program.” In November 2014, USDA issued a Federal Register notice requesting public
comment on creating a second beef checkoff under that authority of the 1996 Commodity
Promotion, Research, and Information Act.33 USDA moved to implement a second checkoff after
the beef industry stakeholders were unable to agree on reforms for the current checkoff, which
was established in 1985.34
Section 32 (Funds for Strengthening Markets, Income, and Supply) 35
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 ($9.7 billion in FY2015), less certain mandatory transfers to child
nutrition and other programs ($8.5 billion in FY2015).36
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 FY2015 at $1.284 billion. Also, to increase the amount of fruits and
vegetables purchased under Section 32, Congress limited USDA’s discretion in two ways: (1)
§4304 of the 2008 farm bill established a fresh fruit and vegetable school snack program funded
by carving out Section 32 funds (set at $40 million in 2008, rising to $150 million in 2011, and
adjusted for inflation for each year thereafter), and (2) §4404 of the 2008 farm bill required
additional purchases of fruits, vegetables, and nuts (set at $190 million in FY2008, rising to $206
million in FY2012, and remaining at that level each year thereafter). Section 4214 of the 2014
farm bill expanded the school snack program to include frozen, canned, and dried fruits and
vegetables on a pilot basis for the 2014-15 school year.
The enacted FY2015 appropriation provides $1.284 billion of Section 32 funds for AMS, which
compares with $1.107 billion enacted in FY2014. The FY2015 amount is reduced by $121
million (rescission) and $82 million (sequestration), and is considered mandatory spending.
32
For information on COOL and background on the dispute brought by Canada and Mexico challenging the
implementation of this law, see CRS Report RS22955, Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods and the WTO Trade
Dispute on Meat Labeling.
33
P.L. 104-127; 7 U.S.C. 7401, 7411-7425.
34
P.L. 99-198; 7 U.S.C. 2901-2918.
35
This section was written by (name redacted) (7 -...., [redacted ]@crs.loc.gov
).
36
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
26
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations
The enacted appropriation also includes a provision (§717) that has appeared since FY2012 that
effectively prohibits the use of Section 32 for emergency disaster payments to farmers:
[N]one of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this or any other Act
shall be used to pay the salaries or expenses of any employee of the Department of
Agriculture or officer of the Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out clause 3 of
Section 32 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1935 (P.L. 74-320, 7 U.S.C. 612c, as
amended), or for any surplus removal activities or price support activities under section 5
of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act.37
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration38
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 FY2015, enacted appropriation provides $43.0 million for GIPSA salaries and expenses, $2.8
million (+6.9%) more than enacted for FY2014. The FY2015 appropriation is about $1 million
less than the Administration’s request. The appropriations act authorizes GIPSA to collect up to
$50 million in user fees for inspection and weighing services.
Section 731 (P.L. 113-235, Division A) restricts USDA from finalizing or implementing parts of
GIPSA’s proposed rule on livestock and poultry marketing practices (75 Federal Register 35338,
June 22, 2010; amends 9 C.F.R. Part 201) that were required in the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110246).39 The proposed rule addresses how competitive injury (or harm to competition) is treated
under the Packers and Stockyard Act (P&S Act; 7 U.S.C. §181 et seq.); sets criteria for
determining unfair, unjustly discriminatory and deceptive practices, and undue or unreasonable
preference or advantages; and includes arbitration provisions that give contract growers
opportunities to participate in meaningful arbitration. The proposed rule was contentious, with
proponents arguing that it would bring fairness to marketing transactions, while opponents argued
it would disrupt markets and lead to increased litigation. USDA finalized parts of the proposed
rule in December 2011, but much of the rule was not finalized because implementing prohibitions
have been enacted in appropriations acts since FY2012.
Section 731 allows USDA to publish a final or interim final GIPSA rule only if the annual cost to
the economy is less than $100 million. In addition, it prohibits USDA from using any funds to
implement specific provisions in the proposed rule—the definitions of the tournament system
§201.2(l); competitive injury §201.2(t); and the likelihood of injury §201.2(u). Other prohibited
parts include the applicability of the regulations on violations of the P&S Act §201.3(c); unfair,
unjust discriminatory and deceptive practices §201.210; undue or unreasonable preferences
§201.211; livestock and poultry contracts §201.213; and the tournament system §201.214. Also,
the section rescinds funding for the enforcement of three provisions that USDA finalized in
37
Clause 3 of Section 32 provides that funds shall be used to re-establish farmers’ purchasing power by making
payments in connections with the normal production of any agricultural commodity for domestic consumption (7.U.S.C
612c). Section 5 of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act authorizes the CCC to support the prices of
agricultural commodities through loans, purchases, payments, and other operations (15 U.S.C. 714c).
38
This section was written by (name redacted) (7
-...., [redacted]@crs.loc.gov
).
39
For more, see CRS Report R41673, USDA’s “GIPSA Rule” on Livestock and Poultry Marketing Practices.
Congressional Research Service
27
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations
2011—the definition of suspension of delivery of birds §201.2(o), the applicability to live poultry
§201.3(a), and the 90-day notification for suspension of delivery of birds §210.215(a).
Food Safety40
Numerous federal, state, and local agencies share responsibilities for regulating the safety of the
U.S. food supply.41 Federal responsibility for food safety rests primarily with the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) and the USDA. FDA, an agency of the Department of Health and Human
Services, is responsible for ensuring the safety of the majority of all domestic and imported food
products (except for meat and poultry products).42 USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) regulates most meat, poultry, and processed egg products.43 The agriculture appropriations
subcommittees oversee both the FDA and FSIS budgets.
Federal funding and staffing levels between FDA and FSIS are disproportionate to their
respective responsibilities for addressing food safety activities. FSIS is responsible for roughly
10-20% of the U.S. food supply, and it receives about 53% of the two agencies’ combined food
safety appropriation (56% if including user fees). Correspondingly, FDA is responsible for 8090% of the U.S. food supply, and it has received about 47% of the combined appropriation for
federal food safety activities (44% if including user fees; Table 5). Staffing levels also are
considerably different between the two agencies: FSIS staff number around 9,000 FTEs, while
FDA’s food-related staff number about 3,800 FTEs.
In recent years, however, the balance of overall funding for food safety between FDA and USDA
has shifted. Appropriators have increased funding for FDA food activities, more than doubling it
from $435.5 million in FY2005 to $903.4 million in FY2015 (Table 5). The FDA Food Safety
Modernization Act (FSMA, P.L. 111-353) also provided limited additional funding through
industry-paid user fees. Funding for FSIS has remained mostly unchanged or slightly lower.
FSMA—comprehensive food safety legislation enacted in the 111th Congress—authorized
additional appropriations and staff for FDA’s food safety activities.44 FSMA was the largest
expansion of FDA’s food safety authorities since the 1930s. Among its many provisions, FSMA
authorized increasing frequency of inspections at food facilities, tightening record-keeping
requirements, extending oversight to certain farms, and also mandated product recalls. It requires
food processing, manufacturing, shipping, and other facilities to conduct a food safety plan of the
most likely safety hazards, and design and implement risk-based controls. It also mandates
improvements to foodborne illness surveillance systems and increased scrutiny of food imports.
FSMA did not directly address meat and poultry products under USDA’s jurisdiction.
Although Congress authorized appropriations when it enacted FSMA, it did not provide the
funding needed for FDA to perform these activities. After FSMA was signed into law in January
2011, concerns were voiced about whether there would be enough money to overhaul the U.S.
40
This section was written by (name redacted) (7-....; [redacted]@ crs.loc.gov
), with contributions from Joel Greene
(FSIS) and (name redacted) (FDA Foods Program).
41
For more information, see CRS Report RS22600, The Federal Food Safety System: A Primer.
42
FDA’s food safety authorities rest primarily with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA, 21 U.S.C.
§§301, et seq.).
