Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations

Agriculture and Related Agencies:
FY2007 Appropriations
Updated January 4, 2007
Jim Monke, Coordinator,
Geoffrey S. Becker, Ralph M. Chite, Tadlock Cowan,
Charles E. Hanrahan, Jean M. Rawson, and Jeffrey A. Zinn
Resources, Science and Industry Division
Joe Richardson and Susan Thaul
Domestic Social Policy Division
Mark Jickling
Government and Finance Division

The annual consideration of appropriations bills (regular, continuing, and supplemental) by
Congress is part of a complex set of budget processes that also encompasses the
consideration of budget resolutions, revenue and debt-limit legislation, other spending
measures, and reconciliation bills. In addition, the operation of programs and the spending
of appropriated funds are subject to constraints established in authorizing statutes.
Congressional action on the budget for a fiscal year usually begins following the submission
of the President’s budget at the beginning of the session. Congressional practices governing
the consideration of appropriations and other budgetary measures are rooted in the
Constitution, the standing rules of the House and Senate, and statutes, such as the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
This report is a guide to one of the regular appropriations bills that Congress considers each
year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House and Senate
Appropriations Subcommittees on Agriculture. It summarizes the status of the bill, its
scope, major issues, funding levels, and related congressional activity, and is updated as
events warrant. The report lists the key CRS staff relevant to the issues covered and related
CRS products.
NOTE: A Web version of this document with active links is
available to congressional staff at
[http://beta.crs.gov/cli/ l e v e l _2.aspx?P RDS_CLI_ITEM_ID=73].

Agriculture and Related Agencies:
FY2007 Appropriations
Summary
The Agriculture and Related Agencies appropriations bill includes all of USDA
(except the Forest Service), plus the Food and Drug Administration and the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The full House passed the FY2007
agriculture appropriations bill on May 23, 2006 (H.R. 5384, H.Rept. 109-463). On
June 22, 2006, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version (H.R. 5384,
S.Rept. 109-266). The full Senate took up the bill on December 5, 2006, but only to
consider a crop disaster amendment, which was defeated. Because a final bill has not
been enacted, a continuing resolution (P.L. 109-383) is providing funds for
agriculture-related agencies through February 15, 2007, at the lower of either the
FY2006 level or the House-passed level in H.R. 5384.
The House-passed bill provides a total of $93.9 billion, $691 million (-0.7%)
less than the $94.6 billion Senate-reported bill. In addition, the Senate-reported bill
includes $4 billion of emergency agricultural disaster assistance, which does not
count against budgetary caps. The House bill has no disaster provisions.
The House bill provides $17.8 billion in “net” discretionary appropriations, but
because certain mandatory programs are limited, the “gross” discretionary amounts
are higher. The House’s $18.4 billion “gross” discretionary subtotal is 1.5% less than
the Senate’s, and 0.7% less than in FY2006.
About $76 billion, or about 81%, of both bills is for mandatory programs (e.g.,
Commodity Credit Corporation, crop insurance, and most food and nutrition
programs). Mandatory funding would decline nearly $7 billion from FY2006, due
to how crop subsidies are financed and economic conditions for food stamps.
The House bill would allow prescription drug importation, and the Senate bill
would facilitate travel to Cuba for selling licensed agricultural and medical goods.
Both provisions have drawn veto threats from the White House in previous years.
Two farm commodity provisions were stripped from the House bill by points
of order. The provisions would have extended the Milk Income Loss Contract
(MILC) and a peanut storage subsidy. The latter remains in the Senate-reported bill.
The Senate-reported bill reduces rural development programs by 11% from
FY2006 (-14% in the House bill). Discretionary conservation programs fall by $3
million in the Senate bill and $75 million in the House bill. Animal and plant health
programs rise $94 million (+12%) in the Senate and $115 million in the House. Both
bills reject the President’s proposal to award more research funds competitively.
Both bills reject an Administration proposal to terminate the Commodity
Supplemental Food Program. Moreover, the House bill would provide $25 million
of discretionary funds to expand a fresh fruit and vegetable program to school in all
states, while the Senate bill would add $9 million in discretionary funds to a $9
million mandatory pool. This report will be updated as events warrant.

Key Policy Staff
CRS
Area of ExpertiseNameDivisionTelephone
Report Coordinator,
Commodity Credit Corporation,Jim MonkeRSI7-9664
Farm Service Agency
Crop InsuranceRalph M. ChiteRSI7-7296
ConservationJeffrey A. ZinnRSI7-0248
Agricultural Trade and Food AidCharles E. HanrahanRSI7-7235
Agricultural Research, Extension, & EconomicsJean M. RawsonRSI7-7283
Meat and Poultry Inspection,Geoffrey S. BeckerRSI7-7287
Marketing and Regulatory Programs
Rural DevelopmentTadlock CowanRSI7-7600
Domestic Food AssistanceJoe RichardsonDSP7-7325
Food and Drug AdministrationSusan J. ThaulDSP7-0562
Commodity Futures Trading CommissionMark JicklingG&F7-7784
^Divⁱ^sioⁿ^ab^b^r^ev^iatioⁿ^s^{: RSI}^{= Reso}^u^r^{ces, Scien}^{ce an}^d^Iⁿ^d^u^str^y^{; DSP}⁼^Do^m^e^stic^So^cial^P^o^licy^;^G&^{F = Go}^v^e^rⁿ^m^eⁿ^t
^an^{d Fin}^aⁿ^ce.

Contents
Most Recent Developments..........................................1
Components of Agriculture Appropriations.............................1
USDA Activities..............................................1
Related Agencies..............................................3
Mandatory vs. Discretionary Spending.............................3
Action on FY2007 Appropriations....................................5
Senate Action.............................................6
House Action.............................................6
Funding and Issues in H.R. 5384..............................6
Limits on Mandatory Programs...................................8
Earmarks ....................................................9
Travel to Cuba...............................................10
User Fee Proposals............................................11
USDA Agencies and Programs......................................12
Commodity Credit Corporation..................................12
Commodity Program Changes...............................13
Emergency Agricultural Disaster Assistance....................14
Farm Service Agency..........................................16
FSA Salaries and Expenses.................................16
FSA Farm Loan Programs..................................17
Crop Insurance ..............................................19
Conservation ................................................21
Agricultural Trade and Food Aid.................................23
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Economics...................26
Agricultural Research Service...............................27
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service.....28
Economic Research and Agricultural Statistics..................29
Meat and Poultry Inspection....................................29
Marketing and Regulatory Programs..............................30
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)............30
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)........................34
Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA).35
Rural Development...........................................36
Rural Community Advancement Program (RCAP)...............38
Rural Housing Service (RHS)...............................40
Rural Business-Cooperative Service..........................41
Rural Utilities Service (RUS)...............................41
Domestic Food Assistance......................................42
Programs under the Food Stamp Act..........................43
Child Nutrition Programs...................................44
The WIC Program........................................45
Commodity Assistance Programs............................45
Nutrition Program Administration............................46
Special Program Initiatives.................................46

Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).......................52
List of Figures
Figure 1. USDA Appropriations, FY2006..............................2
Figure 2. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2006.........2
Figure 3. Mandatory and Discretionary Appropriations....................5
Figure 4. Commodity Credit Corporation and Farm Service Agency........16
Figure 5. FSA Farm Loan Programs..................................17
Figure 6. Crop Insurance and Risk Management Agency..................19
Figure 7. Discretionary Conservation Programs.........................21
Figure 8. Foreign Agricultural Service, P.L. 480, and Food for Education....24
Figure 9. Research, Extension, and Economics (ARS, CSREES, NASS, ERS)27
Figure 10. Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)....................29
Figure 11. Marketing and Regulatory Programs: APHIS, AMS, GIPSA......31
Figure 12. Rural Development Budget Authority........................37
Figure 13. Rural Development Loan Authority.........................37
Figure 14. Domestic Food Programs.................................44
Figure 15. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)...................51
List of Tables
Table 1. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations: FY1998-FY2007..4
Table 2. Congressional Action on FY2007 Agriculture Appropriations.......6
Table 3. Agriculture Appropriations: FY2006 Enacted vs. FY2007 Action....7
Table 4. Earmarks in Agriculture Appropriations.......................10
Table 5. New User Fees Requested by Administration...................11
Table 6. Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) Outlays and Appropriations..13
Table 7. Emergency Agricultural Disaster Assistance....................15
Table 8. Reductions in Mandatory Conservation Programs................23
Table 9. Reductions in Mandatory Rural Development Programs...........38
Table 10. Directed Spending in the Rural Community Advancement Program.39
Table 11. FDA Appropriations and User Fees, by Program Area...........50
Table 12. USDA and Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY2007 Action vs. FY2006 Enacted .............................53

Agriculture and Related Agencies:
FY2007 Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
The annual agriculture appropriations law includes all of the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (except the Forest Service), plus the Food and Drug Administration
and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. A continuing resolution (P.L. 109-
383) is providing temporary funding for FY2007 through February 15, 2007, at the
lower of either the FY2006 level or the House-passed level in H.R. 5384.
The full House passed the FY2007 agriculture appropriations bill on May 23,
2006 (H.R. 5384, H.Rept. 109-463). The Senate Appropriations Committee reported
its version on June 22, 2006 (H.R. 5384, S.Rept. 109-266). The full Senate took up
the agriculture appropriations bill on December 5, 2006, to consider a crop disaster
amendment; the amendment was defeated by a procedural vote of 56-38.
The House-passed bill provides a total of $93.9 billion, $691 million (-0.7%)
less than the $94.6 billion Senate-reported bill. In addition, the Senate-reported bill
includes $4 billion of emergency agricultural disaster assistance, which does not
count against budgetary caps. The House bill has no disaster provisions.
The House bill provides $17.8 billion in “net” discretionary appropriations,
about $1 billion above FY2006. Because the bills limit certain mandatory programs,
the “gross” discretionary amounts are higher. The House’s $18.4 billion “gross”
discretionary subtotal is 1.5% less than the Senate’s, and 0.7% less than in FY2006.
For mandatory programs, the House bill includes $76.1 billion, $300 million
less than the Senate bill. This would be down nearly $7 billion from FY2006, mostly
due to changing economic conditions.
Components of Agriculture Appropriations
USDA Activities
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 is responsible for many activities outside of the
agriculture budget function. Hence, spending by USDA is not synonymous with farm
program spending. Similarly, agriculture appropriations bills are not limited to
USDA and include related programs such as the Food and Drug Administration and
the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, but exclude the USDA Forest Service.

Figure 1. USDA Appropriations, FY2006
^F^Y²⁰⁰⁶^E^s^ti^m^a^te
^$98^.⁴^bi^l^lⁱ^oⁿ
^F^a^r^m^&^f^o^r^eⁱ^{gn agr}ⁱ^c^ul^t^u^r^e
²⁵^%
^Fo^o^d^&ⁿ^u^trⁱ^tⁱ^oⁿ
⁶⁰^%^N^a^tu^ra^l^re^s^o^u^r^ce^s
^8%
^R^e^s^ear^c^h
^3%
^M^a^r^k^etⁱ^{ng &}^r^e^g^u^l^a^t^o^r^y
^3%
^F^o^o^d^s^a^fe^ty^,^R^u^r^a^l^d^e^ve^l^o^p^m^eⁿ^t,^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^st^ra^ti^oⁿ
^2%^So^ur^c^e^:^CRS,^usⁱⁿ^{g USDA}^dat^a
Figure 2. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY2006

^Ti^t^l^{e V}^:^F^o^r^eⁱ^{gn f}^o^{od as}^sⁱ^s^t^an^c^e^Ti^t^l^{e V}^I^:^FD^A⁺^C^F^T^C^FY²⁰⁰⁶
^1.^5%^1.^6%^$1^00.^{8 b}ⁱ^l^lⁱ^oⁿ
^Ti^t^l^{e I}^:^A^g^rⁱ^c^u^l^t^ur^al^p^r^og^r^a^m^s
³⁵^.¹^%
^Ti^t^l^{e I}^V^:^Dom^e^s^tⁱ^c^f^o^{od as}^sⁱ^s^t^an^c^e
⁵⁸^.⁴^%
^Ti^t^l^{e I}^I^:^C^oⁿ^s^er^v^a^tⁱ^on^1.^0%
^Tⁱ^t^l^{e I}^I^I^:^Rur^a^l^dev^el^op^m^eⁿ^t
^2.^5%
^S^o^u^r^c^e^:^C^R^S^,^u^sⁱⁿ^g^S^e^na^te^A^p^p^r^o^p^r^ia^tioⁿ^s^C^o^m^m^itte^e^d^a^ta

USDA reports a total appropriation (budget authority) of $98.4 billion for
FY2006. Food and nutrition programs comprise the largest mission area with $58.9
billion, or 60% 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 in terms of appropriations is farm and foreign
agricultural services, which totaled $24.4 billion (25%) of USDA’s FY2006
appropriation. 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
(8% of the total), research and education programs (3%), marketing and regulatory
programs (3%), and food safety and rural development.
Nearly two-thirds of the appropriation for the natural resources mission area
goes to the Forest Service (about $5 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.
USDA defines its programs using “mission areas” which do not always
correspond to categories in the agriculture appropriations bill. For example, foreign
agricultural assistance programs are a separate title (Title V) in the appropriations
bill, but 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 marketing and regulatory programs, and agricultural
research, but both are joined with other domestic farm support programs in Title I
(agricultural programs) of the appropriations bill.
Related Agencies
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 Service (HHS)
and the Commodity Future Trading Commission (CFTC, an independent regulatory
agency). These agencies are included in the agriculture appropriations bill because
of their historical connection to food and agricultural markets. However, food and
agricultural issues have become less dominant in these agencies as medical and drug
issues have grown in FDA and non-agricultural futures have grown in CFTC. Their
combined share of the overall agriculture and related agencies appropriations bill is
usually less than 2% (see Title VI in Figure 2).
Mandatory vs. Discretionary Spending
Mandatory and discretionary spending are treated differently in the budget
process. Congress generally controls spending on mandatory programs by setting
rules for eligibility, benefit formulas, and other parameters rather than approving
specific dollar amounts for these programs each year. Eligibility for mandatory

programs is usually written into authorizing law, and any individual or entity that
meets the eligibility requirements is entitled to the benefits authorized by the law.
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.
Approximately 80% of the total agriculture and related agencies appropriation
is classified as mandatory, which by definition occurs outside of annual
appropriations (Table 1). The vast majority of USDA’s mandatory spending is for
the following programs: the food stamp program, most child nutrition programs, the
farm commodity price and income support programs (authorized by the 2002 farm
bill and various disaster/emergency appropriations), the federal crop insurance
program, and various agricultural conservation and trade programs. Mandatory
spending is highly variable and driven by program participation rates, economic
conditions, and weather patterns (Figure 3).
Although these programs have mandatory status, many of these accounts
ultimately receive funds 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. An annual appropriation also is
made to reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for losses in financing the
commodity support programs and the various other programs it finances.
The other 20% of the agriculture and related agencies appropriations bill is for
discretionary programs. 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.
Table 1. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations: FY1998-FY2007
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
Fiscal yearFY2007**
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006^Hou^s^e Senat e
Mandatory 35.8 41.0 62.0 58.3 56.9 56.7 69.7 68.3 83.1 76.1 76.4
Discretionary 13.8 13.7 13.9 15.0 16.3 17.9 16.8 16.8 16.8 17.8 18.2
Total 49.6 54.7 75.9 73.3 73.2 74.6 86.6 85.1 99.8 93.9 94.6
Percent 28% 25% 18% 20% 22% 24% 19% 20% 17% 19% 19%
discretionary
^Source:^{CRS, u}^sⁱⁿ^g^tab^l^{es f}^r^o^m^th^{e Ho}^u^s^{e an}^d^Sen^a^{te A}^p^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^Co^m^m^ittees.
^*^*^P^e^ndⁱ^ng.
^No^te:^Iⁿ^c^l^ud^e^s^r^e^gul^a^r^a^nnua^l^a^p^p^r^o^p^rⁱ^a^tⁱ^o^{ns fo}^r^a^l^l^o^f^U^S^D^A⁽^e^xc^e^p^t^t^h^e^Fo^r^e^st^Se^r^vⁱ^c^e⁾^,^t^h^e^F^{ood an}^{d D}^r^u^g
^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^rati^oⁿ^,^an^{d th}^{e C}^o^m^m^odity^Fu^tu^res^T^r^adin^g^C^o^m^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^{. Ex}^clu^d^es^m^aⁿ^d^atory^em^erg^eⁿ^c^y^s^u^pplem^en^tal
^ap^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^{. A}^m^o^uⁿ^t^{s r}^e^f^l^{ect r}^e^scissioⁿ^{s th}^{at w}^e^r^e^ap^p^lied^to^th^{e f}ⁱⁿ^a^{l ap}^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^.

