Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2017 Appropriations
Congressional research reportJun 26, 2017
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2017
Appropriations
(name redacted)
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
June 26, 2017
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R44588
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2017 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). (For CFTC, the
Agriculture appropriations subcommittee has jurisdiction in the House but not in the Senate.)
Agriculture appropriations include both mandatory and discretionary spending. Discretionary
amounts, though, are the primary focus during the bill’s development, since mandatory amounts
are generally 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 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 paid by the Commodity Credit Corporation.
The FY2017 appropriation for Agriculture and Related Agencies was enacted on May 5, 2017, as
part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-31, Division A). The fiscal year started on
October 1, 2016, under continuing resolutions (CRs) that lasted for seven months. About a year
earlier, the House and the Senate Appropriations Committees reported their FY2017 Agriculture
appropriations bills (H.R. 5054, S. 2956) in April and May 2016.
The discretionary total of the enacted appropriation is $20.877 billion, which is $623 million less
than enacted in FY2016 (-2.9%). It achieves this primarily by increasing budgetary offsets over
the FY2016 level through greater rescissions of prior appropriations and greater scorekeeping
adjustments.
However, the budget authority for FY2017 provided to agencies in the major titles of the bill
actually increases by $462 million compared to FY2016. Increases primarily include $163 million
more for discretionary conservation programs than in FY2016, $119 million more for rural
development, $65 million more for discretionary domestic nutrition programs, $52 million more
for animal and plant health programs, $51 million more for agricultural research programs, $42
million more for the Food and Drug Administration, $29 million more for the Farm Service
Agency, $20 million more for USDA administrative facilities, and $17 million more for food
safety inspections. Reductions primarily come from a rescission of unused domestic nutrition
assistance funding ($850 million rescission), supplemental funding for international food aid
($116 million less than in FY2016), agricultural research facilities ($112 million less), greater use
of a disaster designation that does not count against budget caps ($76 million extra offset), and
disaster assistance ($38 million less).
The appropriation also carries mandatory spending that totaled about $132.5 billion. The overall
total of the FY2017 Agricultural appropriation therefore exceeded $153 billion.
In addition to setting budgetary amounts, the Agriculture appropriations bill is also a vehicle for
policy-related provisions that direct how the executive branch should carry out the appropriation.
Notable policy provisions in the FY2017 appropriation include provisions prohibiting inspection
of horse slaughter facilities, importing processed (cooked) poultry meat from China, rules about
inventory requirements for SNAP-authorized retailers, requirements for SNAP households to
report moves out of state, and waivers for schools to not meet whole grain and sodium
requirements.
Congressional Research Service
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2017 Appropriations
Contents
Scope of the Agriculture Appropriations Bill .................................................................................. 1
Action on FY2017 Appropriations .................................................................................................. 2
Administration’s Budget Request.............................................................................................. 4
FY2017 Budget Request ..................................................................................................... 4
FY2018 Budget Request ..................................................................................................... 5
House Action ............................................................................................................................. 5
Senate Action ............................................................................................................................ 6
Continuing Resolution .............................................................................................................. 6
Summary of FY2017 Appropriations Amounts ............................................................................... 6
Comparison of Amounts in the FY2017 Appropriation ............................................................ 8
Sequestration Continues on Mandatory Accounts..................................................................... 9
Continuing Resolutions ........................................................................................................... 15
First Continuing Resolution .............................................................................................. 15
Second Continuing Resolution ......................................................................................... 16
Policy Issues ............................................................................................................................ 17
Recent Trends in Agriculture Appropriations.......................................................................... 18
USDA Agencies and Programs ...................................................................................................... 20
Departmental Administration .................................................................................................. 20
Agricultural Research, Education, and Extension ................................................................... 23
Agricultural Research Service .......................................................................................... 23
National Institute of Food and Agriculture ....................................................................... 24
National Agricultural Statistics Service ............................................................................ 25
Economic Research Service .............................................................................................. 25
Marketing and Regulatory Programs ...................................................................................... 27
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service .................................................................... 27
Agricultural Marketing Service and “Section 32” ............................................................ 28
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration ............................................... 30
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) ............................................................................ 31
Farm Service Agency .............................................................................................................. 32
FSA Salaries and Expenses ............................................................................................... 32
FSA Farm Loan Programs ................................................................................................ 33
Commodity Credit Corporation .............................................................................................. 38
Crop Insurance ........................................................................................................................ 39
Disaster Assistance .................................................................................................................. 40
Conservation ........................................................................................................................... 41
Discretionary Conservation Programs .............................................................................. 41
Mandatory Conservation Programs .................................................................................. 42
Rural Development ................................................................................................................. 43
Rural Housing Service ...................................................................................................... 43
Rural Business-Cooperative Service................................................................................. 44
Rural Utilities Service ....................................................................................................... 45
Domestic Food Assistance ...................................................................................................... 51
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services .................... 51
SNAP and Other Programs under the Food and Nutrition Act ......................................... 51
Child Nutrition Programs .................................................................................................. 53
WIC Program .................................................................................................................... 54
Congressional Research Service
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2017 Appropriations
Commodity Assistance Program ....................................................................................... 55
Nutrition Programs Administration................................................................................... 55
Other Nutrition Funding Support ...................................................................................... 56
Agricultural Trade and Food Aid ............................................................................................ 60
Foreign Agricultural Service ............................................................................................. 60
Food for Peace Program.................................................................................................... 61
McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition .......................... 62
Local and Regional Procurement Projects ........................................................................ 62
Industrial Hemp: Appropriations Provisions ........................................................................... 63
Related Agencies ........................................................................................................................... 64
Food and Drug Administration................................................................................................ 64
FDA’s Medical Product Activities .................................................................................... 65
FDA’s Food Safety Activities............................................................................................ 69
Commodity Futures Trading Commission .............................................................................. 71
Farm Credit Administration .................................................................................................... 72
General Provisions, Scorekeeping Adjustments ............................................................................ 73
Changes in Mandatory Program Spending (CHIMPS) ........................................................... 74
Rescissions of Discretionary Accounts ................................................................................... 76
Other Appropriations (Including Emergency Disaster Programs) .......................................... 77
Other Scorekeeping Adjustments ............................................................................................ 78
Figures
Figure 1. Scope of Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations ............................................ 1
Figure 2. Timeline of Action on Agriculture Appropriations, FY1997-FY2017 ............................. 4
Figure 3. Discretionary Agriculture Appropriations, by Title, Since FY2007............................... 19
Figure 4. Inflation-Adjusted Discretionary Agriculture Appropriations Since FY2007 ............... 19
Figure A-1. Discretionary Agriculture Appropriations .................................................................. 80
Figure A-2. Total Agriculture Appropriations: Mandatory and Discretionary .............................. 81
Figure A-3. Total Agriculture Appropriations: Domestic Nutrition and Rest of Bill .................... 81
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 Since FY1997 ................................ 3
Table 2. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations by Title, FY2016-FY2017 .................. 7
Table 3. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations, by Agency, FY2014-FY2017 .......... 10
Table 4. USDA Departmental Administration Appropriations ...................................................... 21
Table 5. USDA Research, Extension, and Economics (REE) Appropriations .............................. 26
Table 6. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Appropriations ........................... 27
Congressional Research Service
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2017 Appropriations
Table 7. Farm Service Agency (FSA) Appropriations ................................................................... 35
Table 8. Farm Service Agency: Farm Loan Program .................................................................... 36
Table 9. Conservation Operations Funding ................................................................................... 41
Table 10. USDA Rural Development Appropriations ................................................................... 46
Table 11. Domestic Food Assistance Appropriations .................................................................... 57
Table 12. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Appropriations.................................................. 67
Table 13. Farm Credit Administration Limitation on Expenses .................................................... 72
Table 14. General Provisions and Scorekeeping Adjustments ...................................................... 73
Table 15. CHIMPS and Rescissions to Mandatory Spending Programs ....................................... 75
Table 16. Rescissions from (Prior-Year) Discretionary Budget Authority .................................... 76
Table 17. Other Appropriations in General Provisions.................................................................. 77
Table 18. Scorekeeping Adjustments............................................................................................. 79
Table A-1. Percentage Changes in Agriculture Appropriations ..................................................... 82
Table A-2. Trends in Nominal Agriculture Appropriations ........................................................... 83
Table A-3. Trends in Real Agriculture Appropriations .................................................................. 84
Table A-4. Trends in Agriculture Appropriations Measured Against Benchmarks ....................... 85
Table B-1. Sequestration from Accounts in the Agriculture Appropriation .................................. 86
Table B-2. Sequestration of Mandatory Accounts for Agencies in Agriculture
Appropriations, FY2013-2017 ................................................................................................... 87
Appendixes
Appendix A. Historical Trends ...................................................................................................... 80
Appendix B. Budget Sequestration ............................................................................................... 86
Contacts
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 90
Congressional Research Service
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2017 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; Department of Health and Human
Services).
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 is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Scope of Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations
(FY2017 budget authority in billions of dollars)
Source: CRS. Does not show some agencies under $0.5 billion or reductions that offset appropriations.
Notes: SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; CCC = Commodity Credit Corporation; FCIC =
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation; Section 32 = Funds for Strengthening Markets, Income and Supply; WIC =
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children; CSFP = Commodity Supplemental
Food Program; FDA = Food and Drug Administration; FSA = Farm Service Agency; RMA = Risk Management
Agency; FSIS = Food Safety and Inspection Service; APHIS = Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
Congressional Research Service
1
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2017 Appropriations
The federal budget process treats discretionary and mandatory spending differently.1
Discretionary spending is controlled by annual appropriations acts and receives
most of the attention during the appropriations process. The annual budget
resolution2 process sets spending limits for discretionary appropriations. Agency
operations (salaries and expenses) and many grant programs are discretionary.
Mandatory spending3—though carried in the appropriation and usually
advanced unchanged—is controlled by budget rules (e.g., PAYGO) during the
authorization process.4 Spending for so-called entitlement programs is set in laws
such as the farm bill5 and child nutrition reauthorizations.6
In FY2017, discretionary appropriations are 14% ($20.9 billion) in the Agriculture appropriations
act (P.L. 115-31). Mandatory spending carried in the bill comprised $133 billion, about 86% of
the $153 billion total.
Within the discretionary total, the largest discretionary spending items are for the Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); rural development;
agricultural research; 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). SNAP is referred to as an “appropriated entitlement” and
requires an annual appropriation.7 The nutrition program amounts are based on projected
spending needs. In contrast, the CCC operates on a line of credit. The annual appropriation
provides funding to reimburse the Treasury for using the line of credit.
Action on FY2017 Appropriations8
The FY2017 appropriation for Agriculture and Related Agencies was enacted on May 5, 2017, as
part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-31, Division A). The fiscal year started on
October 1, 2016, under continuing resolutions (CRs) that lasted for seven months.
In regular action, the House and the Senate Appropriations Committees reported their FY2017
Agriculture appropriations bills (H.R. 5054, S. 2956) in April and May 2016, with some of the
earliest subcommittee action in two decades (Table 1, Figure 2). No further action on the
individual bills occurred until they were incorporated into the omnibus appropriation.9
1
See CRS Report R44582, Overview of Funding Mechanisms in the Federal Budget Process, and Selected Examples.
See CRS Report R42388, The Congressional Appropriations Process: An Introduction.
3
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.
4
See CRS Report 98-560, Baselines and Scorekeeping in the Federal Budget Process.
5
See CRS Report R42484, Budget Issues That Shaped the 2014 Farm Bill.
6
See CRS Report R44373, Tracking the Next Child Nutrition Reauthorization: An Overview.
7
See CRS Report RS20129, Entitlements and Appropriated Entitlements in the Federal Budget Process.
8
A shorter version is CRS Report R44441, FY2017 Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations: In Brief.
9
See CRS Report RL32473, Omnibus Appropriations Acts: Overview of Recent Practices.
2
Congressional Research Service
2
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2017 Appropriations
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 since the FY2012 bill, when it was the vehicle for a three-bill “minibus” measure.
Committee action for FY2017 was somewhat earlier than in recent years.
Table 1. Congressional Action on Agriculture Appropriations Since FY1997
House Action
Senate Action
Final Appropriation
Fiscal
Year
Subcmte.
Cmte.
Floor
Subcmte.
Cmte.
Floor
Public Law
CRS
Report
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
7/18/2001
10/25/2001
11/28/2001
E
P.L. 107-76
RL31001
Enacteda
2002
6/6/2001
6/27/2001
7/11/2001
Polled outb
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 outb
7/17/2008
—
3/11/2009
O
P.L. 111-8
R40000
7/9/2009
Polled outb
7/7/2009
8/4/2009
10/21/2009
E
P.L. 111-80
R40721
—
Polled outb
7/15/2010
—
4/15/2011
Y
P.L. 112-10
R41475
6/16/2011
Polled outb
9/7/2011
11/1/2011
11/18/2011
O
P.L. 112-55
R41964
4/26/2012
—
3/26/2013
O
P.L. 113-6
R43110
2010
2011
2012
6/11/2009
6/30/2010
5/24/2011
6/18/2009
—
5/31/2011
2013
6/6/2012
6/19/2012
—
Polled outb
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
7/8/2015
—
7/14/2015
7/16/2015
—
12/18/2015
O
P.L. 114-113
R44240
2017
4/13/2016
Draftc
Voice vote
4/19/2016
H.R. 5054
H.Rept.
114-531
Voice vote
—
5/17/2016
Voice vote
5/19/2016
S. 2956
S.Rept.
114-259
30-0
—
5/5/2017
Votes:
H: 309-118
S: 79-18
O
P.L. 115-31
R44441
Explanatory R44588
Statement:
Congressional
Record, May 3,
2017, Part II,
H3328-H3364
Source: CRS.
a. E = Enacted as standalone appropriation (seven times over 21 years); O = Omnibus appropriation (12
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. The House Agriculture appropriations subcommittee draft is available at http://appropriations.house.gov/
uploadedfiles/bills-114hr-sc-ap-fy2017-agriculture-subcommitteedraft.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
3
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2017 Appropriations
Figure 2. Timeline of Action on Agriculture Appropriations, FY1997-FY2017
Source: CRS.
Administration’s Budget Request
FY2017 Budget Request
The Obama Administration released its FY2017 budget request on February 9, 2016.10 At the
same time, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) released its 116-page budget summary11
and multi-volume budget explanatory notes12 with more programmatic details. The FDA also
released a detailed budget justification,13 as did the CFTC.14 From these documents, the
congressional appropriations committees evaluated the request, began considering their bills in
the spring of 2016, and decided how much of the request would be followed.
10
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), FY2017 Budget of the U.S. Government, Appendix, http://www.
whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Appendix.
11
USDA, FY2017 USDA Budget Summary, http://www.obpa.usda.gov/budsum/fy17budsum.pdf.
12
USDA, 2017 Congressional Justification, http://www.obpa.usda.gov/fy17explan_notes.html.
13
FDA, FY2017 FDA Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/
ReportsManualsForms/Reports/BudgetReports.
14
CFTC, FY2017 CFTC President’s Budget, http://www.cftc.gov/reports/presbudget/2017/index.htm.