43
Laws governing FSIS include the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA, 21 U.S.C. §§601, et seq.), the Poultry
Products Inspection Act (PPIA, 21 U.S.C. §§451, et seq.), and the Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA, 21 U.S.C.
§§1031, et seq.).
44
P.L. 111-353 amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
Congressional Research Service
28
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations
food safety system and also whether expanded investment in this area was appropriate in the
current budgetary climate.45 Prior to enactment, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
estimated that implementing FSMA could increase net federal spending subject to appropriation
by about $1.4 billion over a five-year period (FY2011-FY2015).46 This cost estimate covers
activities at FDA and other federal agencies, and does not include offsetting revenue from the
collection of new user fees authorized under FSMA.47 FSMA did not impose any new facility
registration fees. Prior to enactment, CBO estimated that about $240 million in new fees would
be collected over the five-year period (FY2011-FY2015).48 Taking into account these new fees,
CBO estimated that covering the five-year cost of new requirements within FDA, including more
frequent inspections, would require additional outlays of $1.1 billion. FSMA also authorized an
increase in FDA staff, which was expected to reach 5,000 by FY2014.49 Instead, FDA reports
actual staffing levels at 3,800 FTEs in FY2014 (Table 5).
FDA continues to implement regulations under FSMA. Although Congress has increased the FDA
Foods Program budget in the past few years, agency officials claim that an additional $400
million-450 million per year above the FY2012 base is needed to fully implement FSMA.50
Table 5. Food Safety Appropriations
(FTEs as indicated, and budget and appropriation figures in millions of dollars)
Agency/Year
FTEsa
Appropriationb
Program Level,
Including Feesc
HHS Food and Drug Administration (FDA), “Foods” Subtotal
FY2009 Actual
2,995
712.8
712.8
FY2010 Actual
3,387
783.2
783.2
FY2011 Actual
3,605
836.2
836.2
FY2012 Actual
3,546
866.1
882.7
FY2013 Operating Plan (post-sequestration)
3,626
796.6d
813.2
FY2014, Appropriation (P.L. 113-76)
3,805
882.8
900.3
FY2015: Administration Request
4,236
903.4
1,124.3e
Enacted (P.L. 113-235)
NA
903.4
913.8
USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
45
See “Food Safety Bill Advocates Expect Funding Fight,” Food Safety News, January 4, 2011.
CBO, Cost Estimate, “S. 510, Food Safety Modernization Act, as reported by the Senate Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions on December 18, 2009, incorporating a manager’s amendment released on August 12,
2010,” August 12, 2010, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/117xx/doc11794/s510.pdf; reflects the Senate amendment to S.
510. Estimated total costs would be covered by a combination of user fees and direct appropriations (budget authority).
47
FSMA authorized additional appropriations and staff for FDA’s future food safety activities and authorized new user
fees. New fees authorized under FSMA include an annual fee for participants in the voluntary qualified importer
program (VQIP) and three fees for certain periodic activities involving reinspection, recall, and export certification.
FSMA, P.L. 111-353, §§107 and 401. Details of these annual and periodic fees are presented in CRS Report R40443,
The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (P.L. 111-353).
48
As estimated by CBO, these fees would be phased in as follows: $15 million (FY2011), $27 million (FY2012); $47
million (FY2013); $63 million (FY2014); and $89 million (FY2015).
49
FSMA, P.L. 111-353, §401. By fiscal year, staff level increases were authorized to a total of not fewer than: 4,000
staff members (FY2011); 4,200 staff (FY2012); 4,600 staff (FY2013); and 5,000 staff (FY2014).
50
FDA, Building Domestic Capacity to Implement the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), May 2013.
46
Congressional Research Service
29
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations
Program Level,
Including Feesc
Agency/Year
FTEsa
Appropriationb
FY2009 Actual
9,343
971.6
1,105.7
FY2010 Actual
9,401
1,018.5
1,172.4
FY2011 Actual
9,465
1,008.5
1,187.2
FY2012 Actual
9,351
1,004.4
1,169.1
FY2013 Operating Plan (post-sequestration)
9,158
977.3f
1,163.7
FY2014, Appropriation (P.L. 113-76)
9,360
1,010.7
1,183.2
FY2015: Administration Request
9,098
1,001.4
1,174.9
Enacted (P.L. 113-235)
NA
1,016.4
1,176.6
Sources: CRS, from P.L. 113-235 (Division A), FDA FY2013 Sequestration Operating Plan, FDA FY2014
Operating Plan, and annual agency budget justifications for FDA (http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/
ReportsManualsForms/Reports/BudgetReports/default.htm) and FSIS (http://www.obpa.usda.gov/
explan_notes.html).
Notes:
a. Staffing in full time equivalents (FTEs).
b. Does not include existing or proposed user fees or other ‘non-federal’ payments.
c. Includes user fees. For FDA, reflects actual or planned fees through FY2014, and for FY2015, enacted, CR,
and requested fee amounts. For FSIS, includes existing fees and trust fund for overtime, holiday, and
voluntary inspection.
d. FDA’s “FY2013 Sequestration Operating Plan.” and “FY2014 Operating Plan.”
e. The Administration’s requested Foods program level total includes $10.4 million in authorized fees relating
to food reinspection, food and feed recall, and the voluntary qualified importer program; and other
proposed fees covering food facility registration and inspection, food import, international courier, and food
contact notification fees. The “Appropriation” amount excludes fees (both authorized and proposed) from
the requested “Program Level” amount.
f.
Reported by USDA for FSIS in its “Fiscal Year 2013 Operating Plan” and reflects “2013 Enacted w/
Sequester and Rescissions.”
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
FDA’s foods program accounts for about one-third ($903.4 million in FY2015) of the agency’s
total appropriation (Table 5).51 These congressional appropriations are expected to be augmented
by existing (currently authorized) user fees. Total program level, including appropriations and
fees, is expected to be $913.8 million. These fees, as authorized under FSMA, include food and
feed recall fees, food reinspection fees, and voluntary qualified importer program fees.
Total program level funding (enacted appropriations plus user fees) is $210.5 million below the
Administration’s request, which proposed several new user fees not authorized by congressional
appropriators (Table 5). In addition to FSMA-authorized user fees, the Administration’s budget
also requested approval of other new user fees. These proposed fees included a food facility
registration and inspection, food import, international courier, and food contact notification fees.
The enacted appropriation does not include the Administration’s proposed fees. The House
committee report (H.Rept. 113-468) broadly addresses FDA user fees, requesting a report on user
fees collected for each user fee program.
51
The entirety of FDA appropriations is discussed later in “Food and Drug Administration (FDA).”
Congressional Research Service
30
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations
Both the House and Senate appropriators make a number of recommendations regarding FSMA
and FDA’s ongoing efforts to develop regulations and guidance pertaining to the various
provisions of the law. Both address FSMA’s re-proposal of certain key regulations regarding food
safety preventive controls for both human and animal food, and also produce standards.52 The
House committee report expresses concern that FDA is taking an “overly prescriptive regulatory
approach” with many of the regulations including the monitoring of preventive controls and
verification testing activities, and urges FDA to “ensure all FSMA regulations are risk-based,
flexible, and science-based, and embrace the well-established and recognized standards for food
safety already employed through much of the industry” (H.Rept. 113-468). The Senate committee
report further expresses concern that FDA “only intends to address discrete portions of these
proposed rules” and reminds the agency that the activities covered by FSMA’s rules are “complex
and interrelated” and any regulations need to be “science-based, risk-based, and flexible, taking
into account the different risks posed by different commodities” (S.Rept. 113-164). The example
provided includes the need to consider the “secondary market for spent grains and byproduct
from human food manufacturing and agricultural practices” that is often used for animal feed.