Figure 3. Mandatory and Discretionary Appropriations
(budget authority, in billions of dollars)

^$1⁰⁰
^$9⁰
^$8⁰^To^t^a^l
^$7⁰
^$6⁰^M^a^nd^at^o^r^y
^$5⁰
^$4⁰
^$3⁰
^$2⁰^Dⁱ^s^c^retⁱ^on^ar^y
^$1⁰
⁰
¹⁹⁹⁸¹⁹⁹⁹²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹²⁰⁰²²⁰⁰³²⁰⁰⁴²⁰⁰⁵²⁰⁰⁶²⁰⁰⁷
^Fis^c^al^y^e^a^r
^B^u^dg^et^a^u^t^h^o^r^it^y^Ho^u^s^e^Seⁿ^a^t^e
^In^fl^atⁱ^oⁿ^-^ad^j^u^s^t^ed
^So^u^r^c^e^{: C}^R^S,^u^sⁱⁿ^g^H^o^us^e^an^d^Seⁿ^a^t^e^Ap^pr^op^ri^a^tⁱ^o^ns^C^o^m^mⁱ^tt^e^e^d^a^t^a^.
Action on FY2007 Appropriations
The agriculture appropriations bill includes all of USDA (except the Forest
Service), plus the Food and Drug Administration and the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission. Because the FY2007 fiscal year began before most of the
appropriations bills were enacted, including the agriculture appropriations bill,
Congress has passed three continuing resolutions to continue funding the
government. The first provided temporary funding through November 17, 2006
(Division B of P.L. 109-289); the second through December 8, 2006 (P.L. 109-369);
and the third through February 15, 2007 (P.L. 109-383).
The continuing resolutions are funding federal agencies at the lower of the
House-passed, Senate-passed, or FY2006 levels. Since the Senate did not pass the
agriculture appropriations bill, agriculture-related agencies are being funded at the
lower of either the House-passed or FY2006 levels (see Table 12 at the end of this
report).
Press statements by Senator Byrd and Representative Obey,¹ Chairmen of the
Senate and House Appropriations Committees, indicate that the 110^th Congress is
expected to consider a joint resolution to fund government agencies for the remainder
¹ Press Release, “Byrd-Obey Announce FY2007 Plan,” December 11, 2006, at [http://www.
house.gov/ appropriations_democrats/press/pr_121106.shtml ].

of FY2007 at FY2006 levels, with some adjustments for certain agencies. The
approach is expected to be more streamlined than a regular omnibus appropriations
bill, reducing or eliminating earmark language and specific agency instructions, but
allowing limited funding adjustments for certain agencies.
Senate Action. The Senate Appropriations Committee reported the FY2007
agriculture appropriations bill on June 22, 2006, by a vote of 28-0 (H.R. 5384,
S.Rept. 109-266). Subcommittee markup occurred on June 20, 2006 (Table 2).
Given the possibility that the agriculture appropriations bill would come to the Senate
floor in November 2006, thirty amendments were submitted for debate, including 14
by Senator Coburn to strike or otherwise affect earmarks. Floor action had been
promised in return for Senator Conrad withdrawing a crop disaster amendment from
the military construction appropriations bill on November 14. However, other
Senators later blocked floor action on the agriculture bill due to fiscal concerns over
the disaster amendment. Floor debate on Senator Conrad’s disaster amendment
occurred on December 5. An attempt to consider the amendment under emergency
spending rules was defeated 56-38, and the amendment was ruled out of order. No
further consideration of the agriculture appropriations bill occurred.
House Action. The full House passed its version on May 23, 2006, by a vote
of 378-46 (H.R. 5384, H.Rept. 109-463). On the floor, the House added 17
amendments and stripped three provisions from the bill on points of order. Another
13 amendments were rejected (8 targeting earmarks), and 10 other amendments were
withdrawn. The full Committee on Appropriations reported the bill on May 9, 2006,
by voice vote, after subcommittee markup on May 3, 2006.
Table 2. Congressional Action on FY2007 Agriculture Appropriations
SubcommitteeCommitteeConference Report
Approval Approval Conf e r - Approval
House Senat e ence Public
P assage P assage Re por t LawHouse Senate H ouse Senate House Senate
^H^.^R^.^5384,^H^.^R^.^5384,
^H.R^e^p^t^.^S.Rep^t^.
^109-⁴⁶³^109-²⁶⁶
^v^v^v^v^v^v^28-^{0 v}^o^t^e^378-^{46 v}^o^t^e^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
^5/^3/⁰⁶^6/^20/⁰⁶^5/^9/⁰⁶^6/^22/⁰⁶^5/^23/⁰⁶
^*^*^P^e^ndⁱ^ng.^{vv V}^oⁱ^c^e^vo^t^e^.
Funding and Issues in H.R. 5384. The House-passed bill provides a total
of $93.9 billion, $691 million (-0.7%) less than the Senate-reported bill. The House
bill provides $17.8 billion in “net” discretionary appropriations, $391 million (-2.2%)
less than the $18.2 billion in the Senate bill, and $1 billion above FY2006 (Table 3).
The “net” discretionary figure is the amount used for scorekeeping purposes. For
mandatory programs, the House bill includes $76.1 billion, $300 million less than the
Senate bill. Appropriations for mandatory programs would be down nearly $7 billion
from FY2006, mostly due to how crop subsidies are financed and changing economic
conditions for food stamps.

Because of accounting practices, the discretionary amounts that the bills actually
would provide are higher. The House-passed bill actually would provide $18.4
billion in “gross” discretionary appropriations, and the Senate bill $18.7 billion.
These higher amounts result from adding money above the official discretionary
caps, which is offset by reducing certain mandatory programs, as discussed in the
next section. The $18.4 billion “gross” discretionary subtotal in the House bill is
$130 million (-0.7%) below FY2006.
Table 3. Agriculture Appropriations:
FY2006 Enacted vs. FY2007 Action
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
F Y 2006 F Y 2007 Dif f e rence
Senate
Adm i n. House Senat e House vs.
CategoryEnactedRequestBillBillvs. 2006House
Subtotal before adjustments:
“Gross” discretionary *18.617.918.418.7(0.13)0.27
Mandatory 82.2 75.4 75.1 75.4 (7.1) 0.30
Emergency ag assistance — — — 4.0 — 4.00
Subtotal *100.893.393.598.1(7.3)4.57
Official score:0.0
“Net” discretionary16.817.317.818.21.00.39
Mandatory 83.1 76.4 76.1 76.4 (7.0) 0.30
Total 99.8 93.7 93.9 94.6 (6.0) 0.69
^Source:^{CRS, u}^sⁱⁿ^g^tab^l^{es f}^r^o^m^th^{e Ho}^u^s^{e an}^d^Sen^a^{te A}^p^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^Co^m^m^ittee.
^*^Sen^a^{te s}^u^btotalsⁱⁿ^th^is^ta^ble^ex^clu^d^e^{$160 m}^illion^f^o^{r th}^{e Veteran}^s^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ration^(Section^756).
In addition, the Senate-reported bill includes $4 billion of emergency
agricultural disaster assistance, which does not count against budgetary caps. These
disaster provisions were part of a recent Senate-passed bill (H.R. 4939) but were
removed during conference over P.L. 109-234. (Another emergency provision in the
Senate-reported bill would provide $160 million to the Veteran’s Administration as
a result of a technology security breach, but subsequent developments likely
eliminate the need for this provision.) The House-passed version of the agriculture
appropriations bill does not include any emergency or disaster provisions.
Regarding overall funding guidelines, the House and Senate each passed an
FY2007 budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 376, and S.Con.Res. 83), but the two
chambers did not agree on a joint version. To guide subcommittee spending, the
House appropriations committee approved 302(b) allocations on May 9, 2006,
providing $17.812 billion for the agriculture bill. The Senate adopted 302(b)
allocations on June 22, 2006, providing $18.2 billion for agriculture bill. For more
information about the budget resolutions, see CRS Report RL33282, The Budget for
Fiscal Year 2007.

The Administration released its FY2007 budget request on February 6, 2006,
seeking $93.7 billion for agencies funded through the agriculture appropriations bill.
Both the House and Senate agriculture appropriations subcommittees held hearings
on the request.
See Table 12 at the end of this report for a tabular summary of each agency at
various stages during the appropriations process.
Limits on Mandatory Programs
In recent years, appropriators have placed limitations on mandatory spending
authorized in the 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171) for various mandatory conservation,
rural development, and research programs.² The savings achieved by limiting
mandatory programs in this way are counted as “scorekeeping adjustments,” and can
be used to fund discretionary programs at a higher level than allowed by the
discretionary spending cap (the 302(b) allocation).
For FY2007, the House-passed bill contains $505 million in reductions to
mandatory programs ($483 million in conservation and $22 million in rural
development), while the Senate-reported bill contains $396 million in reductions
($371 million in conservation and $25 million in rural development). The
Administration proposed $490 million in such reductions.
The proposed reductions for FY2007 would be much smaller reductions than
the actual reductions in previous years (e.g., $1.5 billion in FY2006 and $1.2 billion
in FY2005), mostly because of savings already scored by the agriculture authorizing
committees under budget reconciliation last year. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005
(P.L. 109-171) reduced the authorized level of several mandatory programs which
appropriators have limited in recent years, and those savings were scored for budget
reconciliation and are no longer available to appropriators.
With less room for scorekeeping adjustments, a higher “net” discretionary
budget allocation (302(b)) will be necessary to achieve the same level of “gross”
discretionary program activity. The 302(b) discretionary allocation in the House is
$17.812 billion, up about $1 billion from FY2006. In the Senate, the 302(b)
allocation is $18.2 billion, up about $850 million from FY2006.
These accounting distinctions help explain why “gross” discretionary programs
recommended by the bill are within 1% of FY2006 levels (declining about $130
million from FY2006 in the House bill, and increasing $140 million in the Senate
bill), even though the “net” discretionary amount — which tracks the official 302(b)
allocation — is increasing by about $1 billion (+6.1%) in the House bill and $1.4
billion (+8.5%) in the Senate bill (Table 3 and Table 12).

² Limits on mandatory programs usually have been achieved by provisions in Title VII,
General Provisions, using 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 $[...].”

For more details on the limits placed on mandatory programs, see Table 8 in the
conservation section and Table 9 in the rural development section of this report. For
more on the reductions in authorized levels made by the Deficit Reduction Act of
2005, see CRS Report RS22086, Agriculture and FY2006 Budget Reconciliation, by
Ralph M. Chite.
Earmarks
In recent years, the agriculture appropriations bill has contained 600-700
earmarks totaling about $500 million, or 3% of the discretionary total (Table 4). For
these figures, an earmark is defined as any designation in the appropriations act or
accompanying reports (conference, House, or Senate) which allocates a portion of the
appropriation for a specific project, location or institution. Most of these earmarks
originated in Congress. Although some may have been requested by the
Administration, most of the Administration’s requests are not so specific (e.g.,
institution or location) as to be counted as earmarks for these purposes.³
For FY2006, about half of the total number of earmarks and 40% of the dollar
value are for agricultural research at USDA or in universities. Another third of the
earmarks and about 40% of the value are for conservation projects. The rest are for
rural development, and animal and plant health programs.
The number and dollar amount of earmarks in FY2006 are relatively close to the
levels in FY2005 and FY2004. However, compared to FY2000, the FY2006
earmarks are 86% higher in value and 92% greater in number.
For the FY2007 bill, the earmark issue was raised on the House floor when
Representative Flake offered eight amendments to restrict funding for specific
earmarked projects. All of these amendments were defeated, including three by
recorded votes (92-325, 90-328, and 87-328). Earmark sponsors spoke on the floor
to explain and justify the projects. They said that cancelling earmarks would not
necessarily reduce overall spending, but would lessen Congress’s role in directing
spending and leave more to the discretion of the executive branch. Opponents of the
earmarks said that without such amendments, earmarks are not debated, nor are the
sponsors known.
On November 15, Senator Coburn submitted 14 amendments for floor
consideration, 11 of which would strike earmarks for agricultural research, animal
control, or rural development. Three affect earmarks generally, including one that
would define an earmark and require USDA to create an Internet database identifying
earmarks, showing their cost, and “grading” the earmarks according to their utility
in meeting the department’s primary goals (S.Amdt. 5163). Another (S.Amdt. 5164)
would require earmarks to be listed in the conference report in order to be considered
approved by both the House and Senate, as opposed to past years when language was
included in the conference report allowing earmarks in House or Senate reports to be
enacted without being restated.

³ CRS General Distribution Memo, Earmarks in FY2006 Appropriations Acts, by the CRS
Appropriations Team, March 6, 2006, 35 pp.

Under the continuing resolution, the department or agency may use its discretion
to continue to allocate funds for programs earmarked in the FY2006 appropriation.
Table 4. Earmarks in Agriculture Appropriations
(millions of dollars)
TotalEarmarks as %
FiscaldiscretionaryTotal $ value ofof discretionaryNumber of
yearappropriation *earmarks **appropriationearmarks
2006 $17,031 $504.9 3.0% 689
2005 $16,833 $500.5 3.0% 704
2004 $16,943 $500.4 3.0% 660
2002 $16,018 $558.8 3.5% 629
2000 $13,988 $271.2 1.9% 359
1998 $13,751 $286.5 2.1% 284
1996 $13,310 $165.6 1.2% 211
1994 $14,500 $218.6 1.5% 313
^Sources^:^C^R^S^es^tⁱ^m^at^es^deri^v^e^{d f}^r^om^t^h^{e ag}^ri^cu^l^t^u^{re appropri}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^act^s^of^F^Y^{2006 (P.L}^{. 109-}^97),
^F^Y^{2005 (P.L}^{. 108-}^{447), F}^Y^{2004 (P.L}^{. 108-}^199),^F^Y^{2002 (P.L}^{. 107-}^{76), F}^Y^{2000 (P.L}^{. 106-}^78),
^F^Y^{1998 (P}^.L^{. 105-}^{86), F}^Y^{1996 (P}^.L^{. 104-}^37),^an^d^F^Y¹⁹⁹⁴^(P^.L^{. 103-}^{111) an}^{d th}^{eir accom}^p^an^yⁱⁿ^g
^co^nfe^r^en^{ce reports}^an^{d Hou}^s^{e an}^{d Sen}^a^{te A}^ppropriation^s^C^o^m^m^{ittee reports}^{. T}^h^{e A}^g^ricu^ltu^ral
^R^e^s^earch^Servi^c^e⁽^A^R^S⁾^b^u^dg^{et of}^fⁱ^{ce prov}^{ided th}^{e n}^u^m^{ber an}^{d dollar v}^a^lu^{e of}^s^p^ecifⁱ^{c proj}^ects
^fund^e^d^b^y^Co^ngr^e^ss,^w^h^e^t^he^r^o^r^no^t^r^e^q^u^e^s^t^e^d^b^y^t^h^e^A^d^miⁿⁱ^st^r^a^tⁱ^o^n.^Fi^gur^e^s^fo^r^t^h^e^N^a^t^u^r^a^l
^R^e^s^o^u^r^ces^C^oⁿ^s^erv^a^tion^Serv^{ice (NR}^C^{S) w}^e^{re prov}^{ided by}^th^{e NR}^C^S^bu^dg^{et of}^fⁱ^ce.
^*^B^e^f^o^re^accouⁿ^tin^g^f^o^r^an^y^res^c^is^sⁱ^on^s^.^*^*^Earm^ark^s^{are def}ⁱⁿ^e^{d as}^an^y^desⁱ^gⁿ^a^tionⁱⁿ^th^e^ag^ricu^ltu^re
^ap^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^{act o}^r^acco^m^p^an^yⁱⁿ^g^j^oⁱⁿ^{t ex}^p^l^an^ato^r^y^statem^en^t^o^f^th^e^coⁿ^f^eren^{ce co}^m^m^{ittee, Ho}^u^s^e
^A^p^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^Co^m^m^{ittee r}^e^p^o^r^{t, o}^r^Sen^a^{te A}^p^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^Co^m^m^{ittee r}^e^p^o^r^{t th}^{at allo}^{cates a}^p^o^r^tioⁿ
^o^f^th^{e d}ⁱ^scr^e^tioⁿ^a^r^y^ap^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^f^o^r^{a sp}^ecifⁱ^{c p}^r^o^j^{ect, lo}^catioⁿ^,^o^rⁱⁿ^stitu^tioⁿ^.
Travel to Cuba
The Senate-reported bill includes an amendment by Senator Dorgan to facilitate
travel related to licensed sales of agricultural and medical goods to Cuba (Sec. 755).
There is no similar provision in the House-passed bill. Senator Martinez submitted
an amendment (S.Amdt. 5191) on November 16, 2006, to strike Section 755, and it
could be debated if the agriculture bill is brought to the floor.
Similar provisions facilitating travel to Cuba were included in the Senate
versions of the FY2004 and FY2005 agriculture appropriations bills, but were
removed in conference committee. At those times, the White House stated that the
bill could be vetoed if such a provision was included.
For more background on restrictions on travel to Cuba, see the section
“Legislative Developments: Provisions in Appropriations Bills” in CRS Report
RL33499, Exempting Food and Agriculture Products from U.S. Economic Sanctions:
Status and Implementation, by Remy Jurenas.

User Fee Proposals
For many years, administrations from both parties have proposed new user fees
for various agency accounts. Administration officials assert that the new fees are
needed to achieve budgetary savings or that the regulatory or inspection activities
should be paid for by users of those services and not all taxpayers.
Neither the FY2007 House-passed bill nor the Senate-reported bill endorse these
proposals. Both bills either explicitly reject the proposals in report language, or
ignore them. This is consistent with previous years when administrations have
proposed fees and Congress has rejected them. If the Administration builds these
proposed fees into its overall budget and Congress does not enact the fees,
appropriators must reduce some agency’s activity or appropriate more than requested.
For FY2007, the Administration requested $335 million in new user fees.
Separate legislation, usually involving the authorizing committee, would be required
to enact such fees. The proposals amount to $182 million for USDA, $127 million
for CFTC, and $26 million for FDA (Table 5).
Table 5. New User Fees Requested by Administration
(millions of dollars)
Proposed
Agency and programuser fees
Food Safety and Inspection Service — certain extra inspections$105
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service — animal welfare8
Agricultural Marketing Service — grade standards, marketing orders14
Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards — grain standards, licenses20
Farm Service Agency — loan deficiency payment, conservation reserve35
Subtotal USDA182
Food and Drug Administration — reinspection, food export fee26
Commodity Futures Trading Commission: Regulatory fees127
Subtotal related agencies153
Total proposed user fees335
^Source:^{CRS, u}^sⁱⁿ^g^tab^l^{es f}^r^o^m^th^{e Sen}^a^{te A}^p^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^Co^m^m^ittee.
The remaining sections of this report compare the Administration’s budget
request with FY2006 appropriated levels for various sections of the appropriations
bill. For a tabular summary, see Table 12 at the end of this report.

USDA Agencies and Programs
The appropriations bill for agriculture and related agencies covers all of USDA
except for the Forest Service, which is funded through the Interior appropriations bill.
This amounts to about 95% of USDA’s total appropriation.
Commodity Credit Corporation
Most spending for USDA’s mandatory agriculture and conservation programs
was authorized by the 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171), and is funded through USDA’s
Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). The CCC is a wholly owned government
corporation. It has the legal authority to borrow up to $30 billion at any one time
from the U.S. Treasury. These borrowed funds are used to finance spending for
ongoing programs such as farm commodity price and income support activities and
various conservation, trade, and rural development programs.⁴ Emergency
supplemental spending also has been paid from the CCC over the years, particularly
for ad hoc farm disaster payments, and direct market loss payments to growers of
various commodities in response to low farm commodity prices.
The CCC eventually must repay the funds it borrows from the Treasury.
Because the CCC never earns more than it spends, its losses must be replenished
periodically through a congressional appropriation so that its $30 billion borrowing
authority (debt limit) is not depleted. Congress generally provides this infusion
through the annual USDA appropriation law. Because most of this spending rises or
falls automatically on economic or weather conditions, funding needs are sometimes
difficult to estimate. In recent years, the CCC has received a “current indefinite
appropriation,” which provides “such sums as are necessary” during the fiscal year.
The estimated CCC appropriation is not a reflection of expected outlays.
Outlays (net expenditures) in FY2007 will be funded initially through the borrowing
authority of the CCC, and reimbursed through a separate (possibly future)
appropriation. For FY2007, USDA projects that CCC net expenditures will be $19.4
billion, compared with an estimated $20.2 billion in FY2006 (Table 6).
For FY2007, both the Senate-reported bill and the House-passed bill concur
with the Administration request for an indefinite appropriation (“such sums as
necessary”) for CCC, which is estimated to be $19.74 billion. This is $5.95 billion
below the estimate that accompanied the FY2006 appropriation (-23%). The
estimates do not reflect any changes in programs enacted in the appropriations acts.
Instead, they generally track changes in the CCC’s net realized losses (spending)
incurred in the same or preceding fiscal years under the mandatory provisions
authorized in the 2002 farm bill. The amount actually transferred (“such sums and
necessary”) may differ from the initial estimate without penalty (Figure 4). For
example, in FY2004, the amount actually transferred to CCC was larger than the
initial estimate; in FY2005, the amount transferred was smaller than the initial
estimate (Table 6).

