Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Congressional research reportFeb 23, 2016
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Agriculture and Related Agencies:
FY2016 Appropriations
(name redacted), Coordinator
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
February 23, 2016
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R44240
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Summary
The Agriculture appropriations bill funds the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), except for
the Forest Service. It also funds the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and—in evennumbered fiscal years—the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).
Agriculture appropriations include both mandatory and discretionary spending. Discretionary
amounts, though, are the primary focus during the bill’s development since mandatory amounts
generally are set by authorizing laws such as the farm bill.
The largest discretionary spending items are the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for
Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); agricultural research; FDA; rural development; foreign
food aid and trade; farm assistance programs; food safety and inspection; conservation; and
animal and plant health programs. The main mandatory spending items are the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), child nutrition, crop insurance, and the farm commodity
and conservation programs funded through the Commodity Credit Corporation.
The FY2016 Agriculture Appropriation was enacted as part of an omnibus bill on December 18,
2015 (P.L. 114-113). Separate Agriculture bills were reported in both chambers, but neither went
to the floor (H.R. 3049, S. 1800). The fiscal year began under continuing resolutions.
The enacted omnibus appropriation uses a budget allocation that was provided in the Bipartisan
Budget Act of 2015 (P.L. 114-74), which is higher than what was available to develop the Houseand Senate-reported bills. The final Agriculture appropriation provides $21.750 billion for
discretionary amounts, which is an increase of $925 million over FY2015 (+4.4%), after
adjusting for differences in CFTC jurisdiction.
Compared to FY2015, the $925-million increase is largely allocated among a $318-million
increase for the Rural Housing Service; $250 million extra for Food for Peace grants for
international food aid; a $178-million increase for the Agricultural Research Service, mostly for
buildings and facilities; a $132-million increase for the Food and Drug Administration, mostly for
food safety; and $157 million more than last year for emergency conservation, watershed, and
forestry programs, some of it offset by a disaster declaration.
In addition to specifying budget authority, the appropriation prescribes various policies or
conditions that affect how some agencies may use their appropriation. Among notable policyrelated provisions in the appropriation are to permanently repeal some country-of-origin labeling
(COOL) laws, continue to prohibit horse slaughter facility inspection, prevent the import of
processed poultry from China for certain nutrition programs, continue to implement with
flexibility the whole grain and sodium requirements in the child nutrition programs, set some
terms for the formation of dietary guidelines, and restore the use of commodity certificates for the
marketing loan program, including not being subject to payment limits.
Congressional Research Service
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Contents
Scope of the Agriculture Appropriations Bill .................................................................................. 1
Action on FY2016 Appropriations .................................................................................................. 2
Administration’s FY2016 Budget Request ............................................................................... 4
House Action ............................................................................................................................. 5
Senate Action ............................................................................................................................ 5
Continuing Resolution .............................................................................................................. 5
Omnibus Appropriation ............................................................................................................. 5
Summary of FY2016 Appropriation Amounts ................................................................................ 6
Original FY2016 Budget and 302(b) Allocations to Subcommittees........................................ 6
Final FY2016 Budget and 302(b) Allocation ............................................................................ 6
Continuing Resolution .............................................................................................................. 6
Comparison of Amounts for FY2016 ........................................................................................ 7
Policy Changes ........................................................................................................................ 14
Recent Trends in Agriculture Appropriations.......................................................................... 14
Sequestration Continues on Mandatory Accounts................................................................... 16
USDA Agencies and Programs ...................................................................................................... 17
Departmental Administration .................................................................................................. 17
Agricultural Research, Education, and Extension ................................................................... 20
Agricultural Research Service .......................................................................................... 20
National Institute of Food and Agriculture ....................................................................... 21
National Agricultural Statistics Service ............................................................................ 22
Economic Research Service .............................................................................................. 22
Marketing and Regulatory Programs ...................................................................................... 24
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service .................................................................... 24
Agricultural Marketing Service and “Section 32” ............................................................ 25
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration ............................................... 27
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) ............................................................................ 28
Farm Service Agency .............................................................................................................. 29
FSA Salaries and Expenses ............................................................................................... 29
FSA Farm Loan Programs ................................................................................................ 30
Commodity Credit Corporation .............................................................................................. 34
Crop Insurance ........................................................................................................................ 35
Standard Reinsurance Agreement as Temporary Budget Offset ....................................... 36
Disaster Assistance .................................................................................................................. 36
Conservation ........................................................................................................................... 37
Discretionary Conservation Programs .............................................................................. 38
Mandatory Conservation Programs .................................................................................. 39
Rural Development ................................................................................................................. 40
Rural Housing Service (RHS) ........................................................................................... 40
Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS) ..................................................................... 41
Rural Utilities Service (RUS) ........................................................................................... 42
Domestic Food Assistance ...................................................................................................... 48
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services .................... 48
SNAP and Other Programs Under the Food and Nutrition Act ........................................ 49
Child Nutrition Programs .................................................................................................. 49
WIC Program .................................................................................................................... 52
Congressional Research Service
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Commodity Assistance Program ....................................................................................... 52
Nutrition Programs Administration................................................................................... 53
Other Nutrition Funding Support ...................................................................................... 54
Agricultural Trade and Food Aid ............................................................................................ 58
Foreign Agricultural Service ............................................................................................. 58
Food for Peace Program (P.L. 480) ................................................................................... 59
Local and Regional Procurement (LRP) Projects ............................................................. 60
McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition .......................... 60
Appropriations Instructions About Industrial Hemp ............................................................... 60
Related Agencies ........................................................................................................................... 61
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) .................................................................................... 62
FDA’s Food Safety Activities............................................................................................ 67
Commodity Futures Trading Commission .............................................................................. 68
Farm Credit Administration .................................................................................................... 69
General Provisions, Scorekeeping Adjustments ............................................................................ 70
Changes in Mandatory Program Spending (CHIMPS) ........................................................... 70
Rescissions of Discretionary Accounts ................................................................................... 73
Other Appropriations (Including Emergency Disaster Programs) .......................................... 74
Other Scorekeeping Adjustments ............................................................................................ 75
Figures
Figure 1. Scope of Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations ............................................ 1
Figure 2. Timeline of Action on Agriculture Appropriations, FY1996-FY2016 ............................. 4
Figure 3. Discretionary Agriculture Appropriations, by Title, Since FY2007............................... 15
Figure 4. Inflation-Adjusted Discretionary Agriculture Appropriations Since FY2007 ............... 16
Figure A-1. Total Agriculture Appropriations: Mandatory and Discretionary .............................. 76
Figure A-2. Total Agriculture Appropriations: Domestic Nutrition and Rest of Bill .................... 77
Figure A-3. Discretionary Agriculture Appropriations .................................................................. 78
Figure A-4. Agriculture Appropriations as Percentages of Total Federal Budget ......................... 82
Figure A-5. More Components as Percentages of Total Federal Budget....................................... 82
Figure A-6. Agriculture Appropriations as Percentages of GDP ................................................... 82
Figure A-7. Agriculture Appropriations per Capita of U.S. Population ........................................ 82
Tables
Table 1. Congressional Action on Agriculture Appropriations ........................................................ 3
Table 2. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations, by Title, FY2015-FY2016 ................. 8
Table 3. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations, by Agency, FY2013-FY2016 ............ 9
Table 4. USDA Departmental Administration Appropriations ...................................................... 18
Table 5. USDA Research, Extension, and Economics (REE) Appropriations .............................. 23
Table 6. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Appropriations ....................................................... 24
Table 7. Farm Service Agency Appropriations .............................................................................. 31
Congressional Research Service
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Table 8. Farm Service Agency: Farm Loan Program .................................................................... 32
Table 9. FY2016 Funding for Emergency Agricultural Land Rehabilitation Programs ................ 37
Table 10. Conservation Operations Funding ................................................................................. 38
Table 11. USDA Rural Development Appropriations ................................................................... 43
Table 12. Domestic Food Assistance Appropriations .................................................................... 55
Table 13. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Appropriations.................................................. 63
Table 14. Farm Credit Administration Limitation on Expenses .................................................... 69
Table 15. Adjustments to Mandatory Spending Programs ............................................................ 72
Table 16. Rescissions from (Prior-Year) Discretionary Budget Authority .................................... 73
Table 17. Other Appropriations in General Provisions.................................................................. 74
Table 18. Scorekeeping Adjustments............................................................................................. 75
Table A-1. Trends in Nominal Agriculture Appropriations ........................................................... 79
Table A-2. Trends in Real Agriculture Appropriations .................................................................. 80
Table A-3. Percentage Changes in Agriculture Appropriations ..................................................... 81
Table A-4. Trends in Agriculture Appropriations Measured Against Benchmarks ....................... 83
Table B-1. Sequestration from Accounts in the Agriculture Appropriation .................................. 84
Table B-2. Sequestration of Mandatory Agriculture Appropriations in FY2013-2016 ................. 85
Appendixes
Appendix A. Historical Trends ...................................................................................................... 76
Appendix B. Budget Sequestration ............................................................................................... 84
Contacts
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 87
Congressional Research Service
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Scope of the Agriculture Appropriations Bill
The Agriculture appropriations bill—formally known as the Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act—provides funding for:
All of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) except the Forest Service,
which is funded in the Interior appropriations bill,
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the Department of Health and
Human Services, and
In the House, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). In the
Senate, the Financial Services bill contains CFTC appropriations. In evennumbered fiscal years, CFTC appears in the enacted Agriculture appropriation.
Jurisdiction is with the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, and their respective
Subcommittees on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies. The bill includes mandatory and discretionary spending, but the discretionary amounts
are the primary focus during the bill’s development. The scope of the bill can be shown by the
major allocations in the FY2016 appropriation (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Scope of Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations
(FY2016 budget authority in billions of dollars)
SNAP,
80.8
CCC,
6.9
Crop ins.,
7.9
Mandatory
Discretionary
119
21.5
Child
nutrition,
22.1
WIC,
CSFP, 6.8
Research,
2.9
Rural
Dev., 2.9
FDA, 2.7
Foreign aid
FSA, RMA
FSIS
Conservation
APHIS
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: SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; CCC = Commodity Credit Corp.; Sec. 32 = Section
32; WIC = Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children; CSFP = Commodity
Supplemental Food Program; FDA = Food and Drug Admin.; FSA = Farm Service Agency; RMA = Risk
Management Agency; FSIS = Food Safety and Inspection Service; APHIS = Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service; CFTC = Commodity Futures Trading Commission; AMS = Agricultural Marketing Service; GIPSA =
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Admin.
Congressional Research Service
1
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
The federal budget process treats discretionary and mandatory spending differently.
Discretionary spending is controlled by annual appropriations acts and receives
most of the attention during the appropriations process. The annual budget
resolution1 process sets spending limits for discretionary appropriations. Agency
operations (salaries and expenses) and many grant programs are discretionary.
Mandatory spending—though carried in the appropriation and usually advanced
unchanged—is controlled by budget enforcement rules (e.g., PAYGO) during the
authorization process.2 Spending for eligibility and benefit formulas in so-called
entitlement programs are set in laws such as the farm bill and child nutrition act.3
In FY2016, discretionary appropriations totaled 15% ($21.75 billion) of the Agriculture
appropriations bill (P.L. 114-113). Mandatory spending carried in the bill comprised $119 billion,
about 85% of the $141 billion total.
Within the discretionary total, the largest discretionary spending items are for the Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), agricultural research,
rural development, FDA, foreign food aid and trade, farm assistance program salaries and loans,
food safety inspection, conservation, and animal and plant health programs (Figure 1).
The main mandatory spending items are the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP,
and other food and nutrition act programs), child nutrition (school lunch and related programs),
crop insurance, and farm commodity and conservation programs paid through USDA’s
Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC).4 SNAP is referred to as an “appropriated entitlement,”
and requires an annual appropriation.5 The nutrition program amounts are based on projected
spending needs. In contrast, the Commodity Credit Corporation operates on a line of credit; the
annual appropriation provides funding to reimburse the Treasury for using the line of credit.
Action on FY2016 Appropriations6
The FY2016 Agriculture Appropriation was enacted as part of an omnibus bill on December 18,
2015 (P.L. 114-113). Separate Agriculture bills were reported in both chambers, but neither went
to the floor (H.R. 3049, S. 1800). The fiscal year began under three continuing resolutions.
Table 1 summarizes actions on the FY2016 Agriculture appropriation—and each annual
appropriation since FY1995—for the subcommittees, full committees, House and Senate
chambers, and presidential enactment. Figure 2 is a visual timeline of the dates in Table 1.
The last time an Agriculture appropriations bill was enacted as a stand-alone measure was for
FY2010 (in calendar 2009). An Agriculture appropriations bill has not cleared a floor vote in
either chamber for four years, since the FY2012 bill, when it was the vehicle for a three-bill
“minibus” measure.7 Committee action for FY2016 was somewhat later than in recent years.
1
See CRS Report R42388, The Congressional Appropriations Process: An Introduction, for context on procedures.
CRS Report 98-560, Baselines and Scorekeeping in the Federal Budget Process.
3
CRS Report R42484, Budget Issues That Shaped the 2014 Farm Bill.
4
Mandatory spending creates funding stability and consistency compared to appropriations. In agriculture, it originally
was reserved for the farm commodity programs that had uncertain outlays because of weather and market conditions.
5
CRS Report RS20129, Entitlements and Appropriated Entitlements in the Federal Budget Process.
6
A 12-page version is in CRS Report R43938, FY2016 Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations: In Brief.
7
CRS Report RL32473, Omnibus Appropriations Acts: Overview of Recent Practices.
2
Congressional Research Service
2
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Table 1. Congressional Action on Agriculture Appropriations
House Action
Senate Action
Final Appropriation
Fiscal
Year
Subcmte.
Cmte.
Floor
Subcmte.
Cmte.
Floor
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 outb
7/18/2001
10/25/2001
11/28/2001
E
P.L. 107-76
RL31001
2003
6/26/2002
7/26/2002
—
7/23/2002
7/25/2002
—
2/20/2003
O
P.L. 108-7
RL31301
2004
6/17/2003
7/9/2003
7/14/2003
7/17/2003
11/6/2003
11/6/2003
1/23/2004
O
P.L. 108-199
RL31801
2005
6/14/2004
7/7/2004
7/13/2004
9/8/2004
9/14/2004
—
12/8/2004
O
P.L. 108-447
RL32301
2006
5/16/2005
6/2/2005
6/8/2005
6/21/2005
6/27/2005
9/22/2005
11/10/2005
E
P.L. 109-97
RL32904
2007
5/3/2006
5/9/2006
5/23/2006
6/20/2006
6/22/2006
—
2/15/2007
Y
P.L. 110-5
RL33412
2008
7/12/2007
7/19/2007
8/2/2007
7/17/2007
7/19/2007
—
12/26/2007
O
P.L. 110-161
RL34132
2009
6/19/2008
—
—
Polled out
7/17/2008
—
3/11/2009
O
P.L. 111-8
R40000
2010
6/11/2009
6/18/2009
7/9/2009
Polled out
7/7/2009
8/4/2009
10/21/2009
E
P.L. 111-80
R40721
2011
6/30/2010
—
—
Polled out
7/15/2010
—
4/15/2011
Y
P.L. 112-10
R41475
2012
5/24/2011
5/31/2011
6/16/2011
Polled out
9/7/2011
11/1/2011
11/18/2011
O
P.L. 112-55
R41964
2013
6/6/2012
6/19/2012
—
Polled out
4/26/2012
—
3/26/2013
O
P.L. 113-6
R43110
2014
6/5/2013
6/13/2013
—
6/18/2013
6/20/2013
—
1/17/2014
O
P.L. 113-76
R43110
2015
5/20/2014
5/29/2014
—
5/20/2014
5/22/2014
—
12/16/2014
O
P.L. 113-235
R43669
2016
6/18/2015
Voice vote
7/8/2015
H.R. 3049
H.Rept.
114-205
Voice vote
—
7/14/2015
Voice
vote
7/16/2015
S. 1800
S.Rept.
114-82
Vote 28-2
—
12/18/2015
H.R. 2029,
Division A
Explan.
Stmt.c
O
P.L. 114-113
R43938
Enacteda
Source: CRS.
a. E=Enacted as stand-alone appropriation (nine times over 22 years); O=Omnibus appropriation (11 times);
Y=Year-long continuing resolution (two times).
b. A procedure that permits a Senate subcommittee to transmit a bill to its full committee without a formal
markup session. See CRS Report RS22952, Proxy Voting and Polling in Senate Committee.
c. Congressional Record, “Explanatory Statement,” December 17, 2015, p. H9693.
Congressional Research Service
3
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Figure 2. Timeline of Action on Agriculture Appropriations, FY1996-FY2016
Calendar
1993
Year
1995
Fiscal
1994
Year
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug Sep
House subcommittee
House committee
House floor
Oct
Nov Dec
Jan
Senate subcommittee
Senate committee
Senate floor
Feb
Mar
Apr
Stand-alone
Omnibus
Year-long CR
Source: CRS.
