Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations







Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress



The agriculture appropriations bill includes all of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
except the Forest Service, plus the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The Commodity
Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) appropriation also has been enacted with the agriculture
appropriations bill, even though jurisdiction in the Senate for CFTC funding moved to the
financial services appropriations subcommittee in FY2008.
The agriculture appropriations bill was not completed before the beginning of FY2009. A nearly

5½ -month continuing resolution (P.L. 110-329, Division A) was enacted on September 30, 2008,


to fund the government until March 6, 2009, or until a separate appropriations bill is enacted. The
continuing resolution generally funds agencies at their FY2008 levels. However, a few exceptions
affecting the agriculture bill allow billions more in spending than in FY2008, including primarily
an unspecified amount for food stamps to maintain program levels, plus $638 million more for
the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) nutrition program, $150 million more for the Food and
Drug Administration, and $518 million more for rural rental assistance.
During the regular appropriations cycle, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported its
version of the agriculture appropriations bill on July 17, 2008 (S. 3289, S.Rept. 110-426). The bill
would have provided $97.2 billion in total funding (up 7% from FY2008), including $20.4 billion
in discretionary appropriations (up 14% from FY2008) and $76.8 billion in mandatory funds (up
6% from FY2008). The Senate bill contained provisions to reduce mandatory spending by $641
million for 18 conservation, bioenergy, specialty crop, research, and rural development programs
below the levels authorized in the 2008 farm bill.
The House Appropriations Committee did not report an FY2009 agriculture appropriations bill.
The subcommittee approved a bill on June 19, 2008, but the full committee stopped regular action
on FY2009 appropriations bills over procedural difficulties. Thus, no information is publicly
available on the contents of the House subcommittee markup.






Most Recent Developments.............................................................................................................1
Scope of the Agriculture Appropriations Bill..................................................................................1
USDA Activities........................................................................................................................1
Related Agencies.......................................................................................................................3
Mandatory vs. Discretionary Spending.....................................................................................3
Outlays, Budget Authority, and Program Levels.......................................................................5
Action on FY2009 Appropriations..................................................................................................5
Continuing Resolution..............................................................................................................6
OMB Apportionment................................................................................................................7
House Action.............................................................................................................................7
Senate Action............................................................................................................................7
Overall Funding Levels.............................................................................................................7
Limits on Mandatory Program Spending..................................................................................8
USDA Agencies and Programs.......................................................................................................11
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Economics..................................................................11
Agricultural Research Service..........................................................................................12
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service.......................................12
Economic Research and Agricultural Statistics................................................................13
Marketing and Regulatory Programs......................................................................................13
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).....................................................13
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)............................................................................15
Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA)...............................16
Meat and Poultry Inspection...................................................................................................16
Farm Service Agency..............................................................................................................17
FSA Salaries and Expenses...............................................................................................17
FSA Farm Loan Programs................................................................................................17
Commodity Credit Corporation..............................................................................................18
Crop Insurance........................................................................................................................19
Conserva ti on ................................................................................................................... ........ 20
Discretionary Programs....................................................................................................20
Mandatory Programs.........................................................................................................20
Rural Development.................................................................................................................21
Rural Housing Service (RHS)...........................................................................................21
Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS).....................................................................22
Rural Utilities Service (RUS)...........................................................................................23
Domestic Food Assistance......................................................................................................23
Programs under the Food and Nutrition Act (Formerly the Food Stamp Act)..................24
Child Nutrition Programs..................................................................................................25
The WIC Program.............................................................................................................26
Commodity Assistance Program.......................................................................................26
Nutrition Program Administration....................................................................................26
Special Program Initiatives...............................................................................................27
Agricultural Trade and Food Aid............................................................................................28
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)..........................................................................................29
Foods ....................................................................................................................................... 31
Human Drugs..........................................................................................................................31





Biologics ................................................................................................................................. 31
Animal Drugs and Feeds.........................................................................................................32
Devices and Radiological Health............................................................................................32
Other Activities.......................................................................................................................32
Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)....................................................................34
Figure 1. USDA Outlays, FY2008 Estimated.................................................................................2
Figure 2. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2008............................................2
Figure 3. Discretionary Appropriations: Nominal and Deflated.....................................................4
Figure 4. Total Appropriations: Nominal and Deflated..................................................................4
Table 1. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations: FY2000-FY2008 Actual and
FY2009 Senate-Reported Bill......................................................................................................4
Table 2. Congressional Action on FY2009 Agriculture Appropriations..........................................6
Table 3. Agriculture Appropriations: FY2009 Action and FY2008 Enacted...................................8
Table 4. Proposed FY2009 Reductions in Mandatory Programs....................................................9
Table 5. FDA Appropriations and User Fees by Program Area.....................................................33
Table 6. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations: FY2007-2008 Enacted and
FY2009 Action...........................................................................................................................35
Author Contact Information..........................................................................................................40
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 40






The agriculture appropriations bill was not completed before the beginning of FY2009. A nearly

5½ -month continuing resolution (P.L. 110-329, Division A) was enacted on September 30, 2008,


to fund the government until March 6, 2009, or until a separate appropriations bill is enacted. The
continuing resolution generally funds agencies at their FY2008 levels, with a few exceptions that
affect the agriculture bill.
The Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version of the agriculture appropriations bill
on July 17, 2008 (S. 3289, S.Rept. 110-426). The bill would have provided $97.2 billion in total
funding (up 7% from FY2008), including $20.4 billion in discretionary appropriations (up 14%
from FY2008) and $76.8 billion in mandatory funds (up 6% from FY2008). See Table 3 and
Table 6 for more details on the bill totals and specific agency amounts.
The House Appropriations Committee did not report an FY2009 agriculture appropriations bill.
The subcommittee approved a bill on June 19, 2008, but the full committee stopped regular action
on all FY2009 appropriations bills shortly thereafter over procedural difficulties.

The agriculture appropriations bill—formally known as the Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act—covers funding for the
following agencies and departments:
• all of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (except the Forest Service, which is
funded by the Interior appropriations bill),
• the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the Department of Health and
Human Services, and
• in the House, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC); in the
Senate, CFTC appropriations are handled by the financial services appropriations
subcommittee.
Jurisdiction for the bill rests with the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations,
particularly in each committee’s Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) carries out widely varied responsibilities through
about 30 separate internal agencies and offices staffed by some 100,000 employees. USDA
spending is not synonymous with farm program spending; it is responsible for many activities
outside of the agriculture budget function.
USDA estimated that its outlays in FY2008 would be $99 billion. Food and nutrition programs
comprise the largest mission area with $60 billion, or 61% of the total, to support the food stamp
program, the nutrition program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), and child nutrition
programs (Figure 1).





The second-largest mission area, with an expected $22 billion (22%) in outlays, is farm and
foreign agricultural services. This mission area includes the farm commodity price and income
support programs of the Commodity Credit Corporation, certain mandatory conservation and
trade programs, crop insurance, farm loans, and foreign food aid programs.
Other USDA activities include natural resource and environmental programs (9% of the total),
rural development (3%), research and education programs (3%), marketing and regulatory
programs (1%), and food safety (1%). About two-thirds of the outlays for natural resources
programs goes to the Forest Service (about $6.2 billion), which is funded through the Interior
appropriations bill. The Forest Service, included with natural resources in Figure 1, is the only
USDA agency not funded through the agriculture appropriations bill.
Figure 1. USDA Outlays, Figure 2. Agriculture and Related
FY2008 Estimated Agencies Appropriations, FY2008
$99.0 billion $90.8 billion
Title IV: Domestic
Farm and foreignFood andTitle I: Agriculturalprograms 27%food programs
agriculture 22%nutrition65%
61%
Title III: Rural
Natural resourcesdevelopment 3%
9%Title VI: FDA,
Rural developmentCFTC 2%
3%
Research 3%Title V: Foreign
Marketing, regulatoryassistance 2%
1%
Food safety 1% Title II: Conservation 1%
Source: CRS, using USDA FY2009 Budget Summary, Source: CRS, using tables from Senate
Feb. 2008. Appropriations Committee, July 2008.
Comparing USDA’s organization and budget data to the Agriculture appropriations bill is not
always easy. USDA defines its programs using “mission areas” that do not always correspond to
categories in the Agriculture appropriations bill, and spending may not match up between USDA
summaries and the appropriations bill for other reasons. For example, foreign agricultural
assistance programs are a separate title in the appropriations bill (Title V); foreign assistance
programs are joined with domestic farm support in USDA’s “farm and foreign agriculture”
mission area (compare Figure 1 with Figure 2). Conversely, USDA has separate mission areas
for agricultural research and marketing and regulatory programs, but both are joined with other
domestic farm support programs in Title I (agricultural programs) of the appropriations bill.
Conservation in the appropriations bill (Title II) is for discretionary programs only, whereas
USDA’s natural resources mission area includes both discretionary and mandatory conservation
programs in addition to the Forest Service.
Moreover, outlays by an agency do not always equal the appropriation or budget authority. For
example, the mandatory outlays of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) as reported by
USDA do not necessarily equal the appropriation to the CCC. The CCC makes payments
(outlays) to farmers using a line of credit with the Treasury, and the appropriation to CCC
replenishes the line of credit to a sometimes different level.





In addition to the USDA agencies mentioned above, the agriculture appropriations subcommittees
have jurisdiction over appropriations for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and, in the House, the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission (CFTC, an independent financial markets regulatory agency). The combined
share of FDA and CFTC funding in the overall agriculture and related agencies appropriations bill
is about 2% (see Title VI in Figure 2).
Jurisdiction over CFTC appropriations is assigned differently in the House and Senate. In the
House, appropriations jurisdiction for CFTC remains with the agriculture appropriations
subcommittee. In the Senate, jurisdiction moved to the financial services appropriations
subcommittee with the FY2008 appropriations cycle. Despite the differences in jurisdiction, the
Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008 still put CFTC appropriations with the Agriculture
appropriations bill.
These agencies are included in the Agriculture appropriations bill because of their historical
connection to agricultural markets. However, the number and scope of non-agricultural issues has
grown at these agencies in recent decades. Some may argue that these agencies no longer belong
in the Agriculture appropriations bill. But despite the growing importance of non-agricultural
issues, agriculture and food issues are still an important component of FDA’s and CFTC’s work.
At FDA, medical and drug issues have grown in relative importance, but food safety
responsibilities that are shared between USDA and FDA have been in the media during recent
years and are the subject of legislation and hearings. At CFTC, the market for financial futures
contracts has grown significantly compared with agricultural futures contracts, but volatility in
agricultural commodity markets has been a subject of recent scrutiny at CFTC and in Congress.
Mandatory and discretionary spending are treated differently in the budget process. Eligibility for
mandatory programs (sometimes referred to as entitlement programs) is usually written into
authorizing laws, and any individual or entity that meets the eligibility requirements is entitled to
the benefits authorized by the law. Congress generally controls spending on mandatory programs
by setting rules for eligibility, benefit formulas, and other parameters, not through appropriations.
Approximately 80% of the total agriculture and related agencies spending is classified as
mandatory, which by definition occurs independently of annual appropriations.
The 2008 farm bill (the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, P.L. 110-246) determines
most of the parameters for mandatory spending in the Agriculture appropriations bill. The vast
majority of USDA’s mandatory spending is for the food and nutrition programs (e.g., food
stamps), the farm commodity price and income support programs, the federal crop insurance
program, and various agricultural conservation and trade programs (nearly all of Figure 1’s
largest two pie pieces). Some mandatory spending, such as the farm commodity program, is
highly variable and driven by program participation rates, economic and price conditions, and
weather patterns. But in general, mandatory spending has tended to rise over time, particularly as
food stamp participation and benefits have risen (Table 1).