⁴ For more background on the CCC, including fact sheets, listing of officers, statute, and
bylaws, see [http://www.fsa.usda.gov/ccc/].

Table 6. Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC)
Outlays and Appropriations
(millions of dollars)
Category F Y 2004 F Y 2005 F Y 2006 F Y 2007
CCC net expenditures10,66820,65720,185*19,362*
Appropriations (“such sums as necessary”)
Initial estimate17,27516,45225,69019,740
Actually transferred to CCC22,93712,45625,431* —
^Source:^U^S^D^A^{, “}^T^abl^e^{35. C}^C^C^N^e^t^O^u^t^l^a^y^s^by^C^o^m^m^odi^t^y^an^{d F}^uⁿ^c^tⁱ^oⁿ^”^(F^{eb. 6, 2006),}^an^d
^“O^ut^p^u^t⁷^:^{CCC Fi}^na^ncⁱ^{ng St}^a^t^us,^”^C^o^m^m^odi^t^y^Es^tⁱ^m^at^es^Book^(F^{eb. 6, 2006).}
^*^es^tim^ated
Commodity Program Changes. The House Appropriations committee
adopted two amendments that would have revised certain terms of the farm
commodity programs in the 2002 farm bill. However, both amendments were
stripped from the House bill on the floor by points of order for legislating in an
appropriations bill. The Senate-reported bill includes one of these provisions.
MILC Extension. The House Appropriations Committee adopted an Obey
amendment to H.R. 5384 that effectively would have extended the legislative
authority for the Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) program by one month until
September 30, 2007, and preserved baseline spending for the program for future
years. However, the provision was deleted from the bill on the House floor on a
point of order that it constituted legislating in an appropriations bill. Some Members
also were concerned that the provision had budget implications beyond the one-year
life of the appropriations bill. The Senate-reported version of H.R. 5384 is silent on
this issue.
The MILC program pays participating farmers when farm milk prices fall below
a target price. The program was originally authorized by the 2002 farm bill and had
expired on September 30, 2005. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-171)
retroactively extended the program until September 30, 2007. However, it reduced
the payment rate to 0% for September 2007. This means that under current law,
when the next farm bill is debated, the MILC program will have no funding in the
baseline budget since the 0% payment rate would be assumed for future years. If the
Obey amendment were adopted into law, the current 34% payment rate would be
assumed for future years’ spending, which CBO estimated would add $1.8 billion to
the baseline budget over the next five years (FY2007-2011). For more information
on the MILC program, see CRS Report RL33475, Dairy Policy Issues.
Peanut Storage Subsidy. In the House, the appropriations committee
adopted a Kingston amendment that would have extended a peanut storage subsidy.
However, the provision was deleted from the bill on the House floor on a point of
order that it constituted legislating in an appropriations bill. The Senate-reported bill
includes an similar provision (sec. 754) to extend the peanut storage subsidy.

The storage payments initially were authorized by the 2002 farm bill, but are set
to expire this year. Extending the subsidy would provide one more year’s worth of
such storage payments, which are unique to peanuts.
Administration’s Legislative Proposal. The Administration’s FY2007
budget request contains legislative proposals to reduce farm commodity program
spending by $1.1 billion in FY2007 (a 6.2% cut) and $7.7 billion over ten years. The
Administration proposes tightening payment limits, making a 5% across-the-board
cut to direct payments, charging an assessment on dairy and sugar marketings, and
allowing USDA to adjust purchase prices of surplus dairy products to reduce outlays.
The House-passed FY2007 agriculture appropriations bill does not address this
proposal. Separate legislation would be required to enact any of these proposed
changes. The House-passed version of the budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 376) calls
for the Agriculture Committee to report only a small reconciliation package totaling
$55 million over FY2007-FY2011, while the Senate version (S.Con.Res. 83) does
not include any reconciliation instructions for agriculture.
The Administration proposed similar commodity program cuts in February

2005, but Congress rejected those proposals during final consideration of the Deficit⁵

Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171).
Emergency Agricultural Disaster Assistance. Title VIII of the Senate-
reported version of the FY2007 agriculture appropriations bill (H.R. 5384) contains
an estimated $4 billion in emergency FY2007 funding for crop and livestock farmers
nationwide in response to natural disasters and to supplement farmer income. No
emergency assistance is contained in the House-passed version of H.R. 5384.
The Senate bill includes an estimated $1 billion in crop disaster assistance, $1
billion in livestock disaster assistance, and direct economic assistance of $1.6 billion
for traditional growers of grains, cotton, peanuts and oilseeds, $147 million for dairy
farmers and $100 million for specialty crop (fruits, nuts and vegetables) and
livestock growers.
Provisions similar to Title VIII were contained in the Senate-passed version of
an FY2006 Iraq-Katrina supplemental bill (H.R. 4939) earlier this year. However,
supplemental agricultural assistance was reduced to $500 million in the enacted
version of the bill (P.L. 109-234), and was provided exclusively to Gulf state
producers affected by the 2005 hurricanes. Many farm state Senators support the Title
VIII assistance stating that regions other than the Gulf states were affected by natural
disasters in 2005 and need supplemental assistance. The Administration threatened
to veto H.R. 4939 if it contained any agricultural assistance beyond that provided for
the hurricane states, stating that crop insurance and other ongoing USDA support

⁵ Although the reconciliation act did not cut commodity subsidies in the way that the
Administration proposed, it did (1) reduce the portion of certain subsidy payments paid in
advance, (2) eliminated the upland cotton step-2 program, and (3) extended the Milk Income
Loss Contract (MILC) program. For more on budget reconciliation, see CRS Report
RS22086, Agriculture and FY2006 Budget Reconciliation, by Ralph M. Chite.

programs adequately assist farmers affected by natural disasters and market
conditions.
Table 7 summarizes the emergency provisions in the Senate-reported version
of the FY2007 agriculture appropriations bill. For more information, see CRS Report
RS21212, Agricultural Disaster Assistance.
Table 7. Emergency Agricultural Disaster Assistance
(millions of dollars)
Disaster Assistance Provisions in Title VIII of Senate-
reported version of H.R. 5384CBO Estimate
Crop Disaster Payments: Any producer nationwide would be
eligible to receive a payment equal to 50% of the market price for
any 2005 crop losses in excess of 35% of normal crop yields.
Losses to a 2006 crop caused by flooding in California, Hawaii and1,046
Vermont also would be eligible. Such sums as necessary would be
provided to fund the payment formula. A separate $30 million
disaster payment program is available for sugar beets (included in
total estimate). No duplicate payments would be made, if already
received for a hurricane loss.
Livestock Assistance: For livestock producers in a disaster-
declared county: 1) a Livestock Compensation Program (LCP)
would compensate them for the additional cost of having to procureLCP: 1,000
livestock feed in the marketplace following a disaster, 2) aLIP: 20
Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP) would reimburse them forLambs: 13
livestock killed by a 2005 or 2006 (to date of enactment) disaster;
and 3) a Ewe Lamb Replacement and Retention Program would
share in the cost of replenishing flocks
Economic Loss Payments: To supplement farmer income, all
recipients of direct payments under the farm commodity income
support programs would receive a bonus payment equal to 30% of
the direct payment already received for the 2005 crop year. 1,828
Separately, up to $147 million in bonus payments would be
provided to dairy farmers participating in the Milk Income Loss
Contract (MILC) program, and $100 million would be provided to
the states to compensate producers of fruits and vegetables and
livestock (all included in total.)
Miscellaneous Provisions:
Emergency Watershed Protection Program54
Emergency Conservation Program17
Funding for Additional USDA Personnel13
Flooded North Dakota Crop and Grazing Land6
Bovine Tuberculosis Herd Indemnification2
Grand Total$3,999
^Source:^C^o^m^pⁱ^l^e^{d by}^C^R^S^.

Farm Service Agency
While the Commodity Credit Corporation serves as the funding mechanism for
the farm income support and disaster assistance programs, the administration of these
and other farmer programs is charged to USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA). In
addition to the commodity support programs and most of the emergency assistance
provided in recent supplemental spending bills, FSA also administers USDA’s direct
and guaranteed farm loan programs, certain conservation programs and domestic and
international food assistance and international export credit programs.
Figure 4. Commodity Credit Corporation and
Farm Service Agency
(in millions of dollars)

^$^40,⁰⁰⁰
^$^36,⁰⁰⁰
^$^32,⁰⁰⁰
^$^28,⁰⁰⁰
^$^24,⁰⁰⁰^CC^{C actual app}^ropriation
^$^20,⁰⁰⁰
^$^16,⁰⁰⁰
^$^12,⁰⁰⁰
^$8,⁰⁰⁰^FS^A^{salaries an}^{d expenses}^$1^,⁴⁰⁰
^$4,⁰⁰⁰^$7⁰⁰
⁰
¹⁹⁹⁹²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹²⁰⁰²²⁰⁰³²⁰⁰⁴²⁰⁰⁵²⁰⁰⁶²⁰⁰⁷
^Fⁱ^sca^l^year
^B^u^d^get^aut^horⁱ^t^y⁽^Y¹⁾^House
^Iⁿ^f^l^atⁱ^o^n-^a^d^j^u^st^e^d⁽^Y¹⁾^S^ena^te
^S^{ource: CRS}^{, using House and}^S^enate^A^ppr^op^rⁱ^atⁱ^ons^Co^m^m^{ittee d}^a^t^a^.
FSA Salaries and Expenses. This account funds the expenses for program
administration and other functions assigned to the FSA. These funds include
transfers from CCC export credit guarantees, from P.L. 480 loans, and from the
various direct and guaranteed farm loan programs. All administrative funds used by
FSA are consolidated into one account. For FY2007, the Senate-reported bill would
provide $1.471 billion for all FSA salaries and expenses, which is $107 million
(+7.8%) more than the House-passed bill, $60 million (+4.3%) more than the
Administration’s request, and $144 million (+11%) more than FY2006 (Figure 4).
The House-passed bill continues statutory language inserted in the FY2006
appropriations law that restricts the ability of USDA to close any county office
without public hearings and notification to Congress. An adopted House floor
amendment would advance the deadline for USDA to hold public meetings in
affected counties. The Senate-reported bill does not address county office closure.

FSA Farm Loan Programs. Through FSA farm loan programs, USDA
serves as a lender of last resort for family farmers unable to obtain credit from a
commercial lender. USDA provides direct farm loans and also guarantees the timely
repayment of principal and interest on qualified loans to farmers from commercial
lenders. FSA loans are used to finance farm real estate, operating expenses, and
recovery from natural disasters. Some loans are made at a 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 FY2007, the Senate-reported bill would provide $146.2 million to subsidize
the cost of making an estimated $3.427 billion in direct and guaranteed FSA loans.
This represents an 8.5% decrease in loan authority from FY2006, but is equal to the
Administration’s request and is 3.5% less than the House bill. Direct loan authority
would fall by 2.2% and guaranteed loan authority would fall by about 11% (Figure
5). Over the past decade, Congress and the Administration generally have devoted
more resources towards the guaranteed loan program. In terms of loan subsidy, the
Senate bill is $3.1 million less than the House bill (-2%), but is $32 million more
than the Administration’s request due to views on user fees.
Figure 5. FSA Farm Loan Programs
(in millions of dollars)

^$3^,⁵⁰⁰
^$3^,⁰⁰⁰^Guar^aⁿ^t^e^{ed l}^o^{an a}^u^t^h^o^rⁱ^t^y
^$2^,⁵⁰⁰
^$2^,⁰⁰⁰
^$1^,⁵⁰⁰
^$1^,⁰⁰⁰^Di^rec^t^l^{oan aut}^hori^t^y
^$5⁰⁰
^Loa^{n s}^u^bsi^d^y
⁰
¹⁹⁹⁸¹⁹⁹⁹²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹²⁰⁰²²⁰⁰³²⁰⁰⁴²⁰⁰⁵²⁰⁰⁶²⁰⁰⁷
^Fⁱ^s^c^a^l^year
^Lo^an^au^t^h^o^rⁱ^t^y^o^r^l^oan^s^ubsi^d^y^H^ous^e
^In^fl^a^t^ioⁿ^-^a^d^j^u^s^t^e^d^S^ena^t^e
^S^ourc^e^:^CR^S^,^u^sⁱ^{ng Hous}^{e a}ⁿ^d^S^ena^t^e^A^p^p^r^oprⁱ^a^tⁱ^on^s^C^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^e^e^da^t^a^.

In terms of loan authority, the Senate-reported bill is exactly the same as the
Administration’s request, and differs from the House bill only by reducing
unsubsidized guaranteed operating loans by $124 million (-11%) below the House.
The House bill would increase unsubsidized guaranteed operating loans by 1%.
Compared with FY2006, both the Senate and House bills would provide higher
loan authority for direct farm ownership loans (+$17 million, or +8%), and the
comparatively small Indian tribe land acquisition loan program (+$2 million, or
+96%). A small increase (+$364,000, or +0.1%) is recommended for subsidized
guaranteed operating loan authority. For boll weevil eradication loans, another direct
loan program, the Senate and House bills concur with the Administration request for
a 40% reduction in loan authority to reflect projected demand. In recent years,
Congress maintained the boll weevil loan program at $100 million despite
Administration requests to reduce the program.
Most of the nearly $200 million decline in overall loan authority from FY2006
in the House bill, and over half of the $320 million decline in the Senate bill, is for
guaranteed farm ownership loans, down $186 million (-13%). USDA asserts that the
reduction “is indicative of demand, which has recently shown a pattern of decline
primarily attributable to changes in interest rates.”⁶
Neither the Senate bill, nor the House bill, nor the Administration request
provide any new funds or authority for emergency loans. In recent years, Congress
has not appropriated any money for emergency loans, citing sufficient carryover of
funds made available in previous supplementals.
The Senate bill includes language (sec. 753) to expand eligibility for farm loans
to “commercial fisherman” by modifying the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Ac t (CONACT).
User fees. Both the Senate and House bills reject the Administration’s
proposal to increase fees on guaranteed loans. The fees are paid by commercial
lenders to receive the federal guarantee. The level of the fee is not stated in statute,
but is set through regulations. Currently, the fee is 1% of the guaranteed portion of⁷
the loan. The Administration proposed increasing the fee to 1.5%, and calculated
that the increase would offset $30 million in appropriations. Both the Senate and
House bills reject the fee increase with identical bill language. Thus, both bills
provide more in loan subsidy for guaranteed loans than the Administration requested.⁸
This issue was discussed at a Senate Agriculture Committee hearing.
For more information about agricultural credit in general, see CRS Report
RS21977, Agricultural Credit: Institutions and Issues, by Jim Monke.

⁶ USDA, FY2007 Budget: Explanatory Notes for Committee on Appropriations, p. 19-27.
⁷ 7 CFR 762.130(d)(4)(ii). “Guarantee fees are 1 percent and are calculated as follows: Fee
= loan amount x %guaranteed x 0.01.” Regulations allow certain waivers for the fee.
⁸ Senate Agriculture Committee, “Review USDA Farm Loan Programs,” June 13, 2006
[http://agr iculture.senate.gov/ Hear ings /hearings .cfm?hearingId=1940].

Crop Insurance
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. 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 pays all other expenses of the program, including premium subsidies,
indemnity payments, and reimbursements to the private insurance companies.
Figure 6. Crop Insurance and Risk Management Agency
(in millions of dollars)

^$4^,⁵⁰⁰
^$4^,⁰⁰⁰
^$3^,⁵⁰⁰^Federa^l^Crop^Iⁿ^s^u^ranc^{e Fund:}^ac^t^u^a^l^o^b^lⁱ^gat^ions
^$3^,⁰⁰⁰
^$2^,⁵⁰⁰
^$2^,⁰⁰⁰
^$1^,⁵⁰⁰
^$1^,⁰⁰⁰
^RM^A^s^a^laries^and^ex^pens^es
^$5⁰⁰^$7⁵
⁰
¹⁹⁹⁸¹⁹⁹⁹²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹²⁰⁰²²⁰⁰³²⁰⁰⁴²⁰⁰⁵²⁰⁰⁶²⁰⁰⁷
^Fⁱ^s^c^al^ye^ar
^B^u^d^g^et^aut^ho^rⁱ^t^y⁽^Y¹⁾^Hous^e^Seⁿ^a^te
^Iⁿ^f^l^atⁱ^o^n-^ad^j^u^s^t^ed⁽^Y¹⁾
^S^our^ce:^CR^S^,^{using House}^{and S}^eⁿ^a^t^e^A^pprop^riat^ions^Com^m^it^t^{ee dat}^a.
For RMA salaries and expenses, the Senate-reported bill provides $78.5 million,
which is $1.28 million above the House-passed level of $77.2 million. Both bills are
above the FY2006 enacted level of $76.3, but are below the Administration’s
FY2007 request for$80.8 million (Figure 6). Nearly one half of the Administration’s
requested increase would allow RMA to establish and conduct an audit of the
expenses and performance of the participating private crop insurance companies and
to bolster the agency’s information technology capabilities. The balance of the
increase would cover RMA pay increases and increase its staffing. The level in the
House bill provides about 20% of the requested increase in funding, while the Senate
bill provides nearly 50% of the requested increase. Both bills allow RMA to use up
to $3.6 million of its appropriation for data mining activities to reduce waste, fraud,

and abuse within the crop insurance program. From FY2001 through FY2005, RMA
had the authority to tap mandatory funds for these activities. When the authority
expired, appropriators included $3.6 million in the regular FY2006 RMA
appropriations for these activities for the one year.
Separately, the Administration estimates an FY2007 appropriation of $4.131
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. Both the House-passed and
Senate-reported bills concur with this estimate.
Premium Reduction Plan. A policy issue being debated in the context of
the FY2007 appropriations bill involves whether crop insurance companies will be
allowed to offer a premium reduction plan (PRP) for the 2008 insurance year which
begins July 1, 2007. The PRP allows crop insurance companies that can demonstrate
cost savings in their delivery of insurance to sell policies to their customers at a
discount. For example, one participating company has reduced its costs by selling its
policies directly to customers online. The FY2006 agriculture appropriations act
(P.L. 109-97) prohibited RMA from using any of its funds to implement the PRP for
the 2007 insurance year.
The House-passed version of the FY2007 agriculture appropriations bill would
extend this prohibition for the 2008 insurance year. The Senate-reported bill does not
address this issue. Independent insurance agents, which sell crop insurance on behalf
of the crop insurance companies, are concerned that the PRP reduces their total
commissions and damages their profitability. Insurance companies that do not qualify
for the PRP are concerned that they will not be able to compete with companies
offering discounts. Some farm groups contend that the PRP encourages insurance
companies to cherry-pick the best customers which they say could leave some
farmers uninsured.
Administration’s Legislative Proposals. The Administration’s budget
request contains legislative proposals for crop insurance that it says would save $140
million annually, beginning in FY2008. These proposals were requested last year but
were not considered by Congress. They include (1) a requirement that farmers
purchase crop insurance as a prerequisite for receiving farm commodity payments;
(2) a reduction in the portion of the premium that is paid by the government; (3) a
requirement that producers pay up to 25% of the premium for catastrophic (CAT)
coverage, instead of the current $100 administrative fee and no premium; and (4) a
reduction in the reimbursement rate to private crop insurance companies. USDA
contends that these proposals would encourage farmers to buy higher levels of
coverage, and preclude the need for disaster payments. Neither the House-passed nor
Senate-reported FY2007 agriculture appropriations bill address this proposal.
Separate legislation would be required to enact any of these proposed changes, which
might be discussed next year in the context of the 2007 farm bill.
For information on federal crop insurance and other farm disaster programs, see
CRS Report RS21212, Agricultural Disaster Assistance, by Ralph M. Chite.