The House committee report also directs FDA to ensure that all FDA centers (including the Foods
Program) maintain a “firm commitment to science-based, data-driven decision making,
facilitating the free flow of scientific and technical information, and requiring a fair and
transparent approach to resolving scientific disputes.”
For FY2015, the joint explanatory statement states that $27.5 million is available for food safety
activities (p. H9314), which is more than FY2014 funding levels of $25 million. Food safety
activities include “development of guidance, providing technical assistance to industry and
technical support to FDA inspectors, as well as training for FDA and state inspectors” (H.Rept.
113-468). The House report encourages FDA to consider “funding research that would provide
portable and technologically advanced testing platforms needed to effectively monitor and protect
against intentional adulteration of the food supply,” as part of the National Agriculture and Food
Defense Strategy Plan, as required by FSMA. The House also urges FDA to consider exempting
tree nut producers from the produce standards rule, if the tree nuts meet the criteria for ‘‘rarely
consumed raw’’ and the buyer of the tree nuts takes the necessary steps to reduce pathogens as
described in the proposed FSMA rule.
Both the House and Senate committees encourage FDA to form partnerships under FSMA. House
appropriators encourage FDA to “work in partnership with existing government food safety
programs through Memorandum of Understandings to verify compliance with FSMA” and to
“eliminate duplication of activities under the law” (H.Rept. 113-468). Senate appropriators
emphasize the need for FDA to work with USDA to “perform outreach and technical assistance to
farmers and small businesses” and recommend $2.5 million in funding for USDA’s National
Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) to conduct extension activities related to FSMA (S.Rept.
113-164). Appropriators also emphasize the importance of ensuring adequate public review and
comment on all proposed requirements and supporting analyses. The House report expresses
concern that FDA is not providing stakeholders with “adequate input or economic consideration
on an expanding list of highly technical regulatory proposals” and wants the agency to better
manage its priorities, given certain gaps in the regulatory process involving some FSMA rules.
Both the House and Senate committee reports contain provisions related to seafood safety and
direct FDA to publish updated advice to pregnant women on seafood consumption.53 The Senate
52
For more information on FSMA regulations, see CRS Report R42885, Food Safety Issues for the 114th Congress.
FDA recently published draft updated advice on fish consumption. See FDA, “FDA and EPA issue draft updated
advice for fish consumption,” FDA News Release, June 10, 2014.
53
Congressional Research Service
31
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations
report further encourages FDA to “work with States and the Department of Commerce to more
aggressively combat fraud in parts of the seafood industry.”54 FDA is also encouraged to work
with the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to resolve a dispute between the United States and
the European Union over sanitation protocols on U.S. shellfish, and to report to Congress on this
issue. The Senate bill also proposed that FDA spend “not less than $150,000” to “implement a
labeling requirement for genetically engineered salmon.”
Both House and Senate appropriators broadly encourage FDA to expedite the import clearance
process, and report statistics to Congress that measure the effectiveness of targeting resources and
to clear trusted/compliant shipments. The House report requires FDA to report to Congress on its
investigation involving imported pet food, including providing a summary of recent activities, as
well as an annual report on the status of the investigation.
Finally, both House and Senate appropriators urge FDA to address the use of medically important
antibiotics in food animals. The House report further encourages FDA to maintain appropriate
funding levels for both FSMA-related activities and the base work performed by its food and
veterinary medicine programs and through research with their Centers of Excellence.
Outside of agricultural appropriations, $47.993 million of funding is provided for foodborne
disease surveillance by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Center
for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases. This reflects an $8 million increase for
“advanced DNA technology to improve and modernize our diagnostic capabilities; and enhance
surveillance, detection, and prevention efforts at the state and local level.”55
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
For USDA’s FSIS, the enacted appropriation provides $1.016 billion in federal appropriations for
FY2015 (Table 5). This is $5.8 million more than enacted for FY2014 and $15.1 million more
than the Administration requested. Appropriations are augmented by existing (currently
authorized) user fees that FSIS estimates to be $160.2 million.56 FSIS appropriations are divided
between various sub-accounts for federal ($900.6 million), state ($60.9 million), and international
inspection ($16.6 million); Codex Alimentarius ($3.8 million); and the Public Health Data
Communications Infrastructure System ($34.6 million, which is available until expended). Also,
FSIS may collect fees of $1 million for the cost of national laboratory accreditation programs.57
The Administration proposed a user fee of $4 million to cover additional inspection costs
associated with performance issues at inspected facilities, but the enacted appropriations did not
include the user fee proposal.
In addition, the enacted appropriation requires that FSIS have no fewer than 148 FTEs dedicated
to the inspection and enforcement of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA) during
FY2015. FSIS is also required to implement catfish inspection as required under the 2008 and
2014 farm bills.58 USDA has not begun to inspect catfish, because the agency has not yet issued a
final rule.
54
For more information on food fraud, see CRS Report R43358, Food Fraud and “Economically Motivated
Adulteration” of Food and Food Ingredients.
55
CDC funding is provided in P.L. 113-235, Division G, Title II.
56
FSIS FY2015 congressional budget justification (http://www.obpa.usda.gov/23fsis2015notes.pdf).
57
Authorized by §1327 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 138f).
58
P.L. 110-246, §11016, clarified in P.L. 113-79, §12106.
Congressional Research Service
32
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations
Section 750 of the enacted appropriation prohibits FSIS from paying salaries and expenses to
inspect horses for slaughter or to provide voluntary, fee-for-service inspection of horses. Previous
FY2006 and FY2007 enacted appropriations prohibited FSIS from paying salaries and expenses
for horse slaughter inspections. In addition, from FY2008 to FY2011 and FY2014, enacted
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.
Lastly, the joint explanatory statement expresses concern about countering economic fraud and
improving the safety of the U.S. seafood supply. The appropriating committees encourage USDA
and FDA to support developing technologies that will provide rapid, portable, and easy-to-use
screening of seafood at ports and at wholesale and retail locations.
Farm Service Agency59
USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) is probably best known for administering the farm
commodity subsidy programs and the disaster assistance programs. It makes these payments to
farmers through a network of county offices. In addition, FSA also administers USDA’s direct and
guaranteed farm loan programs, certain mandatory conservation programs (in cooperation with
the Natural Resources Conservation Service), and supports certain international food assistance
and export credit programs administered by the Foreign Agricultural Service and the U.S. Agency
for International Development.
FSA Salaries and Expenses
For FY2015, the enacted appropriation provides $1.507 billion to FSA for salaries and expenses
(including $1.200 billion for regular FSA salaries and expenses, plus the transfer within FSA of
$307 million for farm loan program salaries and expenses; Table 6).60 This is $22.1 million more
than the amount for FY2014, and the increase approximately equals the amount needed for the
change in building rental payments. Thus, after adjusting for the new rental expenses, the FY2015
appropriation is essentially level with FY2014.
Regarding information technology, the enacted appropriation and the joint explanatory statement
impose strong, new requirements about FSA’s implementation of information technology (IT)
plans. These statements go further than the House and Senate report language that criticized FSA
for delays and costs in implementing MIDAS (Modernize and Innovate the Delivery of
Agricultural Systems). MIDAS was flagged for concern by the IT Dashboard in December 2012.
It has struggled with the scope and schedule of work and has yet to achieve the expected results.61
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) also observed management and schedule
problems in 2011.62
The statutory language requires that FSA—before it can spend 50% of the $132 million available
for IT—submit to Congress and GAO a detailed information technology plan that meets several
specific criteria, and submit a subsequent assessment report at the end of FY2015. The joint
explanatory statement further explains that the controls are “in response to USDA’s
59
This section was written by (name redacted)
-....,(7 [redacted]@crs.loc.gov
).
Excludes transfers to FSA from the Foreign Agricultural Service for administrative support (about $3 million).
61
IT Dashboard, “Farm Program Modernization (MIDAS) #097,” at https://itdashboard.gov/investment?buscid=225.