Administration’s FY2016 Budget Request
The White House released its FY2016 budget request on February 2, 2015.8 The same day, USDA
released its 100-page budget summary9 and multi-volume budget explanatory notes10 with more
programmatic details. The FDA released a one-page budget highlights11 and its detailed budget
justification.12 The CFTC also released a detailed budget justification.13 From these documents,
the congressional appropriations committees evaluated the request, began considering their bills,
and decided how much of the request would be followed.
8
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), FY2016 Budget of the U.S. Government, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/
omb/budget. Details are in the Appendix, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Appendix. The request for FDA is
in the Appendix for the Department of Health and Human Services, and CFTC is with Other Independent Agencies.
9
USDA, FY2016 USDA Budget Summary, at http://www.obpa.usda.gov/budsum/fy16budsum.pdf.
10
USDA, FY2016 USDA Budget Explanatory Notes, at http://www.obpa.usda.gov/fy16explan_notes.html.
11
FDA, FY2016 Budget Highlights, at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/
BudgetReports/UCM432650.pdf.
12
FDA, FY2016 FDA Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/
AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/BudgetReports/UCM432322.pdf.
13
CFTC, FY2016 CFTC President’s Budget, at http://www.cftc.gov/about/cftcreports/ssLINK/cftcbudget2016.
Congressional Research Service
4
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
House Action
The Agriculture Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee held several hearings on
FY2016 appropriations with various USDA agencies, FDA, and CFTC during the spring of 2015.
The House Budget Committee developed a FY2016 budget (H.Con.Res. 27), and the full House
and Senate agreed on a joint budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 11) on May 5, 2015. The House
Appropriations Committee divided the budget’s “302(a)” allocation for discretionary spending
(that at that time was pending in conference committee negotiations) on April 29, 2015, into
“302(b)” allocations for each of its 12 subcommittees (H.Rept. 114-97).14
The House Agriculture appropriations subcommittee approved a draft bill on June 18, 2015, by
voice vote.15 The full House Appropriations Committee reported the bill on July 8, 2015, by voice
vote (H.R. 3049, H.Rept. 114-205). It adopted a manager’s amendment and two other
amendments.16 The bill was not considered on the floor.
Senate Action
The Agriculture Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee held hearings on the
FY2016 appropriations request with various USDA agencies and FDA during the spring of 2015.
The Senate Budget Committee developed a FY2016 budget (S.Con.Res. 11) that was agreed to on
May 5, 2015, by both the House and Senate after conference negotiations. The Senate
Appropriations Committee divided the “302(a)” allocation into “302(b)” allocations for each of
its 12 subcommittees on May 21, 2015 (S.Rept. 114-55).
The Senate Agriculture appropriations subcommittee approved a draft bill on July 14, 2015. The
full committee reported it on July 16, 2015, by a vote of 28-2 (S. 1800, S.Rept. 114-82). The bill
was not considered on the floor. The text of S. 1800 was inserted into a minibus appropriation (S.
2129) that encompassed three subcommittee bills. That bill also was not considered on the floor.
Continuing Resolution
The fiscal year began under three continuing resolutions that lasted until December 11, 2015 (P.L.
114-53), December 16, 2015 (P.L. 114-96), and December 22, 2015 (P.L. 114-100).17
Omnibus Appropriation
The FY2016 Agriculture Appropriation was enacted as Division A of an omnibus appropriations
bill on December 18, 2015 (P.L. 114-113). The Explanatory Statement was printed in the
Congressional Record for December 17, 2015, on p. H9693. The House began consideration of
the bill on December 17, 2015, and passed it on December 18 by a vote of 316-113. The Senate
passed the bill on December 18 by a vote of 65-33. The President signed the bill that same day.
14
See CRS Report R42388, The Congressional Appropriations Process: An Introduction; CRS Report R42972,
Sequestration as a Budget Enforcement Process: Frequently Asked Questions, for context on procedures.
15
House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, Draft FY2016 Bill, at http://appropriations.house.gov/
UploadedFiles/BILLS-114HR-SC-AP-FY2016-Agriculture-SubcommitteeDraft.pdf.
16
House Appropriations Committee, Amendments Adopted to the FY2016 Agriculture Appropriations, at
http://appropriations.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hmkp-114-ap00-20150708-sd004.pdf.
17
See CRS Insight IN10148, The FY2016 Continuing Resolution (H.R. 719).
Congressional Research Service
5
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Summary of FY2016 Appropriation Amounts
The enacted omnibus appropriation uses a budget allocation that was provided in the Bipartisan
Budget Act of 2015 (P.L. 114-74, November 2, 2015), which was greater than what was available
to develop the House- and Senate-reported bills. The final Agriculture appropriation provides
$21.750 billion for discretionary amounts (Table 2).
Original FY2016 Budget and 302(b) Allocations to Subcommittees
The initial FY2016 budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 11, May 5, 2015) set the “302(a)” allocation for
discretionary spending for all 12 appropriations bills at $1,016.6 billion ($523.1 billion for
defense spending, and $493.5 billion for nondefense spending). This level was consistent with the
discretionary spending limit that is set in the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25), and
therefore would not have triggered sequestration.18 This was the budget under which the
appropriations subcommittees developed their bills through the summer of 2015.
The initial “302(b)” allocation from the full House Appropriations Committee to its Agriculture
Appropriations subcommittee was $20.650 billion (H.Rept. 114-97), which was $175 million less
than (-0.8%) the comparable amount for FY2015 ($20.825 billion).19 The Senate Appropriations
Committee’s initial allocation for its agriculture bill was $20.510 billion (S.Rept. 114-55). Since
the Senate allocation did not need to cover the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC),
it effectively was $110 million more than a comparative allocation in the House if CFTC were
held constant (+0.5%). It also was $65 million less than the FY2015 amount (-0.3%).
Final FY2016 Budget and 302(b) Allocation
The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (P.L. 114-74, November 2, 2015) increased the FY2016
discretionary allocation for all 12 appropriations bills by $50 billion, to $1,066.6 billion.20 The
increase was offset and divided evenly between defense and nondefense spending.21
The extra spending allowed by the new allocation was divided among the appropriations
subcommittees to develop the omnibus appropriation. The Agriculture subcommittees were
allocated $21.75 billion, which was $1.1 billion more than the original House-reported allocation
and $990 million more than the original Senate-reported allocation. The final amount for
Agriculture is an increase of $925 million over FY2015 (+4.4%).
The enacted FY2016 appropriation put CFTC in the Agriculture appropriations bill (a Housejurisdiction basis), as is customary for even-numbered fiscal years.
Continuing Resolution
In the absence of an FY2016 appropriation before the beginning of the fiscal year on October 1,
2015, continuing resolutions were used to prorate FY2015 funding authority. Exceptions were
18
However, budget sequestration on non-exempt mandatory accounts continues to apply to FY2016, as it has in recent
years since FY2013 (see “Sequestration Continues on Mandatory Accounts” and Appendix B in this report).
19
The FY2015 Agriculture appropriation ($20.575 billion) was based on Senate jurisdiction for CFTC and needs to be
increased by the CFTC appropriation ($250 million) to be comparable for House jurisdiction ($20.825 billion).
20
See CRS Insight IN10389, Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015: Adjustments to the Budget Control Act of 2011.
21
Some budgetary offsets also affected agriculture, including an extension of sequestration on mandatory accounts (see
Appendix B) and changes to crop insurance (see “Standard Reinsurance Agreement as Temporary Budget Offset”).
Congressional Research Service
6
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
that one-time emergency disaster and Ebola funding was excluded, and a 0.2108% across-theboard reduction applied. For mandatory programs, the CR allowed sufficient funding to maintain
program levels, including for nutrition programs. Two anomalies affected the agriculture
appropriation: an increase of about $9 million for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program,
and a higher than normal rate of apportionment for the Rural Housing Rental Assistance Program
and waiver authority on certain property renewal restrictions.22
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
budgetary 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.
Comparison of Amounts for FY2016
The enacted FY2016 Agriculture appropriations act provides $21.75 billion of discretionary
spending, which is an increase of $925 million over FY2015 (+4.4%), after adjusting for CFTC
jurisdiction. The higher allocation in the Bipartisan Budget Act allowed the final bill to be $1.1
billion more than the original House-reported bill and $990 million more than the original Senatereported bill (Table 2).
Among agency-level spending differences from FY2015 that exceed $10 million (Table 3) are:
22
The Rural Housing Service receives $301 million more than FY2015 for rental
assistance grants (+28%) and $25 million more for housing revitalization and
community facilities grants.
Food for Peace grants for international food aid receive an extra $250 million.
The Agricultural Research Service receives $178 million more than FY2015
(+15%), mostly for buildings and facilities.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) receives a $132 million boost,
including $104 million more to implement the Food Safety Modernization Act.
Emergency conservation, watershed, and forestry programs receive $157
million more than in FY2015, some of it offset by a disaster declaration.
See CRS Report R44214, Overview of the FY2016 Continuing Resolution (H.R. 719).
Congressional Research Service
7
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
The Rural Utilities Service receives $57 million more (+12%) for rural water
and waste disposal grants.
The National Institute of Food and Agriculture receives $37 million more,
mostly for Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (+7.7%).
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service receives $23 million more
than in FY2015 (+3%).
Among reductions, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants, and Children (WIC) receives $273 million less than in FY2015.
The Environmental Quality Incentives Program, a change to a mandatory
spending program, is reduced by $73 million more than its reduction last year.
Table 2. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations, by Title, FY2015-FY2016
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2015
FY2016
Title of Agriculture Appropriations Act
P.L. 113235
Admin.
Request
H. Cmte.
H.R. 3049
S. Cmte.
S. 1800
P.L. 114113
Change from FY2015
to FY2016 Enacted
I: Agricultural Programs
30,446.6
27,401.7
26,830.1
26,838.2
23,174.9
-7,271.7
-23.9%
Mandatory (M)
23,659.7
20,120.7
20,120.7
20,120.7
16,154.6
-7,505.1
-31.7%
Discretionary
6,786.9
7,281.0
6,709.4
6,717.5
7,020.3
+233.4
+3.4%
859.3
1,032.1
839.8
856.1
863.8
+4.4
+0.5%
2,582.4
2,758.4
2,645.6
2,675.9
2,950.0
+367.6
+14.2%
110,190.9
112,348.0
110,075.1
110,140.4
109,797.0
-393.9
-0.4%
Mandatory (M)
103,096.7
105,146.4
103,128.6
103,145.4
102,958.1
-138.6
-0.1%
Discretionary
7,094.1
7,201.6
6,946.5
6,995.0
6,838.9
-255.3
-3.6%
V: Foreign Assistance
1,848.3
1,812.5
1,802.3
1,864.1
1,868.5
+20.1
+1.1%
VI: Food and Drug Administration
2,597.3
2,743.5
2,627.3
2,637.8
2,729.6
+132.3
+5.1%
250.0
+0.0
+0.0%
II: Conservation Programs
III: Rural Development
IV: Domestic Food Programs
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
[250.0]
322.0
245.0
[250.0]a
VII: General Provisions: CHIMPS & rescissions
-802.0
-1,036.0
-832.0
-908.0
-865.0
-63.0
+7.9%
General Provisions: Other appropriations
122.6
0.0
2.0
6.6
556.1
+433.5
+353.6%
-398.0
-331.0
-336.0
-335.0
-332.0
+66.0
-16.6%
Subtract disaster declaration in this bill
-116.0
—
—
—
-130.0
-14.0
—
Discretionary: Senate basis w/o CFTC
20,575.0
21,462.2
[20,405.0]
20,510.0
[21,500.0]
+925.0
+4.5%
Discretionary: House basis w/ CFTC
[20,825.0]
21,784.2
20,650.0
[20,760.0]
21,750.0
+925.0
+4.4%
Mandatory (M)
126,756.5
125,267.1
123,249.3
123,266.1
119,112.7
-7,643.7
-6.0%
Total: House basis w/ CFTC
147,581.5
147,051.3
143,899.3
144,026.1
140,862.7
-6,718.7
-4.6%
Scorekeeping adjustments
Source: CRS, using referenced bill text, appropriations committee report tables, and unpublished Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) tables.
Notes: Amounts are nominal budget authority in millions of dollars. Amounts are discretionary authority unless
labeled otherwise. Amounts do not include supplemental appropriations that were enacted outside the annual
appropriation. [Bracketed amounts] are not in the official totals due to differing House-Senate jurisdiction for the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).
a. From S. 1910, the committee-reported Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill.
Congressional Research Service
8
Table 3. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations, by Agency, FY2013-FY2016
Budget authority in millions of dollars
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
Agency or Major Program
P.L. 113-6
post-sequ.a
P.L. 113-76
P.L. 113235
Admin.
Request
H. Cmte.
H.R. 3049
S. Cmte.
S. 1800
P.L. 114113
531.3
526.1
364.5
456.1
353.6
362.1
373.2
+8.7
+2.4%
Agricultural Research Service
1,016.9
1,122.5
1,177.6
1,397.4
1,167.5
1,136.8
1,355.9
+178.3
+15.1%
National Institute of Food & Agriculture
1,142.0
1,277.1
1,289.5
1,503.1
1,284.5
1,293.7
1,326.5
+37.0
+2.9%
National Agricultural Statistics Service
166.6
161.2
172.4
180.3
161.2
168.1
168.4
-4.0
-2.3%
Economic Research Service
71.4
78.1
85.4
86.0
78.1
85.4
85.4
+0.0
+0.0%
Under Secretary, Research, Education, Econ.
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
-0.0
-0.6%
Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service
761.4
824.9
874.5
859.0
874.1
879.6
897.6
+23.1
+2.6%
Agricultural Marketing Service
75.7
81.3
82.4
84.4
82.0
82.4
82.5
+0.0
+0.0%
1,049.6
1,107.0
1,284.0
1,425.0
1,425.0
1,425.0
1,425.0
+141.0
+11.0%
Grain Inspection, Packers & Stockyards
37.3
40.3
43.0
44.1
43.0
43.0
43.1
+0.0
+0.0%
Under Secretary, Marketing and Regulatory
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
-0.0
-0.6%
Food Safety & Inspection Service
977.3
1,010.7
1,016.5
1,011.6
1,011.6
1,013.6
1,014.9
-1.6
-0.2%
Under Secretary, Food Safety
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
+0.0
+0.0%
Farm Service Agencyb
1,503.9
1,592.2
1,603.3
1,579.1
1,576.9
1,574.8
1,595.1
-8.2
-0.5%
FSA Farm Loans: Loan Authorityc
4,575.7
5,527.3
6,402.1
6,402.1
6,402.1
6,402.1
6,402.1
-0.0
-0.0%
Risk Management Agency Salaries & Exp.
69.1
71.5
74.8
76.9
74.0
74.8
74.8
+0.0
+0.0%
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (M)d
9,514.5
9,502.9
8,930.5
8,175.2
8,175.2
8,175.2
7,858.0
-1,072.5
-12.0%
Change from FY2015 to
FY2016 Enacted
Title I: Agricultural Programs
Departmental Administration
Research, Education and Economics
Marketing and Regulatory Programs
Section 32 (M)
Food Safety
Farm and Commodity Programs
CRS-9
Budget authority in millions of dollars
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
Agency or Major Program
P.L. 113-6
post-sequ.a
P.L. 113-76
P.L. 113235
Admin.
Request
H. Cmte.
H.R. 3049
S. Cmte.
S. 1800
P.L. 114113
Commodity Credit Corporation (M)d
11,018.5
12,538.9
13,444.7
10,519.9
10,519.9
10,519.9
6,871.1
-6,573.6
-48.9%
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
+0.0
+0.0%
Mandatory (M)
21,582.7
23,149.1
23,659.7
20,120.7
20,120.7
20,120.7
16,154.6
-7,505.1
-31.7%
Discretionary
6,356.2
6,789.0
6,786.9
7,281.0
6,709.4
6,717.5
7,020.3
+233.4
+3.4%
Subtotal
27,938.8
29,938.1
30,446.6
27,401.7
26,830.1
26,838.2
23,174.9
-7,271.7
-23.9%
Conservation Operations
766.8
812.9
846.4
831.2
832.9
855.2
850.9
+4.4
+0.5%
Watershed & Flood Prevention
—
—
—
200.0
—
—
—
+0.0
+0.0%
Watershed Rehabilitation Program
13.6
12.0
12.0
0.0
6.0
0.0
12.0
+0.0
+0.0%
Under Secretary, Natural Resources
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
+0.0
+0.0%
781.2
825.8
859.3
1,032.1
839.8
856.1
863.8
+4.4
+0.5%
613.0
657.4
678.2
685.6
679.2
682.7
682.9
+4.6
+0.7%
Rural Housing Service
1,031.1
1,279.6
1,298.4
1,394.7
1,368.7
1,367.2
1,616.4
+318.1
+24.5%
RHS Loan Authorityc
Under Secretary, Farm and Foreign Agr.