Conservation
The Senate-reported bill and the House-passed bill, H.R. 5384, both reject many
of the Administration’s proposed reductions for discretionary programs in FY2007
while agreeing with some of the proposed reductions for mandatory programs. The
Senate bill would reduce discretionary NRCS funding by $3.0 million (from $993.4
million in FY2006 to $990.5 million in FY2007), while the House-passed bill would
reduce discretionary NRCS funding by $73.8 million (to $919.6 million); see Figure
7. The Administration’s proposal would have reduced funding $204.8 million to
$788.6 million. (These figures do not include more than $900 million provided in
supplemental appropriations in FY2006 for three emergency conservation programs
in response to hurricanes; no additional funding was requested for these programs in
the FY2007 budget request, but was provided for FY2006 in supplemental
appropriations (P.L. 109-234).
Mandatory funding is authorized to rise $257 million to $4.09 billion in
FY2007. Table 8 shows that the Senate bill would reduce this amount by $371
million by making reductions to five programs. The House and the Administration
request would both make larger total reductions and cut more programs; the House
would cut eight programs a total of $482.8 million, while the Administration request
would cut six programs a total of $435.0 million. The FY2007 appropriations process
appears to continue a trend of recent years where Administrations have proposed
more substantial reductions in conservation funding then Congress has been willing
to support.
Figure 7. Discretionary Conservation Programs
(budget authority, in millions of dollars)

^$³⁰⁰^$1^,²⁰⁰
^To^t^a^l^N^R^C^S
^$²⁵⁰^$1^,⁰⁰⁰
^$²⁰⁰^C^o^nser^v^a^ti^{on o}^p^era^t^ions^$8⁰⁰
^$¹⁵⁰^$6⁰⁰
^W^a^ters^hed^&^fl^o^o^d^pre^v^en^tion
^$¹⁰⁰
^Re^sour^{ce co}^nse^r^vatⁱ^{on &}^dev^elo^p^ment
^$5⁰^W^a^te^r^s^hed^r^eha^bilit^ation
^S^u^rvey^{s &}^p^l^an^ning
⁰
¹⁹⁹⁸¹⁹⁹⁹²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹²⁰⁰²²⁰⁰³²⁰⁰⁴²⁰⁰⁵²⁰⁰⁶²⁰⁰⁷
^Fⁱ^scal^ye^ar
^B^u^d^g^et^a^u^t^h^orⁱ^t^y⁽^Y²⁾^Ho^u^s^e
^Iⁿ^f^l^atⁱ^o^n-^a^d^j^u^s^t^e^d⁽^Y²⁾^S^e^nate
^S^o^urce^{: CRS}^{, usi}^{ng H}^ouse^and^S^eⁿ^a^{te A}^ppr^o^p^ria^t^ion^s^C^o^mmⁱ^t^t^e^e^data^.

Discretionary Programs. All the discretionary conservation programs are
administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. For Conservation
Operations, the largest of these programs, the Senate provides $835.3 million, which
is more than either the amount provided by the House ($791.5 million) or requested
by the Administration ($744.9 million). It is also a small increase from the amount
provided in FY2006, $831.1 million (Figure 7, Table 12). Both bills identify
numerous earmarks, and specify that they be funded in addition to, rather than a part
of, state allocations. They both state that all earmarks from FY2006 that are not
identified in the report accompanying the bill are not to be funded in FY2007.
For other discretionary programs, both the Senate and House bills provide level
funding for the Watersheds Surveys and Planning account, $6.0 million, rejecting the
Administration’s request for no funding. They also reject the Administration request
for no funding for Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations; the Senate bill
provides $62.1 million, while the House bill provides $40.0 million. Both amounts
are a reduction from the FY2006 appropriation of $74.3 million. Both bills provide
the same level of funding as FY2006 for the Watershed Rehabilitation Program,
$31.2 million, and reject the Administration request to reduce funding to $15.3
million. They both also provide level funding for the Resource Conservation and
Development Program, $50.8 million, rejecting the Administration request to reduce
funding to $26.0 million. The Senate bill provides $5.0 million to the Healthy
Forests Reserve Program while the House bill provides no funding; the
Administration had requested $2.5 million. The Administration had requested many
of these reductions a year earlier in its FY2006 budget, but Congress had rejected
them, providing essentially level funding for most of these programs.
Mandatory Programs. Mandatory programs administered by the Natural
Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) are authorized to increase by $149 million
to $2.0 billion in FY2007. One mandatory program is administered by FSA, the
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP); it is estimated to increase by $108 million to
$2.09 billion (not including the new emergency forestry program that will be
administered as part of the CRP), and no reductions to CRP are called for in either
in the Senate or House bills, or in the Administration request. As shown in Table 8,
the Senate bills makes fewer and generally smaller reductions than the House bill,
and the House bill agrees with more of the Administration’s proposed reductions than
the Senate bill. The largest difference is for the Wetlands Reserve Program, where
the Senate bill concurs with the Administration proposal to enroll 250,000 acres, as
authorized, while the House bill limits enrollment to 144,766 acres. Other large
differences between the bills include the Environmental Quality Incentives Program
(the House bill provides $96 million more than the Senate bill), and the Conservation
Security Program (the Senate bill provides $92.8 million more than the House bill).
Table 8 compares authorized levels under the 2002 farm bill (as amended by the
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005) with both bills and the Administration request.
Congress has enacted reductions in mandatory programs each year, although
they are usually different than the Administration request. Each of the past four
years, the portion of the authorized mandatory funding for conservation that Congress
has allowed has declined from the preceding year. It fell to 87.2% of the total in
FY2006. Different constituencies support each of the mandatory programs and decry
reductions from the funding commitment that was established in the 2002 farm bill.

Table 8. Reductions in Mandatory Conservation Programs
(dollars in millions, unless noted otherwise)
FY2007
F Y 2007 Di f f erence
AuthorizedFrom FY2007
F Y 2006 Level Authorization
Allowedunder 2002Admin.HouseSenate
ProgramLevelFarm Bill*RequestBillBillHouseSenate
Environmental Quality1,0171,2701,0001,1271,031-143-239
Incentives Program
Conservation Security259373342280373-930
Program
Wildlife Habitat4385555563-30-22
Incentives Program
Wetlands Reserve150,000250,000250,000144,776250,000-820
Program acres acres acres acres acres
Farmland Protection7497505058-47-39
Program
Ground and Surface5160515154-9-6
Water
Small Watershed065000-65-65
Rehab. Program
Ag. Management5200620-140
Assistance
Total Reductions in NRCS Mandatory Conservation Programs-483-371
(included in scorekeeping adjustments)
^Source:^CRS,^usi^{ng Se}^na^t^e^A^p^p^r^o^p^rⁱ^a^tⁱ^o^ns^Co^m^mⁱ^t^t^e^e^aⁿ^d^Co^ngr^es^sⁱ^on^{al B}^u^dg^{et Of}^fⁱ^{ce data. See als}^o^C^R^S^R^e^port
^R^S^22243,^M^andat^or^{y Fundi}^{ng f}^o^r^Agrⁱ^cul^t^u^r^e^C^ons^er^vatⁱ^{on Pr}^ogr^am^s^{, by}^J^e^f^f^r^ey^A^.^Zⁱⁿⁿ^,^f^o^{r au}^th^orized
^fundⁱ^{ng a}ⁿ^d^lⁱ^mⁱ^t^s^oⁿ^m^a^nd^a^t^o^r^y^c^o^nse^r^va^tⁱ^o^{n p}^r^o^g^r^a^m^s^.
^*^Fⁱ^g^u^r^esⁱⁿ^t^h^{e F}^Y^{2007 au}^t^h^ori^zed^col^u^mⁿ^repres^en^t^h^o^w^m^u^ch^{are cu}^rren^t^l^y^av^ai^l^a^bl^{e, i}ⁿ^cl^u^dⁱⁿ^g^redu^ctⁱ^oⁿ^s^m^a^de
^by^t^h^{e D}^e^fⁱ^ci^t^R^e^du^ctⁱ^oⁿ^A^c^t^of^{2005 (P.L}^{. 109-}^171).
Agricultural Trade and Food Aid
USDA’s international activities are funded by discretionary appropriations (e.g.,
foreign food assistance under P.L. 480) and by using the borrowing authority of the
CCC (e.g., export credit guarantees, market development programs, and export
subsidies). Discretionary appropriations for international activities are one-tenth of
a percent apart in the Senate-reported and House-passed bills. The Senate-reported
bill provides discretionary appropriations of $1.489 billion for international activities,
while the House-passed bill provides discretionary appropriations of $1.488 billion.
The Administration’s budget indicates that an additional $3.8 billion would be
allocated to CCC-funded programs. Combined, the total program value for all
USDA international activities would be an estimated $5.3 billion for FY2007.
Included in the Senate-reported bill is $156.2 million for the Foreign Agricultural
Service (FAS) to administer USDA’s international programs; the House allowance
for FAS is $156.5 million (Figure 8). These amounts represent an increase of about

$10 million over the amount enacted in FY2006 and about $1 million less than
proposed in the President’s budget.
For P.L. 480 foreign food assistance, the Senate-reported version of H.R. 5384
provides $1.225 billion, $87 million more than enacted in FY2006. The House-
passed bill provides $1.223 billion, while the Administration had requested $1.218
billion (Figure 8). All of the P.L. 480 appropriations would go for Title II
commodity donations. Unlike the other international activities funded by agricultural
appropriations, Title II is administered by the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID), not USDA.
Figure 8. Foreign Agricultural Service, P.L. 480, and
Food for Education
(budget authority, in millions of dollars)

^$1^,⁸⁰⁰
^$1^,⁵⁰⁰
^$1^,²⁰⁰
^P^.^L.⁴⁸⁰
^$9⁰⁰
^$6⁰⁰^$2⁰⁰
^F^A^S^sa^laries^&^ex^pens^es
^$3⁰⁰^$1⁰⁰
^{Food f}^o^r^E^duc^a^t^ion
⁰
¹⁹⁹⁸¹⁹⁹⁹²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹²⁰⁰²²⁰⁰³²⁰⁰⁴²⁰⁰⁵²⁰⁰⁶²⁰⁰⁷
^Fⁱ^s^c^a^l^year
^B^udge^t^au^t^h^orⁱ^t^y⁽^Y¹⁾^Hous^e^S^enat^e
^Iⁿ^f^l^a^tⁱ^on-^a^d^j^u^st^ed⁽^Y¹⁾
^S^our^c^e^:^C^R^S^,^u^s^{ing Hou}^s^{e a}^{nd S}^eⁿ^a^t^e^A^pprop^riatⁱ^o^ns^Com^m^it^t^e^e^d^a^t^a^.
Both the Senate-reported and the House-passed bill concur with the President’s
requests for no funds for P.L.480 Title I loans, nor any for the Bill Emerson
Humanitarian Trust, a reserve of commodities and cash held by the CCC, which
currently holds 900,000 metric tons of wheat and $107 million. The budget assumes
$161 million of CCC funds for the Food for Progress (FFP) program which provides
food aid to emerging democracies. In the absence of an appropriation for P.L. 480
Title I, no funds will be available to FFP from that source during FY2007. Similarly,
USDA anticipates that no CCC commodity inventories would be available for
distribution as food aid under Section 416(b). For the McGovern-Dole International
Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program, both the Senate-reported and the
House-passed bill provide $100 million, an increase of $1 million from both the
FY2006 enacted amount and the budget request (Figure 8).

The President’s budget request contained proposed appropriations language to
allow the Administrator of USAID to use up to 25% of P.L. 480 Title II funds for
local or regional purchases of commodities in food crises. The Senate report (S.Rept.
109-266) explicitly rejects this proposal, stating that “The Committee does not agree
with the Administration’s proposal to shift up to 25% of the Public Law 480 Title II
program level to USAID to be used for direct cash purchases of commodities and
other purposes...” In addition, the Senate report rejects an administration proposal
to lift the requirement that 75% of P.L. 480 Title II commodities be devoted to
nonemergency or development activities. Neither the House-passed bill nor the
accompanying report (H.Rept. 109-463) make mention of these administration
proposals. Congress rejected similar requests made in the FY2006 budget proposal.
CCC Export Credit Guarantee Programs secure commercial financing of U.S.
agricultural exports. An estimated FY2007 program level of $3.2 billion reflects the
level of sales expected to be registered under the program. Actual sales could vary
from this estimate, depending upon demand for credit, market conditions, and other
factors. Both the Senate-reported and the House bill provide $5.3 million for
administrative expenses of CCC export credit programs, an increase of $104,000
above the amount provided in FY2006 and the amount requested in the budget
proposal. The Senate-reported bill deletes statutory authority for the intermediate
export credit guarantee program (guarantees up to 10 years). Earlier, the
Administration had suspended the operation of the intermediate guarantee program
in response to an adverse ruling by the World Trade Organization (WTO) in the U.S.-
Brazil cotton dispute. The President’s budget contained suggested legislative
language for the statutory change.
The farm bill-authorized funding level for the Market Access Program (MAP),
an export market development program, is set at $200 million for FY2007. Neither
the Senate-reported nor the House-passed bills concurred with an Administration
proposal to cut $100 million from MAP in FY2007. During floor consideration, the
House rejected a perennial amendment to bar the use of funds to carry out MAP by
a vote of 79-342.
The export program that mainly promotes bulk commodities, the Foreign
Market Development Program, would receive $34.5 million, the farm bill authorized
amount. For export subsidy programs, the budget requests $28 million for the Export
Enhancement Program ($28 million in FY2006) and $35 million to the Dairy Export
Incentive Program ($2 million in FY2006). The Administration requests $90 million
for Trade Adjustment Assistance to Farmers, the maximum allowed in the 2002
Trade Act. The House bill stipulates that $3 million of these funds be made available
for an intensive risk management technical assistance program for farmers.
For additional information on USDA’s international activities, see CRS Report
RL33553, Agricultural Export and Food Aid Programs, by Charles E. Hanrahan,
updated regularly.

Agricultural Research, Extension, and Economics
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 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 USDA research
budget. Funding levels since have trended downward to historic levels.
Although the states are required to provide 100% matching funds for federal
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 1998 and 2002 legislation authorizing agricultural research programs, the
House and Senate Agriculture Committees tapped sources of available funds from
the mandatory side of USDA’s budget and elsewhere (e.g., the U.S. Treasury) to find
new money to boost the availability of competitive grants in the REE mission area.
In FY1999 and every year since FY2002, however, annual agriculture appropriations
acts have prohibited the use of those mandatory funds for the purposes the
Agriculture Committees intended. On the other hand, in most years since FY1999,
and again in FY2006, appropriations conferees have provided more funding for
ongoing REE programs than was 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 in light of high budget deficit levels and lower tax revenues.
The bill that the Senate Appropriations Committee reported out on June 22,
2006, would provide a total of $2.645 billion for USDA’s research, extension, and
economics mission area for FY2007. This is $45 million (+1.7%) more than the
House-passed bill, and represents approximately nearly level funding compared with
FY2006 (-0.2%) and a 17% increase over the President’s budget.

Figure 9. Research, Extension, and Economics
(ARS, CSREES, NASS, ERS)
(budget authority, in millions of dollars)

^$3⁵⁰^$1^,40⁰
^$3⁰⁰^$1^,20⁰
^$2⁵⁰^CSRE^ES^$1^,00⁰
^$2⁰⁰^ARS^$8
^$1⁵⁰
^NASS
^$1⁰⁰
^ERS
^$5⁰
⁰
¹⁹⁹⁸¹⁹⁹⁹²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹²⁰⁰²²⁰⁰³²⁰⁰⁴²⁰⁰⁵²⁰⁰⁶²⁰⁰⁷
^Fⁱ^sc^al^y^e^ar
^Bu^dg^et^au^t^h^o^rⁱ^t^y⁽^Y²⁾^House^S^e^nate
^Iⁿ^f^l^atⁱ^o^n-^a^d^j^u^s^t^ed⁽^Y²⁾
^S^our^{ce: CR}^S^,^u^s^{ing Ho}^{use an}^d^S^e^nate^A^p^prop^ri^ations^C^o^mmⁱ^t^te^{e da}^ta.
Agricultural Research Service. The Senate-reported bill provides a total
of $1.21 billion for USDA’s in-house science agency, the Agricultural Research
Service (ARS has $1.25 billion in FY2006, Figure 9). Although the House-passed
bill would provide the same total funding for ARS, the Senate-reported bill would
allocate $1.13 billion of the total for research salaries and expenses ($1.06 billion in
the House bill) and $83.4 million for building construction and renovation ($140
million in the House bill).
The Senate appropriations committee concurred with the Administration’s
request to terminate some projects in lower priority research areas and redirect the
funds to higher priority projects in the areas of emerging diseases of crops and
livestock, food safety, bioenergy, obesity and nutrition, and invasive species, among
other topics. The House measure contains similar language. CRS’s initial estimate,
based on information provided in each Committee report, is that approximately $35
million (of the Administration’s proposed $100 million) would be redirected.
The Senate-reported bill would provide $83.4 million in FY2007 for ARS
buildings and facilities ($130 million in FY2006). The House-passed bill would
provide $136.9 million, with almost $66 million of that amount going to support the
completion of four high priority ARS research labs in California, Louisiana, New
York, and Washington. The Senate Committee designates 20 ARS locations to
receive construction funds.

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service. The
Senate-reported bill provides a total of $1.21 billion for FY2007 for the Cooperative
State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES), the agency that sends
federal funds to land grant Colleges of Agriculture ($1.18 billion in FY2006, Figure

9). The House-passed bill provides a total of $1.17 billion.