Congressional Research Service
4
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2017 Appropriations
FY2018 Budget Request
Before the FY2017 appropriation was finalized, the Trump Administration released an outline of
its FY2018 budget request on March 16, 2017.15 The blueprint for FY2018 did not have the detail
of a regular budget request and primarily conveyed information at the Cabinet level. Nonetheless
it proposed a 21% reduction for USDA, including eliminating funding for some programs.16
The FY2017 explanatory statement addressed the direction indicated in the FY2018 request by
reminding the Administration of Congress’s role in determining future appropriations:
USDA and FDA should be mindful of Congressional authority to determine and set final
funding levels for fiscal year 2018. Therefore, the agencies should not presuppose
program funding outcomes and prematurely initiate action to redirect staffing prior to
knowing final outcomes on fiscal year 2018 program funding. 17
House Action
The Agriculture Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee held several hearings on
FY2017 appropriations with various USDA agencies, FDA, and CFTC during the spring of 2016.
The House Budget Committee developed a FY2017 budget (H.Con.Res. 125) that would have
provided less overall discretionary spending than allowed for FY2017 by the Bipartisan Budget
Act of 2015 (P.L. 114-74), but the chamber did not adopt that new budget. In the absence of a
new budget or affirmation of the limit in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, the House
Appropriations committee incrementally made “302(b)” allocations18 to the subcommittees to
facilitate markups.19
For Agriculture appropriations, the House Agriculture appropriations subcommittee approved a
draft bill on April 13, 2016, by voice vote, the earliest action on agriculture appropriations in two
decades.20 The full House Appropriations Committee reported the bill on April 19, 2016, by voice
vote (H.R. 5054, H.Rept. 114-531). It adopted several amendments21 by recorded votes.22 The bill
was not considered on the floor, but parts of it were incorporated into the omnibus appropriation.
15
The White House, America First: A Budget Blueprint to Make America Great Again, March 16, 2017.
See CRS Insight IN10675, The President’s FY2018 Budget Outline for the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
17
Congressional Record, May 3, 2017, p. H3328.
18
Budget enforcement for appropriations has both statutory and procedural elements. The statutory elements impose
limits on discretionary spending FY2012-FY2021, and enforcement occurs primarily through sequestration. The
procedural elements are normally associated with the budget resolution, and enforcement occurs through points of
order. The Appropriations Committee in each chamber, as well as each of their subcommittees, receives procedural
limits on the total amount of budget authority (referred to as 302(a) and 302(b) allocations, respectively). See CRS
Report R42388, The Congressional Appropriations Process: An Introduction; and CRS Report R42972, Sequestration
as a Budget Enforcement Process: Frequently Asked Questions.
19
For example, for the limit for Agriculture appropriations, see House Appropriations Committee, “Revised Interim
Suballocation of Budget Allocations for FY2017,” http://appropriations.house.gov/UploadedFiles/
05.17.16_Revised_Suballocation_of_Budget_Allocations_for_FY_2017.pdf.
20
House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, Draft FY2017 Bill, http://appropriations.house.gov/uploadedfiles/
bills-114hr-sc-ap-fy2017-agriculture-subcommitteedraft.pdf.
21
House Appropriations Committee, FY2017 Agriculture Bill—Adopted Amendments, http://appropriations.house.gov/
UploadedFiles/HMTG-114-AP00-20160419-SD004.pdf.
22
House Appropriations Committee, FY2017 Agriculture Bill—Roll Call Votes, at http://appropriations.house.gov/
UploadedFiles/04.19.16_-_Agriculture_-_Full_Committee_Roll_Call_Votes.pdf.
16
Congressional Research Service
5
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2017 Appropriations
Senate Action
The Agriculture Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee held hearings on the
FY2017 appropriations request with various USDA agencies and FDA during the spring of 2016.
The Senate Budget Committee did not develop a new budget for FY2017 and chose to follow the
limit for FY2017 that was set in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (P.L. 114-74). The Senate
Appropriations Committee divided the total discretionary amount for FY2017 into 302(b)
subcommittee allocations on April 18, 2016 (S.Rept. 114-238).
For Agriculture appropriations, the Senate Agriculture appropriations subcommittee approved a
draft bill on May 17, 2016, by voice vote. The full committee reported it on May 19, 2016, by a
vote of 30-0 (S. 2956, S.Rept. 114-259). It adopted a manager’s package and several
amendments.23 The bill was not considered on the floor, but parts of it were incorporated into the
omnibus appropriation.
Continuing Resolution
In the absence of an FY2017 appropriation, the fiscal year started on October 1, 2016, under a CR
that lasted until December 9, 2016 (P.L. 114-223, Division C). A second CR lasts until April 28,
2017 (P.L. 114-254, Division A). A third CR extended until May 5 (P.L. 115-30). The CRs
continued FY2016 funding with a few exceptions explained below.
Summary of FY2017 Appropriations Amounts
The $20.877 billion discretionary total enacted in the FY2017 Agriculture appropriation is
officially $623 million smaller than the FY2016 discretionary appropriation (in terms of the
amount that counts against the budget limit, the “302(b)” subcommittee allocation; see Table 2).
It achieves this primarily by increasing budgetary offsets over the FY2016 level through greater
rescissions of prior appropriations and greater scorekeeping adjustments primarily from “negative
subsidies” from loan programs that charge fees. Consequently, the budget authority provided to
agencies in the major titles of the bill actually increases by $462 million (the top of the shaded
bars in Figure 3).
Mandatory spending carried in the bill—mostly determined in separate authorizing laws—
increases $13.5 billion over FY2016. All of this increase is in farm programs, including a $14.4
billion increase in the reimbursement to the Commodity Credit Corporation for higher than
expected payments for farm commodity revenue support programs (Table 3). This increase is
automatic based on farm bill formulas and does not affect discretionary spending limits.
Table 2 compares House- and Senate-proposed amounts to other years by title.
Figure 3 illustrates changes in discretionary spending by title over 10 years.
Table 3 compares amounts at the agency level, the basis for the rest of the report.
Appendix A offers a 20-year historical perspective on trends from FY1996 to
FY2016.
23
Senate Appropriations Committee, Markup of the FY2017 Agriculture Appropriations Bill, http://www.appro
priations.senate.gov/hearings/markup-of-the-fy17-agriculture-appropriations-bill-and-the-fy17-legislative-branchappropriations-bill.
Congressional Research Service
6
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2017 Appropriations
Table 2. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations by Title, FY2016-FY2017
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2016
FY2017
P.L. 114113
Admin.
Request
H. Cmte.
H.R. 5054
S. Cmte.
S. 2956
P.L. 11531
7,020.3
7,091.1
7,015.7
7,069.7
7,107.7
+87.4
+1.2%
Mandatory (M)a
16,032.6
23,638.4
23,638.4
23,648.4
31,280.2
+15,247.6
+95.1%
Subtotal
23,052.9
30,729.5
30,654.1
30,718.2
38,387.9
+15,335.0
+66.5%
863.8
861.3
868.2
1,015.4
1,027.4
+163.6
+18.9%
III. Rural Development
2,950.0
3,015.9
3,036.4
3,001.7
3,069.2
+119.2
+4.0%
IV. Domestic Food Programs: Discretionary
6,838.9
6,932.4
6,880.5
6,890.3
6,884.7
+45.8
+0.7%
Mandatory (M)
102,958.1
104,830.9
102,803.0
102,830.9
101,226.7
-1,731.5
-1.7%
Subtotal
109,797.0
111,763.3
109,683.4
109,721.1
108,111.3
-1,685.6
-1.5%
V. Foreign Assistance
1,868.5b
1,752.3
1,870.9
2,006.9
1,872.9b
+4.4
+0.2%
VI. Food and Drug Administration
2,729.6
2,742.7
2,765.6
2,771.8
2,771.2
+41.6
+1.5%
250.0
330.0
250.0
[250.0]c
[250.0]
+0.0
+0.0
VII. General Provisions: CHIMPSd and
rescissions
-865.0
-645.7
-914.7
-998.2
-1,597.0
-732.0
+84.6%
Disaster/emergency programs
273.0
0.0
5.0
0.0
234.8e
-38.2
-14.0%
Other appropriations
283.1b
0.0
45.5
16.6
237.4b
-45.7
-16.1%
Scorekeeping adjustmentsf
-332.0
-524.0
-524.0
-524.0
-525.0
-193.0
+58.1%
Subtract disaster declaration in this bill
-130.0
—
—
—
-206.1e
-76.1
+58.6%
Discretionary: Senate basis w/o CFTC
[21,500.0]
21,225.9
[21,049.0]
21,250.0
20,877.0
-623.0
-2.9%
Discretionary: House basis w/ CFTC
21,750.0
21,555.9
21,299.0
[21,500.0]
[21,127.0]
-623.0
-2.9%
Mandatory (M)
118,990.7
128,469.3
126,441.4
126,479.3
132,506.9
+13,516.2
+11.4%
Total: Senate basis w/o CFTC
140,490.7
149,695.3
147,490.4
147,729.3
153,383.9
+12,893.2
+9.2%
Title of Agriculture Appropriations Act
I. Agricultural Programs: Discretionary
II. Conservation Programs
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Change: FY2016 to
FY2017 Enacted
Totals
Source: CRS, using appropriations text and reports, and Congressional Budget Office (CBO) tables.
Notes: Amounts are nominal budget authority in millions of dollars. Discretionary authority unless labeled
otherwise. Bracketed amounts are not in the official totals due to differing House-Senate jurisdiction for CFTC.
a. Includes some mandatory funding from other titles, particularly mandatory conservation programs.
b. In addition to the regular appropriations for Food for Peace Title II grants in Title V ($1.466 billion), extra
appropriations were made under General Provisions in FY2016 ($250 million) and FY2017 ($134 million).
The effective total for Food for Peace Title II grants is $1.716 billion in FY2016 and $1.600 billion in FY2017.
c. See the Senate-reported Financial Services appropriation, S. 3067.
d. Changes in Mandatory Program Spending (CHIMPS) are reductions made to mandatory programs.
e. Includes $206 million appropriated for the Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) and Emergency
Watershed Program (EWP) in the second CR (P.L. 114-254, Section 185) that were offset as emergency
spending. Another $29 million for ECP was included in the final appropriation (Section 753).
f.
“Scorekeeping adjustments” are not necessarily appropriated items and may not always be shown 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.
Congressional Research Service
7
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2017 Appropriations
Key Budget Terms
Budget authority is the main purpose of an appropriations act or a law authorizing mandatory spending. It provides
the legal basis to obligate funds. It expires at the end of the period and is usually available for one year unless specified
otherwise (e.g., two years, or indefinite). 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 are delivered, or
construction is 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 in the FY2017 Appropriation
The budget authority provided to agencies in the major titles of the bill increases by $462 million
(the top of the shaded bars in Figure 3), even though the official total decreases by $623 million
compared with the FY2016 discretionary appropriation. This is achieved primarily by increasing
budgetary offsets through greater rescissions and greater scorekeeping adjustments.
Discretionary budget changes that are over $10 million within agencies include the following,
relative to FY2016 (Table 3):
Conservation programs. +$163 million, mostly for $150 million of watershed
and flood prevention programs that have not been funded since FY2010.
Rural development. +$119 million, mostly for rural water and wastewater
programs (+$49 million), rural broadband (+$24 million), and rural housing
rental assistance (+$15 million).
Food and Nutrition Service. +$65 million, mostly for commodity assistance
(+$19 million) and nutrition programs administration (+$20 million) in the
regular nutrition title and a $19 million supplemental in the general provisions for
commodity assistance. Offset by an $850 million rescission in WIC because of
lower prior-year participation than expected.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. +$52 million, primarily for
increases in emergency preparedness.
Food and Drug Administration. +$42 million, including $36 million more for
food safety activities.
Farm Service Agency. +$29 million, including $23 million more to support a
25% increase in farm loan program authority.
USDA administration. +$20 million to modernize headquarters facilities.
Food Safety Inspection Service. +$17 million for inspection improvements.
Food for Peace grants. -$116 million from less supplemental funding ($134
million) to augment constant base funding of $1.466 billion.
Congressional Research Service
8
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2017 Appropriations
Disaster assistance. -$114 million, comprised from $38 million less
appropriated for programs than in FY2016 ($206 million in the second CR plus
$28 million in the omnibus appropriation) and $76 million more in disaster
designation offsets that do not count against budget caps.
Agricultural research agencies. -$46 million, comprised primarily of $25
million more for Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) grants, and
$26 million more for Agricultural Research Service (ARS) operations, offset by
$112 million less for ARS buildings and facilities.
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 and is triggered when spending would
exceed statutory budget goals. Sequestration is authorized in the Budget Control Act of 2011
(BCA; P.L. 112-25) for discretionary spending through FY2021 and for mandatory spending
through FY2025.24
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 that arose from the BCA.
Thus, sequestration on non-exempt mandatory accounts continues in FY2017. 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
9
Table 3. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations, by Agency, FY2014-FY2017
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
P.L. 11376
P.L. 113235
P.L. 114113
Admin.
Request
H. Cmte.
H.R. 5054
S. Cmte.
S. 2956
P.L. 11531
526.1
364.5
373.2
448.7
392.4
403.5
403.9
+30.8
+8.2%
Agricultural Research Service
1,122.5
1,177.6
1,355.9
1,255.8
1,251.4
1,242.2
1,269.8
-86.1
-6.3%
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
1,277.1
1,289.5
1,326.5
1,374.0
1,341.2
1,363.7
1,362.9
+36.4
+2.7%
National Agricultural Statistics Service
161.2
172.4
168.4
176.6
168.4
169.6
171.2
+2.8
+1.7%
Economic Research Service
78.1
85.4
85.4
91.3
86.0
86.8
86.8
+1.4
+1.6%
Under Secretary, Research, Education, Econ.
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
+0.0
+0.0%
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
824.9
874.5
897.6
904.4
934.0
942.5
949.4
+51.8
+5.8%
Agricultural Marketing Service
81.3
82.4
82.5
83.2
83.5
84.2
86.2
+3.7
+4.5%
1,107.0
1,284.0
1,303.0
1,322.0
1,322.0
1,322.0
1,322.0
+19.0
+1.5%
Grain Inspection, Packers, Stockyards Admin.
40.3
43.0
43.1
43.5
43.1
43.5
43.5
+0.4
+1.0%
Under Secretary, Marketing and Regulatory
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
+0.0
+0.9%
1,010.7
1,016.5
1,014.9
1,030.4
1,030.4
1,033.8
1,032.1
+17.2
+1.7%
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
+0.0
+0.4%
Agency or Major Program
FY2017
Change: FY2016 to
FY2017 Enacted
Title I. Agricultural Programs
Departmental Administration
Research, Education and Economics
Marketing and Regulatory Programs
Section 32 (M)
Food Safety
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Under Secretary, Food Safety
Farm and Commodity Programs
Farm Service Agencya
1,592.2
1,603.3
1,595.1
1,613.6
1,607.5
1,621.2
1,624.0
+29.0
+1.8%
FSA Farm Loans: Loan Authorityb
5,527.3
6,402.1
6,402.1
6,655.1
6,667.1
6,655.1
8,002.6
+1,600.5
+25.0%
Risk Management Agency Salaries and Exp.