FY2016
Change from FY2015 to
FY2016 Enacted
Subtotal
Title II: Conservation Programs
Subtotal
Title III: Rural Development
Salaries and Expenses (including transfers)e
27,335.1
27,408.1
27,421.5
27,407.4
27,496.8
27,483.0
27,496.8
+75.3
+0.3%
Rural Business-Cooperative Servicef
114.2
130.2
103.2
138.7
87.0
91.5
90.5
-12.8
-12.4%
RBCS Loan Authorityc
953.7
1,022.8
984.5
993.6
984.5
994.2
979.3
-5.2
-0.5%
Rural Utilities Service
520.8
501.6
501.7
538.4
509.7
533.7
559.3
+57.6
+11.5%
RUS Loan Authorityc
8,849.4
7,514.5
7,464.1
7,934.2
7,464.1
8,710.6
8,210.6
+746.5
+10.0%
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
-0.0
-0.6%
Subtotal
2,279.9
2,569.7
2,582.4
2,758.4
2,645.6
2,675.9
2,950.0
+367.6
+14.2%
Subtotal, RD Loan Authorityc
37,138.2
35,945.4
35,870.1
36,335.2
35,945.4
37,187.8
36,686.7
+816.7
+2.3%
Under Secretary, Rural Development
CRS-10
Budget authority in millions of dollars
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
Agency or Major Program
P.L. 113-6
post-sequ.a
P.L. 113-76
P.L. 113235
Admin.
Request
H. Cmte.
H.R. 3049
S. Cmte.
S. 1800
P.L. 114113
Child Nutrition Programs (M)
19,913.2
19,288.0
21,300.2
21,587.3
21,507.43
21,524.4
22,149.7
+849.6
+4.0%
WIC Program
6,522.2
6,715.8
6,623.0
6,623.0
6,484.0
6,513.0
6,350.0
-273.0
-4.1%
SNAP, Food & Nutrition Act Programs (M)
77,285.4
82,169.9
81,837.6
83,693.1
81,653.2
81,662.1
80,849.4
-988.2
-1.2%
Commodity Assistance Programs
243.7
269.7
278.5
288.3
288.3
288.3
296.2
+17.7
+6.4%
Nutrition Programs Administration
132.7
141.3
150.8
155.6
141.3
151.8
150.8
+0.0
+0.0%
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
-0.0
-0.6%
Mandatory (M)
97,171.9
101,432.9
103,096.7
105,146.4
103,128.6
103,145.4
102,958.1
-138.6
-0.1%
Discretionary
6,926.1
7,152.7
7,094.1
7,201.6
6,946.5
6,995.0
6,838.9
-255.3
-3.6%
104,098.0
108,585.6
110,190.9
112,348.0
110,075.1
110,140.4
109,797.0
-393.9
-0.4%
163.1
177.9
181.4
191.6
184.4
187.2
191.6
+10.1
+5.6%
Food for Peace Title II, and admin. Exp.
1,362.0
1,468.7
1,468.5
1,402.5
1,419.5
1,468.5
1,468.5g
+0.0
+0.0%
Local and regional food procurement
—
—
—
20.0
—
—
—
+0.0
+0.0%
McGovern-Dole Food for Education
174.5
185.1
191.6
191.6
191.6
201.6
201.6
+10.0
+5.2%
6.3
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
+0.0
+0.0%
+20.1
+1.1%
Change from FY2015 to
FY2016 Enacted
Title IV: Domestic Food Programs
Office of Under Secretary
Subtotal
Subtotal
Title V: Foreign Assistance
Foreign Agricultural Service
CCC Export Loan Salaries
1,705.9
1,838.5
1,848.3
1,812.5
1,802.3
1,864.1
1,868.5g
Subtotal
Food and Drug Administration
2,386.0
2,560.7
2,597.3
2,743.5
2,627.3
2,637.8
2,729.6
+132.3
+5.1%
Commodity Futures Trading Commissionh
[194.0]
215.0
[250.0]
322.0
245.0
[250.0]
250.0
+0.0
+0.0%
Subtotal
2,386.0
2,775.7
2,597.3
3,065.5
2,872.3
2,637.8
2,979.6
Title VI: Related Agencies
CRS-11
Budget authority in millions of dollars
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
Agency or Major Program
P.L. 113-6
post-sequ.a
P.L. 113-76
P.L. 113235
Admin.
Request
H. Cmte.
H.R. 3049
S. Cmte.
S. 1800
P.L. 114113
a. Environmental Quality Incentives Program
-279.0
-272.0
-136.0
-373.0
-189.0
-264.0
-209.0
-73.0
+53.7%
b. Watershed Rehabilitation Program
-165.0
-153.0
-69.0
-69.0
-64.0
-68.0
-68.0
+1.0
-1.4%
c. Conservation Stewardship Program
—
—
-7.0
-3.0
-2.0
—
—
+7.0
-100.0%
d. Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program
-117.0
-119.0
-122.0
-125.0
-125.0
-125.0
-125.0
-3.0
+2.5%
e. Biorefinery Assistance Program
—
-40.7
-16.0
—
-26.0
—
-19.0
-3.0
-18.8%
f. Biomass Crop Assistance Program
—
—
-2.0
—
-12.0
-20.0
-20.0
-18.0
+900.0%
g. Rural Energy for America Program
—
—
—
—
-16.0
—
—
+0.0
+0.0%
h. Cushion of Credit (Rural Development)
-180.0
-172.0
-179.0
-154.0
-154.0
-182.0
-179.0
+0.0
+0.0%
i. Section 32
-110.0
-189.0
-121.0
-292.0
-216.0
-216.0
-216.0
-95.0
+78.5%
j. Other CHIMPS and rescissions
-42.0
-8.0
-133.0
—
+6.0
—
+5.0
+138.0
-103.8%
Subtotal, CHIMPS
-893.0
-953.7
-785.0
-1,016.0
-798.0
-875.0
-831.0
-46.0
+5.9%
Rescissions (discretionary)
-25.3
-33.3
-17.0
-20.0
-34.0
-33.0
-34.0
-17.0
+100.0%
a. Disaster/Emergency programs
83.9
—
116.0
—
2.0
—
273.0
+157.0
+135.3%
b. Other appropriations
48.6
106.6
6.6
—
—
6.6
283.1g
+276.5
—
Subtotal, Other appropriations
132.5
106.6
122.6
0.0
2.0
6.6
556.1
+433.5
+353.6%
Total, General Provisions
-785.9
-880.4
-679.4
-1,036.0
-830.0
-901.4
-308.9
+370.5
-54.5%
Disaster declaration in this bill
—
—
-116.0
—
—
—
-130.0
-14.0
—
Other scorekeeping adjustments
-129.0
-191.0
-398.0
-331.0
-336.0
-344.0
-332.0
+66.0
-16.6%
Subtotal
-129.0
-191.0
-514.0
-331.0
-336.0
-335.0
-462.0
+52.0
-10.1%
Change from FY2015 to
FY2016 Enacted
Title VII: General Provisions
Reductions in Mandatory Programs
Other appropriations
Scorekeeping Adjustmentsi
CRS-12
Budget authority in millions of dollars
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
Agency or Major Program
P.L. 113-6
post-sequ.a
P.L. 113-76
P.L. 113235
Admin.
Request
H. Cmte.
H.R. 3049
S. Cmte.
S. 1800
P.L. 114113
Discretionary: Senate basis w/o CFTC
19,520.4
[20,665.0]
20,575.0
21,462.2
[20,405.0]
20,510.0
[21,500.0]
+925.0
+4.5%
Discretionary: House basis w/ CFTC
[19,714.4]
20,880.0
[20,825.0]
21,784.2
20,650.0
[20,760.0]
21,750.0
+925.0
+4.4%
Mandatory (M)
118,754.6
124,582.0
126,756.5
125,267.1
123,249.3
123,266.1
119,112.7
-7,643.7
-6.0%
Total: House basis w/ CFTC
138,469.0
145,462.0
147,581.5
147,051.3
143,899.3
144,026.1
140,862.7
-6,718.7
-4.6%
Change from FY2015 to
FY2016 Enacted
Totals
Source: CRS, using referenced bill text, appropriations committee report tables, and unpublished CBO tables.
Notes: Amounts are budget authority in millions of dollars and are in nominal dollars. Amounts do not include supplemental appropriations outside the annual
appropriation. Amounts are discretionary authority unless labeled otherwise; (M) indicates that the account is mandatory authority (or primarily mandatory authority).
[Bracketed amounts] are not in the official totals due to differing House-Senate jurisdiction for CFTC but are shown for comparison.
a. Amounts for FY2013 are at the post-sequestration level from the USDA FY2013 Operating Plan, at http://www.dm.usda.gov/foia/docs/USDA_Operating_Plan.pdf.
b. Includes regular FSA salaries and expenses, plus transfers for farm loan program salaries and administrative expenses. Also includes farm loan program loan subsidy,
State Mediation Grants, Dairy Indemnity Program (mandatory funding), and Grassroots Source Water Protection Program. Does not include appropriations to the
Foreign Agricultural Service for export loans and P.L. 480 administration that are transferred to FSA.
c. Loan authority is the amount of loans that can be made or guaranteed with a loan subsidy; it is not added in the budget authority subtotals or totals.
d. Includes Rural Development salaries and expenses, and transfers from the three rural development agencies for salaries and expenses. Amounts for the agencies
thus reflect program funds for loans and grants.
e. Amounts for the Rural Business-Cooperative Service are before the rescission from the Cushion of Credit account, unlike in Appropriations committee tables. The
rescission is included with the changes in mandatory program spending (CHIMPS), as classified by CBO, which allows the RBCS subtotal to remain positive.
f.
Commodity Credit Corporation and Federal Crop Insurance Corporation each receive an indefinite appropriation (“such sums as necessary”). Estimates for
appropriations may not reflect actual outlays.
g. In addition to the FY2016 appropriation for Food for Peace Title II grants in Title V ($1.466 billion), an extra $250 million was appropriated under General
Provisions. The combined total for Food for Peace Title II grants is therefore $1.716 billion, and the effective Title V total is $2.118 billion for FY2016.
h. 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.
[Bracketed amounts] are not in the official totals due to differing House-Senate jurisdiction for CFTC but are shown for comparison (e.g., to S. 1910 in FY2016).
i.
“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 predominantly include “negative subsidies” in loan program accounts and adjustments for disaster designations in the bill.
CRS-13
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Policy Changes
In addition to specifying the amounts of budget authority, the appropriation prescribes various
policies or conditions that affect how some agencies may use their appropriation. Among the
notable policy-related provisions that are discussed in more detail in the relevant sections later:
Some country-of-origin labeling (COOL) laws are permanently repealed.
Horse slaughter facility inspection continues to be prohibited for the fiscal year.
Imports of processed poultry from China are forbidden for certain nutrition
programs.
Whole grain and sodium requirements in the child nutrition programs are to be
implemented with continued flexibility.
The appropriation directs some terms for the formation of dietary guidelines.
The use of commodity certificates for the marketing loan program is restored,
including not being subject to payment limits.
However, unlike the House markup, the enacted appropriation does not change
the conservation compliance requirements, nor does it limit the applicability of
certain tobacco regulations for e-cigarettes.
In addition, the explanatory statement indicates that report language accompanying the House- or
Senate-reported bills still holds, unless otherwise contradicted or changed by the explanatory
statement, and that such report language is considered evidence of congressional intent.23
Recent Trends in Agriculture Appropriations
The stacked bars in Figure 3 represent the discretionary spending authorized for each title in the
10 years since FY2007. The total of the positive stacked bars is higher than the official “302(b)”
discretionary spending limit (the line) because of the budgetary offset from negative amounts in
the General Provisions title and other scorekeeping adjustments. General Provisions are negative
mostly because of limits placed on certain mandatory programs that are scored as savings (see
near the end of Table 3 for examples, and the section “Changes in Mandatory Program Spending
(CHIMPS)” for background).
Increases in the use of CHIMPS and other tools to offset discretionary appropriations have
ameliorated recent reductions in budget authority in some of the years since FY2010. For
example, the official “302(b)” discretionary total for the bill has been given credit for declining
6.7% from FY2010 to FY2016 ($23.3 billion to $21.75 billion, Figure 3), while the total of Titles
I-VI has declined only 4.6% over that same period ($23.6 billion to $22.5 billion). The effect is
less pronounced in FY2016 than it was in FY2011-FY2015 when the offsets were larger. The
offset in FY2016 is relatively smaller, in part, because of additional spending in the General
Provisions title for foreign food aid and emergency programs.
23
“The explanatory statement is silent on provisions that were in both the House Report and Senate Report that remain
unchanged by this agreement, except as noted in this explanatory statement… The 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.” Explanatory Statement for
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Congressional Record, vol. 161 (December 17, 2015), p. H9694.
Congressional Research Service
14
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
On an inflation-adjusted basis, FY2016 Agriculture appropriations are 16% below their peak in
FY2010 (Figure 4). When expressed in constant dollars, the official FY2016 appropriation has
risen 7.2% above the recent low of the FY2013 post-sequestration level, and the subtotal of Titles
I-VI has risen 6.1% since FY2013. Since FY2014, on an inflation-adjusted basis, the total
Agricultural appropriation has been roughly constant, and on par with FY2012 and in between the
amounts in FY008 and FY2009.
Over time, changes by title of the bill generally have been proportionate to changes in the total
discretionary Agriculture appropriation, though some areas have sustained real increases while
others have declined (apart from the peak in 2010). Agencies with sustained real increases since
FY2007 include the Food and Drug Administration and CFTC (Related Agencies), and to a lesser
extent foreign assistance. Agencies with real decreases since 2007 include discretionary
conservation programs and general agricultural programs. Rural development generally had
decreased over the period through FY2015, though the FY2016 appropriation may have reversed
that trend. Domestic nutrition programs in FY2016 are higher on a real basis than in FY2007, but
are lower than in all of the other intervening years.
Figure 3. Discretionary Agriculture Appropriations, by Title, Since FY2007
Dollars in Millions
Discretionary Appropriations
I: Agricultural Programs
II: Conservation Programs
7,336
6,885
6,850
6,633
969
2,500
938
6,789
6,787
2,979
2,732
889
844
2,638
2,405
7,020
6,356
III: Rural Development
1,009
6,443
853
6,677
781
2,280
826
859
864
2,570
2,582
2,950
2,334
V: Foreign Assistance
7,655
7,094
6,839
7,128
7,001
6,926
7,153
2,089
1,891
1,836
1,706
1,838
1,848
1,868
1,672 1,828 2,197
-761 -1,490 -881
2,526
2,659
2,711
2,580
2,776
2,847
2,980
-291
-1,958 -1,713
-915
-1,071 -1,193
-771
2007
2010
2011
2013
2014
2016
5,523
1,479
6,374
1,476
2008
IV: Domestic Food Programs
7,234
1,499
2009
2012
VI: Related Agencies
2015
VII: General Provisions and
Scorekeeping adjustments
Discretionary total "302(b)"
House basis w/ CFTC
Source: CRS.
Notes: Fiscal year budget authority. Regular appropriations only. Includes CFTC regardless of jurisdiction.
Congressional Research Service
15
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Figure 4. Inflation-Adjusted Discretionary Agriculture Appropriations Since FY2007
Inflation-adjusted
FY2016 Dollars in
Millions
Discretionary Appropriations
I: Agricultural Programs
8,119
7,468
7,648
7,427
7,491
983
2,882
3,296
3,050
6,990
6,894
7,020
III: Rural Development
965
2,861
899
2,562
2,636
818
2,387
850
873
864
2,646
2,623
2,950
IV: Domestic Food Programs
V: Foreign Assistance
8,471
6,367
6,656
1,117
1,082
1,059
II: Conservation Programs
7,112
7,198
8,076
7,732
7,457
7,253
7,364
7,206
6,839
VI: Related Agencies
2,312
2,051
1,955
1,786
1,893
1,878
1,868
2,453
2,795
2,884
2,888
2,702
2,858
2,892
2,980
-1,682
-983
-322
-2,124 -1,824
-958
-1,103 -1,212
-771
2008
2009
2010
2011
2013
2014
2016
1,705
1,668
1,674
1,928
-877
2,065
2007
2012
2015
VII: General Provisions and
Scorekeeping adjustments
Discretionary total "302(b)"
House basis w/ CFTC
Source: CRS.
Notes: Fiscal year budget authority, adjusted for inflation by CRS using the gross domestic product price
deflator. Includes only regular appropriations. Includes CFTC regardless of jurisdiction.
Sequestration Continues on Mandatory Accounts
Sequestration is a process of automatic, largely across-the-board reductions that permanently
cancel mandatory and/or discretionary budget authority when spending would exceed statutory
budget goals. Sequestration is required in the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA; P.L. 112-25).24
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—and the Bipartisan Budget
Act of 2015 (P.L. 114-74) did it again for FY2016 and FY2017—they do not prevent or reduce
sequestration on mandatory accounts.
Sequestration on non-exempt mandatory accounts continues in FY2016 and is scheduled to
continue through FY2025. Appendix B provides more detail about sequestration at the individual
account level.