The Senate bill would allocate $678.1 million of the total to support agricultural
research and teaching in the states ($651.5 million in the House bill).
As in previous years, the Senate and House appropriations committees concur
in not adopting the Administration’s proposal to increase the proportion of research
funds awarded competitively by decreasing the amount allocated among the states
according to a formula in the Hatch Act of 1887, as amended. Instead, the Senate bill
would raise Hatch Act formula funds from $176.9 million, a level at which it has
remained since 1999, to $185.8 million. The House-passed bill contains a similar
provision raising Hatch Act funding to $183.3 million. The historically black land
grant (1890) institutions would receive $39.1 million for research ($38.3 million in
the House measure; $37.2 million in FY2006).
The Senate-reported bill does not concur with the Administration’s annual
request to cut the majority of funding for Special Research Grants and Federal
Administration grants (earmarks): the bill would provide $119.3 million for Special
Grants ($103.5 million in the House bill) and $41.3 million for Federal⁹
Administration grants ($39.5 million in the House bill). In FY2006, Special Grants
have $127 million, and Federal Administration Grants $50 million.
The Senate bill would provide $190.2 million for the National Research
Initiative (NRI) competitive grants program, about a 5% increase over FY2006
($181.2 million), but significantly less than the Administration’s request for a 26%
increase. The House bill contains $190 million for the NRI for FY2007.
The Senate-reported bill contains $467 million for the continuing education and
outreach activities of the Extension System in the states ($451.4 million in FY2006;
$457 million in the House bill). Within that amount, the Committee would allocate
$286.6 million for the Smith-Lever formula funded programs ($273.2 million in
FY2006; $281.4 million in the House bill). The Senate bill would increase
Extension at the 1890s to $35.2 million ($33.5 million in FY2006; $34 million in the
House bill). The Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) would
receive $63.5 million ($62.6 million in the House bill; $62.0 million in FY2006).
In agreement with the House-passed bill, the Senate-reported bill does not
reflect the Administration’s proposal to move funding for the competitively awarded
projects under Integrated Activities (joint research and Extension projects) to the
Research and Education section portion of the CSREES budget. Instead, the
committee provides $58.7 million for this category ($55.2 million in FY2006; $58.3
million in the House bill). The House bill increase reflects the adoption of a floor

⁹ A few line items within Special Grants and Federal Administration are not earmarked
projects, but their amounts have not been subtracted from the Committee-reported totals.

amendment to increase the funding (to $5 million) for a program that assists
producers who wish to adopt organic farming practices. The Senate bill increase
reflects higher allocations for homeland security as well as for organic transition.
Economic Research and Agricultural Statistics. The Senate-reported
bill would provide $76 million for USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS), up
from $75.2 million in FY2006. The House bill contains $80.9 million (Figure 9).
The House measure contains language designating $5 million of the total for an
Agricultural and Rural Development Information System to support greater economic
research on the well-being of farm and non-farm rural households.
For the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), the Senate Committee
bill includes $148.7 million ($148.2 million in the House bill, $139.3 million in
FY2006). Committee report language encourages NASS to conduct a follow-up
survey to collect data on all aspects of the organic industry.
Meat and Poultry Inspection
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 provides $865.9 million for FSIS, or $36.5
million above FY2006 (Figure 10). The House-passed bill provides $853.2 million
in appropriations for FSIS. The congressional appropriation would be supplemented
in FY2007 by an estimated $124 million in existing user fees.
Figure 10. Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
(budget authority, in millions of dollars)

^$1^,⁰⁰⁰
^FS^I^S^sa^l^a^rie^s^an^{d ex}^pe^nses
^$8⁰⁰
^$6⁰⁰
^$4⁰⁰
^$2⁰⁰
⁰
¹⁹⁹⁸¹⁹⁹⁹²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹²⁰⁰²²⁰⁰³²⁰⁰⁴²⁰⁰⁵²⁰⁰⁶²⁰⁰⁷
^Fⁱ^sc^al^ye^ar
^B^u^dg^et^a^u^t^h^o^rⁱ^t^y^Hous^e
^In^fl^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^-^a^d^j^u^s^t^e^d^S^ena^t^e
^S^our^ce:^CRS^,^us^ing^Hous^e^aⁿ^{d S}^e^nat^e^A^ppr^opr^iatⁱ^ons^Co^m^m^it^t^{ee d}^a^t^a^.

The President’s FY2007 budget proposed a $987 million program level.
However, this proposed total anticipated the collection of $105 million in new user
fees to replace a portion of the appropriation, which neither the House nor Senate bill
assumes. FSIS has been authorized since 1919 to charge user fees for holiday and
overtime inspections. Presently, regularly scheduled second shifts are not considered
overtime. The President’s proposal would collect such fees to cover inspection costs
beyond a plant’s single primary approved shift.
The Administration has included the expanded user fee proposal in the past four
years’ budget requests, and previous administrations have proposed that more of (or
the entire) inspection program be funded through user fees. Administration officials
assert that the fees are needed to achieve budgetary savings without compromising
food safety oversight, and that producer and consumer price impacts would be
“significantly less than one cent per pound of meat, poultry, and egg products.”
Congress has not agreed with these proposals, responding that assuring the safety of
the food supply is an appropriate function of taxpayer-funded federal government.
The accompanying Senate and House committee reports state that the
appropriation includes the full increase requested, $16.6 million, to cover pay costs;
a $2.6 million increase for risk-based Salmonella control; $2 million for
microbiological baseline studies; $3 million to support international food safety work
with Codex Alimentarius; and an increase of $1.9 million for information technology
(IT) to support inspection (although in the House report there is an explicit cut of $4
million in other IT, as requested).
The Senate committee report designates approximately $16 million for food
defense activities; the House figure is about $4 million. The House report specifies
$5 million to continue enforcement of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act; the
Senate report recommends funding to maintain the 63 full-time positions for
enforcing the act. Both versions recommend $3 million for maintenance of the
Humane Animal Tracking System. The House report directs the transfer of $500,000
from FSIS to the Foreign Agricultural Service to support the Miami-based Food
Safety Institute of the Americas.
The House bill also includes language (Sec. 747), added during subcommittee
action by Representative DeLauro, to prohibit USDA funds for implementing a final
rule to permit some processed poultry to be imported from China. The final FSIS
rule, published in the April 24, 2006, Federal Register to take effect May 24, 2006,
permits China to ship processed poultry if the meat comes from third country plants
already eligible to export to the United States. Opponents of the rule contend that
Chinese imports would be risky due to outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian flu
among birds in that country. The Senate version lacks the DeLauro language.
Marketing and Regulatory Programs
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). The largest
appropriation for USDA marketing and regulatory programs goes to APHIS, the
agency 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 such prominent concerns like avian influenza, bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (BSE or “mad cow disease”), and establishment of a national animal
identification (ID) program for animal disease tracking and control (see below).
The Senate-reported bill provides a $906.4 million appropriation for APHIS,
compared with the President’s FY2007 budget request of $952 million and a FY2006
level of $812 million. The House-passed measure provides a $927.6 million
appropriation for APHIS (Figure 11). The budget estimates collection of an
additional $139 million in existing user fees which fund various APHIS operations,
bringing the agency’s total program level for FY2007 to approximately $1.1 billion.
The Administration has again proposed new user fees of $8 million, to pay for some
of the agency’s animal welfare activities. Neither the House nor Senate bill assumes
these new fees. Similar Administration user fee proposals in FY2003, FY2004,
FY2005, and FY2006, were not adopted by Congress.
Figure 11. Marketing and Regulatory Programs:
APHIS, AMS, GIPSA
(budget authority, in millions of dollars)

^$1⁰⁰⁰
^$9⁰⁰
^$8⁰⁰^AP^H^I^S
^$7⁰⁰
^$6⁰⁰
^$5⁰⁰
^$4⁰⁰
^$3⁰⁰^$1⁵⁰
^$2⁰⁰^AM^S^$1⁰⁰
^$1⁰⁰^GI^P^S^A^$5⁰
⁰
¹⁹⁹⁸¹⁹⁹⁹²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹²⁰⁰²²⁰⁰³²⁰⁰⁴²⁰⁰⁵²⁰⁰⁶²⁰⁰⁷
^Fⁱ^sc^al^yea^r
^B^u^d^g^e^t^a^u^th^o^rⁱ^t^y⁽^Y¹⁾^Hou^s^e^Seⁿ^a^t^e
^Iⁿ^f^l^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^-^a^d^ju^s^t^e^d^(Y¹⁾
^S^o^urc^e^:^CRS^,^usin^g^H^o^u^s^{e and}^S^e^nat^e^A^ppr^o^p^riat^{ions C}^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^{ee d}^a^t^a^.
Within the APHIS appropriation, the Senate committee report designates that
$161.7 million be devoted to foreign pest and disease exclusion programs (compared
with the Administration request for $181.6 million). The House committee report
provides $164.1 million. Also within the total appropriation, the Senate committee
report designates $273.6 million for plant and animal health monitoring and
surveillance activities. The House version designates $263.6 million; the
Administration requested $303.9 million. The Senate committee report further
includes, within the APHIS total, $351.6 million for pest and disease management,

which is above the Administration’s proposed $340.2 million allocation and slightly
below the House’s $352.7 million.
Funding for Emergency Programs. The Secretary of Agriculture has the
authority to transfer funds from the CCC to APHIS to deal with animal and plant
health emergencies. In recent years, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
has expressed concern over the frequent use of such transfers, arguing that these
activities should be funded through regular appropriations after the initial outbreak.
However, congressional appropriations committees have consistently reiterated,
including in the House report (H.Rept. 109-463, p. 73), that the Secretary should use
the authority to transfer CCC funds, in addition to using the funds explicitly provided
by Congress under, for example, APHIS’s “emerging plant pests” account. The
Senate report contains a similar admonishment (S.Rept. 109-266, p. 54).
The emerging plant pests (EPP) account within the pest and disease
management spending area (see above), would be funded by the Senate committee
at $107.4 million in FY2007, and by the House plan at $114.8 million compared with
an Administration request of $126.9 million and a FY2006 level of $99.2 million.
Both committee reports further specify how most of this money should be divided
among plant problems of major concern: for citrus pests and diseases, $37.4 million
in the Senate and $39 million in the House; for the Glassy-winged
sharpshooter/Pierces’ Disease, about $24.1 million in both the Senate and the House;
for the Emerald Ash Borer, $16.3 million in the Senate and $20 million in the House;
for Sudden Oak Death, $4.1 million in the Senate and $6.5 million in the House; for
the Asian Long-horned Beetle, $16.9 million in the Senate and $19.9 million in the
House; and for Karnal bunt, $2.8 million in the House (Senate report language
emphasizes the importance of adequately compensating grain handlers for infected
wheat).
During the House floor debate, Members adopted a Weiner amendment by a
vote of 234-184 to provide more funding for emerging plant pests. Specifically, it
would provide an additional $23 million; Representative Weiner noted that the funds
were needed in particular for control of the Asian longhorned beetle. The increase
would come through a cut of nearly $26 million from the Department’s common
computing environment account. (For more on animal and plant health emergencies,
see CRS Report RL32504, Funding Plant and Animal Health Emergencies:
Transfers from the Commodity Credit Corporation, by Jim Monke and Geoffrey S.
Becker.)
Avian Influenza. The Senate-reported bill provides $70.4 million for avian
flu activities in APHIS. Of this, $56.7 million is for the Administration’s request for
the newly established highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) program. The
Senate report expects the Secretary to transfer, if needed, additional funds from the
separate low pathogenic avian influenza (LPAI) program to bring total HPAI funding
to about $70.4 million.
The House-passed bill provides $63.9 million (total) for avian flu activities in
APHIS. The House committee report designates $47.2 million for HPAI activities,
including more than $17.5 million for domestic surveillance and diagnosis, $14.2
million for wildlife surveillance, $11 million for preparedness and communication,

and $4.6 million for international capacity building in countries most affected by
HPAI. The House committee report notes that approximately $14 million is expected
to be carried forward into FY2007, from a FY2006 supplemental.
For the LPAI program, the Senate committee report designates $13.7 million in
FY2007. The House version designates $16.7 million, the same as requested by
USDA, further specifying that $2.8 million should support surveillance through the
National Poultry Improvement Plan and $5.3 million should be for surveillance in
live bird markets. Both the Senate and House reports note that $12 million for AI
indemnities was provided in FY2006 and remains available.
The HPAI monitoring and surveillance line item was begun with the pandemic
flu supplemental enacted in December 2005; the LPAI program continues what the
Congress and the Department ramped up with appropriations and CCC transfers in
FY2004-05. The overall surveillance program includes both monitoring and
surveillance for wild and migratory birds which can enter the country naturally via
migratory routes, increased smuggling interdiction efforts which are done jointly by
USDA and DHS at the border, monitoring and control of live bird markets in the
United States, and outreach to small holders/backyard farms.
In FY2006, APHIS received $13.8 million for avian flu in regular
appropriations, plus $71.5 million in emergency supplemental appropriations (which
will remain available, if unspent, through FY2007). The emergency appropriations
were part of the $3.8 billion pandemic flu supplemental in Division B of P.L. 109-

148, which included $111 million for agencies in the agriculture appropriations bill:

$91 million for USDA’s avian flu program and $20 million for FDA’s pandemic flu
vaccine program. (For more on avian flu, see CRS Report RS21747, Avian Influenza:
Agricultural Issues, by Jim Monke.)
BSE Testing and Trade. Both the Senate and House committee reports
designate, within the APHIS appropriation, $17.2 million for BSE surveillance, to
support 40,000 individual animal tests per year. The agency has been testing the
brains of some 7,000 or more U.S. cattle weekly, in mainly higher-risk categories
(e.g., nonambulatory, older, sick animals) to determine the prevalence of the disease
in the U.S. herd. Over two years of surveillance, two out of approximately 750,000
head have tested positive for BSE. The Department is expected to adjust, and likely
scale back, this intensive testing program after consulting a May 2006 peer review
of its results. On the House floor, Representative Kucinich offered but later
withdrew an amendment aimed at maintaining BSE testing at the enhanced level.
During its markup on May 9, 2006, the House Appropriations Committee
defeated, on a voice vote, an amendment by Representative Tiahrt that would have
barred USDA from enforcing its restriction on the private testing of cattle for BSE.
Several private companies led by Creekstone Beef of Kansas have been seeking
USDA’s approval to test all animals if beef customers like Japan want it. USDA and
other opponents of private testing argue that it has no scientific basis because BSE
cannot be detected in younger cattle, among other problems.
Many Members of Congress have expressed their frustration over the delays in
reopening both the Japanese and Korean markets, despite two and a half years of

effort. The Senate-reported bill contains a “sense of the Senate” amendment (Sec.
757) that the United States should impose retaliatory tariffs on Japanese imports if
Japan does not permit U.S. beef imports by the date of enactment of the FY2007
appropriation. The provision is nonbinding, but stronger language could be offered
by the time the full Senate considers H.R. 5384.
Animal ID. The most recent U.S. BSE case was reported in an older Alabama
cow in early March 2006; it was destroyed and its meat did not enter the food or feed
supply. Difficulties determining the animal’s previous whereabouts have intensified
interest in a comprehensive national program for identifying and tracking livestock
for disease purposes.
The Department has devoted an estimated $85 million over three years to this
effort and has requested another $33 million for FY2007. USDA does not anticipate
that an animal identification (ID) system will be fully operational until early 2009,
as it contends with widely divergent views among those in animal agriculture over
such controversial issues as whether a program should be mandatory, who should pay
its costs, and producer privacy concerns.
Both the Senate-reported and House-passed bills fulfill the Administration’s
budget request. However, the House version conditions use of the money on the
Secretary first providing the House Appropriations Committee with a “complete and
detailed plan” for the program, “including, but not limited to, proposed legislative
changes, cost estimates, and means of program evaluation, and such plan is published
as an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register for comment
by interested parties.” The accompanying House report expresses concerns about the
ID program’s progress and transparency. The Senate report requests the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) to review USDA’s steps toward establishment of a
program, and it also emphasizes that the Department should work with private
industry on animal ID.
A House floor amendment by Representative Paul, to prohibit all funding for
the animal ID program, was defeated by a vote of 34 to 389. Withdrawn, on a point
of order, was a King amendment to create a mandatory but privately administered
animal ID system. The amendment parallels his bill (H.R. 3170) to do the same.
(See also CRS Report RL32012, Animal Identification and Meat Traceability, by
Geoffrey S. Becker.)
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). 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 nearly $2 of every $3 in spending by the agency. Such fees, which now
cover AMS activities like process verification programs, commodity grading, and
Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act licensing, will total an estimated $196
million in FY2006 and a projected $195 million in FY2007.
The Senate report anticipates that AMS will receive $101.4 million more in
federal funds, either directly appropriated or transferred to AMS from the Section 32

account.¹⁰ The House-passed level is $104.9 million. The Administration’s FY2007
proposal recommended about $100 million, compared with an estimated $114
million in FY2006 (Figure 11). Neither the Senate nor House bill assumes the
Administration’s plan to reduce this total in FY2007 by the equivalent of $14 million
in new user fees. These new fees would come from charging for the costs of the
development of commodity grade standards for those requesting AMS grading
services ($2 million), and for recovering the costs associated with AMS oversight of
marketing orders ($12 million).
Most of the Senate’s anticipated decrease of approximately $13 million in new
budget authority (i.e., appropriated or transferred funds) apparently reflects a reduced
level of spending in FY2007, from $20 million in FY2006, for the ongoing
development of the agency’s Web-based Supply Chain Management System which
is replacing an older commodity inventory management system.
The Senate committee report recommends $15.3 million for the Pesticide Data
Program and $2.9 million for the Pesticide Recordkeeping Program. It also reminds
the Administration of a provision in the 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171) requiring that
it purchase at least $200 million annually in additional Section 32 fruits and
vegetables, over and above previous levels. The Senate-reported version again sets
spending for the Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program at $3.8 million,
including a designated $2.5 million marketing grant to Wisconsin. The House
version deletes the $2.5 million.
The House committee report notes that it is not eliminating the $6 million
Microbiological Data Program for domestic and imported produce, as proposed by
the Administration. The House bill also continues the Farmers Market Promotion
Program with funding of $1 million. Elsewhere within the AMS total, both the
Senate and House versions endorse an Administration proposal to increase National
Organic Program funding to more than $3 million in FY2007, from the current $2
million, to improve operations.
A provision in Title VII of the Senate-reported bill would provide $10 million
in FY2007 for specialty crop block grants to states. The House-passed bill includes
$15.6 million for the program, compared with $7 million in FY2006 and an
Administration request of zero. These grants are authorized by the Specialty Crops
Competitive Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-465), which seeks to promote the consumption
and competitiveness of specialty crops (fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, and nursery
crops). The act authorizes up to $54 million annually through FY2009.
Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA).
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

¹⁰ 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, see CRS Report RS20235, Farm and
Food Support Under USDA’s Section 32 Program, by Geoffrey S. Becker.

competition and fair-trading practices in livestock and meat markets. The Senate-
reported bill would provide $38.7 million in FY2007 for GIPSA salaries and
expenses. The House-passed bill would provide $39.7 million, which compares with
the Administration’s FY2007 request of nearly $42 million and the FY2006 estimate
of $38.1 million (Figure 11).
The Administration proposes to reduce its $42 million requested appropriation
by nearly $20 million, through the collection of two new user fees, for grain
standardization and for Packers and Stockyards license fees. Neither the House nor
Senate versions adopt this proposal which, like most other proposed USDA fees,
would have to be approved by Congress. (GIPSA is expected to collect $42 million
in already authorized user fees in FY2007, for its Inspection and Weighing Services.)
GIPSA’s Packers and Stockyards branch has been working to improve its
understanding and oversight of livestock markets, where increasing concentration
and other changes in business relationships (such as more contractual relationships
between producers and processors) have raised concerns among some producers
about the impacts of these developments on farm-level prices and the structure of
U.S. agriculture. GIPSA is now overseeing a contractor’s study of livestock
marketing practices, funded through a $4.5 million congressional appropriation in
FY2003 (P.L. 108-7). The House committee report said it has been notified that a
draft final report is to be completed in November 2006.
Earlier in 2006, GIPSA was sharply criticized by USDA’s Office of Inspector
General (OIG) and by a number of Senators for shortcomings in its enforcement of
the Packers and Stockyards Act and other federal competition laws. The House
committee stated in its report that it was “encouraged” by the Administration’s recent
efforts to correct these problems and expected an update when all OIG
recommendations are implemented. (See also CRS Report RL33325, Livestock
Marketing and Competition Issues, by Geoffrey S. Becker.)
Rural Development
Three agencies are responsible for USDA’s rural development mission area: the
Rural Housing Service (RHS), the Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS), and
the Rural Utilities Service (RUS). An Office of Community Development provides
community development support through Rural Development’s field offices. This
mission area administers the rural portion of the Empowerment Zones and Enterprise
Communities Initiative, Rural Economic Area Partnerships, and the National Rural
Development Partnership.
For FY2007, the Senate-reported bill recommends $2.223 billion in
discretionary budget authority to support $14.247 billion in USDA rural development
loan and grant programs. This is about $280 million less (-11%) in budget authority
than FY2006 but $62 million more than (+2.9%) the House bill (Figure 12). The
Senate bill would support $3.2 billion (+29%) more in rural development loan
authority than the House bill (+27% over FY2006), focusing most of the increase in
rural electric loans.

