# Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2017 Appropriations > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR44588 ## Record - **Collection:** Congressional research report - **Document type:** CRS Report - **Published:** June 26, 2017 - **Citation:** R44588 ## 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 th [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR44588. Public record. Not legal advice.