24
See CRS Report R42972, Sequestration as a Budget Enforcement Process: Frequently Asked Questions.
Congressional Research Service
16
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
USDA Agencies and Programs
About 95% of the total appropriation for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is funded
through the Agriculture appropriations bill. USDA was created in 1862 and carries out widely
varied responsibilities through about 17 agencies and about a dozen administrative offices staffed
by nearly 100,000 employees.25 Funding for about two-thirds of those employees is provided in
Agriculture appropriations. The remaining one-third of the employees are in the Forest Service
and are funded by the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.26
This report is organized in the order that the agencies are listed in the Agriculture appropriations
bill.
Organization of USDA Is Different Than the Appropriations Bill
Agriculture appropriations are not perfectly correlated with USDA spending. Agriculture appropriations include
the FDA and CFTC (that are outside USDA), and do not fund the Forest Service (that is part of USDA). The
Forest Service is funded in the Interior and Related Agencies appropriations 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, about one-eighth of USDA’s budget, is farm and foreign agricultural services.
This mission area is split between appropriations to Title I (domestic) and Title V (foreign trade and aid).
Five other mission areas share one-eighth of USDA’s budget, including natural resources, rural development,
research, marketing and regulatory programs, and food safety. In appropriations bills, rural development is
Title III, and conservation is Title II (the part of the natural resources mission area without the Forest Service).
The other three mission areas others are combined into Title I of the appropriation.
The type of funding (mandatory or discretionary) also is an important difference between how the appropriations
bill and USDA’s mission areas are organized.
USDA mission area totals include both mandatory and discretionary spending.
In the appropriation, conservation (Title II), rural development (Title III), and agricultural research (part of
Title I) include only discretionary amounts. Mandatory amounts for these programs are contained within the
Commodity Credit Corporation amount in Title I.
Departmental Administration27
The Agriculture appropriations bill contains several accounts for the general administration of the
USDA, ranging from the immediate Office of the Secretary to the Office of Inspector General.
For FY2016, the enacted appropriation (P.L. 114-113) increases the administrative account
subtotal by about $8.7 million (+2.4%) compared with FY2015, though most accounts are held
constant (Table 4). Most of the increase is for buildings and facilities ($8.3 million, +15%),
though it is well below the $69 million increase requested by the Administration for long-planned
structural improvements to the USDA headquarters complex (Whitten Building and South
Building).
25
USDA, FY2016 Budget Summary, February 2015, p. 126, at http://www.obpa.usda.gov/budsum/fy16budsum.pdf.
See CRS Report R44061, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations.
27
This section was written by (name redacted)
-....,(7 [redacted]@crs.loc.gov
).
26
Congressional Research Service
17
Table 4. USDA Departmental Administration Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
P.L. 113-6
post-sequ.
P.L. 113-76
P.L. 113235
Office of the Secretary
4.69
5.05
5.05
5.14
5.05
5.05
5.05
+0.0
+0.0%
Office of Tribal Relations
0.46
0.50
0.50
0.51
0.50
0.50
0.50
+0.0
+0.0%
—
—
—
0.25
—
0.25
—
+0.0
+0.0%
Office of Homeland Security
1.39
1.50
1.50
1.52
1.50
1.50
1.50
+0.0
+0.0%
Advocacy and Outreach
1.32
1.21
1.21
1.23
1.21
1.21
1.21
+0.0
+0.0%
Assistant Secretary for Admin.
0.75
0.80
0.80
0.82
0.80
0.80
0.80
+0.0
+0.0%
Departmental Administration
22.50
22.79
25.12
25.69
22.79
25.12
25.12
+0.0
+0.0%
Asst. Sec. Congressional Relations
3.59
3.87
3.87
3.93
3.06
3.87
3.87
+0.0
+0.0%
Office of Communications
8.36
8.07
7.75
8.23
4.47
7.75
7.50
-0.3
-3.2%
43.06
43.78
45.81
47.31
39.38
46.06
45.56
-0.3
-0.5%
Office of Chief Economist
15.01
16.78
17.38
17.47
16.78
16.78
17.78
+0.4
+2.3%
National Appeals Division
13.19
12.84
13.32
13.57
12.84
13.32
13.32
+0.0
+0.0%
Office of Budget, Program Analysis
8.35
9.06
9.39
9.50
9.08
9.39
9.39
+0.0
+0.0%
36.56
38.68
40.09
40.53
38.70
39.49
40.49
+0.4
+1.0%
Chief Information Officer
40.65
44.03
45.05
53.07
44.03
45.05
44.54
-0.5
-1.1%
Chief Financial Officer
5.77
6.21
6.03
9.15
6.03
6.03
6.03
+0.0
+0.0%
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights
0.83
0.89
0.90
0.91
0.89
0.90
0.90
+0.0
+0.0%
Office of Civil Rights
21.02
21.40
24.07
24.44
23.87
24.07
24.07
+0.0
+0.0%
Agency or Major Program
FY2016
Admin.
Request
H. Cmte.
H.R. 3049
S. Cmte.
S. 1800
P.L. 114-113
Change from FY2015
to FY2016 enacted
Office of the Secretary
Military Veterans Agricultural Liaison
Subtotal
Executive Operations
Subtotal
Other Administration
CRS-18
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
P.L. 113-6
post-sequ.
P.L. 113-76
P.L. 113235
252.40
233.00
55.87
125.47
54.73
53.62
64.19
+8.3
+14.9%
Hazardous materials management
3.70
3.59
3.60
3.63
3.60
3.62
3.62
+0.0
+0.5%
Office of Inspector General
82.30
89.90
95.03
98.90
95.64
95.29
95.74
+0.7
+0.7%
General Counsel
41.87
41.20
44.38
48.08
43.31
44.38
44.38
+0.0
+0.0%
Office of Ethics
3.14
3.44
3.65
4.57
3.44
3.65
3.65
+0.0
+0.0%
Subtotal
451.68
443.67
278.57
368.22
275.55
276.61
287.12
+8.5
+3.1%
531.30
526.13
364.46
456.06
353.63
362.15
373.16
+8.7
+2.4%
Agency or Major Program
Buildings and facilitiesa
Total, Departmental Administration
FY2016
Admin.
Request
H. Cmte.
H.R. 3049
S. Cmte.
S. 1800
P.L. 114-113
Change from FY2015
to FY2016 enacted
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports for the referenced appropriations acts or bills. Amounts for FY2013 are
the post-sequestration level from the USDA FY2013 Operating Plan.
a. Beginning in FY2015, the amount for buildings and facilities no longer includes rental payments to the GSA (General Services Administration) or DHS (Department
of Homeland Security), which amounted to $178 million in FY2014. Although the federal government owns many of the facilities in which agencies are housed,
USDA rents some buildings and facilities from private vendors, which are contracted through GSA. Rather than paying rental obligations from a central account,
rental expenses now are paid by the individual agencies and have been absorbed into their budgets. Therefore, amounts for buildings and facilities in this account
now refer to operations, maintenance, and improvements of primarily the USDA-owned headquarters complex (the Whitten Building and the South Building).
CRS-19
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Agricultural Research, Education, and Extension28
Agricultural research was one of the founding principles when USDA was created in 1862.
Contemporary research spans traditional, organic, and sustainable agricultural production;
bioenergy; nutrition; food safety; pests and diseases of plants and animals; and economics.
Four agencies carry out USDA’s research, education, and economics (REE) mission:29
The Agricultural Research Service (ARS), USDA’s intramural science agency,
conducts long-term, high-risk, basic and applied research on food and agriculture
issues of national and regional importance.
The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) distributes competitive
grants and formula-based funding to land grant colleges of agriculture to provide
partial support for state-level research, education, and extension.
The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) collects and publishes
national, state, and county statistics. NASS also is responsible for the five-year
cycle of the Census of Agriculture.
The Economic Research Service (ERS) provides economic analysis of issues
regarding public and private interests in agriculture, natural resources, and food.
For FY2016, the USDA research mission area receives $2.936 billion, an increase of $211 million
over FY2015 (Table 5). Most of the increase is for ARS buildings and facilities ($167 million)
and the flagship NIFA competitive grant program (+$25 million), while most other accounts are
held constant or nearly constant compared to FY2015. The enacted appropriation, like the House
and Senate bills, does not follow most of the proposed changes in priorities in the
Administration’s request.
Agricultural Research Service
The Agricultural Research Service is USDA’s in-house basic and applied research agency. It
operates approximately 90 laboratories nationwide with about 7,400 employees. ARS also
operates the National Agricultural Library, one of the Department’s primary information
repositories for food, agriculture, and natural resource sciences. ARS laboratories focus on
efficient food and fiber production, development of new products and uses for agricultural
commodities, development of effective controls for pest management, and support of USDA
regulatory and technical assistance programs.
For FY2016, the enacted appropriation provides $1.144 billion for ARS salaries and expenses, an
increase of $11 million over FY2015 (+1%; Table 5). The President had requested a 5% increase
for salaries and expenses.
ARS had proposed increases across several programmatic areas for prioritized research projects,
coupled with reductions in funding for several existing programs. Both the House and Senate
committees expressly rejected many, if not most, of those specific reductions and reprogramming.
The explanatory statement for the omnibus and the individual committee reports address deficient
animal welfare conditions that were uncovered at ARS research facilities, particularly at the ARS
28
29
This section was written by (name redacted)
-....,(7 [redacted]@crs.loc.gov
).
See CRS Report R40819, Agricultural Research: Background and Issues.
Congressional Research Service
20
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Meat Animal Research Center in Nebraska.30 In the appropriations act and via report language,
Congress instructs ARS to comply with Animal Welfare Act standards, allow animal welfare
inspections by a USDA sister agency (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, APHIS),
review and update its own animal care policies, and certify progress with the committees. Also,
via explanatory statements for the Office of the Secretary, all House and Senate requirements on
this issue are to be followed. This therefore includes House report language that further
withholds 5% of the ARS appropriation until USDA certifies that it has updated its policies and
has functioning Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees.
For the ARS buildings and facilities account, the enacted appropriation provides $212 million, an
increase of $167 million over FY2015 for an account that had received no appropriation for
several years. Like in FY2015, the funding is to be used for priorities that are identified in the
“USDA ARS Capital Investment Strategy.”31 ARS’s top facilities priorities are the construction of
a biocontainment laboratory at its poultry research facility in Athens, GA ($145 million); a
foreign disease-weed science facility in Frederick, MD ($70 million); and an animal science,
human nutrition, and bee research center in Beltsville, MD ($33 million).
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
The National Institute of Food and Agriculture provides federal funding for research, education,
and extension projects conducted in partnership with the State Agricultural Experiment Stations,
the State Cooperative Extension System, land grant universities, colleges, and other research and
education institutions, as well as individual researchers. These partnerships include the 1862 landgrant institutions, 1890 historically black colleges and universities, 1994 tribal land-grant
colleges, and Hispanic-serving institutions.32 Federal funds enhance capacity at universities and
institutions by statutory formula funding, competitive awards, and grants.
For FY2016, the enacted appropriation provides $1.327 billion for NIFA, an increase of $37
million over FY2015 (+2.9%; Table 5). The President had requested $1.503 billion for NIFA.
USDA had proposed to merge NIFA’s three primary accounts (Research and Education,
Extension, and Integrated Activities) into a single NIFA-wide account. Congress effectively
rejected that proposal by continuing to fund each of the accounts separately as in past years.
The Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI)—USDA’s flagship competitive grants
program with 25% of NIFA’s total budget—receives $350 million, an increase of $25 million.
Formula-funded programs are held constant, with the exception of Evans-Allen funding for
historically black colleges and universities, which receive a $1.7 million increase (+3%). The
appropriation rejects an Administration proposal that would have added a competitive portion to
the normally formula-funded “capacity awards” programs such as the Hatch Act. The House
report noted a lack of state matching funding for some historically black colleges and universities
and directed USDA to develop a plan to work with the states to meet the matching requirements.33
30
See CRS Report R44091, Meat Animal Research Center: The Animal Welfare Act and Farm Animal Research.
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.
32
The numbers 1862, 1890, and 1994 in this context refer to the years that laws were enacted creating these
classifications of colleges and universities, not to the number of institutions.
33
Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities, Land-Grant But Unequal: State One-to-One Match Funding for
1890 Land-Grant Universities, September 2013, at http://www.aplu.org/library/land-grant-but-unequal-state-one-toone-match-funding-for-1890-land-grant-universities/file.
31
Congressional Research Service
21
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
The Administration had proposed $80 million to establish two new “Innovation Institutes” as
public-private partnerships. Like last year, the enacted appropriation ignores this proposal.
The President’s request would have consolidated federal science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) education funding so that USDA would no longer provide Higher
Education Challenge Grants, Graduate and Post-graduate Fellowship Grants, Higher Education
Multicultural Scholars Program, Women and Minorities in STEM Program, Agriculture in the
Classroom, and Secondary/Postsecondary Challenge Grants. The appropriation rejects that
proposal and continues to fund the programs in USDA at FY2015 levels.
National Agricultural Statistics Service
The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) conducts the Census of Agriculture and
provides official statistics on agricultural production and indicators of the economic and
environmental status of the farm sector.
For FY2016, the enacted appropriation provides NASS $168 million, a decrease of $4 million (2%) from FY2015. The President’s request was $180 million, which would have been an increase
of 5% over FY2015.
Economic Research Service
The Economic Research Service supports economic and social science information analysis on
agriculture, rural development, food, commodity markets, and the environment. It collects and
disseminates data concerning USDA programs and policies to various stakeholders.
For FY2016, the enacted appropriation provides ERS $85 million, which is the same as FY2015.
USDA had requested $86 million.
Congressional Research Service
22
Table 5. USDA Research, Extension, and Economics (REE) Appropriations
Budget authority in millions of dollars
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
Agency or Major Program
P.L. 113-6
post-sequ.
P.L. 113-76
P.L. 113-235
1,016.9
1,122.5
1,132.6
—
—
1,016.9
AFRI (competitive grants)
FY2016
H. Cmte.
H.R. 3049
S. Cmte.
S. 1800
P.L. 114113
1,191.5
1,122.5
1,136.8
1,143.8
+11.2
+1.0%
45.0
205.9
45.0
0.0
212.1
+167.1
+371.3%
1,122.5
1,177.6
1,397.4
1,167.5
1,136.8
1,355.9
+178.3
+15.1%
275.6
316.4
325.0
450.0
335.0
325.0
350.0
+25.0
+7.7%
Hatch Act (1862 institutions)
218.6
243.7
243.7
243.7
243.7
243.7
243.7
+0.0
+0.0%
Evans-Allen (1890s institutions)
47.1
52.5
52.5
58.0
52.5
52.5
54.2
+1.7
+3.2%
McIntire-Stennis (forestry)
30.5
34.0
34.0
34.0
34.0
34.0
34.0
+0.0
+0.0%
Other
111.5
126.0
131.7
212.9
116.4
135.9
137.8
+6.1
+4.6%
Subtotal
683.2
772.6
786.9
998.6
781.5
791.1
819.7
+32.8
+4.2%
Smith-Lever (b) & (c)
271.3
300.0
300.0
300.0
300.0
300.0
300.0
+0.0
+0.0%
Smith-Lever (d)
91.7
85.5
85.5
85.7
85.5
102.7
85.5
+0.0
+0.0%
Other
76.1
83.7
86.2
89.8
86.5
86.2
90.4
+4.2
+4.9%
Subtotal
439.1
469.2
471.7
475.6
472.1
488.9
475.9
+4.2
+0.9%
Integrated Activities
19.8
35.3
30.9
28.9
30.9
13.7
30.9
+0.0
+0.0%
1,142.0
1,277.1
1,289.5
1,503.1
1,284.5
1,293.7
1,326.5
+37.0
+2.9%
National Agricultural Statistics Service
166.6
161.2
172.4
180.3
161.2
168.1
168.4
-4.0
-2.3%
Economic Research Service
71.4
78.1
85.4
86.0
78.1
85.4
85.4
+0.0
+0.0%
2,397.0
2,638.8
2,724.9
3,166.9
2,691.2
2,684.0
2,936.2
+211.3
+7.8%
Agricultural Research Service
Buildings and Facilities
Subtotal, ARS
Admin.
Request
Change from FY2015
to FY2016 enacted
National Institute of Food & Agriculture
Research and Education
Extension
Subtotal, NIFA
Total, REE appropriation
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports for the referenced appropriations acts or bills.
CRS-23
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Marketing and Regulatory Programs
Three agencies carry out USDA’s marketing and regulatory programs mission area: the Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), and the
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA).
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service34
APHIS is responsible for protecting U.S. agriculture from domestic and foreign pests and
diseases, responding to domestic animal and plant health problems, and facilitating agricultural
trade through science-based standards. Prominent concerns include avian influenza, bovine
spongiform encephalopathy (“mad cow disease”), foot-and-mouth disease, invasive plant pests
(e.g., emerald ash borer, glassy-winged sharpshooter, Asian long-horned beetle). APHIS also
administers the Animal Welfare Act to protect animals in research and public exhibitions, and
administers the Wildlife Services Program to protect against wildlife damage.