71.5
74.8
74.8
66.6
74.8
75.8
74.8
+0.0
+0.0%
CRS-10
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
P.L. 11376
P.L. 113235
P.L. 114113
Admin.
Request
H. Cmte.
H.R. 5054
S. Cmte.
S. 2956
P.L. 11531
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (M)
9,502.9
8,930.5
7,858.0
8,839.1
8,839.1
8,849.1
8,667.0
+809.0
+10.3%
Commodity Credit Corporation (M)
12,538.9
13,444.7
6,871.1
13,476.9
13,476.9
13,476.9
21,290.7
+14,419.6
+209.9%
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
+0.0
+0.3%
Subtotal: Discretionary
6,789.0
6,786.9
7,020.3
7,091.1
7,015.7
7,069.7
7,107.7
+87.4
+1.2%
Mandatory (M)
23,149.1
23,659.7
16,032.6
23,638.4
23,638.4
23,648.4
31,280.2
+15,247.6
+95.1%
Subtotal
29,938.1
30,446.6
23,052.9
30,729.5
30,654.1
30,718.2
38,387.9
+15,335.0
+66.5%
812.9
846.4
850.9
860.4
855.3
864.5
864.5
+13.6
+1.6%
Watershed and Flood Prevention
—
—
—
—
—
150.0
150.0
+150.0
—
Watershed Rehabilitation Program
12.0
12.0
12.0
—
12.0
—
12.0
+0.0
+0.0%
Under Secretary, Natural Resources
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
+0.0
+0.3%
825.8
859.3
863.8
861.3
868.2
1,015.4
1,027.4
+163.6
+18.9%
657.4
678.2
682.9
698.5
672.8
683.3
675.8
-7.0
-1.0%
1,279.6
1,298.4
1,616.4
1,616.9
1,653.5
1,639.4
1,654.9
+38.4
+2.4%
27,408.1
27,421.5
27,496.8
27,433.2
27,653.4
27,596.4
28,083.4
+586.6
+2.1%
130.2
103.2
90.5
149.5
110.4
92.0
97.7
+7.2
+8.0%
1,022.8
984.5
979.3
1,116.0
998.7
979.3
988.4
+9.1
+0.9%
501.6
501.7
559.3
550.1
598.8
586.0
639.9
+80.5
+14.4%
7,514.5
7,464.1
8,210.6
7,993.8
8,210.0
8,217.0
8,217.0
+6.5
+0.1%
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
+0.0
+0.3%
2,569.7
2,582.4
2,950.0
3,015.9
3,036.4
3,001.7
3,069.2
+119.2
+4.0%
35,945.4
35,870.1
36,686.7
36,543.0
36,862.1
36,792.7
37,288.9
+602.2
+1.6%
Agency or Major Program
Under Secretary, Farm and Foreign Agr.
FY2017
Change: FY2016 to
FY2017 Enacted
Title II. Conservation Programs
Conservation Operations
Subtotal
Title III. Rural Development
Salaries and Expenses (including transfers)c
Rural Housing Service
RHS Loan Authorityb
Rural Business-Cooperative Serviced
RBCS Loan Authorityb
Rural Utilities Service
RUS Loan Authorityb
Under Secretary, Rural Development
Subtotal, Discretionary
Subtotal, RD Loan Authorityb
CRS-11
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
P.L. 11376
P.L. 113235
P.L. 114113
Admin.
Request
H. Cmte.
H.R. 5054
S. Cmte.
S. 2956
P.L. 11531
Child Nutrition Programs (M)
19,288.0
21,300.2
22,149.7
23,230.7
23,175.7
23,201.7
22,794.0
+644.2
+2.9%
WIC Program
6,715.8
6,623.0
6,350.0
6,350.0
6,350.0
6,350.0
6,350.0
+0.0
+0.0%
SNAP, Food and Nutrition Act Programs (M)
82,169.9
81,837.6
80,849.4
81,689.2
79,673.3
79,682.2
78,480.7
-2,368.7
-2.9%
Commodity Assistance Programs
269.7
278.5
296.2
313.1
315.1
313.1
315.1
+18.9
+6.4%
Nutrition Programs Administration
141.3
150.8
150.8
179.4
168.5
173.3
170.7
+19.9
+13.2%
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
+0.0
+0.4%
7,152.7
7,094.1
6,838.9
6,932.4
6,880.5
6,890.3
6,884.7
+45.8
+0.7%
Mandatory (M)
101,432.9
103,096.7
102,958.1
104,830.9
102,803.0
102,830.9
101,226.7
-1,731.5
-1.7%
Subtotal
108,585.6
110,190.9
109,797.0
111,763.3
109,683.4
109,721.1
108,111.3
-1,685.6
-1.5%
177.9
181.4
191.6
196.6
194.6
196.6
196.6
+5.0
+2.6%
1,468.7
1,468.5
1,468.5e
1,350.1
1,466.1
1,600.1
1,466.1e
-2.4
-0.2%
Local and regional food procurement
—
—
—
15.0
—
—
—
—
—
McGovern-Dole Food for Education
185.1
191.6
201.6
182.0
201.6
201.6
201.6
+0.0
+0.0%
6.7
6.7
6.7
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
+1.8
+26.5%
1,838.5
1,848.3
1,868.5e
1,752.3
1,870.9
2,006.9
1,872.9
+4.4
+0.2%
2,560.7
2,597.3
2,729.6
2,742.7
2,765.6
2,771.8
2,771.2
+41.6
+1.5%
215.0
[250.0]
250.0
330.0
250.0
[250.0]f
[250.0]
+0.0%
+0.0%
2,775.7
2,597.3
2,979.6
3,072.7
3,015.6
[3,021.8]
[3,021.2]
+41.6
+1.4%
Agency or Major Program
FY2017
Change: FY2016 to
FY2017 Enacted
Title IV. Domestic Food Programs
Under Sec., Food, Nutrition and Consumer
Subtotal
Discretionary
Title V. Foreign Assistance
Foreign Agricultural Service
Food for Peace Title II, and admin. expenses
CCC Export Loan Salaries
Subtotal
Title VI. Related Agencies
Food and Drug Administration
Commodity Futures Trading Commissionf
Subtotal
CRS-12
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
P.L. 11376
P.L. 113235
P.L. 114113
Admin.
Request
H. Cmte.
H.R. 5054
S. Cmte.
S. 2956
P.L. 11531
a. Environmental Quality Incentives Program
-272.0
-136.0
-209.0
—
-209.0
-189.0
-179.0
+30.0
-14.4%
b. Watershed Rehabilitation Program
-153.0
-69.0
-68.0
-54.0
-54.0
-63.0
-54.0
+14.0
-20.6%
c. Conservation Stewardship Program
—
-7.0
—
—
-5.0
—
—
+0.0
+0.0%
d. Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program
-119.0
-122.0
-125.0
-125.0
-125.0
-125.0
-125.0
+0.0
+0.0%
e. Biorefinery Assistance Program
-40.7
-16.0
-19.0
—
-30.0
—
-20.0
-1.0
+5.3%
f. Biomass Crop Assistance Program
—
-2.0
-20.0
—
-20.0
-20.0
-20.0
+0.0
+0.0%
g. The Emergency Food Assistance Program
—
—
—
—
+19.0
—
+19.0
+19.0
—
h. Cushion of Credit (Rural Development)
-172.0
-179.0
-179.0
-151.5
-151.5
-165.0
-132.0
+47.0
-26.3%
i. Section 32
-189.0
-121.0
-216.0
-311.0
-231.0
-237.0
-231.0
-15.0
+6.9%
-8.0
-133.0
+5.0
+0.0
-4.0
+5.0
-1.0
-6.0
-120.0%
Subtotal, CHIMPS
-953.7
-785.0
-831.0
-641.5
-810.5
-794.0
-743.0
+88.0
-10.6%
Rescissions (discretionary)
-33.3
-17.0
-34.0
-4.2
-104.2
-204.2
-854.0
-820.0
—
—
116.0
273.0
—
5.0
—
234.8h
-38.2
-14.0%
—
45.5
16.6
237.4e
-45.7
-16.1%
Agency or Major Program
FY2017
Change: FY2016 to
FY2017 Enacted
Title VII. General Provisions
Reductions in Mandatory Programsg
j. Other CHIMPS and rescissions
Other appropriations
a. Disaster/emergency programs
b. Other appropriations
106.6
6.6
283.1e
Subtotal, Other appropriations
106.6
122.6
556.1
—
50.5
16.6
472.2
-83.9
-15.1%
-880.4
-679.4
-308.9
-645.7
-864.2
-981.6
-1,124.8
-815.9
—
—
-116.0
-130.0
—
—
—
-206.1h
-76.1
+58.6%
Other scorekeeping adjustments
-191.0
-398.0
-332.0
-524.0
-524.0
-524.0
-525.0
-193.0
+58.1%
Subtotal, Scorekeeping adjustments
-191.0
-514.0
-462.0
-524.0
-524.0
-524.0
-731.1
-269.1
+58.3%
Total, General Provisions
Scorekeeping Adjustmentsi
Disaster declaration in this bill
CRS-13
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
P.L. 11376
P.L. 113235
P.L. 114113
Admin.
Request
H. Cmte.
H.R. 5054
S. Cmte.
S. 2956
P.L. 11531
Discretionary: Senate basis w/o CFTC
[20,665.0]
20,575.0
[21,500.0]
21,225.9
[21,049.0]
21,250.0
20,877.0
-623.0
-2.9%
Discretionary: House basis w/ CFTC
20,880.0
[20,825.0]
21,750.0
21,555.9
21,299.0
[21,500.0]f
[21,127.0]
-623.0
-2.9%
Mandatory (M)
124,582.0
126,756.5
118,990.7
128,469.3
126,441.4
126,479.3
132,506.9
+13,516.2
+11.4%
Total: Senate basis w/o CFTC
145,247.0
147,331.5
140,490.7
149,695.3
147,490.4
147,729.3
153,383.9
+12,893.2
+9.2%
Agency or Major Program
FY2017
Change: FY2016 to
FY2017 Enacted
Totals
Source: CRS, using referenced appropriations text and 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; (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. 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.
b. 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.
c. 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.
d. Amounts for the Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBCS) are before the rescission in 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.
e. In addition to the regular appropriations for Food for Peace Title II grants in Title V ($1.466 billion), extra appropriations were made under General Provisions in
FY2016 ($250 million) and FY2017 ($134 million). The effective total for Food for Peace Title II grants is $1.716 billion in FY2016 and $1.600 billion in FY2017.
f.
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. For the FY2017 Senate amount,
see the Senate-reported Financial Services appropriation, S. 3067.
g. Includes reductions (limitations and rescissions) to mandatory programs that may also be known as CHIMPS.
h. Includes $206 million appropriated for the Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) and Emergency Watershed Program (EWP) in the second continuing resolution
(P.L. 114-254, Section 185) that were offset as emergency spending. Another $29 million for ECP was included in the final appropriation (Section 753).
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-14
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2017 Appropriations
Continuing Resolutions
In the absence of an FY2017 appropriation before the beginning of the fiscal year on October 1,
2016, Congress passed three CRs that lasted for seven months of the fiscal year. In general, a CR
continues the funding rate and other provisions of the previous year’s appropriation. However, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) prorates funding to the agencies on an annualized
basis for the duration of the CR through a process known as apportionment.25 CRs may also
provide a different amount through anomalies or make specific administrative changes.
First Continuing Resolution
The first continuing resolution for FY2017 (Division C of P.L. 114-223) lasted until December 9,
2016.26 It continued FY2016 funding levels and provisions with the following exceptions:
Not continuing FY2016 supplemental funding for land rehabilitation programs
(Section 101(a)(1)).27
A 0.496% across-the-board reduction (Section 101(b)).
Sufficient funding to maintain mandatory program levels, including for nutrition
programs (Section 111).
Four other anomalies affected the agriculture portion individually:
An increase of about $14 million for the Commodity Supplemental Food
Program, a domestic food assistance program that predominantly serves the lowincome elderly. Rather than the $222 million FY2016 funding level, the CR
provides about $236 million. This anomaly is typically included to maintain
current caseload and participation with increased food costs (Section 117).
An earlier than normal transfer to the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). The
CR allows CCC to receive its estimated $13 billion appropriation about a month
earlier than usual to avoid running out of money. Most farm bill payments to
farmers were due in October; without the anomaly, CCC may have exhausted its
$30 billion credit line at the Treasury (Section 118).
A higher than normal rate of apportionment for the Rural Housing Rental
Assistance Program. About 40% of rental assistance contract renewal costs occur
in the first few months of the fiscal year, requiring a higher rate of spending in
the first quarter (Section 119).
An extension of theFDA’s Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Voucher
Program. After the CR was enacted, the Advancing Hope Act (P.L. 114-229)
further extended the program until December 31, 2016, and made other changes
to the voucher program (Section 120).
25
For example, if a CR lasts for three months, OMB may apportion 3/12 of the previous fiscal year amount during the
CR. Specifically, for the first CR, see OMB Bulletin 16-01, “Apportionment of the Continuing Resolution(s) for Fiscal
Year 2017,” September 29, 2016, https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/bulletins/2016/16-01.pdf.
26
See CRS Report R44653, Overview of Continuing Appropriations for FY2017 (H.R. 5325).
27
Section 728 of the FY2016 Agriculture appropriation (P.L. 114-113, Division A).
Congressional Research Service
15
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2017 Appropriations
Second Continuing Resolution
In the absence of completing the FY2017 appropriation after the 2016 elections, a second CR was
enacted that lasted until April 28, 2017 (P.L. 114-254, Division A).28 This CR extends the
provisions and anomalies of the first CR, changes the across-the-board reduction rate, and adds
several new anomalies for the agriculture portion:
A lower across-the-board reduction of 0.1901% (Section 101(2)).
Flexible apportionment for the Farm Loan Program so that it can fund all loans
that are approved. USDA direct and guaranteed farm loans may face higher than
normal demand because of low farm income and since the CR extends into the
spring planting season. The anomaly does not increase funding but potentially
makes available the entire FY2016 amount during the CR (Section 146).
Flexible apportionment for Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT)
demonstration projects so that the program can fully operate by May 2017. These
projects, an alternative to the Summer Food Service Program that has operated in
select states since FY2011, provide EBT benefits over the summer months to
low-income households with school-age children29 (Section 147).
Funding for the National Hunger Clearinghouse. Since FY2010, the Richard B.
Russell National School Lunch Act has provided $250,000 annually in
mandatory funding. The clearinghouse funding was extended in FY2016
appropriations (P.L. 114-113) and then expired September 30, 2016. Since that
time, the USDA-FNS had been funding the clearinghouse using carryover
balances (Section 148).
Transfer authority within the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) to support increased
subsidy costs of Treasury direct telecommunication loans. The FY2016 subsidy
rate of 0.03% will increase to 0.89% in FY 2017. By permitting a transfer of
budget authority from RUS programs with lower subsidy costs, the CR will allow
for support of the Treasury direct loan level as needed (Section 149).
Flexible apportionment for the Guaranteed Multi-Family Housing Loan Program
at a higher rate than would normally be permitted to fund approved loans. This
program offers loan guarantees for the development of affordable rental housing
for low- and moderate-income families in rural areas (Section 150).