Table 1. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations:
FY2000-FY2008 Actual and FY2009 Senate-Reported Bill
(fiscal year budget authority in billions of dollars)
2009
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 S. 3289
Mandatory 62.0 58.3 56.9 56.7 69.7 68.3 83.1 79.8 72.7 76.8
Discretionary 13.9 15.0 16.3 17.9 16.8 16.8 16.8 17.8 18.1 20.4
Total 75.9 73.3 73.2 74.6 86.6 85.1 99.8 97.6 90.8 97.2
Percent discretionary 18% 20% 22% 24% 19% 20% 17% 18% 20% 21%
Source: CRS, using tables from the House and Senate Appropriations Committee.
Notes: Includes regular annual appropriations for all of the USDA (except the Forest Service), the Food and
Drug Administration, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Reflects rescissions. Excludes
emergency supplemental appropriations.
Although these programs have mandatory status, many of these accounts receive funding in the
annual Agriculture appropriations act. For example, the food stamp and child nutrition programs
are funded by an annual appropriation based on projected spending needs. Supplemental
appropriations generally are made if these estimates fall short of required spending. The
Commodity Credit Corporation operates on a line of credit with the Treasury, but receives an
annual appropriation to reimburse the Treasury and to maintain its line of credit.
The other 20% of the agriculture and related agencies appropriations bill is for discretionary
programs. Spending for discretionary programs is controlled by annual appropriations acts. The
subcommittees of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees originate bills each year that
provide funding to continue current activities as well as any new discretionary programs.
Figure 3. Discretionary Appropriations: Figure 4. Total Appropriations:
Nominal and Deflated Nominal and Deflated
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000021$ billion00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000100$ billion
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001920 000000000000000000000090
00000000000000000000018DiscretionaryS. 3289
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000017S. 32890000000000000000000000000000000000000000000080Total
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000016 70
15Total (deflated)
14Discretionary (deflated)
13 60
12
11 50
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Fiscal year Fiscal year
Source: CRS. Source: CRS.
Notes: Deflated using Bureau of Economic Analysis Notes: Deflated using Bureau of Economic Analysis
GDP price deflator. GDP price deflator.





Major discretionary programs include certain conservation programs, most rural development
programs, research and education programs, agricultural credit programs, the supplemental
nutrition program for women, infants, and children (WIC), the Public Law (P.L.) 480
international food aid program, meat and poultry inspection, and food marketing and regulatory
programs. The discretionary accounts also include FDA and CFTC appropriations.
Both discretionary and total appropriations have increased since 2000, but in inflation-adjusted
terms, the level is more nearly constant. (Figure 3 and Figure 4).
In addition to the difference between mandatory and discretionary spending, three other terms are
important to understanding differences in discussions about the federal spending: budget
authority, outlays, and program levels.
1. Budget authority is how much money Congress allows a federal agency to
commit to spend. It represents a limit on funding and is generally what Congress
focuses on in making most budgetary decisions. Most of the amounts mentioned
in this report are budget authority.
2. Outlays are how much money actually flows out of an agency’s account. Outlays
may differ from appropriations (budget authority) because, for example,
payments on a contract may not flow out until a later year. For accounts that
require multi-year contracts for construction or delivery of services, budget
authority may be committed (contracted) in one fiscal year and outlays may be
spread across several fiscal years. But for many accounts, especially those tied to
salaries and normal operating expenses, outlays closely track budget authority.
3. Program levels reflect the activities supported or undertaken by an agency. An
agency’s program level may be much higher than its budget authority for several
reasons.
• User fees support some activities (e.g., food or border inspection).
• The agency makes loans; for example, a large loan authority (program level)
is possible with a small budget authority (loan subsidy) because the loan is
expected be repaid. The appropriated loan subsidy make allowances for
defaults and interest rate assistance.
• Transfers are available from other agencies or funds are carried forward from
a previous fiscal year.

The FY2009 agriculture appropriations bill was marked up in the House subcommittee and
reported by the Senate full committee (Table 2). It did not reach the floor in either chamber. The
agencies affected by the bill are being funded by a continuing resolution until March 6, 2009.





Table 2. Congressional Action on FY2009 Agriculture Appropriations
Subcommittee Conference Report
Markup Approval
House House Senate Senate Conf. Public
House Senate Report Passage Report Passage Report House Senate Law
6/19/08 Polled out 7/17/08 — — —
Voice vote S. 3289
S.Rept.
110-426
Vote 29-0
Source: CRS.
The agriculture appropriations bill was not completed before the beginning of FY2009.
Consequently, a nearly 5½ -month continuing resolution (P.L. 110-329, Division A) was enacted
on September 30, 2008, to fund the government until March 6, 2009, or until a separate
appropriations bill is enacted. The continuing resolution covers the Agriculture appropriations
bill, along with eight other regular appropriations bills. Only three of the regular 12
appropriations bills were enacted before the beginning of the fiscal year, and those were enacted
as a “mini” consolidated appropriations bill together with the continuing resolution.
The continuing resolution generally funds agencies at their FY2008 levels. Exceptions for
agriculture and related agencies programs in the continuing resolution include:
• allowing a higher base allocation for FDA under the continuing resolution by
including in FY2009 funding the $150 million of supplemental emergency
funding that was provided in FY2008 in addition to the regular FY2008
appropriation;
• allowing mandatory spending increases for programs in the Food and Nutrition
Act of 2008 to maintain program levels (an unspecified increase, likely in the
billions of dollars);
• increasing the discretionary funding for the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)
nutrition program to an annual rate of $6.658 billion (up from $6.02 billion in
FY2008);
• increasing funding for the Food and Nutrition Service’s Commodity Assistance
Program to $234 million (up from $210 million in FY2008); and
• increasing the rural housing rental assistance program to $997 million (up from
$479 million in FY2008 and equivalent to the Administration’s request).
The continuing resolution (CR) continues any limitations on funding or programs that were
included in the FY2008 appropriations act. It generally prohibits initiating any new programs, but
it makes special allowances for administrative expenses to carry out new mandatory programs
that were authorized by the 2008 farm bill. Salaries of most federal employees will rise 3.9% in
January 2009, but agencies will not receive any additional funding under the CR to pay for the
increase. Earmarks in the FY2008 appropriations bill are not continued under the CR.





Although the continuing resolution sustains existing programs and allows new mandatory farm
bill programs to begin, it generally orders a conservative funding approach. Under the CR, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) apportions funds to agencies by limiting the amount 1
available at certain times of the fiscal year.
The purpose of the sometimes conservative apportionment is to avoid tying the hands of
appropriators (by agencies already over-obligating funds) should Congress return to session and
pass a final FY2009 appropriations bill that funds some programs at a lower level than FY2008.
For example, some new conservation programs with mandatory funding (but that appropriators or
the Administration have indicated should not be fully funded, as discussed later in the section
“Limits on Mandatory Program Spending”) may receive an OMB apportionment, but the agency
may not be able to spend the money until a later quarter in the fiscal year.
The agriculture subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations passed the FY2009
Agriculture appropriations bill on June 19, 2008, by voice vote. The bill’s contents, though, were
never released because the full committee never voted on or reported the bill.
The full appropriations committee was to consider both the Agriculture and Labor-HHS bills on
June 26, 2008. But proceedings were halted that day before the Agriculture bill was considered.
While the Labor-HHS bill was under consideration, an amendment by the ranking minority
member was offered to substitute the Interior appropriations bill for the text of the Labor-HHS
bill. The amendment was part of an attempt to raise an offshore oil drilling proposal by the
minority party. After a short discussion, the full committee voted to adjourn, 35-27, and
appropriations action on individual bills stopped in the House for the remainder of the session.
The Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version of the Agriculture appropriations bill
(S. 3289, S.Rept. 110-426) on July 17, 2008, by a vote of 29-0. The full committee bypassed
subcommittee action by “polling” the bill, a procedure that permits a bill to advance if
subcommittee members independently agree to move it along. This committee procedure,
uncommon for the Agriculture appropriations bill, has more commonly been used for the
Legislative Branch appropriations bill and the former District of Columbia appropriations bill.
Although the bill was reported, it did not reach the Senate floor.
The Senate-reported FY2009 agriculture appropriations bill, before adjustments, would provide
$96.7 billion in total funds for agriculture and related agencies, including $21.1 billion in
“allowed” discretionary appropriations and $75.6 billion in mandatory funds (Table 3). The
1
OMB Bulletin No. 08-02,Apportionment of the Continuing Resolution(s) for Fiscal Year 2009,” September 30,
2008, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/bulletins/fy2008/b08-02.pdf.





“allowed” discretionary amount reflects the amount provided to the agencies in the regular text of
the appropriations bill, before scorekeeping adjustments that limit certain mandatory programs.
The allowed discretionary amount is 8.9% greater than FY2008 (+$1.721 billion).
Table 3. Agriculture Appropriations: FY2009 Action and FY2008 Enacted
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
Percentage increase
FY2009 in Senate-reported bill
FY2008 Admin. Senate-vs. vs.
Enacted Request reported FY2008 Admin.
Total before scorekeeping adjustments
Mandatory 71.5 75.5 75.6 5.7% 0.1%
Discretionary (allowed) 19.4 19.3 21.1 8.9% 9.7%
Total before adjustments 90.9 94.8 96.7 6.4% 2.1%
Total after scorekeeping adjustments
Mandatory 72.7 76.7 76.8 5.6% 0.1%
Discretionary (official) 18.0 18.9 20.4 13.6% 8.2%
Total, After Adjustments 90.7 95.5 97.2 7.2% 1.7%
Source: CRS.
After scorekeeping adjustments in the Senate-reported bill, the total rises to $97.2 billion (Table
3). The “official” discretionary appropriation, which is used for official budget accounting, is
$700 million less than the “allowed” discretionary amount, and would grow 13.6% from FY2008
to $20.4 billion (up from $18.0 billion in FY2008). Mandatory funding after scorekeeping
adjustments rises about $1.2 billion compared to the amount before adjustments because Section

32 funds are added in the adjustments. The final mandatory amount for the bill rises about 5.6%


(+$4.1 billion) over FY2008, not because of farm programs, which are nearly constant, but
because of nutrition programs, which would increase by $4.2 billion (+7.8%).
See Table 6 at the end of this report for more details on the amounts for specific agencies.
In recent years, appropriators have placed limitations on mandatory spending authorized in the
farm bill. This has affected mandatory programs for conservation, rural development, bioenergy,
and research. Mandatory programs usually are not part of the appropriations process since the
authorizing committees set the eligibility rules and payment formulas in authorizing legislation.
Funding for mandatory programs is usually assumed to be available based on the authorization,
without appropriations action.
When the appropriators limit mandatory spending, they do not change the authorizing law.
Rather, appropriators have put limits on mandatory programs by using appropriations language
such as: “None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this or any other Act
shall be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out section [ ... ] of Public





Law [ ... ] in excess of $[ ... ].” These provisions usually have appeared in Title VII, General
Provisions, of the Agriculture appropriations bill.
The savings achieved by limiting mandatory programs in this way are counted as “scorekeeping
adjustments.” The effect is to score budget savings that can be used to fund discretionary
programs at a higher level than allowed by the discretionary spending cap (the 302(b) allocation).
This is how the “allowed” discretionary amount in Table 3 can be higher than the “official”
discretionary amount.
For FY2009, the Senate-reported bill contains $641 million in reductions from 18 mandatory
programs (including $469 million from nine conservation programs, $85 million from three
bioenergy programs, $72 million from five specialty crops and research programs, and $15
million from one rural development program; see Table 4).
Table 4. Proposed FY2009 Reductions in Mandatory Programs
(dollars in millions)
Authoriza-
tion in 2008 Reduction
farm bill Funds in
available in allowed in mandatory
Program (authorizing section in the 2008 farm bill) FY2009 S. 3289 program
Conservation programs
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (sec. 2501) 1,337 1,052 -285
Small Watershed Rehabilitation program (sec 2803) 100 0 -100
Watershed & Flood Prevention (carryover from FY2007) 65 30 -35
Farmland Protection Program (sec. 2401, 2701) 121 106 -15
Grassland Reserve Program (sec. 2403) 59 48 -11
Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (sec. 2602) 85 74 -11
Voluntary Public Access & Habitat Incentive Program (sec. 2606) 50 45 -5
Agricultural Management Assistance program (sec. 2801) 15 10 -5
Healthy Forest Reserve (sec. 8205) 10 8 -2
Subtotal, conservation programs -469
Bioenergy programs
Rural energy for America program (sec. 9007) 55 0 -55
Repowering assistance program (sec. 9005) 35 8 -27
Biorefinery assistance program (sec. 9003) 75 72 -3
Subtotal, bioenergy programs -85
Specialty crops and research programs
Fruit and vegetables in schools program (sec. 4304) 65 16 -49
Specialty crop research program (sec. 7311) 50 36 -14
Specialty crop block grants (sec. 10109) 49 44 -5
Organic research (sec. 7206) 18 16 -2
Beginning farmer development program (7410) 18 16 -2





Authoriza-
tion in 2008 Reduction
farm bill Funds in
available in allowed in mandatory
Program (authorizing section in the 2008 farm bill) FY2009 S. 3289 program
Subtotal, specialty crops and research programs -72
Rural development programs
Value added grants (sec. 6202) 15 0 -15
Subtotal, rural development programs -15
Total reduction in mandatory programs -641
Source: CRS, based on 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246) and Section 721 of S. 3289.
Most of the proposed FY2009 reductions are from new or continuing mandatory programs in the
enacted 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246). Passage of the new farm bill has made available many
mandatory programs that appropriators or the Administration may propose to reduce, because of
either policy preferences or jurisdictional issues between authorizers and appropriators. The
Administration initially had proposed $314 million in mandatory reductions from three programs, 2
all in conservation, but requested additional reductions in a supplemental budget request after the 3

2008 farm bill was enacted.