For FY2016, the enacted appropriation provides $897.6 million for APHIS programs, comprised
of $894.4 million for salaries and expenses and $3.2 million for building and facilities (Table 6).
This is $23.1 million more than FY2015 (+2.6%), and $38.6 million more than requested.
Table 6. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2015
FY2016
P.L. 113235
Admin.
Request
H. Cmte.
H.R. 3049
S. Cmte.
S. 1800
P.L. 114113
Animal Health
287.6
295.8
293.3
288.2
295.2
Plant Health
305.4
285.3
298.9
306.4
308.4
Wildlife Services
108.9
99.5
108.9
111.5
120.0
Regulatory Services
35.1
35.2
35.1
35.1
35.1
Emergency Preparedness, Contingency
17.4
17.5
17.4
17.4
17.4
Safe Trade, International Tech. Assist.
36.2
41.8
36.2
37.2
37.2
Animal Welfare
28.7
28.8
29.1
28.7
29.1
Administrative Funds
52.0
52.0
52.0
52.0
52.0
871.3
855.8
870.9
876.5
894.4
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
874.5
859.0
874.1
879.6
897.6
Subtotal, salaries and expenses
Buildings and facilities
Total, APHIS
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports.
The act provides a net increase of $22 million for high-priority initiatives to control outbreaks of
insects, plant diseases, animal diseases, and for control of pest animals and birds. For larger
outbreaks, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and congressional appropriators have
sparred for years over whether APHIS should—as appropriators have preferred—reach as needed
34
This section was written by (name redacted) (7-....,
(name redacted) (7
-...., [redacted]@crs.loc.gov
).
Congressional Research Service
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
), with assistance for avian influenza from
24
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
into USDA’s Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) account for mandatory funds to deal with
emergency plant and animal health problems,35 or use primarily funds from the annual
appropriation, as OMB has argued. In FY2015, USDA transferred an unusually large amount,
about $1 billion, from CCC for highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) response activities.
The enacted appropriation provides an additional $3 million for APHIS avian health to help
federal and state agencies, stakeholders, and growers implement surveillance and biosecurity to
halt the spread of HPAI. The act directs USDA to report to Congress on the amount of emergency
funds that were transferred from the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to poultry owners and
growers in FY2015. USDA is also required to inform Congress of HPAI developments and to
give Congress a 15-day notification if further CCC funds are transferred for HPAI emergencies.36
In response to APHIS rule-making to allow imports of beef from Brazil and Argentina, Section
752 of the appropriation directs APHIS to establish a prioritization process for audits and reviews
for countries that have been granted animal health status. APHIS is to provide the Appropriations
and Agriculture committees a description of its prioritization process by April 2016. APHIS is
required to conduct audits based on factors as defined in regulations for determinations of animal
health status,37 and to promptly make audit reports publicly available. The section also requires
that the audits be conducted in a manner consistent with U.S. international trade agreements.
Within the animal welfare portion, the enacted bill includes a $400,000 increase to support a
memorandum of understanding between APHIS and the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) to
provide oversight of animal research at ARS facilities. In early 2015, a New York Times article
about activities at the Meat Animal Research Center, an Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
facility, led to a USDA investigation of all ARS facilities that used animals in their research.
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 Activities38
For FY2016, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (P.L. 114-113) provides $81.22 million
for AMS salaries, expenses, and $1.23 million for payments to states and possessions for
marketing activities. This $82.5 million total is fractionally more than in FY2015, but is $1.9
million less than the Administration requested.
35
As authorized in the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. §§8310 and 8316, §§10411 and 10417) and the Plant
Protection Act (7 U.S.C. §§7751 and 7772, §§431 and 442).
36
Explanatory Statement for the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Congressional Record, vol. 161 (December
17, 2015), p. H9694.
37
For example, audits are required to cover veterinary control and oversight, disease history, and vaccine practices,
surveillance practices, and emergency preparedness and response. See 9 C.F.R. 92.2.
38
This section was written by (name redacted) (7
-...., [redacted]@crs.loc.gov
).
Congressional Research Service
25
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
The AMS discretionary appropriation funds four main marketing activities: 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,
the country-of-origin labeling (COOL) program, and 22 commodity research and promotion
(checkoff) programs. AMS monitors the agriculture transportation system and conducts market
analysis that supports the transport of agricultural products domestically and internationally.
The AMS appropriation includes $1.23 million for payments to states and possessions through the
Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program. This program provides matching grants to state
marketing agencies to explore new market opportunities for U.S. food and agricultural products,
and to encourage research and innovation to improve marketing efficiency and performance.
AMS collects user fees and reimbursements to cover product quality and process verification
programs, commodity grading, and Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act licensing. AMS
expects to collect about $233 million in FY2016. The appropriation places a $61 million limit on
the amount of user fees that AMS may collect for grading and classifying cotton and tobacco.39
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.40
The appropriation carries a significant policy development; it repeals country-of-origin labeling
(COOL) requirements for beef and pork and ground beef and pork (§759).41 U.S. COOL
requirements have been in force since 2004 for fish and seafood, and for other commodities, such
as beef, pork, chicken, fruits, vegetables, and some nuts since 2009. Canada and Mexico
challenged COOL for beef and pork at the World Trade Organization (WTO). The WTO found
that the U.S. violated trade obligations by discriminating against imports of cattle and hogs from
Canada and Mexico. It authorized Canada and Mexico to impose almost $1 billion in retaliatory
tariffs. The repeal of COOL for beef and pork by Congress ended the threat of trade retaliation.
Section 32 (Funds for Strengthening Markets, Income, and Supply)42
AMS’s mandatory appropriation reflects a transfer from the so-called Section 32, which is a
program created in 1935 to assist agricultural producers of non-price-supported commodities. The
Section 32 account is funded by a permanent appropriation of 30% of the previous calendar
year’s customs receipts ($10.3 billion in FY2016). This amount is reduced by various mandatory
transfers to child nutrition and other programs ($9.0 billion in FY2016).43
39
Authorized by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-35).
Separate from the appropriations process, the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79) authorized mandatory funding for four
AMS-administered programs as follows: $72.5 million (annually, FY2014-2017) and $85 million (annually, FY2018
and thereafter) for specialty crop block grants, $15 million (annually, FY2014-2018) for farmers’ market promotion,
$15 million (annually, FY2014-2018) for local food promotion, and a set-aside (estimated at $12.5 million in FY2015)
for the AMS share of costs to support organic certification. For FY2015, AMS expects to administer an estimated
$106.6 million of these mandatory farm bill initiatives, and $115 million in FY2016. Of the FY2014 and FY2015
spending for these programs, $4.1 million and $8.4 million were sequestered, respectively. In FY2016, spending for
these programs will be subject to a 6.8% sequestration.
41
For more information, see CRS Report RS22955, Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods and the WTO Trade Dispute
on Meat Labeling.
42
This section was written by (name redacted)
-.....(7 [redacted]@crs.loc.gov
).
43
For more details, see CRS Report RL34081, Farm and Food Support Under USDA’s Section 32 Program.
40
Congressional Research Service
26
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Section 32 monies available for obligation by AMS have been used at the Secretary’s discretion
to purchase agricultural commodities like meat, poultry, fruits, vegetables, and fish, which are not
typically covered by mandatory farm programs. These commodities are diverted to school lunch
and other domestic food and nutrition programs. Section 32 has also been used to fund surplus
removal and farm economic and disaster relief activities.
The 2008 farm bill (§14222) capped the annual amount of Section 32 funds available for
obligation by AMS in FY2016 at $1.303 billion. Also, to increase the amount of fruits and
vegetables purchased under Section 32, Congress limited USDA’s discretion in two ways: (1)
§4304 of the 2008 farm bill established a fresh fruit and vegetable school snack program funded
by carving out Section 32 funds (set at $40 million in 2008, rising to $150 million in 2011, and
adjusted for inflation for each year thereafter), and (2) §4404 of the 2008 farm bill required
additional purchases of fruits, vegetables, and nuts (set at $190 million in FY2008, rising to $206
million in FY2012, and remaining at that level each year thereafter). Section 4214 of the 2014
farm bill expanded the school snack program to include frozen, canned, and dried fruits and
vegetables on a pilot basis for the 2014-15 school year.
The enacted FY2016 appropriation provides $1.425 billion of Section 32 funds for AMS, which
compares with $1.284 billion enacted in FY2015. The FY2016 amount is reduced by $216
million (rescission) and $77 million (sequestration), and is considered mandatory spending.
The House- and Senate-reported bills both continue a provision (§715) that has appeared since
FY2012 that effectively prohibits the use of Section 32 for emergency disaster payments:
[N]one of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this or any other Act
shall be used to pay the salaries or expenses of any employee of the Department of
Agriculture or officer of the Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out clause 3 of
Section 32 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1935 (P.L. 74-320, 7 U.S.C. 612c, as
amended), or for any surplus removal activities or price support activities under section 5
of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act.44
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration45
The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) oversees the marketing of
U.S. grain, oilseeds, livestock, poultry, meat, and other commodities. The Federal Grain
Inspection Service establishes standards for the inspection, weighing, and grading of grain, rice,
and other commodities. The Packers and Stockyards Program monitors livestock and poultry
markets to ensure fair competition and guard against deceptive and fraudulent trade practices.
For FY2016, the enacted appropriation provides GIPSA $43.1 million for salaries and expenses,
slightly higher than in FY2015. The Administration requested a FY2016 appropriation of $44.1
million. The act authorizes GIPSA to collect up to $55 million in user fees for inspection and
weighing services. If grain export activity requires additional services, the user fee limit may be
exceeded by up to 10% upon notification to the House and Senate appropriations committees.
44
Clause 3 of Section 32 provides that funds shall be used to reestablish farmers’ purchasing power by making
payments in connections with the normal production of any agricultural commodity for domestic consumption (7.U.S.C
612c). Section 5 of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act authorizes the CCC to support the prices of
agricultural commodities through loans, purchases, payments, and other operations (15 U.S.C. 714c).
45
This section was written by (name redacted) (7
-...., [redacted]@crs.loc.gov
).
Congressional Research Service
27
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
For the first time in four years, there is no rider prohibiting USDA from finalizing or
implementing parts of GIPSA’s proposed rule on livestock and poultry marketing practices (75
Federal Register 35338, June 22, 2010) that was required in the 2008 farm bill.46
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)47
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) regulates most meat, poultry, and processed egg
products.48 The Meat and Poultry Inspection Program of FSIS conducts continuous inspections at
federal meat and poultry plants and ensures that state inspection programs have standards that are
at least equivalent to federal standards. The Egg Products Inspection Program ensures that liquid,
frozen, and dried egg products are also safe, wholesome, and correctly labeled. In addition, FSIS
inspects U.S. imports of meat, poultry, and egg products, and ensures that they are produced
under standards equivalent to U.S. inspection standards.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (P.L. 114-113) provides FSIS $1.015 billion in
FY2016. This is $1.6 million lower than enacted in FY2015, but $3.3 million more than the
Administration requested. Appropriations are augmented by existing (currently authorized) user
fees that FSIS estimates to be nearly $180 million per year.49 FSIS appropriations are divided
between various sub-accounts, including federal ($898.8 million), state ($61.0 million), and
international ($16.7 million) inspection; Codex Alimentarius ($3.8 million); and the Public Health
Data Communications Infrastructure System ($34.6 million). The Administration again proposed
a user fee of $4 million to cover additional inspection costs associated with performance issues at
inspected facilities, but as in previous appropriations, it was not enacted.
FSIS also administers the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA). The FY2016
appropriations act requires that FSIS have no fewer than 148 full-time equivalents dedicated to
the inspection and enforcement of the HMSA. The act also encourages FSIS to provide Congress
a comprehensive plan addressing the recruitment of frontline food safety personnel.
The appropriation directs FSIS to continue to implement the catfish inspection program as
required under the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79, §12106).50 It provides $2.5 million to implement
the catfish rule.51 FSIS issued the final rule on catfish inspection on December 2, 2015, to go into
effect on March 1, 2016, with a phase-in period continuing until September 1, 2017.52
The appropriation prohibits FSIS from using funds to inspect horse slaughter facilities (§767), as
well as the use of voluntary inspection fees for horse slaughter inspection.53
46
See CRS Report R41673, USDA’s “GIPSA Rule” on Livestock and Poultry Marketing Practices.
This section was written by (name redacted) (7
-...., [redacted]@crs.loc.gov
).
48
FSIS authorities include the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. §601 et seq.), the Poultry Products Inspection
Act (PPIA, 21 U.S.C. §451 et seq.), the Egg Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. §1031 et seq.), and the Humane
Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA, 7 U.S.C. §1901 et seq.).
49
From recent FSIS congressional budget justifications (http://www.obpa.usda.gov/explan_notes.html). Reflects total
non-federal funds, including fees for meat, poultry and egg products inspection; fees for cost of national laboratory
accreditation programs; and trust funds.
50
Catfish inspection originally was transferred from FDA to FSIS in the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246, §11016).
51
Explanatory Statement for the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Congressional Record, vol. 161 (December
17, 2015), p. H9697.
52
80 Federal Register 75590 (December 2, 2015).
53
The FY2006 and FY2007 appropriations prohibited FSIS from paying for horse slaughter inspections. The FY2008FY2011 and FY2014-FY2015 appropriations also banned voluntary, fee-based horse slaughter inspections. Inspection
bans were not in force during FY2012 and FY2013, but no facilities opened before the ban was reinstated in FY2014.
47
Congressional Research Service
28
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Farm Service Agency54
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 and certain mandatory conservation programs (in cooperation
with the Natural Resources Conservation Service), and supports certain international food
assistance and export credit programs administered by the Foreign Agricultural Service and the
U.S. Agency for International Development.
FSA Salaries and Expenses
For FY2016, the 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), the same as for FY2015 (Table 7).55
Regarding information technology, the enacted appropriation adopts both the House and Senate
bills and report language that continues strong requirements that began in FY2015 about FSA’s
implementation of information technology (IT) plans. Specifically, it addresses the MIDAS plan
(Modernize and Innovate the Delivery of Agricultural Systems) that was flagged for concern by
the Federal IT Dashboard in December 2012.56 FSA has struggled with the scope and schedule of
work on MIDAS and has yet to achieve the expected results. The Government Accountability
Office (GAO)57 and the USDA OIG continue to observe management and schedule problems in
recent reports.58
The statutory language continues a FY2015 requirement that FSA—before it can spend more than
50% of the $130 million for IT—submit to Congress and GAO a detailed information technology
plan that meets several specific criteria, quarterly brief and consult with the appropriations
subcommittees, and submit an assessment report by the end of FY2016.
Regarding office closures and staff reductions, the FY2016 appropriations act prohibits FSA from
closing any county offices. It also prohibits FSA from permanently relocating any county
employees if it results in two or fewer employees, unless the Appropriations Committees approve.
The FY2015 appropriation similarly prohibited county office closure and contained the relocation
provision, but that was the first time that FSA office closure had been mentioned in
appropriations since FY2006-FY2008. The 2008 farm bill enacted a permanent provision (7
U.S.C. 6932a; P.L. 110-246, §14212) that accomplished the same thing—setting conditions and
requiring congressional notification and local hearings before FSA can close or consolidate a
county office. The FY2015 and FY2016 appropriations one-year moratoriums surpass the
permanent provision.
The enacted appropriation, via report language for the House- and Senate-reported bills, rejects
the Administration’s proposal for more funding for beginning farmer and rancher programs, citing
54
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).
56
IT Dashboard, “Farm Program Modernization (MIDAS) #097,” at https://itdashboard.gov/investment?buscid=225.
57
GAO, “Farm Service Agency Needs to Demonstrate the Capacity to Manage IT Initiatives,” GAO-15-506, June 18,
2015, at http://gao.gov/products/GAO-15-506.
58
USDA-OIG, “Review of Farm Service Agency’s Initiative to Modernize and Innovate the Delivery of Agricultural
Systems (MIDAS),” 03501-0001-12, May 2015, at http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/03501-0001-12.pdf.
55
Congressional Research Service
29
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
insufficient coordination among USDA agencies, as was found in a report by the USDA Office of
Inspector General (OIG).59
FSA Farm Loan Programs
The USDA Farm Service Agency makes and guarantees loans to farmers, and is a lender of last
resort for family farmers unable to obtain credit from a commercial lender. USDA provides direct
farm loans (loans made directly from USDA to farmers), and it also guarantees the timely
repayment of principal and interest on qualified loans to farmers from commercial lenders. FSA
loans are used to finance farm real estate, operating expenses, and recovery from natural
disasters. Some loans are made at a low interest rate.60
An appropriation is made to FSA each year to cover the federal cost of making direct and
guaranteed loans, referred to as a loan subsidy. Loan subsidy is directly related to any interest rate
subsidy provided by the government, as well as a projection of anticipated loan losses from
farmer non-repayment of the loans. The amount of loans that can be made—the loan authority—
is several times larger than the subsidy level.