Emergency funding for two USDA land rehabilitation programs––the Emergency
Conservation Program (ECP, $103 million) and the Emergency Watershed
Protection Program (EWP, $103 million). This funding is not directed to a
specific disaster or region, nor is it subject to discretionary budget caps. For more
information, see “Disaster Assistance” later in this report (Section 185).
New funding for the FDA Innovation Account ($20 million for FY2017) that was
established by the 21st Century Cures Act (P.L. 114-255). The Innovation
Account funds agency activities such as changing FDA drug and device approval
pathways (Section 193).30
28
See CRS Report R44723, Overview of Further Continuing Appropriations for FY2017 (H.R. 2028).
See CRS Report R43783, School Meals Programs and Other USDA Child Nutrition Programs: A Primer.
30
See CRS Report R44071, H.R. 6: The 21st Century Cures Act. See also CRS Report R44502, Senate Medical
Innovation Bills: Overview and Comparison with the 21st Century Cures Act (H.R. 6).
29
Congressional Research Service
16
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2017 Appropriations
Policy Issues
In addition to setting budgetary amounts, the Agriculture appropriations bill is also a vehicle for
policy-related provisions that direct how the executive branch should carry out the appropriation.
These provisions may have the force of law if they are included in the text of the appropriation,
usually in the General Provisions, but their effect is generally limited to the current fiscal year.
The explanatory statement that accompanies the appropriation, and the House and Senate report
language that accompanies the committee-reported bills, may also provide policy instructions.
These documents do not have the force of law but often explain congressional intent and are
expected to be followed by the agencies. Indeed, the committee reports and explanatory statement
may need to be read together to capture all of the congressional intent for the fiscal year:
Congressional Directives. The explanatory statement is silent on provisions that were in
both the House Report (H. Rpt. 114-531) and Senate Report (S. Rpt. 114-259) 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.31
The list below describes some of the major policy issues. These and other policy-related issues
are discussed in greater detail in relevant sections later in this report.
GIPSA rule. The enacted appropriation does not include language that would
prohibit the Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA)
from finalizing and implementing a livestock and poultry marketing rule—the
“GIPSA rule,” as was proposed in the House bill.
Horse slaughter. The Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) is responsible for
horse slaughter inspection if the meat is for human consumption. The FY2017
appropriation prohibits FSIS from inspecting horse slaughter facilities.
Poultry imports from China. The FY2017 appropriation prohibits the purchase
of processed (cooked) poultry meat imported from China for use in various
domestic feeding programs.
SNAP-authorized retailers. The enacted appropriation limits the scope of rules
for the 2014 farm bill’s changes to inventory requirements for SNAP-authorized
retailers.
SNAP households reporting requirements. The enacted appropriation requires
SNAP households to report to the state agency a move out of the state beginning
in FY2017 and each year thereafter.
School meals nutrition standards. The enacted appropriation requires USDA to
provide hardship exemptions from a 100% whole grain requirement and prevent
USDA from implementing a sodium requirement without scientific evidence.
31
Explanatory Statement regarding the Consolidated Appropriations Act, Congressional Record, May 3, 2017, p.
H3327.
Congressional Research Service
17
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2017 Appropriations
Recent Trends in Agriculture Appropriations
Over the past 10 years, changes by title of the Agriculture appropriations bill have generally been
proportionate to changes in the bill’s total discretionary limit, though some activities have
sustained relative increases and decreases. Agriculture appropriations peaked in FY2010 and
declined through FY2013. Since then, total Agriculture appropriations have increased (Figure 3).
However, whether that increase returns the appropriation to various historical benchmarks
depends upon inflation adjustments and other factors.
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 the budget authority contained in
Titles I-VI. It is higher than the official 302(b) discretionary spending limit (the line) because of
the budgetary offset from negative amounts in Title VII General Provisions and other
scorekeeping adjustments. General Provisions are negative mostly because of limits placed on
mandatory programs, which are scored as savings (Table 3, Table 15).
For example, in the FY2017 appropriation, budget authority for the primary agencies in the bill
(Titles I-VI) increased $462 million (the top of the stacked bars in Figure 3) even though the
official discretionary spending allocation decreased $623 million (the line in Figure 3).
Increases in the use of CHIMPS and other tools to offset discretionary appropriations ameliorated
reductions in discretionary budget authority in FY2011 and succeeding years. For example, the
official 302(b) discretionary total for the bill was given credit for declining 13.6% in FY2011,
while the total of Titles I-VI declined only 6.4% that year (Figure 3). The effect is less
pronounced in FY2016, since the offset was smaller, in part because of additional spending in
General Provisions for foreign food aid and emergency programs.
Some areas have sustained real increases, while others have declined (apart from the peak in
2010). Agencies with sustained real increases (that is, inflation-adjusted; Figure 4) since FY2007
include FDA and CFTC (Related Agencies) and, to a lesser extent, foreign food assistance. Areas
with real decreases in discretionary spending since 2007 include general agricultural programs
and domestic nutrition programs. Rural development and conservation also had a real decrease
over the same period, though FY2016 reversed that trend for rural development, and FY2017
reversed it for conservation.
Appendix A offers a 20-year historical perspective on other trends from FY1998 to FY2017,
such as mandatory versus discretionary, nutrition versus the rest of the bill, and comparisons
against other economic factors such as the share of the federal budget, GDP, and population.
Congressional Research Service
18
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2017 Appropriations
Figure 3. Discretionary Agriculture Appropriations, by Title, Since FY2007
Source: CRS. Includes CFTC in Related Agencies regardless of jurisdiction, except as noted for FY2017.
Figure 4. Inflation-Adjusted Discretionary Agriculture Appropriations Since FY2007
Source: CRS. Includes CFTC in Related Agencies regardless of jurisdiction, except as noted for FY2017.
Notes: Budget authority adjusted for inflation by CRS using the gross domestic product price deflator.
Congressional Research Service
19
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2017 Appropriations
USDA Agencies and Programs
USDA was created in 1862 and carries out a range of activities through about 17 agencies and a
dozen administrative offices staffed by nearly 100,000 employees.32 About 95% of its funding is
in the Agriculture appropriation, covering about two-thirds of those employees. The remainder is
the Forest Service and is funded by the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.33
This report is organized in the order that the agencies are listed in the appropriations bills.
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 (which are outside USDA) and do not fund the Forest Service (which is part of USDA).
Similarly, USDA spending is broader than farm program spending.
USDA divides its activities into mission areas that are different from titles in the appropriation:
Food and nutrition programs are the largest mission area (three-fourths of the budget) and are Title IV in the
bill.
Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services are the second-largest mission area (one-eighth of the budget) and are
split between Title I of the appropriation (for the domestic side) and Title V (for foreign trade and food aid).
Five other mission areas share one-eighth of USDA’s budget, including natural resources (Title II), rural
development (Title III), research (Title I), marketing and regulatory programs (Title I), and food safety (Title I).
The type of funding (mandatory or discretionary) is also 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 carried within the
CCC amount in Title I.
Departmental Administration34
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 FY2017, the enacted appropriation keeps the amount for most accounts in departmental
administration constant compared to the enacted FY2016 appropriation, with a few notable
exceptions. Overall, the FY2017 appropriation increases departmental administration by $30.8
million (+8.2%) over FY2016 (Table 4).
The FY2017 appropriation increases the buildings and facilities account by the USDA-requested
$20 million (+31%), largely to pay for long-planned renovations to the South Building in the
USDA headquarters complex. It increases the amounts for the Chief Information Officer (+$5
million) and Chief Financial Officer (+$2 million) to increase cybersecurity and meet new digital
accountability standards. The Office of Inspector General receives an increase of $2.5 million,
including $1.1 million for additional oversight of the department’s information technology
upgrades. And it increases the amount for the Office of the Chief Economist by $1.1 million to
acquire data and support to prepare for the 2018 farm bill.
32
USDA, FY2017 USDA Budget Summary, http://www.obpa.usda.gov/budsum/fy17budsum.pdf.
See CRS Report R44470, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2017 Appropriations.
34
This section was written by (name redacted)
-....,(7 [redacted]@crs.loc.gov
).
33
Congressional Research Service
20
Table 4. USDA Departmental Administration Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
P.L. 113-76
P.L. 113235
P.L. 114113
Office of the Secretary
5.05
5.05
5.05
Office of Tribal Relations
0.50
0.50
Office of Homeland Security
1.50
Advocacy and Outreach
FY2017
H. Cmte.
H.R. 5054
S. Cmte.
S. 2956
P.L. 11531
10.18
5.05
10.18
5.05
+0.0
+0.0%
0.50
0.76
0.50
0.51
0.50
+0.0
+0.0%
1.50
1.50
1.59
1.50
1.59
1.50
+0.0
+0.0%
1.21
1.21
1.21
11.22
1.21
4.22
1.21
+0.0
+0.0%
Assistant Secretary for Administration
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.81
0.80
0.81
0.80
+0.0
+0.0%
Departmental Administration
22.79
25.12
25.12
27.42
24.12
25.40
24.12
-1.0
-4.0%
Asst. Sec. Congressional Relations
3.87
3.87
3.87
3.92
3.87
3.92
3.87
+0.0
+0.0%
Office of Communications
8.07
7.75
7.50
8.51
7.50
7.53
7.50
+0.0
+0.0%
43.78
45.81
45.56
64.40
44.56
54.15
44.56
-1.0
-2.2%
Office of Chief Economist
16.78
17.38
17.78
17.59
16.78
16.92
18.92
+1.1
+6.4%
National Appeals Division
12.84
13.32
13.32
13.48
13.32
13.48
13.40
+0.1
+0.6%
Office of Budget and Program Analysis
9.06
9.39
9.39
9.53
9.39
9.53
9.53
+0.1
+1.4%
38.68
40.09
40.49
40.60
39.49
39.92
41.84
+1.4
+3.3%
Chief Information Officer
44.03
45.05
44.54
65.72
44.54
49.92
49.54
+5.0
+11.2%
Chief Financial Officer
6.21
6.03
6.03
9.12
6.03
8.12
8.03
+2.0
+33.2%
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights
0.89
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
+0.0
+0.3%
Office of Civil Rights
21.40
24.07
24.07
24.75
24.07
24.34
24.21
+0.1
+0.6%
Buildings and facilities a
233.00
55.87
64.19
84.37
84.19
74.37
84.19
+20.0
+31.2%
Agency or Major Program
Admin.
Request
Change: FY2016 to
FY2017 Enacted
Office of the Secretary
Subtotal
Executive Operations
Subtotal
Other Administration
CRS-21
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
Agency or Major Program
P.L. 113-76
P.L. 113235
P.L. 114113
Hazardous materials management
3.59
3.60
3.62
Office of Inspector General
89.90
95.03
General Counsel
41.20
Office of Ethics
Subtotal
Total, Departmental Administration
FY2017
Admin.
Request
H. Cmte.
H.R. 5054
S. Cmte.
S. 2956
P.L. 11531
Change: FY2016 to
FY2017 Enacted
3.63
3.62
3.63
3.63
+0.0
+0.4%
95.74
101.00
96.04
99.38
98.21
+2.5
+2.6%
44.38
44.38
49.60
44.38
45.01
44.70
+0.3
+0.7%
3.44
3.65
3.65
4.62
4.56
3.72
4.14
+0.5
+13.2%
443.67
278.57
287.12
343.70
308.32
309.38
317.54
+30.4
+10.6%
526.13
364.46
373.16
448.70
392.36
403.45
403.93
+30.8
+8.2%
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports for the referenced appropriations acts or bills.
a. Beginning in FY2015, the amount for buildings and facilities no longer includes rental payments to the General Services Administration (GSA) or 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-22
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2017 Appropriations
Agricultural Research, Education, and Extension35
Agricultural research was one of the founding purposes when USDA was created in 1862. USDA
conducts intramural research at federal facilities with government-employed scientists and
supports external research at universities and other facilities through competitive grants and
formula-based funding. 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 mission:
The Agricultural Research Service (ARS), USDA’s intramural science agency,
conducts long-term, high-risk, basic and applied research on food and agriculture
issues of national and regional importance.
The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) distributes 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 is also 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.
The enacted FY2017 appropriation provides $2.891 billion for agricultural research, down $45
million from the enacted FY2016 total (-1.5%; Table 5). This overall change is comprised of $67
million more for research programming across the four agencies and $112 million less for
buildings and facilities than in FY2016. The enacted bill is less of a reduction than either the
House or Senate bills, generally providing more to research programs than the House bill
proposed and reducing building and facilities by less than the Senate bill proposed.
In addition to discretionary appropriations, agricultural research is also funded by state matching
contributions and private donations or grants, as well as mandatory funding from the farm bill.36
Agricultural Research Service
The ARS is USDA’s in-house basic and applied research agency. It operates approximately 90
laboratories nationwide with about 6,600 employees. ARS also operates the National Agricultural
Library, one of USDA’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 FY2017, the enacted appropriation provides $1.170 billion for ARS salaries and expenses,
$26 million more than FY2016 (+2.3%; Table 5). The House-reported bill would have increased
the FY2016 amount by $8 million and the Senate-reported bill by $34 million.
35
36
This section was written by (name redacted)
-....,(7 [redacted]@crs.loc.gov
).
See CRS Report R40819, Agricultural Research: Background and Issues
Congressional Research Service
23
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2017 Appropriations
ARS had proposed increases across several programmatic areas for prioritized research projects,
coupled with reductions in funding for several existing programs. The enacted appropriation, via
the explanatory statement, expressly rejects those specific reductions and reprogramming.
The enacted appropriation does not include concerns that were mentioned in the FY2016
appropriation about animal care at ARS research facilities. However, the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) is instructed in the explanatory statement to continue its inspections
of ARS facilities and post the results online.
For the ARS buildings and facilities account, the enacted appropriation provides $99.6 million in
FY2017, a decrease from the $212 million appropriated in FY2016. USDA had requested $94.5
million for FY2017. The appropriation directs that funding be used for priorities identified in the
“USDA ARS Capital Investment Strategy.”37 ARS’s priorities include completion of the Foreign
Disease and Weed Science Research Unit in Fort Detrick, MD ($30.2 million), and Phase I of the
Agricultural Research Technology Center in Salinas, CA ($64.3 million).38
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
NIFA 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 land-grant institutions, 1890
historically black colleges and universities, 1994 tribal land-grant colleges, and Hispanic-serving
institutions. Federal funds enhance capacity at universities and institutions by statutory formula
funding, competitive awards, and grants.
For FY2017, the enacted appropriation provides $1.363 billion for NIFA, an increase of $36
million over FY2016 (+2.7%; Table 5). The President had requested slightly more discretionary
funding for NIFA plus an increase in mandatory funding as described below.
The Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI)—USDA’s flagship competitive grants
program with 25% of NIFA’s total budget—received the Administration’s requested increase of
$25 million for a $375 million appropriation. The Administration had also requested an additional
$325 million of new mandatory money to “fully fund” AFRI at its farm-bill authorized level of
$700 million. New mandatory funding is generally more germane to the authorization process
(such as the farm bill) rather than the annual appropriations, and the House and Senate did not
include this request in their bills or the final appropriation.