Limits on mandatory programs in the proposed FY2009 bill ($641 million, Table 4) are larger 4
than the reductions in the FY2008 appropriations act ($335 million from two programs) and 5
those proposed for FY2007, but not as large as those during the height of the 2002 farm bill
period ($1.5 billion in FY2006). Since appropriators had garnered a reputation for limiting
various mandatory programs in the 2002 farm bill, authorizers in the agriculture committees
chose to reduce or eliminate those programs when savings needed to be scored during budget
reconciliation in 2005. Thus, as the 2002 farm bill ended, relatively little authorization was left
among the mandatory programs that the appropriators had limited from FY2003 to FY2006.
Therefore, passage of the 2008 farm bill—with a host of new and reauthorized mandatory
conservation, research, rural development and bioenergy programs—creates new possibilities for
appropriators to limit mandatory programs.
Under the continuing resolution and because of the reductions recommended in the Senate-
reported bill or the Administration’s request, some of these mandatory programs may be affected
2
The Administration’s proposed $314 million in reductions in mandatory programs included $220 million from the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program, $84 million from the Conservation Security Program, and $10 million from
agricultural management assistance.
3 The Administration’s supplemental budget request on August 1, 2008, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/
amendments/amendment_8_1_08.pdf, released following the enactment of the 2008 farm bill, included additional
reductions in mandatory programs, many of which were included in the Senate-reported bill. Beyond those
incorporated in the Senate bill, the Administration proposed eliminating funding for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Program ($23 million), the Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program ($4 million), the Plant Pest and Disease
Management and Disaster Prevention program ($12 million), and the National Clean Plant Network ($5 million).
4 The $335 million in mandatory reductions in the FY2008 appropriations act included $270 million from the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program and $65 million from dam rehabilitation (watershed and flood prevention).
5 A final FY2007 agriculture appropriations bill was never enacted. FY2007 was funded by a year-long continuing
resolution that basically funded operations at the FY2006 level. The House proposed $505 million in reductions; the
Senate proposed $396 million in reductions.





by OMB apportionment even though a final FY2009 appropriations bill has not been enacted.
While OMB may apportion funds as required by the authorizing law, it might not allow the
agencies to spend the mandatory money until a later quarter in the fiscal year, pending future
action on a final FY2009 appropriations law.

The agriculture and related agencies appropriations bill covers all of USDA except for the Forest
Service. This amounts to about 94% of USDA’s total appropriation. The Forest Service is funded
through the Interior appropriations bill. The order of the following sections reflects the order that
the agencies are listed in the Agriculture appropriations bill. See Table 6 at the end of this report
for more details on the amounts for specific agencies.
Four agencies carry out USDA’s research, education, and economics (REE) function. The
Department’s intramural science agency is the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), which
conducts long-term, high-risk, basic and applied research on subjects of national and regional
importance. The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES)
distributes federal funds to the land grant colleges of agriculture to provide partial support for
state-level research, education, and extension programs. The Economic Research Service (ERS)
provides economic analysis of agriculture issues using its databases as well as data collected by
the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS).
The Senate-reported FY2009 appropriations bill, S. 3289, contained $2.54 billion in discretionary
funds for research, extension, and education programs. This was more than the $2.3 billion
proposed by the Administration for FY2009, and slightly less than the $2.59 billion appropriated
for FY2008. The Senate bill allowed most of the mandatory funds that the 2008 farm bill
provided for certain research grant programs (see “Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Service,” below).
The USDA research, education, and extension budget, when adjusted for inflation, remained
essentially flat in the period from FY1972 through FY1991. From FY1992 through FY2000, the
mission area experienced a 25% increase (in deflated dollars) over the previous two decades, as a
federal budget surplus allowed greater spending for all non-defense research and development.
From FY2001 through FY2003, supplemental funds appropriated specifically for anti-terrorism
activities, not basic programs, accounted for most of the increases in the USDA research budget.
Funding levels since have trended downward to historic levels.
Although the states are required to provide 100% matching funds for research and extension,
most states have regularly appropriated two to three times that amount. Fluctuations in state-level
appropriations can have significant effects on state program levels, even when federal funding
remains stable. Cuts at either the state or federal level can result in program cuts down to the
county level.
In an effort to find new money to boost the availability of competitive grants in the REE mission
area, the House and Senate Agriculture Committees have tapped sources of available funds from
the mandatory side of USDA’s budget and elsewhere (e.g., the U.S. Treasury) twice since 1997.





However, in every year except FY1999, the annual Agriculture appropriations act prohibited the
use of those mandatory funds for the purposes the agriculture committees intended. On the other
hand, in many years during the FY1999-FY2006 period, appropriations conferees provided more
discretionary funds for ongoing REE programs than were contained in either the House- or
Senate-passed versions of the bills. Nonetheless, once adjusted for inflation, these increases are
not viewed by some as significant growth in spending for agricultural research. Agricultural
scientists, stakeholders, and partners express concern for funding over the long term.
The 2008 farm bill institutes significant changes in the structure of the REE mission area, but
retains and extends the existing authorities for REE programs. This is intended to maintain
traditional program activities while the new structure is being implemented. On October 1, 2009,
a new National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) will take the place of CSREES, and
there will be one program planning staff (called the Research, Extension, and Education Office
(REEO)) to coordinate the activities of ARS, ERS, NASS, and NIFA. Future budget requests for
this mission area are to be in the form of a single line item. The new farm bill also provides
mandatory funds for an expanded number of competitive grant programs, although it repeals the
mandatory-funded Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems (established in 1998
legislation).
The Senate-reported bill provided a total of $1.17 billion for USDA’s in-house science agency, the
Agricultural Research Service, with $1.13 billion for research and $31 million to support 15
laboratory modernization projects. The Administration’s budget recommended a total of $1.05
billion for ARS research (the FY2008 appropriation is $1.17 billion), with $1.04 billion allocated
to research and $13.2 million allocated for planning the construction of a biocontainment
laboratory in Athens, Georgia.
The Administration request called for terminating approximately 130 research projects and
redirecting the $146 million in savings to higher-priority research initiatives. As in past years, the
Senate appropriators concurred with only a few of the Administration’s proposed project
terminations, and directed that funding for ongoing projects be provided at the same locations and
levels as in FY2008. The reported bill agreed with the Administration’s request for intensified
research on honeybee colony collapse disorder (CCD) and provided a total of $10.4 million for
pollinator research and an increase of $1 million above the FY2008 level specifically for CCD
research.
The Senate-reported bill provided a total of $1.15 billion for the Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service (CSREES), a 2.9% reduction in discretionary funding from
FY2008. The Administration proposed $994.1 million, a 16% decrease from the FY2008
appropriation. CSREES is the agency that sends federal funds to land grant Colleges of
Agriculture.
Of the $1.15 billion in the Senate-reported bill, $629.9 million funded CSREES’s research and
education grant programs. This represented a $34.4 million decrease from FY2008. However, the
bill took into account the mandatory funding for certain research programs provided in the 2008
farm bill. The Senate committee-reported bill did not allow the total amounts allocated in the





farm bill to be expended; however, it did allow the majority to go toward the purposes the
authorizing committees intended. The bill provided $36 million for the Specialty Crop Research
Initiative (-$14 million from farm-bill authorized level); $16 million for the Organic Research
and Extension Initiative (-$2 million); and $16 million for the beginning farmer and rancher
research program (-$2 million). It also allowed $15 million in mandatory funds provided in the
farm bill for the Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers program, which CSREES
administers. In total, this represented an $84 million increase in support for state-level research
and education programs.
The Senate-reported bill provided increased funding for cooperative extension programs in the
states: $464.3 million ($453.2 million in FY2008). It provided level funding for integrated
research and extension programs: $55.9 million. As in previous years, the committee rejected the
Administration’s proposal to eliminate Special Research Grants for specific projects at specific
land grant universities; the bill contained $50.7 million for that program.
The 2008 farm bill eliminated the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems (IFAFS),
but combined the purpose of that program (with its emphasis on more applied research) with the
National Research Initiative (NRI) competitive grants program (whose emphasis is more on
fundamental, or basic, research). The farm bill authorizes appropriations of $700 million annually
for the combined competitive grant program, called the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative
(AFRI). The Senate-reported bill would have appropriated $200 million for AFRI for FY2009, a
$9 million increase from the NRI funding for FY2008.
The Administration’s FY2009 budget request provided $82.1 million for USDA’s Economic
Research Service (ERS; $77.4 million in FY2008) and $153.5 million for the National
Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS; $162.2 million in FY2008). The Senate-reported bill
appropriated $78.2 million for ERS, essentially level funding with FY2008, but less than the
Administration’s request. The bill provided $149.1 million for NASS, an 8% decrease from the
FY2008 level, and also less than the Administration’s request.
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).
APHIS is responsible for protecting U.S. agriculture from domestic and foreign pests and
diseases, responding to domestic animal and plant health problems, and facilitating agricultural
trade through science-based standards. APHIS has key responsibilities for dealing with such
prominent concerns as avian influenza (AI), bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE or “mad
cow disease”), bovine tuberculosis, a growing number of invasive plant pests—such as the
Emerald Ash Borer, the Asian Long-horned Beetle, and the Glassy-winged Sharpshooter—and a
national animal identification (ID) program for animal disease tracking and control, among other
things. APHIS is also the USDA agency charged with administering the Animal Welfare Act
(AWA), which seeks to protect pets and other animals used for research and entertainment.





The Senate-reported bill provided an $861 million appropriation for APHIS, or $58.1 million
below the President’s FY2009 budget request of $919.1 million, and $6.3 million below the
FY2008 level of $867.3 million. (An additional $2 million was appropriated for APHIS buildings
and facilities, for which the Administration had sought $7.4 million in FY2009.) The budget
estimated the collection of $241 million in existing user fees and trust funds in FY2009 in
addition to the appropriated monies. The Administration again proposed new user fees of $9
million to pay for some of the agency’s animal welfare activities, plus $11 million to pay for
biotechnology regulatory services and veterinary biologics activities, to begin in the following
fiscal year. The Senate-reported bill did not make note of these proposed fees, which would have
required authorizing legislation.
Within the APHIS appropriation, the Senate committee report designated that $159.6 million be
devoted to foreign pest and disease exclusion programs, compared with the Administration
request for $170.5 million. Also within the total APHIS appropriation, the Senate committee
report designated $248 million for plant and animal health monitoring and surveillance activities;
the Administration had requested $282.3 million. The Senate committee report further included,
within the APHIS total, $340.7 million for pest and disease management, which was above the
Administration’s proposed $329.9 million allocation.
During markup of the Senate committee bill, appropriators approved an amendment to prohibit
APHIS from allowing imports of any swine, ruminants, or their meat products from any region of
Argentina, unless the Secretary certifies to Congress that that entire country is free of Foot and
Mouth Disease (FMD). FMD is one of the most contagious animal diseases of pigs, sheep, goats,
cattle, and other ruminants and has caused huge production and economic losses in affected areas.
The United States has not had a reported outbreak since 1929, and it bans the import of these
animals and of fresh (frozen and chilled) meats from them, if they are from areas with FMD,
including much of South America. APHIS reportedly is working on a proposed rule to permit
meat imports from FMD-free regions of Argentina, which has not reported any recent outbreaks.
The emerging plant pests (EPP) account within the pest and disease management spending area
(see above) would have been funded by the Senate committee at $127.5 million in FY2009,
compared with an Administration request of $145.5 million and a FY2008 level of $127 million.
The committee report further specified how most of this money should be divided among plant
problems of major concern: for citrus pests and diseases, $35.5 million; Glassy-winged
Sharpshooter/Pierces’ Disease, $23.1 million; Emerald Ash Borer, $32.5 million; Sudden Oak
Death, $5.3 million; Asian Long-horned Beetle, $20 million; Karnal bunt, $1.5 million; potato
cyst nematode, $7.7 million.
Regarding another EPP, the Senate committee report provided for $500,000 to be used to suppress
the Varroa mite on Oahu to keep the Big Island (Hawaii) free of it. The panel stated that Hawaii is
a major supplier of queen bees to the United States mainland, where colony collapse disorder has
devastated the industry. Finally, the Senate provided $993,000 for the EPP light brown apple
moth; the committee noted in its report that $90 million in Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC)
funding has been made available in FY2007 and FY2008 for the pest (although as of June 2008
only $27 million had been obligated).