For FY2016, the enacted appropriation and the House- and Senate-reported bills are identical to
each other and to the Administration’s request in both loan subsidy and loan authority, with the
exception of the Administration requesting a slightly higher amount for salaries and expenses and
Congress not funding the Administration’s request for Individual Development Accounts.61
The FSA farm loan program receives $70 million of loan subsidy to support $6.402 billion of
direct and guaranteed loans in FY2016 (Table 8). Though the loan subsidy is about 12% smaller
than in FY2015, the loan authority is the same as FY2015. The reduction in loan subsidy is
explained by the direct farm operating program.
Following the global financial crisis that began in 2008, FSA farm loan authority generally has
risen, reflecting the borrowing needs of many farmers. Broad financial system pressures
dramatically increased the demand for FSA farm loans and guarantees when commercial bank
lending standards became stricter and loans sometimes were less available. In FY2009 and
FY2010, supplemental appropriations increased regular FSA loan authority by nearly $1 billion
each year in order to meet demand, up from pre-crisis levels of about $3.5 billion in 2008 to postsupplemental levels of $6.0 billion in FY2010. From FY2011 to FY2013, loan authority
decreased both due to federal budget pressures and somewhat lessened demand as the financial
system stabilized. Nonetheless, in some years, continued high farm loan demand for certain
programs has caused the loan authority to be exhausted.62 The FY2014 loan authority restored the
total closer to the supplemental levels of FY2009 and FY2010, and the FY2015-FY2016
appropriations increase total loan authority to a new high level, particularly in the direct farm
ownership loan program.
59
USDA-OIG, “USDA Beginning Farmers and Ranchers Programs,” May 2015, at http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/
50601-0003-31.pdf.
60
For more background, see CRS Report RS21977, Agricultural Credit: Institutions and Issues.
61
The Individual Development Account program was authorized in the 2008 farm bill but has never received funding.
It is not a loan program, but rather a savings program (7 U.S.C. 1983b). USDA would make grants to private entities to
deliver the program, which would match farmer deposits at a rate up to 2:1. Withdrawals would be allowed for various
capital expenses.
62
Updates on unused FSA loan availability are available at http://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/farm-loanprograms/funding/index.
Congressional Research Service
30
Table 7. Farm Service Agency Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
P.L. 113-6
post-sequ.
P.L. 113-76
P.L. 113235
1,115.3
1,177.9
1,200.2
FSA farm loan program S&E transfer
281.6
307.0
Subtotal, appropriated to FSA
1,396.8
Farm loan program (loan subsidy)
FY2016
Admin.
Request
Change from FY2015
to FY2016 enacted
H. Cmte.
H.R. 3049
S. Cmte.
S. 1800
P.L. 114113
1,185.3
1,183.0
1,180.4
1,200.2
+0.0
+0.0%
307.0
310.0
307.0
307.0
307.0
+0.0
+0.0%
1,484.9
1,507.2
1,495.2
1,490.0
1,487.4
1,507.2
+0.0
+0.0%
90.5
90.0
78.7
72.1
69.6
69.6
69.6
-9.2
-11.6%
Farm loan program admin. expenses
7.3
7.7
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
+0.0
+0.0%
State mediation grants
4.1
3.8
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
+0.0
+0.0%
Grassroots source water protection
5.2
5.5
5.5
0.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
+1.0
+17.6%
Dairy indemnity program (M)
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
+0.0
+0.0%
1,503.9
1,592.2
1,603.3
1,579.1
1,576.9
1,574.8
1,595.1
-8.2
-0.5%
Salaries and expenses
Farm Service Agency (S&E base)
Programs
Total: Appropriation to FSA
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports for the referenced appropriations acts or bills. Amounts for FY2013 are
the post-sequestration level from the USDA FY2013 Operating Plan.
Notes: Does not include about $3 million of salaries and expenses that are appropriated to the Foreign Agricultural Service and transferred to FSA to administer P.L.
480 and export loans. Discretionary budget authority unless labeled “(M)” to indicate mandatory authority.
CRS-31
Table 8. Farm Service Agency: Farm Loan Program
(budget authority and loan authority, as specified, in millions of dollars)
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
P.L. 113-6
post-sequ.
P.L. 113-76
P.L. 113235
18.6
4.4
—
Direct
54.0
65.5
Guaranteed (unsubsidized)
16.5
Emergency loans
FY2016
Admin.
Request
Change from FY2015
to FY2016 enacted
H. Cmte.
H.R. 3049
S. Cmte.
S. 1800
P.L. 114113
—
—
—
—
+0.0
+0.0%
63.1
54.0
54.0
54.0
54.0
-9.1
-14.5%
18.3
14.8
14.4
14.4
14.4
14.4
-0.4
-2.8%
1.2
1.7
0.9
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
+0.4
+47.4%
Indian highly fractionated land loans
0.2
0.1
—
—
—
—
—
+0.0
+0.0%
Individual Development Accounts
—
—
—
2.5
—
—
—
+0.0
+0.0%
Subtotal, loan subsidy
90.5
90.0
78.7
72.1
69.6
69.6
69.6
-9.2
-11.6%
FLP salaries and expenses
281.6
307.0
307.0
310.0
307.0
307.0
307.0
+0.0
+0.0%
FLP administrative expenses
7.3
7.7
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
+0.0
+0.0%
379.3
404.7
393.6
390.0
384.5
384.5
384.5
-9.2
-2.3%
1. Budget Authority (loan subsidy)
Farm ownership loans
Direct
Farm operating loans
Other direct loans
Total, FLP budget authority
CRS-32
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
P.L. 113-6
post-sequ.
P.L. 113-76
P.L. 113235
438.5
575.0
1,500.0
1,500.0
2,000.0
969.5
FY2016
Admin.
Request
Change from FY2015
to FY2016 enacted
H. Cmte.
H.R. 3049
S. Cmte.
S. 1800
P.L. 114113
1,500.0
1,500.0
1,500.0
1,500.0
+0.0
+0.0%
2,000.0
2,000.0
2,000.0
2,000.0
2,000.0
+0.0
+0.0%
1,195.6
1,252.0
1,252.0
1,252.0
1,252.0
1,252.0
+0.0
+0.0%
1,384.8
1,500.0
1,393.4
1,393.4
1,393.4
1,393.4
1,393.4
+0.0
+0.0%
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
+0.0
+0.0%
Emergency loans
21.6
34.7
34.7
34.7
34.7
34.7
34.7
+0.0
+0.0%
Indian tribe land acquisition loans
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
+0.0
+0.0%
Indian highly fractionated land loans
9.2
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
+0.0
+0.0%
100.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
+0.0
+0.0%
4,575.7
5,527.3
6,402.1
6,402.1
6,402.1
6,402.1
6,402.1
-0.0
-0.0%
2. Loan Authority (loan level)
Farm ownership loans
Direct
Guaranteed
Farm operating loans
Direct
Guaranteed (unsubsidized)
Conservation loans
Guaranteed
Other direct loans
Boll weevil eradication loans
Total, loan authority
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports for the referenced appropriations acts or bills. Amounts for FY2013 are
the post-sequestration level from the USDA FY2013 Operating Plan.
Note: Budget authority reflects the cost of making loans, such as interest rate subsidies and default. Some programs are self-funding because of fees charged. Loan authority
reflects the amount of loans that FSA may make or guarantee.
CRS-33
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Commodity Credit Corporation63
The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) is the funding mechanism for many of the agriculturerelated mandatory spending programs in the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79, the Agricultural Act of
2014).64 These include farm subsidy and disaster payments, as well as a host of other programs
that receive mandatory funding, such as conservation, trade, food aid, research, rural
development, and bioenergy. (Programs with different mandatory funding sources other than the
CCC include crop insurance, SNAP, child nutrition, and Section 32.) Supplemental spending also
has been paid from the CCC, particularly for ad hoc farm disaster payments, direct market loss
payments because of low farm commodity prices, and disease eradication efforts. Separate
discretionary appropriations to various agencies pay for salaries to administer the programs.
The CCC is a wholly owned government corporation that has the legal authority to borrow up to
$30 billion at any one time from the U.S. Treasury to finance program spending (15 U.S.C. 714,
et seq.). The CCC may earn a small amount of money from activities such as buying and selling
commodities and receiving interest payments on loans. But because the CCC never earns more
than it spends, its borrowing authority is replenished through a congressional appropriation.
Mandatory outlays for the commodity programs rise and fall based on economic or weather
conditions (e.g., crop prices below program trigger levels generate farm payments). Funding
needs are difficult to estimate, which is a primary reason that the programs are mandatory rather
than discretionary, and that the program operates under a Treasury line of credit.
The congressional appropriation may not always restore the line of credit to the previous year’s
level, or may repay more than was spent. For these reasons, the appropriation to the CCC may not
reflect current year outlays. Moreover, the CCC appropriation is several billion dollars greater
than the amount of farm commodity subsidies because other programs are paid from CCC.65
To replenish CCC’s borrowing authority, the enacted FY2016 appropriation continues to provide
an indefinite appropriation (“such sums as necessary”). The amount scored for FY2016 is $6.871
billion, down 49% from FY2015. The reduction does not indicate any action by Congress to
reduce program support.
Among policy changes, the FY2016 appropriation restores the use of “commodity certificates”
for the marketing loan program, including not being subject to payment limits (§740). The change
is made to the farm bill statutes and applies to the 2015 crop marketing year and the remainder of
the 2014 farm bill. The provision is projected to cost $5 million in FY2016. These certificates are
payments-in-kind that can be redeemed for cash in lieu of marketing loan gains or forfeiture (7
U.S.C. 7286).66 Besides providing flexibility in repaying marketing loans, commodity certificates
have been used by some farmers to avoid payment limitations. Commodity certificates have not
been available since the 2009 crop year, and some say would not have been advantageous during
63
This section was written by (name redacted)
-....,(7 [redacted]@crs.loc.gov
).
For more background on the farm bill, see CRS In Focus IF10187, The 2014 Farm Bill (Agricultural Act of 2014,
P.L. 113-79), and CRS Report R43076, The 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79): Summary and Side-by-Side.
65
For an example of the accounting of CCC’s line of credit, appropriations and expenditures, see USDA, Commodity
Estimates Book, “Output 07-CCC Financing Status,” at http://www.fsa.usda.gov/about-fsa/budget-and-performancemanagement/budget/ccc-budget-essentials/index.
66
For more background on how commodity certificates work, see CRS Report RL34594, Farm Commodity Programs
in the 2008 Farm Bill; USDA fact sheet, “Commodity Certificates,” May 2007, at http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/
FSA_File/comdtycertif07n.pdf; and USDA Economic Research Service, “Farm Policy Glossary,” at
http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-commodity-policy/farm-policy-glossary.aspx.
64
Congressional Research Service
34
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
the 2008 farm bill when marketing loan gains and loan deficiency payments did not have any
payment limitations. However, under the 2014 farm bill, payment limits apply to marketing loan
gains and loan deficiency payments. Restoring the use of certificates provides a mechanism for
farmers to benefit from the marketing loan program without being subject to payment limitations.
This provision was in the House-reported bill, but was not in the Senate-reported version.
Separately, regarding authority in the CCC Charter Act to provide ad hoc disaster assistance, the
enacted appropriation continues a provision (§715) that has appeared since FY2012 that
effectively prohibits the use of the CCC for emergency disaster payments to farmers:
[N]one of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this or any other Act shall be
used to pay the salaries or expenses of any employee of the Department of Agriculture or
officer of the Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out clause 3 of Section 32 of the
Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1935 (P.L. 74-320, 7 U.S.C. 612c, as amended), or for any
surplus removal activities or price support activities under section 5 of the Commodity Credit
Corporation Charter Act.67
Finally, the omnibus continues a provision that has been in each appropriation since FY2011 that
limits the ability of USDA to provide marketing assistance loans for mohair (§722).
Crop Insurance68
The federal crop insurance program is administered by USDA’s Risk Management Agency
(RMA). It offers basically free catastrophic insurance to producers who grow an insurable crop.
Producers who opt for this coverage have the opportunity to purchase additional insurance
coverage at a subsidized rate (ranging between 38% and 80%). Policies are sold and serviced
through approved private insurance companies that have their program losses reinsured by USDA
and are reimbursed by the government for their administrative and operating expenses.69
Two separate appropriations support the federal crop insurance program. The first provides
discretionary funding for the salaries and expenses of the RMA. The second provides mandatory
funding for the Federal Crop Insurance Fund (FCIC), which finances other program expenses,
including premium subsidies, indemnities, and reimbursements to the insurance companies.
For the discretionary salaries and expenses of the RMA, the enacted FY2016 appropriation is
unchanged from the FY2015 appropriation at $74.8 million. It does not accommodate the
Administration’s request for an increase of $2.1 million for 12 new staff to improve payment
compliance efforts. Under Senate report language RMA is to research the feasibility of poultry
industry-related insurance and the availability of policies that reflect organic price differentials.
For the mandatory appropriation to the Federal Crop Insurance Fund, the omnibus appropriation
provides an indefinite amount (“such sums as necessary”), estimated at $7.858 billion. This is
nearly $1.1 billion less than FY2015 (-12%), but does not reflect any change by Congress to
reduce program benefits. The actual amount required is subject to change and is based on actual
crop losses and farmer participation rates in the program. The current year-over-year decline is
driven by expectations of lower commodity prices that result in lower premium subsidies.
The enacted appropriation does not contains a House-reported provision (§748) that would have
prevented USDA from enforcing a conservation compliance requirement in the 2014 farm bill.
67
For an explanation of the statutory references, see footnote 44.
This section was written by (name redacted)
-....,(7 [redacted]@crs.loc.gov
).
69
For more information, see CRS Report R40532, Federal Crop Insurance: Background.
68
Congressional Research Service
35
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Standard Reinsurance Agreement as Temporary Budget Offset
One of the budgetary offsets that allowed the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (P.L. 114-74,
November 2, 2015) to raise the government-wide discretionary spending limit by $50 billion70 in
FY2016 was a reduction to the crop insurance program. The provision (§201 of P.L. 114-74) set a
cap on the rate of return for private crop insurance companies that would be negotiated in the next
Standard Reinsurance Agreement (SRA). The SRA is the legal risk-sharing mechanism between
the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation and the private insurance companies that deliver federal
crop insurance. The CBO score of the provision was a $3.038 billion savings to the federal
government over 10 years.71
The provision had not been proposed or approved by the authorizing committees of jurisdiction
for the crop insurance program. Despite the provision remaining in the budget agreement for
expeditious reasons, assurances were expressed among congressional leadership as the bill was
still being debated that the crop insurance reduction would be reversed in future legislation.72
The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (P.L. 114-94, December 4, 2015) restored those
reductions to the crop insurance program as if they never had been made (§32301). The CBO
score of the reversal was a $3.038 billion cost to the federal government over 10 years.73
Disaster Assistance74
USDA offers several programs to help producers recover from natural disasters. Most of these
programs are permanently authorized and do not require a federal disaster designation. Most
receive mandatory funding (“such sums as necessary”) and are not subject to annual
appropriations.75 However, three agricultural land rehabilitation programs receive discretionary
funding on an ad hoc basis. In recent years, funding has been incorporated into annual
appropriations bills, even though it remains supplemental in nature and amounts vary over time.
The FY2016 enacted appropriation provides funding for these three land rehabilitation programs:
Emergency Conservation Program (ECP), Emergency Forest Restoration Program (EFRP), and
Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) program (§728; Table 9).76 Under these programs, a
national or state emergency does not have to be declared in order to receive assistance. However,
recent years’ funding has included a requirement that funds be used “for necessary expenses
resulting from a major disaster declared pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121, et seq.).”77 This language allows the
70
See the heading, “Final FY2016 Budget and 302(b) Allocation.”
Congressional Budget Office, “Estimate of the Effect of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015,” p. 1, at https://www.
cbo.gov/publication/50938.
72
See the colloquy between Senator McConnell (Majority Leader) and Senator Roberts (Agriculture committee
chairman) in the Congressional Record, October 29, 2015, p. S7608. McConnell: “It is our joint understanding that the
House leaders will work to reverse these crop insurance changes.” Roberts: “I have been working very closely with
[the] House Agriculture Committee Chairman who has reached a similar position with the House leadership. We have
all agreed here to restore these funds to the program and reverse this policy.”
73
Congressional Budget Office, “Cost Estimate for the Conference Agreement on the FAST Act,” p. 4, at https://www.
cbo.gov/publication/51051.
74
This section was written by (name redacted) (7
-...., [ redacted]@crs.loc.gov
).
75
For additional information on these programs, see CRS Report RS21212, Agricultural Disaster Assistance.
76
For additional information, see CRS Report R42854, Emergency Assistance for Agricultural Land Rehabilitation.
77
See §728 of P.L. 114-113.