Formula-funded programs in both research and extension are held constant under the FY2017
appropriation, though the Administration had requested an increase for the Evans-Allen program
that supports historically black colleges of agriculture.
The FY2017 appropriation continues to direct that at least 15% of NIFA’s competitive grant
funding be available for research enhancement awards such as USDA-EPSCoR.
The President’s request again proposed to consolidate federal science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics (STEM) education funding so that USDA would no longer fund Higher
37
USDA-ARS, The USDA Agricultural Research Service Capital Investment Strategy, April 2012, http://www.ars.
usda.gov/sp2UserFiles/Subsite/ARSLegisAffrs/USDA_ARS_Capital_Investment_Strategy_FINAL_eeo.pdf.
38
In FY2016, ARS buildings and facilities funding went to construction of a biocontainment laboratory at the ARS
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).
Congressional Research Service
24
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2017 Appropriations
Education Challenge Grants, Graduate and Post-graduate Fellowship Grants, the Higher
Education Multicultural Scholars Program, the Women and Minorities in STEM Program,
Agriculture in the Classroom, and Secondary/Postsecondary Challenge Grants. As in prior years,
the enacted appropriation rejected that proposal and continues to fund these STEM programs in
USDA. In fact, an additional $500,000 was appropriated to Rural Development to develop a plan
to increase access to STEM education in rural areas via the Distance Learning and Telemedicine
program.
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 FY2017, the enacted appropriation provides NASS $171 million, an increase of $2.8 million
over FY2016 (+2.7%). Most of that increase ($1.6 million) is targeted to expand a feed cost
survey at the national level.
The House report language directs NASS to restart surveys and reports for pecans. The Senate
report language directs continuing coverage of chemical use and integrated pest management,
especially for fruits and vegetables, and additional organic production surveys.
Economic Research Service
ERS 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 FY2017, the enacted appropriation provides ERS $86.8 million, a $1.4 million increase over
FY2016 (+1.6%). USDA had requested a larger increase to $91 million. The enacted increase is
supposed to support additional research on groundwater modeling and drought resilience, as
indicated in both the joint explanatory statement and in the House report language. The Senate
report language directs ERS to expand its organic data analysis.
Congressional Research Service
25
Table 5. USDA Research, Extension, and Economics (REE) Appropriations
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
P.L. 113-76
P.L. 113235
P.L. 114113
1,122.5
1,132.6
1,143.8
—
45.0
1,122.5
AFRI (competitive grants)
Budget authority in millions of dollars
FY2017
H. Cmte.
H.R. 5054
S. Cmte.
S. 2956
P.L. 11531
1,161.3
1,151.8
1,177.9
1,170.2
+26.4
+2.3%
212.1
94.5
99.6
64.3
99.6
-112.5
-53.0%
1,177.6
1,355.9
1,255.8
1,251.4
1,242.2
1,269.8
-86.1
-6.3%
316.4
325.0
350.0
375.0
375.0
375.0
375.0
+25.0
+7.1%
Hatch Act (1862 institutions)
243.7
243.7
243.7
243.7
243.7
243.7
243.7
+0.0
+0.0%
Evans-Allen (1890s institutions)
52.5
52.5
54.2
58.0
54.2
54.2
54.2
+0.0
+0.0%
McIntire-Stennis (forestry)
34.0
34.0
34.0
34.0
34.0
34.0
34.0
+0.0
+0.0%
Other
126.0
131.7
137.8
126.3
126.0
144.6
142.7
+4.8
+3.5%
Subtotal
772.6
786.9
819.7
836.9
832.9
851.5
849.5
+29.8
+3.6%
Smith-Lever (b) & (c)
300.0
300.0
300.0
300.0
300.0
300.0
300.0
+0.0
+0.0%
Smith-Lever (d)
85.5
85.5
85.5
106.9
85.5
85.5
85.5
+0.0
+0.0%
Other
83.7
86.2
90.4
95.0
91.9
90.7
91.9
+1.5
+1.7%
Subtotal
469.2
471.7
475.9
501.9
477.4
476.2
477.4
+1.5
+0.3%
Integrated Activities
35.3
30.9
30.9
28.9
30.9
36.0
36.0
+5.1
+16.5%
1,277.1
1,289.5
1,326.5
1,374.0
1,341.2
1,363.7
1,362.9
+36.4
+2.7%
National Agricultural Statistics Service
161.2
172.4
168.4
176.6
168.4
169.6
171.2
+2.8
+1.7%
Economic Research Service
78.1
85.4
85.4
91.3
86.0
86.8
86.8
+1.4
+1.6%
2,638.8
2,724.9
2,936.2
2,897.7
2,847.0
2,862.4
2,890.7
-45.5
-1.5%
Agency or Major Program
Agricultural Research Service
Buildings and Facilities
Subtotal, ARS
Admin.
Request
Change: FY2016 to
FY2017 Enacted
National Inst. of Food and 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-26
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2017 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 Service39
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 (AI), bovine
spongiform encephalopathy (BSE or “mad cow disease”), foot-and-mouth disease (FMD),
invasive plant pests (e.g., emerald ash borer, the Asian long-horned beetle, glassy-winged
sharpshooter), and animal disease and traceability. APHIS also administers the Animal Welfare
Act, which protects animals used in research and public exhibitions, and the Horse Protection
Act, which supports inspections at horse shows and sales to prohibit the practice of soring.
APHIS also administers the Wildlife Services Program to resolve human/wildlife conflicts and to
protect against wildlife damage (e.g., predator control, feral swine control).
For FY2017, the enacted appropriation would provide $946.2 million for APHIS, plus $3.2
million for building and facilities (Table 6). This is $51.8 million more than FY2016 (+5.8%),
and $45.0 million more than requested by the Administration.
From the Animal Health budget line, the bill provides $55.3 million for avian health. The Animal
Welfare appropriation includes an increase over FY2016 of $400,000 to provide oversight of
animal research at ARS facilities. In addition, a general provision (Section 739) prohibits any
funding supporting licensing for Class B dealers who sell dogs and cats for use in research,
experiments, teaching, or testing. In addition to the Specialty Crop Pests budget line, Section 757
of the enacted appropriation provides an additional $5.5 million to address citrus greening.
Section 738 of the enacted appropriations requires APHIS to conduct international animal health
status audits based on seven factors as defined in regulations for determinations of animal health
status (9 C.F.R. 92.2), and APHIS is 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.
Table 6. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2016
P.L. 114113
FY2017
Admin.
Request
H. Cmte.
H.R. 5054
S. Cmte.
S. 2956
P.L. 11531
Animal Health
295.2
305.3
309.9
307.1
309.9
Plant Health
308.4a
287.5
309.8a
310.9
318.3a
Wildlife Services
120.0
105.0
119.2
121.2
122.2
Regulatory Services
35.1
35.4
35.1
35.5
35.1
Emergency Management, Contingency
17.4
44.6
38.4
44.6
41.4
39
This section was written by (name redacted) (7-....,
Congressional Research Service
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
).
27
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2017 Appropriations
FY2016
P.L. 114113
FY2017
Admin.
Request
H. Cmte.
H.R. 5054
S. Cmte.
S. 2956
P.L. 11531
Safe Trade, International Tech. Assist.
37.2
42.0
37.2
38.5
37.7
Animal Welfare
29.1
29.4
29.2
29.4
29.5
Administrative Funds
52.0
52.0
52.0
52.0
52.0
894.4
901.2
930.8
939.3
946.2
3.2
3.2
3.2b
3.2
3.2c
897.6
904.4
934.0
942.5
949.2
Subtotal, salaries and expenses
Buildings and facilities
Total, APHIS
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports for the
referenced appropriations acts or bills.
a. In addition to this amount, the General Provisions section of the appropriation provides $5.5 million for
citrus greening.
b. In addition to this amount, the General Provisions section of the House-reported bill would have provided
$30 million for fruit fly eradication facilities.
c. In addition to this amount, the General Provisions section of the enacted appropriation provides $47 million
for fruit fly eradication facilities.
Agricultural Marketing Service and “Section 32”40
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 $1.3 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 commodity support programs for the primary field
crops (corn, soybeans, wheat, rice, and peanuts) and dairy. User fees also support some AMS
activities.
Marketing Activities
For FY2017, the enacted appropriation provides $86.2 million for AMS salaries and expenses,
including $1.2 million for payments to states and possessions for marketing activities. This is
$3.7 million higher than enacted in FY2016. The enacted legislation places a $61.2 million limit
on the amount of user fees that AMS may collect for grading and classifying cotton and tobacco.41
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
40
41
This section was written by (name redacted) (7
-...., [redacted]@crs.loc.gov
).
Authorized by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-35).
Congressional Research Service
28
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2017 Appropriations
programs (checkoffs). AMS monitors the agriculture transportation system and conducts market
analysis that supports the transport of agricultural products domestically and internationally.
The appropriation for payments to states and possessions are for the Federal-State Marketing
Improvement Program, which 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.
In addition to the cotton and tobacco inspection and classification fees (limited to $61.2 million),
AMS collects user fees and reimbursements to cover product quality and process verification
programs, commodity grading, and Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA; 7 U.S.C.
499a) licensing. AMS expects to collect about $175 million in FY2017 for these activities. 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.42
The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) has completed its sunset review of the National
List of substances and ingredients allowed and prohibited in organic production. In the enacted
legislation’s explanatory statement, Congress directs USDA to fully consider available scientific
information and stakeholder comments as it reviews the NOSB sunset review recommendations
in the rulemaking process. Congress also directs USDA to “stay within the parameters of the
required study” included in the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard (P.L. 114-216).
Section 32 (Funds for Strengthening Markets, Income, and Supply)
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 (estimated at $10.9 billion in FY2017). This amount is reduced by various
mandatory transfers ($9.6 billion in FY2017) to child nutrition and other programs.43
The remaining 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 (Section 14222) capped the annual amount of Section 32 funds available for
obligation by AMS in FY2017 at $1.322 billion. Also, to increase the amount of fruits and
vegetables purchased under Section 32, Congress limited USDA’s discretion in two ways: (1)
Section 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) Section 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).
42
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 FY2017)
for the AMS share of costs to support organic certification. For FY2017, AMS expects to administer an estimated
$107.1 million ($115 million, less 6.9% for sequestration) for these mandatory farm bill initiatives.
43
For more details, see CRS Report RL34081, Farm and Food Support Under USDA’s Section 32 Program.
Congressional Research Service
29
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2017 Appropriations
For FY2017, P.L. 115-31 authorizes $1.322 billion of Section 32 funds for AMS, as provided in
the 2008 farm bill. After a rescission of $231 million, a sequestration cut of $80 million, and
required transfers for fresh fruit and vegetable programs, $886 million is available for AMS
activities.
Section 715 of the enacted legislation, a provision that has been in enacted agricultural
appropriations since FY2012, effectively prohibits the use of Section 32 funds 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 FY2017, the enacted appropriation provides GIPSA $43.5 million for salaries and expenses,
$425,000 more than enacted for FY2016. The enacted legislation 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
Committee on Appropriations in both the House and Senate.
The general provisions of the enacted appropriation do not include language regarding the GIPSA
rule46 that was proposed in 2010 nor the Farmer Fair Practices Rules47 that were issued in
December 2016. From FY2012 to FY2015, enacted appropriations riders prohibited USDA from
finalizing and implementing most parts of the GIPSA rule. The FY2016 appropriations act did not
include such a provision. Subsequently, USDA reissued parts of the original rule in three separate
rules:
The first was an interim final rule that holds that harm to an individual could be a
violation of the Packers and Stockyards Act (7 U.S.C. §181 et seq.) without a
finding of harm to competition.
The other two proposed rules addressed (1) criteria for determining unfair
practices and undue preferences and (2) criteria that could be used to determine if
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
).
46
75 Federal Register 35338. See CRS Report R41673, USDA’s “GIPSA Rule” on Livestock and Poultry Marketing
Practices.
47
81 Federal Register 92566, 81 Federal Register 92703, and 81 Federal Register 92723. See CRS Insight IN10638,
USDA Releases GIPSA Rules.
Congressional Research Service
30
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2017 Appropriations
the poultry tournament system was in violation of the Packers and Stockyards
Act.
In January 2017, the Trump Administration delayed the effective dates and extended the comment
periods of the Farmers Fair Practices Rules.48 In April 2017, USDA further delayed the effective
date of the interim final rule to October 19, 2017. USDA also asked for comments on whether or
not the interim final rule should (1) become effective, (2) be suspended indefinitely, (3) delay the
effective date further, or (4) be withdrawn.
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)49
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is responsible for inspecting U.S. supplies of
meat, poultry, and processed egg products to ensure that they are safe, wholesome, and properly
labeled.50 The FSIS Meat and Poultry Inspection Program 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.
For FY2017, the enacted appropriations act provides FSIS $1.03 billion, $17.2 million more than
enacted for FY2016. The FSIS appropriations are divided between five subaccounts: federal
inspection ($915.8 million), state inspection ($61.6 million), international inspection ($16.5
million), Codex Alimentarius ($3.7 million), and the Public Health Data Communications
Infrastructure System ($34.6 million). The appropriation authorizes FSIS to collect $1.0 million
in laboratory accreditation fees. It requires that FSIS have no fewer than 148 full-time equivalents
dedicated to the inspection and enforcement of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act in FY2017.
The appropriation directs FSIS to continue to implement catfish inspection that was transferred
from the Food and Drug Administration to USDA in the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246, §11016)
and 2014 farm bill (P.L. 114-79, §12106). FSIS issued the final rule on catfish inspection in
December 2015, and it went into effect on March 1, 2016, with a phase-in period continuing until
September 1, 2017.51 In the explanatory statement of the enacted appropriation, Congress directs
FSIS to re-inspect all imported catfish and to complete equivalency determinations for foreign
countries exporting catfish to the United States no later than 180 days following the end of the
phase-in period of September 1, 2017.
For FY2017, Section 762 of the enacted appropriations prohibit FSIS from using funds to inspect
horse slaughter facilities, as well as the use of voluntary inspection fees. Horses are an amenable
species under the Federal Meat Inspection Act and FSIS is responsible for horse slaughter
inspection if the horsemeat is for human consumption. However, the FY2006 and FY2007
appropriations acts prohibited FSIS from funding horse slaughter inspections. In subsequent
appropriations (FY2008-FY2011 and FY2014-FY2016), the inspection bans were expanded to
include a prohibition on voluntary, fee-based horse slaughter inspections. Inspection bans were
48
See CRS Insight IN10638, USDA Releases GIPSA Rules.
This section was written by (name redacted) (7
-...., [redacted]@crs.loc.gov
).
50
FSIS authorities include the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. §601 et seq.), the Poultry Products Inspection
Act (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 (7 U.S.C. §1901 et seq.).
51
80 Federal Register 75590 (December 2, 2015).
49
Congressional Research Service
31
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2017 Appropriations
not in force during FY2012 and FY2013, but no horse slaughter facilities opened before the
appropriations ban was reinstated.