More generally, the Administration and congressional appropriators have sparred for years over
whether APHIS should—as appropriators have preferred—reach as needed into USDA’s
Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) account for mandatory funds to deal with EPP and other
plant and animal health problems on an emergency basis, or be provided the funds primarily
through the annual USDA appropriation—as the Administration and OMB have argued.
The Senate-reported bill provided $9.9 million for FY2009 to continue implementation of the
National Animal Identification System (NAIS), less than the Administration request of $24
million. As of July 2008, only about 500,000 premises were registered under the NAIS out of an
estimated 1.4 million U.S. animal and poultry operations. This is despite USDA’s commitment of
approximately $127 million to the program over a number of years.
Reportedly, a House Appropriations draft bill for USDA’s FY2009 appropriation contained
incentives to encourage wider adoption of animal ID, which is currently voluntary for
producers—notably a requirement that USDA purchase meats for the school lunch program
starting in 2010 only from suppliers in the ID system. (See CRS Report RS22653, Animal
Identification: Overview and Issues, by Geoffrey S. Becker.)
Among other APHIS allocations noted in the Senate report were $59.8 million for avian influenza
activities, $17.8 million for Chronic Wasting Disease, $17.8 million for bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (“mad cow disease”) ongoing surveillance; and $20.1 million for animal welfare
regulation, including $497,000 for horse protection activities.
AMS is responsible for promoting the marketing and distribution of U.S. agricultural products in
domestic and international markets. User fees and reimbursements, rather than appropriated
funds, account for a substantial portion of spending by the agency. Such fees, which now cover
AMS activities like product quality and process verification programs, commodity grading, and
Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act licensing, will total an estimated $141 million in
FY2008 and a projected $145 million in FY2009.
AMS historically receives additional funding each year through two separate appropriations
mechanisms—the direct annual USDA appropriation, and a transfer from the so-called Section 32 6
account. Regarding the FY2009 direct appropriation, the Senate-reported bill would have
provided $73.4 million, including nearly $3.2 million for the National Organic Program (under
the AMS Marketing Services account) and $1.7 million for payments to states under the Federal-
State Marketing Improvement Program (FSMIP). The Senate bill was below the Administration’s
6
Section 32 funding comes from a permanent appropriation equivalent to 30% of annual U.S. Customs receipts. AMS
uses these additional Section 32 monies (also not reflected in the above totals) to pay for a variety of programs and
activities, notably child nutrition, and government purchases of surplus farm commodities not supported by ongoing
farm price support programs. For an explanation of this account and more details on the farm bill change, see CRS
Report RL34081, Farm and Food Support Under USDA's Section 32 Program, by Geoffrey S. Becker.





FY2009 request of $77.3 million, and the FY2008 level of $88.9 million. FSMIP was funded at
an unusually high level of $11.6 million in FY2008; the appropriators in that year used the
program as the funding vehicle for $8.5 million in specialty crop (fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, and
nursery crops) block grants to states as authorized under the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act
of 2004 (P.L. 108-465). With enactment of the 2008 farm bill, Congress now provides mandatory
funding for specialty crop block grants through USDA’s CCC account.
The 2008 farm bill also effectively sets new annual caps on how much Section 32 money AMS
will be able to use for all of its other activities, the most significant being the purchase of surplus
agricultural commodities. These caps are intended as a way to fund a fresh produce program for
school nutrition programs without raising spending above the budget baseline, as estimated by the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The farm bill cap for FY2009 was set at $1.173 billion; the
Senate-reported FY2009 appropriation bill lowered it further, to $1.014 billion. The apparent
effect of this reduction could be to free up additional Section 32 money (i.e., $159 million) that
the committee presumably had redirected toward other programs in its bill.
One branch of this agency establishes the official U.S. standards, inspection and grading for grain
and other commodities. Another branch is charged with ensuring competition and fair-trading
practices in livestock and meat markets. The Senate-reported bill provided $39.2 million in
FY2009 for GIPSA salaries and expenses, which was less than the Administration’s FY2009
request of $44 million but more than the FY2008 amount of $38.5 million.
Agency activities also are supported by user fees, amounting to approximately $42 million
annually or about half the agency’s overall budget. The Administration again proposed additional
user fees—to take effect after FY2009—to offset some grain inspection and Packers and
Stockyards (P&S) activities, to recoup an estimated $27 million annually; the Senate report did
not make note of this proposal, which would require authorizing legislation.
USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) conducts mandatory inspection of meat,
poultry, and processed egg products to insure their safety and proper labeling. The Senate-
reported bill provided $973.6 million for FSIS, $43.9 million above the FY2008 level and $21.6
million above the Administration’s request of $951.9 million.
This congressional appropriation would be augmented in FY2009 by an estimated $140 million in
existing user fees. The Senate-reported bill did not make note of the Administration’s request for
new user fees totaling another $96 million, but not starting until after FY2009. This proposal,
repeated from the FY2008 Administration budget, would include $92 million in new licensing
fees for meat and poultry establishments, and $4 million in “performance fees” charged to
establishments involved in product retesting, recalls or illness outbreaks. The fees would require
authorizing legislation.
Language in the Senate bill directed that FSIS devote not fewer than 120 full-time equivalent
positions to enforcement of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA) and that $3 million
be devoted to maintenance of the Humane Animal Tracking System. Funds for the system were
requested by the Administration and are at the same level provided for FY2008. The Department





came under criticism earlier in 2008 when an animal welfare advocacy group released a videotape
showing the mistreatment of cattle at a California slaughter plant. The charges led to questions
about enforcement of the HMSA, the entry of some nonambulatory (“downer”) cattle into the
food supply, and the largest meat recall ever. This was despite dedicated funding and instructions
from Congress in several previous appropriations laws to increase enforcement of the humane
slaughter law. (See CRS Report RS22819, Nonambulatory Livestock and the Humane Methods of
Slaughter Act, by Geoffrey S. Becker.)
The accompanying Senate committee report stated that $3.8 million of the FSIS appropriation
was for the agency’s activities related to Codex Alimentarius, the cooperative international body
that develops scientifically based guidelines for food safety in order to facilitate trade while
protecting consumer health. The report also expressed support for language in the 2008 farm bill
that permits eligible state-inspected plants to ship meat and poultry in interstate commerce, and
encourages the Secretary to begin work on implementing regulations immediately. (See CRS
Report RL34202, State-Inspected Meat and Poultry: Issues for Congress, by Geoffrey S. Becker.)
USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) is probably best known for administering the farm
commodity income support and disaster assistance programs, and making these payments to
farmers through a network of county offices. In addition, FSA also administers USDA’s direct and
guaranteed farm loan programs, certain mandatory conservation programs (in cooperation with
the Natural Resources Conservation Service), and certain international food assistance and export
credit programs (in cooperation with the Foreign Agriculture Service).
All of the administrative funds used by FSA to carry out its programs are consolidated into one
account. A direct appropriation for FSA salaries and expenses pays to carry out the activities such
as the farm commodity programs. Transfers are received for administration of CCC export credit
guarantees, P.L. 480 loans, and the farm loan programs.
For FY2009, the Senate-reported bill provided $1.164 billion in direct appropriations for FSA
salaries and expenses, plus $332 million in transfers from other parts of USDA for FSA salaries
and expenses. The consolidated total in the Senate-reported bill was $1.496 billion, up 5% from
FY2008, but 2% less than the Administration’s request.
Unlike appropriations bills for the past few years, the FY2009 Senate-reported bill did not contain
language prohibiting closure of FSA county offices. That language was incorporated into the

2008 farm bill as a two-year prohibition with certain exceptions (P.L. 110-246, sec. 14212).


The USDA Farm Service Agency serves as a lender of last resort for family farmers unable to
obtain credit from a commercial lender. USDA may provide direct farm loans (loans made
directly from USDA to farmers), but it can also guarantee the timely repayment of principal and
interest on qualified loans to farmers from commercial lenders. FSA loans are used to finance
farm real estate, operating expenses, and recovery from natural disasters. Some loans are made at
a subsidized interest rate.





An appropriation is made to FSA each year to cover the federal cost of making direct and
guaranteed loans, referred to as a loan subsidy. Loan subsidy is directly related to any interest rate
subsidy provided by the government, as well as a projection of anticipated loan losses from
farmer non-repayment of the loans. The amount of loans that can be made—the loan authority—
is several times larger than the subsidy level.
For FY2009, the Senate-reported bill would have continued the same loan authority as in
FY2008, $3.428 billion. The Administration’s budget request had proposed reducing the amount
of guaranteed loans and increasing the amount of direct loans, for a slight net increase in loan
authority. The cost of the loan program in terms of appropriated loan subsidy would have
decreased in the Senate-reported bill by $1.2 million to $147 million. This was about $7 million
less than the loan subsidy in the Administration’s request, owing to the Administration proposal’s
heavier use of direct loans, which are relatively more expensive to the government per dollar of
loan authority.
For more information about agricultural credit in general, see CRS Report RS21977, Agricultural
Credit: Institutions and Issues, by Jim Monke.
Although the Farm Service Agency pays the discretionary salaries and expenses to administer the
farm income support and disaster assistance programs, the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC)
is the funding mechanism for the mandatory payments that farmers receive. Most spending for
USDA’s mandatory agriculture and conservation programs was authorized by the 2008 farm bill
(P.L. 110-246). For more information, see CRS Report RL34696, The 2008 Farm Bill: Major
Provisions and Legislative Action, by Renee Johnson et al..
The CCC is a wholly owned government corporation that has the legal authority to borrow up to
$30 billion at any one time from the U.S. Treasury. These borrowed funds finance spending for
programs such as farm commodity subsidies and various conservation, trade, and rural
development programs. Emergency supplemental spending also has been paid from the CCC over
the years, particularly for ad hoc farm disaster payments, for direct market loss payments to
growers of various commodities in response to low farm commodity prices, and for animal and
plant disease eradication efforts.
Although the CCC can borrow from the Treasury, it eventually must repay the funds it borrows. It
may earn a small amount of money from activities such as buying and selling commodities and
receiving interest payments on loans. But because the CCC never earns more than it spends, its
borrowing authority must be replenished periodically through a congressional appropriation so
that its $30 billion debt limit is not depleted. Congress generally provides this infusion through
the annual USDA appropriation law. In recent years, the CCC has received a “current indefinite
appropriation,” which provides “such sums as are necessary” during the fiscal year.
Mandatory outlays for the commodity programs rise and fall automatically based on economic or
weather conditions. Funding needs are difficult to estimate and more or less of the Treasury line
of credit may be used year to year. Similarly, the congressional appropriation may not always
restore the line of credit to the previous year’s level. For these reasons, the appropriation to the
CCC may not reflect the outlays of the CCC for the agricultural programs. Outlays (e.g.,
payments to farmers) in FY2009 will be funded initially through the borrowing authority of the
CCC and reimbursed to the Treasury through a separate (and possibly future) appropriation.





For FY2009, USDA projects that CCC net expenditures (outlays) will be $9.4 billion, nearly the
same as FY2008, and down from $10 billion in FY2007 and $20 billion in FY2006. The lower
current level of CCC outlays is due to less need for price-triggered farm commodity subsidies
since market prices are higher than government support levels.
For FY2009, to replenish CCC’s borrowing authority with the Treasury, the Senate-reported bill
concurred with the Administration request for an indefinite appropriation (“such sums as
necessary”) for CCC, estimated to be $11.1 billion, down 14% from $13 billion in FY2008. With
these amounts of outlays and appropriations, the CCC would have about $25 billion of its $30
billion line of credit available at the end of the fiscal year.
The federal crop insurance program is administered by USDA’s Risk Management Agency
(RMA). It offers basically free catastrophic insurance to producers who grow an insurable crop.
Producers who opt for this coverage have the opportunity to purchase additional insurance
coverage at a subsidized rate. Policies are sold and completely serviced through approved private
insurance companies that have their program losses reinsured by USDA and are reimbursed by
the government for their administrative and operating expenses.
The annual Agriculture appropriations bill traditionally makes two separate appropriations for the
federal crop insurance program. It provides discretionary funding for the salaries and expenses of
the RMA. It also provides “such sums as are necessary” for the Federal Crop Insurance Fund,
which finances all other expenses of the program, including premium subsidies, indemnity
payments, and reimbursements to the private insurance companies.
For the salaries and expenses of the RMA, the Senate-reported bill concurred with the
Administration request for $77.18 million, which represented a 1.5% increase over the FY2008
appropriated level of $76.05 million. As permitted in the FY2008 appropriations act, the Senate
bill also allowed RMA to tap up to $11.166 million in FY2009 mandatory funds available for
crop insurance research and development, in order to strengthen RMA’s ability to reduce waste,
fraud and abuse within the crop insurance program. This was in addition to the authority given to
RMA by the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246) to allocate up to $4 million in general crop insurance
mandatory funds for combating waste, fraud, and abuse. Most of this funding would be used for
RMA’s ongoing “data mining” activities, whereby RMA compiles and monitors an annual list of
producers who either exhibit high frequency and severity of losses, or are suspected of poor
farming practices that might contribute to production losses. USDA estimates that the use of the
spot-check list has prevented between $70 million and $110 million each year in improper
payments.
Senate appropriators also concurred with the Administration estimate of the need for an FY2009
appropriation of $6.583 billion for the Federal Crop Insurance Fund, although the amount
actually required to cover program losses and other subsidies is subject to change based on actual
crop losses and farmer participation rates in the program. The Administration’s FY2009 estimate
for the fund is significantly higher than the estimated $4.1 billion in FY2008. Much of the
difference is explained by an expectation that crop losses will be greater this year than last year’s
record low loss experience, and the difference is also partially due to the higher value of crops
given higher market prices.