71
Congressional Research Service
36
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
funding to be designated as “disaster relief” and for the purpose of budget scoring is not counted
against the discretionary spending cap. The addition of the Stafford Act requirement, however,
limits the number and type of eligible disasters. The FY2016 appropriation provides both disaster
relief funding (requiring a Stafford Act-related event) and discretionary funding (that does not
require a Stafford Act-related event).
Table 9. FY2016 Funding for Emergency Agricultural Land Rehabilitation Programs
$ in millions
Stafford Acta
Non-Stafford
Act
Total
Emergency Conservation Program
91
17
108
Emergency Forest Restoration Program
2
4
6
Emergency Watershed Protection Program
37
120
157
Total
130
141
271
Program
Source: Section 728 of P.L. 114-113.
Notes: For additional analysis of these programs and the Stafford Act limitation, see CRS Report R42854,
Emergency Assistance for Agricultural Land Rehabilitation.
a. Funds must be used for necessary expenses resulting from a major disaster declared pursuant to the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121, et seq.)
The enacted appropriation also repurposes $2.4 million in unobligated balances under the EWP
program (§745). The unobligated funds originally were provided in prior year supplemental
appropriations that directed funds to specific states, counties, and disasters, including wildfire
recovery in southern California (FY2004), Hurricane Katrina and other 2005 hurricanes
(FY2006), and flooding in the Midwest (FY2007). The FY2016 appropriation allows the funding
to be spent for disasters occurring in FY2016 or FY2017, and to remain available until expended.
Conservation78
USDA administers a number of agricultural conservation programs that assist private landowners
with natural resource concerns. These include working land programs, land retirement and
easement programs, watershed programs, technical assistance, and other programs. The two lead
agricultural conservation agencies within USDA are the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS)—which provides technical assistance and administers most programs—and the Farm
Service Agency (FSA)—which administers the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).79
Most conservation program funding is mandatory, funded through the Commodity Credit
Corporation (CCC) and authorized in omnibus farm bills (about $5.3 billion of CCC funds for
conservation in FY2016). Other conservation programs—mostly technical assistance—are
discretionary and funded through annual appropriations.
The enacted FY2016 appropriation includes reductions to mandatory conservation programs and
provides a slight increase from FY2015 levels for discretionary programs.
78
79
This section was written by (name redacted) -....,
(7
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
).
For additional information, see CRS Report R40763, Agricultural Conservation: A Guide to Programs.
Congressional Research Service
37
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Discretionary Conservation Programs
All discretionary conservation programs are administered by NRCS. The largest program and the
account that funds most NRCS activities is Conservation Operations (CO). The enacted
appropriation provides $851 million for CO; more than the FY2015 amount ($846 million), the
Administration’s request ($831 million), and the House-reported bill ($833 million); but less than
the Senate-reported bill ($855 million). The FY2016 appropriation directs CO funding for a
number of conservation programs (Table 10).
Table 10. Conservation Operations Funding
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2015
FY2016
P.L. 113235
Admin.
Request
House
H.R. 3049
Senate
S. 1800
P.L. 114113
846
831
833
855
851
Conservation Technical Assistance
748
733
735
0
752
Soil Survey
80
80
80
0
80
Snow Survey
9.3
8.9
8.9
0
9.3
Plant Material Center
9.4
9.2
9.1
0
9.4
Watershed Projects (Watershed Operations)
5.6
0
0
10.6
10.6
Conservation Delivery Streamlining Initiative
1.5
14.7
1.5
0
5
Program
Conservation Operations
Source: CRS, from H.R. 3049, S. 1800, H.Rept. 114-205, S.Rept. 114-82, and P.L. 114-113.
Notes: Lack of a specific funding level may only mean an absence of being mentioned in FY2016 report language.
The House and Senate committee reports that accompany their respective appropriations bills
include a number of congressionally directed actions, including program administration, invasive
species, wetland mitigation, herbicide resistance, conservation practices, species protection, and
partner agreements. While these actions do not include specific funding, they ultimately can
direct funding to congressionally identified projects similar to earmarks.80
Funding also is provided in the enacted appropriation (and in the 2014 farm bill) for the
Watershed Rehabilitation program to repair aging dams previously built by USDA.81 The
Administration had proposed no funding for this program, contending that the maintenance,
repair, and operation of dams are local responsibilities. However, the enacted FY2016
appropriation provides $12 million for FY2016, more than both the House- ($6 million) and
Senate-reported ($0) bills. The enacted FY2015 appropriation included $12 million for the
program, and the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79) added an additional $250 million in mandatory
funding for FY2014 to remain available until expended.82
80
Language in the joint explanatory statement accompanying the enacted appropriation suggests that House and Senate
committee report language not changed by the explanatory statement still expresses congressional intentions (see
Congressional Record, vol. 161, part 184, book 11 [December 17, 2015], p. H9694).
81
See CRS Report RL30478, Federally Supported Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment Programs.
82
In FY2015, some mandatory funding was spent, while $69 million was restricted by the appropriation. This
unobligated balance (before sequestration) remained available going into FY2016, and all of it is restricted in FY2016.
Congressional Research Service
38
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Mandatory Conservation Programs
Mandatory conservation programs generally are authorized in omnibus farm bills and receive
funding from the CCC, thus not requiring an annual appropriation.83 But Congress has reduced
mandatory conservation programs through changes in mandatory program spending (CHIMPS) in
the annual agricultural appropriations law every year since FY2003. Because money is fungible,
the savings from these reductions are not necessarily applied toward other conservation activities.
The FY2016 enacted CHIMPS are more than in the Administration’s proposal and the House- and
Senate-reported bills. The proposal and bills would have continued CHIMPS to farm bill
conservation programs totaling $255 million.84 The FY2016 enacted conservation CHIMPS
subtotal is effectively $273 million.85 Sequestration further reduces available funding for these
and other mandatory conservation programs in FY2016, resulting in an estimated total reduction
of $562 million, or roughly 10% of all mandatory conservation funding.86
The number of conservation programs reduced through appropriations varies from year to year;
however, some programs are continually reduced, while others rarely are reduced. Programs such
as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) have been reduced annually since
FY2003, while others, such as the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), have not been reduced
in over a decade. In FY2016, the mix of programs reduced is similar to previous years––EQIP
and the Watershed Rehabilitation Program.87 Proposed reductions to the Conservation
Stewardship Program were not included; however, additional reductions were made to EQIP
above what was proposed in the Administration’s request and House- and Senate-reported bills.
The enacted appropriation did not include any of the proposed rescissions of mandatory budget
authority. Unlike CHIMPS, which apply only to the current fiscal year and do not typically
change or permanently cancel the statutory funding authority, a rescission is a permanent
cancellation. The 2014 farm bill amended mandatory funding for several conservation programs,
allowing unobligated funds from previous years to be carried forward until expended or expired.
This new farm bill approach allows not only unobligated funding to be carried forward to the next
fiscal year, but also prior year’s CHIMPS as well. Therefore, not only are new-year mandatory
funds subject to sequestration and CHIMPS, but so are carry-over (unobligated) funds and prioryear CHIMPS for which budget authority becomes available again in a new fiscal year. The
Administration’s request included over $320 million in conservation-related rescissions (funding
that would be permanently cancelled and not carried forward), compared to $68 million rescinded
in the Senate-reported bill and none in the House-reported bill. The enacted FY2016
appropriation did not include any rescissions, thereby allowing FY2016 CHIMPS to be carried
forward into FY2017 if Congress chooses to do so next year.
83
For authorized funding and background, see CRS Report R40763, Agricultural Conservation: A Guide to Programs.
The Administration’s proposal and the House- and Senate-reported bills effectively proposed a total of $255 million
in CHIMPS from conservation programs. This amount is different than those presented in Table 15 because CBO was
not consistent in scoring the Senate-reported bill and the Administration’s proposal, giving credit for a level of
CHIMPS that was not available to the House-reported bill because of sequestration. If sequestration were included
consistently, all three proposals would reduce conservation programs by the same amount. Differences among the
proposals remain, though, for the mix of programs and level of rescissions.
85
Similar to footnote 84, CHIMPS are not scored consistently due to sequestration and therefore the total here is not
consistent with that used for scoring in Table 15.
86
OMB estimates a 6.8% level of sequestration for non-exempt, non-defense mandatory accounts. See Appendix B.
87
For more on CHIMPS generally and historically, see the heading, “Changes in Mandatory Program Spending
(CHIMPS).” For more about conservation program reductions, see CRS In Focus IF10041, Reductions to Mandatory
Agricultural Conservation Programs in Appropriations Law.
84
Congressional Research Service
39
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Rural Development88
Three agencies are responsible for USDA’s rural development mission area: the Rural Housing
Service (RHS), the Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS), and the Rural Utilities Service
(RUS). An Office of Community Development provides community development support
through field offices. This mission area also administers Rural Economic Area Partnerships and
the National Rural Development Partnership.89
The enacted FY2016 appropriation (P.L. 114-113) provides a total of $2.77 billion in
discretionary budget authority for rural development programs.90 This is about $368 million more
than enacted for FY2015 (+15%) and $167 million more than requested by the Administration
(Table 11). The enacted FY2016 appropriation will support $36.7 billion in loan authority, $816.6
million more than enacted last year.
Salaries and expenses within Rural Development are funded from a direct appropriation plus
transfers from each of the agencies. The FY2016 appropriation provides a combined salaries and
expenses total of $683 million, $4.6 million more than in FY2015 (+0.7%).
Rural Housing Service (RHS)
For FY2016, P.L. 114-113 provides $2.03 billion in budget authority for RHS programs (before
transfers). This is $320.8 million (+18.7%) more than FY2015. With this budget authority, the
appropriation provides approximately $27.5 billion in loan authority, $75 million more than the
FY2015 total loan authority (+0.3%).
The single-family housing loan program (Section 502 of the Housing Act of 1949) is the largest
economic activity, representing 90.5% of RHS’s total loan authority. The enacted bill provides
$900 million for direct loans and $24.9 billion for federal loan guarantees, the same as FY2015.
For other housing loan programs, the enacted appropriation provides $3.4 million in budget
authority to support $26.3 million in loans for the Section 504 Very Low-Income Housing Repair
loan program, the same as FY2015 and as requested by the Administration. For the Multi-Family
Housing loan guarantee program (Section 538), the appropriation provides $150 million of loan
authority (the same as for FY2015). For the Section 515 Rental Housing Program, P.L. 114-113
provides loan authority of $28.4 million and $8.4 million in subsidies (the loan authority is the
same as FY2015, but $13.8 million (-33%) less than the Administration had requested).
The largest budget authority line item in RHS is the Rental Assistance Program grants (Section
521), accounting for about 68% of the total (Table 11). The FY2016 appropriation provides $1.39
billion in budget authority, an increase of $301.2 million from FY2015 (+27.6%) and $217.8
million more than requested.
The Multi-Family Revitalization program receives $37 million in FY2016, $13 million more than
for FY2015 (+54%) and $3 million more than the request.
88
This section was written by (name redacted) (7-...., [redacted]@crs.loc.gov).
For more background on rural development programs and issues, see CRS Report RL31837, An Overview of USDA
Rural Development Programs.
90
If the rescission to the Cushion of Credit account (-$179 million) is not incorporated in the rural development section
but included with changes in mandatory spending, as shown in this report, then the net budget authority would be
approximately $2.95 billion (Table 11).
89
Congressional Research Service
40
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
The Rural Housing Service also administers the Rural Community Facilities program, which
provides direct loans, loan guarantees, and grants for “essential community facilities” in rural
areas with less than 20,000 people. The enacted appropriation provides $42.3 million, of which
$3.5 million would support a direct and guaranteed loan authorization level of $2.2 billion and the
balance ($38.7 million) for grants. The total budget authority for the Community Facilities
program is $12 million more (39.6%) than for FY2015, and nearly $20 million less than
requested. The Administration had requested a shift away from loans, but the appropriation
continues the historical ratio between loans and grants. Besides $25 million of facilities grants,
the program also supports economic development programs.
The appropriation supports Rural Community Development Initiative grants ($4 million),
Economic Impact Initiative grants ($5.8 million), and Tribal College grants ($4 million). These
amounts are the same as for FY2015.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS)
The FY2016 appropriation provides $95 million to the RBS before the “cushion of credit”91
rescission and transfers.92 This is about $12.7 million less than FY2015 (-12%). This budget
authority level will support $979 million in loan authority for the various RBS loan programs.
For the Rural Business Program account, the appropriation provides $62.7 million in budget
authority, $11.3 million less than FY2015. This account includes the Business and Industry (B&I)
Loan Guarantee program ($35.7 million of loan subsidy to support $919.8 million of guaranteed
loans), the Rural Business Development Grant program ($24 million), and the Delta Regional
Authority ($3 million).93 Grant support for the latter two is the same as for FY2015.
For Rural Cooperative Development Grants, P.L. 114-113 provides $22 million, the same as for
FY2015. These include cooperative development grants ($5.8 million), Appropriate Technology
Transfer for Rural Areas ($2.5 million), grants to assist minority producers ($3 million), and
Value-Added Product Development grants ($10.7 million). These are the same levels of funding
as in FY2015.
For the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP), the appropriation provides $500,000 in loan
subsidies to support $7.6 million in loans. This is $5.2 million less in loan authority than FY2015,
and $850,000 less in loan subsidies. The FY2016 appropriation provides no grant funding, the
same as FY2015; the Administration had requested $5 million.
The Administration requested funding for two new business programs: the Rural Business
Investment Program ($6 million) and the Healthy Food Financing Initiative (HFFI, $13 million).
The Rural Business Investment Program was authorized in the 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171,
§6029), and the HFFI was authorized in the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79, §4206). The
Administration also requested $4.6 million for the Rural Microenterprise Assistance Program.
The appropriation provides no funding for any of these programs, the same as FY2015.
91
For certain RBS loans, borrowers may pay forward into a Treasury account that earns interest. Appropriators
authorize a loan level, and the needed budget authority comes from the interest earned rather than new appropriations.
A rescission of the cushion of credit account reduces the amount that remains available for the program to spend.
92
If the cushion of credit rescission is incorporated as in the Appropriations committee tables (-$179 million), the net
RBS budget authority provided would be negative.
93
Business Development grants combine Rural Business Enterprise grants and Rural Business Opportunity grants.
Congressional Research Service
41
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Rural Utilities Service (RUS)
The FY2016 appropriation provides $594 million in budget authority for the Rural Utilities
Service before transferring salaries and expenses, $58 million more than FY2015 (+11%). This
budget authority supports $8.2 billion in loans (Table 11).
The Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program account is 88% of the RUS appropriation. The
enacted bill provides $522.4 million in budget authority, $57.5 million more than FY2015
(+12.4%) and $39 million more than the Administration requested. The FY2016 amount is
divided among the following accounts:
Water/Waste Water grants: $364.4 million ($347.1 million in FY2015);
Grants for Colonias,94 and Alaska and Hawaii Natives: $64 million ($66.5 million
in FY2015);
Technical Assistance: $20 million ($19 million in FY2015);
Circuit Rider program: $16.4 million ($15.9 million in FY2015);
High Energy Cost grants: $10 million (same as FY2015);
Solid Waste Management grants: $4 million (same as FY2015);
Water and Waste Water revolving fund: $1 million (same as FY2015);
Individual Well Water grants: $993,000 (same as FY2015).
The FY2016 appropriation provides $5.5 billion in rural electric loan authority for Federal
Financing Bank loans, and $690 million for Treasury rate telecommunication loans. These are the
same amounts as enacted for FY2015. The appropriation also increased the guaranteed
underwriting authorization for electric loans from $500 million to $750 million.
For the combined distance learning, telemedicine, and broadband account, the FY2016
appropriation provides $36.8 million in budget authority, the same as for FY2015.
For distance learning/telemedicine, the appropriation provides $22.0 million in
grants.
For rural broadband, the appropriation provides $10.4 million in grants, the same
as FY2015. For loans, it provides an unchanged $4.5 million in budget authority
to subsidize $20.6 million in direct loans (-15% from FY2015).
94
Colonias generally are described as unincorporated communities or housing developments on the U.S. side of the
U.S.-Mexico border that lack some or all basic infrastructure, including plumbing and public water and sewer.
Congressional Research Service
42
Table 11. USDA Rural Development Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
P.L. 113-6
post-sequ.a
P.L. 113-76
P.L. 113235
Admin.
Request
H. Cmte.
H.R. 3049
S. Cmte.
S. 1800
P.L. 114113
Salaries and expenses (direct)
192.1
203.4
224.2
226.7
222.7
228.7
225.8
+1.6
+0.7%
Transfers from RHS, RBCS, RUS
420.9
454.0
454.0
458.9
456.5
454.0
457.0
+3.0
+0.7%
Subtotal, salaries and exp.