Figure 12. Rural Development Budget Authority
(in millions of dollars)
^$3^,⁰⁰⁰
^$2^,⁵⁰⁰^T^o^t^a^{l Rural}^D^e^v^e^lopm^ent
^$2^,⁰⁰⁰
^$1^,⁵⁰⁰^Rur^a^{l Hous}ⁱⁿ^g^S^e^r^v^ic^e⁽^RHS⁾
^$1^,⁰⁰⁰^Rura^{l Co}^m^m^uⁿ^it^{y A}^d^van^c^em^eⁿ^t^P^r^o^g^ram^(RCA^P⁾
^$5⁰⁰
⁰
¹⁹⁹⁸¹⁹⁹⁹²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹²⁰⁰²²⁰⁰³²⁰⁰⁴²⁰⁰⁵²⁰⁰⁶²⁰⁰⁷
^Fi^s^c^a^l^y^e^a^r
^B^u^d^g^et^au^t^h^o^rⁱ^t^y^Hou^s^e^Seⁿ^a^te
^In^fla^tⁱ^oⁿ^-^a^d^j^u^s^t^e^d
^S^o^u^r^ce:^CR^S^,^usin^g^Hou^s^e^a^{nd S}^e^nat^e^A^p^p^r^o^p^riat^ions^Co^m^m^it^t^ee^dat^a.
Figure 13. Rural Development Loan Authority
(in millions of dollars)

^$1^0,⁰⁰⁰
^$9^,⁰⁰⁰
^$8^,⁰⁰⁰
^$7^,⁰⁰⁰^R^u^r^a^{l Util}^ities^S^e^r^vⁱ^c^e
^$6^,⁰⁰⁰
^$5^,⁰⁰⁰^R^u^{ral Hous}^ing^S^e^rvice
^$4^,⁰⁰⁰
^$3^,⁰⁰⁰
^$2^,⁰⁰⁰
^$1^,⁰⁰⁰^R^u^{ral B}^u^siness^Coop^erat^iv^e^S^e^rvice^$6⁰
⁰
¹⁹⁹⁸¹⁹⁹⁹²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹²⁰⁰²²⁰⁰³²⁰⁰⁴²⁰⁰⁵²⁰⁰⁶²⁰⁰⁷
^Fⁱ^s^c^al^ye^ar
^Lo^{an an}^d^g^r^an^t^a^u^t^h^o^rⁱ^t^y⁽^Y¹⁾^Hous^e
^In^fl^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^-^a^d^j^u^s^t^e^d⁽^Y¹⁾^S^enat^e
^S^ourc^e^:^C^R^S^,^usⁱ^ng^Hou^s^e^and^S^e^nat^{e A}^ppr^opriatⁱ^ons^C^o^m^m^it^t^{ee d}^a^t^a^.

The Senate-reported bill, like the House measure, rejects the Administration’s
proposal for zero funding for Rural Business Enterprise Grants, Rural Business
Opportunity Grants, and the Empowerment Zones/Enterprise Communities program.
The Administration had requested no funding for these programs and had proposed
moving these programs to a new rural program in the Department of Commerce.
For mandatory programs authorized by the 2002 farm bill, the Senate bill would
block a total of $25 million in funding, compared with $22 million by the House bill.
The Senate bill would block $10 million of the broadband program and limit the
value-added grant program to not more than $28 million. The Administration had
requested that these funds be cancelled along with $3.0 million from renewable
energy. The Senate bill would block the renewable energy funds but also
recommends $25 million in discretionary funding (Table 9) for the program.
Table 9. Reductions in Mandatory Rural Development Programs
(millions of dollars)
FY2007
F Y 2007 Di f f erence
AuthorizedFrom FY2007
FY2006Level underAuthorization
ProgramAllowed2002 FarmAdmin.HouseSenate
(§ in 2002 Farm Bill)LevelBill*RequestBillBillHouseSenate
Rural Access to010000-10-10
Broadband (§6103)
Biomass R&D121412141400
(§9008)
Value-added ProductMandatory
Market Development04002828-12-12
Grants (§6401)
Discretionary**
20.5*n/a19.0
Renewable EnergyMandatory
Systems030300-3
(§9006)
Discretionary**
23*n/a10.22025
Total Reductions in Mandatory Rural Development Programs-22-25
(included in scorekeeping adjustments)
^Source:^C^R^S^,^u^sⁱⁿ^g^S^eⁿ^a^t^e^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^C^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^{ee an}^{d C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^al^Bu^dg^et^O^f^fⁱ^{ce dat}^a^.
^*^Fⁱ^g^u^r^esⁱⁿ^t^h^{e F}^Y^{2007 au}^t^h^ori^{zed col}^u^mⁿ^repres^en^t^h^o^w^m^u^ch^{are cu}^rren^t^l^y^av^ai^l^a^bl^{e, i}ⁿ^cl^u^dⁱⁿ^g^redu^ctⁱ^oⁿ^s^m^a^de
^by^t^h^{e D}^e^fⁱ^ci^t^R^e^du^ctⁱ^oⁿ^A^c^t^of^{2005 (P.L}^{. 109-}^171).
^*^*^T^h^{e b}^{ill p}^r^o^v^id^{es d}ⁱ^scr^e^tioⁿ^a^r^y^f^uⁿ^d^{s, in}^stead^o^f^m^aⁿ^d^ato^r^y^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^{as au}^th^o^r^ized^.
Rural Community Advancement Program (RCAP). Authorized by the
1996 farm bill (P.L.104-127), RCAP consolidates funding for 12 rural development
loan and grant programs into three funding streams. For FY2007, the Senate bill
recommends $715 million for the three RCAP accounts, which is $20.0 million
above FY2006 levels, $10 million more than the House measure, and $114.2 million

more than the Administration’s request (Figure 12). The Senate bill recommends
$101.7 million for the community facilities account ($81.7 enacted for FY2006),
$525.0 million for the utilities account ($524.8 enacted for FY2006), and $88.2
million for the business development account (nearly the same as that for FY2006).
The Senate measure reduces by over half water and waste water loan subsides ($80.0
million) and increases the grant program approximately 27% ($440.0 million) over
the Administration’s request. For FY2006, subsides and grants for water and waste
water were $506.1 million. The House bill would also increase the grant portion of
the program by 38% over the request and reduce the direct loan subsidies.
As was the case in FY2006, the Senate bill also recommends directed spending
from the RCAP accounts (Table 10).
Table 10. Directed Spending in the Rural Community
Advancement Program
(millions of dollars)
FY2007
F Y 2006 Adm i n. House Senat e
ProgramEnacted RequestBillBill
Water/waste disposal loans/grants for25.09.024.026.0
Native Americans
Water/waste disposal loans/grants for25.010.025.025.0
Colonias
Economic Impact Initiative Grants18.00*021.0
Rural Community Development Initiative6.3006.3
Grants
High Energy Costs Grants 26.000**26.0
Water/waste disposal loans/grants to25.00025.0
Alaska Native Communities
Water and waste water technical18.216.216.219.0
assistance
Circuit Rider Program13.79.514.013.7
Rural Business Enterprise Grants40.00*40.039.6
Rural Business Opportunity Grants3.00*3.03.0
Business and Industry Guaranteed Loans44.243.043.243.2
(subsidies)
Empowerment Zones/Enterprise21.414.7*22.821.4
Communities, and REAP
Delta Regional Authority2.003.02.5
^Source:^CRS.
^*^T^h^{e A}^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^str^a^tioⁿ^r^e^q^u^{ests th}^at^th^ese^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^s^b^e^coⁿ^s^o^lid^atedⁱⁿ^to^th^e^St^r^e^ngt^heni^{ng Am}^erⁱ^c^a’s
^Co^mmuⁿ^{ities I}ⁿ^itia^tive.
^*^*^T^h^{e Ho}^u^s^{e b}^{ill r}^eco^m^m^eⁿ^d^{s th}^{at an}^y^p^r^io^r^y^ear^b^a^lan^{ces b}^e^m^e^r^g^ed^w^ith^th^{e Hig}^h^En^er^g^y^Co^sts
^Gran^t^a^c^c^ouⁿ^t^w^ith^th^{e R}^u^{ral Utilities}^Serv^ice.^T^h^{e bill als}^o^recom^m^eⁿ^d^s^res^cⁱⁿ^din^g^$25.3
^m^illioⁿ^o^f^th^{e b}^a^lan^{ces in}^th^{e Hig}^h^En^erg^y^Co^{st acco}^uⁿ^t^.

These authorized programs in the request include $26.0 million for water and
waste water improvements for Native tribes and $25.0 for the colonias. The Senate
measure, unlike the House bill, also recommends $25.0 million funding for Alaskan
rural and native communities ($25.0 million in FY2006). The Senate bill also
recommends funding for Rural Community Development Grants ($6.3 million
enacted for FY2006), Economic Impact Initiative Grants ($18.0 million enacted for
FY2006), and High Energy Cost Grants ($26.0 million enacted for FY2006). Rural
Business Enterprise Grants and Rural Business Opportunity Grants would get $39.6
million and $3.0 million respectively under the Senate measure, nearly the same as
enacted for FY2006 and recommended by the House bill. The Senate measure also
recommends $21.4 million for the Empowerment Zones/Enterprise Communities
program, the same as enacted for FY2006 and slightly less than the House measure.
Rural Housing Service (RHS). For FY2007, the Senate-reported bill
recommends $1.144 billion in budget authority for RHS loans and grants (-22% from
FY2006, Figure 12). Of this amount, $220.6 million in subsidies would support
$5.029 billion in loan authorization, approximately $2 million more than in FY2006,
(Figure 13). This is somewhat less than the level of loan authorization
recommended by the House measure or requested, but it is about $24.0 million more
in loan subsidy.
The Senate measure recommends $4.773 billion in loan authorization for direct
and guaranteed loans under the single family housing (Section 502), the largest RHS
loan program. This is $28.1 million less than recommended by the House measure
or requested by the Administration, but is the same as enacted for FY2006. The
recommended loan authority for housing repair loans (Section 504) is the same as
enacted for FY2006 and about $1.7 million less than requested or recommended by
the House measure. The Senate bill recommends $100.0 million for multi-family
loan guarantees (Section 538) and $100.0 million for rental housing loans (Section

515), the same as recommended by the House bill and nearly constant with FY2006.

The Administration proposes doubling the loan authority of Section 538 to $198
million and requests zero funding for Section 515 rental housing loans.
For the rental assistance program (Section 521), the Senate-reported bill
recommends $335.4 million, the same as recommended by the House measure. This
is a 48% reduction over FY2006 ($311.0 million) and $150.9 million less than
requested. For mutual and self-help housing grants and rural housing assistance
grants, the Senate bill recommends$33.6 million (the same as in FY2006) and $40.6
million (-7% from FY2006) respectively. For the farm labor account (Section
514/516), the Senate bill recommends $30.6 million. This is nearly the same as
enacted for FY2006 and requested and approximately $17.0 million less than the
House measure.
The Senate bill recommends $28.0 million for the multifamily housing
revitalization program ($0 enacted for FY2006), the same as the House measure. The
Administration is requesting $74.2 million. For the rural housing voucher program,
both the Senate and House measures and the request are for zero funding ($15.8
enacted for FY2006).

Rural Business-Cooperative Service. The Senate-reported bill
recommends $92.0 million in budget authority for FY2007 (+5% from FY2006),
which, in addition to grants, supports a loan authorization level of $68.6 million in
the Rural Development Loan Fund and the Rural Economic Development Loan
Program. The Senate measure recommends the same level of loan authorization as
the House and as the Administration requested (+17% from FY2006, Figure 13).
The Senate bill recommends $10.0 million for the rural Empowerment
Zone/Enterprise Communities (EZ/EC) programs ($11.1 for FY2006) and $25.0
million for the Renewable Energy Program. The House measure recommends $20
million for the energy program and $11.1 million for the EZ/EC program. The
Administration requested zero funding for the EZ/EC program and $10.2 million for
the renewable energy program. The Senate measure also prohibits spending $3.0
million in available mandatory funds for the energy program.
The Senate bill recommends $29.5 million in Rural Cooperative Development
Grants, almost the same as enacted for FY2006 ($29.2 million) and $2.6 million less
than requested. The House measure recommends $9.9 million for the program.
Rural Utilities Service (RUS). For FY2007, the Senate-reported bill
recommends budget authority of $94.7 million to support RUS’s loan and grant
programs. Of that amount, $43.9 million would support $8.649 billion in electric and
telecommunication loans. This is $3.72 billion (+61%) more in loan authorization
than the House bill, and $2.57 billion (+42%) more than enacted for FY2006. The
Senate measure’s recommendation for subsidies to support these loans, however, is
only slightly higher than the House bill (+1.5%), and even slightly less than FY2006
(-1.7%). Loan authorization levels in the rural electrification portfolio are the major
sources of difference between the request and the Senate measure.
For loans under the Distance Learning/Telemedicine program, the Senate
measure recommends zero funding, the same as requested (-$24.7 million from
FY2006) and the same as recommended by the House measure. For grants under the
Distance Learning/Telemedicine grant program, the Senate measure recommends
$30.0 million, nearly the same as enacted for FY2006. This amount is $5.3 million
more than the request and that recommended by the House bill.
The Senate bill recommends $500.0 million for broadband loans, $143.6 million
more than the request (+40%) and $19.0 million less than FY2006 (-4%). The
recommended loan subsidy ($10.7 million), however, is nearly the same as requested
($10.8 million) and nearly constant with FY2006. The Senate measure also
recommends $10.0 million for broadband grants, about $1.0 million more than
enacted for FY2006. The Administration is requesting no funding for the broadband
grant program for FY2007.
For more information on USDA rural development programs, see CRS Report
RL31837, An Overview of USDA Rural Development Programs, by Tadlock Cowan.

Domestic Food Assistance
Funding for domestic food assistance represents over one-half of the USDA’s
budget. These programs are, for the most part, mandatory entitlements. Spending
for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children
(the WIC program), the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (the CSFP), and
nutrition program administration are the three largest discretionary budget items.
For FY2006, P.L. 109-97 provided appropriations (new budget authority)
totaling $58.9 billion in domestic food assistance.¹¹ However, FY2006 spending
(new obligations) for these programs and activities — those under the auspices of the
Food Stamp Act, child nutrition programs, the WIC program, commodity assistance
programs like the CSFP, and nutrition program administration costs — is projected
to be about 9% less at $53.7 billion.¹² The difference between the appropriation and
spending amounts is accounted for by contingency appropriations (e.g., $3 billion for
food stamps), lower costs than were anticipated when the appropriations were
proposed/made, and expected carryovers into FY2007, offset by spending financed
from money available from prior years and other USDA budget accounts (e.g.,
permanent appropriations, commodity purchases for school meal programs).
For FY2007, the Senate-reported bill would appropriate a total of $57.1 billion
for domestic food assistance, about $100 million more than requested. This would
finance spending totaling $54.3 billion (essentially the same overall figure as forecast
by the Administration). On the other hand, the House-passed bill provides an
appropriation of $56.8 billion, financing an overall spending level approximately the
same as the Senate and as requested by the Administration.
The Administration proposed domestic food assistance appropriations totaling
$57 billion for FY2007, a $1.9 billion decrease from FY2006. This level, together
with money from other USDA accounts, would finance estimated spending of $54.3
billion, an overall increase of about $600 million when compared to FY2006. With
the major exceptions of the CSFP (proposed for termination) and the WIC program,
the appropriation request proposed “full funding” for domestic food assistance, based
on the Administration’s projections of likely participation and food costs. But its
FY2007 budget estimates depend on (1) improved economic conditions (e.g., smaller
food stamp caseloads), (2) the end of costs associated with the Gulf Coast
hurricanes, and (3) enactment of some changes to program benefit and eligibility
rules.

¹¹ Not included in this annual appropriations figure are permanent appropriations, the value
of commodities required to be purchased (under “Section 32” authority) for child nutrition
programs, and the value of “bonus” commodities acquired for agriculture support reasons
and donated to various food assistance programs. These items are recognized in, but
generally not included as an explicit part of, the regular appropriations for domestic food
assistance. They are expected to total to over $900 million a year in FY2006 and FY2007.
¹² Not included in this spending total are purchases and distributions of “bonus”
commodities acquired for farm-support reasons, obligations made to replenish WIC
contingency funds, and state spending on food stamp and other benefits. These are expected
to total over $500 million a year in FY2006 and FY2007.