For more information on crop insurance, see CRS Report RL34207, Crop Insurance and Disaster
Assistance in the 2008 Farm Bill, by Ralph M. Chite.
The Senate-reported bill provided increased funding for discretionary Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS) programs, despite proposed reductions in the Administration’s
budget. However, the Senate bill limited spending for several mandatory programs that were
authorized to receive substantial funding increases following changes enacted in the 2008 farm
bill.
The Senate-reported bill provided $970.2 million for total FY2009 discretionary conservation
programs. This was $32.6 million (+3%) more than was provided in FY2008, and nearly $170.0
million more than was requested by the Administration. All the discretionary conservation
programs are administered by NRCS.
Most of the increase was in appropriations for Conservation Operations (the largest discretionary
program). The Senate-reported bill provided $866.9 million for FY2009, which was $32.5 million
above the FY2008 estimate and $72.1 million above the Administration’s request, and was
intended to help pay for implementation of new farm bill conservation programs. The committee
specified that no more than $250,000 be available for alterations and improvements to buildings
and other public improvements. The committee also specified that appropriations be made
available for technical assistance and related expenses to carry out certain programs.
The Senate bill also maintained funding for other discretionary programs at levels enacted for
FY2008, thus restoring funding for programs the Administration proposed to terminate, including
the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations (the Senate bill included $29.8 million for
FY2009); the Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) program ($50.7 million for
FY2009); and the Healthy Forests Reserve Program ($2.0 million for FY2009).
The Administration proposed to reduce funding for the Watershed Rehabilitation Program to $6
million, but the Senate bill contained $20.0 million for FY2009. The committee specified that no
more than $15.5 million of funds for Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations be used for
technical assistance; also, no more than $3.1 million of funds for RC&D could be available for
national headquarters activities.
Mandatory conservation programs are administered by NRCS and the Farm Service Agency
(FSA). Funding comes both from the Commodity Credit Corporation and a mandatory account
for NRCS. The Senate-reported bill substantially limited spending for several NRCS programs,
compared to newly authorized levels in the 2008 farm bill. However, many of these programs
would still receive more money than they received for FY2008. Overall, FY2009 funding for
NRCS’s mandatory spending programs in the Senate bill was reduced by $469 million (Table 4)
from the FY2009 level authorized by the 2008 farm bill. Funding for FSA’s Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP) was not expected to change, and was estimated at about $2.0 billion for FY2009.





Funding levels for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) would have been
limited to $1.05 billion for FY2009—a reduction of $285 million from the authorized level of
$1.34 billion in the 2008 farm bill. Estimated funding for EQIP was $1 billion in FY2008,
although the program was authorized at $1.27 billion for FY2008 in the 2002 farm bill.
Other NRCS programs with reduced funding compared to authorized levels in the 2008 farm bill
included the Farmland Protection Program ($15 million lower than the FY2009 authorized level);
the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program ($11 million lower); the Grassland Reserve Program and
the Healthy Forest Reserve Program (both $2 million lower); and the Agricultural Management
Assistance program and the newly created Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive
Program (both $5 million lower than authorized). For some of these programs, recommended
FY2009 funding would still be greater than estimated FY2008 spending. Finally, the Senate bill
limited the use of unobligated prior-year balances in excess of $30 million for the dam
rehabilitation program under the Watershed and Flood Prevention Program, and specified that no
new funds be used for the dam rehabilitation program, although $100 million was newly
authorized for FY2009 (available until expended) in the 2008 farm bill.
Three agencies are responsible for USDA’s rural development mission area:
• Rural Housing Service (RHS),
• Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS),
• Rural Utilities Service (RUS).
An Office of Community Development provides community development support through field
offices. This mission area also administers the rural portion of the Empowerment Zones and
Enterprise Communities Initiative, Rural Economic Area Partnerships, and the National Rural
Development Partnership.
Part of the rural development appropriation covers the federal cost of making loans, referred to as
a loan subsidy. Loan subsidy is directly related to any interest rate reduction provided by the
government, as well as a projection of anticipated loan losses from non-repayment of the loans.
The amount of loans that can be made, the loan authority, is several times larger than the subsidy.
For FY2009, the Senate bill provided $2.89 billion (+24% over FY2008) in discretionary budget
authority to support $16.6 billion (+0.3% over FY2008) in USDA rural development loan and
grant programs. The Administration requested $198 million less in budget authority than FY2008,
and $3.6 billion less in loan authority. Most of the differences in budget authority can be
accounted for by the RHS rental assistance program, and in loan authority by the RUS electric
loan program.
The Senate bill provided a $1.83 billion appropriation for RHS loans and grants, about 37% more
(+$498 million) than enacted for FY2008. All of this increase can be accounted for by a $526
million increase (+109%) in the rental assistance program, which is needed to meet program
demand by low income tenants. The RHS appropriation would support $6.09 billion of loan
authority for FY2009, about equal to FY2008 and 7% more than the Administration’s request.





Single-family housing loans (Section 5027 direct and guaranteed loans) constitute the largest RHS
loan account and represent 87% of the total loan authority under RHS. The Senate bill included
$128 million (-$27 million compared to FY2008, but +$115 million compared to the
Administration’s request) to support $5.31 billion in direct and guaranteed loan authority (the
same as for FY2008). Loan guarantees represent the larger portion of the Section 502
authorization level ($4.19 billion).
For the rental assistance program (Section 521), the Senate bill provided just over $1 billion in
budget authority, an increase of $526 million over FY2008 (+109%) and $10 million more than
requested. This large increase reflects a higher demand or need for the rental assistance program
by low income tenants, who are requesting contract renewals at a higher rate. Given the demand
for this program, the continuing resolution allows the Administration’s proposed level of
spending, an annual rate of $997 million through March 6, 2009 (P.L. 110-329, Division A, Sec.

115). See the “Continuing Resolution” section earlier in this report for details.


For mutual and self-help housing grants and rural housing assistance grants, the Senate bill 8
authorized the same as in FY2008 ($38.7 million for each program). For the farm labor account
(Section 514/516), the Senate bill included $15 million for loan subsides and grants, about $7
million less than enacted for FY2008. The Administration requested no funding for the program.
For the rural housing voucher program, the bill contained $5.0 million, the same as for FY2008.
Within RHS, the Senate bill included $67.7 million for the Rural Community Facilities account –
approximately the same as for FY2008 – and approximately $44 million more than the 9
Administration’s request.
The Senate bill provided RBS $189.4 million in budget authority (+$12 million over FY2008,
+6.3%), which would support $1.26 billion in loan authority (about the same as FY2008). These
amounts were considerably higher than the Administration’s request, which was for $54 million
in budget authority and $734 million in loan authority.
Approximately $87.4 million would have been provided for the Rural Business Program account
(see footnote 9), nearly the same as FY2008. This included $38.7 million for Rural Business
Enterprise grants, $2.5 million for Rural Business Opportunity grants, $43 million in loan
subsides for Business and Industry (B&I) loan guarantees ($993.0 million in loan authorization),
and $3.0 million for the Delta Regional Authority. These funding levels were the same as enacted
for FY2008 but considerably more than the Administration’s request.
7
Section references in this heading are to Title V of the Housing Act of 1949.
8 Rural Housing Assistance supports very low-income housing repair grants and housing preservation grants. The
program also supports supervisory and technical assistance grants and compensation for construction defects. No
funding for FY2009 was recommended for these latter two programs.
9 Prior to FY2008, 12 accounts in the Rural Community Advancement Program (RCAP) were combined into a single
account with three funding streams: a Rural Community Facilities Account administered by RHS; a Rural Business
Program Account administered by RBS, and a Rural Water and Waste Disposal Account administered by RUS.
Beginning in FY2008, the former RCAP accounts are reported separately under the RHS, RBS, and RUS accounts.





The Senate bill also included $8.1 million for the rural Empowerment Zone/Enterprise
Communities (EZ/EC) grants programs, the same as FY2008. The bill’s amount for the
Renewable Energy Program was $50 million (+$14 million over FY2008) to support $198
million in loans (-$8 million under FY2008). The Administration had requested nothing for these
programs.
The Senate bill also provided $25.1 million in Rural Cooperative Development Grants (-$2.7
million compared to FY2008) to support the Cooperative Development program ($4.4 million),
Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas ($2.7 million), Value-Added Product Grants
($16.2 million), and Grants to Assist Minority Producers ($1.5 million). The bill also included
$14.0 million to support $33.5 million of loans for the Rural Development Loan Fund, the same
as for FY2008.
For FY2009, the Senate bill provided $657.3 million of budget authority and $9.25 billion in loan
authorization, both about the same as FY2008, but both about 30% higher than the
Administration’s request.
Loan subsidies and grants under the Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program account (see
footnote 9) represent the largest share of budget authority under RUS programs (about 85% of the
total). For the various water and waste disposal programs, the Senate bill contained $558.6
million in budget authority, the same as FY2008 and $290 million more than requested. This
would support $1.17 billion in direct and guaranteed loans, nearly the same as for FY2008 and
$210 million less than the Administration’s request.
The bill also recommended $38.8 million in budget authority to support $7.78 billion in
telecommunication loans, both basically the same as FY2008.
For the Distance Learning/Telemedicine program, the bill contained approximately $34.7 million
in grant support, the same as for FY2008. The bill also included $297.9 million in loan authority
for broadband loans, the same as requested and enacted for FY2008.
For more information on USDA rural development programs, see CRS Report RL31837, An
Overview of USDA Rural Development Programs, by Tadlock Cowan.
Funding for domestic food assistance represents nearly two-thirds of USDA’s budget. These
programs are, for the most part, mandatory entitlements; that is, funding depends on program
participation and indexing of benefit payments. These mandatory programs include child nutrition
programs, the newly renamed Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly the
Food Stamp program), and The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP). The three main
discretionary budget items are the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants,
and Children (the WIC program), the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (the CSFP), and
federal nutrition program administration.
For FY2009, the Senate committee bill would have provided a total of $65 billion for domestic
food assistance, about $900 million more than the Administration’s request and $5 billion more





than FY2008.10 The Senate bill differed from FY2008 and the Administration’s request primarily
in that it provided considerably more funding for the WIC program and the CSFP, and in that
Food Stamp expenses are higher than in FY2008.
Appropriations under the Food and Nutrition Act support (1) the regular Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP), (2) a Nutrition Assistance Block Grant for Puerto Rico and small
nutrition assistance grants to American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas
(in lieu of the SNAP), (3) the cost of commodities and administration under the Food Distribution
Program on Indian Reservations (the FDPR), (4) the cost of commodities for TEFAP (but
generally not related administrative or distribution expenses, which are covered under the
Commodity Assistance Program budget account), and (5) Community Food Projects and grants to
improve access to the SNAP.
For the above-noted programs covered by the Food and Nutrition Act, the Senate bill would have
appropriated a total of $43.4 billion in FY2009, up from $37.9 billion in FY2008—in both cases,
a $3 billion contingency reserve for SNAP benefits was included in case cost projections prove
too low. With only two relatively small, but significant differences, this closely matched the
Administration’s $43.3 billion request for FY2009. These differences are noted below.
• On the basis of projected participation and the value of indexed benefit amounts,
the Administration asked for a $41.4 billion appropriation for the regular SNAP,
including a $3 billion contingency reserve and a small amount to cover new
program costs attendant on termination of the CSFP (see later discussions of the
Commodity Assistance Program account and Special Program Initiatives). This
represented a $3.5 billion increase over FY2008. The Senate committee bill
effectively adopted the FY2009 dollar request, but rejected the Administration’s
proposal to end the CSFP.
• For Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the Northern Marianas, the
Administration proposed an FY2009 amount totaling some $1.678 billion for
Puerto Rico, $6.7 million for American Samoa, and $10.2 million for the
Northern Marianas. These amounts represented small increases adding up to
about $60 million over FY2008. The Senate committee bill adopted the
Administration’s requested amounts.
• The Administration’s FY2009 budget for the FDPIR asked for $92 million, up
from $88 million in FY2008. The Senate committee bill adopted the
Administration’s amount.
• For FY2009, the funding level for TEFAP commodities in the Senate committee
bill was noticeably higher than the Administration’s request for $140 million (the
amount available in FY2008). The Senate bill appropriated $250 million,
10
Not included in this annual appropriations figure are permanent appropriations and mandatory funding directed by
child nutrition laws, the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246), the value of commodities required to by purchased (under
Section 32 authority) for child nutrition programs and other outlets, and the value ofbonus” commodities acquired
for agriculture support purposes and donated to food assistance programs. These items are separate from, but
recognized in, the regular appropriations process. Also see the Section 32 discussion under the “Agricultural Marketing
Service (AMS)” heading earlier in this report.





