# Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR44240 ## Record - **Collection:** Congressional research report - **Document type:** CRS Report - **Published:** February 23, 2016 - **Citation:** R44240 ## 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 mechanis [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR44240. Public record. Not legal advice.