The FY2007 appropriations measures also include several changes to the terms
under which domestic food aid programs operate and expand the program of free
fresh fruit and vegetables in schools (see the section on Special Program Initiatives,
below). However, they do not adopt most of the Administration’s proposed changes
in program rules.
Separate from the domestic food assistance appropriation (in Title IV of the
bills) and changes in program rules and new funding for the fruit and vegetable
program (in Title VII of the bills), the Senate-reported measure would provide
approximately $100 million in grants to states to support specialty crops and
livestock (in Title VIII). These block grants could be used for (among other
purposes) supplementing state food bank programs or other nutrition assistance.
Programs under the Food Stamp Act. Appropriations under the Food
Stamp Act fund (1) the regular Food Stamp program, (2) a Nutrition Assistance
Block Grant for Puerto Rico (in lieu of food stamps), (3) the cost of commodities and
administration/nutrition education through the Food Distribution Program on Indian
Reservations (the FDPIR), (4) small nutrition assistance grant programs in American
Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, (5) the cost of
commodities (not distribution/administrative expenses covered under the Commodity
Assistance Programs account) for The Emergency Food Assistance Program
(TEFAP), and (6) the Community Food Project.
The bills reported in the Senate and adopted by the House would appropriate
$37.865 billion for Food Stamp Act programs. This is slightly less than requested
by the Administration — $69 million (-0.2%) less. They also reject most of the
Administration’s suggestions for rule changes in programs covered by the Food
Stamp Act (see the section on Special Program Initiatives below), although the
Administration’s requested $3 billion contingency fund (in case spending estimates
prove too low) is included. Estimated spending under the House and Senate bills
would be essentially the same as that forecast under the Administration’s request.
The Administration requested a FY2007 appropriation of $37.9 billion for Food
Stamp Act programs, a $2.8 billion reduction from FY2006 (Figure 14). Anticipated
spending for these programs (after accounting for contingency funding and program
changes) would be just under $35 billion, the same as in FY2006.
Regular food stamp spending in FY2007 would be an estimated $33.2 billion,
matching the FY2006 level. An improved economy and the absence of hurricane-
related costs are reasons cited for no increase in spending. Puerto Rico’s block grant
is targeted for a $41 million increase to $1.6 billion (as mandated by law). Grants to
American Samoa and the Northern Marianas are effectively unchanged at $14 million
in total. And the FY2007 budgeted amounts for TEFAP commodities and the
Community Food Project are the same as for FY2006 — $140 million and $5
million, respectively.¹³

¹³ An additional $50 million would be provided for TEFAP distribution/administrative costs
under the Commodity Assistance Programs budget account.

On the other hand, the Administration proposed (and the House and Senate bills
adopt) a small reduction in funding for the FDPIR. A net decrease of $2 million (to
$77.5 million) would result from ending a specific funding for a bison meat purchase
project ($3 million in FY2006) while adding funding of $1 million for nutrition
education efforts.
Note: While there is a substantial ($2.8 billion) drop in Food Stamp Act
appropriations from FY2006 to FY2007 in the House and Senate bills, and the
Administration’s request, spending is not expected to go down, and a $3 billion
contingency fund would be on hand to cover unexpected increases in participation.
FY2006 appropriations for Food Stamp Act programs were higher ($40.7 billion)
than proposed for FY2007; however, some $5 billion is expected to go unused.
Figure 14. Domestic Food Programs
(budget authority, in billions of dollars)

^$4⁰
^$3⁵
^$3⁰
^$2⁵^F^o^{od St}^am^p^Ac^t^p^r^og^ra^m^s
^$2⁰
^$1⁵
^$1⁰^Ch^{ild nu}^t^r^it^ion^prog^ra^ms
^$5^WI^C^p^r^o^g^r^a^m
⁰
¹⁹⁹⁸¹⁹⁹⁹²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹²⁰⁰²²⁰⁰³²⁰⁰⁴²⁰⁰⁵²⁰⁰⁶²⁰⁰⁷
^Fⁱ^s^c^a^l^year^Ho^u^s^e
^B^udge^t^au^t^h^orⁱ^t^{y (}^appr^o^p^rⁱ^atⁱ^on)^Se^nat^e
^Iⁿ^f^l^a^tⁱ^on-^a^d^j^u^s^t^ed
^S^o^u^r^c^e^{: C}^R^S^,^u^sⁱⁿ^{g H}^o^u^s^e^aⁿ^{d Se}^nat^{e A}^p^p^r^op^riat^ion^s^C^o^m^m^it^te^{e da}^t^a^.
^No^t^e^:^S^p^eⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^r^t^h^e^W^I^C^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^clo^s^e^l^y^tr^a^cks^a^p^p^r^o^p^r^ia^tⁱ^oⁿ^s.^Ho^we^ve^r^,^s^p^eⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^r^c^h^{ild nu}^t^r^it^ion^aⁿ^d^f^o^od^s^t^am^{p pro}^g^r^a^m^s^m^a^y^v^a^ry^c^ons^ide^r^ab^ly^f^r^o^m^th^is^fⁱ^gu^re.
Child Nutrition Programs. The bill reported in the Senate would
appropriate $13.654 billion for child nutrition programs, as compared to the House’s
$13.345 billion and the Administration’s request for $13.645 billion. The Senate bill
includes the Administration’s request for a $300 million contingency fund and adds
a small amount of money for expansion of the program for free fresh fruit and
vegetables in schools (see the section on “Special Program Initiatives,” below). The
House-passed bill does not provide any contingency funding, but, in a separate part
of the bill, includes an initiative to expand the free fresh fruits and vegetables
program.
The Administration requested an FY2007 appropriation of $13.645 billion for
child nutrition programs, up from $12.7 billion in FY2006 (Figure 14). These

programs/activities include the School Lunch and Breakfast programs, the Child and
Adult Care Food program, the Summer Food Service program, after-school and
outside-of-school nutrition programs, the Special Milk program, some food
commodities bought for schools and other child nutrition providers, assistance to
states for their child-nutrition-related administrative costs, and nutrition education
and other special projects (e.g., “Team Nutrition,” food safety, and program integrity
initiatives).
Similarly, overall spending for child nutrition efforts under the Administration’s
request (and the House and Senate bills) — drawing on all available resources —
would be an estimated $13.8 billion compared to $13.1 billion in FY2006 (see CRS
Report RL33307, Child Nutrition and WIC Programs: Background and Funding, by
Joe Richardson).
The WIC Program. The bill reported in the Senate provides $5.264 billion
for the WIC program, $20 million more than the $5.244 billion recommended by the
House, $64 million more than requested, and $60 million over the FY2006
appropriation of $5.204 billion. Differences among the Senate, House, and
Administration appropriation figures reflect changed estimates of program
participation and food costs since the budget was submitted and the fact that the
House and Senate bills reject the rule changes affecting the WIC program proposed
by the Administration. FY2007 WIC spending under the House and Senate bills is
anticipated at about $5.35 billion, up from $5.2 billion in FY2006, when the
availability of unused money from FY2006 and a projected carryover into FY2008
are factored in.
The Administration’s $5.2 billion FY2007 request was nearly the same as the
FY2006 appropriation (Figure 14). Spending (at just over $5.2 billion) also was
projected to be the same as FY2006, but $200 million over FY2005. However, the
requested FY2007 amount was predicated on changes in WIC rules not adopted in
the House and Senate (see the section on “Special Program Initiatives,” below).
Commodity Assistance Programs. The commodity assistance budget
account covers four program areas: (1) the Commodity Supplemental Food Program
(the CSFP), (2) funding for TEFAP distribution/administrative costs (in addition to
the cost of commodities provided through money under the Food Stamp account), (3)
two farmers’ market programs for WIC participants and seniors,¹⁴ and (4) expenses
for food donation programs for disaster assistance, aid to certain Pacific islands
affected by nuclear testing, and a few commodities supplied to Older Americans Act
grantees operating the Nutrition Services Incentive program for the elderly.
The bill reported in the Senate would appropriate $179 million for commodity
assistance programs, and, like the House measure, rejects the Administration’s
request to terminate the CSFP. The House bill provides $189 million for commodity
assistance programs and differs from the Senate proposal in that it funds the CSFP

¹⁴ While the farmers’ market program for seniors is in the commodity assistance account,
its funding amount is a permanent appropriation not included in the annual Agriculture
Department appropriation.

at $118 million (an increase over FY2006 and $10 million more than provided in the
Senate). Both measures include small amounts of added funding (totaling to $1
million) for administration of TEFAP, the WIC farmers’ market program, and
assistance for Pacific Islands.
The Administration requested an appropriation of $70 million for this account,
substantially less than the $188 million available for FY2006, because it proposed
terminating the CSFP. Other than ending the CSFP, the Administration proposed no
other significant funding changes for commodity assistance.
Nutrition Program Administration. This account provides money for
federal administrative expenses related to domestic food assistance programs and
special projects. The Senate-reported measure includes $143 million for nutrition
program administration, $17 million less than requested and $1 million more than
agreed to in the House. The Senate and House figures effectively reject funding most
of the Administration’s proposals for new nutrition education and program integrity
initiatives, and a separate portion of the each bill provides $2.5 million for the
Congressional Hunger Center.
The Administration requested $160 million for FY2007, up from $141 million
in FY2006, because of new initiatives for nutrition education and program integrity.
However, the Administration did not request funding for the Congressional Hunger
Center ($2.5 million was appropriated for FY2006 and earlier years).
Special Program Initiatives. The bill reported in the Senate and the
measure adopted by the House also include a number of special provisions relating
to the rules and operations of domestic food assistance programs and expand one
program (free fresh fruit and vegetables in schools). In most cases, proposals for
change advanced by the Administration were not adopted in either the Senate or
House bills.
In the case of programs under the Food Stamp Act, the House and Senate bills
(1) continue a rule (in place since FY2005) ignoring special military pay for families
of those deployed in combat zones when determining food stamp eligibility and
benefits, (2) terminate a special bison meat purchase program for the FDPIR ($3
million in FY2006), and (3) permit up to $10 million in commodity funding for
TEFAP to be used for TEFAP distribution costs. These provisions were part of the
Administration’s budget request for FY2007. In addition, the House bill, through a
floor amendment, stipulates that existing legal requirements on sponsors of legal
aliens who receive food stamps should be followed (e.g., sponsors should be held
liable for the cost of food stamp benefits).
The Administration’s FY2007 budget proposal for Food Stamp Act programs
included several additional provisions that were rejected: (1) providing special short-
term assistance to those losing CSFP support under a separate initiative (the proposed
termination of the CSFP was rejected by the House and Senate), (2) excluding all
retirement savings from food stamp financial eligibility tests, (3) disqualifying
households with relatively high income/assets who might otherwise be eligible for
food stamps because they receive other public assistance, and (4) allowing states to
access the National Directory of New Hires when verifying food stamp eligibility.

The Senate-reported bill includes only one significant provision related to WIC
rules/operations — as suggested by the Administration (and stipulated in the FY2006
appropriations law), it adopts a specific rule barring approval of new retailers whose
major source of revenue is sales of WIC food items (so-called “WIC-only” stores).
The House bill includes no provisions changing WIC rules/operations. In addition
to the WIC-only store provision noted above, the Administration called for a cap on
the proportion of grants that can be spent on nutrition services and administration
(leading to a state match requirement after FY2007) and an income limit on those
who can get WIC services automatically because of their participation in Medicaid.¹⁵
For programs under the child nutrition, commodity assistance, and nutrition
program administration accounts, the House and Senate bills adopt one proposal
advanced by the Administration — barring the use of Senior Farmers’ Market
Nutrition program funds to pay sales taxes, coupled with disregarding the value of
the program’s benefits as financial resources for tax and public assistance purposes.
But, as noted earlier, they continue funding for the CSFP and the Congressional
Hunger Center. In a separate part of its bill, the Senate-reported measure also adds
one state (Minnesota) to the list of states in which simplified Summer Food Service
program rules (so-called “Lugar” rules) apply; under these rules, summer program
sponsors do not have to document all costs in order to receive maximum federal
subsidies.
In addition, the Senate and House bills reject the Administration’s proposal to
provide no new funds to continue a five-state extension of the free fresh fruit and
vegetable program in schools and, instead, provide more funding for the program.
The Senate measure appropriates $9 million (in addition to the existing $9-million-a-
year mandatory appropriation for this program); this $18 million total is intended to
support the existing program (operating through selected schools in the 14 states and
on 3 Indian reservations in FY2006), plus 3 states named in the Senate committee’s
report (Arkansas, California, and Georgia). In FY2006, $15 million was available
for this program ($9 million in mandatory funding and $6 million in discretionary
money included in the FY2006 appropriation). On the other hand, the House bill
provides a total of $25 million for the free fresh fruit and vegetable program. This
is intended to allow expansion of the existing (FY2006) program to selected schools
in all states (albeit at a per-state payment amount lower than received by states
currently allowed to participate). The $25 million total appropriation in the House
bill represents a substantial increase over the $15 million available in FY2006, but
the House proposal also makes all of the funding for this program discretionary.
Finally, the Senate-reported measure effectively removes a relatively long-
standing general bar against using funds from the food stamp, child nutrition, and
WIC budget accounts for studies, evaluations, and other research.

¹⁵ Note: It appears that limits on approval of WIC retailers under current law and recent
regulatory and court interpretations may provide essentially the same restrictions on new
WIC-only stores as would the Administration’s proposal and the provision recommended
in the Senate.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates the safety of foods, and the
safety and effectiveness of drugs, biologics (e.g., vaccines), and medical devices.
Now part of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), FDA was
originally housed in the Department of Agriculture, and the congressional
appropriation subcommittees on Agriculture and Rural Development still have
jurisdiction over the FDA budget.
FDA’s budget has two components: direct appropriations and user fees. For
FY2007, the Senate-reported bill (H.R. 5384) would provide a direct appropriation
of $1.57 billion to FDA, $27.3 million more than the House-passed bill, $25.4
million more than the President’s request, and $96 million more than the FY2006
enacted appropriation (Figure 15).
For the entire FDA budget (direct appropriations and user fees), the Senate-
reported bill would provide FDA $1.947 billion, compared with $1.919 billion in the
House-passed bill, $1.921 billion in the President’s request, and $1.832 billion in the
FY2006 appropriation.
The President, the House committee, and the Senate committee account for
various user fees differently, resulting in a different calculation of the President’s
request. The President’s budget justification includes three sets of fees: (1) those
from existing programs under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, the Medical
Device User Fee and Modernization Act, and the Animal Drug User Fee Act ($375.9
million); (2) ongoing collections from mammography clinics and for export and
import certifications ($26.0 million); and (3) proposed reinspection and food and
animal feed export certification fees ($25.5 million). The $401.9 million of fees in
the President’s request includes the first and second. The House Committee,
however, includes only the first in its numerical calculation; it mentions the second
in text. The result is a $26 million difference in the user fee part of the budget and
therefore in the total program level. The Senate Committee also includes only the
first in its totals but does note the second and third.
A separate issue: the $25.5 million in proposed new fees that would require
legislative action. None of the three includes these fees in the appropriations totals.
The President’s request outlines programs — distributed across most FDA
Centers and field units — related to:
^!pandemic preparedness ($30.5 million increase); the House-passed
and Senate-reported bills would annualize the FY2006 $20 million
supplemental; for new activities, the House would provide another
$8.1 million and the Senate would give another $30.5 million;
^!food defense ($19.8 million increase); the House-passed bill would
include $4.9 million and the Senate-reported bill recommends $5.5
million;

^!critical path to personalized medicine ($5.9 million increase); the
House-passed bill would include a $4.9 million increase; and the
Senate-reported bill would include the $5.9 million requested;
^!drug safety ($4 million increase); the House-passed bill would
include the requested $4 million plus $1 million relating to anti-
counterfeiting technologies; and the Senate-reported bill would
include $4 million; and
^!human tissues ($2.5 million increase), also in the House-passed and
Senate-reported bills.
The President’s request also highlights triggers needed for the user fees
authorized by the device and animal drug user fee acts; the House-passed bill would
provide $8.2 million for this. The President’s budget request included $20.2 million
for cost of living pay increases, for which the House-passed bill would provide $15.6
million and the Senate-reported bill would give $20.3 million.
The House-passed bill would increase the President’s request for generic drug
review by $5 million and the Senate-reported bill would add another $5 million so
that the Office of Generic Drugs would receive $10 million more than the President
requested. Both the House-passed and Senate-reported bills would provide $14.3
million for consolidation at the White Oak campus and rental payments to GSA.
To achieve the program goals in its proposed budget, the President used “FDA
re-deployed resources from base programs.” The reductions — affecting each Center
and program area — total $52.3 million. The House committee recommended that
CFSAN funds not be redirected. The Senate-reported bill would restore $29.7
million — specifically to CFSAN and NCTR — of the $52.3 million.
The Senate-reported bill expanded an amendment in the House-passed bill
regarding financial conflicts of interest of FDA advisory committee and panel
members. Adding to the House’s prohibiting FDA from waiving specific financial
conflicts of interest restrictions of individuals serving as voting members of FDA
advisory committees and panels; the Senate-reported bill would allow such an
individual to serve if the HHS Secretary were to disclose, on the FDA website at least
15 days before the relevant meeting, the nature of the conflict, and the nature and
basis of the waiver or any recusal due to the potential for conflict of interest. The
Senate-reported bill also would require that the FDA commissioner submit a
semiannual report to Senate and House appropriations and authorizing committees
and the HHS inspector general that describes, in detail outlined in the amendment,
efforts that FDA took to find individuals without potential conflicts or interest.
Not included in the Senate-reported bill is a House-passed amendment that
would prohibit FDA from using funds to prevent individuals, pharmacists, or
wholesalers from importing prescription drugs that comply with core requirements
of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Thus, this year’s conference
committee may face the annual struggle over drug importation: the FY2005
conference report had prohibited FDA from using funds to enforce the current statute
that bans importation of prescription drugs by parties other than drug companies, and
the FY2006 appropriations conferees did not adopt a House amendment that would
have allowed prescription drug importation, thus averting a possible veto.

Table 11 displays, by program area,¹⁶ the budget authority (direct
appropriations), user fees, and total program levels in the enacted FY2006
appropriation, the President’s FY2007 request, the House-passed bill, and the Senate-
reported bill.
Table 11. FDA Appropriations and User Fees, by Program Area^a
(millions of dollars)
FY2007FY2007
F Y 2006^b F Y 2007 Hous e- Senat e -
Program AreaFundsEnactedRequestpassedreported
BA: 438.7 449.7 457.9
FoodsFees: — — —
Total: 438.7 449.7 454.0 457.9
BA: 297.7 305.0 315.0
Human drugsFees:219.8230.0230.0
Total: 517.6 535.0 545.9 545.0
BA: 139.0 150.6 150.6
Biologics Fees: 56.5 59.4 59.4
Total: 195.5 210.0 194.6 210.0
BA:89.695.595.5
Animal drugs and feedsFees:9.39.59.5
Total: 98.9 105.0 105.6 105.0
BA: 220.6 229.3 230.5
Devi ces Fees: 40.0 42.2 25.0
Total: 260.5 271.6 253.8 255.5
Toxicological ResearchBA:Fees:40.7 — 34.2 — 41.3 —
( NCT R) Total: 40.7 34.2 34.1 41.3
BA:86.988.287.1
Other activitiesFees:30.432.131.8
Total: 117.4 120.3 118.3 118.9
BA: 116.4 126.9 126.9
GSA rentFees:17.319.219.1
Total: 133.7 146.0 146.0 146.0
Other rent and rent-BA:57.261.061.0
related (including WhiteFees:0.81.11.0
Oak consolidation)Total:57.962.062.062.0

¹⁶ Over the years, Center names change as administrations reconfigure duties and
management responsibilities. The appropriation program lines, however, have remained
constant and represent activities carried out by administrative units and by staff in the FDA-
wide units such as the Office of Regulatory Affairs. For the last few years, the food
program has been housed in the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN);
the human drugs program in the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER); the
biologics program in the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER); the animal
drugs and feed program in the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM); and the devices
program in the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH). The National Center
for Toxicological Research (NCTR) is also a separate program line.