reflecting a requirement in the 2008 farm bill. The Senate bill also included a
provision allowing the use of up to 10% of the TEFAP amount for the program’s
distribution costs.
• The Senate committee bill made $5 million available for both Community Food
Projects and SNAP access grants (no change from FY2008).
The continuing resolution allows mandatory spending increases for programs in the Food and
Nutrition Act of 2008 to maintain program levels (P.L. 110-329, Division A, Sec. 111). See the
“Continuing Resolution” section earlier in this report for details.
Appropriations under the Child Nutrition account fund a number of programs and activities
covered by the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition Act. These
include the School Lunch and Breakfast programs, the Child and Adult Care Food Program (the
CACFP), the Summer Food Service program, the Special Milk program, assistance for related
state administrative expenses, procurement of commodities for child nutrition programs (in
addition to those funded from separate budget accounts), state-federal reviews of the integrity of
school meal operations (“Coordinated Reviews”), “Team Nutrition” and food safety education
initiatives to improve meal quality and safety in child nutrition programs, technical assistance and
other similar activities related to the CACFP, and data collection efforts. Funding for a program
offering free fresh fruits and vegetables in schools is discussed later in the section on “Special
Program Initiatives.”
On the basis of projections of increased participation and the indexed value of child nutrition
subsidies, the Administration proposed an FY2009 appropriation of $14.456 billion for all child
nutrition programs, an increase of some $550 million over FY2008. In virtually all cases noted
below, the FY2009 amount was higher than for FY2008. The Senate committee bill followed the
Administration’s requested amounts for FY2009. The following amounts for each program area
show new funds made available for spending. However, these funds generally could be shifted
among the programs if needed.
• School Lunch program: $8.346 billion
• School Breakfast program: $2.522 billion
• CACFP: $2.387 billion
• Summer Food Service program: $329 million
• State administrative expenses: $184 million
• Commodity procurement: $648 million
• Special Milk program: $13.9 million
• Coordinated reviews: $5.5 million
• Team Nutrition and food safety initiatives: $15.3 million
• Other activities (related to the CACFP and data collection): $5 million





The Senate-reported bill for FY2009 would have provided a substantially larger amount for the
WIC program than requested by the Administration: $6.75 billion vs. $6.1 billion. The Senate’s
higher amount was based on more current estimates of program needs (participation and food
costs) than the Administration’s and sought to assure that there would be sufficient funds to serve
all those eligible who wish to participate. In addition, the Senate bill provided funding to maintain
a $50 million contingency reserve for unexpected costs and rejected Administration proposals to
cap grants for nutrition services and administration and limit eligibility for the WIC program (see
later section on “Special Program Initiatives”).
The continuing resolution increases the WIC funding to an annual rate of $6.658 billion until
March 6, 2009 (P.L. 110-329, Division A, Sec. 114), higher than the amount that otherwise would
have continued from FY2008. See the “Continuing Resolution” section earlier in this report for
details.
The Commodity Assistance Program supports several discretionary programs and activities: (1)
the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (the CSFP), (2) funding for administrative and
distribution costs under TEFAP, (3) the WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition program, (4) special
assistance for certain nuclear-affected zones in the Marshall Islands, and (5) commodity
assistance in the case of natural disasters.
For FY2009, the Administration proposed a major change affecting this budget account; it
recommended terminating the CSFP, which was appropriated $142 million in FY2008 (see
“Special Program Initiatives” at the end of this section). As a result, its requested total amount
was $70 million (down from $212 million in FY2008). The budget request for the remaining
program areas asked for FY2009 funding at the same level as in FY2008: $49.5 million for
TEFAP administrative and distribution expenses, $19.8 million for the WIC Farmers’ Market
Nutrition program, and a total of some $1 million for the nuclear-affected zones and disaster
assistance.
On the other hand, the Senate-reported provision for the Commodity Assistance Program account
rejected the proposal to terminate the CSFP and, instead, increased funding to $155 million in
FY2009. In other respects, it adopted the Administration’s request. As a result, the Senate bill
would have provided a total of $225 million for FY2009.
The continuing resolution increases FY2009 funding for the Commodity Assistance Program to
an annual rate of $234 million, with $163 million allocated for the CSFP (P.L. 110-329, Division
A, Sec. 119).
This budget account covers spending for federal administration of all the domestic food
assistance programs noted above, special projects for improving the integrity and quality of
nutrition programs, and the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion (CNPP).





For FY2009, the Administration requested $150 million for nutrition program administration
activities. This was a significant increase over the approximately $140 million provided for
FY2008 and took into account salary increases and new initiatives relating to program integrity
and oversight and dietary guidelines. The Senate committee bill appropriated $143 million for
nutrition program administration.
Discretionary grants for the Congressional Hunger Center (and its Bill Emerson and Mickey
Leland hunger fellowships) also have typically been administered as part of this budget account.
The FY2008 appropriation provided $2.5 million for the Center, but the Administration proposed
no money for FY2009. The Senate-reported bill would have appropriated $2.5 million for
FY2009 (Sec. 726).
In addition to regular appropriations, the Senate-reported bill included (or rejected) changes to
program rules established in underlying authorizing laws for domestic food assistance programs.
The Senate-reported bill, in Sec. 729, added one additional state (Vermont) to the eight states in
which federal subsidies are offered for suppers served in after-school programs. The eight
existing states are Delaware, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and
West Virginia.
The 2008 farm bill established a program offering fresh fruits and vegetables in selected
elementary schools nationwide. This replaced a fresh fruit and vegetable program that operated in
a limited number of states (up to $20 million was available for FY2008). The farm bill provided
mandatory funding (outside the regular appropriations process) for this expanded effort. For
school year 2008-2009 (beginning July 2008), the farm bill includes $40 million. For school year
2009-2010 (beginning July 2009), it provides $65 million. The Senate committee bill would have
delayed the availability of some of the 2009-2010 funding: $16 million on July 1, 2009, and the
remaining $49 million on October 1, 2009. For more detail, see CRS Report RL33829, Domestic th
Food Assistance: The Farm Bill and Other Legislation in the 110 Congress, by Joe Richardson.
The Administration proposed to cap the amount of the per-person grant that states get to
administer the WIC program and provide nutrition education and other services (in addition to
money for WIC food vouchers). Savings of some $150 million were projected. It also
recommended denying automatic WIC eligibility to Medicaid participants with income above
250% of the federal poverty income guidelines. However, the Senate-reported bill rejected both
proposals.





As in previous years, the Administration recommended terminating the CSFP in FY2009. It
contended that the program duplicates benefits provided under the SNAP and the WIC program
and provided for special SNAP benefits and outreach efforts to the elderly population who make
up almost all of the CSFP caseload. The Senate committee bill turned down the Administration’s
proposal.
The Senate-reported appropriations bill included discretionary appropriations for USDA’s
international activities in FY2009 of $1.503 billion, with P.L. 480 Title II humanitarian food aid
being the largest component. The appropriation would have exceeded the Administration‘s budget
request by just $1.0 million. An additional $3.640 billion of mandatory CCC funds were allocated
to other USDA international programs during FY2009. Since the reported appropriations measure
imposed no restriction on mandatory export program spending, program levels for these activities
(mainly export market promotion, export credit guarantees, and some food aid) would have been
at farm bill authorized levels.
The Senate-reported bill included $169 million for the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) to
administer USDA’s international programs, up from $158 million in FY2008, and $1 million
more than the Administration requested for FY2009.
For P.L. 480 foreign food assistance, the committee-reported amount was $1.229 billion, all for
Title II commodity donations. This was the exact amount requested by the President, but less than
the $2.5 billion of discretionary funding authorized for Title II in the recently enacted 2008 farm
bill (P.L. 110-246). FY2008-FY2009 supplemental appropriations (P.L. 110-252) included $395
million for Title II commodity donations in FY2009. Assuming enactment of the Senate
committee bill, the total appropriation available for Title II in FY2009 would have been $1.624
billion.
The Senate-reported bill concurred with the President’s request for no funds for P.L. 480 Title I
sales and grants. Authority for Title I concessional food aid has not been requested since FY2006,
reflecting, according to the Administration, declining demand for concessional food aid finance
and increasing need for food aid for emergency relief. Eliminating food aid loans and providing
only commodity donations as food aid also accords with proposals in the Doha Round of
multilateral trade negotiations to provide food aid in fully grant form.
The President’s budget proposed (for the third time beginning with FY2007) to allow the
Administrator of U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to use up to 25% of P.L.
480 Title II funds for local or regional purchases of commodities to address international food
crises. The Senate Appropriations Committee did not include this proposal in S. 3289. The 2008
farm bill, though, contains a provision authorizing $60 million of CCC funds, not Title II
appropriations, over four years for a pilot project to assess local/regional purchases of food aid for
emergency relief. The Senate appropriations committee report (S.Rept. 110-426) also noted that
the 2008 farm bill contained a provision mandating a minimum level of P.L. 480 Title II funds (a
“safe box”) to be used for non-emergency (development) assistance ($375 million in FY2009).
While agreeing with the importance of non-emergency food aid, the committee suggested that
this language has the potential to complicate the delivery of food assistance in an emergency
situation. The committee indicated that it “should be notified immediately” of a determination





that the need for emergency assistance would exceed the amount available and that the non-
emergency “safe box” would be breached.
Two USDA-administered food aid programs, Food for Progress (FFP) and Section 416(b)
donations, receive mandatory funding. The President’s budget assumed $340 million of CCC
funds for FFP, which provides food aid to emerging democracies. P.L. 480 Title I funds can be
allocated to FFP, but in the absence of an appropriation for Title I, that source would be
unavailable in FY2009. Similarly, USDA anticipates that no CCC commodity inventories would
be available for distribution as food aid under Section 416(b), a program that makes surplus
agricultural commodities available overseas. The Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust, a reserve of
commodities and cash to meet unanticipated food aid needs, does not receive a specific allocation
of CCC funds. At present, $294 million of cash are in the reserve and could be used if
unanticipated needs arise.
The Senate-reported bill provided $100 million of discretionary funds for the McGovern-Dole
International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program, the amount requested by the
President. In addition, the 2008 farm bill authorized $84 million of mandatory funds from the
CCC for McGovern-Dole in FY2009 to be available until expended.
The Senate bill included an appropriation of $5.353 million for administrative expenses of CCC
export credit guarantee programs. The President’s budget estimated this would finance, all in
short-term guarantees, U.S. agricultural exports in FY2009 of $2.6 billion. The 2008 farm bill
repealed authorization for an intermediate credit guarantee, one of several changes intended to
help bring CCC export credit guarantee programs into compliance with a WTO dispute panel
decision that found such programs to be prohibited export subsidies because they do not recover
operating costs.
The President’s budget proposed that $200 million of CCC funds would be allocated to the
Market Access Program (MAP). In addition, other export market development activities would
receive CCC funding in FY2009 at levels established in the 2008 farm bill: $34.5 million for the
Foreign Market Development Program, up to $10 million for technical assistance under the
Emerging Markets program, and $7 million for the Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops
(TASC) program. Legislative authority for the Export Enhancement Program was repealed by the
2008 farm bill. USDA’s other smaller export subsidy program, the Dairy Export Incentive
Program (DEIP), would be allocated $3 million for FY2009.
For additional information on USDA’s international activities, see CRS Report RL33553,
Agricultural Export and Food Aid Programs, by Charles E. Hanrahan.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates the safety of foods and cosmetics, and the 11
safety and effectiveness of drugs, biologics (e.g., vaccines), and medical devices. Now a part of
the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), FDA was originally housed in the
Department of Agriculture. The agriculture appropriations subcommittees retain jurisdiction over
11
For more information about FDAs budget and functions, see CRS Report RL34334, The Food and Drug
Administration: Budget and Statutory History, FY1980-FY2007, by Judith A. Johnson et al.