62
GAO, “USDA Systems Modernization: Management and Oversight Improvements Are Needed,” GAO-11-586, July
20, 2011, at http://www.gao.gov/assets/330/321447.pdf.
60
Congressional Research Service
33
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations
mismanagement of funds and IT projects, including the use of funds intended for salaries and
expenses, ...unknown to and never endorsed by the Congress,” and that “the Department’s
mismanagement of the MIDAS program is of greatest concern.” The statement observes that
“after spending over $400 million [over 10 years], USDA ended the MIDAS project by redefining
the scope of the project and failing to deliver what USDA had promised.” The Department is
instructed to continue monthly briefings to Congress regarding IT projects in the agency.
Regarding proposed office closures and staff reductions, the FY2015 appropriations act and the
joint explanatory statement reject USDA’s proposal to close 250 FSA county offices and reduce
staffing. The act directly prohibits FSA from closing any county office. It also prohibits FSA from
permanently relocating any county employees if it results in two or fewer employees, unless the
Appropriations Committees approve. The joint explanatory statement cites insufficient
information, justification, and/or poor timing regarding implementing the 2014 farm bill. It
requires FSA to conduct a comprehensive workload assessment by August 1, 2015, and to
subsequently contract with the National Academy of Public Administration for an independent
third-party review. The third-party assessment is due September 1, 2016. The workload
evaluation was in the House-proposed 2014 farm bill, but was not part of the enacted farm bill.
This is the first time that FSA office closure has been mentioned in appropriations since FY2006FY2008, which limited FSA’s ability to close offices. The 2008 farm bill enacted a permanent
provision (7 USC 6932a; P.L. 110-246, §14212) that accomplished the same thing—setting
conditions and requiring congressional notification and local hearings before FSA can close or
consolidate a county office. The appropriation’s temporary moratorium surpasses this provision.
Congressional Research Service
34
Table 6. Farm Service Agency Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
P.L. 11255
P.L. 113-6
post-sequ.
P.L. 11376
Admin.
Request
House
H.R. 4800
Senate
S. 2389
P.L. 113235
1,199.0
1,115.3
1,177.9
1,139.3
1,205.1
1,182.5
289.7
281.6
307.0
307.0
307.0
1,488.7
1,396.8
1,484.9
1,446.3
Farm loan program (loan subsidy)
108.2
90.5
90.0
Farm loan program admin. expenses
7.9
7.3
State mediation grants
3.8
Grassroots source water protection
Dairy indemnity program (M)
Change from FY2014 to
FY2015 (P.L. 113-235)
$
%
1,200.2
+22.3
+1.9%
307.0
307.0
+0.0
+0.0%
1,512.1
1,489.5
1,507.2
+22.3
+1.5%
81.2
78.7
81.2
78.7
-11.3
-12.5%
7.7
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
+0.2
+2.6%
4.1
3.8
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
-0.4
-10.0%
3.8
5.2
5.5
0.0
2.5
6.5
5.5
+0.0
+0.0%
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
+0.3
+100.0%
1,612.5
1,503.9
1,592.2
1,539.4
1,605.1
1,589.1
1,603.3
+11.0
+0.7%
Salaries and expenses
Farm Service Agency (S&E base)
FSA farm loan program S&E transfer
Subtotal, appropriated to FSA
Programs
Total: Appropriation to FSA
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports for P.L. 113-235, S. 2389, H.R. 4800, P.L. 113-76, and P.L. 112-55.
Amounts for FY2013 in P.L. 113-6 are at the post-sequestration level and are from the USDA FY2013 Operating Plan.
Notes: Does not include about $3 million of salaries and expenses that are appropriated to the Foreign Agricultural Service to administer P.L. 480 and export loans and
transferred to FSA.
CRS-35
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations
FSA Farm Loan Programs
The USDA Farm Service Agency makes and guarantees loans to farmers, and is a lender of last
resort for family farmers unable to obtain credit from a commercial lender. USDA provides direct
farm loans (loans made directly from USDA to farmers), and it also guarantees the timely
repayment of principal and interest on qualified loans to farmers from commercial lenders. FSA
loans are used to finance farm real estate, operating expenses, and recovery from natural
disasters. Some loans are made at a low interest rate.63
An appropriation is made to FSA each year to cover the federal cost of making direct and
guaranteed loans, referred to as a loan subsidy. Loan subsidy is directly related to any interest rate
subsidy provided by the government, as well as a projection of anticipated loan losses from
farmer non-repayment of the loans. The amount of loans that can be made—the loan authority—
is several times larger than the subsidy level.
For FY2015, the enacted appropriation concurs with the Administration’s request—and the
House-reported bill—for loan subsidy and loan authority. It does not, however, provide any
funding for the Individual Development Account program that the Administration and Senate bill
would have funded.64
The FSA farm loan program receives $79 million of loan subsidy to support $6.402 billion of
direct and guaranteed loans in FY2015 (Table 7). Though the loan subsidy is about 12% smaller
than in FY2014, the loan authority is $875 million greater than FY2014 (+16%). Both of these
changes are largely explained by the direct farm ownership program, which becomes selfsupporting (through fees) and more than doubles in size. Reductions in the guaranteed operating
loan program make up most of the rest of the difference.
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 postsupplemental levels of $6.0 billion in FY2010. From FY2011 to FY2013, loan authority
decreased both due to federal budget pressures and somewhat lessened demand as the financial
system stabilized. Nonetheless, in some years, continued high farm loan demand for certain
programs has caused the loan authority to be exhausted.65 The FY2014 loan authority restored the
total closer to the supplemental levels of FY2009 and FY2010, and the FY2015 appropriation
increases total loan authority to a new high level, particularly in the direct farm ownership loan
program.
63
For more background, see CRS Report RS21977, Agricultural Credit: Institutions and Issues.
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.
65
Updates on unused FSA loan availability are available at http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&
subject=fmlp&topic=fun.
64
Congressional Research Service
36
Table 7. Farm Service Agency: Farm Loan Program
(budget authority and loan authority, as specified, in millions of dollars)
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
P.L. 11255
P.L. 113-6
post-sequ.
P.L. 11376
22.8
18.6
Direct
59.1
Guaranteed (unsubsidized)
FY2015
Change from FY2014 to
FY2015 (P.L. 113-235)
Admin.
Request
House
H.R. 4800
Senate S.
2389
P.L. 113235
$
%
4.4
—
—
—
—
-4.4
-100.0%
54.0
65.5
63.1
63.1
63.1
63.1
-2.4
-3.7%
26.1
16.5
18.3
14.8
14.8
14.8
14.8
-3.5
-19.3%
Emergency loans
—
1.2
1.7
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
-0.8
-49.6%
Indian highly fractionated land loans
0.2
0.2
0.1
—
—
—
—
-0.1
-100.0%
Individual Development Accounts
—
—
—
2.5
—
2.5
—
+0.0
na
Subtotal, loan subsidy
108.2
90.5
90.0
81.2
78.7
81.2
78.7
-11.3
-12.5%
FLP salaries and expenses
289.7
281.6
307.0
307.0
307.0
307.0
307.0
+0.0
+0.0%
FLP administrative expenses
7.9
7.3
7.7
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
+0.2
+2.6%
405.8
379.3
404.7
396.1
393.6
396.1
393.6
-11.1
-2.7%
1. Budget Authority (loan subsidy)
Farm ownership loans
Direct
Farm operating loans
Other direct loans
Total, FLP budget authority
CRS-37
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
P.L. 11255
P.L. 113-6
post-sequ.
P.L. 11376
Admin.
Request
House
H.R. 4800
Senate S.