Section 728 of the FY2017 appropriation prohibits the purchase of processed (cooked) poultry
meat imported from China for use in the school lunch program under the Richard B. Russell
National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.), the Child and Adult Food Care Program
under Section 17 of such act (42 U.S.C. 1766), the Summer Food Service Program for Children
under Section 13 of such act (42 U.S.C. 1761), or the school breakfast program under the Child
Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq.). This provision has been included in
appropriations acts since FY2015 after FSIS concluded that China could export processed poultry
to the United States. This raised concern among some Members of Congress because of China’s
poor food safety record. In August 2013, FSIS determined that China’s processed poultry system
is equivalent52 to the U.S. system. This determination allows China to source raw poultry
slaughtered in the United States or countries eligible to export raw poultry to the United States,
process the raw product, and then export the processed poultry.
In November 2014, China provided FSIS a list of four processing plants that meet processing
equivalency requirements and thus could send processed poultry to the United States. To date, no
Chinese processed product has been exported to the United States. But FSIS is in the process of
writing a proposed rule that recognizes the equivalency of China’s poultry slaughter system and
would allow China to export processed poultry that is domestically raised. A positive equivalency
determination for China’s slaughter system would likely result in U.S. imports of poultry from
China.
Farm Service Agency53
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 FY2017, the enacted appropriation provides $1.513 billion to FSA for salaries and expenses
(including $1.206 billion for regular FSA salaries and expenses, plus the transfer within FSA of
$307 million for farm loan program salaries and expenses), an increase of $5.9 million over
FY2016 (Table 7).54
The joint explanatory statement indicates that the increase in the appropriation is for $5 million to
improve security at county offices, $500,000 to support youth-serving organizations, $250,000 to
establish a pilot network to mentor beginning farmers, and $90,000 to train veteran farmers to be
prequalified for direct farm ownership loans.
52
Under equivalency, foreign inspection measures do not have to be the same as in the United States, but they must
provide the same level of sanitary and public health protection as U.S. measures. Equivalency for poultry is authorized
in 21 U.S.C. §466 of the PPIA.
53
This section was written by (name redacted)
-....,(7 [redacted]@crs.loc.gov
).
54
Excludes transfers to FSA from FAS for administrative support (about $2.6 million).
Congressional Research Service
32
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2017 Appropriations
Regarding information technology (IT), the enacted appropriation continues strong requirements
that began in FY2015 about FSA’s implementation of IT plans. The intention is to address the
Modernize and Innovate the Delivery of Agricultural Systems (MIDAS) plan that was flagged for
concern by the Federal IT Dashboard in December 2012 but has shown progress in 2015 and
2016.55 FSA has struggled with the scope and schedule of work on MIDAS and did not deliver
the expected results. The Government Accountability Office (GAO)56 and the USDA Office of
Inspector General continue to observe management and schedule problems in recent reports.57
Specifically, the statutory language continues a requirement begun in FY2015 that FSA—before
it can spend more than 50% of the $101 million for IT—submit to Congress and GAO a detailed
IT plan that meets several specific criteria.
Regarding office closures and staff reductions, the enacted FY2017 appropriation prohibits FSA
from closing any county offices and prohibits FSA from permanently relocating any county
employees if it results in two or fewer employees, unless the Appropriations Committees approve.
The FY2015 and FY2016 appropriations similarly prohibited county office closure and contained
the relocation provision, but these were the first time that FSA office closure had been mentioned
in appropriations since FY2006-FY2008. The recent one-year moratoriums in appropriations act
surpass a permanent provision in statute from the 2008 farm bill (7 U.S.C. 6932a; P.L. 110-246,
§14212) that sets conditions and requires congressional notification and local hearings before
FSA can close or consolidate a county office.
FSA Farm Loan Programs
FSA makes and guarantees loans to farmers and is a lender of last resort for family farmers who
are unable to obtain credit from commercial lenders. 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.58
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 many times larger than the subsidy level.
For FY2017, the enacted appropriation exceeds the Administration’s request and the House and
Senate proposals, likely due to the delay in enactment and new information about higher demand
for farm loans. Overall, the FY2017 appropriation provides $90 million of loan subsidy to support
$8.0 billion of loan authority. The loan subsidy is increasing 29% over FY2016, and the loan
authority is increasing 25% over the FY2016 appropriation (Table 8).
Following the global financial crisis that began in 2008, the farm loan program has grown in size,
reflecting farmers’ borrowing needs. Supplemental appropriations in FY2009 and FY2010 raised
55
IT Dashboard, “Farm Program Modernization (MIDAS) #097,” https://itdashboard.gov/drupal/summary/005/225.
GAO, “Farm Service Agency Needs to Demonstrate the Capacity to Manage IT Initiatives,” GAO-15-506, June 18,
2015, http://gao.gov/products/GAO-15-506.
57
USDA, Office of Inspector General, “Review of Farm Service Agency’s Initiative to Modernize and Innovate the
Delivery of Agricultural Systems (MIDAS),” 03501-0001-12, May 2015, http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/035010001-12.pdf.
58
For more background, see CRS Report RS21977, Agricultural Credit: Institutions and Issues.
56
Congressional Research Service
33
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2017 Appropriations
loan authority by $2 billion to the $6 billion level, and, with the exception of fiscal pressures in
FY2011-FY2013, recent appropriations have sustained and increased loan authorities to about
$6.4 billion. Low default rates and interest rates have allowed this increase at lower budgetary
costs compared to a decade ago.
As an indicator of the rapid demand for USDA farm loans, in FY2016 USDA used supplemental
authority that was provided in the appropriation to increase the guaranteed farm ownership
program loan authority by $500 million to $2.5 billion.59 An appropriations provision allows
USDA to increase the loan authority of programs that are self-funding (from loan application fees
such as the farm ownership loan program) by 25% with prior notification to the Appropriations
Committees. The FY2017 appropriation increases the base amount for this loan program to $2.75
billion (+37%) and retains the provision that would allow USDA to increase it by another 25% if
needed (§726).
The FY2017 appropriation also increases the loan authority for the direct farm operating loan
program to $1.53 billion (+22%) and the guaranteed farm operating loan program to $1.96
billion (+41%).
The enacted appropriation continues to not fund the Individual Development Accounts program,60
though the Administration’s request and the Senate bill would have provided $1.5 million.
The enacted appropriation increases funding for administrative expenses in the loan program by
$2.2 million, largely to support service to veteran farmers. Veteran farmers would also benefit
from the Administration’s plan to waive certain loan fees.
59
USDA used this authority in July 2016. Updates on the year-to-date use of FSA loan authority are available at
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/farm-loan-programs/funding/index.
60
The Individual Development Account program was authorized in the 2008 farm bill but has not been funded. It is a
subsidized 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.
Congressional Research Service
34
Table 7. Farm Service Agency (FSA) Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
P.L. 113-76
P.L. 113235
P.L. 114113
1,177.9
1,200.2
1,200.2
FSA farm loan program S&E transfer
307.0
307.0
Subtotal, appropriated to FSA
1,484.9
Farm loan program (loan subsidy)
FY2017
Admin.
Request
H. Cmte.
H.R. 5054
S. Cmte.
S. 2956
P.L. 11531
Change: FY2016 to
FY2017 Enacted
1,209.8
1,200.2
1,210.4
1,206.1
+5.9
+0.5%
307.0
307.0
307.0
307.0
307.0
+0.0
+0.0%
1,507.2
1,507.2
1,516.7
1,507.2
1,517.4
1,513.1
+5.9
+0.4%
90.0
78.7
69.6
82.8
82.0
82.8
90.0
+20.4
+29.3%
Farm loan program admin. expenses
7.7
7.9
7.9
10.1
7.9
10.1
10.1
+2.2
+27.1%
State mediation grants
3.8
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.9
3.9
+0.5
+14.7%
Grassroots source water protection
5.5
5.5
6.5
0.0
6.5
6.5
6.5
+0.0
+0.0%
Dairy indemnity program (M)
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
+0.0
+0.0%
Total: Appropriation to FSA
1,592.2
1,603.3
1,595.1
1,613.6
1,607.5
1,621.2
1,624.0
+29.0
+1.8%
Salaries and expenses
Farm Service Agency (S&E base)
Programs
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports for the referenced appropriations acts or bills.
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 Food
for Peace and export loans. Discretionary budget authority unless labeled “(M)” to indicate mandatory authority.
CRS-35
Table 8. Farm Service Agency: Farm Loan Program
(budget authority and loan authority, as specified, in millions of dollars)
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
P.L. 113-76
P.L. 113235
P.L. 114113
4.4
—
—
Direct
65.5
63.1
Guaranteed (unsubsidized)
18.3
Emergency loans
FY2017
H. Cmte.
H.R. 5054
S. Cmte.
S. 2956
P.L. 11531
—
—
—
—
+0.0
+0.0
54.0
62.2
62.2
62.2
65.2
+11.2
+20.8%
14.8
14.4
15.3
15.3
15.3
21.0
+6.6
+46.1%
1.7
0.9
1.3
1.3
1.9
1.3
1.3
+0.0
+0.0%
Indian highly fractionated land loans
0.1
—
—
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
+2.6
—
Individual Development Accounts
—
—
—
1.5
—
1.5
0.0
+0.0
—
90.0
78.7
69.6
82.8
82.0
82.8
90.0
+20.4
+29.3%
FLP salaries and expenses
307.0
307.0
307.0
307.0
307.0
307.0
307.0
+0.0
+0.0%
FLP administrative expenses
7.7
7.9
7.9
10.1
7.9
10.1
10.1
+2.2
+27.1%
Total, FLP budget authority
404.7
393.6
384.5
399.9
396.9
399.9
407.0
+22.5
+5.9%
Admin.
Request
Change: FY2016 to
FY2017 Enacted
1. Budget Authority (loan subsidy)
Farm ownership loans
Direct
Farm operating loans
Other direct loans
Subtotal, loan subsidy
CRS-36
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
P.L. 113-76
P.L. 113235
P.L. 114113
575.0
1,500.0
1,500.0
2,000.0
2,000.0
2,000.0 a
Direct
1,195.6
1,252.0
Guaranteed (unsubsidized)
1,500.0
FY2017
H. Cmte.
H.R. 5054
S. Cmte.
S. 2956
P.L. 11531
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
2,750.0
+750.0
+37.5%
1,252.0
1,460.0
1,460.0
1,460.0
1,530.0
+278.0
+22.2%
1,393.4
1,393.4
1,432.4
1,432.4
1,432.4
1,960.0
+566.6
+40.7%
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
+0.0
+0.0%
Emergency loans
34.7
34.7
34.7
22.6
34.7
22.6
22.6
-12.1
-34.9%
Indian tribe land acquisition loans
2.0
2.0
2.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
+18.0
+900.0%
Indian highly fractionated land loans
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
+0.0
+0.0%
Boll weevil eradication loans
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
+0.0
+0.0%
5,527.3
6,402.1
6,402.1
6,655.1
6,667.1
6,655.1
8,002.6
+1,600.5
+25.0%
Admin.
Request
Change: FY2016 to
FY2017 Enacted
2. Loan Authority (loan level)
Farm ownership loans
Direct
Guaranteed
Farm operating loans
Conservation loans
Guaranteed
Other direct loans
Total, loan authority
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports for the referenced appropriations acts or bills.
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.
a. In July 2016, USDA increased this amount by $500 million, to $2,500 million, by using the authority provided in the FY2016 appropriation (P.L. 114-113, §727) to
increase by 25% the loan authority for programs that are self-funding such as the farm ownership loans.
CRS-37
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2017 Appropriations
Commodity Credit Corporation61
The CCC is the funding mechanism for most of the agriculture-related mandatory spending
programs in the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79, the Agricultural Act of 2014). 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 has also 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 CCC-funded 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.62
Mandatory outlays for the commodity programs rise and fall based on market 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 CCC uses 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 (e.g., certain conservation
and biofuels programs) are also paid from CCC.63
To replenish CCC’s borrowing authority, the enacted FY2017 appropriation continues to provide
an indefinite appropriation (“such sums as necessary”). The amount estimated for FY2017 is
$21.291 billion (triple the amount provided in FY2016 and higher than estimates in 2016 that
were in the Administration’s request and the House and Senate markups). The increase does not
indicate any action by Congress to raise spending but rather follows market conditions and the
payment timelines.
In policy matters, the enacted appropriation creates a pilot program (Section 772), to be available
during FY2017, within one of the new farm commodity support programs under the 2014 farm
bill. Concerns have been raised that the Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC) county-level
payments64 have not been equitable across certain adjacent counties. The issue is the accuracy of
yields calculated at the county level under methods allowed by the farm bill (primarily, the
61
This section was written by (name redacted) (7-...., [redacted]@crs.loc.gov
) and (name redacted)
-. ...,
(7
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
).
62
For more background on the origins and structure of CCC, see CRS Report R44606, The Commodity Credit
Corporation: In Brief.
63
For an example of CCC’s accounting, see USDA, Commodity Estimates Book, “Output 07-CCC Financing Status,”
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/about-fsa/budget-and-performance-management/budget/ccc-budget-essentials/index.
64
The county ARC program is a revenue guarantee, triggered by crop revenue losses at the county level. Payments are
made when actual county crop revenue drops below the county revenue guarantee per acre, which equals the average
historical county yield for the most recent five crop years (excluding the highest and lowest yields) times the national
average market price. See CRS Report R43448, Farm Commodity Provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79).
Congressional Research Service
38
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2017 Appropriations
availability of sufficient data in standard sources). The pilot would allow USDA state offices to
use alternative calculations for the 2016 crop year if they believe that the current formula results
in discrepancies among adjacent counties. A supplementary payment would make up any
difference between the alternative calculation (if higher) and the original yield estimate. The
appropriation provides $5 million for the pilot program and allows the Secretary to choose
participating states.
This one-year pilot (and last year’s permanent change that allows commodity certificates to again
be used)65 is a way of adjusting the farm bill without “reopening” it.
The enacted appropriation does not make any changes to add cottonseed as an eligible oilseed for
the farm commodity program. In February 2016, USDA said that it did not have the authority to
make that declaration administratively.66 In the House and Senate markups of the appropriation,
report language included statements expressing disappointment that the Secretary had not used
his authority to provide such assistance and encouraged him to do so, but neither bill would have
compelled any change. The joint explanatory statement directs the Secretary to issue a report
within 60 days that describes administrative options and recommends legislative actions for the
cotton industry.
Regarding ad hoc disaster assistance allowed under the CCC Charter Act, both the Housereported and Senate-reported bills continue 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, for the first time since FY2011, neither the House-reported nor Senate-reported bills
contain a provision that prevents USDA from providing marketing assistance loans for mohair.
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
65
P.L. 114-113, §740; see CRS Report R44240, Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations.
USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, letter to House Agriculture Committee on the decision whether to name cottonseed as
an eligible oilseed, February 3, 2016, http://www.agri-pulse.com/Uploaded/Conaway-Feb-3-2016%20.pdf.
67
For an explanation of the statutory references, see footnote 44.
68
This section was written by (name redacted) (7-...., [redacted]@crs.loc.gov
) and (name redacted)
-....,(7
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
).
69
For more information, see CRS Report R40532, Federal Crop Insurance: Background.