the FDA budget. FDA’s budget has two components: direct appropriations (also referred to as
budget authority) and user fees.
The FY2008 enacted appropriation in P.L. 110-161 provided FDA a direct appropriation of $1.72 12
billion. The President’s request for FY2009, as amended, was for $2.046 in direct appropriations
(+19% more than FY2008). The Senate-reported bill would have provided $2.051 billion in direct
appropriations, an increase of less than 1% over the President’s request.
For user fees, the FY2008 enacted appropriation set FDA’s FY2008 user fee appropriation level at
$549 million. The FY2009 request included three categories of fees: continuing fee programs;
newly authorized fee programs; and proposed fee programs. For continuing programs, the request
was $595 million ($565 million for prescription drug, medical device, and animal drug fees; and
$30 million for mammography, and export and color certification fees), a 3% increase over
FY2008. The FY2009 request included $14 million for the advisory review of direct-to-consumer
(DTC) television advertisements for prescription drugs, a new fee program authorized by the
FDA Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA, P.L. 110-85). This brought the total request for
authorized fees to $609 million, which would be 11% higher than the FY2008 enacted
appropriation. The budget justification documents included two sets of proposed fees, which
would require authorization in law before appropriations could be made. One set ($21 million)
would bring revenue for FDA to use to enhance the review of generic human and animal drugs.
The Administration categorized these as proposed definite appropriations and included the
revenue in its fee total, which it presented as $630 million, 15% more than FY2008. The second
set of proposed fees ($27 million), labeled in the request as “mandatory fees—non-add” and not
included in the user fee total, covered reinspection, and food and animal feed export certification.
The Senate committee report did not include either set of proposed fees or the newly authorized
fee program for DTC advertisement review. The Senate bill, therefore, included $595 million in
total fees.
The Senate-reported bill contained $335 million in specific budget authority increases. These
increases were for cost-of-living adjustments ($25 million); food safety activities ($155 million);
drug, biologics, and device safety ($104 million); and activities to modernize FDA’s science and
workforce ($50 million, including $10 million for buildings and facilities). The Senate report
described product safety activities across the agency that the increased funding would support.
These included increased facility inspections, improved laboratory infrastructure and rapid
analysis tools, implementation of safety activities that FDAAA required, and upgraded
information technology. Funding to modernize FDA’s science and workforce, as listed in the
Senate report, would support research, science training, professional development, and
recruitment efforts. S.Rept. 110-426 also listed selected areas in which the committee encourages
certain activities or minimum levels of budget commitment.
12
The initial February 2008 version of the President’s FY2009 request for FDA totaled $2.4 billion, including $1.771
billion in direct appropriations (budget authority) and $628 million in user fees (FDA, Fiscal Year 2009 Justification of
Estimates for Appropriations Committees, February 2008, at http://www.fda.gov/oc/oms/ofm/budget/
documentation.htm). The President submitted an amended request for the Department of Health and Human Services
on June 9, 2008 (letter at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/amendments/amendment2_6_9_08.pdf). The FDA
Office of Financial Management provided CRS with additional details of the amended request (amended budget
authority table and telephone conversations, August 2008).





The FDA’s foods program area remains totally funded by direct appropriations. The FY2009
request and the Senate committee bill each included $661 million, 30% more than the FY2008
enacted appropriation.
The Senate committee endorsed the Administration’s request for $155 million in additional
funding for food protection activities. These activities include opening additional FDA offices
outside of the United States; increasing capacity to identify and address food safety risk factors;
more rapidly detecting contamination and tracing it back to its source; hiring additional foreign
and domestic inspectors; and creating a communication system for public information about food
borne illness outbreaks.
The Senate report mentioned the following food-related items: Agricultural Products Food Safety
Laboratory ($1.8 million); development of a program to increase inspections of antibiotics in
shrimp; Codex Alimentarius ($2.5 million); review of botanicals in dietary supplements ($1.7
million); National Center for Food Safety and Technology ($2.2 million); work with states to
combat fraud concerning seafood economic integrity; seafood safety ($0.3 million); work with
the State of Hawaii on standardized food safety certification; standards of identity (concerning
FDA’s lack of enforcement regarding the use of milk protein concentrate in standardized cheese);
Waste Management Education and Research Consortium ($0.07 million); and the Western Region
FDA Center of Excellence at the University of California at Davis ($1.5 million).
The FY2009 request for the FDA human drugs program was $789 million, a 16% increase from
FY2008. The total request included $407 million in direct appropriations and $381 million in user
fees. Specified increases were for safety ($42 million) and modernizing science and workforce
($9 million).
As described in the introduction to this report’s FDA section, the Senate committee did not
include the DTC advertising fees authorized by FDAAA in the appropriations bill, thereby
blocking their collection and use. By omitting that $12 million plus the $15 million requested for
the proposed Generic Drug User Fee Act, the Senate recommendation for human drug program
fee revenue totaled $354 million, an 8% increase over the FY2008 enacted level rather than the
requested 17% increase.
The Senate report noted the following human drug-related areas in its report: collaborative drug
safety research on cardiac biomarkers with the Critical Path Institute and the University of Utah
($0.6 million); critical path and modernizing drug safety ($16 million); generic drugs ($82
million); orphan products grants ($14 million); and prioritizing review and reporting on new
treatments and clinical trials for pediatric oncology patients.
The FY2009 request for the FDA biologics program was $268 million. Excluding its share of the
DTC advertising fees, the total request was for $267 million, 13% higher than FY2008, including
$181 billion in direct appropriations and $87 million in user fees. The increase in direct
appropriations would go to product safety ($13 million) and modernizing science and workforce





($6 million). The only biologics-related issue mentioned in the Senate committee report
concerned the evaluation of in vitro high-throughput immune response assessment technologies.
FDA’s animal drugs and feeds (ADF) budget funds activities of the Center for Veterinary
Medicine and supporting field activities. The President’s amended FY2009 request was for $128
million, including about $114 million in direct appropriations (an 18% increase over FY2008),
almost $14 million for brand-name animal drug user fees, and $4 million for a new animal
generic drug user fee program. The requested increase in direct appropriations would be used to
enhance food and drug safety, and modernize scientific and workforce activities. The Senate
committee concurred with the Administration request for the ADF budget authority. The Senate
bill also allowed a total amount of more than $15 million for the user fee program (of which
about $14 million was provided to the ADF budget) by anticipating the amount subsequently 13
authorized for FY2009 in an extension of program authority.
The FY2009 request for the FDA devices and radiological health program was $326 million, a
15% increase from FY2008. The total request comprised $277 million in direct appropriations
and $49 million in user fees. The Senate-reported bill included $327 million, with increases over
FY2008 for product safety ($30 million) and modernizing science and workforce ($6 million).
In addition to the multi-product issue of safety, particularly for imports, the Senate committee
noted the following device and radiological health items in its report: demonstration grants for
improving pediatric device availability ($2 million), and mammography (to report, with a
timeline, on proposed amendments to the Mammography Quality and Standards Act; and to spend
at least at the FY2008 level).
Both the FY2009 request and the Senate committee recommendation would have increased funds
to the National Center for Toxicological Research, and the FDA headquarters and the Office of
the Commissioner for food protection and modernizing science and workforce activities.
The Senate committee report encouraged FDA to fund the Office of Women’s Health ($5 million)
and directed FDA to submit its FY2010 budget request using the account format it used for the
FY2009 request.
Table 5 displays, by program area, the budget authority (direct appropriations), user fees, and
total program levels in the FY2008 enacted appropriation, the FY2009 request, and the Senate
committee recommendation for FY2009.
13
P.L. 110-316, the Animal Drug User Fee Amendments of 2008, enacted in August 2008, reauthorized the brand-
name animal drug user fee program, and authorized a new animal generic drug user fee program at a level of almost $5
million for FY2009. The Senate committee did not address funding for this program. For more information, see CRS
Report RL34459, Animal Drug User Fee Programs, by Sarah A. Lister.





Table 5. FDA Appropriations and User Fees by Program Area
(millions of dollars)
FY2009
FY2008 Admin. aSenate-b
FDA Program Area Funds Enacted Request reported
Foods BA 510 661 661
Subtotal 510 661 661
Human drugs BA 353 407 410
Fees 327 381 354
Subtotal 680 789 763
Biologics BA 155 181 182
Fees 81 87 86
Subtotal 236 268 268
Animal drugs and feeds BA 97 114 114
Fees 12 18 14
Subtotal 109 132 128
Devices and radiological health BA 238 277 278
Fees c 46 49 49
Subtotal c 284 326 327
Toxicological research (NCTR) BA 44 52 52
Subtotal 44 52 52
Headquarters and Office of the Commissioner BA 97 122 123
Fees 36 40 39
Subtotal 133 162 161
GSA rent BA 131 131 131
Fees 29 25 21
Subtotal 159 155 151
Other rent and related (White Oak consolidation) BA 89 89 89
Fees 10 20 23
Subtotal 99 109 112
Certification funds Fees 10 10 10
Subtotal 10 10 10
Salaries & Expenses Subtotal BA 1,714 2,034 2,039
Fees 549 630 595
Total S&E 2,262,662,633 d
Buildings & Facilities Subtotal BA 6 12 12
Total B&F
FDA Total BA 1,720 2,046 2,051





FY2009
FY2008 Admin. Senate-
FDA Program Area Funds Enacted Request a reported b
Fees 549 630 595
Total FDA 2,270 2,676 2,646
Source: FDA, Fiscal Year 2009 Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, February 2008; amended
FY2009 request, June 2008, provided by the FDA Office of Financial Management, August 2008; and S. 3289 and
S.Rept. 110-426, July 21, 2008.
Notes: BA=budget authority, also referred to as direct appropriation.
a. Reflects the amended Administration request. In addition to previously authorized user fees, includes $35.5
million in new user fees from DTC television advertisement advisory review ($14 million), authorized by
P.L. 110-85 (FDAAA); animal generic drug user fees ($4.8 million), authorized by P.L. 110-316 (ADUFA
2008); and proposed generic drug user fees ($16.6 million). It does not include proposed fees for re-
inspections or food and animal feed export certification. ADUFA fees reflect the revised numbers that FDA
developed for congressional consideration of ADUFA (P.L. 110-316), rather than the amount in the original
FY2009 request.
b. Does not include fees for DTC advertisement review, human or animal generic drug review, re-inspection,
or food and animal feed certification.
c. Includes revenue collected from the Mammography Quality and Standards Act (MQSA).
d. S.Rept. 110-426 provides two different FDA FY2009 total program levels: $2.633 billion (p. 107) and $2.604
billion (p. 145). The difference ($29,618) is the value of fees from indefinite appropriations (MQSA and
export and color certification).

The CFTC is the independent regulatory agency charged with oversight of derivatives markets.
The CFTC’s functions include oversight of trading on the futures exchanges, registration and
supervision of futures industry personnel, prevention of fraud and price manipulation, and
investor protection. Although most futures trading is now related to financial variables (interest
rates, currency prices, and stock indexes), congressional oversight remains vested in the
agriculture committees because of the market’s historical origins as an adjunct to agricultural
trade.
For FY2009, the Senate-reported Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill
(S. 3260) provided $157.0 million, an increase of 24% over the Administration’s request of $130
million, and 41% over the FY2008 appropriation of $111.3 million. The increase was related to
concerns over the CFTC’s ability to monitor the futures markets, particularly those in energy
commodities. For more information about S. 3260, see CRS Report RL34523, Financial Services
and General Government (FSGG): FY2009 Appropriations, by Garrett Hatch.
Because the House agriculture appropriations bill was not reported in the House, as described
earlier in this report, no amounts for the House recommendation for CFTC are publicly available.