2389
P.L. 113235
$
%
475.0
438.5
575.0
1,500.0
1,500.0
1,500.0
1,500.0
+925.0
+160.9%
1,500.0
1,500.0
2,000.0
2,000.0
2,000.0
2,000.0
2,000.0
+0.0
+0.0%
Direct
1,050.1
969.5
1,195.6
1,252.0
1,252.0
1,252.0
1,252.0
+56.4
+4.7%
Guaranteed (unsubsidized)
1,500.0
1,384.8
1,500.0
1,393.4
1,393.4
1,393.4
1,393.4
-106.6
-7.1%
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
+0.0
+0.0%
Emergency loans
—
21.6
34.7
34.7
34.7
34.7
34.7
+0.0
+0.0%
Indian tribe land acquisition loans
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
+0.0
+0.0%
Indian highly fractionated land loans
10.0
9.2
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
+0.0
+0.0%
Boll weevil eradication loans
100.0
100.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
+0.0
+0.0%
4,787.1
4,575.7
5,527.3
6,402.1
6,402.1
6,402.1
6,402.1
+874.8
+15.8%
Change from FY2014 to
FY2015 (P.L. 113-235)
2. Loan Authority (loan level)
Farm ownership loans
Direct
Guaranteed
Farm operating loans
Conservation loans
Guaranteed
Other direct loans
Total, loan authority
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports for P.L. 113-235, S. 2389, H.R. 4800, P.L. 113-76, and P.L. 112-55.
Amounts for FY2013 in P.L. 113-6 are at the post-sequestration level and are from the USDA FY2013 Operating Plan.
Note: Budget authority reflects the cost of making loans, such as interest rate subsidies and default. Some programs are self-funding because of fees charged. Loan authority
reflects the amount of loans that FSA may make or guarantee.
CRS-38
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations
Commodity Credit Corporation66
The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) is the funding mechanism for most mandatory
programs in the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79, the Agricultural Act of 2014).67 These include farm
subsidy and disaster payments, as well as a host of other programs that receive mandatory
funding such as conservation, trade, food aid, research, rural development, and bioenergy.
(Programs with different mandatory funding sources than the CCC include crop insurance, SNAP,
child nutrition, and Section 32.) Emergency supplemental spending also has been paid from the
CCC over the years, particularly for ad hoc farm disaster payments, for direct market loss
payments to growers of various commodities in response to low farm commodity prices, and for
animal and plant disease eradication efforts. Farm Service Agency salaries and expenses (a
discretionary appropriation) pays for administration of the programs.
The CCC is a wholly owned government corporation that has the legal authority to borrow up to
$30 billion at any one time from the U.S. Treasury (15 U.S.C. 714, et seq.). These borrowed
funds finance program spending, and CCC eventually must repay the funds. It may earn a small
amount of money from activities such as buying and selling commodities and receiving interest
payments on loans. But because the CCC never earns more than it spends, its borrowing authority
must be replenished periodically through a congressional appropriation so that it does not reach
its $30 billion debt limit. Congress generally provides this infusion through the annual
Agriculture appropriations act. The congressional appropriation may not always restore the line
of credit to the previous year’s level, or may repay more than was spent. For these reasons, the
appropriation to the CCC may not reflect outlays. Also, the appropriation for CCC is several
billion dollars greater than the amount of farm commodity subsidies because many conservation
and other mandatory programs are paid using CCC funds.68
To replenish CCC’s borrowing authority with the Treasury, the enacted FY2015 appropriation
concurred with the Administration request for an indefinite appropriation (“such sums as
necessary”) for CCC. The amount is $13.4 billion for FY2015, up 7% from FY2014. The change
reflects higher disaster payments and the delayed timing of 2014-crop farm program payments,
which are scheduled to be issued in FY2016.
Mandatory outlays for the commodity programs rise and fall based on economic or weather
conditions (e.g., crop prices below program trigger levels generate farm payments). Funding
needs are difficult to estimate, which is a primary reason that the programs are mandatory rather
than discretionary.
Regarding authority for ad-hoc disaster assistance, the enacted appropriation includes a provision
(§717) that has appeared since FY2012 that effectively prohibits the use of CCC funds for
emergency disaster payments to farmers:
[N]one of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this or any other Act shall be
used to pay the salaries or expenses of any employee of the Department of Agriculture or
officer of the Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out clause 3 of Section 32 of the
Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1935 (P.L. 74-320, 7 U.S.C. 612c, as amended), or for any
66
This section was written by (name redacted) (7 -...., [redacted]@crs.loc.gov
).
For more background on the farm bill, see CRS In Focus IF10187, The 2014 Farm Bill (Agricultural Act of 2014,
P.L. 113-79), and CRS Report R43076, The 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79): Summary and Side-by-Side.
68
For an example of the accounting of CCC’s line of credit, appropriations and expenditures, see USDA, Commodity
Estimates Book: FY2014 President’s Budget, “Output 07-CCC Financing Status,” at http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/
FSA_File/pb14_table_07a.pdf.
67
Congressional Research Service
39
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations
surplus removal activities or price support activities under section 5 of the Commodity Credit
Corporation Charter Act.69
Separately, the act also continues a provision (§724) that has been enacted since FY2011 that
limits the ability of USDA to provide marketing assistance loans for mohair.
Crop Insurance70
The federal crop insurance program is administered by USDA’s Risk Management Agency
(RMA). It offers basically free catastrophic insurance to producers who grow an insurable crop.
Producers who opt for this coverage have the opportunity to purchase additional insurance
coverage at a subsidized rate (ranging between 38% and 80%). Policies are sold and serviced
through approved private insurance companies that have their program losses reinsured by USDA
and are reimbursed by the government for their administrative and operating expenses.
The annual Agriculture appropriations bill traditionally makes two separate appropriations for the
federal crop insurance program. First, it provides discretionary funding for the salaries and
expenses of the RMA. Second, it provides “such sums as are necessary” of mandatory funding for
the Federal Crop Insurance Fund, which finances all other expenses of the program, including
premium subsidies, net indemnity payments, and reimbursements to the private insurance
companies.
For the discretionary salaries and expenses of the RMA, the enacted FY2015 appropriation
provides $75 million, up $3 million from the enacted FY2014 amount. The Administration had
requested additional funding for RMA’s ability to improve program compliance, including efforts
to reduce improper payments.
For the Federal Crop Insurance Fund mandatory appropriation, the FY2015 enacted appropriation
provides $8.7 billion, down 9% from the estimated level in FY2014. (The actual amount required
to cover program losses and other subsidies is subject to change based on actual crop losses and
farmer participation rates in the program.) The year-over-year decline is driven by expected lower
commodity prices, which results in a reduced level of premium subsidies. The estimate also
incorporates expected funds needed in FY2015 for crop insurance changes made by the 2014
farm bill, including additional coverage provided by the Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO)
and the Stacked Income Protection Plan (STAX) for upland cotton.
Disaster Assistance71
Agricultural-related disaster assistance usually has been funded on a supplemental basis or
through various mandatory spending programs, and typically has not been provided through
annual appropriations. The enacted FY2015 appropriation, however, provides $91 million for
three watershed and conservation recovery programs. This is $45.7 million less than the Senatereported bill, while the House-reported bill did not contain any such funding. Funding for all
three of these programs is designated as disaster funding for the purpose of budget scoring (not
69
Clause 3 of Section 32 provides that funds shall be used to re-establish farmers’ purchasing power by making
payments in connections with the normal production of any agricultural commodity for domestic consumption (7.U.S.C
612c). Section 5 of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act authorizes the CCC to support the prices of
agricultural commodities through loans, purchases, payments, and other operations (15 U.S.C. 714c).
70
This section was written by (name redacted) (7 -...., [redacted]@crs.loc.gov
). For more information on crop
insurance, see CRS Report R40532, Federal Crop Insurance: Background.
71
This section was written by (name redacted) (7
-...., [redacted]@crs.loc.gov
).
Congressional Research Service
40
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations
counted against the discretionary spending cap). The appropriation in the General Provisions
(Table 15) and the disaster designation is an offset in scorekeeping adjustments (Table 16).
The Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) receives $9.2 million, to remain
available until expended. ECP provides financial and technical assistance to
rehabilitate farmland and conservation practices destroyed by natural disasters
(e.g., flood, fire, drought, etc.). ECP is administered by the Farm Service Agency
(FSA) and has not received funding since FY2013.
The Emergency Forest Restoration Program (EFRP) receives $3.2 million. EFRP
also is administered by FSA and provides assistance to nonindustrial private
forestland owners to restore forestland following a natural disaster.
The Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) program receives $78.6 million, to
remain available until expended. EWP is administered by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) and provides financial and technical assistance to
relieve imminent hazards to life and property caused by floods, fires, windstorms,
and other natural occurrences. EWP has not received funding since FY2013.
Under the three recovery programs, a national or state emergency does not have to be declared in
order to receive assistance. The enacted appropriation, however, does require that funds be used
for necessary expenses resulting from a major disaster declared pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121, et seq.). This requirement
potentially could limit the distribution of recovery assistance.72
Conservation73
USDA administers a number of agricultural conservation programs that assist private landowners
with natural resource concerns. These include working land programs, land retirement and
easement programs, watershed programs, technical assistance, and other programs. The two lead
agricultural conservation agencies within USDA are the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS)—which provides technical assistance and administers most programs—and the Farm
Service Agency (FSA)—which administers the largest program, the Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP).
Most conservation program funding is mandatory, funded through the Commodity Credit
Corporation (CCC) and authorized in omnibus farm bills (about $5.2 billion of CCC funds in
FY2015). Other conservation programs—mostly technical assistance—are discretionary and
funded through annual appropriations (about $856 million in the enacted FY2015 appropriation).
As discussed in more detail below, the enacted FY2015 appropriation accepts some of the
Administration’s proposed reductions to mandatory conservation programs and provides more
than the Administration’s request for discretionary programs.
Discretionary Conservation Programs
All of the discretionary conservation programs are administered by NRCS. The largest
discretionary conservation program that funds most NRCS operations is the Conservation
Operations (CO) account. P.L. 113-235 increased funding for CO above the FY2014 level of
72
For additional information on the disaster assistance programs in this section and the Stafford Act limitation, see
CRS Report R42854, Emergency Assistance for Agricultural Land Rehabilitation.
73
This section was written by (name redacted) (7
-...., [redacted]@crs.loc.gov
).
Congressional Research Service
41
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations
$812.9 million to $846 million—halfway between the House- and Senate reported bills and $31.7
million more than requested by the Administration.
The enacted FY2015 appropriation further directs CO funding for a number of existing
conservation programs (Table 8). The committee reports (H.Rept. 113-468 and S.Rept. 113-164)
include a number of congressionally directed actions for NRCS, including program
administration, invasive species, wetland mitigation, herbicide resistance, conservation practices
and standard direction, species protection, and partner agreements. While these actions do not
include a specific funding level, they ultimately can direct funding to congressionally identified
projects, similar to earmarks.74
The Administration proposed renaming the Conservation Operations account as “Private Lands
Conservation Operations” and consolidating the technical assistance funding for the mandatory
conservation programs with CO. The enacted FY12015 appropriation did not adopt this proposed
change.
Funding also is provided in P.L. 113-235 (and in the House-reported bill, enacted FY2014
appropriation, and the 2014 farm bill) for the Watershed Rehabilitation program, which
rehabilitates aging dams previously built by USDA.75 The Administration proposed terminating
this program, contending that the maintenance, repair, and operation of dams are the
responsibility of the local project sponsor. The enacted FY2014 appropriation included $12
million for the program, and the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79) added an additional $250 million in
mandatory funding for FY2014.76 The enacted FY2015 appropriation provides $12 million for
FY2015, less than H.R. 4800 ($25 million) but more than S. 2389 ($0).
Table 8. Conservation Operations Funding
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2014
FY2015
P.L. 113-76
Admin.
Request
House
H.R. 4800
Senate
S. 2389
P.L. 113235
813
815
843
849
846
Conservation Technical Assistance
711
717
747
0
748
Soil Survey
80
80
78
0
80
Snow Survey
9.3
8.9
9.1
0
9.3
Plant Material Center
9.4
9.2
9.2
0
9.4
Watershed Projects (Watershed Operations)
3.0
0
0
5.6
5.6
Conservation Delivery Streamlining Initiative
0
3.7
1.5
0
1.5e
Program
Conservation Operationsa
74
Language in the joint explanatory statement accompanying the enacted appropriation suggests that House and Senate
committee report language not changed by the explanatory statement still expresses congressional intentions (see
Congressional Record, vol. 160, part 151, book 11 [December 11, 2014], p. H9308).
75
See CRS Report RL30478, Federally Supported Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment Programs.
76
Mandatory funding for the program was restricted in the FY2014 appropriation, but because the 2014 farm bill was
enacted after the enactment of the FY2014 appropriation, the CHIMPS in appropriations did not apply to the new
funding; therefore NRCS received the full $250 million from the farm bill for the Watershed Rehabilitation Program.
According to NRCS, the agency will be able to obligate all of the new funding and still have a backlog of requested
funding close to $336 million that will remain unfunded.
Congressional Research Service
42
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports for P.L. 113-235,
S. 2389, H.R. 4800, and P.L. 113-76.
Notes: The lack of a specified funding level does not necessarily indicate a committee’s lack of support for a
particular sub-program, only that the bill and report language did not specify an amount for FY2015.
a. Total CO includes GSA and DHS rental payments of $28.6 million in the Administration’s request and
Senate-reported bill. The House-reported bill does not include similar language, but funding levels are
consistent with these payments inclusion.
b. Funding level is not specifically identified in P.L. 113-235 or associated explanatory statement; however the
amount identified in H.Rept. 113-468 suggests congressional intent.
Mandatory Conservation Programs
Mandatory conservation programs generally are authorized in omnibus farm bills and receive
funding from the CCC, thus not requiring an annual appropriation. But Congress has reduced
mandatory conservation programs through changes in mandatory program spending (CHIMPS) in
the annual agricultural appropriations law every year since FY2003. Because money is fungible,
the savings from these reductions are not necessarily applied toward other conservation activities.
Prior to the 2008 farm bill, reductions to conservation programs through appropriations law
peaked in FY2006, with a reduction totaling $638 million. Following the 2008 farm bill,
conservation CHIMPS peaked again in FY2012 at $929 million. The 2014 farm bill authorized a
number of conservation programs with mandatory funding (over $5 billion in FY2015). The
FY2015 appropriation continues to CHIMP farm bill conservation programs (at $212 million).
The FY2015 enacted CHIMPS are less than the Administration and Senate-reported bill, but more
than the House-reported bill. The Administration’s request historically has included annual
proposed reductions to conservation funding, usually more substantial than Congress has
supported. Both the Administration’s request and Senate-reported bill would have CHIMPed
conservation by $278 million in FY2015,77 while the House-reported reduction was slightly less
at $206 million. Sequestration further reduced these programs in FY2015, resulting in a total
effective reduction to CHIMPed conservation programs of $430 million.
The number of conservation programs reduced through appropriations varies from year to year;
however, some programs are continuously reduced, while others almost never receive a reduction.
Programs such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) have been reduced
annually since FY2003, while others, such as the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), have not
been reduced in over a decade. In FY2015, P.L. 113-235 allows EQIP to spend no more than
$1.35 billion (authorized at $1.6 billion), no more than $73 million for the Watershed
Rehabilitation Program (authorized at $153 million),78 and no more than 7.7 million acres for the
Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP, authorized to enroll up to 10 million acres).
For more information on reductions to mandatory conservation programs through appropriations,
see CRS In Focus IF10041, Reductions to Mandatory Agricultural Conservation Programs in
Appropriations Law.
