# Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR43669 ## Record - **Collection:** Congressional research report - **Document type:** CRS Report - **Published:** February 4, 2015 - **Citation:** R43669 ## 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 [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR43669. Public record. Not legal advice.