66
Congressional Research Service
39
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2017 Appropriations
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 FY2017 appropriation is the
same as FY2016, $74.8 million. The Administration had requested a smaller discretionary
appropriation ($66.6 million) plus $20 million of mandatory funding from the crop insurance
fund. Congress did not concur with the requested change for this use of mandatory funding.
For the mandatory appropriation to the Federal Crop Insurance Fund, the enacted appropriation
provides an indefinite amount (“such sums as necessary”), estimated at $8.667 billion. This is
about $800 million more than FY2016 (+10%) but does not reflect any change by Congress to
increase 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 explanatory statement for the enacted appropriation identifies “livestock products” as
separate and distinct from “livestock” for purposes of developing new insurance products. This
distinction supports the development of new insurance products. The authorizing statute refers
only to livestock and lists types of livestock in the definition (7 U.S.C. 1523(b)) but lists no
livestock products. There is no indication that Congress intended for livestock products to fall
under the limitation of livestock insurance policies, and this restriction has hindered the
availability of policies for livestock products like milk. The act encourages the Risk Management
Agency (RMA) to present this reinterpretation to the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation board
at the next scheduled meeting and develop additional policies for milk to provide dairy farmers
with more robust risk management options before the end of the year.
Disaster Assistance70
USDA offers several programs to help producers recover from natural disasters. Most of these
programs are permanently authorized and do not require a federal disaster designation. Most
receive mandatory funding (“such sums as necessary”) and are not subject to annual
appropriations.71 However, agricultural land rehabilitation programs receive discretionary funding
on an ad hoc basis. In recent years, funding has been incorporated into annual appropriations
bills, even though it remains supplemental in nature and amounts vary over time.
For FY2017, the second CR (P.L. 114-254, Division A, Section 185) provided new emergency
funding for two USDA land rehabilitation programs––the Emergency Conservation Program
(ECP, $103 million) and the Emergency Watershed Protection Program (EWP, $103 million).72
Funding was not directed to a specific disaster, event, or geographic region. The final, enacted
FY2017 appropriation (P.L. 115-31, Division A, Section 714) provides an additional $28.7
million for ECP for emergencies not declared a major disaster.
Under ECP and EWP, a national or state emergency does not have to be declared in order to
receive assistance. Recent years’ funding, however, have required that all or a portion of the funds
be used for activities carried out pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Act (Stafford Act).73 The Stafford Act requirement limits the type of eligible disaster to those with
a national or state declared emergency. The enacted FY2017 funding does not include the
70
This section was written by (name redacted) (7
-...., [redacted]@crs.loc.gov
).
For additional information on these programs, see CRS Report RS21212, Agricultural Disaster Assistance.
72
For additional information about ECP and EWP, see CRS Report R42854, Emergency Assistance for Agricultural
Land Rehabilitation.
73
42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.
71
Congressional Research Service
40
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2017 Appropriations
Stafford Act requirement; instead it requires that the funds be used for non-Stafford Act
emergencies.
Conservation74
USDA administers a number of agricultural conservation programs that assist private landowners
with natural resource concerns. These include working land programs, land retirement and
easement programs, watershed programs, technical assistance, and other programs. The two lead
agricultural conservation agencies within USDA are the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS), which provides technical assistance and administers most programs, and the Farm
Service Agency (FSA)—which administers the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).75
Most conservation program funding is mandatory, funded through the CCC and authorized in
omnibus farm bills (about $5.2 billion of CCC funds for conservation in FY2017). Other
conservation programs—mostly technical assistance—are discretionary and funded through
annual appropriations.
The enacted appropriation includes reductions to mandatory conservation programs and provides
an increase from FY2016 levels for discretionary programs.
Discretionary Conservation Programs
All discretionary conservation programs are administered by NRCS. The largest program and the
account that funds most NRCS activities is Conservation Operations (CO). The enacted FY2017
appropriation provides $864 million—more than the FY2016 enacted amount and the Obama
Administration’s request and House-reported bill and the same as the Senate-reported bill. The
enacted appropriation directs CO funding for a number of conservation programs (Table 9).
Table 9. Conservation Operations Funding
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2016
FY2017
P.L. 114113
Admin.
Request
H. Cmte.
H.R. 5054
S. Cmte.
S. 2956
P.L. 11531
851
860
855
864
864
Conservation Technical Assistance
752
761
757
759
759
Soil Survey
80
81
80
81
81
Snow Survey
9.3
9.4
9.3
9.4
9.4
Plant Material Center
9.4
9.5
9.4
9.5
9.5
Watershed Projects (Watershed Operations)
10.6
0
0
5.6
5.6
Program
Conservation Operations
Source: CRS, from H.R. 5054, S. 2956, H.Rept. 114-531, S.Rept. 114-259, and P.L. 114-113.
Notes: Watershed projects are generally funded under a separate authority (Watershed Operations). In recent
years, including FY2017, Congress has required a portion of CO funds to be used for select watershed projects.
74
75
This section was written by (name redacted) (7
-...., [redacted]@crs.loc.gov
).
For more information, see CRS Report R40763, Agricultural Conservation: A Guide to Programs.
Congressional Research Service
41
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2017 Appropriations
The enacted FY2017 appropriation also contains funding for watershed activities, including $150
million for Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations (WFPO)—a program that assists state
and local organizations to plan and install measures to prevent erosion, sedimentation, and flood
damage.76 This is the first appropriated funding for the WFPO program since FY2010. Beginning
in FY2006, the Administration requested no funding for WFPO, citing program inflexibility and a
backlog of congressionally designated projects that were frequently not merited. The
Administration’s FY2017 request proposed no funding for the program, purportedly preferring
fully funding other mandatory conservation programs.77 Since FY2014 Congress has directed a
portion of CO funds to select WFPO activities. Similar directive language ($5.6 million, see
Table 9) is in the FY2017 appropriations, in addition to the $150 million made available for the
program as a whole.
The enacted FY2017 appropriation includes $12 million for the Watershed Rehabilitation
program––the same level enacted in FY2016. The Watershed Rehabilitation program repairs
aging dams previously built by USDA under WFPO. The Obama Administration proposed no
funding, contending that the maintenance, repair, and operation of dams are local responsibilities.
The 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79) provided additional mandatory funding for the program to
remain available until expended.78
Mandatory Conservation Programs
Mandatory conservation programs are generally authorized in omnibus farm bills and receive
funding from the CCC, thus not requiring an annual appropriation.79 But Congress has reduced
mandatory conservation programs through CHIMPS in the annual agricultural appropriations law
every year since FY2003. Because money is fungible, the savings from these reductions are not
necessarily applied toward other conservation activities.
The enacted FY2017 appropriation includes $235 million in CHIMPS to conservation
programs—less than both the House- and Senate-reported bills but more than the Obama
Administration’s proposal.80 The CHIMPS for FY2017 include $179 million from the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), $54 million from the Watershed
Rehabilitation program, and $2 million from the Agricultural Management Assistance (AMA)
program.81 Sequestration further reduces available funding for these and other mandatory
conservation programs in FY2017. Estimated sequestration combined with proposed CHIMPS
would result in an estimated total reduction of over $500 million, or roughly 9% of all mandatory
conservation funding.82
Continued funding reductions to certain conservation programs may be one cause for the
increasing number of unfunded applications. For example, the annual funding authority for EQIP
76
See CRS Report RL30478, Federally Supported Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment Programs.
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, Budget Hearing—Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources and
Environment, 114th Cong., 2nd sess., February 26, 2016.
78
A series of reductions in program funding has resulted in mandatory funding for the Watershed Rehabilitation
program to go unspent and carry forward into FY2017. This is discussed in greater detail in CRS In Focus IF10041,
Reductions to Mandatory Agricultural Conservation Programs in Appropriations Law.
79
For authorized funding and background, see CRS Report R40763, Agricultural Conservation: A Guide to Programs.
80
For a list of proposed CHIMPS, see Table 15.
81
The reduction to AMA applies only to conservation and risk management activities.
82
OMB estimates a 6.9% level of sequestration for non-exempt, non-defense mandatory accounts. See Appendix B.
77
Congressional Research Service
42
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2017 Appropriations
increases incrementally from $1.35 billion in FY2014 to $1.75 billion in FY2018. Despite this
increase in authority, annual sequestration and CHIMPS continue to reduce the amount available
to an average of $1.34 billion annually over the past three fiscal years. In FY2015, 23% of all
eligible EQIP applications were funded, down from 37% in FY2014 and 46% in FY2013. The
FY2017 budget request marked the first time in over a decade that the Administration (under both
G. W. Bush and Obama) did not request CHIMPS to EQIP. The enacted FY2017 appropriation,
however, contains CHIMPS to EQIP by limiting funding to $1.357 billion––$293 million less
than its authorized level of $1.65 billion. The stagnant EQIP funding levels may be only one
reason for the decline in funded applications; however, further funding reductions appear unlikely
to reverse the decline. For more discussion, see CRS In Focus IF10041, Reductions to Mandatory
Agricultural Conservation Programs in Appropriations Law.
Rural Development83
Three agencies are responsible for USDA’s rural development mission area: the Rural Housing
Service (RHS), the Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS), and the Rural Utilities Service
(RUS). This mission area also administers Rural Economic Area Partnerships and the National
Rural Development Partnership.
Overall, the enacted FY2017 appropriation provides a total of $2.94 billion in discretionary
budget authority for rural development programs.84 This is $166.2 million more than enacted for
FY2016 (Table 10). The bill will support approximately $37.3 billion in loan authorization,
$602.2 million more than FY2016.85
Salaries and expenses within Rural Development are funded from a direct appropriation plus
transfers from each of the agencies. The enacted appropriation House bill provides a combined
salaries and expenses total of $675.8 million for FY2017, $7.0 million less than in FY2016.
The bill also includes a general provision (Section 768) directing $500,000 from the salaries and
expenses account to develop an implementation plan for increasing access to education in the
fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in rural communities through the
Distance Learning and Telemedicine program. Another general provision (Section 750) requires
that 10% of the funding for various loan and grant programs administered by RHS, RBS, and
RUS be used to support programs in counties designated as “persistent poverty counties.”
Rural Housing Service
The enacted appropriation provides $2.1 billion in budget authority for RHS programs (before
transfers of salary and expenses). This is approximately $32 million (+1.6%) more than FY2016
and $23 million more than requested. With this budget authority, the bill will provide
approximately $28.1 billion in loan authority, $586.6 million more than FY2016.
The single-family housing loan program (Housing Act of 1949, §502) is the largest housing loan
account, representing 89% of RHS’s total loan authority. The bill provides loan authority of $25
83
This section was written by (name redacted) (7-...., [redacted]@crs.loc.gov
).
If the Cushion of Credit rescission (-$151.5 million in the House bill and -$165 in the Senate bill) is incorporated in
the rural development section as in the committee reports tables (rather than with CHIMPS as in the CBO score), then
the net budget authority would be $2.88 billion and $2.84 billion in the House and Senate bills, respectively.
85
An appropriation covers the federal cost of making direct and guaranteed loans. This loan subsidy is related to any
interest rate subsidy provided by the government, as well as a projection of anticipated loan losses from non-repayment
of loans. The amount of loans that can be made—the loan authority—is several times larger than the subsidy level.
84
Congressional Research Service
43
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2017 Appropriations
billion for Section 502 loan guarantees, $100 million more than for FY2016. For Section 502
direct loans, the enacted appropriation provides $1 billion in loan authority, $100 million more
than FY2016, and $67.7 million for loan subsidies. Section 725 also directs RHS to establish an
intermediary loan packaging program based on the pilot program in effect for FY2013 for
packaging and reviewing section 502 single family direct loans.
Rental Assistance Program grants (Housing Act of 1949, §521) are the largest budget authority
line item in RHS, accounting for approximately 68% of the total RHS budget authority
appropriation in FY2017 (Table 10). The enacted appropriation provides $1.40 billion in new
budget authority, an increase of $15.3 million over FY2016 (+1.1%) and the same as requested.
Section 771 addresses concerns by Congress that, as mortgages mature, housing units will be
removed from RHS’s affordable housing program. This will put low-income residents in jeopardy
of facing unaffordable rent increases. The provision directs RHS to modify the pilot program
initiated March 1, 2017, designed to preserve affordable rental housing through nonprofit transfer
or acquisition of Section 515 properties with expiring mortgages.
RHS also administers the Rural Community Facilities program, which provides direct loans, loan
guarantees, and grants for “essential community facilities” in rural areas with less than 20,000 in
population. The enacted appropriation provides $47.1 million in new budget authority for the
program to support a loan authorization level of $2.75 billion in direct and guaranteed loans, $400
million more than FY2016. Several other programs are supported through the Community
Facilities appropriation: the Rural Community Development Initiative ($4.0 million), Economic
Impact Initiative Grants ($5.8 million), and Tribal College grants ($4.0 million). These programs
are funded at the same level as FY2016.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
The enacted appropriation provides $102 million to the RBS before the Cushion of Credit86
rescission and transfers of salaries and expenses. If the Cushion of Credit rescission is
incorporated as in the Appropriations committee tables, the net RBS budget authority provided
would be -$30 million. For loan authority, the enacted appropriation provides $988 million for the
various RBS loan programs.
For Rural Cooperative Development Grants, the House bill would provide $26.5 million for
FY2017, $4.5 million more than FY2016, with the increase focused on Value Added Product
Development grants. Overall, this includes cooperative development grants ($5.8 million),
Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas ($2.7 million), Value-Added Product
Development grants ($15 million), and grants to assist minority producers ($3 million). The
enacted appropriation provides the same level of funding for all but the Value-Added Product
Development Grant program ($10.7 million).
For the Rural Business Program account, the enacted appropriation provides $65.3 million in loan
subsidies and grants to support Business and Industry loan guarantees ($35.3 million), Rural
Business Enterprise grants ($24 million), and the Delta Regional Authority ($6.0 million). The
subsidies for the Business and Industry Loan Guarantee program will support $919.8 million in
loan authority.
86
The cushion of credit is part of the Rural Economic Development Loan program that does not receive appropriated
budget authority, but rather operates from a cushion of credit account in the U.S. Treasury. Borrowers forward pay on
their loans into a Treasury account that earns a 5% interest rate. Appropriators authorize a loan level that is funded by
the cushion of credit account. Unused or extra funds in the cushion of credit account are periodically rescinded.
Congressional Research Service
44
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2017 Appropriations
The enacted appropriation provides of $5.5 million in budget authority to support loans of nearly
$19.0 million under the Intermediary Relending Program. The bill also provides $8.0 million for
the Rural Energy Savings Program authorized in the 2014 farm bill.
For the first time, the appropriation provides funding for the Healthy Food Financing Initiative
(HFFI, $1 million in Section 767). The HFFI was authorized in the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79,
§4206).
Rural Utilities Service
The enacted appropriation provides $673 million in budget authority for RUS (before transferring
salaries and expenses), about $79 million more than FY2016. This level would support $8.2
billion in loan authorization, the same as in FY2016.
Loan subsidies and grants under the Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program account represent
the largest share of FY2017 enacted budget authority under RUS programs, approximately 85%.
The enacted appropriation provides $571 million in loan subsidies and grants, $49 million more
than FY2016 and $110 million more than the Administration requested. Most of the increase goes
to loan subsidies and water and waste disposal grants. The bill will support $1.25 billion in direct
and guaranteed loans, the same as FY2016.