Table 6. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations: FY2007-2008 Enacted and FY2009 Action
Budget authority in millions of dollars
Senate-reported vs. Senate-reported vs.
FY2009 FY2008: Admin. request
FY2007 FY2008 Admin. Senate-Dollar Percent Dollar Percent
Agency or Major Program Enacted Enacted Request reported change change change change
Title 1: Agricultural Programs
Agricultural Research Service (ARS) 1,128.9 1,167.8 1,050.2 1,165.1 -2.7 0% 114.9 11%
Coop. State Research Education and Extension Service (CSREES) 1,182.9 1,183.8 994.1 1,150.0 -33.8 -3% 155.9 16%
Economic Research Service (ERS) 75.2 77.4 82.1 78.2 0.8 1% -3.9 -5%
National Agric. Statistics Service (NASS) 147.3 162.2 153.5 149.1 -13.1 -8% -4.4 -3%
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) 851.2 867.6 926.6 863.0 -4.6 -1% -63.6 -7%
iki/CRS-R40000Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) 112.7 114.7 126.7 90.6 -24.1 -21% -36.1 -28%
g/wGrain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Admin. (GIPSA) 37.8 38.5 44.0 39.2 0.7 2% -4.8 -11%
s.or
leakFood Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) 892.1 930.1 951.9 973.6 43.5 5% 21.7 2%
Farm Service Agency (FSA) Salaries and Expenses 1,337.1 1,430.3 1,521.5 1,495.7 65.4 5% -25.8 -2%
://wiki
httpFSA Farm Loans: Subsidy Level 149.8 148.6 154.0 147.4 -1.2 -1% -6.6 -4%
FSA Farm Loans: Loan Authority a 3,749.5 3,427.6 3,441.6 3,427.6 0.0 0% -14.0 0%
Risk Management Agency (RMA) Salaries and Expenses 76.7 76.1 77.2 77.2 1.1 1% 0.0 0%
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) b 4,379.3 4,818.1 6,582.9 6,582.9 1,764.8 37% 0.0 0%
Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) b 23,098.3 12,983.0 11,106.3 11,106.3 -1,876.7 -14% 0.0 0%
Other agencies and programs 561.1 452.6 533.5 494.0 41.4 9% -39.5 -7%
Subtotal
Mandatory 27,494.1 17,818.0 17,706.6 17,706.9 -111.1 -1% 0.3 0%
Discretionary 6,536.2 6,632.9 6,598.0 6,705.3 72.4 1% 107.3 2%
Subtotal 34,030.3 24,450.9 24,304.6 24,412.2 -38.7 0% 107.6 0%
Title II: Conservation Programs
Conservation Operations 763.4 834.4 794.8 866.9 32.5 4% 72.1 9%





Senate-reported vs. Senate-reported vs.
FY2009 FY2008: Admin. request
FY2007 FY2008 Admin. Senate-Dollar Percent Dollar Percent
Agency or Major Program Enacted Enacted Request reported change change change change
Watershed Surveys and Planning 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% 0.0 0%
Watershed & Flood Prevention 0.0 29.8 0.0 29.8 0.0 0% 29.8
Watershed Rehabilitation Program 31.3 19.9 5.9 20.0 0.1 1% 14.1 239%
Resource Conservation & Dev. 51.1 50.7 0.0 50.7 0.0 0% 50.7
Healthy Forests Reserve 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0% 2.0
Under Secretary, Natural Resources 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.1 14% 0.0 0%
Subtotal 852.6 937.5 801.5 970.2 32.7 3% 168.7 21%
Title III: Rural Development
iki/CRS-R40000Salaries and Expenses 161.3 168.8 258.2 210.7 41.9 25% -47.5 -18%
g/wRural Housing Service (RHS) 1,520.7 1,331.3 1,484.3 1,829.8 498.5 37% 345.5 23%
s.orRHS Loan Authority a 5,570.8 6,095.4 5,699.8 6,085.7 -9.7 0% 385.9 7%
leakRural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS) 170.2 177.9 53.6 189.4 11.5 6% 135.8 253%
://wikiRBCS Loan Authority a 1,149.1 1,265.2 733.8 1,257.1 -8.1 -1% 523.3 71%
httpRural Utilities Service (RUS) 647.2 655.3 339.0 657.3 2.0 0% 318.3 94%
RUS Loan Authority a 7,639.5 9,179.5 6,467.1 9,251.9 72.4 1% 2,784.8 43%
Under Secretary, Rural Development 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.0 0% -0.1 -14%
Subtotal 2,500.0 2,334.0 2,135.7 2,887.9 553.9 24% 752.2 35%
Subtotal, Rural Development Loan Authority a 14,359.4 16,540.1 12,900.7 16,594.7 54.6 0% 3,694.0 29%
Title IV: Domestic Food Programs
Child Nutrition Programs 13,345.6 13,901.5 14,455.7 14,455.7 554.2 4% 0.0 0%
WIC Program 5,204.4 6,020.0 6,100.0 6,750.0 730.0 12% 650.0 11%
Food Stamp Act Programs 38,161.5 39,782.7 43,348.8 43,437.3 3,654.6 9% 88.5 0%
Commodity Assistance Programs 177.6 210.3 70.4 225.4 15.1 7% 155.0 220%
Nutrition Programs Admin. 140.3 141.7 150.3 142.6 0.9 1% -7.7 -5%





Senate-reported vs. Senate-reported vs.
FY2009 FY2008: Admin. request
FY2007 FY2008 Admin. Senate-Dollar Percent Dollar Percent
Agency or Major Program Enacted Enacted Request reported change change change change
Office of Under Secretary 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.0 0% -0.1 -14%
Subtotal
Mandatory 51,506.1 53,683.2 57,782.5 57,893.0 4,209.8 8% 110.5 0%
Discretionary 5,523.9 6,373.6 6,343.3 7,118.6 745.0 12% 775.3 12%
Subtotal 57,030.0 60,056.8 64,125.8 65,011.6 4,954.8 8% 885.8 1%
Title V: Foreign Assistance
Foreign Agric. Service (FAS) 156.2 158.4 168.0 169.0 10.6 7% 1.0 1%
Public Law (P.L.) 480 1,218.1 1,213.5 1,228.7 1,228.7 15.2 1% 0.0 0%
iki/CRS-R40000McGovern- Dole Food for Educ. 99.0 99.3 100.0 100.0 0.7 1% 0.0 0%
g/wCCC Export Loan Salaries 5.3 5.3 5.4 5.4 0.1 2% 0.0 0%
s.orSubtotal 1,478.6 1,476.5 1,502.1 1,503.1 26.6 2% 1.0 0%
leakTitle VI: FDA and Related Agencies
://wikiFood and Drug Administration 1,574.2 1,716.8 2,046.2 2,051.4 334.6 19% 5.2 0%
httpCommodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) 98.0 111.3 130.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Title VII: General Provisions
Section 32 rescission -37.6 -684.0 -57.0 -110.0 574.0 -84% -53.0 93%
Disaster assistance and FSA salaries 0.0 622.0 0.0 0.0 -622.0 -100% 0.0
Other (net) -1.1 5.9 -93.6 10.0 4.1 69% 103.6 -111%
Subtotal -38.7 -56.1 -150.6 -100.0 -43.9 78% 50.6 -34%
RECAPITULATION
I: Agricultural Programs 34,030.3 24,450.9 24,304.6 24,412.2 -38.7 0% 107.6 0%
Mandatory 27,494.1 17,818.0 17,706.6 17,706.9 -111.1 -1% 0.3 0%
Discretionary 6,536.2 6,632.9 6,598.0 6,705.3 72.4 1% 107.3 2%
II: Conservation Programs 852.6 937.5 801.5 970.2 32.7 3% 168.7 21%





Senate-reported vs. Senate-reported vs.
FY2009 FY2008: Admin. request
FY2007 FY2008 Admin. Senate-Dollar Percent Dollar Percent
Agency or Major Program Enacted Enacted Request reported change change change change
III: Rural Development 2,500.0 2,334.0 2,135.7 2,887.9 553.9 24% 752.2 35%
IV: Domestic Food Programs 57,030.0 60,056.8 64,125.8 65,011.6 4,954.8 8% 885.8 1%
Mandatory 51,506.1 53,683.2 57,782.5 57,893.0 4,209.8 8% 110.5 0%
Discretionary 5,523.9 6,373.6 6,343.3 7,118.6 745.0 12% 775.3 12%
V: Foreign Assistance 1,478.6 1,476.5 1,502.1 1,503.1 26.6 2% 1.0 0%
VI: FDAc 1,574.2 1,716.8 2,046.2 2,051.4 334.6 19% 5.2 0%
VII: General Provisions -38.7 -56.1 -150.6 -100.0 -43.9 78% 50.6 -34%
Total, Before Adjustmentsc
iki/CRS-R40000Mandatory 79,000.2 71,501.2 75,489.1 75,599.9 4,098.7 6% 110.8 0%
g/wDiscretionary (allowed) 18,426.7 19,415.2 19,276.1 21,136.3 1,721.1 9% 1,860.2 10%
s.orTotal, Before Adjustments 97,426.9 90,916.4 94,765.3 96,736.2 5,819.8 6% 1,970.9 2%
leakScorekeeping Adjustments
://wikiSection 32 n/a 1,169.0 1,169.0 1,169.0 0.0 0% 0.0 0%
httpLimits on mandatory programs n/a -335.0 -314.0 -641.0 -306.0 91% -327.0 104%
Emergency appropriations n/a -1022.0d 0.0 0.0 1,022.0 -100% 0.0
Other n/a -76.5 -76.3 -60.3 16.2 -21% 16.0 -21%
Subtotal of scorekeeping adjustments n/a -264.5 778.7 467.7 732.2 -277% -311.0 -40%
Total, After Adjustmentsc
Mandatory n/a 72,670.2 76,658.1 76,768.9 4,098.7 6% 110.8 0%
Discretionary (official) 18,472.0 17,981.7 18,885.8 20,435.0 2,453.3 14% 1,549.2 8%
Total, After Adjustments n/a 90,652.0 95,544.0 97,203.9 6,551.9 7% 1,659.9 2%
Other emergency appropriations for agencies in this bill, P.L. 110-P.L. 110-
not included above 28 252
Agricultural assistance 3,000.0 0.0





Senate-reported vs. Senate-reported vs.
FY2009 FY2008: Admin. request
FY2007 FY2008 Admin. Senate-Dollar Percent Dollar Percent
Agency or Major Program Enacted Enacted Request reported change change change change
P.L. 480 Title II grants 450.0 1,245.0
Conservation 115.0 480.0
Other 87.5 0.0
Subtotal 3,652.5 1,725.0
Source: Compiled by CRS. Amounts for FY2008-09 are from pp. 131-146 of S.Rept. 110-426 for S. 3289 (the Senate-reported FY2009 agriculture appropriations bill) and
other tables from the Senate Appropriations Committee. Amounts for FY2007 are from pp. 141-163 of the Committee Print of the House Committee on Appropriations on H.R.
2764 / P.L. 110-161 at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/appropriations/08conappro.html.
Notes: Amounts for FY2009 in the House bill are not available. The House agriculture appropriations subcommittee marked up its bill on June 19, 2008, and referred it to
the full committee. But because the full committee did not consider and report the bill, amounts are not available.
iki/CRS-R40000a. Loan authority reflects the amount of direct and guaranteed loans that the agency may make or guarantee based on the appropriated loan subsidy. Loan authority is not added in the appropriations subtotals or totals in this table.
g/wb. The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) and Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) each receive an indefinite appropriation (“such sums as necessary”). The
s.oramounts shown in this table are estimates used in the appropriations bills.
leak
c. For consistency, excludes CFTC funding since the Senate agriculture appropriations bills beginning in FY2008 do not include CFTC.
://wikid. Appropriations with emergency designation included $622 million of disaster assistance in the general provisions section, plus $400 million of emergency funding for
httpWIC in the nutrition section (that is, of the $6.020 billion listed for WIC in FY2008, $400 million was designated emergency funding).





Jim Monke, Coordinator Susan Thaul
Specialist in Agricultural Policy Specialist in Drug Safety and Effectiveness
jmonke@crs.loc.gov, 7-9664 sthaul@crs.loc.gov, 7-0562
Geoffrey S. Becker Judith A. Johnson
Specialist in Agricultural Policy Specialist in Biomedical Policy
gbecker@crs.loc.gov, 7-7287 jajohnson@crs.loc.gov, 7-7077
Renee Johnson Sarah A. Lister
Specialist in Agricultural Policy Specialist in Public Health and Epidemiology
rjohnson@crs.loc.gov, 7-9588 slister@crs.loc.gov, 7-7320
Joe Richardson Donna V. Porter
Specialist in Social Policy Specialist in Nutrition and Food Safety
jirichardson@crs.loc.gov, 7-7325 dporter@crs.loc.gov, 7-7032
Charles E. Hanrahan Erin D. Williams
Senior Specialist in Agricultural Policy Specialist in Public Health and Bioethics
chanrahan@crs.loc.gov, 7-7235 ewilliams@crs.loc.gov, 7-4897
Tadlock Cowan Mark Jickling
Analyst in Natural Resources and Rural Specialist in Financial Economics
Development mjickling@crs.loc.gov, 7-7784
tcowan@crs.loc.gov, 7-7600
Ralph M. Chite
Section Research Manager
rchite@crs.loc.gov, 7-7296
Jean Rawson, former Specialist in Agricultural Policy, contributed the section on agricultural research
before her retirement.