FY2007FY2007
F Y 2006^b F Y 2007 Hous e- Senat e -
Program AreaFundsEnactedRequestpassedreported
BA: — — — —
Certification fundsFees:7.68.5 — —
Total:7.68.5 — —
Salaries & ExpensesBA:Fees:1,486.8381.71,540.4401.91,538.5375.91,565.7375.9
Subtotal Total: 1,868.5 1,942.3 1,914.4 1,941.6
Buildings & FacilitiesBA:Fees:7.9 — 5.0 — 5.0 — 5.0 —
Subtotal Total: 7.9 5.0 5.0 5.0
BA: 1,494.7^c 1545.3^cd 1,543.4 1,570.7
FDA TotalFees:381.8401.9375.9375.9
Tot a l : 1,876.5 1,947.3 1,919.3 1,946.6
^Sources^:^F^D^A^,^Fis^c^{al Year}^{2007 Jus}^{tification of Es}^timates^for^Appr^opr^iations^C^o^mmittees^{, F}^e^{b. 16,}
^2006;^H^.^R^.^{5384 an}^{d H}^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^{463, May}^12,^2006;^an^d^H^.^R^.^{5384 an}^{d S}^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^{266, Ju}ⁿ^e^22,
^2006.
^B^.^A^.^{= bu}^dg^{et au}^th^ority^{, als}^o^ref^e^{rred to as}^direct^{appropriation}^s^{. Fees}^{= f}^r^om^{collected u}^s^{er f}^ees^.
^T^o^{tal = to}^{tal p}^r^o^g^r^a^m^lev^e^{l = b}^u^d^g^{et au}^th^o^r^ity^p^l^u^s^u^s^er^f^ees.^a
^Fo^r^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^ar^eas,^t^h^e^H^o^u^s^e-^p^a^ssed^b^{ill g}ⁱ^v^e^{s to}^{tals o}ⁿ^ly^{; th}^{e Sen}^a^te-^r^ep^o^r^ted^b^{ill g}ⁱ^v^e^{s B}^A^an^d^b
^to^{tals (}^f^{ees calcu}^lated^f^o^r^tab^l^e)^.^R^e^f^l^ect^s^t^h^{e 1%}^res^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^{, pu}^rs^u^aⁿ^t^t^o^P.L^.^109-^148.^c
^In^clu^d^es^m^a^m^m^o^g^r^aph^y^u^s^{er f}^e^e^s^aⁿ^d^ex^{port certif}^ication^u^s^{er f}^ees^{($26.0 m}^illion^{FY2007; $25.1}^d
^m^illion^FY2006).^D^o^esⁿ^o^tⁱⁿ^cl^u^d^{e propos}^{ed u}^s^{er f}^ees^pen^dⁱⁿ^gⁿ^e^w^l^e^gⁱ^s^l^atⁱ^oⁿ^.
Figure 15. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)
(budget authority, in millions of dollars)

^$1^,⁶⁰⁰
^$1^,⁴⁰⁰^FD^A
^$1^,²⁰⁰
^$1^,⁰⁰⁰
^$8⁰⁰
^$6⁰⁰^$1⁵⁰
^$4⁰⁰^CF^T^C^$1⁰⁰
^$2⁰⁰^$5⁰
⁰
¹⁹⁹⁸¹⁹⁹⁹²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹²⁰⁰²²⁰⁰³²⁰⁰⁴²⁰⁰⁵²⁰⁰⁶²⁰⁰⁷
^Fⁱ^sc^al^ye^ar
^B^u^d^g^e^t^au^t^h^orⁱ^t^y⁽^Y¹⁾^Hous^e^S^enat^e
^Iⁿ^f^l^atⁱ^oⁿ^-^adj^u^s^t^e^d⁽^Y¹⁾
^S^o^urc^e^:^CR^S^,^{using Hous}^{e and S}^ena^t^e^A^ppropr^iatⁱ^{ons Com}^mⁱ^t^t^e^e^dat^a^.

Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (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
is vested in the Agricultural Committees because of the market’s historical origins.
For FY2007, the Senate-reported bill provides $99.5 million for the CFTC, an
increase of $2.1 million (2.2%) from the FY2006 appropriation of $97.4 million.
The House-passed bill provides $109.4 million, a 12% increase over FY2006, but
$17.6 million less than (-14%) the Administration’s request of $127.0 million
(Figure 15). The Administration requested a large increase in recognition of growth
and change in the markets that the agency regulates, and the House-passed bill
supports some of that increase.
User Fee Proposal. Both the House and Senate bills reject the
Administration’s proposal that CFTC be funded by a transaction fee rather than by
appropriated funds. The Administration’s request did not specify any particular fee
rate, but said that the proposed fee would “cover the cost of the CFTC’s regulatory
activities.”¹⁷ To fund the CFTC at the $127 million level, a fee of about six or seven
cents per transaction on the futures exchanges would be required (based on 2005
trading volumes).
The same futures transaction fee proposal was last included in the
Administration’s FY2003 budget but was not enacted by Congress. In fact, every
Administration since Ronald Reagan’s has called unsuccessfully for such a fee. The
futures industry argues that such a fee would be anti-competitive and could divert
trading to foreign markets or to the unregulated over-the-counter market. However,
it is not clear that a fee of this relatively modest size would have a significant impact
on trading decisions in a market where the value of a single contract may rise or fall
by hundreds or thousands of dollars in a day. The Administration notes that the
“CFTC is the only federal financial regulator that does not derive its funding from
the specialized entities it regulates.”¹⁸
For more information about the CFTC user fee proposal, see CRS Report
RS22415, Proposed Transaction Fee on Futures Contracts, by Mark Jickling.

¹⁷ Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2007 — Appendix, p. 1119.
[ h t t p : / / www.whi t e house.go v/ omb/ budget / f y2007/ pdf / a ppendi x/ oi a.pdf ] .
¹⁸ Ibid.

Table 12. USDA and Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY2007 Action vs. FY2006 Enacted
(budget authority, in millions of dollars)
FY2006FY2007
Agency or Major Program^aAdmin.House-Senate-House-
EnactedRequestpassedreportedpassed vs.
billbillFY2006
Title I: Agricultural Programs
Agric. Research Service (ARS)1,253.51,009.81,197.61,211.0-55.9
Coop. State Research Education and1,182.71,023.11,173.91,209.8-8.8
Extension Service (CSREES)
Economic Research Service (ERS)75.282.581.076.05.8
National Agric. Statistics Service139.3152.6148.2148.78.9
(NASS)
Animal and Plant Health Inspection812.3951.6927.6906.4115.3
Service (APHIS)
Agric. Marketing Service (AMS)114.586.9104.9101.4-9.6
Grain Inspection, Packers and38.121.839.738.71.7
Stockyards Admin. (GIPSA)
Food Safety & Inspection Serv.829.4757.5853.2865.923.9
(FSIS)
Farm Service Agency (FSA) -1,326.31,410.71,364.11,471.137.8
Total Salaries and Expenses
FSA Farm Loans - Subsidy Level 149.8113.9149.3146.2-0.5
Farm Loan Authority3,747.83,427.53,551.93,427.5-195.9
Risk Management Agency (RMA)76.380.877.278.50.9
Salaries and Expenses
Federal Crop Insurance Corp.^b3,159.44,131.04,131.04,131.0972
Commodity Credit Corp. (CCC)^b25,690.019,740.019,740.019,740.0-5,950
Other Agencies and Programs 557.3616.2521.6496.9-35.7
Subtotal 35,403.8 30,178.4 30,509.4 30,621.6 -4,894.4
Title II: Conservation Programs
Conservation Operations831.1744.9791.5835.3-39.6
Watershed Surveys and Planning6.006.06.00
Watershed & Flood Prevention74.3040.062.1-34.3
Watershed Rehabilitation Program31.215.331.231.20
Resource Conservation & Dev.50.825.950.850.80
Healthy Forests Reserve02.505.00.0
Under Secretary, Natural Resources0.71.000.8-0.7
Subtotal 994.2 789.5 919.6 991.2 -74.6

FY2006FY2007
Agency or Major Program^aAdmin.House-Senate-House-
EnactedRequestpassedreportedpassed vs.
billbillFY2006
Title III: Rural Development (RD)
Rural Community Advancement694.9600.8704.9715.010.0
Program (RCAP)
Salaries and Expenses163.0170.7182.9176.519.9
Rural Housing Service (RHS)1,460.41,287.21,117.11,144.7-343.3
RHS Loan Authority5,027.85,057.65,059.65,029.731.9
Rural Business-Cooperative Service87.364.968.392.0-19.0
RBCS Loan Authority58.668.668.668.610
Rural Utilities Service (RUS)96.878.587.894.7-9.0
RUS Loan Authority6,596.54,884.25,880.79,149.3-715.8
RD Under Secretary0.60.80.70.60.1
Subtotal 2,503.1 2,202.8 2,161.7 2,223.5 -341.4
Subtotal, RD Loan Authority11,682.910,010.411,008.914,247.6-673.9
Title IV: Domestic Food Programs
Child Nutrition Programs12,660.813,645.513,345.513,654.5684.7
WIC Program5,204.45,200.05,244.05,264.039.6
Food Stamp Act Programs40,711.437,934.237,865.237,865.2-2,846
Commodity Assistance Programs177.670.4189.4179.411.8
Nutrition Programs Admin.139.4160.4142.3143.13.0
Office of Under Secretary0.60.70.60.60.05
Subtotal 58,894.1 57,011.2 56,787.1 57,106.8 -2,107.1
Title V: Foreign Assistance
Foreign Agric. Service (FAS)146.4157.5156.5156.210.1
Public Law (P.L.) 4801,218.11,221.21,225.81,227.77.7
McGovern- Dole International Food99.099.0100.0100.01
for Education
CCC Export Loan Salaries5.25.35.35.30
Subtotal 1,468.71,483.01,487.61,489.218.9
Title VI: FDA & Related Agencies
Food and Drug Administration1,474.71,545.31,543.41,570.768.7
Commodity Futures Trading97.4127.0109.499.512.0
Commission (CFTC)
Subtotal 1,572.1 1,672.3 1,652.8 1,670.2 80.7
Title VII: General Provisions^c(42.1)(25.3)8.2(2.7)*50.3

FY2006FY2007
Agency or Major Program^aAdmin.House-Senate-House-
EnactedRequestpassedreportedpassed vs.
billbillFY2006
RECAPITULATION
I: Agricultural Programs35,403.830,178.430,509.430,621.6-4,894.4
Mandatory 28,865.5 23,875.2 23,887.6 23,887.6 -4,978
Discretionary 6,538.3 6,303.2 6,621.9 6,734.0 83.6
II: Conservation Programs994.2789.5919.6991.2-74.6
III: Rural Development2,503.12,202.82,161.72,223.5-341.4
IV: Domestic Food Programs58,894.157,011.256,787.157,106.8-2,107.1
Mandatory 53,368.2 51,536.7 51,209.7 51,509.7 -2,158.5
Discretionary 5,525.9 5,474.5 5,577.3 5,597.1 51.4
V: Foreign Assistance1,468.71,483.01,487.61,489.218.9
VI: FDA & Related Agencies1,572.11,672.31,652.81,670.280.7
VII: General Provisions *(42.1)(25.3)8.2(2.7)*50.3
VIII: Emergency Ag Assistance — — — 3,999.00.0
Subtotal, Before Adjustments 100,79493,31293,52698,259-7,267.6
Subtotal, without VA funding *98,0990.0
Mandatory 82,234 75,412 75,097 75,397 -7,136.5
Discretionary (gross), Title I-VII*18,56017,90018,42918,702-131.1
Emergency assistance, Title VIII — — — 3,999
Scorekeeping Adjustments^d(946)3963624791,307.8
Agriculture emergency, Title VIII(3,999)
VA emergency, Sec. 756(160)
Grand Total, After Adjustments99,84893,70993,88894,579-5,959.8
Mandatory 83,068 76,394 76,079 76,379 -6,988
Discretionary (net), Titles I-VII16,78017,31517,80918,2001,029
Budget Allocation (302(b))16,78017,81218,2001,032.0
Other emergency appropriations, for agencies in this bill, not included above
P.L. 109-148 (Division B)
Hurricane recovery ^e722.0
Pandemic influenza ^f111.4
Subtotal833.4
P.L. 109-234
P.L. 480 Title II grants350.0
Hurricane recovery ^g132.4
Commodity assistance ^h409.0
Subtotal891.4
^Source:^{CRS, u}^sⁱⁿ^g^tab^l^{es f}^r^o^m^th^{e Ho}^u^s^{e an}^d^Sen^a^{te A}^p^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^Co^m^m^ittees^.
^*^Sen^a^{te am}^ouⁿ^t^sⁱⁿ^th^is^tabl^{e ex}^clu^d^{e $160 m}^illion^f^o^{r th}^{e Veteran}^s^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ration^(Section^756).
^{a. F}^Y^{2006 lev}^e^ls^ref^l^{ect th}^{e 1%}^res^c^is^sⁱ^on^{to all dis}^c^retion^a^ry^accouⁿ^t^s^(P^.L^{. 109-}^148).

^b^.^T^h^{e Co}^m^m^o^d^ity^Cr^ed^{it Co}^r^p^o^r^atio^{n and}^{the Fe}^d^e^r^a^{l Cr}^o^p^Iⁿ^sur^a^{nce Fund}^{each r}^{eceive annually}^an
ⁱⁿ^defⁱⁿ^{ite appropriation}^(“^s^u^ch^s^u^m^s^{, as}^m^a^y^{be n}^eces^s^a^ry^{”). T}^h^{e am}^ouⁿ^t^s^s^h^owⁿ^{are es}^tim^ates^.
^{c. Gen}^e^r^a^{l p}^r^o^v^isioⁿ^sⁱⁿ^T^{itle VI}^I^af^f^{ect v}^a^rⁱ^o^u^{s p}^r^o^g^r^a^m^s^ad^mⁱⁿⁱ^ster^ed^uⁿ^d^er^o^t^h^e^r^titles.
^d^.^S^c^o^r^e^k^e^e^pⁱⁿ^g^adj^u^s^t^m^eⁿ^t^s^ref^l^{ect th}^{e C}^B^{O es}^tim^ates^of^s^a^vⁱⁿ^g^s^{or cos}^t^of^prov^is^ion^s^th^{at af}^f^ect
^m^a^nd^a^t^o^r^y^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^s^,^p^l^{us t}^h^e^p^e^r^m^aⁿ^eⁿ^t^a^nnua^l^a^p^p^r^o^p^rⁱ^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^m^a^d^e^t^o^U^S^D^A^{’s Se}^c^tⁱ^o^{n 3}²^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^.
^For^{FY2006, in}^clu^d^es^{$66.1 m}^illionⁱⁿ^res^c^is^sⁱ^on^s^{to f}^ood^aid,^con^s^erv^a^tion^,^an^d^ru^ral^dev^e^lopm^en^t.
^{e. T}^h^{e F}^Y^{2006 Em}^erg^eⁿ^c^y^S^u^ppl^em^en^t^a^l^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^t^o^A^ddres^s^H^u^rri^can^es^an^{d Pan}^d^emⁱ^c^In^f^l^u^eⁿ^z^a
^(Div^is^ion^B^,^T^{itle I, o}^f^P^.^L^.^109-^{148) in}^clu^d^es^{$500 m}^illion^f^o^{r con}^s^erv^a^tion^an^{d w}^a^ters^h^e^ds^{, $50}
^m^illion^f^o^{r a f}^o^res^t^ry^con^s^erv^a^tion^res^e^rv^{e, $118 m}^illion^f^o^r^ru^{ral dev}^e^lopm^en^{t, $10 m}^illion^f^o^{r f}^ood
^an^{d n}^u^t^rition^,^{$35 m}^illion^f^o^{r departm}^eⁿ^t^admⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ration^,^an^{d $9 m}^illion^f^o^{r res}^earch^f^acilities^.
^f^.^Divⁱ^sⁱ^on^B^,^T^{itle II, of}^P^.^L^.^109-^{148 in}^clu^d^es^{$91 m}^illion^f^o^{r USDA}^(f^rom^w^h^ich^$71^m^illion^g^o^to^th^e
^Aⁿ^im^{al an}^{d P}^l^an^{t Health}^In^s^p^ection^Serv^ice),^an^d^$20^m^illion^f^o^{r th}^{e Food an}^{d Dru}^g^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ration^.
^g^.^T^h^{e F}^Y^{2006 Em}^erg^eⁿ^c^y^S^u^ppl^em^en^t^a^l^f^o^r^D^e^f^eⁿ^s^e,^t^h^e^G^l^obal^War^on^T^e^{rror, an}^{d H}^u^rri^can^{e R}^ecov^e^ry
^(P^.L^{. 109-}^{234) in}^clu^d^es^$25.4^m^illion^f^o^{r adm}ⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ration^,^{$30 m}^illion^f^o^{r A}^R^{S, $51}^m^illioⁿ^f^o^r
^em^erg^eⁿ^c^y^w^a^ters^h^e^ds^{, an}^{d $26 m}^illion^f^o^{r ru}^{ral dev}^e^lopm^en^t.
^h^.^A^m^ouⁿ^t^s^f^o^{r com}^m^odi^t^y^as^sⁱ^s^t^an^{ce i}ⁿ^P.L^.^109-^{234 i}ⁿ^t^hⁱ^s^t^a^bl^e^doⁿ^o^tⁱⁿ^cl^u^d^e^s^o^m^e^f^o^res^t^ry^prog^ram^s
^ad^mⁱⁿⁱ^ster^ed^b^y^th^{e Fo}^r^e^{st Ser}^v^{ice, w}^h^ich^{is f}^uⁿ^d^edⁱⁿ^th^{e I}ⁿ^terⁱ^o^r^ap^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^b^{ill. T}^h^{e to}^{tal o}^f
^c^o^m^m^o^dⁱ^t^y^a^ssi^st^aⁿ^c^e^t^h^r^o^{ugh a}^l^l^o^f^U^S^D^Aⁱ^s^{$500 m}^illion^.