613.0
657.4
678.2
685.6
679.2
682.7
682.9
+4.6
+0.7%
1,031.1
1,279.6
1,298.4
1,394.7
1,368.7
1,367.2
1,616.4
+318.1
+24.5%
2. Rural Business-Cooperative Servicea
114.2
130.2
103.2
138.7
87.0
91.5
90.5
-12.8
-12.4%
3. Rural Utilities Service
520.8
501.6
501.7
538.4
509.7
533.7
559.3
+57.6
+11.5%
Office of the Under Secretary
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
-0.0
-0.6%
Total, Rural Development
2,279.9
2,569.7
2,582.4
2,758.4
2,645.6
2,675.9
2,950.0
+367.6
+14.2%
Less rescission of Cushion of Credit
-180.0
-172.0
-179.0
-154.0
-154.0
-182.0
-179.0
+0.0
+0.0%
Net, Rural Development (in cmte. rept.)
2,099.9
2,397.7
2,403.4
2,604.4
2,491.6
2,493.9
2,771.0
+367.6
+15.3%
Administrative expenses (transfer)
383.3
415.1
415.1
419.5
417.9
415.1
417.9
+2.8
+0.7%
Single family direct loans (Section 502)
50.2
24.5
66.4
60.8
60.8
60.8
60.8
-5.7
-8.5%
Loan authority
840.1
900.0
900.0
900.0
900.0
900.0
900.0
+0.0
+0.0%
Rural Development
FY2016
Change from FY2015 to
FY2016 Enacted
Programs
1. Rural Housing Service
Alternate total (including rescissions)a
1. Rural Housing Service
Single family guaranteed loans: Loan authorityb
24,000.0
24,000.0
24,000.0
24,000.0
24,000.0
24,000.0
24,000.0
+0.0
+0.0%
Other RHIF programsc
29.3
22.8
29.4
31.1
27.0
26.9
27.0
-2.5
-8.4%
Loan authority
241.7
248.6
248.3
307.4
248.5
298.3
248.5
+0.3
+0.1%
Subtotal, RHIF
462.7
462.4
510.9
511.4
505.6
502.7
505.6
-5.4
-1.1%
Loan authority
25,081.8
25,148.6
25,148.3
25,207.4
25,148.5
25,198.3
25,148.5
+0.3
+0.0%
CRS-43
Rural Development
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
P.L. 113-6
post-sequ.a
P.L. 113-76
P.L. 113235
Admin.
Request
H. Cmte.
H.R. 3049
S. Cmte.
S. 1800
P.L. 114113
1,389.7
+301.2
+27.7%
Change from FY2015 to
FY2016 Enacted
Other housing programs
Rental assistance (Section 521)
834.3
1,110.0
1,088.5
1,171.9
1,167.0
1,167.0
Other rental assistanced
2.8
—
—
—
—
—
0.0
+0.0
+0.0%
Multifamily housing revitalization
26.4
32.6
24.0
34.0
24.0
24.0
37.0
+13.0
+54.2%
Mutual & self-help housing grants
27.7
25.0
27.5
10.0
27.5
27.5
27.5
+0.0
+0.0%
Rural housing assistance grants
30.6
32.2
32.2
25.0
32.2
32.2
32.2
+0.0
+0.0%
12.1
13.0
13.0
50.0
13.0
13.0
25.0
+12.0
+92.3%
2,200.0
2,200.0
2,200.0
2,200.0
2,200.0
2,200.0
2,200.0
+0.0
+0.0%
Community Facilities: Guarantees
3.6
3.8
3.5
—
3.5
2.0
3.5
+0.0
+0.0%
Loan authority
53.3
59.5
73.2
—
148.3
84.7
148.3
+75.1
+102.5%
Rural community dev. initiative
5.7
6.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
+0.0
+0.0%
Economic impact initiative grants
5.5
5.8
5.8
—
5.8
5.8
5.8
+0.0
+0.0%
Tribal college grants
3.1
4.0
4.0
8.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
+0.0
+0.0%
Subtotal, Rural Community Facilities
30.0
32.5
30.3
62.0
30.3
28.8
42.3
+12.0
+39.6%
Loan authority
2,253.3
2,259.5
2,273.2
2,200.0
2,348.3
2,284.7
2,348.3
+75.1
+3.3%
Total, Rural Housing Service
1,414.3
1,694.7
1,713.5
1,814.3
1,786.6
1,782.3
2,034.3
+320.8
+18.7%
Less transfer salaries & expenses
-383.3
-415.1
-415.1
-419.5
-417.9
-415.1
-417.9
-2.8
+0.7%
Rural Housing Service (programs)
1,031.1
1,279.6
1,298.4
1,394.7
1,368.7
1,367.2
1,616.4
+318.1
+24.5%
Loan authority
27,335.1
27,408.1
27,421.5
27,407.4
27,496.8
27,483.0
27,496.8
+75.3
+0.3%
52.3
67.0
47.0
31.4
35.7
35.7
35.7
-11.3
-24.1%
Rural Community Facilities Program
Community Facilities: Grants
Community Facilities: Direct loan authority
2. Rural Business Cooperative Service
Rural Business Program Account
Guar. Bus. & Ind. (B&I) Loans
CRS-44
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
P.L. 113-6
post-sequ.a
P.L. 113-76
P.L. 113235
Admin.
Request
H. Cmte.
H.R. 3049
S. Cmte.
S. 1800
P.L. 114113
Loan authority
890.2
958.1
919.8
758.2
919.8
919.8
919.8
+0.0
+0.0%
Rural bus. enterprise grants
22.6
24.3
24.0
30.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
+0.0
+0.0%
Rural bus. opportunity grants
2.1
2.3
—
—
—
—
—
+0.0
+0.0%
Delta regional authority grants
2.8
3.0
3.0
—
—
3.0
3.0
+0.0
+0.0%
Rural child poverty
—
—
—
20.0
—
—
—
+0.0
+0.0%
Admin. expenses (transfer)
4.1
4.4
4.4
4.5
4.4
4.4
4.5
+0.0
+0.7%
Loan subsidy
5.6
4.1
5.8
2.8
5.2
5.2
5.2
-0.6
-10.3%
Loan authority
17.4
18.9
18.9
10.0
18.9
18.9
18.9
+0.0
+0.0%
Rural Econ. Dev.: Loan authority
33.1
33.1
33.1
85.0
33.1
48.0
33.1
+0.0
+0.0%
Rural coop. development grants
25.7
26.1
22.1
21.1
21.3
22.1
22.1
+0.0
+0.0%
Rural Microenterprise Inv.: Grants
—
—
—
2.0
—
—
—
+0.0
+0.0%
Rural Microenterprise: Loan subsidy
—
—
—
2.7
—
—
—
+0.0
+0.0%
Loan authority
—
—
—
23.4
—
—
—
+0.0
+0.0%
Rural Business Invest. Program: Grants
—
—
—
2.0
—
—
—
+0.0
+0.0%
Loan subsidy
—
—
—
4.0
—
—
—
+0.0
+0.0%
Loan authority
—
—
—
41.2
—
—
—
+0.0
+0.0%
Rural Energy for America: Grants
—
—
—
5.0
—
—
—
+0.0
+0.0%
Loan subsidy
3.1
3.5
1.4
5.0
0.8
0.5
0.5
-0.9
-63.0%
Loan authority
13.1
12.8
12.8
75.8
12.8
7.6
7.6
-5.2
-40.6%
Healthy Foods Healthy Neighborhoods Initiative
—
—
—
12.8
—
1.0
—
+0.0
+0.0%
Total, Rural Business-Coop. Service
118.3
134.6
107.7
143.2
91.5
95.9
94.9
-12.7
-11.8%
Less transfer salaries & exp.
-4.1
-4.4
-4.4
-4.5
-4.4
-4.4
-4.5
-0.0
+0.7%
Rural Development
FY2016
Change from FY2015 to
FY2016 Enacted
Rural Development Loan Fund Program
CRS-45
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
P.L. 113-6
post-sequ.a
P.L. 113-76
P.L. 113235
Admin.
Request
H. Cmte.
H.R. 3049
S. Cmte.
S. 1800
P.L. 114113
Rural Bus.-Coop. Service (programs)a
114.2
130.2
103.2
138.7
87.0
91.5
90.5
-12.8
-12.4%
Loan authority
953.7
1,022.8
984.5
993.6
984.5
994.2
979.3
-5.2
-0.5%
Total, Rural Business-Cooperative Service
118.3
134.6
107.7
143.2
91.5
95.9
94.9
-12.7
-11.8%
Less rescission of Cushion of Credit
-180.0
-172.0
-179.0
-154.0
-154.0
-182.0
-179.0
+0.0
+0.0%
Net, Rural Bus.-Coop. Svc. (cmte. rept.)
-61.7
-37.4
-71.3
-10.8
-62.5
-86.1
-84.1
-12.7
+17.9%
Loan subsidy and grants
484.5
462.4
464.9
483.3
473.9
496.7
522.4
+57.5
+12.4%
Direct loan authority
923.7
1,200.0
1,200.0
1,200.0
1,200.0
1,200.0
1,200.0
+0.0
+0.0%
P.L. 83-566 loans
40.0
40.0
—
—
—
—
—
+0.0
+0.0%
Guaranteed loan authority
56.6
50.0
50.0
—
50.0
50.0
50.0
+0.0
+0.0%
Admin. expenses (transfer)
33.5
34.5
34.5
34.9
34.2
34.5
34.7
+0.2
+0.7%
Telecommunication loan subsidy
—
—
—
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
+0.1
—
Telecommunication loan authority
690.0
690.0
690.0
690.0
690.0
690.0
690.0
+0.0
+0.0%
7,100.0
5,500.0
5,500.0
6,000.0
5,500.0
6,750.0
6,250.0
+750.0
+13.6%
Distance learning & telemedicine
23.1
24.3
22.0
25.0
20.0
22.0
22.0
+0.0
+0.0%
Broadband: Grants
9.6
10.4
10.4
20.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
+0.0
+0.0%
Broadband: Direct loan subsidy
3.7
4.5
4.5
9.7
5.3
4.5
4.5
+0.0
+0.0%
Direct loan authority
39.1
34.5
24.1
44.2
24.1
20.6
20.6
-3.5
-14.5%
Subtotal, Rural Utilities Service
554.3
536.0
536.2
573.3
544.0
568.2
594.0
+57.8
+10.8%
Rural Development
FY2016
Change from FY2015 to
FY2016 Enacted
Alternate total (including rescission)a
3. Rural Utilities Service
Rural Water & Waste Disposal Program
Rural Electric and Telecom. Loans
Electricity loan authority
Distance Learning, Telemed., Broadband
CRS-46
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
P.L. 113-6
post-sequ.a
P.L. 113-76
P.L. 113235
Admin.
Request
H. Cmte.
H.R. 3049
S. Cmte.
S. 1800
P.L. 114113
Less transfer salaries & exp.
-33.5
-34.5
-34.5
-34.9
-34.2
-34.5
-34.7
-0.2
+0.7%
Total, Rural Utilities Service
520.8
501.6
501.7
538.4
509.7
533.7
559.3
+57.6
+11.5%
8,849.4
7,514.5
7,464.1
7,934.2
7,464.1
8,710.6
8,210.6
+746.5
+10.0%
Rural Development
Loan authority
FY2016
Change from FY2015 to
FY2016 Enacted
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports for the referenced appropriations acts or bills. Amounts for FY2013 are
the post-sequestration level from the USDA FY2013 Operating Plan.
Notes: Loan authority is the amount of loans that can be made and is not added to budget authority in the totals.
a. Amounts for the Rural Business Cooperative Service in this report are before the rescission from the Cushion of Credit account. This allows the agency total to
remain positive. Appropriations Committee report tables show the rescission in the agency section, causing the agency total to be less than zero. This CRS report
includes the Cushion of Credit rescission in the General Provisions section with changes in mandatory spending, as it is scored by CBO (Table 15).
b. This program became self-funding after enactment of loan guarantee fees being charged to banks that are sufficient to cover the loan subsidy.
c. Includes Section 504 housing repair, Section 515 rental housing, Section 524 site loans, Section 518 multi-family housing guarantees, single and multi-family housing
credit sales, Section 523 self-help housing land development, and farm labor housing.
d. Section 502(c)(5)(D) eligible households, Section 515 new construction, and farm labor housing new construction.
CRS-47
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
Domestic Food Assistance95
Domestic food assistance represents over two-thirds of USDA’s budget. Funding is largely for
open-ended appropriated mandatory programs; that is, it varies with program participation and in
some cases inflation under the terms of the underlying authorization law. The largest mandatory
programs include the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly the Food
Stamps Program) and the child nutrition programs (including the National School Lunch Program
and School Breakfast Program).
The three largest discretionary budget items are the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for
Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP); and
federal nutrition program administration.96
The enacted FY2016 appropriation (P.L. 114-113) provides nearly $110 billion for domestic food
assistance (Table 12), approximately $394 million (or less than 1%) below FY2015. This
FY2016 total is approximately $300 million below that proposed in House- and Senate-reported
bills, due largely to the Administration’s updated estimates for the SNAP and WIC accounts.
The FY2016 law’s general provisions and explanatory statement language provide further
information for the domestic food assistance programs and in some cases instructions to USDA.
The explanatory statement indicates that House or Senate committee’s directives for an agency
report still hold, and that all other report language is considered evidence of committee intent,
unless otherwise changed by the explanatory statement.
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services
For the Under Secretary’s office, the FY2016 appropriation provides $811,000, a reduction of
$5,000 from FY2015.
The explanatory statement includes several directives for the Department.97 Citing two reports
from the OIG (one on SNAP’s quality control process, another on school meals error rate
measurement),98 it directs USDA to provide a report on how the Food and Nutrition Service
(FNS) will address these reports. The statement also directs FNS to inform the committees of
proposed policy actions before actions are implemented and, separately, expects “FNS to ensure
that all parties that enter into a contract fulfill all required obligations.”
95
This section was written by (name redact ed) (7
-...., [redacted]@crs.loc.gov ).
For background about the programs, see CRS Report R42353, Domestic Food Assistance: Summary of Programs.
97
In addition to the enacted appropriation and explanatory statement, the House and Senate separately noted or
required the following: (1) The House committee noted concerns with FNS’s research and evaluation agenda.
Particularly, the committee would like to see better coordination with USDA’s Research, Education, and Economics
(REE) mission area. The House-reported bill (§735) required the Secretary to submit to the appropriations committees
a FY2016 research and evaluation plan prepared in coordination with REE before using the bill’s funding to commence
any new research and evaluation projects. The Senate-reported bill did not include this research policy in its legislation
or its committee report. (2) The House report also “urged” FNS to recognize in publications and regulations “the
nutritional benefits provided by all forms of fruits, vegetables, and beans, whether canned, dried, fresh or frozen.”
98
See USDA Office of the Inspector General, FNS Quality Control Process for SNAP Error Rate, Report No. 276010002-41, September 2015, http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/27601-0002-41.pdf; USDA Office of the Inspector
General, FNS - National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs, April 2015, http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/
27601-0001-41.pdf.
96
Congressional Research Service
48
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations
SNAP and Other Programs Under the Food and Nutrition Act
Appropriations under the Food and Nutrition Act (formerly the Food Stamp Act) support (1)
SNAP (and related grants), (2) a Nutrition Assistance Block Grant for Puerto Rico and nutrition
assistance block grants to American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands (all in lieu of the SNAP), (3) the cost of food commodities as well as administrative and
distribution expenses under the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR), (4)
the cost of commodities for the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) (but not
administrative/distribution expenses, which are covered under the Commodity Assistance
Program budget account), and (5) Community Food Projects.
The enacted appropriation provides approximately $80.8 billion for programs under the Food and
Nutrition Act in FY2016. This is nearly $1 billion less than FY2015 (-1%) and approximately
$200 million less than House- and Senate-reported bills. These differences are due largely to the
Administration’s forecast of lower participation in the SNAP program and inflation-related
updates.99 The enacted appropriation provides $3 billion for the SNAP contingency reserve fund,
equal to past appropriations but less than the $5 billion requested by the Administration. The
explanatory statement notes that the appropriation provides, “a funding level for SNAP benefits
as reflected in OMB’s mid-session review of the budget.”100
The explanatory statement notes that the Nutrition Education and Program Information line item
of the SNAP account “does not provide funding for new or existing Centers of Excellence, which
have not been authorized by Congress.”101
The enacted SNAP appropriation continues to reflect the funding increases authorized by the
2014 farm bill, such as those for TEFAP commodities and Community Food Projects.102
Child Nutrition Programs103
Appropriations under the child nutrition account fund a number of programs and activities
authorized by the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition Act.
These include the National School Lunch Program, School Breakfast Program, Child and Adult
Care Food Program (CACFP), Summer Food Service Program, Special Milk Program, assistance
for child-nutrition-related state administrative expenses (SAE), procurement of commodities for
child nutrition programs (in addition to transfers from separate budget accounts within USDA),
state-federal reviews of the integrity of school meal operations (“Coordinated Reviews”), “Team
Nutrition” and food safety education initiatives to improve meal quality and safety in child
99
See also USDA-FNS Congressional Budget Justification, page “32-87,” at http://www.obpa.usda.gov/
32fns2016notes.pdf. As an appropriate
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.