77
For discussion purposes, since the Senate bill and Administration’s request would reduce these programs to the same
level, this paragraph refers to them having the same $278 million conservation CHIMP total. However, CBO was not
consistent and gave the Administration credit for a level of CHIMPS that was not available to the Senate because of
sequestration. Therefore the Administration actually is credited in Table 13 with $403 million from two conservation
program CHIMPS. See the text box in the later section “Changes in Mandatory Program Spending (CHIMPS).”
78
Mandatory funding for Watershed Rehabilitation originally was provided in the 2002 farm bill to remain available
until expended. Since that time, annual appropriations have restricted this no-year funding to generate annual savings.
In FY2014, this restriction resulted in savings of $153 million. Sequestration reduced this by $11 million, leaving $142
million available in FY2015. P.L. 113-235 further reduced the amount to $73 million, creating a $69 million CHIMP.
Congressional Research Service
43
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations
Rural Development79
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 FY2015 enacted appropriation provides a total of $2.4 billion in discretionary budget
authority for rural development programs in FY2015 (after rescission), essentially level with the
FY2014 amount and $172.5 million more than requested by the Administration. If the rescission
to the Cushion of Credit account (-$179 million) is not incorporated in the rural development
section but included with CHIMPS as in the CBO score, then the net budget authority for rural
development would be $2.58 billion (Table 9). The bill supports $36 billion in loan authority.
Salaries and expenses within Rural Development are funded from a direct appropriation plus
transfers from each of the agencies. The enacted appropriation provides a combined salaries and
expenses total of $678.2 million for FY2015, $21 million more than in FY2014 (+3.2%),.
Rural Housing Service (RHS)
For FY2015, the enacted bill provides $1.71 billion in budget authority for RHS programs (before
transfers of salary and expenses). This is approximately $19 million (+1.1%) more than FY2014.
With this budget authority, the enacted bill authorizes $27.4 billion in loan authority, essentially
equal to the FY2014 total loan authority.
The single-family housing loan program (Section 502 of the Housing Act of 1949) is the largest
loan account, representing over 90% of RHS’s total loan authority. The enacted bill provides
$900 million for direct loans and $24 billion for loan guarantees. This is the same as FY2014 and
recent years, despite an Administration request for less direct loan authority.
For other housing loan programs, the FY2015 appropriation provides $3.7 million in budget
authority to support $26.3 million in loans for the Section 504 Very Low-Income Housing Repair
loan program. This is approximately the same loan authorization level as FY2014 and about $1.5
million more in budget authority than for FY2014 ($2.2 million). The Administration requested
no funding for the Section 504 program. For the Multi-Family Housing loan guarantee program
(Section 538), the enacted bill provides loan authority of $150 million for FY2015, the same as
for FY2014. For the Section 515 Rental Housing Program, the enacted bill provides loan
authority of $28.4 million and $9.8 million in subsidies, $3.1 million (47%) more than FY2014.
Rental Assistance Program grants (Section 521) are the largest budget authority line item in RHS,
accounting for 63% of the total RHS budget authority appropriation in FY2015 (Table 9). The
enacted bill provides $1.09 billion in new budget authority, the same as the request and a decrease
of $22 million from FY2014 (-1.9%).
The Rural Housing Service also administers the Rural Community Facilities program. The
program provides direct loans, loan guarantees, and grants for “essential community facilities” in
rural areas with less than 20,000 in population. The enacted bill provides a total of $30.3 million
in new budget authority for the program to support a loan authorization level of $2.27 billion and
79
This section was written by (name redacted) (7-...., [redacted]@crs.loc.gov).
Congressional Research Service
44
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations
$13 million in grants. This budget authority is $2.2 million (-6.9%) less than for FY2014; the
guaranteed loan authority is $13.7 million (+5.2%) more than FY2014.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS)
The FY2015 appropriation provides $108 million to the RBS before the Cushion of Credit
rescission and transfers of salaries and expenses. This is about $27 million less than in the
enacted FY2014 amount (-20%). If the Cushion of Credit rescission is incorporated as in the
Appropriations committee tables (-$179 million), the net RBS budget authority is -$71.3 million.
The FY2015 bill provides about $985 million in loan authority for the various RBS loan
programs, $38.2 million less than FY2014 (-3.7%).
For the Rural Business Program account, the enacted bill provides $74.0 million in new budget
authority, $22.5 million less than FY2014 (-23.3%). The Rural Business Program account
includes the Business and Industry (B&I) Loan Guarantee program ($47 million), the Rural
Business Development Grant program ($24 million), and the Delta Regional Authority grant
program ($3.0 million).80 The appropriation bill reduces the B&I Loan Guarantee program’s
budget and loan authority from FY2014 levels (Table 9).
For the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP), the enacted bill provides $1.4 million for
loan subsidies to support $12.8 million in loans. Like FY2014, there is no appropriation for
REAP grants (the Administration had requested $5 million).
The Administration requested, but did not receive, funding for two new business programs: the
Rural Business Investment Program ($6 million) and the Health 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 $3.3 million for the Rural Microenterprise Assistance Program.
Rural Utilities Service (RUS)
The FY0215 appropriation provides $536.2 million in new budget authority for the Rural Utilities
Service before transferring salaries and expenses, essentially the same as FY2014. This is
approximately about $145 million (+27.2%) more than the Administration requested. After
transferring an unchanged amount for rural electric and telecommunication administrative
expenses ($34.5 million), the program balance is $501 million for FY2015 (Table 9).
Loan subsidies and grants under the Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program account represent
the largest share of FY2015 recommended budget authority under RUS programs (approximately
87% of total RUS budget authority). The enacted bill provides $465 million in budget authority,
$2.5 million more than FY2014 and $160.8 more than the Administration requested. This
appropriation would support $1.25 billion in direct and guaranteed loans. Along with the direct
and guaranteed loans, the appropriation is divided among the following grant accounts
Water/Waste Water grants ($347.1 million);
Solid Waste Management grants ($4.0 million);
Individual Well Water grants ($993,000);
Water and Waste Water revolving fund ($1.0 million);
80
The Business Development grants program combines the Rural Business Enterprise grants and the Rural Business
Opportunity grants programs.
Congressional Research Service
45
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations
Circuit Rider program ($15.9 million);
Technical Assistance ($19 million);
Grants for Colonias and Alaska and Hawaii Natives ($66.5 million);
High Energy Cost grants ($10 million).
The enacted bill provides for $5.5 billion in rural electric loans and $690 million in Treasury rate
telecommunication loans, both the same as FY2014. Most of the recommended loan authority is
for direct Federal Finance Bank electric loans ($5.0 billion).
For the combined distance learning, telemedicine, and broadband account, the appropriation
provides $36.8 million in budget authority. The FY2014 appropriation was $39.2 million.
For distance learning/telemedicine, the FY2015 amount is $22.0 million in grant
support, which is $2.3 million less than FY2014 (-9.6%).
For rural broadband, the FY2015 amounts are $10.4 million for grants and $4.5
million for direct loan subsidies, each the same as FY2014. The associated loan
authority, however, would decrease by $10 million from FY2014 to $24.1
million. The Administration had requested $20 million in grants, $8.3 million in
loan subsidy, and $44 million in loan authority.
Congressional Research Service
46
Table 9. USDA Rural Development Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
P.L. 11255
P.L. 113-6
post-sequ.
P.L. 11376
Admin.
Request
House
H.R. 4800
Senate S.