Besides loan support, the appropriation is divided among several grant accounts:
Water/Waste Disposal grants ($392.0 million),
Direct Loan Subsidies ($52.1 million),
Solid Waste Management grants ($4.0 million),
Individual Well Water grants ($993,000),
Water and Waste Water revolving fund ($1.0 million),
Circuit Rider program ($16.9 million),
Technical Assistance ($20 million),
Grants to Colonias and Alaska and Hawaii Natives ($64 million), and
High Energy Cost grants ($10 million).
The appropriation authorizes loan levels of $6.25 billion for the electrification program, the same
level as FY2016. For the combined distance learning, telemedicine, and broadband account, the
enacted appropriation provides $65.6 million in budget authority, $28.7 million more (78%) than
FY2016. Within the account, the bill provides $34.5 million for rural broadband grants, $24.1
million more than FY2016, and loan authority of $27.0 million, an increase of $6.5 million.
Congressional Research Service
45
Table 10. USDA Rural Development Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
P.L. 113-76
P.L. 113235
P.L. 114113
Salaries and expenses (direct)
203.4
224.2
225.8
Transfers from RHS, RBCS, RUS
454.0
454.0
Subtotal, salaries and expenses
657.4
FY2017
H. Cmte.
H.R. 5054
S. Cmte.
S. 2956
P.L. 115-31
230.7
225.8
226.3
225.8
+0.0
+0.0%
457.0
467.8
447.0
457.0
450.0
-7.0
-1.5%
678.2
682.9
698.5
672.8
683.3
675.8
-7.0
-1.0%
1,279.6
1,298.4
1,616.4
1,616.9
1,653.5
1,639.4
1,654.9
+38.4
+2.4%
2. Rural Business-Cooperative Servicea
130.2
103.2
90.5
148.5
109.4
92.0
97.7
+7.2
+8.0%
3. Rural Utilities Service
501.6
501.7
559.3
550.1
598.8
586.0
639.9
+80.5
+14.4%
Office of the Under Secretary
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
+0.0
+0.3%
Total, Rural Development
2,569.7
2,582.4
2,950.0
3,014.9
3,035.4
3,001.7
3,069.2
+119.2
+4.0%
Subtotal, RD Loan Authority
35,945.4
35,870.1
36,686.7
36,543.0
36,862.1
36,792.7
37,288.9
+602.2
+1.6%
Less rescission of Cushion of Credit
-172.0
-179.0
-179.0
-151.5
-151.5
-165.0
-132.0
+47.0
-26.3%
Net, Rural Development (in cmte. rept.)
2,397.7
2,403.4
2,771.0
2,863.4
2,883.9
2,836.7
2,937.2
+166.2
+6.0%
Administrative expenses (transfer)
415.1
415.1
417.9
426.8
410.1
417.9
412.3
-5.6
-1.3%
Single family direct loans (§502)
24.5
66.4
60.8
60.9
67.7
60.9
67.7
+7.0
+11.4%
Loan authority
900.0
900.0
900.0
900.0
1,000.0
900.0
1,000.0
+100.0
+11.1%
Rural Development
Admin.
Request
Change: FY2016 to
FY2017 Enacted
Programs
1. Rural Housing Service
Alternate total (including rescissions)a
1. Rural Housing Service
Single family guaranteed loans: Loan authorityb
24,000.0
24,000.0
24,000.0
24,000.0
24,000.0
24,000.0
24,000.0
+0.0
+0.0%
Other RHIF programsc
22.8
29.4
27.0
29.4
29.9
31.4
29.9
+3.0
+11.0%
Loan authority
248.6
248.3
248.5
333.2
305.1
340.1
335.1
+86.6
+34.8%
Subtotal, RHIF
462.4
510.9
505.6
517.1
507.7
510.2
509.9
+4.3
+0.9%
CRS-46
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
P.L. 113-76
P.L. 113235
P.L. 114113
25,148.6
25,148.3
25,148.5
1,110.0
1,088.5
Multifamily housing revitalization
32.6
Mutual and self-help housing grants
Rural housing assistance grants
FY2017
H. Cmte.
H.R. 5054
S. Cmte.
S. 2956
P.L. 115-31
25,233.2
25,305.1
25,240.1
25,335.1
+186.6
+0.7%
1,389.7
1,405.0
1,405.0
1,405.0
1,405.0
+15.3
+1.1%
24.0
37.0
37.4
40.0
40.0
41.4
+4.4
+11.9%
25.0
27.5
27.5
18.5
30.0
27.5
30.0
+2.5
+9.1%
32.2
32.2
32.2
28.7
33.7
32.2
33.7
+1.5
+4.5%
13.0
13.0
25.0
25.0
30.0
25.0
30.0
+5.0
+20.0%
2,200.0
2,200.0
2,200.0
2,200.0
2,200.0
2,200.0
2,600.0
+400.0
+18.2%
Community Facilities: Guarantees
3.8
3.5
3.5
0.0
3.3
3.5
3.3
-0.2
-5.1%
Loan authority
59.5
73.2
148.3
0.0
148.3
156.3
148.3
+0.0
+0.0%
Rural community development initiative
6.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
+0.0
+0.0%
Economic impact initiative grants
5.8
5.8
5.8
0.0
5.8
5.8
5.8
+0.0
+0.0%
Tribal college grants
4.0
4.0
4.0
8.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
+0.0
+0.0%
32.5
30.3
42.3
37.0
47.1
42.3
47.1
+4.8
+11.4%
Loan authority
2,259.5
2,273.2
2,348.3
2,200.0
2,348.3
2,356.3
2,748.3
+400.0
+17.0%
Total, Rural Housing Service
1,694.7
1,713.5
2,034.3
2,043.7
2,063.6
2,057.3
2,067.1
+32.8
+1.6%
Less transfer salaries and expenses
-415.1
-415.1
-417.9
-426.8
-410.1
-417.9
-412.3
+5.6
-1.3%
Rural Housing Service (programs)
1,279.6
1,298.4
1,616.4
1,616.9
1,653.5
1,639.4
1,654.9
+38.4
+2.4%
Loan authority
27,408.1
27,421.5
27,496.8
27,433.2
27,653.4
27,596.4
28,083.4
+586.6
+2.1%
67.0
47.0
35.7
35.8
36.9
36.9
35.3
-0.4
-1.0%
Rural Development
Loan authority
Admin.
Request
Change: FY2016 to
FY2017 Enacted
Other housing programs
Rental assistance (§521)
Rural Community Facilities Program
Community Facilities: Grants
Community Facilities: Direct loan authority
Subtotal, Rural Community Facilities
2. Rural Business Cooperative Service
Rural Business Program Account
Guaranteed Business and Industry Loans
CRS-47
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
P.L. 113-76
P.L. 113235
P.L. 114113
Loan authority
958.1
919.8
919.8
Rural business enterprise grants
24.3
24.0
Rural business opportunity grants
2.3
Delta regional authority grants
Rural child poverty
FY2017
H. Cmte.
H.R. 5054
S. Cmte.
S. 2956
P.L. 115-31
892.2
919.8
919.8
919.8
+0.0
+0.0%
24.0
30.0
35.0
24.0
24.0
+0.0
+0.0%
—
—
—
—
—
—
+0.0
+0.0%
3.0
3.0
3.0
—
5.0
3.0
6.0
+3.0
+100.0%
—
—
—
25.0
—
—
—
+0.0
+0.0%
Administrative expenses (transfer)
4.4
4.4
4.5
4.6
3.5
4.5
4.5
+0.0
+0.0%
Loan subsidy
4.1
5.8
5.2
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
+0.3
+5.0%
Loan authority
18.9
18.9
18.9
18.9
18.9
18.9
18.9
+0.0
+0.0%
Rural Economic Development: Loan authority
33.1
33.1
33.1
85.0
50.0
33.1
42.2
+9.1
+27.6%
Rural Cooperative Development grants
26.1
22.1
22.1
22.3
26.6
22.3
26.6
+4.5
+20.4%
Rural Microenterprise Investment: Grants
—
—
—
2.0
—
—
—
+0.0
+0.0%
Rural Microenterprise: Loan subsidy
—
—
—
2.9
—
—
—
+0.0
+0.0%
Loan authority
—
—
—
23.4
—
—
—
+0.0
+0.0%
Rural Business Investment Program: Grants
—
—
—
4.0
—
—
—
+0.0
+0.0%
Loan subsidy
—
—
—
2.6
—
—
—
+0.0
+0.0%
Loan authority
—
—
—
20.6
—
—
—
+0.0
+0.0%
Rural Energy for America: Grants
—
—
—
15.0
—
—
—
+0.0
+0.0%
Loan subsidy
3.5
1.4
0.5
3.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
-0.1
-29.6%
Loan authority
12.8
12.8
7.6
75.8
10.0
7.6
7.6
+0.0
+0.0%
Total, Rural Business-Cooperative
Service
134.6
107.7
94.9
153.1
112.9
96.5
102.2
+7.2
+7.6%
Rural Development
Admin.
Request
Change: FY2016 to
FY2017 Enacted
Rural Development Loan Fund
Program
CRS-48
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
Rural Development
P.L. 113-76
P.L. 113235
P.L. 114113
Less transfer salaries and expenses
FY2017
Admin.
Request
H. Cmte.
H.R. 5054
S. Cmte.
S. 2956
P.L. 115-31
Change: FY2016 to
FY2017 Enacted
-4.4
-4.4
-4.5
-4.6
-3.5
-4.5
-4.5
+0.0
+0.0%
Rural Bus.-Coop. Service (programs)a
130.2
103.2
90.5
148.5
109.4
92.0
97.7
+7.2
+8.0%
Loan authority
1,022.8
984.5
979.3
1,116.0
998.7
979.3
988.4
+9.1
+0.9%
Total, Rural Business-Cooperative Service
134.6
107.7
94.9
153.1
112.9
96.5
102.2
+7.2
+7.6%
Less rescission of Cushion of Credit
-172.0
-179.0
-179.0
-151.5
-151.5
-165.0
-132.0
+47.0
-26.3%
Net, Rural Bus.-Coop. Svc. (cmte. report)
-37.4
-71.3
-84.1
1.6
-38.6
-68.5
-29.8
+54.2
-64.5%
462.4
464.9
522.4
461.6
533.2
546.1
571.2
+48.8
+9.3%
Direct loan authority
1,200.0
1,200.0
1,200.0
803.8
1,200.0
1,200.0
1,200.0
+0.0
+0.0%
P.L. 83-566 loans
40.0
—
—
—
—
—
—
+0.0
+0.0%
Guaranteed loan authority
50.0
50.0
50.0
—
50.0
50.0
50.0
+0.0
+0.0%
Administrative expenses (transfer)
34.5
34.5
34.7
36.5
33.4
34.7
33.3
-1.4
-4.1%
Telecommunication loan subsidy
—
—
0.1
14.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
+3.0
+2852.9%
Telecommunication loan authority
690.0
690.0
690.0
690.0
690.0
690.0
690.0
+0.0
+0.0%
5,500.0
5,500.0
6,250.0
6,500.0
6,250.0
6,250.0
6,250.0
+0.0
+0.0%
Distance learning and telemedicine
24.3
22.0
22.0
35.0
25.0
22.0
26.6
+4.6
+20.9%
Broadband: Grants
10.4
10.4
10.4
39.5
33.0
10.4
34.5
+24.1
+232.6%
Alternate total (including rescission)a
3. Rural Utilities Service
Rural Water and Waste Disposal
Program
Loan subsidy and grants
Rural Electric and Telecom. Loans
Electricity loan authority
Distance Learning, Telemed.,
Broadband
CRS-49
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
P.L. 113-76
P.L. 113235
P.L. 114113
Broadband: Direct loan subsidy
4.5
4.5
4.5
Direct loan authority
34.5
24.1
Subtotal, Rural Utilities Service
536.0
Less transfer salaries and expenses
FY2017
H. Cmte.
H.R. 5054
S. Cmte.
S. 2956
P.L. 115-31
—
4.6
4.5
4.5
+0.0
+0.0%
20.6
—
20.0
27.0
27.0
+6.5
+31.4%
536.2
594.0
586.6
632.3
620.7
673.1
+79.1
+13.3%
-34.5
-34.5
-34.7
-36.5
-33.4
-34.7
-33.3
+1.4
-4.1%
Total, Rural Utilities Service
501.6
501.7
559.3
550.1
598.8
586.0
639.9
+80.5
+14.4%
Loan authority
7,514.5
7,464.1
8,210.6
7,993.8
8,210.0
8,217.0
8,217.0
+6.5
+0.1%
Rural Development
Admin.
Request
Change: FY2016 to
FY2017 Enacted
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements or committee reports for the referenced appropriations acts or bills.
Notes: Loan authority is the amount of loans that can be made and is not added to budget authority in the totals.
a. Amounts for the Rural Business Cooperative Service in this report are before the rescission from the Cushion of Credit account. This allows the agency total to
remain positive. Appropriations Committee report tables show the rescission in the agency section, causing the agency total to be less than zero. This CRS report
includes the Cushion of Credit rescission in the General Provisions section with changes in mandatory spending, as it is scored by CBO (Table 15).
b. This program became self-funding after enactment of loan guarantee fees being charged to banks that are sufficient to cover the loan subsidy.
c. Includes Section 504 housing repair, Section 515 rental housing, Section 524 site loans, Section 518 multi-family housing guarantees, single and multi-family housing
credit sales, Section 523 self-help housing land development, and farm labor housing.
CRS-50
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2017 Appropriations
Domestic Food Assistance87
Domestic food assistance represents over two-thirds of USDA’s budget. Funding is largely for
open-ended appropriated mandatory programs—that is, it varies with program participation (and
in some cases inflation) under the terms of the underlying authorization law. The largest
mandatory programs include the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly
the Food Stamps Program) and the child nutrition programs (including the National School Lunch
Program and School Breakfast Program).
The three largest discretionary budget items are the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for
Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP); and
federal nutrition program administration.88
The enacted FY2017 appropriation would provide over $108 billion for domestic food assistance
(Table 11). This is a decrease of approximately $1.7 billion from FY2016. SNAP’s declining
participation is responsible for most of the difference.
In addition to the accounts’ appropriations language, the enacted appropriation’s general
provisions include additional funding, rescissions, and/or policy changes. These general
provisions are summarized in the sections to follow.
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services
For the Under Secretary’s office, the enacted appropriation would provide approximately $0.8
million. This office received approximately equal funding in FY2016.
The enacted appropriation (§732) requires the coordination of FNS research efforts with USDA’s
Research, Education and Economics mission area. This is to include a research and evaluation
plan submitted to Congress.
SNAP and Other Programs under the Food and Nutrition Act
Appropriations under the Food and Nutrition Act (formerly the Food Stamp Act) support (1)
SNAP (and related grants), (2) a Nutrition Assistance Block Grant for Puerto Rico and nutrition
assistance block grants to American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands (all in lieu of SNAP), (3) the cost of food commodities as well as administrative and
distribution expenses under the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR), (4)
the cost of commodities for the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP)—but not
administrative/distribution expenses, which are covered under the Com
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.