2389
P.L. 113235
Salaries and expenses (direct)
182.0
192.1
203.4
225.1
224.2
228.9
Transfers from RHS, RBCS, RUS
471.9
420.9
454.0
434.5
454.0
653.9
613.0
657.4
659.6
1,090.3
1,031.1
1,279.6
2. Rural Business-Cooperative Service
109.3
114.2
3. Rural Utilities Service
551.0
Summary
FY2015
Change from FY2014 to
FY2015 (P.L. 113-235)
$
%
224.2
+20.8
+10.2%
454.0
454.0
+0.0
+0.0%
678.2
682.9
678.2
+20.8
+3.2%
1,228.6
1,310.4
1,307.0
1,298.4
+18.7
+1.5%
130.2
139.2
99.6
111.7
103.2
-27.0
-20.7%
520.8
501.6
357.6
501.8
504.4
501.7
+0.2
+0.0%
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
+0.0
+0.6%
2,405.2
2,279.9
2,569.7
2,385.9
2,590.8
2,606.9
2,582.4
+12.7
+0.5%
Less rescission of Cushion of Credit
-155.0
-180.0
-172.0
-155.0
-155.0
-158.0
-179.0
-7.0
+4.1%
Net, Rural Development (in comm. rept.)
2,250.2
2,099.9
2,397.7
2,230.9
2,435.8
2,448.9
2,403.4
+5.7
+0.2%
Administrative expenses (transfer)
430.8
383.3
415.1
397.3
415.1
415.1
415.1
+0.0
+0.0%
Single family direct loans (sec. 502)
42.6
50.2
24.5
26.6
76.9
66.4
66.4
+41.9
+171.3%
900.0
840.1
900.0
360.0
1,042.3
900.0
900.0
+0.0
+0.0%
24,000.0
24,000.0
24,000.0
24,000.0
24,000.0
24,000.0
24,000.0
+0.0
+0.0%
Other RHIF programsc
37.6
29.3
22.8
29.5
29.4
29.5
29.4
+6.6
+28.9%
Loan authority
240.3
241.7
248.6
243.6
248.4
248.6
248.3
-0.3
-0.1%
Subtotal, RHIF
511.0
462.7
462.4
453.4
521.5
511.0
510.9
+48.5
+10.5%
25,140.3
25,081.8
25,148.6
24,603.6
25,290.6
25,148.6
25,148.3
-0.3
-0.0%
Subtotal, salaries and exp.
1. Rural Housing Service
Office of the Under Secretary
Total, Rural Development
Alternate total (including rescissions)a
1. Rural Housing Service
Loan authorityb
Single family guaranteed loans: Loan authority
Loan authority
CRS-47
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
P.L. 11255
P.L. 113-6
post-sequ.
P.L. 11376
Admin.
Request
House
H.R. 4800
Senate S.
2389
P.L. 113235
Rental assistance (sec. 521)
900.7
834.3
1,110.0
1,088.5
1,088.5
1,093.5
Other rental assistanced
4.0
2.8
—
—
—
Multifamily housing revitalization
13.0
26.4
32.6
28.0
Mutual & self-help housing grants
30.0
27.7
25.0
Rural housing assistance grants
33.1
30.6
11.4
Summary
FY2015
Change from FY2014 to
FY2015 (P.L. 113-235)
$
%
1,088.5
-21.5
-1.9%
—
—
—
—
28.0
28.0
24.0
-8.6
-26.3%
10.0
30.0
25.0
27.5
+2.5
+10.0%
32.2
25.0
27.0
32.2
32.2
+0.0
+0.0%
12.1
13.0
17.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
+0.0
+0.0%
1,300.0
2,200.0
2,200.0
2,200.0
2,200.0
2,200.0
2,200.0
+0.0
+0.0%
Community Facilities: Guarantees
5.0
3.6
3.8
—
3.5
3.6
3.5
-0.3
-7.3%
Loan authority
105.7
53.3
59.5
—
73.2
75.0
73.2
+13.7
+23.0%
Rural community dev. initiative
3.6
5.7
6.0
—
5.0
6.0
4.0
-2.0
-33.0%
Economic impact initiative grants
5.9
5.5
5.8
—
5.0
5.8
5.8
+0.0
+0.0%
Tribal college grants
3.4
3.1
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
+0.0
+0.0%
29.3
30.0
32.5
21.0
30.5
32.3
30.3
-2.2
-6.9%
1,405.7
2,253.3
2,259.5
2,200.0
2,273.2
2,275.0
2,273.2
+13.7
+0.6%
Total, Rural Housing Service
1,521.1
1,414.3
1,694.7
1,625.9
1,725.5
1,722.1
1,713.5
+18.7
+1.1%
Less transfer salaries & expenses
-430.8
-383.3
-415.1
-397.3
-415.1
-415.1
-415.1
+0.0
+0.0%
Rural Housing Service (programs)
1,090.3
1,031.1
1,279.6
1,228.6
1,310.4
1,307.0
1,298.4
+18.7
+1.5%
Loan authority
26,546.0
27,335.1
27,408.1
26,803.6
27,563.9
27,423.6
27,421.5
+13.4
+0.0%
Other housing programs
Rural Community Facilities Program
Community Facilities: Grants
Loan authority
Subtotal, Rural Community Facilities
Loan authority
CRS-48
Summary
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
P.L. 11255
P.L. 113-6
post-sequ.
P.L. 11376
Admin.
Request
House
H.R. 4800
Senate S.
2389
P.L. 113235
Change from FY2014 to
FY2015 (P.L. 113-235)
$
%
2. Rural Business Cooperative Service
Rural Business Program Account
Guar. Bus. & Ind. (B&I) Loans
45.3
52.3
67.0
30.2
45.0
49.0
47.0
-20.0
-29.8%
812.6
890.2
958.1
590.8
880.6
958.1
919.8
-38.3
-4.0%
Rural bus. enterprise grants
24.3
22.6
24.3
—
20.0
—
24.0
-0.3
-1.3%
Rural bus. opportunity grants
2.3
2.1
2.3
—
—
—
0.0
-2.3
-100.0%
Delta regional authority grants
2.9
2.8
3.0
—
—
3.0
3.0
+0.0
+0.0%
Rural business development
—
—
—
57.5
—
26.6
—
—
—
Admin. expenses (transfer)
4.7
4.1
4.4
4.2
4.4
4.4
4.4
+0.0
+0.0%
Loan subsidy
6.0
5.6
4.1
3.1
5.0
5.8
5.8
+1.7
+42.5%
17.7
17.4
18.9
10.0
16.2
18.9
18.9
+0.0
+0.0%
Rural Econ. Dev.: Loan authority
33.1
33.1
33.1
59.5
59.5
33.1
33.1
+0.0
+0.0%
Rural coop. development grants
25.1
25.7
26.1
16.1
22.1
26.1
22.1
-4.0
-15.4%
Rural Microenterprise: Loan subsidy
—
—
—
3.3
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
25.7
—
—
—
—
—
Rural Business Invest. Program: Grants
—
—
—
2.0
—
—
—
—
—
Loan subsidy
—
—
—
4.0
4.0
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
39.3
39.3
—
—
—
—
Rural Energy for America: Grants
1.7
—
—
5.0
—
—
—
—
—
Loan subsidy
1.7
3.1
3.5
5.0
3.5
1.4
1.4
-2.2
-61.4%
6.5
13.1
12.8
47.3
33.1
12.8
12.8
+0.0
+0.0%
Loan authority
Rural Development Loan Fund Program
Loan authority
Loan authority
Loan authority
Loan authority
CRS-49
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
Summary
P.L. 11255
P.L. 113-6
post-sequ.
P.L. 11376
Admin.
Request
House
H.R. 4800
Senate S.
2389
P.L. 113235
Healthy Foods, Healthy Neighborhoods Initiative
—
—
—
13.0
—
—
Total, Rural Business-Cooperative Service
113.9
118.3
134.6
143.4
104.0
-4.7
-4.1
-4.4
-4.2
109.3
114.2
130.2
869.8
953.7
Budget authority
113.9
Less rescission of Cushion of Credit
Net, Rural Bus.-Coop. Svc. (in cmte. report)
Change from FY2014 to
FY2015 (P.L. 113-235
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.